OFF THE WIRE
from Big Wayne
----------- ... in mind-numbing detail, brought to us by Christopher A.
Hart, Vice Chairman National Transportation Safety Board
i'd like to wade through this and dispute his "data" . i'm
inviting a little help from you-all, if you please ! . . .
Before The Transporation and Telecommunications Committee Nebraska
Unicameral Legislature on Legislative Bill 52 Repeal of Nebraska's Universal
Helmet Law
Lincoln, Nebraska February 14, 2011
I am here at the invitation of Senator Lathrop, to discuss the National
Transportation Safety Board's recommendation on helmet use laws and
therefore our opposition to Legislative Bill (L.B.) 52, a bill that would
reduce the safety benefits that are now provided by Nebraska's universal
helmet law.
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is an independent federal
agency charged by Congress to investigate transportation accidents,
determine their probable cause, and make recommendations to
prevent their recurrence. The recommendations that arise from our
investigations and safety studies are our most important product.
The NTSB is concerned about the growing number of motorcycle riders that
have been killed or injured in motorcycle crashes. From 1997 through 2008,
the number of motorcycle fatalities nationwide more than doubled from 2,116
to 5,290. Although fatalities among motorcyclists declined in 2009, to
4,462, that is still an average of 12 motorcyclists per day, and an
additional 90,000 were injured. Here in Nebraska, during the same 12-year
period, there were 145 fatalities, an average of 12 deaths per year. Based
upon experience in other states, the number of motorcyclist fatalities and
injuries can be expected to increase if Nebraska enacts L.B. 52.
Motorcycles represent only 3 percent of the 257 million vehicles on our
roads, but they account for 13 percent of highways deaths. In 1997, the
motorcycle fatality rate per 100,000 registered vehicles was 55.30. By 2007,
the rate per 100,000 registered vehicles was 72.48, an increase of 31
percent, with the result that the number of fatalities grew faster than the
number of registered motorcycles.
Recognizing the safety benefits of motorcycle helmets and the effectiveness
of universal helmet laws in increasing helmet use, in October 2007, the NTSB
recommended that the states lacking a universal
helmet law enact legislation to require all motorcycle riders and passengers
to use a helmet that complies with federal standards. We were pleased not to
have to send that recommendation to Nebraska because, it
already had a universal helmet law in 2007.
Helmets Are Effective
Head injury is a leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes. According to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the use of a
safety helmet that complies with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) 218 is the "single critical factor in the prevention [and] reduction
of head injury." The function of the helmet is to protect the rider's head,
especially the brain, during a fall or crash.
A helmet that meets the federal safety standard is designed with a hard
outer shell, an impact-attenuating liner, and a retention system to protect
the structure and contents of the head in a wide variety of
impact scenarios.
Helmets can be effective in both low- and high-speed crashes because crash
speed is not directly related to head impact speed. In the only broad study
of motorcycle cause factors (frequently referred to as the Hurt Report), the
severity of head impacts was determined by examining crash-involved helmet
damage. This study found that 90 percent of head impacts were less severe
than the single test impact required in
FMVSS 218. Thus, FMVSS 218-compliant helmets are well designed to protect
the head for the vast majority of motorcycle crashes.
Experience has demonstrated the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets in
preventing and mitigating head injury. The independent Cochrane Review of
published studies found in 2003 that helmets reduced the risk of head injury
and fatality in motorcycle crashes, and found no evidence of an increased
risk of any other types of injury. A 1996 U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) report noted that riders not wearing helmets are three times more
likely to suffer brain injury than those riders wearing helmets. According
to another DOT report published in 2004, helmets are 37 percent effective in
preventing fatalities in motorcycle crashes.
David Thom, one of the researchers with the Hurt Report, spoke at the NTSB's
Motorcycle Forum in Sep 2006, about the potential negative effects of
helmets on safety. An active motorcyclist and researcher on motorcycle
safety for three decades, Mr. Thom noted that helmets neither cause nor
prevent neck injuries. A number of studies confirm Mr. Thom's observations.
Similarly, helmets have not been shown to cause problems with vision or
hearing.
Helmets Laws Do Increase Helmet Use
By 1976, following passage of the 1966 National Highway Safety Act, which
withheld federal funding from states that had not enacted mandatory helmet
laws, 47 states, including Nebraska, had mandatory helmet laws that applied
to all motorcycle riders. Since that time, motorcycle groups have argued
against such laws, and restrictions on federal funding contingent on such
laws were removed (in 1976), partially re-enacted (in 1991), and then
removed again (in 1995). Each removal of federal funding restrictions was
followed by repeals of universal helmet laws. Currently, 20 states,
including Nebraska, have universal helmet laws (requiring all riders to wear
a helmet), 27 states have partial laws (requiring minors and/or passengers
to wear such helmets), and 3 states have no helmet laws.
Unfortunately, these repeals have amounted to an experiment affirming the
effectiveness of helmet laws and regulations in reducing death and injury. A
1991 review of studies of helmet use found that
helmet use under universal laws ranges from 92 to 100 percent, while without
a law or under a partial law (requiring only some riders, such as teens or
novice riders, to wear helmets), helmet use generally ranges
from 42 to 59 percent. A 2009 NHTSA research note indicated that helmet use
in states that require all motorcyclists to wear helmets is at 86 percent,
while helmet use in a state without a law or under a partial
law is about 55 percent.
A 1986 study concluded that the repeal of helmet use laws was associated
with a 10.4 to 33.3 percent increase in the fatality rate when calculated
per accident. The study also found that between 158 and 420
fewer motorcycle rider fatalities would have occurred in 1984 had the laws
not been repealed. More recently, studies of states that have repealed their
mandatory helmet laws within the last 10 years have shown similar patterns.
For example, Arkansas repealed its universal helmet law in 1997, and 18
months after repeal, helmet use dropped by two-thirds (from 97 to 30
percent). Arkansas also experienced more than double the number and rate of
unhelmeted crash scene fatalities, and more than double the hospital
admission rate for unhelmeted crash survivors. Associated with this increase
in death and injuries was an increase in the amount of non-reimbursed
charges for initial treatment.
After Texas repealed its universal helmet law in 1997, helmet use fell from
97 to 66 percent. More than 80 additional motorcyclists died in the 2 years
following the law's repeal than in the 2 years preceding it. The
number of unhelmeted riders with traumatic brain injuries increased by a
factor of almost 10 in only 4 years, from 55 in 1997 to 511 in 2001, and the
number of unhelmeted riders who were placed in rehabilitation facilities saw
similar increases, from 9 in 1997 to 90 in 2001. A more recent study
published in the January 2010 edition of the Southern Medical Journal
indicates that in the 7 years since Texas repealed its mandatory motorcycle
law in 1997, fatality rates per vehicle miles traveled increased by roughly
25 percent.
In Kentucky, helmet usage rates fell from 96 to 65 percent following repeal
of the state's universal helmet law in 1998; fatalities increased from 26 in
the year prior to repeal to 42 in the year following repeal.
Accident-involved riders who did not wear helmets in Kentucky were 4 times
more likely to suffer a traumatic brain injury and severe head injury. In
addition, hospital charges alone averaged more than $25,000 more for the
unhelmeted than for the helmeted motorcyclist involved in an accident.
Louisiana saw its helmet usage rate drop from 100 to 52 percent after it
amended its helmet law in 1999 to remove the universal requirement for
helmet use. The fatality rate increased by more than 25 percent following
the repeal, with unhelmeted accident-involved riders experiencing head
injuries at twice the rate of helmeted riders. Nearly 60 more motorcyclists
died in the 2 years following the law's repeal than in the 2 years preceding
it. In spite of their requirement for unhelmeted riders to carry health
insurance, the insurance coverage for unhelmeted riders involved in
accidents actually decreased by half following the change in the law. In
2004, in response to the rise in deaths and injuries, Louisiana reenacted
the universal helmet law and saw the total number of deaths decline in 2004
and 2005.
Florida repealed its universal helmet law in 2000. After the repeal, helmet
wear decreased from 100 to 53 percent, motorcycle deaths increased by almost
50 percent, and the number of brain injuries
doubled. An estimated 117 deaths in Florida could have been avoided from
2001 to 2002 if the universal law had remained in place.
The most recent study examining the results of a helmet law repeal was
completed in 2008 by the University of Pittsburgh. The study looked at
motorcycle injuries and fatalities in Pennsylvania for the 2 years
before and after Pennsylvania limited its law to riders with limited
experience and riders and passengers under age 21. In the 2 years after
Pennsylvania changed its law, the number of non-head injury
deaths increased 25 percent, but the number of head injury deaths increased
by 66 percent. Motorcycle-related head injury hospitalizations increased 78
percent compared to 28 percent for non-head injury hospitalizations. The
increase in the number of head injury deaths or hospitalizations outpaced
the increase in the number of motorcycle registrations. Acute care hospital
charges for motor-cycle related head injuries increased 132 percent, and the
number of head-injured hospitalized motorcyclists requiring additional care
at other facilities, such as rehabilitation or long-term care, increased 87
percent, compared with a 16 increase for non-head injured motorcyclists.
The results of this legislative "experiment" on motorcycle riders are the
same in every state where it has been performed. When universal helmet laws
are repealed, helmet usage rates decrease dramatically, and
motorcycle deaths and injuries increase, even when accounting for the
changes in ridership that may be associated with the repeal of the universal
law. It is likely that hundreds of deaths and thousands of
injuries could have been avoided had the states that recently repealed their
universal helmet laws not done so.
Most states that have repealed universal helmet laws recognize that younger
riders may be unable to make a fully informed decision regarding helmet use.
They have, therefore, required that riders under a certain
age wear helmets. These younger riders are likely to be among the least
experienced riders and are the most likely to engage in risky behaviors,
often with an incomplete understanding of potential consequences.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to ascertain the age of a motorcycle rider
for the purposes of enforcing such a requirement without verifying the
rider's age during a traffic stop. As a result, the young motorcyclist
helmet law becomes unenforceable and helmet usage rates for minors drop
dramatically when universal helmet laws are repealed. Thus, the most
vulnerable and least risk-averse segments of the motorcyclist
population are more likely to be unprotected in the absence of universal
laws. Moreover, motorcyclists under age 21 generally represent less than 10%
of the national fatality total.
A number of motorcycle-related groups, including the National Association of
State Motorcycle Safety Administrators, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation,
and the American Motorcyclist Association, encourage
riders to wear motorcycle helmets, and most do not oppose laws mandating
such use by minors. The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS) report,
which was supported by NHTSA, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and
motorcycle manufacturers such as BMW, Ducati, Harley-Davidson, American
Honda Motor Company, Kawasaki, Suzuki, and Yamaha, included a recommendation
to increase the use of FMVSS 218-compliant helmets. A national survey
performed in 2006 by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University
noted that, even of those individuals who had previously ridden a motorcycle
without a helmet, 61 percent favored state legislation requiring helmet use.
The NTSB recognizes, however, that some motorcyclists and many motorcycling
organizations oppose mandating the use of motorcycle helmets by all riders.
Most do not argue against the safety benefits of
such helmets; instead, they contend that the government has no role in
protecting the individual from foreseeable adverse outcomes if the
individual chooses not to be so protected.
In the 1980s, opponents of seat belt use laws similarly asserted their
personal freedom to drive without wearing seat belts. However, in 1985, the
Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association stated, "the evidence is
clear and dramatic ... safety belt users ... experienced 80 percent fewer
deaths from head injuries." NHTSA estimates that from 1975 through 2005,
seat belts saved more than 211,000 lives nationwide. During that
same period, all states, except New Hampshire, enacted mandatory seat belt
use laws; and usage rates have increased nationwide from about 12 percent in
the early 1970s to 84 percent today. The NTSB is confident
that there is ample evidence that similar life saving results can be
achieved through motorcycle helmet laws that apply to all riders and
passengers.
The argument regarding helmet laws is often framed in terms of personal
choice (for example, "it's my head"). Such an argument typically invokes the
idea that motorcyclists are only hurting themselves by deciding to ride
unprotected. For more than 14 years, the NTSB has been responsible for
assisting families of those killed and injured in transportation accidents.
We do not accept the notion that surviving friends and family are not
affected when riders decide not to wear a helmet and are killed or injured.
Societal Costs
In addition to family and friends, society as a whole pays the
well-documented excess costs for unhelmeted riders: medical care costs and
the potentially even greater costs from productivity losses of individuals
injured, disabled, or killed. Especially tragic are the fatalities and
injuries involving unhelmeted riders in accidents that would have required
only a new helmet and cosmetic repairs to the motorcycle, had the rider been
wearing a protective helmet.
The costs of motorcycle crashes and the effect of helmets on these costs
were presented at the NTSB's 2006 forum by Dr. Ted Miller, Director of the
Public Services Research Institute at the Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation. According to Dr. Miller, in 2005, 110,000
motorcyclists were involved in police reported motorcycle crashes, and the
motorcycle crash injuries cost $17.5 billion, including the costs of
medical treatment, lost work, and quality of life. Although unhelmeted
motorcyclists accounted for 36 percent of all motorcycle crashes, they
represented 70 percent of the total cost of those crashes or $12.2
billion. Dr. Miller also estimated the 2005 average cost per crash-involved
motorcyclist as $71,000 for helmeted and $310,000 for unhelmeted
motorcyclists. Thus, in a time of tight public budgets, it would not be
fiscally prudent to create a situation that will foreseeably increase the
need for resources, mostly public resources, to care for injured
motorcyclists and their families.
It is because of the costs to society and survivors that personal freedoms
must be balanced with the need to protect individuals from preventable
illness, injuries, and fatalities. We are likely to hear passionate debate
today about the personal freedom of motorcycle riders to not wear helmets.
However, the effectiveness of universal helmet laws in preventing death and
disability among motorcyclists operating on public roads, particularly in
light of rising rates and total numbers of individuals killed and injured in
motorcycle crashes across our country, is an argument for the adoption and
maintenance of such laws.
Conclusion
L.B. 52 is not good public safety policy. The NTSB opposes its enactment. We
ask the Committee to table this bill. Experience has shown that when
universal helmet laws are weakened, motorcyclist deaths and
injuries rise. The NTSB does not want to see deaths and injuries rising in
Nebraska as we have seen in every state that has taken a repeal action.
the original is at: www.ntsb.gov/speeches/hart/hac110214.html
Big
...freedom isn't free: its price is eternal vigilance . . .
While the NTSB may be experts in airplane crashes and train crashes they are not in motorcycle crashes. I believed that have investigated 6 motorcycles crashes in their history. Investigating 6 crashes do not make you a subject matter expert. I got this number last year during the testimony at the Md. house of delegates subcommittee hearing for our adult choice bill. An NTSB representative was there and testified against adult choice. Afterwards I filed a complaint against him under the Hatch Act, which prohibits government agencies from lobby states. Nothing came of it. If they are so concerned about saving lives they would force people in cars, or at least convertibles, to wear helmets too. And when they talk about how much it is costing taxpayers try to get the correct cost. I tried for 2 weeks before giving up. But, in Maryland they say it is in the millions. But they spend billions on health care for illegal immigrants but that is for humanitarian purposes they say.
I can prove in a simple way that wearing or not wearing a helmet does not make a difference when riding a motorcycle. Here in Maryland we are required to wear helmets. But 2 of our neighboring states, Pa and De, have adult choice. If wearing a helmet was so safe and not wearing a helmet was so dangerous why is motorcycle insurance in Md higher than in Pa and De. Because the actuaries who set the rates determined that it does not matter if you are wearing a helmet or not. If you crash the results are the same.
He states in this letter below “ Similarly, helmets have not been shown to cause problems with vision or hearing.” Well an article sent by someone on this site a few weeks ago stated otherwise. They were developing a helmet that had built in sensors because helmets cause vision and hearing problems.
The people who are pushing this we call safety nannies but that is the wrong name. They are not for safety but control. We, Bikers, are the last group who they can legally discriminate against. Read some of the Civil Rights speeches and substitute Bikers for the other minorities mention and it’s the same thing.
Right on! I was formulating my response while you got yours in. It took me a long time to respond because I had a feeling about this duschbag that I couldn't quite put my finger on. How is it that the government can testify against freedom? I'll be talking to out our Nevada activists to strategize. I'm brand new to the "game" so I have a lot to learn. Thank you for sharing your insights - seems my intuition was on the money. We the People need to put the heat on these guys by exposing them for the law breakers they are.
TigerLily
__._,_.___
