I am Highly Interested -- in the truth.
"the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the Highway Loss Data Institute is wholly supported by auto insurers" --
http://www.iihs.org/members.htmlMost automobile-motorcycle accidents are the fault of the automobile, and it is to the automobile insurance companies benefit to reduce the number of targets. These companies do not care about *life* -- they care about money. Motorcycle Helmet LAWS reduce motorcycle ridership by a large percentage. In California motorcycle ownership dropped 39% after the passage of our mandatory helmet law.
The IIHS is *NOT* an unbiased source.
The Claim:
" NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent. Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position."
*IF* this were true, the States that mandate helmet use would have a *significant* reduction in deaths per motorcycle accident due to "Based on helmets judged to be compliant with federal safety regulations, use was 73 percent in 2002 and 78 percent in 2008 among motorcyclists in states with universal helmet laws and rose from 46 to 50 percent among motorcyclists in states without such laws." (from item 4) The fact is that States that mandate helmet use would have an insignificantly *higher* rate of deaths per motorcycle accident.
The Claim:
"Are there drawbacks to helmet use? Claims have been made that helmets increase the risk of neck injury and reduce peripheral vision and hearing, but there is no credible evidence to support these arguments."
Ignore evidence that disproves your position, ignore drawbacks you cannot address. When I am riding, or driving for that matter, I am constantly moving my head so as to watch all of the traffic all around me. It is not physically possible to move your head as fast with a helmet on as without. You cannot break the laws of physics. They do not address the problem of fatigue associated with the weight of a helmet.
There is obviously *some* drawback to Helmet Use as the States that mandate helmet use have insignifiantly higher rates of accidents per motorcycle ownership and deaths per motorcycle accident.
Yes, accidents and deaths and thefts decrease with the passage of helmet laws -- due mostly to the reduction in motorcycles. Yes, accedents and injuries increase with the repeal of helmet laws -- due to a marked increase in ridership, with new unskilled riders who are at greater risk of accidents.
============
For me the bottom line is that States that mandate helmet use have roughly 80% riders with DOT helmets and those that do not have roughly a 50% DOT helmet usage. If helmets were significantly useful in preventing deaths in motorcycle accidents the Nanny States would have a significantly lower per accident death rate. They do not. Repeating the Shinola from the automobile industry does not address this fact.