Death by Diving

[Cave Diver]

That would come as quite a shock to Germaine Greer.

It was a W.A.G. I took a shot...

 

[Jax]

I find your thoughts concerning helmets to be specious rationalization, likely because you like the feeling of wind blowing through your locks.

I don't need a helmet law to get me to wear one, but I do need a helmet law so that I don't have to pay the medical bills (either through taxes or higher insurance rates) of those who don't wear one.

Actually, Thal, that's not true. In the early 80s, the AMA did a study of states with helmet laws and states without helmet laws. They normalized the statistics to "deaths per 100,000 registered riders". (or, might've been 10,000, no matter).

The Helmet law states were 10.067 deaths per, the no helmet law states were 10.064.

The bottom line is that .004 of 10,000 is statistically insignificant.

The two riders most likely to die is the new rider in his or her first year, and the experienced rider on a strange bike. If an experienced rider dies, a helmet would not save his or her life.

However, much like diving, you cannot legislate stupidity, and the three helmeted MC riders that passed me in DC going well over a 100, on the back wheel of the crotch rockets . . . welllllll.

Insurance companies quit fighting for helmet laws because of this, and the quite disconcerting discovery of increased neck injuries due to the weight of the helmet. So, they got to care for more paraplegics . . . .

 

[SC_Hoaty]

What do Isaac Asimov, Benjamin Franklin, Germaine Greer, Thomas Jefferson, Jacques-Yes Cousteau, John von Neumann and Pythagoras have in common?

They are all NOT on :sblogo:

 

[Thalassamania]

Jax, that's interesting, but even if true, sounds like a rather bad retrospective study. Comparing States with helmet laws to States without helmet laws maybe picking up other factors, one needs to look at a sample of some thousands of riders and compare accident rates and accident outcomes within and between the helmet and no helmet groups with block effects of: engine displacement, type of bike, age of rider, sex of rider, etc.

Physicians are notorious for being completely incompetent statisticians (at least amongst statisticians).

Note:

Motorcycle Helmet—Use Laws and Head Injury Prevention
Daniel M. Sosin, MD; Jeffrey J. Sacks, MD, MPH

JAMA. 1992;267(12):1649-1651.

Objective.
—To rebut criticism of a previous study of motorcycle helmet—use laws through reanalysis with improved measures of exposure, stratification for regional differences in crash risk, and addressing of total motorcycle-related mortality and the grounds for targeting motorcyclists for helmet-use laws.

Design.
—Death certificate—based correlational study of motorcycle-related deaths and motorcycle helmet—use laws.

Population Studied.
—United States resident deaths from 1979 through 1986.

Results.
—Regardless of the denominator used (resident population, motorcycle registrations, or motorcycle crashes), states with full helmet-use laws had consistently lower head injury—associated death rates than states without such laws, even when stratified by region. Total motorcycle-related mortality, however, was similar between law groups. On a registration or crash basis, motorcyclists who died in crashes had a fivefold to sixfold higher risk of head injury than those who died using any other type of motor vehicle.

Conclusion.
—Full helmet-use laws were consistently associated with lower rates of head injury—associated death. While disagreement remains on the acceptability of the legislative approach, the scientific basis for motorcycle helmet— use laws as a head injury prevention tool appears sound.
(JAMA. 1992;267:1649-1651)

Author Affiliations

From the Division of Field Epidemiology, Epidemiology Program Office (Dr Sosin), and the Division of Injury Control, National Center for Environmental Health and Injury Control (Dr Sacks), Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, US Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Ga.

Also:

From the AMA:
Report 6 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-98)

Motorcycle helmets are the most important protective equipment and principal safety measure for preventing head injuries from motorcycle crashes.14,15 In 1981, an investigation of 900 motorcycle crashes that resulted in 980 head and neck injuries concluded that wearing a helmet was the single most critical factor in preventing head and neck injuries among motorcycle riders.10 Numerous subsequent studies support this finding.4,14-23 While helmets cannot protect riders from all injuries, the NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the risk of fatal injuries by 29 percent and the risk of traumatic brain injury by 67 percent.14,22 In states that require all motorcycle riders to use helmets, significant reductions (from 15 percent to 37 percent) in the number of motorcycle crash fatalities have occurred.13 From 1986 through 1996, the NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use has prevented more than 7,900 motorcyclist fatalities and saved more than $10 billion.24

Motorcycle helmet use reduces crash fatalities and injuries by reducing the number of serious head injuries, particularly traumatic brain injury. Prevention of traumatic brain injury is important because it is more likely to be severe, requiring expensive and long-term medical treatment, and may result in lifelong disability.22 Motorcycle riders without helmets who sustain serious head injuries are more likely to require ambulance service; be admitted to a hospital; incur higher hospital charges; require neurosurgery, intensive care, rehabilitation, and long-term care; and have permanent disabilities.15

 

[SC_Hoaty]

Thal -

From the limited information presented, especially this part:

Regardless of the denominator used (resident population, motorcycle registrations, or motorcycle crashes), states with full helmet-use laws had consistently lower head injury—associated death rates than states without such laws, even when stratified by region. Total motorcycle-related mortality, however, was similar between law groups.

could one conclude that all the helmet laws did was cause the injured rider to die of another cause?

 

[Thalassamania]

That would be doing violence to the study. When a rider gets strained through a chain link fence they should be eliminated from the study, similarly when a rider's abdomen gets crushed under a truck a helmet is rather irrelevant. The point is that there are sufficient "other" causes of mortality that mask the helmet vs. non-helmet signal unless one confines the study to head injury—associated deaths only.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

Agree that having the raw data would lead to better analysis. With what is currently presented, it appears helmet-law states have a higher incidence of "non helmet" deaths compared to states with no helmet law.

Death rate remained the same, so if they didn't die due to head injury, they died from non-head injury causes.

IF there is not a reduction in the death rate, it is hard to assert they save lives.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

I noticed you added the AMA statement. Did helmet technology change after '86? What else would explain the conflict between the studies about total mortality?

 

[Thalassamania]

There is no conflict, it is just that the irrelevant data on head injury fatalities masks the signal that can be clearly seen when you look at only the head injury fatalities.

BTW: this also shows that the idea of better SA w/o a helmet lowering your risk of fatality is simply not so.

 

[SC_Hoaty]

Sorry - I'm a bit slow on this. The first study you cited stated in the results

Total motorcycle-related mortality, however, was similar between law groups.

while the AMA report states

In states that require all motorcycle riders to use helmets, significant reductions (from 15 percent to 37 percent) in the number of motorcycle crash fatalities have occurred

I've added the bold to illustrate the apparent conflict.

Do you still not see a conflict?