Yesterday a student and I talked about motorcyle helmets. We asked, "Should motorcycle riders be required to wear them?". In our back-and-forth I was arguing pro and he contra.

I share some notes and summaries below, but first one or two indicators of my investment in and experience with motorcycles. I've ridden and owned motorcycles ever since college days. Hondas, an Indian, a Suzuki three cylinder "Water Buffalo" with a sidecar, a BMW. I've lived in states that had helmet laws (California and Washington) and that did not (Iowa).

I am deeply commited to the belief that individuals are free to make of their own lives what they will, that the day-to-day and week-to-week of commerce, of love, of addictive habits and of beautiful becomings are all our own to construct , to forego, to destroy.

However, I also believe that our individual freedoms are bounded to the extent that they limit the freedoms of others. For example, if your appreciation of [name your favorite music group] is demonstrated by turning the volume up so high that I, pursuing my own moments, my own epiphanies, have your favorites inflicted on my space, then your freedom has been pursued at the expense of mine. You've crossed the boundary of your freedoms into mine. You've gone too far.

As to the case of motorcyle riding: the likelihood of costly accident, and of my bearing [as a citizen of the community within which you also reside] the medical and other costs of your accident are part of the moral ecology of motorcycle riding--because they are located at the boundary of your freedom to ride a motorcycle and mine to conduct my life. To the degree that motorcycle riding on the part of another has impact on my freedom to operate in my own space is the degree to which I have a say. To say nay, possibly. To say under what conditions, I think so, definitely.

Some notes and summaries:

Supreme courts (Maine/New Hampshire, I think) find that the public good is sufficiently diminished by nonhelmet use to outweigh the loss of individual freedom involved in mandated helmet use. The courts have rebuffed contra argument based on loss of individual freedom.

Their conclusion --- a) there are considerable public costs associated with lack of helmet use . These costs, borne by all citizens, were seen to outweigh the individual "loss of freedom" involved in purchasing and wearing helmets.

Trauma.org has some interesting links as well. Found online discussion among physicians [can't find link] ; theme of discussion related to attempts to repeal helmet law (again) in Oregon. Two efforts /thoughts re countering resistance to law which is presently in force: One --- give up helmet insistence; insist, instead, that each person licensed to ride motorcycle carry signed universal donor card --harvested organ benefits of those killed outright would pay for long-term care costs of those who survive(this was never seriously proposed). The other -- which is presently an active strategy -- was to insist a) that motorcycle license only comes with demonstrated insurance and b) that insurance be charged based on motorcyclist actuarial tables [predicted likely individual costs based actual mortality and long term health care statistics and costs]; this would take individual insurance premiums through roof. The insurance lobby is concerned and, naturally, the proponents of repeal are screaming foul.

--------------------

-The following are the summaries from NHTSA

Without Motorcycle Helmet Law We All Pay the Price. U.S. Department of Transportation, August 1998 (DOT HS 808 600). Consolidates motorcycle helmet effectiveness information by documenting the life- and cost-saving benefits of motorcycle helmets and the effectiveness of motorcycle helmet laws. The multimedia package discusses NHTSA[base ']s comprehensive approach to motorcycle safety and makes three points: (1) motorcycle helmets save lives and reduce head injuries to motorcyclists in crashes; (2) helmet laws for all riders increase helmet usage; and (3) helmet laws reduce the societal costs resulting from injuries and fatalities in motorcycle crashes.

The Effect of Helmet Law Repeal on Motorcycle Fatalities:A Four-Year Update. NHTSA Research Notes, September 1989. This report estimates fatalities increased about 20 percent in states that repealed helmet use laws.

The Effect of Helmets in Preventing Fatalities. U.S. Department of Transportation, March 1989 (DOT HS 807 416). This publication presents the data and analysis used to determine that motorcycle helmets are 29 percent effective in preventing fatalities.

The Effects of Motorcycle Helmets Upon Seeing and Hearing. U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, February 1994 (DOT HS 808 399). The study examined how wearing a helmet affected motorcycle riders[base '] ability to: (1) visually detect the presence of vehicles in adjacent lanes before changing lanes; and (2) detect traffic sounds when operating at normal highway speeds. Results indicated that wearing a helmet does not restrict the likelihood of seeing a vehicle in an adjacent lane or the ability to hear auditory signals.

Impact of Re-enactment of the Motorcycle Helmet Law in Louisiana. U.S. Department of Transportation, December 1984 (DOT HS 806 760). This report documents the effect of Louisiana[base ']s helmet law on injuries, fatalities, and costs. The repeal and subsequent re-enactment of Louisiana[base ']s helmet use law offer unique and valuable data to conduct this systematic study. [SPH: similar results reported Oregon's epidemiologist]

The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES): Technical Report. U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, January 1996 (DOT HS 808 338). This document presents state-specific results from the CODES project. These results show that safety belts and motorcycle helmets are effective in reducing fatalities and injuries. This report also indicates that safety belt and motorcycle helmet use saves millions of dollars in direct medical costs.

Report to Congress on The Benefits of Safety Belts and Motorcycle Helmets. U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, February 1996 (DOT HS 808 347). The study employed methods whereby statewide data from police crash reports, emergency medical services, hospital emergency departments, hospital discharge files, claims, and other sources were linked so that those people injured in motor vehicle crashes could be followed through the health care system. Information for both the injured and uninjured was then used to determine the benefits of protective devices in motor vehicle crashes.

Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasure, Volume 1: Technical Report. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, U.S. Department of Transportation, January 1981 (DOT HS 805 862). This report presents the data and findings from on-scene, in-depth investigations of 900 motorcycle crashes and the analysis of 3,600 traffic accident reports of motorcycle crashes in the same study area.

Report to Congressional Requesters[~]Highway Safety: Motorcycle Helmet Laws Save Lives and Reduce Costs to Society. U.S. General Accounting Office, July 1991 (GAO/RCED-91-170). This report evaluates studies on motorcycle helmet laws. The report summarizes each study[base ']s findings on: (1) the effectiveness of helmets in preventing deaths and serious injuries; (2) the effect of helmet laws on helmet use and fatality rates; and (3) the cost that society incurs when nonhelmeted motorcyclists are involved in crashes. All studies comparing helmeted riders to nonhelmeted riders found that all helmeted riders had a lower fatality rate.

Motorcycle Helmets: The Facts of Life. U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, revised October 1996 (DOT HS 807 603). This eight-panel brochure summarizes the life- and cost-saving benefits of motorcycle helmets and discusses issues surrounding the enactment of universal motorcycle helmet laws.