Originally Posted by Trevor98
Again, motorcycles are so vastly different in so many ways that using those studies to justify anything in cycling is absurd. For example, motorcycle helmets with their increased protection (as compared to cycling helmets) while defending a human head in a much more dangerous activity justifies their personal adoption while the public-born financial costs associated with motorcycle accidents justifies their mandatory use.
Motorcycle helmets have EXACTLY the same impact protection as the Snell bicycle helmet standard. This is the limit of what can be achieved. The motorcycle helmets have improved penetration resistance and because of the hard shell they spread the impact forces over a larger surface area of the head.
However, the EXACTLY SAME STATISTICAL ANALYSIS of motorcycle helmets demonstrates that reductions in motorcycle rider are what caused a smaller reduction in serious injuries and fatalities.
What was accomplished by mandatory motorcycle helmet laws?
1) The numbers of riders dropped precipitously since motorcyclists didn't want some jackass SAFETY EXPERT telling them what to do. They were more willing to give up motorcycling than to wear a helmet as mandated by law. EVEN THOUGH MOST OF THEM HAD ALREADY WORN HELMETS!!!
2) Because of the reduction of riders a couple of things happened: Most of the booming motorcycle business disappeared almost overnight. They were already having problems from extreme competition and falling sales did them in. Secondly BECAUSE of the reduction in sales the motorcycle manufacturers had to make up profits somewhere so they started increasing the size and performance of motorcycles in order to seel a larger percentage of the larger more profitable motorcycles. The increased performance GREATLY increased the numbers of fatalities.
Here's a perfect example of the moronic helmet fanatics thinking - when you look up motorcycle accident statistics the FIRST thing they tell you is that only about half of all fatalities were to people wearing helmets. It isn't until two lines before that they tell you that MOST of them involved alcohol. Or that a majority of these fatalities involved collisions with fixed objects at high speeds.
Just to compare: Georgia is a mandatory helmet state and a somewhat likely comparision is to Colorado which is a voluntary helmet use state. The RATE of fatalities in Georgia in 1998 was 2.98 fatalities per 100 accidents. In Colorado it was 2.65 even though there were 30% more registered motorcyclists and more accidents.
In talks I had with those who were promoting helmet laws they were HAPPY that these laws reduced the numbers of motorcyclists and they couldn't care less that it actually increased the numbers of serious and fatal injuries. Again and again they'd say things like, "You can make statistics say anything you want them to." Sorry but the unvarnished numbers couldn't be interpretted any other way.
6 ounces of foamed plastic isn't some sort of magical device. It is capable of absorbing a MINUTE amount of force and people are taking more chances because they truly believe themselves to be more protected.