RALEIGH — Maybe you know some of the bad things that happen when states roll back their laws mandating safety helmets for all motorcycle riders:

Fewer riders wear helmets.

More riders suffer serious brain injuries in crashes, running up six- and seven-figure medical bills for families and taxpayers.

More riders die.

There’s a good thing that happens, too: With fewer lifesaving, brain-protecting helmets, we get more organ donors.

Maybe you’ve heard this morbid factoid as a bit of sardonic cocktail-party wisdom. But it was no joke to Stacy Dickert-Conlin, an economics professor at Michigan State University. She wanted to find out whether it was really true.

Dickert-Conlin likes to study unintended consequences. How does Social Security policy shape personal decisions about divorce and remarriage? Why do deer hunting regulations reduce shooting accidents and save human lives?

“I’ve always been interested in the markets for things you can’t buy and sell,” Dickert-Conlin told the Road Worrier.

Things like human organs. So in a 29-page study published in 2011, she and two colleagues measured the “donorcycles” effect.

They calculated a 10 percent increase in organ donations resulting from motor vehicle accidents in states that have repealed their helmet laws.

A better supply of organs means shorter waits for transplant recipients. So for every three deaths involving motorcyclists riding without helmets, the economists figure that death is delayed or prevented for one person on an organ waiting list.

Before we dig into the delicate numbers, let’s get something straight: Dickert-Conlin is not calling for repeal of the helmet laws. She notes the grim ratio of 3 riders dead for 1 organ recipient saved. As she and her co-authors dryly observe, “helmetless riding is clearly an inefficient means of preserving life.”

The Road Worrier brings this up as the state Senate is considering a bill – passed by the House last year – that would have North Carolina conduct its own helmet law study. The idea is to predict what might happen if we join the 31 states that have decided to make helmets optional for adult bikers, or all bikers.

The bill is a compromise pushed by free-spirited bikers who have been unable to win enough votes for what they really want to do: require helmets only for teen motorcyclists and reduce penalties for violators.

If they’re looking for a chance to accentuate the positive aspects of rolling back a lifesaving law, maybe they should talk up the prospect of a transplant organ bonanza.

Dickert-Conlin traces several steps between a relaxed helmet law and an increased flow of organ donations. It’s not just that helmetless bikers are more likely to die. Biker crash victims also happen to be better-than-average organ donors.

Except in cases where a living donor gives up a kidney or part of a liver, nearly all transplant organs come from donors who are brain-dead. Respirators and other medical equipment keep their hearts beating and their organs viable for transplant.

And brain death is much more often a factor in motorcycle crashes than in automobile crashes. Especially when they are not protected by helmets, the economists write, motorcyclists “can be killed in low-speed, relatively minor collisions which cause brain death but leave the rest of the body in pristine condition.”

Studies show helmets work

The House study bill promotes the idea of better motorcycle safety instruction, which sounds good. But researchers say that doesn’t do much in the way of saving lives.

When a helmet requirement is repealed, studies show that helmet use falls from nearly 100 percent to about 55 percent.

And that’s too bad because, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has reported, helmets cut the risk of death in a crash by 37 percent and the risk of head injury by 69 percent. Nothing else comes close to preventing so many motorcycle deaths and injuries.

It turns out that more than 12 percent of motorcycle crash victims end up as organ donors, Dickert-Conlin says – compared with less than 4 percent of car crash victims. Transplant surgeons make use of two or three organs from the average donor.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calculated in 2012 that the helmet requirement for all motorcyclists saves the lives of 80 motorcyclists in North Carolina every year – more than in any other state. On the other hand, if all states repealed their helmet laws, Dickert-Conklin figures an additional 677 motorcyclists would die every year (on top of the current national toll of about 5,000).

One journal editor was dismissive when she circulated her “donorcycles” study a few years ago. Everybody knows that bareheaded bikers make good organ donors, he told her.

But no one had ever studied the connection. Rolling back helmet laws really does increase organ donation – not a huge impact, “but it’s nontrivial,” she said.

“We would never promote this as a policy,” Dickert-Conlin said. “But it is certainly the case that people who will benefit from the removal of helmet laws are people on organ waiting lists.

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/06/...#storylink=cpy

 

My sister in law is a nurse and the other one is a DR. I have heard this for years its good to see some actual statistics interesting article.

 

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has reported, helmets cut the risk of death in a crash by 37 percent and the risk of head injury by 69 percent. Nothing else comes close to preventing so many motorcycle deaths and injuries."

Sounds about right. And a good DOT helmet these days is actually no problem at all to wear on the bike. Rides just fine and doesn't cost much.

 

So with the exploding population problem, maybe We need to back off the I'm protecting "YOU" laws

I’m not saying let’s go kill all the stupid people. I’m just saying let’s remove all the warning labels and let the problem work itself out.

 

It's funny, I've been to Europe twice in the last year and met a group of Brits who were making their way through the Alps on a long ride. Great group of guys and very interesting to talk to.

I noticed that they, like almost all the riders I encountered in Germany and Austria, were wearing full leathers and armor (and very damn nice leather, too. Wish I knew where they got some of it). I used to live there, and after being there so many times I've definitely noticed a very pronounced difference in motorcycle culture between Europe and the US. Over there, the vast majority of people I met wore really good quality protective gear and took pride in it, just like people take pride in their bikes. Many of the bikers I came across (at least the ones on cruisers) had sort of an old school cafe racer kind of thing going on.

Anyway, after a beer or two the topic of helmet laws in the US came up. To a man, these guys were just incredulous that anyone would consider riding around on a motorcycle without a helmet. In fact, most of these riders made it clear they would never even consider riding with a half-helmet, even if it were legal there. From what I saw the group appeared to be split about 50-50, with half of them wearing full and the other half wearing 3/4 helmets.

All of these guys were on Dyna's or Triumphs, and all of them were probably 35ish. Not a group of old guys. In Europe, it's simply not an issue: you get on a motorcycle, you gear up. And these guys don't putt around, either. The autobahn is great fun, and riding through the alps is quite an experience.

 

Sounds better then trying to transplant the brain from the idiot cager into the biker they hit.

 

Sniff, sniff... I think I smell a lot of law suits. Often times, the "protecting" law/regulations are born out of cases filed for wrongful death and/or injury that allegedly could have been prevented, had someone have informed the injured/deceased of the possibility of death and/or bodily harm. If warning labels are removed, it opens up the opportunity for anyone/everyone to sue, based on the fact that they weren't well enough informed. You can thank litigious society and ambulance chasing lawyers for warning labels on everything from kid's toys to SUV's (rollover hazard). What you're suggesting... I just don't see that happening.

OP, no surprise there. I mean, it just makes sense that the more brain dead people there are, the more organs there are to donate.

 

My license say's "sperm donor"..

I'm keeping everything else

 

In Michigan they passed a helmet optional bill. If you wanted to ride without a helmet, all you need to do is provide proof of a significant health insurance coverage, so that if you got injured on your bike, the state and taxpayers would not be stuck with the tab.

 

If you Google this economist you can read the actual study. Here is what is interesting: Death rates involving cages declined from 156 per million people to 135 per million people in the timeframe under study. For bikes, it increased from 8.9 per million to 17 per million--a 90% increase!!

Ok......the bike numbers sound terrible, right? However, the numbers do not reflect the huge increase in the number of people who purchased and rode a motorcycle during this time period. That 90% increase in motorcycle fatalities could be the product of more motorcycles on the rode. Also, look at the absolute differences in fatalities: 135 per million compared to 17 per million (the absolute risk of dying may be substantially lower if you ride a motorcycle--again, there are other factors involved but this is a real possibility).

If you look at the figures and know how to interpret statistical language you will also see that a large part of the increase was restricted to Florida. The effect was not witnessed in several other states, such as KY.

I'm not saying that helmets do not reduce injury or will not, under certain limited circumstances, save your life.......but helmet safety research (especially from NHTSA) is sometimes biased if not outright deceptive.