is the economic impact in the US for crashes involving unhelmeted riders according to a recent University of Texas study as abstracted in Pub Med.The study used data from NHTSA and NTDB databases. A lot of statistical analysis and mathematical hocus pocus [my eyes go blurry at anything beyond basic algebra] was applied to come up with a medical cost of $12,353 per unhelmeted rider and $8,735 per helmeted rider per crash. An estimated 197,608 motorcycle crashes per year yields $250,231, 734 per year extra medical costs for unhelmeted riders.

Now the first question I have is: is that 197,608 total crashes or injury crashes? The second question is: why do estimates always have exact numbers. If it’s an estimate, why not 197,000 or 198,000 or even 197,600. Is that 8 at the end so all fired important?

I’m not questioning whether crashes involving unelmeted riders produce more expensive injuries. I just wish the researchers would present their findings a bit more credibly. Tossing out such exact numbers gives the appearance of certitude and the one thing all such studies have in common is that nothing is certain.

Even though some of the studies have been flawed and you can quibble about some aspects of others, the fact remains that riding without a helmet is more dangerous and results in more costly accidents. The results of statistical analysis when properly applied to good data is a reliable indicator. The helmet won’t save your life in all cases but it does, on the whole, reduce the severity of head and (in the case of full face helmets) face injury.

Of course the statistics won’t convince some riders who just don’t seem to care or have presumptions of immortality. Then there are the die hard, “only over my dead body” riders who grasp at any straw to “prove” that riding while wearing a helmet is actually more dangerous and causes neck injuries in a crash. There is no sense discussing the issue with them. For them it is not a matter of safety, it is a matter of personal rights.

Ohmygawd, he’s gonna flip flop

But the no helmet law advocates have every right to fight for their personal rights and their position does have merit. Just how far can the majority go in enforcing its views on the minority? Their personal preference costs “us” $200+ million per year…so what? That’s peanuts compared to the overall waste of money in the US each year (not to mention the scamming by big business and politicians).

This represents a change in my thinking. Previously I just sort of thought riding without a helmet was bad and therefore helmet laws are good. Not very good logic is it? While I won’t campaign to strike down Oregon’s helmet law, I won’t campaign against such efforts. And if it ever becomes an initiative I suspect I will vote in favor of repeal.

Maybe—when greedy corporate CEO’s are taken down a peg, drug companies are forced to return to the drug business instead or being money grubbing machines, the oil industry is put on notice, we stop spending billions on an ill begotten war, politicians become altruistic, it becomes illegal to have a cell phone in a moving vehicle, and SUV’s are outlawed—I’ll change my mind again and say fair is fair, us riders have to do our part to reduce unnecessary costs. Wake me up when that time comes. Until then I’m thinking we need more personal rights, not less.

Ah well, it’s not too overcast. Think I’ll put my helmet on and go for a ride.