Mandatory helmet wearing in cars would save many more lives than on motorcycles or bicycles..

[Fumesucker]

2010 motorcycle deaths in the USA.. 3,615
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motorcycle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

2010 bicycle deaths in the USA.. 618
http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/facts/crash-facts.cfm

2010 automobile deaths in the USA.. 32,885 - 3,615 = 29,270
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

Assume for the sake of argument that half of all motorcycle/bicycle deaths in the US would be saved by a mandatory helmet law, that comes to a little over two thousand.. I think that estimate is a bit high myself..

Now assume that only ten percent of car crash victims would be saved by a mandatory auto helmet law, a number I think is at least fairly reasonable, over three thousand lives would have been saved in America during 2010.

If mandatory helmet laws make sense for bicycles and motorcycles (and by no means am I saying they don't) then those same laws make even more sense for automobiles in which far more Americans are killed and injured each year.

[Zalatix]

1. Satire?

[Fumesucker]

15. Different perspective..

Do you wish to argue that mandatory helmets in cars would not save lives?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. I think to be really safe we need a helmet that

constricts your esophagus if you try to drink more than 32 oz of soda in a day -- and it should be made out of broccoli.

[whistler162]

67. Love how people expect others

to argue about the nonesense they post as if it made sense!

[LanternWaste]

38. A premise with no underlying, peer-reviewed valid data can only be considered as such.

"Satire?"

A premise with no underlying, peer-reviewed valid data, and puts such burdens of proof on the critic alone can only be considered as such.

[NutmegYankee]

2. Only if head injuries were the killer

Sadly, it's g forces or total body trauma that kills seat belted and air bag protected drivers.

[MADem]

25. +1 nt

[Fumesucker]

27. If everyone in cars was wearing helmets the death rate would not drop?

[jberryhill]

29. You provide no data to support otherwise

There is no rational basis presented in your OP to suggest it would drop at all.

Your analysis is doubly fatuous, since you provide no comparison of relative rates of mortality reduction for any of the transportation modes. Per passenger mile, cars are far and away safer than either bicycles or motorcycles. The quantum improvement by using a car instead of a bike or a motorcycle renders any marginal improvement by wearing a helmet to be negligible.

[Fumesucker]

31. Ooh.. Doubly fatuous..

Talking dirty will get you nowhere with me..

I find it interesting how a nation that actually *has* universal coverage medical care treats the wearing of helmets on bicycles.

If the "quantum leap" as you so artfully put it is of such a great magnitude then why has this massively bike riding population not registered that fact? Are they universally stupid?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

37. No, and the overall injury rates would go up

Some cop shops used tried that. They stopped due to the increase in neck injuries.

In a nutshell, there are many more minor accidents where the weight of the helmet increases neck injurires than there are accidents where the head protection would have mattered.

[FarCenter]

42. NASCAR has solved that problem with Head and Neck Restraint System

After Dale Earnhardt's fatal accident they significantly improved driver protection. The seat wraps around the drivers head and the helmet is attached to the seat. The shoulder belts immobilize the upper body.

Head, neck, shoulders and seat decelerate as a unit. Drivers have walked away from some very vicious crashes using this system.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. It works great for racing, not really practical for the street.

After I posted, I realized it was bicycle helmets...much less mass.

[NutmegYankee]

64. Sounds like it works great when driving in a circle.

But that would be useless for backing out of parking spaces or making turns on streets.

[Mopar151]

68. You'd have to be good with the mirrors.......

but the helmet tethers slide side-to-side, so that your head can swivel - and the head containment can be designed (like the Lajoie seat) to permit some visibility.

[NutmegYankee]

72. The limited head movement is unreasonable for normal driving

As long as you are seat belted, you should be fine for normal road collisions. Catastrophic collisions may kill a seat belted driver, but an intact head won't make up for a destroyed body. Your primary protection is the car frame itself.

[Mopar151]

71. Not really NASCAR;'s solution

HANS was developed by Hubbard & Downing, several years before the Earnhardt crash. Jim Downing was an IMSA racer known for Mazda rotaries.
HANS, and the Safety Solutions restraints (T3, Hutchens Hybrid, Rage) do not attach to the seat at all - though the T3 has an option of velcroing it to the seat so that it can stay with the car when the driver exits.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

3. That's why airbags are so important.

Front, side, rear and curtain airbags coupled with seat-belts should do the trick.

I would like to see the data on your assumptions. I a properly equipped car I would think 10% high.

Can't use an airbag on a bike.

[cthulu2016]

9. I think the OP is right. (But also wrong)

Even if every car on the road was fully equipped with the modern range of airbags there would still be fatalities. And many (most?) of those fatalities would be from head trauma.

A secondary collision happens after the airbags have gone off... you hit someone and then a truck hits from behind.

Being hit from the side... the side curtain airbags slow your head down some but there are limits.

And so on.

Of whatever number of head trauma deaths occurred, would helmets prevent a chunk of them? Sure.

Lots and lots of cars, so the numbers of those saved would be large, in absolute terms.

But the rise in net inconvenience would be much greater than the relative gain. Helmets save a much greater percentage of cyclists than they would auto drivers.

It kind of like looking at traffic fatalities at different speeds. To save the most people the national speed limit should be zero, so we know going into it that speed limits are a social balancing act between convenience and safety.

[Fumesucker]

14. So the argument for mandatory helmets factors inconvenience?

Why would it be more inconvenient for car drivers to be forced to wear helmets vs those who ride bikes or motorcycles?

[LeftyMom]

18. Because cars have other safety technologies at work.

Really, this all seems pretty obvious.

[Fumesucker]

20. Are you arguing that mandatory helmets in cars wouldn't save lives?

[metalbot]

39. Mandatory helmets in cars would certainly save lives

The question is "how many would it save", relative to the inconvenience of wearing a helmet.

We choose convenience over safety all the time. Want to know what else would save lives in cars? Lowering the speed limit to 10 MPH. It would almost completely eliminate fatalities. We as a society have made the decision that we can accept a few tens of thousands of deaths each year in exchange for the convenience of being able to get places quickly.

[cthulu2016]

19. What I said was...

"But the rise in net inconvenience would be much greater than the relative gain."

The inconvenience for an individual is the same. (probably slightly lower for the car driver, since he has a secure place to leave his helmet)

But the net inconvenience for society is larger because more people drive cars than cycles.

And the net social cost of not having car helmets is less because the lives saved are a much smaller percentage of the total inconvenience. Each life is as precious, of course, but each car life is divided by much more net inconvenience.

I threw in the thing at the end because I wanted to make the point that every aspect of traffic safety strikes a balance between convenience and deaths, so there's nothing odd in looking at the question that way. (To save the most lives we could ban going outdoors at all.)

[Fumesucker]

23. I wouldn't be surprised if more people are killed indoors than outdoors these days..

[jberryhill]

30. Falls in the home kill more people than cars

[Brother Buzz]

4. If you also mandate compulsory use of the HANS device in the vehicle

[frylock]

53. full cage and four-point harness

[Brother Buzz]

56. Shit, lets mandate a belt AND suspenders....

and go for the majestic seven-point harness.

[B Calm]

5. The way some people drive,

I think this makes sense!

[flvegan]

6. Yeah, if they were rally drivers. You want to know what would save lives in cars? Seriously?

Pay the FUCK attention. You, you there. You're currently riding on a petrol bomb. Here's all you have to do, seriously...

1. Keep your eyes out the windshield. It's glass, you can see through it. React as you need to.

2. The phone/iPod/Facebook/Tweety...ignore it. You're not that important, really. Nobody cares enough to look past who you just killed.

Seriously, I see you everyday. You're too stupid to do any different I guess. You "drive" (meaning you wander about, mostly in your lane, wobble about, make most other folks worry about "why is this idiot staring at his/her mobile device while they make me take evasive action?"

But fuck, Facebook needs to know that you're a complete fucking idiot, I guess. Point proven. Moron.

[Fumesucker]

11. Tell me about it..

But that's not going to happen..

[flvegan]

13. It's a shame.

A loss of a Corvette. I expect an unfortunate loss of life, based on the picture.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. That looks like a hand, just to the left of the truck's license plate

So, yeah, it doesn't look too good for whoever was in that car.

[Meg_Griffin_1]

69. Don't think a helmet would have helped much.

I am not crazy about the helmet idea at all, really screws up my hair and being in the public eye makes me feel vulnerable in a sense LOL I need more coffee.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. I would respectfully add... Understand the Rules of the Road. n/t

[LeftyMom]

7. Brain injuries in cars are mostly caused by sudden deceleration.

The brain sloshes around in the head and slams up against the skull, causing damage. Wrapping your head in bubble wrap wouldn't change that. Seat belts and airbags exist to slow down that process and minimize the impact inside the head as the brain moves.

Bike head injuries, OTOH, are mostly the result of a physical impact between the head and a stationary object like a curb. A helmet cushions that blow.

Five minutes of reading would have cleared up the confusion.

[Fumesucker]

8. Mostly..

Would you consider 90% "mostly"?

[LeftyMom]

10. More like "assuming you are driving a reasonably modern car produced in a country with civilized

safety standards."

[Fumesucker]

12. Would you consider 90% "mostly"?

Or does the number have to be higher for "mostly"?

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. You have no evidence for your "10% would be saved by a helmet"

and I think it sounds ridiculous. I don't think that many car deaths are caused by an impact to the parts of the skull protected by a helmet, and I don't think you can also say "and all of them would have been prevented by a helmet".

You are the one putting forward the hypothesis that few others accept; it's up to you to provide some numbers for it.

[Fumesucker]

58. OK, make it 5%..

You're still talking more people than the entire number killed in bicycle crashes in the USA and mandatory helmets on bicycles is a no-brainer on DU, anyone who argues against it is shouted down very quickly.

Even a two percent improvement in auto crash survival rates would still equal the entire number of bicycle deaths in the USA per year.

[cthulu2016]

16. Beg to differ

I do not favor car helmets, but I'm not going to pretend they wouldn't save a lot of lives, in absolute numbers.

Wrapping your head in bubble wrap would help a great deal.

The difference in 60mph-0mph in 0.01 seconds and 60-0 in 0.001 seconds is an immense difference in effect on the brain, though I may not even be able to see the difference.

This is why we have air bags. Think about it. Your are going 30MPH. You drove into an abutment and your front bumper goes from 30MPH to 0MPH almost instantaneously.

Your air bags deploy. Now then... does your head go from 30MPH to 0MPH? Yes. Even with airbags your head stops going forward... but it is also almost instantaneous.

The air bag stretches out the deceleration very slightly, but that is often enough to be a real help.

And a padded helmet would also be a real help, in addition to the airbag.

Look at it this way... football helmets greatly reduce skull fractures... almost eliminate them, but are not as good at preventing concussions. (Caused by sheer impact bouncing the brain around in the skull.) But football helmets greatly reduce the number of concussions. That 1/2 inch of foam is very useful.

[LeftyMom]

17. A helmet would add weight, increasing that whiplike effect.

Since disproportionately heavy heads are the reason babies can't ride forward facing (in even very minor collisions they're at risk for spinal injuries) I'd be very suspicious that helmets would have a positive effect, unless they were combined with something like HANS. Which they couldn't be, because real world drivers have to be able to turn their heads to see cross-traffic.

[Fumesucker]

24. Have you worn a modern bicycle helmet?

Mostly something that closely resembles Styrofoam with a thin shell of something like ABS over the outside, they don't weigh much.

Interesting how this nation with universal medical coverage treats helmet wearing on bikes.

[jberryhill]

32. False comparison

It is also interesting how some countries provide bike lanes, signal crossings, etc. and in which bicycling is treated as serious transportation instead of recreation.

You are ignoring the safety features already built into the infrastructure which render a comparison between the US and such countries as Denmark, Netherlands and others, in relation to bicycle safety, a continued exercise in not knowing wha you are talking about.

[Fumesucker]

34. The way the bicycle is discussed here it's an inherently unsafe vehicle..

I ride an actual bicycle and an actual motorcycle for the purposes of transportation, not recreation. I suspect I know more of the burning issues involved in staying alive on two wheels in the USA better than yourself unless you are also a serious long term rider.

Indeed, I have pictures of both my rides up on DU..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1128274

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1212&pid=30

[jberryhill]

57. Irrelevant - Do you ride in Denmark or Holland?

I've ridden in rural Holland - bikes have their own roads.

In any event, the general concept of marginal utility seems to escape you, or there is some other point you wish to make in a passive aggressive way.

[Fumesucker]

60. Mandatory bicycle helmets are applauded by practically all on DU as being a great idea..

For the simple reason that they will save somewhat fewer than 600 lives per year.

Mandatory car helmets on the other hand are condemned by a large margin on DU.

The point being that if you want people to get out of the cars and get onto bicycles to commute then mandatory helmets on bikes is exactly the wrong way to go, it makes a graphic point that biking is a dangerous and scary activity. Car driving on the other hand is seen as a safe and risk free activity.

Interesting that my experience is irrelevant while yours is perfectly relevant.

[HiPointDem]

33. what is the significance of denmark not requiring helmets?

[Fumesucker]

35. I just think it's interesting that a really bicycle centric culture dismisses helmet use..

It's not like Danes are considered irrational irresponsible dumbasses as a group and yet they don't feel the need for either helmets or a law to force each other to wear them.

You'd think Danes would know the danger of biking without a helmet if anyone did...

[jeff47]

49. A helmet would not change the deceleration

The difference in 60mph-0mph in 0.01 seconds and 60-0 in 0.001 seconds is an immense difference in effect on the brain, though I may not even be able to see the difference.

In a car, the head is decelerating because the body is strapped to a seat, and possibly from hitting an airbag.

A helmet would not reduce the rate of deceleration. In fact it would make the deceleration worse because more mass has to be decelerated.

In the examples you give of when it's good to wear a helmet, bikes, motorcycles and football, impact of the head against a hard surface is causing the deceleration.

I know you're very desperate to prove that helmet laws are bad, but your logic here is utterly awful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. + billion coup-counter coup. That's the technical name.

Wearing a helmet will not stop that dynamic.

[cthulu2016]

47. Yes, it will

see above

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Not at seventy miles

In football it sort of works due to the forces involved.

You know what would work in cars? Don't hold your breath, won't happen due to air bags...five point restraints.

[cthulu2016]

54. What are you arguing?

I do not favor mandatory helmets in cars.

I do, however, reject the weird statement that no helmet could reduce deceleration trauma, which is obviously false.

[nadinbrzezinski]

55. Ok whatever, have a good day

bye.

[Logical]

21. You are 100% correct! Ignore the clueless!

[TheMadMonk]

26. Helmet laws are not just about saving lives. They're also about reducing...

...the total lifetime care requirements of head trauma SURVIVORS. They provide protection over a wide range of direct impact scenarios.

Restrained inside a car, helmets are only going to provide additional protection (beyond that already provided by the vehicle) in extreme situations.

[Fumesucker]

28. Is your point then that additional protection would not help prevent/reduce head trauma?

[TheMadMonk]

40. Under most circumstances not a great deal INSIDE a car.

Not for a properly restrained passenger.

[REP]

36. Number of cars:number of motorcycles/bicycles =illogical argument

There are more cars on the road than there are donormotorcycles and bicycles, hence more car accidents and therefore, more deaths.

[Ter]

43. We'll lose all 50 states if Democrats support this

I'll tell you this much. I will never vote for any politician who supports car helmet laws, no matter how awesome he or she is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. I love satire

Fyi if you are talking NASCAR and other motor sports, the Helmet plays less of a role than the five point restraint.

In cars five point restrains would help.

Unlike your satire there is peer data, but also the cost benefit is not justified given air bag technology.

[jeff47]

50. Lovely assumptions. I'm gonna make my own.

Assume for the sake of argument that only 3 cars exist in the world.

Now assume for the sake of argument that 800,000,000,000,000 bicycle riders will be saved every 12 seconds by mandatory helmet laws.

Now it's utterly obvious that mandatory bicycle helmets will save far more people than mandatory helmets in cars.

What? My assumptions are ridiculous and without any factual basis? Well, that didn't stop you. Why should it stop me?

[NCTraveler]

51. I would think that being belted in and having more weight on your head would lead to more.....

injuries/deaths. Not less. Some sort of restraint would need to be added. Like the hans device in NASCAR.

[Skinner]

52. "Per vehicle mile traveled, motorcyclists' risk of a fatal crash is 35 times greater...

...than a passenger car." Source

That's not 35 percent greater; that's 35 TIMES greater.

Technically you are correct. But you miss the point.

[Fumesucker]

61. Perhaps I already know that point and I'm trying to make a different point?

And actually my OP was about mandatory bicycle helmets vs mandatory car helmets.

The main reason I mentioned motorcycles was to subtract them from all motor vehicles as not being cars.

Then later in the thread I point out that in the most bicycle centric western nation, Denmark, practically no one wears a helmet.

My point is that far fewer people will use bikes for commuting if helmet use is mandated. I think car use would drop considerably if helmet use was mandated there too.

Now the public health argument can go either way, more people commuting on bikes leads to a more fit populace that won't have as many problems with obesity and related issues but it will also lead to more injuries and deaths from bicycle crashes.

I don't know where the balance actually lies but mandating bicycle helmets isn't going to help get people on to bikes.

People wear safety gear for *dangerous* stuff, if biking is seen as *dangerous* then only risk takers are going to do it.

[MineralMan]

63. Defensive riding and driving, along with attentive riding and driving

will save far more lives than helmets on either riders or drivers.

I see bicyclists and motorcyclists doing unsafe things and making unsafe assumptions frequently. By the same token, I see drivers not paying attention to their driving frequently, as well.

Helmets have some value, but not as high a value as riding and driving safely and attentively.

When I got my first motorcycle, a very wise person told me that I should treat all enclosed vehicles as if they were planning to run into me. It was excellent advice, and it saved my sorry ass many times while riding. The same thing applies to bicyclists. Drivers will turn right in front of you. They will open their car door without looking to see if a bicycle is approaching, and they will drive on on an intersecting street or road if there is no stop sign there. Going through a stop sign on a bicycle is a very dangerous thing to do, and yet I see bicyclists doing it all the time in my residential neighborhood, and have observed a number of close calls. As a car driver, I always assume that the bicycle and other traffic crossing my direction of travel will ignore stop signs, so exercise caution, since I've seen it happen so many time.

Assume the worst case when you're on the road, whatever means of transport you use, and you'll probably avoid 80% of accidents.

[CBGLuthier]

65. Calling numbers "high" or "fairly reasonable" is not my idea of "science."

I do not make assumptions as freely as you do.


Gary Busey fucked himself up by falling off a non moving motorcycle and striking his head. Dr. Atkins of the famous diet died while walking because he slipped and hit his head. Perhaps we should all at ALL TIMES be wearing helmets.

Or perhaps we could just get over our fear and get on with our lives.

[Vattel]

66. Setting aside the specific proposal,

which I can't really evaluate without more information, there should be much more rational discussion about how to reduce injuries of various kinds in the US. Stairs, for example, could surely be designed in a way so that not every old person in the country breaks their hip falling down them. (Yes, I am exaggerating.) We act like the only true tragedy is when a terrorist hurts someone, and we spend trillions of dollars and sacrifice the lives of soldiers and of innocent bystanders trying to reduce that risk. You are criticized in this thread (and rightly so) for making unjustified assumptions, but you at least you identify your assumptions. When our political leaders defend the war on terror, they don't even try to seriously argue that their approach is a rational way to reduce risks for Americans.

[B2G]

70. Let's just mandate full body armour

or outlaw cars.