A bit perplexed....

This morning,  I saw some statistics on US motorcycle deaths which with the exception of a small reversal in 2009, shows a steady increase from the late 1990's.  I don't intend to debate all the reasons for the deaths as I suspect they're many and varied.  Also, if New Zealand motorcycle accidents statistics are anything to go by  (see this POST), they can be "interpreted" to prove whatever political point is currently in vogue.

US Motorcycle Fatality Statistics

However, the article which accompanied the graph revealed that statistics released from the Governers Highway Safety Association in America show that use of motorcycle helmets dropped 13% in 2010 compared to 2009.  Helmet use in the USA stood at 54% in 2010, compared to 67% in 2009.

According to the GHSA's figures, in 2008 42% of fatally-injured motorcyclists were not wearing helmets.

Only 20 states have a universal helmet law, requiring helmets for all riders.

If these statistics are anywhere indicative of the true picture, they leave me both puzzled and dismayed.  Although the article deals with fatalities, I suspect that they are merely the tip of the iceberg.  What about people who have suffered severe and on-going injuries as a result of not wearing a helmet?  I'll come back to that in a minute.

I could be completely cynical and say that folks choosing not to wear helmets is a great example of Darwin's theory of evolution at work, but that's not how I feel. America is among the most technologically-advanced countries on the planet, spends megadollars keeping people safe with advanced safety systems in other forms of transport such as cars and aircraft, yet all but 20 states fail to legislate for that most basic of motorcycle safety devices, the helmet.  What on earth is going on?  Is it cruiser riders of a certain persuasion or motorcycle posers of all kinds who have political influence?  If they don't wear helmets, I'm picking that their attitude to other protective gear is similarly casual.  Is it the motorcycle industry itself not supportive of helmet use?  Hard to imagine.

As an outsider, I'm wondering whether the logic which the rest of the developed world might use to support helmet use doesn't apply here and that freedom of personal choice (ummmm... like the right to smoke or drink yourself to death) is the over-riding consideration in these states which don't legislate.  Maybe people should have the right to decide not to wear a helmet but also lose their right to priority medical treatment?

Any motorcycle death is a tragedy in its own right to the family, friends and wider community.  When the cause is failure to wear a helmet, it must be almost impossible to bear.  Coming back to non-fatal but serious injuries caused by not wearing a helmet, the cost to the state/taxpayer must be enormous because of the long term medical care requirements.  You'd think that alone would be sufficient incentive to make wearing a helmet mandatory.  Because of the increased cost of medical care through motorcycle accidents in NZ, annual motorcycle licensing costs have jumped by a huge amount - almost double in some instances.  I now pay the equivalent of  US$418 for the Street Triple.  You could correctly argue that this isn't addressing the root cause of accidents but at least authorities are well aware of social and financial burdens to the community in the case of all forms of auto accidents.

So what am I missing in the case of US authorities not legislating for the use of helmets?

.