I-Team Blotter
Kaiser Report: CT Medicare Costs Sixth Highest In Nation
Little Progress Made On Health Disparities, New Report Shows
Settlement: Depakote Maker Injects $6 Million Into State Coffers
Nursing Homes Fined For Patient Death, Failure To Administer Drugs
Two Connecticut Doctors Lose Licenses in New York State
Over 500 Docs And Nurses Providing Care In Medical Homes
Medical Board Reprimands Doctor, Physician Assistant
Smaller Hospitals Struggle With Deficits
Nursing Homes Fined For Choking Death, Weight Loss
Breast Cancer Gene Patent Case Heads Back To Appeals Court
Medical Board Revokes Doctor’s License
Theresa Sullivan Barger reports
Three CT Nursing Homes Make 2012 ‘Honor Roll’
Yale, St. Raphael’s Detail Plans For Merger
Three Nursing Homes Face Fines For Patient Injuries
Medical Board Fines, Restricts Doc’s Surgical License
Yale Study: Motorcycle Helmets Reduce Fatal Accidents
by Jennifer Kaylin | Apr 10, 2011 6:35 am
(8) Comments | Commenting has expired | E-mail the Author
A new study by Yale School of Medicine researchers found that the use of helmets reduces the number of fatal motorcycle crashes and provides new ammunition for those who may seek to make helmet use mandatory in Connecticut.
The analysis of state Department of Transportation crash data between 2001-2007 found that there were 9,214 motorcycle crashes, including 358 fatalities. The number of fatalities was more than twice as high - 235, or 65.6 percent - among those riders who were not wearing helmets as among those who were - 123, or 34.4 percent.
The Connecticut Department of Health compiled injury data based on emergency department visits from 2000-2004, but this marks the first peer-reviewed Connecticut motorcycle injury analysis since a study of 1985-1987 data was conducted.
“We weren’t surprised by our findings so much as we wanted to provide up-to-date data to help inform policy and debate,” said Dr. Michael Phipps, one of the researchers. Another goal of the study, he said, was to identify those riders that don’t wear helmets, so targeted educational initiatives can be developed. The study found that those least likely to wear helmets are male riders, passengers, and riders who are younger than 18 or between the ages of 30 and 59.
Connecticut is one of 28 states with partial helmet laws; anyone under the age of 18 must wear a helmet. Of the five other New England states, Massachusetts and Vermont require all riders to wear helmets. Maine and Rhode Island have partial helmet laws, and New Hampshire doesn’t have a helmet law. New York also requires riders to wear helmets.
Connecticut passed a universal helmet law in 1967 in response to the 1966 Highway Safety Act that threatened the withholding of federal highway funds from states without universal helmet laws. Congress amended this act in 1976, and Connecticut repealed its universal helmet law the same year.
In 1989, Connecticut passed a partial helmet law mandating helmet use by motorcycle riders and passengers under the age of 18. Since then, legislation has been introduced five times to mandate helmet use by all riders, but it was defeated each time.
Advocates of mandatory helmet laws say helmets save lives and money. Opponents argue that helmets retain heat and impair the rider’s vision and hearing. They also claim the weight and design of many helmets pose a threat to the neck.
Post a Comment
- Commenting has closed for this entry
Comments
posted by: Noteworthy on April 11, 2011 9:15am
This is yet another predictable, self serving “study” pretending to be a news story. You should charge these people for publishing this drivel.
Everybody knows wearing a helmet whether on a bike or a motorcycle, is safer than not wearing one. We have known this for 50 years. The issue is whether the government should force people to take those extra safety steps if they choose not to do so. This is a matter of personal choice and the government and those who make a living out of trying to save us from ourselves will stop at nothing to take away our freedoms in the pursuit of what they like most: Controlling and micro-managing our lives under the cloak of “safety.”
posted by: Big Wayne on April 11, 2011 3:21pm
—————all the statistics that i’ve seen, show that about 3% of all crashes involve a fatality - not 30% (much less 60% ). and, that fatalities are about the same in helmeted vs unhelmeted crashes . . .
Big
posted by: RepealMachine.com on April 12, 2011 6:48am
The debate will never end, and it will never change anyone’s mind. If you want freedom, all you have to do is help motorcycle-friendly candidates on the campaign trail. Then it’s not a matter of debate, but of results. Google the Repeal Machine, use it, and EARN your right to decide.
posted by: passenger on April 12, 2011 12:36pm
I’m sorry, but do either of you have any research experience or access to the data used by the researchers above??? Unless you’re doing to work and analyzing the data, you shouldn’t open your mouth to criticize the people doing the work!! It makes you seem just as ignorant and the people who chose not to wear a helmet.
Not only am I in the medical/research field, but I am also a motorcycle passenger and have been for years. If everyone knows that wearing a helmet is safer, why hasn’t a law been passed? How can it have been defeated??? People need stats to prove validity since common sense apparently doesn’t work!
PS… do your own research - this was NOT a government funded study!!!
posted by: Chicago on April 12, 2011 12:51pm
The 34.4/65.6% is the proportion of dead who were or who were not wearing helmets. That doesn’t tell us much unless we also know the denominator… how many crashes involved helmeted riders and how many did not.
posted by: Ace on April 12, 2011 9:33pm
Actually, there are people that argue that wearing a helmet is more dangerous and decreasing vision and increases neck injuries—neither of which are true—but many people believe it. And we as society have decided that certain things should be done because it affect society even if limiting liberty—like using seat belts and not drunk driving. Just like those situations, if government did not enforce laws, there is a higher danger, and price, to society. Not wearing a helmet not only leads to a higher death rate, but also to increased healthcare costs to the community. I guess we could have a law that says riders can go without a helmet if they waive any medical care, but that doesn’t seem right…
As for statistics, 358 of 9,214 crashes is a 3.9% fatality rate, not 30 or 60%. And it seems that the second comment contradicts the first…some people still don’t believe helmets work…
posted by: Warren on April 13, 2011 1:37am
Another idiotic study. Note that cause of death is not mentioned. So what difference does a helmet make then? They might as well have done a study to see who was or was not wearing a wrist watch.
The fact remains that mandatory helmet laws have not changed the death to accident ration in any state where they have been enacted.
Get the facts. Read Helmet Law Facts here: http://www.sbumaui.org/helmet_law_facts.pdf
posted by: ZorroRides on April 13, 2011 12:02pm
I wear a helmet and I think everybody “SHOULD.” I don’t think government should force people to protect themselves, however, I do feel that we need a legislation to protect society from the idiots who crash without a helmet and cost a fortune in healthcare to patch them up or keep them alive as just “a head in a bed.”