I can't give you a site for those stats, but about ten years ago I did some
research and a paper on that subject, and a editorial, and at that time
the % of fatalities due to head injuries for auto drivers and motorcycle
riders was the same, something over 70%. (72-73 I think) In other words,
X% of all motorcycle and automobile fatalities result from massive head
injuries.
I also believe those stats were from states without helmet laws, so that
the variable of mc riders wearing helmets did not skew the stats one way
or the other too much.
It's not a hard to imagine, if you die in an auto accident, it will most likely
be from massive head injuries, same as a motorcycle, with a lesser amount of
deaths resulting from internal injuries, you can see how logically it's
going to be
about the same percentage, although I don't know what the numbers are
right now.
It certainly does cause some "soul-searching", if they (helmets) are so
great and indispensible for motorcycle riders, and reduce deaths from
massive head injuries, why should they be singled out from auto drivers,
forced to wear helmets, and "allow" auto drivers to die in greater numbers
from massive head injuries, especially when deaths from massive head
injuries are the same for both groups. (!?!?!?!?)
So why don't we have a helmet law for auto drivers instead of airbags? It's
purely political, and what can and cannot be gotten away with, and which
way the propaganda blows, and which group is smaller and less able to
resist, and which group is making the laws and producing the "news".
Now before anyone flames me, I'm not endorsing MC riders not wearing
helmets, or laws to make auto drivers start wearing them, etc, or trying
to start a helmet debate. It's just funny how laws can be accepted in
spite of facts.
Dianne's Husband. (ken)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:08 EDT