"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

My SWAG is that the published articles above may have
a hole in them - the subset of crash victims who are *never*admited* to
a hospital, because they're dead at the scene.

As I said, about half of those studies on PubMed and elsewhere are straight
mortality studies. Whether they make it to a hospital or if they're declared
dead on the scene, they're counted.

Statistically more of
those (dare I say "most?") will be those without helmets.

That's correct.


Those riders may never make it into those studies. Because I haven't
inspected them closely, I cannot say for sure - but there may be
a substantial statistical bias introduced by this effect.

Not in the mortality studies. And they're unequivocal: you're much more
likely to die in an accident if you're not wearing a helmet.


Ed, I've been riding for many years. I see what abate publishes, and
I think what they do is a travesty. Helmet use for me is a given - but
I don't think that helmet laws (for *adults*, kids are another matter)
are good in general. Folks should be free to splatter their brains
on the pavement at will... especially the dumb ones.

Nice sentiment g, but it's a very expensive one for you and me. From SS
survivor's benefits, to increased insurance rates, to increased hospital
costs for uninsured patients, to the social costs of families that have lost
a provider, you and I pay, and pay, and pay for the assholes who don't wear
helmets.

There is no reason in the world not to require them, any more than there's a
reason not to require wearing a seat belt in a car. Driving and riding are
not "rights" under the law. They're priviledges, and the laws surrounding
them are based on avoiding social costs and what the economists call
"externalities."

And that's the only conclusion that makes any sense, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress