The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency Any person or agency getting federal money is not "independent".charged by Congress to investigate transportation accidents, determine their probable cause, and make recommendations to prevent their recurrence.  The recommendations that arise from our investigations and safety studies are our most important product.  The Safety Board cannot mandate implementation of these recommendations.  However, in our 42-year history, organizations and government bodies have adopted more than 80 percent of our recommendations.And in their 42 year history they have investigated a grand total of 2 MC accidents. Hey, they are such experts they only need 2!
 

The Safety Board is concerned about the growing number of motorcycle riders that have been killed or injured in motorcycle crashes. Since 1997, the number of motorcycle fatalities has increased 141 percent, an increase that far exceeds that of any other form of transportation. Cherry Picking Data for the purpose of fear mongering. Going back as far as 1975, 1997 was the low point for fatalities. Had he said "Since 1980..." fatalities would have decreased compared with now.  In fact, the number of motorcycle fatalities in recent years has been more than double the number of deaths in each year from accidents in the transportation modes of aviation, rail, marine, and pipeline combined. Bogus, apples and oranges comparison for the purpose of fear mongering. There were also probably more MC deaths than those in field and track also. In 2007, for example, 5,154 motorcyclists died in crashes, and motorcycle fatalities now account for more than 13 percent of all motor vehicle crash fatalities. If you overlay a chart of MC registrations over the top of a chart of MC fatalities they parallel each other. More riders on the road = more fatalities. In 1997, 2,116 motorcyclists died.More cherry picking! 1997 was the lowest number of fatalities going back from now to 1975.   Even more staggering are the increases in injuries in 2006, for example, 88,000 motorcycle injuries were estimated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and in 2007, 103,000. If anything is "staggering" it is that anyone would accept statistics that are "estimated". The number of injuries jumped by 17 percent over this one-year period.  Although rising motorcycle use may partly explain this trend, increases in fatalities and injuries have outpaced increases in motorcycle registrations and vehicle miles traveled,VMT is another estimated and completely bogus "statistic". measures used to determine accident and injury rates.

Helmets Are Effective

Head injury is a leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes.And so are many others but often TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury) is the one chosen as cause of death when it could have also been "Internal Injuries". In other words, stats are unreliable.  The use of a safety helmet, one that complies with U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 218, is the “single critical factor in the prevention [and] reduction of head injury.” Actually the "single critical factor" is not crashing to begin with. No substitute for education, experience, and other motorists who respect ROW laws. The main function of the helmet is to protect the rider’s head, especially the brain, during a fall or crash. And well it might, but it can also snap necks and cause basal skull fracture. NASCAR now requires helmet restraining devices to prevent those usually fatal, helmet-caused injuries. The FMVSS 218-compliant helmet is designed with a hard outer shell, an impact-attenuating liner, and a retention system to protect the structure and contents of the head in a variety of impact scenarios.

Helmets can be effective in both low- and high-speed crashes because crash speed is not directly related to head impact speed. Head speed increases with the added weight of a helmet. The body stops suddenly and the head keeps going - snap! Read the story of Shannon Laughy who is now paralyzed from a 24 mph crash in which her head hit nothing but her neck snapped because of the weight of the helmet. Her story can be found here: http://www.sbumaui.org/helmet_law_facts.pdf  In the Hurt Report, (1) the severity of head impacts was determined by examining crash-involved helmet damage.  This study found that 90 percent of head impacts were less severe than the single test impact required in FMVSS 218.Hard to believe since the test impact only duplicates a 13 mph crash. And were those helmets taken from people who lived or died? And how many helmets were studied? Most studies involve but a fraction of what is really occurring. The upcoming and much hyped MC crash causation study for example is studying less than 1% of total yearly MC accidents.  Thus, FMVSS 218-compliant helmets are well designed to protect the head for the vast majority of motorcycle crashes. I am willing to bet that this is little consolation to Shannon Laughy. I am willing to bet this is little consolation to Steve Standefer who got a stroke as a result of a chin strap severing his carotid artery - and he was not even involved in an accident but just going down the road.
 

The effectiveness of appropriately designed motorcycle helmets in preventing and mitigating head injury is unequivocal. Wrong! Helmets have not changed the death to accident ratio in any state where they have been mandated.  A 1991 report reviewing published studies concluded that motorcycle helmet use has lowered fatality rates, prevented serious head injuries, and reduced the need for ambulance service, hospitalization, neuro-surgical intervention, intensive care, rehabilitation, and long-term care in motorcyclist accidents. This is so bogus! How can anyone cite a report without even naming it? The 2003 independent Cochrane Review of published studies found that helmets substantially reduced the risk of head injury and fatality in motorcycle crashes, and found no evidence of an increased risk of any other types of injury.Well the Cochrane Review is wrong and did not ask Shannon Laughy's opinion. (2) A 1996 DOT report noted that riders not wearing helmets are three times more likely to suffer brain injury than those riders wearing helmets. 3 times? Why not 2 or 10? How do they know this? They must have a crystal ball.  According to another DOT report published in 2004, helmets are 37 percent effective in preventing all fatalities in motorcycle crashes. Honestly, how can anyone take this seriously? 37 percent effective?! Based on what? This sounds like a toothpaste commercial.

David Thom, one of the lead researchers involved with the Hurt Report, spoke at the Safety Board’s Motorcycle Forum in September 2006, about the “perceived” potential negative effects of helmets on safety. An active motorcyclist and researcher on motorcycle safety for three decades, Mr. Thom noted that helmets neither cause nor prevent neck injuries.Dr. Thom is flat out lying. Again, ask Shannon Laughy. Additionally, the only time anyone even looked for neck injuries was in 1969. They did not like the results so no government agency ever looked again. The New York Department of Motor Vehicles did a study in 1969 comparing accident data from the years 1966 and 1967 in order to detect the effects of that state’s mandatory helmet law, which became effective Jan. 1, 1967. In 1966 - pre-helmet law - 5.8% of MC fatalities were from neck fractures. In 1967 - post helmet law - 37.8% of MC fatalities were from neck fractures. Helmets can snap necks and cause basal skull fractures. Period.   A large number of scientific studies confirm Mr. Thom’s observations. Then they are just as wrong as he is. Truth is not ruled by majority.  Similarly, helmets do not cause problems with vision or hearing. Then what I heard about some states not allowing car drivers to wear helmets because they impede vision and hearing is wrong?
 

A number of motorcycle-related groups, including the National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and the American Motorcyclist Association, encourage riders to wear motorcycle helmets, and most do not oppose laws mandating such use by minors. That is because, 1) they are ignorant and, 2) they are dominated by MC manufacturer money, manufacturers whose lawyers have told them to cover their product liability ass with a helmet. The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS) report, which was supported by NHTSA, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and motorcycle manufacturers such as BMW, Ducati, Harley-Davidson, American Honda Motor Company, Kawasaki , Suzuki, and Yamaha, included an urgent recommendation to increase the use of FMVSS 218-compliant helmets. Like I said, prodcut liabilty BS. A national survey performed in 2006 by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University noted that, even of those individuals who had previously ridden a motorcycle without a helmet, 61 percent favored state requirements for motorcycle helmet use.Even if this "national survey" was reliable, truth and rights should not depend on majority rule. Please contact me if you were ever polled. I wasn't. No one I know was. No one!
 

The Safety Board recognizes, however, that some motorcyclists and many motorcycling organizations oppose mandating the use of motorcycle helmets by all riders.In other words the people actually doing the riding do not want to be told what to do by people who do not ride.  Most do not argue against the safety benefits of such helmets; And how does he know that? Another survey? Just about everything this guy says is lie and spin. instead, they contend that the government has no role in protecting the individual from foreseeable adverse outcomes if the individual chooses not to be so protected. What used to be called the Constitution and Bill of Rights!
 

In the 1980s, opponents of seat belt use laws similarly asserted their personal freedom to drive without wearing seat belts.And we still do! Especially my friend who would have died if he'd been wearing one when T-boned. However, in 1985, the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association stated, “the evidence is clear and dramatic . . . safety belt users . . . experienced 80 percent fewer deaths from head injuries.” This was another prodcut liabilty sell-out. Car manufacturers were big lobbyists for seat belt laws. NHTSA estimates that from 1975 through 2005, seat belts saved more than 211,000 lives nationwide.More crystal ball crap. The key word is "estimates". NHTSA also claimed 6,400 more people would die yearly if the national speed limit was raised from 55 mph. They were completely wrong. Deaths went down.  During that same period, all states, except New Hampshire , By this line of reasoning NH should rank 50 in MV safety but it does not. enacted mandatory seat belt use laws; and usage rates have increased nationwide from about 12 percent in the early 1970s to 81 percent today. The Safety Board is confident that there is ample evidence that similar life saving results can be achieved through motorcycle helmet laws that apply to all riders and passengers.Seat belts and helmets are apples and oranges. And to repeat, there is no "ample evidence" because mandated helmet laws have not changed the death to accident ratio in any state. 
 

By 1976, following passage of the 1966 National Highway Safety Act, which withheld federal funding for states that had not enacted mandatory helmet laws, 47 states, including Missouri , the District of Columbia , and Puerto Rico had mandatory helmet laws that applied to all motorcycle riders.   Since that time, motorcycle groups have argued extensively against such laws, and restrictions on federal funding contingent on such laws were removed (in 1976), partially re-enacted (in 1991), and then removed again (in 1995).  Currently, only 20 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 territories have universal helmet laws (requiring all riders to wear a helmet), 27 states and 1 territory have partial laws (requiring minors and/or passengers to wear such helmets), and 3 states have no helmet laws.  Each removal of federal funding restrictions was followed by a wave of repeals of universal helmet laws. According to an independent nationwide survey, most blackmailers agree, blackmail works!
 

These repeals have amounted to a vast experiment affirming the effectiveness of helmet laws and regulations in reducing death and injury.  A 1991 review of studies of helmet use found that helmet use under universal laws ranges from 92 to 100 percent, while without a law or under a partial law (requiring only some riders, such as teens or novice riders, to wear helmets), helmet use generally ranges from 42 to 59 percent. Police states everywhere agree, force works! A 1986 study concluded that the repeal of helmet use laws was associated with a 10.4 to 33.3 percent increase in the fatality rate (when calculated per accident). Not my study. Read Helmet Law Facts here:  http://www.sbumaui.org/helmet_law_facts.pdf The study also found that between 158 and 420 fewer motorcycle rider fatalities would have occurred in 1984 had the laws not been repealed. More crystal ball crap. There is no way to know this except through clairvoyance. More recently, studies of states that have repealed their mandatory helmet laws within the last 10 years have shown similar patterns.Wrong again. See Helmet Law Facts.
 

For example, Arkansas repealed its universal helmet law in 1997, and, 18 months after repeal, saw helmet use drop by two-thirds (from 97 to 30 percent). How do they come up with these numbers? A couple of days some people got minimum wage to count heads at a few street corners and then the results were extrapolated for the entire state? These numbers are guesses.double the hospital admission rate for un-helmeted motorcycle crash survivors. Of course more people dying or going to hospital will not have helmets on. For example, I'll bet Arizona, where there is no helmet law, has more unhelmetted riders dying or going to hospital than California which does have a helmet law. This means nothing. And lets not forget, nationwide, according to NHTSA's own numbers, year after year 54% of the dead were wearing helmets. If not wearing a helmet was such a factor, shouldn't helmetless riders make up the majority of the dead?  Associated with this increase in death and injuries was a substantial increase in the amount of non-reimbursed charges for initial treatment.

After Texas repealed its universal helmet law in 1997, helmet use fell from 97 to 66 percent.  More than 80 additional motorcyclists died in the 2 years following the law’s repeal than in the 2 years preceding it.  The number of un-helmeted riders with traumatic brain injuries skyrocketed from 55 in 1997 to 511 in 2001, and the number of un-helmeted riders who were placed in rehabilitation facilities saw similar increases, from 9 in 1997 to 90 in 2001. After the repeal, Arkansas experienced more than double the number and rate of un-helmeted crash scene fatalities, and more than

The results of this experiment on motorcycle riders are the same in every state where it has been performed.  When universal helmet laws are repealed, helmet usage rates decrease dramatically, while motorcycle deaths and injuries increase markedly, even when accounting for the changes in rider ship that may be associated with the repeal of the universal law.  It is likely that hundreds of deaths and thousands of serious injuries could have been avoided had the states that recently repealed their universal helmet laws not done so.All of the preceding is nonsense and can be explained by the simple fact that helmet laws decrease riding and repeal increases it. More riders = more deaths. Less riders = less deaths. For numbers and proof, read Helmet Law Facts.
 

Most states that have repealed universal helmet laws recognize that younger riders may be unable to make a fully informed decision regarding helmet use.  They have, therefore, required that riders under a certain age wear helmets.  Unfortunately, it is difficult to ascertain the age of a motorcycle rider for the purposes of enforcing such a requirement without verifying the rider’s age during a traffic stop.  As a result, the young motorcyclist helmet law becomes unenforceable and helmet usage rates for minors drop dramatically when universal helmet laws are repealed.  These younger riders are likely to be among the least experienced riders and are the most likely to engage in risky behaviors, often with an incomplete understanding of potential consequences.  Thus, the most vulnerable and least risk-averse segments of the motorcyclist population are more likely to be unprotected in the absence of universal laws. So, we have to do it "for the children". Earth to bureaucrat: this is what parents are for.
 

The argument regarding helmet laws is often framed in terms of personal choice (for example, “it’s my head”).  Such an argument typically invokes the idea that motorcyclists are only hurting themselves by deciding to ride unprotected.  For over 10 years, the Safety Board has been responsible for assisting families of those killed and injured in transportation accidents. Where is that written in the Constitution? NTSB - government grief counselors? Good grief! I am amazed at this information.  We do not accept the notion that surviving friends and family are not affected when riders decide not to wear a helmet and are killed or injured. What about when riders are killed or injured with a helmet?
 

The costs of motorcycle crashes and the effect of helmets on these costs were presented at the Safety Board’s 2006 Public Forum on Motorcycle Safety by Dr. Ted Miller, Director of the Public Services Research Institute at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation.  According to Dr. Miller, in 2005, 110,000 motorcyclists were involved in police reported motorcycle crashes, and the motorcycle crash injuries cost $17.5 billion, including the costs of medical treatment, lost work, and quality of life.  Although unhelmeted motorcyclists accounted for only 40,000 (or 36 percent) of the total motorcyclists involved in crashes, they accounted for $12.2 billion (70 percent) of the costs.  Dr. Miller also estimated the 2005 average cost per crash-involved motorcyclist as $71,000 for helmeted and $310,000 for unhelmeted motorcyclists. The social burden theory is bunk, a red herring. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, approximately 1.16% of total U.S. Health costs are attributable to motor vehicle accidents, and the costs associated with the treatment of motorcyclist injuries account for less than 0.001% of total U.S. health care costs. Only a portion of that less-than-0.001% cost is attributable to un-helmeted motorcyclists, and the majority of that cost is paid by privately purchased health insurance. What remains, spread across the taxpayer base (which includes millions of taxpaying motorcyclists), is insignificant. Additionally, if helmets will reduce health costs related to riders who comprise but 6% of all transportaion-related Traumatic Brain Injuries, think how much more money would be saved if everyone on the road - car & truck drivers, passengers, bicyclists, pedestrians - were required to wear helmets. What works for riders should work for everyone. I'd love to stop paying for the head injuries of these other road users.
 

It is because of the costs to society and survivors that personal freedoms must be balanced with the need to protect individuals from preventable illness, injuries, and fatalities.Right. Helmets for all then!  We are likely to hear passionate debate today about the personal freedom of motorcycle riders to not wear helmets,Let's see how passionate the other road users get when told they have to wear helmets. and perhaps the even more specious argument that tourism is a reason not to wear helmets,Ain't nothing specious about it. My wife and I avoid slave states as do many other riders. however, the remarkable effectiveness of universal helmet laws in the prevention of death and disability among motorcyclists operating on public roads, particularly in light of rising rates and total numbers of individuals killed and injured in motorcycle crashes in Nebraska and across our country, is a powerful argument for the adoption of such laws and to maintain the current sound legislative laws requiring the universal wear of motorcycle helmets.   

Moreover, the proposed legislation covers only motorcycle operators and passengers under age 21 (only 8 percent of motorcycle fatalities in the last 5 years from 2003 to 2006).  That leaves a significant portion of the motorcycle rider population unprotected. Not to mention the other road users. They are all engaging in unprotected travel.
 

Nebraska currently has a good law that requires use of helmets for riders and passengers that meet federal protective standards.  It is a sound public safety law.  It should not be weakened.  The Safety Board, therefore, urges this Committee and the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature to reject this bill, (LB 200). And that's what he's been paid to say since NHTSA is barred from lobbying anymore.
 

     3.  Crystal Ball