Motorcycle Helmet Scofflaws – A Burden on Society?

Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws remain a controversial issue in some places. Some opponents say studies used to support those helmet laws are flawed – and that the regulations violate their personal freedoms.

But a study, based on data from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) of USA, suggests that those who flaunt helmet laws not only stand a greater chance of death or serious injury, but also end up burdening their communities more in medical and rehabilitation costs.

One hundred and thirty hospitals from 25 US states contributed information to the NTDB during an eight-year period – May 1994 to April 2002. Twelve states had full helmet laws, 12 had partial helmet laws (that applied only to underage riders) and one had no helmet laws.

According to the study, non-helmeted motorcycle riders were more likely to have either no health insurance or government-funded insurance when compared to helmeted riders.

Alcohol and drug use were also higher in non-helmeted motorcycle riders (46.7%) compared to helmeted riders (31.5%).

And mortality rates for those who didn’t wear helmets were significantly higher than those who chose to wear helmets.

The study indicates that non-helmeted motorcycle riders were also more likely to require rehabilitation facilities or nursing homes after their initial hospitalization – direct and indirect costs passed on to society. Those costs, the study continues, do not include some other indirect losses – such as decreased wages or productivity.

The study also quotes a USA federal court ruling, addressed to a motorcyclist who objected to helmet laws: “From the moment of injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job, and if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume the responsibility for his and his family’s subsistence. We do not understand a state of mind that permits the plaintiff to think only he himself is concerned.”

Reference: Hundley JC, Kilgo PD, Miller PR, et al. J Trauma 2004;57:944-949

back to Headlines