WSP:
1.
“Fatalities are not age discriminate.” According to the Washington St. Dept. of
Licensing, approximately 40% of motorcycle fatalities are under 24 years
old. The other 60% of fatalities are
spread between riders 25-70+ years of age.
So while not completely “age discriminate”, there is a preponderance of
death among the young.
2.
“Inexperienced riders, coupled with the ever
increasing population of this state, thus increasing the population of motor
vehicle operators and millions of miles traveled.” Of course, when the demographic group size
increases, there will be a rise in fatalities.
It is only common sense that if a significantly large enough number of
people are riding to warrant the WSP witness to comment on that fact, then it
would follow that there would be an increase in fatalities. However, the statement does not concur with
the Dept. of Licensing’s own data that shows a relatively flat rate of
motorcycle registrations in Washington State over the past several years.
3.
“A 9% increase in accidents investigated by
WSP.” Simply means there was an increase
of fatal accidents on state highways versus county or municipal roadways.
4.
“I can’t imagine what the number of fatalities
would be if we were to repeal this law.”
It would appear that Capt. Rob Huss hasn’t looked at the statistics from
states such as Florida, Texas, and the latest from Michigan that shows; a
nearly 30% drop in accidents, over
25% drop in fatalities, and an over
25% drop in the number of
incapacitating injuries. Those are
facts, not imaginings.
American Automobile Association (AAA):
1.
“Helmets decrease the severity of head injuries,
the likelihood of death, and the overall cost of medical care.” If this were the case, shouldn’t the ‘Triple
A’ be pushing for helmet use among automobile passengers? After all, according to studies of head
injury causes, some 53% of head injuries are automobile related, compared to
only 10% on motorcycles.
2.
“Are helmet use laws that apply only to young
motorcyclists effective?” Judging from
Washington States own Traffic Safety Board, it is the young motorcyclists that
are, by far the highest percentage of fatal motorcycle accidents under the
current law. So perhaps the question
should be is any universal helmet law effective?
Washington Traffic Safety Board:
1.
“1988 study by the Harborview Injury &
Research Center found that public funding paid for 63% of motorcycle injury
medical costs.” There are numerous
problems with the Harborview study. The
first of which is that it was conducted solely at Harboview; a Level One Trauma
hospital, where medical costs were already significantly higher than at other hospitals
in the region. It also does not show how
much of a patient’s bill were covered by private Insurance, only the total amount
of the medical bill for patients that required public funding, whether it was
$100 or $100,000. Even a person with
paid insurance, can reasonably expect their amount of coverage to not fully
cover the enormous costs of a Level One Trauma hospital. Therefore
its data is skewed, making it appear that the much higher costs of trauma care
at this facility is representative of the other hospitals even within the city
limits of Seattle. Since they do not
handle the most severe injuries as Harborview does, their costs of care are
much lower. This study not only does not
even attempt to compare the percentage of other highway trauma victims injury
costs were paid for by public funding, it completely ignores those costs
completely. Even though they would show,
at the least, whether or not traumatic automobile injuries were more, or less
likely to be paid for by public funding.
Which being within the same facility, and therefore the same billing
agency would not have been difficult to ascertain.
Washington State Dept. of Health, Health Systems Quality
Assurance:
1.
“Prevention of injury is a core public health
activity, and a priority for the Dept. of Health. To that end, prevention of traumatic brain
injuries aligns with the Department and public health priorities.” It appears that the Dept. of Health is
unaware of studies such as the “Motorcyclist Craniofacial injury Patterns” by
Drs. Cooter & David of the the Australian Craniofacial Unit at The Royal
Adelaide Hospital. Which shows a very
direct link between certain types of commonly used full face helmets and not
only fatal but “traumatic” skull fractures and brain injuries.
2.
“According to the CDC, wearing helmets that meet
the Dept. of Transportation standard is the single most effective means of
reducing the number of people who get injured or die in motorcycle crashes
.” This brings several questions to
mind. Foremost of which is what the Centers
for Disease Control doing involving itself in the motorcycle helmet issue. However, it also allows me to bring up the
fact that in a letter from the CDC to US Representative Thomas Petri in 2014
that only 41% of motorcycle operators who died in 2010 were not wearing
helmets. That means that 59% of them were wearing helmets. Also, NHTSA (the government agency that
created the Federal helmet standard everyone keeps referring to) has stated
several times over the years that motorcycle helmets are only “estimated to be
37% effective” in preventing injuries and saving lives of motorcyclists
involved in crashes.
Washington State Medical Association:
1.
Testified on the tragic consequences of a
motorcycle injury or death on the surviving family. This is understandable. But
excluded the tragedy and trauma of other highway users. Motorcycle
riders are not the only victims of highway trauma. Pedestrians involved in traffic accidents,
bicyclists, and all other traumatic accident victims would have the same effect
due to traumatic injury or death.
2.
Testified about the tragic effect on first
responders, emergency room staff, and even rehabilitation staff. This brings up three statements that would
tend to negate the importance of this statement. A.) It was the choice of those individuals to
pursue a career in that field. Which by
the very nature of that decision, would entail dealing with traumatic and
devastating injuries and death. B.) Do
these same individuals not also experience these same things dealing with
traumatic automobile accident injuries and death? C.) Did these individuals not experience
these same feelings and emotions while
dealing with traumatic motorcycle accident victims who were wearing helmets?
If we were to accept the testimony of the
witness from the Washington State Medical Association, we would also have to
realize that the previous points make her testimony moot. The thought that a universal helmet law
should be maintained out of compassion for the medical and other emergency
personnel having to respond to the scene is ridiculous. The Right
of the individual to decide the level of protection they feel is suitable for
themselves should be restricted because that choice might adversely
emotionally effect other individuals who have chosen a profession that have
chosen to participate in a field that involves dealing with that sort of
trauma? It is as ridiculous a statement
as saying we should close the hospitals so that the medical staff doesn’t have
to be affected by their own compassion for the sick, injured, and dying.
During her testimony, this witness cited a
NHTSA study to reinforce her position of being opposed to amending the helmet
law mandate to those below 18 years of age.
In response to her use of a NHTSA report stating that helmet use “saved”
three billion dollars in medical cost (which since no one can know facts of
costs that didn’t actually occur, is only an estimate at best), here is a
statistic (of fact, not an estimate) also from NHTSA, 81% of motorcycle fatal
motorcycle injuries during the time studied (2000-2002) did not involve the
head.
In
conclusion, it seems the “safety-crats” are trying to retain control over
the Rights of individuals by any means they can. The WSP briefly mentioned the true crux of
their opposition to this bill in Capt. Rob Huss’ testimony. It would be “un-enforceable” do to the
inability to tell whether a motorcyclist was under the age of 18 or not in
traffic. But then, they have an easy
enough time seeing whether or not there is a one inch by three DOT emblem on
the back of your helmet or not.
Why the AAA is even concerned with a bill
about motorcycles is puzzling. Unless
they feel it would somehow be perceived as an unequal privilege for
motorcyclists to not have to wear a mandated helmet, when automobile occupants
must wear seatbelts, which may be a possibility. But then again, roughly five times the number
of head injuries are related to automobiles than to motorcycles.
The Washington Traffic Safety Boards use of
the infamous Harborview Report shows that their opposition is a long one. That study was biased against motorcyclists
from the beginning by the omission of key data points, and it’s use as a
reference 25 years after the fact would appear to show a continued bias as
well.
Washington State Dept. of Health, Health
Systems Quality Assurance was a scripted testimony of facts citing that
obviously did not look beneath the surface.
Using the quote from the CDC shows a typical bureaucratic mentality that
when a regulation or standard is made, that it will be followed without
questioning whether that is the case or not.
The key point of the quote “wearing helmets that meet the Dept. of
Transportation standard is the single most effective means of reducing the
number of people who get injured or die in motorcycle crashes ” is the part
where helmets meet the Dept. of Transportation standard. While in a legal sense, until proven
otherwise by testing, purchasing a helmet that has a DOT emblem on it means it
meets that standard, in reality, you have nearly a two out of three chance of
purchasing a helmet that in actuality does not meet the standards of FMVSS-218. That is according to nearly thirty years of
independent testing of certified DOT compliant helmets
While it may seem heartless for me to say
this, the testimony of the Washington State Medical Association would appear to show motorcyclists as a class
of exceptionally horrific and gruesome traumatic injuries incomparable with
other highway users. So tragically
injured it causes serious distress to the emergency medical workers who
knowingly chose that field as a profession.
As if only motorcyclists were somehow to blame for being killed and
traumatically injured in a highway crash by choosing to ride a motorcycle in
the first place. While automobile
occupants apparently, from their total lack of mention in regards to the
effects on medical staff and first responders, are either are not nearly as tragically
injured when their faces strike the steering wheel or other possibly some loose
object within the car, so as to affect those trying to save them, or not as
tragically killed. Again, it shows a
condescending bias towards motorcyclists, and clearly only meant to be used as
an emotional blow on the head of the committee.
What really shouldn’t amaze me as much as
it does, is the fact that the witness from the insurance industry was in favor
of the helmet bill. He also stated that
if helmets were truly a significant “safety” device, the insurance companies wouldn’t
insure motorcyclists in voluntary helmet states. With all the statistics on ways we injure and
kill ourselves, as much as we may not like them, the insurance companies do
know the odds when it comes to death and injury. They couldn’t make as much money as they do if
they didn’t.
Think about it. The WSP doesn’t like it because they would
lose a tool that allows them to get around the anti-profiling law in
Washington, and also brings in some funding to the government coffers. But mainly it is a control and power item for
them. For the others, they’re various
forms of the same paternalistic “safety-crat” that has been around forever. They see the helmet as having some
intrinsically protective power. The fact
that, as was stated by the witness from the AAA, that NHTSA states that helmets
are 37% effective is glorious news to them.
Their minds just don’t comprehend
that fact also shows a 63% in-effective rate.
Just a little something to chew on while you think about fighting for
the helmet bill coming up in this legislative session in January.
Catch you on the road sometime…
No comments:
Post a Comment