From: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle)
Subject: Re: Please wear a helmet
Reply-To: slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com
In-reply-to: lotto@laura.harvard.edu's message of 30 Jul 92 13:38:42 GMT
Organization: You wouldn't ask this if you'd seen my desk.
	<1992Jul26.012957.17632@cbnewsj.cb.att.com>
	<LOTTO.92Jul27123257@laura.harvard.edu>
	<SLAGLE.92Jul27120816@sgi417.msd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
	<LOTTO.92Jul30093842@laura.harvard.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 18:36:46 GMT

In article <LOTTO.92Jul30093842@laura.harvard.edu>, lotto@laura.harvard.edu (Jerry Lotto) writes:

>>>>>> On 27 Jul 92 19:08:20 GMT, slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com (Mark Slagle) said:
>Mark> It's still not clear that the helmets reduce accidents or fatalities
>Mark> overall.  It's not clear that there is no substitution factor.  But

> It may not be clear whether helmet (use) reduces accident involvement,
> but fatalities?!?  Studies have clearly and effectively shown that
> helmet use decreases the risk of injury or death in accidents.  No
> studies have shown that using a helmet increases same (although many
> have tried).  Except for the most pathological cases, injury CAUSED by
> helmet use was associated with unfastened, non-standard, or
> pre-damaged helmets, or the associated injury was incidental (ie: nose
> bridge abrasion from glasses under helmet when it attentuated an
> otherwise fatal impact!).

All that shows is that it's a good idea to be wearing a helmet if
you get into an accident.  That is not in dispute.  You have yet
to demonstrate that wearing a helmet is more or less likely to
get you into an accident.  You haven't shown whether or not
forcing bikers to wear helmets causes them to preferentially
engage in other more or less dangerous activities.  In short, you
haven't shown conclusively that the mandated wearing helmet is
necessarily a good idea.  I believe that it is, so I do wear one
when I ride, but that is not a proof or an "economic argument" in
favor of helmets, much less in favor of helmet laws.

> Not using a helmet == increased risk.

Non sequitur.  This has not been demonstrated.  What has been
shown is only that
 
 (not using a helmet when having an accident = increased risk).

Note also that this is a statistical risk, and wearing a helmet
may in some cases still be detrimental.  It's a matter of odds,
not cause and effect.  It also depends on what kind of accident
you're likely to get in, which in turn depends on what kind of
riding you do and in what style and how well you do it, none of
which variables have ever been investigated in controlled studies.

> So is operating a motorcycle.
> It is our perogative to determine our individual risk acceptance, I
> believe that it is also our right.  But don't fool yourself by denying
> those risks!

I am denying nothing substantive.

> The only effect of being unaware of the risks you face
> is to impair your ability to manage them.

Try not to condescend.  I am well aware of the risks.

>Mark> most important, there is no consideration of the direct economic costs
>Mark> of the helmets themselves.  There is a substantial cost to "society" 
>Mark> of outfitting all those people with helmets.

> What is the point?  "Society" includes both the bikers that spend and
> the dealers who profit.

The arguments for helmet laws involve "costs to society".
If that is a valid consideration, which I would argue
against however, then you must also consider the cost of
implementation of the proposed remedy.  Diverting resources
to helmets is a cost, the fact that somebody "benefits" by
deriving a profit from your purchase is not relevant, it only
shows that there are possible alternatives that are worse still.
That is not interesting, since you could always just burn your
money to show that some particular use is "better".

>Mark> It's a familiar pattern.  Most any sort of foolish proposition
>Mark> can be defended on the grounds that it does some sort of good.

> Agreed, that was also the premise of my article.  I was not defending
> helmet laws, just asking if there was any evidence that they were
> INEFFECTIVE (as opposed to EFFECTIVE and OPPRESSIVE).

Calm down please.  I haven't accused you of being a closet helmet
law freak.  I was just pointing out that even if helmet laws are
"effective", that does not constitute a valid "economic argument"
in favor of them, the rantings of Ass. Floyd notwithstanding.
You need more than that.  You need to include the costs as well
as the benefits, that's all.
--
----
Mark E. Slagle                                 PO Box 61059
slagle@lmsc.lockheed.com                       Sunnyvale, CA   94088
408-756-0895                                   USA
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles