From: rfs@se28.wg2.waii.com (Robert Starr)
Newsgroups: tx.motorcycles
Subject: Re: 1991 Texas Motorcycle "Facts"
Keywords: fobs
Date: 6 Nov 92 14:41:38 GMT
Reply-To: starr@wg2.waii.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geophysical

In article <1992Nov5.190424.11242@balrog.dseg.ti.com>, keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov4.101637@se28.wg2.waii.com> starr@wg2.waii.com writes:
|> >
|> >Another bunch of manipulated statistics to show what a good thing the
|> >helmet law is.  If you have the raw data, other than this culled down
|> >"report", how about posting it?  Raw data usually tells a lot more
|> >that what you posted.
|> 
|> You got what I got.
|> 
|> >
|> >In article <1992Nov3.234904.16635@balrog.dseg.ti.com>, keith@balrog.dseg.ti.com (Keith A. Schauer) writes:
|> >|>  o Across the state, 136 motorcyclists were killed and 4,875 were injured
|> >|>    in 4,829 motorcycle crashes in 1991.  This is a 31 percent decline in
|> >|>    fatalities from 1990, and is the lowest since 1976.
|> >
|> >- Since helmet law was passed in 1989, it obviously had no impact on a
|> >  decrease in deaths from 1990 to 1991.  Something else happened.  Was it
|> >  less m/c on the road?  More rider education?  More vehicular awareness?
|> 
|> The title is 1991 statistics.  They are not 1990 statistics.  I have no idea
|> what went on in 1990.  How do you get 'obviously had no impact' when there are
|> absolutely no stats posted about 1990?

Read what was posted.  It says a 31 % decline from 1990.  This is a reference
(indirect as it may be) to a 1990 statistic.

|> >
|> >|> 
|> >|>  o More than three-fourths of all fatalities (79 percent) and injuries
|> >|>    (76 percent) involved persons under the age of 34.
|> >
|> >Who was at fault?  The rider, m/c, weather, cages?  How many involved DUI?
|> >
|> What does it matter?  They're dead aren't they? 

Because "statistics" like this are meaningless unless taken in a broader
perspective.

|> >|> 
|> >|> 
|> >|> Helmets
|> >|> 
|> >|>  o Even though the helmet law has been in effect for more than two years,
|> >|>    21 percent of the motorcyclists killed were not wearing a helmet at the
|> >|>    time of the crash.  Of the 29 unhelmeted motorcyclists killed, 26
|> >|>    (90 percent) did not have a motorcycle license.
|> >
|> >Which means that the number of significant deaths in Tx in 1991 was only
|> >110.  Missing statistic: how many *helmeted* riders died who didn't have
|> >m/c license?
|> Don't understand what is meant by 'significant deaths'.  I agree a missing
|> statistic is total # of unlicensed riders killed vs total # of unhelmeted
|> riders killed.  This may shed some light on untrained vs unhelmeted deaths.

The point is that the legal m/c population shouldn't have to pay the
price for people who had no business being on a m/c to begin with.  You
don't think these #'s affect our insurance policies?

|> >
|> >|> 
|> >|>  o The proportion of riders who suffered a head injury was more than three
|> >|>    times higher in the pre-law period (29 percent) than in the post-law
|> >|>    period (9 percent).
|> >
|> >This means nothing.  Even during the no helmet law, many people wore
|> >helmets anyway.
|> >
|> Don't understand.  I of course am assuming that 98% of people in the pre-law
|> days did not wear helmets.  So we then determine that there was a increase of
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong.  Very wrong.  I'll bet that even before the helmet law, >70% did
wear helmets.  Because they "feel" safer, as you allude to later.

|> riders now wearing helmets vs the pre-law days.  We see that # of head
|> injuries has fallen while # of helmeted riders has increased.  Maybe I'm a
|> fool here, but I believe that a helmeted head is safer than a unhelmeted head.
|> Unless you have a conflicting theory, why does 'This mean nothing?'

The point is that with all the raw statistics in hand, one could probably draw
an entirely different conclusion.  Helmet and seat belt statistics are
generally convoluted to serve the purposes of the DPS and insurance lobby.
I have seen this time and time again when presented with a DPS report, and
the raw, uninterpreted statistics.

|> 
|> >|> 
|> >|>  o A secondary benefit from the helmet law has been a 44 percent reduction
|> >|>    in motorcycle thefts (in an informal survey of selected Texas cities),
|> >|>    while total motor vehicle thefts continue to increase state wide.
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >What in the world does a helmet law have to do with theft?  Perhaps I'm
|> >missing something, but this kind of a "statistic" makes your whole blurb
|> >suspect.
|> >
|> My theory is that many thefts are spur-of-the-moment ride-off thefts.  At least
|> that's what happened the time one of my bikes was stolen.  A ride-off thief
|> would stick out like a sore thumb without a helmet in a helmet law state.  
|> Someone walking around with a helmet all the time might look a bit strange.

What is strange about somebody walking up to a m/c with a helmet?  I know
lots of people who walk into work (or home) with helmets in hand, so that
the helmet doesn't get ripped off.

But since the whole state has a helmet law, doesn't this conclusion appear
suspect (thefts going down someplaces, and up others)?

|> 
|> BTW, this is not 'my' blurb.  I'm just the typist. 
|> 
|> >Besides, there is a statewide helmet law.  So why should thefts decrease
|> >in some areas but not in others?  What a strange statistic.
|> >
|> The suspect item that should be of interest is the 'informal survey of
|> selected Texas cities'.  Is it possible that motorcycle theft statistics are
|> not collected at the state level? only motor vehicle stats?

I doubt it.  This report appears to be the ramblings of an underpaid state
employee, who probably has no background in statistics.  As someone
else here said,
	"lies, damn lies and ...."

|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> Keith Schauer		Texas Instruments	Plain O, Texas
|> 80 CB900 Custom		
|> DoD #0901		In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane.
|> 			My company disavows any knowledge of my actions.

-- 
| Bob Starr (starr@wg2.waii.com) | Western Geophysical | Opinions R mine! |
| ===> Perling down the interstate on my Harley.......................... |