Motorcycle Helmet Laws
	Date: Wed, 11 Jun 1997 12:44:19 -0400 From: Mike Buechler, MD [mikeb@net-link.net] To Anyone, The Michigan Legislature is considering repealing the manditory helmet law in this state for motorcyclists. I am going to offer testimony to the Transportation Committee next week (found this out today). I am interested in input from anyone who has argued the case for helmet laws in their state. In particular, I am interested in statements, journal reference which have been found to be influential with the politicians. Please site references if referring to journal articles. Areas I plan to address: 1. Helmets do not increase the incidence of spinal injury. 2. Those state which have repealled the helmet laws have noted increased morbidity and mortality. 3. Societal cost outweighs the individual's rights to choose not to wear a helmet. I will appreciate any assistance in this matter. Sincerely, C.M. Buechler, MD Director of Trauma Surgery Bronson Hospital
	Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 15:28:07 -0400 From: Dr. Mark Perni [drperni@citynet.net] Good luck Mike, We just went through this in West Virginia and the attempt at repeal of our current inclusive law failed thanks to the combined efforts of our state trauma centers, the insurance council and the state police as wall as many others. Mark Perni, D.O. Director, Trauma Services Columbia Raleigh General Hospital Beckley, WV 25801 drperni@citynet.net
	Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 20:34:05 -0400 (EDT) From: GBurnstein@aol.com Greetings, We have just endured a similar fight with a bill to repeal the motorcycle helmet law in Oregon. Despite our expert testimony on severity of head injury,deaths and financial implication to the State Health Plan backed by a promise by our governor( a former ED physician) to veto the bill... our House passed the bill and sent it to the Oregon Senate Transportation Committee. I'm proud to say that we have some of the finest politicians money can buy. We thought we had it killed ...but then votes suddenly changed and it looked like the repeal was going to pass (unbelievable!!)... We have regrouped and contemplated a new strategy. Currently in Oregon, all car and truck drivers must have mandatory Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance of $10000. This is a level of liability insurance for medical care/costs. Motorcyclists are excluded from this because the insurance companies fought to not insure them in this state. We stepped up and said " Since your statistics seem to show that riding a motorcycle is safer that walking down the sidewalk... we would like to add an amendment calling for mandatory Personal Injury Protection for motorcyclists seperate from the PIP carried by other licensed drivers." We insisted that they be evaluted on the basis of their own risk pool and actuarial statistics. After all, they should only have to pay for their level of risk as seen by the insurance industry. The ammendment was attached, the bill passed and now there is a panic to make sure that this dosen't pass in its ammended form as it is sent back to the Oregon House for a final vote. I think our strategy killed it, because if it passed, noone could afford to buy the insurance as we have written it. G. Burnstein Trauma coordinator Legacy Emanuel Hospital Portland, OR
	Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 08:13:51 MST From: Jimm Murray [jimmm@quest.state.wy.us] Motorcycle helmet repeal laws are fraught with problems. We have always said if they tried to repeal ours, we would have the organ donors associations lobby in favor of it, and maybe that will get a legislator or two to think about it.
	Date: Sat, 14 Jun 1997 07:27:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Krin [Krin135@aol.com] Wasn't there a study a couple of years ago, which showed organ donations went down by a third when motorcycle helmet laws were strickly enforced? Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP Member, PGBFH KC5EVN ckrin@Iamerica.net ps: are you going to have the organ donation groups lobby FOR or AGAINST repeal? would think if you could find the study above, lobbing for repeal would be more effective, both in terms of shock value and reverse (perverse?) psychology! We have the best legislators money can buy here in Louisiana-and sometimes they even stay bought! ck
	Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 10:43:59 +0300 (IDT) From: Avi Roy Shapira [avir@bgumail.bgu.ac.il] Why should we fight repealing motorcycle helmet laws? We are consistently short of organ donors, and repealing the law is a sure way to get more of those. Let us applaud the legistlators, not fight them. Young healthy adults with severe head injuries are excellent donors. All physicians, particularly transplant surgeons, should join the crusade to get rid of these abusive laws, in all states and countries. BTW, the same legislators that repeal helmet laws also enforce seat belt laws. Since both laws equally impinge on individual freedom, they must also have the donor issue in mind. Afterall, it could not possibly be pressure from the automotive industry so that they could delay putting airbags in all cars. I am sure the legistlators are beyond succumbing to such pressures. Are you all not? Let me make a modest proposal that will Swiftly improve the law, and make everyone happy: allow riding without a helmet only to those who sign a donor card. This way, people who refuse to donate will not be wasted, and remain protected, while those who agree can ride free as the wind, to the benefit of society at large. Their contribution will ofset the added cost for the care of those who will not become brain dead (cost savings will come from removing patients from chronic dialysis treatment, and from avoiding repeated hospitalization for CHF etc, and indirectly by allowing these patients to return to the work force) Avi
	Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 08:38:24 -0400 (EDT) From: Charles Krin [Krin135@aol.com] Let's add provisions that the families of said motorcycle riders can not sue for damages, as well! ck Charles S. Krin, DO FAAFP Member, PGBFH KC5EVN ckrin@Iamerica.net
	Date: Sun, 15 Jun 1997 11:45:43 -0500 (CDT) From: Robert F. Smith [rfsmith@interaccess.com] I like Avi's Modest Proposal. I recently attended the Injury Prevention Surveillance course offered at Johns Hopkins. Previously my view of helmet laws for motorcyclists was the standard party line for this group. Society shouldn't bear the cost for the cyclists' individual freedoms to feel the wind in their hair. In my mind it was sort of like handgun control. One of the presenters was Steve Teret who has done a lot of work with handgun control. Part of his session had to do with the ethics of injury control. In Maryland he had worked unsuccessfully with a coalition to get a helmet law passed. What he eventually got across was the point that a helmet law is not like handgun control. The risk from not wearing a helmet is almost universally born by the cyclist. The cost to society comes in the form of some increased cost of health care, not in excess morality among innocent victims as with drunk driving or handguns. As he said in his talk, there is no law to make him jog so he will avoid his impending MI, no laws to refuse care to smokers or heavy drinkers, and maybe everyone does not have the same value system re: the importance of feeling the wind in your hair. R. Smith, M.D. Cook County Trauma