Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!hsc
From: hsc@mtuxo.UUCP (h.cohen)
Newsgroups: net.cycle,net.politics,net.auto
Subject: Re: re Seat belts, Helmets and Freedom of Choice
Message-ID: <1829@mtuxo.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jul-86 20:37:18 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtuxo.1829
Posted: Mon Jul 28 20:37:18 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jul-86 05:25:04 EDT
References: <472@water.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 58
Xref: lsuc net.cycle:676 net.politics:7141 net.auto:4107

> Motor vehicle safety lies within the OPERATION of vehicle and
>not trying to lessen the effects of a collision, like medicine,
>avoidance is superior to treatment.
If avoidance could eliminate essentially all of the problem,
then there would be no need for treatment.  In the real world, clearly,
there is a need for both.
> To many people helmets "obviously" help in the treatment side of
>accidents, there are studies that show how helmets actually
>cause more complicated injuries.
This is quite simply not true.  Opponents of helmet laws do their
cause no good by making such false claims.
>Also, the worst part of head injuries
>is the SUDDEN DECELERATION of the brain against the skull,
>no helment can help that.
Helmets have three primary functions: protection from abrasion,
penetration, and decelleration.
The first two are provided by the shell, and the third is provided
by the crushable liner.  Decelleration of the brain against the skull
can be reduced by two orders of magnitude by a helmet.
Once again, opponents of helmet laws do their
cause no good by making such false claims.
> On the "prevention" side of things, helmets definitely cause more harm
>than good -- restricted hearing and field-of-vision,
There is no evidence that field of vision is restricted in any
meaningful way by a motorcycle helmet.  There *is* evidence
that hearing is better with helmet than bare-headed.
>heat build-up causing drowsiness,
Under some circumstances.  This is a complex issue, though.
Ever see a Beduoin or other desert-dweller going bare-headed?
I try to soak my helmet on hot days.
>and a sense of over-confidence.
Pure surmise.

I am posting because I personally feel that people should not attempt
to advance a cause by publishing blatent untruths
(even though history shows this to be very effective).
There is a purely pragmatic argument for opposing helmet laws:
It is very difficult to show that helmet ***legislation***
saves lives.  Some years ago I even published a critique of
an inept statistical analysis by the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety ("Fatal Errors with Fatalities Data,"
Law & Society Review, 11(3), Winter 1977, pp 589-595).

There is no question, though, that a helmet reduces the
likelihood and severity of injuries if fitted and worn with
only a normal and reasonable amount of care.  Nor is there
any question that the rider on an unfaired motorcycle 
can hear better and is safer from noise-induced temporary
or permanent hearing damage when wearing a helmet.
I do not know for sure why there is such a discrepancy between
the effects of helmet use and the effects of legislation.
My personal speculation is that relatively few people
who are "forced" to use helmets do so properly.  For example,
I note that very few moped riders here in NJ fasten the helmet at all.
These are almost all teen-agers, and it seems unlikely that
many would wear helmets voluntarily.

Harvey S. Cohen, AT&T-IS, Lincroft, NJ, mtuxo!hsc