Well, the local newspaper is at it again, wielding statistics like a blunt instrument trying to support one of their pet theories.

To quote:

Five years ago, the Florida Legislature repealed a state law that required motorcyclists to wear helmets.

Three years later, according the the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, motorcycle-related highway fatalities had increased by more than 81 percent in Florida.

Gainesville Sun, Jan 19, 2006

They go on to blame lawmakers, the insurance industry, and the guy behind the tree for not fixing this tragic situation, wringing their collective hands about the undetailed and undocumented surge of vegetative motorcyclists kept alive by machines at hideous public expense.

Talk about leaving some facts untold.

Here’s a brief list of the questions that must be answered before anyone can begin to understand, or address, the issue.

  • Most obviously, what percentage of those killed were wearing helmets?
  • What is meant by a “motorcycle-related highway fatality”? Does it include non-motorcyclists?
  • Why was that one year chosen as a statistical source? Was it extraordinary? Do other years reflect another trend?
  • What was the rate of all highway fatalities for that time period?
  • What was the per-capita rate of motorcycle accidents? Given Florida’s population boom, it may have gone down.
  • How many cases are we actually talking about? What are the actual costs to society? Would we be better off if we spent our effort addressing other, more prevalent issues?
  • How many accidents were so severe that a helmet would have been irrelevant?
  • How many of the riders were experienced? How many were brand new?
  • Did the bikes tend to be high-powered sport models, or more sedate touring bikes?
  • What were the age statistics for the fatalities?
  • How many of the victims had taken a motorcycle safety course?

And most importantly, and always overlooked,

How many accidents were avoided , because a motorcyclist’s view and hearing weren’t impaired by wearing a helmet?

The last one can’t be answered, of course– you can’t measure something that didn’t happen. But the point is, one should always consider carefully any such slam-dunk arguments before accepting them.

And the bigger point is this. I’ve read pros and cons on the issue, and with very rare exceptions, I choose to wear a helmet, because I believe I’m marginally safer by doing so.

I am proud and honored to live in a state where that choice is mine to make, where that responsibility is mine to bear.