No surprises

Dear Editor,

The only valid worth of a motorcycle helmet is when the rider is actually in an accident ["Baker's info 'flawed'" (http://www.mc cookgazette.com/story/1095037.html)]. Therefore, the only valid measure of its worth is in the ratio of fatalities to accidents. More helmets used, more lives saved, right?

It's a simple and direct measurement. If helmets are worthwhile, then states with mandatory helmet laws will have significantly lower fatality percentages.

This number can't be skewed by changes in the number of riders or the miles they drive. It's also sound when it comes to comparing states where the length of the riding season differ.

Ready for the surprise? It's about 3 percent, regardless of whether helmets are mandatory.

For obvious reasons, helmet law advocates avoid this number. They instead cloud the issue with complex arguments that can't be proven. They tell us total fatalities increase or decrease based on helmet laws. They flood us with anecdotes that spout, "a helmet saved my life!"

Anecdotes may be interesting and self-affirming, but as hard scientific data they are useless.

It is true that helmet laws save lives, but in a different way than most would expect. By making motorcycling an unpleasant or onerous experience through liberal doses of red tape, fewer people ride. Ergo, fewer people die.

This isn't rocket science, folks.

Insurance companies know this. Safety bureaucrats do as well, and they know they can't outlaw motorcycles outright. Instead, they craftily use improvable data and heart-rending anecdotes to sway the uninformed. They scare voters with the threat of higher taxes and insurance rates. Since most non-riders know little about motorcycle safety, it's an easy sell.

Let's settle the issue once and for all. Stick to the only real measure of what a helmet is worth -- the percentage of fatalities in all motorcycle accidents. Anything else is a waste of everyone's time.

Douglas Findlay,

via e-mail