not wearing a helmet increases chances of dying.

Logically, you’d assume this made sense to everyone. Apparently not in Michigan where a lot more bikers had to die to prove it. Credit to

The link between helmet laws and motorcyclists fatalities may seem intuitive and obvious, but now because of a study published in the American Journal of Surgery we have scientific proof that helmets save lives.
The study focuses around Michigan, which repealed its mandatory helmet law (thanks to help from the AMA) in April 2012, and has since had three riding seasons with a greatly reduce helmet-wearing requirement.
After the repeal, motorcyclists in Michigan can now ride without a helmet if they are over 21-years-old, have had their license for at least two years, and have at least $20,000 in additional medical insurance coverage.
Postulating that legislatures made a mistake in that repeal, the basic conclusions from the study are that the state has seen an increase in injury severity for motorcycles, a higher in-patient mortality for motorcyclists, and worse neurological damage for motorcyclists.
While those are all painful logical results, the numbers paint an even more grim picture.
The American Journal of Surgery notes an almost immediate rise in motorcyclist death and injury after the helmet law’s repeal, and focuses on the trauma center at the Spectrum Health Hospital in Grand Rapids for its result – where Dr. Carlos Rodriguez works, the study’s main author.
Within weeks of the helmet law’s repeal, the number of motorcyclists admitted to Spectrum Health Hospital increased noticeably. The study says that there was a four-fold increase in the number of motorcyclists who had not been wearing a helmet admitted to the hospital (7% before the law was repealed, 28% after).
The study also reports a three-fold increase in the number of helmetless riders who died at the hospital, verses before when helmets were mandatory (3% before the law was repealed, 10% after).
The most staggering statistic though involved riders who didn’t even make it to the hospital, with the non-helmeted rider fatality rate increasing from 14% before the law was repealed to 68% afterwards – almost a five-fold increase.
Interestingly enough, the repeal of the helmet law also had an affect on rider intoxication, as the study reports an increase in blood-alcohol levels for admitted motorcyclists. This makes for interesting conjecture regarding the link between impaired judgment, helmet use, and accident rates.
The study finishes its results saying that non-helmeted motorcyclists admitted to the hospital stay in the ICU longer, and require more assistance in breathing.
It also says that the average cost of the hospital visit for a helmetless rider is 32% more than for a helmeted rider ($27,760 vs. $20,970) – a cost according to Dr. Rodriguez that the hospital and taxpayers often have to pay, despite Michigan’s insurance requirement.
No matter which side of the helmet debate you fall under, there is much to be said about this study in the American Journal of Surgery, as it is not a perfect assessment, and focuses on the data of only one hospital in Michigan.
However, the study captures on one of the best “before and after” moments in the helmet law debate. However as we stated at the start of the article, the benefits of riding with a helmet are intuitive and obvious, as are the detriments of riding without one – a point this study easily illustrates.
What isn’t obvious is the steep and immediate increase that repealing helmet laws has on society, not to mention the cost and burden that is placed on everyone, by the actions of a few motorcyclists looking to express their “freedom” on two wheels.

You could decrease the chances even more by banning motorbikes.

Freedom to fuck up your own and other people’s lives

motorcyclists in Michigan can now ride without a helmet if they are over 21-years-old, have had their license for at least two years, and have at least $20,000 in additional medical insurance coverage.
Only in America, land of the free and home of the brave, providing you have medical sufficient medical cover (and can afford a good Lawyer).

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

I remember when…

…I acquired my first crash helmet in 1973 not because I wanted one but because the Law required I wear one. I didn’t always wear it but appreciated the benefits around the ears in the winter months and survived to tell the tales. At that time the anti helmet crusaders produced statistics that appeared to suggest you were twice as likely to suffer a head injury while driving a car, although it was another 10 years before the wearing of seat belts became legislation for drivers and front seat passengers and another 10 years before this was applied to rear seat passengers.

If I were a gambling man I’d wager more MP’s drive cars than ride motorcycles.

If I were a gambling man I'd wager more MP's drive cars than ride motorcycles. National Treasure
thay can claim back 45p per mile for cars

25p per mile for bikes

what looks better on there expenses forms

45p is the standard mileage claim for self employed people.  There may be a limit on the size engine of the cars though, but 45p is what I claim in my 1.8l Civic.  

I claim. That back on my car and it’s over double your cars cc

You could decrease the chances even more by banning motorbikes.
Sssh, don't give them ideas.

Science Based Medicine covered it too:

Yeah, but this:is:the nation that thinks allowing everyone guns helps keep them safe.