Donorcycles

Donorcycles: Motorcycle Helmet Laws and the Supply of Organ Donors

Stacy Dickert-Conlin, Todd Elder & Brian Moore
Journal of Law and Economics, November 2011, Pages 907-935

Abstract:  Traffic safety mandates are typically designed to reduce the harmful externalities of risky behaviors. We consider whether motorcycle helmet laws also reduce a beneficial externality by decreasing the supply of viable organ donors. Our central estimates show that organ donations resulting from fatal motor vehicle accidents increase by 10 percent when states repeal helmet laws. Two features of this association suggest that it is causal: first, nearly all of it is concentrated among men, who account for over 90 percent of all motorcyclist deaths, and second, helmet laws are unrelated to the supply of donors who die in circumstances other than motor vehicle accidents. The estimates imply that every death of a helmetless motorcyclist prevents or delays as many as .33 death among individuals on organ transplant waiting lists.

I would expect deaths to go up, and total accidents to go down slightly, after a helmet law is repealed.  People would be slightly less willing to take risks, but if there is an accident it is more likely to result in death.


Here's my question:  Wearing a helmet does not protect your neck.  So motorcycle helmet laws seem likely to save lives by allowing accident victims to survive as paraplegics.  Consequently, the big effects of motorcycle helmet laws are three:

1.  Reduced deaths from motorcycle accidents, but increased total accidents
2.  Sharply increased negative externality, as increased number of paraplegics are paid for by public expense through taxes and increased insurance
3.  Reduced organ donation.

Not clear we want motorcycle helmet laws, then.