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I would expect deaths to go up, and total accidents to go down slightly, after a helmet law is repealed.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.
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.
5 comments:
At first glance, study looks flawed. They did not stick to organ donors who died while riding motorcycles, but mixed in all motor vehicle fatalities. Also, the only graph (FIG. 2) that shows death rates before/after law change is not very convincing.
I don't wear a helmet while riding my motorcycle because I have the exact same reasoning as you.
1) "Reduced deaths from motorcycle accidents, but increased total accidents"
Do you have any evidence for this? Or are you just extrapolating from bicycle data?
2) "So motorcycle helmet laws seem likely to save lives by allowing accident victims to survive as paraplegics."
That's a ridiculous and baseless assertion. From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1003016/:
"Those who were wearing a helmet had fewer and less severe head and facial injuries, required fewer days on a ventilator, and sustained no serious neck injuries; fewer patients who wore helmets were discharged with disability, and hospital charges were lower. These data support the need for both increased public education regarding helmet use and mandatory helmet use legislation."
--
You seem to have this idea that helmeted survivals from motorcycle accidents are messy, expensive and rarely result in full recovery, whereas unhelmeted deaths are quick, uncomplicated and cheap. Traumatic brain injuries are not always immediately lethal; treatment can be extremely expensive - not to mention the long-term cost for rehabilitation and care for serious brain injury.
If you want to be against motorcycle laws because you're ideologically committed to your right to risk your own neck, sure, go nuts, but your "public good" argument is baseless and ignorant.
Actress Yoon Eun Hye recently updates her fans with a set of beautiful photos.
On August 16th, the actress uploaded the above photos on her Twitter with the short caption, “After the meeting.”
In the photos, Yoon Eun Hye is wearing black T-shirt while cutely leaning on a wooden bar. Calmly staring at the camera, she displays her well-defined features and feminine charms, which captivated the public.hotels in Ooty
how to last longer in bed for men
riverside reverse mortgage
Promotional Rubik cubes
Become a Dog Trainer
click here
payday advance loans
Plankton
reverse mortgage los angeles
mobile da bagno
football free bets
Best Home Business
free text
Boca Raton Homes for Sale
Hotels in Cochin
swingerlife
ladies sunglasses
copy breitling
how to last longer in bed for men
Arizona Mortgage
Netizens commented, “Yoon Eun Hye has become prettier,” “She looks lovely,” “Show us some of your good work” and “She looks innocent yet sexy.”
Dear Webmaster,
We received a notice from Google stating that they have levied a penalty on our website as they "detected unnatural links" redirecting to our website holidayiq.com.
The only way we can remove this penalty and help Google reconsider putting our website back in their index is by removing these links and we need your help for the same. We request you to consider this request on high priority.
#URL list
We would again like to bring your notice that failure to remove these links would require us to file a "Disavow Links" report with Google. Once we submit this report to Google, they may "flag" your site as "spammy" or otherwise if anything is not in compliance with their guidelines. The last thing we want is to have another webmaster go through this grief!
Your cooperation in this process would be deeply appreciated. We kindly request you to send us an acknowledgement of this mail along with a confirmation that these links have been removed.
Thanks a lot for your help.
If you want to reach out to us mail us on pradeep@holidayiq.com
Regards,
Webmaster
holidayiq.com
Regards
Pradeep Ayyagari
Ph: +91-8197849852
Post a Comment