

Fewer Helmets, More Deaths - jere
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/03/31/science/motorcycle-helmet-laws.html

======
ZeroGravitas
Hmm, that's some pretty misleading presentation.

Basically all of the "rise" in deaths, which they are trying to pin on helmet
law changes, is due to a large drop in car deaths, not actually anything to do
with motorcycles or helmets (unless car drivers have suddenly started wearing
helmets and that's what caused the reduction in deaths?).

They don't even show a graph for any/all states that retain the helmet laws,
presumably because its mere presence would show up this piece as intentionally
misleading.

They do show actual deaths for Florida (which, even as a percentage seem very
high compared with other states) but since it jumps up and down by 100 deaths
per year both before and after the law change, I'm not sure it means anything,
particularly if the number of people on bikes rose and fell, or it was linked
to peak tourist activity.

I can't think of any reason why someone would scheme to mislead in this
matter, some shadowy cartel of helmet manufacturers maybe?, so I'm guessing
they think they're doing the right thing by blatantly misrepresenting the
stats.

~~~
moioci
"Basically all of the "rise" in deaths, which they are trying to pin on helmet
law changes, is due to a large drop in car deaths, not actually anything to do
with motorcycles or helmets..." This is simply not true. The last three graphs
all show a large rise in absolute numbers of motorcycle fatalities,
independent of any automobile numbers. I agree that the authors have a ways to
go before they've proved causation, especially given a significant bump in
helmeted motorcycle fatalities seen in the Florida data.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I admit I misread a couple of graphs. I was caught out by the fact that the
graphs were overall so similar to relative ones that came before them and that
they "melt" into each other as you scroll, even though they're showing
different things. But they do show that in at least two states, the death toll
rose notably in absolute terms, though in one in was rising steadily anyway
before the change and in the other it goes up and down dramatically after.

I also note that they're actually selling their own argument short, since
they've smoothed the points between years rather than showing them as a bar
chart, it looks like the death toll started rising before the law change, but
(I think) that's actually an artifact of the presentation, probably depends on
when in the year the law change took effect.

