From today's Statesman, on a study planned by Brackenridge Hospital and St. David's HealthCare:
At no cost to the city, the study will track whether bike-related injury patients 18 years and older who show up at seven Austin hospitals affiliated with St. David's and the Seton Healthcare Network were wearing a helmet or not. It will also track the rehabilitation time and cost of care for those patients. Patients can refuse to be part of the study.
Thoughts:
- I don't see how studying just the costs of head injuries can settle the debate over a mandatory helmet law. What's the cost threshold that justifies such an ordinance? $100,000? $1,000,000? Is even one dollar enough?
- They shouldn't count costs covered by private insurance. That's not an externality. In fact, I imagine bicyclists are more likely to have health insurance, and therefore be able to pay for emergency treatment. Since the insured subsidize emergency care for the uninsured, . . . well, you can complete the thought.
- Helmeted riders probably have a higher accident rate, either because they feel safer, or drivers drive less carefully around them. Any study needs to figure out if that's true, and, if it is, account for the costs of the injuries from the extra accidents.
- A point frequently made by others: Helmet laws discourage bike use. How much? And what's that cost?
This is an academic question for me. I don't ride a bike. (I'm afraid of getting run over.)
P.S. Even if it turns out there's a "public cost" to riding without a helmet, it would be better to let bicyclists buy the right to ride without a helmet rather than mandating helmet use across the board.
P.P.S. Made a couple of corrections. First bullet: changed "too much" to "enough"; third bullet: should have read "drivers drive less carefully" rather than "more carefully."
