« Elinor Ostrom and GMU | Main | Assorted links »
Motorcycle helmet externality of the day
Our estimates imply that every death of a helmetless motorcyclist prevents or delays as many as 0.33 deaths among individuals on organ transplant waiting lists.
Here is the paper and I thank Brent Wheeler for the pointer. So should we mandate or tax the use of such helmets?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on October 13, 2009 at 06:53 AM in Law | Permalink
Comments
Obviously both...just like medical insurance.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 13, 2009 7:14:03 AM
(of course, I'm not subtle enough to realize that might have been what Tyler was hinting at and just let it go).
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 13, 2009 7:15:25 AM
Just think about how many organ transplants we can get under the Republican health plan.
Posted by: Bill at Oct 13, 2009 8:28:37 AM
Funny, just a couple nights ago, I told my wife that when body transplants are perfected, then helmet laws will be repealed.
Posted by: John Mansfield at Oct 13, 2009 8:29:07 AM
obviously we should mandate that motorcyclists wear "anti-air bags" (perhaps a leather jacket with an explosive inside) so when they are in a collision they are invariably killed.
Posted by: babar at Oct 13, 2009 8:29:17 AM
Interesting. But really isn't this is just a scaling issue, with 3 motorcycle deaths now necessary to produce 2 net deaths? To the calculus of helmet laws and public info campaigns, scale each potential, statistical death by .67 (or maybe different,depending on how the average future lifespan of a recipient differs from the cyclist). I have always assumed that helmet laws are mostly designed for the psychological benefit of us car drivers. Car drivers don't want to kill other people, even if cyclists are optimized over their own risks. It is surely easier to live with breaking the leg of a cyclist than killing him, so we restrict his right to convert a broken leg into a potential broken leg and broken skull. The laws, by the way, really do make a difference. Here in PA we dropped mandatory helmet laws a few years back and I doubt that 50% of people are wearing them.
Posted by: liberalarts at Oct 13, 2009 8:31:39 AM
Net impact on number of lives from the death of a helmetless motorcyclist: -1+.33= -.67. That's assuming all of the "prevented or delayed" deaths from organ transplants were actually prevented, rather than delayed. Correcting for this would make the estimate more negative.
On top of that, I'd wager that motorcyclists are generally younger and have a longer, higher-quality life ahead of them than the potential recipients of their organs. Thus, if I had to choose between killing a young rider or an old person on life support, I'd have to go with the latter.
Long story short: killing motorcyclists leads to more deaths than not killing them. Surprising, eh?
Posted by: libert at Oct 13, 2009 9:09:21 AM
Make helmets obtainable through IQ tests.
Posted by: Konstantin at Oct 13, 2009 9:16:39 AM
We should mandate that anyone with a motorcycle license also be an organ donor.
Perhaps we should we get rid of seatbelts too. I bet seatbelts allow people in accidents to continue to hog the beneficial use of their organs too. Perhaps we need an Organ Allocation Panel that can justly allocate scarce organs among those that have them and those in need. In the case of organs, the divide between the haves and the have-nots is a matter of life and death.
Posted by: TomB at Oct 13, 2009 9:22:44 AM
What a mind bender!!!!!!!
Posted by: Mario Rizzo at Oct 13, 2009 9:26:40 AM
I know I shouldn't ruin the joke, but if you (or your family) were allowed to receive compensation for your organs, it's not an externality in either direction. (Actually, even without organ markets it's not a negative externality.)
Posted by: ryan yin at Oct 13, 2009 9:40:17 AM
That's why they call 'em "donorcycles"
Posted by: Noah Yetter at Oct 13, 2009 9:48:55 AM
Depends on the relative crime rates, income levels and other externalities of helmet-less motorcyclists and organ donors.
Posted by: Mark at Oct 13, 2009 9:51:04 AM
making organ donation opt-out instead of opt-in would be far more effective
Posted by: endessous at Oct 13, 2009 10:08:05 AM
The other day someone was arguing with me that we should re-institute the draft, because that would make it tougher for Congress to declare war.
"If you want to make it tougher for Congress to declare war," I pointed out, "there are far less destructive ways than forcing random people to serve in the military."
I feel sort of the same way about motorcycle deaths and organ transplants.
Posted by: Joel Grus at Oct 13, 2009 10:10:00 AM
A modest refinement of TomB's position: if mandates are required, for the pure freedom of riding a motorcycle unhelmeted, then yes, let unhelmeted motorcyclists (and car/truck drivers killed when not wearing seatbelts) be considered automatic organ donors. Ostensibly, they have all the incentives in place for wearing helmets or seatbelts; if they choose not to abide by these offered incentives, then their organs are automatically forfeit upon their deaths in any vehicular accident, barring medical conditions that would prohibit the harvesting of their usable organs.
I won't make a call on bicyclists (although I wear a helmet whenever I ride.)
Posted by: Edward Burke at Oct 13, 2009 10:14:40 AM
I don't understand the question. Like libert says above, you still would rather have a living rider, and therefore, would mandate helmets.
It would be a more interesting question if one motorcycle death led to three lives saved.
Posted by: SkepMod at Oct 13, 2009 10:29:12 AM
Put helmets in vending machines. To obtain one, simply swipe your organ donor card.
Joel Grus, I got that argument from lots of people 7 or 8 years ago. That one is a mind-bender too. However, empirically, the last time we had a draft we lost 50k in short order, while today we've lost 10k or so. I like the idea that for declaration of war we implement a draft...of all of Congress.
Posted by: Andrew at Oct 13, 2009 10:35:36 AM
Don't forget the need to correct for the externality of the motorcycle as a positional social status signifier.
Posted by: athelas at Oct 13, 2009 10:47:28 AM
Seems to me if you just allow those who are naturally nonviable (those needing organ transplants) to follow their natural course, and mandate helmets, the most lives would be saved. This study seems to be based on the false assumption that organ transplants are a right (whish they are not).
Posted by: Paul at Oct 13, 2009 11:08:47 AM
Well that's good news for my home state of Delaware. By some bizarre political compromise it is illegal in Delaware to travel on a motorcycle without a helmet, but you are not mandated to wear that helmet. I'll pretend there is some sort of motorcycle helmet manufacturer special interest group that resulted in the law :)
Posted by: Greengenes at Oct 13, 2009 11:51:25 AM
It sounds like a very silly question. If the net effect is to reduce the number of deaths, something that results in 0.67 deaths is obviously bad.
Posted by: BR at Oct 13, 2009 12:20:57 PM
Really, are we better off keeping around the people too dumb to want to wear a helmet?
Posted by: Yancey Ward at Oct 13, 2009 12:40:54 PM
A well-executed suicide could have a net-positive effect. Encourage young, healthy, lay-about, helmet-less motorcycle riders to participate.
Posted by: Matt Matson at Oct 13, 2009 1:20:34 PM
"Prevents or delays"...if they're preventing death, rather than merely delaying it by 1-100 years, I'd certainly like to hear more about it.
Posted by: Laserlight at Oct 13, 2009 2:14:08 PM
