Motorcycles and helmets

Helmets, like driving tin-boxes, give a false sense of security. Wearing a helmet also adds to the mass swinging on the neck in the event of an impact, unless there's a corresponding safety device (airbag collar?) affixed to the body to minimize/restrict the effect of that extra mass.


I think the cause of the crash is more important than the cause of death or the extent of injuries.

If I had any legal authority, I'd insist that all drivers did 2-3000 miles on a moped before being allowed behind the wheel. Once drivers have experience in how vulnerable other road users can be and how varying conditions cause them to use the roads differently, we'd probably start to see a reduction in accidents across the board.

I'm in the UK and when driving a 4- (or larger) wheeler away from motorways (freeways), I'm acknowledged by motorcyclists (a little wave or sign as they pass) probably more often than not. This has even happened with an unmarked/non-uniformed Police motorcyclist (presumably out there to catch motorcyle lawbreakers).

Awareness is key to road safety, not just during the seconds before a change in direction in traffic, but throughout your drive. With practise, spotting a DUI, a sleepy driver or an unmarked Police vehicle at a distance behind you can save a life or your licence. They each drive differently, as do motorcyclists, for very different reasons.

 

For me, it's like the seat belt law. Whose business is it if I don't want to wear my seatbelt? Apparently, it's the government's. Why? Because apparently more injuries and deaths are sustained by people in accidents who aren't wearing one.

I've never found bikes harder to see than any other vehicle, but I can see your point on the level of injury should you accidentally hit someone riding one.

Right now, the repeal of Michigan's helmet law is waiting for the governor's signature, and there is little doubt he'll sign it. I don't know how the laws work in other states, but ours includes a requirement that the person be at least 21 years old, and have had a motorcycle license for at least two years or have passed a safety training course. It also requires the person have at least $20,000 in insurance to ride without a helmet.

My problem is that it's being billed as a means of drawing tourism to Michigan. And that it's sponsored by not only people who ride motorcycles, but the Licensed Beverage Association (read: people who sell alcohol). Their argument is that rallies will come here if we repeal the helmet law, and that our riders will stop going to rallies in other states. That makes me feel icky.

Personally, I know several people who ride. I'm trying to think of even one who didn't insist on my wearing a helmet, long pants, and real shoes when riding with them, even before we had a helmet law. They also would provide sunglasses if the helmet didn't have a full face guard. The people I know range from club riders to the ones driving bikes that are nicer than most cars, so it's not a social or economic thing...it's common sense.

I guess I lean more toward it being a requirement. Because like I said at the beginning, for me it's like the seatbelt law. I haven't compared the numbers, but I'd be willing to bet my next paycheck that more people are seriously injured or killed because they got in an accident without wearing a helmet than they were because they got in an accident without wearing a seatbelt.

 

In re-reading this, I realized it could read completely differently than I meant it. the "icky" factor comes in because bars and liquor retailers are in favour of the bill, not because we might get more bikers here. I have family and close friends who are club members, and it would be fabulous if they could attend rallies without having to drive several hours and take several days off work.

No, it's the fact that apparently we expect to sell more alcohol, which implies that all bikers are straight out of a 1960's-era movie, is what bugs me.

 

For me, it's a high-quality full face helmet or I don't ride. Period.

I know two people who are still around today because they were wearing a full-face SNELL approved helmet when a major crash occurred. Although both still suffered major injuries, the cracks in the helmets prove the impact would have been fatal otherwise.

Half helmets (a.k.a. "CHiPs" or police style helmets) are a joke. In the Houston area, at least three motor cops have recently paid the ultimate price when someone turned in front of them and they flew over the handlebars on to their faces. Why the HPD doesn't issue flip shield full-face helmets like those used by most European police agencies is beyond me.

 

Do you mean Schuberth C3's? http://www.schuberth.com/en/businesssegments/motorcycle.html and http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/426/7...Schuberth-Helmets-Return-to-U-S--with-C3.aspx cost must be the factor

 

Can't tell from the pics; however on the type I'm thinking of (and have) has a modular shell where the entire chinbar/face shield flips up, exposing the rider's face.

http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/1/1/38/29136/ITEM/HJC-IS-MAX-Bluetooth-Modular-Helmet.aspx

When you factor death into the equation, cost should not be a factor. An extra $100 or so versus an officer's life is a no-brainer. rolleyes

 

I agree with Sgt., here. The Helmet laws are like the Seat belt laws. Nobody likes the inconvenience, but they are there for good reasons. Since a lot of people would choose comfort/convenience/style over even their lives, the law becomes the 'common-sense giver' in these cases.
I'm another one that would definitely be dead if I wasn't waring a full-face helmet., (stupid S.U.V. driver decided it was a good idea to tailgate and run into me - idiot!).
There are a lot of 'Nanny State' type of laws that are just stupid control freak type of legislations, but the seat-belt and helmet laws are a valid saver of life and limb, i.m.h.o.

 

Much of what I do professionally in developing projects for my company involves researching data and then - this is a crucial point - carefully interpreting what I have found so I can draw valid conclusiosn upon which to base our development.

For those who think "economics" is all about numbers, what this really involves is applying the theories of economics to life.

There is tremendous risk of drawing invalid conclusions when interpreting data, and most particularly causal data.

As noted in the original post, factors such as experience can gave an impact. But even this qualifying observation is limited. We would need ALL relevant data to even begin to draw a valid conclusion.

Over what time period were the statistic collected?

In what geographic area?

If they were in one state (i.e. before and after the helmet law was enacted) do they reflect a growing level of inexperienced riders joining the bike-riding demographic, say due to rising gas prices or aging baby boomers buying their dream Harleys?

And lets not forget: What are the types of injuries? Wrecking your bike at 125 mph can negate the value of a helmet. To put this in perspective, a sky diver who's 'chute doesn't open is wearing a helmet, and only traveling a relatively small amount faster.

All these factors must be weighed together, otherwise this data tells us nothing.

One inescapable fact supported by all valid, scientific studies I have seen:

Helmets save lives - when sued properly and when the injury prevented involves the head and brain.

FYI - There is a decrease in hearing and visibility when wearing a helmet. As an experienced rider, this is negligible. If you can't compensate for this, you aren't good enough for the dangerous activity of street cruising.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3oz0zhEwZk&feature=related

I wear my seatbelt cause I want to. I usually wear a helmet when I ride my mt bike. I don't see it as our government's duty to tell us what to do in this matter. What next, wrap ourselves in bubble wrap?

Don't they have a budget to pass, or maybe some national debt to worry about?

Good point about the accident and a non helmet wearing rider Laura. But if they choose to ride with no protection for their noggin, is that not their choice, and do not choices have consequences?

 

I quoted you Fred and I realize you're not the only one who feels this way.
It's unfortunate that people have to be "ordered" to make common sense decisions to protect themselves and their kids, but that's the only way some people get it.
I don't buy into "your choice", or you're only hurting yourself. What about family members left behind, or the cost to society and the medical system(assuming the helmetless or beltless person survives). Somebody else will be affected by your decision.
Here in BC we have seatbelt laws, motorbike helmet laws, bicycle helmet laws, soon ski helmet laws. You almost never see a kid on a bike without a helmet, or not buckled in a car. How can this be a bad thing?
I can't believe a government would actually repeal a law today that saves lives. That's a step backwards.

 

Well, without getting HBT, what is the purpose of the gubment? To watch over us, make sure everyone is safe, helmets on, no rough housing going on in high school? Where do you draw the line?

Again, not trying to get HBT, but I see the Constitution as a document of negative things. Things the gubment can't take away. Things like the 1A, and 2A. Let's say I am fondling my newest gun, and bust off a load of 00 Buckshot into my foot. Should the gubment pass a law restricting ammo sales, require training classes before I can buy a shotgun, or did I just do something stupid and blow my foot off?

And you could argue that if I don't have insurance, and blow my foot off, the taxpayers will foot the bill when I go to the charity hospital. But what if I decide to not take the class, order some illegal ammo, and blow my foot off anyway?

What if a child's vision and or hearing is impaired by the helmet, and they pull out in front of a car? Is that really where we want our government concentrated at? Should the government become the parent?

Where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and the regulation of the government? I believe it is the duty of the Federal government to protect me from foreign countries. Not from myself.

I would not ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I just don't see good things happening to my head if I crack up at even 35mph, much less highway speeds.

Your mileage, and headspace may vary. :-D

 

I don't buy into it being a 'bad thing' but it can lead to a lack of awareness of the vulnerability of other road users: 'I'm strapped into 1+ tons of steel 4-wheeler with 7 airbags, so I don't need to drive as carefully as ... '.

It's about 'what if ... ': it only takes a rabbit to hop onto the highway to cause a 'bike 'incident', something the average car driver following the bike wouldn't even blink at.

 

Let's step it up a notch. Why not make anyone who is not married be required to use a condom when fornicating. Would greatly reduced unplanned pregnancy and STD's. It would save lives. How far up in your bidness do you want the gubment to be?

If the gubment is the fount of safety, maybe you should get a license to breed?

:cool

Or, is the Constitution negative rights, as in things they can't take away?

 

You don't have to take tests before marrying in La. Fred?

Maybe it's time to invite the Frenchies back ^^

 

I said breed, not marry.

I could take this on a tangent, but won't. I can also see from the mods position, why the HBT area is gone.

 

If you blow your foot off, there is only one variable, you. that's your fault. When anyone heads out into traffic or rabbits, things are not all under your control.
Properly fitting bike helmets don't impair vision or hearing, they are regulated by, you guessed it, the government:-D

So because you wear a seat belt you don't drive as carefully? That doesn't make any sense. Your car has value too.

 

Ok I didn't read everyones post because it's late, but I have had this debate several times.

I legally rode bikes on the road for 15 years. Never had an accident, many near misses but no actual collision.

The plus side of NOT wearing a helmet = Better visuals mostly in peripheral, more comfortable... you look cooler.

The plus side of wearing helmet = You have an insurmountably better chance at not only surviving, but not ending up with brain, eye, jaw, nose, neck, skull, hearing damage.

Basically it's pretty obvious the pro's and cons.

The part where it affects others would be the very real possibility (anyone who's riden for a while has probably had similar) of you getting struck in the head by a falling pine cone, a bird, a rock thrown up by a car, a piece of debre in the wind, all of which could be a glancing blow with a helmet on.... but without, smack you upside the head, you take a dive, car behind swerves, hit's oncomming car, 3 cars behind and a truck for good measure and how many are dead and injured?

I'e been hit in the head by several things including a bird, I'm pretty sure I wouldhave gone down if not wearing a helmet.
But as Laura suggested, the cost factor.
If you come off a bike wearing a helmet and come away with minor cuts and bruises and possible concussion then your helmet will be cracked. Which is almost every time a helmet connects the ground in a bike collision.
Those helmets are a fair bit tougher than your skull, so NOT using one in this type of crash could cost thousands more in head trauma when the rest of the body is fine.

It's not just about the increase of dying, what about brain damage, long terms effects that someone has to pay for, is it going to be you?... Nooo, you'll expect insurance or government health plans to pay for it..... Why?, you CHOSE not to wear approved protection.

Personally I have little to no respect for anyone who rides a bike or lets a passenger ride without not only a helmet but covered limbs.
I live in a town that has a massive gathering of bikes every year, I see soooo many young girls on the back of bikes in little more than a bikini.

Now while these young bronzed beautiful girls look great cruising down the street...., clearly love the way they look.

Go google Gravel/Road Rash pictures of falls at as little as 30Mph.

Those bronzed girls aren't so beautiful any more.

Basically it annoys me because people simply don't get how hard you hit the ground, let alone another vehicle when travelling at what many consider a "Slow pace".

So if you want to ride with no helmet or in short sleeves and shorts or a bikini, go ahead... it's your body.....but just think, it could also be someone else's life you take, not only by possibly leaving them with grief, but what about when you survived but now someone needs to look after you for the rest of your life because you can't feed yourself or you can't see.
Tragic as that is in any situation.... imagine how you'd feel if it was all simply... to look cool.

 

This has nothing to do with the Constitution. This is a matter of state's authority.

 

Like Phantom i suffered life changing injuries in a motorcycle accident.
I would without any doubt not have survived if i was not helmeted.
My bike was a write off as was the car that pulled out in front of me (i was going at speed) and the plate glass window i went through.
I fully support the law that all riders should where helmets.
When i was young and had my first motorcycle there was no law on helmets (and gas was less than 50c per gallon) and i would ride without but if it started to rain it was almost impossible to see because a raindrop hitting your eye at 30 or 40 mph is painful.

 

"If you blow your foot off, there is only one variable, you. that's your fault. When anyone heads out into traffic or rabbits, things are not all under your control.
Properly fitting bike helmets don't impair vision or hearing, they are regulated by, you guessed it, the government"

I don't share your apparent blind faith that everything the gubment regulates is good. Even properly fitting helmets can cause restricted vision and reduced hearing. Again, if I were on a motorcycle, I would have a helmet on.

 

Everything!! Fred, my friend- you sure are a renegade. :-D
Wear a helmet or your wind hit, teary eyes could hurt, others. Period. I don't understand the animosity towards safety/authority?

Cheers..

 

Let's say you're fondling your newest gun, and bust off a load of 00 Buckshot into your kid. Now what?

Sorry, couldn't resist that one, I'll get back to motorcycles and helmets.

It would be fabulous if the accident victim choosing not to wear a helmet bore all the blame and cost, but that's simply not how it works. As Laura said in the initial post, if she doesn't see a cyclist and hits him/her with her car, the accident is her fault. If the rider is wearing a helmet and has minor injuries, she is probably only going to get a ticket. But if the rider is not wearing a helmet and smacks his/her head on the curb and dies, now she's being charged with manslaughter. Which has a HUGE impact on her life, even though she did not get to make the decision whether or not to wear a helmet.

Much like drivers of cars need to be aware of and careful of motorcycle riders, motorcycle riders need to be aware of and careful of those in cars. Which includes using all available safety equipment. Is it really worth your life to feel the breeze blowing through your hair?

 

roflmao
.
roflmao
.
roflmao

 

In Minnesota, we had a helmet required law back in the 70's. They also invoked a law that all police were required to wear helmets in their cruisers. About 3-5 years later, as I recall, they repealed both laws. In the case of the police, they found that they were experiencing a high rate of neck muscle impairments and a very high rate of scalp problems from wearing the helmets the better part of an 8 hour shift every day.

In the case of statistics, they manipulate the results to the favor of government control. By that I mean that they say 56% of MC Deaths were victims not wearing helmets. They need to break that down farther. How many of them actually died from ONLY head trauma and how many of them had their chest crushed or were torn nearly in half or simply had their neck broken. There are a lot of injuries that can kill a person. I would hazard a guess that of the 56% that died not wearing a helmet, about half would have died anyway, helmet or not.

I have a long time friend who's parents were out riding one day near Brainerd, MN. They were both on the same Motorcycle. His Dad was driving and his Mom was on the back. A car swerved into them head on. His Mom flew over his Dad and the car that hit them and landed on the road, head first. Her neck was broken. They said she died instantly. His Dad survived the crash and was in the hospital for nearly 3 months with all kinds of injuries including chest trauma and even some substantial head injuries. His Mom was wearing a helmet and his Dad was not.

I ride a Motorcycle and have said frequently to everyone I know. When they force me to wear a helmet, I'll sell the bike.

This is no different then anything else. People die doing almost everything. I wonder how many people die falling down stairs every year? Should we ban stairs and force everyone to install elevators or build single level dwellings? I also wonder how many accumulative miles are driven every year by Motorcycle riders and then what the ratio is, Miles driven to the number of deaths, helmet or not.

Then there are the people on their crotch rockets. Not all but a majority of them ride like maniacs. They have a bike that will go in excess of 150 MPH and they seem to like to test that frequently. I wonder how they figure into the statistics. I see them going down the highway in downtown Minneapolis weaving in and out of traffic trying to do 70MPH when the rest of the traffic is doing 55 or 60. Then to top it all off, their riding in sandals, shorts, a muscle shirt and wearing a helmet.

If safety were the true concern, they would ban motorcycles because they are inherently dangerous compared to other modes of transportation or at least require Leathers along with the helmet.

 

I totally agree with this. Common sense is in severe lack these days and I can’t understand why people *wouldn’t* want to protect themselves? I mean is it a pride thing? I’m too cool to wear a helmet/seatbelt.. :-D I don’t know. I know someone who was in a bad motorcycle accident and would have died if not wearing a helmet.

I just read a news article the other day about a suv that was in an accident and a one year old baby was ejected from the car, obviously because the poor thing wasn’t strapped in properly , but we have laws for that exact reason and if we abandon safety laws then why not abandon ALL safety laws/ideas. Like tell people to touch live electrical wires or go ahead and stick that fork in an electrical socket. :-D

I just don’t understand why people are so against it? (aside from the gov'mnt can't tell ME what to do mentality :-D)

 

The lady's snapped her neck. No fault of the head gear.
Would any Moto GP rider race without a helmet? It's daft to even consider.

shrnedly, now you are being obtuse if I may say.
I'm not passing judgement or being mean, I will stop now.

Cheers..

 

I'm sorry guys, but I am baffled as to how anyone can say riding a bike with no helmet is ok.

This is like saying we don't need to have licensed gas fitters or mechanics.

I tell you what, lets abolish seat belts, rear seatbelts, airbags, safety checks, tire limitations, traffic lights, stop signs etc etc etc and just let everyone make their own decisions as to whether they are going to hurt somebody or themselves.

I'm quite sure many thoughts right now are "Well tire limitations and seat belts are different"
Please explain how.
As I and a few others pointed out, without head and face protection you are more prone to vision impairments , such as wind, bugs, etc etc.

And please don't give me the sunglasses speech, they are only maybe 25% protection from these things, I know from experience.

Now lets move to sports, no NFL or NHL player should have to wear protective gear..... Ohhh the cries of insurance and injuries... yet this is truely an example of not wearing it ONLY hurts you... but heavens forbid, no because the players need protecting because they are so valuable.

But a biker has no value so let them do whatever they want.

While we're at it lets ban speed limits, I'm sure everyone is sensible enough to drive at a safe speed.

I'll ask any parent out there, would you be ok with your child at lets say age 18, jumping on a machine they have little to no experience with that is capable of 200MPH.... most would say no I would hope.
Now, would you let them do it without a helmet?

There should be no argument here, forget your own safety, think about that little boy you didn't see because of a sudden face full of dust.

The gun comparison thing I think could work like this...... stop making guns with safety levers. How is it any different?

Sorry but anyone who thinks they shouldn't have to wear a hlmet is a threat to themselves, their family and friends and other pedestrians, drivers and the like and clearly have no respect for anyone else and therefore should NOT be allowed to own a half ton machine capable of death and destruction.

You will NEVER hear or see a professional racer or cop or instructor ride without full protection.... if you do then they are a childish idiot. Period.

 

I wasn't saying it was the fault of the headgear, I was simply stating that Helmets are not always the answer. In the case I described, the one wearing the helmet died and the one not wearing the helmet did not. I think the choice to wear or not wear a helmet should be up to the individual.

As far as the Moto GP riders, they are rightfully required to wear a helmet and a lot of other safety gear. That's a competition setting where they are expected to push everything to the limit.

Obtuse?? I don't think so. I could give hundreds of ways that people die daily that could all be prevented. Walking down the street, riding on an airplane, riding a bicycle, riding in a car and so on. The point is that the helmet MIGHT save some peoples lives while others will survive a crash with out one and yet others don't crash in the first place, they drive more defensively.

People, at least here in the US, seem to think that laws are somehow going to protect them physically. Laws like a pedestrian or person on a bicycle has the right of way. If that pedestrian or person on the bike is riding down a road with no shoulder the law will still apply with equal force but his chances of getting hit increase dramatically. The law should require him to make good choices about where he rides beyond giving him the right of way in traffic, traffic which I'll point out paid for the roads that the bicycle rider is using for free.

 

I just remembered this video.

Absolutely amazing skill, I've never seen such acurate handling of a motorcycle, especially of that type.
Oh and look.... unless he has a very unique haircut I do believe that is a helmet on his head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in3_aJbpkA0


I also just thought of this, back to finances and the economy, these helmets create thousands of jobs, they have to be designed, manufactured, tested, graded, marketed, shipped and sold.

Here's another thought, lets go extreme and say that implementing the mandatory use of helmets saves just 1 life over the course of 10 years.... is it not worth it?

Remember, it's a preventative measure the same as all those I mentioned in the post above, these laws are set in place for no other reason than to "Save Lives".... why argue?

 

With Nedlamar's video I am reminded that in Minnesota, helmets are not required except when you only have a MC Permit and/or your under 18 and you must wear a helmet to take the MC skill test to get your MC endorsement.

 

Maybe not the fault of the headgear but the headgear itself is very likely to increase the chance of neck injuries, as I commented on back in my first reply. Also note the comment in #30:

Racing drivers and motorcycle racers usually have very strong neck muscles - and often neck collars or movement restrictors built-in to their clothing.

 

That they do, mostly because of what they do. Most race drivers start their careers at a young age so their muscle tone develops to accommodate that kind of protective gear.

 

I totally agree with Fred. When legislation removes something that is pleasurable i.e riding without a helmet for the sake of safety then they've over stepped then mark IMO. Many people find riding without helmet the only way to ride or the only way they enjoy it so let them,I don't and would never ride a bike without a helmet my life is too important to me.

If you wrapped everyone in bubble wrap as Fred said and we just rolled everywhere you would get some awesome safety statistics.

 

These figures just threw themselves at me on a google search from multiple sites, mostly US studies as well.

Also out of curiosity I looked up some figures.

Minnesota Motorcycle fatalities for 2010 with and without helmets = 45 with a population of 5.5million.

The UK suffered 403 fatalities obviously pretty much all WITH helmets and with a population of 63 million.

The math suggests that per capita Minnesota has a much higher death rate.

Now here's the interesting thing, in Minnesota the roads are much bigger, much lower density of traffic and much straighter roads for the most part than almost ANY part of the UK.
So realistically speaking shouldn't the death rate be considerably lower?
Also isn't it true that Minnesota's bike season is relatively short? Where as the UK is all year round. So if you then say Min is 8 months instead of 12 then the number is higher still.

I realise I'm moulding these facts to suit my argument somewhat but I have not said anything that isn't true.

For those of you who don't know, the UK roads on average are approx 30% narrower than that of any in North America.

Now what's really interesting is that the 45 deaths in Minnesota are dispersed thus:
Unknown = 7
With Helmet = 12
Without helmet = 26

So the number would only be a max of 19 if helmet laws were in place.

So just one year in one State.... 26 lives could have been saved with the implementation of Helmets.

This would drop the figure well below the UK where it should be given the traffic conditions.

Bare in mind, these are not percentage statistic, these are actual numbers.

 

I can not get my head round this "no helmet" supporters club, unless it is just because the government say it then we must rebel.

My motorcycle was a Honda Goldwing and weighed in at 800 pounds put me on it's back at 160pounds then you have almost a 1000 pounds, lets say i am traveling at 70mph and i hit a stationary car then the impact weight is over 80 tons and no bone can withstand that amount of force so it must break and if it's your skull then it is good night.

That is more or less what happened to me, a guy pulled out of a car park in front of me and i hit it right between the doors and the bike actually went inside the car,, i went over the handlebars and the car, into a store front breaking bones in my neck,back and hips.

 

So, you pretty much answered my question. It's pride (and selfishness). I want to be a hazard to myself and everyone around me because I don't want to wear a helmet because I don't think it looks as cool as my hair flapping in the wind. Plus, the gov'mnt can't me what to do! I'm an American and I will do whatever I please! yup and that's exactly what is wrong with society.

 

Did you just call Rikky an "American"?

Uh oh, everybody!.... to the Fallout shelters :-D

@Bill.. With you 110% there my friend

I am feeling the same as you, totally dumbfounded at the "No helmet club"

So I'm just going to say this, whatever you drive or ride, where ever you drive or ride it and regardless of what the law says... be careful, be sensible. I love all you guys and would really hate another missing member thread because of anything.... least of all, stupid pride.

Be safe people

 

No :-D I was just saying that is the mentality OF Americans. :-D

 

Its got nothing to do with looking cool,if you've ever ridden a bike you'll know that helmets are very restrictive,your head gets really hot,it's harder to breath,the weight takes it out on your neck,you don't get the feeling of the wind on your face or head which is one of THE most fun aspects of riding,its harder to see 'yup safety' your peripheral vision suffers so you may miss a car coming from behind that you would had you not had a helmet.

So you could argue your more of a danger to other people while wearing a helmet if we're gonna be picky.

If there was a single true argument that said helmets save the lives of other road users I would agree, but there isn't,in this case you clearly substitute enjoyement or fun for safety,want to reduce the numbe of guns? Fine, I understand where your coming from less guns means less people get shot with guns I might not totally agree with it but I understand it,with helmets I don't understand why everyone else is so bothered?

This isn't what legislation should be for or we'd never be allowed to have any fun.

And to be clear I would never,ever ride a bike without a helmet. I trust my own skills but I wouldn't put my life in the hands of other people from my perspective that's insane but it's no business of mine how other people want to live their lives.

Just as I wouldn't stop people from drinking,from smoking,from eating fatty food,from jumping off bridges tied to a elastic,its their choice.

 

No one has brought up the issue of interfering with Darwinism. These types of "commons sense, it is for your own good" laws keep high-risk people alive, which allows them to breed and reproduce. [joking] :-D

Very good post, Nedlemar.

Thank you for the clarification, Laura. I did some more research. Here is a summation of what I found. I have limited this to ONLY data that has bearing on your post, and on subsequent posts both for and against helmet use.

FYI - This is the sort of stuff I do almost daily. I love it, but like caviar, it is an acquired taste, and not for everyone.

(This is from a website provided by lawyers representing injured motorcycle riders, I believe in Australia. Always consider the source of all data.)

Regarding helmets "limiting hearing and vision" being a contributing factor to accidents:

16. The typical motorcycle pre-crash lines-of-sight to the traffic hazard portray no contribution of the limits of peripheral vision; more than three- fourths of all accident hazards are within 45 degrees of either side of straight ahead.

46. Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of pre crash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.

51. Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.

Relevant factors for interpretation of Laura's initial statistical data. I think this explains why the injury rate may be higher for non-helmeted riders. As someone noted earlier, the helmetless riders may be more experienced.

1. Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most usually a passenger automobile.

6. In the multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.

42. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

43. Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

11. Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in a very short time close to the trip origin.

15. The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.




44. The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.

24. Lack of attention to the driving task is a common factor for the motorcyclist in an accident.

25. Almost half of the fatal accidents show alcohol involvement.

26. Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would over brake and skid the rear wheel, and under brake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to counter steer and swerve was essentially absent.

27. The typical motorcycle accident allows the motorcyclist just less than 2 seconds to complete all collision avoidance action.

33. Motorcycle riders in these accidents were significantly without motorcycle license, without any license, or with license revoked.

40. Injury severity increases with speed, alcohol involvement and motorcycle size.

34. Motorcycle modifications such as those associated with the semi-chopper or cafe racer are definitely over represented in accidents.

Summation

1. It appears that when ordered to wear helmets, a significant statistical shift occurs: The worst, most at-risk demographic of riders now begins wearing helmets. This would cause a seeming increase in injuries to helmeted riders over pre-helmet-law days.

2. When helmet use is voluntary, the unhelmeted riders may represent the most experienced riders (as someone noted, possibly Laura). Why, since this contradicts some of the statistics and factors noted above?

When one weighs the high statistical rate of injury to cafe racer riders, and their likelihood of being in a two-vehicle or high-speed accident [#34, #1, #6], where speed and variables associated with two-vehicle collisions can negate the benefits of helmet usage. Regardless of all other factors, Cafe Racer riders are much more likely to wear helmets, but tend to be younger, less experienced, drive faster, may be partying, and are far more likely to be involved in accidents. This would significantly skew the helmet-wearing Vs. helmetless data.

_______________________

The statistical data I found was fascinating. I would have loved to place more here, but recalled Laura's earlier admonishment to stay on topic. Several intriguing factors I noted were:

a. The reduction in driving accidents with training and experince.

b. The impact of wind and NOT wearing eye protection on accident rates (should we also mandate wearing goggles???).

c. The reduction in accidents rates brought about by mandatory use of headlights in the daytime (it reduced the rate car with which drivers hit motorcyclists due to lack of seeing them.

Fun thread, Laura. Thanks!

 

MA I normally agree with you, but I can't here.

Those listed above are pretty much illegal anywhere and as you so rightly point out, are major causes of injury and death. That is why they are illegal. That is also the logic behind motorcycle helmet laws.

And yes, you are 100% right, I would think all of us have broken one of those rules/laws that claim so many lives each year...... but once again, they ARE laws, you are not allowed to commit those acts.
The point here is whether or not you SHOULD be allowed to choose to use a helmet. No whether or not you choose to obey the rule/law.

As for being trained, great you got training but unfortunately there is no training to make you better at crashing without a helmet.
If you ride a bike then you damn well know that Sh*t happens, and when it does it happens in the blink of an eye.

It's not your skills at riding that are in question, it is your safety and the safety of others.
It's a bigger picture than just "It's my right", it's not your right to do something that could possibly injure or kill another human being.

Sorry my friend but you will never convince me that it's ok to ride without a helmet.

I'm curious though, it's the "Easy Rider" and "rebel without a cause" mentality isn't it?

Remember this line "Ohhh I got a helmet, I got a beauty"

You don't need to bubble wrap everything, but this is a little different than bubble wrapping, it's the same logic as seatbelts.

 

I make a point of not trying to impose my will on other people. I don't smoke or drink alcohol but I find no fault with those that choose to do so responsibly.

I haven't read any post in this thread where any of the people are telling anyone else that they can not or should not wear a helmet. The choice to wear it is always there. I believe in the Liberties granted me by our Constitution so I have a problem with someone imposing their will on me when wearing or not wearing a helmet has no impact on anyone but me. I will say the same about the seat belt laws.

We can rationalize how IF I get in a crash and IF I'm not wearing a helmet and IF I don't have sufficient Insurance or medical coverage that the taxpayer would somehow be on the financial hook. We can do that with anything. What IF I was wearing a helmet and was disabled in crash, does that helmet make the expenses somehow more palatable?