Helmet laws

EvilGhandi: I’m glad that you’ve finished off the bowl of Cheerios that I pissed in.

Now, from what I’ve read (here in this thread) we’re all pretty much on the same page where helmet laws are concerned. We don’t give a rat’s ass whether people wear them or not, as long as nobody’s telling us we have to, right? Good. Those of you who live in climates condusive to riding a motorcycle in December, go for a ride. Those of us who’ve had to put our bikes away for the winter will wish we could go along.


“Wednesday the 15th - Chris made one of her rare good points today.”
Guanolad

In the 1950s – to my surprise – seatbelts were introduced to automobiles by some car company over seas who happened to observed the large amount of bodies being ejected through windshields and such during accidents. THAT was when cars were more or less built like tanks. Here, in the States, after dithering for a time, they were placed in American cars.

The general public refused to use them. Local law enforcement kept scraping up bodies scattered about the road ways and byways of America. The car companies redesigned the seat belts to make them better, safer and easier to use. John Q. Public still mainly declined to use them and continued to bounce off of the steel, unpadded dashboards of the day and get launched through the tough, sharp shard producing safety glass.

Car makers incorporated the padded dash – which at least slowed down the incidents of having ones skull mashed into the back of the head by sudden stops with unbelted drivers. They gave us the collapsible steering column which decreased the incidents of unbelted drivers being impaled on the wheel shaft.

Then they started making cars with ‘crush zones’, a uphorism for cheap, removed the massive steel bumpers, took out most of the a-frame and incorporated shoulder straps in an effort to keep drivers from becoming road jelly when the new cars turned into crushed beer cans.

People still refused to wear them. In the meantime, car racers discovered the advantage to military style seat belts, crash cages, roll bars, crush zones, helmets and fire suits and demonstrated that plowing into a stone wall at about 200 mph still enabled them to walk away.

The general public still refused to wear seatbelts. Detroit threw up its hands and decided to let the idiots slaughter themselves. Insurance companies, weary of huge payouts, got a law passed requiring people to wear the belts. People started wearing the belts and PRESTO many walked away from crashes unhurt!

Many still refused to wear the belts. Detroit came up with self fastening seatbelts – but were forced by consumers to provide a clip that could remove the automatic belt and generally render the device useless. They created a new type of shatter glass in an effort to give those being launched through the windshield a somewhat better chance at survival.

Eventually, the police began to ticket people for not wearing seatbelts and insurance companies began to deny paying claims to people injured in crashes who had not worn seat belts. A small contingent of people STILL declines to wear them and here it is, 40 years later. The amount of people refusing to wear the belts has declined sharply, because most of those who refused are dead or too banged up from accidents to drive.

Kind of like the helmet laws. I think this is considered natures way of culling the herd. The stupid get killed off, hopefully before they can breed and spread their beliefs. Most bikers still haven’t realized that the road, as well as cars, are actually much harder than their thick heads. Even kids now wear helmets for their bicycles, finding that they protect their wild brains from falls and skaters wear helmets, having grown weary of trips to the hospital and professional motorcyclists wear helmets, discovering that when they crash on the course not only does it keep their brains in their skulls but keeps the wheels of other bikes from mashing them out. Race car divers wear helmets, discovering that not only do they keep their brains from splattering across the track but their heads from burning up if they catch on fire. Professional snow skiers wear helmets, having found that granite boulders are harder than the skull. Construction guys, often thought to be a particularly brainless lot to begin with, wear helmets finding that those ‘silly yellow things’ keep little things, like bolts, hammers, wrenches and bricks accidentally falling from high areas from entering the top of their heads and coming out around their toes.

BUT, not the hard core MACHO biker. He hasn’t quite learned yet. I think that speaks vast amounts concerning their general intelligence level.


What? Me worry?’

Rainbowcsr,

Your argument makes good sense at face value. The argument that seat belts didn’t save lives until drivers were compelled to wear them is one that can be backed by pretty convincing evidence.

The analogy does contain a logical flaw though. As I pointed out in a couple of posts, states with helmet laws actually have a (slightly) higher fatality percentage per crash than non-helmet states.

Now if we set aside Spuds argument that; since his made up statistics are crap, all statistics are therefore crap. Or his insinuation that all assumptions are false, We can assume that helmet law states have a higher percentage of helmeted riders, therefore should have a lower fatality rate. The numbers simply don’t prove this out.

This is a good opportunity to point out duplicity in the way the DOT handles regulations. Airbags have been shown to save around 1500 more lives than cars equipped with belts alone. However, since they also claimed a few (around 35) lives, the law allows you to have the device disabled if you feel you are at risk. Likewise, most states have provisions that excuse drivers from wearing seatbelts if proper medical certification is produced.

NO helmet states have any such allowances for riders. Even though the evidence suggests that helmets give only limited benefits, riders are required to wear them.

After saying all that, I still oppose mandatory belt laws. Laws designed to protect us from our own folly deprive us our god given right to kill ourselves with our own stupidity.

Aw… you gotta love the Evil one don’t you.

I’m starting to think that he should get an exemption from any helmet laws since his skull seems to be so thick that nothing could get through there.

Statistics… they aren’t all crap… you just need to see the whole picture before you make any judgement. I make my living by using and UNDERSTANDING statistics.

Mr. Thin Skin posted some good links that show that helmets do increase your chance of survival by 29% and do not restrict your vision or hearing. Why not counter those with your wisdom?

Do these states have such a constant death rate that a variation of 0.01% (not one percent… one one hundredth of a percent) is a noticable change? Sure, now maybe more people are wearing helmets… maybe the swing would have been a 4% increase and now it is only 0.01%.

You have the right to kill yourself by not wearing a seat belt. Fine… as long as you are by yourself. Just make sure there are no other people safely belted in the car that you may kill when your body is busy bouncing around in there.

Ah Spud, you know I love you too.

You did make it a little easy though.

From the very first link provided,

“The vision test showed that most riders recover the lateral vision that is lost by turning their heads a little farther.”

This sounds to me that the study admittted that there was vision loss that had to be compensated for. It also states that not all but most riders recover the lateral vision. This can only be interpreted as, Helmets reduce on average, the vision of their wearers.

The study does state the 29% fatality reduction you mention but offers no data at all to back their claim. It is also notable that this study was based on a one time test involving riders of their choosing being followed by a chase car. Hardly a wide sampling.

The .01% change was for Colorado,(during their trial law) Upon seeing the results, the legislature repealed it. As I stated before, the national average was .08%. You say I am dense? At least I don’t make you repeat yourself.

Nor do I use sentences like,

"Sure, now maybe more people are wearing helmets… maybe the swing would have been a 4% "

Note the repeated use of the word maybe? Am I to take it this means you are guessing? Nice of you to have all the facts before passing judgement on something that effects others but not yourself. If you do ride, I take that last crack back.

Or this,

“You have the right to kill yourself by not wearing a seat belt.”

Wrongo oh Spudly one, seatbelts are mandatory in all 50 states.

As far as hearing goes, any rider will attest that a helmet is hellaciously noisy (some even wear ear plugs to cancel it) at freeway speed. In fact, the report doesn’t even try to argue it. They mearly shrug it off by saying that wind is noisy for unhelmeted riders too.

How bout it? Any other specific topics you would like to test my wisdom on?

I’ll agree with you that from the study quoted you could come to the conclusion that on average helmets reduce the vision of the wearer. But, you missed a line from the study “These riders did not require significantly more time to turn their heads to check for traffic.” So really your problem is you don’t want to take the extra effort to turn your head a little further. Gee… I thought us spuds were lazy.

And you find fault that the study states a 29% fatality reduction but doesn’t give any other supporting figures. Hmmmm… kinda like someone who would throw out a figure that 47% of fatalities were wearing helmets don’t you think.

Sorry to make you repeat yourself… I guess I should repeat myself also. I do not have a strong opinion on for or against helmet laws that I am trying to support. I simply don’t like people using statistics that are not complete to try to prove their side of an argument.

As far as the right to kill yourself. I don’t mean those silly state laws. I was referring to the much higher “God given right to kill ourselves with our own stupidity.”

To set the record straight, I don’t ride currently, and I only rode dirt bikes as a kid. I’m still looking for a bike that can fit the three kid’s car seats that I need. I live in a trendy area though, and it seems like everyday I see someone with a brand new Harley and all the accessories. If I run out and buy one, can I be your buddy then?

As far as sharing additional wisdom… got a good chili recipe?

Spud, this is off the subject, but you don’t know how true that is – it’s pathetic.
Wanna join our club? ANYONE can join, there’s just a fifteen to twenty thousand dollar admission fee.

“Bikers are a rare breed.
Harley riders are a dime a dozen”

Ok Spud, so you agree that helmets reduce vision and that they require more effort on the part of the operator to ride safely. You then blow this data off as lazyness? Lets try a little analogy here.

Strap a 5 lb weight to your wrist then go prepare dinner or something requiring constant use of your arms. Could you do it? In the same amount of time it took you without the weight? Sure you could. But I’d venture to say the chances of spilling hot grease on yourself would be marginally higher. Heck, you may even find yourself taking risky shortcuts to maximize the movement of your weighted limbs. Of course there would be excess fatigue by cooking with the heavier appendages, preparing a special, long preparation time dish may even become dangerous with such encumberence.

Or did you think helmets were weightless?

Like most studies of its kind, this one throws absurdly high numbers around without offering a shred of evidence to back them. Their study data was pretty flimsy in the first place, almost self defeating. So to bolster their interpretation, they would need high numbers to argue the additional fatigue is warranted by offsetting the death toll.

My 47% figures came from a statewide ER survey looking into various trauma and deaths resulting from motorcycle crashes. Granted the state in question (Colorado) was a no helmet state at the time of the study, so the helmet wearing v non helmet wearing total ridership could skew the stats as you suggested. As rebuttal I offered stats showing virtually NO difference in fatality rates per crash from the same state after a mandatory helmet law was passed and national comparsions showing this was not a local trend.

Yet you still claim I am using misleading numbers to support my position. Offering as evidence imaginary numbers that show my figures could have mitigating factors that make them irrelevent.

Your only attempt to dispute these numbers (national death per crash) was some kind of lame argument to the effect of, People who crash motorcycles are crazier than those who don’t so they probably weren’t wearing helmets either. And some nonsense about helmet law states having more pointy things on the road.

So whats worse in your opinion?

A) Possibly (not definiatly) skewed figures.

B) Wild ass speculation with no basis in fact.

Damn you got me all wound up and I forgot about the chili.

How’d ya figure out I was renowned for my chili recipe? In fact, Tomorrow I have to cook up 3 gallons of it for a party. I’ll let you know how it comes out.

As for the recipe, waddaya think, e-mail or mspims?

Well, if those weights on my arms made the food 29% less likely to kill me… I think I would put up with the inconvenience.

All kidding aside… my answer to your final question is that I think A) and B) are equally as bad… and that was my whole point in the first place. I promise that I won’t beat this dead horse anymore now.

As far as the chili recipe… I say MPSIMS. I think others would like it, and besides… who wants a pissed off biker named Evil to have your e-mail address?

Happy Holidays

I live in Western Australia. Motorcycle helmuts are mandatory, so are seatbelts and, get this, bike helmuts…yes push bikes. We all kicked up a stink when this was legislated but the stats support the move, especially for head injuries in children.
The only valid argument against these safety devices I’ve seen here boils down to personel/freedom of choice. Anecdotes from individuals postulating their death from seatbelt or helmut is just plain dumb. Once again, the stats for these devices prove there designed function.
My only objection to people who flout the obvious in favour of the wind in their hair or the enormous inconveniance of pulling a belt ac cross your torso, is not the public expense that is inevitable, but the DIVERSION of resources from those who are truly unfortunate. Yes, they do deserve priority over your life, and as this can’t be regulated it will always be an inequity.
It’s a matter of taking personal responsability, which most people do.

Stats, schmats. I demand my right to be stupid!

Wolfduke,

I admit I had a difficult time comprehending your post. After reading it I was pretty sure you favor legislation mandating helmets for motorcycle operators. It also seems you are trying to make a case that unhelmeted riders divert funds from more deserving people.

However, your rambling style and the lumping together of bicycles, automobile seatbelts, pediatric head injury and motorcycle helmets does leave me wondering if drew your intended meaning.

I will attempt to point out specifics of your post that left me wanting more information. Or at least clarification of your position.

By “we all kicked up a stink” do you mean that the majority of Australia’s population opposed the law?

When you say “the stats supported the move” are you quoting a study that showed a decreased death/injury rate after the laws were passed? If so, can you find it and cite it.

Does your comment “especially for head injuries in children” imply that preteens are permited to operate motorcycles on public roads there? Or were they passengers? Bicycle operators?

The entire second paragraph assumes that people who have done research that you obviously have not are somehow stupider than you. I will ignore it for now as to give you a chance to re-word it. Those stats you refer to, post them.

In your last paragraph, am I correct to assume you take the position that the government has the right to prioritize life saving medical resources based on how “fortunate” someone is?

To the statement about personal responsibility, your position seems to favor government mandate over personal freedom. So I don’t really know what you were getting at with that parting shot.

EvilGhandi,
Your response does indicate that you did not comprehend Wolfduke’s response. He clearly stated that people irresponsible enough not to use devices that are intended to reduce harm to the human body may divert RESOURCES, NOT MONEY to themselves. An example of his overall point is if there are two accidents that occur at about the same time, and one of those accidents is a biker with a split skull due to not wearing a helmet or the driver of a car that was catapulted through his windshield since it was too inconvenient to buckle up, RESOURCES such as ambulances, hospital beds, doctors, etc., will be diverted from the other accident to the “irresponsible” vehicle operator (note the quotes). Basically, public roads were built to enable people to move themselves and ‘cargo’ quickly and efficiently from one point to another, and they are not meant to be an amusement ride. You become a ward of the state when you ride on those roads, and if you are not equiped to ride/drive safely, you become a liability. It does piss me off when my girlfriend doesn’t want to wear her seatbelt, since I don’t want her carcass slamming into me if we wreck or to cry over her grave or to kiss the lip flap left from her flying face-first through the windshield. It’s not just about YOU when you are irresponsible or are not reasonably prudent in your actions. But I guess if you are that self-centered and/or fucking stupid, hopefully you will not have bred before your head goes slamming into the pavement – wouldn’t want to disappoint Darwin.

('sorry about lumping all of that together – oops. i’m not behaving responsibly in the Pit, so now we all have to pay the price…)

It never fails to amuse me how those who post thouroughly emotional diatribes with no factual content are so quick to invoke Darwin. A scientist of his calibre would be pained to see his name attached to a dialog that more resembled the yappings of a rabid poodle than rational discourse. That his name was used to add weight to an argument that simply apes the status quo rather than analizes the data at hand might also remind him of his own plight.

Why you feel compelled to leap to Wolfdukes defense is beyond me. He is an intelligent man that would heve done well without your assistance. Hell, he may even address the specifics of his post I asked him for clarification on.

Another point that confuses me is why you chose to type “RESOURCES, NOT MONEY” in all caps, bolding the word not. It seems to indicate you are contradicting a statement no one made. The contention that a motorcylce accident where the rider wears a helmet will not divert an amuulance is nonsense. Ambulances are routinely dispached to all accident sites, even those with only minor injuries. Hospital space is just as foolish, a broken elbow is a far more common injury in bike mishaps and would take up a bed even for a helmeted rider. I also DID note the quotes around the word irresponsible. I did not, however, notice where in Wolfdukes post it was quoted from. This is perhaps because he never once used the word in his statement.

Your theory on the purpose of roads is just as idiotic. To site a few exemples of non-transport uses of roadways I give you:

Tour Buses
Parades
Sunday drives up the coast

So it appears your remark that “roads are not amusement rides” is mearly an inflamatory statement with no real meaning. Where you got that we become wards of the state when we use roadways also baffles me. If you meant it to mean we lose certain expectations of privacy when we travel you should have said so. If by “wards of the state” you mean we are required to abide by the law, well that is bad usage. All people are required to do that, on the road or not.

Ok damn it, I just noticed where in my post Myndephuquer is referring to with the resources not money rebuttal.

I stand corrected and withdraw the statement that he is arguing a point no one made.

I would have no problem with folks who don’t wear helmets (or seatbelts, or smoke, or lots of other similar type stuff) if they would agree to sign a document waiving their rights to:

Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
AFDC
and other such tax funded benefits as they might demand as a result of their irresponsible behavior.

Yes, there are other dangerous behaviors which we do not regulate. Does the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right” mean anything to y’all?

Live as crazy as you want… just don’t make me pay your bills.


Of course, three lefts do…

Evil… you’re being way to civil for here in the pit. Please make sure you throw in at least one “fuckstick” in your next response or I will be forced to ask that this be transferred to Great Debates.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Ah Frank, Spoken like a true Orwellian

That is such a simple minded solution I know you must only be half serious. Really though, defining high risk behavior and withholding benefits accordingly would be a truly mind boggling process that would leave most all people without State funded assistance.

I imagine cigarettes would be the first to go, followed by alcohol. Eggs and meat would probably follow. Caffine would then likely rise to the top of the hit list.

Those horrid threats eliminated (or forced underground) Motorcycles, skateboards, skis and all other thrill craft would come under fire as dangerous and needless burdens on the taxpayer.

The most glaring menaces gone, the sights would be leveled again, this time at all private vehicles. After all, public transportation is clean and efficient whereas private vehicles are the leading cause of death in the country.

Overeating and casual sex now being the top killer in the nation, are banned.

Now the world, freed from the infernal machines and on its way to becoming utopia faces its final (and most dire threat ever)Free thought. Cameras, once placed on now empty streets are moved into the homes and communal dwellings of the populace. Ahhh, sweet bliss.

Welcome to the bland new world.