Thanks, mangeorge! I’ll be filing that factoid away.
And, uh, scampering gremlin, what’s you’re point? Death is bad? Motocycles are dangerous? With all due respect for your grief, I’d mention the uselessness of anecdotal evidence, but all you’ve provided is an anecdotal anecdote. You didn’t even mention whether the guy was wearing a helmet.
Helmets have saved (what’s left of) my brain many, many times. The motorcycle vs. the pickup truck, the motorcycle vs. the tree, the motorcycle vs. the dude borrowing my uncle’s huskivarna.
How many fingers, son? Who’se the president? was the frigging mantra of my youth.
Law or not, I demand the right to decide whether I’m going to put on a helmet. The fact that I always CHOOSE to do so should not, will not impinge on my RIGHT to RETAIN the CHOICE rather than let Uncle Sam decide, forever, for me.
Many people who made the choice to go brain box free aren’t here to argue. I don’t think its fair to pretend this is a plus to the human race.
In particular, I miss my X’s mom’s boyfriend, who was a judge. And made a poor choice.
<sniff>
But despite all this raciocination, emotionalism, and dancing paraclets in green tights,
COME ARREST ME! I’m gonna take my dirt bike to check the cows on the back 40, & I’m gonna let the wind twine her thin fingers through my receding hair.
the number of deaths per accident in no way proves the claim false. the relevant stat is the number of fatal head injuries before and after the helmet law. and while the medical community may have claimed that deaths across the board would be reduced, obviously they are only considering deaths resulting from head injuries.
i agree with sam stone that wearing a helmet can make you more reckless. mountain biking is inherently reckless and there’s no way i would do it without a helmet. as a result, i have a chronic shoulder injury as well as many scars on my shins and calves. but my head’s ok. i think.
The previous poster asserts that death is not the “true issue.” Mornings like that bring a different perspective. The details of the accident, of course, are irrelevant. You state the reason very well, Podkayne.
?authority’s statistics are misleading because they measure only total fatalities, not deaths from head injuries, because they fail to note the increasing number of registered motorcyclists in Maryland, and because they refer to a relatively small population sample. While the national average shows decreased motorcycle deaths under helmet laws, individual state results vary. California’s fatality rate decreased by 75% since its helmet law went into effect in 1991.
For the information ?authority cites, check this link:
http://www.abate-of-maryland.org/MarylandMotorcycleStatistics.htm
For the other view, visit the following:
http://www.bikersrights.com/states/maryland/geico.html
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/stateleg/mchelmetUpdateDec2000.htm
because they measure only total fatalities, not deaths from head injuries
Isn’t total fatalities the point? If helmets reduce head injuries but increase other injuries, are they still considered safer? I would think that only including head injuries is misleading.
http://www.usff.com/hldl/report/3rdEditiona.html [quoting a study done in NY before and after a mandatory helmet law]
“. . . that wearing a helmet is associated with greatly reduced fatal head injury (39%), but greatly increased fatal neck injury”
because they fail to note the increasing number of registered motorcyclists in Maryland
So the purpose of helmet laws is decreasing the use of motorcycles rather than increasing the safety? Helmet law proponents are being misleading when they don’t mention a decreased number of registered motorcycles when they cite statistics such as “California’s fatality rate decreased by 75% since its helmet law went into effect in 1991.”
because they refer to a relatively small population sample
http://msabate.com/petition.html
“During the seven-year period from 1987 through 1993, states with no helmet laws or partial laws (for riders under 21) suffered fewer deaths (2.89) per 100 accidents that those states with full helmet laws (2.93 deaths).”
http://hometown.aol.com/abateditor/politics/OurPosition.htm
1993 stats
(25) Voluntary Helmet States
194.02 [accidents per 10,000 registrations]
2.90 [fatalities per 100 accidents]
(25) Mandatory Helmet States
222.21 [accidents per 10,000 registrations]
2.98 [fatalities per 100 accidents]
http://www.abate-of-maryland.org/xhelmets.htm
“Relative to the number of registered motorcycles, states with mandatory helmet laws had 12.5% more accidents and 2.3% more fatalities than free-choice states for the 14 year period 1977-90.”
I originally went searching the web to disprove ?authority’s claim or to find if there was a different cause for the increase in fatalities. The anti-helmet law sites all use the fatalities/accidents figures (and they all use different states/years/etc. so it’s not an anomaly). The pro-helmet law sites all use total fatalities figures. Knowing a little bit about statistics, the fatalities/accident figures are a lot more accurate on helmet safety than the total fatalities figures.
Crap.
I’m in favor of manditory helmet laws for bicyclists, I’m aganist the same laws for motorcycliists.
Watch Pinky explode now.
[bold] x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. x AND not x. [/bold}
Don’t you dare try to misconstrue a Harley rider’s words into that.
I see that most of your links are to ABATE sites. Time to bow out before this degenerates further.
I have never been on a motorcycle in my life. I am one of the least macho, LEAST reckless people you will ever know. And if I DID ride a motorcycle, I’d probably wear a helmet.
But just for the sake of argument, suppose, JUST suppose…
A safety-conscious Congress was considering a law that all people driving or riding in automobiles have to wear helmets.
NOW how comfortable are you with the idea of the government stepping in to “protect” you?
Face it- head injuries are a leading cause of death in car accidents, and there are probably thousands of people in cemeteries all over the world who’d be alive today if they’d been wearing crash helmets when they got into car wrecks. So, for YOUR OWN GOOD, the government says YOU have to wear a helmet in your own car.
Can there be any doubt that such a law would save lives? No doubt at all. The question is, would the lives saved be worth the inconvenience to millions of people in their everyday lives?
Just how far do you want to go? How much inconvenience is too much, and how many lives would have to be saved to justify the inconvenience?
Wherever you come down on this issue, it’s obviously a lot easier and more pleasant to regulate OTHER people’s behavior than our own!
I found a copy of an article: “The Wild One”, that was published in Forbes FYI about mandatory helmet laws.
Members of “ABATE, or American Bikers Aiming Toward Education…a nationwide organization of helmet-hating Harley riders” challenged local members of Mensa about the issue of mandatory helmet laws. The ABATE members convinced the Mensa members that helmet laws weren’t necessary.
If I didn’t live in Texas and if I had a motorcycle to ride I probably wouldn’t wear a helmet.
Sorry I dident keep up on this thread yesterday (some motorcyclist ride motorcycles on nice Sunday afternoons).
My first thought today is to ask Scampering Goat if he is a “Harley Rider” or former “Harley owner”, he has stated both so far. And by the way what difference does it make that he is either? Anyone on any type of motorcycle should have a valid opinion on the helemet issue, I just feel the Government should not.
While I’m at it, I think I should say agian that the lack of a helmet law in no way procludes anyone from wearing a helmet, it just give individuals the choice.
Also, SG stated that my stats were misleading. Well, when he states that overall deaths from motorcycle accidents are down and quotes his numbers it is intresting that they dont take into account the number of accidents. Even if I did agree that helmets were benifical in an accident, I can not comprehend how helmet laws prevent accidents. Please explain this to me.
Then SG goes on to say Monocracys references are no good because while he (monoc) was trying to disprove my claim, he discovered I was right. I think this thread is better off now that he (SG) “bows out before it degenerates further”, how could we possibly question anyone who is a Harley rider/ former Harley owner…(i guess he rides on the back now).
I can add this to the list of what I learned today.
http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/helmet_use.htm
The stats seem to bear out the fact that wearing a helmet will significantly reduce the chances that you are seriously injured or killed if you crash your bike. Suffering a lifelong disability would be pretty high on the list of “Things that Suck” too.
A helmet probably won’t save you if you get run down by another vehicle, the car vs bike matchup is really slanted towards to car and the semi vs motorcycle is a no brainer. Slam your bike into any large stationary object (like a house) and the house is probably going to win.
The helmet will protect you in the skull vs pavement match and in many cases it’s what keeps everything in one place.
I have to say this again: If you ever need to assist a motorcyclist after an accident do not attempt to remove the victim’s helmet as serious spinal or brain injury may occur.
I’ll keep my helmet on thank you whether there’s a law or not. It has never had to save me from the pavement but given the choice between hitting bees at 70mph and having them deflect off my helmet… I’ll take the deflection every time.
I make my kids wear their helmets whenever they ride their bikes or go rollerblading, it would be hypocritical and stupid of me to propel myself down the road at speeds in excess of 70mph without a little protection of my own.
Just something to concider when “propelling yourself down the roasd at speeds in exess of 70 mph”:
“It is concluded that: 1) motorcycle helmets have no significant effect on probability of fatality; and 2) past a critical impact speed, helmets increase the severity of neck injuries.”
Dr. Jonathan Goldstein, Bowdoin College
When applying the law of inertia, the weight of an object becomes awesome. A 4-pound helmet at 50 mph becomes 200 pounds upon impact.
DOT tests helmets by a 6-foot vertical drop, impacting at 13.43 mph. Even at these low impacts, 52% of the helmets tested by DOT since 1974 failed… and only ONE helmet passed since 1984.
DOT Helmet Test Reports, 1974-90
all taken from:
“http://www.abate-of-maryland.org/xhelmets.htm”
Thanks for the link Monocracy
I don’t have a motorcycle anymore, but when I did I ALWAYS wore a helmet. I won’t do much more than wheel a bike from one side of the garage to the other without putting on a helmet. Having said that, I’m completely opposed to madatory helmet laws.
First of all it’s not been conclusively proven (at least anywhere that I’ve seen) that these laws reduce medical costs. I do believe that helmets save some lives and overall reduce injuries. However, figure that some percentage of people wearing helmet survive and require costly health care when they would have been killed without the helmet, and I don’t know that there’s any cost savings associated with the helmet.
Secondly, if on average riding without a helmet does incur more medical costs, I have no problem with paying higher insurance premiums for the priviledge of riding without a helmet. Same thing with good boots, gloves, jackets, etc. - make them optional, but adjust my insurance rates as appropriate.
And yes, that may mean some people can’t afford to ride without wearing safety gear. That doesn’t bother me a bit.
And the final point is that I believe I am ultimately responsible for my own safety. If I choose to not wear a helmet, or a seatbelt in a car, or eat a diet high in saturated fats, it’s my life and my choice. As long as I don’t endanger you, it shouldn’t be your concern. And if that means my overall insurance rates go up because you choose to ride without a helmet, if that’s the price I pay for keeping this personal freedom, it’s money well spent.
If helmets cause more neck injuries then logically we would see a butt load more neck injuries during accidents during motorcycle racing. I’ve seen guys go down at well over 100mph and not have a broken neck. I’ve seen guys high side and great speed and no broken neck. If helmets caused more neck injuries then we would see so many broken necks it wouldn’t even be funny. Yet they don’t happen. why? cause helmets don’t cause broken necks.
ok enough of that lets see what else there is here.
coughbullshitcough
If only one helmet has passed DOT testing, then kindly explain to me how my HJC Flip-up helmet passed last year? Or any of the other new helmets that have come out since 84? Or how do they pass the SNELL testing which is more difficult than DOT testing?
hmmm… what happened in 93? not many accidents, looks strange to me. and heres why. From Proficient Motorcycling by David L Hough.
“The Road Rider accident survey brought something else to our attention. A lot of motorcycle accidents don’t get reported.” p. 26
He was talking about a study that Road Rider did in the early 80s. I wonder how many of those accidents were the riders wearing shorty helmets or no helmets while a lot of accidents that weren’t reported got up and rode away.
I can tell you from experince that helmets save lives. I’ve been in three accidents that would have hurt/killed me without a helmet. My first accident I hit a deer at 60mph and went down. A low side, I got ripped up pretty badly under the deer and motorcycle. hmm… I’ve got scars on my legs, but nothing on my head/face/neck. My second I panic braked and locked up the rear tire at 65mph. This caused a high side in which I landed on my head as did my wife. NO neck injuries to either of us. she had a bad concussion. My third I was riding in the rain around 25mph, slid, then twisted my wrist. This also caused a high-side and again on my back and neck and again no neck injuries.
I’ve only ever heard ONE, that’s right ONE, neck injury that was supposed to be caused by the helmet and that was because he landed on his chin.
Why is anyone beliving this crap? and from an economist?!? The first statement is a joke, I’ve just shown that I WOULD be dead without a helmet, yet I’m fine. I know plenty of people who’ve had accidents, some very bad and are still here to talk about it. What do you do if you’re going down the road and hit a patch of oil? I’ve done that twice. How about black ice? done that too. Then again if you only ride on nice Sundays you’ll probably not meet such things, I ride year round.
I wish I still had the link, I’ll see if I can get it again, but South Carolina has the highest motorcycle fatality rate in the country, they have no helmet law.
There’s one more thing too before I forget, I’ve read it here and while I was taking a MSF course, I hear people say that the bodies natural tendincy is to keep the head off the ground so a helmet will cause a persons head to hit the ground in an accident, but without a helmet you can keep your head up. I thought about this and thought yeah maybe. Then while at the ice rink I watched little kids and everyone else fall down, anyone that wasn’t moving could keep thier head up, anyone moving at any real speed could not. Go watch people ice skate sometime and you’ll see.