From this question:
I think they may be overlooking the obvious correlation/causation problem here… especially if we’re talking about Harley riders. :rolleyes:
I found Cecil’s diversion of the topic to organ donation and gloating over motorcyclists as handy spare parts rather ghoulish.
And speaking of which, one other thing about this article bothered me. He stated that 42% of motorcycle fatalities were of people not wearing helmets. What he didn’t say was what percentage of riders actually wear helmets. Without that information the statistic is meaningless.
RWS, I feel safe in the assumption that if 42% of riders were not wearing helmets at the time of their demise, roughly 58% were. My argument being that wearing a helmet is sort of a binary thing, either you do or you don’t–kinda like being pregnant. And the auto-consent to organ donation is an interesting concept.
However, as a somewhat-avid rider myself, I find myself taking exception with The Great Cecil’s too-easy swipe at riders in general re: the helmet/no-helmet choice. Being T-boned by someone making a right turn because the driver “didn’t even see a motorcycle,” having a driver make a left turn in front of an oncoming rider and offering the same excuse, and having a driver change lanes into a rider hardly qualify as “self-inflicted.” The only thing self-inflicted here is the rider’s choice to ride. Are there bad riders? Absolutely, see 'em all the time making BAD choices. But I see at least as many so-called “cagers” as riders making those same kinds of BAD choices behind their respective wheels.
A more illustrative and potentially enlightening statement (and perhaps the subject of a future article?) would entail comparing the types of injuries acquired and their relative probabilities for causing death, helmet vs no-helmet. My limited–and somewhat dated–personal research has determined that in states which changed from “helmet choice” to “mandatory wear” saw no statistical change in the NUMBERS of deaths, only the TYPES of deaths, e.g. splattered brains (no helmet) vs broken necks (helmet rebound off hard ground/bridge abutment/etc.).
I further submit that at the speeds currently enjoyed by the highway-using public, helmets provide little to no additional “safety.” Supporting my argument: a) there is not a single motorcycle helmet manufacturer–of which I am aware–that will warrant a rider’s safety in their helmet above a speed of 15mph (most people drive faster than that in parking lots!), including those bearing the SNELL designation; b) Cecil’s own answer to the Kamikaze question Why did kamikaze pilots wear helmets? - The Straight Dope (which I will confirm as a former USAF aviator–we wore helmets, but only to keep from bonking our noggins inside the jet and as something to hang our oxygen masks from–and don’t get me started on the neck problems developed from THAT!); c) in many states it is in fact illegal to wear a helmet whilst driving a car/truck due to impaired visibility/hearing and increased/undue fatigue incurred.
SO, to make a long story short (TOO LATE!), it’s about personal choice–something that seems to be going the way of the dinosaur in our increasingly “The government is here to protect people from themselves” society. Cecil, if you get down here and read these forums, love your work. Would appreciate if you keep the personal politics out of it though.
Indeed. Using his logic, we should walk everywhere since driving is a comparatively dangerous activity.
Poor article.
It certainly seemed out of place and unrelated to the question.
His point had nothing to do with how many riders were not wearing helmets at the time of their fatality. Rather, he was asking about how prevalent helmet wearing is within the population.
Say that 80% of motorcycle riders wear helmets. Then finding that 42% of fatalities happen to folks not wearing a helmet means that there is a higher incidence of fatalities from nonwearers to wearers (42% of deaths from 20% of population). But if 80% of riders do not wear a helmet, then finding only 42% of fatalities happens to non helmet wearers suggests that the non-helmet wearers are safer (42% of deaths from 80% of population). Perhaps because it affects their driving style.
Cecil’s “self-induced” comment was meant to reflect their choice to not wear helmets and thus subject themselves to greater risk of death in the event of an accident.
Which is a very good response to that argument.
Indeed. In fact, I found this article, which contradicts itself by saying helmets save lives, while at the same time noting that 58% of motorcyclists wear helmets, and that 41% of motorcycle fatalities were of those not wearing helmets (a fact that backs up djester’s assertion that wearing a helmet has no statistical bearing on fatalities). So if you take the numbers at face value, it would seem that statistically you’re slightly better off not wearing a helmet.
This is a pretty interesting read:
http://www.bikesafe.co.uk/Uploads/AdviceCentre/Documents/129e5cd.pdf
As a motorcyclist, I am resigned to the “organ donor” swipes although I did raise my eyebrows at Cecil’s uncharacteristic piece.
What surprises me is not that some motorcyclists (by no means all - see the paper) don’t feel at risk, it’s that car drivers are unable to accept the fact that their vehicles are crash tested to 35 mph. After that, you’re on your own. When you learn about how stuff works, the idea that a car could protect you at 70 mph becomes a laughable folly.
It’s a psychological coping mechanism - car drivers freak out if you attempt to explain to them that they should be just as afraid of crashing as motorcyclists. They also get pretty cross if you tell them that they could do quite a lot more to reduce deaths among pedestrians and cyclists, but interestingly nobody berates either group as organ donors.
I don’t deny that there are a group of motorcyclists who are not very risk averse at all and that group, it seems to me, would be crashing whatever vehicle they used. Now, if they run wide in a corner coming the other way, would you rather they were in 1500kg of saloon car coming towards you or on 250kg of motorcycle?
Easy choice for me, whatever my transport - it’s all about energy. I don’t care whether or not they are wearing a hat.
Damian
This is a problem with incomplete statistical analysis. In and of itself, wearing/not wearing a helmet and the resulting accident facility rate is meaningless. The problem comes when people try to deduct valid information from flawed studies. Example. What if there were 100 people in the study, and 42 wore no helmet and died. One could argue that not wearing a helmet is 100% fatal in an accident. Bad math, bad interpretation of the statistical data and, as has been said, meaningless statistics.
Fortunately, head-on crashes at 70 mph are incredibly rare. That’s highway speed, so even a T-bone crash is unlikely, as all the cars around you are traveling in the same direction. That greatly reduces the relative impact velocity.
In most head-on crashes, the operator of the vehicle has time to slam the brakes and reduce the vehicle’s speed, if not all the way to 35 mph, then to somewhere in that vicinity. If no brakes are applied, then yes, the crash is likely to be fatal. Fortunately, it’s extremely rare.
But even in the case of a fatal crash, automobile drivers (and passengers) are far less likely to be in … shall we say, salvageable condition, than a motorcyclist, who is normally thrown clear of the immediate impact zone and suffers a broken neck or smashed head, rather than metal parts to the chest.
Well, if you’re the only person about whom you’re concerned, I suppose that makes sense. Though the more cyclists who wear “hats”, the lower the cost of insuring them, and the lower cost other insured drivers pay.
Powers &8^]