Motorcycle Helmets Save Lives? Who'da thunk?

[privateer]

You can read the stats anyway you want.
If your for helmet laws, you can stake the figures to what you want.
Against helmet laws, again you can stake the figures.
Having been involved in A.B.A.T.E. for over 12 years, I've seen it all.

One figure I've seen over and over is that nearly 3/4 of all accidents involve another vehicle INFRINGING our right of way!!

The rider then becomes a statistic in an accident he did not instigate.
The 'I didn't see him' usually buys the one causeing the accident a walk!!

And God forbid anyone supports a Law to forbid texting or cell phone use while driveing!!
That could get you voted out of office in many areas.


Ohio is a leader in the Freedom of Choice area.
We're also fighting for a Right of Way Bill that will change the old 'I didn't see him' get out of jail free card!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by privateer

The 'I didn't see him' usually buys the one causeing the accident a walk!!

The driver usually doesn't see the bike he cuts off or hits. On the other hand there are a great many people who don't notice the tractor-trailor they pull right in front of either.

[AirHippo]

Using the phone while driving has been illegal here for... two or three years. It has achieved bugger-all, as anyone who's spotted the large number of cretins still driving and texting will attest.

Personally I'm all for freedom of choice - if you want not to wear a helmet, fair enough. But the question should then be, if you have an accident, "was he/she wearing a helmet?" And when the hospital personnel are told "no", it's to the back of the queue for you, then, chum. Contributory negligence, I believe, is the actuarial term.

I agree, we are being poked and prodded and shoved into doing absolutely nothing even remotely dangerous (or expressing an opinion the ruling classes don't like!), but I frankly have little sympathy for people who do dangerous things and get hurt by them. I've done daft things like climing up railings when under the influence (considerably... 'hem ) and the inevitable results of torn-off skin, cuts and bruises are just the price you pay for acting a bit daft. Refusing to wear any protection while tearing down the road on an unstable two-wheeled plastic death rocket counts as a pretty daft thing to do, IMO.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by AirHippo

Personally I'm all for freedom of choice - if you want not to wear a helmet, fair enough. But the question should then be, if you have an accident, "was he/she wearing a helmet?" And when the hospital personnel are told "no", it's to the back of the queue for you, then, chum. Contributory negligence, I believe, is the actuarial term.

That's actually something I can agree with. I stand squarely against seatbelt laws as well. I always wear one, but I defend the right to choose. Of course if an insurance company wanted to set a policy that says if it can be proven that you weren't wearing a belt when the accident happened they don't have to pay, I say good. That's not a law coercing us to protect ourselves, that's a private company setting the terms of the contract. I see a big difference.

Refusing to wear any protection while tearing down the road on an unstable two-wheeled plastic death rocket counts as a pretty daft thing to do, IMO.

I agree. Of course having an opinion about the intelligence involved in one act or another is not the same as forcing someone to act in accordance with our opinions.

[AirHippo]

Weirdly, hereabouts, if you own a legally "antique" car, you don't need (AFAIK) to get seatbelts fitted to it; presumably the logic is that old cars are slower, but the counterpoint is that old cars are also much less able to withstand damage than new ones, and provide much less driver protection. Plus, it means that you can be screeching around without one in, say, a Merc 300SL, without a belt. Go figure.

[privateer]

Insinuating I'm an Idiot for exercising my rights to wear a helmet or not wear a helmet in States that allow freedom of choice is an insult.

I jumped out of perfectly good AirCraft to defend rights.
It did not matter that I agreed with the Laws or not.
I still risked my Life to defend YOUR rights.

I FULLY understand that I may die each and everytime I hit the road.
I also carry full insurance to CMA.
That's not cheap by the way!

I would rather die, with no head gear, then allow peons to demand I protect thier misguided thoughts that they can make me wear gear.

You are way out of bounds to think you have that right!

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by privateer

Insinuating I'm an Idiot for exercising my rights to wear a helmet or not wear a helmet in States that allow freedom of choice is an insult.

Of course it is. It's also just an opinion, and worth exactly nothing. Trying to actually force you to? Now that's an insult.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Absolutely. Whether on a bicycle or a motorcycle I live by the rule that I'm invisible. Nobody ever sees you, and if someone does it's probably because he's out to get you anyway. If anyone really things drivers should be better at watching out for bikes, just look at how many people pull out in front of a bus or semi without noticing something that big bearing down on them.

Many years ago I was riding in the middle lane of a street that was three lanes each way. Up ahead I noticed a car waiting to pull out into traffic, and a car in the slow lane just ahead of me. Thinking I might be screwed if the waiting car pulled out and the guy just ahead suddenly dodged right into me. So I signalled and pulled over into the fast lane - just a second before the car ahead and to the right did exactly the same thing, obviously taking exactly the same precaution. At the next light the guy who had been behind me pulled up alongside and said "Man, you're good! How did you know that guy was going to change lanes before he did?"

I shook my head and said "I didn't. I just imagined what would happen if he did." You have to do that if you're going to drive a two-wheeled vehicle with no armor at all in traffic filled with steel monsters weighing a ton or more.

Good story, had many experiences similar to that myself, have ended up on sidewalk on oncoming traffic side of the road a few times- sometimes it's the ONLY place left to go. Learned to ride from a lifetime biker who echoed many of the lessons I learned from bicycling- ride offensively, watch 2 cars ahead, and be situationally aware of your surroundings. Those are some of the biggest reasons I don't like to wear a helmet around town- can't hear anything and limited vision. I won't go on the highway without a helmet tho.

I wear one by choice, and would resent anyone telling me I must wear one.

[privateer]

When a large group are misguided by Insurance Companies claims?
All pay the price in increased fees.
Then the stupid stuff starts with Laws that increase Insurance Companies profits!!

They use scare tactics that most will just buy into.
Why do Insurance Companies scare you with what a Biker does but not raise your rates for having a cell and texting while driveing?
Cause you ARE texting and on the cell and probably don't ride a Bike!

Better for them I'm the bad Guy then You!!
You'll be the arse that forces me to be a true OutLaw while you text just how good a job you did protecting me from myself guided attempt to protect my rights.


Good on you that do so.
I'll be the one to tell you just how misguided you truely are.

I wanted to see a 90 day jail term for ROW violators no matter what.
That would be the lest amount of time you MUST serve.
If a death is involved?
I wanted to see Manslaughter charges brought.

The suggestion that My kin could seek revenge was quickly ruled out.
But I really feel sorry for the person that might take out my Wife while she rides.

Everytime Nancy goes for a ride? I treat it as the last time I may ever see her alive.
But I would never deny her the right to ride her Triumph with or without a Helmet.
You that don't ride will never understand that side of things.
To Love Freedom of Choice so much that you can risk loseing the most important person in your life!

[sidslotm]

to wear or not to wear, this is the question. I was always against compulsory crash helmet law, and in some small way I still am. But a few years ago while at work I was speaking to a friend about his (quite serious) weekend auto racing and the fact that he only just returned to work after a crash which put him on sick for several months. I felt he should have taken out a private insurance deal to cover the event of an accident and that it was not the company that should bare the cost of his accident.

The advances of machine guards have come a long way since I started work in the sixties, a time when men without a finger or two was quite common in engineering. But it's all wasted effort when this guy crashed and the company has to pick up the tab, after all the saftey measures that have been installed are for his protection at work, and individuals are responsable for their own saftey when at home, or on a bike.

Skid lids work, and while I would not want to force a man to wear a lid, I would most definitly insist, if you don't want to wear a lid, then you should accept your responsibilties in the event of an accident involving serious hear injury, ie: extra insurance.

The throttle works both ways, Mike Hailwood.

[Neal Stevens]

Riding a motorcycle is a pretty dangerous affair by itself, riding without a helmet is...hmm, well, we don't want to call names, let's just say it's the same thing as riding on the roof of our car in a lawn chair while our teenage son drives, on the way to a beer run, with cute girls waiting back at the party. Yeah, it's that.

It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done. Serious motorcycle riders wear helmets, it's that simple. But if you insist on riding without the proper head gear, you have a moral obligation to be an active organ donor. After all, the kind of guy who thinks it's great to ride helmetless is very unlikely to the able to pay his medical bills.

Helmetless biking is good -- for organ recipients.

The CDC seemed to presume that everyone accepts the obvious; that it's safer to ride with a helmet than without. But in 2000, Florida biker groups argued just the opposite; that helmets were actually hazardous, despite the actual evidence, not to mention common sense.


Back in 2000, bikers cited an obscure study claiming that helmets increased the risk of spinal injuries. Researchers at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine beg to differ.
"We are debunking a popular myth that wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle can be detrimental during a motorcycle crash" said Professor Adil H. Haider, who led the 2011 study that found helmeted riders were 22 percent less likely to suffer cervical spine injury. "Using this new evidence, legislators should revisit the need for mandatory helmet laws", Haider said. There is no doubt that helmets save lives and reduce head injury. And now we know they are also associated with a decreased risk of cervical spine injury. Apparently the notion of personal freedom trumps all that medical stuff. Unhappily, taxpayers also get the bill when brain-damaged bikers end up in public hospitals. One California study found the public paid 72 percent of the medical costs of biker smash-ups. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, figuring the medical costs, estimated that we could save $1.3 billion a year if bikers could only be persuaded to don protective head gear.

[MaddogK]

Perhaps I could drive my car with my full-face helmet on to make my journey even safer. It wouldn't be MY fault if I ran over some pedestrian because I couldn't hear him or he was in that 40% vision zone I lost when I put the helmet on.

[Carthaginian]

22% less likely... this will be the only time that anyone uses a number that low in a safety debate. If a parachute only worked 22% of the time, a pilot wouldn't bother carrying around the extra weight- we know this because they didn't wear them in WWI and they were even more reliable than that at the time.

As someone who rides, and as a nurse, I'm of two minds about this.
Yes, it is a good thing to reduce the number of people that have TBI's related to riding... but when you get on a bike, you have to accept that it isn't if you are going to have an accident it is really how bad will your accident be. You have to do everything possible to protect yourself.
On the other hand, I have cared for patients who were permanent vegetative due to bike wrecks (only one of these was at fault) and there is one overriding theme among them- all were wearing a helmet. The only thing it did was keep them from dying on impact... it didn't keep them from having a mini-mental score between broccoli and brussel sprouts.

As a nurse - only people who are alive can recover with treatment.
As a rider - I'd bloody well rather die on impact than live as a veggie.

If the rider wants to go helmetless- cool.
There should be a DNR symbol on your license right by the organ donor one, though. If you don't plan on trying to live through the wreck, just don't leave any ambiguity about the issue when the paramedics show up.

[Neal Stevens]

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Perhaps I could drive my car with my full-face helmet on to make my journey even safer. It wouldn't be MY fault if I ran over some pedestrian because I couldn't hear him or he was in that 40% vision zone I lost when I put the helmet on.

40% vision lost? You say a helmet obscures nearly half your vision? And when did pedestrians make that much sound? Ok, keep the helmet off, it's your head. Yay for pedestrians!

Originally Posted by Carthaginian

There should be a DNR symbol on your license right by the organ donor one, though. If you don't plan on trying to live through the wreck, just don't leave any ambiguity about the issue when the paramedics show up.

Agreed.

[MaddogK]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

40% vision lost? You say a helmet obscures nearly half your vision? And when did pedestrians make that much sound? Ok, keep the helmet off, it's your head. Yay for pedestrians!

The narrowed field of vision tho legal still makes me nervous.

The normal human visual field extends to approximately 60 degrees nasally (toward the nose, or inward) from the vertical meridian in each eye, to 100 degrees temporally (away from the nose, or outwards) from the vertical meridian, and approximately 60 degrees above and 75 below the horizontal meridian.[citation needed] In the United Kingdom, the minimum field requirement for driving is 60 degrees either side of the vertical meridian, and 20 degrees above and below horizontal. The macula corresponds to the central 13 degrees of the visual field; the fovea to the central 3 degrees.