Big Ben hurt in bike crash!

[Ezekiel]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060612/ap_on_sp_fo_ne/fbn_roethlisberger

Honestly?  I'd put things in contracts saying no basketball, motorcycle riding, or skydiving.  (I may even consider "no guns.")

If your person represents a multi-million dollar investment to me and my corporation, I want you insured -- who's going to insure for those activities? -- and not being a dumbass.

"Idiot."

[Mannlicher]

Well, he was just exercising his right to not wear a helment.  I am sure he did not plan to whack that rear window with his pate.   That aside, I like the lad, and wish him the best.

[Nick1911]

On a side note, am I the only one who thought of a big british clock being damaged by a motorcycle running into it?

I've never heard of the guy in the article.

[garrettwc]

On a side note, am I the only one who thought of a big british clock being damaged by a motorcycle running into it?

I've never heard of the guy in the article.

I thought of the clock too.

I knew who he was because my boss is a big Steelers fan.

[K Frame]

http://www.post-gazette.com/

Sure, I'll agree that it's his right to ride without a helmet.

It's also his right to stick the barrel of a revolver in his mouth and play russian roulette.

Come to think about it, the two actions occupy the same space on the retard-o-meter...

I really hope the Steelers fine the living hell out of him.

[Azrael256]

On a side note, am I the only one who thought of a big british clock being damaged by a motorcycle running into it?

No.  But I'll bet I had more fun than you coming up with ways it might have happened.  Ezekiel's comment about forbidding skydiving by contract made it all the more fun.

[Leatherneck]

Jesus Christ. What retarded person, trained in damage control, would ride a scoot without protection from a brain bucket, on modern American roads? I'd no more strap on a bike without a helmet than I would a jet without a torso harness. And this guy has more money than you and I ever will.

TC

[Sergeant Bob]

A few years ago guys like him got eaten by sabretooth tigers.

[Guest]

Has anyone's life actually ever been saved by a helmet? Anyone I've ever known who went down at 55 died.

The only person I can think of that I know that survived a serious motorcycle accident wasn't wearing a helmet at the time.

[Guest]

Has anyone's life actually ever been saved by a helmet? Anyone I've ever known who went down at 55 died.

The only person I can think of that I know that survived a serious motorcycle accident wasn't wearing a helmet at the time.

Gee Barbara, there are uncountable people who have crashed above 55 and walked away from it. Every single Weekend you can turn on speedTV and it happening live at every motorcycle race that happens on the proffessional level, then there are the thousands of competitors at the amature level, all the offroad guys, then we get to the uncountable hundreds of regular riders that crash on the street every year. So yeah, it happens every single day, and yes helmets save lives every single day too.

[Guest]

I like riding without one..on the highway, I don't much care and generally wear one, if only to prevent sunburn, but going down a nice winding road back road? There's no comparison.

[Guest]

I like riding without one..on the highway, I don't much care and generally wear one, if only to prevent sunburn, but going down a nice winding road back road? There's no comparison.

Noon here is asking to take away your right to make a choice here. What I was arguing with was the fictional account that a 55mph+ accident is not survivable and that helmets dont dave lives every single day.

Freedom to choose not to wear a helmet: guaranteed in my book.
Freedom to spout misinformation to support the above decision: wrong and not going to go unnoticed.

It is a simple concept. Do what you want, and allow others to do the same by not attempting to sway their decisions with even the implication of false information.

Here are the facts as I see them:

Helmets do save lives on a regular basis and can turn a fatal crash into one that you can walk away from even up to and above 100mph.

They can also prevent nasty injuries that would not have otherwise occured (broken jaws, lost teeth, various levels of nasty disfigurement).

In terms of safety there is no downside to wearing a helmet.

The constant and painfull facial encounters with small rocks and insects can be eliminated.

It is possible that one will survive an accident in a condition that they might deem worse than death that would have otherwise proven fatal.

They can be uncomfortable if not properly fitted and on hot days, and they might not fit with the "image" that one is trying to project.

I personally think that the plusses greatly outnumber the minuses, however I really dont care what decision other people come to. I do care that people make an informed decision though.

[Guest]

I'm not saying they do or don't..just that the only person I know to have survived a serious crash was not wearing a helmet at the time. I've lost several friends to bike wrecks; all of them were wearing helmets at the time. For myself, I wear one most of the time (although I haven't been on a bike in years) but in some situations, I prefer not to..those situations generally being quiet country roads. If I'm more likely to die from not wearing the helmet while putting around feeling the breeze and enjoying the sunshine, that's a risk I'm willing to tolerate. The experience wearing a helmet and not wearing one are not comparable.

[Ezekiel]

As for my theories, they have to do with contractual obligation.

If you are worth millions to me, or my organization, and I have you under contract?  "You play by my rules."

1. No bikes.  (See Kent, Jeff & the current subject.)
2. No guns.  (See Williams, Jayson.)
3. No pick-up basketball.  (See any number of subjects.)

Etc.

Cowher (head coach) had already chastened Ben.  "This whole incident was dumb."

[Guest]

I guess the team should have thought to put that in the contract that he signed, huh? Looks like they didnt.

On a related note it would seem that Ben didnt actually have a valid motorcycle license at the time of the crash. I think he needs a babysitter.

If he really didnt have a license (he is reported to have had an expired learners permit) then Penn. state law would seem to imply that he was in fact required to wear a helmet. (you must be over 21 and licensed for two full years or have taken an MSF class).

[K Frame]

"Has anyone's life actually ever been saved by a helmet? Anyone I've ever known who went down at 55 died."

I went to high school with a kid who was, largely, an idiot.

A few years after we graduated he was on his motorcycle, not wearing his helmet.

His girlfriend, another classmate named Jodi (IIRC) was on the back of the bike. She WAS wearing a helmet.

It was night, and police estimate he was doing between 80 and 100 mph on country roads in central Pennsylvania when he hit a horse that had gotten out of its paddock.

Another one of our classmates was one of the first responders, and later told me that the skid he took down the road ripped the back of his skull off and his brains were one large 50 yard smear.

His girlfriend survived the wreck, albeit pretty messed up. Her helmet was around her head in fragments when first responders got there -- the impact with the pavement had shattered it.  No doubt about it, she's alive because of her helmet.

The most unique aspect of this entire incident?

It happened less than 8 hours after Steve left the Pennsylvania ABATE rally on the steps of the state capitol building in Harrisburg.

Poetic irony is a true gold plated bitch at times.


Helmets aren't the be all and end all of motorcycle safety.

Just as air bags aren't the be all and end all of automobile safety.

[Azrael256]

just that the only person I know to have survived a serious crash was not wearing a helmet at the time.

Well, people survived high speed car wrecks before safety belts were invented.  They still provide a demonstrable benefit in the event of a wreck.

I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle.  Simply calling it a "serious crash" doesn't explain exactly what happened.  There are a great many variables in any wreck that wil determine survivability.  Many, many people have died in wrecks involving all sorts of vehicles that did not involve potentially life threatening head trauma.  Heck, people have died in wrecks at speeds of less than 20mph.  It may well be that a helmet wouldn't save me from a high speed head-on with a drunk driver, but it would likely protect me to some great degree should I lose control of a motorcycle, even at higher but reasonable speeds.  There is a certain threshold beyond which survivability drops to near zero (excessive speed is probably the greatest contributor), and one cannot reasonably expect a helmet to provide substantial protection once that threshold is reached.  I would be willing to wager that the majority of motorcycle wrecks occur at relatively low speed.  I would further wager that in the majority of these wrecks, the helmet provides enough protection to at least limit the injury to a medically manageable level.

In short, if you're going to run 130 down the highway, the helmet is pretty much pointless, but if you get sideswiped in 30mph traffic by an idiot driver, the helmet will probably help.  If you want serious protection against head-on collisions with other vehicles or stationary objects, forget the Harley, you need a Volvo.

Frankly, I think you're nuts if you don't wear a helmet or a seatbelt.  I would never allow any passenger in my car to ride without their seatbelt, and if I had a motorcycle, no passenger would be without a helmet.  You are obviously willing to accept the risk of occasionally not wearing a helmet, and that's your personal choice.  I may not think it's the wisest choice, but I agree with c_yeager that it's your decision and nobody else's.

[richyoung]

1.  There is NO safe motorcycle - helmet or no helmet.
2.  There is NO WAY to know for certain in any specific accident that "the helmet saved his life" - UNLESS one repeats the exact accident without the helmet, and the person dies.
3.  Helmets DO provide some protection in an accident - they also make an accident more likely to happen by reduced situational awareness, diminished hearing, obscured vision, (especially under fogging of the visor conditions).  There is no way to accurately measure how many accidents never happen because helmetless riders saw the problem in time to avoid it, (or how many accidents happen BECAUSE of helmet use), so trying to "prove" anything with accident statistics is using a deck already loaded in favor of helmets.
4.  The added weight of a helmet increases the  chance of kneck trauma and paralysis.
5.  Ben hit his FACE - anything less than a full-face race helmet wouldn't help with that - in fact the added weight would make it worse.  IF he had been wearing a helmet, odds are it would be a minimal "CHP" type helmet that would have helped him little.  Even if he HAD a  full face helmet - that would only mean he hit the inside of hte helmet instead of the windshield - I doubt it would have been much better.

[Sergeant Bob]

Wow, don't like helmets? Fine, got no problem with that.

But please don't insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that it's safer riding without one.
I'm sure you can come up with some obscure anecdotal evidence (just like everyone knows somene who would have been killed on a car accident if they had been wearing a seatbelt) where someone wearing a helmet was more severely injured or killed but there's alot more evidence showing that helmets save lives.

I rode for years without one and never got hurt, but I'll never forget seeing the guy who dumped his bike making a turn at an intersection (not going very fast and without a helmet) lying there in the street with his head smashed and his legs twitching. Or the guy who went to the local airport to play drag racer (without a helmet) who crashed his bike and ended up in the canal at the end of the runway. Cause of death, drowning.

I expect if it was so much safer without them professional riders wouldn't be wearing them (take a look at the statistics for injuries in professional racing with and without helmets). Auto racing too.


Try this: Have a friend throw a brick at your head, with a helmet on.
Now have him throw a brick at your head without a helmet.

Or, put on a helmet and bang your head against a brick wall, then try it without a helmet.

Heck, you can break your head open falling on pavement riding a bicycle at 15 mph.
I know you're going to tell me you'll receive less injuries without a helmet.

I know you're going to tell me if your child gets on a motorcycle you're going to forbid him from wearing a helmet.

[Morgan]

I wish I still had photos of my helmet that I crashed in several years back, at about 100 mph (on a racetrack - I raced for several years).

There was a HUGE gouge in the rear, smaller ones around to the front, including the visor, and another large gouge in the chinbar.  Also, tire marks (yes, I got run over) along one side and across the chinbar.

That helmet DEFINITELY saved my life.  My body would have been unidentifiable if I hadn't had the skid lid on.  I'd likely have been killed if it were not a full-face helmet, as well.

I kept it for awile as a pit ornament.  It reminded me, when I started thinking I was a badass, that I thought I was a badass that day, too.

[richyoung]

Wow, don't like helmets? Fine, got no problem with that.

But please don't insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that it's safer riding without one.

I don't ride a motor cycle at all - but have friends who do, and who point out the accident-causing potential of helmets.  Got a beef with that - talk to them.  They actually ride, so I take their word on it.

I'm sure you can come up with some obscure anecdotal evidence (just like everyone knows somene who would have been killed on a car accident if they had been wearing a seatbelt) where someone wearing a helmet was more severely injured or killed but there's alot more evidence showing that helmets save lives.

Yes, helemts save lives IN ACCIDENTS - how many of those accidents WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if helmets weren't worn?  How many accidents DIDN'T happen BECAUSE helmets weren't worm?  There's no way to know.  Thats the problem with using statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post - for support, rather than illumination.

I rode for years without one and never got hurt, but I'll never forget seeing the guy who dumped his bike making a turn at an intersection (not going very fast and without a helmet) lying there in the street with his head smashed and his legs twitching.

....and with a helmet, he might have just had a broken neck instead....

 

Or the guy who went to the local airport to play drag racer (without a helmet) who crashed his bike and ended up in the canal at the end of the runway. Cause of death, drowning.

...unless it had an air bottle and mouthpiece, how would a helmet prevent drowning?  I should think a heavy brain bucket would INCREASE the risk of drowning.  When is the last time you took a swim in one?

I expect if it was so much safer without them professional riders wouldn't be wearing them (take a look at the statistics for injuries in professional racing with and without helmets). Auto racing too.

Races take place in one direction only on a closed course with no cross traffic, with all professional drivers, and frequently a spotter on the radio telling you when the areas you can't see because of the helmet and HANS device are clear (or not).  They also take place at speeds up to 4 times those encountered on the street, with big walls and fences right next to the roadway. The street is a vastly different place - with buses, semis, garbage trucks, etc, amature drivers and stuff coming at you 360 degrees.  Do you honestly think Jeff Gordon wears a fire suit, five point harness, and full face helmet to drive to the corner convenience stor?  Of course not - the sttreet and a track are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS!  (But to do so would be as silly as requiring helmets on MC riders...)

Try this: Have a friend throw a brick at your head, with a helmet on.
Now have him throw a brick at your head without a helmet.

Or, put on a helmet and bang your head against a brick wall, then try it without a helmet.

How about we try THIS, in honor of Big Ben...

Put on anything less than a full face helmet, and hit a Town Car windshield WITH YOUR FACE at 30+ MPH.  See if the helmet helps.

Put on a FULL FACE helmet (NOT required by law), and repeat the experiment, and see if your face hitting the INSIDE OF THE HELMET is anything better than marginally better off than hitting the windshield.

Heck, you can break your head open falling on pavement riding a bicycle at 15 mph.

I can break my head slipping on soap in the shower, but last I checked, we weren't required to wear helmets in the shower...make it kind of hard to use my Head and Shoulders shampoo...

I know you're going to tell me you'll receive less injuries without a helmet.

I don't bang my head into brick walls - I'm afraid that if I do I'll start voting Democrat...

I know you're going to tell me if your child gets on a motorcycle you're going to forbid him from wearing a helmet.

If he's over 18 and not on my health insurance its up to him - its called "liberty" - look it up.  As long as we allow skydiving, "extreme" skiing, surfing, scuba diving, eating McDonalds and KFC, rock climbing, and other fool ways to die, we have no business insisting that the GOVERNMENT FORCE any ADULT to wear a helmet or a seat belt.

[Morgan]

RichYoung - I agree that one should be able to choose whether to wear a helmet or not.

That said, your assertion that helmets somehow cause accidents is idiotic.  Helmets reduce accidents, as well as protecting from injuries when a crash occurs.  You can see and hear better with a helmet on than without one.

Also, full face helmets are designed so you do not hit the inside of the helmet when you face-plant.  I've tested this in anger (see above post), and know it to be true.

I respect everyone's right to be moronic and ride sans helmet, but it is moronic.

[richyoung]

RichYoung - I agree that one should be able to choose whether to wear a helmet or not.

That said, your assertion that helmets somehow cause accidents is idiotic.  Helmets reduce accidents, as well as protecting from injuries when a crash occurs.  You can see and hear better with a helmet on than without one.

Not according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

"DO HELMETS INTERFERE WITH VISION AND HEARING?
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released findings from a study they sponsored to assess the effect of wearing a helmet upon the ability of motorcycle riders (1) to visually detect the presence of vehicles in adjacent lanes before changing lanes, and (2) to detect traffic sounds when operating at normal highway speeds. Predictably, the research supports NHTSA's push for mandatory helmet laws by attempting to deflate opponents' argument that helmets may increase a rider's risk of crashing by interfering with the ability to see and hear surrounding traffic. For example, the vision test showed that "most riders recover the lateral field of view that is lost by wearing a helmet by turning their heads a little farther." The report went on to say that "only" 4 our of 23 riders did not compensate. That's 17.4% who experienced vision impairment! "

Perhaps you have a scientific study that shows IMPROVED VISION from a helmet?  I'd like to see it...

[richyoung]

MOTORCYCLE HELMETS ARE NOT SAFE!
By Steve "Red" Barron
ABATE of Californa
The present testing standard for motorcycle helmets (FMVSS-218) was created almost 30 years ago. The helmet manufacturer's are required to perform all motorcycle helmet testing in a laboratory on a headform. The result is a motorcycle helmet designed to pass the testing standard which is to protect a headform in a laboratory. The testing does not simulate what would happen to a motorcyclist wearing that helmet in the event of an actual accident. The present testing standard does not exceed a simulated impact speed of 13.66 mph, nor does it take into account the stresses that would be transferred to a motorcyclist's neck and spinal cord, the reduced vision and hearing, the effects of a chin strap around the throat, or the effect on the brain when the helmet bounces. As many State's (including California) have enacted laws that mandate motorcyclist's wear a helmet (or become a criminal), the testing standards should reflect what, exactly a helmet will do to a motorcyclist in the event of an actual accident.

If the safety of the motorcyclist is the primary concern, then the testing standards should reflect that As it stands now, the safety Nazi's say that helmets are safe, when the real troth is that helmets can only be proven to protect a headform in a laboratory. Until the testing standards are designed with the motorcyclist's safety as the primary objective, motorcyclist's who ride in mandatory helmet law States will be required, by law, to wear a helmet that is designed to protect a headform, not a motorcyclist. If the testing used crash dummies with sensors (to detect possible injuries), in realistic accident situations (like a car turning left in front of the motorcyclist), we could determine if, in fact, helmets can actually cause injuries. The laws of physics state that a 4 pound helmet, at 50 mph, becomes 200 pounds upon impact. This is a law that cannot be repealed by anyone and it is an indication that the present motorcycle helmets are not as safe as some would claim. One of the requirements of FMVSS-218 is an impact test performed by dropping the helmet (and headform) onto an anvil from a height of no more than 72 inches which simulates an impact speed of 13.66 mph. Using a Newton equation' for a 170 pound rider, with deceleration of the brain being the controlling factor, the following helmet thicknesses would be required:

IMPACT
VELOCITY HELMET
THICKNESS
4 MPH  1"  
10 MPH  1.8"  
15 MPH  4"  
20 MPH  6.5"  
30 MPH  15"  
40 MPH  29"  


The current 1" thick helmets weigh from 2 to 4.5 pounds. If the testing were done at an impact speed of 20 mph, the helmet would have to be at least 6" thick, and weigh 15 to 20 pounds in order to pass testing. The current 4 pound helmet puts a terrible strain on the neck without impacting anything And upon impact, the bending momentum to the neck will more than double. The neck is the weakest link, and FMVSS-218 does not take this into account (as the required headform has no "neck" at all, nor does it simulate a human body at all, as it's only a headform) There have been many motorcyclist's who have become a quadriplegic due to the effects of wearing a helmet. A female motorcyclist wearing a helmet is twice as likely to die ice as likely as a male motorcyclist (this is probably due to the smaller, weaker neck of a female).
Another requirement of FMVSS-218 (S5.4) is that a helmet provides no less than 105 degrees peripheral vision. A drivers license test requires 140 degrees peripheral vision, and a motorcyclist with only 105 degrees peripheral vision is considered to be legally blind Also, when wearing a helmet, the acute decrease in hearing would prevent a person from receiving a drivers license. Therefore, according to DMV regulations, when wearing a helmet a motorcyclist is legally deaf & blind!

Helmet's are not a safety device for motorcyclist's, and mandatory helmet laws are nothing more than a mandatory dress code with the ability to cause injury and death. But a helmet will protect a headform in a laboratory (up to 13.66 mph), unfortunately, headforms do not ride motorcycles.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote
[1] KE = WH  KE = Kinetic
 = 1/2 w/g v2  V = Velocity
V = at  W = Weight
g = 1/2 at2  H = Height
    g = Acceleration of Gravity
    t = Time
KE = 1.2 w/g (at)2  a = distance

The foregoing is a Newton equation.

[CatsDieNow]

Riding without a helmet is all fun and games until you get stuck behind a gravel truck.  I went through a swarm of grasshoppers once, that was a blast too.  The second-best reason to wear a full-face helmet is to not eat road debris and insects.

Oh, and that Barron guy had better get re-aquainted with his physics book.  He's got a unit dimension and conceptual problem there.  It's good to know that I am going to die in a 20mph crash because I am a woman, though.  Maybe the fact that I only weigh 105 lbs will compensate for my weak neck.

Others can wear a helmet or not, whatever, but I'll always be wearing mine.