Big Ben hurt in bike crash!

[Guest]

Oh yeah, now we are getting into why ABATE will never see a dime of my money. Using junk science to promote a political agenda irregardless of safety concerns is not only wrong, its immoral. Lying to people is *exactly* the same as taking away their ability to make a choice.

Lets adress some of these claims one at a time:

they also make an accident more likely to happen by reduced situational awareness, diminished hearing, obscured vision, (especially under fogging of the visor conditions).

-Visors dont fog above 5 miles an hour, modern visors dont fog at all. There is no diminished vision with a helmet anymore than there is diminished vision from wearing a pair of eyeglasses. A person who is actually *riding* can see much *better* with a face shield because their eyes are not being irritated by wind blast. Hearing is also improved by a helmet by the same reduced airflow. Of course this doesnt effect a rider that is standing still, but its when your moving that it really matters. Funny how that aspect was ignored.

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)

Thats an interesting statement coming from an organization that seems to think that they actually can measure this. and in fact did so in the previous point. Its nice when political action groups actually call out their own BS.

4.  The added weight of a helmet increases the  chance of kneck trauma and paralysis.

Yeah, bullshit. Prove this, now.

Ben hit his FACE - anything less than a full-face race helmet wouldn't help with that

No kidding, funny that all of your previous criticism regarding vision and hearing also made the assumption of a fullfaced helmet. A full faced helmet would most likely have *completely* negated every one of his facial injuries.

in fact the added weight would make it worse.

You think so? Prove it. Prove to me that an added 16 ounces of weight would negate the energy absorption of the high density foam in the helmet. Oh yeah, and you need to use *actual* science, not the crap from Barron.

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.

Have you ever even worn a helmet? I callenge you to touch your face to the faceshield of a properly fitted helmet.

Im not even going to address the Barron issue because he isnt even pretending to use actual science. He is windbag and has made a public fool of himself too many times to even be worth talking about.

How can a person honestly call for freedom when they propogate lies that are deliberately intended to take away a persons knowledge/ability to make up their own mind? ABATE is the Brady Bunch of the motorcycle world, which is a shame because I do agree with them about helmet laws and most other issues. Shame they are a worthless pack of liars.

For the record, there is really only one comprehensive real-life analysis of motorcycle safety in this country, the HURT report. Its old and should be repeated, but i think you might be interested to know that an academic study of *actual* motorcycle accidents completely refutes every single point made from the ABATE handbook.

here are some highlights to get started:

Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident

Think about that. Half of the riders on the street wore helmets, but only %40 of accidents involved a helmeted rider. Does that indicate to you that helmets increase the likelyhood of an accident?

Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection

Kinda messes with that faceshield visibility issue doesnt it?

And here is just a little list of conclusions to stave off the rest. Remember these are conclusions based on a study of actual real-life data, not from a laboratory or from the imagination of a political advocate.

The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.

Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.

Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.

The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.

There is no liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury.

Remember this was a fairly old study, and helmets have gotten a lot better and lighter since it was conducted. Also remember that this data was not based on an examination of statistical information from the DMV or from police reports, the entire report is based on actual on-scene information gathered at the crash scenes by the researchers.

[Sergeant Bob]

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.

How can anyone be intellectualy honest and make a statement like this saying it's the same thing to smack your face on the pavement at 60 mph with absolutely no protection as it is with a high tech safety helmet?

Amazing.

[K Frame]

These are some pretty interesting sound-bite statistics...

"In 2004, 66% of fatally injured motorcycle riders were not wearing a helmet in states without all-rider helmet laws, compared with only 15% in states with all-rider helmet laws. (NHTSA, 2005)"

"NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,158 motorcyclists in 2003. If all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 640 lives could have been saved."

"Helmets reduce the risk of death by 29% and are 67% effective in preventing brain injuries to motorcycle riders. (NHTSA, 2001)"

"In 1997, Arkansas and Texas repealed all-rider helmet laws. As of May 1998, helmet use fell from 97% in both states to 52% in Arkansas and 66% in Texas. Motorcycle operator fatalities increased by 21% in Arkansas and 31% in Texas. (NHTSA, 2000)"

"In 1992, the first year of California's all-rider motorcycle helmet law, 327 motorcyclists died in traffic crashes, compared to 512 in 1991 - a 36% reduction in fatalities in one year. Additionally, the number of hospitalized brain-injured motorcyclists fell by over 50%, from 1,258 in 1991 to 588 in 1992. (California Highway Patrol, 1999, Trauma Foundation, 2002)"

"After passage of Maryland's all-rider motorcycle helmet law in 1992, motorcyclist deaths dropped dramatically - 20% in 1993 and 30% from 1993-1994. (Maryland Department of Transportation)"

"In Oregon, there was a 33% reduction in motorcycle fatalities the year after the helmet law was re-enacted. Nebraska experienced a 32% reduction in fatalities the first year of its law. Texas experienced a 23% reduction in fatalities; Washington, a 15% reduction; California, a 37% reduction; and, Maryland, a 20% reduction. (NHTSA, 2001)"

That all comes from this web site: http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-helmets.htm



Personally, I don't really care if cyclists wear helmets or not. I figure Darwin is an active and ever present force in our society, and he knows best of all how to thin the herd.

[richyoung]

"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)"
Thats an interesting statement coming from an organization that seems to think that they actually can measure this. and in fact did so in the previous point. Its nice when political action groups actually call out their own BS.

That statement doesn't come from ABATE - it comes from ME.  It is an inevitable truth of statistics.    * I * don't claim to measure this - in fact, I said there is "no way" to know.  I pointed out that using accident statistics to justify helmet use and laws is leading to the same statistical fallacy that lead to the "your more likely to shoot someone you know"  and other gun control fallacies.  One can never know with certainty how many times just the brandishing of a gun prevents a crime, yet if one only went by "shooting incidents" and police reports, that positive aspect of gun ownership would never be acknowledged.

"4.  The added weight of a helmet increases the  chance of kneck trauma and paralysis."
Yeah, bullshit. Prove this, now.

In a 50G acceleration, the 4 pound helmet becomes an ADDITIONAL 200 pound side load on a neck trying to ALREADY support 50 times the weight of the head.  Its called "physics" - what do you think that ADDITIONAL 200 pounds does to necks that ALREADY get whiplash from minor rear-end car crashes?  Mind if I drop a refigerator on the side of your unsupported, prone neck?

"...in fact the added weight would make it worse."

You think so? Prove it. Prove to me that an added 16 ounces of weight would negate the energy absorption of the high density foam in the helmet. Oh yeah, and you need to use *actual* science, not the crap from Barron.

Where do you get 1 pound full-face helmets at???

Have you ever even worn a helmet?

Yes - but not a full-face helmet.

I callenge you to touch your face to the faceshield of a properly fitted helmet.

I doubt that after smacking a Town Car at 30+ MPH, it will be "properly fitting" anymore....

For the record, there is really only one comprehensive real-life analysis of motorcycle safety in this country, the HURT report. Its old and should be repeated, but i think you might be interested to know that an academic study of *actual* motorcycle accidents completely refutes every single point made from the ABATE handbook.

here are some highlights to get started:

"Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident"
Think about that. Half of the riders on the street wore helmets, but only %40 of accidents involved a helmeted rider. Does that indicate to you that helmets increase the likelyhood of an accident?

Without knowing the riding habits of the different riders, it doesn't mean ANYTHING.  How many miles did the average helmeted rider ride, vs. the ones without helmets?  What type of motorcycles?  What time of day?  What was the mean and median ages of the two groups?  Alcohol and drug consumption?  Was this information even recoreded?  Without knowing HOW MANY MILES the two groups average, and what traffic conditions, time of day, and especially TRAINING, you can't determine ANYTHING.  Did the pool of "helmeted" riders INCLUDE law enforcement?  DO you think that MIGHT swing the stats?  Do you think that people inclined to NOT wear a helmet MIGHT be more agressive, risk-taking drivers?

" Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection"
Kinda messes with that faceshield visibility issue doesnt it?

I seem to have vague memories of things called "goggles" and "sunglasses" - helmet visors aren't the ONLY vision (or hearing, for that matter) protection choice.

[richyoung]

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.

How can anyone be intellectualy honest and make a statement like this saying it's the same thing to smack your face on the pavement at 60 mph with absolutely no protection as it is with a high tech safety helmet?

Amazing.

Ben R didn't LIKE helemets - if he was forced to wear one, which do you think he would have on?  Remember, the laws don't REQUIRE full face helmets - odds are, he's gonna be wearing a "CHP" minimal helmet with no face protection AT ALL!  So "Helmet Law" or no helmet law, his nose and jaw are STILL goining into the car windshield - except now there's ADDITIONAL momentum behind it.  Without a full face helmet, or some other design that offered substantial facial protection, a helmet would have made at least THAT part of his accident WORSE - yet the thundering herd of sheep are still complaining that "he should have had a helmet on"...

[Sergeant Bob]

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.

How can anyone be intellectualy honest and make a statement like this saying it's the same thing to smack your face on the pavement at 60 mph with absolutely no protection as it is with a high tech safety helmet?

Amazing.

Ben R didn't LIKE helemets - if he was forced to wear one, which do you think he would have on?  Remember, the laws don't REQUIRE full face helmets - odds are, he's gonna be wearing a "CHP" minimal helmet with no face protection AT ALL!  So "Helmet Law" or no helmet law, his nose and jaw are STILL goining into the car windshield - except now there's ADDITIONAL momentum behind it.  Without a full face helmet, or some other design that offered substantial facial protection, a helmet would have made at least THAT part of his accident WORSE - yet the thundering herd of sheep are still complaining that "he should have had a helmet on"...

I don't recall saying anything about helmet laws or forcing anyone to wear any certain type of helmet.

Without a full face helmet, or some other design that offered substantial facial protection, a helmet would have made at least THAT part of his accident WORSE

So you're saying if he had been wearing a full face helmet he would have sustained less facial injuries?

[richyoung]

So you're saying if he had been wearing a full face helmet he would have sustained less facial injuries?

Possibly.  He might also have had worse injuries - it depends on the force of the impact, and if the helmet lining/chinstap will hold under such force, or cause secondary injuries.  Its a moot point anyway - even helmet laws dont REQUIRE full-face helmets, any more than seat belt laws REQUIRE five point harnesses, roll cages, window net, HANS device, fuel cells, driver nomex suit, or any other COMPETITION gear - which a full face helmet is.

[Guest]

You were provided with real world actual information which you chose to ignore. The facts dont matter to you, so what are you arguing exactly?

You also really need to learn how impact trauma works, and it wouldnt hurt if you took the time to learn how a helmet liner works as well. Your ignorance does seem to be intentional so I hold no hope that this will happen. The whole purpose of my post and those of others is so that people who read this thread will have some actual information available to help them make their own choices. I know your mind isnt going to change, and I dont much care. Hopefully there are some people who are capable of independant thought, and maybe they will learn something. Your debate has included less spittle and whining than most of those that come from the ABATE crowd, so for that I commend you.

there is one thing though:

if he was forced to wear one, which do you think he would have on?

Could you point me to a single comment by anyone on this thread endorsing the enacment of mandatory helmet laws? Your reading comprehension is as impressive as your ability to understand physics.

[richyoung]

You were provided with real world actual information which you chose to ignore. The facts dont matter to you, so what are you arguing exactly?

1.  That Ben R was UNLIKELY to have had on a helmet with any kind of face protection, even if Pennsylvania's helmet law was still on the books, and that the added mass of a helmet WITHOUT face protection, (his likely choice) would have made his facial injuries even worse!   Implication: everyone dumping on him for NOT wearing a helmet needs to stop and think.  If California Highway Patrolmen Frank and Ponch did a face-plant into a windshield at over 30 MPH, how much would thier helmets help? Hurt?  Why don't motorcycle police wear full-face helmets - especially since, according to some, they "improve vision and hearing"?

You also really need to learn how impact trauma works,

Ah, the dangers of assuming.  I suppose you didn't read my thread about dying?  About my broken ankle?  If "impact trauma" were an Olympic sport, my face would be on numerous Wheaties boxes...

and it wouldnt hurt if you took the time to learn how a helmet liner works as well.

Helmet liners work by reducing the maximum instantaneous G loading on the victim by conformal destruction (slowing down the impact more gradualy by compressing), and reduce localized pressure loads by distributing the impact forces over a larger area of hte skull, reducing the impact load at any given point.  That about right?

Your ignorance does seem to be intentional so I hold no hope that this will happen. The whole purpose of my post and those of others is so that people who read this thread will have some actual information available to help them make their own choices. I know your mind isnt going to change, and I dont much care. Hopefully there are some people who are capable of independant thought, and maybe they will learn something. Your debate has included less spittle and whining than most of those that come from the ABATE crowd, so for that I commend you.

I'm NOT a member of ABATE.  I don't even own a motorcycle.  I just don't think its the governments business to mandate helmets, seat belts, eating your vegatbles, exercising, brushing your teeth, etc.  A personal goal of mine is to refrain from personal insults and bad language all the time, even on the net - kind of a "personal growth" thing.  I DO understand physics, however - and there is NO way that the additional mass of the helmet CAN NOT add addition stress, and therefor potential for trauma, to hte neck - especially for young, female, and other small statured riders.  Picture this: put Hulk Hogan and Paris Hilton on their sides on a table, with their heads hanging off the edge, unsupported, (neck as well).  Now put a refrigerator (or washing machine - whatever your favorite 200 lb plus appliance is....) on their ear facing up.  Who is more likely to get hurt?  Thats just the load from a four pound helmet in a severe crash - multiply a couple of times to include the mass of the head.

there is one thing though:

if he was forced to wear one, which do you think he would have on?

Could you point me to a single comment by anyone on this thread endorsing the enacment of mandatory helmet laws? Your reading comprehension is as impressive as your ability to understand physics.

1.  The point I was addressing is that many people are condeming Ben R for not wearing a helmet - I am just pointing out that his likely choice of helmet would not have helped his facial injuries.  A secondary point is that the mandatory helmet law deosn't require helmets with facial protection - and to do so would be tantamount ot requiring NASCAR safety gear for every driver on the street.

2.  I will happily stack my knowledge of and education in physics against yours - do you know what I do for a living?

3.  Do you really think that personal attacks and insults add anything to the discussion, or should be a part of the "Armed Polite Society"?

[richyoung]

The data used for this comparison was obtained from the 1994 Motorcycle Statistical Annual, Motorcycle Industry Council, Inc., 1994. The state motorcycle accident statistics were divided between states with a mandatory helmet law and those without. This data displayed below clearly shows that States with mandatory helmet laws have a higher accident rate and a higher fatality rate than States that do not require helmet use.

                    registrations    accidents    fatalities    accidents/10,000 reg.      fatalities/100 accid.
Mandatory
helmet use    2,352,293        52,270        1,557              222.21                         2.98

Voluntary
helmet use    1,497,923        29,062          844               194.02                         2.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
total             3,850.216         81,331        2,401              211.24                         2.95



The only variable used in this comparison is a mandatory helmet law. The results show that accident and fatality rates are higher overall in states with mandatory helmet laws. The total number of accidents and fatalities are also higher in these same states

                                         registrations           reported accidents          fatalities

Mandatory helmet use           61%                       64%                              65%

Voluntary helmet use            39%                       36%                              35%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                    100%                     100%                           100%


Mandatory helmet law states account for sixty-one percent (61%) of total motorcycle registrations. They account for sixty-four percent (64%) of the accidents and sixty-five percent (65%) of the fatalities.

Noe for everyone who:

1. Claims I don't understand physics....
2.  Claims helmets reduce the chance of an accident....
3.  Claims that helmets reduce fatalities....


PLEASE explain why the above statistics show the EXACT OPPOSITE?

[richyoung]

On August 9, 1973, the NTSB issued "Safety Recommendation H-73-30" which reads, in part, as follows:

"Data which have recently come to our attention raise a question whether motorcyclists who wear the present standard safety helmets which reduce severe or serious injuries to the head and face, may suffer some degree of counter balancing increase in fatal neck injuries . . . Whereas the finding is not conclusive, the implication is sufficiently strong that the Board believes the subject should be further investigated without delay."

"The study in question, made by Raeder and Negri of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles in 1969, compared motorcycle accident and injury data for a years 1966 and 1967 in order to detect possible effects of the mandatory helmet law which became effective January 1, 1967. The study showed, first, a decrease of 39 percent in total number of accidents which were reported - - from 5184 to 3161." (This observation is, as usual, irrelevant in that nothing about the proported attributes of a helmet has ever been credited with reducing the likelihood of an accident; so, it must always be concluded that this type of decrease is unrelated to helmet performance.)

The report continues: "The distributions of severity in these cases were nearly identical. Thus far, the data shows no effect of the helmet; the proportion of fatality among all accidents is unchanged."

"However, . . . a comparison of the head and neck injuries among fatalities for the two years showed . . . that wearing a helmet is associated with greatly reduced fatal head injury (39%), but greatly increased fatal neck injury" -- an increase from just under 6% to close to 38% of all fatalities resulting from broken neck injuries. The report continued, "And the differences in percentages could be larger than appear here because, while nearly all of the cyclists in the 1967 figures wore helmets, some of those in 1966 also wore helmets before the law required it."

"The indication is very plausible in light of some physical characteristics of the helmet. A standard helmet weighs about two to three pounds. If the motorcyclists's body is suddenly stopped, this helmet weight adds appreciably to the momentum of the moving head and puts additional strain on the neck. Furthermore, the helmet is highly rigid. If the helmeted head strikes a barrier while the body continues in motion, the impact is transmitted almost entirely to the neck. Possible remedies would include a reduction in helmet weight and rigidity, if this can be done while still affording major protection to the head. The entire approach may need reexamination . . . ".

[richyoung]

PLEASE explain why the above statistics show the EXACT OPPOSITE?

No takers, I see....

[Guest]

Your statistics are laughably invalid. You are comparing data gathered from different states and comparing them as if the use of helmets were the only variable. There are so many factors that make this silly that its pointless to even address.

Here is a better method of statistical analysis. Comparisons within the same state before and after helmet laws were introduced. Comparing within the same geographical area limits the amount of variables that would taint the data.

Pennsylvania repealed an existing helmet law in 2002, that same year motorcycle fatalities increased 52%

source: http://www.pennlive.com/news/expresstimes/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-6/1150258424214240.xml&coll=2

Florida repealed their helmet law in 2000. In 1999 the fatality rate per 10,000 registered motorcycles was 7.4, in 2000 it was 10.0, a massive increase which has continued in the years since the law was repealed.

source: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/FlaMCReport/pages/Index.htm

Those are the more recent specific cases of helmet law repeal. Here is a nice little graph from the good people at the NHTSA that shows the universal results of a nationwide comparison.

This graph represents the amount of motorcycles that are registered in states without mandatory helmet laws


And this one from the same agency shows the fatality rate of motorcyclists over the same period:


You can see that the graphs seem to have a direct relationship. This is really the only way you can make a valid multistate comparison without having to deal with the wide range of variables that would exist.

source: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/People/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/kentuky-la03/NatTrends.html

Since we are having fun with the NHTSA here is another study of their that makes short work of the "seeing and hearing" portion of your debate:

http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-Safety/NHTSA-Helmet-Study.htm

So, the reason your statisics "say the opposite" is because they were cherry picked with the express intent of doing exactly that. When you look at the actual data (notice that I actually provided sources, you didnt) a very different picture is painted.

[Guest]

For the record I am done discussing this with you. I feel like i am having one of those gunshop conversations with one of the commandos that mantains that being shot with a .45 will disintigrate a person and that they know this because they saw it. You dont know what your talking about, and you dont care. There is nothing that I can say or do to make you admit that you are wrong simply because one can never be wrong when they dont actually know anything.

[InfidelSerf]

Has anyone's life actually ever been saved by a helmet?

Absolutely, your reading the text typed by just such a person.

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.

Every accident has it's own set of unique variables.  I wouldn't make a potencial life or death decision based on a tiny scrap of stats.

And as stated, just watch some MotoGP and you'll see modern safety equipment in action.

I would not have a right ear was it not for a fullfaced helmet.

While I do not support or agree with helmet laws. I believe you should have the right to be a moron.  
However going over 20MPH on a motorcycle without proper attire (gloves, leather jacket, helmet, and jeans/leather pants *chaps are a joke*) is just plain stupid.  
I know.  I used to be rather stupid and have the scars to prove it.  

Even with good experience it's just not a display of active brain cells to ride without your gear. period.

they also make an accident more likely to happen by reduced situational awareness, diminished hearing,

*cough bull$#&!*  
Wearing a helmet actually increases your ability to hear when at spead (30MPH+)
The only way you would be able to hear without one is if you were wearing earplugs.
The wind ripping by your ears blocks out most if not everything.  Put in ear plugs or put a helmet on and you regain the ability to hear.

The added weight of a helmet increases the  chance of kneck trauma and paralysis.

Another bogus claim by those trying to defeat helmet laws.

THE only arguement to use to defeat helmet laws, is infrindgement on liberties.
*I support abolishing helmet laws as well as seatbelt laws*

Yes, helemts save lives IN ACCIDENTS - how many of those accidents WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED if helmets weren't worn?

98% of all motorcycle accidents happen due to the rider's lack of experience or a slip in concentration.
Most if not ALL could have been prevented with increased skills and better situational awareness.

I don't care how many "studies" you want to put out there, wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is one of the smartest decisions you can make, right after training/practice.

I don't disagree that helmet laws are worthless, I don't like the encroachment on my right to take risk.
*I liked the helmet in the shower comment *  but please don't give any of the blissninnies any ideas.
I nearly twisted my back into a pretzel and broke my arm thanks to the last person leaving a bottle of bodywash laying on it's side so that it spilled a nice pool of slippery sludge.
(reminds me I need to reattach that shower curtain rail.)

Rich I completely agree with your arguement against the laws. They are anti-liberty.
However I wouldn't be so quick to take up the bogus arguements against helmet use that have been made up in an effort to prevent the laws from being enacted.

I wouldn't support a bogus study that stated hearing protection at the range was a bad idea, because it "limited my ability to hear those around me" thus creating a safety hazard.  

Helmet laws were pushed through based on one primary reason.
The view that it somehow increases the cost burdon on taxpayers.  Which of course is only true if you have a suedo-socialist system in place.  Damn if we don't already have one in place

*edited to add the following*
the 1973 stats are pointless as modern helmet manufacturing has made huge leaps in the past two decades.

As far as the stats on registrations in mandatory helmet law states verses voluntary.
There are two falacies..
First many states are 18yo and younger mandatory only.
Secondly, the statistics do not state, illustrate or distinguish how many accidents in a mandatory state, violated the law.  
PLENTY of people that live in mandatory helmet law states violate the law and ride without.  

Lastly,  I think the helmet debate isn't what the thread starter wanted to get into.

Ben was an idiot for riding without a helmet. Besides the pain factor from the inevitable wreck.  He's making WAY too damn much money to take that kind of risk.

[French G.]

I do not ride a road bike for two reasons. One no extra money, two my dad( a veteran of all kinds of wrecks) told me when I was about 12 that if I bought a street bike he would break my legs and put me in the hospital because it would be safer than the inevitable wreck. I never did figure out if that ultimatum became null and void once I moved out. Mainly no money.  

  That said, a few points.
-Being a mollycoddling military leader I talk a bunch about motorcycle safety. I have pictures of brains in the darnedest places from helmetless riders. I have had three people that work for/with me have serious bike wrecks, two are here because of their helmet.
     The third, he claimed someone else was steering and he was on the back, a good claim to make since the object of their wrecking affection was the telphone pole guywire one u-turn away from the bar he was at. So if that other guy was up front how come he never went to the hospital? Our hero was in there with a big diagonal bruise/laceration, shattered upper arm, broken ribs, ruptured spleen etc. Good story to save his career I suppose, the truth is he was DUI on a bike. Idiot.

    One guy had a car change lanes into him on the interstate, the resulting escape bounced his head on the shoulder pretty hard, cracking the helmet shell and crushing the foam. Had a hardware store in his wrist for some months.

   The other that works for me now has taken two trips. The first was a pretty unglamorous 20mph laydown, but once he got over the shock of his ruined 3K custom paint job with matching expensive custom painted helmet he realized that all those deep gouges down the chin piece and cracked visor would have been meat to pavement without.  That experience prepared him well for trip #2. He was wearing boots, thick jeans, and a ballistic jacket with a sweatshirt and several other padded layers under. He had a new helmet. Someone changed lanes into him, except this time the escape route wasn't there. He was shoved into oncoming traffic. His bike went under a minivan. He went through the windshield, took out the front seat and ended up in a ball in back. End result was he went to the hospital mainly for observation, was concious at the scene(doesn't remember the hit though) and was back at work two days later with nothing broken. Helmet darn near cracked in two.

In other news, I learned about motorcycle PPE at a young age. My dad insisted I wear a helmet for my honda 50. He and I both wish he had told me about not staying on a wrecking bike and also to wear pants instead of shorts. He though nothing could go wrong, I was making laps on a groomed and smooth dirt track in front of the house. I hit a rather unremarkable rock near the edge of the dirt, got the tank slappers and fell over, my leg stuck under the bike. My other leg on top I could not lift away and so sustained 3rd degree burns from mid-thigh to mid calf on the inside of my leg. I guess the bright side is that was the afternoon of day 1 of 1st grade, I got to skip the next two months. The downside is that skin grafts suck.  So now, I am a stickler for personal protection.

Back to helmets, I know a fair amount, I race. The "hangman injury" crap that no helmet law advocates spout is just that.  Yes it can happen, that killed Dale Earnhardt. His head popped off his spine. Maybe it wouldn't have without the helmet weight. It would have just whipped forward, and killed him when it returned to hit the seat back. He hit concrete at 180mph+, something will kill you.  I remember people saying the same things about lap seatbelts way back when, saying they would break your lower spine, it was safer to be ejected from the vehicle, etc. There would always be an anecdote about some guy that got ejected from his pick-up and walked away brushing off the broken glass whereas if he had worn his lap belt he would have surely perished in the collapsed and now burning cab. Did it happen? Sure, maybe 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000. The other 99% of the time the seatbelt would have reduced injuries. Same thing with helmets, 99% of the time your injuries will be less severe. It is common to have a hyper-extended or a sore neck after a hard hit. Also common to walk around bitching about it because you are ALIVE! The problem with the statistics is that people believe them to be the norm, to the point of smart people being idiots. Case in point; due to the arguements against lap belts my wife will to this day not wear a non-shoulder seat belt. Reason? She would rather be dead than crippled with no use of her legs. Wow. Me, I know people who race cars and do whatever they want with no legs, if I was in a wreck and lost use of my legs I would kiss the ground every damn day and thank the lord for being alive.

Helmets restrict visibility. Hmm, yes, they cut down on peripheral a bit. My helmet has also taken numerous rocks and mud clods that would have dazed me or took an eye. It keeps the little stuff out too. You can hear better than without one. Fogging is a non-issue, maintain your equipment. Dirt, get a tear-off. Somehow with restricted neck movement, full face helmet, 6-10 tear-offs, mud everywhere, and no mirrors I can figure out where cars are around me. A bike on the street? You have no need to finish first, you have mirrors. It is up to you to learn how to ride and control your space.


I took a pretty minor hit, my only big wreck, 80-90 mph head-on into a guardrail. I walked around rubbing my neck for a day or two whilst I was in between wincing whenever I pulled a door open or turned a wrench because those actions stretched my breastbone that the sholder harnesses(with sternum strap) had cracked. Without the belts, well, let's not talk about that. The helmet bounced off the seat back pretty good, survivable yet severe concussion material without a helmet.  I will keep on wearing mine,  and the next race car will have a new helmet, hans, thicker fire suit, and onboard fire supression. Being prepared to survive is never expensive.

One last unrelated point, AJ Foyt grew up in the days when race car drivers clanked when they walked. He raced in a T-shirt or mechanics cover-alls, horse jockey helmet, goggles, and bandanna. No roll cage, no seat belts, best of all, no bladder in the fuel tank. He is still alive, so we could argue that the numerous wrecks he survived prove you do not need all that sissy stuff to live. Or, we could remember his peer who was so badly burned he would never have full use of his hands again, so he asked the surgeon to fix him so that all of his fingers remained partially curled. Why? So he could hold a steering wheel. That fellow later died in a wreck. In fact, if you randomly picked 25 of Foyt's peers, chances are 15 or more died in a race car. Progress in safety equipment is good.

Helmets save lives. Helmet laws? Don't care. I have my own helmet laws for people related to me, the rest of the state can park their brains where they please.  If I paid some kid millions to toss a ball and my success depended on his well-being I would have made sure there was no moto to begin with. If he found one to wreck he better recover quickly and still toss that ball, or else I would extend his hospital stay.

[richyoung]

h, yes, the old "person insults in lieu of logic" game - good one.  I guess you are going to just gloss over the "polite" part of "Armed Polite Society".  And as for your "so called statistics", they are the ones that are meaningless - without knowing how many MILES were driven before and after the helmet laws changed, and by what demographic of drivers - they don't mean anything.  You are confusing "correlation" with "causation".  Further, you don't even address non-fatal spinal injuries.  Even NHTSA data shows a 38% INCREASE in FATAL spinal injuries in helmet wearers vs. non-helmet riders.  The military acknowledges that the vehicle helmets they wear INCREASE spinal injuries, and they are very similar to motorcycle helmets.  The military ACCEPTS that risk, because if you get thrown from a fighter jet, helicopter, or tank, well, you've already got problems.  MUCH more likely to be thrown from a motorcycle - and helmets tested and designed with little to no regard for spinal injury are a potential for disaster.  Me, I'd rather be dead than steering my wheel chair by blowing into a straw....

[richyoung]

And as stated, just watch some MotoGP and you'll see modern safety equipment in action.

Race tracks and roads are different places.  What's the accident/mile traveled rate in MotoGP vs. street riders?  Or to put it another way, I drove to work and to the convenience store today WITHOUT the benefit of a fuel cell, full roll cage, window net, Nomex suit, full face helmet, HANS device, etc - even though Tony Stewart was probably saved from serious injury by just those things yesterday.  I could have all those things in my car - but they don't make SENSE for normal driving.

I would not have a right ear was it not for a fullfaced helmet.

 Every brain bucket I've ever worn covered the ears - and none were full face....

While I do not support or agree with helmet laws. I believe you should have the right to be a moron.  
However going over 20MPH on a motorcycle without proper attire (gloves, leather jacket, helmet, and jeans/leather pants *chaps are a joke*) is just plain stupid.

I don't even own a motorycycle - why are chaps bad?

*cough bull$#&!*  
Wearing a helmet actually increases your ability to hear when at spead (30MPH+)
The only way you would be able to hear without one is if you were wearing earplugs.
The wind ripping by your ears blocks out most if not everything.  Put in ear plugs or put a helmet on and you regain the ability to hear.

...will defer to your experience and withdraw the "hearing" argument.  However, peripheral vision is reduced, without question.

"The added weight of a helmet increases the  chance of kneck trauma and paralysis."
Another bogus claim by those trying to defeat helmet laws.

Even the HNTSA admits there is grounds for concern, and the military flat-out states that helmets increase neck injuries, (with respect to vehicle crew helmets).

THE only arguement to use to defeat helmet laws, is infrindgement on liberties.
*I support abolishing helmet laws as well as seatbelt laws*

I agree that is the most important argument, and should be enough.  Alas it is neither the only argument, nor sufficient by itself in the poost-modern nanny state....

98% of all motorcycle accidents happen due to the rider's lack of experience or a slip in concentration.
Most if not ALL could have been prevented with increased skills and better situational awareness.

From what I've read, a substantial number of accidents involve alcohol or substance use.....

I nearly twisted my back into a pretzel and broke my arm thanks to the last person leaving a bottle of bodywash laying on it's side so that it spilled a nice pool of slippery sludge.
(reminds me I need to reattach that shower curtain rail.)

Been there, done that....

Rich I completely agree with your arguement against the laws. They are anti-liberty.
However I wouldn't be so quick to take up the bogus arguements against helmet use that have been made up in an effort to prevent the laws from being enacted.

Ok - I'll keep an open mind on the subject - but accidental neck trauma/paralysis, stinging insect in helmet, rider heat/fatigue, dimished peripheral vision - all seem valid issues to me.

Helmet laws were pushed through based on one primary reason.
The view that it somehow increases the cost burdon on taxpayers.  Which of course is only true if you have a suedo-socialist system in place.  Damn if we don't already have one in place

agree mucho

*edited to add the following*
the 1973 stats are pointless as modern helmet manufacturing has made huge leaps in the past two decades.

Has the NHTSA testing method, orignally developed by Bell Helmets in the '60s, been changed?
.

Ben was an idiot for riding without a helmet. Besides the pain factor from the inevitable wreck.  He's making WAY too damn much money to take that kind of risk.

Would anything short of a full-face helmet have reduced his facial injuries - which I understand arre the main concern?

[Dannyboy]

Considering what kind of bike he was riding, I don't think it's likely that he would choose an open face helmet if he were forced to wear one.  You don't normally see people riding crotch rockets without full-face helmets.  I just read that he was riding a Hayabusa (which surprised me, I figured him for the Harley/custom bike type) and will be cited for not wearing a helmet and riding without a motorcycle license.

[richyoung]

I understood he was renting the bike - does rental include a helmet, normally?  Or do you bring your own?

[Harold Tuttle]

can we discuss how "Loud Pipes Save Lives" now



my MP3 player would like to argue

[richyoung]

...any kin to the Teutuls?

[richyoung]

Probably.  Not to mention its hard to avoid "leaving the scene of an accident".-