Helmets, what's your take?

[fkovalski]

Yes, klenger- you are correct. I re- iterate my disclaimer in the post and will apologise to Sled Puller. I do hold true to my stance about the general populous of the clueless public who in fact do not take the time to look out for other vehicles.

I broke my back in a motorcycle accident in which the OTHER driver did not take the time to look as he made his left hand turn. My head did not touch the ground until I stopped bouncing. I was required to wear a helmet and no evidence of it providing any protection was seen. I still ride because I will not let some one else's ignorance ruin for me what it is that I enjoy. I still say, "Let those who ride decide" and make IDIOTS on the road ILLEGAL as opposed to lids! -fjk

 

[Rob Thomas]

Originally posted by fkovalski

and make IDIOTS on the road ILLEGAL -fjk

Now THAT's a law I would like! Although, if it was ever passed, there would only be a handful or vehicles on the roads.





Rob

 

[Rams-n-Hogs]

and make IDIOTS on the road ILLEGAL

-fjk



I'm going to borrow this line, too. I would have to say that includes the riders on crotch rockets, (and I saw 2 today), riding 100+mph on the street. One was on the capitol beltway in heavy traffic. Totally STUPID. Not wearing helmets isn't the only reason bikers get killed, and automobile drivers aren't the only idiots.



Jim

 

[Shovelhead]

Ya gotta point there.



Maybe they need to create a new citeable offence.



DWS= Driving While Stupid

 

[Mike Ellis]

Forgot to mention in my post, I have always worn my seatbelts. Just don't like being forced to, and particularly didn't like the "no notice given" change to the law to make 1-tons seatbelt mandatory. Sure wasn't discussed on the news I watch or papers I read.

As far as seatbelts, I often wonder how much value they really add. I wear from the assumption that they make me safer, but I don't really have any statistical info to prove it. Has there truly been a reduction in highway death risk? If so, how much is due to seatbelts, and how much is due to better tires, better brakes, better road construction (grooved highways etc), and a stronger emphasis on safe design by the mfgs? I have not seen any statistics from the Highway Safety folks that clearly shows seatbelts do save lives, if there is a link you guys know of I would be interested to see it.

Things are mandated by well-meaning legislators, and we the American public accept them meekly, and for the most part unquestioningly. Someone says, "Hey, airbags save lives. Let's put 'em in all automobiles. " So a law is passed, and the car mfgs say, "OK, there is now an airbag in your steering wheel and passenger side dash that will explosively deploy and help save your lives in a wreck. Uh, but be sure not to let small people or little kids ride in the front seat because the airbag might kill 'em. "

Every safety device has its potential drawbacks. Seatbelts keep you from flying out of the car or impacting dash, but if you are short and it rests against your neck it might decapitate or severely injure you in a collision. Car seats protect children in the event of a collision, but they are trapped in those rascals and children have died as a result - locked in hot cars, drowned (Susan Smith). Airbags save lives, but can severely injure you in a minor collision and can (and have) killed smaller folks. How many of these devices should be legislated, rather than left up to the citizen to decide?

I remember in a course a couple of decades ago, there was a civil engineer (transportation dept guy) who came in and gave us a lecture, said by setting the max speed limit to 35 mph almost every highway problem we face could be radically reduced - traffic jams, pollution, severity of accidents, wear and tear on the roads, automobile costs, fossil fuel consumption, etc. Even had a plausible argument that it could limit urban sprawl because people wouldn't be willing to drive more than X hours.

Guess the question is (as always): Where do you draw the line?

 

[merryman]

Seat belts are required by law; I wear them also because they make sense.

I happened upon a just happened accident about 20 years ago in which two vehicles going the same direction side swiped. One spun around 360 degrees and came to a stop facing the way it had been going. It had minor damage on just one corner, but a woman and two very small children were ejected. It was late at night, raining hard and had been for days. There was several inches of water all along the side of the highway. When I stopped, the driver in histerics told me he could not find his baby. I found the few months old baby face down in about 6 inches of water-dead. I read in the paper a couple days later the two year old child died also. Mom went to the hospital with serious injuries. Had they stayed in the car all would have been safe.

My dids must have thought I was a real seat belt nut!!

Helments make the same kind of sense; ask my brother in law.



And isn't it interesting that the "idiot" is ALWAYS someone else. We all make blunders, some times we get away with it some times we get hurt by them.



Vaughn

 

[JohnE]

Funny how this turned into a seat belt oratory.

HELMETS ARE NOT THE SAME AS SEAT BELTS!



Seat belts in a convertible make about as much sense ..... (You fill in the blank). Ask my brother. He would have been killed in a roll over accident if wearing a seat belt.

BTW, he still wears a seat belt and uses his turn signals. (Yeah I threw the turn signal comment in there because of all the casual driver's that don't signal, talk on the phone, etc. when they are suposed to be driving and remembering they are not the only (expletive deleted) vehicle on the road.



Let's get back to helmets.



I posted my idea of stupid earlier.

Inexperience rider, full face helmet, no (minimal) shirt, no gloves, shorts, and sandals on an overpowered crotch car.

And you think riding without a helmet is stupid?



That description was not me I posted as stupid. I wore gear when riding. I only wore a helmet on ocassion even after the upside down skid.



EVERY rider i know has had at least one close call with an idiot motorist. Most motorists I know have a very casual disregard for riders.



Before the RUB days, Harley riders had the lowest accident rate of of all motorcylclists.

 

[John]

When I was quite a bit younger (in the mid/late '70s) I used to occasionally go without a helmet while riding my new (then) '76 Kawasaki 900 Z1... but usually only once I had already gotten to a cruisin' place... hardly ever while enroute. By hardly ever I mean, I would only ride without a hemet while I was tuning my bike to listen for everything. Once I got 'er done, I'd put on my full face Bell Star (105 degree) helmet and off I was. Now, there is no way I'd ever go helmetless if I was to start riding again!



Also, since someone else touched on it...



I always wear and wore (dating all the way back to my first day driving and before that as passenger) a seatbelt. Should it be optional? NO! IMO, for everyone under the age of 18 that is. Once they become an adult in the eyes of the system, it's hasta la vista baby! You wanna drive without a seatbelt, fine! But if you are riding with me you will wear a seat belt or you will be walking! I have instilled that in my daughter and she has never once not fastened her seatbelt.

 

[MCummings]

Originally posted by John

... if you are riding with me you will wear a seat belt or you will be walking!

Same here. I reach for the seatbelt right after I get the motor runnig, get oil pressure, and turn the A/C on, Then I buckle up, hit the radio, and put 'er in gear. It's my little start-up ritual.



Merrick Cummings Jr

 

[John]

After reading the entire thread...



Shovelhead, in response to your remark about law enforcement checking for motorists not wearing their seat belts...



I must say that in Washington State that is paramount! I have seen many, many sting operations setup to catch motorists not wearing their safety belt. In fact, their advertised slogan to get more people on board is: Click it, or ticket!





MCJr, one time I saw that my wife had forgotten to put on her seat belt... between myself and my seven year old daughter we guilted her into it quickerthanthis!



Once, I actually had to stop my truck to let out a friend that thought I was joking about making him walk. Needless to say, he buckled up real quick like! He was however, POed that I meant what I said.

 

[Rman]

I'm fortunate to live where you have the right to choose. We have motorcyclists die occasionally (for lack of a better term). I can't point out how often, but normally if a terrible accident (death) happens they'll publish a short article in the paper which i read.



If i had to quantify it, about 75% of the time the rider that died had a helmet... in a state that doesn't require it. I distinctly remember one incident where a professional stunt man was killed. They wrote a lengthy article on him and he had quite a bit of seat time experience, like 30 years. He was wearing a helmet but unfortunately it wasn't enough to prevent the wall at 75 mph from killing him.



This accident was not truly his fault, he was taking a turn a little above the speed limit of 65, i take it that fast in my pickup. He got unlucky, he hit a small patch of gravel and lost control hitting the wall at full speed. These "accidents" are really not preventable. He new the risks of riding, even prepared for some of them by wearing a helmet and still met his maker. Would a helmet law have prevented this accident? NO, would more experience have prevented this? I would think 30 years should be sufficient. He took a risk and it was his time.



I wear a helmet when i race dirtbikes and ride in the sand dunes, however i acknowledge that my senses are severly impaired by doing so. Your vision is restricted, and hearing is heavily restricted. Being in a low risk environment from other riders (compared to the highway) i choose to wear the helmet because well, clearing 100 ft dunes requires quite a bit of speed and i don't feel right without it. If i was however relying on my senses like on a highway, i would not wear it. Vision and hearing are very handy when on a bike on the road, taking that away because someone else thinks its safer FOR YOU just isn't right.



I think the rider should ultimately be responsible for it.



All this mumbo jumbo about insurance bills and medical expenses... are you guys really that deprived of responses that you have to pull that liberal crap.



If that is the case, no one should EVER drink beer again, eat a donut, smoke a ciggarette, change their own oil, or eat charbroiled steak again. All known to cause cancer and INCREASE your medical expenses...

 

[Shovelhead]

OH Yeah, we have the "Click It Or Ticket" here too.



It's enforced about as often as jaywalking.

 

[fkovalski]

I'll get off my high horse about helmets for a moment and talk about seat belts...

I remember that light trucks (pick ups, Suburbans etc... ) were considered "non- passenger type" vehicles and therefore exempt from seat belt laws. Does this classification still hold true to this?

 

[John]

Originally posted by Shovelhead

OH Yeah, we have the "Click It Or Ticket" here too.

Like I said before, law enforcement seems very serious about enforcing the seatbelt law here.



Back to helmets...



I just thought it was personally a good idea to wear one... for myself... when it was legal in this state to choose. However, I grew up when I was definitely he!! on wheels (two wheels that is... as in, self powered), crashing numerous times and ripping off a lot of hide in the process. I even got hit by a car once. I survived ok (I think... ). Back when I grew up (in the '60s) there was no real concern about wearing helmets while riding bikes. Now, I won't even let my daughter get on her bike or a horse without a skid lid.



Geez, I've turned into my dad!... or worse!

 

[Jumbo Jet]

A friend of mine just lost his b-n-law from an small accident while he was riding without a helmet. If he had been wearing one, he would've probably lived. He broke a couple of ribs other than the massive head injury.



His words were always "It's my choice and the only person I will hurt is myself".



Ask his young wife, three children, and other family members if he was the only one hurt?

 

[fkovalski]

Medical cost of NOT wearing a helmit are BOGUS!

The argument that NOT wearing a helmet is going to increase medical cost to family, society etc… is bogus. All one has to do is look back at the last time that mandated helmets were used: WORLD WAR I. This was the FIRST major conflict that helmets were used. Granted that less were killed by the protection than any previous war, but as a result of the lid there were MORE CASUALTIES (i. e. not killed. ) The costs associated with rehabilitating survivors was drastically more than burial. This correlation can be transfered to the current debate, thus blowing the medical cost factor of not wearing a helmet out of the water. Granted the alternative is that one is 6 feet under but it diffuses the medical cost conspiracy as a means to legislate a bogus law.

 

[Peter Campbell]

I always thought the medical cost argument was bogus. The chances of me giving CPR to someone with brains on the ground is about NIL. I would help somebody with road rash/broken ankles and such. The broken bones and hospital stay are mostly survivable and very expensive. On the order of 1K$/day or more. You can hose down the street and plant someone for around 5K$. Also makes sense if someone is smart enough to use appropriate protective gear, I would be OK being included in that group. If someone does not want to I am glad that they did not inflict excess cost on us on thier way out of this life.

 

[fkovalski]

wear your helmit (but you did'nt say where!)

I was relating this whole helmit topic to a co- worker and he told me this story:

Some years ago a certain state mandated that rider must wear a helmit BUT did not stipulate that is was to be worn on one's dome! You guessed it- riders were straping it to thier knees, elbows, whatever... wearing a helmit in full compliance of the law as it was written. It has since been clarified that the lid must be atop one's grape!

 

[Mike Ellis]

Interesting Data

I was sufficiently motivated to look up some seatbelt and helmet statistics. If the data are correctly interpreted in the source article, the argument for seatbelts looks pretty sound. Helmets don't look as effective as one might hope, but still significantly better.



Interesting note: If you take the nanny-state mentality to the max, you could make a strong argument that the car companies should be forced to make shoulder belts available in all passenger positions - the lap belts don't offer nearly as good a reduction in fatalities.



Found at: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/seatb2.html#cc5



Protection by Seatbelts

Vehicle Occupant Protection Device Effectiveness in Preventing Fatalities

Car Driver Lap/ shoulder belt 42 +/- 4%

Car Right front passenger Lap/ shoulder belt 39 +/- 4%

Car Left rear passenger Lap belt 19 +/- 10%

Car Right rear passenger Lap belt 17 +/- 9%

Motorcycle Driver Helmet 27 +/- 9%

Motorcycle passenger Helmet 30 +/- 8%

From Leonard Evans, "The Science of Traffic Safety", The Physics Teacher 26, October 1988, Page 431, Table I.

Data on seatbelt effectiveness was obtained by comparing severe accidents in which at least one person was killed. An effectiveness of 42% for drivers with seatbelts means that a 42% reduction in fatalities would occur if all drivers wore seatbelts.

 

[Mike Ellis]

And Now the Other Side of the Story

Interesting data pointing out that the "conventional wisdom" may not always be what we think it is. As you see, even something that seems so logically cut-and-dried as seatbelt or helmet use, may not be so clear. It would be nice to know if the things we are FORCED to do, are actually as beneficial as we think.



Check out this link: http://www.karenselick.com/CL0104.html



The following paragraphs are taken from it:



Elliott Levine, a philosophy professor, and Alex Basilevsky, a professor of mathematics and statistics, both at the University of Winnipeg, analyzed Manitoba accident statistics from the pre-and post-mandatory seatbelt legislation eras, obtaining access to data not generally available to the public.



According to their 1990 report, "The data presently warrants the strong claim that actual net outcomes of seat belt use are negative, that the probability of both fatality and more serious injury is significantly increased for seat belt wearers. "



Levine continued his investigation using U. S. accident statistics, and reported in the September 1999 issue of Mature Medicine Canada that seat belts do not save lives. In a summary fact sheet faxed to me, Levine goes further, claiming that U. S. seatbelt laws "can be linked to current net annual loss of thousands of occupant deaths, millions of spine injuries. " The increased fatality rates affect primarily sober motorists, women, and anyone over 65.



According to Levine, Transport Canada seems aware of these disproportionate risks of fatal or major injury for particular groups, if not an overall threat to public safety. In its 1993 Road Safety Annual Report, it said, "The finding…supports the conclusion that the seat-belts themselves are contributing to the higher risk of injury to women and seniors. "



Levine is not the only dissident in this field. Australian Christopher Morris, a retired teacher of mechanical engineering, has arrived at similar conclusions after studying 1996 U. S. data. He segregated data from alcohol-affected and non-alcohol-affected accidents, as well as urban from rural accidents. He concludes that for sober drivers, especially in cities (where side-impact accidents are more common than high-speed, head-on crashes), seatbelts may be causing thousands of needless deaths annually.



Morris’ analysis is published on his web site at www.barvennon.com/seatbelt.html, where he also critiques other leading seatbelt literature, pro and con. It’s thought-provoking reading.