Death rates up with lax helmet laws.

[PR3VS56]

We all know it, but here's the facts:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ehelmets_N.htm

[Lefty]

What kind of commie are you posting this chit?! Give me the liberty to be a helmetless dumb azz or give me death!!!!!!

Lefty

[PR3VS56]

Originally Posted by Lefty

What kind of commie are you posting this chit?! Give me the liberty to be a helmetless dumb azz or give me death!!!!!!

Lefty

Yeah yeah I know.

If you do bite it, just don't end up HERE

[Greglal]

The data posted shows that these is a 12% decrease in people wearing helmets (questionable data, in no-helmet states how do they determine the % that wears them? but lets assume it's accurate) and an increase of 19% of deadly accidents per 10,000 registered bikes. It suggests a direct link between the 2 and on the surface it sounds very convincing.

But there is an important statistic missing to prove the point. The number of motorcycle accidents as a % of 10,0000 and the changes of that % over the reference time period.

If the number of accidents per 10,000 bikes increased at the same rate as deaths per 10,000 (by 19%) then the risk (%) of death per accident remains the same as before even though less people are wearing helmets. Conversely, the stats could show less accidents per 10,000 which would support the helmet argument, either way, the data is missing.

I am not saying this is the case, only that crucial data is missing to properly understand the stats. If the % of accidents per 10,000 changes, then more exploration is needed to interpret the stats. If there is an increase in the % of MC accidents per 10,000 bikes reg'd, it could be due to more new riders, faster bikes, more road congestion, etc.

I am not saying helmets don't save lives, but it bothers me when readers are presented with stats that have omitted data elements necessary to draw proper conclusions.

[FXR2]

I know it's a touchy subject and I don't want to tell anybody else what to do, but I don't need charts and graphs to know that it's a good idea to wear a helmet.

[mark_bert]

What's the old saying? "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics"?

From the article:

• About 42% of riders killed were not wearing helmets.

• For example, New Hampshire and Iowa, which have no helmet laws, reported fatality rates of 3.0 and 3.5 per 10,000 motorcycles, respectively, in 2006. By comparison, the rates in Mississippi and Maryland, which require helmets for all riders, were much higher — 20 and 12 respectively.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
So less than half of fatalities were not wearing helmets.
Two states with no helmet law have very low fatality rates and two states with helmet laws have very high fatality rates.

Not the most compelling argument so far.

(for the record, I wear a helmet most of the time. I'm in IL. No mandatory helmets here).

[PR3VS56]

Another point that hasn't been noted --

I'd rather be playing a harp in Heaven than holding a wand by my teeth to direct the movements of a wheelchair.

It's tricky, because you don't know. The helmet could preserve a terrible existence ---- or the lack of one could cause it.

Who started this thread anyway!

[Hamilton]

If I was worried about getting killed....I wouldn't be riding.

Helmet laws --->

[ebiker]

That USA Today helmet article is the usual bullsh*t that rolls around each spring to inform bikers and the general public on the dangers in riding a motorcycle.

As usual incomplete statistics were given to USA Today reporters and passed on to the public. I see lacking in the report were:

1. Number of motorcycle fatalities who were not licensed. (no endorsement or permit)
2. Overall number of fatalities who were novice or inexperienced riders.
3. Number of dead bikers who were impaired by drugs, either prescribed medication or illegal substance or just plain booze.
4. Number of states that offer low cost formal training for novice riders.

As I said, it's the usual Bullsh*t!

[stanley4512]

Next he'll be telling us that cigarettes cause cancer.

[rup]

It fails to mention the Number of bike on the rode for that year, how many of them fatalitys did have a helmet on compared to without.
STATISTICS ALL DEPEND ON WHAT OUTCOME THE COMPOSER WANTS TO CONVEY and by omitting some facts to make his point of view come through, that's OK with him(them), He got what he wanted, to hell with the truth.
Their all BULLSH*T

[mikevr007]

No offense but...
I don't care how you slice it, legislation that protects us from ourselves is needless, worthless, useless, warrant less, all the other lesses, regardless of how you look at it.
In other words....less is more.
More or less.

[jonrober]

Maybe their should be a federal hemet test!

If you're not stupit then you decide if you want to wear a skull cap or not!

All the stupit ones have to wear one since they are apparently way to stupit to decide for themselves!

... Don't forget... The government is here to protect us dingbats! From ourselves.

[jguarnieri]

If you got up in the morning and planned to ride and you knew for a fact that you would be in an accident with a cager at 10:00 AM, would you dress for the accident the best way you could?

If you knew you were going to get jumped by a gang at a red light would you br prepared, the best you could, and perhaps pack a gun?

Of course, no one knows for sure, but be prepared is my motto.



my 2 cents.

[jonrober]

Originally Posted by jguarnieri

If you got up in the morning and planned to ride and you knew for a fact that you would be in an accident with a cager at 10:00 AM, would you dress for the accident the best way you could?

If you knew you were going to get jumped by a gang at a red light would you br prepared, the best you could, and perhaps pack a gun?

Of course, no one knows for sure, but be prepared is my motto.



my 2 cents.

So perhaps I should wear clean underwear when I ride?