[EG Willy]

Just in case you want something to read..........

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2007/091107b.htm :thumbsdn:

 

[airman]

Fewer accidents by ability to see and avoid

Hmm. maybe because CT decided to implement several programs to reduce alcohol related accidents, rider education programs, of which you had a 63% increase in enrollment, etc. It's in your report. How about the fact that nationwide the number of riders has increased, but the overall percentage of riders that wear helmets has gone down. (Search the NHTSA site, that's in a report) And also the fact that because states have helmet laws doesn't mean you have to wear a DOT/Snell certified helmet. (NHTSA Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2005 - Overall results). The problem with the report you reference is that it doesn't take into other factors of what's going on in the rest of the country. All you can say is CT is doing better than most other places because of the programs it has implemented.

Absolutely........if you look at a lot of the data it does seem to indicate that the TOTAL number of serious accidents drop in states wihtout a helmet law. The expanation is that riders can see and avoid much more effectively. Always better to avoid a serious accident than have one and try to dress for surviving one. I love riding without one and I KNOW I can see and avoid much better without a helmet.
Now the hard part to swallow....if you do have a serious accident without a helmet you are probably going to die or wish you did.

Knowing this, I still ride without my helmet in states that permit me to do so and enjoy it immensely. I like for the choice to be mine and not the states

 

[winpitt]

Absolutely........if you look at a lot of the data it does seem to indicate that the TOTAL number of serious accidents drop in states wihtout a helmet law. The expanation is that riders can see and avoid much more effectively. Always better to avoid a serious accident than have one and try to dress for surviving one. I love riding without one and I KNOW I can see and avoid much better without a helmet.
Now the hard part to swallow....if you do have a serious accident without a helmet you are probably going to die or wish you did.

Knowing this, I still ride without my helmet in states that permit me to do so and enjoy it immensely. I like for the choice to be mine and not the states

OMG. I cannot believe you have come to that conclusion (that not wearing a helmet helps you to avoid accidents). However, it's your logic and you are certainly free to believe what you choose.

 

[winpitt]

I would rephrase your statement to say that helmets might reduce certain risks in some accidents. Understanding that if helmets are only being worn due to "requirements" and that is your only safety gear then what "good" is the helmet if you slide with the bike on its side at 55mph. or what if a car plows into you at full speed odds are a helmet won't help much.

As far as the NTSB this is their mission:The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in the other modes of transportation -- railroad, highway, marine and pipeline -- and issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents.[/COLOR] http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/history.htm

By recommending helmets they are overstepping their charter. For them to make ANY comment on helmets they have to show cause between the wearing of helmets and accidents itself (not the damgage after)

This is exactly why I made the comment about $hithouse lawyers. I do not intend to insult. However, please real ALL of the charter and mission of the NTSB. As mentioned several times even on this post, it also clearly and without question includes "To help prevent accidents, save lives and reduce injuries, the Board develops safety recommendations, based on its investigations and studies, which are issued to Federal, State and local government agencies, and to industry and other organizations in a position to improve transportation safety. These recommendations are the focal point of the NTSB's efforts to improve safety in the Nation's transportation system". This is a direct quote from the NTSB site. This is just another example of when we don't like the message, we attack the messenger. The NTSB was very much involved in the development of seat belts as well as other life saving safety equipment that we use every day.

 

[winpitt]

Sounds like we differ only our conclusion, and then only marginally. I agree, the ins. companies cannot implement a policy of selective coverage, based our questionaires. They pay for someone who crashes their car while drunk. I don't drink, and I certainly do not drink and drive. But who's gonna tell the insurance carrier that they "occasionally" drink and drive? You are exactly right about this. The problem is that there ARE laws about how MUCH you can drink. And, you may have noticed that those laws have continued to change, lowering the BAT content required to be charged with DUI. With helmets, it's either on or off. No in between.

My contention is that yanking the right to ride lidless away from me infringes on my rights. This is NOT a right. You may feel it is, but it is not. You have a privilege to operate a motor vehicle on public roads. You do not have a right. Those privileges can be revoked for any manner of issues, such as exceeding the speed limit or reckless driving, or not having insurance. They can just as easily and legally be withdrawn for now following the rules. It is a freedom I enjoy. Freedom isn't free is more than a cute bumper sticker, it is applicable in many ways. And as somebody who spend more than 20 years actively defending that "freedom" I know exactly how it is not free. And neither I nor my compatriots would have defined being able to ride lidless as a "freedom". While I'm not lobbying for helmet laws, I also don't like hearing it falsely described as a "right" or "legal freedom".I do not agree that it costs society more for me to go lidless. Stats show that the percentage of uninsured bikers in hospitals (and there are some, I'll concede) is lower than the percentage of uninsured of the population at large. Its a smaller problem than the general population. This argument holds no logic, sorry but it doesn't. My insurance rates are based on motorcycle statistics, not overall driving statistics. So, my insurance is based on "that smaller population" - making it the "entire" population. Beyond that, for you to believe that it does not "cost cosiety more for me to go lidless" is based on zero data. Every single solitary report, review, and data collection conflicts with your conclusion. Not to be overbearing, but again - every single medical organization disagrees with you completely. Every single insurance company disagrees with you completely. Every single professional physician/surgeon association disagrees with you. Every single government traffic safety organization disagrees with you. Yet, somehow we're to believe that you're right?

I also happen to believe that if our policy costs $100/ year this year, with no helmet law, next year, with a helmet law it would $103/year. Well, I can't provide any information to the contrary except what I have already. That is, that when my insurance company pulled out because of the helmet issue, my rates went up about $100 per year. The same company I get bike insurance can also provide auto, and it is not "that much" more expensive than my auto carrier. Therefore, my correlation is that you are in fact wrong - at least here. Though I agree that this is only circumstantial. That is, the exact same cost, adjusted for inflation. I do not believe the cost of insurance would go down. Has your auto insurance dropped with the implementation of the seat belt law? Actually, my insurance premiums have not gone up to match inflation, so actually I could say yes. And beyond that, Yes, they also went down for a similar reason. Limited tort. When that option became available, and I selected it, my rates were reduced. Less risk to the insurance company, lower premiums to me.no? why not? Precisely because of the reason you just mentioned. While the insurance company can lower costs based on THINGS like airbags, safer cars, less powerful cars, they cannot lower prices based on BEHAVIORS like actually USING the seatbelts and helmets, turn signals, etc., at least not at an individual policy level.

This is the exact same discussion we had about a year ago. My position hasn't changed, neither has yours. We ain't gonna argue the other guy into submission. If you feel better with a helmet, wear it. If you accept the risks without one, don't. If mcs terrify you, cage it. If cars terrify you, walk.

So riddle me this, Batman -

What exactly is your response to the issue where insurance companies may in fact start REALLY penalizing us all for your choice - more than they already have, I mean? What will your response be when we all have to pay what is essentially "high risk" rates? Are you OK with only the wealthy being able to ride? Because once a company pulls out of that business, they are gone. They don't come back. There are FACTUAL cases where insurance companies just got tired of dealing with the cost and stopped - specifically including bike insurance. I have yet to hear a reasonable answer to that one, and it is a reality. The FACT is that ABATE here in PA caused many of us to have to pay more. Period. Getting that "choice" back raised our rates. It reduced the number of companies willing to do business here. How exactly is that not welfare?

 

[winpitt]

The scientific tests I have read indicate that helmets won't protect you over 20 MPH. If I want to go 20MPH I will peddle my bicycle down hill. I own a Simpson DOT approved helmet I purchase ten years ago for $130, probably $200 in todays dollars. The label affixed to the inside of the helmet reads that it won't protect me over 15 MPH. So I stopped wearing it when the law allowed it.

Lou

Lou, I would dearly love to read those reports. I hope they are published by some actual professionals rather than a group with a vested interest. Please provide links or references.

Oh, and if they don't help you over 20mph, I suppose that motorcycle grand prix and drag racing guys just wear them for the looks, right?

Hmmmm

 

[winpitt]

I would rephrase your statement to say that helmets might reduce certain risks in some accidents. Understanding that if helmets are only being worn due to "requirements" and that is your only safety gear then what "good" is the helmet if you slide with the bike on its side at 55mph. or what if a car plows into you at full speed odds are a helmet won't help much.

Again, if that's the case, then how do you explain motorcycle grand prix racers wearing helmets and sliding out it WAY higher speeds than 55 and walking away? Do you really believe this?

Now, if a car plows into you at full speed, all bets are off. But myself, I think if you're talking safety and death prevention overall you need to include everything.

Last time I checked, there was no document that you could sign that would only make you vulnerable to "some kinds" of accidents and leave you invulnerable to others.

And, every single person who gets into their first accident - whether 16yrs old or 80 yrs old - was able to say that they "never had an accident" - right up to the millisecond prior to that accident. Remember the old adage about bikers? There are two groups. Those who have gone down, and those who haven't gone down - yet.

 

[BikerLou]

I don't know how to quote in this forum. Re: Bullet Proof Vest. A vest protects you from most handgun calibers. So it is wise to wear one if you're a cop or live in a ghetto. I grew up in the New Jersey ghettos and was mugged three times with a knife. Vests don't protect you from knives. Some years ago in NJ my close friend was murdered on Christmas Eve and his brother was shot in the leg. The State should have mandated everyone wear a vest since they can't protect their citizens. He left a wife and three children.
Re: Test. The last testing study I read, which formed my opinion, was from the mid 90's in Motorcyclist Mag. When Googling for you, I found a newer test in Motorcyclist. http://www.v-twinforum.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1233265 The test procedure had been to use gravity to drop your ten pound head 6.6 feet onto a orange sized piece of stainless steal. I read they are up to ten feet now. So if I am walking down the street wearing my DOT approved helmet trip and fall on a metal orange I should be protected since I am 5'10". A DOT study I read some years back stated that most helmets failed that test when dropped from 10 feet. A friend had a typical bike vs SUV accident last week. No helmet involved. His head was fine. Ribs broken, leg broken. May loose leg.
Re: Drag racing. When racing in a caged vehicle you strapped to a padded chair in a padded cage in a energy absorbing vehicle. Cycle racing: Last I checked there are no curbs, trees or SUV's allowed. And the curves are padded with energy absorbing material. The ground around the curves have a material to slow down the racer before they strike the energy absorbing material.
If anyone prefers to wear a helmet, I don't have an issue with that. Both my wife and my adult son wear them when they ride their bikes, because they choose to. In a free society you should have the right to choose what you do with your body as long as you don't hurt someone else, IMHO.{salute(
Disclaimer: I didn't intend to offend anyone. I am passionate about personal liberty.

 

[Buddha4]

When I made the comment about the helmet as the only saftey net I was taveling from some southern states w mandatory helmet law. Saw several bikes wering ff helmet/shorts/ tang top and sandels. All I meant was a helment might save the "head" in and injury but a lot of pain will be involved getting better.

 

[Bhawk]

In the early 1900's Colonel Jim Corbett was hunting an injured man eating leopard. He paused to smoke a cigarette. The leopard, which had been waiting to ambush him, died and fell from the tree that he was about to pass under. Thus proving that cigarettes save lives.

People who believe that helmets don't save lives always have some anecdote that shows that helmets don't save lives. However, I know of no independent, non-political organization or study that says helmets don't save lives. I also don't know of anyone who's been in an accident where their face has been scraped off against the road who's said that wearing a helmet wouldn't have been a good idea. But there probably is someone so passionate about not wearing a helmet and so afraid to say they were wrong that they wouldn't.

I gave up on this whole question when I realized that people weren't interested in identifying and evaluating unbiased information -- they were simply interested in finding folks who agreed with them. If you want to splatter your brains on the road -- if that's your idea of freedom -- go ahead and do it.

I don't know how to quote in this forum. Re: Bullet Proof Vest. A vest protects you from most handgun calibers. So it is wise to wear one if you're a cop or live in a ghetto. I grew up in the New Jersey ghettos and was mugged three times with a knife. Vests don't protect you from knives. Some years ago in NJ my close friend was murdered on Christmas Eve and his brother was shot in the leg. The State should have mandated everyone wear a vest since they can't protect their citizens. He left a wife and three children.
Re: Test. The last testing study I read, which formed my opinion, was from the mid 90's in Motorcyclist Mag. When Googling for you, I found a newer test in Motorcyclist. http://www.v-twinforum.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=1233265 The test procedure had been to use gravity to drop your ten pound head 6.6 feet onto a orange sized piece of stainless steal. I read they are up to ten feet now. So if I am walking down the street wearing my DOT approved helmet trip and fall on a metal orange I should be protected since I am 5'10". A DOT study I read some years back stated that most helmets failed that test when dropped from 10 feet. A friend had a typical bike vs SUV accident last week. No helmet involved. His head was fine. Ribs broken, leg broken. May loose leg.
Re: Drag racing. When racing in a caged vehicle you strapped to a padded chair in a padded cage in a energy absorbing vehicle. Cycle racing: Last I checked there are no curbs, trees or SUV's allowed. And the curves are padded with energy absorbing material. The ground around the curves have a material to slow down the racer before they strike the energy absorbing material.
If anyone prefers to wear a helmet, I don't have an issue with that. Both my wife and my adult son wear them when they ride their bikes, because they choose to. In a free society you should have the right to choose what you do with your body as long as you don't hurt someone else, IMHO.{salute(
Disclaimer: I didn't intend to offend anyone. I am passionate about personal liberty.

 

[toProFile]

People that survive crashes not wearing a helmet usually say they're lucky.
People that survive crashes wearing a helmet usually say they're lucky they wore a helmet.
People that die wearing or not wearing a helmet usually don't say anything . . .

I'm just sayin . . .

 

[Fxsts103ci]

Hmm. maybe because CT decided to implement several programs to reduce alcohol related accidents, rider education programs, of which you had a 63% increase in enrollment, etc. It's in your report. How about the fact that nationwide the number of riders has increased, but the overall percentage of riders that wear helmets has gone down. (Search the NHTSA site, that's in a report) And also the fact that because states have helmet laws doesn't mean you have to wear a DOT/Snell certified helmet. (NHTSA Motorcycle Helmet Use in 2005 - Overall results). The problem with the report you reference is that it doesn't take into other factors of what's going on in the rest of the country. All you can say is CT is doing better than most other places because of the programs it has implemented.

Well if Ct can get the #'s down along the rest of New England by doing rider ed and alchohol reduction programs why cant the rest of the country. My coclusion is that helmets dont in of themselves save people Education of both riders and cagers does. In New England NH in particular they have those mobile street billboards used for construction but they say "Motorcyles are everywhere please be carefull" or something simular in context.

 

[winpitt]

My coclusion is that helmets dont in of themselves save people Education of both riders and cagers does.

Helmets most certainly do in and of themselves save lives. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. I continue to find it difficult to understand the logic of not believing they do not.

Education of riders and drivers also save lives.

Helmets combined with the education of riders and drivers save even more lives.

 

[Fxsts103ci]

Lou, I would dearly love to read those reports. I hope they are published by some actual professionals rather than a group with a vested interest. Please provide links or references.

Oh, and if they don't help you over 20mph, I suppose that motorcycle grand prix and drag racing guys just wear them for the looks, right?



Hmmmm

this is the DOT standard for 571.218 motorcycle helmets

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/49cfr571_01.html

S7.1.4 (a) The guided free fall drop
height for the helmet and test
headform combination onto the hemispherical
anvil shall be such that the
minimum impact speed is 17.1 feet/second
(5.2 m/sec). The minimum drop
height is 54.5 inches (138.4 cm). The
drop height is adjusted upward from
the minimum to the extent necessary
to compensate for friction losses.
(b) The guided free fall drop height
for the helmet and test headform combination
onto the flat anvil shall be
such that the minimum impact speed is
19.7 ft./sec (6.0 m/sec). The minimum
drop height is 72 inches (182.9 cm). The
drop height is adjusted upward from
the minimum to the extent necessary
to compensate for friction losses.

Out of the 2 drops the fastest is 19.7 ft per second or 13.41 MPH thats is the requirement for a helmet to pass and get that little DOT sticker . And on top of that this is done on the honor system the feds do very little testing.

 

[Fxsts103ci]

Helmets most certainly do in and of themselves save lives. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. I continue to find it difficult to understand the logic of not believing they do not.

Education of riders and drivers also save lives.

Helmets combined with the education of riders and drivers save even more lives.

I have shown that a lidless state has had its deaths drop ... Show me a report that a state with helmet laws has done the same , in your words prove it with links not with conjecture on the part of a Dr or ER nurse or the NTSB. Show me one study that shows a reduction in deaths after a helmet law was enacted... Good luck finding it.

 

[winpitt]

I have shown that a lidless state has had its deaths drop ... Show me a report that a state with helmet laws has done the same , in your words prove it with links not with conjecture on the part of a Dr or ER nurse or the NTSB after the fact. Show me one study that shows a reduction in deaths after a helmet law was enacted... Good luck finding it.

No problems finding it, and it's been posted all over the world. I'm not going to continue reposting over and over. You can look at hospital data. You can look at fatality data. You can look at fatalities for miles ridden. You can look at national data. You can even look at international data. The problem is that helmet laws have been repealed recently as opposed to enacted. And fatalities for miles ridden have gone up. Actually, you can also see where fatalities ROSE SIGNIFICANTLY AND FASTER THAN THE INCREASE IN RIDERSHIP where helmet laws were relaxed. Also fact. Please don't ask me to do your homework. I don't do it for my kids, and it's plenty easy to do. Just go to FARs, etc.

But, beyond that, even your question is off base. Are you debating whether helmets make you safe, or whether helmet laws make you safe? There is a distinction. I'm most amazed by the folks who claim that helmets do not make you safer. For that, there is clear, unconflicted evidence. That's what I'm talking about.

And for what it's worth, I'll take the word of ER professionals, nurses, doctors, the American Medical Association, the American College of Orthopedic Surgeons, the NTSB, and the NHTSB FAR more often than those of us who frankly and clearly have a motive. They do not. Of course, other than having to work on people and spending money.

Or, you could just believe that they're all making it up. Just because.

 

[winpitt]

this is the DOT standard for 571.218 motorcycle helmets

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_01/49cfr571_01.html

S7.1.4 (a) The guided free fall drop
height for the helmet and test
headform combination onto the hemispherical
anvil shall be such that the
minimum impact speed is 17.1 feet/second
(5.2 m/sec). The minimum drop
height is 54.5 inches (138.4 cm). The
drop height is adjusted upward from
the minimum to the extent necessary
to compensate for friction losses.
(b) The guided free fall drop height
for the helmet and test headform combination
onto the flat anvil shall be
such that the minimum impact speed is
19.7 ft./sec (6.0 m/sec). The minimum
drop height is 72 inches (182.9 cm). The
drop height is adjusted upward from
the minimum to the extent necessary
to compensate for friction losses.

Out of the 2 drops the fastest is 19.7 ft per second or 13.41 MPH thats is the requirement for a helmet to pass and get that little DOT sticker . And on top of that this is done on the honor system the feds do very little testing.

What exactly is your point? Because I'm missing it. So one of the tests are "freefall" at approx 14mph onto an anvil, to then determine the shock reduction? I'm guessing that you're suggesting that this means that the helmet is useless beyond 14mph? Please confirm that's what you are implying. (Oh, and the "fastest" is not 19.7. The MINIMUM speed for that test is 19.7).

If we can validate you're right, we need to notify the NFL. After all, they're at just around the same speed for impacts as the DOT test, and I guess they are clearly not worth wearing. That will free up some salary cap money for some teams!

 

[Fxsts103ci]

What exactly is your point? Because I'm missing it. So one of the tests are "freefall" at approx 14mph onto an anvil, to then determine the shock reduction? I'm guessing that you're suggesting that this means that the helmet is useless beyond 14mph? Please confirm that's what you are implying. (Oh, and the "fastest" is not 19.7. The MINIMUM speed for that test is 19.7).

If we can validate you're right, we need to notify the NFL. After all, they're at just around the same speed for impacts as the DOT test, and I guess they are clearly not worth wearing. That will free up some salary cap money for some teams!

yup the minimum ... Not to many will go over that test minimum .

"How does the DOT monitor compliance with FMVSS 218? Would you be surprised to learn it's based on the honor system? Yes, you read that correct. The government relies on the manufacturer's word that the helmet was tested and passed!

Does the government do any testing? Yes, they do very, very limited testing of helmets. How limited? In 2001, they tested 40 helmets. Under the honor system, we shouldn't have to test any helmets.

What if a helmet fails? They publish the data and rely on the manufacturer to bring the product into compliance. In 2001, 20% of the tested helmets failed the performance tests. Helmets manufactured by AFX, Fulmer, HJC, M2R, NEXL and THH. At a 20% failure rate, do you think there are others out there that might fail the performance test?
"
http://www.mxdirtrider.com/h-resources/s-about-Dot-helmets.htm

 

[R T]

I have shown that a lidless state has had its deaths drop ... Show me a report that a state with helmet laws has done the same , in your words prove it with links not with conjecture on the part of a Dr or ER nurse or the NTSB. Show me one study that shows a reduction in deaths after a helmet law was enacted... Good luck finding it.

@gree:

Personally I would like to believe helmets save lives, my problem is no one can show me a study to support it. I hear people claiming they do but where are the facts, if this is as obvious as some thing why can't anyone provide a link to a study to prove the point?

DOT standards are a freaking joke but I'm not laughing. Snell standards certainly are much stricter, at least they are not based on the honor system like DOT.

RT

 

[rides99fatboy]

Out of the 2 drops the fastest is 19.7 ft per second or 13.41 MPH thats is the requirement for a helmet to pass and get that little DOT sticker . And on top of that this is done on the honor system the feds do very little testing.

DOT standards are low, no argument there. That's why I own quality Snell approved Shoei helmets.

As for you comment that helmet themselves don't save lives... You're right. Wearing a helmet doesn't guarantee a damn thing. Education of riders and cagers? Not going to guarantee a damn thing either. People make mistakes. A co-worker of mine died this weekend because he ran into a car with his bike. Don't know if he had a helmet or not, but education didn't help here, and quite possibly a helmet wouldn't have either. Who knows.

I don't need a study to tell me that running into a brick wall unprotected at 13.42 MPH is going do some damage to my head. I wear a helmet on the chance that if I ever get into an accident and I get lucky and only bounce my head, I'll live another day. I'm not naive to think a helmet is going to protect my head getting a direct hit at higher speeds. But as someone pointed out earlier, road racers crash at a lot higher speeds have walked away.

It would really suck if you got in an accident and the only visible injury was a scratch above your eye and two days later you died because your brain swelled. Two years ago that happened to an acquaintance of mine. No broken bones or fractures, his brain just bounced around enough. Worst part, he wiped out in front of his wife and kids following him home. There's a case where a helmet would have probably saved his life.

Wear one or don't. Not my job to convince anyone they need to. Just don't give me sh$t about wearing one and pretending they can't save your life... in the right situation.