[soulfly]

It still amazes me how worked up people get over what others are doing.Personally, i don't give a rats ass if you wear a helmet or not.I still like freedom of choice and as little govt. intervention as possible.
That being said, its an absolute miracle i am still alive today. When we were kids, I remember countless hours of riding bicycles,skateboards, and dirtbikes w/o lids.Hell, our version of fun was running our Huffys at full speed down the neighborhood hill,around the culdesac and crashing into each other to see who would chicken out first.
It just seems like it was alot more fun back then when we weren't so fixated about everything we or someone else is doing.
Oh well...times have changed.

 

[Fxsts103ci]

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.

rides if ya look real close at my avitar I am wearing a ACC DOT helmet. I dont give any s$it about wearing one or not I just dont like people with absolutes on wearing them.I have to wear one in NY and when I go to a lidless I may or may not wear one. But since I leave from NY I always have one with me. I fell of a ladder cleaning the gutters on my home 2 years ago broke the clavicle and had a knot on my head . They kept me overnight for observation.

 

[R-RatedCustoms]

Some interesting points and something from the Ins.point of view (long but good read)

This their words, "Currently, only 20 states, the District of Columbia, and 4 territories have universal helmet laws requiring all riders to wear a helmet. "

OK, so 30 states either do not have a helmet law or adults can ride without one? The rest of their paragraph, "Twenty-seven states and 1 territory have partial laws that require minors and/or passengers to wear such helmets. Three states have no helmet laws."

So out of the 3 lawless states and the 27 relaxed states we see how much of the following (notice they do not give the breakdown):
"Since 1997, motorcycle fatalities have increased 127 percent. Last year, 4,810 motorcyclists died in crashes, and accounted for more than 10 percent of all motor vehicle crash fatalities."

So take the cars reference out of the equation. They are called cagers for a reason. But yet, the numbers given for the deaths are not
1. broken down by helmeted vs. non-helmeted state
2. compared to the increase in the number of riders that has happened since 1997.

So I did a little cyber searching for what is that number of new riders and I found this link:
http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/motorcycle/

Here is what I think is interesting - Their death count is a little lower for 2006 at 4798 and points out that it is the highest since 1981 for historical reference I guess. They also point out that the count has increased for the last nine years. (When did the surge in more folks riding begin? It is reasonable that 1995 was about the right time, check any big bike builder's bio and see when they started wrenching. They had customers coming from somewhere right?)

OK, now they put out something like what we need to put the number of deaths in perspective: "There were 5.8 million motorcycles on U.S. roads in 2004 . . ." What was the death count that year? They do not say, but we can use the following year since it was higher according to them and that number was 4,553 in 2005. They also point out that in 2004 there were 88,000 motorcycle crashes. What are the odds of dieing from a crash (helmet or not on this one) 1 out of 20 or so.

But the report goes on to explain a better breakdown of alcohol and speed as well as other factors that went into the crashes.

The interesting point I enjoy is that they say, " In 2005 motorcycle helmets saved 1,546 lives. NHTSA says that if all motorcyclists had worn helmets 728 more lives would have been saved. Helmets are estimated to be 37 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries."

WHATTT??? Only a low 37% effective? Now I am wondering how much faith to put into the almighty DOT sticker (or Snell for that matter) as far as saving me from buying one last suit. Cra9, seat belts have a better track record. If GOV wants you to wear a lid mandatory, then the bike companies better start making them standard issue with the bike (and no cheap Chinese junk like I see relabeled as so many brands we need Americans that can be sued standing there when the 63% of us that died wearing a helmet has their famalies looking for payback since it happens to car companies all the time)

For those of you that want the full report, here it is:

Motorcycle Crashes
THE TOPIC

JUNE 2007

Motorcycle riding has become more popular in recent years, appealing to a new group of enthusiasts consisting of older and more affluent riders. Sales of all types of two-wheelers reached about 1,158,000 in 2006, a level not seen in about 30 years. At the same time motorcycle fatalities have also been climbing, reaching their highest level in 2006 since 1981. There has been a dramatic jump in the number of deaths among motorcycle riders age 40 and older in recent years.

Motorcycles are by their nature far less crashworthy than closed vehicles. They are also less visible to other drivers and pedestrians and less stable than four-wheel vehicles. Operating a motorcycle requires a different combination of physical and mental skills than those used in driving four-wheel vehicles. Motorcyclists and their passengers are more vulnerable to the hazards of weather and road conditions than drivers in closed vehicles.

Motorcycle insurance is widely available. As motorcycles became more popular, more insurers entered the market. Now, most of the top ten auto insurers offer motorcycle insurance, either as an endorsement to a personal automobile policy or as a separate policy, in most of the states in which they operate. Many have recently expanded into new states. For more information see Motorcycle Insurance in the Specialty Insurance section of the I.I.I. Web site.


KEY FACTS


In 2006, 4,798 people died in motorcycle crashes, up 5.4 percent from 4,553 in 2005 to the highest level since 1981.


Motorcycle crash fatalities have increased for nine years in a row.


There were 5.8 million motorcycles on U.S. roads in 2004, according to latest data available, compared with 133.3 million passenger cars. Motorcycles accounted for 2.4 percent of all registered motor vehicles and 0.3 percent of vehicle miles traveled in 2004.


Some 88,000 motorcycles were involved in crashes in 2004.


Motorcyclists were 34 times more likely than passenger car occupants to die in a crash in 2005, per vehicle mile traveled, and 8 times more likely to be injured.


The fatality rate for motorcyclists in 2005 was 4.8 times the fatality rate for passenger car occupants per registered vehicle in 2004.



FATALITIES AND INJURIES

Overall: According to U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov), projections, in 2006, 4,798 motorcyclists died in crashes, up 5.4 percent from 4,553 in 2005, marking the ninth consecutive year of higher motorcycle deaths. Motorcycle fatalities are at their highest level since 1981. From 1997, a historic low, to 2006, motorcycle fatalities are estimated to have risen more than 125 percent. In 2006, 87,000 motorcycle riders were injured in accidents, the same number as in 2005 and up 53 percent from 57,000 in 1995.

In 2006 motorcyclists accounted for 11.1 percent of all traffic fatalities. In 1997 motorcyclists accounted for only 5 percent of total traffic fatalities.

By Age: Older motorcycle riders, who account for an increasingly larger proportion of all motorcyclists, now account for about half of all motorcycle rider fatalities. NHTSA data show that in 2005, 47 percent of motorcycle riders killed in crashes were age 40 or over, compared with 25 percent ten years earlier. In contrast, fatalities among young motorcycle riders have declined in the past 10 years, relative to other age groups. In 2005 fatalities in the under 30-year old group dropped to 32 percent, from 50 percent in 1995. Fatalities among motorcyclists in the 30- to 39-year old group fell to 21 percent in 2005, from 26 percent ten years earlier.

By Driver Behavior:

Alcohol use: Motorcyclist operators have high incidences of alcohol use. NHTSA says that in 2005, 27 percent of motorcycle operators involved in fatal crashes had a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) over 0.08 grams per deciliter (the national definition of drunk driving), compared with 22 percent of drivers of passenger cars, 21 percent of light truck drivers and 1 percent of large truck drivers in fatal crashes. These figures take into account fatally injured operators, passengers and/or pedestrians.

Of all fatally injured motorcycle operators, 27 percent had BAC levels of 0.08 or higher. Another 7 percent had lower alcohol levels (0.01 to 0.07 BAC.). Fatally injured motorcycle operators between the ages of 35 to 44 had the highest percentage of BACs 0.08 and above (39 percent), compared with those ages 45 to 49 (34 percent). Forty-one percent of the 1,878 fatally injured motorcycle operators who died in single-vehicle crashes in 2005 (for example, those in which the motorcycle crashed into a stationary object) had BAC levels of 0.08 or higher. On weekend nights, the proportion was higher: 61 percent of motorcycle operators who died in single-vehicle crashes had BACs of 0.08 or higher.

Speeding: In 2005, 34 percent of all motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes were speeding, compared with 26 percent for drivers of passenger cars and 25 percent for light truck drivers, according to NHTSA.

Licensing: Twenty-four percent of motorcycle operators who were involved in fatal crashes were riding without a valid license in 2005, compared with 12 percent of passenger vehicle drivers. NHTSA says that motorcycle operators were also 1.4 times more likely than passenger vehicle drivers to have a prior license suspension or revocation.


SAFETY ISSUES

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF, http://www.msf-usa.org), sponsored by motorcycle manufacturers and distributors, works with NHTSA, state governments and other organizations to improve motorcycle safety through education, training and licensing. Since 1973 about 3.2 million motorcyclists have taken MSF training courses. The organization also works with the states to integrate rider safety and skills in licensing tests. It also promotes safety by recommending motorcycle operators wear protective gear, especially helmets, ride sober and ride within their skill limits.

Motorcycle Helmets: In 2005 motorcycle helmets saved 1,546 lives. NHTSA says that if all motorcyclists had worn helmets 728 more lives would have been saved. Helmets are estimated to be 37 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries.

A NHTSA study covering 10 states found that when universal helmet laws, which pertain to all riders, were repealed, helmet-use rates dropped from 99 percent to 50 percent. In states where the universal law was reinstated, helmet-use rates rose to above 95 percent.

Motorcycle Helmet Use Laws: According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 20 states and the District of Columbia had laws on the books requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets as of June 2006 (See chart below). In another 26 states only people under a specific age (mostly between 17 and 20 years of age) were required to wear helmets. Four states (Colorado, Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire) had no helmet use laws.

According to NHTSA’s National Occupant Protection Use Survey, a nationally representative observational survey, motorcycle helmet use rose to 51 percent in June 2006, from 48 percent in June 2005. Helmet use had been falling from a high of 71 percent in October 2000. Use rates remain lower in states that do not require all riders to use helmets. In June 2006, 68 percent of motorcyclists in states requiring helmet use wore them, compared with 37 percent of motorcyclists in states that do not. The survey counts only helmets that comply with Department of Transportation standards. Since 1997, five states have limited helmet laws to cover only young drivers. The latest, Pennsylvania, limits mandatory usage requirements to motorcycle drivers under the age of 20. But in August 2004 Louisiana reinstated its universal helmet law.



STATE MOTORCYCLE HELMET USE LAWS

As of October 2006



Universal law (1)
Partial law (1)
State
Alabama X
Alaska 17 and younger (2)
Arizona 17 and younger
Arkansas 20 and younger
California X
Colorado
Connecticut 17 and younger
Delaware 18 and younger
District of Columbia X
Florida 20 and younge (3)
Georgia X
Hawaii 17 and younger
Idaho 17 and younger
Illinois
Indiana 17 and younger
Iowa
Kansas 17 and younger
Kentucky 20 and younger (3), (4)
Louisiana X
Maine 14 and younger (4)
Maryland X
Massachusetts X
Michigan X
Minnesota 17 and younger (4)
Mississippi X
Missouri X
Montana 17 and younger
Nebraska X
Nevada X
New Hampshire
New Jersey X
New Mexico 17 and younger
New York X
North Carolina X
North Dakota 17 and younger (5)
Ohio 17 and younger (6)
Oklahoma 17 and younger
Oregon X
Pennsylvania 20 and younger (7)
Rhode Island 20 and younger (7)
South Carolina 20 and younger
South Dakota 17 and younger
Tennessee X
Texas 20 and younger (3)
Utah 17 and younger
Vermont X
Virginia X
Washington X
West Virginia X
Wisconsin 17 and younger (2)
Wyoming 18 and younger
(1) Universal laws cover all riders; partial laws cover young riders or some adult riders.
(2) Alaska's motorcycle helmet use law covers passengers of all ages, operators younger than 18, and operators with instructional permits.
(3) In Florida and Kentucky, the law requires that all riders younger than 21 years wear helmets, without exception. In Florida, those 21 years and older may ride without helmets only if they can show proof that they are covered by a medical insurance policy. Texas exempts riders 21 years or older if they either 1) can show proof of successfully completing a motorcycle operator training and safety course or 2) can show proof of having a medical insurance policy.
(4) Motorcycle helmet laws in Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, and Wisconsin also cover operators with instructional/learner's permits. Maine's motorcycle helmet use law also covers passengers 14 years and younger and passengers if their operators are required to wear a helmet.
(5) North Dakota's motorcycle helmet use law covers all passengers traveling with operators who are covered by the law.
(6) Ohio's motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first year of licensure and all passengers of operators who are covered by the law.
(7) Rhode Island's motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first year of licensure and all passengers. Pennsylvania's motorcycle helmet use law covers all operators during the first two years of licensure unless the operator has completed the safety course approved by the department or the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.



Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute.



MOTORCYCLE HELMET USE, 1994-2006 (1)


(Percent)




(1) Based on a survey of motorcyclists using helmets meeting Department of Transportation standards.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Occupant Protection Use Survey, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's National Center for Statistics and Analysis.




MOTORCYCLIST FATALITIES AND FATALITY RATES, 1996-2006


Year
Fatalities
Registered motorcycles
Fatality rate per 100,000 registered vehicles
Vehicle miles traveled (millions)
Fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
1996 2,161 3,871,599 55.82 9,920 21.78
1997 2,116 3,826,373 55.30 10,081 20.99
1998 2,294 3,879,450 59.13 10,283 22.31
1999 2,483 4,152,433 59.80 10,584 23.46
2000 2,897 4,346,068 66.66 10,469 27.67
2001 3,197 4,903,056 65.20 9,639 33.17
2002 3,270 5,004,156 65.35 9,552 34.23
2003 3,714 5,370,035 68.16 9,577 38.78
2004 4,028 5,767,934 69.83 10,122 39.79
2005 4,553 6,227,146 73.12 10,770 42.27
2006 (1) 4,798 NA NA NA NA
(1) Projected.

NA= Data not available.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Federal Highway Administration.



MOTORCYCLIST INJURIES AND INJURY RATES, 1996-2006




Year
Injuries
Registered motorcycles
Injury rate per 100,000 registered vehicles
Vehicle miles traveled (millions)
Injury rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
1996 55,000 3,871,599 1,428 9,920 557
1997 53,000 3,826,373 1,374 10,081 522
1998 49,000 3,879,450 1,262 10,283 476
1999 50,000 4,152,433 1,204 10,584 472
2000 58,000 4,346,068 1,328 10,469 551
2001 60,000 4,903,056 1,229 9,639 625
2002 65,000 5,004,156 1,293 9,552 677
2003 67,000 5,370,035 1,250 9,577 701
2004 76,000 5,767,934 1,324 10,122 755
2005 87,000 6,227,146 1,402 10,770 811
2006 (1) 87,000 NA NA NA NA
(1) Projected.

NA= Data not available.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; Federal Highway Administration.



OCCUPANT FATALITY RATES BY VEHICLE TYPE, 1995 AND 2005


Fatality rate
Motorcycles
Passenger cars
Light trucks
1995
Per 100,000 registered vehicles 57.14 18.19 15.30
Per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 22.73 1.52 1.28
2005
Per 100,000 registered vehicles 73.12 13.64 13.66
Per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 42.27 1.14 1.14
Percent Change, 1995-2005
Per 100,000 registered vehicles 28.0% -25.0% -10.7%
Per 100 million vehicle miles traveled 86.0 -25.0 -11.0
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


MOTORCYCLE RIDERS KILLED OR INJURED BY TIME OF DAY AND DAY OF WEEK, 2005



Day of week




Weekday
Weekend
Total

Time of day
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Motorcycle riders killed
Midnight to 3 am 156 7.1% 261 11.1% 417 9.2%
3 am to 6 am 55 2.5 86 3.7 141 3.1
6 am to 9 am 182 8.3 76 3.2 258 5.7
9 am to Noon 183 8.3 173 7.4 356 7.8
Noon to 3 pm 333 15.2 369 15.7 702 15.4
3 pm to 6 pm 561 25.6 461 19.6 1,022 22.4
6 pm to 9 pm 435 19.8 567 24.1 1,002 22.0
9 pm to Midnight 280 12.8 347 14.8 627 13.8
Unknown 7 0.3 12 0.5 28 0.6
Total 2,192 100.0 2,352 100.0 4,553 (1) 100.0

Motorcycle riders injured
Midnight to 3 am 1,000 2.8 3,000 8.7 5,000 5.5
3 am to 6 am 1,000 1.2 1,000 2.1 1,000 1.6
6 am to 9 am 4,000 7.9 1,000 1.4 4,000 5.0
9 am to Noon 5,000 10.4 5,000 12.3 10,000 11.3
Noon to 3 pm 8,000 15.9 8,000 19.4 15,000 17.5
3 pm to 6 pm 16,000 34.4 9,000 23.7 26,000 29.6
6 pm to 9 pm 9,000 19.5 7,000 18.9 17,000 19.2
9 pm to Midnight 4,000 7.9 5,000 13.6 9,000 10.5
Total 48,000 100.0 40,000 100.0 87,000 100.0
(1) Includes 9 motorcycle riders killed on unknown day of week.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


VEHICLES INVOLVED IN CRASHES BY VEHICLE TYPE AND CRASH SEVERITY, 2005



Crash severity



Fatal
Injury
Property damage only
Total

Vehicle type
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Passenger car 25,029 42.2% 1,893,000 57.6% 4,169,000 55.5% 6,087,000 56.1%
Light truck 22,838 38.5 1,209,000 36.8 2,919,000 38.9 4,151,000 38.2
Large truck 4,932 8.3 82,000 2.5 354,000 4.7 442,000 4.1
Motorcycle 4,655 7.8 80,000 2.4 18,000 0.2 103,000 1.0
Bus 278 0.5 12,000 0.4 39,000 0.5 51,000 0.5
Other 603 1.0 10,000 0.3 12,000 0.2 23,000 0.2
Total 59,373 (1) 100.0 3,287,000 100.0 7,511,000 100.0 10,858,000 100.0
(1) Includes 1,038 vehicles of unknown type involved in fatal crashes.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.


PERSONS KILLED OR INJURED IN ALCOHOL-RELATED CRASHES
BY PERSON TYPE AND INJURY SEVERITY, 2005



Persons killed (1)
Persons injured by injury severity (2)


Person type
Number
Percent of total
Incapacitating
Non-incapacitating
Other
Total injured
Vehicle occupants
Driver 9,312 55.1% 27,777 59,661 75,000 162,439
Passenger 3,270 19.4 11,931 22,076 37,052 71,059
Unknown occupant 38 0.2 (3) (3) (3) (3)
Total 12,620 74.7 39,708 81,738 112,053 233,498
Motorcycle riders 1,751 10.4 3,126 3,060 664 6,850
Nonmotorists
Pedestrian 2,180 12.9 3,609 2,829 2,529 8,968
Pedalcyclist 281 1.7 647 1,647 894 3,188
Other/unknown 54 0.3 184 367 782 1,333
Total 2,515 14.9 4,441 4,843 4,205 13,488
Total 16,885 100.0 47,275 89,640 116,921 253,836
(1) Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter or greater in the crash. NHTSA estimates alcohol involvement when alcohol test results are unknown.
(2) Police-reported alcohol involvement in the crash.
(3) Less than 500.

Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.



DRIVERS IN FATAL CRASHES BY BLOOD ALCOHOL
CONCENTRATION (BAC) AND VEHICLE TYPE, 1995-2005 (1)



Passenger car
Light truck
Large truck
Motorcycles



Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent

Year
Total
BAC = 0.01+
BAC = 0.08+
Total
BAC = 0.01+
BAC = 0.08+
Total
BAC = 0.01+
BAC = 0.08+
Total
BAC = 0.01+
BAC = 0.08+
1995 30,773 27% 23% 17,483 29% 25% 4,410 4% 2% 2,262 42% 33%
1996 30,595 27 23 18,118 28 24 4,703 3 2 2,175 43 35
1997 29,896 26 22 18,502 26 23 4,859 3 2 2,159 41 32
1998 28,907 26 21 19,247 26 22 4,905 2 1 2,333 41 34
1999 27,878 25 21 19,865 26 22 4,868 3 1 2,528 40 33
2000 27,661 28 24 20,393 26 22 4,948 3 1 2,971 40 32
2001 27,444 27 23 20,704 27 23 4,779 2 1 3,261 37 29
2002 27,236 27 22 21,562 27 23 4,550 3 2 3,363 39 31
2003 26,422 26 22 22,172 25 22 4,658 2 1 3,800 36 29
2004 25,568 27 23 22,367 25 21 4,837 2 1 4,116 34 27
2005 24,908 26 22 22,757 25 21 4,881 2 1 4,652 34 27
(1) NHTSA estimates alcohol involvement when alcohol test results are unknown.



Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.



KEY SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: http://www.highwaysafety.org

U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation: http://www.msf-usa.org

The Motorcycle Industry Council: http://www.mic.org

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety: http://www.saferoads.org


© Insurance Information Institute, Inc. - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


So in a nutshell out of the 4553 deaths in 2005

Number wearing vs not wearing a helmet - does not say out directly, but it does say "Motorcycle Helmets: In 2005 motorcycle helmets saved 1,546 lives. NHTSA says that if all motorcyclists had worn helmets 728 more lives would have been saved So about 15.9% of the deaths could have been prevented if a helmet was in place.

Now what about other factors?

47% are age 40 and over. Should we outlaw riding while "old"? We would see an immediate decrease of nearly half of the deaths. What about outlawing the younger than 40 crowd?

OK so maybe age descrimination is not the answer although the numbers suggest a stronger case than the 15.9% of those killed from not wearing a helmet.

So what about the speed factor of 34%? We already have laws against that behavior. Yet if those that died slowed down, then we would possibly see a greater reduction in deaths than those folks that should have strapped one on.

So we cannot always control our speed (even though the GOV has posted and enforceable limits).

27% had a BAC (blood alcohol level) of greater than .08. Again 27 is much bigger than 15.9. Plus there are laws against it in some areas. hmmm Prohibition may need to make a comeback if the number crunchers really looked at ALL the data.

Ahhh, I think we have the magic solution by the reports own words, "Licensing: Twenty-four percent of motorcycle operators who were involved in fatal crashes were riding without a valid license in 2005. . ."

Another option is that the report says that "...1,878 fatally injured motorcycle operators who died in single-vehicle crashes in 2005..." So that means 2675 were crashing into another vehicle at some point. That comes to 58.7% Why not educate drivers that motorcycles exist and what a biker's body goes through on initial impact? Better yet, "rider's ed" should be part of "driver's ed".

So out of the 4553 deaths about 1092 should not have been on a bike period. They did not prove they had the skills to ride and confirmed that when they died. 24% is a lot better than 15.9%

Now I am not a super mathmetician and in fact used some online calculators to check my work. I am a reasonable person and can see that the arguement of mandatory helmets is not the best answer from ALL the information presented. The Insurance companies see that there is much more involved than just wearing or not wearing a helmet. How else can you justify the two paragraphs? Why else do they go on to mention MSF training out there? Why did they bother to write their version about the same time the Govt presents their arguements?

The best answer appears to remain that the ALL the motoring public needs better education. The numbers from 2005 support that. We have 58% crashing into another vehicle and 24% not even supposed to be on the bike at all. Those two areas alone should be more of a concern than the 15.9% of those that died not wearing a helmet and NHTSA says they could have lived. If the Govt wants to invest money into preventing motorcycle deaths, then it is wiser to go where there would be a bigger chance of actually doing it - education, not legislation.

 

[Red02FXST]

I have no idea why the NTSB has anything to do with Motorcyle Safety or the laws that surrrond motorcyles!!! Anybody figure that one???
Myself, I wear a helmet most of the time because its the law. Me for one,
I am a law abiding person.:yikes: . Yea, I know sometimes we all break the law, speading, running red lights and the like. It doesn't mean that motorcycle rides shouln't enjoy freedom of choice and the road.
I am a ABATE member in Maryland. We lost our Md state director due to an accident, he was killed and his helmet thrown off by a driver hitting him from the side. enough said, his helmet didn't help at all... "DOT", what is that???
http://www.abate-of-maryland.org/
I wouldn't wear a helmet if not required by law. Also, I think the state
MSF training should be manditory for new riders. Advance course also mandatory, but the prices states charge are rediculously high making it unreasonalbe for some average workers to take the course.
Brings new meaning to "RUB".. Cages that cause motorcycle accidents should have to go to mandatory traing on motorcycle awareness too...
JMHO and 2 cents.

 

[winpitt]

The best answer appears to remain that the ALL the motoring public needs better education. The numbers from 2005 support that. We have 58% crashing into another vehicle and 24% not even supposed to be on the bike at all. Those two areas alone should be more of a concern than the 15.9% of those that died not wearing a helmet and NHTSA says they could have lived. If the Govt wants to invest money into preventing motorcycle deaths, then it is wiser to go where there would be a bigger chance of actually doing it - education, not legislation.

Where you and I disagree is this.

You believe it's an "either/or" discussion. You should educate "instead of" promoting helmet use. Note that I didn't say make helmets mandatory - I would prefer the utopia of having higher insurance rates.

Where your logic completely fails (IMHO) is that it is NOT an "either/or" discussion. The auto industry didn't say "Gee, we can either have ABS "OR" we can have rollover protection. Just about every other area approaches safety and death/injury prevention as a whole. Our group (actually some parts of our group) want to exclude one thing, well, just because they want to.

There are ALREADY laws in place that people are not abiding concerning the 24%. There certainly should be more and better education. However, there is no sane reason why this excludes ALSO education about the reality that helmets make you safer. And, that something should be done to put a cost where it belongs - assigned to the people deciding to make that choice for higher risk.

And as for the numbers, my own opinion is that if I can improve my odds by 37%, there's just no question. That's a no-brainer decision. Even if it were only half that, there's no question. We're not riding the wide open roads of the 60's anymore.

 

[winpitt]

I have no idea why the NTSB has anything to do with Motorcyle Safety or the laws that surrrond motorcyles!!! Anybody figure that one???
.

Yes, because it's their job. Because it's in their charter. Since 1967. Unless of course you don't ride on highways, then they don't concern themselves with you. We've been through this already.

 

[R T]

R-RatedCustoms thanks for taking the time to post that data. I do question the accuracy of vehicle miles traveled and the number of lives that could have been saved (728) however even using those numbers it is apparent there are other measures than helmet laws that would save more lives.


Someone above mentioned New Hampshire's fatalities dropped by focusing on education. It would be nice to see data to support that.

The 2 numbers that jump out to me are:

"We have 58% crashing into another vehicle and 24% not even supposed to be on the bike at all."

I believe it is safe to assume most of the 24% is included in the 58% but education would make a huge dent in these sad statistics. Then by providing better education and presenting the following data:

27% had a BAC (blood alcohol level) of greater than .08.

education is addressing well over 50% of the MC fatalities.

So... the next question is how best to educate all drivers. When NTSB addresses this I will listen.

Maybe we should start a list of ideas on how to educate drivers. Here are a few of my ideas:

DOT make up a questioner to be answered each year when tags are purchased. Data gained from this could be used to focus the education in the most effective areas.

MC safety course required for MC license.

MC driver receiving a moving violation is required to take an advanced safety course.

Improve the requirements for a helmet to be DOT approved.

RT

 

[Buddha4]

SNIP
Maybe we should start a list of ideas on how to educate drivers. Here are a few of my ideas:

DOT make up a questioner to be answered each year when tags are purchased. Data gained from this could be used to focus the education in the most effective areas.

MC safety course required for MC license.

MC driver receiving a moving violation is required to take an advanced safety course.

Improve the requirements for a helmet to be DOT approved.

RT

Classes/educaiton is important but when you figure receive a fine a a MC take a couple hundred dollar class yet not have equivalent training required for "4 wheels" doesn't make sense if driver education is the goal.

As mentioned earlier look at the number of unlicensed and or impared riders got into a crash.

Would the Safety course have to be MSF "curriculum" there are several other schools that offer courses that are much more difficult than MSF that are available. Is the standard going to be applied nationwide (federal application to a state license)

 

[cwo2lt]

And as for the numbers, my own opinion is that if I can improve my odds by 37%, there's just no question. That's a no-brainer decision. Even if it were only half that, there's no question. We're not riding the wide open roads of the 60's anymore.

Why don't you improve your odds by 100% and stop riding? I know that sounds smartass but I don't mean it that way, I really wonder why you ride. Every helmet thread you jump in with the mantra that riders who don't wear helmets cost you money, why aren't you going all the way with that thought and calling for a ban of motorcycles? After all wearing a helmet does not mean you will never be injured and require care but never riding in the first place would.

How far are you willing to go in the name of safety and saving money?

 

[R T]

Classes/educaiton is important but when you figure receive a fine a a MC take a couple hundred dollar class yet not have equivalent training required for "4 wheels" doesn't make sense if driver education is the goal.

As mentioned earlier look at the number of unlicensed and or impared riders got into a crash.

Would the Safety course have to be MSF "curriculum" there are several other schools that offer courses that are much more difficult than MSF that are available. Is the standard going to be applied nationwide (federal application to a state license)

Those were spur of the moment basic ideas. Agree do need a class for cagers with moving violations too. What do you suggest?

The MSF advanced class is accepted by the insurance companies for a cost break and costs $25 here in Ohio.

RT

 

[R-RatedCustoms]

Ideas for education, and yes it comes down to "either/or" on using tax $$$.

Thanks to R T and Budda4 for the helpful ideas. I took 3 hours last night going over NTSB and the Insurance reports. It appears that the Insurance report was a more (although not complete as I would want) presentation of real world issues surrounding the helmet choice debate.

Here for at least the past 15 years nearly all the high schools offer driver's ed as a class to the students. Yet none offer any MC training that I know of either as a seperate course or as part of the driver's ed. IF a kid can go and take the class during school then they are more likely to get their license and take away from the 24% figure. As for the "older" crowd that are getting into MC for a start. Here is an idea, I have seen offroad ATV dealers offer classes for next to nothing if you are buying an ATV. I think it should be nothing since I am dropping money on a bike either on or off road. If all the dealers did this, then there would be no problems as far as price competition and surely more customers would be drawn to the dealers that did it.

I know it costs $$ to put on riding courses, but I also know that HD Rider's Edge and some others are outside what most folks can afford up front, even with insurance discounts coming down the line from taking the class (so much for ins. not being able to discreminate from one customer to another of course get a few tickets and you will see the premium go up).

I have seen some "clubs" or "groups" of riders get together and take a class as a heard so that they can split the cost. That is one idea. Heck, if I was an insurance agent, I would host such classes for my customers.

Personally, I am always reading about riding techniques as well as seeking out more information. Anyone that knows me and lives nearby is welcome to join me when I practice.

So where else can we get more education, not just for ourselves, but also for those that do not ride?

EASY - the cost that it will take for NTSB to push for mandatory helmets from rewritting laws all the way to ad campaigns can be used to offset the cost of riders classes. It seems that somewhere around $50 for beginners and $75 for advanced is a better price as far as riders ed. Additionally, the drivers ed needs to have MC safety in it as well and not just a brief mention either.

So if you think about tax dollars either being spent on something that at most is 37% effective (helmet use by the Govt's own admission in death reduction) or on something that at most is 58% effective (the reduction in crashes from better trained and informed drivers/riders) then it does become an "either/or" since there are not unlimited (or in theory there shouldn't be) tax dollars to go around. IF the Govt really wants to save lives, they have to use the most likely way of doing it. Here is an additional benefit if there is education vs mandatory helmets - you will also see this number reduced "In 2006, 87,000 motorcycle riders were injured in accidents, the same number as in 2005 . . ." So there will be less folks getting mangled on the rest of the body and that means less medical insurance expense. That also means that more of the approx 5.8 million bikes cited in the Insurance report from 2004 will be out there year after year which if bike is not crashed, then the insurance will not have to fix it (cost reduction).


I would have liked to see a death per state breakdown and cross that over with the helmet law issue, but I think the Insurance group that got the Govt numbers gave us "freedom" thinking folks enough to work with to make an intelligent dicussion with our law makers. In fact, I sent the review I did to my state ABATE and have it saved for my law makers to receive when the time comes.

Thank you again for appreciating that I actually went out and presented the freedom side of the debate in a way that made more sense and is a little easier to understand than "the Govt said therefore it is".

 

[winpitt]

Why don't you improve your odds by 100% and stop riding? I know that sounds smartass but I don't mean it that way, I really wonder why you ride. Every helmet thread you jump in with the mantra that riders who don't wear helmets cost you money, why aren't you going all the way with that thought and calling for a ban of motorcycles? After all wearing a helmet does not mean you will never be injured and require care but never riding in the first place would.

How far are you willing to go in the name of safety and saving money?

It does sound smarta$$. I ride because I love it - and have for close to 50 years now (not all of that on the road - only 40 years on the road). My own opinion is that rebelling against what is frankly to many common sense will in fact result in exactly what you're talking about. A relative ban on bikes. It has already started. Helmets certainly don't make you invulnerable. Neither do seat belts in cars, or roll-over protection. But, they help - and they reduce costs. We are vastly outnumbered by non-riders. That will only continue. I unfortunately see a future (caused by us) that will be unaffordable insurance, and medical/health insurance that excludes bikers - specifically because we choose to ignore what certainly appears to be common sense - and in the face of every "non-riding" group in existence. I know some people won't agree - especially on this forum. However, the fact is that some insurance companies have already called it quits. Some really really good ones. And you can't ride legally without insurance.

 

[winpitt]

R-Rated

I appreciate you taking the time to look at the data. It's interesting that even after doing that, people naturally try to make it say something they like. Not picking - just observing.

For example, if we take those stats on the surface (which I'm willing to do) we still have a problem with your logic.

You see, in the existing accidents, it was found that helmets would have prevented 15.9% of the fatalities. Now, you're quoting the higher percentages of accidents involving "crashing into another vehicle" (58%) and "shouldn't be riding" (24%) you are making a grevious error of logic.

You are assuming that effective training would have prevented 100% of those two categories, when in fact we all know that this is impossible. We can argue "how much" effective training would have reduced those numbers, but let's be honest. It isn't going to even reduce them by half. It would be nice, but it just aint gonna happen that way. The reality is that such training (which I highly endorse) would have far lower effective rates in terms of reducing death. THOSE rates are what needs to be compared.

In other words, you're suggesting that each and every one of those accidents would be prevented by training in order to compare it to the likely saved lives of wearing a lid.

That's the reality of it. It really should be ALL OF THE ABOVE and not just bits and pieces of it.

 

[moonshine]

All the training in the world won't mean a rat's *&^ if the riders don't practice (apply) the mental as well as physical skills.

 

[moonshine]

. Advance course also mandatory, but the prices states charge are rediculously high making it unreasonalbe for some average workers to take the course.
.

All states don't charge high rates to get into courses some are free and some are really reasonable (cheap).

 

[R-RatedCustoms]

Those were spur of the moment basic ideas. Agree do need a class for cagers with moving violations too. What do you suggest?

The MSF advanced class is accepted by the insurance companies for a cost break and costs $25 here in Ohio.

RT

How come OH gets all the breaks? Here is a sample of TN Basic RiderCourse - $185 (Includes Insurance)
Experienced RiderCourse - $85

 

[R-RatedCustoms]

All states don't charge high rates to get into courses some are free and some are really reasonable (cheap).

You see there is the problem. Not all states have the same helmet laws either, but NTSB wants to change that. Why not invest the money into making all states low or no cost training?

 

[R-RatedCustoms]

In other words, you're suggesting that each and every one of those accidents would be prevented by training in order to compare it to the likely saved lives of wearing a lid.

That's the reality of it. It really should be ALL OF THE ABOVE and not just bits and pieces of it.

Write your reps on that one and make sure that the tax money is there to go around. NTSB does not mention anything about additional training, yet the Insurance companies give discounts for getting it.

Like you said on loud pipes, "Actually, everyone should just act with responsibility and consideration for others." That can apply to riding a bike with or without a helmet and driving a car.

Have you taken any stats classes? I will admit that there may or may not be an overlap in the percentages we do not know for sure. Either way the number of riders killed in a multi vehicle crash are much higher than the ones that died just because they did not wear a helmet. Again, if there is no crash then the helmet is not needed.

How hard is that to understand?

 

[Red02FXST]

[Like you said on loud pipes, "Actually, everyone should just act with responsibility and consideration for others." That can apply to riding a bike with or without a helmet and driving a car.

Have you taken any stats classes? I will admit that there may or may not be an overlap in the percentages we do not know for sure. Either way the number of riders killed in a multi vehicle crash are much higher than the ones that died just because they did not wear a helmet. Again, if there is no crash then the helmet is not needed.

How hard is that to understand?[/QUOTE]

I totally agree. MSF basic and advanced courses would more than likely
reduce motorcylce crashes. Next is to educate the cages that motorcyle riders are riding..... many don't care but could use the education.. JMHO

 

[Buddha4]

Those were spur of the moment basic ideas. Agree do need a class for cagers with moving violations too. What do you suggest?

The MSF advanced class is accepted by the insurance companies for a cost break and costs $25 here in Ohio.

RT

Around here actual enforcement of existing vehicle laws.

i.e Yesterday passed a vehicle with a registration sticker that was over 1 YEAR old. I work with some ADA's and they tell me that a fine for not registering a vehicle(which requires proof of insurance) is cheaper than some policies so if they can go 6 months without insurance they are ahead financially.

This obvious disregard for compliance tends to lead to hit-n-runs. do they have a license. since I moved back 3.5 years ago I had one drive off involving the bike and and attemted hit-n-run by and illegal with no insurance/DL

I had the MSF Basic almost 15 years ago and the Advanced 6 years.

I think the biggest problem with driver's education is that it is too easy and cheap to get a DL. Since everyone thinks it's an entitlement It costs a couple thousand to get one in Germany and a lot of training but that is one of the best places in the world to drive.