(Please visit one of our advertisers)

No donations or subscriptions are required

   OR   
   
Subscription choices:
Board Karma = 40  (3488 positive of 3870 votes is 40 %pts higher than a neutral 50%)
All Things (Safety Oriented) Motorcycle   
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

You can the entire collection of Safety Tip articles in a 33 Megabyte PDF Portfolio

 All Forums
 Motorcycle Safety
 Polls
 Helmet, how often?
Previous Page | Next Page
Member Previous Topic Discussion Topic Next Topic
Page: of 4

twc
Male Advanced Member
836 Posts
[Mentor]


Fort Collins, CO
USA

Harley-Davidson

Electra Glide Ultra

Posted - 05/21/2007 :  9:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by trafficdan

How do people without helmets avoid wearing this?


Maybe they don't. Perhaps it takes a whole different attitude .
Go to Top of Page

Lockjaw
Male Senior Member
413 Posts


San Francisco, CA
USA

Honda

73 CB450, Kymco 150

Posted - 10/10/2007 :  5:05 PM
Full face. All the time. Wouldn't think of anything else.

LKJ
Go to Top of Page

Geotiggy
Male Standard Member
247 Posts


Tonawanda, New York
USA

Aprilla

Atlantic

Posted - 10/10/2007 :  8:14 PM
I wear my full face 100%, and would even if I wasn't living in a mandated state. I figure, until someone comes up with a reliable way of telling me which rides are safe enough to go without, I'm wearin' it!!
Go to Top of Page

biggunbob
Male Standard Member
139 Posts


parma, OH
USA

Harley-Davidson

electraglide classic

Posted - 01/01/2008 :  4:38 PM
I wear my helmet all the time, even if its over 90 degrees. A helmet does not protect anything if you leave it home. I nned to keep what little brains I have left. Safe riding!
Go to Top of Page

Texasphotographer
Male Advanced Member
896 Posts
[Mentor]


Copperas Cove, Texas
USA

Honda

2006 GL1800 Trike

Posted - 05/27/2008 :  10:22 AM
Rode my bike next door without a helmet a couple of days ago.First time I rode without the helmet. Caught almighty hell from my wife. Now, to appease her and for my protection, would not be without the helmet.

Mighty hot here in Texas right about now. Bought a half-helmet and will wear sunglasses to protect my head and eyes in the heat.
Go to Top of Page

AZJohn
Male Standard Member
133 Posts


Clarkdale, AZ
USA

Honda

05 Shadow Spirit 750

Posted - 05/28/2008 :  1:51 PM

When my son first announced that he wanted to get a motorcycle I made a deal with him. I would let him ride if he always wore a helmet. I even bought him the helmet to make sure he got a good one. He's lived up to his part of that deal, so now that I am also a rider, how could I not wear my helmet 100% of the time.
Go to Top of Page

Godsdarling
Female Junior Member
50 Posts


Ramona, CA
USA

Kawasaki

2007 Vulcan 900

Posted - 05/28/2008 :  2:05 PM
100%. A helmet saved my brothers life twice. Even in AZ when I go visit him we both always wear one. I saw a couple of guys and one girl not wearing one. Its insane. The interstate 10 is where I got sideswiped in my Excursion by a diesel, how can you not see that? Let alone a biker. Every state, every where, Helmet always.
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 06/27/2008 :  10:17 AM
You all realize that a motorcycle helmet will only protect your head for abolut a 14 MPH crash, right?

Please check out Snell and DOT standards. Accidents above 35 MPH on a bike result in mostly Catastrophic Organ injuries internally. (THE HEART DISLODGES, THE SPLEEN EXPLODES, THE LIVER SMASHES INTO THE FRONT OF THE RIB CAGE, ETC.)

So your dead either way, but in the newspaper it will say, he/she was wearing a helmet!!

I do, and I don't. My choice.
Go to Top of Page

scottrnelson
Advanced Member
6890 Posts
[Mentor]


Pleasanton, CA
USA

KTM

990 Adv, XR650L

Peer Review: 1

Posted - 06/27/2008 :  11:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dannytheman

You all realize that a motorcycle helmet will only protect your head for about a 14 MPH crash, right?

That's 14 mph into something solid. Mine did a great job of protecting my head when I was tossed off of my motorcycle at over 60 mph. When you hit the road at higher speeds, your helmet often contacts the ground multiple times. So your impact speed relative to the road might be less than 14 mph, but you can be sliding along that road at a significantly higher speed.

Let's not mislead people into thinking that helmets won't make a difference if you crash at speed.
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 06/27/2008 :  12:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by scottrnelson

quote:
Originally posted by Dannytheman

You all realize that a motorcycle helmet will only protect your head for about a 14 MPH crash, right?

That's 14 mph into something solid. Mine did a great job of protecting my head when I was tossed off of my motorcycle at over 60 mph. When you hit the road at higher speeds, your helmet often contacts the ground multiple times. So your impact speed relative to the road might be less than 14 mph, but you can be sliding along that road at a significantly higher speed.

Let's not mislead people into thinking that helmets won't make a difference if you crash at speed.



Fully agree!!! No arguement at all. I should have clarified my statement. Thank you!!

How does the rider die when hitting a "solid" object at 40 MPH? Head or bodily injury? 25MPH? 35MPH?

Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4267 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 06/27/2008 :  12:54 PM
Danny, you ask how does a rider die when hitting a solid object at various speeds.

The speed does not cause the injury, but the peak loadings imposed on susceptible body parts during deceleration has everything to do with resulting injury. I would suggest that you take a look at a piece that was written by William Haddon several years ago titled "On The Escape of tigers". Haddon is noted for his research on countermeasures and management of injury related to kinetic energy.
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/08/2008 :  11:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gymnast

Danny, you ask how does a rider die when hitting a solid object at various speeds.

The speed does not cause the injury, but the peak loadings imposed on susceptible body parts during deceleration has everything to do with resulting injury. I would suggest that you take a look at a piece that was written by William Haddon several years ago titled "On The Escape of tigers". Haddon is noted for his research on countermeasures and management of injury related to kinetic energy.


"peak loadings imposed on susceptible body parts during deceleration"

That would be the "body going from 40 to zero" as the wall is the imposing object and decel is the body parts still staying in forward motion as it crushes against it's container.

I think I've made my point. Bouncing and skipping along happens, accidents happen. What I want on every report that is shared in medical jargon is "Did not having a helmet cause the death?"

I think we could get 10 people from this site to decypher the difference that these reports can all be read, and ask for a analytical report that includes all the pertinent data needed to get the truth out there.

All I ever want is the truth. Not some lobbyist report for AMA, or Doctors association... Why do all these groups have to have an agenda? The truth will set them all free!!

I also don't want people who never ride a bike making the rules for me. They wil never get it!!
Go to Top of Page

BadBob
Male Standard Member
161 Posts


Know Name City, Unknown
USA

Yamaha

V-Star 1100

Posted - 07/08/2008 :  12:16 PM
quote:
All I ever want is the truth. Not some lobbyist report for AMA, or Doctors association... Why do all these groups have to have an agenda? The truth will set them all free!!


Reputable peer reviewed journals are the place to start. Most MD's, including those who publish studies, belong to the AMA (American Medical Association; it is unknown at this time what percentage of 'em also belong to the other AMA.) Belonging to a professional organization that lobbies for legislation it deems to be in the interests of public health does not mean that a study published by a member of said organization in a peer-reviewed journal such as The Lancet or JAMA exhibits bias. I haven't done an extensive search of the literature, but I hypothesize with a high degree of confidence that, all other variables being equal, cranial impact against pavement or another vehicle is more likely to result in severe brain trauma and death without a helmet. It's pretty much a no-brainer.

Edited by - BadBob on 07/08/2008 2:22 PM
Go to Top of Page
rioguy
Ex-Member

Posted - 07/08/2008 :  12:16 PM
quote:
All I ever want is the truth. Not some lobbyist report for AMA, or Doctors association... Why do all these groups have to have an agenda? The truth will set them all free!!



More than anyone else, those in the medical field get to see the results of not wearing or wearing a helmet. I'd consider them much more reliable than a statistician trying to prove a point.

Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/11/2008 :  9:48 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BadBob

[quote] I haven't done an extensive search of the literature, but I hypothesize with a high degree of confidence that, all other variables being equal, cranial impact against pavement or another vehicle is more likely to result in severe brain trauma and death without a helmet. It's pretty much a no-brainer.



So, without any doing any research, you hypothesize, with all other variables, unsaid that they are that it's a no brainer?

Go to Top of Page
rioguy
Ex-Member

Posted - 07/11/2008 :  10:17 AM
Danny,

Why not just admit that you prefer not to wear a helmet and accept the additional risks?

With her helmet, my wife survived a crash. The helmet was beat up pretty badly. Her head was not.

Without a helmet, a rider I saw die in Colorado was a "no-brainer."

Both crashes were very similar. I wish I could have taken a picture of his Harley rag in the grass, but that would have been in very poor taste.

Take a person whose head happens to hit a pointed rock. Without a helmet, all the force will occur at the point of impact. With a helmet it will be spread over a large area. To show the effect, stab your arm with a sharp pencil. Then cover your arm with a thin notepad of paper and do the same thing. (Please don't really stab yourself with a pencil.) The same principle is why we use an ax instead of a sledge hammer to chop wood.

It doesn't take a ton of force to break a skull. I seem to remember an actor broke his skull making a V-8 commercial.

A Snell helmet has to be able to absorb an impact of 300 g's. A DOT helmet is 400 g's. These are older standards, maybe the current ones are different.

How many g's is your head designed to withstand?

I think it's a no-brainer.

Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4267 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 07/11/2008 :  10:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dannytheman

quote:
Originally posted by BadBob

[quote] I haven't done an extensive search of the literature, but I hypothesize with a high degree of confidence that, all other variables being equal, cranial impact against pavement or another vehicle is more likely to result in severe brain trauma and death without a helmet. It's pretty much a no-brainer.



So, without any doing any research, you hypothesize, with all other variables, unsaid that they are that it's a no brainer?

Danny, have you ever seen the "Ball peen hammer demonstration"? It is a "no brainer" You have your choice of being rapped on the head with a ball peen hammer with a helmet on or without a helmet. Your choice.
A variation is the face rasp where you have a choice between three strokes with a foot and a half long Sure Form auto body rasp across the face with and without a full coverage helmet. The actual demonstration was carried out on a mannequin head form and was very effective in helping students make a helmet choice in a non mandatory state.

One last thing Danny. You sign off as the Safety Officer for Tri State HOG which implies that you see yourself a a role model with implied credibility. Do you wear a helmet?




Edited by - gymnast on 07/11/2008 10:34 AM
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/11/2008 :  10:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rioguy

quote:
All I ever want is the truth. Not some lobbyist report for AMA, or Doctors association... Why do all these groups have to have an agenda? The truth will set them all free!!



More than anyone else, those in the medical field get to see the results of not wearing or wearing a helmet. I'd consider them much more reliable than a statistician trying to prove a point.




What causes more head trauma in the US? Bicycles, Roller blades, skateboards, motorcycles or rock climbing? Motorcycles have the lowest..

Helmet Facts
Do You Need A Helmet for Safety?

Relative to the number of registered motorcycles, states with mandatory helmet laws had 12.5% more accidents and 2.3% more fatalities than free choice states for the 14 year period 1977-90. (Accident and Fatality Statistics, analyzed by A.R. Mackenzie, M.D.)

Fact: There is no discernible difference in motorcycle accident or fatality rates between states with mandatory helmet laws and those which allow for freedom of choice. In fact, states which support voluntary use routinely achieve accident and fatality rates equal to or better than states with mandatory helmet laws for all riders. (American Motorcycle Association, 1995)
"It is concluded that: 1) motorcycle helmets have no significant effect on probability of fatality; and 2) past a critical impact speed, helmets increase the severity of neck injuries." (Dr. Jonathan Goldstein, Bowdoin College)

Fact: Helmets are minimally effective in preventing most injuries. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report to Congress, the CODES Study, 1995)

Automobile accidents account for 45.5% of all head injured patients and are responsible for 37.1% of all fatalities involving head injury. (The Journal of Trauma, 1989)
Fact: There are no appreciable differences found relative to fatality rate, severity of injury, hospital stay, and discharge status between motorcycle accident victims who wore helmets and those who did not. (Arizona's Governor's Office of Highway Safety Study, 1990)
Does Not Wearing A Helmet Increase Costs?
Fact: Helmet use is not associated with overall injury severity, discharge status, or insurance status. (University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, June, 1992)
Fact: Injured motorcycle operators admitted to trauma centers had lower injury severity scores compared to other road trauma victims. They accrued lower hospital charges. They were less likely to rely on Medicaid and Medicare, and they had about the same level of commercial or private insurance as other road trauma victims. (University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, June, 1992)
Fact: The average inpatient charge for a helmeted motorcyclist receiving a brain injury was equal to that of an unhelmeted motorcyclist receiving a brain injury. (NHTSA CODES Study, 1995)
Fact: The average inpatient charge for a helmeted motorcyclist not receiving a brain injury was approximately $1,000 more than that of an unhelmeted motorcyclist not receiving a brain injury. (NHTSA CODES Study, 1995)
Fact: Helmet use has no impact on the cost of injury after it has occurred. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, CODES Study, 1995)
Fact: Motorcyclists are no more dependent upon public sources for medical costs than motor vehicle operators. (NHTSA, CODES Study, 1995)
Why Does The Government Care?
It is not the role of government to protect one from oneself. The Declecration Of Independence states that all men are, "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Being a free citizen of this country means being free to live our lives as we see fit, provided that we do not physically harm the person or property of another. It means bearing the responsibility of one's choices and decisions. Motorcyclists have shown that they are no less responsible for bearing the consequences of their choices as any other vehicle operator.
It is not the role of government to protect people from the emotional effects of others’ choices. If this were the case, laws would have to be enacted against everything that has a potentially negative emotional effect on others, such as divorce and death! The circumstance in which a person is injured in an accident, be it in a car, truck, or on a motorcycle, is unfortunate, however operating a car, truck, or motorcycle is a legal activity. The only way to completely eliminate these situations would be to outlaw operating all motor vehicles.
In the absence of any convincing data demonstrating that helmets increase the survivability of an accident, or any reliable research showing that helmets reduce societal costs, it must be concluded that the state has no compelling interest in mandating helmet use by all motorcyclists.
Responsible adults should be entrusted by the state to make certain personal safety decisions, and the right to decide whether or not to wear a helmet should be among those choices.
Society's role is not to mandate personal safety, but rather to provide the education and experience necessary to aid us in making these decisions for ourselves.
Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4267 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 07/11/2008 :  11:00 AM
Danny, A large number of your citations are incomplete and out of context. Some are illogical on their face and contextually fallacious. Did you amass this information on your own of is it a collection of statements from a source which you have failed to disclose? Do you know who William Haddon is? Are you familiar with his work? Why do race sanctioning organizations require without exception that participants wear helmets?
Go to Top of Page

dhalen32
Male Moderator
841 Posts
[Mentor]


Omaha, NE
USA

BMW

R1200RT

Posted - 07/11/2008 :  12:30 PM
Danny:
How do you explain the motorcyclist fatality increases (over and above those associated with increased ridership) in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas and Florida in the year immediately after helmet law repeal?

I'll ask the question again that Gymnast asked you. Do you wear a helmet?

If you do not, how does someone who functions as a HOG Safety Officer for three states rationalize not wearing a helmet?

If you knew that you were going to fall off of your motorcycle and hit the asphalt head first would you make sure to wear a helmet?

I don't have any agenda here other than the fact that this board is all about safety. Wearing a helmet to me (and probably most who actively participate here) is simply the logical thing to do because I value my brain and how it affects my life. My answer to the questions above are similarly logical.

As someone said earlier in the thread. Stop dancing around your position and tell us whether you wear a helmet or not. Stop hiding behind cherry-picked statistics and go sell "freedom of choice" to those who don't care about their brains.

Dave
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 4 Previous Topic Discussion Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
Jump To:
All Things (Safety Oriented) Motorcycle © Master Strategy Group Go To Top Of Page
  This page was generated in 0.47 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05