(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

scottrnelson
Advanced Member
6888 Posts
[Mentor]


Pleasanton, CA
USA

KTM

990 Adv, XR650L

Posted - 07/11/2008 :  1:29 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dannytheman

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.

DataDan posted a bar chart on a web site that I visited earlier this week (but can't remember where) showing a significant drop in motorcycle fatalities beginning the year that the mandatory helmet law took effect in California.

I wish I could find it, because it clearly shows that your "fact" here is obviously BS.

----------Edit----------
Wait! I found it. How would you explain this:


Taken from: http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/f...&postcount=7

Edited by - scottrnelson on 07/11/2008 1:36 PM
Go to Top of Page

gymnast
Moderator
4265 Posts
[Mentor]


Meridian, Idaho
USA

Harley-Davidson

Sportster Sport

Posted - 07/11/2008 :  2:41 PM
Dannyboy, I found the following statement in your fact sheet to be a particularly egregious statement and typical of the "facts" you cited.

"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"

This statement is so contextually ambivalent and, in a sense obvious, as to be ridiculous. It seems to be saying, for example, that a concussion to a helmeted rider costs the same as a concussion to an unhelmeted rider. Well Duh? without control for specifics such as peak loading, surface impacted, speed at impact, etc, the statement is meaningless drivel.

Dannyboy, do you know what a peer reviewed study is? Have you had professional preparation in statistics and research design? Have you ever had professional experience with the interpretation of data?

Sophistry and retoric have for too long been the stock and trade of motorcycle "safety" non professionals and I would include many, but not all of the persons employed by organizations which have the word "safety" as part of their name.
Go to Top of Page
Niebor
Ex-Member

Posted - 07/11/2008 :  10:51 PM
That graph appears to suggest strongly that it is NEW riders accounting for the majority of increase in craches?
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/18/2008 :  4:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dhalen32

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




Sorry all, I thought I made it very clear that I do not wear a helmet in my home state. I have stated it in many posts. I am all about training for safety, and "choice" for helmets.

One of the things I see posted here is "after the helmet law was removed, more deaths, etc. How many more ride miles were there, how many more bikes on the road? How many of those deaths HAD helmets on?>?

I am the Safety officer for my HOG group, where did that become linked to a helmet? I am "stupid" for not wearing one? Opinions..
I teach observance, avoidance and speed control. Check into New Hampshires Motorcycle safety class. Only one person that has taken that class has died since taking it. Are all the riders that took the class in the New Hampshire (Another choice state)area wearing helmets? NOPE, hardly 30%. It is education and training that will lesson death. All new riders SHOULD wear a helmet. I have over 300,000 miles, not even a bump. I ride safe and aware. I do ride rain or shine, winter and summer how about you? (Burned my leg on a exaust pipe once)

I understand everything you are all saying, I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it!!
Go to Top of Page
rioguy
Ex-Member

Posted - 07/18/2008 :  5:07 PM
quote:
Danny said:

Check into New Hampshires Motorcycle safety class. Only one person that has taken that class has died since taking it


Better check your statistics. According to this link the following is true.

"One of the 27 people killed in 2004 and two of the 42 killed last year took the formal motorcycle riding course, he said."

If anyone is to pay attention to you, when you quote a statistic, you should reference the source. There is some other important info. What percentage of the riders have taken the BRC in New Hampshire?

Oh, btw, is it true that those three fatalities who had taken the course were not wearing helmets?n (An example of your own type of questions. Now you go research it and prove me wrong.)

You are asking questions for which the answers are readily available.

How many more registrations are there, how many more riders, etc. Because people won't do YOUR work for you, you consider yourself right.

Some more information found:

here:

"Course coordinator Katie Daley said the class includes instruction on turning, stopping, avoiding vehicles, shifting and wearing a helmet.

"(We) absolutely recommend everyone wear a helmet," she said. "No one goes through our course without one."

Now, why would the course coordinator recommend everyone wears a helmet if it isn't safer?

"At least one task force member thinks mandatory helmets would save lives.

"Although a mandatory helmet law isn't a popular subject, it makes sense when it comes to saving lives," John Kohler said."

If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. It's your head. Your brain. Do what you like.

Edited by - rioguy on 07/18/2008 5:26 PM
Go to Top of Page

scottrnelson
Advanced Member
6888 Posts
[Mentor]


Pleasanton, CA
USA

KTM

990 Adv, XR650L

Posted - 07/18/2008 :  6:32 PM
The chart that I posted has the yellow bars showing fatalities per 100,000 registered motorcycles. That number is independent of any large increase in bikes.

There were an average of around 100 fatalities per 100K motorcycles before the California helmet law.

There were an average of less than 60 fatalities per 100K motorcycles after the California helmet law.

It seems pretty obvious that mandatory helmet laws reduce overall motorcycle deaths.
Go to Top of Page

bachman1961
Male Advanced Member
2266 Posts
[Mentor]


colorado springs, co
USA

Honda

CB750 NightHawk

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  2:40 AM
14 MPH versus 8 MPH;

quote:
Originally posted by Dannytheman

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


So many variables can water down some key points however since this is brought to the table, a minimal impact to the unprotected head (about half of the 14 mph example) is considered deadly to the brain... In trying to make your point, the quote above is one line you can do without.

Now I won't argue with anyone who grew up watching cartoons and knows that Fred Flintstone can stop his car with his bare feet. If I know I can just jump off my cycle and land running, heck, I'm all set. If more prone to crash a car by flipping it into a river, maybe seat-belts are a poor choice. Police going to work knowing they probably won't get shot at may just want to leave the heavy sweaty vest and extra bullets at home. Employers provide safety gear and training to mitigate injury claims and healthcare costs. This is sensible stuff that goes without explanation! I expect this community to beg, borrow or steal information if that is what it takes for safety compliance... Good effort!!

I remember the description of a dog named Lucky. He was the dog with one eye, no tail, and 3 legs. Now I have no doubt Lucky had some great adventures and stories to share but lets face it, are we really going to appoint Lucky to be training other dogs on how to cross the street, how to give chase to cars or the MailMan? --
Motorcycle safety training w/o the helmet ??
Come on Lucky ,, I'm waiting for the punch-line.

Dannytheman- stay here and keep up the banter.. these great folks won't give up on you!

~brian
Go to Top of Page

dfpd273
Male Senior Member
303 Posts


Princeville, IL
USA

Yamaha

warrior

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  4:27 AM
I don't know if my opinion is valid, as I have no "research, data, or professional papers" to back this.

However. I am a nurse. I have worked at 3 of the largest (and busiest)emergency rooms in Chicago. Of all the motorcycle accident victims I have taken care of, almost without fail, the helmeted riders faired better than the nonhelmeted riders.

One of the saddest was a couple that were out riding with a group of friends. The couple (2 up), were going across a set of railroad tracks. The tracks were angled so you crossed at a 45 degree angle.
The couple slowed down almost to a walking pace, per the wife, and tried to cross. The front tire went into the track and both the husband and wife fell very quickly in the same direction. The husband had no helmet and full body armour. The wife and full armour and a helmet. The husband died. His skull was crushed. The wife had a cracked helmet that literally split completely in two (the medics brought it to the hospital for us to see). She walked out of the ER with no physical injuries. She told us that she had begged her husband to wear a helmet for years. She also told us that he was a die hard ABATE member who could quote facts about how helmets were not proven life saving devices and you were more likely to die in a car accident than die of a head injury.

I do hope that whether your state mandates helmet use or not, you always wear one. This is only one example of the hundreds I could tell you about. Sorry if this is an "unprofessional" opinion. Sorry I can't give you statistics to back this. Sorry for the broken families and the suffering of loved ones who will always wonder why "such a smart guy didn't wear a helmet". Sorry for the length of this post. Just thought it might make a difference. I know it did in my case, I never wore a helmet or leathers prior to my ER experience. I used to be the fool you all saw on the bike in shorts and a T shirt. Now I preach to anyone who will listen on the horrors of this dangerous and selfish act. Please ask yourself: Who all is affected when our brains are severely damaged? You may not care, but someone does. And rest assured, I can definitely go the rest of my years without seeing another dead and damaged human being.


Edited by - dfpd273 on 07/19/2008 4:39 AM
Go to Top of Page

bachman1961
Male Advanced Member
2266 Posts
[Mentor]


colorado springs, co
USA

Honda

CB750 NightHawk

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  5:27 AM
dfpd273;
Your experiences are real world so don't discount their validity. I worked in a Hospital ER area (mostly) as Security for over four years. Aside from the DUI issues and chemical dependency related to our 'customers', the saddest were the families or friends coming in related to a tragic crash. It always seemed to be the youngest brightest shinning stars. We had to assist the Doctors and Nursing staff with "slowing them down" as family and friends came rushing down in the middle of the night. Often times, they didn't get any last conscious visit, just sitting next to the gurney waiting to support others as they arrived. It was like someone kicking me in the gut every time. It just takes your airway and suffocates it as you cannot help but empathize and sometimes, (to your own horror) you actually picture your own child there flat on the cold steel. No sir, do not under sell the reality of what you have to see and deal with every day! Every high-school kid should be mandated to spend a half shift in a Hospital ER to see what families are left with and to see how fragile the body really can be.

Laying in the Hospital nearly comatose is the easy part. I've been there (1981) and it was before I wore a seatbelt and before I felt a responsibility to others for my own decisions and actions.

~ brian

Edited by - bachman1961 on 07/19/2008 5:35 AM
Go to Top of Page

Jim B
Male Senior Member
491 Posts


Newark, Delaware
USA

Honda

CMX250 & CB750

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  2:15 PM
Any person who vividly remembers how painful it was to have your head or other body parts slam into pavement, even at very slow speeds, is more likely to wear a helmet.

It sounds to me like Dannytheman has the mentality of "nothing is going to happen to me, I am very careful" and has not experienced the pain of impact with pavement. When he does, I will bet that if he recovers, he will advocate the use of helmets at all times with his tail between his legs.

Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  6:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by scottrnelson

The chart that I posted has the yellow bars showing fatalities per 100,000 registered motorcycles. That number is independent of any large increase in bikes.

There were an average of around 100 fatalities per 100K motorcycles before the California helmet law.

There were an average of less than 60 fatalities per 100K motorcycles after the California helmet law.

It seems pretty obvious that mandatory helmet laws reduce overall motorcycle deaths.



Could it also be that less people are riding motorcycles in Cal. because of the helmets?
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  6:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim B

Any person who vividly remembers how painful it was to have your head or other body parts slam into pavement, even at very slow speeds, is more likely to wear a helmet.

It sounds to me like Dannytheman has the mentality of "nothing is going to happen to me, I am very careful" and has not experienced the pain of impact with pavement. When he does, I will bet that if he recovers, he will advocate the use of helmets at all times with his tail between his legs.





That may very well be the mose correct statement I have read... But I have my 300,000 Harley Miles patch and I guess you might consider me "just lucky"!!
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  6:11 PM
quote:
Originally posted by scottrnelson

quote:
Originally posted by Dannytheman

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.

DataDan posted a bar chart on a web site that I visited earlier this week (but can't remember where) showing a significant drop in motorcycle fatalities beginning the year that the mandatory helmet law took effect in California.

I wish I could find it, because it clearly shows that your "fact" here is obviously BS.

----------Edit----------
Wait! I found it. How would you explain this:


Taken from: http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/f...&postcount=7



Did less people ride less miles after helmet law? Need a fair comparison..
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  6:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rioguy

quote:
Danny said:

Check into New Hampshires Motorcycle safety class. Only one person that has taken that class has died since taking it


Better check your statistics. According to this link the following is true.

"One of the 27 people killed in 2004 and two of the 42 killed last year took the formal motorcycle riding course, he said."

If anyone is to pay attention to you, when you quote a statistic, you should reference the source. There is some other important info. What percentage of the riders have taken the BRC in New Hampshire?

Oh, btw, is it true that those three fatalities who had taken the course were not wearing helmets?n (An example of your own type of questions. Now you go research it and prove me wrong.)

You are asking questions for which the answers are readily available.

How many more registrations are there, how many more riders, etc. Because people won't do YOUR work for you, you consider yourself right.

Some more information found:

here:

"Course coordinator Katie Daley said the class includes instruction on turning, stopping, avoiding vehicles, shifting and wearing a helmet.

"(We) absolutely recommend everyone wear a helmet," she said. "No one goes through our course without one."

Now, why would the course coordinator recommend everyone wears a helmet if it isn't safer?

"At least one task force member thinks mandatory helmets would save lives.

"Although a mandatory helmet law isn't a popular subject, it makes sense when it comes to saving lives," John Kohler said."

If you don't want to wear a helmet, fine. It's your head. Your brain. Do what you like.



Thank you, and I stand corrected. 3 people who took the NH MSF course died. ONLY 3.. It seems to prove that education can make a serious difference. (It doesn't say if the 3 were, or were not wearing helmets though does it?)
I am for education, I have said it before..
Go to Top of Page
rioguy
Ex-Member

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  6:56 PM
Danny,

It's only 3 in 2 years. We don't know how many there are in other years.

edited:

quote:
Did less people ride less miles after helmet law? Need a fair comparison


Danny,

I'm getting a little weary of your method of debate. If you ask a question, YOU need to make an honest effort to answer it. You say we need a fair comparison, insinuating that the one there isn't fair.

I've gone to your chapter webpage.

Tell me, is there drinking going on at Spectator's at the Bike Night every Tuesday night? Why aren't ANY of the riders in the pictures wearing any sort of safety gear AT ALL? Are you going to now argue that leather doesnt prevent road rash? Or boots don't prevent ankle injuries.

Look, if you are happy with a lower safety standard for yourself, the laws allow you to have that. But trying to convince others that 6 hours of training a year is a substitute for a helmet and other safety gear is not a good thing to do in my opinion.


Edited by - rioguy on 07/19/2008 7:08 PM
Go to Top of Page

scottrnelson
Advanced Member
6888 Posts
[Mentor]


Pleasanton, CA
USA

KTM

990 Adv, XR650L

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  6:58 PM
Danny, you've asked twice if fewer people were riding in California after passing the helmet law, and the answer in both cases is no.

And we're much more likely to ride twelve months out of the year than in many other states.

You seem to strongly want your opinion to be true about wearing helmets not affecting death rates, but I remain unconvinced. All the evidence that I've seen indicates to me that there is about a 40% drop in the motorcycle death rate with a mandatory helmet law.

I came up with some solid evidence to back up my opinion.

Do you think you could come up with any facts to support yours?
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  7:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dfpd273



One of the saddest was a couple that were out riding with a group of friends. The couple (2 up), were going across a set of railroad tracks. The tracks were angled so you crossed at a 45 degree angle.
The couple slowed down almost to a walking pace, per the wife, and tried to cross. The front tire went into the track and both the husband and wife fell very quickly in the same direction. The husband had no helmet and full body armour. The wife and full armour and a helmet. The husband died. His skull was crushed. The wife had a cracked helmet that literally split completely in two (the medics brought it to the hospital for us to see). She walked out of the ER with no physical injuries. She told us that she had begged her husband to wear a helmet for years. She also told us that he was a die hard ABATE member who could quote facts about how helmets were not proven life saving devices and you were more likely to die in a car accident than die of a head injury.





Thank you for sharing your experience. I value your opinion. But your lesson only supports my position. Had he been taught correctly he would be alive. Your story has some interesting faults in it.
So his head was crushed from falling at a walking pace?? A good teacher at any MSF class would always tell you to cross Railroad crossing at 90 degrees.

What do you see more of, automobile accidents or Motorcycle accidents? I'm sure you see more car accident victims, and do they look better than bikers do? Why don't we make them wear a helmet? Isn't there a false sense of security around having some tin and recycles steel surrounding us? Why do Race car drivers wear helmest, but not car drivers?
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  7:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rioguy

Danny,

It's only 3 in 2 years. We don't know how many there are in other years.

edited:

quote:
Did less people ride less miles after helmet law? Need a fair comparison


Danny,

I'm getting a little weary of your method of debate. If you ask a question, YOU need to make an honest effort to answer it. You say we need a fair comparison, insinuating that the one there isn't fair.

I've gone to your chapter webpage.

Tell me, is there drinking going on at Spectator's at the Bike Night every Tuesday night? Why aren't ANY of the riders in the pictures wearing any sort of safety gear AT ALL? Are you going to now argue that leather doesnt prevent road rash? Or boots don't prevent ankle injuries.

Look, if you are happy with a lower safety standard for yourself, the laws allow you to have that. But trying to convince others that 6 hours of training a year is a substitute for a helmet and other safety gear is not a good thing to do in my opinion.




Sorry I am makng you weary!! I guess I am considered an uneducated opinion by your standards. Happy you enjoyed our web site, thanks for stopping by it. I actually go there only twice a month. I also do not drink. Do you feel like you need to drink in a bar? I don't. I have Ice Tea and play pool. They also have very good sandwiches.
I have never said it is not safer with a helmet. I think people in cars would be safer with a helmet, too. Would you agree, or are you to weary? I have said, and will say again while you nap, that safety instruction and training is paramount to crash avoidance. The helmet is for the crash, I am for attempting to make sure the crash never happens in the first place. Can you get that thinking, or do you need some coffee?
So somehow in your mind I am a stupid, drunken, Harley rider. I can live with that assessment from you, wrong as it may be.
Crazy at may sound, I do wear boots, long pants, gloves and great eyewear. I just received my 300,000 mile Harley Milage patch, and I have no idea how many more on Kawasaki, Suzuki and Yamaha's in my past. I am 53 years old and have been riding since I was 7.

I will end this soapbox position with telling you I respect your position and opinion, I just do not agree with it. Nothing personal. Feel free to stop down my way and I will take your money at the pool table. If you have a drink, I will get you a cab.
Go to Top of Page

Dannytheman
Male Junior Member
43 Posts


Philly, PA
USA

(None)

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  8:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by scottrnelson

Danny, you've asked twice if fewer people were riding in California after passing the helmet law, and the answer in both cases is no.

And we're much more likely to ride twelve months out of the year than in many other states.

You seem to strongly want your opinion to be true about wearing helmets not affecting death rates, but I remain unconvinced. All the evidence that I've seen indicates to me that there is about a 40% drop in the motorcycle death rate with a mandatory helmet law.

I came up with some solid evidence to back up my opinion.

Do you think you could come up with any facts to support yours?



I am not attempting to convince you. I am only statng my opinion. I also know that opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and most of them stink. Which is how I look at yours.

I do not trust the numbers I am seeing becuase they are incomplete. What I did see was many less bikes on the road after the helmet law. Probably many less miles ridden to.

You say "solid" evidence? I don't see it, sorry.

1)When the helmet law was not there, what was the percentage of those dieing were NOT wearing helmets? I have to assume some were, but how many?
2) What criteria was used for death? Would they have died with a helmet anyway? What was cause of death? Head injury or bodily injury?

I'm leary that the gathering of that data over that time period was not consistant in any way. But you know you are right, because you have a chart, I get it.
Go to Top of Page
rioguy
Ex-Member

Posted - 07/19/2008 :  8:03 PM
quote:
A good teacher at any MSF class would always tell you to cross Railroad crossing at 90 degrees.



Danny,

Once again, your facts are lacking. Look on page 29 of the MSF book here.

quote:
For track and road seams that run parallel to your course, move far enough away from tracks, ruts or pavement seams to cross at an angle of at least 45. Then make a deliberate turn. Edging across could catch your tires and throw you off balance.

Usually it is safer to ride straight within your lane to cross tracks. Turning to take tracks head-on (at a 90 angle) can be more dangerous - your path may take you into another lane of traffic.


Whether you agree with the advice or not, you made an appeal to authority by citing MSF as the authority. When you do that, you should show a reference.

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 0.52 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.05