Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Twolanerider]

Howie, Don and all, I know this is a personal choice in those juristictions where we can choose, but personally I would never ride without a helmet.  Some of what the guy says I agree with - better training, stiffer sentencing for dui, no eating, cell phone, etc, would make the road much safer.  But what about single vehicle crashes like I had in MV.  All this would not have helped me and without a helmet, well we won't go there.

The statement about Dale Earnhart is just plain wrong.  He died because the g-forces ruptured his aorta as I recall.  Had nothing to do with his helmet.

There is an impact standard (for D.O.T. and Snell) but the majority of motorcycle head injuries is NOT due to impact but rather injury to the brain as it shifts inside the skull and slides along the surface (which is not smooth and allows the brain to scrape inself on bony bumps).  Purpose of helmet is that as the soft foam crushes it allows the brain to decelerate which helps reduce injury to it.

Somewhere I think on the site there was a posting of an excellent article by Prof. Harry Hurt in Motorcycle Consumer News, February 2005.  I'll try to find the link and post it.

Jerry, I do agree with you.  As much as part of me might prefer to be without the lid I do agree.  The part of what the guy said that was hard to argue against is that the statistical difference between without and without is surprisingly small.  But it's one of those screwy things with stat's, it can also depend on how they are studied.

We are, without doubt, safer with the lid on.  Safer from both traumatic injury and from more minor injuries as well.  At least so long as those injuries are above the neck of course.  I've seen the numbers crunched (the same sets of numbers) to show as little as 2% difference in injury and mortality stats and as much as 25% or so.  Real numbers probably somewhere in between.  So the helmet is obviously not an end-all and be-all of protection and safety.  But we are definitely at least slightly safer with it on.  And from that everyone has to make their decision on use.

[Twolanerider]

No doubt about that, Jerry.  I think the government does have a role to play in the safety of it's citizens...granted, it's a fine line to walk, and constantly being redrawn, but I didn't want to wear a seatbelt either...now I unconsiously buckle up.  It's not about freedom to choose...I may be playing Russian Roulette every time I get on a bike, but my gun just has one bullet instead of two...

This is where the numbers come in to play again though.  Large numbers of people in cars.  Large numbers of real and potential liabilities for not employing contemporarily standard and accepted safety measures.  So lobbying efforts diminish that worked against regulators mandating belts, air bags, etc etc etc.  What regulators wished, but could have only gotten done more slowly, they were allowed to do because the numbers/costs involved now suggested that going along was the better option.

With helmet laws it is, or it can be, a different numbers game though.  The road, writ large, isn't built for the motorcycling public as its first consideration.  That's a given and without dispute.  Yet we get to use the road system for no greater cost than our cage riding compatriots.  For that privilige we thank the road builders (government) and try to stay out of their way in the hope that they'll stay out of ours and give us as little attention as possible. 

It can't be argued, however, that we (bike riders) don't have a disproportionately greater number of injury accidents per miles driven than cage drivers.  It's just a matter of fact.  Nothing new there so nothing to argue about.  What that translates to, however, is that we "cost more" per miles driven than the cage driver.  Our overall social cost is greater because our injuries and their concomitant cost on society are more common and greater.

That being so governments have a real right to regulate us.  Some would even say they have a responsibility to do so.  We cost others so we should be made to be as safe as possible.  That being so it begs the question why don't all jurisdictions require helmets?  It's again because of numbers.  Relatively speaking there are few enough of us that the extra costs we incur are borne without hardship or harm to the local and larger communities.  But know for a fact that if we got too loud and obnoxious, or too expensive, all that would change in a heartbeat.  There's just not enough of us to turn the tide otherwise.

We are not who the road builders build for (nor, given our numbers, should we be).  We are not society's primary responsibility on the open road.  Those responsibilities are the national economy/commerce those roads facilitate and the machines that make those go and the families of four that make up the large majority of the rest of the motoring miles covered.  We do ourselves the best service when we recognize our potential relative costs versus the gains we enjoy by having that great road system open to us.  Then we best ought just keep our mouths shut, enjoy the sunset on the horizon in front of us, lean back, put our feet on the pegs and enjoy the ride; even if we have to wear a helmet to do so.

[RedDevil]

This is where the numbers come in to play again though.  ... Then we best ought just keep our mouths shut, enjoy the sunset on the horizon in front of us, lean back, put our feet on the pegs and enjoy the ride; even if we have to wear a helmet to do so.

Twolaner,
Very well put.  This is an issue that will never be totally agreed upon.  Like I said, I don't have a problem with the right to chose...but on the flip side of that, if you choose not to wear a helmet, and get in an accident that causes you to become an veggie, I shouldn't have to pay (through higher premiums, etc.) for your medical care.  Unfortunately, you're right to choose just doesn't affect you if it goes wrong.  It affects everyone as a whole, in one way or another.  Why would you want to knowingly go out in a vehicle that provides you 100% less protection than a car, and not want to wear the proper safety gear, that's anologous to knowingly going into combat with an unloaded gun.  I always get a kick out of non-helmet wearers.  They have their leathers, boots, gloves, every proper riding attire, but yet leave unprotected the one part of their body that is probably the most important, their head.  And those that wear the skid-lids (those "helmets" sold as novelty items), just to meet the intent of the law, are no better off than the one that doesn't wear a helmet at all.   We should have the right to choose how we want to right, but along with that right comes the responsibility give yourself the best chance of survival out on those highways that weren't built with us motorcyclists in mind.

Thanks Howie for starting this...this is always a very passionate, if you can't tell, subject for me.

Cheers to all ,
Red

[SPIDERMAN]

Twolaner,
Very well put.  This is an issue that will never be totally agreed upon.  Like I said, I don't have a problem with the right to chose...but on the flip side of that, if you choose not to wear a helmet, and get in an accident that causes you to become an veggie, I shouldn't have to pay (through higher premiums, etc.) for your medical care.  Unfortunately, you're right to choose just doesn't affect you if it goes wrong.  It affects everyone as a whole, in one way or another.  Why would you want to knowingly go out in a vehicle that provides you 100% less protection than a car, and not want to wear the proper safety gear, that's anologous to knowingly going into combat with an unloaded gun.  I always get a kick out of non-helmet wearers.  They have their leathers, boots, gloves, every proper riding attire, but yet leave unprotected the one part of their body that is probably the most important, their head.  And those that wear the skid-lids (those "helmets" sold as novelty items), just to meet the intent of the law, are no better off than the one that doesn't wear a helmet at all.   We should have the right to choose how we want to right, but along with that right comes the responsibility give yourself the best chance of survival out on those highways that weren't built with us motorcyclists in mind.

Thanks Howie for starting this...this is always a very passionate, if you can't tell, subject for me.

Cheers to all ,
Red

Red,
      I am surprised you've bought into this tired old line about people sustaining head injuries while involved in a motocycle accident without the protection of a helmet. Abate and a bunch of other biker rights organizations have proved this to be the most rediculous of arguments. Without remembering the exact statistics, the numbers show that A) accidents per miles ridden are far lower for motorcycles than automobiles, trucks etc. B) that the percentage of people involved in motorcycle accidents who become vegatative is absolutely miniscule. When you factor in the number of motorcycles compared to the number of autos etc you see how totally false this claim is. The truth is that you do pay for folks who are injured in any number of ways involving every facet of life who have no health insurance. I'm not going off on that rant lest someone call me a freakin liberal again. At the end of the day, wearing a helmet has saved my face in an accident in June of 05 and saved me from cracking my skull open when I was younger. I simply do not feel comfortable without one on anymore. My friends in Florida try to get me to go without one but I feel it's my choice to wear one just as it's their's not to. And that is the crux of the issue. Freedom of choice.

B B

[ultrafxr]

Good points all.  Just wish there were some "actual" statistics of the social cost of injured riders.  Can only extrapolate from those I know but all have health insurance so doubt they would be much of a drain on society if injured.  What about those who fragrantly violate social norms by driving recklessly and/or under the influence?  Don't know but bet more of them don't have insurance just from what I've seen and read.  But I do know (and will not be moved from this) that a D.O.T. helmet will most definitely offer some protection in case your head hits the pavement or some other object.  That crap about it breaking your neck is just that - crap.  Kind of like the old argument that a seatbelt could cause you to break your neck or trap you in a burning/submerging car.  Odds are so tremendously much greater that a seatbelt in a car and helmet on a motorcycle will protect you more often than hurt you.  Just do not understand how anyone can rationally argue differently.  I'm no expert but have read and studied this and it makes sense to me.  You are right Red, it is a passionate subject.  And I defer to any informed rider who wishes to go lidless.  My only concern is those who may be younger, impressionable and maybe less informed who may come to the wrong conclusion.  I'm off my   now.

[Ceej]

I spend my life behind the wheel of a big truck for a living and see what idiots do every day out here, there's an amazing amount of cose calls every day that go unreported. I was in one of those t-bone, idiot turned left in front of me at 55mph. I got all over the brakes, had the clutch in, stayed in control and hit hard. However, instead of 55 by the time I hit I was probably going 25mph. My head and helmet left a round indentation on the cars door/roof line. 40 - 50 feet later I landed on the pavement head first. At worst, the helmet allowed for the chance for my funeral to be open casket. At best, as it turned out, I walked...ok stumbled away....once I woke up that is. Luckily I don't remember a thing. I don't preach - to each his own. Give me 100 degree afternoon in the badlands and I will give the lid a break also. Anytime you ride you take risk. Most of us have a thousand dollars or so in leathers, its not to spit in the face of PETA, its to manage risk. That said, I support choice, should we allow the state to manage all our risk? If we do that, in a few years motorcycles may be outlawed.

[SPIDERMAN]

Ceej
       By the way, meant to mention it before - - Totally Awesome Pumpkin Dude !  Only one on the site that's better is Grover's  IMMO

B B

[Bagger]

There have been days gone by that I was known to scoot down the highway without a helmet.....when I was much younger.  I was wearing a helmet during the two accidents I've had.  The second time the helmet saved my life.  Of that I am convinced.  I wear a helmet whenever I ride now......even when I have a choice.  My gripe is this:  I think it should be just that.......a choice.

[RedDevil]

Red,
      I am surprised you've bought into this tired old line about people sustaining head injuries while involved in a motocycle accident without the protection of a helmet. Abate and a bunch of other biker rights organizations have proved this to be the most rediculous of arguments. Without remembering the exact statistics, the numbers show that A) accidents per miles ridden are far lower for motorcycles than automobiles, trucks etc. B) that the percentage of people involved in motorcycle accidents who become vegatative is absolutely miniscule. When you factor in the number of motorcycles compared to the number of autos etc you see how totally false this claim is. The truth is that you do pay for folks who are injured in any number of ways involving every facet of life who have no health insurance. I'm not going off on that rant lest someone call me a freakin liberal again. At the end of the day, wearing a helmet has saved my face in an accident in June of 05 and saved me from cracking my skull open when I was younger. I simply do not feel comfortable without one on anymore. My friends in Florida try to get me to go without one but I feel it's my choice to wear one just as it's their's not to. And that is the crux of the issue. Freedom of choice.

B B

BB,
While I can't argue with you on your statements about ABATE and other biker rights organizations, I will state this.  They have an agenda, like any organization does, and the numbers can be tweaked in any direction to make your point.  I'm not saying ABATE is wrong, but they do have an agenda.  Like I stated, I'm all for the right to choose.  And I choose to be protected.   And believe it or not BB, it's not a tired old line, there are more serious head injuries to unhelmeted riders than those that choose to wear helmets.  That doesn't take numbers to prove, that just takes life experiences, that I'm sure there are a bunch of them in this group, including yourself, that can testify to that.  Like I would tell my students in my MSF courses: "There's two types of riders, those that have had accidents, and those that are going to have one."   Facts and figures aside, from both sides of the arguement, common sense tells you, the better protected you are, the better chance you have.  Like I said earlier, we all wear our leathers and boots, and gloves.  Why? To protect ourselves, if we go down. Why doesn't that same logic apply to a helmet?  Is it because we are told, in many states, that we have to wear one that we try to "fight the man" and not wear one and cry we should have the right to choose?  Would we cry freedom of choice if those same states made it mandatory to wear leathers and boots all the time?  I don't know.  God, I'm sorry guys....I'll shut up now.
Cheers ,
Red

[woody]

 I wear one always, but believe in choice. Next we will have to wear seat belts.

[RedDevil]

I wear one always, but believe in choice. Next we will have to wear seat belts.

Honda is going to equip their Goldwings with an airbag. http://world.honda.com/news/2005/2050908.html.
Cheers ,
Red

[Screamin]

And air bags and air suits and 100 cc motors ad nauseum. I don't want to support fat people who won't diet, smokers who won't quit, speeders that won't slow down or idiots just too stupid to live but so it goes. Any agenda of getting government off our backs is a good one, anyone who wants to call me names for my choice of a helmet, of all things, well I don't care for you either. It's really pretty black and white - you want to wear a lid or not, fine w/ me. I'll stick with wearing one when I want too.

[hard10]

As far as stats go I remember an article that was trying to compare head injuries without helmets. It went on to use the stats from Fl when helmets were required to when they were not. During the period that they were LAW there were fewer fatalities with people not wearing a helmet. (It was LAW to wear them) As you can see numbers can be used any way one wants to manipulate them.

[BalDeagle]

I don't even remember when we didn't have helmet laws over here in the UK. I would never consider riding without one and have recently decided to change from my open face helmet to one with an open chin, but full visor. We also have mandatory seat belt laws over here and they have, without doubt saved countless lives. We will soon have mandatory seat belt laws for the rear passengers as well which can only be a good thing.

You can always find some cases where the safety law has caused a problem, but in the vast majority of cases they have saved lives or reduced serious injury.

Nige

[RedFXR2]

I've always worn a helmet, regardless of the local laws.  I think it just makes good sense.

The guy on the video talks about how a helmet would be useless above 50 mph.  Tell that to the professional riders in the MotoGP and Superbike races, as well as any motocross or flat track racer.  Watch those crash videos on youtube--those road race guys sometimes have spectacular crashes well above 100 mph yet they are rarely seriously injured.  Every one of them wears a full coverage helmet.

It would seem to me that, in the event of an accident at any speed, under any circumstances, wearing a helmet would have a much greater chance of helping than doing additional harm.

Even outside of serious accidents, I've been struck by pebbles, and who knows what else, hard enough to leave a permanent mark on my helmet--those objects striking my head would certainly have hurt at least, and may have hit hard enough to cause injury--who knows.  But I don't worry about that because the helmet takes the blow.

And studies (Hurt Report, I believe) indicate that the single thing most effective in making a rider more visible to cars is to wear a white helmet.  If having the thing prevents a car from hitting me in the first place, then it's done it's job quite nicely.

IMO, there are far more and better reasons to wear one than to not wear one.

[POSSIBLE THREAD DRIFT ALERT]  Florida is a helmet optional state.  I see a definite difference in riders down here.  I would guess that about 60-70% of Harley riders do not wear helmets while about 90% of Metric riders (cruisers and tourers as well as crotch rockets) do wear them.  I just think that's an interesting cultural difference.  Marketing or other factors?  I will add that I seem to also notice that helmet usage by the HD crowd seems to be creeping up.