Print

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

[RedDevil]

there are those of us that can't make the right decision  ( then let that be reserved for you).

Ah, but that's where you're wrong, it's not reserved for me, because, IMO, I have made the right decision.  

[RedDevil]

Now that this has been brought up,

what exactly are the odds you will die if you do not wear a helmet.

greater than drinking to excess?

greater than a automobile crash? greater than sky diving?  greater than serving in the military?

greater than living in a urban setting?

I have never seen them.

I guess it would be easier to put them in miles ridden.

EX.
If you ride 50,000 miles without a helmet you will have a 100% chance of  dying?

how many miles are ridden each year divided by the amount of dead riders due to helmets not being worn.

I have no concept of these numbers.

How's this?
Motorcycle Helmets (2006 Report)

According to 2006 data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 4,810 motorcycle occupants were killed on our nation's roads last year, a 127% increase from 1997. Motorcycle helmets have been shown to save the lives of motorcyclists and prevent serious brain injuries. Twenty states and the District of Columbia require helmet use by all motorcycle drivers and their passengers. Twenty-seven other states have laws only covering some riders, especially those younger than 18. Three states - Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire- have no helmet requirements at all. All-rider helmet laws are effective in increasing motorcycle helmet use, thereby saving lives and reducing serious injuries.

As states repeal helmet laws, fewer riders are wearing helmets. According to the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), conducted from the fall of 2000 to the summer of 2002, helmet use dropped from 71 percent to 58 percent nationally.

MOTORCYCLIST FACTS

Motorcycles make up less than 2% of all registered vehicles and only 0.4% of all vehicle miles traveled, but motorcyclists account for over 9% of total traffic fatalities. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, 2005)

Fatalities among motorcycle riders have increased by more than 127% since 1997. (NHTSA, 2007)

In 2006, 65% of fatally injured motorcycle riders were not wearing a helmet in states without all-rider helmet laws, compared with only 13% in states with all-rider helmet laws. (NHTSA, 2007)

Per vehicle miles traveled, motorcyclists are about 21 times as likely as passenger car occupants to die in a traffic crash and four times as likely to be injured. (NHTSA, 2001)

In 2003, 36 percent of all motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes were speeding, approximately twice the rate for drivers of passenger cars or light trucks. The percentage of alcohol involvement was 40 percent higher for motorcyclists than for drivers of passenger vehicles. (NHTSA, 2003)

Motorcyclist fatalities are rising fastest among motorcycle riders over age 40. In 2003 alone, fatalities increased by 16%. (NHTSA, 2003)

Helmets reduce the risk of death by 29% and are 67% effective in preventing brain injuries to motorcycle riders. (NHTSA, 2001)

MOTORCYCLE HELMET LAW FACTS

Surveys have shown that helmet use is essentially 100% in places with all-rider motorcycle helmet laws compared to 34 to 54% at locations with no helmet laws or with age-specific helmet laws. All-rider laws significantly increase helmet use because they are easy to enforce due to the rider's high visibility. (NHTSA, 2000)

NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,158 motorcyclists in 2003. If all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 640 lives could have been saved.

The average hospital charge for motorcyclists with serious head injuries was found to be almost three times that of motorcyclists with mild or no head injuries, $43,214 v. $15,528. (Orsay, et al., 1994)

In 1997, Arkansas and Texas repealed all-rider helmet laws. As of May 1998, helmet use fell from 97% in both states to 52% in Arkansas and 66% in Texas. Motorcycle operator fatalities increased by 21% in Arkansas and 31% in Texas. (NHTSA, 2000)

In 1992, the first year of California's all-rider motorcycle helmet law, 327 motorcyclists died in traffic crashes, compared to 512 in 1991 - a 36% reduction in fatalities in one year. Additionally, the number of hospitalized brain-injured motorcyclists fell by over 50%, from 1,258 in 1991 to 588 in 1992. (California Highway Patrol, 1999, Trauma Foundation, 2002)

After passage of Maryland's all-rider motorcycle helmet law in 1992, motorcyclist deaths dropped dramatically - 20% in 1993 and 30% from 1993-1994. (Maryland Department of Transportation)

In Oregon, there was a 33% reduction in motorcycle fatalities the year after the helmet law was re-enacted. Nebraska experienced a 32% reduction in fatalities the first year of its law. Texas experienced a 23% reduction in fatalities; Washington, a 15% reduction; California, a 37% reduction; and, Maryland, a 20% reduction. (NHTSA, 2001)

By an overwhelming majority (80%), Americans favor state laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets. (Lou Harris, for Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, 2004)

An estimated $13.2 billion was saved from 1984 through 1999 because of motorcycle helmet use. An additional $11.1 billion could have been saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets. (NHTSA, 2000)

Analysis of linked data from the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) in three states with all-rider helmet laws showed that without the law, the total extra patient charges due to brain injury would have been almost doubled from $2.3 million to $4 million.

Just sayin...

[spydglide]

Well, according to this data, us Old timers that are drinking & speeding are the problem with or without helmets.  spyder

[Grizzly]

After reading Red Devil's post it's not too much of a stretch believing that we are all paying for those who choose not to wear a helmet...
No doubt the insurance companies adjust their premiums accordingly as injuries/deaths continue to rise.

[Wild Card]

After reading Red Devil's post it's not too much of a stretch believing that we are all paying for those who choose not to wear a helmet...
No doubt the insurance companies adjust their premiums accordingly as injuries/deaths continue to rise.

No stretch at all.  I posted this study the last time this helmet debate came up.  You're right, insurance premiums are taking these helmet statistics into account.  This is a pretty interesting read if you have the time.

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html

[Midnight Rider]

Try this:  Put your motorcycle helmet on, go outside, and let a friend whack you upside the head with a brick, at whatever velocity you choose.  Now, remove your helmet and let the friend do the same thing, at the same velocity.  Let me know how that works out for 'ya.

[Dr.D]

OK. Helmets increase safety. no dispute.

I wear a helmet but that does giver me the right to tell you what to wear, period.

The slippery slope is allowing big Bro. Gov. to mandate your risk level. Do you want them telling you scuba diving, sky diving and alcohol consumption in your own home is to dangerous for you so it will now be outlawed? Good God Man! Do we not already have to many laws that restrict our freedoms?

[spydglide]

OK. Helmets increase safety. no dispute.

I wear a helmet but that does giver me the right to tell you what to wear, period.

The slippery slope is allowing big Bro. Gov. to mandate your risk level. Do you want them telling you scuba diving, sky diving and alcohol consumption in your own home is to dangerous for you so it will now be outlawed? Good God Man! Do we not already have to many laws that restrict our freedoms?

Agree, but that's what the laws that allow you to ride bare-headed if you have proof of health insurance to cover your decision are getting at.....not sure that they're sucessful or not, but anyway.....   Got to agree on too many laws protecting me from myself.  (i'm prolly not a good example as I prolly need help in many areas).  spyder

[Keats]

BLAH BLAH BLAH,


I love when this debate always gets sidetracked.

This is not or ever about if  a helmet helps protect you against injury or any other safety gear..

This is about my right to chose to wear one or not.

Now back to the odds.

you are 21 times more likely to lose your life in a motorcycle accident than a car.

you are 4 times more likely to be injured on a motorcycle than a car regardless of a helmet.  


Now I drive my cars at least 3 times as much as I do my motorcycles, so that my odds of dying in a helmet less crash is only 7 times greater than dying in a car.

Now these stats have nothing to do with behavior (how you ride) and I suspect at least half of all motorcycles accidents had riders contributing to their own demise.

I would put myself in the category of careful and because of this think my risks are reduced by half.

Now I am only 3 1/2 times more likely to die from a helmet less crash than in a car.

now we have about 50,000 automobiles deaths each year  with approx 150,000,000 drivers (now the 50,000 represents all fatalities, passengers, pedestrians, drivers and all collateral damages)

Leaving that number way high, but I will use that anyway.

your chance of dying in a car accident is about 3.3 in 10,000 or .000333%

so if I extrapolate, my chances are about 11.5 in 10,000 or .0015%

those odds do not seem out of line, unless you are amongst the 11.

So, yes you are taking a risk, but is it out of line with the risks most of us take everyday?

I declare, let the rider decide.

[Midnight Rider]

And those auto stats for fatalities would be MUCH higher, were it not for seat belt laws.  Seat belt laws infringe on an individual's right to choose as well, but most don't give it a second thought these days.  The exact same arguments were made when seat belt laws were beginning to go on the books.  Exactly the same argument.  That was an emotional response as well...."Big Brother" is taking away my right to choose whether or not to be restricted in my movement while driving an automobile, for my own protection.

A person's right to choose does not exist in a vacuum...it is restricted because we live in the world with other people, and some people don't make good choices.  It's always a balancing act between the two extremes...complete control and complete freedom.  So the debate goes on, and some people won't be happy with some of the outcomes.  I would never say anyone is stupid or ignorant for not wearing a helmet.  I would just say they are not making a good, logical/rational choice about personal safety, based on undeniable facts, and the probability of anyone convincing them otherwise is very small.

[TN]

[DDavidson]

Rant....

Sounds to me that getting on the bike is 90% of the risk. No helmet add 10%. 100% more risky than just sitting on the front porch in a rocking chair.

When somebody gets killed enjoying life I don't want to be one of those crying "I wish they'd never gotten that donor-cycle, climbed Half-Dumb, went scuba-dieing, etc." I will be sad that they are gone sooner than I'd have liked but will toast them to the fact that they were living life with the freedom they wanted.

I won't bad mouth somebody for not riding what I'm riding and not wearing what I am wearing and hope they feel the same.

When there is an issue with man becoming endangered for extinction maybe this will become a problem where we can judge another's "free decision to being risky". Let the people who depend on this individual make the decision to criticize.

Maybe some want to wear a helmet but don't because they think they'll look wimpy being in a "safety minority" group. If there is a law that mandates everybody wear a helmet then they will be happier because they can blame their safety decision on the law.

I wonder if anybody has done a study on whether the perceived tough guys skull fractures under the same force as the perceived wimpy guys? I was wondering if I changed my style if that would protect me more? Maybe cooler looking sunglasses, haircut, beard, clothes, walk, talk, what I drink, how much I drink. Wait I'm 51 and have done all that and now I'm bulletproof. (Is 51 too old to stuff a sock?)

I would also like for statistical reports to show the real numbers as well as percentages. A 100% increase could be from 1 incident to 2 incidents or 10,000 incidents to 20,000 incidents. I'm also skeptical when a report shows percentages only in one section and then shows numbers and percentages in another part that seems to benefit and reinforce their view.

Are we supposed to be trying to change another's view on this "Yea Helmet/Nay Helmet" matter?

Maybe anything with a motor might require a helmet? (Skis, bicycles, skates - gravity impact?)

End Rant....

[SIX38]

Simply put, I love my family, I love to ride , I love life in general. I wear a helmet and gear to increase my odds of surviving an accident to continue doing what I love.
 However I strongly believe that we should have the right to make our own choices for behavior that won't impact the lives and well being of others.
Tom P.

[spydglide]

Well, these days I'm wearing a helmet to keep my bald spot from getting sunburned.  har.   spyder                                                                                                                                                                            (OK, OK....I will be soon, I hope)

[Cvostu]

Red Devil made a terrific post here. The guys that are too proud to wear one because it infringes on their freedom can take that to the emergency room. Or right straight to heaven or where ever they think they are going to end up.  It makes me think they just don't care or that maybe they won't be missed when they are gone.   Hmm. Maybe they are right. To just know the facts,, you gotta be pretty ignorant to not pay attention to that.  I just don't get it.  Just sayin izall.