Bikers... Please read and be carefull out there

[Hasty8]

Man - personally I think Motorcycles are death traps on wheels. Helmet or not, they are unsafe that function way less better in bad weather and adverse conditions as a car. They offer near zero protection in any kind of accident.

That said - its a personal freedom to go out and ride these evil contraptions.

I also think we should REPEAL all of these "saftey laws". This isnt 1950 where people dont realize seat belts save livers, or that they are supposed to buckle their kid in a car seat. People know how to protect THEMSELVES and thier kids. If they dont, thats thier call.

All that helmet and other safetly laws do is just hinder Darwin from catching up to the truely moronic.

As one poster said about the hot-rodding cycelist, I too have see dumbasses on the road, doing that trick where you put your handson the seat and fly your feet out. Whats funny is - you screw up, then the cars behind you hit your dumb *** - or worse yet - they swerve, go across the median, and hit something head on - dying because of you.

Course the guys I saw had helmets - even had nice protective clothing. But all that didnt make them any smarter or any wiser.

So - I say to each his own. You want to be an idiot and get your brains splattered on the pavement - GO FOR IT! I dont need the government to NANNY me. Keep "zee Germans" from invading me. Thats the level of protection I need from the Government. I can make the choice to buckle up or not, wear a helmet, etc etc.

PS
Hasty8 - give it up. Bofh is all over you like stink on a pig.

If it were as simple as that then fine, but since their stupidity can touch my wallet they gotta wear them. Plain and simple. I'm tired of paying for tohers stupidity.

[cphilip]

...might I point out that so far no one has put up any supporting evidence that any motorcycle accident of a helmetless rider has cost anyone else a dime. Nor any supporting evidence that any helmeted rider in an accident has NOT cost anyone else a dime....

And so far all the statistics do not back up manditory helmet laws. And so far there is evidence the goverment may be indeed liable if it forces people to wear them without properly assuring what they are forcing people to wear are adequately designed and regulated. Its a two edged sword.

It is the above facts that have lead to repeals of existing helmet requirements. Not a bunch of rable rousers. Just fear that maybe they put the cart before the horse....


Thinks about it. I chose to wear one. AND other safety equipment. But I would like to know what I am buying is not going to attribute to serious injury. And I really have no way to know.

[1stdeadeye]

Well actually CPhil it can cost us plenty in Medicare. Any single biker in a serious accident has to be helped at any hospital (at least here in NJ). THey have no insurance, guess who pays. In NJ it would be charity care and that means the taxpayers of NJ.

So you want to ride with no helmet, then you should need proof of Cycle Insurance and proof of health insurance!

[SlartyBartFast]

Wrote a HUGE response to Cphilips and we had a power outage.

Look, the statistics and contradictory reasoning from the anti-helmet crowd is partially stupid.

Saying the NUMBER of accidents is what is important is the same as reasoning that you shouldn't get fire insurance for your home because more insured homes burn down.

Perhaps even in helmet optional states more inexperienced younger riders wear helmets than older vetrans?

Let's say it again: Whether or not helmets are a good idea is how many out of a 1000 accidents helemted and unhelmeted the rider gets up and walks away.

Guess all the motor sports people are just dumb jerks and should really abandon the use of helmets because they're such a bad idea and not proven to be effective or safe.

And as for helemts not increasing your chances? What are those idiots smoking when they cooked the figures? I've had Bicycle accidents, one at about 20kph that I know I wouldn't have walked away from if it wasn't for my helmet.

Way I see it, if crack your head open because you weren't wearing a helmet, it won't cause much of a mess. Not wearing the helmet proves your skull is empty in the first place.

[SlartyBartFast]

Thinks about it. I chose to wear one. AND other safety equipment. But I would like to know what I am buying is not going to attribute to serious injury. And I really have no way to know.

Sure you do. For all their crapping about it to justify their stupidity, and for all the claims that helmets are dangerous/a hoax, if they really were dangerous you don't think there'd have been a lawsuit by now?

SNELL and ANSI don't just make the standards for the hell of it. If the anti helmet crowd really cared about safety and weren't just trying to justify themselves, they'd be pushing for adequate testing and regulation of helmets.

[SlartyBartFast]

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inju...CrashDesc.html
After Louisiana's repeal of its universal helmet law effective August 15, 1999, there was an increase in motorcyclist fatalities compared to the same period in 1998. From August 15, 1999, to the end of the year, there were 16 motorcyclists killed in 16 separate crashes, compared to 12 victims killed in 11 crashes a year earlier. The following narratives describe the 16 crashes that took place just after the law change

If I was really bother I suppose I could look for data.

And to show the stupidity and bias of the agenda of those trying to blurr/dend/hind motorcycle statistics by uselesssly throowing around car data and then claiming cycles are somehow safer.

http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-helmets.htm

Motorcycles make up less than 2% of all registered vehicles and only 0.4% of all vehicle miles traveled, but motorcyclists account for 8% of total traffic fatalities. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, 2001)

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

Motorcycle helmets saved the lives of an estimated 674 motorcyclists in 2001. If all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 444 lives could have been saved. (NHTSA, 2001)

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)

Not sure if this money is private or public, but it gives pause:
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)

Digest these sobering percentages:

http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031470.htm

Of the 3184 motorcyclists involved in police-reported crashes in Wisconsin in 1991, 2015 (63.3%) were unhelmeted and 994 (31.2%) were helmeted at the time of the crash. Helmet use was unknown for 175 (5.5%), four of whom were fatally injured; of 32 who were hospitalized, 13 incurred head injuries. Of those motorcyclists for whom helmet status was known, 545 were hospitalized and 74 died, including 55 who were unhelmeted and 19 who were helmeted. Of the 545 hospitalized, 187 (34.3%) had sustained a head injury (Table_1). Overall, unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in police-reported crashes were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized for a head injury (153 {7.6%}) than were helmeted riders (34 {3.4%}). Brain injury occurred among 97 (4.8%) of those who were unhelmeted and 17 (1.7%) of those who were helmeted (rate ratio {RR}=2.9, 95% confidence interval {CI}=1.7-4.9); the rate for skull fracture among unhelmeted riders (0.9%) was 4.5 times (95% CI=1.0-19.2) that among helmeted riders (0.2%). The rate for concussions among unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in crashes (1.9%) was higher than that for helmeted riders (1.5%) (RR=1.3; 95% CI=0.7-2.3).

Even if helemt use may not affect the number of fatalities, they still have their uses:

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html

5. It is found that helmets have a statistically significant effect in reducing head injury severity. We can reject the hypothesis that helmets have no effect on head injuries in favor of the claim that they reduce head injuries.

[cphilip]

Thats more like it! Good! but only a smidge of a start. Overall without picking out one state in one year though.... the overall statistics invalidate those. And statistics become more meaningfull when the sampling group is larger and longer. Yours are so far chosen as "plumbs" to support your postition. Gimme something real!

But still your comment about SNELL and NHTSA is moslty bogus. Claiming they do "something" is not the same as claiming they do enough! Sorry but they do NOT do a thourogh job of evaluating safety before they mandate use. They do not test the whole body effect nor do they test them all. They test for material strength of the unit. Does the plastic crack or not. thats all! And when NHTSA test them....Most of them fail and still get sold. And SNELL only tests them for the same thing and NOT for overall protection of the body and only those that are submitted voluntarily. None of them will stand behind them as far as effects on neck and vertebrae. None of them. SNELL nor NHTSA. And there have indeed been lawsuits. Many of them have resulted in condemnation of NHTSA and local legal authorities for NOT listing helmets that are safe. Many court cases have resulted in the unconstitutiionality of state helmet laws because no state can tell a rider what helmet is or is not safe.

And they also mandate putting a 3 pound helmet on a kid and never have ever evaluated what its weight might do to that kid. They extrapolated that conclusion and leaped to assumptions. And could be endangering children as a result. Until they do evaluate this kids are REQUIRED to wear the same helmet as you and me. And until they require something else, no one will make a proper helmet for children.

You see just blindly assuming NHTSA is out to do you good and is not just ignorant and lazy is DANGEROUS. Someone needs to make them do their job or forget requiring. Simple as that. I would prefer they get off their arse and get things tested and deal with it. But for 26 years they have not.

Thats the problem. You trust Goverment to do its job. I see they are not and want them to. Before they start telling me "they know better than I do". In the mean time if they DO NOT know then they should not tell me to "do it anyway". I say... "PROVE IT"

I am begining to think i am better off wearing my Bell half helmet than I am any of my 3/4 or full face helmets until this is all sorted out. that is contrary to popular belief but might be a good compromise...

[bofh]

Well actually CPhil it can cost us plenty in Medicare. Any single biker in a serious accident has to be helped at any hospital (at least here in NJ). THey have no insurance, guess who pays. In NJ it would be charity care and that means the taxpayers of NJ.

So you want to ride with no helmet, then you should need proof of Cycle Insurance and proof of health insurance!

Let's forget that there is no discerneble difference in motorcycle injuries or fatalities among those states where motorcycle helmet use is mandatory versus those state where helmet use is voluntary. I mean, why would you want facts to get in your way.

I mean your proof of public burden is irrefutable, right?

You know what that sound is? it's the wind from your behind.

[bofh]

http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-helmets.htm
Motorcycles make up less than 2% of all registered vehicles and only 0.4% of all vehicle miles traveled, but motorcyclists account for 8% of total traffic fatalities. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, 2001)

I don't think anybody has said that motorcycles are safer than cars. I mean they don't have doors, or roofs.

and on helmets:
Helmets reduce the risk of death by 29% and are 67% effective in preventing brain injuries to motorcycle riders. (NHTSA, 2001)
Motorcycle helmets saved the lives of an estimated 674 motorcyclists in 2001. If all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 444 lives could have been saved. (NHTSA, 2001)

Uh huh. And this data is based on what? the NHTSA is just as biased as ABATE, if not more so, Look below for a good example of it.

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)

Ah, the good old NHTSA. These are lies and sneaky ones at that. What they don't say is home many bike were on the road each year. Honestly, I don't know what those numbers are. But I do know in California, they enacted a Helmet Law on Jan 1, 1992, and their fatality numbers went down 15% that year !!!

...

Motorcycle registrations were down 20% that same year.

People use statistics to lie, Politicians doubly so.



As I said before, I'm heading out for a long weekend, see you guys on Monday. Please keep it below eight pages or I'll never catch up.

[SlartyBartFast]

Thats more like it! Good! but only a smidge of a start.

And statistics become more meaningfull when the sampling group is larger and longer.

Yours are so far chosen as "plumbs" to support your postition. Gimme something real!

And SNELL only tests them for the same thing and NOT for overall protection of the body and only those that are submitted voluntarily.

None of them will stand behind them as far as effects on neck and vertebrae.

And there have indeed been lawsuits. Many of them have resulted in condemnation of NHTSA and local legal authorities for NOT listing helmets that are safe. Many court cases have resulted in the unconstitutiionality of state helmet laws because no state can tell a rider what helmet is or is not safe.

And they also mandate putting a 3 pound helmet on a kid and never have ever evaluated what its weight might do to that kid. They extrapolated that conclusion and leaped to assumptions. And could be endangering children as a result. Until they do evaluate this kids are REQUIRED to wear the same helmet as you and me. And until they require something else, no one will make a proper helmet for children.

The same is true for everything involving kids. People are stupid and are against cadaver testing. But it was cadaver testing that gave us the current crash-dummies for adults. No decent testing has been done with children to create good crash/injury/body mechanics data.

You see just blindly assuming NHTSA is out to do you good and is not just ignorant and lazy is DANGEROUS. Someone needs to make them do their job or forget requiring. Simple as that. I would prefer they get off their arse and get things tested and deal with it. But for 26 years they have not.

Thats the problem. You trust Goverment to do its job. I see they are not and want them to. Before they start telling me "they know better than I do".

Well, medically the stats from the hospitals certainly support the case of lesser injuries, lower costs, and quicker recovery for bikers wearing helmets in accidents.
Perhaps I do trust the government to do its job. And its job is not to be infallible or to protect us from every danger. Its job is to do its duty according to the rules, fill in the proper forms, and enact legislation to the best of is knowledge and ability.
You seem to want some higher-entity to become omnipotent and then pass that knowledge down to the masses.

In the mean time if they DO NOT know then they should not tell me to "do it anyway". I say... "PROVE IT"

I am begining to think i am better off wearing my Bell half helmet than I am any of my 3/4 or full face helmets until this is all sorted out. that is contrary to popular belief but might be a good compromise...

[CasingBill]

Not reading this whole thread. I read enough. I agree with Cphil. I disagree with helmet laws. Doesn't mean I won't wear one. I wear helmet and full leathers most of the time. Sometimes on certain trips like to DE I don't wear it when cruising to the beach. People who don't wear helmets aren't hurtin anyone. We need less government in our world.

[cphilip]

Not reading this whole thread. I read enough. I agree with Cphil. I disagree with helmet laws. Doesn't mean I won't wear one. I wear helmet and full leathers most of the time. Sometimes on certain trips like to DE I don't wear it when cruising to the beach. People who don't wear helmets aren't hurtin anyone. We need less government in our world.

Well thats not what I was saying...

What I am saying is that BEFORE they pass laws they should make sure what they require you to wear is perfectly safe.... first!

But here is a goodie

> Taken from a 1962 Honda Motor Cycle Owner's Manual.
> Translated by Honda for the American Motorcycle Rider
>
> 1. At the rise of the hand by Policeman, stop rapidly.
> Do not pass him by or otherwise disrespect him.
>
> 2. When a passenger of the foot, hooves in sight,
> tootel the horn trumpet melodiously at first. If he
> still obstacles your passage, tootel him with vigor and
> express by word of mouth, warning Hi, Hi.
>
> 3. Beware of the wandering horse that he shall not take
> fright as you pass him. Do not explode the exhaust box
> at him. Go soothingly by.
>
> 4. Give big space to the festive dog that makes sport
> in roadway. Avoid entanglement of dog with wheel
> spokes.
>
> 5. Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the
> skid demon. ! Press the brake foot as you roll around
> the corners, and save the collapse and tie up.