Biker dies during helmet protest
#141
07-12-2011, 12:18 PM
Road Captain
Why the uproar? Was this guy trying to take away my right to wear a helmet if I so desire?
Michael
Michael
#142
07-12-2011, 01:55 PM
Road Master
Actually, wearing a helmet does make a motorcycle safer, it's just that it's such a small amount that it doesn't really make much difference when compared to taking a passenger car.
For three potentially fatal accidents, in one instance, a helmet will save your life when riding a motorcycle. For each of those potentially fatal accidents, approximately 30 people would survive if they had taken the cage instead of the bike. That means that by wearing your helmet you increase your chance of survival of that potentially fatal accident by 1/93 or about 1% versus making the same trip in the cage.
So yes, wearing a helmet does technically make riding a motorcycle safer, since it improves your chance of survival by about 1% for any given accident versus taking the cage. Certainly nothing to preach to others about. The real risk is involved in choosing to ride in the first place. If you are willing to accept the risk of riding in the first place, accepting the risk to ride sans helmet is minimal.
I would venture wearing a helmet improves your chances of survival of a given accident less than if you were going 5mph slower in a cage at the time of the accident.
For three potentially fatal accidents, in one instance, a helmet will save your life when riding a motorcycle. For each of those potentially fatal accidents, approximately 30 people would survive if they had taken the cage instead of the bike. That means that by wearing your helmet you increase your chance of survival of that potentially fatal accident by 1/93 or about 1% versus making the same trip in the cage.
So yes, wearing a helmet does technically make riding a motorcycle safer, since it improves your chance of survival by about 1% for any given accident versus taking the cage. Certainly nothing to preach to others about. The real risk is involved in choosing to ride in the first place. If you are willing to accept the risk of riding in the first place, accepting the risk to ride sans helmet is minimal.
I would venture wearing a helmet improves your chances of survival of a given accident less than if you were going 5mph slower in a cage at the time of the accident.
But lets have a look at those figures, I can only do UK not USA - last year 404 bikers died here compared to around double that in cars. Trouble is bikes only represent 1.6% of the traffic mileage so go figure on the odds.
#143
07-12-2011, 02:16 PM
Road Warrior
You're clutching at straws and using false assumptions of data there, I said safer I didnt specify how much but IF I came off I'd rather be wearing than not and assuming say a 40mph departure from the machine the I would not want to rate the chances.
But lets have a look at those figures, I can only do UK not USA - last year 404 bikers died here compared to around double that in cars. Trouble is bikes only represent 1.6% of the traffic mileage so go figure on the odds.
But lets have a look at those figures, I can only do UK not USA - last year 404 bikers died here compared to around double that in cars. Trouble is bikes only represent 1.6% of the traffic mileage so go figure on the odds.
Last edited by dirtracin23; 07-12-2011 at 02:43 PM.
#144
07-12-2011, 02:39 PM
You're clutching at straws and using false assumptions of data there, I said safer I didnt specify how much but IF I came off I'd rather be wearing than not and assuming say a 40mph departure from the machine the I would not want to rate the chances.
But lets have a look at those figures, I can only do UK not USA - last year 404 bikers died here compared to around double that in cars. Trouble is bikes only represent 1.6% of the traffic mileage so go figure on the odds.
But lets have a look at those figures, I can only do UK not USA - last year 404 bikers died here compared to around double that in cars. Trouble is bikes only represent 1.6% of the traffic mileage so go figure on the odds.
If wearing a helmet makes you able to justify riding a motorcycle to yourself because it makes it safer to you, that's your call, but the data would indicate otherwise.
#145
07-12-2011, 02:45 PM
I submit that unless ALL the potential risks are considered, an analysis is flawed, which is why I find helmet discussions to be rather ridiculous. By riding a motorcycle, you have chosen to participate in an activity that is 30+ times more dangerous than an acceptable alternate, regardless of whether or not a helmet is worn when riding your motorcycle.
Debating whether a helmet makes things safer is like debating whether you should have that 15th beer before you drive home. It doesn't make much difference in the overall picture.
Debating whether a helmet makes things safer is like debating whether you should have that 15th beer before you drive home. It doesn't make much difference in the overall picture.
riding a motorcycle is dangerous we all know that, but when talking safety comparing it to a completely separate activity like driving a car is pointless. the best comparison is obviously comparing motorcycles to motorcycles and wearing a helmet and not wearing a helmet. i'm all for choice in head-wear and don't want the state mandating helmet use, but there is no question that helmets greatly increase your chances of surviving a motorcycle wreck.
#147
07-20-2011, 04:02 PM
Originally Posted by HURT Report
- Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.
- Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated. young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.
- The most deadly Injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.
- The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention or reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.
- Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of pre-crash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use,
- FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.
- Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.
- The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.
- There is no liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury,
- Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.
#149
07-20-2011, 04:23 PM
Here's an example from the 2009 Wisconsin Motorcycle Safety Facts Book
"In 2009, only 3.8% of passenger car/deer crashes and 2.9% of utility truck/deer crashes resulted in death or injury to a motor vehicle occupant. 76.1% of motorcycle/deer crashes resulted in death or injury to a motorcyclist."
That works out to 76.1%/3.8% = 20
This means you are 20 times more likely to be injured or killed when you hit a deer on a motorcycle in Wisconsin than if you hit that deer with a car, whether you are wearing a helmet or not on your motorcycle. The real assumption of risk is choosing to ride.
#150
07-20-2011, 04:33 PM
Road Warrior
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Rescue, VA
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you for real dude? It's SPORT BIKE RIDERS, who ride like fools, who push up insurance premiums not Harley riders who choose to ride without a helmet. Do you realize you pay about seven times as much for insurance on a motorcycle that costs half as much as a Harley? Sport bikes are THE highest motorcycle to insure. You should really educate yourself a little before spouting off about how we make your insurance rates go up, because you have it backwards.
.
.
Years ago, while out in the Black Hills for Bike Week, we were staying in Hot Springs (undercover party town, as we found out!). One morning we woke up and hit the road for Rapid City....no helmets. Passing 80 mph, with visibility CAVU, I thought to myself if I go down I'm hosed.....
Been riding 45 years, have had 3 bad accidents: deer strike on my Road King, wearing a "just barely" DOT half helmet 'cause my boss said if I ride my bike in uniform I WILL wear a DOT lid. Result? Side of helmet caved in, walked away with a little road rash.
Riding my ST1300, had a rear tire let go. managed to get the bike onto the shoulder and slowed from 70 to 30, when the tire broke loose from the rim and locked up the rear. Low-sided, head hit the guard rail. Walked away, no road rash (mesh pants and Kevlar jacket).
3 months ago, guy changes lanes on me inside a local tunnel. I grab brakes, rear locks up, I release and low sided it. 3/4 helmet banged up on side, minor abrasions to nose and chin. Broken left ankle.
Helmets should be a choice, not legislated.