You want to compare frequency and severity of motorcycle knee and hip injuries vs. cost and long term effects of head injuries? Can't wrap your head around the most fundamental safety gear, can you?

 

guess it wears HF

 

You and me both! 👍

 

There is really a great fallacy in this debate because a helmet is just one small part of the safety equation when it comes to riding a motorcycle. Much like a seat belt they offer a very limited amount of protection. When you look at the causes of most motorcycle accidents they are not caused by sober riders but just like anything else accidents can happen.

I think wearing a helmet is better then nothing. I wear a white 3/4 open face. Sure not as good as a FF but its my compromise from somebody that doesn't like to wear. A white helmet is also the most visible color for motorists. Some people mistake you for law enforcement and that in itself makes them put on there driving A game. You see a helmet can offer more protection than that of a simple face plant. If your not in full racing leathers and a FF helmet then well your not AGATT like people like to claim. In all my years of riding i don't think i've seen anybody in full safety gear EVER.

Is your HD black in color like most are? That is the very worst color from a safety and visibility perspective you can have but most of us have black painted Harley's. Do you use the stock HD lighting on your bike. That too is a safety handicap when there are far better options if your willing to invest in your safety. I put over $500 in a full LED lighting make over and i think thats the best upgrade i've made to date from a safety perspective. I know it is. Annoyingly bright is good.

Do you wear hi-vis clothing when you ride? I'd be willing to bet the pro helmet agenda AGATT claimers do not. How do i know i rarely see hi-vis clothing like i wear when riding on other bikers. Where i live you see mostly non helmeted riders and alot of times wearing shorts and tennis shoes something i never do.

Thats the whole problem with the helmet debate and why alot of states refuse to mandate helmet laws because of their limited amount of protection compared to everything else. If you spend all your time thinking about the crash your a fool. Riders need to focus on what you can do to make you a safer rider in every aspect.

 

"limited amount of protection compared to everything else"? How did you come up with that?

Of course helmets don't offer protection from road rash or prevent breaking an arm or leg, but they aren't supposed to do that. Condoms don't offer protection from road rash, broken arms or legs, either. But that doesn't mean they have a "limited amount of protection". Well it does, just not in regards to what they are supposed to prevent/protect. Trust me, the limited amount of protection helmets offer is for a far more important, and easily harmed, part of the body then the areas not protected because someone is "wearing shorts and tennis shoes".

And the reason why a lot of states refuse to "mandate helmet laws", yet, has nothing to do with 'limited protection'. It is because the government officials are concerned with being elected.

Another major point you don't seem to understand is that wearing a helmet has nothing to do with avoiding an accident. A helmet's purpose is to help the person that is wearing the helmet survive an accident with less damage to the head(brain). If the color of a helmet helps the rider be seen it is an unintended benefit.

 

If you look at helmet arguments of government meetings, whether to stop helmet laws or to implement them, the reasoning is around economics, and helmet value arguments, one way or the other. 2% of the licensed on one subject can rarely hurt an election.

"Helmets are actually intended to protect against blunt trauma injuries to the head. They are not specifically designed to prevent brain injuries."
http://drbiomechanics.com/brain-inju...-brain-injury/

 

“Admitting ff is better”, and “fundamental safety gear” have been answered numerous times. Better in crashing doesn’t mean safe, doesn’t mean better in riding/avoiding, and doesn’t address the issue of helmet laws, helmet use, nor ff use.

An individual example of a saved chin, or head, or reduced brain injury is not justification for a law. If it were laws would be easy to make. Everyone would be wearing bulletproof vests to protect from the 30 gun murders a day, cage drivers would be wearing helmets, and football would just be that other more popular one where they don’t wear helmets. Seat belts were justified by every single occupant being thrown against their cage in every single accident, and worse the driver losing control of the vehicle for the same reason. There is little to compare with helmets, except the unusable individual injury.

As an individual, for example, I will see someone wearing a helmet and not much else, and think how stupid they are. It’s not only unsafe for crashing; it’s unsafe for riding. I won’t tell them that, and not because I don’t care. I also won’t think there should be a law against it, because I well know the joy of all kinds of riding. I’ve also studied the arguments and research for both sides of the helmet issue. The society level picture for a helmet law is not justified. The popularity of motorcycling is in the balance. If you don’t know what that means, or don’t care, then selfishness rules, and we all lose.

People have lost a lot of tolerance these days. AGATT or ATGATT, like my choices, is a personally decided “good enough” percentage or quality of safety equipment available. Personal choice: I wouldn't put on all that stuff to go a few blocks to visit or buy something.

 

????

Economics gets back to getting people elected, or reelected. 2% may be concerned about motorcycles, but a far larger percentage are concerned about "economics"(costs). Less then 2% rode ATCs, yet as a result of injuries(costs) they are no longer sold here.

Aren't "brain injuries" a possible, probable, result of "blunt trauma injuries to the head"?

"Helmets may indeed reduce the rotational forces acting on the brain. But since helmets are not currently certified according to their ability to protect against brain injury the level of protection is not standardized. Hence, it is possible to sustain catastrophic brain injuries, even while wearing a helmet." All he means is that helmets can't prevent all injuries. And he is right.

My DOT FF didn't prevent my injury, during a desert race, but it prevented other possible injuries.

 

I don't "put on all that stuff" either. To "go a few blocks to visit or buy something" or anytime. I just post in these threads, and shame myself because otherwise no one knows anything about me, because I know from personal experience, and observation, that a head(brain) injury is unlike any other possible injury. And this has nothing to do with 'laws', I'm just sharing what I learned the hard way. To make "freedom of choice" really 'free'.

I used to have a leather jacket, like Marlon Brando wore, because my uncle gave it to me after picking it up while working as a driver for the Salvation Army. I never wore it, and haven't seen it in years. The only boots/gloves except for warmth during cold weather, I have ever worn/owned were when I was riding/racing off road. Normally I wear t-shirts and tennis shoes. And, due to the suggestion of an oncologist, sunscreen.

 

Sorry rjg883c. It wasn't my intention to write that second post for you. You seem a quite reasonable guy. It was for the folks who say they are ATGATT or AGATT, and wear all their gear all the time. I have no problem with it. Good for them. I wouldn't want to see it become law.
I too searched and searched and finally found a reasonably priced Marlon Brando style jacket. Thick leather and great for winter.
Quite rightly choices should be individual. Enjoy the ride.