|
|
Visionary
Posts: 4278
| WE should have the right to beside! Bell helmet say if the helmet drops from about waist high and hits the ground you should send it back for inspection.
So if falls off your gas tank or seat you should send it back for them to check. Why don't they put out more adds for cage people to be aware. I know when I drive my cage I feel that I am a better drive cause I do look for bikes. If we have to wear helmets all bicycle riders better from kids on up to old people. Maybe any on that climbs a step ladder should too. I mean you could fall of the roof and get hurt. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 457
Green Bay, WI United States | Thanks John, most do no know this. If you helmet falls off the seat of you bike it should go back to the manufacture to insure it's Snell Rating and your safety. I know they sent a helmet back to the manufacture back in the day after AJ Foyt hit the wall in a USAC Sprint Car and they were told no one could have lived thru that much impact, go figure!!! Riding with or without is my choice, at least at this time. Join ABATE, AMA or any other lobbing agency and make a difference. Not sure about motorcycle laws but I know for a fact that the AARP is the biggest anti-gun lobbing group in the USA.
Ride hard, ride fast, but above all - ride safe...... |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1436
| There are of course a FEW statistics that are left out and I won't go into whether one should or should not wear a lid, to me it is the riders choice as it should be. Here are a few stats not included in the Feds push for mandatory helmet laws and just food for thought. These don't provide a conclusion for wearing or not as printed by NHTSA.
1. the feds own report clearly indicates more fatalities occured in the USA of riders 'wearing' than riders who were not. 52% of fatalities were wearing.
2. states "with" mandatory lid requirements do not show a decline in rider fatality. To the contrary they are increasing regardless of lid requirement.
3. The number of fatalities is increasing disproportionate to the number of bikes registered. In other words there are MORE bikes/riders taking to the road BUT this increased ridership is NOT the sole cause of the increased number of fatalities.
4. The number 1 cause of motorcycle accidents result from another motorist crossing the path of the motorcycle.
5. NHTSA has promoted helmet use for the past 30 years and it's implimentation has never decreased fatality rates. Stats have been altered to make it appear as something it was not. For example NHTSA uses an annual miles ridden by state conversion to arrive at their numbers for the years helmet laws supposedly decreased. However, NHTSA did NOT actually collect miles ridden numbers, they made them up so as to make it appear their recommendation was working. They have been sued multiple times by MRF because of these false numbers and have had to admit to making them up, multiple times.
and finally number 6. The Fed is making several FAULTY assertions that can neither be supported or proven. The assertions are that head trauma is the leading cause of death and that helmet use would prevent this trauma, which cannot be proven nor will any helmet manufacturer make such a claim. Further it ASSUMES (no numbers to support, but plenty to call into question the feds assertions) that because a state does NOT require helmet use, that riders are not wearing. It should b interesting to know that in great britian where helmet use is mandatory, MC fatalities are also at record highs.
I live in PA who adopted a helmet modification bill some years back. Helmet use is required for most riders unless you meet certain exceptions such as being 21 years of age, 2 years of MC experience since endorsed and/or MSF certification and a few others. Initially what I saw was EVERYONE riding lidless, but within a very short span about 50% or more reverted back to wearing (by their own choice). If forced to guess I'd have to say far more riders wear within the Commonwealth than those who ride lidless. So to "claim" helmet use would decrease fatalities based on realistic data collected, just isn't supported. I therefore have to conclude that we should let those who ride decide. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 307
Columbia, SC | (1) Depends on how the data was reported. If it's percentage of fatalities, you can't go by that. Cause if 99 people wear helmets and one doesnt, then it goes without saying that there it is more likely for a helmeted rider to die than a non-helmeted one. What we'd need for accuracy is what ratio of helmeted riders died to what ratio of non-helmeted riders (for example 1 out of every 100 helmeted riders, to 1 out of every 50 non-helmeted would mean you're twice as likely to die without than with). So without knowing what exact numbers their using, we can't make assumptions.
(2) Out of curiousity, are ALL states rising in fatalities? Or just ones with mandatory helmet laws. Just curious.
(3) Sounds about right. I get angry with the Army's safety briefings for this every year. Seems like every year "More and more motorcycle riders are dying".... but they NEVER seem to report how many more people are BUYING motorcycles. Seems like it's "Last year 20 people died. This year 22 people died. UNACCEPTABLE!" When in reality, maybe last year 2000 people rode and this year 2400 people rode. In which case it's a step in the RIGHT direction.
(4) While that may be the number one reason, keep in mind that the number one reason for a SOLE motorcycle accident is usually user error, usually involving excessive speed. Bummer that we're killing ourselves, huh?
(5) .I know. I hate only hearing half a story.
(6) I like Austin's law. Where in order to ride without a helmet you have to carry a certain amount of insurance so that the taxpayers will not have to foot your emergency room bill when you crash. That's my main gripe about riding helmetless. If someone crashes, even a minor crash, if your head collides with something, the hospital ends up footing the bill. Which means the cost goes SOMEWHERE, and it's usually on us, the taxpayers and people whose insurance rates go up every year that end up paying it. I mean, I know if I'm an insurance company and I was in a state where the rider was more likely to have a SERIOUS injury rather than minor in the event of a crash, I'd raise MY rates. I've no problem with people riding without a helmet. I personally will never ride without a helmet. I just want the cost of not wearing a helmet to be completely up to the rider. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 432
Gettysburg, 2008 Tour Premium | I know that bikes are getting faster and faster. I know that people have figured out ways to "ride" there motorcycles that could not have been imagined back when I had more testosterone that brains, just one example is riding wheelies down busy 4 lane hwy's at rush hour. Most of those guys where full face helmets, and they are making up part of the statistics. Enough said.
Edited by wroman 2010-12-16 10:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 152
Litchfield Park, AZ | Wear a helmet, don't wear a helmet....if you're an adult I could care less...I believe in an adult's right to choose, but please don't ever let a child on a bike without a helmet.
One thing I know is that figures lie and liars figure.....but do not tell me that a human being stands a better chance of decreasing brain damage and/or walking away from a crash without a helmet. Take all the "statistical variables" out of it and answer this one question: If I told you that you were going to be in a moderate collision in the next 200 miles while on your motorcycle, would you want a helmet on your head?
Again, I could care less if you wear one, but PLEASE don't pretend that they don't help people walk away from crashes....siting statistics is like pissing in the wind and arguing whether or not its raining. |
|
| |
|
Visionary
Posts: 1359
New Bohemia, Va | I'm all for rider choice, but it is hard to argue that not wearing a helmet is better than wearing one. Just wearing a hat has protected me, so I know that wearing a helmet would save me from the blunt force trauma of bumping something if I went down. Most of us have a foredrawn conclusion of what we think is right, so trying convince another is an exercise in futility.
The real issue is, should wearing a helmet be legislated, and if so, how is it enforced. Everyone who is using statistics will always collect the data in their favor for the cause they champion. From every motorcycle accident I read about, I examine as much information as I can and use it to keep me safer when I'm on the road. As a rider, I pay attention to every place that runs a risk of a driver not seeing me, or taking a chance and cutting across my path. I've had motorcycle riders that did not see me and try to do that. What a hayday that would have been, two bike crashing, one cutting across the path of another. I pointed a shaking finger at him and told him to pay attention. I might have read about him already as a statistic, who knows?
The bottomline is, I like the freedom to choose, and I pay attention because no one else will for me. I've enjoyed riding with no helmet, but I relent and put it back on as I don't want my family to have to deal with "if only he wore his helmet" should something had happened.
Ride on, ride safe!
Edited by Cap'n Nemo 2010-12-17 6:11 AM
|
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 548
Mount Vernon, WA United States | sfalexi - 2010-12-16 7:53 PM
(6) I like Austin's law. Where in order to ride without a helmet you have to carry a certain amount of insurance so that the taxpayers will not have to foot your emergency room bill when you crash.
I think behind this law is hiding the TRUE dirty little secret. It's really not that Helmets save lives. That may be true, may not be true... doesn't really matter... "Helmets prevent injury" is the REAL reason in my mind that any of the lawmakers even bother.
Yes deaths happen... lets forget all that for a moment and just talk injury. That's really where the money is spent, that's where the whole "your state must have a helmet law or we aren't giving you money" from the fed comes from. People who die in motorcycle accidents don't really put that much of a burden on emergency rooms compared to how many people are just INJURED... But... they could never get away with trying to enforce a law based on "it will save you from getting injured".
I too think a helmet is a choice. My choice is AGAT (All Gear All the Time)... and to be perfectly honest... it's for comfort not safety. I like being warm, I like pockets, I don't particularly like the wind in my face.
I have seen and read a lot about accidents over the years as most of us had. I have seen 100+ mph crashes where the rider walked away, and there have been instances of people essentially just dropping their bike and smacking their helmeted head on the pavement and dying of snapped neck. Each accident is individual. One thing I have NEVER seen... I have never seen an accident in which someone died, where the helmet or lack of helmet made a difference. Did the guy who hit the wall at 100+ live because of the helmet?? Really?? I doubt it. What about the guy who hit the bridge at about 35 mph... he had a helmet on... he died... I was run over by a truck... pretty much the only thing that WASN'T touched... was my Helmet.. It had nothing to to with my surviving.. and in fact... the 1st idiot on the scene almost killed me trying to pull it off of me cause he didn't know about the chin strap and was choking me.
Anyway... back on track... I believe Helmet laws only exist so states can continue to get funding to support those uninsured who are INJURED in bike accidents. I bet there is a correlation, like Austin to states who require insurance... probably have more lax helmet laws. I have no idea where to find this information, it's just a gut feeling.
|
|
| |
|
Cruiser
Posts: 204
guelph ontario | Riding a motorcycle produces organ donors-riding without a helmut produces more organ donors. As told by my Doctor. |
|
| |
|
Tourer
Posts: 329
scotts valley, California | Just guessing, but I don't think Probie's doctor is a biker...... |
|
| |
dick heads are up to NO good helment law
