- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
- Messages
- 51,145
- Reaction score
- 8,056
- Location
- Huntsville
- First Name
- Scott
- Last Name
- Friday
Howdy,
For your viewing pleasure:
Results of Helmet law repeal
Interesting that there is no mention of whether head injuries or other injuries were the cause of death in all those extra cases in each state :| Without knowing that, it seems the statistics are a bit meaningless. Still, if you doubt that a helmet protects your head, drop a nice big (10 lbs or so, a little less than the weight of the average head) melon on the ground from about five and a half feet. Most will burst open. Okay okay... the skull is much harder than a melon. True, the pieces of the skull are harder, but there are joints in your skull between the plates that are not so tough. Also, brittle materials tend to fracture when subjected to impact loads. The brain gets bruised and develops scar tissue which can cause trouble. Is this really that hard to understand?
I certainly don't want to see helmet laws enacted everywhere. I'd like to see riders wear them on their own initiative. Unlikely though. It's hard for people to see how cool you are when they cannot see your face because of your full face helmet :? For anyone that say, "I don't ride fast enough to need one," or "I'm a safe driver and won't get in an accident." I'll try not to laugh at this. Do the melon experiment. At no speed, the drop alone is enough to cause serious and permanent damage. You can be the safest rider on the planet and still get run over by someone.
To be fair, here is one guys argument against helmets. His name seems to pop up quite a bit when doing searches. Personally, being steeped in physics, mechanics and engineering, I find his arguments feeble at best. All of the arguments about torguing the neck are based on automobile kinematics where the body is generally held in place. On a motorcycle, the rider may either hit the ground and slide, make a direct impact against something (car, wall, etc,...) or be thrown and come down somewhere else. in any of those cases, I would say the potential for damage from loads other than a whiplash effect are far more threatening. This guy makes a lot of noise about deceleration loads. I'm not sure why because those loads will be present with or without a helmet. Sure the extra few pounds of the helmet make give the neck more to support and slightly increase the potential of neck damage. But a crushed skull seems a little more serious.
Interestingly, this one article buy this guy is really the only thing I have foud that argues against the merits of wearing a helmet!! In contrast to that there are an overwhelming number of different studies at hospitals showing that helmetless riders typically die more often, suffer more severe injuries, and obviously the cost of caring for those people is higher. Despite what the guy argues in his article above, it is hard to argue with the cold facts of what the hospitals are seeing. However, I still don't think the government needs to mandate helmet use. If people want to ride without a helmet, fine. Let them pay a higher insurance premium because they are voluntarily placing themselves in a higher risk category.
Arguing for helmet laws because of the additional medical costs born by society is a specious argument at best. There are lots of other activities that people willingly engage in that increase their risk of health problems and the "cost to society". Take smoking as an example, not exercising on a regular basis, eating like crap, or drinking oneself into oblivion. Insurance companies already offer different premiums for people in high risk categories to cover that "cost to society". If the cost argument is allowed to stand, then we must logically go after all the other behaviors that add to this imaginary cost!
Man I am fired up tonight... need a stiff drink and a good night ride! :P
Adios,
For your viewing pleasure:
Results of Helmet law repeal
Interesting that there is no mention of whether head injuries or other injuries were the cause of death in all those extra cases in each state :| Without knowing that, it seems the statistics are a bit meaningless. Still, if you doubt that a helmet protects your head, drop a nice big (10 lbs or so, a little less than the weight of the average head) melon on the ground from about five and a half feet. Most will burst open. Okay okay... the skull is much harder than a melon. True, the pieces of the skull are harder, but there are joints in your skull between the plates that are not so tough. Also, brittle materials tend to fracture when subjected to impact loads. The brain gets bruised and develops scar tissue which can cause trouble. Is this really that hard to understand?
I certainly don't want to see helmet laws enacted everywhere. I'd like to see riders wear them on their own initiative. Unlikely though. It's hard for people to see how cool you are when they cannot see your face because of your full face helmet :? For anyone that say, "I don't ride fast enough to need one," or "I'm a safe driver and won't get in an accident." I'll try not to laugh at this. Do the melon experiment. At no speed, the drop alone is enough to cause serious and permanent damage. You can be the safest rider on the planet and still get run over by someone.
To be fair, here is one guys argument against helmets. His name seems to pop up quite a bit when doing searches. Personally, being steeped in physics, mechanics and engineering, I find his arguments feeble at best. All of the arguments about torguing the neck are based on automobile kinematics where the body is generally held in place. On a motorcycle, the rider may either hit the ground and slide, make a direct impact against something (car, wall, etc,...) or be thrown and come down somewhere else. in any of those cases, I would say the potential for damage from loads other than a whiplash effect are far more threatening. This guy makes a lot of noise about deceleration loads. I'm not sure why because those loads will be present with or without a helmet. Sure the extra few pounds of the helmet make give the neck more to support and slightly increase the potential of neck damage. But a crushed skull seems a little more serious.
Interestingly, this one article buy this guy is really the only thing I have foud that argues against the merits of wearing a helmet!! In contrast to that there are an overwhelming number of different studies at hospitals showing that helmetless riders typically die more often, suffer more severe injuries, and obviously the cost of caring for those people is higher. Despite what the guy argues in his article above, it is hard to argue with the cold facts of what the hospitals are seeing. However, I still don't think the government needs to mandate helmet use. If people want to ride without a helmet, fine. Let them pay a higher insurance premium because they are voluntarily placing themselves in a higher risk category.
Arguing for helmet laws because of the additional medical costs born by society is a specious argument at best. There are lots of other activities that people willingly engage in that increase their risk of health problems and the "cost to society". Take smoking as an example, not exercising on a regular basis, eating like crap, or drinking oneself into oblivion. Insurance companies already offer different premiums for people in high risk categories to cover that "cost to society". If the cost argument is allowed to stand, then we must logically go after all the other behaviors that add to this imaginary cost!
Man I am fired up tonight... need a stiff drink and a good night ride! :P
Adios,