• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

To helmet or not?

Tourmeister

Keeper of the Asylum
Admin
Joined
Feb 28, 2003
Messages
51,145
Reaction score
8,056
Location
Huntsville
First Name
Scott
Last Name
Friday
Howdy,

:tab For your viewing pleasure:

Results of Helmet law repeal

:tab 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?

:tab 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.

:tab 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. :shrug:

:tab 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.

:tab 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!

:tab Man I am fired up tonight... need a stiff drink and a good night ride! :P

Adios,
 
:tab Man I am fired up tonight... need a stiff drink and a good night ride! :P

Adios,

Scott,
I hope you REALLY meant "Need a good night ride, followed by a stiff drink". But, I digress. That whole "helmets cause serious neck injury" argument is not new, its been the standard party line propoganda for the ABATE folks for years, as well as the topic of every 3rd Easyriders/Biker/etc article for the last decade. And, I believe there is a lot of truth in that. However, I also believe that in an impact serious enough to cause helmet use to result in a neck injury, the chances of survival without the helmet would be next to nothing. I don't care if there is a helmet law, or not. I'm wearing one, and thats that. Of course, nothing can take away all risk, I know of one incedent in which a geared up rider took off his helmet after stopping, and proceded to fail to put the kickstand down. The bike fell, took him with it, and the impact to his head killed him. Maybe he would have lived, if helmet use at all times was mandated by law? Or, maybe he would have had his neck broken. Who knows.
TR
El Centro CA
 
It always amuses me when people use junk-science to attempt to prove their assertions.

A specious argument is worse than no argument!

I understand blind faith can work wonders, but how can they not see that?
 
I can get a ticket for not wearing my seat belt but not for riding without a helment.Which one would you rather be without in a accident? I wear both but i do not need a law to make me do it. Just a little common sense.
 
honestly people, you DONT want to see the rest of that accident. apparently, it was a new 600RR and the guy was speeding needlessly and took a turn too fast, WITH A PASSENGER, and went wide on the turn, and got to know the truck a little bit better than he wanted to, and i can go on and on, because i am the king of run-on sentences....yes...

i'll shuddup now... :oops:
 
All the pictures of the accident, including the people was on the ADVRider site and people got PISSED at the guy who posted it!!! Not only was it ugly but also disrespectful to the family of the deceased.

I think it is good that we all learn about these things but graphic pictures of the people involved is not needed. Show the bike, okay, show the dead, not good. What if that guy had a young kid who stumpled on a picture of his dad dead at the scene?
 
:tab Yeah John, that is why I just posted the link to that one pic, it makes the point perfectly. The rest were a little over the edge.

:tab BTW, check your voice mail ;-)

Adios,
 
Shortline said:
However, I also believe that in an impact serious enough to cause helmet use to result in a neck injury, the chances of survival without the helmet would be next to nothing. El Centro CA

there was a study done in ca showed a over 70% reduction of neck injuries among helmeted riders. same mode of action as those studs on the palm of your glove protect your collour bone

according to Code your clavicle is protected by the lack of traction on the pavement as you straight arm it in a get off.

and with a helmet your head gets less traction so less force is sent you your neck when you hit the road with your head.
 
Now that is one of the better adds I have seen in a long time.

:pound2 :pound2 :pound2


Hey Paul, like the new Avatar. Got a story behind it or are you trying to blackmail some local LEO :P :P
 
Saw this posted on ST.N, just thought I'd switch avatars over here. I love irony, I guess...
 
Back
Top