Motorcycle helmet laws

[thecroat1]

Do some research folks.

Hospital stay time is the same for helmeted and non-helmeted riders.

Insurance is not an issue in helmet use as most motorcyclists today are better insured than car drivers. In fact most unisured or underinsured drivers are in cars.

Would really like to see the stats for the helmeted vs. non-helmeted thing. Additonally, it could be that helmeted riders actually make it to the hospital instead going straight to the morgue.

If insurance misuse is your issue then go after insurance fraud and illegal aliens.

Non-helmet states have lower injury/fatality rates.

Would like to see the figures for this, too. Not trying to be a dick, just wanting to know. Educate me. . . . .

Most common cause of death on a motorcycle is the same as in a car...thoraic injurues. This means impacts and/or damage to your torso (torn aorta's being number 1). Helmet doesn't do squat there.

True. . . but a helmet is just part of the safety gear for riding. A quality jacket with the proper body armor installed goes a long way towards protecting your torso. Granted it isn't going help you when you go head on with a jump truck, but neither does a Honda accord.

Helmets do not prevent accidents. If they did then it would be a valid law.

Nobody ever said they did. What they do is go a long way in preventing head injuries when you have an accident.

As previously pointed out, NO helmet maker claims their helmet is any good over roughly 15mph. Usually on the dang label inside the helmet. The program for DOT certification of helmets is a freakin' joke. Many helmets with the DOT sticker are in fact not capable of passing the test.

Better get on the horn and tell every AMA and MOTOGP road racer that their helmets are useless at speed.

Let the rider decide.

When it comes to horsepower limits, etc. I would agree, but in the case of helmets I say err on the side of caution. That is my opinion, take it or leave it.

As for the pics posted, judge not lest ye be judged. Outward appearance as nothing to do with the mind within. Both could be very intelligent. The second one definitely is. He's a freakin' artist with bikes.

Sarge

I don't care if he was Arlen Ness. If you aren't smart enough to not wear loose clothing around high speed machinery, you are not to bright. Any tire room monkey is smart enough to realize that. But then again that is just another opinion,

 

[Crunch]

I used to roadrace and have been riding streetbikes and dirtbikes for most of my life. Helmets are a great idea. I have wrecked while racing in the rain on a slow turn. It was an out of the groove low-side at about 25mph and it trashed my helmet. I hate to know what my head would have looked like without my helmet. When I was 18, I had a low-sider on the street where I went down face first. I bloodied my lip, but at least my face was in tact. It is ridiculous to think you are safer without a full-face helmet (kinda like saying you are safer with out a rollcage because you might hit your head on it in a rollover). The only downer to FF helmets are higher risk of broken colarbones, but that risk is worth it to me. By the way, the guy in the first picture is not wearing a helmet, it is a novelty and nothing more.
As far as fatigue goes, I have ridden from Ft. Lauderdale to Daytona and back many times with and without helmets (yes, I ride without one knowing the risks) and I am far more fatigued without. The full wind blast in the face, uncontrolled wind noise, and minimal eye protection can be exhausting.
That said, it should be totally the rider's choice. I believe the same about seatbelts. It is about generating $$. Yes you are safer wearing both, but it should be your decision.
I also think it is silly that some states have no helmet laws, but strictly enforce seatbelt laws.

I'm done,
Crunch

 

[Sarge]

Thecroat1, all those numbers are out of the NHTSA's databank. It aint easy digging in that thing any more tho. As for the helmets worn by the AMA and MOTOGp guys, those are very different from most worn by the regualr riders. The pro's helmets are much lighter and are not so restricted in peripheral vision. Sure, you can buy and wear those...if you have the 400-6-- plus bucks for a helmet. As for the non-helmeted riders going straight to the morgue, not so. Like I said the injury fatality rates are the same for helmeted or non-helmeted riders. The head is NOT the main injury area...the torso is. Most common reason for death is the heart ripping loose from sudden impact/stop. In a car from hitting the steering wheel or seat belts at high speed. On a bike from hitting the bars, the car or the road surface.

Copperhead, yeppers. The studies and tests did show that car drivers were against wearing helmets due to restricted vision, impaired hearing, and fatigue. Same complaints most riders have BTW. The fatigue can be a non-issue thru either strengthening of your neck from continued wear or from purchasing a more expensive, lighter helmet. Hearing is restricted with or without so no real biggie. Vision is a biggie tho as it is a real safety issue.

There is also a study by an Australian Doc who shows cases where the helmet was responible for the riders death. In essence in certain cases the helmets strap or the rear edge of the helmet breaks the riders neck. Remember Gary Busey dumping his bike and smacking his head? Chances are good if he had been wearing a helmet he may have ended up paralyzed or dear. He landed in the gutter with his head on the curb.

As for Billy Lane being an idiot for wearing loose items around machinery...he and a shitload others have been wearing those wallets for many, many years and that is one item I've never seen mentioned as a problem. Pant legs ripped off in open primaries, idiots breaking fingers in spinners, burnt legs from pipes, oil lines rupturing and spraying hot oil on ya, but no one ever got their chain stuck. I rack up some serious mileage and have never had a problem.

To answer the email I got with the no-good return addie:

I've been riding since I was about 14. Been on all different kinds of bikes including, stock imports, stock HD, very modified HD and very modified imports. Last two bikes have been Honda's due to cash mostly. The last bike I sold was a 1981 Honda GL1100 GoldWing (mildly modifed) on which I covered approx 375K miles in approx 4-5 years. Current ride is a 1997 Honda Magna in the process of being personalized. Due to work my yearly mileage this year is only about 15-20K so far. I would estimate my mileage is half and half helmeted and non-helmeted. I usually do not wear one here in St Louis as most cops wont bother to stop you. I get more grief due to the patch on my back (large single piece "Bikers Against Child Abuse" with the colors red, black, and white) than I do for the helmet.Yes, I've spent a few minutes or more researching the helmet topic.

Sarge - think I'm done with this subject

 

[Sarge]

I don't care if he was Arlen Ness.

Arlen Ness USED to be an artist. Not any more. Now he's a bike maker for no-taste yuppies. *grin* Ok, so that's a personal opinion and I do like he and his son's rework of the Victory.

Sarge

 

[copperhead]

Crunch wrote:
As far as fatigue goes, I have ridden from Ft. Lauderdale to Daytona and back many times with and without helmets (yes, I ride without one knowing the risks) and I am far more fatigued without. The full wind blast in the face, uncontrolled wind noise, and minimal eye protection can be exhausting.

There are two types of fatigue riders need to look out for, mental and physical. when I initialy went to post the comments about the full face helmet, I wrote that this was a mental fatigue, contributing to the riders mental response time. Riding helmetless or with an open face has its own fatigue issues. this got edited out in my post as it was becomming a bit too long. My thoughts on this were that there are a number of factors to consider when deciding wether or not to ride with a helmet and what type of helmet to use if you choose to wear one.

I wear a modern full faced helmet for its abrasion and low speed impact protection. I did a 5 foot chin slide in gravel as a kid on my pedal-bike and don't want to try it at speed on a n MC.

Sarge, You can add fire to your list. We had a guy in one of the vintage clubs I belong to recieve 2nd degree burns when the pressurized fuel line on his modern Ducati burst and hit the hot exhaust.

I am also a believer that we would have safer roads if everyone had to ride a MC for 1 year before being allowed to drive a car. Most MC accidents are due to neglegent auto drivers not paying attention to what they are doing.

-Copperhead

 

[woody]

"I am also a believer that we would have safer roads if everyone had to ride a MC for 1 year before being allowed to drive a car."

LMAO that would cull the herd...

 

[thecroat1]

Thecroat1, all those numbers are out of the NHTSA's databank. It aint easy digging in that thing any more tho.

Hmmm. . . .the NHTSA seems believe that their figures show helmets are effective at preventing head injury and death.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-715/pages/Methodology.html

Additionally, since the whole helmet law state vs. non helmet law thing came up, here are some interesting results from a study that involved taking factors like weather, etc. into account:

http://www.upenn.edu/ldi/issuebrief7_1.pdf

Another one that pretty much says the same thing, but with a little extra info:

http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/motorcyl.htm#cite4

And finally an article written in regards to California's helmet law:

http://healthresearch.georgetown.edu/Erica/helmetlaws.htm

While I was doing the 3 minute google search for this stuff it should be noted that there was only one professional voice that stated helmet laws (and helmets for that matter) were ineffectual, Jonathan Goldstein.

As for the helmets worn by the AMA and MOTOGp guys, those are very different from most worn by the regualr riders. The pro's helmets are much lighter and are not so restricted in peripheral vision. Sure, you can buy and wear those...if you have the 400-6-- plus bucks for a helmet.

Last Helmet I bought was around $230 and the only difference between it and an AMA race helmet was the graffics. If you buy a $50 swap meet helmet it is going to perform like a $50 swap meet helmet.

As for the non-helmeted riders going straight to the morgue, not so. Like I said the injury fatality rates are the same for helmeted or non-helmeted riders. The head is NOT the main injury area...the torso is. Most common reason for death is the heart ripping loose from sudden impact/stop. In a car from hitting the steering wheel or seat belts at high speed. On a bike from hitting the bars, the car or the road surface.

According to the research it seems that at least 29% are being/would be killed by head injuries without helmet laws.

As for Billy Lane being an idiot for wearing loose items around machinery...he and a shitload others have been wearing those wallets for many, many years and that is one item I've never seen mentioned as a problem. Pant legs ripped off in open primaries, idiots breaking fingers in spinners, burnt legs from pipes, oil lines rupturing and spraying hot oil on ya, but no one ever got their chain stuck. I rack up some serious mileage and have never had a problem.

Like I said an opinion. . . . .

 

[thecroat1]

Arlen Ness USED to be an artist. Not any more. Now he's a bike maker for no-taste yuppies. *grin* Ok, so that's a personal opinion and I do like he and his son's rework of the Victory.

Sarge

Yeah, that thing is really going to put Victory on the map. If they can keep making good looking, quality bikes, us "typical" Americans will definitely go where our pocket book is hurt the least. I wouldn't shed any tears if HD suffered a little. :firedevil

 

[Bloose]

I'm a bit torn on helmet laws. I personally don't like anyone telling me I have to protect myself. I think it should be a personal choice for the most part. I personally NEVER ride without a helmet. Riding a motorcycle is a risk to begin with and any protection is better than none.

I also NEVER drink when I ride. As far as I'm concerned drinking is like the bigger contributor to death on a motorcycle than no helmet. Yesterday I went on a poker run, which is basically going from bar to bar on a bike. The run was to benifit a fellow worker that has been out of work for 12 months now due to a bike accident. I was the only one there with a helmet (about 50 bikes) and one of the few only drinking soda. The guy in the accident was both drinking and not wearing a helmet. He was in a coma for several months and lost control of most of the left side of his body. He also has lost much of his memory and may never return to work. It was his personal choice to ride without a helmet and also to ride while drinking. But now it is his 6 children and wife who are paying the price. I didn't see him say, no, we don't need any money to help buy groceries because my desicion to ride impaired and unprotected affected only me and I was willing to pay that price when I did so. No, he was greatfull to take whatever help he can get.

I could go on and on about people who ride impaired and without protection and the price the people around them must pay for it. I have a whole family of HD riders who drink and ride and also never ever ride with a helmet. For their sake and the sake of their families I wish there was a helmet law. But like I said above I have mixed fealings about it.

B-loose

 

[8Mud]

Unprotected bike riding, is like unprotected sex, you get away with it, until it´s way past too late.
If anybody went through, what I´ve been through (and seen, what I´ve seen) and still didn´t wear a helmet and questioned the helmet laws. I´d have to believe, they were a quart low on oil. I learned about helmets (and leathers) the hard way.
Seen more than a few people die and/or get really screwed up on a bike. The vast majority were at speeds below 50 MPH (two below 20 MPH). In most of the deaths, helmets were a factor, either cheep helmets or no helmets.
If the helmut laws, do no more than make a person, think about the consequences, or help them live long enough, to make an informed decission, I´m all for them.

 

[Darky]

I'd have to say I'm surprised at how much has been said on here...when I left before the weekend, I thought it was just going to die cuz no one was posting on here really...Now all of a sudden its kinda exploded.
I stand by my belief in helmet laws. What's going on in your head if you say you don't like being told to take care of yourself. Its like the little kid who is told not to touch the hot stove cuz it'll burn him but then gets mad because he's not to supposed to do something that could hurt him. As has been asked of Sarge before about where you're getting your stats, I'd like to know also. I'm not seeing someone like NHTSA saying that helmets don't help...they're usually the first to jump on any safety issue. Remember airbags? They jumped all over that. And no, I won't go for any law no matter how stupid it is. If a law has no real benefit to it or whatever, I'll question it and complain about it, but if it isn't a huge deal, I'd obey it til its changed or cops start enforcing it loosely. I've known more than a few people who have been in wrecks on their bikes from mild to serious and have all been grateful for their helmets. So what if you can still get "thoracic" injuries? I'd rather run the risk of that than that plus head trauma. And pulling out some rare instance when they're dangerous and saying that helmets are dangerous always is just silly. Yeah, seatbelts can give yyou nasty bruises in an accident at high enough speed, but you know what? My seatbelt saved me from serious injury when I wrecked my Tracker. 45 into a stationary object and I came out of it with a broken hand and some pretty good bruising in my shoulder and hip that left me limping for a couple a weeks.

You get what you pay for, and I'd be happy to pay a little extra to know I'm getting a good, solid whatever to protect me. Be it a helmet, bumper on my XJ or roll cage. Why buy the cheap one and complain it didn't work?

 

[Sarge]

While I was doing the 3 minute google search for this stuff it should be noted that there was only one professional voice that stated helmet laws (and helmets for that matter) were ineffectual, Jonathan Goldstein.

And in a 3 minute google search I can find just as many web sites claiming the opposite...all with credited researchers as well. The numbers from the NHTSA and their database can and are massaged all the time. For instance, how much did alcohol impact those numbers? Signicantly but it is rarely discussed. As for the one stating helmets helped...it claimed a 29% figure. That's well less than even 50% and sounds like the old "as long as it saves one life" argument.

The biggest problem in those studies (and most even those leaning the other way) is the studies do NOT indicate the cause of death. They look at a list...v number of motorcyclists in accidents, x number died, u number wore helmets, y number didn't and z number unknown. No checking to see how many died due to lack of or possibly due to wearing a helmet. I've a friend who works emergency rooms and happens to be a biker. In most cases the actual cause of death is thoraic injuries, NOT head injuries. In his words (or to that effect), they usually don't worry bout the head injuries until they get the patient stabilized and the thoraic injuries figured out.

Someone mentioned buying a helmet for a touch over 200 and it being the same as the pro's. Not in most cases. The racers I knew back a few years wore helmets costing 600 and up. And usually didn't have to buy the thing.

Helmet testing is a joke in all honesty. There is no testing to see how an impact to the helemts affects the neck and/or spine. Until recently most companies didn't use g-meters to determine force of impact being transmitted. Most companies use a drop test where the helmet is dropped rather than securing the helmet and striking it with regulated weights. Most helmets are not tested ni all the conditions the helmet will be subjected to, rain, cold, high heat, etc.

Most major motorcycle accidents I've seen or been around (not on the track) have the same survival rate with or without a helmet. A friend was hit by a moose. Broke his back and neck. Bent the bike in half. Did the helmet help? Sure, we had an open coffin. Another friend was hit head on by a drunk driver at highway speeds. Helmet didn't even help with an open casket here. Friend blew a front tire at highway speeds. Broke every rip but one. Two years later he is still recovering and moving slow. No helmet...no head injuries either.

In essence we can go on and on for hours, showing reports which help our own individual beliefs, with stories from this and that but if we're going to wear a helmet is up to how we feel. If we believe it will help, we wear it. If not we don't. Laws are not meant to baby-sit the individual but safeguard the whole. A helmet law is supposedly to protect the one person not the others in traffic around him/her. It should be riders choice. Most states merely use it as a method of raising cash.

Sarge

 

[Sarge]

As has been asked of Sarge before about where you're getting your stats, I'd like to know also. I'm not seeing someone like NHTSA saying that helmets don't help...they're usually the first to jump on any safety issue. Remember airbags? They jumped all over that.

The numbers are from the NHTSA's databanks. I never said the that was their opinion. You pull the numbers out and compare them. Don't trust their opinion BTW. Yes, they came out fast in favor of airbags. But they knew and failed to say for a long time that incorrectly used airbags are in fact very dangerous. Remember, airbags have the ability to kill especially small adults or kids.

The instances I spoke of aren't rare, just not the sole cause. Most ijury/death reports are filled out by a tired doctor at the end of the shift and in most cases only the primary cause (as viewed by that doctor) is listed. Not speaking out of my butt here, a good friend works with the Mayo in their emergency room and my stepfather is a surgeon as well. But we don't talk anymore.

If helmets really do help then it shouldn't cost several hundred or more to get one. A lot of folks ride bikes simply because it's cheaper than a car. It was one of the big factors when I started. I know when I compare my year round bike bills to my car/van bills there is a huge difference. Some folks may want a high dollar helmet but can only afford the swap meet special. Me? I want the gov to stay out of my life as much as possible.

Sarge

 

[thecroat1]

And in a 3 minute google search I can find just as many web sites claiming the opposite...all with credited researchers as well. The numbers from the NHTSA and their database can and are massaged all the time. For instance, how much did alcohol impact those numbers? Signicantly but it is rarely discussed. As for the one stating helmets helped...it claimed a 29% figure. That's well less than even 50% and sounds like the old "as long as it saves one life" argument.

The U of Penn. article I posted did just that and still backed the NHTSA's plan for helmet use. As far as credited researchers goes, once again I would really like to see said researchers and the studies. All of the studies/articles I cited where from government sites or academic institutions. It usually doesn't get more objective than that. As far as 29% being a paltry amount, 29 out of 100 is not anything to sniff at.

The biggest problem in those studies (and most even those leaning the other way) is the studies do NOT indicate the cause of death. They look at a list...v number of motorcyclists in accidents, x number died, u number wore helmets, y number didn't and z number unknown. No checking to see how many died due to lack of or possibly due to wearing a helmet.

If this whole neck injury situation was more prevelant wouldn't we see it quite often in racing?

Someone mentioned buying a helmet for a touch over 200 and it being the same as the pro's. Not in most cases. The racers I knew back a few years wore helmets costing 600 and up. And usually didn't have to buy the thing.

Look at the helmet construction! Same materials used in the same way. More expensive models utilize some titanium to renforce probably because they usually have more ventilation. And yes racers almost always recieve the most expensive helmet in their sponsor's line. Would you advertise the helmet that you make the least money of off?

Helmet testing is a joke in all honesty. There is no testing to see how an impact to the helemts affects the neck and/or spine. Until recently most companies didn't use g-meters to determine force of impact being transmitted. Most companies use a drop test where the helmet is dropped rather than securing the helmet and striking it with regulated weights. Most helmets are not tested ni all the conditions the helmet will be subjected to, rain, cold, high heat, etc..

If they are DOT and/or SNELL certified they should have been using a g-meter all along. According to this article DOT's standards haven't changed significantly since 1974....

http://dot-helmet.motorhelmets.com/

Also, I believe that the company cannot do their own testing for SNELL, so if you are so worried about test quality just get a SNELL helmet. They can be had in the $200 price range and surpass DOT's standards.

To be honest, I know that I won't convince you that helmet laws are appropriate. All I want is for you to ditch all of the attempted rationalization and just say that it doesn't matter to you if wearing a helmet is safer. You just don't wear one because you don't "feel" like it. . . .

 

[dmillion]

"What's going on in your head if you say you don't like being told to take care of yourself. Its like the little kid who is told not to touch the hot stove..."

It's pretty simple. I'm an adult, not a little kid. I don't need anyone, least of all the government, treating me like a little kid. If we let the government start treating all of us like little kids then we're inviting them to tell us what to eat, when to go to bed, what to watch on TV, and everything else that little kids need to be told. Maybe you like the idea of being treated like a little kid, but I don't.

 

[PaulJ]

Helmet laws inhibit natural purification of the gene pool.

 

[Sarge]

If this whole neck injury situation was more prevelant wouldn't we see it quite often in racing?

No. Most accidents on race courses do not correlate to accidents outside the course. You could say the accidents on the course are more structured. *grin* Also most helmet makers at one time sold a collar to wear under the helmet to limit the neck accidents. NASCAR helmets incorporate something of this nature today if I remember correctly. (And I may not.)

Look at the helmet construction! Same materials used in the same way. More expensive models utilize some titanium to renforce probably because they usually have more ventilation.

Actually not the same materials. Both the shell and the padding are usually different from a low buck helmet to a high buck one.

If they are DOT and/or SNELL certified they should have been using a g-meter all along. According to this article DOT's standards haven't changed significantly since 1974....

Well, Snell asks for at least 4 helmets to test but a lot of times only recieve one. This really doesn't allow complete testing but they go ahead. DOT doesn't do the testing, the helmet maker does. If the maker believes that helmet will pass the test because it's close in construction/design to another he may just slap the certification on the helmet.

To be honest, I know that I won't convince you that helmet laws are appropriate. All I want is for you to ditch all of the attempted rationalization and just say that it doesn't matter to you if wearing a helmet is safer. You just don't wear one because you don't "feel" like it. . . .

Partially so. I don't like them AND I don't believe that at highway speeds they do much for anyone safety-wise...unless it's in the riders head. I also don't have $200 to spend on a helmet which the maker says you should replace ever few years or if it rolls off the bike.

dmillion sums it well in a short sentence.

Sarge

 

[Yucca-Man]

Partially so. I don't like them AND I don't believe that at highway speeds they do much for anyone safety-wise...unless it's in the riders head.

Then you end up with a possible "false sense of security" problem. Drivers tend to think that the airbag will save them, and drive more aggressively/less intelligently. Drivers think that just because they have four-wheel drive they can drive 55mph on an icy road, although we all know 4wd doesn't mean four-wheel stop or that those folks have probably never had their part-time t-case in 4wd before...

 

[Ed A. Stevens]

I am also a believer that we would have safer roads if everyone had to ride a MC for 1 year before being allowed to drive a car. Most MC accidents are due to neglegent auto drivers not paying attention to what they are doing.

-Copperhead

Convince the Senators that demand these helmet laws that everyone needs to experience riding before they are qualified to drive.

Can we legislate a federal law that any state that implements a mandatory helmet law is also required to demand all drivers to carry a motorcycle license endorsement (with motorcycle safety training a requirement to gain the motorcycle license endorsement)?

I wear a helmet and see no reason not to wear a helmet, but to have the government force the issue is not agreeable. I live in a helmet law state, and wore a helmet before it became law, but I disagree with the law (the government should not legislate helmets, or what I can drive, or what I can wear, or read, or write, or eat).

Helmets save lives (no argument from me) but so does eating brocolli and brussel sprouts, and there are no laws forcing me to eat my vegetables ...

If we need helmet laws, what other laws do we need?

 

[8Mud]

Like death is the worst thing that can happen to you. When your dead your beyond pain and suffering.
Young stupid, no helmut, 30 MPH, guy changed lanes into me. fractured skull, broken cheek, eye poppped out of the socket, broken jaw, half my teeth missing.
If the helmut laws do nothing more than make a person think. Maybe influence the new riders, to wear a helmet, at least until they are good enough, to maybe get away with riding without. If they are that interested in showing there profile, instead of there smarts; helmet laws are probably a good thing.
Saw a friend dump his bike at 15 MPH, landed on his knees, elbows and forehead. Could see his skull, knee caps and elbow joints.
Helmets many times can reduce injury. Leathers are also a big help in reducing injury.
Saw a guy hit a horse, at the Isle Of Man TT races, at about 140 MPH, helmet didin´t help much.
Had another friend, broadside a car doing maybe 20-25MPH, no hemet, died. Caved in his skull.
Saw a young woman, turn a corner with her kickstand down. Fell over and cracked her skull on a guard rail (cheap helmet) she died.
I could go on and on, no stats are gonna tell me more than my own experiences. Helmets help reduce head injury.
There is a law on the books in California, that says it´s against the law to climb over a barbed wire fence, with a loaded shotgun or rifle. Guess enough people died or got hurt, doing the stupid, somebody figured they had to legislate common sense.