How have you been informative when all you've done is expressed an opinion? What facts or evidence have you provided beyond the flawed '81 Hurt reference? What is your definition of safer? Look ... I really don't care what you or the 4 people you work with think. Believe what you want to believe. I don't need anyone to agree with what I'm saying to feel validated (although many do). I see you haven't read the study, but you want to argue with me anyway. I do in fact personally know 2 people who broke their necks wearinghelmets andwere quadrapalegics.One lived 13 years laying on his back ... in and out of VA hospitals and care facilities, wife had long since split on him, before dying of a systemic infection from the number of sores he accumulated over the years. The other was luckier ... he died of a blood clot problem about 7 months after the accident. Both wished they had died in their respective accidents. Here is the interesting part .. the guy that liv

 

*edit*TM thats your opinion *edit*. Read Bad Mojo's post. Argue with him. Sounds like he's got your number....

I'm outte... good luck, and I hope for you the best.

lp

[quote]ORIGINAL: Panhead_1_9_4_8

How have you been informative when all you've done is expressed an opinion? What facts or evidence have you provided beyond the flawed '81 Hurt reference? What is your definition of safer? Look ... I really don't care what you or the 4 people you work with think. Believe what you want to believe. I don't need anyone to agree with what I'm saying to feel validated (although many do). I see you haven't read the study, but you want to argue with me anyway. I do in fact personally know 2 people who broke their necks wearinghelmets andwere quadrapalegics.One lived 13 years laying on his back ... in and out of VA hospitals and care facilities, wife had long since split on him, before dying of a systemic infection from the number of sores he

 

If you go back and read my post(s) you'll see that my intention was not to debate whether or not helmets save lives. I posted one link to Goldstein and suggested that anyone wanting to know more, should do their own research and decide for themselves. You'r interpratation of Goldstein is flawed in that you failed to mention that he found so much missing data in the Hurt report that he had to reduce the number of cases to less than 700. You also fail to mention that Goldstein's objective was not to prove that helmets saved lives ... he was pointing out that the use of the Hurt report to establish legislation was flawed, since legislators incorrectly tried to use Hurt to establish a reduction in fatalities. You also failed to mention that Goldsteins conclusions showed that the probablity of sever head and neck injuries were a tradeoff ... but that they did establish almost by accident that the 2 factors that could be mitigated were alcohol and training.

When the scientific probability of a head injury in a motorcycle accident reaches 100 percent ... maybe I'll consider wearing one.

Like I've been saying ... do whatever you want and I'll do the same.

Here are excerpts from the key findings.

VI. Conclusions and Policy Implications
From our empirical results we conclude that helmet use has no statistically significant effect on the probability of a motorcycle fatality and that helmet users face a tradeoff between reductions in the severity of head injuries and increases in the severity of neck injuries. It is also shown that all possible combinations of the intensity of this tradeoff are equally likely to occur. In addition, it is found that the major determinants of injury and death are speed and blood alcohol level.

And this ....

Under these circumstances mandatory helmet use laws cannot be considered as an effective method to eradicate the slaughter and maiming of individuals involved in motorcycle accidents.

 

Helmet cuts down on road rash...

 

Apparently my interpretation wasn't flawed, because I addressed that clearly: "To make matters worse, they only use a portion of the accidents from the report, citing "insufficient data" for omitting the rest, but they don't actual say what data was missing."

How exactly did I fail to mention that when I quoted the study directly to include the quote: "and that helmet users face a tradeoff between reductions in the severity of head injuries and increases in the severity of neck injuries."

Data shows head injuries occur 10 times more often than neck injuries, and in fact the 644 cases that Goldstein chose to investigate contained *no* sever neck injuries.

Total agreement here.

I mentioned this in my post as well, what I wanted to know was why they also stated the following:

"From our empirical results we conclude that helmet use has no statistically significant effect on the probability of a motorcycle fatality and that helmet users face a tradeoff between reductions in the severity of head injuries and increases in the severity of neck injuries."

and

"The statistical significance of the H variable and insignificance of the interaction term (HI) imply that not only do helmets reduce head injuries, but they do so at almost all realistic impact speeds to the helmet."

and

[size="4"][i][b][size="2"]"These results indicate that the only statistically significant determinants of the probability that an individual's most severe head or neck injury will be severe (critical or fatal) is the ri

 

Death is caused by the absence of life

Peace
Rags

 

Was there actually a point to this?

FWIW, I usually (but not always) wear a helmet when riding around town because I believe (have rationalized for my own purposes) that I am more likely to be involved in a collision that will likely be at a low speed and will involve another vehicle (cage) wherein it is likely that overall my injuries will not be life threatening sans my melon. The helmet will hopefully protect my precious grey matter from being spread all over some cell phone talking cagers bumper. When I'm cruising the interstates I figure that ANY collision or other mishap will likely occur at a speed wherein the loss of a little grey matter is immaterial due to the fact that a greater portion of my body mass will be spread out on the highway and saving my melon is only necessary, as I have heard it eloquently stated before, for ID'ing the body.

Before I climb aboard my trusty steed(s), I make a decision as to whether I'm wearing a helmet that day or not. Why do so many people have a problem with that? For most, it means absolutely nothing - for those in the medical, legal, or insurance business maybe it does, maybe it doesn't - nevertheless, it was still MY decision and it will always be MY decision. Even if it is "the law". Wouldn't be the first time I chose not to "obey the law" (just ask my parents, teachers, coworkers, wife, LEOs and judges I've had the opportunity to get acquainted with, etc., etc., ... )

So, all that being said... do you helmet wearers wave to non-helmet wearers when you're out riding?

 

Well I'm not dead, but peeling the top of my head open was not cool. I wear it all the time now.

PS helmet stayed good as new in my saddle bag.

 

Reading this thread can cause death. It's simple. Two things: wearing a helmet will most likely increase your chances of coming out of a wreck in better shape than not wearing one (there is no argument here for anyone with a lick of common sense); adult motorcycle riders should be free to decide if they want to ignore that fact. The solution is what some states have adopted: Let adults decide for themselves but require they have adequate insurance so as not to burden taxpayers with the result of that decision. In essence, riders who don't want to wear helmets may pay more for the priviledge, but it's the only fair way to do it.

 

You guys are tooooo cuuuute.
I must say, I'm flattered by the compliments.
And I'm glad you have a certain vested interest in keeping my dura mater inside my skull.
I happen to agree with that concept wholeheartedly, and that is why I fly with Arai.


Yes,.....correct-a-mundo to whoever said "smart is sexy".
(and thank you for noticing)

For inquiring minds who want to know,...in regards to my previous post on this thread, here is the sentence which was copied and pasted from a source on the internet:
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) statistics, unhelmeted motorists are 29 percent less likely to survive a crash, and 40 percent more likely to die from a head injury.
The rest came from between my own two ears.



But,...don't hate me because I'm smart...I cheated a little - in the course of training for one of my day-jobs, I've spent several hundred hours in physiology and neurology classes over the years, plus, I've maybe glanced at the pages of Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body just a time or two-thousand,...so I know my way around the human body, as well as the human nervous system. And last but not least,...when my husband suffered a closed head injury and diffuse axonal injury in 2005, I had the unwelcome opportunity to learn "everything I didn't know and never wanted to find out" about head injuries.