[quote]ORIGINAL: Bad Mojo

I know it's old, as far as flawed I'm not seeing any hard data on that link, do you have a more direct link that will take me to the studies they are using? Or at least one that refutes the data in the Hurt report with 'correct' data also taken in 1979? Obviously there are going to be discrepencies in data that's two decades apart - partly why I mentioned I'd be curious to see how the Hurt report holds up... I can already tell you that mean rider age, and mean fatal accident rider age are going to be way off.

And who said I need constant reinforcement about my decision? I merely refute the statements telling me that my helmet is going to break my neck when I wreck from taking too many chances thanks to a false sense of security that the helmet gives me. That is absolutely no different than someone telling you that by not wearing a helmet you are taking an unnecessary risk and are more likely to get your head caved in. Does such statements make you want to go get reinforcement about your decision to not wear one? Me neither. I base my decision on my own belief that given the odds of a crushed skull or broken neck, the crushed skull will be a more likely occurance (just my belief) and thus the benefit outweighs the risk. I would also be curious as to how many fatalities with helmeted folks are due to a broken neck, as opposed to how many unhelmeted fatalities are from blunt force trauma to the head - If you happen to have a link to that kind of breakdown that would be awsome, and would probably be the only thing that would sway my decision to wear (well, that and the gestapo run state of MD...). The studies I've found have all concluded that there is no difference in neck injuries among helmeted and unhelmeted riders, but they were also all done abroad(Scotland, Thailand) where they have different laws and cultures.

This thread was started by a bare-headed advocate, so maybe helmet discussions aren't the sole domain of the helmeted. Most of the ones I see started by those who are pro-helmet are because they came across a new article and they feel the need to voice an opinion that helmets save lives, or statea fact from an article where a helmet DID save a life. Maybe they come across as pushy, but I don't recall a thread titled "You MUST wear a helmet!" or "Unhelmeted get in here NOW so I can preach to you the benefits of helmet use!"Theydo however seem to go down hill when folks come in and voice their opinions that helmets are dangerous killers. Maybe we should just all stay out of threads that we know are going to be against what we believe, of course that means I'm just as guilty being in this one.

The "just enjoy the government telling them what to do" statement is a funny one. Unless you don't wear your seatbelt, have disabled your airbags and anti-lock breaks, and put your newborn in the front seat, you are in that same boat just doing what the government tells you. Just because someone has one issue thattheydisagree with them on, doesn't exactly make that person any more of a rebel than someone that doesn't buckle up.

I've seen the illegal helmets in car argument before, but I've never seen it proven. I have seen laws where you can't have both ears covered, but I'm pretty sure that was for headphones and not folks driving around in full face helmets. Keep in mind that you can't run down any 1/4 or 1/8th mile track in the country without a helmet, even if you are driving an 27 second stock semi. Most states also have laws requiring bicycle helmets, and I'veheard ofstanding orders for soldiers to be helmeted and vested in their hummers. I couldn't find anything in any of the ordinances for the states around here (MD, DE, PA) specifically limiting helmet use in cars, do you have an example? I'd love to

 

You're just as guilty. Arguing it's safer because of some flawed study is just rationalization. Wear one if you want ... but don't argue you're safer with one. For all you know ... all factors considered ... you may be statistically more likely to have an accident than anyone else. I eat whatever I want ... and I don't get fat ... but then I excercise. My point is that statistics, probabilities and averages are just that. If by virtue of riding a motorcycle ... you have a 20 percent greater chance of dying than someone who doesn't ... it's based on an average of all factors considered ... but doesn't consider all factors. The key is also the words "greater chance or probability".
The non riders probability of death from a non motorcycle, motor vehicle accident might be 1 percent. By virtue of riding a motorcycle ... your chances increase by 20 percent of 1 percent to 1.2 percent. So ... If I tell you you are 50 percent more likely to die of something ... that figure is only meaningful if you understand the full context. This I can tell you with certainty ... we are all going to die.

 

What was I saying? I seem to have forgotten my train of thought. Oh, yea. How women make life worth living.

 

Arguing that helmets are not safer is kinda pointless, as it's pretty obvious they are safer than just using skin as a protectant.
Would you argue the fact that riding a motorcycle without shoes/boots on is just as safe as riding with? How about naked? Just as safe right?
You would probably cringe at the thought of hitting the pavement at 50 without clothes on right? One big road rash....

Just like football players, construction workers, race car drivers, Military fighter pilots, tank commanders, ground troops and my kids on bicycles, none of these people want to do any of that without a helmet.They didn't invent the things cause they look like crap on your head ya know... it's because people bust their head open doing stuff.

lp

 

Is it your objective to just be arguementative? You miss the whole point. We're talking specifically about helmets ... not shoes and boots. We're also talking about riding a motorcycle ... not racing cars, flying fighter jets, driving tanksetc. In all those "other" examples ... there is a different probability of head injury. Let's use your construction worker as an example. There is an inherent risk of something falling on you head from above. Providing it's something small, it will save you a concusion, maybe a fracture or stitches. If's it's a 1000 pound object ... not much good. You fly 50 MPH into a tree with your head .. I don't care what you have on it, you're dead. I've been in 3 wrecks in my life. No helmets and no head injuires. How would a helmet have helped me? If you random probability of having a wreck with no helmet is X ... and it's proven that a helmet decreases your field of vision ... then you've just increased your risk of having an accident in the first place regardless of whether having a helmet will truly protect you from signifcant head injury. My point is ... your statments about helmet safety are not backed up by the facts.Just to say it's safer means nothing. In order for you to prove your assertion, you would need to know the probabilty of specific bodily injuries in any random accident. One thing is a fact ... while a helemt may reduce specific head injury, it also exponnentially increasesthe chance of severe neck injury. I would rather be dead ... than paralyzed from the neck down. Read the study the debunks the '81 study ... form an opinion and tell us about it.

 

+1

If anyone ever studied the impact of someone's bare face skidding along the ground at 20 miles an hour vs wearing a helmet, it would likely be dismissed as "flawed"...

Hope the airline industry continues to "reduce the probability" of crashes. And the medical community continues to reduce the probability of bad things happening during surgery. But, hey, it's only statistics...

 

How about 'None of the above"?
Technically, physical death is caused by a lack of profusion of oxygen at the cellular level regardless of the initiator, i.e. motorcycle crash, gunshot, heart attack, etc.

 

anyone really reading these rediculously long posts????
like slow traffic,,, I'm just flyin by on the left

 

DOG FOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Had a friend who lost his son to a 10mph accident with a helmet. Broke his neck.

Just came back from a long ride with an experiencedbiker. He told me he rode up on a one vehicle bike accident a couple of weeks ago andhad to watchthe guy bleed to death. No helmet, skidded down the pavement. My friend examined the bike and talked to the the witnesses. Unusual situation, but it appeared the engine may have seized up.

Pick your poison. Death is usually fatal. Oh, the veteran biker? Yeah, he was wearing a full face with an armored Joe Rocket jacket.