Tim
View Poll Results: A poll
Voters: 76. You may not vote on this poll
what actually causes death?
Cruiser
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
From: NC
RE: what actually causes death?
ORIGINAL: Bad Mojo
Google doesn't show it to be a copy/paste, but the information is out there. Does it matter how it was posted to the forum? I'm confused...
ORIGINAL: brillowolf
Was that info copy and pasted, or did you do that all on your on, ScooterGrrl?
Was that info copy and pasted, or did you do that all on your on, ScooterGrrl?
No offense Anubisss
Elite HDF Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,344
Likes: 67
From: Hooterville, Fl.
RE: what actually causes death?
I beleive to let those who ride decide. But I am sure glad my 20 year old son decided to wear a Shoei full face helmet on Jan. 27th when a cars front bumper hit his head. He was unconsious for about 30 minutes and the only injury he sustained to his head was 9 stitches around his eye where the visor shattered. His leg turned out to be worse where the foot peg went in his leg on impact and shattered his femur at the knee. He his still here because of the helmet. I always wear my helmet though it is only a half helmet. Making me think about a full face or at least a 3/4.
Road Warrior
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,379
Likes: 13
RE: what actually causes death?
From first hand experience: Went down at 40mph, with a full face "Bell 360" hit the left side of my helmet/head on a guardrail post, then, rolled over on my face/belly and slid about 30 feet. Results, 3 fractures in right leg, broken right collar bone, cuts, bruises, head, No injuries, well, i'm still trying to convince my wife of that, LOL You be helmets save lives/heads.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,139
Likes: 2
From:
RE: what actually causes death?
I think the real issue is whether or not the person holding the handlebars is insured to the point that taxpayers will not be left holding the bag for his/her medical bills in the event of a crash. I feel the same way about seat belts. If I have health insurance, which I do, I should be allowed to risk my OWN life to whatever extent I desire, as long as it does not icrease the risk for others safety. Thats all a helmet or seat belt does. It provides greater protection for ME.
It SHOULD be a matter of personal choice.
nogood o~`o
It SHOULD be a matter of personal choice.
nogood o~`o
Cruiser
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
From:
RE: what actually causes death?
ORIGINAL: bikergirl40
I don't wear my helmet for me ... I wear it for my family.
I don't wear my helmet for me ... I wear it for my family.
My kid'sdon't need to grow up without a dad. Riding is inherently risky, but i try to minimize it buy a helmet, body armor, andpaying attenion to my surroundings(ie:cagers). Life in itself is risky, but we do all we can to minimize risks. IMHO, Risking my families well being by me not wearing a helmet is irresponsible.
Seasoned HDF Member
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,476
Likes: 3,004
From: Charleston, SC
RE: what actually causes death?
No I'm just being informative. You?
I've actually been in an accident with a helmet. The helmet was totalled. Glad you weren't hurtand never needed one, you got lucky. In your case the helmet did not do anything for you because you didn't hit your HEAD on the GROUND. But if you had... you'd be talking baby talk right now.
Ok a better example you ask... How about motorcross? Boy those guys would be much safer flying through the sky and bumping into one another without helmets!
Furthermore look at all the neck injuries! Man they should ban those pesky neck breaking helmets! I think you started something.... You got a cause now.
The point to argue is whether or not the GOV can mandate you wearing one.... not if they are safer....cause they are.
Show me two examples of people that said "damn I should have not have worn that helmet" and I'll show you a hundred destroyed helmets with people who say they helped. I can think of four people at work right now who think you're a coo-koo.
lp
I've actually been in an accident with a helmet. The helmet was totalled. Glad you weren't hurtand never needed one, you got lucky. In your case the helmet did not do anything for you because you didn't hit your HEAD on the GROUND. But if you had... you'd be talking baby talk right now.
Ok a better example you ask... How about motorcross? Boy those guys would be much safer flying through the sky and bumping into one another without helmets!
Furthermore look at all the neck injuries! Man they should ban those pesky neck breaking helmets! I think you started something.... You got a cause now.
The point to argue is whether or not the GOV can mandate you wearing one.... not if they are safer....cause they are.
Show me two examples of people that said "damn I should have not have worn that helmet" and I'll show you a hundred destroyed helmets with people who say they helped. I can think of four people at work right now who think you're a coo-koo.
lp
ORIGINAL: Panhead_1_9_4_8
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 ... then come talk your nonsense.
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 ... then come talk your nonsense.
HD Forum Stories
The Best of Harley-Davidson for Lifelong Riders
7 Times Harley-Davidson Chucked Tradition Out the Window
Verdad Gallardo
7 Surprising Harley-Davidson Products that Are Not Motorcycles
Verdad Gallardo
8 Best Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
10 Worst Harley-Davidson Motorcycles Ever
Pouria Savadkouei
Killer Custom's Jail Break Is The Breakout That Refused to Blend In
Verdad Gallardo
Crazy Bunderbike Build Looks Amazing, But Is It Impossible to Ride?
Verdad Gallardo
Harley-Davidson Reveals Super Cool Cafe Racer Concept
Verdad Gallardo
Engraved Rebellion: Inside Bundnerbike's Glam Rock II
Verdad Gallardo
10 Motorcycles You Should Never Buy
Joe Kucinski
Extreme HDF Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,317
Likes: 11
From: Tucson, Az
RE: what actually causes death?
ORIGINAL: wnogood
I think the real issue is whether or not the person holding the handlebars is insured to the point that taxpayers will not be left holding the bag for his/her medical bills in the event of a crash. I feel the same way about seat belts. If I have health insurance, which I do, I should be allowed to risk my OWN life to whatever extent I desire, as long as it does not icrease the risk for others safety. Thats all a helmet or seat belt does. It provides greater protection for ME.
It SHOULD be a matter of personal choice.
nogood o~`o
I think the real issue is whether or not the person holding the handlebars is insured to the point that taxpayers will not be left holding the bag for his/her medical bills in the event of a crash. I feel the same way about seat belts. If I have health insurance, which I do, I should be allowed to risk my OWN life to whatever extent I desire, as long as it does not icrease the risk for others safety. Thats all a helmet or seat belt does. It provides greater protection for ME.
It SHOULD be a matter of personal choice.
nogood o~`o
Tourer
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 461
Likes: 0
RE: what actually causes death?
ORIGINAL: Panhead_1_9_4_8
My response was not directed at you specifically. I also mentioned that this has been hashed and rehashed ad nausium here and other places, so much of what I reference isn't necessarily relating to this thread. Was that not abundantly clear? In any case ... there are several links to data and research in the website I posted. Seems you really didn't read the part about the helmet hoax. http://usff.com/hldl/hoax/goldstein/index2.htmlis a pretty good study. If you're truly interested in knowing the facts about helmet use (and value) ... do the research and decide for yourself. Seems you've already convinced yourself that it's a good thing based on a decades old study that was agenda driven when it was conducted. Whatever you decide ... I would pay particularly close attention to what statistics are provided, the context of those statistics and who paid for the study. A good example is your 1/4 mile statement. All of those rules are driven by insurance requirements and insurance companies ... as our most helmet laws. As for legwork ... I like to do my own and I can assure you that any opinion I have is a well informed one.
My objective is NOT to change anyones mind. I personally don't care if you (or any one else) wears a helmet or not. I would also prefer that courtesy be afforded to me by others and the goverment.
My response was not directed at you specifically. I also mentioned that this has been hashed and rehashed ad nausium here and other places, so much of what I reference isn't necessarily relating to this thread. Was that not abundantly clear? In any case ... there are several links to data and research in the website I posted. Seems you really didn't read the part about the helmet hoax. http://usff.com/hldl/hoax/goldstein/index2.htmlis a pretty good study. If you're truly interested in knowing the facts about helmet use (and value) ... do the research and decide for yourself. Seems you've already convinced yourself that it's a good thing based on a decades old study that was agenda driven when it was conducted. Whatever you decide ... I would pay particularly close attention to what statistics are provided, the context of those statistics and who paid for the study. A good example is your 1/4 mile statement. All of those rules are driven by insurance requirements and insurance companies ... as our most helmet laws. As for legwork ... I like to do my own and I can assure you that any opinion I have is a well informed one.
My objective is NOT to change anyones mind. I personally don't care if you (or any one else) wears a helmet or not. I would also prefer that courtesy be afforded to me by others and the goverment.
"HD = 1 if AISMH > 5 and HD = 0 if 0 < AISMH < 5, where the subscript MH refers to the rider's most severe head injury. Analogously, ND = 1 if AISMN > 5 and ND = 0 if 0 < AISMN < 5."
Why not go ahead and complete the math and give us the rough estimate of probability of head/neck injuries with and without a helmet? Why all the smoke and mirrors? And why do they go on to make this statement:
"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 rider's blood alcohol level and kinetic energy which is dominated by the crash speed. With respect to helmets, this finding implies that both helmeted and non-helmeted riders are equally likely to-have their most severe head and neck injuries classified as severe or minor."
Which plainly states that helmet wearers are no more likely (in fact they are equally likely) to incur severe or minor neck injuries than non helmeted riders? They define "severe" as critical and fatal. So helmeted riders are no more likely to have a fatal neck injury than a helmeted rider. In fact, they state that the ONLY statistically significant determinants of most severe head and neck injuries is blood alcohol level and crash speed - Not helmets at all. In regards to head injuries, they state the following:
[i][b]"[size="2"]The statistical significance of the