Yet another reminder why we wear helmets (as if we needed one)

[fizzle]

Why don't we all just think good thoughts and put Ben in our thoughts and/or prayers and hope he recovers fully?!

Not a bad idea.

Ben, I hope you get better soon. It wasn't fair for me to have singled you out just because you are rich and famous.

The main reason I started this thread was to see how many of my fellow riders felt about helmets (and to vent my own personal opinion). It's obviously a hot topic, whether it be the effectiveness of them (most of us think so), or whether or not they should be compulsory by law (most of us think not).

At the mine I work at, there have been 3 miners seriously injured in the last month while riding street bikes (2) and four-wheelers(1) on their days off. None of them were wearing hemets. While they sustained injuries that a helmet could not protect they also suffered more life threatening injuries from head injuries that a hemet could have at least minimized, if not prevented. I see their families suffering from the stress of having a loved one injured, and trying to make ends meet with missed paychecks. I see their work mates suffering, having to work extra to pick up the slack. Their decisions have affected other people.

It really blows me away. All of these individuals had excellent safety records at work. While mining isn't dangerous, like motorcycles, the consequences of a mishap can be fairly severe. Why do these guys wear all of their PPE (personal protective gear) at work, put for the effort to work safely, then on time off, get on a motorized machine that has the potential to put stress on the human body that it is not designed to handle, and NOT protect themselves? I can't understand it.

Okay, so he's a big time football player...what if he were just some Joe off of the street? Would you all be sitting here right now debating whether or not he should've been wearing a helmet and what would have happened to him had he been wearing a helmet? Probably not...

Since none of you know any of these unfortunate people that I work with, I chose to pick on Mr. Roethlisberger, because he is a public figure. If it makes a difference, I have spent more emotion thinking about my 3 co-workers, and feeling very disappointed in them. This thread generated a good bit of debate amongst us riders, and I think that's great. While it won't necessarily solve anything, or make Ben (or my co-workers) have a quicker recovery, it gives us a chance to touch on a topic in which we all have strong opinions on. I would much rather argue (and get flamed) with my fellow riders on DRN, rather than on TV or in the newspapers when legislation is being discussed or threatened by our esteemed political leaders as I am sure that this issue in some form or another will be discussed amongst the general public in the near future. Why not at least talk it out amongst ourselves first?

Thanks again to all you DRN'ers. I appreciate everyone's contribution to this discussion (that's not to say this discussion shouldn't continue, it should.....I just need to get some work done so I don't get fired :| ).

Again, get better Ben, Rawl, Mike and Rick. I'm thinking about you all.

 

[biglou]

From:
Either Big Ben’s body belongs to him, in which case he can do what he wants with it, or it belongs to the state, in which case the legislature can dictate to him all kinds of things he may or may not do with it. There’s no middle ground.

Does Ben also not own his body when he plays football? What if he didn't want to wear a helmet during that time? It's still his body, right? What if he got kicked off the team for not wearing the required gear? What's his defense there?

For the record, I'm somewhere in between the "Mandatory helmet law" and the "everyone should wear'em but I don't want to be told to do so" position. I mean, we all like to make fun of hillbillies riding around in a ball cap, but at the same time, if there were laws, they wouldn't be giving the rest of us a bad(der) image. Yes/No?

 

[Okiewan]

The article also discusses "Geno's Steaks" in Philly - you know, the one that won't take orders unless you order in English. . .)

I've seen him on the news a couple of times... THERE is a guy I'd have a drink with :cool:

 

[FruDaddy]

MRLuckey, go back and read my post I said:

I could care less about the football contract, if he was dumb enough to sign it, the courts will work it out.

:bang: :bang:

 

[FruDaddy]

I've seen him on the news a couple of times... THERE is a guy I'd have a drink with :cool:

Lot of respect for that man, I hope they don't break him. It is my understanding that he, himself learned to speak english when he emigrated, and feels the others should do the same.

 

[BSWIFT]

Not the link I was looking for but still interesting.
http://www.msabate.com/facts.html
I did talk to my cousin and she remembers reading the same article so hopefully I will be able to link to it in the next few days. The info in the above link is old but still relevent and it will likely surprise you. The AMA has supported ABATE in their efforts to stop states from enforcing helmet laws. I'm sorry to have ruffled a few feathers but not everything you believe is true it is sometimes just hype from marketing or spin.

It is found that helmets have a statistically significant effect in reducing head injury severity.
It is shown that past a critical impact velocity to the helmet (approximately 13 mph), helmet use has a statistically significant effect that increases the severity of neck injuries. Notice point 2 in the Hurt Report, median crash speed is 21.5 mph.
As a result of (5) and (6), we establish that a tradeoff between head and neck injuries confronts a potential helmet user. Past a critical impact speed to the helmet (13 mph), which is likely to occur in real life accident situations helmet use reduces the severity of head injuries at the expense of increasing the severity of neck injuries.
Further statistical tests reveal the qualitative nature of this tradeoff. It is shown that an individual who wears a helmet and experiences an impact velocity to the head greater than 13 mph may avoid either severe or minor head injuries and incur either severe or minor neck injuries; all permutations of the tradeoff are equally likely to occur.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Not the link I was looking for but still interesting.

Brian, take this interpretation of the Hurt report with a grain of salt. I've read where Dr. Hurt has fumed about people taking his stats and twisting them for their own use. No where does the report suggest that wearing a helmet will be the root cause of a neck injury. Data suggesting otherwise is coincidental. Dr. Hurt was very vocal about the report about a year or so ago when Motorcyclist magazine did a comprehensive report on helmet testing.

Remember the old saying, figures never lie, but liers always figure. Please see below the summary of Findings from the Hurt Report. Pay special attention to items 47, 50 & ESPECIALLY 52.

Summary of Findings

Throughout the accident and exposure data there are special observations which relate to accident and injury causation and characteristics of the motorcycle accidents studied. These findings are summarized as follows:

1. Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most often a passenger automobile.

2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

3. Vehicle failure accounted for less than 3% of these motorcycle accidents, and most of those were single vehicle accidents where control was lost due to a puncture flat.

4. In single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering.

5. Roadway defects (pavement ridges, potholes, etc.) were the accident cause in 2% of the accidents; animal involvement was 1% of the accidents.

6. In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.

7. The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

8. Deliberate hostile action by a motorist against a motorcycle rider is a rare accident cause. The most frequent accident configuration is the motorcycle proceeding straight then the automobile makes a left turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle.

10. Intersections are the most likely place for the motorcycle accident, with the other vehicle violating the motorcycle right-of-way, and often violating traffic controls.

11. Weather is not a factor in 98% of motorcycle accidents.

12. Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in a very short time close to the trip origin.

13. The view of the motorcycle or the other vehicle involved in the accident is limited by glare or obstructed by other vehicles in almost half of the multiple vehicle accidents.

14. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.

15. Fuel system leaks and spills were present in 62% of the motorcycle accidents in the post-crash phase. This represents an undue hazard for fire.

16. The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.

17. The typical motorcycle pre-crash lines-of-sight to the traffic hazard portray no contribution of the limits of peripheral vision; more than three-fourths of all accident hazards are within 45deg of either side of straight ahead.

18. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is most critical for the frontal surfaces of the motorcycle and rider.

19. Vehicle defects related to accident causation are rare and likely to be due to deficient or defective maintenance.

20. Motorcycle riders between the ages of 16 and 24 are significantly overrepresented in accidents; motorcycle riders between the ages of 30 and 50 are significantly underrepresented. Although the majority of the accident-involved motorcycle riders are male (96%), the female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.

22. Craftsmen, laborers, and students comprise most of the accident-involved motorcycle riders. Professionals, sales workers, and craftsmen are underrepresented and laborers, students and unemployed are overrepresented in the accidents.

23. Motorcycle riders with previous recent traffic citations and accidents are overrepresented in the accident data.

24. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents.

25. More than half of the accident-involved motorcycle riders had less than 5 months experience on the accident motorcycle, although the total street riding experience was almost 3 years. Motorcycle riders with dirt bike experience are significantly underrepresented in the accident data.

26. Lack of attention to the driving task is a common factor for the motorcyclist in an accident.

27. Almost half of the fatal accidents show alcohol involvement.

28. Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would overbrake and skid the rear wheel, and underbrake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to countersteer and swerve was essentially absent.

29. The typical motorcycle accident allows the motorcyclist just less than 2 seconds to complete all collision avoidance action.

30. Passenger-carrying motorcycles are not overrepresented in the accident area.

31. The driver of the other vehicles involved in collision with the motorcycle are not distinguished from other accident populations except that the ages of 20 to 29, and beyond 65 are overrepresented. Also, these drivers are generally unfamiliar with motorcycles.

32. Large displacement motorcycles are underrepresented in accidents but they are associated with higher injury severity when involved in accidents.

33. Any effect of motorcycle color on accident involvement is not determinable from these data, but is expected to be insignificant because the frontal surfaces are most often presented to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

34. Motorcycles equipped with fairings and windshields are underrepresented in accidents, most likely because of the contribution to conspicuity and the association with more experienced and trained riders.

35. Motorcycle riders in these accidents were significantly without motorcycle license, without any license, or with license revoked.

36. Motorcycle modifications such as those associated with the semi-chopper or cafe racer are definitely overrepresented in accidents.

37. The likelihood of injury is extremely high in these motorcycle accidents-98% of the multiple vehicle collisions and 96% of the single vehicle accidents resulted in some kind of injury to the motorcycle rider; 45% resulted in more than a minor injury.

38. Half of the injuries to the somatic regions were to the ankle-foot, lower leg, knee, and thigh-upper leg.

39. Crash bars are not an effective injury countermeasure; the reduction of injury to the ankle-foot is balanced by increase of injury to the thigh-upper leg, knee, and lower leg.

40. The use of heavy boots, jacket, gloves, etc., is effective in preventing or reducing abrasions and lacerations, which are frequent but rarely severe injuries.

41. Groin injuries were sustained by the motorcyclist in at least 13% of the accidents, which typified by multiple vehicle collision in frontal impact at higher than average speed.

42. Injury severity increases with speed, alcohol involvement and motorcycle size.

43. Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection.

44. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

45. Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

46. The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.

47. The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.

48. Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.

49. FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.

50. Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.

51. The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.

52. There is no liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury.

53. Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.

54. Valid motorcycle exposure data can be obtained only from collection at the traffic site. Motor vehicle or driver license data presents information which is completely unrelated to actual use.

55. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.

 

[2stroke]

Wow. Have to hand it to you all.... you certainly do your homework and post some thought provoking information.
Ive seen some of the vintage guys start using a pad under the back of the helmet, almost looks like a cervical collar...is that meant to reduce the neck injury risk?

Heres my situation....Ive owned a street bike for 10 years now, and I've never even tagged it. Its an old Kaw triple and Ive got it sorted out just fine. I keep meaning to get around to getting a historic plate for it so I can mess around on it. My wife is terrified about me riding it on the road. As it is, I start it up and blow it out every few months or so.

My older Brother, who was an excellent MX racer for many years, rode on the street for about a year and gave it up. In his words, he came too close to dying too many times.

I dont know, every time a celebrity gets hurt on a bike, I hear about how I shouldnt ride on the road at all. Hearing about Ben, and how he shouldnt have been riding...responsability to his team and all that.....I sort of feel that way myself...responsability to MY team...that is my wife and five children!

My Father still gives me the business about racing vintage MX, but I will NEVER give that up. Maybe I should just stick to dirt.

 

[CaptainObvious]

I ride both street and dirt, and enjoy them both the same. On the street you need to ride defensively and assume that that guy that looks like he is going to move into your lane, or that woman on the cell that looks like she is going to make a left in front of you - WILL. Ninety-nine times out of 100 times they don't, but you need to be ready for when they do.

 

[KDXDan]

Its an old Kaw triple

You know what you should do with that old Kaw triple? Get rid of it. Its not worth the risk. Send me a message and I will get rid of it for you. ;)

 

[BSWIFT]

Capt, sorry I'm a bit medicated for sleep. Again I must repeat that my original statements were based on the injuries reported. It cannot be determined without repeating the accident with the man wearing a helmet to conclude whether or not my speculation would be true or false.
The ABATE website is biased towards preventing states from passing manditory helmet laws. I will continue to try to find the information that I read 8-9 months ago. All testing a statistical information gathering can be suspect based on the agenda of those collected and diseminating the results. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle with no hard and fast rules applying. Helmet use is wise and I again repeat that I wear and support the wearing of helmets but in a "collision" there is a trade off in types of injuries. Accidents involving sliding and not collision with a pole, car, curb, mailbox and such will result in road rash inwhich a helmet is invaluable. However, a collision is blunt force trauma and if a helmet makes contact in the right way, serious injury is avoided. Since this story all came about because of a football player, why is it you can not grab a face mask to make a legal tackle? The answer is simple, it would cause serious neck injuries. Like you said, "figures never lie, but liars always figure", works both sides of the issue. This rider/jock should have been riding appropriately and legally the helmet is a none issue at this point. My original statement said, based on the injuries reported "I" suspect that had he been wearing a helmet he would have "probably" broken his neck. No one will ever know. The guy is obviously a better football player than a bike rider.

 

[BSWIFT]

I ride both street and dirt, and enjoy them both the same. On the street you need to ride defensively and assume that that guy that looks like he is going to move into your lane, or that woman on the cell that looks like she is going to make a left in front of you - WILL. Ninety-nine times out of 100 times they don't, but you need to be ready for when they do.

Obsolutely. Ride like you are invisible. I believe most of my comments are just mistaken due to the internet fog. I believe my points are as valid as others and are at least worth considering. Many overreacted without reading the full statement before coming to a conclusion that I was a crazed helmetless fool. The fool was a pro football player riding illegally, under trained and over paid.

 

[BunduBasher]

This rhetoric about personal choice is bogus - I had a very good cop friend who really DID NOT LIKE picking up body parts thrown from vehicles - by not wearing protection, helmet/seatbelt etc, you really are asking someone else to clean up your BLOODY MESS !

If you have a $2 head, buy a $2 helmet - in this case your head ain't woth a penny ! :bang:

 

[BSWIFT]

This rhetoric about personal choice is bogus

It is the law, not rhetoric, sorry. Those that get picked up off of the road will likely be the same with or without helmets.
Personal freedoms are getting far and few between and I really don't need the Govt. telling me how to protect myself from me. :think:

 

[FruDaddy]

This rhetoric about personal choice is bogus - I had a very good cop friend who really DID NOT LIKE picking up body parts thrown from vehicles - by not wearing protection, helmet/seatbelt etc, you really are asking someone else to clean up your BLOODY MESS !

If you have a $2 head, buy a $2 helmet - in this case your head ain't woth a penny ! :bang:

Wow, would you like the government to tell you how to dress, what you can and can't eat, or which church you have to attend? That's all personal choice as well. Before you start screaming that it's totally different, these are all decisions you should be allowed to make for yourself.
While I'm certain that very few people would enjoy picking up body parts from the side of the road, you very good friend has chosen a profession where there is a good chance he is going to see blood. Another personal choice that we, as Americans, take for granted. Would you like the government to choose your career for you?
Addressing someone else cleaning up my "BLOODY MESS", if I'm dead, I don't car if they shovel the big parts into a Hefty bag and hose the rest off into the ditch. It shouldn't be much worse then removing day old roadkill. Hopefully I'll smell better.
Some people feel that there are things worse than death. And would rather die in the accident, than suffer for the rest of their natural lives. Personally, if I can't LIVE, then I don't want to.

 

[BunduBasher]

Addressing someone else cleaning up my "BLOODY MESS", if I'm dead, I don't car if they shovel the big parts into a Hefty bag and hose the rest off into the ditch.

You may not care, but those who do the dirty work do :coocoo:

The government already tells you how to dress - Try taking a walk down the street nekid :ohmy:

http://cgi.e-bay.com/Ben-Roethlisbe...4QQihZ005QQcategoryZ25211QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
remove dash in e-bay to see link

Try driving 150mph down the highway :whoa:

 

[CaptainObvious]

No one likes be told what to do and how to do it. But let’s face it, sometimes people just have to be told how to act.

Seatbelt laws, airbags, helmets…all worthwhile things that are for the benefit of all. I never wore a seat belt until the state told me I had to in 1983. It’s a good law. For many, talking on the cell phone and driving is a lethal mix. So states are starting to pass laws.

These laws are not for YOUR own good. They are for the good of all, so we can ALL coexist. The laws aren’t anti-you”…they are pro-everyone.

Stop bitching about “the man” taking away your freedoms. The vast majority of people are dumb-asses. The laws are written so the vast majority of people don’t inflict their selfish harm on the unsuspecting people who are just trying to get-on with their lives.

 

[biglou]

Junk smacks one out of the park! :nod:

 

[fizzle]

CNN weighs in....

http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2006/06/15/roberts.motorcyle.cnn

Not a bad video....even if it is from CNN. Here's what gets me angry....is that now the media gods and the general public are discussing this....and guess what came up in the first half of the clip....helmet laws, and the fact that Florida's motorcycle fatalities "incresed dramatically" since they repealed their helmet laws. All of this discussion by non-riders because of the irresponsible actions of a public figure.

I don't know exactly where I stand on the helmet law issue, (I may even be flip-flopping a little, but the fact that the geniuses at CNN have gotten involved....kind of has me "emotional")....but I do know that if joe public, educated about motorcycles by the experts from CNN, gets to decide what it means to be a responsible rider, it may mean more than just helmet laws, and I don't like that. I also feel (well, I think I know, but others may disagree) that those who ride motorcycles without helmets are not excersizing freedom as much as they are acting like a$$ hats (my two pet stereotypes are: the guy with the mullet and oakley blades going from 0-90mph in between stop signs on a hot pink and green ninja (a-la 1987).....or it's the insecure accountant on his $30,000 mid-life crisis HD with his $2,000 worth of HD apparel, and he can't wear a hemet because that isn't the IMAGE he is trying to portray.....) I know I'm being unfair, but I have seen these examples more than once.....

 

[FruDaddy]

The empty box on eb was as stupid as it was silly. Now I rant on the points made. Try to follow, then isolate the parts you don't like.
Those that do the job, chose the job, whether they realize it or not.
It's spelled naked, and many come way too close already.
Germany has fewer highway fatalities per capita than us, without speed limits. They actually know how to drive.
While cell phone restrictions may be put in effect to protect others, I have a hard time believing that not allowing me to replace my steering wheel with an aftermarket unit, simply because my car came with an airbag, is going to help keep me from plowing into you while I am distracted by my screaming kid in the back seat. Perhaps we should mandate an opaque screen that separates the driver from the other occupants of the vehicle. You will recieve the same injury and damage whether I am wearing a seat belt or not.
When the government passes laws to control your life, they are just increasing their ability to pass more. For those that don't care unless it affects them, read the previous sentence again. Little by little, your liberties are being taken away in the interest of public safety. Whether or not you believe helmets should be worn, you need to open your eyes and see the big picture. Pro choice applies more here than it does in reference to abortions IMO.

 

[BSWIFT]

No one likes be told what to do and how to do it. But let’s face it, sometimes people just have to be told how to act.

:yikes:
How's this for two motorcycle related possibilities:
1. Everyone must wear a ballistic helmet to ride an ATV, Motorcycle(street or dirt), Personal Watercraft, or snowmobile that is capable of surviving a direct collision of 65 MPH without ANY deformation.
2. All ATV's, motorcycles, personal watercraft, or snowmoble can not generate sound levels above 70 db at ANY rpm.
The weight of a helmet to meet those standards would likely be about 30 lbs and be six inches thick. The exhaust sound levels are realistic but do you really want the Government to impose these restrictions because it is better for everyone to get along?
My first post in this thread struck a nerve with quite a few members, sorry, but I still stand by my statements even though I know something was lost in the internet fog. I have and use helmets, I encourage everyone to wear a helmet but above 30 mph the seriousness of injuries sustained in a "collision" will be a trade off between your face or your neck. I emphasize "collision" because that is what makes up the highest number of injuries in motorcycle accidents. Slide outs and falls are not at issue with helmet protection due to the helmet providing a layer of material to grind away before reaching your head. I'm sorry that the QB had a crash but he has put the media and governments sights on our sport(s) and it will get ugly before you know it.

 

[XRpredator]

Personal freedoms are getting far and few between and I really don't need the Govt. telling me how to protect myself from me. :think:

and your stance on the Patriot Act?

 

[BSWIFT]

and your stance on the Patriot Act?

100% for it. The Patriot does not affect law abiding citizens and I will deal with it if for some unforeseen reason I am detained or intruded upon because of it. I have security clearances and experience with Homeland Security so I'm not at all worried about it, in fact, I would like to see it stepped up and used to shut gangs down, they are, afterall, domestic terrorist.
BTW, the Patriot Act and the government protecting me from myself are two totally different things. :nener:

 

[XRpredator]

. . . the Patriot Act and the government protecting me from myself are two totally different things. :nener:

If you say so. :)

 

[BSWIFT]

If you say so. :)

Agree to disagree?