PDA

View Full Version : Helmet safety - law



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10

jrbooe
09-17-2007, 08:37 AM
It looks like the genral consensus is here that aboutl half the members wear lids and the other half tend to, for the most part, go without a lid.

thebighop
09-17-2007, 09:30 AM
Very good quiz. One of the questions addresses the neck injury objection to wearing a helmet and others in this thread have stated that they think helmets cause neck injuries. I must say I had not heard this objection before. After doing research I found plenty of articles supporting both sides of the argument. Some say after a criticle impact speed helmets increase neck injury and some say it makes no difference. All studies concluded helmets help reduce head injuries. So since I can't rely on studies to determine the neck injury question, I fall back on common sense. First, the average open face helmet weighs between 2 and 3 lbs while the average full face helmet weighs beween 3 and 4 lbs. Second, the average human head comprises 8% of our body mass. For a 250 lb man that equates to 20 lbs. So I've got a 20 lb noggin with a 3 lb helmet on it. Seems to me its the 20 lb noggin thats gonna snap my neck not the 3 lb helmet.

Call me old fashioned...But I'd rather have a broken neck than have my head ground to a bloody mass of goo from sliding down the pavement unprotected.

relaxing
09-18-2007, 11:52 AM
If a person digs deep enough into the various news articles I guess we can bend the "stories" to match our beliefs. Can anyone point me to the stats that indicate the true number of riders versus accidents/injuries/deaths by year or decade? Every time the stats get used they seem to support the use of helmets yet the number of riders seemed to have increased twofold in the past 17 years and the percentage of deaths have remained within those same percentages, yet again, the "stories" only tell about the increased accidents/injuries/deaths. Also the finger seems to point to the over forty age group, but it's the 20-29 age group that have the higher number of incidents, if the over 40 age group was broke down into decades the same way maybe a different story. Can anyone help me make sense of the actual stats?

bufordtpisser
09-18-2007, 12:53 PM
statistics can be made to say anything that the author wants them to say. Most of these studies are sponsored by groups who have a very distinct purpose for the use of the outcome. And they almost always have the right to stop the publication of the outcome if it is not favorable to them. You will never get the truth by looking at these studies. Even the ones by the American Medical Association are so full of discrepancies, that they cannot be believed in their entirety. And the news is definitely slanted. Look at the reports when a biker gets killed in an accident. If he was helmetless, it will be in the headline. If he was wearing a helmet and still died, that information will be buried at the bottom of the story.

Just do as much research about helmets as you can and try to make an informed decision based on what you believe to be true.

HeathersWheels
09-18-2007, 12:54 PM
If a person digs deep enough into the various news articles I guess we can bend the "stories" to match our beliefs. Can anyone point me to the stats that indicate the true number of riders versus accidents/injuries/deaths by year or decade? Every time the stats get used they seem to support the use of helmets yet the number of riders seemed to have increased twofold in the past 17 years and the percentage of deaths have remained within those same percentages, yet again, the "stories" only tell about the increased accidents/injuries/deaths. Also the finger seems to point to the over forty age group, but it's the 20-29 age group that have the higher number of incidents, if the over 40 age group was broke down into decades the same way maybe a different story. Can anyone help me make sense of the actual stats?

This site might help you make sense of stats...

http://www.mic.org/

bufordtpisser
09-18-2007, 03:08 PM
NHTSA "CODES" Study
Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System
Analysis by the AMA

From: Sean Maher - American Motorcyclist Association
Date: January 3rd, 1996

The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) Study: Comments and Observations from the American Motorcyclist Association.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently released a Report to Congress, The Benefits of Safety Belts and Motorcycle Helmets: Based on Data from The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES). NHTSA was provided with five million dollars to fulfill the requirement for this report contained in Section 1031 (b) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA):

"(1) In General. -- The Secretary shall conduct a study or studies to determine the benefits of safety belt use and motorcycle helmet use for individuals involved in motor vehicle crashes and motorcycle crashes, collecting and analyzing data from regional trauma systems regarding differences in the following: The severity of injuries; acute, rehabilitative and long-term medical costs, including the sources of reimbursement and the extent to which these sources cover actual costs; government, employer, and other costs; and mortality and morbidity outcomes. The study shall cover a representative period after January 1, 1990."

This study extends beyond fatalities to include an analysis of non-fatal injuries and their related costs for treatment. In addition to reporting the average inpatient charges associated with the treatment of injuries, NHTSA provides 'effectiveness' measures as an overall assessment of how the use of a safety belt or helmet can reduce injuries or prevent death.

Voluntary helmet use advocates will undoubtedly be confronted with elements of this report as they preserve or work to restore voluntary helmet use within their respective states. It is important to be familiar with the full study, rather than the parcels of information that the press is repeating. Doing so reveals that NHTSA's best attempt to build a case for mandatory helmet laws, has fallen well short of the mark.

Strategies

The following comments are offered for your consideration as you develop strategies to respond to CODES:

Perhaps one of the most important facts to remember when evaluating CODES is that it is not nationally representative. NHTSA states on page 14 of the CODES Report to Congress, "The reader should note that the overall results presented in this report reflect only the 7 CODES states and the case selection criteria for the safety belt and motorcycle helmet analyses. They are not intended to be nationally representative."

New York contributes nearly forty percent of the motorcycle rider data. It is likely that this over-representation increases the average inpatient charge estimates. Only six of the seven CODES states are used for the helmet analyses: Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Utah participated in the safety belt study, however their data is excluded from the helmet study.

Of the states contributing data to the helmet study, New York's data represents nearly forty percent of the study sample. This likely results in considerable bias in the reported economic results. NHTSA concedes on page 14 of the CODES Report to Congress, "Because these methods of computing averages are strongly influenced by number of cases, data from larger states may disproportionately influence the overall weighted average."

To illustrate the limited applicability of this report and the effect that one state can have on the results consider the following:

The draft Report to Congress did not include data from Pennsylvania.

The draft Report to Congress indicates motorcyclists were less dependent (19 percent) upon public sources for medical costs than motor vehicle operators (21 percent).

The final Report to Congress includes Pennsylvania's data.

The final Report to Congress indicates motorcyclists are more dependent (23 percent) upon public sources for medical costs than motor vehicle operators (16 percent).

The addition of one state causes a significant shift in the outcome. This underscores the wide margin for error inherent in this report, reinforces the fact that states are unique and that transportation issues should be evaluated within that context.

The 'effectiveness' ratings for helmet use are inflated. NHTSA uses two methods to calculate 'effectiveness'; one for seat belts another for helmet use. In order to increase the sample size for the helmet portion, NHTSA did not control for contributing risk factors, as they do with the seat belt portion. This leads to inflated 'effectiveness' ratings for the helmet study.

NHTSA states on page 15 of the draft Report to Congress, "Estimates of 'effectiveness' without these factors incorporated were generated as part of the CODES analysis. These estimates were higher in most of the states, an indication of the influence of these risk factors on crash outcomes."

In our comments to the draft Report to Congress, the AMA notified NHTSA that their methodology inflates 'effectiveness' ratings for helmet use. NHTSA's response was to change the final Report to Congress on page 16 to read, "Estimates of 'effectiveness' without these factors incorporated were generated as part of the CODES analysis. These estimates of 'effectiveness' with and without risk factors were not significantly different in most of the states."

No change of methodology was used between the draft and final reports. However, NHTSA estimates changed from "higher in most of the states" to "not significantly different in most of the states." We can only assume this is an intentional misrepresentation of the facts.

NHTSA acknowledges the minimal effectiveness of helmets in preventing any type of injury, indicating that helmets prevent head injury, not all injuries. In a separate analysis that addresses only head injuries and more specifically, brain injuries, NHTSA found that helmets are effective in preventing brain injury. However, the same analysis indicates that the average inpatient charges for unhelmeted riders were less than those of helmeted riders.

NHTSA found that the average inpatient charge for a helmeted motorcyclist receiving a brain injury was $26,985, compared to $26,805 for an unhelmeted motorcyclist (see chart). NHTSA also found that the average inpatient charge for a helmeted motorcyclist not receiving a brain injury was $12,736, compared to $11,730 for an unhelmeted motorcyclist.

This same analysis found helmets to be 67 percent effective in preventing brain injuries. Although this estimate is impressive on its own, brain injuries represent the top of a pyramid in terms of motorcycle injury distribution. NHTSA has acknowledged the minimal effectiveness of helmets in preventing most injuries.

The Technical Report supplement to CODES shows inconsistencies for helmet effectiveness, which were not included in the Report to Congress. In the Technical Report, NHTSA calculates odds ratios in addition to 'effectiveness' ratings, as an alternative measure for effectiveness. Utah's odds ratios indicate a non-protective effect for helmets in preventing death. Pennsylvania's odds ratios are termed "non-significant" in the prevention of injury, as are Hawaii's. The odds ratios are not presented in the final Report to Congress.

NHTSA attributes these inconsistencies to the small sample size, different patterns of helmet use and the type of injury. However, the same sample, the same patterns of helmet use and the same types of injury are present in the estimates of 'effectiveness,' which are presented in the final Report to Congress.

In addition, NHTSA excludes Utah's data from the helmet portion of the study. NHTSA's rationale for this decision is because Utah did not include a code for not wearing a helmet on their traffic report. The code Utah uses is 'helmet use unknown.'

The decision to exclude Utah's data was made after Utah had been awarded a grant, based on its capabilities to participate in this study, and after Utah collected its data. Had the 'unknown' factor been a legitimate concern, it stands to reason that Utah would not have been selected as a CODES participant state.

Conclusion

The AMA recognizes helmets as an effective piece of safety equipment and encourages their use. However, the determination to use a helmet should be that of adults, free from governmental mandates. The results of the CODES study indicate that helmet use has no impact on the cost of an injury after it has occurred. In addition, this study shows that helmets are minimally effective in preventing any type of injury after an accident has occurred.

NHTSA was provided with five million taxpayer dollars to develop a compelling case for mandatory helmet use laws. Having generated a report with no national applicability, using questionable methodology for the helmet study and with mixed results for helmet use, NHTSA has fallen well short of the goal.

In their limited applicability, the draft and final Reports to Congress show that motorcyclists are no more dependent upon public sources for medical costs than motor vehicle operators. These reports show that helmets are minimally effective in preventing any type of injury from occurring, underscoring the importance of accident prevention. Furthermore, one analysis showed the inpatient charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists to be slightly more than helmeted motorcyclists. While another analysis, more specific to head and brain injury, showed the inpatient charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists to be less than helmeted motorcyclists.

It remains clear that the most effective way to mitigate the cost of motorcycle injuries is through awareness and education aimed toward accident prevention, a strategy widely recognized and accepted by the motorcycling community. The NHTSA, however, continues to embrace a failed strategy of imposing mandatory helmet use laws upon all motorcyclists, a strategy that has been repeatedly rejected by the motorcycling community.

For further information:

Copies of the CODES report to Congress on the Benefits of Safety Belts and Motorcycle Helmets and the CODES Technical Report may be obtained from the National Center for Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations, 400 7th Street, SW, Room 6125, Washington, DC 20590 or send a FAX request to 202-366-7078.

Copies of the draft CODES report and Technical Report can be obtained from Sean Maher at the American Motorcyclist Association, 33 Collegeview Rd., Westerville, OH 43081. Please send a 9x12, SASE w/$2.00 of postage.

If you have questions or comments, please call Sean Maher at the American Motorcyclist Association, (614) 891-2425.

bufordtpisser
09-18-2007, 03:13 PM
Call me old fashioned...But I'd rather have a broken neck than have my head ground to a bloody mass of goo from sliding down the pavement unprotected.

I don't want to be the guy sitting in the wheelchair having the drool wiped off of his chin by some under paid nurses assistant. I want to be the guy that slides into the grave in a battered and beaten mess screaming "Wow what a phukkin ride that was.

I live life to it's fullest. And I want to see and hear where I am going and where I have been.

FX
09-18-2007, 06:04 PM
What fucking morons the AMA must be. Am I the only one that caught this asinine statement?



this study shows that helmets are minimally effective in preventing any type of injury after an accident has occurred.


Um duh! Of course they don't help "AFTER" the accident. Don't these asses have proof readers?

This is my tax dollars at work? These morons claim to represent me as a motorcyclist?

Hey AMA, don't do me any more favors. I can fuck up fine on my own without morons like you making statements like that to help me out. If that's what you call it.

jrbooe
09-18-2007, 06:06 PM
Proofreading is so gentile these days I guess. I damn sure didn't catch it. Good eye FX.

FX
09-18-2007, 06:10 PM
Translation:

After I got my girlfriend pregnant, it was obvious that the condom I put on after sex could not prevent a pregnancy.

Who are these morons?

relaxing
09-18-2007, 09:24 PM
Thank you Miss Heather, and you too Buford, now I find from MIC the number of bike sales have increased by three times since 1993. Must be an awful lot of unlicensed bikers out there. More and more digging leads the unreported stats that seem to indicate a lower overall percentage of accidents/injuries/deaths than past years per ownership than the straight count of numbers of more accidents/injuries/deaths than a preceding year. I remember when as a kid we thought our hot rods were cool with headrests and seat belts as after market add ons, now they are mandatory by law. You feel what I feel?

Oh, and FX don't get your shorts in a bind, I believe in helmets too, I just don't trust every politician like you. My tax dollars seem to go to help the poor illegals in the hospitals without insurance than long term care for head injuries, and besides without a helmet I'm probably more likely to be killed, so the politician's report.

FX
09-19-2007, 06:57 AM
Oh, and FX don't get your shorts in a bind, I believe in helmets too, I just don't trust every politician like you. My tax dollars seem to go to help the poor illegals in the hospitals without insurance than long term care for head injuries, and besides without a helmet I'm probably more likely to be killed, so the politician's report.

First off, you have no clue about me if you, even for a second, think I trust politicians.

I could care less whether you wear a helmet or not.

I resent the hell out of paid lobbyists telling people "It's your right". Drivers have no "right" to anything. PERIOD

I also resent the idea that 20K or so insurance is adequate insurance to give one this imaginary right.

So please, read a little closer. I think I've been very clear. If not for the bullshit used to push this issue, I'd say nothing and just wear my helmet and ride.

But when some asshole stands up and defends my rights for me with bullshit, I have to say, well, bullshit.

bufordtpisser
09-19-2007, 08:24 AM
I resent the hell out of paid lobbyists telling people "It's your right". Drivers have no "right" to anything. PERIOD


Liberty is a right that we are guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights.

Liberty is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will.

So if it is my will to have a choice as to whether or not I wear a helmet, then in fact, I am exercising my right. While the act of driving may be a privilege, exercising that privilege without undue coercion's from the government is a right. We can debate this forever, and never come to an agreement. That is why it is best left up to the individual to decide. For every argument that you can give me for the use of helmets, I can give you a proven counter argument.

I wear a helmet, but it is my choice. I live in a freedom of choice state. Even the NHTSB's own studies are admittedly flawed. And even SNELL admits that at speeds of over 23 MPH a helmet is probably useless to prevent injuries. So if helmet usage is mandatory, lets also limit the speed of motorcyclists to 22MPH. See these arguments in and of themselves really sound stupid, don't they!! But this thread is the perfect thread to show us how an intelligent debate is supposed to be conducted. So on to the next point / counterpoint.

bufordtpisser
09-19-2007, 08:34 AM
If I read that statement correctly, it means any injury after the initial impact. As in after your bike hits the car and then your noggin hits the pavement.

relaxing
09-19-2007, 12:35 PM
If I was religious, I doubt if I could change the mind of an atheist to convert, nor if I was republican I doubt if I could I be converted to the left wing, If I was black, brown, red, or yellow, I know I would have problems with the white man's way of interpreting the laws (constitution) that govern today's political system after our forefathers screwed up so bad. I feel I understand the systems that control our lives, not that I except everything face value, really, I guess I feel pretty good about it. As fore me thinking FX has a political persecution complex, I derive that from his writings, I apologize for my mistake FX. But I think I live in a free country and my driver's license states I can ride my scooter, so you are wrong, it's my right until the license is revoked to ride! I also live in a state that allows me to rides without a helmet if I want, we voted for politicians that see the same things our way and the system worked! Maybe you need to move FX, you might feel more comfortable. At least learn to accept what you cannot change.

FX
09-19-2007, 02:04 PM
I'm not going to argue the reasons, which are fact, that driving is a privilege, NOT A RIGHT, with you guys. You know that to be so.

FX
09-19-2007, 02:05 PM
If you can interpret driving to be a right, which it's not, my assessment of that statement in not a reach.

P.S.

I merged the two on going helmet threads.

thebighop
09-19-2007, 02:22 PM
1right
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English riht, from riht, adjective
: qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval

1privilege
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'priv-lij, 'pri-v&-
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin privilegium law for or against a private person, from privus private + leg-, lex law
: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor

Driving...regardless of what your license may contain, is a "privilege" and not a "right"...
Were it a right, then my seizure prone epileptic wife would have the right to drive...(God forbid), but because of her medical condition...her "privilege" to drive has been denied....I could sue the government for denying her rights otherwise....
It is only a "right" when it applies to all people....as in everyone has a "right" to apply for a drivers license...but you have to pass the criteria in order to get the "privilege" to drive....
If you can not get a motorcycle endorsement on your license...that does not give you a "right" to drive one anyway....it means you do not have the "privilege" to drive one on the public streets and highways.......
States that have no mandatory helmet laws do not issue the "right" to ride without one...they allow the freedom of choice..and nothing more.

bufordtpisser
09-19-2007, 02:42 PM
This privilege VS right thing has been beat to death. I Have the privilege to ride a motorcycle. I have the right to choose to wear a lid or not. If you do not like the fact that I have a right to go lidless, then exercise your right vote someone into office that will change it. And then I will exercise my right to vote them out and change it back. You do not have the right to impose your will upon me any more than I have the right to impose my will on you. I do not ask the government to take away your right or privilege to drink or smoke. Both of which cost me more than you trying to take away my right to choose to wear a lid or not. And it is a right for me to choose. It has been granted by my state to me. Why do so many other people think that they have a right to oppose my rights and privileges when I could care less about theirs. When the cost of me exercising my right and or privileges adds up to or exceeds your exercising your rights or privileges, then you have a legitimate bitch. Until then, you are just trying to trample my rights and or privileges while preserving yours. Something about that just doesn't seem fair.

FX
09-19-2007, 02:49 PM
Are you in a seatbelt state?

If so, put your theory to the test. Drive without a seatbelt, get a ticket. Then get back to us on how your assertion of "right" works out with the Judge.

Drink and drive. Get caught. Exercise your "right" to refuse the breath test. Then after your license is pulled, by law for a year, let us know how your "right" worked out.