Stop Helmet Laws Now...

In Virginia a DOT halfshell would have sufficed in years past. In 2003, in
spite of the fact that your DOT halfshell is perfectly legal for use on the road
in Virginia, you MAY not wear it in the parking lot while riding your own
motorcycle for the BRC, if you can believe that nonsense. They decided to
require a 3/4 helmet as they put it "for liability reasons," in spite of the
fact that they could not answer my question as to what they would do if one of
our students crashed while wearing a 3/4 helmet and broke their jaw and all
their teeth. Duh. Another example of bureaucratic idiocy in action.

Long story short, the requirements vary from state to state program.

Tim

 

Andy, I admire your well worded, and well thought-out presentation,
and even though I'm a big fan of full-face helmets, I don't think the
law-makers focus on "fiscal responsibility" when passing helmet laws.
I reason that if they did, there would abundant and readily available
data to support this argument, and there appears not to be.

The thing we do know about helmets and motorcycle riders is that in
the event of a motorcycle incident, a helmet reduces the forces
inflicted to the rider's head. A helmet is no "magic amulet". It
simply uses physics to dissipate and absorb forces, thereby offering a
measure of protection to the rider's head. In the vast majority of
cases, the protection that is offered by a good helmet in a motorcycle
incident is dramatic as compared to not wearing one. That's pretty
well a no-brainer.

For the benefit of some readers to help understand this, view Diagram
1 below using a mono-space font such as Courier. Note that these
diagrams are used to illustrate a point, and they do not correlate to
measured impact, or to scale. Assume that the term "Force" is used as
an amalgamation of force and type of impact.

Diagram 1 - Injuries sustained by an unhelmeted rider in the
event of a motorcycle incident, as related to
"Force" of cranial impact.

Force: 0.........1.........2.........3.........4.........5
Injury: None Minor | Severe |-->
abrasions | lacerations, |
& | contusions |
contusions | & fractures |
| |
Moderate Death
lacerations,
considerable
contusions,
& minor
fractures

When a helmet is used, the areas that are covered by the helmet will
experience reduce "force", thereby resulting in a reduction or
elimination of trauma to protected areas. See diagram 2 to see how the
added element of energy absorption, a helmet, reduces or eliminates
trauma on a "sliding scale" (i.e., no "magic" is involved, just the
severity of trauma is reduced per force applied to the helmet.)

Diagram 2 - Injuries sustained by a helmeted rider in the
event of a motorcycle incident, as related to
"Force" of cranial impact.

Force: ..1.........2.........3.........4.........5........
Injury: None Minor | Severe |-->
abrasions | lacerations, |
& | contusions |
contusions | & fractures |
| |
Moderate Death
lacerations,
considerable
contusions,
& minor
fractures

As you can see, the type of incident that would result in "Moderate
lacerations, considerable contusions, & minor fractures" on an
unhelmeted rider ("Force" = 1.6 in diagram 1), will result in either
no injury, or extremely minor abrasions and contusions when those same
forces are applied to a helmet on a helmeted rider ("Force" = 1.6 in
diagram 2, but trauma is dramatically reduced or eliminated). Note
that if the impact is applied to an unprotected area, such as the chin
for a rider who is wearing a helmet but not a full-face helmet, the
energy is transmitted to the rider at full force and the same type of
injury is incurred in the unprotected area as though no helmet was
worn.

It is also important to note that a helmet, not being a "magic
amulet", can only _reduce_ or eliminate the injuries that are
experienced in the vast majority of motorcycle incidents (according to
the Hurt Report, the most comprehensive study of motorcycle incidents
to date), but not in all cases. For example, diagram 2 shows that the
type of force that would likely result in death for an unhelmeted
rider ("Force" = 3.2 in diagram 1) may result in something harsher
than "Minor abrasions & contusions" ("Force" = 3.2 in diagram 2). Also
note that in even more severe incidents ("force" = 4.3) a helmeted
rider would also experience severe trauma, and with still more "force"
(5.2 in diagram 2), the helmeted rider is at risk of death.

From available data, The Hurt Report being just one source of many, it
is abundantly clear that a good helmet is a Good Thing(TM) to be
wearing in the event of a motorcycle incident. I don't think that
informed "helmet optional" people are arguing against this fact. And
this fact remains true, regardless of whatever reason or excuse,
legitimate or lame, lawmakers use to justify or rationalize the
passing of a helmet law. The _real_ issues some people have with
helmet laws _appear_ to fall into two broad categories:

(1) People who simply do not want to wear a helmet (for what-
ever reason, ranging from ignorance, to indifference, to
placing a higher value on a specific fashion or style),
and who are resentful of a law that obligates them to
wear a helmet.

(2) People who are concerned about the infringement of civil
liberties, and/or the "properness" (for lack of a better
word) of certain laws being passed. In these cases, it's
not a helmet law _specifically_ that irks them, but other
similarly "inappropriate" laws as well.

My advice to people in Category 1: Who cares about a small number of
winy bikers? Certainly not the majority of voters, nor their elected
representatives. If you want to be more successful in your objective
to repeal helmet laws, you must at least _appear_ to be someone who is
fighting for a "greater cause", such as civil liberties, law reform,
or something that affects a larger number of people than just a
relatively small number of motorcyclists who don't want to wear
helmets.

My advice to people in Category 2: Read "The Art Of War," or become a
top-notch salesman. One of the things you will learn in doing this is
the futility of a head-to-head confrontation unless you have
"overwhelming odds" in your favor. The rule of thumb for those odds is
3:1 or better. If someone has data to support their argument, it's not
just enough to challenge their data (you are at best breaking even),
you need 3 times the data to counter their position and support your
own. And this is a very challenging thing to do, so I recommend
against this approach. Instead of engaging these things "head on",
take a roundabout approach, and make it a constitutional issue, or one
of law-reform, or civil rights/liberties. The "cause" affects most
people in your country, so it merits more serious consideration. It
just happens that its principles "extend" to helmet laws, which can be
addressed later as part of the implementation of newly accepted
principles that you may bring about.

In my case, I wear a full-face helmet for all the obvious reasons, and
I do so every time I ride (along with full professional riding gear).
It does not matter to me that a law exists in my region that supports
my values. I would be indifferent if a law was passed that prohibited
the human consumption of feces, even though it should be every
citizen's "right" to do so, if they wish. In my mind, it's a law
that's not worth fighting against, even if I was rabid about
law-reform or the infringement of civil liberties. There are bigger
fish to fry, in this respect.

-Steve Makohin | Reply to
2000 BMW R1100S/ABS | (hotmail acct is spam catcher)

 

I thought it was required to have all signs and everything posted both ways?
Or is that only an artifact of western Canada, a place I remember fondly,
versus the eastern part, which is, as best I can tell, just as full of
flatlanders as the eastern US is.

Think so? Subjecting the worlds 6th or 7th largest economy from the worlds
biggest economy leaves...Canada?

Well, here we discover that California is about 13% of the total US economy.

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank28.html

Here we discover the size of the US economy in relation to others.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3621/WORLDEC.HTM

Now, if we deduct 13% of the US economy from the US total, guess what we
discover? That the US is still the largest economy in the world without
California, who lands at about 7th on the list, right around the size of
China.

So...you are wrong. Subtract California from the US and the US still
wins....oh...and another point? Even after deducting California from the US,
the US economy is still an order of magnitude beyond the size of the
Canadian economy. Pesky Canadians...thinking they are significant beyond
being the breeders of good looking groupies for Tommy Lee.

 

From the CSMP report:

http://www.smsa.org/reports/california_program_evaluation/

"...the CMSP training program and the mandatory helmet law, had a statistically
significant impact..."

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

 

Until you start having to pay realisitic prices for food. Bear in mind
that we out here produce the bulk of your dairy products, your beef,
your fruits and vegetables... Of course, you could buy more from
Mexico, if you weren't worried about hepatitis.

Presumably our gas prices would drop, and yours rise (as Nevada pays
less for the stuff from the refinery up the road from me than I do)
Maybe we'd even join OPEC!

Al Moore
DoD 734

 

You also produce a nice chunk of our natural gas...something which the tree
huggers don't ever want to talk about either. Drilling for oil and gas in
the states! GASP! NO! As far as food....I dunno....I eat fine, kids aren't
starving, and I doubt they have many cattle farms in Quebec.

I say we go to WAR with OPEC, perfect reason for a war if I ever heard of
one. Pax Americana.....

 

There is a tendency to confuse the literal definition of the word "freedom" in
the dictionary with how it applies to the rights that citizens of a free country
enjoy. The fact that a government imposes speed limits or helmet laws for safety
purposes on public roads does not take a citizen's freedom away.

However, you are right, we are loosing our freedom to safety. But, it's not
helmet laws, it's the suspension of the fundamental rights our country is
supposed to abide by to fight terrorism. That's where we are loosing REAL
freedom. Is that right or wrong? That's certainly another thread... But this is
the real challenge to freedom.




Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

 

That is NOT the report that was being referred to. You seem to have
serious comprehension problems don't you.

--
Odinn

'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://odinn-frigga.tripod.com/scoot
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Personal Homepage ... http://odinn-frigga.tripod.com
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

Fill in the blanks to reply

 

They took a look at those who survived from both and the unhelmeted riders, on
average, were much more severely injured:

I mean, even if it was a little headache compared to a big headache, those
hospital aspirin are expensive <g>


===================

"Am J Public Health. 1996 Jan;86(1):41-5. Related Articles, Links


Motorcycle helmet use and injury outcome and hospitalization costs from crashes
in Washington State.

Rowland J, Rivara F, Salzberg P, Soderberg R, Maier R, Koepsell T.

Washington State Department of Health, Seattle, Wash., USA."


"... Although unhelmeted motorcyclists were only slightly more likely to be
hospitalized overall, they were more severely injured, nearly three times more
likely to have been head injured, and nearly four times more likely to have been
severely or critically head injured than helmeted riders. Unhelmeted riders were
also more likely to be readmitted to a hospital for follow-up treatment and to
die from their injuries..."
....
PMID: 8561240 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]










Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

 

Ben, the abstract of the study that you quoted referred only to unhelmeted
riders who were admitted to the hospital. It did not (and neither has, nor will
any study ever) include unhelmeted riders who die at the scene of the crash or
who die while being evac'ed from the scene.

If an unhelmeted rider survives long enough to make it to a trauma center, I
have no doubt that he or she will receive more expensive medical treatment
(whether paid for by the rider, the rider's insurance, the rider's family, or
the other, insured user's of that trauma center, or (ultimately) the taxpayer)
than that of the helmeted rider who is transported to the same trauma center
under similar accident conditions. Similarly, I would expect an accident victim
riding in shorts and flip-flops to require more expensive medical treatment than
the rider wearing full race leathers with armor and and a back protector,
armored gloves and articulated racing boots.

I've never claimed that riding without a helmet will, in the event of an
accident, result in less serious (or less expensive) injuries, on average, to a
rider than riding with a helmet.

In fact, I advocate that all riders be educated in the efficacy of proper
protective riding gear, and then all ADULT riders be left to decide for
themselves what level of risk they are willing to take.

Just as I believe that I should be allowed to assume a greater risk by riding my
motorcycle than I incur by driving my pick-up truck or my automobile to work, so
too do I believe that it is none of the government's business whether I wear a
helmet (or wear a seat belt, for that matter).

 

I thought it was required to have all signs and everything posted both ways?
Or is that only an artifact of western Canada, a place I remember fondly,
versus the eastern part, which is, as best I can tell, just as full of
flatlanders as the eastern US is.

Think so? Subjecting the worlds 6th or 7th largest economy from the worlds
biggest economy leaves...Canada?

Well, here we discover that California is about 13% of the total US economy.

http://www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank28.html

Here we discover the size of the US economy in relation to others.

http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3621/WORLDEC.HTM

Now, if we deduct 13% of the US economy from the US total, guess what we
discover? That the US is still the largest economy in the world without
California, who lands at about 7th on the list, right around the size of
China.

So...you are wrong. Subtract California from the US and the US still
wins....oh...and another point? Even after deducting California from the US,
the US economy is still an order of magnitude beyond the size of the
Canadian economy. Pesky Canadians...thinking they are significant beyond
being the breeders of good looking groupies for Tommy Lee.[/QUOTE]

Pesky Americans, always inflating their own importance, to the extend of
ignoring the rest of the world. The EU's economy is larger than that of
the the US.

 

Pesky Canadians...thinking they are significant beyond

Last I looked, it was about the same size. But then someone who doesn't even
know that subtracting the California economy from US economy STILL leaves
the largest single economy in the world and an economy 10 times the size of
Canada's can't be expected to be able to figure that one out either, eh?

 

Tim,

I will try to find this information (probably on TG morning) . If we can locate
the total # of people killed in MC accidents during that period and subtract
the number of ER/hospital deaths (in the report) from it then we will see if
this is a large or small percentage. Sound like a plan?



Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

 

That's Canaduh Troy. Learn how to spell.


Mike

 

So preacheth Larry, on a quest to become a bigger troll than Hansteen.

Ah well, at least it's on topic.

 

Larry xlax Lovisone wrote:

What a wonderful world it would be if only that was true!

<snip>

 

<snip>

While you made some good points, I believe that helmet laws are used
by politicians to make political hay. Motorcyclists, being a relatively
small and generally feared and disliked group, are a convenient target
for politicians to make themselves look good in the eyes of the much
larger group of non-motorcyclists.

If it was truly about safety or cost then cagers would be required to
wear helemts, too.

 

snip

One observation from the real world:

If helmet laws are supposed to save the taxpayer's money, why didn't
my taxes go down whem California passed their helmet law?

Ron

 

snip


One observation from the real world: If the helmet law saved the
taxpayers (meaning me and you) so much money money, why didn't my
taxes go down when the California helmet law went into effect in '92?

How about other states? Can anybody from a state that passed a helmet
law report that their taxes have gone down?

Or, from a state that repealed a helmet law, did your taxes go up?
(attributable directly to the helmet law, of course)

Ron