|
Post by scooterollie on Aug 3, 2008 19:42:14 GMT -5
The following was taken from an article by a staff writer in The Herald-Mail (Hagerstown, MD) Sunday paper today (8/3/08):
PA repealed their helmet law in 2003. A University of Pittsburgh study released last month reported a major increase in the number of motorcyclist head injury deaths and hospitalizations since that repeal. *32% increase in motorcyclist head injury deaths *42% increase in head injury-related hospitalizations *87% increase in the number of head-injured, hospitalized cyclists who required further care at facilities specializing in rehabilitation and long term care *Total acute-care hospital charges for cycle-related head injuries increased 132% in the two yrs. after repeal of the law
The next study will be conducted in 2010 and it will be interesting to see those statistics after the great increase in ridership as well as new, less experienced riders resulting from the increased cost of living.
For further consideration, the following portion from the 1972 Supreme Court decision upholding a state's right to impose a mandatory helmet law:
"From the moment of the injury, society picks the person off the highway, delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors, provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job, and if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume the responsibility for his and his family's subsistence. We do not understand the state of mind that permits the plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned."
(I pose the above only for discussion purposes.)
|
|
|
Post by WarrenS on Aug 3, 2008 19:59:15 GMT -5
How much has ridership increased in the same period? That is the missing information in this story. Look how many new riders there are.
|
|
|
Post by "Big Guy" on Aug 3, 2008 20:02:13 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly... 1000% increase in licensed MC drivers! Statistics achieve the desired result every time!
-Rich
|
|
|
Post by gusset on Aug 3, 2008 22:57:29 GMT -5
Come on, now, folks, give people a little credit for not being total idiots. The study took into consideration the increase in registered motorcycles when reporting the numbers. I found this link that does a slightly more thorough job of summarizing the results. ydr.inyork.com/ci_9565513I'm staying out of this discussion, but if folks are going to rip the results of a study, they should at least be ripping the correct data. ;D
|
|
|
Post by 90GTVert on Aug 3, 2008 23:06:11 GMT -5
This discussion goes on over and over here. Is is that hard to believe you are more likely to live with a helmet on than not?
|
|
|
Post by "Big Guy" on Aug 3, 2008 23:33:31 GMT -5
I am not questioning the fact of helmet safety, I always wear one, law or not, but what I did learn in a college statistics class was, pure statistical data can only be analyzed by a computer. The human factor embellishes, omits and corrupts the facts to slant 99% of all studies to achieve a desired result. These were the Professor's first words, and they have proven true over and over again.
My point was, the study will achieve the desired outcome of the study, that's all.
-Rich
|
|
|
Post by 90GTVert on Aug 3, 2008 23:51:07 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying, but why argue about helmets on a forum that has always encouraged wearing your gear? 100% of the people I polled agree with my point! "Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. Forfty percent of all people know that." -Homer Simpson
|
|
|
Post by gusset on Aug 3, 2008 23:55:41 GMT -5
The human factor embellishes, omits and corrupts the facts to slant 99% of all studies to achieve a desired result. These were the Professor's first words, and they have proven true over and over again. So there's no such thing as an unbiased statistical analysis?
|
|
|
Post by scooterollie on Aug 4, 2008 17:36:05 GMT -5
gusset, thanks for the added info. about the study. I really had no doubt that the study was adjusted to account for the increase in ridership but the article I referred to did not say such so I was not going to imply that w/o knowledge. I had no intention of starting an argument, just to share a recent study looking in to the controversy. While the topic may have come up before, this specific study had not referenced. If someone finds an actual flaw in the study resulting in a bias and/or an agenda, point it out, don't just condemn the study because it is based on statistics! Personally, I feel strongly about the need for a Federal law requiring all states to have helmet laws. Currently, less than 1/2 of our states require helmets - many fewer than most folks think!
|
|
|
Post by WarrenS on Aug 4, 2008 20:15:37 GMT -5
When a helmet law is overturned less dedicated people become riders. Also riders tend to ride more if it is less inconvient to do so. The numbers used in the study seem to be small which means fluctuations result in large percentages.
What really gets my goat is when cyclists are picked on as being a burden to society. We are no more a burden than anybody else. It is used as an excuse to curb our rights. I personally rallied at the state capitol against helmet laws and would do it again if threaened.
|
|
|
Post by scooterollie on Aug 4, 2008 20:43:40 GMT -5
I'll be on the other side of the street waving to you! I'm not for just any law restricting our freedoms but this is one I whole heartily support. Maybe the insurance companies need to have a clause in their policies that indicate they will not cover injuries resulting from not wearing a helmet.
|
|
|
Post by mafunsalow on Aug 4, 2008 22:13:33 GMT -5
Interesting article, but the numbers seem to be off from what the state reports. Pennsylvania Motorcycle Statistics Licensed Registered Motorcyclists Motorcycles 2002 749,071 248,775 2003 755,068 267,826 2004 762,271 291,015 2005 772,201 318,283 2006 788,018 338,401 Motorcycle Crashes—Five-Year Trends Motorcycle Deaths—Five-Year Trends Motorcycle Helmet Use in Crashes In 2006, total motorcycle crashes decreased 3.7% from 2005 while motorcycle fatal crashes decreased 8.0% from 2005. These 2006 numbers stopped the 4-year trend of continuing increases. Year TTL Fatal Deaths Crashes Crashes 2006 3,889 185 187 2005 4,039 201 205 2004 3,621 152 158 2003 3,057 153 156 2002 3,056 130 134 Of the 187 deaths in 2006 involving motorcycle drivers or passengers: 179 (95.7%) were drivers 8 (4.3%) were passengers The table below shows injury severities of motorcycle riders (driver or passenger) by helmet usage in 2006. Deaths Injuries Not Injured Total MC riders Helmets 99 (52.9%) 2,204 (58.8%) 236 (53.6%) 2,539 (58.0%) No Helmets 84 (44.9%) 1,410 (37.6%) 159 (36.1%)1,653 (37.8%) Unknown 4 (2.1%) 137 (3.7%) 45 (10.2%) 186 (4.3%) TOTAL 187 (100.0%)3,751 (100.0%)440 (100.0%) 4,378 (100.0%) Now with all that I did some more figuring. Heres what I come up with using last years stats %death %injury %no injury with helmet 3.8 86.8 9.2 without helmet 5.1 85.3 9.6 and there was an increase of motorcyclists from 2002 to 2006 of 5.15% and the number of motorcycles increased 36% during the same period 2002 had a .40% chance of being in an accident which makes the chances of being killed .017% 2006 had a .0049% chance of being in an accident which makes the chance of being killed .023% I used 2002 as the starting point as it was the last full year with helmet law. I also used the total drivers and not the total bikes which might change the outcome but it is late and I'm not a mathemitician.. And after all that I'm of the opinion that with the massive increase in riders and bikes, .009% and .006% makes the argument moot. Case of damned if ya do or damned if ya don't.
|
|
|
Post by bob67 on Aug 6, 2008 0:01:00 GMT -5
most riders that dont wear helmets are woried about their image .... we ride scooters , a lot of us ride 50cc like me , image is not my concern ... lol ...
|
|
|
Post by gottascoot on Aug 6, 2008 7:05:28 GMT -5
i think bob67 is right, its the image thing,until someone makes it cool to be safe the "cool people" don`t want to be safe.If you ever saw the movie Easy Rider(just watch the last 5 min.) you will see his helmet didn`t do him any good.Like I wrote in another thread,I already had a helmet I put a hole in it you could push a nickel thru.Just don`t make any laws that keep me from wearing a helmet.I think it would look cool to have a 428 Firebird,top down and a matching paint job on my helmet, !!!Be cool-- Be safe--Hope the helmet will be enough --hope it is a waste of time and money and you never NEED IT !!!
|
|
|
Post by harrywr2 on Aug 6, 2008 9:57:48 GMT -5
Something like half of all reported motorcycle accidents are single vehicle. Who would report to the cops that they had an accident if they didn't need a ride to the hospital or a tow truck?
So there natural underreporting of "No Injury" accidents.
On the other side of the coin. Vehicle Accidents and Suicide are both in the top 5 causes of death for young people.
Common sense would say that some percentage of vehicle fatalities are actually suicide by vehicle. Yet neither suicide statistics or accident statistics are adjusted for 'suicide by vehicle'.
No amount of safety equipment is going to protect someone who wants to drive into a tree at 100 MPH.
Of the two motorcycle fatalities where I knew the person, one was an individual who had low self esteem to begin with and had just been dumped by his girlfriend. He missed a turn at 100 MPH.
|
|
|
Post by halosfan06 on Aug 6, 2008 19:36:15 GMT -5
Let's forget the statistics for just a moment...
No Helmet means if you go down, your head will slide and/or bounce on the pavement or the objects you strike.
A helmet means there's a stationary object between your head and the pavement or object.
If you go down: -Who will scoop you up and ship you to the nearest emergency room? -Who will pay for your hospital stay (considering an extended stay may cause a loss of your job)? -Who will pay for your bills when you lose your job? -and on and on and on (read the above posts)....
I think what this argument really boils down to is that people hate the idea that someone else is telling them what to do. Period. The government keeps the medical and unemployment costs down for injured riders by requiring helmets. Those that complain use the concept that the government should not decide how they ride. The government is actually not deciding for your sake. They really don't care about you. They care about the millions of people who don't ride, but have to pay for you when you crash. How difficult is it to see that your crash costs other people money? Your right to "look cool" or not have your "rights stepped on," simply should not supersede your right to not pay for government waste (I.E. - Riders who did not care enough about their own safety to wear a helmet). The aerodynamic drag, uncomfortable, neck injury arguments are a bit ridiculous. Helmets save lives. When our parents told us to eat our vegetables, we came up with ridiculous arguments that they were overcooked, etc. Stop finding excuses and argue what you really feel. You don't like people telling you what to do. Only when we argue about the real topic will we accomplish anything.
We have this same argument over seatbelts. There are still people out there who believe that seatbelts will kill you because your car will tumble over a cliff, submerge under water, then explode; all while you are trapped. Are we as citizens too unwilling to tell those around us that are careless or absurd that they are in the minority and should be ignored? We don't listen to the shouts of madmen in the dark alleys because they are foolish. Why should we listen to those who purposely choose to cause greater harm? Just wear a helmet. Many of my friends have worn one for more than 20 years and have no complaints about neck pain. A little sweat on your brow is surely more tolerable than road rash or paralysis...
|
|
|
Post by harrywr2 on Aug 6, 2008 21:04:33 GMT -5
No Helmet means if you go down, your head will slide and/or bounce on the pavement or the objects you strike. A helmet means there's a stationary object between your head and the pavement or object. If you go down: -Who will scoop you up and ship you to the nearest emergency room? -Who will pay for your hospital stay (considering an extended stay may cause a loss of your job)? -Who will pay for your bills when you lose your job? -and on and on and on (read the above posts).... I'm just going to play devils advocate...I wear a helmet all the time and everyone I knows wheres a helmet and full safety gear all the time. Having said that... A standard DOT helmet is tested by dropping it 72" onto a flat surface and 54" onto a rounded surface. People let their children sleep in bunk beds 72" high. So why am I as a scooterist required by law to use a safety device designed to protect me from an impact equivalent to a 72" fall but a 6 year old child can be legally placed in a bunk bed 72" off a concrete floor without a helmet? Should not the law be that anyone who engages in an activity where an impact equivalent to a 72" fall is a reasonable possibility be required to wear a helmet? 15,000 people per year die from falls, more than 10 times the number of people killed in motorcycle accidents. www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_21acc.pdf
|
|
|
Post by WarrenS on Aug 6, 2008 21:08:24 GMT -5
What about mountain climbers, skiers, divers, hikers who get lost, sky divers and just plain idiots who do stupid things. I am paying for them. Having served my country I feel I am entitled to live out my life without someone telling me what they think I should do. Putting a helmet on your head is the same as putting a tip on an arrow. You are much more likely to hit your head on the pavement and you can claim it saved your life.
|
|
|
Post by mafunsalow on Aug 6, 2008 22:14:58 GMT -5
In 2006 there were 4673 pedestrian accidents,noone is complaining on how they are taxing the system by having to be peeled off the road and administered care and supported for losing their jobs. So maybe the Supreme Court should make it mandatory that anyone within 20 feet of a roadway should be wearing a helmet. I think the law comes down to the insurance companies. And i guess that they feel it's cheaper for someone to die than pay the care. I'm sure stats can be manipulated, but since I'm not seeking to achieve a desired result or even how to manipulate them ,, I stated earlier ,statiscally the argument for wearing or not is moot.Whether you get injured/die or not with or without a helmet are 1.5 or less. You cant tell me it saves my life or saves me from injury. Just ask my ex neighbor who had a section of his brain cut out while in an induced coma. He is just learning to walk again. He was wearing a helmet and we are paying his bill. I wear my helmet evertime.All the other people I ride with don't. That's their choice. I may pass on the jacket in extreme heat. But each and every person that rides knows the risks.
|
|
|
Post by gottascoot on Aug 7, 2008 5:54:13 GMT -5
not to change the subject,I quit smoking 25yrs. ago,that was my choice. The only time I ever wanted to lite up is when I see a no smoking sign, not because I want to smoke, I think there is a rebel that lives somewhere ,about something in all of us.Even if there is no helmet law where you are there are people in your life who care about you and don`t want to come visit while you are in a coma.We are rebels because we ride on two wheels, thats enough,scoot safe and I`m not telling you what to do, just think about it.Make smart choices on your own.
|
|
|
Post by WarrenS on Aug 7, 2008 9:05:44 GMT -5
The burden to society argument used for passing helmet laws is based on the perception that motorcyclists are of a lower social\economic level. A study of hospital patients showed that motorcyclists in general are more fiscally responsible than the general population. Yet the perception persists even amongst some of us. Requiring proof of higher levels of insurance is just one of those things that is a result of this mistaken perception. We should be doing all we can to change that idea that we are a bunch of bums.
|
|
|
Post by leo on Aug 7, 2008 12:07:04 GMT -5
why is it that this helmet issue always revolve around head or neck injuries?
the fact remains that a full face helmet will protect your entire head from birds, bees, rocks, cold, snot, UFOs, and almost any other flying debris. you simply can not argue against that, that's why.
|
|
|
Post by gottascoot on Aug 7, 2008 17:56:41 GMT -5
Did yo say SNOT!!?? you did not say SNOT!!?? You will never say snot if you have ever sneezed one of those sneezes that comes frome your toes and wear a full face helmet without getting the face plate opened soon enough!! You are in the no protection zone.A good reason not to loan your helmet out. yuck ...
|
|
|
Post by leo on Aug 7, 2008 22:12:10 GMT -5
Did yo say SNOT!!?? you did not say SNOT!!?? yeah, i said snot. it's hard tellin' what that cager in front of you is going to pitch out of their window.
|
|
|
Post by gottascoot on Aug 9, 2008 13:39:55 GMT -5
leo, we watched a guy put his helmet on ,start his bike,shift it into gear,it had not warmed up yet so the left hand was holding the clutch right hand holding the rpm up(motor still cold) and he sneezed so hard I thought he was gonna blow the helmet off !!His girl had been wearing the helmet with some type of stuff in her hair so it was a trap ,just a matter of time. You just had to be there,this guy never goofs-up,everybody roared--ha ha--some things you don`t need to share....
|
|
|
Post by indy50 on Aug 9, 2008 14:20:27 GMT -5
The only part of my head I want scraping asphalt is NONE OF IT thats why I wear a full face helmet. (not required by In law)
|
|
|
Post by royshodg on Aug 10, 2008 6:46:08 GMT -5
The helmet thing was one of the "downsides" I considered when I looked into getting a scooter. But, of course, I couldn't leave the dealer with my new scoot without it. Unfortunately, the only helmet they had that fit me was $125.00 and I was stuck. Yeah, it's a pain. Just another delay till I can scoot away. (take the cover off, take the lock off, get the helmet on, put the glasses on) Had the state (N.C.) not required a helmet, I probably would have said well, I save $125.00 if I don't get one. Now, after riding a couple months it's becoming like a regular thing to do and the inconvenience doesn't bother me that much. I feel safer with it on but can't say if I feel it was worth having. I haven't wrecked yet. and I can sit here and type this message! Don't like gov't. telling me what to do but some day I guess I might be glad they did.
|
|
|
Post by cheapeto on Aug 11, 2008 9:15:08 GMT -5
In PA, we must have insurence to ride. Why does the state need to be involved? If my insurence policy states, no helmet upon impact, no coverage. It's my personal responsibility to protect myself. The state has does it's part, making insurence mandatory.
I use my helmet, have no problem with it. I do not like a nanny state neither. Maybe the issue is why are insurence companies allowed to drop their responsibilities if your comatose, so the state has to pick it up.
Good discussion, all fine replies IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by owenbrau on Aug 17, 2008 17:12:29 GMT -5
I wear a full face helmet every time I ride. Always have, and it's why I'm still alive.
That said, I don't think that helmets should be mandatory. I find the argument that it isn't just the rider that is harmed to fall a bit flat. After all, we choose to ride motorcycles and scooters, which are inherently more dangerous than cars. That same argument could be used to ban us entirely. Heck, back in the late 70's, the NHTSA mandated that speedometers be marked only to 80mph, to keep people from speeding. The same bureaucrat wanted to require that motorcycles have seatbelts; when it was pointed out how horrible that would be, locking the rider to a tumbling bike in a crash, she decided rollcages would do the trick. Do we want to be safety-mandated out of existence?
The world isn't safe. What we choose to do is more dangerous than driving a car.
|
|
|
Post by nickiemcnichols on Dec 28, 2008 17:10:11 GMT -5
Unfortunately, in this case, just like in the cases of 15mph car bumpers and seat belts, the Government has been hired to protect idiots (us) from themselves. There are enough of us who don't wear helmets, or who ride like damn fools, so that our casualties are very high, percentage wise, compared to drivers of cars, when there is an accident. Florida got rid of its helmet laws a while back, and any nurse who works in an ER can tell you, casualties are up. I don't need statistics to make me wear a helmet. I have worn it ever since I moved to Pinellas County, where we have the highest percentage of drivers over 65 years old of just about any county, anywhere. They CANNOT see you, they CANNOT hear you, they cannot tell the brake pedal from the gas pedal in an emergency, and the state does nothing about it. I just had a near miss on the scooter at 10mph, because an elderly woman decided to slam on her brakes for no reason, without looking in her mirror. She never knew I was back there! I have worked in a nursing home which houses victims of closed head injuries (70% males) and psyche patients. The beds are all full, all the time. Next to jailbirds, they are the most dangerous (yet helpless) patients I have ever taken care of. It's VERY stressful work. I don't want myself, or any of you, to ever wind up like that! Just wear the darn skid lid and be safe, okay? There are no guarantees that it will save your life, but it sure increases your chances of being able to live much like you do now if something happens.
|
|