GZ 250 Forums - View Single Post

mrlmd1 · 04-09-2009, 05:42 PM

FYI - The helmets are tested from a 6' drop because that is how far you will fall when you hit the pavement with your head, to try and protect you from injury. They are not designed for and are not certified for hitting a wall or tree or any other object at 30-40-50-60-70mph or whatever. Stating that that equates to a 13.7 mph crash and that slow speed crashes rarely result in serious injury is totally misleading and not the point. Would you like to fall over sideways from a head height of 6' and hit the concrete with your bare head, or would you rather have a helmet on and try and protect you from a fractured skull, concussion or other serious brain injury? Helmets protect your head in a FALL, and a full face helmet, from severe road rash or tissue loss when sliding on the road. If for no other reason, a helmet and face shield will protect you from getting hit in the face by flying debris, much better than with just sunglasses or goggles on. It makes sense to use it, the benefits have been demonstrated in other studies other than the ones you have referred to. Like you said, most of the fatalities are from chest and abdominal injuries, so helmets/no helmets have little effect on the overall mortality rate. But they do have an effect on head and facial injury rates which you don't address. And fatality rates are not the only end point - why don't you compare brain injury rates or reconstructive plastic surgery rates in helmets vs. non-helmets? You can glean what you want from any report, some are misdirected or poorly executed, many are biased in some way to prove their preconceived conclusions. I really don't want to rehash this all again, but many "bikers" think their "freedom" is violated if they have to wear a helmet, after all, they ride the bike enjoying "freedom", and don't want a sissy helmet interfering with the macho-ness of their motorcycle. It's part of the rebellious nature and culture surrounding motorcycles that makes some people resist the helmet to this degree. The "it's my choice" argument to me sounds stupid.
Why do many people go ATGATT? There no laws mandating armored jackets or wearing gloves or boots. It's because it makes sense, that's why, and the benefit has been demonstrated. There was a problem and it was fairly easy to solve.
In other cases, the statistical studies have proven a benefit to the laws that have been enacted, with the same arguments you present above. For example:
Why were seatbelts in cars and trucks mandated to be used all over the country? Is that not also a freedom of choice question? Doesn't that also deprive a driver of his constitutional rights not to wear one? (That whole argument, to me, still. is stupid). It doesn't cost anything, it's part of the conditions to drive.
If the benefit has been demonstrated in reducing death and injury, then in that instance the individual can give up a tiny bit of his perceived "rights" for the common good, even his own good. Why did they put airbags in all cars today? Again, it makes sense because the benefit has been demonstrated.

You wrote that the crash rate in Florida decreased after the helmet law was repealed - do you honestly think there is a direct correlation between those two events? Like it had nothing to do with having to pass an MSF course prior to getting a license or better training for bikers? What did it have to do with no helmets? Better visibility, cooler heads, less weight on your neck? It is one of those true/true/unrelated scenarios, but someone links the 2 events together in order to prove their point.
Again, don't believe everything in print, look at the study, analyze it, the motive, the methods, the results, and draw your own conclusions.

I appreciate your writing, but I don't agree with your conclusions for a variety of reasons.

I know this will start the whole helmet/no helmet dialog here again, so here we go. :whistle:

04-09-2009, 05:42 PM	#2
mrlmd1 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Crawfordville, Florida Posts: 2,853	Re: Helmet Use should be a personal choice FYI - The helmets are tested from a 6' drop because that is how far you will fall when you hit the pavement with your head, to try and protect you from injury. They are not designed for and are not certified for hitting a wall or tree or any other object at 30-40-50-60-70mph or whatever. Stating that that equates to a 13.7 mph crash and that slow speed crashes rarely result in serious injury is totally misleading and not the point. Would you like to fall over sideways from a head height of 6' and hit the concrete with your bare head, or would you rather have a helmet on and try and protect you from a fractured skull, concussion or other serious brain injury? Helmets protect your head in a FALL, and a full face helmet, from severe road rash or tissue loss when sliding on the road. If for no other reason, a helmet and face shield will protect you from getting hit in the face by flying debris, much better than with just sunglasses or goggles on. It makes sense to use it, the benefits have been demonstrated in other studies other than the ones you have referred to. Like you said, most of the fatalities are from chest and abdominal injuries, so helmets/no helmets have little effect on the overall mortality rate. But they do have an effect on head and facial injury rates which you don't address. And fatality rates are not the only end point - why don't you compare brain injury rates or reconstructive plastic surgery rates in helmets vs. non-helmets? You can glean what you want from any report, some are misdirected or poorly executed, many are biased in some way to prove their preconceived conclusions. I really don't want to rehash this all again, but many "bikers" think their "freedom" is violated if they have to wear a helmet, after all, they ride the bike enjoying "freedom", and don't want a sissy helmet interfering with the macho-ness of their motorcycle. It's part of the rebellious nature and culture surrounding motorcycles that makes some people resist the helmet to this degree. The "it's my choice" argument to me sounds stupid. Why do many people go ATGATT? There no laws mandating armored jackets or wearing gloves or boots. It's because it makes sense, that's why, and the benefit has been demonstrated. There was a problem and it was fairly easy to solve. In other cases, the statistical studies have proven a benefit to the laws that have been enacted, with the same arguments you present above. For example: Why were seatbelts in cars and trucks mandated to be used all over the country? Is that not also a freedom of choice question? Doesn't that also deprive a driver of his constitutional rights not to wear one? (That whole argument, to me, still. is stupid). It doesn't cost anything, it's part of the conditions to drive. If the benefit has been demonstrated in reducing death and injury, then in that instance the individual can give up a tiny bit of his perceived "rights" for the common good, even his own good. Why did they put airbags in all cars today? Again, it makes sense because the benefit has been demonstrated. You wrote that the crash rate in Florida decreased after the helmet law was repealed - do you honestly think there is a direct correlation between those two events? Like it had nothing to do with having to pass an MSF course prior to getting a license or better training for bikers? What did it have to do with no helmets? Better visibility, cooler heads, less weight on your neck? It is one of those true/true/unrelated scenarios, but someone links the 2 events together in order to prove their point. Again, don't believe everything in print, look at the study, analyze it, the motive, the methods, the results, and draw your own conclusions. I appreciate your writing, but I don't agree with your conclusions for a variety of reasons. I know this will start the whole helmet/no helmet dialog here again, so here we go. :whistle:
	0