Here how I look at it I have very little Hair on my head so I would wear a helmet even If I didn't have to. Sun Burn and all

I believe you should have a choice, However, my choice is to wear a helmet at all times. I wouldn't be here today if I hadn't had one on years ago. Still, you have to admit...it was kinda ironic.

slamllc wrote:
Simply put, It is not the job of Government to protect people from themselves.


That says it all for me!

FOR GODS SAKE, NO ONE CAN SAY ONES LIFE WOULD or WOULDNT be saved by wearing a helmet or a seatbelt. To many variables. The deaths or veggies from the act of riding motorcycles is so minimal compared to the amount of active riders. Keep in mind that these numbers ALSO involve all scooter related crashes that require NO permit to operate.

EVERYONE given the choice of hitting their head with or without the helmet will choose the helmet. Safety gear COULD save your life no doubt. But if we were all consumed with our own personal safety it would be much safer to choose not to ride at all. Going against semi's and cars with a little bike just makes no sense.
The state of Indiana takes an extra $10 from riders to go towards brain and spinal cord injury research. Helmet wearer or not.

oh ya, I dont wear one, and dread my trip to Canada because of Michigan and Canadian helmet laws.

What I do think is ironic is that a little over half of the states allow some sort of helmetless riding, but none of them allow drivers or passengers in car to go without seatbelts.

I just wonder about the lack of internal consistency. It's the same legislatures, the same insurance companies making these decisions. Oh, that's right, it's probably the federal highway dollars, my fault.





BD

scottw wrote:
kryinggame wrote:
Gents, I've never read one study that proves that a motorcycle helmet will save your life in a crash. I've read numerous assertions made by motorcyle helmet companies.

Now as I recall, if a helmet has the DOT stamp, its good for one fall. As it was explained to me, a DOT helmet is no longer safe after its been dropped one time. That, as well as the helmet argument is not logical to me. So, does the argument imply that if you're going to get into an accident, you should fall on the top of your head because your helmet will protect you?

I don't like wearing helmets but I do wear one for several reasons. 1 - In N.C., there's a $25 fine if you're caught without one; and, 2- While riding, I often get smacked in the face and mouth with insects. I'm sure my helmet takes more of an abuse.

In my opinion, States ought to leave the choice to the rider but States have a right to protect its' citizens by any means that it chooses.

By the way, I thought the article was pretty ironic that the gent was not wearing a helmet in protest and that was his (alledged) down fall.
================================================


" I've never read one study that proves that a motorcycle helmet will save your life in a crash "

WOW!!!!,No disrespect intended but that has got to be the most outlandish statement or line of thinking on this issue/subject i have ever seen,!/LOL!

Helmets save lives/period!

Scott

Scott, would you mind providing an argument for your claim and back it up with evidence. I don't mean sending me a link to someone's argument. Please explain to us how helmets saves lives. I haven't seen a legit study that actually proves that helmets do. There are so many factors going on here. I don't know how one would even build a model to prove it. Sure, on a surface level, it would seem that helmets saves lives but how do we really know. But anyway,what do I know, I'm only a lawyer.

Starkruzen wrote:
Motorcycle Helmet Laws Save Lives, but Not Very Many

Jacob Sullum | April 1, 2008


A new study reported in the American Journal of Public Health finds that the repeal of motorcycle helmet requirements for adults has been associated with an increase in motorcycle fatalities, beyond the general increase that has been seen throughout the country in the last decade or so. Although the researchers argue that their study reinforces the case for universal helmet laws, the impact they found looks pretty modest:


On average, when compared to state experience with no helmet mandate, universal helmet laws were associated with an 11.1% reduction in motorcyclist fatality rates, whereas rates in states with partial coverage statutes [applying only to riders younger than 21] were not statistically different from those with no helmet law. Furthermore, in the states in which recent repeals of universal coverage have been instituted, the motorcyclist fatality rate increased by an average of 12.2% over what would have been expected had universal coverage been maintained. Since 1997, an additional 615 motorcyclist fatalities have occurred in these states as a result of these changes in motorcycle helmet laws.

In terms of fatalities prevented each year, the effect estimated by this study is not very impressive. In 2004, for example, "an estimated 135 (or 5.8%) fewer fatalities would have occurred" in the 31 states without universal helmet laws had those states forced adult motorcyclists to wear head protection. That's just a handful of fatalities per state each year.

Previous research has indicated that helmet laws do substantially increase the percentage of motorcyclists who wear helmets. The fatality numbers probably are so small for two main reasons. First, riding a motorcycle, while much more dangerous than driving a car, is also much less common, so there are only 4,300 or so total motorcycle fatalities each year, one-tenth of all road fatalities. Second, helmets are only partly effective at preventing deaths: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that in the event of a crash they cut the chances of a fatality by about 35 percent (compared to a 60 percent reduction for motorists who wear seat belts).

Even the undramatic results of this study may overestimate the impact of helmet laws. To the researchers' credit, instead of doing a simple before-and-after comparison in a single state or a few states, they looked at accident data from all 50 states and D.C. for 1975 through 2004. They took into account the general upward trend in motorcycle deaths since 1996 and several potential confounding variables, including other traffic-related laws, weather patterns, alcohol consumption, population density, and the age breakdown of each state's population. But since the outcome measure they used was fatalities per 10,000 registered motorcycles, they did not take into account miles traveled. That could matter if motorcyclists who hate helmets start riding more often or longer distances once they are no longer required to wear them. In that case, some of the increase in deaths could be due to an increase in miles traveled. Another possible factor: If people who stopped riding motorcycles because they were irked by a helmet requirement suddenly start riding them again once the requirement is repealed, the percentage of motorcyclists who are out of shape and out of practice might increase, which could independently raise the frequency of crashes.

Some anti-helmet-law activists argue that helmets, on balance, decrease motorcycle safety by making riders more reckless, making their heads heavier, or impairing their hearing, peripheral vision, and sensitivity to air pressure changes. There isn't much evidence to support that claim, and I have little doubt that helmet laws reduce fatalities to some extent. It just does not seem to be a very big effect, which is one reason opponents of these laws have been so successful at rolling them back and preventing legislators from reimposing them. In principle, the fatality numbers shouldn't matter: The right to ride without a helmet should not hinge on exactly how big the risk is. But practical politics is rarely about principle, a point illustrated by the contrast between helmet and seat belt laws that I drew in reason a few years ago.

I'm sorry but what's the point of this article that you pasted? I read the first couple of paragraps and what's screaming out at me is, "universal helmet laws" Can someone explain to me what that is? Helmet legislation is not a federal law that all states must follow but a state law; therefore, each state presents guidelines for riders.

Also, if you read this argument, it presents data and arguments on both sides of the issue. So again, I respectfully ask, what's the freakin' point. lol

Big Dawg wrote:
What I do think is ironic is that a little over half of the states allow some sort of helmetless riding, but none of them allow drivers or passengers in car to go without seatbelts.

I just wonder about the lack of internal consistency. It's the same legislatures, the same insurance companies making these decisions. Oh, that's right, it's probably the federal highway dollars, my fault.





BD
you nailed it... money talks !!

In 1991 I had a very hard crash on my bike. The darn cops just wouldn't stop chasin me.

Anyway in the hospital the doctor had to put 8 stitches in the back of my head. Apparently I hit my head on something so hard it cut my head even though I had a full face helmit on. Might explain a few things.

That being said. I still like a country ride after dark without my hard hat. My number's not up yet.

Scott, I'm with you bro. I just went down sunday at 65 miles an hour, I had on my leathers, ballistic nylon chaps and full face helmet.

Due to the ballistic nylon chaps saving my legs and hips from no injury at all, I am rethinking leather also, my arms are tore up with road rash even though the leather never wore through in the skid, the ballistic nylon chaps showed only slight scuffing and the threads of the nylon were fused together from the heat of skidding on my hip.

I don't like wearing the full face but I think I'll be wearing one in the future.
That full face helmet saved my head from any damage at all as I bounced on the freeway, I'm healing from road rash, but I'm not sucking soup through a straw.
Hell, I'm going armored from now on!