Do you always wear a helmet?

[FJRocha]

Bringing this thread back from the dead...

Do I wear my helmet all the time? well... mostly.

There are ocasions when I don't feel like wearing it. Trips less that a mile long to get some groceries are helmet-less, hat-less and glass-less. I just squint my eyes and go for it.

Then again, sometimes I put on my helmet when I am at least within ten feet from the bike.

Regarding the govi-men telling me that I got to wear one... they can tell me about it, ya know, freedom of speech and all; but it should be my business to take care of myself, it is not anyone else's business.

Why isn't there a law about riding boots? or riding gloves? because the govi-men don't give a rat's *** about your hand or foot; they wanna keep their road related death statistics in check. Why isn't there a full face helmet law for horse-back riding? or jogging? because who gives a ****? it is not a road related matter. And if the govi-men realy cared about the general public, then, why aren't there seatbelts on public buses, metros and trains?

Yep, I've got a BIG gas guzling SUV, and yes I know that my family is safer in it that if I had a small sedan. But that does not mean I will drive it recklessly. Nonetheless, I want to know that if get into a close encounter with a bimbo who is pulling out of Mickey-Dees, talking on the phone and passing the greaseburger to the butterball on the back seat, my family will have more protection all around on the BIG SUV.

Yes to helmet... No to helmet law..... long live anarchy!!!! :dinamo: :fans: unk: :shab1:

 

[airboss]

Helmut, I never leave home without it. Once upon a time long, long ago. I caught a rock with my forehead......

 

[Duff]

All gear... All the time.

:detect:

 

[SouthernCruizer]

Helmets SUCK :angry:

 

[freshmeat]

[Just so everyone remembers this is where my disagreement came from.
If anyone has "PROOF" that helmets have reduced societies "burden" feel free to point us to it...

If I can paraphrase Sparky's argument, it is that "the cost of long-term care is the same, given the same injury" - all the helmet does is change the speed at which the injury occurs.

This seemed plausible enough to be worth checking out (I love it when the 'obvious answer' is wrong)

So ...

A search of google on "motorcycle helmet society cost" finds:

[NTHSA factsheet on motorcycle helmet use laws]

https://nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/...cle_Helmet.html

...The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) study found that motorcycle helmets are 67 percent effective in preventing brain injuries and that unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in crashes were three times more likely to suffer brain injury than those using helmets.

...

Analysis of linked data for three states with universal helmet laws in the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges due to brain injury would have been almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000

...

The CODES study, mentioned earlier, also found that brain injury cases were more than twice as costly as nonbrain injury cases for the one-year period studied. Among the unhelmeted motorcycle inpatients, charges for those suffering brain injuries were 2.75 times higher than for those without brain injuries. Long-term costs are not included.

...

and

[evaluating effect of repeal of helmet laws in Kentucky and Louisiana]

PR summary

https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ped...ycle/TraffTech/

Study title page

https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ped...e/kentuky-la03/

Injuries in Kentucky

https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ped...or-INJURIE-2815

...Similarly, helmet use among riders sustaining serious (A) injuries declined from 71 percent to 50 percent while the number of these injuries also increased. Table 5 also shows that the number of riders sustaining head and/or face injuries increased substantially following the repeal of the universal helmet law. The number of helmeted riders sustaining head/face injuries changed little over the years 1996-2000, while the number of unhelmeted cases of head injury more than doubled.

...

Note - I also saw a bunch of helmet-repeal sites that made the same arguments as sparky.

It would appear that, although the assertion of equal-cost-after-injury may be correct, that [at least for Kentucky riders] the frequency of brain damaging injuries does, in fact, increase if you don't wear a helmet.

I'm ignoring the 80-100% fatality increase here, since there's no long-term care cost to society for the dead.

At the very least, it would appear that the statement "there's no data to support... " is not correct.

Oh, and to answer the original question: ATGATT - unless I'm moving the bike from the driveway into the garage, mainly because [gets out geetar]

"I ain't as invulnerable as I once was ..." (w/ apologies to Toby Keith)

 

[Bluebullet]

If you don't think you need to wear a helmet, you probably don't.

 

[jrd14]

Yes I do, always, on road and off road.

 

[bikerskier]

Yes, flip face Nolan.

Did you that I only drink on 2 occasions now? When I'm thirsty and when I'm not.

 

[OrangevaleFJR]

Always wear a helmet.

Is this an insurance poll?

 

[kaitsdad]

Since I flat-spotted the back of my helmet in 1971, it's ATGATT.

 

[sparky3008]

[Just so everyone remembers this is where my disagreement came from.
If anyone has "PROOF" that helmets have reduced societies "burden" feel free to point us to it...

If I can paraphrase Sparky's argument, it is that "the cost of long-term care is the same, given the same injury" - all the helmet does is change the speed at which the injury occurs.

This seemed plausible enough to be worth checking out (I love it when the 'obvious answer' is wrong)

So ...

A search of google on "motorcycle helmet society cost" finds:

[NTHSA factsheet on motorcycle helmet use laws]

https://nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/...cle_Helmet.html

...The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) study found that motorcycle helmets are 67 percent effective in preventing brain injuries and that unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in crashes were three times more likely to suffer brain injury than those using helmets.

...

Analysis of linked data for three states with universal helmet laws in the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges due to brain injury would have been almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000

...

The CODES study, mentioned earlier, also found that brain injury cases were more than twice as costly as nonbrain injury cases for the one-year period studied. Among the unhelmeted motorcycle inpatients, charges for those suffering brain injuries were 2.75 times higher than for those without brain injuries. Long-term costs are not included.

...

and

[evaluating effect of repeal of helmet laws in Kentucky and Louisiana]

PR summary

https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ped...ycle/TraffTech/

Study title page

https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ped...e/kentuky-la03/

Injuries in Kentucky

https://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/ped...or-INJURIE-2815

...Similarly, helmet use among riders sustaining serious (A) injuries declined from 71 percent to 50 percent while the number of these injuries also increased. Table 5 also shows that the number of riders sustaining head and/or face injuries increased substantially following the repeal of the universal helmet law. The number of helmeted riders sustaining head/face injuries changed little over the years 1996-2000, while the number of unhelmeted cases of head injury more than doubled.

...

Note - I also saw a bunch of helmet-repeal sites that made the same arguments as sparky.

It would appear that, although the assertion of equal-cost-after-injury may be correct, that [at least for Kentucky riders] the frequency of brain damaging injuries does, in fact, increase if you don't wear a helmet.

I'm ignoring the 80-100% fatality increase here, since there's no long-term care cost to society for the dead.

At the very least, it would appear that the statement "there's no data to support... " is not correct.

Oh, and to answer the original question: ATGATT - unless I'm moving the bike from the driveway into the garage, mainly because [gets out geetar]

"I ain't as invulnerable as I once was ..." (w/ apologies to Toby Keith)

Good at presenting the data that supports your argument.

That is the point there is "data" on both side to prove each argument. It is like anything, if you start a search to support anything you will find it.

Do I need to list all the data and sites that support the existence of Aliens???

 

[twowheelnut]

Do I need to list all the data and sites that support the existence of Aliens???

Yes, please.

 

[sparky3008]

Do I need to list all the data and sites that support the existence of Aliens???

Yes, please.

Smart ***

 

[freshmeat]

[Good at presenting the data that supports your argument.That is the point there is "data" on both side to prove each argument. It is like anything, if you start a search to support anything you will find it.

Do I need to list all the data and sites that support the existence of Aliens???

Ummmm -- actually, wasn't really trying to take sides on this --

You said "There is NO evidence... " --- I thought this might, in fact, be true. That would make this one of those neat instances when the conventional wisdom turns out to be wrong --- so I went and looked to see if I could find the study that agreed with your conclusion - but didn't. Instead, I ended up finding the sort of study you said didn't exist.

Guess these studies don't count 'cause they're on Big Brother's website. (??)

Me - I've done the mountain climbing thing, jumped out of perfectly good airplanes and all that stuff -- I think you should have the right to wear the helmet or not, or in general take any risk you choose to. Don't gotta do it just cause I make a different choice.

As for aliens --- there ain't no such thing: Sasquatch tole me so hisself!!!! :bleh:

 

[sparky3008]

[Good at presenting the data that supports your argument.That is the point there is "data" on both side to prove each argument. It is like anything, if you start a search to support anything you will find it.

Do I need to list all the data and sites that support the existence of Aliens???

Ummmm -- actually, wasn't really trying to take sides on this --

You said "There is NO evidence... " --- I thought this might, in fact, be true. That would make this one of those neat instances when the conventional wisdom turns out to be wrong --- so I went and looked to see if I could find the study that agreed with your conclusion - but didn't. Instead, I ended up finding the sort of study you said didn't exist.

Guess these studies don't count 'cause they're on Big Brother's website. (??)

Me - I've done the mountain climbing thing, jumped out of perfectly good airplanes and all that stuff -- I think you should have the right to wear the helmet or not, or in general take any risk you choose to. Don't gotta do it just cause I make a different choice.

As for aliens --- there ain't no such thing: Sasquatch tole me so hisself!!!! :bleh:

Wasn't trying to bash you just saying that in researching evidence even myself you will find arguments such as you presented for 1 side and then you will find groups that have just as much proff for the other.

This is what I mean by no real proof.

Besides my whole argument didn't start with this it actually started with my problem with the government constantly telling us what we can and can not do.

We are at the point in our gov't that we really aren't free to choose for ourselves anymore our society has determined what they as a majority will put up with and force it on everyone else.

And by the way I ride with my Helmet even in states where it is not law...

 

[twowheelnut]

Dear lord, please make it stop....

 

[sparky3008]

Dear lord, please make it stop....

No TWN they won't let us have political discussions so we are limited to really really stupid ones like this

Also doesn't your use of Lord violate some rule somewhere? :haha:

 

[twowheelnut]

Nope, I used lower case 'L'. That makes it okay in my book! Skooze me now, I need to go light a candle or sumpin'...

 

[sparky3008]

Nope, I used lower case 'L'. That makes it okay in my book! Skooze me now, I need to go light a candle or sumpin'...

Bwaaaaahhhhaaaaaa!!!! Too Funny :haha:

 

[quicksilver]

how many pages is never ending?

no.

drying it off after a wash,

taking the kids around the block at bicycle speed,

maybe getting gas.