This article appeared on the front page of our local newspaper...
http://miningjournal.net/news/story/128202004_new02-n1208.asp
I love these quote from my State Rep...
Adamini said he supports the bill because of the lack of proof that wearing a helmet makes a difference in injuries resulting from high-speed crashes.
"It appears that if a person is operating a motorcycle at speeds of more than 20 miles per hour that wearing a helmet has no effect on injuries or the lack thereof," Adamini said. "Face it, most people driving a motorcycle do so at high speeds. If you're going 80 miles per hour, you're going to be hurt whether or not you're wearing a helmet."
And...
Added Adamini, "Show me the data that proves wearing a helmet will make a difference in high-speed motorcycle crashes and I'll support the current law."
OK. He's obviosly against the helmet law, and that's his deal, but the misinformation he's spreading to appeal to this population segment is terrible.
I'm for the helmet law, for the benefit of your friends and family or the other people involved in the incident if you are in an incident. I don't care if you want bugs in your teeth. I don't want to blither on about your loss when you weren't wearing a helmet and would have been fine with one.
Maybe it's true, you've got a $50 head get a $50 helmet. You can see what no helmet equals. ;) Or maybe it's just good for "natural selection". Ok, I'm getting ornery now so I'll stop.
I'm on a rant, but I just really didn't like that article. Luckily they aren't overturning Michigan's helmet law...for now.
Heather
I had a neighbor who worked in the emergency room. He said he's seen more deaths from riders wearing helmets than those who didn't. He claimed that there is swelling in the brain on a helmet injury, where the cracking of the skull (with no helmet) relieves this pressure.
I would still rather wear a helmet. I'm sure there are many people who didn't visit his emergency room - like the guy with the helmet who went home after his wreck or the guy without the helmet who went straight to the morgue.....
I think it should be left up to the public what each person does. Helmet, seatbelt, ect. laws should be by choice of the person, and not inforced by the government. A person should have the right to choose if he/she wears a seatbelt or helmet. I don't think it's right the government steps in on it. Ask yourself this:
Who gets hurt if I don't wear a helmet or my seatbelt?
It doesn't hurt anyone but you. So, why is it mandated by the government other than financial gain?
I don't agree with the laws, but regardless, I'll wear my seatbelt and always a helmet regardless of what the law says. ;) It's just stupid that it's enforced by the gov. for nothing more than financial reasons. >:(
It doesn't hurt anyone but you? What about your wife, your kids, your mom? And what about the people that can't afford their own funerals? I know it's harsh, but why should taxpayers have to pay for you refusing to wear a seatbelt? That's a financial reason for you. I'm sure whatever the 'revenue' from seatbelt tickets will never offset the cost of numerous funerals for the people who weren't lucky enough to get that ticket in time.
QuoteI think it should be left up to the public what each person does. Helmet, seatbelt, ect. laws should be by choice of the person, and not inforced by the government. A person should have the right to choose if he/she wears a seatbelt or helmet. I don't think it's right the government steps in on it. Ask yourself this:
Who gets hurt if I don't wear a helmet or my seatbelt?
It doesn't hurt anyone but you. So, why is it mandated by the government other than financial gain?
I don't agree with the laws, but regardless, I'll wear my seatbelt and always a helmet regardless of what the law says. ;) It's just stupid that it's enforced by the gov. for nothing more than financial reasons. >:(
Ditto.
I will always wear my seatbelt, and I will always wear my helmet. But I don't think it's the governments place to tell me that I HAVE to.
Laws should be written to protect me from OTHER people - NOT to protect me from ME. Helmets and seatbelts don't save or help anyone but myself.
IL doesn't have a helmet law, and I'm glad they don't. They DO have an eye protection law... which I *do* support. Get something in your eye as you're cruising down the road, and you just might swerve and hit something - pedestrian, another car, etc. Thats no good.
QuoteIt doesn't hurt anyone but you? What about your wife, your kids, your mom?
::) Since WHEN is it the government's job to care about someone's FEELINGS? Wait... It's NOT their job, and it shouldn't be.
QuoteAnd what about the people that can't afford their own funerals? I know it's harsh, but why should taxpayers have to pay for you refusing to wear a seatbelt? That's a financial reason for you. I'm sure whatever the 'revenue' from seatbelt tickets will never offset the cost of numerous funerals for the people who weren't lucky enough to get that ticket in time.
Since when do taxpayers cover the cost of a funeral because someone can't pay for their own? From what - social security benefits? They'd get that when they die anyways.
Seatbelts and helmets should be a personal choice. If I choose not to wear one, and something happens that places a strain on my family - then it was MY choice.
Take responsibility for your actions. Don't expect someone else to clean up after you.
Sure, it hurts people in your family, and that's why I wear my seatbelt. What I'm trying to say, is that a government mandate saying that YOU MUST regardless of what you want, is unnecessary. Every new law is a limit on a persons right of choice. A grown adult, should have the right to choose what they think is right for them, and we don't need the government telling us you have to do this and that because we say so. That goes for everything. Seatbelts, helmets, assisted death, abortion, ect. A grown adult should choose what is right or wrong for them as long as it doesn't effect the general public. I support the right of choice, regardless of the issue behind it.
As far as the general public absorbing costs of death or injury from a person choice, that is a mute subject regardless for two reasons:
1. More people rip off the state with bogus claims than anything, and legitimate claims have a minor impact. If you assume that the government will pay more if people don't wear seat belts when death occurrs, your also assuming that a majority of other claims are valid. For instance, does the goverment forking out money on a persons death compare to the millions of false injury (disability claims) make a substantial difference to overall payouts?
2. The state will lose money on tickets from no seatbelt and such. Therefore, they lose money anyways.
More or less, what I"m trying to say is that the right of choice is what needs to be defended. We keep losing our rights because someone is always trying to say what is right for someone else. Ontop of that, one study says this, and another contradicts it. My problem is regardless of what the study's say, whenever I am forced to choose by a state law on something that effects only me and my family, I'm not happy.
What casuses more deaths in one year:
1. People dying from not wearing a helmet.
2. Cigarettes and Alcohol.
Why are cigarettes and alcohol available? Because they are taxable and a source of revenue.
Why aren't drugs like marijuana not legal? BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T TAX THEM. The black market is too big on those substances and it's too easy to grow marijuana at home.
You think that if the government could find a way to tax marijuana that it wouldn't get legalized? If research shows that marijuana is no more destructive than alcohol, why wouldn't they legalize it?
How many corporations make alcoholic beverages?
How many private citizens make alcoholic beverages at home?
If a private citizen could brew Vodka like they could grow marijuana, alcohol would be illegal because the government couldn't tax it.
It's all about the $. Always.
Ever hear of the Uniformed Commerical Code? The goverment is a business. Flat out. Anything that jeopordizes a business' ability to make money because of outside sources, has become illegal. The goverment is also structured as a coporation.
In thinking this over, I guess the thing that ticks me off is not the "choice" issue, but a leader misrepresenting the value of helmets! Oh yes, helmets are much worse than bare skin. And, no, when you wear the proper gear, you won't necessarily get hurt at 80 mph. That's just silly.
I guess I should add, Adamini was picked up for drunk driving in October. Obviously other people's safety isn't a priority.
Frankly, I'm more worried about the Patriot Act than helmets or seat belts when it comes to privacy issues these days.
Heather
QuoteThe goverment is also structured as a corporation.
Corporate Stricture of the United States Government:
1. CEO= President
2. Vice President= Vice President
3. Board of Directors = Congress and Senate
4. Accounting = Federal Reserve, CFO = Alan Greenspan
5. Corporate Bylaws= DOJ, All of the "justice" firms
6. Corproate Auditor = IRS
That's just some of it. The goverment is a business. Any way to create revenue is approached as corporate strategy. You can outline the entire government in reference as a business. Therefore, the UCC is in act when referenced to the federal government.
QuoteIn thinking this over, I guess the thing that ticks me off is not the "choice" issue, but a leader misrepresenting the value of helmets! Oh yes, helmets are much worse than bare skin. And, no, when you wear the proper gear, you won't necessarily get hurt at 80 mph. That's just silly.
I guess I should add, Adamini was picked up for drunk driving in October. Obviously other people's safety isn't a priority.
Frankly, I'm more worried about the Patriot Act than helmets or seat belts when it comes to privacy issues these days.
Heather
I agree, helmets save lives, and I don't argue that. Same goes for seatbelts, airbags, ect. I just don't like the fact that some jackass is trying to mandate it based on his choice. My right as an adult is to choose what's right for me and my family. Anytime someone tries to take away my ability to choose, I get upset.
What's next? The government is going to tell me I can't eat salt because it's not good for me?
Choice. That's all my beef is.
QuoteSince when do taxpayers cover the cost of a funeral because someone can't pay for their own? From what - social security benefits? They'd get that when they die anyways.
If someone dies that is indigent, the county (AKA, taxpayers) ends up paying for the costs. Adding into that expense is storing the body while everyone figures out who's going (or not going ) to pay.
Helmet laws are a problem, no matter which way you look at it. If the government creates new laws because of the psychological effect one's actions would have on family and friends, what would happen to racing, or sports in general?
QuoteIn thinking this over, I guess the thing that ticks me off is not the "choice" issue, but a leader misrepresenting the value of helmets! Oh yes, helmets are much worse than bare skin. And, no, when you wear the proper gear, you won't necessarily get hurt at 80 mph. That's just silly.
And in MY opinion - there is no reason you shouldn't write in to try to correct him on those points.
The general idea campaigned by people who don't wear a helmet - that an 80mph crash will kill you, helmet or no helmet - is absurd. I don't think I've crashed my bike yet where I was doing LESS than 80mph! ;) Helmets DO save lives. Nobody on this board needs to be told that - I think we've all experienced it at one point in time ;)
Wearing a helmet is undoubtedly a good idea. I just don't see it as a reason to enforce a helmet law.
QuoteI just don't see it as a reason to enforce a helmet law.
Public Reason= No justifible reason.
Government Reason= $$$$$$
Who looses if the law gets made. Public. Why, because we lost our choice.
QuoteIf someone dies that is indigent, the county (AKA, taxpayers) ends up paying for the costs. Adding into that expense is storing the body while everyone figures out who's going (or not going ) to pay.
That I did not know. Though the taxpayers aren't going to hold a whole funeral procession, buy a burial plot, etc.. for some John Doe either, will they? If they do I think it's ridiculous.
Though I think corner brings up a good point. If the gov't forks out the cash to cover funerals for people who can't afford it... I'm *sure* there are more crack head and gangbanger deaths in a year than there are motorcycle deaths.
So it costs me a few bucks more a year to cover the funeral of some broke bastard who chose not to wear a helmet - fine. I'd rather keep that additional right of choice.
QuoteSo it costs me a few bucks more a year to cover the funeral of some broke bastard who chose not to wear a helmet - fine. I'd rather keep that additional right of choice.
Bah... that's a crock of crap. Imagine the MILLIONS of people that live in one given county or regulated area. Then, take one indigent bastard that costs the county lest say $4000.00 to put in the grave. Divide $4000.00 into several million people. You talking about less then a penny per person in the county. Your more likely to pay a full dollar to cover plowing the streets when it snows. The impact of indigent people dying regardless of how they die is virtually nil compared to other ways you pay for things.
For instance, in Wayne County where I live, there are 2,061,162 people as of the last census. Take that and divide a single death cost of $4,000.00 and that is going high because the state isn't giving you more than a simple wood box and a burial in a state owned cemetary that maybe has a tiny $50.00 headstone made by a bunch of prisoners in the State prison.
$4,000.00 / 2,061,162 people = $0.0019406 per person in the county.
Now, each person in the county where I lived pays almost a full dollar for the friggin mayor's mansion in Wayne County PER MONTH ! >:(
Omni... when I said crock or crap, I didn't mean your comment. I mean the amount you referenced as a "few bucks" as what it would cost per person burried.
How much would a no helmet ticket cost? $100.00
Now, how much does a burial cost again?
Government = Greedy Bastards
>:(
My position of the topic is that although I wear a helmet, and I ridicule sportbike riders that do not wear one, I do not feel there should be a mandatory helmet law. There are consequences for almost every action, and it is impossible to regulate bad luck, poor decisions, financial planning, etc.
I understand other's views concerning the hurt and grief friends and relatives have associated with a loss of life. But smoking, drugs, obesity (that would be me!), etc, cause more premature deaths than helmetless crash victims. I wouldn't even know where to begin to pass laws concerning those problems!!
Here's another thing to think about:
Comparing Motorcycle Death's Nationwide:
What type of motorcycles cause more deaths?
1. Cruiser Types (i.e. HD)
2. Sportbike Types (GSXR and the likes)
Statistically, I'd bet it was Sportbike Types. That being said, how long before they (government) put and end to sportbikes? Where does that leave us (trackday/racers).
Don't think they could/would do it? Remember 3-Wheelers? Is a 3-Wheeler safer than a 4-Wheeler with the same jackass behind the throttle?
When does it end?
QuoteHere's another thing to think about:
Comparing Motorcycle Death's Nationwide:
What type of motorcycles cause more deaths?
1. Cruiser Types (i.e. HD)
2. Sportbike Types (GSXR and the likes)
Does that statistic exist somewhere? I'm really curious to see the result on that.
Sure, sportbikes definitely have an advantage when it comes to killing somebody based simply on the power.
But there are LOTS of idiots out there on cruisers, too. Overconfidence and overall bad riders aren't just confined to the sportbike crowd. In fact, the worst riders I've ridden with on the street were on cruisers - NOT sportbikes (and I've met a lot of bad sportbike riders!)
How long will it be before motorcycles in general are banned? How long before motorcycle RACING is banned? I'm surely more likely to get seriously injured while racing my bike than I am by riding it down some country road. What about my family's feelings when I get hurt from racing? And what about the children? THE CHILDREN!!!
LOL
Dan....
Ease up on the language please.....
Thanks
Dawn :)
Right, but this is what it comes down to:
A politician attempts to instate a law that bans sportibkes.
He references all these deaths and such, and then calls it a "proposal" like "proposal A." Then, they launch a crap load of commericals showing guys flying down the e-way pulling wheelies at 100 mph and doing stoppies. Non-cyclists see this and remember: "hey, remember when we were driving down X, and the guy passed us a 200 mph?" So, then the vote YES on proposal A comes out a month before vote time, and nobody remembers what the hell proposal A was, so they vote yes anyways or something.
During all the commericals, they don't show a guy on an HD, they show a GSXR and such. The motorcycle "jackass' that people see on the news isn't riding a HD type of cruiser. He's riding a sportbike. How many times have you seen an HD on the news when it's related to death or accident compared to sportbikes? How many times have you seen an article about dangerous bikers and they're referring to a crusier? You don't. You see those things with sportbikes involved.
It could really hit the fan really quick if the wrong politican gets into office that isn't "sport bike frendly." The general public view of sportbikes is seen as what compared to how they see the HD's and such? That's all that counts.
This is why we should all be paying supporting memebers of the AMA. They are the only chance we have.
QuoteDan....
Ease up on the language please.....
Thanks
Dawn :)
Will do. Sorry. I'm kinda irritated on this subject in general.
:)
QuoteDoes that statistic exist somewhere? I'm really curious to see the result on that.
I'm sure it does. And you know who'd I bet has it. THE INSURANCE COMAPNIES.
Think about this. When setting an insurance rate, what is more likely be have a higher insurance cost:
A. A 2005 Harley worth $30K
B. A 2005 GSXR1000
Let's assume it's the exact same rider. Why do you think AAA won't insure a GSXR but they will insure a Harley?
QuoteRight, but this is what it comes down to:
A politician attempts to instate a law that bans sportibkes.
He references all these deaths and such, and then calls it a "proposal" like "proposal A." Then, they launch a crap load of commericals showing guys flying down the e-way pulling wheelies at 100 mph and doing stoppies. Non-cyclists see this and remember: "hey, remember when we were driving down X, and the guy passed us a 200 mph?" So, then the vote YES on proposal A comes out a month before vote time, and nobody remembers what the hell proposal A was, so they vote yes anyways or something.
During all the commericals, they don't show a guy on an HD, they show a GSXR and such. The motorcycle "jackass' that people see on the news isn't riding a HD type of cruiser. He's riding a sportbike. How many times have you seen an HD on the news when it's related to death or accident compared to sportbikes? How many times have you seen an article about dangerous bikers and they're referring to a crusier? You don't. You see those things with sportbikes involved.
It could really hit the fan really quick if the wrong politican gets into office that isn't "sport bike frendly." The general public view of sportbikes is seen as what compared to how they see the HD's and such? That's all that counts.
This is why we should all be paying supporting memebers of the AMA. They are the only chance we have.
Good point.
I often forget that it's not about the truth in politics... it's about the PERCEPTION of the truth.
QuoteDoes that statistic exist somewhere? I'm really curious to see the result on that.
Sure, sportbikes definitely have an advantage when it comes to killing somebody based simply on the power.
But there are LOTS of idiots out there on cruisers, too. Overconfidence and overall bad riders aren't just confined to the sportbike crowd. In fact, the worst riders I've ridden with on the street were on cruisers - NOT sportbikes (and I've met a lot of bad sportbike riders!)
In the majority of fatal motorcycle accedents reported on my local news, the bike is some early '80s UJM, it was late at night, and involved alcohol with one party or the other. Maybe we should make riding drunk illegal..oh wait......
-z.
Actually, last year's tremendous increase in motorcycles deaths were claimed to be from Harleys. I read a few newspaper reports that said it is from the middle-agers who go buy a big Harley to ride with his friends and has no motorcycle experience.......
If the government pays for indigent deaths, is that going to change if the guy lives longer? He is going to die sometime. Maybe it will be after he racks up $1,000,000 in hospital bills to cure his cancer. Or maybe it will only be $4,000 to clean up the mess on the highway.
As far as the government telling me how to take care of myself? That's BS. This is the only reason I liked the movie Demolition Man. It showed how extreme the gov't can get in their motherly role.
"A persons rights end when they infringe on another persons rights." Me not wearing my seatbelt, not wearing a helmet, eating salty or fatty foods, or not exercising is no business of the govenments.
This may be blunt - but it's a fact of life.
We all suffer the costs from motorcycle accidents. Helmet or not. Couple weeks or months in ICU can total hundreds of thousands of dollars and drives up insurance costs for everybody. Don't have insurance? Hospitals are obligated to try and save your life even if you don't have a penny to your name. Higher hospital costs and insurance costs all of us more.
Survive an accident and can't take care of yourself anymore? SSI pays to help care for you and your family for the rest of your life. Insurance coverage continues to foot the bill too for the life long medical treatments you will need. Again, it costs all of us.
And it isn't much cheaper if you are 'lucky' enough to be killed. SSI benefits go to your kids until they're 18 or longer if they go to college.
Really be interesting to see what costs more in the long run - the number of people who are killed and the Government helps support your family for years on end or the number who survive and the Government helps cover your care and feeding till you die.
I think one of the main concerns over this elected officials statements goes deeper than the helmet issue itself. He basically refers to motorcyclists as out of control speed freaks and lumps all motorcyclists into that category. Those kind of pictures painted for the general population do nothing to help promote our sport or our further enjoyment of any aspect of it in any way. Send a letter Heather, and then send a copy to me to sign!
Great discussion...
I have calmed down a bit. I'll wait a day or two to write anything. I think the author could have got his facts on this issue more in line.
Helmets are not the enemy...we are. However, because you don't believe in a law for them doesn't mean you should try to paint them as ineffective, as that clearly is not the case. Adamini took a complete wrong turn on explaining this issue. I watch you guys fall all day long at the track and get up mad...because your bike looks funnier than it did when you got there. His argument is that if you weren't wearing a helmet, the results would be the same. I just don't think so.
Anyway, I think you guys get my drift...
I was really ticked off by the presentation of the argument, I guess.
Heather
The only reason a helmet law is good, is because kids wouldn't ware one if their peer didn't. Kids are stupid. Anybody that has lived into their 20's should understand anyway. Older cruiser dudes are as bad as teenagers though with the peer pressure. I agree with corner, it's about the $ and control of the masses but in reality it's mostly good, just not right.
If they can't afford a funeral they were probably on welfare so we might save tax money if they ride without one.
I read this thanks to stumpy's wife and forward it to a friend in the industry who in turn sent this email to Rep. Stephen Adimini
Mr. Adamini,
The following link was sent to me from a friend. http://miningjournal.net/news/story/128202004_new02-n1208.asp
Your quote: Added Adamini, "Show me the data that proves wearing a helmet will make a difference in high-speed motorcycle crashes and I'll support the current law." is stunning.
It seems to me that you are not at all qualified to make a decision on this law. Your level of ignorance is staggering. The thought of someone like you being part of the law making process scares the crap out of me. You don't need to know anything at all about motorcycling to know that if your head hits a solid object at speed you are going to be seriously injured. It's common sense. The list of people I know that have been saved by wearing helmets is way too long to list.
I really don't have a problem with the helmet law itself, just the rationale most people use to argue against it (see attached article for just a taste). In this over-litigious society we live in, I am a firm believer in personal responsibility. If you do something stupid that results in injury, you accept the responsibility and deal with it. But since many people cannot accept responsibility and like to sue and blame others for their actions, we end up with personal freedom robbing laws like this. Oh well, that's what we get for being idiots.
Quotes like "Face it, most people driving a motorcycle do so at high speeds. If you're going 80 miles per hour, you're going to be hurt whether or not you're wearing a helmet." just don't cut it when arguing the helmet law. When you get right down to it, it's just a matter of personal freedom. Do we offer that freedom to the people? Can we afford it? If you are truly serious about learning more about helmet safety, reply to this email and I will explain why I am in a position to enlighten you.
Thanks stumpy's wife!! I like to vent on politicians!!
Weird, I wear a helmet AWAYS, and I wear a seatbelt NEVER. We have a seatbelt law in WI, but not a helmet law. My rationale for the seatbelt thing is reading studies done with and without restraint. In high speed accidents you have about a 50/50 rate of survival, because sometimes being thrown from the vehicle can actually be beneficial.
My rational for wearing a helmet comes from knowing that it won't matter if I hit my head riding at 5 MPH, 55 MPH or 150 MPH, because blunt force trauma will do the same thing to your brain. I've heard more stories about an "around the block" accident causing head injury than racing accidents. This is my choice, I accept accountability for my actions.
I agree we all make our own decisions, and thus must take responsibility for them. Do law makers make laws for revenue? Certainly. Do they make them out of ignorance? Absolutely. That, my friends, is why it is so important you educate yourself before you vote, and then go out there and vote. Holding elected officials accountable for their comments and voting record is part of the process. And Heather, I agree, the PATRIOT act does more to restrict our civil liberties than any law on the books. However, it doesn't matter if the issue is big or small, the way toward change and the end to ignorance is getting involved. You guys write to your reps, and tell them the truth of the issue.
Related...Ike's thoughts about rider education are so important.
One thought Roger has always held is that helmets should be perceived as ultra cool. They have cool logos and graphix, look tight and mean, so why won't kids wear them? If they were sold as the hot accessory, not only would dealers make the money from the sale, but they would assure a return customer by perhaps saving that precious brain matter should the kid get stupid. Just a thought...
It should be the riders' choice.
I hate using raising insurance costs as a reason for ANYTHING. Lots of people slip on steps, we could make a law that all steps must have sticky tape. Whew, saved millions there. Wait, how many people died of the flu last year? That cost us how much? OK, everyone by law must receive a flu vaccination. It's just silly. Believe me, no one hates paying $1K/month for health insurance more than me, but to use it as a justification to take people's rights away is silly.
The Stat Rep is ignorant. He may be anti-helmet law which is fine, but to be giving the absolute wrong message is unbelievable. People SHOULD wear helmets. We shouldn't say that they are more dangerous. I'd suggest taking a picture of each of your scuffed helmets and sending it to him.
In fact, I'd be willing to create a Web page or even a Web site that showed photos of all the helmets that have saved lives or at least made a difference.
On a shelf in my garage is the scuffed up helmet that I was wearing in a '77 street accident. I've hung onto all these years as a reminder of stupidity.
I was wearing shorts and a t-shirt when I went down at about 60 mph. A 4 x 8 piece of plywood flew off of a truck in front of me and knocked me down. I didn't break anything but I had severe abrasoins over about 40% of my body. Some skin grafts - mostly just betadine showers 6 times a day for 2 months. I keep the helmet as a reminder of what a helmet is designed to do and shorts and t-shirt are not.
I also keep the helmet as a reminder of my father. He raced a little dirt track in the 40's and still owned /rode 9 bikes when he died at age 79.
In the 70's my father was not a big proponent of full face helmets. Helmets yes, full face - no. His rationale was that the more weight you carried on your head, the greater the likelyhood that you would suffer a spinal injury. Helmets of the 70's were no where near as light as today. After seeing my helmet he changed his mind. I had a huge gouge across the chin bar - right wear my naked chin would have been in a 1/2 helmet.
Look where we are today. Even kids riding BMX bicycles are wearing full face helmets. Helmets can be cool with the right approach.
But it is your choice. Just like choosing what you wear on your back and legs when you're on the street.
That's a great story Rick.
I've seen some mangled helmets. I bet a bunch of people still have them around as reminders and could tell their stories. I think it would make for some interesting reading!
QuoteI had a neighbor who worked in the emergency room. He said he's seen more deaths from riders wearing helmets than those who didn't. He claimed that there is swelling in the brain on a helmet injury, where the cracking of the skull (with no helmet) relieves this pressure.
Ok, am I the only one that thinks this is BS?
Hasn't anyone been on the ground?
I've been racing since 1987. Not like a few races each year, but lots of races.
Thousands and thousands of racing miles. Big events. High speeds.
In that time, I've been to six events that someone died at. It's terrible each time it happens, but it's not a very big number considering the "high speeds" and the "risk".
I quit counting how many times I fell down after twenty-one...that's another story about the number...
Anyway, seems as though the death is caused by the accident, not the helmet. If grandma turns left in front of you and plows your head into the pavement...
Having had my head ran over in 1991 at Brainerd, I didn't have any brain swelling or anything because I was wearing a helmet. If I didn't have a helmet on, I would have been dead.
QuoteOk, am I the only one that thinks this is BS?
I agree, but it is sad that a "Health Care Professional" believes this. It is people like this that make the State Representatives question the importance of a helmet. (although that MAY be good if we don't want more laws restricting our freedoms)
According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:
QuoteBecause serious head injury is common among fatally injured motorcyclists, helmet use is important. In states that require all riders to wear helmets, use approaches 100 percent compared with about 50 percent in other states.3 Yet only 19 states and the District of Columbia mandate helmet use by all riders. Death rates from head injuries have been shown to be twice as high among motorcyclists in states with no helmet laws or laws that apply only to young riders, compared with states where laws apply to all riders.4 In the last few years several states have repealed or weakened their helmet laws. In 1997, helmet laws in Texas and Arkansas were weakened to apply only to younger riders. Kentucky weakened its law in 1998, Louisiana weakened its law in 1999, Florida weakened its law in 2000, and Pennsylvania weakened its law in 2003. Repealing or weakening helmet laws so they don't apply to all riders has been followed by increases in deaths.5,6,7,8 In contrast, benefits return when helmet laws applying to all riders are reinstated.9,10
Helmets are about 29 percent effective in preventing motorcycle deaths and about 67 percent effective in preventing brain injuries. An unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to suffer a fatal head injury, compared with a helmeted rider.
There's the facts. Helmets are safe.
Also I read in another study last week, that the rate of helmet use in states where there is a helmet law, helmet use is about 100% so I don't think the government is making money off tickets. It's kind of hard to get away with not wearing a helmet, unlike a seatbelt.
Adamini slipped up when he used the "helmets are just as safe as your bare skull" argument. Perhaps more education is needed for emergency workers removing helmets. Is that where the problem is?
Heather
OK here's my letter and I'll feel better now... ;).
Sometimes you just have to voice your opinion....
I'm very disappointed in your comments in the article entitled "Little chance motorcycle helmet law will be changed" appearing in the December 8, 2004 edition of The Mining Journal.
Perhaps your argument is that whether an individual wears a helmet should be their personal choice. However, it is highly irresponsible of you to use the safety of helmets as the basis for your argument. You ask for facts. I'll provide a couple.
You say, "It appears that if a person is operating a motorcycle at speeds of more than 20 miles per hour that wearing a helmet has no effect on injuries or the lack thereof," Adamini said. "Face it, most people driving a motorcycle do so at high speeds. If you're going 80 miles per hour, you're going to be hurt whether or not you're wearing a helmet."
First of all, the characterization that all motorcycles travel at high speeds is ludicrous and unfounded. That is just silly. Second, when wearing proper riding gear, chances are good you will not be hurt if you fall at that speed. How do I know? My husband falls off his motorcycle several times a year—he's a road racer. 80 miles per hour is slow in that sport. He scraped his elbow once because his leather suit was wearing out. That's about it. Is he wearing more than you should wear on the street? Rather than a jacket and pants, he wears a one-piece suit. Other than that, he wears good gloves, boots and a helmet—proper riding gear.
You say, "Show me the data that proves wearing a helmet will make a difference in high-speed motorcycle crashes and I'll support the current law." I'll be happy to assist you. According to a report by Insurance Institute for Highway Safety I found doing a simple search on the web search engine "Google",
"Because serious head injury is common among fatally injured motorcyclists, helmet use is important. In states that require all riders to wear helmets, use approaches 100 percent compared with about 50 percent in other states. Yet only 19 states and the District of Columbia mandate helmet use by all riders. Death rates from head injuries have been shown to be twice as high among motorcyclists in states with no helmet laws or laws that apply only to young riders, compared with states where laws apply to all riders. In the last few years several states have repealed or weakened their helmet laws. In 1997, helmet laws in Texas and Arkansas were weakened to apply only to younger riders. Kentucky weakened its law in 1998, Louisiana weakened its law in 1999, Florida weakened its law in 2000, and Pennsylvania weakened its law in 2003. Repealing or weakening helmet laws so they don't apply to all riders has been followed by increases in deaths. In contrast, benefits return when helmet laws applying to all riders are reinstated.
Helmets are about 29 percent effective in preventing motorcycle deaths and about 67 percent effective in preventing brain injuries. An unhelmeted rider is 40 percent more likely to suffer a fatal head injury, compared with a helmeted rider."
This report and their sources can be viewed online at www.iihs.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/motorcyl.htm.
Helmets are safe. Let's encourage everyone to wear them whether it is the law or not. Do not use helmets in your "choice" argument. Argue your right to choose in a responsible manner, not one based on stereotypes and ego.
I hope this presentation of facts rather than opinion is helpful to you. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Heather Steltenpohl
Way to go, great letter. I support helmet laws only because I'd really like to see the Harley bada@@ boys wearing them. Otherwise, I really don't care if someone else chooses a helmet or not. I choose to wear one and so does my wife. Here's the angle that I'm wondering about; What is the correlation bettween the state's helmet laws and the insurance rates? i.e. Are the insurance rates lower in states that have mandatory helmet laws?
The Wisconsin DOT tabulates deaths on bikes every year and publishes results. The overwhelming majority of deaths involve Harleys, alcohol, and a lack of headgear. If the majority of deaths on bikes in Wisconsin are on Harleys why aren't Harley riders paying $1500 a year to insure their bikes?
So, why won't my Farmer's agent provide insurance for our RC 51, but his parent company Foremost will, for $1400 annual? I don't mean to threadjack. I believe there is a correlation between the money insurance lobbyists throw around our state capitals and the legislation, or lack thereof, we eventually see. This comes up a couple times a year in our Madison BMW Motorcycle Club and makes me just as sick.
Adamini's moronic comments only add fuel to my suspicions; Our representatives and legislators are becoming more emboldened as the amount of monies they have been bribed with starts to pile up. Take a general consensus please; How many here have insurance company "headquarters" in the same city as their state capitals?