This is a discussion forum?

[Bigfoot]

I stand corrected. Sorry, I did not think they were.

[DJinNH]

I'm happy for you but in 16 years I've put down 3 bikes 2 wearing shorts 1 in full gear the most damage I took was with full gear on. And I put the other 2 down after that incident. I mean really if your falling off your bike that much it's either time to get a side car or hang it up.

D, I am definitely glad you made it through those wrecks and I can't stress enough that I believe that you make the choice.

I only wanted to say out of concern for you and others that feel the same, if you ever worked in the roads in a law enforcement job as I did for two decades, then you'd see your proof. Death caused by severe road rash or impact to the skull is NEVER a pretty sight.

Please stay safe.

Don

[fredintoon]

I first rode in 1954 and must have owned nearly a hundred bikes and ridden hundreds of thousands of miles since then. I reckon I must have fallen off most of my solo bikes at least once. Luckily they were all city street speed upsets and I was wearing "state of the art gear" each time. Mind you, back then "state of the art" was a Corker helmet and a Barbour suit but I always landed on my arse. Perhaps that's because I have the same aerodynamic shape as a space capsule which also splashes down fat end first.
About helmets & abrasion resistant clothing:- too much speed or a freaky circumstance and not even the best of gear will save you but the gear will usually allow an open casket ceremony even if it don't save your life. I was habituated to helmets in the UK, they do keep the rain out and that's important in the UK where the weather demons trigger a downpour whenever you take your bike out.
About helmet laws:- Here's another quiz.
¤ The State has the right to protect citizens from their own stupidity
¤ The State has the duty to protect citizens from their own stupidity
¤ The State should let Darwin rule.

[DGXSER]

Fred's Quiz/pole

As I stated earlier, Let Darwin be the judge and jury.

[Dsxs11]

From the NHTSA

Helmet Use and Effectiveness NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,784 motorcyclists in 2007. If all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 800 lives could have been saved. Helmets are estimated to be 37-percent effective in preventing fatal injuries to motorcyclists. This means for every 100 motorcyclists killed in crashes while not wearing a helmet, 37 of them could have been saved had all 100 worn helmets. According to NHTSA’s National Occupant Protection Use Survey, a nationally representative observational survey of motorcycle helmet, seat belt, and child safety seat use, helmet use declined by 13 percentage points from 71 percent in 2000 to 58 percent in 2007 . Reported helmet use rates for fatally injured motorcyclists in 2007 were 59 percent for riders and 47 percent for passengers, compared with 59 percent and 45 percent, respectively, in 2006. All motorcycle helmets sold in the United States are required to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, the performance standard which establishes the minimum level of protection helmets must afford each user. In 2007, 20 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico required helmet use by all motorcyclists. Other States either required only a subset of motorcyclists to use helmets (such as those under age 18), or had no helmet requirement.

Also says motorcyclist are 4 times more likely to be over the legal limit for alcohol consumption. We also lead the way in speeding convictions, DWI and license suspensions. And 40 year old riders up had 2537 of the 5154 fatalities recorded in 2007 Compared to the 1573 of the under 30 crowd that typically rides zip splats. Seems to me this might be an experience over gear thing. You have to take a MSF class in most states to get your Cycle endorsement. And the over 40 guys you can assume are Harley riders with all the harley gear on. Intersting facts if I do say so myself.

When your numbers up your numbers up. If I die on the bike doing something I love then to hell with it what do I care.

[trbig]

I was going to post some quotes stating the "Facts" of what I was saying earlier. But every poll states what they want the numbers to mean. Just like here..

If all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 800 lives could have been saved.

How can you even make this statement with a straight face? How do you know that the shot to the head that a particular guy took wouldn't have been fatal had he wore a helmet? Would it have caused permanent brain damage? Broke his neck? I read a lot of info to be able to say what I did.. but again.. it's from polls that are deciphered by whoever wants to make use of the numbers. AND.. the National Inquirer is a factual circular!


I won't deny that a motorcycle safety course is a good idea. I think hunter safety courses are also. That way you don't have a bunch of guys learning things from their uncle Earl like, "Drink at LEAST a 5th of whiskey before riding so you're good and loose in case you go down!" And... "Ape hangars give you the most control over a bike!"


Tod

[Ivan]

From the NHTSA

Helmet Use and Effectiveness NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,784 motorcyclists in 2007. If all motorcyclists had worn helmets, an additional 800 lives could have been saved. Helmets are estimated to be 37-percent effective in preventing fatal injuries to motorcyclists. This means for every 100 motorcyclists killed in crashes while not wearing a helmet, 37 of them could have been saved had all 100 worn helmets. According to NHTSA’s National Occupant Protection Use Survey, a nationally representative observational survey of motorcycle helmet, seat belt, and child safety seat use, helmet use declined by 13 percentage points from 71 percent in 2000 to 58 percent in 2007 . Reported helmet use rates for fatally injured motorcyclists in 2007 were 59 percent for riders and 47 percent for passengers, compared with 59 percent and 45 percent, respectively, in 2006. All motorcycle helmets sold in the United States are required to meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218, the performance standard which establishes the minimum level of protection helmets must afford each user. In 2007, 20 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico required helmet use by all motorcyclists. Other States either required only a subset of motorcyclists to use helmets (such as those under age 18), or had no helmet requirement.

Also says motorcyclist are 4 times more likely to be over the legal limit for alcohol consumption. We also lead the way in speeding convictions, DWI and license suspensions. And 40 year old riders up had 2537 of the 5154 fatalities recorded in 2007 Compared to the 1573 of the under 30 crowd that typically rides zip splats. Seems to me this might be an experience over gear thing. You have to take a MSF class in most states to get your Cycle endorsement. And the over 40 guys you can assume are Harley riders with all the harley gear on. Intersting facts if I do say so myself.

When your numbers up your numbers up. If I die on the bike doing something I love then to hell with it what do I care.

It would seem to me that a statistical survey by anything that has an acronym and belongs to the government is probably inflating their findings in such a way as to exert more control over the citizenry.

Nebraska decided that it's constituents were too stupid to make their own decisions about helmet usage when I was a kid in grade school. I distinctly remember an article in one of the big news papers in the state that helmet laws would ease property taxes from the revenue generated by ticketing cyclists. We had a lengthy discussion about it in our Government class (or social studies, which ever it was). The point being that Nebraska could give a rip less whether you live or die in a cycle crash, they just want the money. I highly suspect there is a like determinant in other "lid on" states.

As far as statistical findings, imagine, if you will, that two seperate entities conducted like studies on the effects of alcohol on fatalities in car incidents. One conducting the study being MADD, and the other being Anheuser-Busch. Given the same pool of statistical information, their studies would have to result in identical findings. But, would they?

[Montreux_Blue]

So people advertise wheelchairs in the motorcycle section of Craigslist for the people that don't wear their gear right? Just a few samples.
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ftw/mcy/960589507.html
http://dallas.craigslist.org/ndf/mcy/962233352.html
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/mcy/958091592.html
http://dallas.craigslist.org/dal/mcy/924176028.html

[CatatonicBug]

So people advertise wheelchairs in the motorcycle section of Craigslist for the people that don't wear their gear right?

That's only because CL lumps "scooters" in the same category as motorcycles and these things call themselves scooters.