This is ironic.

[Mike Qube]

Out of curiosity, what are the helmet laws in say European countries, Canada, Australia? If helmets are required in those countries, are people all up in arms about their freedom being taken away or is this purely an American thing?

[DucDave]

I am glad this turned into a Helmet Law thread and I didn't have to wait until the snow is deep on the ground!

[Degsy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

I


http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html

-your "facts" leave out technological-advances in construction/engineering of head protection in the last 25 or so years.

-"helmet laws" do NOT save lives.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Honclfibr]

Yep...slippery slope arguement almost always drifts into corner cases that have little to do with the original discussion. reductio ad absurdum

Well it might help if your argument was more than "people who choose not to wear helmets are incapable of making rational decisions and must be protected from themselves".

'cause look around, the general population would (and does) say the exact same thing about motorcyclists in general, and sportbikes in particular. We've already proven that we are incapable of making rational decisions by riding motorcycles, and now we're trying to deflect from that by persecuting the only segment of the population more irrational than us.

[Honclfibr]

In this case, I think that your freedom to be stupid is not as important as protecting someone else from your actions. (e.g. losing control of your motorcycle due to being hit between the eyes by a bug and crashing into oncoming traffic.)

I agree completely. Feel free to legislate mandatory eye protection laws. Only don't do it in NH, we already have them.

[Degsy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

In this case, I think that your freedom to be stupid is not as important as protecting someone else from your actions. (e.g. losing control of your motorcycle due to being hit between the eyes by a bug and crashing into oncoming traffic.)

I agree completely. Feel free to legislate mandatory eye protection laws. Only don't do it in NH, we already have them.

Lol. Every state has eye protection laws gadget.


Fwiw, I don't agree with mandatory helmet laws, but I also think people who don't wear one or wear a beanie helmet are worthy of being a murder jury in Florida.

[wesvailco]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

-so which helmet is more "safe"? get out your umbrellas, 'cause its raining "facts" around here....

-again, "helmet laws" do NOT save lives....the helmet does.

[TheIglu]

Oh jesus christ.

[Chippertheripper]

-so which helmet is more "safe"? get out your umbrellas, 'cause its raining "facts" around here....

-again, "helmet laws" do NOT save lives....the helmet does.

What, exactly, is your goddamned point?

[DucDave]

Oh jesus christ.

Yes?

[gadget]

I agree completely. Feel free to legislate mandatory eye protection laws. Only don't do it in NH, we already have them.

Lol. Every state has eye protection laws gadget.

Would a better example be getting knocked out from something falling off a pickup in front of you? Eye protection isn't going to do much good if you get hit in the forehead by a wrench...

Oh jesus christ.

My feelings exactly....

(Dad, I'm Goddamnit, not Jesus Christ)


oh yeah, helmets are required for motorcycles in every European country and they do have different attitudes about what "Freedom" actually is.

[wesvailco]

What, exactly, is your goddamned point?

-that helmet construction is the main reason that there are less head injuries over the time periods stated as facts. the increased use of helmets is not, its the technology that has improved. the road surface hasn't gotten softer....

-same with seat belts, its a proven technology that "increases" the chance of survival in a crash. 1950: no seat belts, 1960: seat belts arrive, 1970: shoulder and lap belts, 1990: airbags as a "supplemental restraint system" to be used in conjunction with safety belts....

-alll mandated by DOT. if it didn't work, it wouldn't exist and WOULDN'T BE MANDATORY.

[NobodySpecific]

The man would be alive today if he just wore a helmet.
You can argue against it all you want. It will not change this fact.

fact
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.


Predicting that a man wouldn't have died if he had a helmet on is not a fact. For all you know, he could have worn a beanie and landed directly on his face, or rolled and hit something else. He would have likely survived, yes, but you need to learn the difference between facts and theories.

[Chippertheripper]

I may be going out on a limb here wesvailco, but I'd say the use of helmets (by law or choice) has had more impact on the reduction of head injuries than the improvement in construction.

[wesvailco]

I may be going out on a limb here wesvailco, but I'd say the use of helmets (by law or choice) has had more impact on the reduction of head injuries than the improvement in construction.

-your limb broke.

-engineering trumps statistics.

[Chippertheripper]

If you insist. I don't believe you, but I'm happy you believe yourself.

[OreoGaborio]

get out your umbrellas, 'cause its raining "facts" around here....

again, "helmet laws" do NOT save lives....the helmet does.

OH SNAP! It's Fat wesvailco, makin it rain facts up in this hizzy!


Don't be a dope... no one is arguing that the best helmets of today make the best helmets of yester-year look as useful as wearing a pile of dogshit on your head.

The argument here is that helmet laws DO in fact, save lives because it DRAMATICALLY reduces the number of riders that die or suffer head injuries when involved in a motorcycle crashe. THAT'S my argument here...

If you think you can argue that, lets look at head injuries per crash when the rider wasn't wearing a helmet compared to head injuries per crash when the rider WAS wearing a helmet....

From the previously linked article:

NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent.2 Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position.3 Helmets are highly effective in preventing brain injuries, which often require extensive treatment and may result in lifelong disability. In the event of a crash, unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted riders to suffer traumatic brain injuries.2 A recent literature review estimated that helmets are 42 percent effective at preventing death and 69 percent effective at preventing head injuries.

Now lets look at the percentage of people wearing helmets in states that do NOT require helmets vs the percentage of people wearing helmets in states that DO require helmets....

From the previously linked article:

According to NHTSA, in 2010, 98 percent of motorcyclists observed in states with universal helmet laws were wearing helmets. In states without such laws, helmet use was 48 percent in 2010.

Which leads me to the conclusion that is backed up in that article:

How do helmet laws affect motorcyclist deaths and injuries?
In states that either reinstated or enacted universal motorcycle helmet laws, helmet use increased dramatically, and motorcyclist deaths and injuries decreased. In states that repealed or weakened their universal helmet laws, helmet use declined sharply, and motorcyclist deaths and injuries rose.

So with that said, I would now like you to prove to me that helmet laws have not contributed to the saving of human lives. Before making your argument, please read the information contained within that link in its entirety and cite sources to back up your claims when making your argument.
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html




I have absolutely zero PERSONAL problem with helmet laws. I DO understand the whole "infringing on personal choice" issue, I just don't care about protecting that particular choice. I believe the image of the motorcycling community as well as the human community as a whole would benefit from having laws requiring the use of helmets in every state. Fewer head injuries can NOT be a bad thing. Fewer people in intensive care, fewer people in medically (or physically) induced comas, fewer deaths, fewer burrials that could have easily been avoided and quite arguably lower motorcycle AND medical insurance rates.

It's about picking and choosing your battles... There are THOUSANDS of laws out there that protect people from their own stupidity or the stupidity of others and I have no problem with most of them. When a law requires safety measures when participating in an activity, I'm usually alright with that. When a law BANS an activity all together, that's when I get concerned.

[Honclfibr]

-your "facts" leave out technological-advances in construction/engineering of head protection in the last 25 or so years.

Such as?

[gadget]

-that helmet construction is the main reason that there are less head injuries over the time periods stated as facts. the increased use of helmets is not, its the technology that has improved. the road surface hasn't gotten softer....

-same with seat belts, its a proven technology that "increases" the chance of survival in a crash. 1950: no seat belts, 1960: seat belts arrive, 1970: shoulder and lap belts, 1990: airbags as a "supplemental restraint system" to be used in conjunction with safety belts....

-alll mandated by DOT. if it didn't work, it wouldn't exist and WOULDN'T BE MANDATORY.

This just doesn't make any sense.

It doesn't matter how perfect the technology is.
If you do not use it you will not benefit from it.

[wesvailco]

The argument here is that helmet laws DO in fact, save lives because it DRAMATICALLY reduces the number of idiots that die or suffer head injuries when involved in a motorcycle crashe. THAT'S my argument here...

-and my argument is that helmet construction is what saves lives, not the increased use. and I do agree with you on usage, but what defines a "helmet". should I be able to rock a Pro-tec skateboard helmet?

-then why DOT/Snell certifications? why should the construction/engineering be scrutinized?

-lol at fixing GIF.

[wesvailco]

Such as?

-outlined by the easy rider helmet pictured above.

-just asked a non-rider co-worker which "appears" to be a safer helmet. she picked the HJC. a non-rider who knows absolutely nothing about motorbykes or helmet construction.

[NobodySpecific]

-and my argument is that helmet construction is what saves lives, not the increased use. and I do agree with you on usage, but what defines a "helmet". should I be able to rock a Pro-tec skateboard helmet?

-then why DOT/Snell certifications? why should the construction/engineering be scrutinized?

-lol at fixing GIF.

Why are you arguing? Did you guys ever think that *gasp* BOTH things are true? Or does one of you need to be more right than the other? Increased use AND better technology = more lives saved. That being said, the helmet that's sitting at home while you take a header into the pavement will do nothing to help you, no matter how good the technology is.

[OreoGaborio]

-and my argument is that helmet construction is what saves lives, not the increased use.

Again... Who (besides you) is arguing that improved helmet construction has not contributed to the safety of human lives? OF COURSE helmet construction has advanced. OF COURSE they're better. No one's arguing that! But as others have said, improved construction doesn't mean SQUAT if you don't even USE it, which is what this argument is about.

Helmet laws increase helmet use, correct?
And helmets save lives, agree?
So how do helmet laws NOT save lives?


The rest of your post wasn't even worth quoting as you're trying to steer the argument in a different direction.... a sign that you have absolutely NO idea how to back up your claim that helmet laws don't save lives.

[Rusty the Scoob]

-and my argument is that helmet construction is what saves lives, not the increased use. and I do agree with you on usage, but what defines a "helmet". should I be able to rock a Pro-tec skateboard helmet?

-then why DOT/Snell certifications? why should the construction/engineering be scrutinized?

-lol at fixing GIF.

What in the F are you talking about?

The safest helmet in the world isn't going to help one tiny bit if it's in the closet or on the dealer's shelf when the crash happens.

[wesvailco]

-because I just spent 2hrs of my morning looking for statistics, I need to find value of that time spent. as does my employer.

-and trying to steer the argument? that's what lobbyists do, the same lobbyists that say a helmet-law infringes on yur' freedoms. I was trying to make a point, but shits' useless unless you have a TTD sig. see y'all in jersey in Sept.