Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Motorcycle Helmet Laws Save Lives, but Not Very Many
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.
Captain America|4.1.08 @ 7:15PM|#
Helmets suck because they limit one's ability to hear and see.
And yes, miles traveled would have been a useful, as would rural v.
urban.
Oh and helmet or not, do not ride in Atlanta.
|4.1.08 @ 7:15PM|#
I would be more interested in any increase in health care costs associated with NON-fatal injuries. That would negatively impact (eeewwwww . . .) the insurance premiums all riders pay. Helmets are a good thing, IMO
Captain America|4.1.08 @ 7:22PM|#
From what I've read, cost comparisons show that helmet wearers become money-draining quads, helmetless riders, organ donors.
Damien Katz|4.1.08 @ 7:47PM|#
Fatalities isn't the whole story, there is also survivable head and brain trauma, which can be far worse on families in many cases than outright death. Those are harder statistics to come by as they aren't tracked nearly as rigorously as deaths, but I'd wager helmets prevent brain damage in significant numbers.
Travis|4.1.08 @ 7:52PM|#
This is sort of the same thing as activists who campaign for lower speed limits on highways because there are fewer fatalities. It sounds nice until you learn lower speed limits don't lower the number of accidents. I use to be an EMT and have seen the results of car & motorcycle accidents believe me sometimes you're better off dying.
Rimfax|4.1.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Jacob, are you the "pursuit of happiness" guy at Reason? You seem to get all the stories about petty prohibitions against arguably dubious personal choices that are made for personal pleasure.
Rimfax|4.1.08 @ 8:34PM|#
I used to be immersed in the American motorcycle culture and the argument that I heard frequently was that helmets increase the chance of severe neck injuries offsetting the reduced chance of brain injury. This is a long-winded echo of Captain America, above. Quadriplegic or rutabaga? Though, I haven't seen compelling evidence to support the neck injury argument.
|4.1.08 @ 8:39PM|#
If you drive a motorcycle sans protective head gear, you're an
idiot. I don't want to hear about restricted visibility and hearing
loss from wearing a helmet. The fact remains you are safer with a
helmet than without.
Now that my safety shpiel is out of the way, helmet laws, like
seatbelt laws, are an unacceptable infringement of the right to
stupidity. You don't want to wear one, I'll respect your right to
choose, if not your choice.
Rimfax|4.1.08 @ 8:43PM|#
The "kind of states with limited (or no) helmet laws" hypothesis doesn't look good. California, with an "all rider" law, may very well have the majority of motorcycle miles in the country. They out-populate all of the other sunbelt states and have been riding weather.
|4.1.08 @ 8:49PM|#
Imagine a device that would cut our combat deaths in Iraq by
11.1%. I suspect that that device would be implemented rather
quickly.
As to whether 615 extra deaths is "not very many", it would be nice
to know the states involved. About half of all Americans live in
California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.
If these states recently repealed helmet laws, the 615 deaths is
(maybe) not that many. If not, then not so much.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.1.08 @ 9:01PM|#
TWC is walking around proof that a well constructed motorcycle
helmet can save your life. My children are eternally grateful to
that Grant Daytona (Snell Foundation Approved) for without it they
wouldn't exist and neither would I.
That said, I am absolutely against mandatory helmet laws.
Interesting side anecdote. When I was a lad there was a kid who
gave me shit constantly about being a sis and wearing a helmet.
About half way through our junior year of high school he was killed
by somebody's mom, who ran a stop sign and broadsided his
motorcycle. Cause of death? Massive head trauma resulting from the
sidewalk turning his head into a squished watermelon.
I took little satisfaction in his demise but the lesson was
clear.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.1.08 @ 9:06PM|#
This is sort of the same thing as activists who campaign for
lower speed limits on highways
I hate those people. CalTrans finally modernizes a high traffic
semi-rural highway in our area. Four lanes, not much cross traffic,
65 mph speed limit. Three months later and old man gets killed
trying to cross this four lane highway, just after dawn, in the
middle of nowhere. Immediately, they all come out of the woodwork
screaming for lower speed limits.
Like he wouldn't have gotten killed crossing a four lane heavily
traveled highway by traffic moving 55 mph.
They settled on 60 as the speed limit.
|4.1.08 @ 9:11PM|#
"From what I've read, cost comparisons show that helmet
wearers become money-draining quads, helmetless riders, organ
donors."
Organ donors or not, Florida's helmet law says you can ride
helmetless...if you have health insurance. That tidies up the
"burden on health care" argument.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.1.08 @ 9:17PM|#
Helmets suck because they limit one's ability to hear and
see
I can see that with full face helmets, which I never wore. I was so
used to riding with a helmet that the few times I've ridden without
one, I found the wind noise in my ears made it especially difficult
to hear.
Have the same problem in the hot rod boat, you get that baby
cranking and you can't hear anything except vee-drive whine, wind
noise, and exhaust roar.
learned \'em good|4.1.08 @ 9:22PM|#
I took little satisfaction in his demise but the lesson was
clear.
Yeah: never taunt anyone you wouldn't want standing over your
bloody corpse yelling "who's the sissy now, mutha-fuckah!" For him,
that's called learning a lesson the hard way.
|4.1.08 @ 9:33PM|#
Helmets suck because they limit one's ability to hear and
see
That's unmitigated bullshit. If anything, the full face helmet
makes it easier to hear and see by cutting out the wind in my ears
and eyes.
Everybody who rides: go visit ride2die.com. You'll head over to
your local leather store tomorrow.
|4.1.08 @ 9:40PM|#
With you all the way, J sub and TWC. My personal experience is
with bicycles rather than motorcycles - we have the same endless
god-damned debate about helmets and safety, just at 20mph rather
than 60. (Although at least legislators stay out of it for the most
part; mandatory helmet laws generally apply only to kids and bike
messengers.)
The 'helmets make people more reckless' argument has never really
made sense to me - anyone who would behave more rashly just because
they have a couple of pounds of plastic wrapped around their noggin
probably isn't the type to wear a helmet anyhow.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.1.08 @ 9:55PM|#
standing over your bloody corpse yelling "who's the sissy
now, mutha-fuckah!"
Okay, I lied. :-) I didn't see the corpse but that sentence did
cross my lips a couple of times in conversation with my
buddies.
|4.1.08 @ 10:20PM|#
Helmets are for pussies. If you are willing to die for the experience of riding free (as I once was), then you have to be willing to pay the price. If not, you shouldn't be riding the bike in the first place (as I now am not).
matt|4.1.08 @ 10:22PM|#
I always wear a helmet & gloves, and if I'm out of the
neighborhood, it's an armored jacket and leg protection as well.
This is because I'm not an idiot. That said, it's no one else's
business whether or not I want to risk it by going without.
Interestingly enough, the one time I can remember being on a public
road without a helmet was the only time I've been pulled over on my
bike - I was moving it from the parking lot to a spot on the street
(200 yds or so) and didn't bother with a helmet. Like a true
e-libertarian, I explained and apologized instead of arguing the
finer points of individual liberty, and got off with a verbal
warning instead of a fine.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.1.08 @ 10:27PM|#
I'm ignoring the piles of papers on my desk and did a quick look
at death stats.
Motorcycles account for 2% of all registered vehicles and 0.4% of
all miles traveled in the U.S., but motorcycle accidents account
for over 9% of traffic fatalities.
Per mile driven, motorcyclists are about 32 times more likely to
die in an accident than people riding in cars.
Head injury is a leading cause of death in motorcycle accidents.
Motorcyclists without helmets are 40% more likely to experience a
fatal head injury and 15% more likely to suffer a nonfatal injury
in a crash than are motorcyclists with helmets.
The Masked Millionaire|4.1.08 @ 10:40PM|#
Sign a waiver that we don't have to pay to repair the tiny brain
of yours when you crash and burn. Then you can ride without a
helmet all you want and I won't say a thing.
Live From Las Vegas
The Masked Millionaire
www.TheMaskedMillionaire.com
The Wine Commonsewer|4.1.08 @ 10:45PM|#
I think Jacob has already UNMASKED the fallacy of the public health argument with respect to helmet laws.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.1.08 @ 10:50PM|#
Oooops, wasn't done. Secondarily, if the problem is the
socialization of medicine then let's abolish socialized medicine.
No tax paid medical bennies means t/p aren't on the hook for
scrambled brains.
On a slightly different note, one girl I dated used to refer to my
bike as a murdercycle.
LevStrauss|4.1.08 @ 11:11PM|#
Survival of the fittest truly describes my philosophy on
motorcycle helmet laws. As someone who had a friend who got into an
accident and was never the same after head injuries, unfortunately
you just have to let people be idiots if they aren't hurting anyone
else. You tell them they don't listen and nobody but themselves get
hurt or are to blame. If you are retarded enough to ride a hundred
mile an hour heavy bicycle without a helmet go right ahead but you
will probably end up literally retarded or dead.
Regular bicycles are another matter. If I ever have a boy I am
forcing him not to wear a bicycle helmet, I'll pay the fines if I
have to because I was just old enough to miss those laws and I have
always thought they were complete bullshit. If you need a helmet on
a bicycle you probably need one to walk as well. It's stuff like
this that is sissifying the youth. It all started with Pokemon but
that was a foreign assault.
|4.1.08 @ 11:34PM|#
I've cracked 40mph on a bicycle, descending a narrow twisty poorly paved back road in the Appalachians... if you crash at those speeds, a helmet may not save you, but a bare head will do a nice imitation of a watermelon dropped off the top of the Empire State Building.
Neu Mejican|4.2.08 @ 12:34AM|#
I have worked in a rehab hospital.
The most severe head injury case I worked with was a motorcycle
accident.
The guy fell over sideways (gravel I believe was the cause) at a
stop sign and hit his head on the curb with the weight of the bike
helping to bring his temple to concrete at a nice velocity.
|4.2.08 @ 2:01AM|#
* A properly designed helmet *enhances* visibility by keeping
wind and debris out of your eyes (sunglasses are not 100%
effective; sealing googles are okay), and *enhances* hearing by
cutting out the high-frequency wind noise (I also add
earplugs).
* In a libertopia I would be against helmet laws, However, as long
as my tax dollars are paying for emergency room visits and medical
disability for road pizza, idiots who would otherwise not wear
helmets should be required to. And it's easy to enforce.
Edward|4.2.08 @ 2:22AM|#
Who gives a flying fuck? It's dithering about nonsense like this that makes libertarians look like goony cultists.
SmokyJoe|4.2.08 @ 2:36AM|#
Neu Mejican,
And if the dude had known how to ride, there would have been no
accident.
SmokyJoe|4.2.08 @ 2:51AM|#
As far as increased or decreased visibility and hearing, it
seems to me that the speed matters. I've never worn a helmet when
riding, but I imagine that if I was doing 70 mph, then a full visor
would decrease the wind and potentially increase my ability to see.
And any loss to peripheral vision doesn't matter because the
peripheral is moving too fast to matter (with respect to the
rider). But at anything under 40, it sure feels like a helmet would
restrict my ability to sense the environment around me.
But in the end like TWC said, if your worried about paying someone
else health bills, then take care of that issue and fix the health
care system so you won't have to. But restricting personal
liberties is not the answer.
SmokyJoe|4.2.08 @ 2:53AM|#
Hell why not make motorcycles illegal. Even with a helmet on I'm sure they are not as safe as a car.
|4.2.08 @ 3:54AM|#
SmokyJoe,
* On any reasonable helmet the visor will allow you a complete
field of view.
* As for fixing healthcare, I'm all for it -- let motorcyclists pay
more for health insurance, for the extra risk they incur while
riding.
In the meantime, screeching about personal liberties like not
having to protect your noggin makes both motorcyclists and
libertarians look bad. There are more important issues to be vocal
about.
|4.2.08 @ 4:05AM|#
Amazing how many studies there are that dwell on the helmet - an
"after the accident has begun" reactive device. Where is it
mentioned the one device that, for less than $150, could:
1) Prevent half of all motorcycle accidents, and
consequently...
2) Saves lives
3) Eliminates accident-associated health care costs
4) Doesn't restrict, constrict or encroach on the riders
"comfort"
According to statistics (the HURT study, for example), HALF of all
motorcycle accidents are caused by the "other" driver, who didn't
SEE the motorcycle.
For between $80 and $150, a headlight modulator increases the
motorcycle's visibility during the day. By Federal Law, modulators
on motorcycles are legal in ALL 50 States. By Federal Law, States
can NOT supersede Federal Law. Canada has a similar law.
PREVENTING accidents - now there's a concept we could live
with!
References: Federal Law CFR 49, Part 517, Section 108, S7.9.4
allows modulators. And States CANNOT override Federal Laws: Title
49, United States Code, Chapter 301.
Live to Ride. Blink to Live!
|4.2.08 @ 4:31AM|#
BlinkEm,
The operative word is "could." I'd love to see a study on the
efficacy of headlight modulators. Certainly a more useful way to
drop $80 on your bike than a lot of the farkles people have.
In the meantime, I'll ride like I'm invisible.
Minion of URKOBOLD|4.2.08 @ 8:42AM|#
Edward | April 2, 2008, 2:22am | #
Who gives a flying fuck? It's dithering about nonsense like this that makes libertarians look like goony cultists.
and it's your dashing brown eyes that make you look dreamy.
ed|4.2.08 @ 8:53AM|#
I wear a helmet when I go bowling. Just in case.
Also when I shop. Those cashiers are crazy!
Oh, in the shower too, of course. Most dangerous place in the
home.
|4.2.08 @ 9:08AM|#
As a 20 yr. rider, only morons don't wear helmets (or leather
for that matter). Yes, I will defend your right to be a moron. Like
Hypnos said, ride like you are invisible. I would add maintain
awareness of your escape paths.
Neu Meujican, I prove your assertion. Went to park my bike, foot
slipped on some leaked oil, went down and bounced my head off a
concrete parking stop. Happened in the blink of an eye. If not for
the helmet, it would have been major trauma.
|4.2.08 @ 9:32AM|#
I'll ride like I'm invisible.
Excellent advice; if there is any situation where paranoia works in
your favor, it's when you're on a motorcycle. Once I finish the
retro cafe-racer project, I will ride it as if everybody out there
is trying to kill me.
And, no, I won't be wearing a helmet; at least not 'til I get my
knee down.
New World Dan|4.2.08 @ 9:48AM|#
>Like Hypnos said, ride like you are invisible. I would add
maintain awareness of your escape paths.
Funny. That's how I drive my damn car. By no small coincidence,
I've never had an accident, while my wife has had 3 major accidents
just in the decade we've been married (along with several more
minor fender benders).
TWC presents some lovely statistics which make a compelling
argument for not riding motorcycles. The question to me, is how do
we address the root problem: it just isn't safe to ride a
motorcycle (or bicycle) on the same road as a car?
|4.2.08 @ 10:19AM|#
I no longer own a motorcycle, but a helmet saved my brain during
a simple spill years ago. I love the riders who always say things
like, "If I have to crash, I'll lay the bike down like this and ...
yada yada yada" As if they think there'll be any time to react. The
most amazing thing I recall about my spill was how suddenly it
happened. I was going (too fast, probably) through a turn that had
a slight rise at a railroad crossing. As soon as I went over the
crossing, I remember briefly wondering why the horizon was vertical
and, BAM! ... lotsa stars. It happened so fast I had no internal
sense at all that I was going down. A huge chunk of laminate
blasted off my helmet at the point of impact -- I can only imagine
how well my unprotected cranium would have fared. Not well, I
think. All I suffered was some road rash on my ankle (Docksiders
sans socks) in the ensuing slide and the bike suffered two broken
turn signals.
Regarding the helmets-with-bicycles issue, the fact that you don't
go as fast horizontally is a red herring. It's the velocity your
head achieves falling the vertical distance to the ground that
matters. As one other poster pointed out, you don't have to be
moving forward at all to sustain a brain injury from a spill.
Regarding the "murdercycle" nickname, when I worked as a Medic back
in the 80s, we called them donorcycles, 'cause they often produced
brain-dead specimens with few other internal injuries. This is why
more people should ride without helmets. But I know I never would
-- must be a Darwinian thing.
|4.2.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Motorcycles *are* more dangerous than cars. They are also a hell
of a lot more fun.
Riding without gear, and definitely riding without a helmet, gives
opponents/nannies (many of them doctors) ammunition for banning or
restricting motorcycling, arguing that it is a public health hazard
that clogs emergency rooms.
When done responsibly, such as with the right training and wearing
the right gear, people are forced to acknowledge it as the
sport/art that it is. Cf. the NRA for Public Relations 101.
Moreover, as long as the public abhors people with splattered
brains dying in the street, doctors have a duty to provide care,
and motorcyclists share the road with everyone else, incentives can
never be totally internalized to the rider.
T|4.2.08 @ 11:23AM|#
It's been a number of year since I looked at the stats, but it used to be that most motorcycle fatalities were single vehicle accidents involving alcohol, i.e. rider drinks one too many and lays it down and dies. If that's still the case, helmet laws aren't gonna help much. You can't fix stupid via legislation.
Neu Mejican|4.2.08 @ 11:25AM|#
SmokyJoe,
And if the dude had known how to ride, there would have been no
accident.
You need to look up the term "accident."
|4.2.08 @ 11:41AM|#
If you think you can't suffer some serious injuries on a
bicycle, try doing a header over the handlebars at 32.1 mph. I know
that's how fast I was going because my speedometer froze at that
speed. Massive concussion and bleeding on the brain. I always say
that the amount of time it takes for your heart to beat once your
whole world could change.
Needless to say, I never ride without a helmet now.
I'm not saying you should wear a helmet, just like I don't care
about the people that cross in front of the train every
morning.
I think it's one of those things that you never think could happen
to you, until it does.
|4.2.08 @ 11:44AM|#
Good helmets save lives. Anyone who has seen a few motorcycle
accidents can attest to that. I would never ride without my brain
bucket. Contrary to popular opinion, a helmet doesn't cut off
peripheral vision nor your hearing (in fact, if you wear earplugs,
the helmet IMPROVES hearing of things like horns, sirens, etc by
reducing road and engine noise).
Helmet laws DO NOT save lives.
Education does. When someone knows why they want a helmet, they buy
a GOOD helmet. When you force them, they buy the cheapest one that
will get them legal.
If you have something worth protecting, you protect it. People lock
suitcases full of dirty underwear, so why not give at least that
much care for the case you use to carry your brain (straight-ticket
voters, it may be too late for you)?
Bottom line: Helmets, HECK YES, helmet laws, HELL NO!!!
|4.2.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Take a gander at this. The statements say how bad no helmets are
but the numbers show that the weight of the helmets can and do
cause major neck and thorax damage but of course that is not
mentioned. After going over this several times it looks like
helmets may be a big danger!
http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/NCSA/Content/RNotes/2007/810856.pdf
|4.2.08 @ 11:51AM|#
The Wine Commonsewer wrote:
"Helmets suck because they limit one's ability to hear and
see
"I can see that with full face helmets, which I never wore. "
Nope. Go put one on. I wear a "modular" ("flip-up") helmet, and I
wish I had been able to buy one of these 30 years ago. It's far
more comfortable on a long ride than the 3/4 helmet that I used to
wear. The old one acted like the cup in a wind-speed meter,
catching the wind when I would ride. A full-face or a flip-up is
aerodynamic, so it's quieter and is a lot less affected by wind
(thus no sore neck after 250 miles on a breezy day).
|4.2.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Mack wrote: "The statements say how bad no helmets are but the
numbers show that the weight of the helmets can and do cause major
neck and thorax damage"
In over 30 years of riding, I've never had an injury caused by the
weight of my helmet.
I've had to repaint or replace several helmets over the years
because they were damaged by flying gravel and other hazards. More
than once my head has been snapped back when a large flying bug hit
the helmet at 70 MPH. Then there was that hailstorm in Nevada, 20
miles from the nearest place to get under any kind of shelter,
overpass, etc.
Looking at a record like this, it seems to me that the Ayes have
it, and I'll keep wearing a helmet.
Michael Ejercito|4.2.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Helmets suck because they limit one's ability to hear and see. And yes, miles traveled would have been a useful, as would rural v. urban.
Why do F-22 Raptor pilots wear helmets?
Would not pilots need to see and hear even more so than motorcycle
drivers?
|4.2.08 @ 12:14PM|#
About half of all Americans live in California, Texas,
Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. ...
I dunno about the other states, but Illinois doesn't have a helmet
law. They require protective eye-wear only, not helmets. For
now...
The Wine Commonsewer|4.2.08 @ 12:36PM|#
if you crash at those speeds, a helmet may not save
you
That's cuz you bicycle guys wear those STOOPID looking hats. :-)
Jesus Chrysler, who designed those things. They almost look vaguely
obscene.
Now, if you had real helmets and you crashed at 40 mph, you've got
a fighting chance.
Personally, I think if a car upends your bicycle at 20 and you land
on your noggin, even with a bicycle hat on, you better have your
organ donor card handy.
I could be wrong, though, but man, those things look like they only
work for the very mildest of crashes, like skidding on gravel at
5mph.
Neu Mejican|4.2.08 @ 12:43PM|#
TWC,
A good bicycle helmet will protect your head in most accidents that
you could have on a bicycle (even at fairly high speeds).
They are, unlike motorcycle helmets, only good for a single impact,
however.
If you have crashed and hit your helmet...replace it even it it
looks undamaged.
|4.2.08 @ 12:43PM|#
I use a full-face helmet (this one, in fact),
and I experience no limitation on vision. If I point my eyes
downward, I can see the chinbar, but it doesn't obstruct my view of
the road any more than my nose does. The eyeport is wide enough
that I can use my full peripheral vision, and if the sun's low, I
can dip my head enough to use the top edge of the helmet as a
visor. Besides, I tend to turn my head to look at things, rather
than just sliding my eyeballs.
Also, Mack:
Your study does not appear to show what you claim it does. Care to
elaborate?
|4.2.08 @ 12:46PM|#
Neu Mejican:
Motorcycle helmets should also be replaced after a single impact --
they're also designed for a single crash.
(In fact, they're saying that even if your helmet merely falls off
the end of your handlebar to the ground, send it back to the
manufacturer for inspection before you wear it again.)
The Wine Commonsewer|4.2.08 @ 12:46PM|#
J Golden, interesting about the full helmets. I don't ride
anymore, but if I did I'd look into it.
Had a guy that owed me some cash give me a 750 Suzuki ten years ago
or so. I rode around on that thing for a couple of weeks and sold
it.
Scared the crap out of me. Every time I sat at a red light I was
freaked out that the car coming up behind me was going to rear end
me and make me a bed-ridden old coot. California today is not the
California where I used to ride.
I loved it too, wouldn't trade it, but I won't ride again.
Maybe.
Neu Mejican|4.2.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Mack,
Those charts don't show a very big difference in the number of neck
injuries and they don't account for severity of the crash.
If you died and were wearing a helmet and had two injuries, one
being a broken neck and the other a head injury, you were probably
going much faster than the rider without a helmet.
jimmydageek|4.2.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Actually, TWC, bicycle helmets can be quite sturdy. As with most
products, however, you get what you pay for. A well designed helmet
will ventilate your head more so than riding without one and can
even
keep your head from being crushed by a large truck.
In my experience, a helmet prevented major injury when I went down
some stairs at the wrong angle. I fell and slid about 3 feet past
the stairs. I saw the pavement sliding right in front of my nose in
slow motion until I came to a stop.
Pictures of the aftermath here. I'd rather wear a "stoopid
looking" hat than take on the turf without one :)
The Wine Commonsewer|4.2.08 @ 12:55PM|#
The guy fell over sideways (gravel I believe was the cause)
at a stop sign and hit his head on the curb with the weight of the
bike helping to bring his temple to concrete at a nice
velocity.
NM, doesn't that just suck? This guy who lived next door to my
buddy El Geronimo de Crow always wore a helmet. Always. Except that
one day when he had just tuned up the bike and he took it for a
spin to the end of the block. As he turned up into his driveway,
the front tire hit that little 1.5 inch curb at the gutter line,
which had a trickle of water in it, and the bike skidded out from
under him. Killed him instantly when his head hit the curb.
What are the odds?
The Wine Commonsewer|4.2.08 @ 12:59PM|#
NM in my day (before helmet laws), that broken neck argument was
a biggie. One helmet I had was curved at the base of the neck,
designed to prevent broken necks.
Jimmy, I am a sick man, but I LOL when the guy was asked what it
felt like to have a truck run over his head. Uh, really strange.
(sorry, I guess you had to be there).
Icky pix, dude, you gotta be careful on the stairs.
The Wine Commonsewer|4.2.08 @ 1:07PM|#
Terry Smith's dad rode one of those old BMW's with a fairing and
he was crazed. We were punks and even we thought he was out of his
mind. He rode like a maniac. One day he's splitting traffic on the
freeway (at freeway speeds) and he gets sucked sideways by the
vacuum under a tractor trailer rig. He jams his foot down, pops the
bike upright and continues on his way. By the time he gets home his
knee is hurting and his ankle aches, but get this....
On the inside of the white fairing is a tire mark that looks like
somebody burned rubber up the windshield. That's how close he came
to getting munched by the trailer tires.
Didn't even faze him. He thought it was great. But then one day a
few years later he was nearly killed in a bike accident and that
was it, he hung up the helmets for good.
|4.2.08 @ 2:15PM|#
A few things:
My state does not mandate wearing helmets (only having one visible
on the bike), yet I will wear mine most of the time (commuting,
cold/wet weather). I appreciate that I am treated as an
adult.
I happen to have an extremely large head, for which there are very
few manufacturers that build appropriate helmets for. AFAIK there
is only the Vega Altura that can be found in 5XL. I've tried the
slightly-more-commonly available 3XL and it leaves dents in my
head. There are no Snell certified helmets available at sizes
larger than 2XL.
Also, Snell certification may very well permit _more_ traumatic
force than DOT certification.
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html
I've also avoided at least one accident (truck blowing a red light)
because the peripheral vision I had without my full-face helmet at
the time gave me enough notice to accelerate away from it. OTOH
I've dropped my bike on black ice and cracked a previous helmet,
and I'm glad that it was the fiberglass and not the bone that took
the blow.
|4.2.08 @ 2:17PM|#
Oh yeah, I am _definitely_ one of 'those' crazy BMW people.. The upright riding position basically makes you as impatient and aggressive as your standard SUVtard, but you have instant passing acceleration and can fit in the smallest holes in traffic...
|4.2.08 @ 2:22PM|#
Seems to me like these US studies are confounded by weak helmet
standards...in California I see guys riding with those silly little
skull caps, which apparently meet the legal standard, but I doubt
if they do you any good in accident.
Never touched a bike myself, but my wife survived a major bike
crash thanks to a full-face helmet.
|4.2.08 @ 4:05PM|#
I just hope that we have to start wearing them in cars
also.
Of course you will need a HANS (Head And Neck Support) device. This
will save lives NASCAR and the death of Dale will tell you
this.
Another alternative is to allow a personal choice, but that is not
what we want really is it? We want the nanny state to tell us what
is good for us, what is bad, when to sleep, when to laugh, when to
crap, we do not need any freedoms.
|4.2.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Sign a waiver that we don't have to pay to repair the tiny brain of yours when you crash and burn. Then you can ride without a helmet all you want and I won't say a thing.
Sign the same waiver next time you go skiing or rock climbing or
play football and you've got yourself a deal.
|4.2.08 @ 7:57PM|#
There is an understandable emphasis on the really big accidents that are going to result in death, paralysis or severe brain damage, but in a lesser accident a full face helmet could prevent serious facial injuries.
|4.2.08 @ 9:49PM|#
Dr. Noisewater,
* A properly fitting helmet should never obscure your peripheral
vision -- the visor should wrap around your entire field of view. I
guess the problem in your case is your hat size.
If you know a brand fits you, try ordering online ...
* BSI (British Safety Institute) and ECE (Economic Commission of
Europe) standards are probably superior to DOT and Snell. DOT
doesn't certify facial impact (which is why those ridiculous
beanies can pass), and Snell overemphasizes puncture failures to
the detriment of energy absorption.
|4.4.08 @ 10:38AM|#
To wear or not to wear a motorcycle helmet is an "individual's
choice". We live in America...land of the "free". Americans please
wake up and STOP allowing our legislators to write and pass
legislation requiring "mandatory laws"!!!
Big insurance companies are driving this issue. Hospitals "claim"
that motorcycle riders cause the most medical non payments because
we do not wear our helmets. Do we continue to allow insurance
companies to dictate what we can and cannot do?
Please meet your legislators, ask them if they are in favor or more
mandatory, restricting laws. If they are, be sure to vote against
them.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245