Is a helmet actually necessary?

[want-a-harley]

Well of course it is but in 2 days I have seen 3 people on bikes with out a helmet.

Saw one guy on Otara Road last night booting along, noticed that he was just in shorts/t-shirt etc. Took me a second to notice he had no helmet as well.

Today at the new world in Birkenhead a rider with pillion leaving, both without helmets (or any other gear obviously).

Next recipient of the darwin awards?

[sunhuntin]

i saw a scooter the other week... 2 people on it, no helmets on either. mums seen whats likely the same pair on the other side of town. she noticed the lack of footwear, dad noticed the no helmets.

admittedly, i have done a short jaunt with my partner with both of us helmet free. it was literally 2 mins in total, but the best fun ive ever had on the bike, lol.

[AD345]

If you crash without a helmet you will die

except for the time when I did and I didn't (although the bike did).

Helmets protect your head

except for the time when my visor cracked and gouged great chunks out of my face.

[jrandom]

Helmet laws are just the Man trying to keep you down, man. Fight the power, ride naked.

[breakaway]

Just leave it be. I say we take all the restrictions off, take the warning labels off everything, and let the problem sort itself out.

[98tls]

Helmet necessary?Not really in NZ as many have there head so far up there arse that a decent set of leathers is probably a better bet.:rolleyes:

[carlosliu]

Only ride a bike for two weeks, I was already hit by stones 3 times at 80+kph. Two on the visor, one on side. I just can't imagine the injury if no helmet on my head. :no:

[Gubb]

Helmet laws are just the Man trying to keep you down, man. Fight the power, ride naked.

The Man(tm) made me keep my pants on, now that I have tasted freedom, I want more!

[Motu]

Saw one guy on Otara Road last night booting along, noticed that he was just in shorts/t-shirt etc. Took me a second to notice he had no helmet as well.


Can you confirm he was dead the next morning....or the morning after that?

[Taz]

Only ride a bike for two weeks, I was already hit by stones 3 times at 80+kph. Two on the visor, one on side. I just can't imagine the injury if no helmet on my head. :no:
Yeah but at least you wouldn't have a chipped visor and helmet :lol:

[McJim]

As has been said - a helmet is only necessary when you crash - I find mine useful for keeping pot plants in.....

[Drunken Monkey]

...Fight the power, ride naked.

I think you mean 'nekkid'. Naked is a bike with the fairings off. 'Nekkid' is a person with the fairings off.

[P38]

I seen a guy who was riding a Buell wearing no helmet just last year.

He was laying on the road beside his wrecked bike with part of his brain oozing out at the time. :eek5:

Not nice. :sick::sick:

He bloody lived too.

[Outlaw_Torn]

Only ride a bike for two weeks, I was already hit by stones 3 times at 80+kph. Two on the visor, one on side. I just can't imagine the injury if no helmet on my head. :no:

Same here! had to ride around with no visor for a while and that was bad enough... then face planted the road at speed after going over a ute... fark that! bad enough what little injuries i did get out of it. needless to say the helmets poked... well and truly. My opinion.... people that ride without helmets are dipshits and should jump off a cliff to avoid the time delay between now and getting killed on the road... :mad:

[Mikkel]

I you don't think you need a helmet, you probably don't.

[DougB]

There were very few helmets available when I started riding in the early 1950's.

Shortly after I aquired my first bike (a 1950 AJS the last machine with a single seat and one of the first bikes with rear springing) a doctor friend of the family sent me several pounds to buy a helmet. He said he had seen too many injuries and deaths caused by crashes many of which would have been avoided by wearing a helment.

Off I went to the Auckland bike shops and only one stocked them. I purchased a "CORKER HEAD PROTECTOR" and wore it on out of town rides from then on. I wish I still had it it would be a museum item now.

[gammaguy]

I seen a guy who was riding a Buell wearing no helmet just last year.

He was laying on the road beside his wrecked bike with part of his brain oozing out at the time. :eek5:

Not nice. :sick::sick:

He bloody lived too.

so now he only has half a brain,what does he ride?a chinese scooter??

[Quailboy]

so now he only has half a brain,what does he ride?a chinese scooter??

Or perhaps a wheelchair?

[popelli]

Well of course it is but in 2 days I have seen 3 people on bikes with out a helmet.

Saw one guy on Otara Road last night booting along, noticed that he was just in shorts/t-shirt etc. Took me a second to notice he had no helmet as well.

Today at the new world in Birkenhead a rider with pillion leaving, both without helmets (or any other gear obviously).

Next recipient of the darwin awards?

can you explain why when helmet laws are repealed in the usa the numbers of bikers getting killed drops ??

darmin awards - maybe the people advocating helmets laws should be awarded them

if helmets are so great why don't car drivers wear them?

[jim.cox]

if helmets are so great why don't car drivers wear
them?

helmets should be made compulsary for pedestrians - its for their own safety you know :)

[Ixion]

There were very few helmets available when I started riding in the early 1950's.

Shortly after I aquired my first bike (a 1950 AJS the last machine with a single seat and one of the first bikes with rear springing) a doctor friend of the family sent me several pounds to buy a helmet. He said he had seen too many injuries and deaths caused by crashes many of which would have been avoided by wearing a helment.

Off I went to the Auckland bike shops and only one stocked them. I purchased a "CORKER HEAD PROTECTOR" and wore it on out of town rides from then on. I wish I still had it it would be a museum item now.

I had one of them. My mother kept nagging me to wear it.

I objected, it was 'uncool' (the phrase did not then exist, but i cannot recall the equivalent).

Moreover, wearing a crash helmet meant that you were very much more likely to get a ticket from the friendly neighbourhood snake (I'm not sure if tickets existed then either, I think they summonsed you). The cops did not approve of bikers wearing crash helmets.

[awayatc]

Wearing protective gear definitely helps you heaps in an "off".......
There can be no arguments against that...., the more protective shit you strap on, the greater the likelyhood of bodybits staying attached and useable...

The other and only real argument of course is, do we need legislation for and against any- and everything that is/ or may or will/ likely be bad /painfull/hurtfull or uncomfortable for us...?

My personal opinion is that people should be responsible for their own wellbeing,
Anything however that could negatively impact on others needs gobbermental regulations...

[vifferman]

can you explain why when helmet laws are repealed in the usa the numbers of bikers getting killed drops ??
Perceived risk.
It's the same when all signage is removed from roads, or speed limits are increased/removed.
I'm sure many sprotsbike riders would ride more carefully dressed in only shorts, singlet and jandals, than they do when wearing full gear plus armour.



if helmets are so great why don't car drivers wear them?
Ack (Shirley), a neurosturgeon (kind of a fish with an unusually large brain, the female of which species has tasty roe, good for decorating crackers or dropping in people's drinks for a jolly jape) ...uh...where was I...?
Oh yeah - a local branedokta here recommended that all car passengers wear a helmet (he made his family do so) as he'd seen "too many" brain injuries resulting from car accidents. (That's when cars don't have adequate protection, and end up with weird bastard offspring, or communicable diseases, like rusty driveshafts...)

[Rodney007]

I objected, it was 'uncool'

totaly aggree....

[Badjelly]

can you explain why when helmet laws are repealed in the usa the numbers of bikers getting killed drops ??

Before I try to explain this fact, perhaps you could give us all some evidence that it is a fact.

[oldrider]

There were very few helmets available when I started riding in the early 1950's.

Shortly after I aquired my first bike (a 1950 AJS the last machine with a single seat and one of the first bikes with rear springing) a doctor friend of the family sent me several pounds to buy a helmet. He said he had seen too many injuries and deaths caused by crashes many of which would have been avoided by wearing a helment.

Off I went to the Auckland bike shops and only one stocked them. I purchased a "CORKER HEAD PROTECTOR" and wore it on out of town rides from then on. I wish I still had it it would be a museum item now.

Early examples of helmets were bloody horrible to wear, horrible to look at and even more horrible to procure!

As said earlier on this thread, they are only really nessessary when you crash but todays helmets are much more than that.

They are well made, they look good, they protect you from the weather etc and I would not ride my bike very far without putting mine on.

The only thing I hate about todays helmets is that they are bloody "COMPULSARY". :mad:

I can think for myself thank you very much! :doh:

I don't need some halfwit stupid rule maker telling me how to wipe my arse! :no:

If you do,(not directed at Doug B, just anyone) then Darwin will sort you out because you shouldn't even own a bike! :spanking: John.

[Drunken Monkey]

Before I try to explain this fact, perhaps you could give us all some evidence that it is a fact.

Indeed, a quick google search and these are the first two links (plus another further down the page). They appear to be in complete opposition of Popelli's statement, and indicate deaths rose with a decline in helmet usage.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/582275

http://motorcycles.about.com/b/2008/06/27/another-study-reveals-death-rate-increase-after-helmet-law-repeal.htm

http://myais.fsktm.um.edu.my/4728/

[NOMIS]

Only ride a bike for two weeks, I was already hit by stones 3 times at 80+kph. Two on the visor, one on side. I just can't imagine the injury if no helmet on my head. :no:

I get hit in the face by rocks and stones and bugs all the effing time to , dont know how they avoid that in the states lol... oh and i had a decent size rock chip my $1000 Shark helmet arrrghhh!! time for insurance claim me think's lol

[Nasty]

Well of course it is but in 2 days I have seen 3 people on bikes with out a helmet.

Saw one guy on Otara Road last night booting along, noticed that he was just in shorts/t-shirt etc. Took me a second to notice he had no helmet as well.

Today at the new world in Birkenhead a rider with pillion leaving, both without helmets (or any other gear obviously).

Next recipient of the darwin awards?

Helmit is only essential if you have something to protect ... obviously if you don't think that your brain/head and face are worth protecting why wear one. :whistle:

[vifferman]

[quote=oldrider;1919837]Early examples of helmets were bloody horrible to wear, horrible to look at and even more horrible to procure!/quote]
Even later ones weren't too good.
My first helmets (2X open-face helmets that came with the bike I bought) didn't fit properly, the visors were made of a material that wasn't scratch resistant, and the shells seemed to be made of something akin to compressed cardboard. The liners were some sort of corduroy material, with thin padding underneath. No EPS foam with thicker plastic foam over the top. :no:
AND they were relatively expensive: my first 'decent' helmet (still open-face) was nearly a third the cost of my bike! The only fullface helmets were very expensive Bells, or Shoeis that were nearly as dear, and intended for car use, so there was debate about whether they were actually suitable for bikes, being rather heavy and restrictive. There was also much debate and minor controversy (engendered or even engineered by Bell) about the safety of the first injection-moulded helmets ("Polstar" was the most common brand here). Nowadays such helmets are commonplace, and score very highly on safety tests. But in the 70's, Bell was threatened by rivals with manufacturing techniques that were cheaper and quicker, so dreamed up slogans like "Buy a $50 helmet if you have a $50 head", because their hand-laid GRP helmets were labour-intensive to produce, and correspondingly expensive to buy.

We're fortunate nowadays to have a huge range and variety of helmets to choose from, many at relatively cheap prices, yet vastly superior to those of yesteryear.

[vifferman]

Early examples of helmets were bloody horrible to wear, horrible to look at and even more horrible to procure!
Even later ones weren't too good.
My first helmets (2X open-face helmets that came with the bike I bought) didn't fit properly, the visors were made of a material that wasn't scratch resistant, and the shells seemed to be made of something akin to compressed cardboard. The liners were some sort of corduroy material, with thin padding underneath. No EPS foam with thicker plastic foam over the top. :no:
AND they were relatively expensive: my first 'decent' helmet (still open-face) was nearly a third the cost of my bike! The only fullface helmets were very expensive Bells, or Shoeis that were nearly as dear, and intended for car use, so there was debate about whether they were actually suitable for bikes, being rather heavy and restrictive. No helmets had venting - you had to open or remove the visor to get that!
There was also much debate and minor controversy (engendered or even engineered by Bell) about the safety of the first injection-moulded helmets ("Polstar" was the most common brand here). Nowadays such helmets are commonplace, and score very highly on safety tests. But in the 70's, Bell was threatened by rivals with manufacturing techniques that were cheaper and quicker, so dreamed up slogans like "Buy a $50 helmet if you have a $50 head", because their hand-laid GRP helmets were labour-intensive to produce, and correspondingly expensive to buy.

We're fortunate nowadays to have a huge range and variety of helmets to choose from, many at relatively cheap prices, yet vastly superior to those of yesteryear.

[Badjelly]

Indeed, a quick google search and these are the first two links (plus another further down the page). They appear to be in complete opposition of Popelli's statement, and indicate deaths rose with a decline in helmet usage.

They're no good. They're peer reviewed studies. Everyone knows that papers that don't follow the liberal, commie, safety Nazi line get suppressed. You can get the real facts on right-wing blogs and newspaper opinion pieces.

[want-a-harley]

I remember in the UK studies were done, remember details of who did them(tfl maybe) but bicyclists were more likely to be hit if they wore a helmet than those who didn't because motorists saw the helmet (and lycra), assume the rider is more experienced and drive closer, pass more readily etc.

In a similar study, motorcycle helmets dehumanise the wearer (as you can't see theface/look like an alien) so subconciously cagers take less care/ more likely to pass/race etc

[Badjelly]

I remember in the UK studies were done, remember details of who did them(tfl maybe) but bicyclists were more likely to be hit if they wore a helmet than those who didn't because motorists saw the helmet (and lycra), assume the rider is more experienced and drive closer, pass more readily etc.

I've worn a helmet on a bicycle for years, since long before it was compulsory, and I always tended to dismiss this, but I have seen some stuff that has made me a little more open-minded. James Annan (http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/), whose opinions I tend to respect, has a bit of a bee in his bonnet about it. Eg this (http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2006/06/bicycle-helmets-and-risk-reward.html).


In a similar study, motorcycle helmets dehumanise the wearer (as you can't see theface/look like an alien) so subconciously cagers take less care/ more likely to pass/race etc.

I'm sure helmets (esp. full face) do tend to make motorcyclists look more like aliens. Whether the net effect on the motorcyclist safety is positive or negative I wouldn't know.

[davereid]

Helmets give you good protection in an abrasive accident, but in impact type accidents they are marginal or may even increase your injury.

Heres the NZ data - Without googling it, guess what year we got helmets.

If you are unable to tell, before you google "helmet injury" google "spinal injury". You may find it easier to identify the year that way.

With regard to Cycle helmets, the biggest study in the world (The NZ Scuffam Report) concluded helmets were a waste of time and money.

[Lil_Byte]

We don't need helmets - natural selection will sort it all out.

I do however remember sliding along the rough chip bitumen at 100kmh with the front of my helmet firmly planted on the bitumen, thinking god the road is black.

My helmet was stuffed but I still have my face :2thumbsup

[Pedrostt500]

There is a pic on rotten.com of a Biker missing the lower half his face yep every thing below the nostrils, I think of this image when I see some one with no helmet or an open face helmet.
may be one of the smart ones can put a link to it for us.

[oldrider]

Forget global warming, think global "hardening"!

Last time I fell off it bloody hurt! :yes: :shit: :mellow: John.

[Ixion]

I've noticed that! I'm sure the ground has gotten harder than it used to be .

I'm also certain that gravity has gotten stronger, I'm sure that when I fell off years ago, I didn't hit the ground as hard as I do now.

I blame the French. Or that Hadron collider thing, it's changed the dynamics of space time.

[The Pastor]

ffs i ride with out a helmet heaps.

go grow some nuts.

[98tls]

ffs i ride with out a helmet heaps.

go grow some nuts. Yea but you guys have been together for years so no danger.

[portokiwi]

After hitting a truck the road and tree with my helmet and all I got from it was knocked out......... I think yes they are.:innocent: I realy think I would have been killed if I wasnt wearing one at the time of the accident.
Seeing the dent in the truck and the scrapes in the path I am very thankfull that I came out ok.

[STOLLI R1]

I feel sad when I see people with open face helmets, typical of cruiser riders. I knew of a person who was rather southern and a bit pissed got on his cruiser and procceded to fall down while travelling at approx 80kmh. He had chosen to not wear any helmet at all. He didn't die, he survived the crash. His key problem now is telling the tale of how it happened and eating. He had succeeded in grinding his lower jaw and most of his nose off.
I see open face helmets in this same light. They create a natural second point of contact (your face) with the road you are sliding down. I'm sure if ya think about it for a second you'll see what I mean.
Full face or stay home.

[cs363]

Just leave it be. I say we take all the restrictions off, take the warning labels off everything, and let the problem sort itself out.


Call whoever's in charge. There's a sensible person posting on KB! :eek5:

[malfunconz]

it would be agreed ammounst all i know that there is little reason to protect the small thimble of grey matter left in my head .

[chrispy121]

Wearing protective gear definitely helps you heaps in an "off".......
There can be no arguments against that...., the more protective shit you strap on, the greater the likelyhood of bodybits staying attached and useable...

The other and only real argument of course is, do we need legislation for and against any- and everything that is/ or may or will/ likely be bad /painfull/hurtfull or uncomfortable for us...?

My personal opinion is that people should be responsible for their own wellbeing,
Anything however that could negatively impact on others needs gobbermental regulations...

if we let people sort them selves out them people dont wear gear more injuries and biking gets a bad name again as dumb arses fall off with no helmets then die.

the end result of this is the govt ie the man looks at all of us and imposes more regulations and al sorts of other bulsh$%t to keep us safe.

dont give them a reason to have more speeding blitz's for revenue gathering and give them an excuse to say it is just for our safety!

[chrispy121]

a couple of weeks ago for the WSBK and was talking to one of the guys in the bike shop there.
a customer came in and asked what he needed to ride so the guys in the shop sold him boots jacket helmet pants etc.
a couple of days later the guy turned up and returned al of his gear bar the helmet stating that is all he Legally needed to ride a bike.

this guy had a accident a couple of hours later doing 100kms his head was fine but he wil be in hospital for a we while as he has lost most of his skin over 60% of his body two broken ankles and a few other injuries I wonder how he would have been if he hadt returned all of that gear?

[Dean]

Have many times stupidly riden my bike to school with just my helmet, gloves and uniform and once without my helmet. A few days ago i heard about teens my age that were killed with no gear on in uniform on 250s going back to their houses, it really made me think i could of been one of those. I cant imagine the pain the horror of wearing no helmet when in a crash.

My gear is everything to me, without my leathers im naked, im nothing. Mind you i still need boots so im a piece of shit at the moment.

[awayatc]

I ride with my gear on as well.....

But does it have to be mandatory?

The government knows what's good for me better then I know myself...?

I don't think for myself....I just obey orders?

No thanks!

[davereid]

I hope you are all strapping your helmet on when you hop in your car.

As racing driver all know, the biggest killer in a car crash is the head injury you get when your head hits the dash, A or B pillars.

[quickbuck]

I hope you are all strapping your helmet on when you hop in your car.

As racing driver all know, the biggest killer in a car crash is the head injury you get when your head hits the dash, A or B pillars.

Well, When I want to drive around the streets at up to 300km/hr I too will ensure my helmet is firmly fastened to my head inside my cage.
Along with the five point harness and 3 layer flame suit....
Amazing how the steering wheel gets out of the way for your head to hit the dash though....

In my standard 4 wheel vehicle in an accident there is a chance of a head injury, but not as great....
However on the bike, any off will result in lost skin....

So for me, either my leathers/ cordura/ or at least draggan jeans are on the list of safety gear.... Gloves and boots are standard, but a choice on the others, depending on the ride.

[Grizzo]

Well of course it is but in 2 days I have seen 3 people on bikes with out a helmet.

Saw one guy on Otara Road last night booting along, noticed that he was just in shorts/t-shirt etc. Took me a second to notice he had no helmet as well.

Today at the new world in Birkenhead a rider with pillion leaving, both without helmets (or any other gear obviously).

Next recipient of the darwin awards?
Well this chappy does'nt need a helmet!:blink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNw2xMsB4GE

[chasio]

There is a pic on rotten.com of a Biker missing the lower half his face yep every thing below the nostrils, I think of this image when I see some one with no helmet or an open face helmet.
may be one of the smart ones can put a link to it for us.

I have read elsewhere that the genius decided he could demonstrate how easy it was to set off a blasting cap by biting on it, with unsurprising results to everyone but him.

I don't know if that's correct, but I do know that pic has popped up as evidence of more than one kind of injury. I wear a full face anyway :)

I'll pass on linking it as I don't want to see it again!

[davereid]

Of course, I am playing deviils advoacae a bit here, but I think for some reason we assuming that helmets are more effective for motorcyclists than they are for car drivers and passengers...


Well, When I want to drive around the streets at up to 300km/hr I too will ensure my helmet is firmly fastened to my head inside my cage.
Along with the five point harness and 3 layer flame suit....


Exactly how hard do you think you need to be going before you get a brain injury ? Your head can't tell if it hit the road after a 1.5m fall from your bike, or if it hit a B pillar after being T boned.



Amazing how the steering wheel gets out of the way for your head to hit the dash though....


Ahh, so your passenger sits on your knee then ?



In my standard 4 wheel vehicle in an accident there is a chance of a head injury, but not as great....

Toyotas Fumio Matsuoka, (project manager for vehicle safety) has done research showing that 47% of people who die in car accidents, do so of head injuries.

Are you sure you don't need a helmet in your car ?

[greminn]

just leave it be. I say we take all the restrictions off, take the warning labels off everything, and let the problem sort itself out.

+1 - i am with you on that one!!!!!

[modboy]

There is a fairly easy test - I say this to serious cyclists too if they ask the stupid question - do helmets really protect you all that much?

Here is the test.

Get two williing participants (a control and the test, apparently they call it in scientific experiments).

One with a reasonable quality helmet on, the other nothing.

Take a hammer.

Give them both a decent bang on the head with the hammer. Don't be shy.
:bash:
Observe results.

Granted this is only really a test of whether a helmet will protect you regarding an impact to the head with a solid object - but, well I'm sure most people can draw their own conclusions.

Yes, I'm being silly - but not as silly as riding without a helmet. At best you'll end up a retard. Worse, your brains will be left all over the road. :blip:

[Laxi]

the retards out there who say there shouldnt be helmet laws can ride without them for all i care, its called natural selection and happens in the wild all the time, the STUPID get themselves removed from the gene pool, works out great for everyone!

[davereid]

the retards out there who say there shouldnt be helmet laws can ride without them for all i care, its called natural selection and happens in the wild all the time, the STUPID get themselves removed from the gene pool, works out great for everyone!

The stupid one would be you then Laxi.

As you have chosen to ride a motorcycle, it makes you at least 16 times and up to 25 times more likely to die on the roads than a car driver.

You failed the Darwin test by hopping on your mtorcycle instead of hopping in a car or getting the bus.

The argument about the helmet fails, as quite simply it increases your chances of survival in a crash so marginally that you have to use a microscope on the data to detect the improvement.

Not only did you fail the Darwin test, you failed the "I have a brain" test.

You simply don't realise that you are arguing that only the safest way of doing things is acceptable. That is the very arguement that will take your motorcycle off you.

To put it another way, you are exercising freedom of choice when you hop on a motorcycle, even though you know that you are taking a massive risk.

Yet you are arguing that I am a fool for wanting freedom of choice about a helmet.

If you cant see the irony, please go and buy a Subaru and stop lecturing me about my safety.

[kevfromcoro]

FUCK ME
HAVENT READ ALL the thread
but i dont ride to letter box without a helmet

[davereid]

FUCK ME
HAVENT READ ALL the thread
but i dont ride to letter box without a helmet

Thats cool dude... wear a condom too.. just don't assume that you have the right to use force (the law) to stop me doing stuff, because it might be less safe than the stuff you do.

Cos if you have that right, so does my mum.

And she thinks motorcycles should be banned, as guess what, they are dangerous, and there are much better alternatives.

Actually, my um has more rights than you, cos you are a motorcyclist. Thats a minority. And as my mum likes to remind me, its a democracy. If she and her pals want, they CAN ban dangerous bikes.

Just got to do the boy racers first.

[allycatz]

Well ive seen first hand what a head looks like thats stopped a tree with no protection (my 17 year old daughter deceased). Her brother gears up to ride his dirt bike no probs but its taken ages to get him to see sense and do the same on the scooter...yep wears a helmet but buggerall else...

[kevfromcoro]

Thats cool dude... wear a condom too.. just don't assume that you have the right to use force (the law) to stop me doing stuff, because it might be less safe than the stuff you do.

Cos if you have that right, so does my mum.

And she thinks motorcycles should be banned, as guess what, they are dangerous, and there are much better alternatives.

Actually, my um has more rights than you, cos you are a motorcyclist. Thats a minority. And as my mum likes to remind me, its a democracy. If she and her pals want, they CAN ban dangerous bikes.

Just got to do the boy racers first.
Condoms?? WELL I JUST BEen to thailand and put a condom on
the girl said to me dont take it of...that was 3 months ago..
wish i could
iam busting for a piss

[davereid]

Well ive seen first hand what a head looks like thats stopped a tree with no protection (my 17 year old daughter deceased). Her brother gears up to ride his dirt bike no probs but its taken ages to get him to see sense and do the same on the scooter...yep wears a helmet but buggerall else...

With all respect ally, I think you are playing the "Doctor Game".

Thats where, when someone has an accident and dies of a head injury, everyone sighs, and says "gee if only they were wearing a helmet."

It makes the logical assesment that a helmet would have prevented the death, and the medical profession usually link the death with the failure to wear a helmet.

But we actually it not true.

In general, there is no doubt that wearing a helmet improves crash outcomes. But its not a 100% solution. In fact, it improves outcomes so much, that we can't really see it in statistics, without endless data processing and debate.

I would suggest that statistically, wearing a helmet would have not improved your daughters outcome significantly.

[allycatz]

No it wouldnt of helped, her neck was broken but it sure makes for prettier viewing in an open casket if the head is still in one peice aye!

[Brian d marge]

No they aren't needed , but if you crash they have their uses .. Lived in a country where they weren't needed. Worked there as a bike mechanic, fell off a lot ..all good
In a country where the health care is paid for by the state you will get laws designed to reduce the costs..
I personally wear ( min ) helmet ,gloves and boots .. Why , it's more comfortable
If I do get a bit pissy when A: a stupid wastes my money, either a polly or a darwin candidate, but if it's their money ... And they want to be a dick ,,
Ain't my prob..
Stephen

[Laxi]

The stupid one would be you then Laxi.

As you have chosen to ride a motorcycle, it makes you at least 16 times and up to 25 times more likely to die on the roads than a car driver.

You failed the Darwin test by hopping on your mtorcycle instead of hopping in a car or getting the bus.



harden up dude, how was it a lecture when i said i dont care what you do, I chose to ride a bike because to me thats living, it dosnt mean i want to increase my chances of dying, you do what you want, as i said its really not my problem if you want to increase your chances wind up as greasy stain on the road and your only excuse is either "it messes up my hair" or "but I dont look cool with a helmet on"

[SARGE]

i learned to ride and did most of my riding in the States ..only ever wore one if i was gonna get Sporty or the weather dictated it .. (snow, hail, driving rain...)


most of the time .. i went sans helmet .. crashed a few times at differing speeds and i dont think i died ...

[Ojai]

My face is far to pretty to risk riding without a helmet.

One saying I took to heart is "Too hot for armour? Too hot to ride!"

[Tink]

I you don't think you need a helmet, you probably don't.

Good reasoning... no brain no pain!:bash:


i learned to ride and did most of my riding in the States ..only ever wore one if i was gonna get Sporty or the weather dictated it .. (snow, hail, driving rain...)
most of the time .. i went sans helmet .. crashed a few times at differing speeds and i dont think i died ...


How is this for really stupid... there is no licence in Utah to wear a helmet or wasn't when I lived there... so I didn't wear one... at the age of 18 I had no clue other than (mmm I am sure I should where a helmet.. but peer pressure depicted otherwise...) prior to that moment... aged 16 dirt biking at the beach... always wore a helmet but no gear.

I have come a long way in my thinking... and I still love to fly!

[robboh]

Well, When I want to drive around the streets at up to 300km/hr I too will ensure my helmet is firmly fastened to my head inside my cage.
Along with the five point harness and 3 layer flame suit....
Amazing how the steering wheel gets out of the way for your head to hit the dash though....

In my standard 4 wheel vehicle in an accident there is a chance of a head injury, but not as great....
However on the bike, any off will result in lost skin....

So for me, either my leathers/ cordura/ or at least draggan jeans are on the list of safety gear.... Gloves and boots are standard, but a choice on the others, depending on the ride.

Well, we never used to wear helmets on the farms, or on the roads around the farm. But generally lower speeds. Took several tumbles at various stages, but usually just bumps and bruises.

The worst accident I had on farm bikes were flipping the quad on a weird ditch/bump that was hidden in the grass on a flat paddock (broken collar bone, which pierced a lung, and broken shoulder blade). The other was just about garroting myself on a piece of unseen poly-wire when I was trying a cut off a heifer in a paddock.

On the track, had a couple. One involved landing on my shoulders/head, and then quite a long slide... which severely munted the helmet (including in the face area) and wore through my glove on the little finger (and quite a bit of the side of my finger too). Heat burns under leathers hurt too!!! Had a mate flung off a bucket chair and wrapped backwards around a powerpole at a bucket street race in feilding. Thank god he was wearing my back protector, but the protector was stuffed afterwards.

Have had a couple of low-speed tumbles on the road. One in leathers (unmarked pea gravel on the pihiatua track), no issues. A front-end washout turning into a shopping centre in the wet, and hit a wet slick patch, big cut/graze on the knee and fracked jeans. And a really weird one on cold tyres where I just lost the arse-end, was expecting the bike (and me) to be grazed to all hell, but not a scratch on either of us.

As for the cars... well, if the LTSA would let me use the 4pt harness thats in my car, and a helmet, on the road, I would.

The skill-level of the drivers around at present is starting to seriously worry me. The latest one I have seen a LOT recently is people just not giving way to the right on T intersections (where they turning left out onto the 'main' road, and I going straight). They just bowl up to the corner, dont seem to bother actually looking and pound round right in front of you. You have to seriously slow down, and then they toodle onward at their damned 40kph, holding you up. :angry2:

[Elysium]

If ACC (and that means my tax dollars) didn't pay for motorcyclists who crashed without a helmet, then yes I would have no problem if people choose to wear no helmets.

But because we end up paying if some morons do crash without a helmet, I strongly recommend a helmet. Anyway a helmet is nice and cosy when it pisses down with rain, stones flying, kamakazi bugs, cold weather? Makes no sense unless you're a Harley rider.

[Laxi]

mates helmet, after accident at 40-45kph, he walked away with hardly a scratch on him, what if that helmet was your head? NUF SAID!

[Insanity_rules]

mates helmet, after accident at 40-45kph, he walked away with hardly a scratch on him, what if that helmet was your head? NUF SAID!

I think most of you Welly bikers can guess who the rider was cough cough!

[jimmay]

Honestly, for a long while I agreed that helmets didn't really protect you as much as people make it out to be. Some people treat it as though if you put on a helmet suddenly you're invulnerable. The reality of course is that it's just not like that.

But I think I should contribute this one story. I was at a friend's house, and I was about to leave, and she always had this thing that she would beg me to put on my helmet (which honestly I didn't feel like wearing sometimes). So I told her "yeah yeah, i will" and she says "No, please put it on." I saw she really looked concerned so I did wear it. On my way back home I took an alternate route which was pretty dark, and as I'm driving, suddenly the ground below me was gravel -- there had been incomplete road work without any warning (they're, by law, supposed to put some sort of warning that the road ahead is being worked on, but they failed to do so). I was driving suddenly on an incomplete road.

I immediately stood up on the pedals to keep my balance, and almost made it all the way through, but there was a sudden steep drop. My bike ended up landing on its side HARD, and I was plunged into the ground... the first thing the hit the ground was my head! The left side of my head slammed down into the gravel. I ended up having my whole left leg bruised and scrapes on my elbow. But had I not put on my helmet I probably would have been knocked unconscious, or worse.

Ever since then I took it pretty seriously. It may not do much, but your head is the most important part of you, and should something like that happen, it's a lot more serious than if you hit any other part of you.

Also, one side story.. lol.
One time I was headed to that very same friend's house, and I thought "ugh, she's gonna be upset that I don't have my helmet on".. so i pulled over and put it on, then on the way to her house, going 45 mph, a bee struck the front of my helmet with such force that it threw my head back!! lol
So I guess she saved me twice. Had I not had it on, it would have been like a gunshot to my head! (well, maybe not so dramatic)

-j

[jimmay]

With all respect ally, I think you are playing the "Doctor Game".
...
I would suggest that statistically, wearing a helmet would have not improved your daughters outcome significantly.

I have to agree.

And to your main point about making it law to wear helmets... Sometimes a guy just wants to ride without one. Frankly, if I were to go riding without one, and I end up dieing because of it, at least I died a free man.

I think with laws in general, our government has to just have a little faith in people and stop meddling with our lives. If someone's gonna go racing, he's probably gonna wear a helmet. If someone's gonna go get some food at the corner, he probably won't need it.

We should just let go, accept death as a part of life, and stop trying to control every aspect of the world around us.

-j

[Dean]

I have to agree.
Frankly, if I were to go riding without one, and I end up dieing because of it, at least I died a free man.

-j

With all respect dude, what does it mean to die a free man? Getting your head split open on hard concrete in complete and utter pain then dieng without a helmet on your head.

Is that a good thing, for you in this case? is that a grand way to die? im confused.

[Badjelly]

The argument about the helmet fails, as quite simply it increases your chances of survival in a crash so marginally that you have to use a microscope on the data to detect the improvement.

A Google search turned up the following

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

which says:


...per mile traveled, the number of deaths on motorcycles in 2006 was about 35 times the number in cars

That sounds a little large. I've seen other sources that quote a factor of 15-20. [Edit: 15-20 times not 15-20 percent!]


NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent. Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position.

Now, I don't call a 35-40% reduction in the chance of a fatality microscopic, though it obviously doesn't cancel out the 15-35 times larger risk from riding a bike in the first place. Based on figures like these, plus a bit of common sense, I choose to

ride a bike
...as safely as I can
wear a helmet and protective gear

If you choose not to wear a helmet, i really don't care.

[Ixion]

A Google search turned up the following

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

which says:



That sounds a little large. I've seen other sources that quote a factor of 15-20%.



Now, I don't call a 35-40% reduction in the chance of a fatality microscopic, though it obviously doesn't cancel out the 15-35 times larger risk from riding a bike in the first place. Based on figures like these, plus a bit of common sense, I choose to

ride a bike
...as safely as I can
wear a helmet and protective gear

If you choose not to wear a helmet, i really don't care.

Those figures are always a bit suspect. They tend to be garnered in the US. Now, there, most places you don't *have* to wear a helmet. So, odds are, the folk who *do* are probably a lot more safety conscious (and probably more experienced, too) than the average. And since the US allows any noobie to jump straight on an R1, without helmet, comparison of the safety conscious, experienced helmet wearers, with the R1 riding bullet proof noobies is not really comparing apples and apples.

Same problem tends to exist here in trying to compare injury rates of riders who wear hi-vis with those who don't

I was riding here when helmets were made compulsory. Can't say I, or anyone else , noticed any *marked* drop in casualty rates.

But, withal, wearing a helmet is a good idea. A very good idea. Heads don't bounce well. Would be a good idea even if they weren't compulsary. Two different topics, don't mix them up . One, is wearing a helmt a good and sensible thing. T'other, different, should helmets (or anything else) be compelled by law.

[Badjelly]

Those figures are always a bit suspect. They tend to be garnered in the US. Now, there, most places you don't *have* to wear a helmet. So, odds are, the folk who *do* are probably a lot more safety conscious (and probably more experienced, too) than the average. And since the US allows any noobie to jump straight on an R1, without helmet, comparison of the safety conscious, experienced helmet wearers, with the R1 riding bullet proof noobies is not really comparing apples and apples.

Same problem tends to exist here in trying to compare injury rates of riders who wear hi-vis with those who don't.

All good points. Doubtless there are other statistical analyses out there, and doubtless they suffer from the same problems. Double-blind experiments are not possible. I guess all we can say is that common sense suggests that helmet should reduce fatality rates and the data are consistent with that.

Actually, I'm surprised that the (apparent) effect of helmets isn't larger than 35-40%. That's similar to the (apparent) effect of high-vis vests.

I wrote this post because I was irritated by davereid's unquantified, unsupported and rather bombastic assertion that the effect is microscopic.


But, withal, wearing a helmet is a good idea. A very good idea. Heads don't bounce well. Would be a good idea even if they weren't compulsary. Two different topics, don't mix them up. One, is wearing a helmt a good and sensible thing. T'other, different, should helmets (or anything else) be compelled by law.

Agreed. But it wasn't me who was mixing them up.

[Tink]

I have to agree.

stop trying to control every aspect of the world around us.

-j




But, withal, wearing a helmet is a good idea. A very good idea. Heads don't bounce well. Would be a good idea even if they weren't compulsary. Two different topics, don't mix them up . One, is wearing a helmt a good and sensible thing. T'other, different, should helmets (or anything else) be compelled by law.

I would wear a helmet simply because I am sane, and value my life...

The comparison yes is invalid (law v sensible)... we wear seatbelts (law) to also protect our children... so why should it not be law to wear a helmet to protect ourselves.. often we don't value our own lives or our childrens.. (living in the south OF auckland, I sadly see many unbelted kids.. and ones in tshirts and short ON motorbikes "kids" )

My point... I think the law is controlling but we have to consider this.. there are many out there .. if there was no law... that would not wear helmets.. would that be our problem "no". I see laws as being there purely for those that know no better..... :yes:

[Pwalo]

I guess the bottom line is that wether a helmet is necessary is a moot point. It's a legal requirement (regardless of your moral stand point).

Regardless, I'm sure glad I was wearing a decent quality full face when I was punted. I still have a nose, chin, etc. Judging by the state of my helmet I wouldn't have had much of a face left. Was certainly necessary in that particular instance.

[davereid]

With all respect dude, what does it mean to die a free man? ...Is that a good thing, for you in this case? is that a grand way to die? im confused.

Free men get to make decisions that involve risk.

That might mean making yourself 35x more likely to die on the road by choosing to ride a motorcycle.

It might mean making yourself 0.35x safer by wearing a helmet.

If you can't see that the argument is about the freedom to chose risk, then you are missing the entire point.

[Oscar]

There is a pic on rotten.com of a Biker missing the lower half his face yep every thing below the nostrils, I think of this image when I see some one with no helmet or an open face helmet.
may be one of the smart ones can put a link to it for us.

If it's the one that was circulating years ago (claiming to be a motorcyclist with no helmet after a crash), it's a complete bust.

That idjut got pissed and was dared to bite a blasting cap.

He did (and if you look again the injuries are more consistent with explosion than abrasion).

[Oscar]

The argument about the helmet fails, as quite simply it increases your chances of survival in a crash so marginally that you have to use a microscope on the data to detect the improvement.




Have you facts and figures to back this up?

[Oscar]

Now, I don't call a 35-40% reduction in the chance of a fatality microscopic, though it obviously doesn't cancel out the 15-35 times larger risk from riding a bike in the first place. Based on figures like these, plus a bit of common sense, I choose to


If there is a 35-40% reduction in fatalities, what is the reduction in serious injuries?

[vifferman]

I've had a few crashes, and I've hit my head only twice: both times at a near standstill. In one (minor) crash, I didn't hit my head, but did get whiplash from the sudden decelerative force of a ~1400g helmet on a head reaching the end of its travel after falling sideways.
I'd wear a helmet even if they weren't compulsory, simply because (in most cases) it's more comfortable wearing one than being subject to wind, the weather, and the cacophany of mechanical noises most of my abused bikes' motors have made.
But there's another reason, one usually missed on Mrkn bike forums by clowns who say, "At least I'd be dying in freedom if I crash while not wearing one!"

Head injuries are scarily easy to obtain.

My cousin died when he tripped and hit his head on the wharf while disembarking from his yacht.

In one of those aforementioned 'crashes' where I did hit my head, I fell no further or harder than if I was sitting stationary on my bike, feet up, and toppled sideways. I had mild concussion symptoms for three days or so.

Some years ago, I worked with a 45 year old guy who had a series of strokes. I was staggered while visiting him in the brain injury unit to see how many victims of falls or other head injuries there were. A couple had fallen from horses, there were some who'd hit their heads in car accidents. All had moderate to severe brain damage. The average brain injury victim isn't someone you'd know about, because they're either in hospital or a home, and often just a semi-vegetative shadow of their former selves.
Fuck that.

I've had enough of mental health issues (and that scare with mild concussion) to know that even minor brain damage is something NO-ONE wants.

The ones who die of head injuries in bike, car, or other accidents are often arguably the lucky ones.

[Ixion]

Ginger Malloy is in the horspiddle with serious head trauma after tripping on his steps and hitting his head. I think maybe I should wear a helmet everywhere, not just on the bike. Can you sleep in them I wonder. make kissing a bit hard though.

[YellowDog]

After reading this thread yesterday I was down in Greenhithe today and to my surprise I saw a scooter rider wearing no more than a hoodie for protection :confused:

[caseye]

Doesn't surprise me, they do what they want up there YellowDog.I started to type, " I hope he bins and gets a face full" but i deleted that cause it's not true. I don't hope he does, thats mean and nasty. I hope he gets a large fine and an incentive ( u know a day in the wards) that makes him/them change their ways voluntarily.

[YellowDog]

Doesn't surprise me, they do what they want up there YellowDog.I started to type, " I hope he bins and gets a face full" but i deleted that cause it's not true. I don't hope he does, thats mean and nasty. I hope he gets a large fine and an incentive ( u know a day in the wards) that makes him/them change their ways voluntarily.
Well I suspect you may have hit the nail on the head there. Why are riders allowed on the road without sufficient education to prevent them doing something so obviously stupid.

[cs363]

Well I suspect you may have hit the nail on the head there. Why are people allowed out in public without sufficient education to prevent them being so obviously stupid.


There you go, quote amended.... :laugh:

[scracha]

That might mean making yourself 35x more likely to die on the road by choosing to ride a motorcycle.

It might mean making yourself 0.35x safer by wearing a helmet.

If you can't see that the argument is about the freedom to chose risk, then you are missing the entire point.
I see your point. My point would be that's all good so long as the helmetless pay 35x the ACC levvies.

I've got a cousin who's spent the last 3 years in a glorified nuthouse from head injuries sustained 20 years ago in a motorcycle accident that have yet again reared their ugly head. I've smashed up 3 helmets this year through racing and would certainly be drinking through a straw at the moment were it not for them. When you're sliding down the road and start tumbling, your head (and it's not the weight of the helmet) is very heavy and as much as you try and prevent it the centrifugal forces normally result in your head smacking the ground 2 or 3 times. Anyone who argues the benefits of helmets needs their head looked at (no pun intended).

What about the "freedom" of the poor bastards who have to pay for and wipe the arse of the patients who have head injuries resulting from simply not wearing motorcycle helmets?

[davereid]

I see your point. My point would be that's all good so long as the helmetless pay 35x the ACC levvies.

Sort of agreed. The figures related to deaths... generally not requiring a big ACC payout.

Also, it was riding a motorcycle that was the cause of the 35x figure, the helmet reduced deaths by 0.35x.

So, that would mean a motorcyclist would pay 35x the ACC levy of a car driver.

But he could get a 0.35x reduction in that levy by wearing a helmet.

[Danae]

Yeah you don't have to wear a helmet. If you're idiotic enough to believe that, you deserve to be erased from the gene pool. <_<

[Badjelly]

Sort of agreed. The figures related to deaths... generally not requiring a big ACC payout.

Also, it was riding a motorcycle that was the cause of the 35x figure, the helmet reduced deaths by 0.35x.

So, that would mean a motorcyclist would pay 35x the ACC levy of a car driver.

But he could get a 0.35x reduction in that levy by wearing a helmet.

I have to agree with you there, davereid. Motorcycling is much more dangerous than driving a car, by a factor that might be 35, or it might be more like 20, whatever, it's quite large. And wearing a helmet apparently reduces that risk, by something like 35%, maybe more maybe less (maybe even zero, but I doubt it). Whatever, it's nowhere near enough to cancel out the 35x. So to those want helmetless riders to pay 35x the ACC levy of a car driver, do you want helmeted riders to pay 25x the levy of a car driver?

Getting back to the personal issue (but not confusing it with the legal issue) I ride a bike, and I wear a full-face helmet and a high-vis vest, but I don't kid myself that they make me invulnerable.


Yeah you don't have to wear a helmet. If you're idiotic enough to believe that, you deserve to be erased from the gene pool. <_<

Er yes, but if you ride a bike, helmet or not, you're running a bigger risk than other people of being erased from the gene pool.

I'm happy with the contributions I've made to the gene pool already, so I'm sweet. :yes:

[The Pastor]

helmet smell-met

[ralph4alice]

I seen a guy who was riding a Buell wearing no helmet just last year.

He was laying on the road beside his wrecked bike with part of his brain oozing out at the time. :eek5:

Not nice. :sick::sick:

He bloody lived too.

How the blazes does a person manage to live after that?!

[ralph4alice]

If there is a 35-40% reduction in fatalities, what is the reduction in serious injuries?

Exactly. Easy to cherry-pick one set of figures (ie: death rate), but head injury rate should be included in the discussion too.




Head injuries are scarily easy to obtain.
...
My cousin died when he tripped and hit his head on the wharf while disembarking from his yacht.



My stepbrother said he heard of (or knew someone, whichever) that went for a short ride around a street on a motorbike (I think just hopping on for a quick tryout), but somehow came off, hit his head on the kerb and killed himself instantly (ie: in front of everyone. How bad would that be?). I was told this during a visit by said stepbrother on his Harley. I was keener then keen to try it, but didn't have my helmet with me (and his was too small). So, even though we're in a cul-de-sac with virtually no traffic, that put me off! Probably the right thing too. (Darnit... HOG gotta wait until another day)

Helmet for me every time.

[PrincessBandit]

I think maybe I should wear a helmet everywhere, not just on the bike. Can you sleep in them I wonder. make kissing a bit hard though.
You kiss in your sleep then?



mates helmet, after accident at 40-45kph, he walked away with hardly a scratch on him, what if that helmet was your head? NUF SAID!
Looks very much like mine after my slide along the motorway. All my gear got pretty much trashed - right boot toe ground down several layers, leather jacket torn at shoulder, helmet looking pretty much like your mates. I am not entirely sure I'd still be here logging onto kb if my head had taken the impact and grind that my helmet did. Wearing a helmet isn't obviously an invincibility shield, but I'd go with preferring my chances with one on my head. If helmet wearing was ever to become voluntary I'd be one of those who would still choose always to wear mine. I don't have a death wish.

[ralph4alice]

Helmets give you good protection in an abrasive accident, but in impact type accidents they are marginal or may even increase your injury.

Heres the NZ data - Without googling it, guess what year we got helmets.

If you are unable to tell, before you google "helmet injury" google "spinal injury". You may find it easier to identify the year that way.


Not sure what conclusions davereid suggests from this data. That motorbike helmets actually lead to more injuries and/or deaths? Check the original data here: http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/NewPDFs/NewFolder/motorCycles.pdf

A couple of things first:

- a problem with the table quoted is that it only shows total casualties. A more meaningful table is the next one in the source document, which has figures per 10,000 motorcycles - more meaningful for comparing year to year, and accounts for the total number of motorbikes on the road.

- the other thing: the table doesn't mention the types of injuries at all, so I'm not sure how he differentiates "abrasion-type" vs. "impact type" accidents. The table given shows nothing of the sort.

Anyway, look at the data. I've posted the graph here of the per-motorcycle rates. This shows an immediate 57% reduction in deaths from 1955 to 1956, reducing further over the following decade to about 1/3 of the 1955 rate. The 1954 figure was its highest ever, and has consistently remained at 1/3 to 1/2 that of the rate prior to 1955 (apart from a rise in the mid-70s). There's a further drop after 1996; would be interesting to see what that might be due to - some new helmet construction standards maybe?

From LTSA website at http://www.landtransport.govt.nz/fascinating-facts/20th-century-roadtoll.html :

"Notable developments of the 1950s included ... the requirement for motorcyclists to wear helmets when exceeding 30 mph, beginning in 1955."

What about when "Motorcyclists were also targeted in the 1970s, with the introduction of mandatory helmet use in 1974 and mandatory testing in 1976."? Sure, the rate had actually started decreasing before then, but it certainly didn't increase from 1975.

All these numbers can't compete with common sense: if your head hits something hard at speed, a hard shell around it (with proper padding included) will be a crapload better than nothing.



With regard to Cycle helmets, the biggest study in the world (The NZ Scuffam Report) concluded helmets were a waste of time and money.

I've worn cycle helmets since 1985, way before the compulsory cycle helmet law (although before then, I just rode on the footpath) ; it's always made sense to me.

???

[davereid]

Not sure what conclusions davereid suggests from this data.

davereids conclusions are very simple. Helmets work and are useful, as years of microscopically picking through statistics can show.

But they are not a panacea.

Helmets are like shorty pajamas. They ARE warmer than being naked.

The point of my argument has been missed again... to refesh it...

davereid thinks he should be able to choose to do things that are less safe than "best practice" just for fun.

Examples..

davereid likes to scuba dive, and davereid likes to fish from a small boat. Best practice is to get fish from Countdown.

davereid likes sex without a condom and is a bad boy. (But never seems to get spanked)

davereid likes beer, although he knows it raises his blood pressure, is bad for his liver, and makes him fall down the steps.

davereid likes to ride a motorcycle. Best practice is to take the car, its 35 times safer.

davereid also, sometimes on a sunny day does the 10km trip down the little country road he lives on, at a sensible speed, enjoying the sights and smells of the country, with his helmet stowed (nice and safely so it can't fall off and injure innocent road users) on the carrier.

So, if you think that "best practice" is a reasonable reason for you to use force to stop me doing something, look out cos someone else is looking at something you do.

[ralph4alice]

davereids conclusions are very simple. Helmets work and are useful, as years of microscopically picking through statistics can show.

But they are not a panacea.

...

davereid thinks he should be able to choose to do things that are less safe than "best practice" just for fun.

Examples..
...


Very nicely put RFLOL :-) Brilliant examples, esp. fish and sex. Get that man a beer! :drinkup:

Couldn't agree more to be honest (as long as a person is prepared to fully live with any consequences from ones actions). I choose to use a scooter:scooter:, in spite of the bad accident statistics for motorbikes. Even though there's a bus stop outside my gate, and the buses are quite reasonable (although the bus times aren't quite right for me, if they started a bit earlier it'd be sweet), Or in spite of having a bicycle (better accident rates than motorbikes): some days I just can't be arsed slogging up the hill on my pushbike (comes at the end of the ride on the way home). Main reason is because I value the freedom of going when I please (and sort of to save money, although it's pretty even when you include cost of interest, and insurance rego etc). However, freedom of when to travel isn't worth in itself the higher risk, so I just hope that by riding defensively (and being really visible with my nice new orange flouro vest from Wgtn Motorcycles yesterday), that I can still be relatively safe.

Typical me... can't stand looking at scads of numbers, so end up making a graph, then getting undies in a twist trying to work out what it means. Mumble.

Sorry if I missed the point of the argument! I'm seeing some arguments/debates on this site that's for sure. Good stuff.