Biker dies in no helmet protest

[gwigs]

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclis...143217859.html

Dunb

[davereid]

It always amazes me when bikers "face palm" about other bikers deciding to ride without a helmet.

Thats how car drivers react too, when hearing that I choose to ride a motorcycle.

The facts are simple.

The DUMB decision is choosing to ride a motorcycle. Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver.

The helmet ? Facts are not so clear there. It certainly helps with abrasion type injuries, but its much harder to prove effectiveness against brain injury. The likely out come is around a decrease of around 0.3 -0.5 in head injuries of all types.

And many studies implicate the extra weight of the helmet, and its diameter with an increase in spinal injuries.

The NZ data is very interesting.



Use the data provided to tell me which year NZ got helmets.

If you cant tell, theres another way. Google spinal injuries, and use that table. Or go to Burwood spinal unit and meet the bikers.

There is NO DOUBT that helmets save lives. But its not a binary. Its not a choice between (a) alive and well, or (b) dead.

Its often a choice between (a) alive and very very disabled or (b) dead.

My advice ?

Ride carefully. Dont count on the helmet.

And support the choice of those who choose to possibly double their risk on the road, by not wearing a helmet.
As in a minute I'm about to choose to be 22 times more likely to die on the roads, as I exercise MY free choice to ride my motorcycle.

[gwigs]

I dont give a fuck if someone chooses not to wear a helmet or any protective clothing for that matter...their choice...still fucking dumb though..

[pzkpfw]

Just gotta be amazed at the low incident rate on the BIK(E)OI. We did well.

[Milts]

Thats how car drivers react too, when hearing that I choose to ride a motorcycle.

The helmet ? Facts are not so clear there. It certainly helps with abrasion type injuries, but its much harder to prove effectiveness against brain injury. The likely out come is around a decrease of around 0.3 -0.5 in head injuries of all types.

And many studies implicate the extra weight of the helmet, and its diameter with an increase in spinal injuries.

While you have a point on the 'freedom of choice' aspect, it is a slippery slope. The same free choice argument could be applied to an individual's right to take crack cocaine, even if we know they are likely to become addicted and ruin their lives/family relationship for their addiction. A balance must be struck and IMO the 'helmet choice' falls somewhere near the tipping point.

As for your comments re actual safety, they are plain inaccurate. If you hit something hard enough to cause serious brain damage through a good helmet, you are lucky to survive anyway - often you'll be dead from neck or other injuries. However many impacts which wouldn't kill you but cause severe brain damage without a helmet could cause next to no injury with.

The Cochrane Collaboration is an organisation which attempts to sum up the best available medical evidence on a given topic. It is often seen as the international 'gold standard' for medical evidence. The New Zealand government subscribes to it on our behalf, so that individuals can view accurate medical information. This is their conclusion having examined over 60 studies on helmet effectiveness:

Motorcyclists are at high risk in traffic crashes, particularly for head injury. A review of studies concluded that helmets reduce the risk of head injury by around 69% and death by around 42%. There is, so far, insufficient evidence to compare the effectiveness of different types of helmet. Some studies have suggested that helmets may protect against facial injury and that they have no effect on neck injury, but more research is required for a conclusive answer. The review supports the view that helmet use should be actively encouraged worldwide for rider safety.

Full research available here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/coc...33/pdf_fs.html
Summary here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/coc...333/frame.html

[awayatc]

slippery slope indeed........if we draw a line, where do we draw it?

Smoking/fast foods/ lack of excercise/alcohol/rugby/horse eventing/cars/ motorbikes........... etc.
take your pick,
make a law,
on to the next item in the list.........

Numbers can prove anything you want them to prove

[Milts]

slippery slope indeed........if we draw a line, where do we draw it?

Smoking/fast foods/ lack of excercise/alcohol/rugby/horse eventing/cars/ motorbikes........... etc.
take your pick,
make a law,
on to the next item in the list.........

Numbers can prove anything you want them to prove

Cochrane ask independant volunteer reviewers to examine ALL published research on the topic worldwide, decide which are accurate and which are biased, and then synthasise the information from the most accurate results. You really don't get less biased information. About the only people who disagree are homeopaths, because all the cochrane findings say that giving people an unmeasurably small amount of a commonplace substance doesn't cure disease...

[Voltaire]

I don't remember the time when helmets were optional but now I wear a helmet skiing I look at the non helmet wearers and think they are taking a risk....where as 2 years ago I did the same.....just an observation

Did 500 k's yesterday and found car drivers were very well behaved.....that was until I got on the Southern Motorway..... way more 22 times less safe than a Volvo..

[slofox]

I doubt Mr Contos did much to help the protest's credibility, eh...

[shrub]

The DUMB decision is choosing to ride a motorcycle. Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver....

There is NO DOUBT that helmets save lives. But its not a binary. Its not a choice between (a) alive and well, or (b) dead.

Its often a choice between (a) alive and very very disabled or (b) dead.

My advice ?

Ride carefully. Dont count on the helmet.

And support the choice of those who choose to possibly double their risk on the road, by not wearing a helmet.
As in a minute I'm about to choose to be 22 times more likely to die on the roads, as I exercise MY free choice to ride my motorcycle.

The smart thing to do is to lock yourself in a concrete bunker and if you need to leave home do so in a Mack Truck. But what if there is an earthquake? Or Al Qaeda drop in?

Life is full of risks, know them and manage them, don't fear them.

[davebullet]

Sure, if you have a head on with another vehicle with a combined collision speed of 200kph, it won't matter. However I think below a certain impact speed the helmet must make a huge difference, especially for myself with the bulk of riding being commuting.

[Shaun]

Any one NOT wearing a helmet and a FULL FACE one is Fuk witt

[Sable]

I have one thing to say. LOL

[Usarka]

I don't see the problem, he took the risk and (unfortunately for him) it eventuated.

And it didn't cost the taxpayer as much as it could have if he was injured.

Risk is a fact of life, let people take some.

[imdying]

I don't see the problem, he took the risk and (unfortunately for him) it eventuated.

And it didn't cost the taxpayer as much as it could have if he was injured.

Risk is a fact of life, let people take some.

I agree with all of this