Is a helmet actually necessary?

[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....

[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.

[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.

Not nice.

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/...otorCycles.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/fas...-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!

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, 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.