Biker dies in no helmet protest

[PrincessBandit]

We rode in Raro without helmets and it was rather pleasant except for the occasional bug in the face and in the evening when it got cooler. We weren't exactly hooning around the island though.

Only time i've ever been a little law breaker on the helmet front was when I shifted my bike about 50 metres down the road on the Maraetai beach front. Very pleasant that was too. Again though, it was at a very sedate pace.

My crash a couple of years ago made me value my helmet though - pretty serious road rash along the shell makes me wonder if I blacked out momentarily as I don't remember hitting the motorway at all. It seemed like only a brief instance though that I was getting to my feet with the only sign of damage being to my upper torso. Didn't even think about a head injury! Until I saw the state of my helmet that is, and after that I've never entertained serious thoughts of riding without a lid.

[jonbuoy]

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.

Attachment 242085

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.

I don´t understand your point - 1973 compulsory introduction of helmets (106 killed) figures didn´t go that high again until 1981. The population, number of cars and bikes on the road and performance of bikes had both increased in those 8 years.

[FJRider]

I don´t understand your point - 1973 compulsory introduction of helmets (106 killed) figures didn´t go that high again until 1981. The population, number of cars and bikes on the road and performance of bikes had both increased in those 8 years.

So we can expect an annual increase of deaths on the road ... of car drivers .... due to the increase of cars on the road ???

What you are saying ... is the NZ goverment knew what was best for motorcyclists ... and proved it ... ???

[jonbuoy]

So we can expect an annual increase of deaths on the road ... of car drivers .... due to the increase of cars on the road ???

What you are saying ... is the NZ goverment knew what was best for motorcyclists ... and proved it ... ???

Not really but I think it stands to reason the more vehicles on the road the more accidents there will be. If the number of motorcyclist doubled in NZ the accident rate would also go up - maybe not double. I would say its been proved time and time again helmets save lives - I had a fairly nasty crash myself and had a grazed helmet and visor from a tar seal road. If it wasn´t for the helmet I would have lost part of my face, enough evidence for me anyway. Everyone else is free to do their own crash testing on closed roads.

[davereid]

For example the statistics make no mention of the nubmers of riders in any given year, the number of kilometers travelled in any given year, changes to speed limits, road surfaces, increases in the speed of new motorcycles, or control for any one of hundreds of other factors.

Im not slinging off at Cochrane, or anyone else for that matter. My intention was simply to show that there are a wide range of contributing factors to the road toll.

But it remains my contention that money is the major reason for safety imposed on others against their will.

Inevitably if pressed, those advocating rules to protect me from myself will eventually mention the cost of my "foolish" behavior.

Perfect grounds to ban the motorcycle really.

[Parlane]

Already posted at :

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...helmet-protest

[slofox]

When I first started riding bikes I was not compelled to wear a helmet if travelling at less than 30 miles per hour (50k these days but I'm sure you all know that...).

Me ole Mum had a fit when she heard I'd bought a bike and insisted I get a helmet - in fact she dragged me into town and paid for it herself.

That afternoon, back in my university town, I took the new helmet out for a test ride on me trusty old Ariel.

Lo and behold, your typical SMIDSY event occurred. I went over the bars and landed smack on my head on the road. Gouged shit out of the new helmet. It would have been my head gouged without said helmet. As it was I was uninjured - headwise anyway.

I've never ridden without a helmet since nor will I. Even if the compulsion was removed.

[Big Dave]

But it remains my contention that money is the major reason for safety imposed on others against their will.

And the gene that makes some people choose to be social workers.

[Old Steve]

Thats the one that makes you up to 22 times more likely to die on the roads than a Volvo driver.

But I'm more than 22 times LESS likely to die of boredom than the Volvo driver! Doesn't that even things up?

[Edbear]

Im not slinging off at Cochrane, or anyone else for that matter. My intention was simply to show that there are a wide range of contributing factors to the road toll.

But it remains my contention that money is the major reason for safety imposed on others against their will.

Inevitably if pressed, those advocating rules to protect me from myself will eventually mention the cost of my "foolish" behavior.

Perfect grounds to ban the motorcycle really.

It's all about balancing freedom and responsibility. Spend time with the Ambo's and Police attending accidents, spend time in CCU and Triage and after six months, see if you feel the same way.

Killing yourself costs - not killing yourself, but becoming disabled, especially with a head injury costs a lot more for a lot longer and places inordinate stress on those who have to care for you for the rest of your life. Fact, is, helmets, and seatbelts along with other safety features like ABS and air-bags, save not just lives, a lot of serious injuries.

If I'd been driving a vehicle with traction control, for example I would not have crashed and broken my back, costing the country literally 100's of 1,000's of dollars over the past 14mths. As slofox says, above, he wouldn't be without a helmet because he knows from personal experience why they are necessary.

[Bob]

Already posted at :

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...helmet-protest

I don't get the fascination on this forum, where everyone feels the need to check every post to see if it is already somewhere else and announce it. Personally, I don't have the time to trawl the whole of KB to see if someone else has posted something, somewhere else.

If I didn't see it there, then nor will someone else. I've posted this on the news forum, as it is a news item. It isn't a contest, and if someone else spotted it then well done them, good to see other people posting items of interest.

But seriously, this 'post stalking' really bewilders me.

I shall now get off of my soap box!

[YellowDog]

Hey Bob, the last thread turned to custard pretty quickly.

Your new one may have the opportunity of being a little more constructive.

Sad news for the friends and family of the guy dying. Being a news article, there may or may not be a shred of truth in it.

It would appear that the very right this guy was campaigning for, prevented him from living longer than he did. Potentially a serious contender for this year's Darwin award.

[Parlane]

I don't get the fascination on this forum, where everyone feels the need to check every post to see if it is already somewhere else and announce it. Personally, I don't have the time to trawl the whole of KB to see if someone else has posted something, somewhere else.

If I didn't see it there, then nor will someone else. I've posted this on the news forum, as it is a news item. It isn't a contest, and if someone else spotted it then well done them, good to see other people posting items of interest.

But seriously, this 'post stalking' really bewilders me.

I shall now get off of my soap box!

Obviously I read your post after I had already been following the other thread! And some mod merged the threads, so it made my comment look rather out of place

[swbarnett]

There is only one inalianable truth when it comes to personal safety:

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO EVEN TRY AND SAVE ME FROM MYSELF WITHOUT MY CONSENT!

My helmet may save my life. This is part of why I wear one*. However, I don't care one hoot what increases or decreases my safety when it comes to justifying a legal imposition on my freedom.

I think my sig. says it all...

*It is more important to me that if keeps the rain out.

[swbarnett]

Yep - motorcycling is dangerous no matter what you wear or how you ride. Just the degrees vary.

I'm afraid I have to differ on this. As my sig. says: "Motorcycling is not inherently dangerous. It is, however, EXTREMELY unforgiving of inattention, ignorance, incompetence and stupidity!"