> Motor vehicle safety lies within the OPERATION of vehicle and >not trying to lessen the effects of a collision, like medicine, >avoidance is superior to treatment.
If avoidance could eliminate essentially all of the problem, then there would be no need for treatment. In the real world, clearly, there is a need for both.
> To many people helmets "obviously" help in the treatment side of >accidents, there are studies that show how helmets actually >cause more complicated injuries.
This is quite simply not true. Opponents of helmet laws do their cause no good by making such false claims.
>Also, the worst part of head injuries >is the SUDDEN DECELERATION of the brain against the skull, >no helment can help that.
Helmets have three primary functions: protection from abrasion, penetration, and decelleration. The first two are provided by the shell, and the third is provided by the crushable liner. Decelleration of the brain against the skull can be reduced by two orders of magnitude by a helmet. Once again, opponents of helmet laws do their cause no good by making such false claims.
> On the "prevention" side of things, helmets definitely cause more harm >than good -- restricted hearing and field-of-vision,
There is no evidence that field of vision is restricted in any meaningful way by a motorcycle helmet. There *is* evidence that hearing is better with helmet than bare-headed.
>heat build-up causing drowsiness,
Under some circumstances. This is a complex issue, though. Ever see a Beduoin or other desert-dweller going bare-headed? I try to soak my helmet on hot days.
>and a sense of over-confidence.
Pure surmise.
I am posting because I personally feel that people should not attempt to advance a cause by publishing blatent untruths (even though history shows this to be very effective). There is a purely pragmatic argument for opposing helmet laws: It is very difficult to show that helmet ***legislation*** saves lives. Some years ago I even published a critique of an inept statistical analysis by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety ("Fatal Errors with Fatalities Data," Law & Society Review, 11(3), Winter 1977, pp 589-595).
There is no question, though, that a helmet reduces the likelihood and severity of injuries if fitted and worn with only a normal and reasonable amount of care. Nor is there any question that the rider on an unfaired motorcycle can hear better and is safer from noise-induced temporary or permanent hearing damage when wearing a helmet. I do not know for sure why there is such a discrepancy between the effects of helmet use and the effects of legislation. My personal speculation is that relatively few people who are "forced" to use helmets do so properly. For example, I note that very few moped riders here in NJ fasten the helmet at all. These are almost all teen-agers, and it seems unlikely that many would wear helmets voluntarily.
> There is a purely pragmatic argument for opposing helmet laws: > It is very difficult to show that helmet ***legislation*** > saves lives. Some years ago I even published a critique of > an inept statistical analysis by the Insurance Institute > for Highway Safety ("Fatal Errors with Fatalities Data," > Law & Society Review, 11(3), Winter 1977, pp 589-595)...
> ...I do not know for sure why there is such a discrepancy between > the effects of helmet use and the effects of legislation. > My personal speculation is that relatively few people > who are "forced" to use helmets do so properly. For example, > I note that very few moped riders here in NJ fasten the helmet at all. > These are almost all teen-agers, and it seems unlikely that > many would wear helmets voluntarily.
> Harvey S. Cohen, AT&T-IS, Lincroft, NJ, mtuxo!hsc
An interesting parallel is appearing here in Illinois. Last year the legislature (in an attempt to woo the Saturn plant) passes a mandatory seat belt law. At the time, they promised a 50% compliance rate and a 300-500 per year reduction in the highway death rate. Well, it's 11 months later, and the total reduction in the death rate is 32. Compliance has been running about 35% statewide, highest in metropolitan areas (where there are more accidents), lower in the boonies. The supporters of the law have no explanation for the discrepancy, but they do have a solution: stiffer penalties, harsher enforcement, checkpoints, and so forth.
This is my big reason for opposing helmet laws. When they are proposed, they are always accompanied by glowing promises of how many lives they will save. When they don't live up to the promises, the legislators start thinking about what other laws they can pass to Promote Motorcycle Safety, and those laws inevitably turn out to be further restrictions that also don't work that well. While in all measurable ways a helmet law wouldn't affect me since I wear mine all the time, who knows what evil lurks in the heart of a legislator? How about requiring full leathers during our 90-degree 99% humidity summers? How about legislating what colors your clothes and bike are allowed to be? How about restricting night riding, especially on weekends (why not; most fatalities occur between 10pm and 3am Friday and Saturday)? How about horsepower limits? You can rest assured that they won't consider rider education, stricter licensing for both bikers and car drivers, or "motorcycle awareness" programs, because these don't produce the instant gratification that Passing A Law does.
Helmets and seat belts are wonderful things to have when you get into a crash, but they don't do a damn thing to prevent one. Passage of helmet and seat belt laws is an admission by the government that it is unable or (most likely) unwilling to put in the effort needed to prevent accidents. Since most accidents are preventable, this is a shameful abdication of the government's duty.
Dan Starr AMA/ABATE/UMI/AT&T
(My employer has no knowledge and less interest in my opinions, and undoubtedly would not endorse them.)
> An interesting parallel is appearing here in Illinois. Last year > the legislature (in an attempt to woo the Saturn plant) passes a > mandatory seat belt law. At the time, they promised a 50% compliance > rate and a 300-500 per year reduction in the highway death rate. Well, > it's 11 months later, and the total reduction in the death rate is > 32. Compliance has been running about 35% statewide, highest in metropolitan > areas (where there are more accidents), lower in the boonies.
BBAAAHHH - it just occurred to me that I must be a sheep. I didn't bother to start wearing a seatbelt until forced to by the seatbelt law passed last year. I didn't bother making my children buckleup until the child seatbelt law passed the year before.
Now I "don't go nowhere" until everyone I am responsible for (me and mine) are buckled-up and it don't matter NOW whether it's law or not. I NOW choose to wear one. Seatbelts are a good idea. But I probably wouldn't have been made "aware" of this good idea without the law helping make me make a conscience choice.
On the other hand, I also choose to wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle - been aware of that idea a long time now, but don't want the sleeping giant whose name is a four letter word - GVMT (spelled government) - from getting involved by making everyone else aware by passing gas (oops - I meant to say law).
Paradoxial, isn't.
-- Daniel M. O'Brien (ihnp4!ihlpa!dob) AT&T Bell Laboratories IH 4A-257, x 4782 Naperville-Wheaton Road Naperville, IL 60566
In article <4...@water.UUCP> kgdy...@watbun.UUCP writes: > To many people helmets "obviously" help in the treatment side of >accidents, there are studies that show how helmets actually >cause more complicated injuries.
Oh, horsefeathers. Of course, there are *extremely unusual* situations where this is true, but the same can be said for seatbelts, or most any other safety device. Read the Hurt report to find out, statistically, how helmets save lives. (I believe he reports that, in the hundreds of accidents he investigated, none had injuries that were attributable to the helmet).
The only common situation where helmets add to injuries is when a helpful bystander attmepts to remove one incorrectly.
> Also, the worst part of head injuries >is the SUDDEN DECELERATION of the brain against the skull, >no helment can help that.
Yes, certainly. Just like the fellow a few months back who wrote to "Cycle" (I think) saying that it would take more than 6 inches of foam just to begin to absorb an impact. If helmets are nearly useless, why do all the racers wear them (and don't answer that the AMA requires it -- the racers instituted mandatory helmets themselves).
>EDUCATE, DON'T LEGISLATE!
NOW we agree.
> - Ken Dykes > Biker's Rights of Ontario, Canada. > {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,utzoo}!watmath!watbun!kgdykes
--Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Corp. ...!cca!ima!ism780!darryl The views expressed above are my opinions only.
> You > can rest assured that they won't consider rider education, stricter licensing > for both bikers and car drivers, or "motorcycle awareness" programs, > because these don't produce the instant gratification that Passing A Law > does.
> Dan Starr AMA/ABATE/UMI/AT&T
Surprise! In California motorcycle registrations are now $2/year more expensive, with the funds from the extra cash going to motorcycle education programs. Specifically we expect to see MSF courses benefitting from an infusion of cash, and my organization has established communications with the administrators of the new fund.
But I don't like it. If we can get more students by having a cheaper tuition, then it'll be nice, but I seriously doubt that will happen. Our course is only $65 now. Otherwise I don't expect the fund to do much real good. And the thought of using forcefully taken money really turns my stomach. But I'm only one voice . . .
Since I'm no longer a motorcyclist (I want to live a long time), I'm not in- clined to get too involved in the helmet debate, but I have an interesting statistic from the Texas Department of Public Safety that I'd like to throw in. It is that 90% of all motorcycle accident fatalities are caused by head injuries, and in 80% of *those*, the deceased was *not* wearing a helmet.
Ron Morgan "Don't use both hands, keep one on the wheel!"
> To many people helmets "obviously" help in the treatment side of > accidents, there are studies that show how helmets actually > cause more complicated injuries. Also, the worst part of head injuries > is the SUDDEN DECELERATION of the brain against the skull, > no helment can help that. > The medical uses of helmets *IS NOT CUT AND DRY* > and I object to being legislated into wearing > something that MAY actually cause harm.
Was this study done by the Tobacco Institute per-chance? As far as I am concerned, if people are willing and able to take the full consequences (medical costs, etc) of riding without a helmet and this responsibility can be enforced then let them take the chance. However, my experience (a 60 mph dump with no injury except the shoulder I landed on) strongly reenforced my desire to ride with a helmet. -- Russell Holden Computer Corporation of America Four Cambridge Center Cambridge, MA 02142
> BBAAAHHH - it just occurred to me that I must be a sheep. I didn't bother to > start wearing a seatbelt until forced to by the seatbelt law passed last year. ... > But I probably wouldn't have been made > "aware" of this good idea without the law helping make me make a conscience > choice. ... > On the other hand, I also choose to wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle - > been aware of that idea a long time now, but don't want the ... > ... government ... getting > involved by making everyone else aware by passing ... > law.
> Paradoxial, isn't. > Daniel M. O'Brien (ihnp4!ihlpa!dob)
Well, my pen pal, Dr. D. Starr sent me an E-Mail reply which he said was ok to share with you all. So...
>From animal Fri Aug 1 14:52 CDT 1986 >To: dob >Subject: Re: re Seat belts, Helmets and Freedom of Choice >In-reply-to: your article <1...@ihlpa.UUCP>
><I thought I'd give you the benefit of privacy on this reply; if you agree with >the points you could post it for general amusement)
>I am not at all surprised, and don't find it the least bit paradoxical, that >you gave great conscious thought to helmet use, but needed the cattle-prod (or >is it sheep-prod?) of a law to get you interested in seat belts. Your posting >embodies the fundamental difference between the motorcycle rider and the car >pointer. The feeling I get is that you drive a car for the rather utilitarian >purpose of getting from point A to point B with minimum effort. So it's no >great surprise that, since thinking is an effort, you never gave much thought >to seat belts. On the other hand, you ride a motorcycle for recreation; that >is, you actively want to get involved with the riding process. So you think >about it a lot; you are probably in a state of heightened consciousness when >you're riding. As a result of the heightened consciousness, you *notice* the >many threats to life and limb which pass by in an afternoon of riding, and >because you are *interested in riding* you think about what they could do to >you and how to prevent serious bodily damage. So you thought it out and >decided to wear a helmet (good choice). On the other hand, in the car, the >last thing you want to do is think about driving; if you're thinking at all, >it's probably about your destination and what you will do once you get there. >As a result, you don't operate with that highly-observant "oh God they're out >to kill me" attitude, and you probably don't even notice the various threats to >your continued existence. Even if you do notice them, you aren't devoting much >of your conscious thought to driving, so there's no way for the observations to >really have any effect. Result--you never had a reason to make the concsious >choice of wearing seat belts.
>You are not alone in this (assuming of course, that my long-distance >psychoanalysis is right). I do the same thing--I am a motorcycle enthusiast, >and I drive my old Buick (a perfect Oscar Grope car, by the way) only because I >can't take the bike. Fortunately (?), I once had an eminently avoidable >accident and learned only too well what seat belts can do for you. I also >learned a lot about what I should have been watching for. And worst of all, I >learned all about what happens to your insurance when you rear-end a Ford >Mustang in the wilds of Indiana... As a result, I made the decision to wear my >seatbelt, very consciously, and I also resolved to be more alert when driving >the car--although, despite my best efforts, I would say that I am no more than >50% as aware in the car as I am on the bike. If only I could afford to be an >automotive enthusiast as well as a motorcycle enthusiast, then I could be a >better driver at all times.
>I would not recommend this method for teaching people the value of seat belts. >Not when there are neat thrill rides like the "seat belt convincer" around (did >you ride this thing when it was at the BLabs?). They ought to have that >machine at every drivers license station, and you should be forced to ride it >twice--once with the belt, once without--each time you renew your license. >THAT would encourage people to wear belts! (Now all we need is a "helmet >convincer"...)
>Stay safe and legal, in that order,
>Dan Starr
Later,
-- Daniel M. O'Brien (ihnp4!ihlpa!dob) AT&T Bell Laboratories IH 4A-257, x 4782 Naperville-Wheaton Road Naperville, IL 60566
The two motorcycle accidents I was personally aware of this summer resulted in head injuries in both cases. In each case the rider was not wearing a helmet and also of note is that they were apparent single vehicle caused accidents. Grope was not the problem!
Regarding the comment implying that helmets don't provide deceleration protection: Any one who has taken a MSF course has learned that one of the two major features of helmets is the deceleration capability in the helmet lining material.
> > BBAAAHHH - it just occurred to me that I must be a sheep. I didn't bother to > > start wearing a seatbelt until forced to by the seatbelt law passed last year. > ... > > But I probably wouldn't have been made > > "aware" of this good idea without the law helping make me make a conscience > > choice. > ... > > On the other hand, I also choose to wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle - > > been aware of that idea a long time now, but don't want the ... > > ... government ... getting > > involved by making everyone else aware by passing ... > > law.
> > Paradoxial, isn't. > > Daniel M. O'Brien (ihnp4!ihlpa!dob)
> Well, my pen pal, Dr. D. Starr sent me an E-Mail reply which he said was ok to > share with you all. So...
> >From animal Fri Aug 1 14:52 CDT 1986 > >To: dob > >Subject: Re: re Seat belts, Helmets and Freedom of Choice > >In-reply-to: your article <1...@ihlpa.UUCP>
> ><I thought I'd give you the benefit of privacy on this reply; if you agree with > >the points you could post it for general amusement)
> >I am not at all surprised, and don't find it the least bit paradoxical, that > >you gave great conscious thought to helmet use, but needed the cattle-prod (or > >is it sheep-prod?) of a law to get you interested in seat belts. Your posting > >embodies the fundamental difference between the motorcycle rider and the car > >pointer. The feeling I get is that you drive a car for the rather utilitarian > >purpose of getting from point A to point B with minimum effort. So it's no > >great surprise that, since thinking is an effort, you never gave much thought > >to seat belts. On the other hand, you ride a motorcycle for recreation; that > >is, you actively want to get involved with the riding process. So you think > >about it a lot; you are probably in a state of heightened consciousness when > >you're riding. As a result of the heightened consciousness, you *notice* the > >many threats to life and limb which pass by in an afternoon of riding, and > >because you are *interested in riding* you think about what they could do to > >you and how to prevent serious bodily damage. So you thought it out and > >decided to wear a helmet (good choice). On the other hand, in the car, the > >last thing you want to do is think about driving; if you're thinking at all, > >it's probably about your destination and what you will do once you get there. > >As a result, you don't operate with that highly-observant "oh God they're out > >to kill me" attitude, and you probably don't even notice the various threats to > >your continued existence. Even if you do notice them, you aren't devoting much > >of your conscious thought to driving, so there's no way for the observations to > >really have any effect. Result--you never had a reason to make the concsious > >choice of wearing seat belts.
> >You are not alone in this (assuming of course, that my long-distance > >psychoanalysis is right). I do the same thing--I am a motorcycle enthusiast, > >and I drive my old Buick (a perfect Oscar Grope car, by the way) only because I > >can't take the bike. Fortunately (?), I once had an eminently avoidable > >accident and learned only too well what seat belts can do for you. I also > >learned a lot about what I should have been watching for. And worst of all, I > >learned all about what happens to your insurance when you rear-end a Ford > >Mustang in the wilds of Indiana... As a result, I made the decision to wear my > >seatbelt, very consciously, and I also resolved to be more alert when driving > >the car--although, despite my best efforts, I would say that I am no more than > >50% as aware in the car as I am on the bike. If only I could afford to be an > >automotive enthusiast as well as a motorcycle enthusiast, then I could be a > >better driver at all times.
> >I would not recommend this method for teaching people the value of seat belts. > >Not when there are neat thrill rides like the "seat belt convincer" around (did > >you ride this thing when it was at the BLabs?). They ought to have that > >machine at every drivers license station, and you should be forced to ride it > >twice--once with the belt, once without--each time you renew your license. > >THAT would encourage people to wear belts! (Now all we need is a "helmet > >convincer"...)
> >Stay safe and legal, in that order,
> AT&T Bell Laboratories > IH 4A-257, x 4782 > Naperville-Wheaton Road > Naperville, IL 60566
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Sorry to erase your name but I couldn't agree with you more. Just look at the two examples : one guy crashed in his Fiat X-1/9 but survive and well because he wore a seatbelt (even though he has a lot of bruises and cuts but his life and body are there), one guy crashed without helmet in his motocycle and become paralized and muted for the rest of his life (according to his doctor). Whatever you want to do is your choice but be sure you know what you are doing or you may end up waste not only your own but someone that you loved. Just another guy
