Motorcycle fatalities with/out helmets?

[dmccarty]

The motorcycle threads made me think of this again...

My intention is to NOT start the debate over whether one should or should not wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle.....

Though I guess it is inevitable.

A few years ago I read an article which I THINK might have been in Car & Driver that discussed motorcycle deaths and if mandatory helmet laws saved lives. The point of the article was that mandatory helmet laws DID NOT save lives. As I remember the article they used miles ridden as part of the comparison between states.

The problem with many of the statistics on the subject is that the research I found did not take into account miles ridden before and after mandatory helmet laws were passed. And in some states, CA is an example, the number of riders has dropped drastically since the law was enacted so one would expect the number of fatalities to drop as well.

I did some searching a few weeks ago and never found the answer. I was looking for the number of miles ridden per year and fatalities for given states which I never found. I could find number of riders and fatalities but not miles ridden.

CA and FL are interesting comparisons because FL does not mandate wearing of a helmet while CA does. The number of fatalities in one table I found was about the same for both states. But unless one knows how many miles are ridden I don't think one can compare the fatalities in the two states.

Last year we were in FL at Spring Break during Bike Week. The I95 exit to Daytona Beach was backed up for miles. Thankfully that was on the north bound side and we were heading south. There were a gazzillion bikes on the road many with helmet less riders. Kinda freaky seeing people speed by at 75-80 without helmets. Course most of them were wearing shorts, T shirts and flip flops. :confused2: At those speeds I really wonder if a helmet can matters if one has an accident on a bike. Or if one wanted to live with that kind of flesh loss....

Does anyone know of a link with the number of miles ridden listed by state?

Later,
Dan

 

[psj12]

When comparing Florida and california you also need to take into account the motor cycle Per-Capita death rate. I believe there are many more people in California thus I might safely assume more bike riders.

 

[Mousefield]

In 1968 I was on my motorcycle when a car turned in front of me, his fault but I was the one that got injured. I hit the passenger side door. Witnesses said I flew over the car and about 25 ft onto the sidewalk. Don't remember a thing as I was in and out of consciousness for a few minutes. I do know my fiberglass helmet :thumbsup: had a big chip out of it. I broke my wrist in 3 places, just starting 11 grade so got out of doing some school work as I am right handed. Thankfully I had that helmet on or else I could have had a severe head injury or even died. Can't speak to your specific question but wearing a helmet is just a good safe idea.

 

[Jim2]

I'm not really interested in the statistics. After all statistics are irrelevant to the individual. If you really want to know, there is a site *All Things Motorcycle* that caters to safety questions and concerns. Someone there could surely point you to the best statistics.

FWIW, I do always where the full-face helmet now days for various different reasons.

Jim

 

[Yankee]

You asked whether a helmet matters at highway speeds. The answer is that it depends on the type of injury. In the case of simple impact the answer is no, as the injury comes from the brain slamming into the skull from inertia. While the foam in a helmet is fully capable of decelerating the impact at, say, bicycle speeds, it is not at high speed. Helmets also do little or nothing to impede penetration injuries at high speed (they're not designed for this).

Helmets do prevent abrasion injuries, virtually 100% of the time, deflect glancing impacts (think rocks and road debris), and prevent sunburned heads! Of course, whether you need a HELMET for this, never mind a DOT helmet, is open to debate.

On the flip side, helmets (depending on type) impede vision and hearing, and add their own injury potential, particularly by adding weight and momentum to the head. Veteran highway patrol officers have usually seen a few decapitations, head still nicely nestled in the "protective" helmet that added to the situation.

I wear a full-face helmet in cold weather or long trips (wind blast), a half helmet for local trips where it's required, and no helmet elsewhere.

(On my 3rd HD, and have had 3 Hondas, 2 Kawasakis, and a Yamaha. 30 year rider.)

 

[dmccarty]

When comparing Florida and california you also need to take into account the motor cycle Per-Capita death rate. I believe there are many more people in California thus I might safely assume more bike riders.

Deaths per rider is not very interesting. What really matter is how many miles have been ridden. If there are 100 "riders" but 99 of the bikes sit in the garage and are never driven but the one guy rides and dies then it is not really accurate to say the death rate is 1 our of 100. It is really 1 out of 1. Miles ridden seems to be a better measurement.

The table I saw said both CA and FL had about 400 deaths. CA requires a helmet and FL does not. Another table I found showed a drastic drop in motorcycle ownership after the helmet law was passed. But what really matter is where the bikes being ridden and how many miles.

I gots no dog in this hunt but curiosity.

The article I read was interesting just because it seems obvious that a helmet would save lives but the numbers in the story say other wise.

Later,
Dan

 

[Chuck52]

I wonder about stats just on head injuries.

Chuck

 

[SensibleNick]

Here on the other side of the pond we have to wear helmets, and noone grumbles.

I once saw an interesting comparison between injuries sustained in open face helmets compared to ones with chinguards at motorway speeds. People look really odd without thier lower jaw.

Miles ridden is one thing, and definately relevant, but there's always the threat of some SMIDSY git nailing you around the corner...

I have an aquaintance who regularly uses donor organs in surgeries. He enjoys telling people "well, we don't have any eyes yet, but it's saturday afternoon and it has just started raining: we should have some in within the hour"

Would be interesting to see that article though .... and then to ask the author to headbutt the ground with/without a helmet...

 

[Bob_In_MN]

I would suggest searching "fatalities per 100 accidents" or some other version. The study I looked at compared data from manadatory vs. voluntary helmet usage.

I like the ability to choose. If an insurance company wants to charge me more because I ride without a helmet or give me a discount becasue I ride with one, I'm just fine with that. But--the government mandating me to do this just doesn't sit well with me--never has and never will.

 

[Thomas]

As one doctor told me.."wearing helmet or not speeds 50mph plus only decide open or close coffin" hmmmm.

 

[Yankee]

As one doctor told me.."wearing helmet or not speeds 50mph plus only decide open or close coffin" hmmmm.

Bingo! High speed head trauma in a nutshell (now that I think of it, not a bad term for a helmet).

 

[westcliffe01]

Having worked at a race track where there were monthly motorcycle races, I have to disagree with the comments regarding survival over 50mph. All competitors were required to wear full leathers, boots, gloves and helmet, and despite multiple pileups every race day, some at over 130mph there were few fatalities. I shudder to think of the carnage if they had been dressed like the typical Harley rider.

Without protective equipment, disfigurement, brain damage, abrasion to the point that it required amputation of hands, feet and lower legs was nothing unusual. The problem is that brain damage can be initiated by mild concussion to the point that the person undergoes personality changes, alienates his family and friends, loses his job and typically runs into the justice system within a relatively short time after the injury. But fails to recognize any of the health or behavior issues themselves and therefore will not accept any help.

There is a book written by a brain surgeon called "Adventures of a brain surgeon" in which he covers several cases he dealt with, all of which involved legal proceedings, in which in the majority of cases the victim turned into their own worst enemy since they claimed that they "never felt better". Turns out that euphoria is a common side effect of a fresh brain injury, later to be replaced by epileptic fits and worse.

I won't ride a motorcycle on our Midwest roads unless some serious cash was first spent fixing them up.

 

[Yankee]

Having worked at a race track where there were monthly motorcycle races, I have to disagree with the comments regarding survival over 50mph.

There's very little comparison between real-world accidents and track crashes - which mostly happen at matched speeds, in the same direction, and involving (for crash purposes) virtually identical vehicles.

 

[20 20]

The helmet may protect at low speed, highway speed will not make a difference. As someone said the helmet will hit then the skin then the skull then the brain. I do wear a helmet but I hate these saveyourself laws, IMO they are nothing more then money makers. I have gone to a few funerals of friends that all had head trauma, while wearing helmets. As someone pointed out, the only thing a helmet does is make for an open or closed coffin, and even then not in all cases.

 

[JDGREEN4ME]

I know its not the same as street bikes but I grew up on dirt bikes and I would not ride without a helmet.

 

[DK35vince]

I know its not the same as street bikes but I grew up on dirt bikes and I would not ride without a helmet.

Far as I'm concerned its the same.
I grew up riding dirt bikes, ATV's and snowmobiles. Wouldn't ride without a full face helmet.
Now I'm riding street bikes. I will not ride one without a full face helmet.

 

[ol'oilburner]

As previously mentioned, when your skull and it's contents come to a complete stop in one or two feet from a speed 40 or 50 mph, a helmet will do nothing, mind you neither will any other type of body armour you may be wearing because you'll die of internal bleeding from having all your vital organs scrambled like an egg, so your pretty little leathers don't help much either. In reality though, whether on the track or the street, most riders when involved in an accident get thrown from their bike and they don't decelerate in one or two feet to a complete stop and that is when a helmet and proper riding gear perform their intended task and that is to protect the rider as they are tumbling down the asphault or gravel or highway median.

 

[Yankee]

In reality though, whether on the track or the street, most riders when involved in an accident get thrown from their bike and they don't decelerate in one or two feet to a complete stop and that is when a helmet and proper riding gear perform their intended task and that is to protect the rider as they are tumbling down the asphault or gravel or highway median.

a) That's true as far as describing most accidents, and,

b) That's not a description of the intended design and function of motorcycle helmets - which are designed for impact injury protection. The problem with such a helmet is weight and size (increasing inertia injuries), and how much it extends out from the head, particularly at its edges (i.e., making it prone to catching on things as you tumble).

My view is this: Any motorcycle instructor will tell you that the most important factor in safety is defensive driving, far in excess over car driving because you're open and exposed. It's all about situational awareness. So what do the authorities do? Trade the ability to see and hear clearly 100% of the time for an arguable, theoretical benefit applicable to a fraction of circumstances. Absurd.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

One died with a helmet this week down the road from me. Apparently a car did not see the cycle and pulled out in front of it. Really sad. Helmets do greatly improve your odds in an accident, at least from head injury.

 

[SensibleNick]

It's all about situational awareness. So what do the authorities do? Trade the ability to see and hear clearly 100% of the time for an arguable, theoretical benefit applicable to a fraction of circumstances. Absurd.

Dale Earnhardt Sr. used to argue about "theoretical benefits" of the HANS device, and spurned it - causing other NASCAR drivers to do the same.
He died from a basilar skull fracture: The very thing the HANS system was meant to stop: Absurd. HANS systems are now mandatory in many motorsports - NASCAR included.

The "fraction of circumstances" are the crashes where a helmet definitely saved a life. There are however many cases where a helmet wearer has bounced their head off the ground, and got up instantly to punch the driver that caused it. I suppose that if their lower lip had been hanging a few inches below their chins and they were scrabbling on the ground trying to find their teeth, maybe the drivers wouldn't have got a beating.


However... That aside, I mainly wrote to congratulate you on your apparent ability to see and hear clearly with a 50mph wind in your face. :thumbsup:

I find that whatever sunglasses I wear, I end up with tears streaming past my ears - ears which are deafened by the roar of the wind. I also find myself mildly distracted by 70mph bugs and stones.

Pop my helmet on though, and the wind noise is massively reduced, and my field of vision is un-hindered, and stones are no longer a worry.

Besides... I don't really like soup.