ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-22-2013, 09:00 AM   #31
single
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Oddometer: 121
Here is some historical data regarding Michigan and rider fatalities:

http://publications.michigantrafficc...011/10yr_9.pdf

Notice that from 2011 to 2012 the fatalities "jumped" from 109 to 129. Notice also it jumped from 105 to 125 from 2008 to 2009? No change in helmet laws either? Guess we just can't explain that jump, but for 2011 to 2012 we are totally sure it's due to helmet laws?

Also no data about miles ridden? Or even basic things the state should obviously have on hand such as motorcycle endorsements given? Did you realize 2012 was a record warm year for Michigan, and there were probably many more riders on the road for longer? But this jump is totally explained by helmet laws?

I'm not objectively against helmet laws, but I am against otherwise intelligent people throwing away all sense to argue for a position that is not justified, especially when those otherwise intelligent people are arguing for legislation that affects a severe minority of the population (motorcycle riders). The numbers simply don't prove the case, and you may be surprised to learn that there are very very few studies regarding motorcycles which do support the idea that "helmets save lives". You'll notice no helmet manufacturer says their helmet will save your life, due to the lack of evidence and legal reasons.

I am all for trying to understand why so many motorcyclists are killed every year. The fact of the matter is, so far the data does not point to the lack of helmet laws as being a factor, and until we have higher standards for the way we collect data about motorcycles and motorcycle crashes/fatalities, we may never know. It will take intelligent people to remain intelligent and recognize that these "news articles" are just plain junk.
single is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 09:06 AM   #32
Offcamber
Beastly Adventurer
 
Offcamber's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwalsh View Post
Produce a study that disproves my statement.

Answer this question...who pays for uninsured patients hospital bills?

Regarding smokers not costing as much...how much do they cost while they are in and out of hospitals, clinics, etc., while they are still breathing? You know, before they die early.
The study takes into account cost over the course of their life so yes it included all their medical costs....it was less in the long run.

I'll try and find the study but Google is your friend.
__________________
"Beer cans explode with a nice loud pop when they are hit by a Heidenau K60 at 40 miles an hour. Now my bike smells like last call..." Me
Offcamber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 09:08 AM   #33
Offcamber
Beastly Adventurer
 
Offcamber's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,654
Here ya go

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/he...8884.html?_r=0
__________________
"Beer cans explode with a nice loud pop when they are hit by a Heidenau K60 at 40 miles an hour. Now my bike smells like last call..." Me
Offcamber is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 09:11 AM   #34
Blue&Yellow
but orange inside...
 
Blue&Yellow's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Sweden
Oddometer: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by single View Post
Here is some historical data regarding Michigan and rider fatalities:

http://publications.michigantrafficc...011/10yr_9.pdf

Notice that from 2011 to 2012 the fatalities "jumped" from 109 to 129. Notice also it jumped from 105 to 125 from 2008 to 2009? No change in helmet laws either? Guess we just can't explain that jump, but for 2011 to 2012 we are totally sure it's due to helmet laws?

Also no data about miles ridden? Or even basic things the state should obviously have on hand such as motorcycle endorsements given? Did you realize 2012 was a record warm year for Michigan, and there were probably many more riders on the road for longer? But this jump is totally explained by helmet laws?

I'm not objectively against helmet laws, but I am against otherwise intelligent people throwing away all sense to argue for a position that is not justified, especially when those otherwise intelligent people are arguing for legislation that affects a severe minority of the population (motorcycle riders). The numbers simply don't prove the case, and you may be surprised to learn that there are very very few studies regarding motorcycles which do support the idea that "helmets save lives". You'll notice no helmet manufacturer says their helmet will save your life, due to the lack of evidence and legal reasons.

I am all for trying to understand why so many motorcyclists are killed every year. The fact of the matter is, so far the data does not point to the lack of helmet laws as being a factor, and until we have higher standards for the way we collect data about motorcycles and motorcycle crashes/fatalities, we may never know. It will take intelligent people to remain intelligent and recognize that these "news articles" are just plain junk.
The data is very inconclusive - it doesn't say how many riders there are or how many miles is ridden. Number of accidents is almost meaningless unless you know what percentage of the total motorcycling pool that represents.

A lot of it has to do with the economy - better economy, more riders on the roads. Worse economy, less riders on the roads. Notice how between 2008-2009 there is dip in the curve - probably a lot of riders lost their jobs, had to sell the bike, didn't ride to work, couldn't afford gas or insurance or what not during that time.
Blue&Yellow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 09:15 AM   #35
Foot dragger
singletracker
 
Foot dragger's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: chico,just below rag dump(nor-cal)
Oddometer: 12,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by BanjoBoy View Post
Don't get the title; "loud exhausts" when the article says helmet laws?
Read much?
Or are you just another biker who dun bumped his head?
Exhaust pipe/helmet, its all the same thing,screw the man! Aint nobody telling me how to live my life! Blah,blah,blah,blah

What was I going to say?
__________________
Some bikes around at times
Foot dragger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 09:18 AM   #36
LuciferMutt
Rides slow bike slow
 
LuciferMutt's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: New(er) Mexico
Oddometer: 10,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseblood View Post
Yup. Actually, to be more precise, the law says you still have to wear a helmet if:
  • ...you are under 21 years old
  • ...have less than 2 years riding experience
  • ...carry less than $20k health insurance policy

Nonetheless, these two things happened in the same year:
  1. Michigan repealed their existing helmet laws for riders not in the above categories. (Or "made it optional" if you prefer.)
  2. 18% more riders died
How do they know how long anybody has been riding? Is the date of origin listed next to the endorsement on the license?
__________________
You couldn't hear a dump truck driving through a nitro glycerin plant!

Badasses might screw with another badass. Nobody screws with a nut job. -- Plaka
LuciferMutt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 09:24 AM   #37
wiseblood OP
Hall Monitor
 
wiseblood's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: New York City
Oddometer: 12,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by single View Post
I'm not objectively against helmet laws, but I am against otherwise intelligent people throwing away all sense to argue for a position that is not justified, especially when those otherwise intelligent people are arguing for legislation that affects a severe minority of the population (motorcycle riders). The numbers simply don't prove the case, and you may be surprised to learn that there are very very few studies regarding motorcycles which do support the idea that "helmets save lives". You'll notice no helmet manufacturer says their helmet will save your life, due to the lack of evidence and legal reasons.

Some interesting research:

Motorcycle Helmet Use and Head and Facial Injuries
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811208.pdf
...Helmets reduced the odds of sustaining head injury in both single- and multiple-vehicle crashes. Helmeted motorcyclists in single-vehicle crashes had half the odds of receiving head injury compared to unhelmeted motorcyclists in single-vehicle crashes. In multiplevehicle crashes, helmeted motorcyclists had 67 percent of the odds of sustaining head injury compared to unhelmeted motorcyclists. From the logistic model we estimate that helmets are 48 percent effective at preventing head injuries in single-vehicle crashes and 33 percent effective at preventing head injuries in multiple-vehicle crashes.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Q&A: Motorcycles helmets
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.aspx
From 1968 to 1977, Texas had a universal helmet use law estimated to have saved 650 lives, but the law was amended in 1977 to apply only to riders younger than 18. The weakened law coincided with a 35 percent increase in motorcyclist fatalities. Texas reinstated its helmet law for all motorcyclists in September 1989. The month before the law took effect, the helmet use rate was 41 percent. The rate jumped to 90 percent during the first month of the law and rose to 98 percent by June 1990. Serious injury crashes per registered motorcycle decreased 11 percent. But in September 1997, Texas again weakened its helmet law, requiring helmets only for riders younger than 21. Helmet use in Texas dropped to 66 percent by May 1998, and operator fatalities increased 31 percent in the first full year following the repeal.
__________________
"Hard Work Often Pays Off After Time, but Laziness Always Pays Off Now."

Big Apple Tag-o-Rama Maps: Click Here!
wiseblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 09:39 AM   #38
wiseblood OP
Hall Monitor
 
wiseblood's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: New York City
Oddometer: 12,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuciferMutt View Post
How do they know how long anybody has been riding? Is the date of origin listed next to the endorsement on the license?

That's the problem.

For that matter, how do they know how much health insurance you have? And, without pulling you over, how do they know your age?

That's why weakened laws correlate to more injuries and fatalities.
__________________
"Hard Work Often Pays Off After Time, but Laziness Always Pays Off Now."

Big Apple Tag-o-Rama Maps: Click Here!
wiseblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 10:02 AM   #39
It'sNotTheBike
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Oddometer: 704
There are too many idiots, but there IS hope.

Yeah, it's a great idea to ride without a helmet, so
you can crash and die because you didn't have a helmet on.

So you die and your organs can be used to help people
who weren't as stupid and careless with the precious
gift of life as you were.

Really this is perfect. The more idiots who don't wear
helmets, the better.


The gene pool needs cleaning.


But one thing is certain : most of the rest
of the US is not interested in being told what is
good for them by some sanctimonious tool
from New York ( you or Bloomberg ). Some people are
stupid and nanny state bs is not ever going to change
that. They will ride without helmets and drink large sodas filled with
sugar and some of them will die as a result. And what exactly is it that
makes you think it is your business to try to change that ? You're just
making yourself known as a busybody fool by posting such pointless
nanny state ideas. Your own life must be pathetically sad and empty if this
is the best thing you can come up with to post on an internet forum.



.

It'sNotTheBike screwed with this post 03-22-2013 at 10:19 AM
It'sNotTheBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 10:14 AM   #40
bogus
Gnarly Adventurer
 
bogus's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: wallkill ny
Oddometer: 123
Loud exhausts

DARWINISM ! Keeps idiots from procreating.:lol
__________________
what would chesty do
bogus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 10:20 AM   #41
duck
Banned
 
duck's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Location: Seattle (Berkeley with rain)
Oddometer: 10,404
RE: Darwinism.

Guess what? Your chances of suffering a fatality riding with a helmet are much greater than your doing so while driving a cage. Is that Darwin in action too?

If you truly believe in Darwinism then sell your fucking bike!
duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 10:25 AM   #42
baloneyskin daddy
bikaholic
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: southcentral PA.
Oddometer: 1,971
They should ban riding motorcycles while drinking large sodas too.
baloneyskin daddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 10:35 AM   #43
It'sNotTheBike
Banned
 
Joined: Jul 2011
Oddometer: 704
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloneyskin daddy View Post
They should ban riding motorcycles while drinking large sodas too.

I know the above is a joke. But the OP wasn't joking,
which proves that he takes his own views as worthy of
being forced on the rest of us, and that is a fundamental
error in cognition.


What really needs to be banned is busybodies who think they
know what is best for everyone else.


We all get to make choices. Some make poor choices,
some make better choices, but when you start wanting
to take away the freedom to choose, you'd better be ready
to rock and roll, and I am not talking about music
or dancing. Spineless losers in the U.K. have allowed such
garbage to be rammed down their throats, but not all Americans
are going to passively sit by and allow the same to be done to them.



.

It'sNotTheBike screwed with this post 03-22-2013 at 10:49 AM
It'sNotTheBike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 10:42 AM   #44
Nick Minneeesotin
Kawi Rider
 
Nick Minneeesotin's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Location: USA - Minnesota
Oddometer: 364
Helmet saved my chin and potentially my life in a 55mph t-bone crash! Minnesota MC helmet is not required but it is on my bike by me!

Nick Minneeesotin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 11:04 AM   #45
single
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Oddometer: 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseblood View Post
Some interesting research:

Motorcycle Helmet Use and Head and Facial Injuries
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811208.pdf
...Helmets reduced the odds of sustaining head injury in both single- and multiple-vehicle crashes. Helmeted motorcyclists in single-vehicle crashes had half the odds of receiving head injury compared to unhelmeted motorcyclists in single-vehicle crashes. In multiplevehicle crashes, helmeted motorcyclists had 67 percent of the odds of sustaining head injury compared to unhelmeted motorcyclists. From the logistic model we estimate that helmets are 48 percent effective at preventing head injuries in single-vehicle crashes and 33 percent effective at preventing head injuries in multiple-vehicle crashes.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Q&A: Motorcycles helmets
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.aspx
From 1968 to 1977, Texas had a universal helmet use law estimated to have saved 650 lives, but the law was amended in 1977 to apply only to riders younger than 18. The weakened law coincided with a 35 percent increase in motorcyclist fatalities. Texas reinstated its helmet law for all motorcyclists in September 1989. The month before the law took effect, the helmet use rate was 41 percent. The rate jumped to 90 percent during the first month of the law and rose to 98 percent by June 1990. Serious injury crashes per registered motorcycle decreased 11 percent. But in September 1997, Texas again weakened its helmet law, requiring helmets only for riders younger than 21. Helmet use in Texas dropped to 66 percent by May 1998, and operator fatalities increased 31 percent in the first full year following the repeal.
The first study (NHTSA) was a study done over three years, with over 100k motorcycle crashes involved. Throughout the study you will notice the incredibly small numbers they are using to reach their conclusions:

Head injury (unhelmeted vs helmeted)
Serious 517 (2.9%) 412 (1.6%)
Severe 693 (3.8%) 606 (2.4%)
Critical 322 (1.8%) 262 (1.0%)

Facial Injury (unhelmeted vs helmeted)
Moderate 464 (2.6%) 439 (1.7%)
Serious 3 (0.0%) 2 (0.0%)

Neck Injury (unhelmeted vs helmeted)

Moderate 2 (0.0%) 4 (0.0%)
Serious 6 (0.0%) 14 (0.1%)

(Notice neck injuries are more common with helmeted riders?)

Thorax Injury (unhelmeted vs helmeted)

Serious 1,073 (5.9%) 1,807 (7.1%)
Severe 227 (1.3%) 434 (1.7%)
Critical 2 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)

(Again, do helmets actually hurt here? Bigger % differences then head injuries even)

etc. etc. etc.

The numbers show less then a hundred cases between helmeted and unhelmeted riders showing serious head injuries out of 100k cases. The numbers are simply so small that it's a very weak conclusion to say that helmets make any difference whatsoever, any more then it is to say that helmets actually increase neck injuries. The methodology used reached a dramatic conclusion concerning helmet effectively, but looking at the actual numbers and the conclusion is very very underwhelming.

Your second source (IIHS) makes the same mistakes as your original post. Cherry picking numbers to make a dramatic conclusion. No information about endorsement numbers, motorcycle sales, miles ridden. Just two numbers and a bold conclusion. We need to do better.
single is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014