Its boring around here.

[#1Townie]

So let's talk.

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/twisting.html

[Drano]

Good read. Neck injuries aside, until science comes up with an asphalt-resistant face cream, I'll keep rocking the brain bucket.

[#1Townie]

Good read. Neck injuries aside, until science comes up with an asphalt-resistant face cream, I'll keep rocking the brain bucket.

http://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/leatt-stx-road-neck-brace

Other options as well. These are making it big in the dirt world.

[Nolan]

Things that laws do:
1. Control - hey if we can make you wear a helmet now what can we do in 20 years?
2. Make someone else money or not spend as much. The push for mandatory seat belt use when I was younger was promoted as a safety issue just like helmets. The fact that the use of seat belts saves insurers and medical establishments money isn't mentioned as much. Granted they do help with injuries but if you think the establishment cares about you you're nuts. When they start MAKING manufacturers or dealers provide lids with your new motorcycle expect the laws be 20 years or less out.

I wear my gear for my own reasons. I like my skin. My current disability insurance only covers 50% of my wages and more is really expensive! and.... I like looking like I have half a clue what the fuck I'm doing when I really don't.

[Drano]

This summary is extracted from an NHTSA study conducted in 2005 regarding the repeal of Florida's universal helmet law in 2000. If we want to argue that helmet laws restrict our personal freedom to choose, then lets do that. I'm all for thinning out the gene pool. If we want to argue that there is no life-saving/safety benefit for wearing one, then it's only fair to pit one source against another. The question then becomes: Which source is more credible? Personally, I trust the NHTSA to be more objective in their analysis than a website who has a vested interest in the outcome. That said, it is a government agency, so you may want to get out your tin foil.

If you have a mind for case studies and statistical analysis, you can read the entire report here: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&ved=0CCwQFjACOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhtsa.gov%2Fstaticfiles%2Fnti %2Fmotorcycles%2Fpdf%2F809849.pdf&ei=RppwVeGGHsyWsAWh8IC4DQ&usg=AFQjCNFlWbjXl4SYmnUgVr4qxVOapnwo0Q&bvm=bv.94911696,d.b2w&cad=rja


Summary
After the repeal of Florida’s universal motorcycle helmet law, observed helmet use
dropped from nearly 100 percent compliance to the 50 percent range. A post law change survey,
done in 2002, found 47 percent compliant helmet use, 6 percent noncompliant helmet use and 47
percent no helmet use. The use of compliant helmets has declined following the law change and
wearing noncompliant helmets has largely been abandoned.

Non-helmet use among those killed in the three years before the law change was 9
percent and this increased to 61 percent in the three years after the law change. Non-helmet use
among motorcyclists under the age of 21 who died was 26 percent in the three years before
compared to 45 percent in the three years after the law change, an increase of 188 percent.
Among riders under the age of 21 who sustained incapacitating injuries, non-helmet use rose
from 35 percent in 1999 to 49 percent in 2001. Even though the law still applied to riders under
the age of 21, helmet use dropped for this age group as well.

Motorcycle registrations increased 33.7 percent in the 30 months after repeal of the law
compared to the 30 months before the law change. There was a 55 percent increase in the
average number of motorcyclists killed in Florida in the same time period. The expected number
of motorcycle fatalities as a result of the increase in registrations was 242. The actual number
who died was 301 in 2002, 59 more motorcycle fatalities than expected as a result of increased
registrations alone (a 24 percent increase).

Fatalities in the two years following the law change were 71 percent greater than those
that occurred in the two years before, compared to an increase of 37 percent for the nation as a
whole. Fatalities in Florida per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased 21 percent compared to
13 percent nationally for the two years before and after the law change. Thus, the increase in
registered motorcyclists alone did not account for the increase in motorcycle fatalities.

Time series analysis showed there was a statistically significant average 9.1 increase in
the number of monthly motorcyclist fatalities following the law change (p <.001) in Florida.
There was no statistically significant change in the fatality rate following the same intervention
date for nearby Georgia, which was selected as a comparison State whose universal helmet law
remained unchanged. Change in annual motorcycle registrations was not a statistically
significant parameter in the time series model.

Injuries rose among motorcycle riders. In the first full year following the law change, the
number of motorcyclists who sustained incapacitating injury rose 32 percent and the number
who sustained lesser injury rose 28 percent than the year before the law change, but less when
the increase in registrations is taken into account. Injuries per 10,000 registered motorcycles
increased in 2000, but decreased in 2001. Although the injury rate per registered motorcycle in
2001 is less than the rate in 1999, the previous downward trend of non-fatal injuries per
registered motorcycle appears to have slowed following the law change period.

Motorcyclists admitted to hospitals for treatment rose 40 percent, comparing the 30
months before and after the law change. Head injury admissions increased by more than 80
percent.

Total gross costs charged to hospital admitted motorcyclists with head, brain or skull
injury more than doubled from $21 million to $50 million; the average case cost rose by almost
$10,000; the median patient cost increased by almost $4,000; and the range of costs also
increased. Adjusted for inflation, total acute care hospital costs rose from $21 million to $44
million and the average cost per case rose from $34,518 to $39,877 in the 30 months after the
law change.

Less than one-quarter of the head-brain-skull injured would be covered by the $10,000
medical insurance requirement for those who chose not to use helmets. About 63 percent of
admitted motorcyclists for head-brain-skull injuries were covered by commercial insurance ($31
million), 16 percent were classified as “self pay” because they were under insured or uninsured
($8 million), and the remaining 21 percent had their costs ($10.5 million) billed to charitable and
public sources (e.g., Medicaid).

The number of motorcyclists with head-brain-skull principal injury who died after
admission to an acute care hospital doubled from 52 to 115, comparing the 30 months before and
after the helmet law change. The average treatment cost for these cases rose from $48,126 to
$52,450 (adjusted for inflation) in the same time period.

Comparing the years before and after the law change, the hospital charges for head-brainskull
principal injury cases per 10,000 registered motorcycles were $311,549 (1998 ) and
$428,347 (1999). These costs rose to $605,854 (2001) and $610,386 (2002).

Based on the available evidence it appears likely the increase in motorcycle fatalities that
occurred after the Florida motorcycle helmet law was repealed was due in part to the reduced use
of helmets. Our analysis shows this is the case despite the pre-existing trend of increasing
fatalities, the increase in fatalities associated with increased exposure (measured by
registrations), the increase in fatalities that occurred in the first six months of 2000 (before the
helmet law repeal became effective), and the likely contribution of a demographic shift in
motorcycle ridership.

The effect of the motorcycle helmet law repeal on injuries is somewhat less clear than the
situation for fatalities. Two sources of data were available: police motor vehicle crash reports,
which show an increase in injuries, but a small decline in injury rates per 10,000 registrations;
and hospital discharge data that show large increases in hospital admissions and dramatic
increases in admissions for head injuries. The weight of the evidence indicates that the repeal of
the helmet law was associated with a slowing of the existing downward trend in injury rates,
with an increase in head injuries. The cost data show that the total acute care cost more than
doubled. As with fatalities, increased exposure (registrations) cannot account for these changes.

[Aaron]

2. Make someone else money or not spend as much. The push for mandatory seat belt use when I was younger was promoted as a safety issue just like helmets. The fact that the use of seat belts saves insurers and medical establishments money isn't mentioned as much. Granted they do help with injuries but if you think the establishment cares about you you're nuts. When they start MAKING manufacturers or dealers provide lids with your new motorcycle expect the laws be 20 years or less out.

That is quite possibly the most moronic, ignorant, and blatantly wrong post I've ever read on the forum. I'm not even going to argue it, because I don't want to chance losing another 4 brain cells reading it again.

[rybo]

Numbers don't lie, but statistics do because they are easily manipulated to prove or disprove a point.

You would have a hard time convincing me, a rider who has fallen on the racetrack many times, that a helmet didn't greatly reduce the level of my injuries. In one crash, where the motorcycle briefly landed on my head, I'm certain that it saved my life.

I concede that my statement is anecdotal evidence, but in none (zero) of my crashes would I have been better off without a helmet.