Essentially he was riding his Hayabusa motorcycle, it sounds like a car turned left in front of him (as cars have a tendacy to do, I've noticed since starting to ride a motorcycle) and he went down hard.
The issue is that he was repeatedly warned by coaches and others to wear a helmet. However, he was very vocal and adament about his choice not to wear one. From what I understand, Pennsylvania repealed its mandatory helmet law in 2003, and since then motorcycle accident fatalities have tripled.
I hope the news articles stay focused on that rather than delving into "motorcycles are so dangerous" and "why are such fast sport bikes street legal anyway" territory. I hate it when people do stupid things and start to ruin it for others.
People said if he'd been wearing standard safety gear, he could have walked away from the accident. What really gets me is this statement:
quote: Roethlisberger...said he had no intention of wearing a helmet last year.
"If it was the law, I'd definitely have one on every time I rode, but it's not the law, and I know I don't have to and you're just more free when you're out there with no helmet on," he told ESPN.
So my thought as I ponder this: Do we have too many laws in our society, to the point where people assume that anything legal must not be too dangerous? Or do we have too few and we need to think up more to help stop people from doing stupid things?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
To be honest, I'm a big fan of removing a lot of laws, such as the helmets on motorcycles laws, that should be common sense. It would help facilitate more in the way of natural selection.
It seems pretty obvious that wearing a helmet is a very good idea when you're riding a motorcylce, so those who would be dumb/stubborn enough to not wear one and end up dead or severely injured more or less deserve what they got.
It's akin to the Planters peanuts containers that have to include a warning label: "may contain nuts"
Though I suppose I'd have to talk to more motorcycle accident survivors and see what their opinions are on how obvious this conclusion is
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
All I want is consistency. If we're protecting people from things they're not smart enough to protect themselves from, be it helmet laws, alcohol/tobacco laws, or seatbelt laws, then let's protect them from everything. I want laws against fast food and unprotected sex. I want laws against staring at the sun, and laws against misusing OTC medication. I want laws against standing outside in the rain, and laws against sleeping on the railroad tracks.
In Roethlisberger's case, just because it's legal don't make it a good idea.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Its his choice. Is riding without a helmet dumb...sure, but it is his body, why should society tell him how to protect it.
If his coach wants to put it in his contract that he needs to have a helmet...and he agrees to sign it, then that is between them, however I don't think that we need laws to require helmets (or seatbelts for that matter).
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, JT, the trick is, states/feds have jurisdiction over public roads and (interstate) commerce. It is not as clear that they have jurisdiction over your bedroom, the sun, or the rain.
And there are laws against sleeping on railroad tracks (trespassing, for one, possibly others), There may be laws against misusing OTC meds (depending on how you are misusing them... Building a meth lab with ephedrine? Intentionally causing your own death?)
That said, I would prefer there to be no need to be mandatory helmet laws, but until I don't have to pay for their ER bills (either from taxes for the uninsured, or through my insurance premiums for the insured), I think I can make a reasonable case that the citizenry at large are affected (IOW, this is not just an individual rights issue), and have an argument for mandatory helmet (or seatbelt) laws.
-Bok
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
But it all comes down to the same thing, which you said. These harmful or potentially harmful things that people do to themselves don't only affect them. There's a public health cost associated with them.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
They also make my motorcycle insurance premiums and my health insurance premiums rise.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I admit that it is a matter of degrees, but you can go the other way and argue that we should all be allowed to own nuclear weapons, since ownership doesn't mean you will use it, or won't maintain it properly.
Here the situation is fairly self-contained, and the interference minimal.
-Bok
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
BQT, that is the public health cost.
Bok, I was being facetious in my first post. I don't actually think we should legislate sun-staring. I agree with you.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Oops I took it as a sarcastic and exasperated post about your perceived absurdity at having helmet laws.
-Bok
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: To be honest, I'm a big fan of removing a lot of laws, such as the helmets on motorcycles laws, that should be common sense. It would help facilitate more in the way of natural selection.
True, but if you get rid of helmet laws, you need to also find a way to keep other people from being forced to pay for the medical care of idiots who break their heads while riding motorcycles. Which is a good idea anyway.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
very true
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The whole line of reasoning (we have to pay for their medical care, so we can tell them what to do to be safer) sits badly with me.
In my more cynical moments, I think of it as using the fact that we cave in to emotional blackmail (if you don't let me go to the party I'll kill myself!) as a reason for limiting personal choice.
Two wrongs making a ... something ... as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
What if you say it, "We make them do the things they should be doing already to keep them safe."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because, as a general rule, "things they should be doing already to keep them safe" is a very imprecise class.
An imprecise class as the object of "make them do" scares me.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: BQT, that is the public health cost.
Bok, I was being facetious in my first post. I don't actually think we should legislate sun-staring. I agree with you.
Isn't there more to it than just insurance premiums? For example, if someone doesn't have health insurance (which is what, around 40% of Americans I think I heard) then who pays the $50,000+ hospital bill?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The whole line of reasoning (we have to pay for their medical care, so we can tell them what to do to be safer) sits badly with me.
In my more cynical moments, I think of it as using the fact that we cave in to emotional blackmail (if you don't let me go to the party I'll kill myself!) as a reason for limiting personal choice.
Two wrongs making a ... something ... as far as I'm concerned.
Well, turn the logic around: some guys say, I want to feel the wind in my hair, so screw you, society, and pay for my actual/potential medical bills. Emotional blackmail doesn't trump selfishness and irresponsibility.
A TV story about this yesterday said that over half of motorcycle riders don't have health insurance, and the cost of their accident-related health care to society comes to ...some astronomical sum like $50-60 billion a year. That's quite a hefty sum so some riders can feel "more free."
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Isn't there more to it than just insurance premiums? For example, if someone doesn't have health insurance (which is what, around 40% of Americans I think I heard) then who pays the $50,000+ hospital bill?
I'm not sure about everywhere, but here (Louisiana) I believe the hospital eats it. Then they raise prices to cover their losses. Then insurance companies raise premiums to cover more expensive medical care.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Well, turn the logic around: some guys say, I want to feel the wind in my hair, so screw you, society, and pay for my actual/potential medical bills. Emotional blackmail doesn't trump selfishness and irresponsibility.
A TV story about this yesterday said that over half of motorcycle riders don't have health insurance, and the cost of their accident-related health care to society comes to ...some astronomical sum like $50-60 billion a year. That's quite a hefty sum so some riders can feel "more free."
That's not turning the logic around. That's what I'm saying.
It's only an issue if we succumb to the emotional blackmail. If we didn't pay the medical costs, it wouldn't be an issue.
Of course, I'm not comfortable with this scenario:
Ambulance driver: He was on a motorcycle? With no helmet? We can't take him until we see his insurance card.
This is why it sits badly with me. I don't see it as only a little intrusion when we force someone to do something to protect themselves. But, I also don't think we can let people die just because they were stupid.
So I'm left with a situation where both outcomes violate one of my principles of good government.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Ah I was confused too, thanks for the clarification Dag, that makes a lot more sense to me.
That's the thing- sometimes our compassion we feel for others overrides our ideals of good policy. This is not just limited to the current example, there's a lot of things we do that are like that. Perhaps that's why some of the questions this article raised piqued my interest.
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
Let those who ride decide.
I feel the same way about seatbelts.
Adults, (Not minors,) should be able to choose.
Personally I wear my Helmet when I ride and my Seatbelt when I drive, but I disagree with the laws that mandate such.
Legislating "Safe" behaviour isn't a whole lot different that legislating morality, the way I see it, except that municipalities will no doubt profit from vehicular citations, and they are therefore inclined to regulate, fine and tax whatever they can.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The state has a vested interest in requiring belts and helmets because, through the action of reducing the severity of injuries and frequency of fatalities, it saves us costs that are NEVER reimbursed through insurance (or any other means), but simply shared throughout the rest of society.
If it were the case that people who wanted to ride without a helmet were allowed to do so on condition of posting a $4 million bond or policy payable to their local and state government, then, sure, the fact that they are generally the only people physically hurt in their crashes is relevant.
The fact that the dead and injured riders bear so little of the actual costs of their injury or death is relevant, to me. It means that the rest of us have to spread that burden out.
Increased insurance costs are not really the big hit. It's the use of money ($4 million per fatality by the most recent fully loaded costs from the feds) that local communities and states could be putting to better purpose.
Because that cost is spread so thinly throughout society, it just feels like the costs aren't passed on to anyone else. But they are. And if the death toll gets high enough, then we will do something about it.
One thing that states could do is figure out the maximum safe speed for unhelmeted riders and set that as a speed limit. It'd be really interesting to see a state try that. I bet we'd have a lot of fun with ABATE over that. "Sure, you can ride without a helmet...no problem. Maximum speed is 15 mph. Have fun!"
lol.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Bob, I think that is a phenomenal idea
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Wow, a $4 million dollar cost, I had no idea it was that much-I really lowballed it with my estimate. Thanks for the info Bob. Is it from all the emergency vehicles, police, fire, ambulence, investigations, etc? Just kind of wondering on an approximate breakdown of the cost.
I personally wear my helmet too Mazer, and wouldn't go out without it. However, there are people like my little brother, who are 20 years old and care more about image than being safe. Personally, I wish he would be required to wear a helmet by law, since I honestly think it will save his life someday. I wonder how many people out there are like him and Ben R- they only don't wear helmets because they don't have to.
We do all sorts of things to legislate safety. We require a doctor to write prescriptions in order to purchase certain drugs. We have speed limits on curves. We have mandatory hunter safety classes for kids going off into the woods with guns. Lots of things we don't though. It's just kind of a judgement call on where to draw the line I guess.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Bob, I just wanted to say thanks for typing that all out again. I know it can get tedious, but you say it in such a clear and informative way. The time and trouble (again! ) is much appreciated from this corner.
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
quote: ($4 million per fatality by the most recent fully loaded costs from the feds)
Source? If that is true, (Which I doubt, it sounds like B.S. stat manipulation,) then maybe we need to find a cheaper way to deal with stupidity related fatalities.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You would do well when requesting a source (always an acceptable thing to do if done politely) to not accuse someone of B.S. stat manipulation.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Mazer, Bob is a national figure in traffic safety assessment and regulation. It's kind of his thing (well, more than kind of -- it's his job, actually), and I'm sure he will be happy to cite his sources for you. [Also, he is quite rigorous as a matter of habit when it comes to figures. (No newly-married jokes, please. )]
-----
Edited to add: And, if we are lucky, he will spend the time and energy to briefly detail the myriad elements of dealing with an auto accident that we tend to forget about. It all adds up.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mazer:
quote: ($4 million per fatality by the most recent fully loaded costs from the feds)
Source? If that is true, (Which I doubt, it sounds like B.S. stat manipulation,) then maybe we need to find a cheaper way to deal with stupidity related fatalities.
This sounds like a BS job from someone who has little to no personal experience in public health OR safety.
You can't change the level of care a patient receives because of how they receive it, it violates the basic medical oaths and beliefs that govern all patient/doctor relationships.
Question sources all you like, but realize that accusing someone of BSing isn't good form, not will it prove anything other that a lack of knowledge and manners from you. If they have a history of BSing, or there is some good reason for you to doubt their figures (say you have a job in a related field and disagree) that is different, but as far as I know Bob only has a bad reputation in one thing....
He likes puns. :::shudders::
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That's jest a rumor, Kwea.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Mazer. Yes that figure is at the high end. But it is the one that most state governments are switching to. The old style calculation used to come in at around $1 Million per fatality.
You can find that one updated periodically at the National Safety Council's website (www.nsc.org).
For the $4 million (roughly) figure, you'll need to go to www.fhwa.gov or www.nhtsa.gov and look for some research reports.
Originally, the $4 million was just applied to truck crashes because they tended to be more severe and cause a lot of extra property damage, plus there's a huge lost time component when trucks crash (especially on major highways) because they take so long to clear.
But now, the $4 million is being used for all roadway fatalities because people started tallying up all sorts of additional costs that weren't (and still aren't) included in the NSC cost model and a more general crash cost model that NHTSA used to produce.
Now, granted, $1 - $4 million is a huge range. What accounts for the difference is exactly what I was just talking about -- what costs are included and what costs are excluded.
You can find good documention on how the costs are calculated and decide for yourself which number is more reasonable.
But, as I said, most states are tending toward the $4 million number these days. And it's not just because they want to highlight the problems in traffic safety and to do that they have to make the numbers look big. It's also because as public funds get tighter, the legislators start wanting to know everything. At some point, the states' budget folks buy into these estimates (assuming they don't have their own in-state data) and start sending that stuff on to the legislators.
Another thing to be aware of is that we have multiple states' data on actual treatment costs so the estimates have improved a lot over the past 10 years or so. And (as we all know) the cost of health care has sky-rocketed. When you start adding up the costs for medical treatment on people who don't die right away, but get the full arsenal of EMS, Emergency Department, Surgical, and ICU, you have some amazingly large costs.
Ultimately, though, one of the other things we learned is that major injuries cost as much if not more than deaths. People who end up on permanent disability and have life-long rehab costs (as many brain & spinal cord injured folks do) at some point in their lives hit the max on their insurance payouts and end up being treated long term at public expense.
Motorcyclists do die in crashes at a greater rate than people in cars and trucks. But they also sustain a lot more head and spinal cord injuries when they do survive.
Anyway, here's a 2002 study's findings:
quote:The most recent study relating to the cost of crashes published by NHTSA [42], as well as the most current DOT guidance on valuing fatalities [43], indicate a value consistent with $3.5 million. This value represents an updated version of a meta-analysis of studies that were conducted prior to 1993. More recent studies indicate that higher values may be justified. [44]
And here's those cites from the reference section:
quote:
[42] L. Blincoe, A. Seay, E. Zaloshnja, T. Miller, E. Romano, S. Luchter, R. Spicer, (May 2002) "The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000". Washington D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 809 446.
[43] "Revised Departmental Guidance, Treatment of Value of Life and Injuries in Preparing Regulatory Evaluations", Memorandum from Kirk K. Van Tine, General Counsel and Linda Lawson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy to Assistant Secretaries and Modal Administrators, January 29, 2002.
[44] For example, Miller, T.R. (2000): "Variations Between Countries in Values of Statistical Life", Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 34, 169-188.
[45] Mrozek, J.R. and L.O. Taylor, What determines the value of a life? A Meta Analysis, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21 (2), pp. 253-270.
I bolded the part that talks about more recent studies justifying higher values.
Inflation since 02 is usually figured at 3% per year, so there's 4 years of multiplying $3.5 million x 1.03, and then multiplying that result by 1.03, and that by 1.03 ,and that by 1.03...(the answer is $3.9389820835 million)
plus the newer studies have pushed the most recent data up beyond $4 million even without inflation.
That's using the OMB and DOT approved methodology. YMMV.
Oh, and don't feel badly about disbelieving those numbers at first blush. They are rather alarming and people tend not to believe them at first. I assure you, though, that the folks who aren't using $4 million (there are still states that use $1 million) are likely to switch in the coming years. Once OMB puts its stamp on a USDOT fact/figure, it's going to be used in US Congress for decision-making. That tends to affect how the states view these things.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
If it costs us $4 million for a cyclist to die in a crash, and a helmet has s significant chance of reducing the probability we'd have to pay that, and someone chooses to not wear a helmet, and doesn't have $4 million of their own, then they are basically saying to society, "Hey, I want to feel more free, and you can all foot the bill!" If that's their attitude, then I don't have a problem making them wear a helmet. They can either wear one, or not ride a bike.
(I know that's not cyclist's real attitude, but that's only because they haven't really thought it through. They *should* think it through though, and if they do not, it is their fault.)
I as well am not content to let someone just die because they don't have money. I would say fine, we won't make you wear a helment, but if you need emergency medical care, and don't have a "Just Let Me Die" card on you when found, then you will have to pay for it. Work out a payment schedule, or off to Debtor's Prison you go.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
It's not just the money, it's the resources. In December, Aerin was taken to a pediatric ER via an ambulance because she needed respiratory support to make it there alive. There are a finite number of ambulances, particularly in rural areas. What if they were all tied up with accidents that could have been prevented with helmets and/or seatbelts? Aerin would have died if Andrew and I had driven her to the ER ourselves. Ambulances are needed for unavoidable and unpredictable accidents and injuries, not ones that can be easily prevented.
Ditto with emergency rooms. If you've been to one recently, you probably noticed how crowded it was. What if the ER docs were all busy with the aforementioned preventable injuries? Even if they had transferred her to another hospital, it would have been too late and I would have lost my daughter because someone wanted to "feel free."
On another note, I am broken-hearted about Big Ben. I thought he had more sense and integrity than that. Not only did he take up police and medical resources, but he also failed his duty to his team. I have lost a lot of respect for him. You can bet there will be a helmet clause in every NFL contract from now on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The missing piece to the statistics is the cost of an accident which is not fatal but would have been had the cyclist not been wearing a helmet.
If the actual fatality only adds 1% over the cost of the ambulance, stopped traffic, other resources, etc., then the helmet law might not be worth it from that perspective.
(Note: I'm not saying the difference in cost is that small. It's an example at the extreme end of the range to demonstrate why the additional info is relevant.)
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's the piece I'd also like to see. Especially given the argument that helmets and seatbelts result in vegetables where there would have been fatalities, ultimately costing money.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
In the case of Big Ben, he could have basically walked away from the accident had he been wearing a helmet. So that's a case of an accident that cost a lot more than it should have in terms of resources. It's not just the fatalities.
I imagine that an accident without any injuries ties up 2 police officers. When you have to be rushed to the hospital and undergo 10 hours of surgery, the cost and people involved skyrocket.
Mrs.M- There is a clause that they not engage in any dangerous outside activities. Motorcycling is a gray area. I wouldn't at all be surprised to see a helmet clause either, or an outright ban of riding. This is the 2nd or 3rd high profile athlete-on-a-motorcycle injury in a fairly short time period.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hmmmm, there's been some more information about this come to light. He actually was breaking the law.
It's only optional for people over 21 that have had their motorcycle license for 2 years, or people over 21 that have completed the MSP course. He has done neither. He only had a learners permit that expired in March.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
First and foremost, you simply can not make the world 'Idiot Proof'. The world is full of idiots, and they will do what idiots do. Further, the more we protect idiots, the more idiots there are, and the more mayhem they cause.
On this particular accident, he wasn't hurt that bad. OK, he was in the hospital, but it seems that he will be back at training camp in no time. Heaven forbid that some millionaire should be prevented from making more millions.
Next, everyone is ranting and raving about helmet laws as if that is the only solution. He wasn't injured because he wasn't wearing a helmet, he was injured become some airhead idiot moron made a left turn in front of him. Why aren't we all ranting and raving about fixing the thing that caused this problem? Why aren't we all demanding that all drivers who make an improper left turns that result in injuries are severely punished and sent to driver re-education concentration camps? (A fun bit of hyperbole.)
Really, that is a serious question. Why are we all up in arms over the RESULT of this accident, while we conviniently ignore the many many many many many more idiots who are so busy talking on their cell phones, fixing their make-up, drinking their lattes, and eating their all beef burgers that they can't be bothered to...
THINK AND SEE MOTORCYCLES!!!!
Educating idiots making left turns would probably save many lives, reduce countless accidents, and substantially lower the cost to all of society. Remember idiots making left turns are equal opportunity idiots, they'll make a left turn in front of anyone regardless of whether it's a motorcycle rider, a kid on a bicycle, or on coming car.
Let's look at the real cause of the problem, and not jump on easy to politicize unrelated hot-buttton issues.
Just rousing a little rabble for the fun of it.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
In Nevada part of the motorcycle registration fee goes to motorcycle safety campaigns. This includes some of what you're talking about, but it's definately not enough.
I make brief eye contact with every person thinking of pulling out or making a left hand turn whether I'm in my cage or my bike. It's helped a lot. I also do a little bit of inner lane swerving to help break the illusion that I'm not moving forward very quickly. Drivers have a hard time judging speed of a bike coming straight for them. They're just little everyday things but they help.
HOWEVER, there are still the idiots and the slightly sociopathic that will accidently or intentionally run you off the road. My boss's 4 month old granddaughter was just killed by a man on a cellphone that ran a stopsign and T-boned his daughter's car. I'll definately agree with you Steve, that the inattentive and at times reckless driving is a much larger danger than a motorcyclist without a helmet. However, they are seperate issues and can be addressed as such.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
The real cause of the problem ISN'T drivers....they real problem is accidents happen, sometimes without any culpability at all on other drivers, and a helmet STILL would prevent most serious injuries.
They problem wasn't the accident...it was the possibility of death and injury that the public pays for on a regular basis.
Not in this case, at least not to the same extent, but the fact is society DOES have a vested interest in keeping the roads a safe place to travel, and helmets DO help with that.
Also, driving is NOT a right. It is licensed, and the states DO have a right to legislate legal requirements for safety equipment.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Well, if that doesn't call for more hyperbole and rabble rousing just for the fun of it, then I don't know what does.
First, this muscle bound millionaire sustained facial injuries ( broken upper and lower jaws, the loss of two teeth, a broken nose, broken facial bones and various cuts and bruises) . Depending on the type of helmet he would have been wearing, it may not have helped that much. If he had been wearing what I refer to as a 'baby Huey' helmet which is legal and just protects the crown of the head, it wouldn't have stopped any of the listed injuries. Though I will note he also had a concussion, and it would have helped that.
Now, he might have wore a full-face helmet, but that also has it's risks. A full-face helment weighs more, and that means you neck has to support a substantial weigh in a fashion that puts it at the worst advantage relative to leverage. In other words, heavier helmet means more neck injuries.
Everything is a trade-off. With a full-face helmet he could have exited with a pretty face, head intact, but paralysed from the neck down.
With a 'baby Huey' helmet, he could have ended with a caved in face, but spared himself the concussion.
Still, if the operator of the car had observed the law, the rules of the road, and general courtesy, the accident never would have happened. I would submit that a majority of motorcycle/car accidents are the direct result of poor judgement on the part of the car driver.
Maybe we could end the problem by making it legal for a motorcycle rider to beat the crap out of anyone who substantially and illegally endangers his/her life. A few beat and bloody idiots, and perhaps they would be sufficiently intimidated by a motorcycle to give it the right of way. (again, just a bit of rabble rousing and hyperbole, but none the less containing a grain of truth)
I don't think this is really about car drivers not correctly assessing the speed of a motorcycle, so much as it is a matter of pure intimidation. If you are in a car, and you see a Mack truck bearing down on you, you know excatly how fast it is going, and you also know that if you miscalculate, it will squash you like a bug.
On the other hand, when you see a motorcycle bearing down on you, you preceive little risk, as you are traveling in your nice fully protected armored car. No risk = no caution = one squashed motorcycle rider.
As to motorcycle helmets in general, wouldn't we reduce the injuries to car drivers and passengers if we required them to all wear helmets? Seems perfectly logical to me. Wouldn't we reduce injuries if every car had a built-in role cage? Seems logical to me. Wouldn't we reduce injuries if we passed a law mandating the maxiumum speed of all motorized vehicles at 40mph? Not the maximum allowable speed, but the maximum possible speed. Think of all the OIL we would save as well as the lives. Wouldn't our cities be much safer if we banned streets all together and made everyone walk or ride bikes? Seems logical to me.
Everything in life is a compromise. Helmets are a trade-off, save your head and risk losing your neck. Don't get me wrong, I'm generally in favor of helmets and most people do wear them, but I'm also in favor of a free and unfettered society. I'm also if favor of the fair and reasonable general protection for society. We could save a fortune if we got rid of all law enforcement, but of course on another front, we would pay extremely high for such a choice. Again, compromise, everything is compromise, but I think we could very substantailly reduce motorcycle accidents, injuries, and deaths if we could just keep cars from indiscriminatly crashing into us.
If a car drivers has reason to FEAR getting into an accident with a motorcycle, that alone would save everyone a lot of time, money, and injury.
To Kwea who said -
The real cause of the problem ISN'T drivers....they real problem is accidents happen, sometimes without any culpability at all on other drivers, and a helmet STILL would prevent most serious injuries.
In concept yes, in practicality, no. Life is risk, the only way you eliminate the risk of life is to be dead, and that's really not that fun at all (in a non-religious context). The question is what is fair and reasonable risk. If we elminate risk, then we eliminate life, or at least living. Many, many, many bike riders never have accidents whether they wear helmets or not. Many have accidents and come out just fine. Many have accidents with injuries that the recover from. Many people eat thick juicy hamburgers at every meal and drop dead at age 40.
Many people make a calculated choice and have to live with the consequences. We simply can not insulate everyone from everything.
By the way, I've been in a motorcycle accident or two, always the fault of the car driver, always the fault of the car driver being an idiot who only evaluated the risk from his own prespective. And for the record, at that time, I rarely wore a helmet and never injured by head. Now, I would be far more likely to wear a helmet.
Off on a side note: I though a nice safey feature for a motorcycle would be a button on the handle bars that made all the lights strobe when it was pushed; simultanious strobing of headlight, tail light, and turn signals. That way when you wanted to warn other cars not to make a move against you, you could strobe your lights, and it would make it difficult for them to say the 'didn't see you'.
When the motorcycle headlight law first became manditory, there was a little gadget you could get that would make your headlight blink at an extremely annoying rate. It made your motorcycle very visible and helped prevent a lot of accidents. They seem to have fallen out of favor though. Perhaps they were very annoying to the rider at night.
Still, I like the idea of having this stobe feature mandatory on all motorcycles. It might even be nice if your brake light strobed rather than just came on. That would also increase your visibility, and reduce the likelihood of a rear end collision.
By far though, the greatest safety feature for motorcycle riders would be if car drivers pulled their heads out of their collective ...ah-hem... lattes.
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Mazer (Member # 192) on :
quote: You would do well when requesting a source (always an acceptable thing to do if done politely) to not accuse someone of B.S. stat manipulation.
Calling the validity of stats into question is hardly an accusation against the person who quoted those statistics. Honest people may reference dishonest stats.
As for the NHTSA, they have been guilty of outright lies and stat manipulation regarding issues like "speed kills" and "SUV" safety when it suited their agenda in the past. Blatant stuff like quoting accident results for minivans and light trucks, and then using those stats to call SUVs "unsafe."
But that behavior is par for the course for nanny-stater bliss-ninnies.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:As for the NHTSA, they have been guilty of outright lies and stat manipulation regarding issues like "speed kills" and "SUV" safety when it suited their agenda in the past. Blatant stuff like quoting accident results for minivans and light trucks, and then using those stats to call SUVs "unsafe."
Source?
And, by the way, NHTSA isn't perfect, but they do have some pretty darn good statisticians, many of whom I know personally and they generally don't make really dumb mistakes or count the wrong vehicles. I'm very familiar with their rollover work, if that's what you're referring to, and they have specific data on vehicles by make, model and series (even down to particular vehicles if you want to look at their defect database or some of the crash data that includes VIN).
Now, there are some analyses that group vehicles and SUVs were originally grouped with light trucks, if I recall correctly, but that doesn't mean that the individual make/model/series data wasn't available as well. In fact, I know it's available because...I use it frequently.
I'm not precisely sure what you're referring to in your concern over the "speed kills" message, but there's solid data, with repeated measures nationally and at the state level that shows:
- a decrease in deaths when the national maximum speed limit was imposed (remember 55 saves lives...it does) (it's also painfully slow on some roads and may have contributed to some increase in fatigue-related crashes...)
- a corresponding increase in fatalities when the national maximum speed limit was removed.
- more locallly, when states legislatures increase the speed limit on all roads of a given classification (i.e, doing it not for engineering reasons, but by legislation), we see increases in deaths. Iowa is a case in point. Last year the legislature raised the speed limit on all limited access highways. They also said they were going to increase enforcement so that nobody felt like they could go 75 mph when the new speed limit was 70 mph.
Care to guess what we're seeing in Iowa in terms of speeds and fatalities on limited access highways this year?
But anyway, maybe you've got a specific beef with the "speed kills" message that is something I missed.
[ June 14, 2006, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote: Maybe we could end the problem by making it legal for a motorcycle rider to beat the crap out of anyone who substantially and illegally endangers his/her life.
Are you saying it's not ok to knock off other drivers mirrors with your armored elbow when they pull a boneheaded move that endangered you?
As for the helmet/neck injury info, I was under the impression that the HURT report had pretty much debunked that myth back in the late 70s. Kind of like seatbelts causing more injuries myths. Also I don't think the weight difference is as drastic is sounds. An HJC open face helmet weights 2 lbs 14 oz. The HJC CL-14 weights 3 lbs 12 oz. Less than a pound difference. Is 3.5 pounds really going to cause a neck injury? If so, I'll shave off my afro before playing any more basketball. (Just kidding on that one)
When someone dying on the road costs us $4 million dollars, I really think society has the right to tell them to put on a helmet.
Steve- Are you Libertarian by any chance?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
3+ lbs is a significant amount of weight to be supported by your neck.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm not aware of any studies showing that belts or helmets move injury classifications from fatal to "serious/incapacitating & requiring a lifetime of expensive therapy and disability payments..."
The physics of the situation for helmets is such that it wouldn't really surprise me to find out that head injuries are much reduced, but that neck and spinal cord injuries are not all that affected by helmet use.
I do suspect, however, that helmet wearers might be more law abiding, or more concerned for personal safety and thus might have different riding characteristics than those who do not wear helmets. I think that kind of thing is becoming a more important variable (people's attitudes about safety) than other things that have been more traditional in the traffic safety arena.
As we increase belt usage to over 90% in some states, it's the things like safe behaviors that are going to start being easier to detect in the data. But it'll also mean that we'll have to know more about the people who are getting into crashes.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The distribution of weight around your head would matter in a crash. A helmet distributes that weight in a fairly uniform fashion. It's not that likely to be the cause of a neck injury (i.e., the moment arm of the weight isn't radically different from what you own head would be just by itself).
However, if my head is being tossed around, I'm going to at least end up with a very sore neck, if not a neck/cord injury. Compounding that with a skull fracture or broken facial structure because I failed to wear a helmet just seems like a bad choice to me.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The cost of fatalities and injuries resulting from crashes has indeed been used to bolster the opinion that states have a compelling interest in laws aimed at controlling driver behavior, even in cases when the only person likely to be injured or killed is the person themselves.
The reason many states have repealed their motorcycle helmet laws is that ABATE (primarily) can mobilize hundreds of bikers to crowd the legislature, hold rallies driving 5 mph around the capitol complex, and they have a compelling argument about freedom and rights.
Their point about being the ones to pay the price for poor decisions is hard to counter even with data on shared costs to society. Part of the reason for that is legislators can get other numbers from other sources (including ABATE) that show a different tally, or that call into question the shared nature of the costs that aren't covered.
I've heard many proposals on how to make the situation more fair -- to allow people to ride without a helmet but not pass the costs of their deaths and injuries associated with that behavior on to the rest of us. I haven't heard one that really works. I believe the costs are real, and that they do put a drag on society that is shared generally.
But I also believe that we'll never see rallies of people circling the capitol complex asking for the helmet laws to be put back on the books.
And if that's not going to happen, then the only way we'll see helmet laws again is if legislators find numbers on a spreadsheet more compelling than numbers of bikers revving engines outside their offices.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I personally wear armored jacket, gloves, helmet, boots, and thick pants every time I ride (which is every day). I'll admit, I do this for personal reasons, rather than the vague idea of helping society out though.
It's a sticky area Bob, as both you and Dag have noted. Yet we're always having to draw lines between where personal freedoms end and hurting society begins. It's kind of the fundamental purpose of laws. It's just a tad trickier to prove or get personally involved with when 'society' is the one that is taking the hit. I hope as more data is collected there can me a maximum of the first and minimum of the latter.
Just out of curiousity, what are some of the better proposals that have you heard to let people ride without helmets but not pass on the cost?
Mazer- I understand where you're coming from on the nanny-state comment I really do. I even pretty much agree with that philosophy. But I just HATE paying for the results of other people's stupidity. Whether it's drinking & driving, smoking, not wearing a seatbelt, not eating healthy, or whatever, the thought of it really grates on me.
I also hate seeing innocent people get hurt from other people's stupidity. People getting lung cancer from a second hand smoke. Traffic accidents-speed does kill. Just the other day, 2 guys were racing their bikes in Arizona I believe. Going 140 mph according to the survivor. The other one was decapitated as he slammed into the side of a van. The van was knocked over and exploded, killing the man, two women, and child inside. I'm not saying make a law because of this tragedy- there's already one against speeding. The result of people's desire to do whatever they want, even when they don't think they're hurting anyone can be really ugly.
I'm not smart enough to figure out where the line should be. I just know there needs to be one.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
quote: Kind of like seatbelts causing more injuries myths.
I haven't seen any exhaustive/convincing refutations of it yet, but, I admit, I haven't done a lot of research.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
When I was younger, I would make the same libertarian arguments I've seen on this thread. Not anymore. I guess pragmatism outweighs idealism in the long run.
quote: According to the Institute of Medicine, an ambulance with a sick patient is turned away from an ER 500,000 times each year. That works out to about once every minute.
http://www.wxii12.com/health/9370876/detail.html That's a lot of people sent to other, more distant hospitals. Some of those patients die en route. Even if you ignore the financial costs of avoidable biker injuries, we still need to do everything we can do to reduce the load on overtaxed ERs.
I saw this quote also, and thought Wow! The simplest of statistical arguemnts, how rare is that?
quote: For many, especially young people, summer means hopping on a bike and going for a ride. Unfortunately for approximately 500,000 people each year, it is a ride that ends in an emergency department.
quote:Calling the validity of stats into question is hardly an accusation against the person who quoted those statistics. Honest people may reference dishonest stats.
Are you kidding me? You said, and I'm quoting here, "Which I doubt, it sounds like B.S. stat manipulation." You accused someone of stat B.S. manipulation. I'm not sure it's any better to be accusing someone who happens to not be here.
I generally take Bob at his word on traffic safety stats, because he's demonstrated both personal integrity and subject matter expertise. I understand perfectly when others haven't reached that comfort point and desire a linked source.
Just do it politely. "Could you source that, Bob?" Simple. Non-offensive. Effective.
There's plenty of time to bring out the stat manipulation accusations when you have ammunition to do so.
quote:As for the NHTSA, they have been guilty of outright lies and stat manipulation regarding issues like "speed kills" and "SUV" safety when it suited their agenda in the past. Blatant stuff like quoting accident results for minivans and light trucks, and then using those stats to call SUVs "unsafe."
Could you source that, please? (See, it's easy.)
quote:But that behavior is par for the course for nanny-stater bliss-ninnies.
Ladies and gentlemen. In this corner, we have peer-reviewed studies and thoughtful analysis. In the other corner, name-calling and unsourced accusations of stat-manipulation against the NHTSA.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Dag.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No problem, Bob.
I'm equal opportunity in my crotchetiness. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's a lot of fun to watch, I must say.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Part of my argument is that life will always involve risk. Society can do a reasonable job to minimize that risk, but it will always be there.
When you come right down to it, lots of people sustain head injuries in car accidents, so should we expand the helmet law to include cars?
It's easy to legislate the 'other guy' but not quite so easy when it is 'you' that is being legislated. So, again I ask, why are we up in arms about helmet use, but completely ignoring the real cause which is people not given reasonable consideration to motorcycle riders and yeilding to them when the law requires it? In the indicent in question, this person would still have had injuries even if he was wearing a helmet. Injuries that were caused by someone making a left turn in front of him.
As far as helmets and neck injuries, I don't have the statistics on the street but it is a proven fact on the race track. Nearly all motorsport participants are required to wear a form of neck brace called a 'helmet support' that prevents their helmeted head from bouncing around in an accident.
Like all safety equipment there is always a trade off. People have been injured and killed by air bags deploying. But the good they provide, and the lives they save so far out weighs the incident of random damage they cause as to make the risk insignificant. Yet, if it is your son or daughter killed by an air bag, suddenly what is statistically insignificant becomes very personally significant. Statistics tend to not override emotional pain.
On the issue to cost to society, I think to some extent society simply has to bear that cost. Again, we must temper that with reason, but too much safety also has a cost. Further, as another person already pointed out, accidents happen. You can never eliminate them. Consequently there will alway be cost to society.
This applies on so many many fronts in life. If you eat healthy, you can statistically reduce the cost of healthcare. But how do you determine who is eating healthy and how do you control them? Do we put an end to the beef industry? Do we put a stop to all the premium ice cream makers? Do we put all the potato chip makers out of business? That doesn't seem very reasonable, but the immense cost to society is unquestionable. So, logically the solution is to educate people, to point out to them that moderate and conservative lifestyles are the healthiest (not talking politics here).
How do you solve the helmet problem, you educate people and make them aware that helmets are important. I think that is actually working, you see a lot more people wearing helmets now, and not just motorcycle helmets, but bicycle helmets too.
How do you stop people from making left turns in front of motorcycles? Well, you could pass a law that says it's OK to beat the crap out of them, but perhaps a better way would be tougher penalties and stronger education that reaches the people who need to be educated.
That seems to work for most of societies ills, but at the same time, you have to accept that some people simply will not be swayed. They intend to smoke, speed, eat greasy burgers and fries, ride without a helmet, and make indiscriminant left turns when ever the mood strikes them. Some people are just idiots, and we have to accept that. Just as society has to accept the cost of allowing idiots to live.
Just a few thoughts.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: It's easy to legislate the 'other guy' but not quite so easy when it is 'you' that is being legislated.
That's a very good point. However, Bob and I do both ride, so we would be legislating ourselves in this case. But your point is well taken. I was thinking about this last night, and my position is fairly illogical.
Suppose there was data that justified banning the bike he was riding, the Hayabusa. Using my arguments, it would appear that I would support that. However, I would vehemently oppose such legislation. Why? Because I hate to punish everyone for the actions of a select careless or stupid few. I would hate to have my own statements thrown back in my face.
It seems I have an untenable position, and need to do some more thinking.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)]![[Razz]](tongue.gif)