Motorcycle fatalities with/out helmets?

[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.