Posted on 11/16/2010 3:37:26 PM PST by WOBBLY BOB
Nice try.
What you don’t post is the total INCREASE of motorcycle registrations and the number of riders passing through the state.
The numbers of fatalities at first blush seem to increase. And this would be true if the number of bikers were static.
But when compared to the PERCENTAGE of riders, there is definite DECREASE, since the number of registrations and out of state riders has INCREASED significantly.
Little fact you conveniently “forgot.”
156 in 2003,
158 in 2004,
205 in 2005,
187 in 2006,
225 in 2007,
237 in 2008 and
207 in 2009,
according to PennDOT.
Also according to PennDOT, motorcycle registrations:
267,826 in 2003,
291,015 in 2004,
318,283 in 2005,
338,401 in 2006,
360,287 in 2007,
390,283 in 2008 and
393,042 in 2009
So while fatalities increased 33% from 2003 to 2009, motorcycle registrations increased 49%.
Oh, and speaking of 49%:
49% of the bikers killed in PA in 2008 were not wearing helmets.
Yeah since they went to HANS, there hasn’t really been a serious injury in Nascar. That wreck earlier this year at Pocono with Sadler head-on into a non resilient wall near max speed was probably the ultimate test and he walked away.
Ah.
The good old days.
;]
What you forgot is to post the pre-law numbers so that we can continue with the discussion.
So that is why your expert on helmet saftey is an economist.
Wrong ... AGAIN.
From the H-D site:
“How much riding gear to wear is a personal choice, but Harley-Davidson strongly recommends wearing appropriate gear every time you ride, including a helmet that meets DOT requirements, a long-sleeve jacket or shirt, sturdy long pants or chaps, gloves, eye protection, and over-the-ankle boots. We also recommend that riders have rain gear or cold weather gear with them.”
You mean the same guys that have to wear ear plugs to keep what's left of their hearing after years on a H-D without mufflers? And it's fun to see these H-D drivers grimace as they hit the divisions in the highway and cruise at 60 to avoid the excess vibrations.
Well, I still have the vivid images of my buddy sliding down the road. I spent the next week treating his abrasions but he was unmarked from the neck up. He would possible have died from his head hitting the pavement except for his helmet.
In FL there was a radical miami doctor who was caught makeing fraudulant stats regarding deaths. The local state rights groups had those corrected long ago.
You also have to account for the fact that since the change in law, motorcycle ownership has nearly doubled and is continuing to grow. PS they also count the explosion of scooters in the motorcycle injury stats and those were almost non-existent 10 years ago.
The discussion was about the increase in deaths pre-post change in law. You said you had the stats, please present them.
Since the change in the law the percentage of deaths (non-helmeted versus helmeted) has increased.
I had leathers on. No abrasions, except on my hands--for some reason I was not wearing my gloves. The hinge part of the frame of my glasses hit the road and the base of the lens left me with a cut in my cheek that took stitches to close.
Considering that a helmet would have made contact with the pavement sooner and harder, and turned my head face down into the pavement as I was sliding, I'm happy.
I'm not saying they can't do any good, but that they are capable of doing harm, too. That is the reason the people who decide to use them (or not) should be allowed to use their discretion.
We have a 'modified' helmet law-- use them until you are 18, then the choice is yours.
We also have a great Motorcycle Safety Program, administered by ABATE of North Dakota, and the results from teaching people to be proficient and defensive drivers have far outweighed the results of helmet laws when those were in place.
I guess it is a matter of priority and mindset.
The bottom line is that all the 'social cost' canard does is Alinsky motorcycle riders. One study I read though, on orthopaedic injuries in motorcycle accidents, put things in perspective. The most often broken bones at that time were not in the skull or face, but the lower leg. Followed by the lower arm. Skull fractures were down around eighth.
From that information, it is obvious that getting in a wreck gets you hurt, so avoiding the wreck in the first place should be the first priority.
To that end, many of us prefer to not wear a helmet because it makes it easier to use our senses of hearing and sight to prevent a crash in the first place. No wreck, and the helmet issue becomes moot.
When I started riding, there were no cell phones, no CDs, no DVD players, no GPS units in vehicles. Many were still built without a radio, and the 'luxury' sound systems had a maintenence free 8-track player in them. There wasn't much to piss around with in the vehicle, except maybe the gearshift, or the buttons on the AM radio, or bark at the kids for screwing up.
Dashboards were steel, only padded in luxury cars, the seat belt was new to production automobiles, the air bag yet to be seen. In other words, car drivers got hurt if they did not pay attention, and there was little reason not to.
Now, the distraction level for people behind the wheel of those cages has gone up tremendously, and there are still those who do make-up, read books/newspapers, change clothes, etc. while going down the road (not to mention other things trucker friends have told me about).
Even automobile drivers have to be defensive drivers if they want to avoid a wreck, but they have a host of devices in their cage to keep them 'safe' (even though tens of thousands still die every year in their 'safe' vehicles). Those devices keep them in place so the other devices in their metal box can perss them into the seat and absorb energy from the wreck--which works because they are inside. They also add a sense of invincibility which makes the outside world seem less real until they make contact with it.
Those devices, despite some pretty scary attempts to emulate them for motorcycles, will not work on motorcycles because the rider is on the outside of the vehicle structure, and not contained within.
Most riders have no such sense that they are bulletproof.
Consider, too, that the effectiveness of a helmet is limited--your friend was sliding, not in a frontal impact--by the structural integrity of the support system--the human spine, and there is a speed at which no frontal impact is survivable. Some studies suggest that helmets may even cause spinal injuries in some situations by acting as a fulcrum on the cervical vertebrae, facillitating fractures which might not have otherwise occurred. Attempts to place cervical collars on the rider to prevent spinal injury only limit the ability to look around and avoid a wreck in the first place, and I do not consider that a solution. What supposedly saves your head could end up costing an arm and a leg--literally.
Which leads us back to the two things which will save a rider's life, day in and day out. Awareness (of traffic flow, obstacles, and road conditions), and skill.
Without the latter, all else is moot. You'd manage to get yourself killed in an Abrams tank. Without the former, you can't employ the latter to get yourself out of a developing bind before the situation becomes critical.
Those of us who prefer to ride without helmets do so because the absense of attenuation of our senses and the lower fatigue levels enable us to avoid situations that could get us killed or injured.
It saved his head when his head slammed against the pavement.
Those of us who prefer to ride without helmets do so because the absense of attenuation of our senses and the lower fatigue levels enable us to avoid situations that could get us killed or injured.
Are you including into 'us' those H-D drivers that remove their mufflers, wear earplugs and alter their suspensions and white-line it between cars?
What does that have to do with helmets?
When I started riding, there were NO 8-tracks.
Sticking scissors in babies brains OK.. pro choice.
Riding motorcycle without helmet.. not OK..dangerous.
You: Those of us who prefer to ride without helmets do so because the absense of attenuation of our senses and the lower fatigue levels enable us to avoid situations that could get us killed or injured.
Me: Are you including into ‘us’ those H-D drivers that remove their mufflers, wear earplugs and alter their suspensions and white-line it between cars?
You: What does that have to do with helmets?
Answer the question. Or are you evading because you see the hypocrisy in those that want to be intune with their senses to be the same ones that intentionally deaden their senses by riding noisy, uncomfortable Harley’s?
Admittedly, I didn't see the incident. In fact the image I got was of someone wearing a helmet, shorts or jeans, and sneakers, maybe a T-shirt, sliding down the road.
But the fact that we are even having this discussion indicates there is a serious difference of opinion on the issue. If motorcyclists can't agree on what they consider to be proper safety equipment, we damned sure don't want a bunch of chauffered cagers telling us what to do, now do we?
Or are you one of those who thinks their way is the only 'right' way to do things and wants to impose that on others by law? (the definition of a statist Liberal).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.