Comments on: The Dismal Science Indeed http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/07/14/the-dismal-science-indeed/ Just another WordPress weblog Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:47:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: didrik http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/07/14/the-dismal-science-indeed/#comment-8265 didrik Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:17:38 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=1037#comment-8265 Sorry if I confused folks. I meant to say that in my researching of bicycle helmets I would sometimes stumble on motorcycle helmet discussions. The discussions stated that motorcycle helmet laws increased the fatality rate of motorcyclists in those states with the laws. This is a similar effect we see with bicycle helmet laws. So, it was interesting to read this post which seemed to indicate repealing the motorcycle helmet law would dramatically increase fatalities. The discussions around how our safety measures sometimes do more harm are fascinating to me. @Botswana... Yes, that's what the article was saying: helmets reduced head injuries but the number of fatalities remained the same because neck injuries were replacing head injuries. I didn't dive any deeper on it than that. Sorry if I confused folks. I meant to say that in my researching of bicycle helmets I would sometimes stumble on motorcycle helmet discussions. The discussions stated that motorcycle helmet laws increased the fatality rate of motorcyclists in those states with the laws. This is a similar effect we see with bicycle helmet laws. So, it was interesting to read this post which seemed to indicate repealing the motorcycle helmet law would dramatically increase fatalities. The discussions around how our safety measures sometimes do more harm are fascinating to me.

@Botswana… Yes, that’s what the article was saying: helmets reduced head injuries but the number of fatalities remained the same because neck injuries were replacing head injuries. I didn’t dive any deeper on it than that.

]]> By: Phil M http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/07/14/the-dismal-science-indeed/#comment-8232 Phil M Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:10:21 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=1037#comment-8232 The word "cyclist" typically describes people on bicycles. You probably meant "bikers" or "motorcyclists". The word “cyclist” typically describes people on bicycles. You probably meant “bikers” or “motorcyclists”.

]]> By: Frank Eggers http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/07/14/the-dismal-science-indeed/#comment-8212 Frank Eggers Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:38:27 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=1037#comment-8212 I ride a motorcycle, but I ALWAYS wear full protective gear, including a full-face helmet. Speed is only one factor that determines whether a motorcycle rider will be injured or killed if he is involved in an accident. If a rider doesn't hit an object and is wearing full protective gear, he may suffer only minor injuries even in a high speed accident. On the other hand, if he is riding at only 20 mph and hits a heavy object with his head, probably he will be killed even if he is wearing a helmet. Thus, depending on circumstances, full protective gear, including a helmet, can considerably reduce the likelihood of injury or death at any speed. Obviously wearing full protective gear does not offer full protection and is no substitute for careful riding, but still it is helpful at ALL speeds! A helmet alone is not sufficient. A rider could slide on pavement for a considerable distance and lose considerable skin, flesh, and muscle without a proper jacket, gloves, pants, and boots. I ride a motorcycle, but I ALWAYS wear full protective gear, including a full-face helmet.

Speed is only one factor that determines whether a motorcycle rider will be injured or killed if he is involved in an accident. If a rider doesn’t hit an object and is wearing full protective gear, he may suffer only minor injuries even in a high speed accident. On the other hand, if he is riding at only 20 mph and hits a heavy object with his head, probably he will be killed even if he is wearing a helmet. Thus, depending on circumstances, full protective gear, including a helmet, can considerably reduce the likelihood of injury or death at any speed.

Obviously wearing full protective gear does not offer full protection and is no substitute for careful riding, but still it is helpful at ALL speeds!

A helmet alone is not sufficient. A rider could slide on pavement for a considerable distance and lose considerable skin, flesh, and muscle without a proper jacket, gloves, pants, and boots.

]]> By: Botswana Meat Commission FC http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/07/14/the-dismal-science-indeed/#comment-8200 Botswana Meat Commission FC Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:49:50 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=1037#comment-8200 Didrik... Was the anti-motorcycle helmet literature you found arguing that helmets cause neck/spinal injuries? If so, this is an old, old canard from the "black t-shirt and chaps" Harley rider contingent. It's been thoroughly refuted by science in the past 20 years. cheers. Didrik…

Was the anti-motorcycle helmet literature you found arguing that helmets cause neck/spinal injuries? If so, this is an old, old canard from the “black t-shirt and chaps” Harley rider contingent. It’s been thoroughly refuted by science in the past 20 years.

cheers.

]]> By: didrik http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/07/14/the-dismal-science-indeed/#comment-8148 didrik Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:19:21 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=1037#comment-8148 This is interesting since they are saying that states with no helmet laws have higher number of fatalities. I've also read an article lately that said some states that have repealed the motorcycle helmet laws have seen a sharp rise in fatalities. But, as I researched bicycle helmets, I accidentally ran into motorcycle helmet literature that said motorcycle helmet laws had the effect of increasing the rate of injury and fatality much the same way that bike helmet laws have. I know that rates and absolute numbers are not the same thing. I'd be interested in knowing if the rate of head injury/ fatality in the motorcycle population of states with repealed laws has increased or decreased since even if the rate remained the same you will see a rise in the absolute number because--at least according to the theory--once you remove the helmet law, the number of motorcycles on the road would go up. Hence, so would the absolute number of fatalities. I haven't researched the motorcycle helmet much (I'm more interested in finding the truth about bike helmets), but it seems that at the speeds motorcycles go, there are a lot more injuries to die from than just head injuries. So were they really considering removing the helmet laws so that more people would die to give them organs? This is interesting since they are saying that states with no helmet laws have higher number of fatalities. I’ve also read an article lately that said some states that have repealed the motorcycle helmet laws have seen a sharp rise in fatalities. But, as I researched bicycle helmets, I accidentally ran into motorcycle helmet literature that said motorcycle helmet laws had the effect of increasing the rate of injury and fatality much the same way that bike helmet laws have. I know that rates and absolute numbers are not the same thing. I’d be interested in knowing if the rate of head injury/ fatality in the motorcycle population of states with repealed laws has increased or decreased since even if the rate remained the same you will see a rise in the absolute number because–at least according to the theory–once you remove the helmet law, the number of motorcycles on the road would go up. Hence, so would the absolute number of fatalities.

I haven’t researched the motorcycle helmet much (I’m more interested in finding the truth about bike helmets), but it seems that at the speeds motorcycles go, there are a lot more injuries to die from than just head injuries.

So were they really considering removing the helmet laws so that more people would die to give them organs?

]]> By: Dale http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/07/14/the-dismal-science-indeed/#comment-8140 Dale Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:44:05 +0000 http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=1037#comment-8140 At 90 plus I doubt a helmet would save anybody. They won't protect someone from a broken neck. At 90 plus I doubt a helmet would save anybody. They won’t protect someone from a broken neck.

]]>