new to list and some questions

[Robert Diaz]

I would be interested to see where you pulled your data from to back up that statistic, just curious. Everything that I've heard about the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets in saving lives says otherwise. Survival rates are way up in California since they made helmet use mandatory. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809715.pdf http://www.dhs.ca.gov/opa/FactSheets/PDF/ps9.pdf Rob D. Mark Lewis wrote: Stastics show that helmets don't increase survial rates but they do allow for open caskets. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Devon]

Mlewishome@... wrote:

>I hate fullface helmets. I've tried them but I feel like I have a >bucket over my head. >

My Dad feels the same way. I gave him an SR500 for fathers day a few years ago, and bought him an MX helmet- it's the only thing that was vented and open enough to suit him and safe enough for me to not worry so much. I understand it but I've become accustomed to wearing a full-face and feel weird without one. Plus, I've watched the pavement slide by right on the other side of the faceshield enough times to appreciate the protection.

> I now wear a 3/4 helmet and like it well >enough. Probably 80% of the people I meet, wear no helmet at all. >

You meet a lot of dumb people.

>Stastics show that helmets don't increase survial rates but they do >allow for open caskets. >

What statistics? Where? I would really appreciate it if you link to the statistics you mention. I'm curious exactly where you saw them Devon

[Mark Lewis]

Compare Florida, a helmet state, with Iowa, a no-helmet state. Florida has a beautiful, year-round riding season. Iowa has a long, brutal winter. Yet Iowa has more than three times the number of registered motorcycles per 100 population as Florida. In California, a onetime biker paradise, registrations droped by 22% (138,000 fewer bikes) in the first four years after its legislature passed a helmet law. Overall, states with no helmet law had 2.6 motorcycle registrations per 100 population compared to 1.3 in helmet law states. In other words, non-helmet states have twice as many bikers. Let's go back to those CDC statistics that show helmets prevent deaths. If we use the same statistics, but count fatality rates per 10,000 registered motorcycles rather than per all residents, one finds that helmet law states actually suffered a HIGHER average fatality rate (3.38 deaths per 10,000) than non-helmet law states (3.05 deaths). This is not sufficient evidence to prove that not wearing a helmet is safer, but it demonstrates that helmet laws do not reduce deaths. Another way to measure the difference is to look at deaths per 100 accidents. Not even helmet law advocates suggest that helmets will reduce the number of motorcycle accidents. The purpose of a helmet is to help the rider survive an accident. The numbers indicate otherwise. During the seven-year period from 1987 thruogh 1993, states with no helmet laws or partial laws (for riders under 21) suffered fewer deaths (2.89) per 100 accidents than those with full helmet laws (2.93 deaths). How can this be true? Is it possible that helmets don't work? Go to a motorcycle shop and examine a Department-of-Transportation approved helmet. Look deep into its comforting plush lining, and hidden amidst the soft fuzz you'll find a warning label: "Some reasonably forseeable impacts may exceed the helmet's capability to protect against severe injury or death." What is a "reasonably forseeable" impact? Any impact around 14 miles per hour or greater. Motorcycle helmets are tested by being dropped on an anvil from a height of 6 feet, the equivalent of a 13.66 mph impact. If you ride at speeds less than 14 mph and are involved only in accidents with stationary objects, you are golden. A typical motorcycle accident, however, would be a biker traveling at, say 30 mph, and being struck by a car making a left turn at, maybe 15 mph. That's an effective cumulative impact of 45 mph. Assume the biker is helmet-clad, and he is struct directly on the head. The helmet reduces the blow to an impact of 31.34 mph. Still enough to kill him. The collisions that helmets cushion effectively - say, 7 mph motorcycles with 7 mph cars - are not only rare, but eminently avoidable. Another reason helmets don't work: An object breaks at its weakest point. Some helmet advocates argue that while helmets may not reduce the overall death rate, they prevent death due to head trauma. Jonathon Goldstein, a professor of economics at Bowdoin College, in Brunswick, Maine, wondered how could this be. If fatal head traumas were decreasing, then some other kind of fatal injury must be rising to make up the difference. Applying his expertise in econometrics to those aforementioned CDC statistics, Goldstein discovered what was happening. In helmet law states, there exist a reciprocal relationship between death due to head trauma and death due to neck injury. That is, a 4 pound helmet might save the head, but the force is then transferred to the neck. Goldstein found that helmets begin to increase one's chances of a fatal neck injury at speeds exceeding 13 mph, about the same impact at which helmets can no longer soak up kinetic energy. For this reason, Dr. Charles Campbell, a Chicago heart surgeon who performs more than 300 operations per year and rides his dark-violet, chopped Harley Softail to work at Micheal Reese Hospital, refuses to wear a helmet. "Your head may be saved," says Campbell, " but your neck will be broken." John G. U. Adams, of University College, London, cites another reason not to wear a helmet. He found that helmet wearing can lead to excessive risk taking due to the unrealistic sense of invulnerability that a motorcyclist feels when he dons a helmet. I called a local (Massachusetts) Suzuki dealer, and told the salesman I was a first- time buyer looking for something cheaper than the standard $15,000 Harley. He said I could buy the GSXR 1300 for only $10,500, a bike that could hit speeds in excess of 160 mph. He recommended that I wear a helmet, even in non-helmet law states. Imagine: A novice on a 160 mph bike wearing a plastic hat that will reduce any impact by 14 mph. It's like having sex with King Kong, but bringing a condom for safety's sake. Why the enthusiasm for helmets? Mike Osborn, chairman of the political action committee of California ABATE, says insurance companies are big supporters of helmet laws, citing the 'public burden' argument. That is, reckless bikers sans helmets are raising everyone's car insurance rates by running headlong into plate-glass windows and the like, sustaining expensive head injuries. Actually, it's true that bikers indirectly jack up the rates of car drivers, but not for the reason you might think. Car drivers plow over bikers at an alarming rate. According to the Second International Congress on Automobile Safety, the car driver is at fault in more than 70% of all car/motorcycle collisions. A typical accident occurs when a motorist illegally makes a left turn into the path of an oncoming motorcycle, turning the biker into an unwitting hood ornament. In such cases, juries tend to award substantial damages to the injured biker. Car insurance premiums go up. Osborn sees a hidden agenda. "They (the insurance companies) want to get us off the road." Fewer bikes means fewer claims against car drivers. Helmet laws do accomplish that goal, as evidenced by falling motorcycle registrations in helmet law states. It is interesting to note that carriers of motorcycle insurance do not complain about their clients. Motorcycle liability insurance remains cheap. Osborn pays only $125 per year for property damage and personal injury liability because motorcycles cause little damage to others. Keith R. Ball was one of the pioneers of ABATE, its first manager in 1971 and later national director. What annoys him most is the anecdotal approach taken by journalists who have a penchant for reporting whenever the victim of a fatal motorcycle accident was NOT wearing a helmet. When was the last time you saw a news item mentioning that a dead biker was wearing a helmet? Which is not to say that Ball opposes helmets. He thinks anyone who rides in a car should wear one. After all, he points out, head injuries make up only 20% of serious injuries to motorcyclists, but they account for 90% of all car injuries. If Ball's idea catches hold, one day I suspect you'll see angry men stepping out of Volvos with odd T-shirts beneath their tweed jackets. The T-shirts will read...

[KLR 650]

Robert Diaz wrote:

> I would be interested to see where you pulled your data from to back up that statistic, just curious. Everything that I've heard about the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets in saving lives says otherwise.

Are they ever going to do another Hurt type study? Last ERC I took I thought one of the instructors mentioned someone was going to update that? jim

[Chris]

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. Loud pipes save lives too. I put a bike down at 20mph 15yrs ago and got up with a chinbar so ground down that I could poke it in with my fingers. Your statistics can't twist that simple piece of physics. If you want to believe that full face helmets restrict vision, hearing and magically grab onto guardrails or bike's mirrors, go ahead. I'll never argue to regulate or restrict anyone's personal choice, however I will never stand by and let people propagate wive's tales that support safety 'benefit's to going helmetless. The NRA back in the 80's used to get a check from me annually, sometimes multiple donations. They lost me when they started saying an AK-47 is a valid and useful tool for hunting deer. So ludicrous I quit supporting them. They strayed from the issue and started incoherent arguments that did nothing but harm their cause in the eyes of any lucid citizen. ABATE is a similarly twisted group. I'm all for a rider picking his own level of risk, but the absolutely moronic wash of wive's tales and 'statistics' they use to somehow prove that going helmetless or wearing less than a full face is actually safer, just damages any shred of credibility they had. People do themselves and other riders a disservice by propagating these myths. Just be honest and tell people you are too self absorbed to wear proper safety gear and quit endangering other people's safety, people who may just not know any better.

> Let's go back to those CDC statistics that show helmets prevent > deaths. If we use the same statistics, but count fatality rates per > 10,000 registered motorcycles rather than per all residents, one > finds that helmet law states actually suffered a HIGHER average > fatality rate (3.38 deaths per 10,000) than non-helmet law states > (3.05 deaths). This is not sufficient evidence to prove that not > wearing a helmet is safer, but it demonstrates that helmet laws do > not reduce deaths. >

[Mike Frey]

A very good essay, Mark. I've stood on both sides of the helmet debate. I wear mine all the time, despite PA recently repealing the mandatory helmet laws. ** For the record, I didn't support that move, it's hardly even fathomable that a state with mandatory seat belt laws would repeal the helmet laws. Now we'll see how the statistics add up over the next year or three. I am a plastics engineer, I know helmets, and am also a statistician, so I can see the flaws in skewed reports - from both sides. Mike Mark Lewis wrote:

>Compare Florida, a helmet state, with Iowa, a no-helmet state. >Florida has a beautiful, year-round riding season. Iowa has a long, >brutal winter. Yet Iowa has more than three times the number of >registered motorcycles per 100 population as Florida. In California, >a onetime biker paradise, registrations droped by 22% (138,000 fewer >bikes) in the first four years after its legislature passed a helmet >law. Overall, states with no helmet law had 2.6 motorcycle >registrations per 100 population compared to 1.3 in helmet law >states. In other words, non-helmet states have twice as many bikers. > >Let's go back to those CDC statistics that show helmets prevent >deaths. If we use the same statistics, but count fatality rates per >10,000 registered motorcycles rather than per all residents, one >finds that helmet law states actually suffered a HIGHER average >fatality rate (3.38 deaths per 10,000) than non-helmet law states >(3.05 deaths). This is not sufficient evidence to prove that not >wearing a helmet is safer, but it demonstrates that helmet laws do >not reduce deaths. > >Another way to measure the difference is to look at deaths per 100 >accidents. Not even helmet law advocates suggest that helmets will >reduce the number of motorcycle accidents. The purpose of a helmet is >to help the rider survive an accident. The numbers indicate >otherwise. During the seven-year period from 1987 thruogh 1993, >states with no helmet laws or partial laws (for riders under 21) >suffered fewer deaths (2.89) per 100 accidents than those with full >helmet laws (2.93 deaths). > >How can this be true? Is it possible that helmets don't work? Go to a >motorcycle shop and examine a Department-of-Transportation approved >helmet. Look deep into its comforting plush lining, and hidden amidst >the soft fuzz you'll find a warning label: "Some reasonably >forseeable impacts may exceed the helmet's capability to protect >against severe injury or death." > >What is a "reasonably forseeable" impact? Any impact around 14 miles >per hour or greater. Motorcycle helmets are tested by being dropped >on an anvil from a height of 6 feet, the equivalent of a 13.66 mph >impact. If you ride at speeds less than 14 mph and are involved only >in accidents with stationary objects, you are golden. A typical >motorcycle accident, however, would be a biker traveling at, say 30 >mph, and being struck by a car making a left turn at, maybe 15 mph. >That's an effective cumulative impact of 45 mph. Assume the biker is >helmet-clad, and he is struct directly on the head. The helmet >reduces the blow to an impact of 31.34 mph. > >Still enough to kill him. The collisions that helmets cushion >effectively - say, 7 mph motorcycles with 7 mph cars - are not only >rare, but eminently avoidable. > >Another reason helmets don't work: An object breaks at its weakest >point. Some helmet advocates argue that while helmets may not reduce >the overall death rate, they prevent death due to head trauma. >Jonathon Goldstein, a professor of economics at Bowdoin College, in >Brunswick, Maine, wondered how could this be. If fatal head traumas >were decreasing, then some other kind of fatal injury must be rising >to make up the difference. Applying his expertise in econometrics to >those aforementioned CDC statistics, Goldstein discovered what was >happening. In helmet law states, there exist a reciprocal >relationship between death due to head trauma and death due to neck >injury. That is, a 4 pound helmet might save the head, but the force >is then transferred to the neck. Goldstein found that helmets begin >to increase one's chances of a fatal neck injury at speeds exceeding >13 mph, about the same impact at which helmets can no longer soak up >kinetic energy. For this reason, Dr. Charles Campbell, a Chicago >heart surgeon who performs more than 300 operations per year and >rides his dark-violet, chopped Harley Softail to work at Micheal >Reese Hospital, refuses to wear a helmet. "Your head may be saved," >says Campbell, " but your neck will be broken." > >John G. U. Adams, of University College, London, cites another reason >not to wear a helmet. He found that helmet wearing can lead to >excessive risk taking due to the unrealistic sense of invulnerability >that a motorcyclist feels when he dons a helmet. I called a local >(Massachusetts) Suzuki dealer, and told the salesman I was a first- >time buyer looking for something cheaper than the standard $15,000 >Harley. He said I could buy the GSXR 1300 for only $10,500, a bike >that could hit speeds in excess of 160 mph. He recommended that I >wear a helmet, even in non-helmet law states. Imagine: A novice on a >160 mph bike wearing a plastic hat that will reduce any impact by 14 >mph. It's like having sex with King Kong, but bringing a condom for >safety's sake. > >Why the enthusiasm for helmets? Mike Osborn, chairman of the >political action committee of California ABATE, says insurance >companies are big supporters of helmet laws, citing the 'public >burden' argument. That is, reckless bikers sans helmets are raising >everyone's car insurance rates by running headlong into plate-glass >windows and the like, sustaining expensive head injuries. > >Actually, it's true that bikers indirectly jack up the rates of car >drivers, but not for the reason you might think. Car drivers plow >over bikers at an alarming rate. According to the Second >International Congress on Automobile Safety, the car driver is at >fault in more than 70% of all car/motorcycle collisions. A typical >accident occurs when a motorist illegally makes a left turn into the >path of an oncoming motorcycle, turning the biker into an unwitting >hood ornament. In such cases, juries tend to award substantial >damages to the injured biker. Car insurance premiums go up. > >Osborn sees a hidden agenda. "They (the insurance companies) want to >get us off the road." Fewer bikes means fewer claims against car >drivers. Helmet laws do accomplish that goal, as evidenced by falling >motorcycle registrations in helmet law states. It is interesting to >note that carriers of motorcycle insurance do not complain about >their clients. Motorcycle liability insurance remains cheap. Osborn >pays only $125 per year for property damage and personal injury >liability because motorcycles cause little damage to others. > >Keith R. Ball was one of the pioneers of ABATE, its first manager in >1971 and later national director. What annoys him most is the >anecdotal approach taken by journalists who have a penchant for >reporting whenever the victim of a fatal motorcycle accident was NOT >wearing a helmet. When was the last time you saw a news item >mentioning that a dead biker was wearing a helmet? > >Which is not to say that Ball opposes helmets. He thinks anyone who >rides in a car should wear one. After all, he points out, head >injuries make up only 20% of serious injuries to motorcyclists, but >they account for 90% of all car injuries. If Ball's idea catches >hold, one day I suspect you'll see angry men stepping out of Volvos >with odd T-shirts beneath their tweed jackets. The T-shirts will >read... > > > >List sponsored by Dual Sport News at www.dualsportnews.com. List FAQ courtesy of Chris Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html >Unsubscribe by sending a blank message to: >DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . > > >Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > >

[takes2serious]

Mark raises sme very interesting points. Yet common sense indicates that surrounding your head with a cushion will help you reduce head injury. It is true that many accidents will kill you whether you wear a helmet or not. Just because your head is less damaged than it otherwise would have been doesn't mean that your other injuries won't be fatal. But I do not believe that helmets do not contribute to surviving motorcycle accidents. You have to look carefully at the statistical evidence. For example, just because a state has a helmet law doesn't mean that every motorcyclist involved in a fatal motorcycle accident was wearing a helmet. Some portion of helmet-law state fatalities were not wearing a helmet. Secondly, just because you are wearing a helmet, doesn't mean that helmet offers adequate protection. Many people in helmet-mandatory states wear helmets that barely meet the letter of the law, but offer inadequate protection. That's no reflection on properly designed helmets, and their fatalities skew the statistics. Consider racing. Why do they wear helmets? If it were true that helmets above 14 mph won't help someone survive a crash, then racers would be stupid to wear them. But, even if it weren't required by rule, I doubt you'd find any professional who would race without a helmet. Not to mention that not all crashes are blunt impact in nature. You may be traveling 70 miles per hour and wind up on the pavement. That long slide on the side of your face may not be life threatening, but it will certainly be appearance altering, sans a helmet.

[Lujo Bauer]

You might find flip-up helmets to your liking. When you're stopped, you can easily raise the front to get as much ventilation as a 3/4 helmet would give you. When you're moving, an open face shield should be enough for plenty of air to pass through. -Lujo Mark Lewis wrote:

> "Trust me, full face is the way to go, even if it is somewhat of an > inconvenience." > > In Florida, I'd rather quit riding, and I probabaly would before I'd > wear a full coverage. Just my opinion. Probably not a popular one.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[matteeanne@yahoo.com]

I hate my helmet, I hate helmets all together. However, that being said, 2 factors: 1.) Once I am off and running, I forget all about it 2.) Without it, you stand no chance. A broken leg can be fixed... I hate to seem like an idiot, but I dont know how to start a new thread here (But am capable of creating a new thread on the puget sound klr mirror site? Maybe someone can advise, or start a new thread for me. I am wondering, has anyone tried to improve the Aerodynamics of the front fender (Other than lowering) to minimize buffeting? Perhaps a boeing engineer could create a small set of wings to stablize the fender in a gust? Also, in my tiny little brain, it seems like it would be simple to design a set of plastic flaps to install on a set of nerf bars, that you could deploy in bad rain or extreme cold to reduce leg exposure? --- Mark Lewis wrote:

> "Trust me, full face is the way to go, even if it is > somewhat of an > inconvenience." > > In Florida, I'd rather quit riding, and I probabaly > would before I'd > wear a full coverage. Just my opinion. Probably > not a popular one. > > > > > List sponsored by Dual Sport News at > www.dualsportnews.com. List FAQ courtesy of Chris > Krok at: www.bigcee.com/klr650faq.html > Unsubscribe by sending a blank message to: > DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com . > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > DSN_klr650-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > >

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Domains Claim yours for only $14.70/year http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer

[Mark Lewis]

"They lost me when they started saying an AK-47 is a valid and useful tool for hunting deer." The second ammendment wasn't/isn't about hunting. It was/is about the right to own weapons that were/are suitable for the militia. The militia had to provide their own arms to defend the country against tyrants (King George in that day). They were always quasi-military weapons. I support the right of the people to "keep and bear arms". I support the right to choose wheater to wear a helmet or not. I wear one and I love "assult rifles." Mark Lewis