Anti-helmet groups funded by organ banks

[snopes]

Comment: Here's a story I had not heard before and could not find in the
Snopes archive. An acquaintance claims that a few years back he read in a
paper, possibly the LA Times, that the groups who lobby state legislatures
to defeat mandatory helmet laws for motorcyclists are funded by organ
donor banks, because motorcycle accident victims tend to die of head
injuries and thus make great organ donors. More helmet wearers means fewer
organ donors.

[Jay Temple]

If they're not, they should be.

[diddy]

The only way they would make good organ donors would be if they specified that is what they wanted to use their organs for (the code on your drivers licenses). My bet is the amount of people who make that decision are just as likely riding in cars as they are on bikes.

My BIL calls bikers without helmets, "Mobile organ donor units".

a non profit organization made up of cycle riders, I have never heard ABATE taking money from business. Besides the fact that most cycle deaths are not head injury related but from internal injuries or neck injuries, most neck injuries are caused by paramedics trying to remove helmets. Most common cycle accident injuries are to the legs and arms. Funny thing was ABATE once asked someone from Bell helmet to put a helmet on and let him hit the guy in the head with a sledge hammer, which is about the same force as hitting your head on pavement after a spill at 35 mph. The guy from Bell helmet declined the offer. But then if anyone would check out facts, they would learn that helmets are most effective at speeds under 30 mph. Another little fact, Bell helmet recommends that any time you drop the helmet you should either replace the helmet or send it back to Bell to have it x-rayed to see if the helmet hitting the ground caused hair line fractures in the helmet.

[Il-Mari]

Originally Posted by mrcheerful

Funny thing was ABATE once asked someone from Bell helmet to put a helmet on and let him hit the guy in the head with a sledge hammer, which is about the same force as hitting your head on pavement after a spill at 35 mph. The guy from Bell helmet declined the offer.

Yeah, it's mighty suspicious that he didn't want to get hit in the head with a sledge hammer. After all, I assume that people who make bullet proof vests regularly volunteer to getting shot in order to prove their effectiveness.

- Il-Mari

Btw, I can't blame the guy really, when the ABATE guy hit a helmet with the sledge hammer, the helmet failed. My point is, being an alert rider and knowing how to take a spill saves more lives then helmets. Cycle deaths are caused mainly by 2 things, speed and inexperince. My experince is 35 + years of on the road riding, in the 80's I was logging over 10,000 miles a year on cycles, thats a lot of miles for a Michigan rider. Rain is bad snow is worse. Yes, I been caught in winter snow storms while out riding in late fall or early spring. Trick is, stay out of car tracks. Another trick is, when sitting at a red light or stop sign do not sit with the brake on, rather engage the brake pedal enough so the brake light is on. That way if your struck from behind, you will roll from the impact instead of getting knocked over.

Another trick is always leave yourself an out, the best way to avoid an accident is by using the cycles abilities of being able to manuever quickly. Watch your speed just because the cycle can do 100+ mph and the road has a speed limit of 70 mph doesn't mean you have to go at the speend limit. The faster you go the more stress you put on your body, the less time you have to react to a situation and the more braking distance you need to stop the cycle.

Remember a helmet won't prevent an accident all a helmet will do is protect your head from being split open from striking the ground during a fall. Helmets are only good after you fall they will not protect you from a fall.

[Eddylizard]

Would a sledgehammer be a fair test though? With a sledgehammer, the force is concentrated on a much smaller area than the same force applied to the helmet hitting the road or an oncoming vehicle. Apply a stilletto type dagger to the soft parts of a person using a small amount of force it will go right in. Apply the same force using a plate like object (such as a plate) flat side forwards and they'll hardly notice it.

Yes all safety devices can increase the risk under certain circumstances. Those circumstances happen less frequently, than the circumstances in which they prove to be a safety aid.

If I plough my car into a brick wall at 110 mph, then no combination of seat belts and airbag is probably going to save me. If some numpty ploughs into me head on at a combined speed of 60 mpg which is more likely to happen, then I've got a chance.

You can be the finest driver or motorcyclist in the world and there are good tips for safe driving/riding. Not everyone takes regard of them, and you have to be prepared for the fact that the other idiot on the road will catch you out.

Now why do builders wear safety helmets? Yes that falling piece of masonry could hit them on the leg or abdomen, causing massive blood loss, internal injuries, shock and death before paramedics arrive. The head however is the most vulnerable part of the body. Body trauma - often but not always fixable. Head trauma - usually very bad. Come to think of it, why do F1 drivers wear helmets (except to hold their radio gear) ? Why do TT riders wear helmets? Just to look cool, and have a little extra space for some advertising?

I also find it contentious the statement that paramedics are killing or paralyzing motorcyclists by removing their helmets in an inappropriate fashion. I think the protocols for dealing with and stabilising potential cervical trauma victims are fairly well established, and are revised if any new knowledge comes to light.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Il-Mari

Yeah, it's mighty suspicious that he didn't want to get hit in the head with a sledge hammer. After all, I assume that people who make bullet proof vests regularly volunteer to getting shot in order to prove their effectiveness.

- Il-Mari

I did one see a picture in a book, where they were demostrating the effectiveness of bulletproof glass. One guy was on one side of a pane of glass about 30 feet away with a rifle, and the other guy was sat behind the glass panel (you could make out three marks on the glass from bullets that hadn't penetrated.)

I think if that was my job, I'd volunteer to be the guy with the rifle.

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Would a sledgehammer be a fair test though? With a sledgehammer, the force is concentrated on a much smaller area than the same force applied to the helmet hitting the road or an oncoming vehicle. Apply a stilletto type dagger to the soft parts of a person using a small amount of force it will go right in. Apply the same force using a plate like object (such as a plate) flat side forwards and they'll hardly notice it.

Yes all safety devices can increase the risk under certain circumstances. Those circumstances happen less frequently, than the circumstances in which they prove to be a safety aid.

If I plough my car into a brick wall at 110 mph, then no combination of seat belts and airbag is probably going to save me. If some numpty ploughs into me head on at a combined speed of 60 mpg which is more likely to happen, then I've got a chance.

You can be the finest driver or motorcyclist in the world and there are good tips for safe driving/riding. Not everyone takes regard of them, and you have to be prepared for the fact that the other idiot on the road will catch you out.

Now why do builders wear safety helmets? Yes that falling piece of masonry could hit them on the leg or abdomen, causing massive blood loss, internal injuries, shock and death before paramedics arrive. The head however is the most vulnerable part of the body. Body trauma - often but not always fixable. Head trauma - usually very bad. Come to think of it, why do F1 drivers wear helmets (except to hold their radio gear) ? Why do TT riders wear helmets? Just to look cool, and have a little extra space for some advertising?

I also find it contentious the statement that paramedics are killing or paralyzing motorcyclists by removing their helmets in an inappropriate fashion. I think the protocols for dealing with and stabilising potential cervical trauma victims are fairly well established, and are revised if any new knowledge comes to light.

Only one state has a law about helmet removal, Floridia. The major problem with helmet removal is the fact that it pulls on the neck when you take it off. If you have worn a helmet you would know that. I wear the type of helmet that covers the top of the head, mainly because they are lighter and once the chin strap is released it requires no effort to remove. Also theres less strain on the neck during long distance rides. Even with a "shorty" you feel your neck stressing after an hour or so depending on speed and wind conditions. Having survived both a head on with a car at 35 mph and a T-bone with a car at 35mph I think I understand a bit more then someone who has never done either or has only took a spill. By the way the impact area of a helmet hitting the pavement is the same as the helmet being hit with a hammer. The whole helmet doesn't strike the ground, just a small area about the size of a quarter. Just drop a helmet on pavement and you'll see the amount of damage is in a very small spot. That is because of the shape of the helmet, a rounded object has less striking area then a flat surface. So the concentration of force on a rounded object is greater at the point of impact. Think of it this way, when you strike a rounded object with a flat object, the rounded object will flatten where as the flat object remains the same shape.

Btw, the paramedic's that removed my helmet in both accidents made the comment that they didn't have to tug to get the helmet off, I just released the chin strap and it came off in their hands. What amazed them even more was that I was a city block from where the accidents happened yet had no road burns and I was wearing T-shirt and jeans at the time, I rolled instead of slide on the pavement. Something I learned to do over the years of riding. In fact theres a motorcycle riding school that teachs what is called the tuck and roll procedure in order to prepare the inexperinced rider what to do when he finds himself in an accident. They also teach the stand and launch when striking an object like a car. You stand on the foot pegs and when the car impacts you go up and over instead of smashing into the object with the cycle.

These are safety procedures that can save your life, depending on the type of accident. Remember speed plays a big part in depending on your living or dying in an accident, the more speed the less likely you are to survive. Bottom line is if you don't want to risk your life then stay off cycles, no matter how many safety devices or experince you use theres none that will make you 100% safe from harm or death. Indian Larry should have driven that point home to all when he was killed doing a stunt he had done a 1,000 times before. Also remember Dale SR who died because his helmet snapped his neck after a crash on the race track. Which is why NASCAR made it mandatory for all drivers to have a helmet restraining strap in race cars.

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

I did one see a picture in a book, where they were demostrating the effectiveness of bulletproof glass. One guy was on one side of a pane of glass about 30 feet away with a rifle, and the other guy was sat behind the glass panel (you could make out three marks on the glass from bullets that hadn't penetrated.)

I think if that was my job, I'd volunteer to be the guy with the rifle.

The inventer of the bullet proof vest did the same to demostrate that the vest worked to police.

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Would a sledgehammer be a fair test though? With a sledgehammer, the force is concentrated on a much smaller area than the same force applied to the helmet hitting the road or an oncoming vehicle. Apply a stilletto type dagger to the soft parts of a person using a small amount of force it will go right in. Apply the same force using a plate like object (such as a plate) flat side forwards and they'll hardly notice it.

Yes all safety devices can increase the risk under certain circumstances. Those circumstances happen less frequently, than the circumstances in which they prove to be a safety aid.

If I plough my car into a brick wall at 110 mph, then no combination of seat belts and airbag is probably going to save me. If some numpty ploughs into me head on at a combined speed of 60 mpg which is more likely to happen, then I've got a chance.

You can be the finest driver or motorcyclist in the world and there are good tips for safe driving/riding. Not everyone takes regard of them, and you have to be prepared for the fact that the other idiot on the road will catch you out.

Now why do builders wear safety helmets? Yes that falling piece of masonry could hit them on the leg or abdomen, causing massive blood loss, internal injuries, shock and death before paramedics arrive. The head however is the most vulnerable part of the body. Body trauma - often but not always fixable. Head trauma - usually very bad. Come to think of it, why do F1 drivers wear helmets (except to hold their radio gear) ? Why do TT riders wear helmets? Just to look cool, and have a little extra space for some advertising?

I also find it contentious the statement that paramedics are killing or paralyzing motorcyclists by removing their helmets in an inappropriate fashion. I think the protocols for dealing with and stabilising potential cervical trauma victims are fairly well established, and are revised if any new knowledge comes to light.

Thank you for debating instead of just say my beliefs are the only right beliefs. I enjoyed it, btw I think I should add that NASCAR and other type of racing has recognized the danger helmets pose, That of the helmets tendency to snap a persons neck from the weight of the helmet during an accident.

[Il-Mari]

Originally Posted by mrcheerful

Remember a helmet won't prevent an accident all a helmet will do is protect your head from being split open from striking the ground during a fall. Helmets are only good after you fall they will not protect you from a fall.

Except that they also make you more visible to other drivers, reducing the chance that you'll get into an accident in the first place.

Also consider some of the conclusions of this study of 900 motorcycle accidents in California from the early 80's:

15. The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.

16. The typical motorcycle pre-crash lines-of-sight to the traffic hazard portray no contribution of the limits of peripheral vision; more than three-fourths of all accident hazards are within 45deg of either side of straight ahead.

41. Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection.

46. Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.

48. Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.

49. The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.

50. There is not liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury.

51. Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.

http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~john/vfr/hurt.html

Similarly:

Motorcycle Deaths, Injuries Increase in Texas, Arkansas Follwing Helmet Law Repeal

Motorcycle deaths and injuries increased following the repeal of mandatory helmet laws in Texas and Arkansas, according to a new study by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

"Helmets help protect motorcycle riders from head injury in a crash, and this data demonstrates once again the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets," U.S. Transportation Secretary Rodney E. Slater said. "Helmet laws increase use of motorcycle helmets and thus improve safety, which is President Clinton and Vice President Gore’s highest transportation priority."

The mandatory helmet law was repealed in Arkansas on Aug. 1, 1997, and Texas’ law was rescinded on Sept. 1, 1997. Both states had helmet use rates of 97 percent before the laws were repealed. By May 1998, helmet use dropped to 52 percent in Arkansas, 66 percent in Texas.

"If you ride a motorcycle, here’s some simple life-saving advice: Always wear protective gear, including a helmet," said NHTSA Administrator Sue Bailey, M.D.

In Arkansas, motorcycle fatalities rose 21 percent in the first full year following repeal, while deaths rose by 31 percent in Texas during the same time period.

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa4100.htm

You also seem to forget that when they add the numbers up they do not seperate helmet vs helmetless riders. All motorcycle deaths are lumped together. The same for cars, they do not seperate seatbelt vs no seatbelt deaths. They just report that the number of deaths rose after helmet laws were repelled or seatbelt laws were repelled. Its an old trick the government uses to get safety law support.

I find it somewhat amusing how everyone that insists the government can't be trusted With anything then turns around and say the government can be trusted with issues that they agree with the government on. I never rely on government statistics for the main fact is statistics can and are manipulated to prove the government is right.

The problem is numbers don't lie 2+2 = 4 is a given right? But what is going on with statistics is there are many ways to manipulate the numbers to equal the number the person doing the statistics want. One such way is by saying that death rates increase or decrease before or after a safety law is passed or repelled. The reality is death numbers from accidents are never consistant. They change year from year reguardless of safety devices. Remember motorcycle accidents were supposed to go down when you use a headlight 24/7. Yet have they?

Some years more people die in accidents without safety devices in other years the number rises for those using safety devices. The same tricks are used to figure out GDP, unemployment ect ect ect. Remember also the miles a person drives and the amount of people on the road also changes from year to year. Just because government statistics say doesn't mean it reflects what is going on out on the road.

Heres a interesting fact for you. Did you know more motorcycle vs car accidents happen on clear sunny days with no road hazards? Yet the danger on wet roads is greater and night riding is too. They credit that to here being more cycles on the road during good driving conditions yet ignore the fact that other drivers do not expect cycles to be on the road when driving conditions are bad. So the risk should be greater on bad days then good.

[Stoneage Dinosaur]

Originally Posted by mrcheerful

Just because government statistics say doesn't mean it reflects what is going on out on the road.

In that case how can you believe any accident statistics from anywhere? Any figures given by those who are anti-helmet law are certainly going to be biased the other way. In fact, if the statistics are so easily manipulated then should we be taking your posts on the topic with a grain of salt?

Did you know more motorcycle vs car accidents happen on clear sunny days with no road hazards? Yet the danger on wet roads is greater and night riding is too. They credit that to here being more cycles on the road during good driving conditions yet ignore the fact that other drivers do not expect cycles to be on the road when driving conditions are bad. So the risk should be greater on bad days then good.

I don't see any contradiction here. Also, according to Il-Mari's first link above, the risk may not actually be greater in wet or dark conditions: "The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision."

I drive a full size Ford F-150 Van. Its rather large, every day I have people pull out in front of me then claim they didn't see the van. Again you also fail to notice one small little fact, drivers claim they didn't see the cycle.

Excuse me but wouldn't better educated drivers save more lives then helmets? See thats where the argument falls apart, cars kill and injure cyclist so to protect the cyclists we will make them wear helmets and do nothing to the drivers of cars to insure better driving habits ending in less accidents.

So exactlly how are helmets saving lives when nothing is done to stop the problem, which is bad drivers? That is the kind of thinking that gave people the bright ideal that to stop teens getting pregnant all they had to do was stop them from having sex. Even with B.C. all you end up doing is slow down the number of teens getting pregnant.

Now educating teens on sex works far better. So the answer to the problem is education. Same with driving, holding drivers responsible for their actions and giving them the tools they need to make them better drivers will save a lot more lives then all the safety devices man can invent. Even then you will have death and injuries. One thing about life everyone should accept, no one gets out of life alive.

By the way I never put any statistics in my posts. I used facts and my personal experinces. For one I have done enough metal work to know hitting a round obect with a flat surface always ends in the same way, the round object ends up flat. As far as what the paramedics and I said about shorties being easier to get off your skull then a full or full face helmet are very easy to test for yourself, just go to your nearest cycle shop and put helmets on and see which one comes off with the least amount of effort.

[Eddylizard]

Yes better educated drivers would save lives. In fact if all drivers were perfectly educated and applied their training to every situation, there is a possibility that no-one will die on the roads. It isn't going to happen is it?

As long as I can remember we have been educated concerning the fact that a bike is a much smaller visual target than a four-wheeled vehicle, and to take extra care to look out for them. here is the latest TV campaign, which has been running for a while. For some people it doesn't sink in, so option two is to use protective gear so that when some fool wrongfoots you, you have a better chance of survival.

Don't get me wrong, I use safety devices as well as every once of skill and experince i have. I find that even when I am out in the van that I use the very same driving tactics that I use on the cycle, trust me when your driving a 30 year old 4,600 pound vehicle with drum brakes, you have to be on your toes when that idiot with a cell phone stuck to the side of his head runs the light. My S.O. used to be upset because while out and about I am aware of everything going on around me, she would yack away, then get a huh from me and I always have an emergency out of most situations. I avoid driving in packs too.

Btw, not to brag or anything but I have had 5 cars hit me while on my cycle. The only one that screwed me up was when the woman crossed 5 lanes of traffic and T-Boned me. The only injuries I got were from her impacting my cycle. My left foot was crushed from the ankle down plus 2 toes were ripped off. All I can say is I was glad that the accident happened after 25+years of experince. If it had happened back when I was a teen first starting out, I wouldn't be here ranting.

[Meka]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Yes better educated drivers would save lives. In fact if all drivers were perfectly educated and applied their training to every situation, there is a possibility that no-one will die on the roads. It isn't going to happen is it?

As long as I can remember we have been educated concerning the fact that a bike is a much smaller visual target than a four-wheeled vehicle, and to take extra care to look out for them. here is the latest TV campaign, which has been running for a while. For some people it doesn't sink in, so option two is to use protective gear so that when some fool wrongfoots you, you have a better chance of survival.

I think there's an element of "lesser of two evils" involved here. When the choice for a legislative body is between mandating protective equipment X and upping the standards to obtain or renew a license, they're likely to opt for the former, even though it may be less effective. Why? Because it doesn't involve half their constituents failing their license tests - and woe to the politician who interferes with their constituents' supposed DOYC-given right to be roadway menaces...

[Eddylizard]

Well even if you raise the bar for getting a driving licence, it really doesn't count for much once the examiner has put that pass slip in your hand - now you're good to go until you're 70 unless you get caught, and you can ignore half of what you learned. I'm sure any of us who drive on a regular basis have often witnessed behaviour that would be a failure even on the current test.