Seats belts

Story in Tribune. Teens encourge seat belt use. One 17 year old dies after hitting pole at 80 mph.

Seat belts? Maybe excessive speed is the danger. Let's see, I go 40 mph I don't need a seat belt. Over 60 I need a seat belt and a roll cage.

For goodness sake slow down when passing poles.

Reply to
Robot dj
Loading thread data ...

"Robot dj" wrote

You are not well informed. A crash with 40mph, even with a seat belt, is a severe one! To give you an idea of such an impact: Motorcycle helmets (DOT

218) are tested to limits of less then 20mph impact speed!
Reply to
Herb Ludwig

Nothing dangerous about passing a pole at 80 MPH. Hitting a pole at 80 mph, or even 40 MPH, now that is another story. Belt or no belt, your dead. ;)

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

That is what most people, who do not drive a bike, do not understand about optional helmet laws. They erroneously assume a helmet is always advantages. When driving in slower traffic a helmet may save one life, but at interstate speeds the question becomes moot. If one goes off a bike at high speed while not wearing a helmet he will crack his skull. With a helmet he will break his neck, the result is the same. Anybody who rides knows the most important thing to do is AVOID a crash, since what my result in a bent fender to one in a car, can kill if one is on a bike. Driveling without a helmet my prevent one from having an accident because of the restrictions to hearing and sight when wearing one. The option should be available to the rider

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

"Mike Hunter" wrote

Actual speed when crashing, doesn't necessarily worsen the lot of the biker. The impact upon hitting the road is the same, if it happens at a speed of 20mph or at 60mph! As per physical laws, the height of the fall (and not the speed) is determening the severity of the impact. Of course, "road rash" abrasions of the skin may be a different story.

Agreed

without a helmet my prevent one from having an accident because of the

No, no, there are too many studies clearly showing that a) no accident increases because of (imagined) loss of hearing or sight b) Even cheap helmets do a pretty good job and are much better then none!

Agreed

Herb

Reply to
Herb Ludwig

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I beg to disagree. A rider without a helmet or an auto driver without seat belts should have one of two things in his possession....either a certified letter allowing the paramedics to leave him by the side of the road dying or dead, or at least a $1 million health care insurance policy which may at least partially pay for his care (as a possible vegetable) until his death. Taxpayers are awfully tired of paying for someone's care until death when that someone has not taken the basic two steps of having a helmet (if a motorcycle) or seat belts in an automobile. If they want to play the fool by ignoring these well-known aids to survival, don't make a bunch of more intelligent taxpayers come to their rescue.

Reply to
mack

"mack" wrote

Our differences here are of philosophical and economical nature. Granted, only a fool would ride without a helmet or drive without a seat belt. However, I believe also that we need to keep an ever more intrusive Government out of micro-managing our lives. By preventing us to be fools at times and bear the consequences of our actions and non-actions, we, as a people, will loose the the will and ability over time to be responsible and self-governing. As to the argument of economics and the taxpayers having to pay for the motorcyclists injuries, this will not hold up well upon reflection. Head injuries of car drivers in any given year outnumber motorcycle injuries more than 10-fold! Many head injuries and deaths of these car drivers could be prevented by having a mandatory helmet law for evey car driver and passenger. From a taxpayers point of view and because of the much greater number of cars on the road, this measure would be much more effective than applying it to the comparatively small number of bike riders. Be careful what you ask for. The golden rule still applies! :-))

Reply to
Herb Ludwig

That may be your opinion but that is why I premised my post by saying 'That is what most people, who do not drive a bike, do not understand about optional helmet laws.' An accident may be avoided. Do a bit of research and I'm sure you will discover the majority of those with extensive care, paid for by public funds, were wearing a helmet or were traveling at slower speeds while not wearing a helmet. At least that was some of the information presented to the state of Pennsylvania, when it decided to make it optional.

Furthermore there has been a DROP in the RATE of head injuries in the state since the change, and no demonstrable effect on the number, from not wearing a helmet. There is however a demonstrable effect vis a v seat belts use in automobiles. Further more statistically if the passengers in automobiles wore helmets, the number of head injures would be reduced remarkable, since far more head injuries occur in automobile accidents than in motorcycle accidents. ;)

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Mike, I know your above post was a response to Mack's post. However, I have to take issue with your claim of a drop in the rate of accidents after helmet wearing became optional in Pennsylvania. This seems to be contradicted by the statistics as e.g. published by the Philadelphia Inquirer on June 29, 2006:

formatting link
(click on link for full article):"HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania motorcyclists have suffered severe head injuries at a dramatically increased clip since the state's helmet law was repealed in 2003. In the last two years, nearly twice as many riders have landed in trauma centers with major head injuries than in the two years preceding the repeal, according to a legislative report released yesterday. Even when adjusted for a spike in motorcycle registrations since 2001, the rate of major head injuries still went up by 55 percent.And most of those head-injured riders - 62 percent - were riding without helmets, the study reported.

"It's time to stop the body count," said Alex Rosenau, president of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians. "It's time to reduce the suffering of the families. And it's definitely time to reinstate the mandatory helmet law."

In September 2003, Pennsylvania joined the 30 states that do not require helmets of all motorcyclists. Anyone over 21 who has held a motorcycle license for two years or who has completed a special safety course is free to ride unprotected."

Reply to
Herb Ludwig

Hear hear!!!...bigtime too!!!...truer words have not yet been uttered...nor even invented...

This is precisely what gets my goat, some loudmouth lout braying that he thinks it's stoopit to use these safety precautions yet hasn't the mental fortitude or consideration for others to think what the aftermaths of his stupidity can do to the rest of the driving public's wallet.

Reply to
Gord Beaman

An even bigger weapon might be for all insurance companies to advertise that they will not be held responsible for damages suffered by a driver who has not provided (and used) the basic safety equipment that the vehicle was equipped with (at birth)...DRL's, Safety Inspections, Belts, Bags etc.

To make it fair, the 'damage' must have been caused by an event that the particular safety equipment was designed to alleviate.

Reply to
Gord Beaman

Of course there is Mike...but that statistic doesn't cut much mustard does it...quoting that kind of thing is rather silly, it's like saying automobiles are extremely dangerous because tens of thousands of people are killed in cars while only a very few are killed while riding white donkeys in New York City.

Reply to
Gord Beaman

As far back as 1974, my car insurer (in UK) set a condition that payouts to an injured occupant would be halved if he/she had not been using a belt. This was before UK law made use mandatory for all but narrowly defined kinds of people (see relevant statute).

Anyone who could use a belt but won't is a total prat. Kids in a snit behave that way: "I'm gonna get myself killed 'cos mommy sez I musn't! Yah-boo to mommy!"

Reply to
Andrew Stephenson

Do you REALLY want to get into this again? ;-)

Reply to
Scott in Florida

What I said was the RATE not the number. That article is not correct the number is up but not the RATE. Since the number of motorcycle riders in Pa has increased the RATE per hundred is down, according to Pa DOT.

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Motorcycle owners in Pa are not cover buy the Pa. no fault insurance law. A cycle driver can not even buy medical coverage for themselves. Only the passenger is covered by the owners liability insurance

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Perhaps be there is law requiring donkey riders to were a belt. ;)

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

"Mike Hunter" wrote

Mike, the Philadelphia Inquirer article refers to the RATE . The PA Legislative Committee says the RATE is way up. You alone claim the rate is down, but you have shown no proof of that and can only point to an undocumented "according to Pa DOT". The following numbers, just published by the PA Legislative Committee, clearly establish that the RATE is up. Since they are based on head injuries per 10,000 registrations, the increase in riders in PA is reflected and the result leaves very little wiggle room! "In 2001-02, the study found, 269 motorcyclists were admitted to trauma centers with "serious, severe or critical" head injuries. In 2004-05, that increased to 530.That amounted to 5.6 major head injuries per 10,000 registrations in the two years before the repeal. In the two years after the repeal, that rose to 8.7 injuries per 10,000 registrations."

Simple math will tell you that this documents an increase of head injuries per 10,000 riders of more than 55% after the helmet law was repealed

Reply to
Herb Ludwig

The Dims? ;-)

Reply to
Scott in Florida

Pretty forward thinking country I'd say...

Yes...the cutting edge of most teeny boppers brains are an awesome thing to contemplate indeed...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.