Helmet use 'studies'

[PeteSC]

I'll take my chances with a helmet!


http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/goldstein/goldstein2.html

The Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use on the Probability of Fatality and the Severity of Head And Neck Injuries
Highlights of Helmet Effectiveness Study

Jonathan P. Goldstein, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, Maine 04011


This article evaluates the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets in accident situations. A latent variable model is developed and estimated. It is concluded that (1) motorcycle helmets have no statistically significant effect on the probability of fatality; (2) helmets reduce the severity of head injuries; and (3) past a critical impact speed [13 MPH], helmets increase the severity of neck injuries. Further analysis establishes the qualitative and quantitative nature of the head-neck injury trade-off.

Methodology

1. This study employs standard statistical techniques (regression analysis) to isolate the main determinants of death and injury severity resulting from motorcycle accidents.

2. The data analyzed in this study were provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation and originally collected by Hurt et al. (1981), contract No. DOT HS-5-01160. These data are currently recognized as the most accurate and detailed available on motorcycle accidents (See pp. 11-12).

3. The effectiveness of helmets and other determinants of death and injury severity are estimated from a causal model. Three variants of one causal model are used to isolate the determinants of: (1) the probability of a fatality; (2) the severity of head injuries; and (3) the severity of neck injuries.

4. The use of a causal model distinguishes the research methodology of this study from previous studies. The advantage of this approach lies in the ability to estimate the separate effects of several simultaneous and interrelated causes of motorcycle fatalities and injury severities (pp. 2-4). Previous studies simply divide accident victims into a helmeted group and non-helmeted group. As a result all differences in fatality rates, injury rates and injury severities between groups are erroneously attributed to helmet use. These comparisons fail to consider other differences between helmet users and non-users which influence the probability of death and the severity of injuries. The most plausible hypothesis is that helmeted riders are more risk-averse and thus: (1) have lower pre-crash and thus crash speeds; and (2) are less likely to combine alcohol consumption and driving. Such behavior, rather than helmet use per se, may dramatically reduce the probability of fatality or the severity of an injury. Only a causal model that considers crash speed, helmet use, alcohol use and other pertinent variables can isolate the separate contribution of each determinant of the severity of injury or probability of death.

Causal Model (pp. 4-8)

1. The causal model considers three broad categories of the causes of death and injury severity. These include factors governed by the laws of physics, physiological factors. and human factors and operator characteristics.

2. The physical factors considered include: the kinetic energy (potential for bodily damage) transferred to the motorcycle operator by the impact, compressibility of the impacted object, helmet use, and possible engineering limitations of helmets (as affected by the impact speed that the helmet is subjected to in the crash).

3. The physiological factors considered include: operator's age, blood alcohol level, drug involvement, and permanent physiological impairment.

4. The human factors and operator characteristics considered include: rider on-road experience, whether the operator had taken the correct evasive action for the particular accident situation, driver training, and the operator's past accident and violation histories.

5. Numerous other determinants were also considered.


Results (pp. 13-18)

1. Helmets are shown to have no statistically significant effect on the probability of a fatality given that a motorcycle accident has occurred. This means that based on standard statistical tests we cannot reject the claim that helmets do not affect the probability that a rider will survive a motorcycle accident.

2. The major determinants of fatality are the rider's crash speed (kinetic energy) and blood alcohol level.

3. For the average rider involved in the average accident, it is found that the probability of death increases from 2.1% to 11.3% when the rider's blood alcohol level increases from 0.0 to 0.1 (from sober to legally intoxicated in most states).

4. In the same vein, an increase in the crash speed from 40 to 60 mph increases the probability of death from 7.1% to 36.3%

5. It is found that helmets have a statistically significant effect in reducing head injury severity. We can reject the hypothesis that helmets have no effect on head injuries in favor of the claim that they reduce head injuries.

6. It is shown that past a critical impact velocity to the helmet (approximately 13 mph), helmet use has a statistically significant effect which increases the severity of neck injuries. Thus we reject the claim that, helmets have no effect on neck injuries in favor of the claim that, past a critical impact speed, they exacerbate neck injuries.

7. As a result of (5) and (6), we establish that a tradeoff between head and neck injuries confronts a potential helmet user. Past a critical impact speed to the helmet (13 mph), which is likely to occur in real life accident situations helmet use reduces the severity of head injuries at the expense of increasing the severity of neck injuries.

8. Further statistical tests reveal the qualitative nature of this tradeoff. It is shown that an individual who wears a helmet and experiences an impact velocity to the head greater than 13 mph may avoid either severe or minor head injuries and incur either severe or minor neck injuries; all permutations of the tradeoff are equally likely to occur.

Policy Implications (pp. 18-20)

1. If a major concern of policy makers is the prevention of fatalities, helmet legislation may not be effective in achieving that objective.

2. If the overall cost to society of motorcycle accidents is the issue, then cost-benefit analyses that adequately consider the tradeoff between head and neck injuries must be conducted before the cost effectiveness of helmets can be determined.

3. Until the injury tradeoff issue is more carefully studied, it cannot be concluded that mandatory helmet use laws are an effective method to eradicate the slaughter and maiming, of individuals involved in motorcycle accidents.

4. A more effective policy approach would be two pronged, including both policies to prevent accidents and policies that effectively reduce the probability of death and the severity of injuries.

5. Policies to prevent accidents include: (1) the education of the general driving public; (2) the education of a younger and more inexperienced population of motorcyclists on the issues of accident avoidance and the proper use and control of high horsepower machines: (3) stricter enforcement of drunk driving laws; and (4) implementation of alcohol awareness programs.

6. Policies to reduce death and injury severity include: stricter enforcement of speed limits. the alcohol related policies suggested in (5) and mandatory driver training and education programs which emphasize the proper execution of evasive action.

[PeteSC]

http://www.jtrauma.com/pt/re/jtrauma/abstract.00005373-199506000-00008.htm;jsessionid=CZY1uTwOOzRvgWjXrB2LH8Y9jp3iFDgYhlOFV43EaUHAe86AU21r!-4782852!-949856032!9001!-1

Craniofacial Trauma in Injured Motorcyclists: The Impact of Helmet Usage.
Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care. 38(6):876-878, June 1995.
Johnson, R. Michael MD; McCarthy, Mary C. MD, FACS; Miller, Sidney F. MD, FACS; Peoples, James B. MD, FACS
Abstract:
Helmets are effective in decreasing maxillofacial trauma in motorcycle crashes. The impact, however, of motorcycle crashes on the location and patterns of craniofacial injuries among helmeted versus unhelmeted patients has not been examined. In the present study, 331 injured motorcyclists were evaluated to compare the incidence of craniofacial and spinal injury in 77 (23%) helmeted and 254 (77%) nonhelmeted patients. Nonhelmeted motorcyclists were three times more likely to suffer facial fractures (5.2% vs. 16.1%) than those wearing helmets (p < 0.01). Skull fracture occurred in only one helmeted patient (1.2%), compared with 36 (12.3%) of nonhelmeted patients (p less than or equal to 0.01). The incidence of spinal injury was not significantly different between the two groups. Blood alcohol levels demonstrated that 12% of the helmeted group were legally intoxicated (blood alcohol level > 100 mg/dL), in contrast to 37.9% of the nonhelmeted motorcyclists (p less than or equal to 0.01). Failure to wear a helmet resulted in a significantly higher incidence of craniofacial injury among patients involved in motorcycle crashes, but did not affect spinal injury or mortality. Alcohol usage seemed to correlate with failure to use helmets. Helmet use should be legally mandated on a national level for all motorcyclists.

(C) Williams & Wilkins 1995. All Rights Reserved.

[PeteSC]

Are Fractures of the Base of the Skull Influenced by the Mass of the Protective Helmet? A Retrospective Study in Fatally Injured Motorcyclists.
Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care. 41(5):854-858, November 1996.
Konrad, Ch. J. MD; Fieber, T. S. MD; Schuepfer, G. K. MD, MBA HSG; Gerber, H. R. MD
Abstract:
Study Hypothesis: Information on the influence of the mass of the helmet on the pattern of head injuries suffered by motorcyclists involved in collisions is scarce. This study was undertaken to verify a possible connection between the weight of the helmet worn and the occurrence of a ring fracture of the base of the skull surrounding the foramen magnum.

Design: One hundred twenty-two fatally injured motorcyclists were studied retrospectively. In all cases, an autopsy had been performed. Data, including the autopsy report, were obtained from official police files. All helmets were studied in a technical laboratory. Statistical tests were performed using ANOVA, Fisher's exact test, Student's t test, and the chi sup 2 test. A p < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: The overall incidence of this type of injury was 9.2%. There was a positive correlation between the incidence of complete or partial circular fractures of the base of the skull and the weight of the involved helmet. There was a significant increase (p = 0.012) in the incidence of this type of fracture when the helmet weighed more than 1,500 grams. An increase in the dynamic active mass caused by the combination of head and helmet leads to a supramaximal stress load during a collision, resulting in such injuries.

Conclusions: In accidents with axial load shift, helmets weighing more than 1,500 grams increase the risk of a basal skull fracture. Therefore high-weight helmets should be avoided.

(C) Williams & Wilkins 1996. All Rights Reserved.

[PeteSC]

Head Injuries Associated with Motorcycle Use -- Wisconsin, 1991
From 1989 through 1991, a total of 9913 persons in the United States died as a result of crashes while operating or riding motorcycles (1). Although use of motorcycle helmets is an effective means for preventing crash-related fatal injuries (2), 25 states and the District of Columbia have not yet enacted laws requiring the universal use of motorcycle helmets (1). This report describes a study by the University of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation in which linked police reports and hospital discharge records for 1991 were used to assess the risk for head injury for motorcyclists in motor-vehicle crashes, the initial inpatient hospital charges for motorcyclists with head injuries resulting from crashes, and the reduction in injuries and fatalities associated with universal helmet use.

For this report, motorcyclists were defined as persons who were operating or riding as a passenger on a motorcycle. Wisconsin was one of seven states funded under the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation Systems project of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to generate linked statewide data systems. Because personal identifiers were not available, Police Accident Reports from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and inpatient discharge records for acute-care hospitals from the state's Office of the Commissioner of Insurance were linked through a probabilistic method (which calculates the likelihood that a police report and a discharge record represent the same person) using date of the event -- the crash or the hospital admission -- and the motorcyclist's birth date, sex, and zip code of residence. Secondary linking variables were the county of the event, the health service area of the event, the injury, and whether the person was transported by ambulance from the crash. Uncertain matches were reviewed manually using additional corroborating information, such as International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) external cause of injury codes and consistency with known patterns of trauma referral and injury resulting from motor-vehicle crashes. Approximately 7% of the matches made by computer between police reports and hospital records were incorrect.

Based on ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes in the discharge record, head injuries were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: 1) brain injury, defined as any diagnosis of intracranial injury with or without skull fracture, intracranial hemorrhage following injury, or loss of consciousness for 1 hour or more; 2) skull fracture with no intracranial injury; and 3) concussion with only brief (less than 1 hour) or no loss of consciousness.

Of the 3184 motorcyclists involved in police-reported crashes in Wisconsin in 1991, 2015 (63.3%) were unhelmeted and 994 (31.2%) were helmeted at the time of the crash. Helmet use was unknown for 175 (5.5%), four of whom were fatally injured; of 32 who were hospitalized, 13 incurred head injuries. Of those motorcyclists for whom helmet status was known, 545 were hospitalized and 74 died, including 55 who were unhelmeted and 19 who were helmeted. Of the 545 hospitalized, 187 (34.3%) had sustained a head injury (Table_1). Overall, unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in police-reported crashes were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized for a head injury (153 {7.6%}) than were helmeted riders (34 {3.4%}). Brain injury occurred among 97 (4.8%) of those who were unhelmeted and 17 (1.7%) of those who were helmeted (rate ratio {RR}=2.9, 95% confidence interval {CI}=1.7-4.9); the rate for skull fracture among unhelmeted riders (0.9%) was 4.5 times (95% CI=1.0-19.2) that among helmeted riders (0.2%). The rate for concussions among unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in crashes (1.9%) was higher than that for helmeted riders (1.5%) (RR=1.3; 95% CI=0.7-2.3).

Total initial * inpatient hospital charges for the 97 unhelmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries was $2,396,366 -- compared with $333,619 for the 17 helmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries (Table_1). Average initial hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries were $24,705, compared with $19,624 for helmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries.

Although some crashes will be so severe that a motorcycle helmet will not prevent brain injury or death, the proportion of injuries that could have been prevented if a motorcycle helmet had been worn by all riders was estimated for each category of head injury and death (3). These estimates assume that if unhelmeted motorcyclists wore helmets and experienced a similar distribution of outcomes as helmeted motorcyclists, then universal helmet use by all motorcyclists in Wisconsin during 1991 potentially would have prevented 60 brain injuries, 13 skull fractures with no intra- cranial injury, and eight concussions. In addition, universal helmet use potentially would have prevented 14 (18.9%) deaths. Reported by: TA Karlson, PhD, CA Quade, Center for Health Systems Research and Analysis, Univ of Wisconsin, Madison; Wisconsin Dept of Transportation. Div of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.

Editorial Note
Editorial Note: Motorcycle helmets are designed to protect users against injury to the brain and other head injuries. The findings in this report indicate that the use of motorcycle helmets lowers the rate of head injury. Although helmet use is approximately 99% in states with universal requirements, use is substantially less in states with laws that apply only to subgroups of the population (4). For example, in Wisconsin, where the law applies only to riders aged less than 19 years, observed helmet use is 42% for all motorcycle riders (5).

The findings in this report are subject to at least four limitations. First, incorrectly matched police reports and hospital records diminish the measure of the protective effect of helmets. Second, some motorcycle crashes in Wisconsin may not have been reported to police -- in particular, crashes occurring in areas adjacent to other states for which medical treatment may have been obtained in those states. Third, this study evaluated only hospitalized motorcycle riders; the differences in injury rates and health-care costs for unhelmeted riders compared with helmeted riders probably would have been greater if data from emergency departments and long-term -- care facilities had been available and analyzed. Skull fractures and concussions are usually associated with complete recovery, but more severe injuries to the brain can result in lifelong disability (6). Fourth, this study did not control for injuries other than head injuries. In a Washington study that controlled for severity of injuries other than head injury, motorcycle helmets were effective in limiting the occurrence of head injury, the need for and duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of intensive-care stay, and the need for rehabilitation (7). Previous studies indicate that unhelmeted riders who are injured are more likely be admitted to a hospital as an inpatient, be permanently impaired, and require ambulance service, neurosurgery, intensive care, rehabilitation, and long-term care (4).

Although the source of payment for hospitalization was not analyzed in this report, findings from previous reports indicate that public monies underwrite 25%-50% of the costs associated with motorcycle crashes (4). State-specific data on the costs for hospitalizations -- initial, long-term, and public -- for unhelmeted riders may assist state legislators in making informed decisions regarding the passage and retention of these laws.

This report illustrates how linked data can help provide information on the potential health-care costs associated with public policies intended to prevent motor-vehicle -- related injuries. Linkage of existing data systems can assist in the characterization of motorcycle and other motor-vehicle -- crash events, injury severity, and cost for non-fatal injuries. Probabilistic linkage allows large files to be linked rapidly, potentially providing information about persons involved in crashes and the severity of their injuries, the treatment they received, and charges for treatment; this information could be linked with data on the public costs of injuries associated with risk-taking behavior (e.g., drinking and driving), nonuse of safety belts and motorcycle helmets, and speeding. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation is using information from linked data about medical outcomes and the costs of crash-related injuries resulting from motorcycle and other motor-vehicle crashes to plan interventions and evaluate their impact.


References

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fatal Accident Reporting System, 1991; a review of information on fatal traffic crashes in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1992.

Wilson D. The effectiveness of motorcycle helmets in preventing fatalities. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1989; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Technical Report DOT no. HS-807-416.

CDC. A framework for assessing the effectiveness of disease and injury prevention. MMWR 1992;41(no. RR-3).

US Government Accounting Office. Motorcycle helmet laws save lives and reduce costs to society. Washington, DC: Government Accounting Office, 1990; report no. GAO/RCED-91-170, 1991.

Wisconsin Office of Transportation Safety. Motorcycle helmet use in Wisconsin, 1993. Madison, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Office of Transportation Safety, 1994.

Kraus JF, Rock A, Hemyari P. Brain injuries among infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. Am J Dis Child 1990;144:684-91.

Offner PJ, Rivara FP, Maier RV. The impact of motorcycle helmet use. J Trauma 1992;32:636-42.

Initial hospital charges were used as a proxy for hospital costs, which are only a portion of direct medical costs. Initial hospital charges do not include physician fees, emergency department charges, or costs after discharge for subsequent hospitalizations, long-term care, and rehabilitation.
Table_1
Note: To print large tables and graphs users may have to change their printer settings to landscape and use a small font size.


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
TABLE 1. Number and rate of head injury outcomes and hospital charges * for                                                                                                                                                                                  
motorcyclists and rate ratios for unhelmeted versus helmeted crash-involved                                                                                                                                                                                  
motorcycle riders + -- Wisconsin, 1991                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
====================================================================================================                                                                                                                                                        
                   Unhelmeted motorcyclists     Helmeted motorcyclists                                                                                                                                                                                      
                          (n=2015)                     (n=994)                                                                                                                                                                                              
                   -------------------------    ----------------------                                                                                                                                                                                      
                                   Hospital                   Hospital                                                                                                                                                                                      
                   No.    Rate &    charges     No.   Rate &   charges    Ratio       95% CI @                                                                                                                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                                                                                              
Brain injury        97     4.8    $2,396,366    17     1.7    $333,619     2.9      (1.7- 4.9)                                                                                                                                                              
Skull fracture                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
  without intra-                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            
  cranial injury    18     0.9    $  222,707     2     0.2    $ 10,838     4.5      (1.0-19.2)                                                                                                                                                              
Concussion          38     1.9    $  278,786    15     1.5    $ 60,037     1.3      (0.7- 2.3)                                                                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
Total              153     7.6    $2,897,859    34     3.4    $404,494     2.2      (1.6- 3.4)                                                                                                                                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                                                                                                                                              
* Includes charges for initial hospitalization; does not include physician fees, emergency depart-                                                                                                                                                          
  ment charges, or medical costs after discharge.                                                                                                                                                                                                            
+ n=3184. Excludes 175 persons for whom helmet use was unknown.                                                                                                                                                                                              
& Per 100 crash-involved motorcyclists.                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
@ Confidence interval.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
====================================================================================================                                                                                                                                                        

[Red01]

3. Until the injury tradeoff issue is more carefully studied, it cannot be concluded that mandatory helmet use laws are an effective method to eradicate the slaughter and maiming, of individuals involved in motorcycle accidents.

10:1 the author of this has never riden a motorcycle.
These studies never mention the odds of the injured motorcyclist being killed by the hospital staff as a result of their errors - which is more dangerous than riding itself.

[aussiebandit]

Ok, I didn't read the whole thing, to be honest I read

The Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use on the Probability of Fatality and the Severity of Head And Neck Injuries Highlights of Helmet Effectiveness Study

and immediately "switched off".  I have a real problem with "probability" and "statistics".  A much smarter man than me (I forget who) once said "There are three types of lies, 1. Lies 2. Damn Lies and 3. Statistics".

You can get statistics to prove just about anything you want.  I remember way back in High School we were shown a 'study' that quite clearly showed that the more pumpkins a women ate the better chance she had of getting pregant - the study also showed - through the use of STATISTICS -  that the frequency of sex had nothing to do with it, in fact she didn't have to have sex at all.

There was an Academic type here in Aus who argued that the road fatility statisics were a load of crap, particularly for motorcyles.  He argued that ofcoarse there were more motorcylists killed in 2002 then in 1984 because there were almost double the number of riders in '02 than in '84.  But the number of fatalities were not double.  He also said that saying "There was a 10% increase in accidents" is a useless statement unless you know the actual figures being compared.  For example 10% of 10 is only 1 whereas 10% of 100 is 10.  So, unless you know the actual numbers it means nothing.

End of Rant  

[PeteSC]

That's how I feel, Mick.

   I think helmets solve more problems than they create..........

   I'd rather take my chances WEARING one.

  One of the 'studies' tried to blame alcohol as the main cause of death for riders who didn't wear helmets.
  I guess we should ban bikes from bars....

[aussiebandit]

There is no 'debate' in Oz, among the politcians anyway. helmets are compulsory in every state, and must comply with Australian Standards.  This means a lot of the helmets (skull caps) from the 'states aren't legal to wear - you can own it but not wear it.

[B6mick]

Ok guys I aint going to debate no-one on the use of helmets, I have my own veiws, from how things have panned out in my life. But I feel that to many amongst us feel at state that helmets are the be all and end all of motorcycle safety. Mick you made a valid point on Stats.
Of the few riders I have known who have died becuase of motorcycle accidents, 2 have died directly because of the use of ASS (Aust Safety Standards) Helmets and the doctors report so stated. that they may have substained deep scaring and disfigurerment, but they would have been alive, and well enough to continue normal life. Now where are these guys and the many like them in tha stats?. Now I know for a fact that a helmet aint gonna save my butt if I hit a wall going 100kph, so how is it going to save me in ahead on of an impact speed of 200 kph. So you will have to excuse me if I choose to ride with out a helmet out in the middle of butt f*#* Idaho. I like it, I like the feeling. Funny how my speed reduces apposed to wearing a lid it increases. Now I gladly wear my helmet around town and for the most part I do by my choice wear a lid as it will probably help to save my ugly butt, and I don't go round saying to people dont wear a helmet, it should be a freedom of choise issue, with the proper education to go with it. But with the education the real truth of helmets, where when and how a helmet willl help save your butt, but more importantly when a helmet is going cause death before any other injury.
This of course this is only my view and I will not force it down anyone throat. Fact stated by snell in the 70's ( I do know that helmet design and materials have greatly improved since then and I use this statement only as example ) anyone wearing a snell approved helmet having a direct impact with the helmeted head at a greater speed of 20 mph is dead.
You will have to excuse me,  but this statement has always made me weary and to always question this issue on mandatory helmet use. And it was by this very standard ( snell) that the ASS based its standards upon.
My 2 bobs worth. stepping off soapbox.


Now who is the real squid. me ploding along at 90 kph with the wind in me hair.
Or the R1 rider with the $1,000.00 helmet with T-shirt, shorts, and thongs doing 180 kph lane splitting up the freeway in peakhour.

[Lmario]

Oh dear..... we've been doing it all wrong....
The knight in the middle ages had helmets, soldiers wear them, people on construction sites, miners, London police officers, mountain bikers, even Valentino Rossi is wrong! (he rides faster than 15mph usually.. )

They are all wrong according to this studie of the "neutral" bikersrights organisation.
Their view: " The insurance industry can't control their car drivers from hitting us, but they can control the number of targets their drivers can hit by backing helmet laws that reduce riding. "
I guess that goes for the knights and police and miners and the rest too then.

Hey, I think everybody is responsable for his/her own safety. (I've ridden without protective clothing and without a helmet too.) But let's not try to make it "safer" to ride without.  

Yes indeed, there are three types of lies.

[aussiebandit]

Mick, your point is well taken.  Hell we're supposed to be living in a democracy.  But, my personal opinon is that if it's good enough for Troy Corser, Troy Bayliss and company to wear a helmet, then it's good enough for me.

Now who is the real squid. me ploding along at 90 kph with the wind in me hair.
Or the R1 rider with the $1,000.00 helmet with T-shirt, shorts, and thongs doing 180 kph lane splitting

Your point above is a no brainer - at 20km/h in shorts, T-shirt and thongs you're going to loose skin - yes personal experiance tells me this - fortunately I wasn't on the road at the time, but, embarrasingly, on a CT110 rounding up cows - cow shyte is slippery stuff.

[B6mick]

One, Knights didn't ride bikes of more than 50 HP at speeds over 35 mph and more, in fact rode 1 Hp horses   and very rarely hit an another vechile at an impact speed of 200 kph and in fact wore them to go into battle. Solders wore helmets to but the helmets did not stop 303 bullets either. Miners wear helmets too yes and these helmets do help just like in the construction industries, for minor accidents. But in major industrial and mining accidents, there is always a bit more than a head to protect. But I spose it does help if the head is in its own little bucket  to help identify the body. London cops and with heads like that so they bloody well should. Joke Joyce. Mountain Bike riders like the knights as they too are going into some sort of battle against others, themselves and the clock, so to motorcycle racers.  All of these examples in fact, have very little to do with us the street and highway riders.

When I choice to ride with out a lid I'm not going into any battle, I'm not riding in populated or built up areas, I am literally riding out in the middle of Butt F*#* Idaho no corners for 100k's haven't seen a car in 300k's and I aint riding no race. And once again for the most part I do ride with a lid not because I have to by law but because I wish too. I have never advocated to anyone not to wear a helmet, if fact the opposite. But I feel that the figures, and stats are floored by the simple fact that no figures are ever released on the percentages of deaths caused by helmets. And until these figures are released, I shall assume the right to question the figures the stats and the pollies who think they know better.
I have been riding legally on the road now for 28 years and have covered over a million kilometres on my motorcycles, not once have I come a cropper while not wearing a lid, yet have had more stepoffs than I care to remember, while wearing a lid. Now what do those figures suggest to you? Now if I was to use those stats, I would not wear a helmet ever again. But by the same reckoning those figures are too floored, by the mere fact of how often I have ridden lidless and where I have ridden lidless. So what  I am saying is we all should be a little less judgemental of those who choice to ride lidless, and have a real good looks at why we beleive, the figures the stats that governments, god forgive insurance companies, dictating to governments on what laws should be, and institutions whom release figures and stats to suit the idealism they are trying to sell.

Next you'll be telling me, is you believe evrything you read in the paper or hear on TV.
Why airn't these figures ever released, for one simple reason, It would show that helmets are not as safe as they are made out to be, and would simply undermine the whole reasoning behind mandatory helmet use. Why is it not mandatory to wear protective leathers or other type jackets gloves, pants with body armour and boots. How many lives could have been saved by body armour? puntured lungs raptured organs broken backs etc etc. We as motorcyclists need to step back an ask ourselves are these jerks whom pretend to looking out for our best interests, and ask why the whole safety system is not being addressed. ( Yes I do use and wear a body armour system ) There is far more to motorcyclists than just a ugly head. Yes I am a cynical bastard, and the more BS they whom should be looking after my best interests, try to ram down my throat the more I will stand and yell from the top of my soapbox "BS". But like all governments its about being seen to be doing something while in actual fact doing sweet F*#* all.

BTW I lied about not debating the issue.
Not once have I ever stated do not wear a helmet, in fact I would state wear a helmet. I personally like riding without a lid when and if the right time and place comes along. I am not judgemental of those whom blindly accept that what is said by the safetycrates is true and whom will accept that if its good enough for Joe Blow and his team all wear such and such a helmet, but I trust you are using the whole safety system that Joe Blow and his team uses, and not just the pretty thing that sits upon thier heads.
Once again I do state that to many people ( Not just riders either ) out there, think that helmets are the be all, and end all of motorcyclists safety.

How many times have you stepped up to the plate to stop some young kid buying a certain type of helmet, because such and such uses that type and its got the race replica colors on it.. When It clearly dont fit right, the sales man dont give a toss. Yet it is clear that should that rider have an off he/she is putting themselves in danger. And in actual fact is in far more danger than if they had been riding lidless. How many of you guys have dropped your lids? did you have it tested asap?did you replace it asap? how many of you leave your lid on the gas tank even for short periods? has it been affected by gas fumes? How many of you guys leave your helmets hanging from the mirror of your bike? has the inner linner been damaged by the weight of the helmet seating on the mirror edge? How often does everybody replace their lids. Is there a mandatory use life of a helmet? and why is not there one? All I am saying is, if your going to let your government make mandatory laws about your choosen sport, lifestyle, and for your safety, at the very least I think you should expect it to be done properly, not half assed, and not with figures and stats, that do not show the real story.

Now if I get one person thinking beyond the square, my rant has achieved what its meant too.

[PeteSC]

Nobody with any sense thinks a helmet magically prevents any motorcycle injuries, Mick.

   I admit, some of the cruiser crowd, that putt a few miles per weekend, at slow speeds, and major decible levels, aren't likely to do much damage to themselves by not wearing a helmet.  (Except when they're putting between bars....)
  Wait, I'm actually 'wrong'.  These are the guys in the US that are one of the highest percentages of bike fatalities!


   
   I used to wear no helmet for short trips nearby.   A couple of near misses in town changed that.   I'll sometimes wear an open face helmet when running errands on the DR650.
  I know I may get banged up in a minor wreck, may lose some skin, may break some bones......my head will have a better chance at being somewhat intact, though.
  If the car runs over me, or I get tossed at speed into a solid object, yeah, the helmet doesn't do a heck of a lot for that.
   I like to think I'm paying enough attention, and am a skilled enough rider that I can limit the probability of accidents to more minor stuff.
    A couple of the minor accidents I've had on a bike, resulted in no damage to my head, but a scuffed up helmet.
  A helmet is a lot cheaper to replace.
  A helmet doesn't make me feel 'brave'.  It's just an added bit of insurance.
  It isn't like the cartoons you see on the tube!   You can't get  'bonked' on the head, and just have a large bump pop up, with little stars circling overhead.
  People die or get seriously injured in 'minor' head injuries all the time....off bikes, and on.

  The only method to totally prevent injuries on a motorcycle, is to not ride one.
  I feel better being prepared for the minor catastrophes, by wearing a helmet, boots, long pants and shirt/jacket, and gloves.

    I'm not into forcing anyone to wear a helmet.   I do think there should be increased insurance costs for those who don't, or reduced costs for those who do.
   'Safety  crap' can get out of hand, but riders are under attack by the non-riding public, on and off the roads, and wearing a helmet is one weapon we have to fight the arseholes.....
  (who will tell us we're 'un-safe' while yacking on a cellphone, tail gating,  and wandering all over the road in an SUV!)

[echomadman]

ever get a pebble or a big insect in the face at 50+mph, man it hurts.
I rode around thailand on little bikes for 3 months, and always wore a helmet after getting a huge beetle into the cheek at speed the first day we took one out.
I wear it all the time in ireland because
a: its pretty much always cold here,
b: its nearly always raining,
c:even with glasses on the wind affects my vision
d: its required by law(i'd wear one even if it wasn't)

[Mustang-Mel]

Other than "freedom", the benefits of wearing a helmet far out weigh those of not wearing one.

After being side swiped on a Malaysian road doing 120 kmph by a lorry and landing under its front right wheel, it pays to have a helmet. Fortunately I survived with 6 busted ribs, a lacerated liver and a broken 4th finger on the left hand.

So, law or no law, I'll keep my helmet on no matter where I go riding.