"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Nonsense. This study has been picked up by motorcyclists to defend the
indefensible. The TBI statistics are readily available, or were. Check
Google Scholar.

They're actually not readily available. There was a big helmet
thread recently on the m/c ng, and I found it is very difficult
to find *real* data on accident statistics, as a function of
helmet use.

Go to Google. Click on "more." Click on "scholar." Enter MOTORCYCLE HELMET,
without quotes. As of 10 minutes ago there were 994 references, and some of
the first ones I saw were PubMed/Medline references, pointing to
peer-reviewed articles in major medical publications, supported by
statistics, not anecdotes.

Then show this to the ABATE guys. We have a big ABATE guy in my town. You
could drag him kicking and screaming to this data, and it wouldn't change
his mind. He "knows" the facts, and he isn't going to let the facts get in
his way.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

They're actually not readily available. There was a big helmet
thread recently on the m/c ng, and I found it is very difficult
to find *real* data on accident statistics, as a function of
helmet use.

Go to Google. Click on "more." Click on "scholar." Enter MOTORCYCLE HELMET,
without quotes. As of 10 minutes ago there were 994 references, and some of
the first ones I saw were PubMed/Medline references, pointing to
peer-reviewed articles in major medical publications, supported by
statistics, not anecdotes.

Almost all of them deal with survivors of motorcycle crashes. It's
tough to get numbers on the ratio of survivors vs. non-survivors
of crashes because the non-survivors tend to not get into the
studies.

Also at the time I got tired of following links to 'studies' that
all eventually went back to one or two actual data sources.

Then show this to the ABATE guys. We have a big ABATE guy in my town. You
could drag him kicking and screaming to this data, and it wouldn't change
his mind. He "knows" the facts, and he isn't going to let the facts get in
his way.

You're not getting my point. The ABATE guys would be the first to
say I'm full of it - because my premise is that helmets really, really
improve survival rates. They even deny that obvious fact.

But the flip side of that fact (that helmets really *do* improve
survival rates) is that folks who don't wear them tend, on average,
tend not to survive.

Dead guys don't stay in hospital rooms very long. They tend to
shuffle them out so they can bring in some new, live, paying
members of society... the dead guys don't spend nearly as much
insurance money.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article ,
jim rozen wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

It's a dilemma, and focusing only on your *own* risks and rewards misses the
point of the safety issue: that your driving risk, most of the time,
translates into someone else's driving risk. You take the risk, and they
take the consequences.

The auto manufacturers could even out the score by disabling the
seatbelts and airbags when the cell phone is in use!

It all gets back to my plan for safer, more polite roadways. Simply
place the driver's seat in front of the front bumper.

If all the passengers had seatbelts/airbags and the driver didn't,
accidents would go down. When I turned 16 many decades ago there were
no airbags and usually no insurance, and not that many 16yos totaled the
family car. Today I would bet there is a totaled car for every 16 yo
driver; maybe some are safe but others total multiple cars. My 2nd
daughter totaled my car and took off one of the letters from the name to
put on her neclace to brag about it. She has never driven any car in
this family since.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Go to Google. Click on "more." Click on "scholar." Enter MOTORCYCLE HELMET,
without quotes. As of 10 minutes ago there were 994 references, and some of
the first ones I saw were PubMed/Medline references, pointing to
peer-reviewed articles in major medical publications, supported by
statistics, not anecdotes.

Then show this to the ABATE guys. We have a big ABATE guy in my town. You
could drag him kicking and screaming to this data, and it wouldn't change
his mind. He "knows" the facts, and he isn't going to let the facts get in
his way.

The problem is that it is not good enough to compare hospital data, you
need to look at the total risk and factor in the non-helmet wearers who
don't have accidents. This data is simply not availiable. Non-helmet
wearers have a large incentive to drive safer.

Anecdotally, I have never worn a motorcycle helmet and have only had one
bad accident on a motorcycle. Bad enough the doctor told my mother to
buy a coffin since I wouldn't live to morning. Broke both legs and one
wrist and had NO head injuries, was in the hospital almost 2 months.

Also, at one place I worked a man was wearing an approved safety helmet
when a piece of ice fell on his helmet and broke his neck and killed him.

--
Free men own guns, slaves don't
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Sorry for long message to follow.

Don't apologize, I'm going to peruse them in depth when I
get some time.

....

If you don't wear a helmet, you're much more likely to die.

Yep.

If you survive,
you're much more likely to wind up in a hospital.

Yep.

If you wind up in a
hospital, you're going to wind up with a hospital bill much larger than you
would if you had worn a helmet.

Also yep.

That isn't speculation. That's documented by the articles above, plus
research confirmed in dozens of other professional articles published in
medical journals.

Also agree. My SWAG is that the published articles above may have
a hole in them - the subset of crash victims who are *never*admited* to
a hospital, because they're dead at the scene. Statistically more of
those (dare I say "most?") will be those without helmets.

Those riders may never make it into those studies. Because I haven't
inspected them closely, I cannot say for sure - but there may be
a substantial statistical bias introduced by this effect. From my
cursory inspection of a few years ago, the price to pay to be included
in one of those studies was, you had to get one of those wrist tags
that hospitals use to identify patients. You had to have a patient
number and a billing address.

The folks who only got *toe* tags were never included.

Listening to ABATE, and accepting their cherry-picked studies, is a big
mistake.

Ed, I've been riding for many years. I see what abate publishes, and
I think what they do is a travesty. Helmet use for me is a given - but
I don't think that helmet laws (for *adults*, kids are another matter)
are good in general. Folks should be free to splatter their brains
on the pavement at will... especially the dumb ones.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

My SWAG is that the published articles above may have
a hole in them - the subset of crash victims who are *never*admited* to
a hospital, because they're dead at the scene.

As I said, about half of those studies on PubMed and elsewhere are straight
mortality studies. Whether they make it to a hospital or if they're declared
dead on the scene, they're counted.

Statistically more of
those (dare I say "most?") will be those without helmets.

That's correct.


Those riders may never make it into those studies. Because I haven't
inspected them closely, I cannot say for sure - but there may be
a substantial statistical bias introduced by this effect.

Not in the mortality studies. And they're unequivocal: you're much more
likely to die in an accident if you're not wearing a helmet.


Ed, I've been riding for many years. I see what abate publishes, and
I think what they do is a travesty. Helmet use for me is a given - but
I don't think that helmet laws (for *adults*, kids are another matter)
are good in general. Folks should be free to splatter their brains
on the pavement at will... especially the dumb ones.

Nice sentiment g, but it's a very expensive one for you and me. From SS
survivor's benefits, to increased insurance rates, to increased hospital
costs for uninsured patients, to the social costs of families that have lost
a provider, you and I pay, and pay, and pay for the assholes who don't wear
helmets.

There is no reason in the world not to require them, any more than there's a
reason not to require wearing a seat belt in a car. Driving and riding are
not "rights" under the law. They're priviledges, and the laws surrounding
them are based on avoiding social costs and what the economists call
"externalities."

And that's the only conclusion that makes any sense, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Don Bruder says...

Joe Helmetless splatted himself while not wearing a lid? Joe Helmetless
is on his own. No payoff of any kind to him or his. No SSI, no
disability, no insurance, no public assistance, no *ANYTHING* beyond
what the contents of his wallet can cover. What? He doesn't have enough
to cover any/everything? Too bad, so sad. Guess you're gonna die, Joe.
Maybe you should've been wearing a helmet, huh?

I think that was my point. You don't hear about it much, but
most motorcyle accidents (and here I'm talking about when a
bike and car tangle, or when a bike rider interacts badly
with a phone pole or armco) have bad ends. The guy usually
dies when there is no helmet protection.

My wife (ex-lawyer) explains that dead folks don't cost
much. She says that if you accidentally hit a pedestrian,
it's better go back up and finish the job, because if they
live it'll cost millions. If they die, it's a lot, lot less.

A nice funeral is what, ten thousand or so? See how long
a stay in the ICU you get for that price. Not to mention
all the doctor bills. This is why I always wear a helmet
when riding. I want to soak the insurance companies for
every last nickel I can.

I think there's a big move afoot for insurers to restrict
coverage based on activities like skydiving, scuba diving,
motorcycle riding, horseback riding.

It's only a short step to say, you weren't wearing your
seatbelt, or you were talking on the cell phone. Your
hosptial stay is not covered. Is that what folks *really*
want?

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Don Bruder" wrote in message
...

Quite frankly, Ed, (and I'll apologize for the language, but not the
sentiment) "better for everyone else" doesn't mean flying ****-all to
me. "Everyone else" can eat **** with ketchup and spend the night
barking at the moon, for all I care.

You can't ride at night without headlights, you can't ride without brakes,
and you can't ride without a stoplight. Same thing.

The rest of it is nothing but noise, Don. Under the law it's noise; in terms
of what costs you can impose on my by your irresponsibility, it's noise; in
terms of all of the other regulations for driving and riding, it's noise.
Utter noise.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, I've been riding for many years. I see what abate publishes, and
I think what they do is a travesty. Helmet use for me is a given - but
I don't think that helmet laws (for *adults*, kids are another matter)
are good in general. Folks should be free to splatter their brains
on the pavement at will... especially the dumb ones.

Nice sentiment g, but it's a very expensive one for you and me. From SS
survivor's benefits, to increased insurance rates, to increased hospital
costs for uninsured patients, to the social costs of families that have lost
a provider, you and I pay, and pay, and pay for the assholes who don't wear
helmets.

There is no reason in the world not to require them, any more than there's a
reason not to require wearing a seat belt in a car. Driving and riding are
not "rights" under the law. They're priviledges, and the laws surrounding
them are based on avoiding social costs and what the economists call
"externalities."

And that's the only conclusion that makes any sense, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress


And the next conclusion would be that car drivers must also wear
helmets. The resulting drop in mortality and morbidity, because of the
much larger numbers of car drivers and passengers, would overwhelm the
deaths and injuries accumulated by motorcyclists.

I suppose it comes down to what is politically possible.

Ted

--
Ted Bennett
Portland, OR

"Ted" wrote in message
...

Ed, I've been riding for many years. I see what abate publishes, and
I think what they do is a travesty. Helmet use for me is a given -
but
I don't think that helmet laws (for *adults*, kids are another matter)
are good in general. Folks should be free to splatter their brains
on the pavement at will... especially the dumb ones.

Nice sentiment g, but it's a very expensive one for you and me. From
SS
survivor's benefits, to increased insurance rates, to increased hospital
costs for uninsured patients, to the social costs of families that have
lost
a provider, you and I pay, and pay, and pay for the assholes who don't
wear
helmets.

There is no reason in the world not to require them, any more than
there's a
reason not to require wearing a seat belt in a car. Driving and riding
are
not "rights" under the law. They're priviledges, and the laws
surrounding
them are based on avoiding social costs and what the economists call
"externalities."

And that's the only conclusion that makes any sense, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress


And the next conclusion would be that car drivers must also wear
helmets.

Logical deduction can be a blessing or a curse, Ted. At some point you have
to decide whether you're going to make pragmatic judgments, balancing pros
and cons and then drawing some lines, or if you're going to lash yourself to
Aristotle and see how long it is before you deduce your way to lunacy.

If the democratic process said that drivers should wear helmets in cars,
we'd wear helmets. Since the public is pretty rational overall, they
haven't, and we don't.

Wearing helmets on motorcycles is pretty damned rational. In fact, not
wearing one clearly is irrational. So, the law goes with rationality. I'll
live with that.

I suppose it comes down to what is politically possible.

It comes down to what we, as a population, think makes sense.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

If the democratic process said that drivers should wear helmets in cars,
we'd wear helmets.

Oddly the democratic process (at least in NY state) says that
"thou shalt *not* wear helmets in cars."

Or else you get a ticket. It's actually illegal in NY.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

So, what are you forgetting? The ones who have accidents and who don't wind
up in hospitals. By a huge margin, those are helmet wearers.

The ones who crash and get up and ride away are never counted in the
statistics. (there are actually quite a few of those, believe it
or not)

The ones who are involved in almost any kind of motorcycle crash
which the police respond to, *will* go to the hospital. It's
almost a given.

JIm


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article CjcNd.10299$2p.5965@lakeread08, gglines says...

Motorcycle riders carry insurance, I bet whatever cost you think is coming
your way from riders hurt without helmets is 1/1000 of that same societal
cost to you of drivers without insurance. Motorcycle industry studies show
that there isn't a greater cost to society from riders rather then
non-riders. Insurance companies are the ones providing the anti-helmet data
and the "societal cost", so the insurance company ends up paying - not
society.

Although, motorcycle insurance is a funny thing. The companies don't
care if you wear a helmet or not. True. There are no companies (in
the states where helmet use is not mandatory) that give discounts
for their use, or penalize the non-wearers.

The insurance company version of this is:

Motorcycle insurance is pure gravy.

1) there is almost zero change we'll ever have to pay out
for any liability on the part of our insured. The laws of
physics dictate that they simply cannot impart enough energy
to a four-wheeled vehicle to do much more than scratch the
paint.

2) motorcycle riders are amazingly careful about not bumping
into other vehicles [1], because when they do, the frequently die.

3) helmets or not doesn't really matter to us, because as
a rule we offer about $10K of medical benefits for our
insured. Which basically would pay for either a) a nice
funeral or b) about one overnight stay in the ER. After that
we're off the hook.

Now if you want to talk about comprehensive insurance, that's
a different ball of wax. Here you find new sport bikes which
can rack up about $8K worth of damage if they fall over in the
*parking*lot*. These are often the kind of bike that 18 year
old males fall in love with - until they talk to their insurance
agent!

But the pure, direct cost of insurance for motorbike riders
is not, to my knowledge, directly affected by helmet use or
non-use.

Jim

[1] which leads me to jim's second law, which is that if you
really want to make money as a car insurance agent, simply
elect to insure only drivers who are also motorcycle riders.


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

If the democratic process said that drivers should wear helmets in cars,
we'd wear helmets.

Oddly the democratic process (at least in NY state) says that
"thou shalt *not* wear helmets in cars."

Or else you get a ticket. It's actually illegal in NY.

Well, there ya' go. Somebody has some sense. g

Why is it illegal? Have you ever looked into the hearings or debate
regarding the bill? It would be kind of interesting.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:56:03 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

If the democratic process said that drivers should wear helmets in cars,
we'd wear helmets.

Oddly the democratic process (at least in NY state) says that
"thou shalt *not* wear helmets in cars."

Or else you get a ticket. It's actually illegal in NY.

Well, there ya' go. Somebody has some sense. g

Why is it illegal? Have you ever looked into the hearings or debate
regarding the bill? It would be kind of interesting.

1) Wearing a helmet in a car vastly increases the risk of whiplash injury.
2) Head injuries are not a significant factor in most car crashes.

These don't relate to the NY laws, they are just the way it is.



Mark Rand
RTFM

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Why do you need a headlight when you only ride in the daytime? What does
your license to drive have to do with anybody else?

Headlights don't have to be used during the day.

And licences are about accountability. The show that
you have the minimum level of skill to use the public
roads without endangering others - and if you do
cause an accident, the state steps in as the licensing
agency, and makes the person who caused the crash
accountable, financially.

You note that in this case, the issue is that the
roadways are *shared* resources, and the laws and
rules are about keeping a driver from harming
another road user.

This is fundamentally different than the helmet/seatbelt
issue. Not wearing a seatbelt does not cause others
to be injured.

Running red lights, does.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Why is it illegal? Have you ever looked into the hearings or debate
regarding the bill? It would be kind of interesting.

The presumption is that if you are driving in a car in NY
state, you are racing. They don't want folks racing on
the public streets. It's really as simple as that.

Five point harnesses are also illegal.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Why do you need a headlight when you only ride in the daytime? What does
your license to drive have to do with anybody else?

Headlights don't have to be used during the day.

But you have to have a headlinght ON your bike, regardless. Just like you
have to have a helmet on your head, even though you're not having an
accident at the time.

Again, Jim, you're supporting a position that will lead to increased
mortality, increased head trauma and extended, expensive hospital stays, and
more trouble and expense for everyone. Motorcycles make up just over 1% of
the licensed vehicles but motorcycle accidents produce over 5% of the
hospitalizations due to motor vehicle accidents. In roughly half the states,
the people have said "enough."

But it's a political issue. If you want to argue for more death and more
tragic and debilitating injuries, that's your prerogative. You can write to
your state legislators or join an ABATE rally.

--
Ed Huntress

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Why is it illegal? Have you ever looked into the hearings or debate
regarding the bill? It would be kind of interesting.

The presumption is that if you are driving in a car in NY
state, you are racing. They don't want folks racing on
the public streets. It's really as simple as that.

Five point harnesses are also illegal.

That's a strange one. I used to have one in my racing Alfa Romeo, which I
also drove on the street.

--
Ed Huntress

My understanding is that wearing helmets on bicycles is very rational.
Bike riders have accidents at speeds at which a helmet can and does
make a difference.

But as I understand it, when you are going more than about 20 mph, the
helmet does not help all that much. You are just about as likely to
die with or without the helmet. So I suspect wearing a helmet gives a
motorcycle rider a false sense of protection.

Sorry that I can not remember where I heard this argument.

Dan


Ed Huntress wrote:

Wearing helmets on motorcycles is pretty damned rational. In fact,
not
wearing one clearly is irrational. So, the law goes with rationality.
I'll
live with that.


--
Ed Huntress

wrote in message
oups.com...
My understanding is that wearing helmets on bicycles is very rational.
Bike riders have accidents at speeds at which a helmet can and does
make a difference.

But as I understand it, when you are going more than about 20 mph, the
helmet does not help all that much. You are just about as likely to
die with or without the helmet. So I suspect wearing a helmet gives a
motorcycle rider a false sense of protection.

Sorry that I can not remember where I heard this argument.

It sounds unlikely in the extreme, Dan. I've read a LOT of study results in
the past two days g, and I've seen nothing to suggest that helmets don't
substantially reduce injuries in all types of accidents.

There are some really sophisticated studies out there, especially from
Europe, where they have a statistically more significant problem. They
suggest that there are no conditions under which a helmet doesn't improve
your chances of avoiding head trauma or death.

--
Ed Huntress

In article .com,
says...

My understanding is that wearing helmets on bicycles is very rational.
Bike riders have accidents at speeds at which a helmet can and does
make a difference.

But as I understand it, when you are going more than about 20 mph, the
helmet does not help all that much. You are just about as likely to
die with or without the helmet. So I suspect wearing a helmet gives a
motorcycle rider a false sense of protection.

This is actually not true, Dan.

Basically helmets are fixed G-load attenuators for the human head.

If the shock load of the head hitting an object was going to be
be 100G, it is transformed into 10G or thereabouts. If it was
going to be 1000G, it is reduced to 100G.

This is what the expanded polystyrene foam does - it crushes
upon impact and in doing so, attenuates the shock load. In this
way the impact of the brain on the inside of the skull (and
the associated rebound) is reduced. A fatal shock load can
be reduced to a concussion this way. But the attenutation
factor is the same no matter how large the shock of the
impact is.

Obviously all crashes are not the same - motorcycle or bicycle.

Consider that you could easily kill a human if you simply
dropped them on their head, from head height, onto concrete.

On the other end of the range are the remarkable racetrack crashes
which happen at about 100 mph, where the motorbike rider
comes off the bike in a low-side and simply slides along the
track.

The 20 mph number you state doesn't mean much because it
does not say if the rider is hitting a fixed barrier, or
simply falls off and slides along. I myself had a 30
mph get-off on the local roads (single vehicle accident)
where my head never even contacted pavement.

In the motorbike business every bit of advantage means a
lot. This is why I wear full face helmets, and most times
riding suits, and proper riding gloves that will stay on
in a crash. Boots count too. It's a percentages game
where things like running high beams during the daytime,
and never, ever, riding after any alcohol consumption are
critical. Likewise never riding when upset or tired, etc.
Choosing gear for visibility, that sort of thing.

But there are scads of stories of truly horrific crashes
on the motorcyle ng, where it is quite apparent that
without the helmet, the rider would have been killed
outright. The ones in question happened well in excess of
20 mph.

The issue you were maybe getting at is the 'dressing to
crash' idea. To put it another way, some advocate that
the rider should go out for a ride at some time wearing
only shorts, T-shirt, and flip-flops. *If* the rider's
style changes at all then the rider was in too far over
his or her head, and did not know it. They were using
the protective gear as an excuse to ride excessively.

As you say, helmets on bicycles make eminent sense. Because
most folks who ride bicycles are kids, I think that mandatory
helmet laws for bike riders *do* make a great deal of
sense.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Again, Jim, you're supporting a position that will lead to increased
mortality, increased head trauma and extended, expensive hospital stays, and
more trouble and expense for everyone.

And here, as you say, it's where you draw the line. Obviously this
is a gray area, as the laws do vary from state to state. Some
states say "we want to be nannies here, you have to do what we
say" and some other states say "hey, it's up to you."

But it's a political issue. If you want to argue for more death and more
tragic and debilitating injuries, that's your prerogative. You can write to
your state legislators or join an ABATE rally.

Grrrrr. Now *them's* fightin' words, Ed!!!!!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Ed Huntress says...

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Why is it illegal? Have you ever looked into the hearings or debate
regarding the bill? It would be kind of interesting.

The presumption is that if you are driving in a car in NY
state, [w/helmet on] you are racing. They don't want folks racing on
the public streets. It's really as simple as that.

Five point harnesses are also illegal.

That's a strange one. I used to have one in my racing Alfa Romeo, which I
also drove on the street.

In NJ? My understanding is that in NY it would be grounds to
fail at the annual inspection, even if the DOT three-point belts
were in place.

I do object to laws like that, because the fixed 5-point is
a good deal better than the retractor reel 3-point belt. It
just seems dumb to punish folks because they're thinking
out of the box.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

Why is it illegal? Have you ever looked into the hearings or debate
regarding the bill? It would be kind of interesting.

The presumption is that if you are driving in a car in NY
state, [w/helmet on] you are racing. They don't want folks racing on
the public streets. It's really as simple as that.

Five point harnesses are also illegal.

That's a strange one. I used to have one in my racing Alfa Romeo, which I
also drove on the street.

In NJ? My understanding is that in NY it would be grounds to
fail at the annual inspection, even if the DOT three-point belts
were in place.

Yeah, in NJ. In 1966. Jim, I went through that inspection with "16 FP"
painted on the sides, with a single Brooklands racing screen and a manually
operated windshield wiper, with a blade about 3 inches long that was made
just for getting through inspections. g

I also had my headlights taped, which they first said I couldn't do, but I
asked them to show me the law and they let me through. You may remember that
you had to get out of a Lotus Elan of that era and manually flip the
headlights up to make them work. I pointed that out. They didn't have an
answer.

I failed for brakes, as I did with my MG on two occassions. In those days a
car around 1500 pounds or so, if its brakes were set up so they would pass
NJ inspection, locked up the rears before the fronts. It was just the flaky
system they had for checking brakes. So I re-adjusted them and went back
through, and passed.


I do object to laws like that, because the fixed 5-point is
a good deal better than the retractor reel 3-point belt. It
just seems dumb to punish folks because they're thinking
out of the box.

Yeah, that one is nutz.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote in message
...
Why is it illegal? Have you ever looked into the hearings or debate
regarding the bill? It would be kind of interesting.

That's lawyer talk, aka crab walking in the other 48...........IOW, do you
have a position on this, or, are you just chumming?

My take is this: 100 years ago you *could* vote with your feet, i.e. move to
another state if you didn't like the current crop of crooks, aka
politicians.........Now, you got Hillary and company to say how you should
operate on the city streets of your own damn jurisdiction. INsurance? Now
there's an industry spawned from satan his own self. How about this? Say we
all had the option of signing off on a *non-liability* contract? See, those
that wanted (needed) to express "f**K* the gummit could expressly decide
that they didn't want no part of seat belt, or helmet laws? Or any car
insurance either? Heck, the illegals do it all the time, so it has some case
law behind it. Me? What with all the cities filming all the activites 24/7,
I say it would be an easy sell......

MM^^

"Mountain Mike^^" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote in message
...
Why is it illegal? Have you ever looked into the hearings or debate
regarding the bill? It would be kind of interesting.

That's lawyer talk, aka crab walking in the other 48...........IOW, do you
have a position on this, or, are you just chumming?

Yeah, I have a position. I think that it's pretty silly to outlaw wearing
helmets in a car.


My take is this: 100 years ago you *could* vote with your feet, i.e. move
to
another state if you didn't like the current crop of crooks, aka
politicians.........Now, you got Hillary and company to say how you should
operate on the city streets of your own damn jurisdiction. INsurance? Now
there's an industry spawned from satan his own self. How about this? Say
we
all had the option of signing off on a *non-liability* contract? See,
those
that wanted (needed) to express "f**K* the gummit could expressly decide
that they didn't want no part of seat belt, or helmet laws? Or any car
insurance either? Heck, the illegals do it all the time, so it has some
case
law behind it. Me? What with all the cities filming all the activites
24/7,
I say it would be an easy sell......

Go for it, Mike. Maybe Costa Rica, eh?

--
Ed Huntress

I understand all the various arguments. This argument that I dredged
up out from my memory was that it definately made sense for bike
accidents where someone goes over the handlebars and lands on their
head. And from a economic stand point, you save enough in hospital and
funeral expenses to come out ahead of the costs of helmets for bikes.

But for motorcycle accidents where the helmet reduces the 100 g force
to 10 g's, the wearer dies anyway. Broken neck. Granted that the
helmets for motorcycles will save some lives, but a much smaller
percentage than the helmets for bike riders. Another problem is that
the polystyrene foam keeps the force at a safe level until it is all
crushed. It will only adsorb so much energy. So that 100 g force get
attenuated to 10 g's for a while. Then it only reduces it to 80 g's.
( Don't pick on the numbers, I picked them out of thin air. But you
get the idea. ) So I can still see an argument that helmets for
motorcycles don't help enough to pass laws to require them.

When I had motorcycles, helmets were not common. There were no helmet
laws. The only accident that I had was similar to yours. Going around
a rotary, sand on the road, slide about 40 feet, head never hit
anything, but I wore a couple of holes in a dress shirt and lost a
little skin. It was a warm day and I had no coat on. Be careful out
there. Those cars are dangerous and not to be trusted.


Dan

In article . com,
says...

But for motorcycle accidents where the helmet reduces the 100 g force
to 10 g's, the wearer dies anyway. Broken neck. Granted that the
helmets for motorcycles will save some lives, but a much smaller
percentage than the helmets for bike riders. Another problem is that
the polystyrene foam keeps the force at a safe level until it is all
crushed. It will only adsorb so much energy. So that 100 g force get
attenuated to 10 g's for a while. Then it only reduces it to 80 g's.
( Don't pick on the numbers, I picked them out of thin air. But you
get the idea. ) So I can still see an argument that helmets for
motorcycles don't help enough to pass laws to require them.

I think the idea is that by the time the shock load is large enough
to crush out all the EPS foam, the wearer would be dead anyway.
But that's a really large number.

Not to pick on the numbers g 10g is a really tiny shock. We
instrumented some equipment with accelerometers, and 10g is
about what you get when you tap a pencil point on a tabletop.

I think the level for a concussion in a human is somewhere
less than 100G. Above 100 and you start having some serious
medical consequences.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

I agree that 10 g's is a small shock. But think about it this way.
160 lb man drops 16 feet onto his neck. He hits at about 32 feet per
second or about 20 mph. If he decelerates at 10 g's, the force is 1600
lb force. The energy is 2560 ft lbs.

You want me to believe that a helmet will protect me at higher speeds.
Now if I had to be involved in an accident at a higher speed, I would
want a helmet. I am just not sure it would be enough to be of any real
help if I went over the handlebars and hit something halfway hard head
first.

Now with a bit of luck, the man drops 16 feet and lands on his back,
and the helmet only has to adsorb the energy his head has.

Dan

wrote in message
oups.com...
I agree that 10 g's is a small shock. But think about it this way.
160 lb man drops 16 feet onto his neck. He hits at about 32 feet per
second or about 20 mph. If he decelerates at 10 g's, the force is 1600
lb force. The energy is 2560 ft lbs.

You want me to believe that a helmet will protect me at higher speeds.
Now if I had to be involved in an accident at a higher speed, I would
want a helmet. I am just not sure it would be enough to be of any real
help if I went over the handlebars and hit something halfway hard head
first.

You're right, if you ride head-on into a bridge abutment at 60 mph, you're
probably dead.

Fortunately, that isn't the way most accidents happen. Unless you like
playing Russian Roulette or betting against yourself with 100:1 odds, there
is no credible argument against wearing a helmet.

--
Ed Huntress

On 7 Feb 2005 19:43:36 -0800, wrote:

,;I agree that 10 g's is a small shock. But think about it this way.
,;160 lb man drops 16 feet onto his neck. He hits at about 32 feet per
,;second or about 20 mph. If he decelerates at 10 g's, the force is 1600
,;lb force. The energy is 2560 ft lbs.
,;
,; You want me to believe that a helmet will protect me at higher speeds.
,; Now if I had to be involved in an accident at a higher speed, I would
,;want a helmet. I am just not sure it would be enough to be of any real
,;help if I went over the handlebars and hit something halfway hard head
,;first.

It did for me. Some jerk came across three lanes of traffic and pinned
me against the curb. I would estimate my speed at about 30 mph and I
didn't see him coming until it was to late to avoid him. The front
bumper hit my bike just behind the front wheel at about a 45 degree
angle. I think the motor guard prevented a mangled left leg. I cleared
the handle bars, cleared the hood of his car, and landed on my head.
Fortunately my forward momentum carried me into a full roll and I
rolled up to a standing position without a scratch but somewhat
disoriented. I suspect that without the helmet I would have had some
serious damage leading to death or permanent disability.

I finally gave the bike riding up and bought an MGB. When I come to a
stop sign I don't need to put my foot on the ground and if it starts
to rain I don't need to search for an overpass.

On 7 Feb 2005 19:43:36 -0800, wrote:

I agree that 10 g's is a small shock. But think about it this way.
160 lb man drops 16 feet onto his neck. He hits at about 32 feet per
second or about 20 mph. If he decelerates at 10 g's, the force is 1600
lb force. The energy is 2560 ft lbs.

You want me to believe that a helmet will protect me at higher speeds.
Now if I had to be involved in an accident at a higher speed, I would
want a helmet. I am just not sure it would be enough to be of any real
help if I went over the handlebars and hit something halfway hard head
first.

Now with a bit of luck, the man drops 16 feet and lands on his back,
and the helmet only has to adsorb the energy his head has.

Dan
Not to support helmet laws, which I don't, even smacking a helmet at
10 mph or faster can avoid major brain damage. I don't know where
exactly the cutoff point is, but I do know that a helmet striking a
truck at about 25 mph can protect the wearer from even a concussion.
Surprisingly, I didn't think I had hit my head at all. After I saw the
damage to the helmet there was no doubt. I'm sure that there are ways
to hit a helmet in such a way that the energy is concentrated to a
small area but most of the time it is spread out enough to save not
only the brain but the spine too.
ERS

Ya'll are no fun. Why not outlaw bikes all together.
25mph max. even down hill. LOL


No climbing a rock bigger than your house.

Tellingya. Personal liability insurance ! Don't say hello without it.

new world order

"Sunworshipper" wrote in message
...
Ya'll are no fun.

That's true. But it isn't the fun part that's the subject.

Why not outlaw bikes all together.

People have proposed it. You could make a very good case for it. But that,
too, is part of a democracy. That's where line-drawing comes in. The
consensus is that motocycles are something like four or five times more
likely to kill their riders or put them in the hospital, but the public
doesn't want to kill the fun. What they want to do, in roughly half of the
states, is to keep a risky enterprise from becoming completely nuts.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

People have proposed it. You could make a very good case for it. But that,
too, is part of a democracy. That's where line-drawing comes in. The
consensus is that motocycles are something like four or five times more
likely to kill their riders or put them in the hospital, but the public
doesn't want to kill the fun. What they want to do, in roughly half of the
states, is to keep a risky enterprise from becoming completely nuts.

Excuse me, but where in the constitution does it say that the
government is there to 'keep a risky enterprise from
becoming completely nuts?' And if they do say that, where's
it gonna stop?

I think there are a lot of folks here who think that good
govenment is govenment that does the least neccesary to
accomplish the collective goals.

The more nanny-stuff that gets perpetrated does not really
make folks safer in the long run. Air bags, seat belts,
ABS, traction control in cars simply encourages folks to
drive like nuts. They figure that because they paid a lot
for some big SUV they're invulnerable and can drive around
with impunity, not paying attention to what they're doing.

This is what happens sometimes:

http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop1.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop2.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop3.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop4.jpg

Did all the nanny-state stuff save that guy's bacon?
I doubt it. It probably contributed to the crash,
because he felt invulnerable.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 8 Feb 2005 15:54:06 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

I think there are a lot of folks here who think that good
govenment is govenment that does the least neccesary to
accomplish the collective goals.

A Freakin' Men!


The more nanny-stuff that gets perpetrated does not really
make folks safer in the long run. Air bags, seat belts,
ABS, traction control in cars simply encourages folks to
drive like nuts. They figure that because they paid a lot
for some big SUV they're invulnerable and can drive around
with impunity, not paying attention to what they're doing.

Obviously, that's a bad attitude. Soccer Moms are the worst,
but this guy is right up there with 'em.


This is what happens sometimes:

http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop1.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop2.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop3.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop4.jpg

Did all the nanny-state stuff save that guy's bacon?
I doubt it. It probably contributed to the crash,
because he felt invulnerable.

Eez pozzible.

That is ABSOLUTELY the wrong way to load lumber into a pickup.
He can't see his right rearview mirror and there's no red flag
on the tail end of his load.

-
They who know the truth are not equal to those who love it. -Confucius
---
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Programming Services

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

People have proposed it. You could make a very good case for it. But
that,
too, is part of a democracy. That's where line-drawing comes in. The
consensus is that motocycles are something like four or five times more
likely to kill their riders or put them in the hospital, but the public
doesn't want to kill the fun. What they want to do, in roughly half of
the
states, is to keep a risky enterprise from becoming completely nuts.

Excuse me, but where in the constitution does it say that the
government is there to 'keep a risky enterprise from
becoming completely nuts?' And if they do say that, where's
it gonna stop?

Where does it say the states cannot? This is primarily a state issue, Jim,
not a federal one. The default position, absent incorporation of some right
under the 14th Amendment, is that the people of the states, and their
elected legislatures, can do pretty much what they decide they want to do.

Don't try the constitutional angle. It's a complete loser in this case. Ask
your wife. g


I think there are a lot of folks here who think that good
govenment is govenment that does the least neccesary to
accomplish the collective goals.

Well, that's basically what you have. In 1996, a Lewis Harris poll showed
that something over 80% of Americans over age 16 support motorcycle helmet
laws. The NHTSA ran a survey in 1995 that showed almost exactly the same
number. The "collective goal" here seems to be to minimize carnage, or its
public expense, on the public roads and highways.

The public generally supports increased safety requirements for vehicles and
drivers, whether it directly influences them or not. Again, driving and
riding are priviledges under the law, and are subject to a broad range of
legislation.


The more nanny-stuff that gets perpetrated does not really
make folks safer in the long run. Air bags, seat belts,
ABS, traction control in cars simply encourages folks to
drive like nuts.

Something is sure helping the situation. Here are the death rates/100MM
miles, per the US Dept. of Transportation:

1965 5.30
1970 4.85
1975 3.43
1980 3.35
1985 2.47
1990 2.08
1995 1.73
2000 1.53

(Transportation Indicators for Motor Vehicles and Airlines:
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/minihs.html) That's down from over 45 in
1909, BTW. g

They figure that because they paid a lot
for some big SUV they're invulnerable and can drive around
with impunity, not paying attention to what they're doing.

Well, that's another issue altogether.

This is what happens sometimes:

http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop1.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop2.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop3.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop4.jpg

Did all the nanny-state stuff save that guy's bacon?
I doubt it. It probably contributed to the crash,
because he felt invulnerable.

I'm going to guess that's an anecdote.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Something is sure helping the situation. Here are the death rates/100MM
miles, per the US Dept. of Transportation:

1965 5.30
1970 4.85
1975 3.43
1980 3.35
1985 2.47
1990 2.08
1995 1.73
2000 1.53

(Transportation Indicators for Motor Vehicles and Airlines:
http://www.census.gov/statab/www/minihs.html) That's down from over 45 in
1909, BTW. g

Ah, statistics. Then you of *all* posters here should know that
there's a multitude of reasons for those numbers. Not all of
the reasons are related to helmets, airbags, and seatbelts.

Some of the reasons have to do with things that make cars work
better and faster.

http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop1.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop2.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop3.jpg
http://www.priceless420.com/Pr020505shortstop4.jpg

Did all the nanny-state stuff save that guy's bacon?
I doubt it. It probably contributed to the crash,
because he felt invulnerable.

I'm going to guess that's an anecdote.

Probably (g) Interesting pictures though.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

In article , Larry Jaques says...

That is ABSOLUTELY the wrong way to load lumber into a pickup.
He can't see his right rearview mirror and there's no red flag
on the tail end of his load.

Oddly, there *is* a red flag there, visible in one of the
photos. Lotta good it did the SUV driver.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================