Why Does Ben Roethlisberger Refuse to Do Public Safety Announcements?

[Rach3]

I came across this story by chance - it's too funny not to share!

Some football player (the American kind) explains his decision not to be involved in a public-safety advertisement (nothing wrong with that in itself, of course):

PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Ben Roethlisberger doesn't plan on doing public safety announcements for motorcycle or helmet safety following his accident last month.

..."Some people feel that, you know, I probably should be doing that and being a big advocate for that," Roethlisberger said from Los Angeles. "But for me, I'm going to let people make their own decisions... So I don't think you'll see me doing any kind of billboards or advertisements."

Roethlisberger had seven hours of facial reconstruction surgery June 12 after ramming his motorcycle into a car that turned left in front of him on a Pittsburgh street.

Roethlisberger broke his jaw and nose when his head smashed into the car's windshield and he was thrown over the car onto the pavement. He was cited for riding without a license and not wearing a helmet.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-roethlisberger-helmetads&prov=ap&type=lgns

Indeed, he makes his own decisions.

 

[Astronuc]

Crashing one's motorcycle into a car is probably not a good decision, especially when one is not wearing a helmet.

 

[wolram]

He sounds like a right twit, or did he suffer brain damage? it all ways makes me cringe when i watch American chopper and you see guys wearing bandanas riding 1200cc bikes.

 

[Gokul43201]

Some football player ...

Did you say "some" football player??!

 

[neutrino]

Probably he shouldn't be wearing a helmet while playing the game too.

 

[neutrino]

Did you say "some" football player??!

Some faceless football player.

 

[MeJennifer]

It is the same with people who smoke, do drugs, eat only junk food, jump out of airplanes, box, play football, ride bulls etc.

All these things have danger in them.
Should they be illegal? I don't think so.

As far as I am concerned it should be the drivers responsibility. By not wearing a helmet one does not endanger anyone else, so why should we care if they don't want to wear it. What is bright about that?

I would be more concerned with things like talking on the cell phone while driving. That's, according to tests, just as dangerous as drunk driving. But that is legal, and that can harm other people.

So why bother about making wearing a helmet illegal while letting people call while driving?
What is bright about that?

 

[Astronuc]

He sounds like a right twit, or did he suffer brain damage?

Before or after he crashed into the car - then the pavement?

 

[Moonbear]

Probably he shouldn't be wearing a helmet while playing the game too.

Apparently, his coach tried making the same argument when trying to get him to wear a motorcycle helmet before the crash. His response to it was that he only wears one in football because the regulations require it. No, the accident didn't cause brain damage, he was like that before the accident.

 

[berkeman]

Did you say "some" football player??!

I thought exactly the same thing. Obviously the OP isn't from the US. Here is a long thread about this incident from the Thumpertalk dirtbike forums that I frequent:

http://www.thumpertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=384772

And here is a good bit more info about Ben and the accident:

Roethlisberger says he's ``fortunate to be alive'' after crash

By JOE MANDAK, Associated Press Writer


PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Ben Roethlisberger apologized to the Pittsburgh Steelers, fans and his family on Thursday, hours after being released from a hospital, saying he was fortunate to be alive and pledging to wear a helmet if he ever again rides a motorcycle.

"In the past few days, I've gained a new perspective on life," the Super Bowl-winning quarterback said in a statement released by the team. "By the grace of God, I'm fortunate to be alive ... "

ADVERTISEMENT


Roethlisberger, 24, who wrecked his bike and cracked his head on a car windshield on Monday, was discharged late Wednesday night.

The youngest quarterback ever to win a Super Bowl was not wearing a helmet when he crashed into a car that was turning left in front of his motorcycle. Pennsylvania's mandatory helmet law was repealed in 2003.

But Roethlisberger said in the statement that if he ever rides a motorcycle again "it certainly will be with a helmet."

Doctors have said two rounds of tests showed no brain injuries, although there was a mild concussion. Doctors used small titanium plates and screws to reassemble Roethlisberger's broken jaws and repaired other broken facial bones. He also lost two teeth and chipped several others, doctors said.

In the statement, Roethlisberger said that he realizes he has a responsibility to safeguard his health in the offseason so he can continue to lead the team.

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, citing confidentiality laws, has refused to confirm media reports that Roethlisberger does not have a valid Pennsylvania motorcycle license.

Roethlisberger appeared to address those reports in his statement.

"I never meant any harm to others nor to break any laws," Roethlisberger said. "I was confident in my ability to ride a motorcycle and simply believed such an accident would not happen to me."

Cincinnati Bengals quarterback Carson Palmer said those criticizing Roethlisberger for not wearing a helmet should back off.

"He went through seven hours of surgery and the last thing he needs right now is guys banging on him for not wearing a helmet," Palmer said at Bengals' minicamp in Cincinnati.

Police were still investigating and will not release their findings until their accident reconstruction is complete, spokeswoman Tammy Ewin said. Police have finished inspecting Roethlisberger's Suzuki Hayabusa motorcycle and the car, but Ewin would not elaborate on that part of the investigation.

A secretary for District Justice Oscar Petite Jr., who has jurisdiction where the crash occurred, said no citations or other charges have been filed.

The car's driver, a 62-year-old woman, did not immediately return a telephone message Thursday.

The Steelers have not given a timetable for Roethlisberger's return, but hope he will be ready for their Sept. 7 opener against Miami. Players who visited Roethlisberger in the hospital believe he will return to action soon, with no ill effects.

"I look forward to being at training camp in Latrobe and winning football games this season," Roethlisberger said in the statement.

The Steelers are 27-4 with Roethlisberger at quarterback and have played in two AFC championship games and won a Super Bowl during his two seasons as a starter.

Bengals receiver Chad Johnson hopes the accident does not cause teams to impose more contractual limits on dangerous activities by players.

"They took away the (touchdown) celebrations. Now we can't enjoy ourselves outside of the facility? That's not fair," Johnson said.

"If you're going to do it, do it very cautiously. If you're going to ride a bike, ride it the right way. Don't speed. Do it for enjoyment. If you're going to bungee jump, have two cords in case one snaps. I don't ride anything. I just talk trash. That's it."

Although Roethlisberger was able to sneak out of the hospital Wednesday night, Mercy Hospital officials did not confirm his release until Thursday morning at the request of his family.

It was unclear where Roethlisberger went when he left the hospital. A bodyguard outside Roethlisberger's home did not say if the player was inside, but several vehicles were parked in the driveway and on the street nearby.

AP Sports Writer Joe Kay in Cincinnati contributed to this report.



Updated on Thursday, Jun 15, 2006 7:57 pm EDT

 

[wolram]

"I never meant any harm to others nor to break any laws," Roethlisberger said. "I was confident in my ability to ride a motorcycle and simply believed such an accident would not happen to me."

I seem to know a person with such confidence with plenty of digs and dents
to prove it is ill found.

 

[SpaceTiger]

"I never meant any harm to others nor to break any laws," Roethlisberger said. "I was confident in my ability to ride a motorcycle and simply believed such an accident would not happen to me."

Remember kids, it can happen to him.

 

[Rach3]

Did you say "some" football player??!

What, I've never heard of him. I have heard of the Steelers though, if that mitigates my offense somewhat...

 

[neutrino]

Touch down...quarterback...Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson

 

[NoTime]

Ok, I got to ask.

How do you figure that adding 50% to the mass pushing your face into the windshield is a benefit.

Basic physics says it would make matters worse.

I looked one time and the only thing I found, related to helmet safety for motorcycles, was a comment that:
"No study has ever been done on the merits of helmet usage with motorcycles."

So are there any studies out there? References Please.

PS: I haven't rode a bike in over 30 years, so this is curiosity.

I do notice that in auto racing they are now requiring use of the Hans Device. Apparently, because the mass of the helmet was breaking too many necks. What additional good a helmet will do when you are already strapped into a padded roll cage escapes me.

 

[Rach3]

In similar news...

DENVER - Beer baron Peter Coors' driver's license has been revoked by a hearing officer who ruled the executive had been driving under the influence of alcohol, officials said.

...In one breath test, he registered a blood alcohol level of 0.073 percent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060715/ap_on_re_us/coors_dui

 

[berkeman]

Ok, I got to ask.

How do you figure that adding 50% to the mass pushing your face into the windshield is a benefit.

Basic physics says it would make matters worse.

I looked one time and the only thing I found, related to helmet safety for motorcycles, was a comment that:
"No study has ever been done on the merits of helmet usage with motorcycles."

So are there any studies out there? References Please.

PS: I haven't rode a bike in over 30 years, so this is curiosity.

I do notice that in auto racing they are now requiring use of the Hans Device. Apparently, because the mass of the helmet was breaking too many necks. What additional good a helmet will do when you are already strapped into a padded roll cage escapes me.

First, there is a new tool called Google. Try it sometime, you might find it valuable. I googled motorcycle helmet safety study, and got lots of hits. Here's the hit list for your reading pleasure:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=motorcycle+helmet+safety+study

Second, you're right that wearing an open-face helmet will not help you in a face plant crash, and probably actually makes things worse. That's why beanie helmets are so worthless. That's why most responsible street riders wear full-face helmets. The ones that fit best give you a little bit of chipmunk cheeks -- they fit nice and tight around your whole head including your face and cheekbones and forehead. In a face plant, a lot of energy is absorbed by the padding in the forehead and cheeks. And in side and rear impacts, hopefully the padding makes sense to you.

I have about 150,000 miles of performance commuting (year-round) on my sportbikes, plus many miles on the local racetracks here in Northern California. No way I'd ride without a helmet. Same for my dirtbiking and MX riding. Gotta protect you biggest asset.

 

[slugcountry]

Ok, I got to ask.

How do you figure that adding 50% to the mass pushing your face into the windshield is a benefit.

Basic physics says it would make matters worse.

you can't be serious...

smash your forehead into a wall, then try it wearing a helmet.

 

[berkeman]

you can't be serious...

smash your forehead into a wall, then try it wearing a helmet.

I think he was referring to a faceplant, not a forehead smack. For the faceplant case with an open-face helmet, I think his physics is correct.

 

[slugcountry]

oh my mistake =P yeah i can't imagine why people even bother wearing helmets if they don't have face shields

 

[Curious3141]

Did you say "some" football player??!

And it ain't even real football (pokes Gokul with a sharp stick).

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think anyone suggested that big the benefit of wearing a helmet is that it will save your face. If you hit something at 60mph, you're pretty much bound to come out looking like you went through a meat-grinder.

What helmets do is make the one difference between living and dying: protecting the brain.

 

[NoTime]

I think he was referring to a faceplant, not a forehead smack. For the faceplant case with an open-face helmet, I think his physics is correct.

The person that was the subject of this thread got a faceplant injury.

Except for motocross events, a full face helmet on the streets is a rarity.
Although, in the last couple years I have noticed more people using them.

Most of the items that came up in your link are quite new and weren't there the last time I looked a few years ago.
This is a personal opinion, but much of what I looked at seems to be a lot of data cooking.
As I pointed out I don't have a bike, so you can take that for what its worth.

I pulled the following statements from
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inj...le/FlaMCReport/images/FloridaMCReportscr1.pdf

In 2001-2003, 101 motorcyclists under age 21 were killed, with 45 percent of them being unhelmeted.

You are more likely to die if you are wearing a helmet

Among motorcyclists who sustained incapacitating injury, 21 percent of those involved in 1999 crashes were unhelmeted while 50 percent of those involve in year 2001 crashes were not wearing helmets.

Looks like the odds for helmet wearers improved in 2001.
I got to wonder if they changed the rules on what constitutes "incapacitating injury"
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a breakdown of types of injury and number of occurrences.

If I take up riding again, I don't think a helmet is going to be on my must have list.

 

[slugcountry]

... brilliant.

by the way you won't see anyone riding a sport bike without a helmet (a real one)... a little odd considering cruisers aren't any safer don't you think?

 

[Evo]

All I can say is, that if you don't wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, don't be surprised if you get a Darwin Award.

It's STUPID not to improve your chances of survival by wearing a helmet. No, head injuries aren't the only cause of death from motorcycle accidents, most deaths come from internal injuries. Don't be stupid about it just because a helmet can't prevent other injuries. I know someone whose life was probably saved by his helmet, the outside of the helmet actually cracked, if that had been his bare head that hit the pavement, he wouldn't have been alive to look at it.

 

[NoTime]

All I can say is, that if you don't wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, don't be surprised if you get a Darwin Award.

It's STUPID not to improve your chances of survival by wearing a helmet. No, head injuries aren't the only cause of death from motorcycle accidents, most deaths come from internal injuries. Don't be stupid about it just because a helmet can't prevent other injuries. I know someone whose life was probably saved by his helmet, the outside of the helmet actually cracked, if that had been his bare head that hit the pavement, he wouldn't have been alive to look at it.

Have it your way, I don't really care since it is unlikely I'll take up riding again.

OTOH, much(most) of physics is counterintuitive.
As far as the Darwin Award goes, I notice, in the same report, that since they repealed the helmet law in Florida the number of deaths per 10,000 riders went way down for helmeted users while it went up for non helmeted users.
The overall death rate stayed about the same.
There definitely seems to be some self selection going on there.

One of the things that got me wondering about helmets was the friend of mine that leaned back in her chair and broke hers.
She weighs about 130.
Yea! Like that was a usefull piece of equipment.

 

[Evo]

One of the things that got me wondering about helmets was the friend of mine that leaned back in her chair and broke hers.
She weighs about 130.
Yea! Like that was a usefull piece of equipment.

Did she buy it at Toys R Us?

Unfortunately the helmet law didn't have stringent guidelines. There were idiots that were buying old WWII German helmets and wearing those, like that offered any type of protection.

You aren't trying to say that deaths went with helmets? Did you see this graph from the link you posted? It clearly shows that the number of deaths without helmets increased significantly.

 

[NoTime]

... brilliant.

by the way you won't see anyone riding a sport bike without a helmet (a real one)... a little odd considering cruisers aren't any safer don't you think?

Because they won't let you compete without one?

When was the last time you saw a cruiser take 40' of air

 

[NoTime]

Did she buy it at Toys R Us?

Don't know what brand it was, but neither her or her husband are particualy noted for buying junk.

 

[Evo]

Don't know what brand it was, but neither her or her husband are particualy noted for buying junk.

If it cracked just from leaning backwards, it was a toy.

You did re-read that graph and understand the increase in deaths without helmets?

 

[NoTime]

If it cracked just from leaning backwards, it was a toy.

Don't know about that. This was 7 or 8 years ago, and plastic can deteriorate after a few years of sun and whatnot.

You did re-read that graph and understand the increase in deaths without helmets?

Not sure what you are referring to here.
Looks to me like the crazies took themselves out of one group and put themselves in the other.
As I said, it looks like self selection.
Otherwise, I would think the rate per 10,000 randomly selected helmeted users would stay the same and you would just have a high rate for non helmeted users.

In aviation there is a saying that, there are old pilots, there are bold pilots, there are no old bold pilots.

As it is, I don't think the graph says anything about the value or lack there of for helmets.

 

[Rach3]

In 2001-2003, 101 motorcyclists under age 21 were killed, with 45 percent of them being unhelmeted.

You are more likely to die if you are wearing a helmet

Basic fallacy - there nothing in there about the a priori distribution of helmets, you've misread what that statistic means.

 

[NoTime]

Basic fallacy - there nothing in there about the a priori distribution of helmets, you've misread what that statistic means.

Could be I am wrong, happens all the time, but there is a stated distribution.
Feel free to explain why it doesn't apply.

All in all given the accident/death differential between bikes an cars...

Elsewhere in the report:
Observed helmet usage was 47%, No helmet was 47%, and how exactly they considered the remaining 6% kinda escapes me.
Personally, I would throw the 6% in with helmets for 53% since that is how they considered it for some other data.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/inj...le/FlaMCReport/images/FloridaMCReportscr1.pdf[/URL]


You are more likely to die if you are wearing a helmet

Well not being able to view the link I'm guessing that the reason their were more helmet fatalities was that most people wear helmets, in order to do a real comparisson you'd have to compare years where more or less people wore helmets and then see if there were more fatalities over all. I know stating the obvious but helmets do save lives.

 

[rcgldr]

Regarding the "helmetless" riders having fewer fatalities than "helmeted" riders, it's probably because the "helmetless" riders are mostly riding cruiser bikes like Harleys, and don't ride that often, and ride relatively slow, while the "helmeted" riders include a higher percentage of sport bikes with more milage, and also higher speeds.

I'm greatful for the helmet law in California, because it reduces the peer pressure for new Harley owners, most of which have little experience on motorcycles to ride without a helmet. Fortunately, as baby boomers age, the Harley fad is starting to fade away.

I own and ride the same brand motorcycle, a Suzuki Hayabusa. I'm surprised that they didn't mention the fact that these are one of the fastest bikes around (186mph with speed-limiter), along with the new Kawasaki ZX14 (even more power, 190hp versus the Busa's 175hp). At least the "killer" bike media reports have seemed to gone away.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Are these american statistics? I wish I could see them but the website grinds on forever. if there were 100 acidents and 90% of people wore helmets then if 100% of the people who didn't where helemts died and only 50% of the people who wore helmets died, you'd still have a much greater number of deaths in people wearing helmets, I'm sure peopel got that I just read it and thought it's a bit vague. Anyway the UK saw a decrease in motorcycle deaths after the laws were introduced this site shows an increase in deaths after laws were repealed.

www.cochrane-injuries.lshtm.ac.uk/helmetcomment.pdf[/URL] -

and this sight shows a decrease after the laws were introduced I think. Any other statistics are meaningless without a full description of original numbers of helmet wearers over non helmet wearers.

[PLAIN]www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/documents/fullbrook.pdf[/URL]

I believe these sites confirm this but as I can't access them :rolleyes: I'll have to go by what google says about them. If there rubbish I apologise :)

If they are check out countries where the laws were brought in and how this effected motorcycle fatalities, any other statistics of direct numbers are subject to interpritation, unless they give you something to describe the figures behind the stats they're meaningless, but then they might? Like I say I'm working blind, winging it, flying by the seat of my pants, this is like playing that game where you stick a card to your head bet and hope you outclass your opponent, how exciting :D

 

[wolram]

The best source of information would be the horses mouth, log on to the britbike forum, it is free, and ask the question in forum, rod and tappet.

 

[wolram]

I posted a question.

 

[wolram]

http://www.britbike.com/ubb/noncgi/ultimatebb.php?/ubb/get_topic/f/51/t/001861/p/1.html#000002

Link to debate on Britbike.

 

[turbo]

I'm late to this party, but let me say that I have ridden nothing but Harleys for over 20 years, and have never worn a helmet, nor will I. It's not just the heat and the weight (hit a good frost-heave or pothole and see what that does to your neck) - helmets hinder peripheral vision and destroy your ability to locate sounds (like a blaring horn or a siren). I'll take my two best senses for crash avoidance over the "protection" any day. As for safety, a professor at Bowdoin College did a study a few years back and determined that in collisions at speeds over 13mph, you are more likely to be killed or paralyzed by a helmet than to be saved by it. The back edge of the helmet acts as a fulcrum, and that's where your neck breaks. If Maine ever passes a helmet law, I'll sell you a Softail cheap.

Please read Wizzard's long post here.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache..."+13+mph+"head+form"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

 

[wolram]

I'm late to this party, but let me say that I have ridden nothing but Harleys for over 20 years, and have never worn a helmet, nor will I. It's not just the heat and the weight (hit a good frost-heave or pothole and see what that does to your neck) - helmets hinder peripheral vision and destroy your ability to locate sounds (like a blaring horn or a siren). I'll take my two best senses for crash avoidance over the "protection" any day. As for safety, a professor at Bowdoin College did a study a few years back and determined that in collisions at speeds over 13mph, you are more likely to be killed or paralyzed by a helmet than to be saved by it. The back edge of the helmet acts as a fulcrum, and that's where your neck breaks. If Maine ever passes a helmet law, I'll sell you a Softail cheap.

Please read Wizzard's long post here.
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache..."+13+mph+"head+form"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=9

Turbo, if you want proof that helmets save lives, why not ask the countless motor racing bodies why they insist on drivers riders wearing a helmet, even F1 were the cars have roll bars, and look at some of the replies on Britbike.

 

[Astronuc]

It's STUPID not to improve your chances of survival by wearing a helmet. No, head injuries aren't the only cause of death from motorcycle accidents, most deaths come from internal injuries. Don't be stupid about it just because a helmet can't prevent other injuries. I know someone whose life was probably saved by his helmet, the outside of the helmet actually cracked, if that had been his bare head that hit the pavement, he wouldn't have been alive to look at it.

I know a couple of people who survived such accidents because they wore helmets. In fact, one showed my the helmet which had a large gash in front. Had he not been wearing the helmet, his brains would have been splattered over the road.

As for the statistics - one has to look at the deaths of unhelmeted and helmeted riders compared to the number of accidents in each category - not the fact the 45% of deaths were unhelmeted riders.

Wearing a helmet does not preclude a broken neck (quadraplegia if one survives), nor broken ribs, nor abrupt sudden death when the heart stops due to blunt trauma, nor rupture internal organs, nor broken limbs, nor other damages.

Only safe riding can - and part of that is wearing a helmet and appropriate attire.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

As for the statistics - one has to look at the deaths of unhelmeted and helmeted riders compared to the number of accidents in each category - not the fact the 45% of deaths were unhelmeted riders.

.

Indeed I said this twice and even on the second time I said it it was complete gibberish, obviously Thanks for speaking English Astronuc.

I am surprised it's so hard to find information, I know it's been the law in the UK and I know for a fact that motorcycle helmets save lifes, but, all I have to go on is programmes on travel and documentaries I remember from the distant past? You would of though that the figures from the law being brought in in the UK would be around somewhere, I'm almost certain they would show exactly what Astronuc is asking for, but where are they?

 

[turbo]

I am surprised it's so hard to find information, I know it's been the law in the UK and I know for a fact that motorcycle helmets save lifes, but, all I have to go on is programmes on travel and documentaries I remember from the distant past? You would of though that the figures from the law being brought in in the UK would be around somewhere, I'm almost certain they would show exactly what Astronuc is asking for, but where are they?

It is really tough to get good information on before and after helmet law enactment/repeal. It's a complex issue. If you repeal a helmet law, it results in an increase in the number of riders and in the numbers of miles that they ride. Much of the increase comes from people getting their licenses for the first time or from people who rode occasionally and decide to splurge on their dream-bike. Those people will be disproportionately prone to accidents because they haven't developed the skills necessary to avoid accidents in the first place, or are not entirely familiar with their bike and its capabilities. I have owned 4 Harleys in 20+ years, and I have taken time to familiarize myself with them, including swerving, overbraking, etc, before taking a passenger. Each year when I start riding in the spring after a few months' lay-off, I get in at least a couple rides solo before my wife accompanies me, and I spend time in a vacant parking lot practicing tight turns, overbraking, etc.

To any person who wants to pass a law forcing bikers to wear helmets: I'll agree to vote for it if it applies to every driver and passenger in EVERY vehicle - no exceptions.

 

[Astronuc]

To any person who wants to pass a law forcing bikers to wear helmets: I'll agree to vote for it if it applies to every driver and passenger in EVERY vehicle - no exceptions.

But drivers in vehicles have to wear seat belts, with the assumption that one's head is protected by the passenger compartment. Certainly, that is not always the case.

A 4-wheel vehicle is much less likely to tip/flip than a two-wheel vehicle.

It shouldn't be necessary to pass laws to force people to protect themselves - but that's the way it is. Some riders are very conscientious, but others are not, so we force 'all' bike riders to wear helmets, like we force all vehicle drivers and passengers to wear seatbelts.

It would be great if everyone drove safely and there were no 'accidents'. But this is not reality.

 

[shmoe]

Each year when I start riding in the spring after a few months' lay-off, I get in at least a couple rides solo before my wife accompanies me, and I spend time in a vacant parking lot practicing tight turns, overbraking, etc.

Somehow I think you might be a rare exception with your practice, but i would hope not.

I'm curious if you wear any other safety gear or if you've ever been in an accident? Does your wife also go without a helmet?

To any person who wants to pass a law forcing bikers to wear helmets: I'll agree to vote for it if it applies to every driver and passenger in EVERY vehicle - no exceptions.

How about nerf helmets to provide some added comfort to whatever it is you're head is hitting?

 

[turbo]

Somehow I think you might be a rare exception with your practice, but i would hope not.

Perhaps, but riding requires coordination, timing, etc - far more than driving a car. I do not take those skills lightly.

I'm curious if you wear any other safety gear or if you've ever been in an accident? Does your wife also go without a helmet?

Neither of us own a helmet, nor do most of our friends. We all wear protective eyewear when riding, BTW, and leather jackets when it's not too hot. Edit: We also all wear sturdy boots. Mine are 25-year-old composite soled cowboy boots with high insteps for the pegs. The traditional pegged leather soles are not advisable when you're on smooth pavement (perphaps with stones) holding up a 700 lb bike with passenger. I have been down twice, both times by overaccelerating and doing unintended wheelies on my old Yamaha 350. High power to weight ratio in those old 2-strokes. I rode that bike 25 miles each way in a slushy snowstorm to take my road test.

How about nerf helmets to provide some added comfort to whatever it is you're head is hitting?

 

[NoTime]

Thanks for all the responses.
I was looking for a detailed study discussing neck injuries, head injuries, body injuries. The likelihood of getting any particular one. Does helmet use actually decrease or increase particular injuries, such as neck? Are accident rates increased or unchanged due to sensory limitations?
Still ain't seen anything remotely like this.

I consider the report I was quoting from to be utter trash.
For example they quoted 99% law compliance before repeal. With 59 percent wearing FMVSS No. 218 compliant helmets and 40% wearing non compliant helmets.
What's a non compliant helmet anyway?
A baseball cap with a chin strap?
Was the net effect of repeal actually a 12% decrease in helmet usage instead of 52%?

I know a couple of people who survived such accidents because they wore helmets. In fact, one showed my the helmet which had a large gash in front. Had he not been wearing the helmet, his brains would have been splattered over the road.

Can't say I'm impressed by busted helmet stories.
Not after my friend broke hers by leaning against it.
This just generates more questions.
Does your 2yr old helmet still meet design spec?
5yr?
Is your 10 year old helmet any better than a baseball cap with a chin strap?

As for the statistics - one has to look at the deaths of unhelmeted and helmeted riders compared to the number of accidents in each category - not the fact the 45% of deaths were unhelmeted riders.

Given what appears to be a very strong selection effect for "bold" riders, I'm inclined to think that non helmeted riders have way more accidents as a group. I couldn't find the information you specify in the report.

Wearing a helmet does not preclude a broken neck (quadraplegia if one survives), nor broken ribs, nor abrupt sudden death when the heart stops due to blunt trauma, nor rupture internal organs, nor broken limbs, nor other damages.

If helmet usage increases quadriplegia from additional cases of neck injuries.
I personally would take the clean kill.
You might disagree but,
Life is a 100% fatal sexually transmitted disease.
Absolutely no exceptions.
It's only a question of when, not if.

Only safe riding can - and part of that is wearing a helmet and appropriate attire.

I'll agree to the avoiding accident part.
But is helmet wearing truly what's claimed for it?
All I've really seen is hearsay evidence.

While helmet use seems to be a good idea at first glance there are some technical questions that really make me wonder.

From: http://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/

Your brain basically floats inside your skull, within a bath of cervical-spinal fluid and a protective cocoon called the dura. But when your skull stops suddenly—as it does when it hits something hard—the brain keeps going, as Sir Isaac Newton predicted. Then it has its own collision with the inside of the skull. If that collision is too severe, the brain can sustain any number of injuries, from shearing of the brain tissue to bleeding in the brain, or between the brain and the dura, or between the dura and the skull. And after your brain is injured, even more damage can occur. When the brain is bashed or injured internally, bleeding and inflammation make it swell. When your brain swells inside the skull, there's no place for that extra volume to go. So it presses harder against the inside of the skull and tries to squeeze through any opening, bulging out of your eye sockets and oozing down the base of the skull. As it squeezes, more damage is done to some very vital regions.

I worked this out years ago just from basic physiology and physics. It's nice to see someone else thinking about this now. Couldn't find anything then.

Obviously, a helmet is going to reduce peak acceleration of your skull bones and reduce breakage of them. Is it going to do squat for the secondary collision of your brain with the inside of you skull? Is the skull tuned so its structural integrity fails at the same point the internal shock adsorbing system gets fatally overloaded? (barring contact with sharp pointy objects) Do you actually want the skull to break so your brains don't run out you nose? Is breakage potentially a survival feature? I do know the Docs will pop the top of you skull off (assuming you get to them in time) and people have lived through this.

Also
I finally looked up actual helmet weights, about 7lbs or 6lbs if you spring for top of the line.
That works out to about a 60% increase in load on the neck. In any mechanical system you would be redesigning the support structure if you increased the base load that much. I would have to say that has got to have some negative effect. How bad is it?

Perhaps I'm being really cynical here but,
Did the DOT report I quoted from before not have word one about neck injuries because showing neck data would ruin their position of having your best interests in mind?

 

[berkeman]

NoTime, I've found your responses pretty well thought-out and honest for the most part. I'm obviously from the full-face helmet camp, but I appreciate the way that you ask interesting questions and are interested in no-BS, Physics-based answers.

I just have to say again from my own experience with sporbike commuting, sportbike racetrack days, and dirtbike/MX riding, that a good-quality full-face helmet is super-important. The full-face cushion makes a huge difference, and I would surely be dead several times over without wearing a helmet for every ride everywhere. I've managed to crash several times on the street (all single vehicle crashes due to weird conditions or my own errors -- I've managed to save all the close calls with the cages), several times in the dirt (at speed), and once at Lagunca Seca (at about a buck in turn 5). I know what it feels like to hit your head hard in a crash, at several different angles of impact, and I've got to tell you my friend, energy absorbtion is where it's at. The extra mass of the helmet just goes into the energy absorption, not into your neck. At least not in my crash experience.

BTW, the general rule of thumb is 5 years for a good quality helmet. The interior energy-absorbing foam is supposed to degrade a bit by then, but that may be a marketing thing of course. Hard crashes are also a reason to distrust the uniformity of the interior foam protection, and time for an upgrade.


EDIT -- But in the spirit of honest Physics-based comments, I do have to say that the loss of 3-D spatial hearing with full-race full-face helmets kind of sucks. When I hear sirens coming because they are getting louder, I have absolutely no idea which direction they are coming from. I have to take my cues from the cages in those situations. The peripheral vision argument is really not a factor with modern full-face sportbike helmets -- you have full peripheral vision with modern designs.

 

[NoTime]

NoTime, I've found your responses pretty well thought-out and honest for the most part. I'm obviously from the full-face helmet camp, but I appreciate the way that you ask interesting questions and are interested in no-BS, Physics-based answers.

Thanks.
I appreciate your input as a direct participant.
Wolrams site had a lot of interesting comments as well.

I'm also impressed with Turbo-1s dedication to the sport and the care he puts into his driving skills.

I having put a lot of effort into learning similar skills with a car and know just how important they are to accident avoidance.

Personally, I wouldn't go so far as saying either camp is wrong. I just don't see the hard data.

I do object to people passing laws or rules without hard evidence. Even then I prefer to dance with the Devil to my own tune and take what I consider to be appropriate risks for me.

So called safety devices work on the law of averages.
They might save more lives then they take,
But they still kill people.
Even ones that have hard positive effect data.

So which end of the distribution curve will you end up on?
Only you can decide.

Edit: I'd be dead for 40 years now if I had been wearing a seat belt.