Why Does Ben Roethlisberger Refuse to Do Public Safety Announcements?

[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.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

This field is obviously lacking in serious studies or those that are available are so old they have slipped off the net, suffice to say I'm not convinced either way myself by the seemingly bland and inconclusive evidence I've seen on this thread, and folks it's not through a want of trying to find basic simple comparitive information, I am quite appauled that in an issue that may save lives either way, there appears to be nothing to guide poeple to make a choice about helmet or not.

If the US wants to come to any sort of decision about the law I guess it needs to have decent significant studies which explore these issues, if the internet is any indication it has nothing much to go on, or if it does it's playing it's hand close to its chest. If you came into this thread with any sort of bias either way, I don't think there's anything concrete here that's going to change your mind, I know that in this country at least(UK) Bringing in the laws for motorcycle helmets reduced deaths to a level significant enough to warrant keeping them, trouble is all I've got to go on is documentaries I saw years ago, because wherever these figures come from they are now burried and not easily available to the public. In short you can't make any sort of informed choice from the info available and that seems to me to be sad to say the least.

 

[Gokul43201]

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?

Reducing the peak acceleration of the skull also reduces the peak stress on the brain during impact with the skull.

 

[NoTime]

Reducing the peak acceleration of the skull also reduces the peak stress on the brain during impact with the skull.

Don't know. I think it would be a fairly thorny problem in fluid dynamics.
There is going to be a few milliseconds before the internal impact takes place.
Will the skull bones adsorb the peak anyway before that second impact occurs?

 

[NoTime]

It looks like nobody has any real info for me.

I'm going to post this observation, maybe it will save someone's life.
I am involved with groups of people where helmets have just recently become popular.

Here is what I have noticed.
Before helmets, if someone took a shot to the head they would get a nice goose egg.
They would say "I hurt" and call it a day.

With helmets, what I see is people walking around with concussions.
Eye dilation mismatch, general coordination problems, crooked smiles.

A conversation with one of these people.
M: You have a concussion.
T: I'm Ok, I was wearing a helmet.
M: How did I know you crashed?
T: The helmet kept me safe. I'm perfectly all right.
M: No you're not. You have a concussion.
T: You're crazy. I was wearing a helmet.
M: Say hello to Mr. Darwin for me.

So if you do bounce that shiny new helmet off the pavement.
Go find a safety officer and ask them to check you for concussion.
They may say no, but Believe them if they say yes.

Or ask a friend to look into your eyes, see if your pupils (the black dot in the center) match size.
Ask them if you smile is crooked.
Grasp their hands and squeeze gently. Does the squeeze match?

If you fail any of these or its "Maybe I'm not sure", call it a day please.
If you fail all of them, you should go seek professional medical help.

PS: Another purely personal opinion. I see a big increase in concussions. I think where before helmets you fell, your neck muscles were strong enough to keep your head from bouncing and that with helmets they are not. There is that internal impact thing.
Or maybe they just went home and I never saw them.
I don't know.
The problem is that these people are NOT going home, they are going out for more of the same.

For whatever reason, some people consistently fall on their head.
Chances are this group should wear a helmet.

I've never seen anyone actually break their skull doing this stuff.
However, I have personally watched 11 people die, all from internal injury.
I've probably seen quite a few more than that.
But, I quit asking after the first 4 years or so, its now about 16 years.
My housemate, for a number of years, was a top leader in the safety organization.
Too depressing, I just didn't want to know anymore.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Always wear a helmet.

Never support a helmet law.