Fatalities on the rise...

[desmo2]

Read about it here:www.motorcycle-usa.com/Article_Page.aspx?ArticleID=2389&Page=1

After reading the first paragraph, I had a pretty good idea what the two main contributing factors to this increase are. Then the author backed me up.

Removing helmet laws is ludicrous. If you ride without a helmet and fall off while in motion, you are nearly guaranteed to be killed or suffer debilitating head injuries. I have fallen off three times. In two of those instances my helmet had significant damage that would have been on my skull had Shoei not saved me. I don't even have to mention the reduced wind noise, superior eye protection, and reprieve from flying debris and bugs that a full-face helmet provides.

The other factor is the prevelance of young people buying sportbikes. While they have always been popular, I've noticed a surge in my area and apparently the trend is nationwide. Some are responsible about learning to ride. Unfortunately, many are not. They ride only with a helmet (the only piece of protection required by law), shorts and tee shirt, then they run WFO. EVERY sportbike I see on the road is piloted by a young rider, and they rocket off from stoplights at max throttle EVERY TIME! In my area, sportbike crashes have definitely increased. These kids have inadequate riding experience and are running way too damned fast. Their antics cause people to scowl at me when I ride sanely and responsibly into town, because they are expecting me to ride like an a$$ because of how my bike looks. These kids apparently just don't realize how fragile they are and how fast they can die. I suppose it is my job to try to drive this fact home, but they keep friggin running from me. When they elude me, they haven't received my lesson and they are further emboldened and feel even more invincible.

Since Missouri already has an intermediate driver's license, I am all for adding a cc restriction for intermediate motorcycle endorsement holders. This may do a little, but even the current crop of 600's are blazing fast.

So, gang, what do you think? How can we reach these young riders and slow them down?

[popeye]

re;fatalities;young riders should be restricted to b.h.p...in uk a rider or car driver upon passing their tests have a 2 year probationary time..whereupon if they acc 6 penalty points..ie.speeding etc they have to go through the whole test proccdure again..i think the answer is in b.h.p..we have the problem in uk..(wheelies..stoppies)they call most sports bikes in uk..plastic-rockets..the riders are named as ,,"organ-donaters" popx

[RedRock]

Respectfully, I must add the following, not out of contrariness, but because I don't want anyone hurt, at least not without informed consent.

Helmets are an important safety item for all cyclists, but they should not impart a sense of invulnerability (head or otherwise) to their users.

Helmets are most effective at low speeds, in which they prevent penetrating injuries (keep things on or beside the road from poking into your squash) and decrease the chance or severity of skull fractures and brain injuries from blunt trauma (helmets absorb some of the force of hitting the road or the target automobile, spread that force out over time and surface area of the underlying head, and thus either block or diminish the force finally transmitted to the bone and brain).

But at higher speeds (probably 45 mph+, though I don't have statistics, just personal experience), the force is so great that skulls still deform and break and brains still bruise or tear, even if the helmet does its job and absorbs a lot of the force. Sometimes, the helmet doesn't even break, but the head receives massive trauma, and the brain can really be hurt even with no fractures of the skull ("closed head trauma") from the force imparted with the impact--the helmet and skull will have absorbed force and stretched or compressed but didn't reach their visible breaking points, but significant force is still transmitted to the underlying brain. The higher speed effect should not be surprising, since the kinetic energy increases as the SQUARE of the velocity (the mass of the driver and bike have not increased): KE=1/2*M*V*V. Expect that you'll encounter 4 times the injury at 70 mph that you would at 35 mph, not 2 times, and you'll be closer to the truth.

I love for my motorcyclists to wear helmets, because basically the intact or partly fractured helmets usually keep the smashed skull pieces and scrambled brains all together in one neat package, to make my autopsies easier.

In the same way, there are really no "bullet-proof" vests, just armored vests, since a high-velocity bullet might be stopped by such an armored vest (and if not stopped, it might be slowed such that there is no skin penetration), but considerable force is still transmitted internally (although diminished significantly from the un-stopped bullet's original energy) to the wearer and can still severely injure or even kill the wearer from organ bruises and tears (especially of the heart and lungs). Armored vests and armored helmets work best against low-speed projectiles and common handgun bullets.

Back to bikes. Even if the helmet "saves" your brain, at high speed the motorcyclist has the rest of his body exposed to impacts with no devices to absorb the force first--pelvic fractures, chest fractures, neck fractures, heart lacerations, spleen lacerations, liver lacerations. etc. can and frequently do result. And after the first impact with the target automobile/fence/tree/house/etc., the flying body ejected from the stopped or sliding bike will then encounter other objects and suffer secondary impacts. Finally, even when the flying body comes to a stop, the internal organs are still moving at the previous speed, and they will stretch and tear until they stop moving internally (so-called acceleration-deceleration injuries). Moving heads do this, too, receiving direct blow trauma ("coup" brain injuries) and opposite side trauma ("contre-coup" brain injuries), even if the skull and helmet don't break.

Now compare that to the same speed crash for someone in an automobile, and there are many, many built-in automobile safety devices to absorb the force, to spread the force out over time and surface area, and to diminish secondary impacts--fenders, crumple zones, roll bars, padded dash, seat belts, collapsible steering columns, head rests, air-bags, etc.

So, to summarize: Cyclists should wear helmets, they are definitely helpful, especially for bicyclists; motorcycles at any speed are inherently dangerous and inherently far more dangerous compared to automobiles; and helmets on motorcycles at high speeds should not be expected to save lives or prevent brain injuries.

Again, I don't have any statistics to quote, this is just my opinion: If you ride a motorcycle instead of driving a car, you are putting your life at significant increased risk each and every time you ride. I sure hope the "freedom" and thrill of riding on 2 wheels with no safety net around you is worth the risk; currently, it is not one I am willing to assume or to allow for my dependents.

Now as to the Florida helmet law, "Florida requires helmet use by riders under the age of 21 or by older riders who do not carry a minimum of $10,000 medical insurance coverage." See the article www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/09/motorcycle.deaths.ap/
about the increase in Florida motorcycle deaths after the repeal. It also says "Even though the state requires helmet use by riders under age 21, fatalities among that group nearly tripled in the three years after the repeal; 45 percent of those killed were not wearing helmets." So, of the under-21's, 55 % of the fatalities WERE wearing a helmet.

So, everyone, enjoy your bikes, but think about it, too--be as safe as you can. I want to see you again, and preferably not as an M.E. case.

[RedRock]

desmo2 said:

So, gang, what do you think? How can we reach these young riders and slow them down?

Sorry, Des, I realized that with my diatribe, I never really answered your main point, which is a good one.

I wish I knew (how to reach the youngsters). They just simply lack maturity and knowledge--they think they cannot be hurt or die, or they refuse to consider the very possibility. Attempts have been made to force young traffic, drug, or alcohol offenders to "view" an autopsy of a similar victim as a way of "teaching" them what might happen, but these just aren't effective (and are an intrusion into my practice and the privacy of the victims). Remember, you can lead a horse to water but......you know how bad a wet horse smells.

Probably the best thing is just not to allow under-21's to ride motorcycles at all, and then to require more intense education and testing before granting a motorcycle endorsement.

[desmo2]

I figured this topic would light your fire, Red.
I didn't mean to imply that helmets magically make motorcycles safe. You are absolutely correct in that human bodies will suffer catastrophic damage when stopped rapidly from speed. If a rider traveling 65 mph runs off the road and strikes a tree, no helmet and no amount of riding gear is going to save him. Fortunately, these types of accidents are the minority. Typically the rider separates from the motorcycle and bounces along the pavement or terrain, bleeding speed off gradually. It is these types of get-offs that make proper riding gear so invaluable.

As far as choosing to ride a motorcycle at all...I don't know what to tell you. It quite obviously is not in you. It IS in me. Has been for 20 years. The relationship between rider and machine is much more intimate and demanding on a motorcycle than any other motorized conveyance. I hear a motorcycle, feel it through the handgrips, footpegs, and seat. When negotiating curves I shift my body weight from one side to the other, and I feel the motorcycle respond to my input. In a car you simply point the thing in the direction you want to go and gas it. The doors, windshield, frame, roof, collapsible steering columns, crumple zones, head rests and padded dashes do a wonderful job of making its occupant safe, but they also insulate him from the experience. There is so very much more to experience, and once you do so there is a very strong likelihood you will not be able to leave it. Riding a motorcycle has little to do with transportation to a destination, it's all about the journey. It has nothing to do with a death wish or the rush of risking life and limb. I know that injury is a possibility, but with maturity, self-control and a respect for the capabilities of the motorcycle, I feel I can control a large number of the risk factors. I can't control other drivers or the suicidal animal, but with a heightened sense of awareness I feel these risks are fairly remote. There are, of course, always exceptions, but I believe a large majority of riders who are killed played a role in their own death. Impairment, lack of attention, speed, and/or lack of protective gear has been involved in probably around 95% of the motorcycle crashes with injury I have worked.

I have no delusions of transforming you into a motorcycle advocate, Red. I understand your position and completely respect your opinion. During my career I've seen many of the same things you have, with the addition of being at the crash scene itself.

Is riding more dangerous than driving a car? Certainly. Living life to its fullest means exposing yourself to certain risks. I'm okay with that.

[RedRock]

desmo2 said:

As far as choosing to ride a motorcycle at all...I don't know what to tell you. It quite obviously is not in you. It IS in me. Has been for 20 years. The relationship between rider and machine is much more intimate and demanding on a motorcycle than any other motorized conveyance. .......In a car you simply point the thing in the direction you want to go and gas it. ....... There is so very much more to experience, and once you do so there is a very strong likelihood you will not be able to leave it. Riding a motorcycle has little to do with transportation to a destination, it's all about the journey.......Living life to its fullest means exposing yourself to certain risks. I'm okay with that.

Well-stated, Des, and a joy to read. So, I've thought about it, and.....

Well, some 30+ years ago, I was probably that same way as you---loved my huffy, loved to fly down hills and lean low into curves, loved to do wheelies and make jumps, etc. Helmet? Protective pads? What are those? And then, one day I was screaming down a steep hill (we have a few of those in Tennessee) in an unfamiliar neighborhood, and man was it sweet! Until I noticed, rather late in the game, that the road ended at the bottom of the hill as a stop sign at a T-intersection, and across from where my road should have kept going was another steep hill with a stone wall at the bottom. Now my quick little tween-age mind said to myself, self, you're not going to be able to stop at the sign, you're not going to be able to make a turn into either direction of the intersecting road in the remaining time before you hit the intersection at this speed and stay upright or even stay on the road, even with maximum braking, and you certainly don't want to hit the wall (literally) at the final speed you'll be able to get down to, so now what? At least, that's what I interpret my mind saying to myself all these years later--back then it was probably more like, OH CRAP!!! YOU'RE DEAD!!!! So the only logical thing to do, what I did without really thinking in the flash of a second left to me, was to lay the stupid bike down and hope for the best. So I did--laid it down and slid rapidly (recall, this is without the benefit of the braking I wished I could have done) through the intersection, hoping no vehicles were about to go through the intersection, and across it and up into the base of the wall. Well, the bike got a bit twisted, I got bruised and embarrassed but didn't break anything, but I got the most god-awful road rash burns through my jeans and long sleeve shirt and several layers of skin on my right knee, hip, and inner elbow, and I still bear the scars. And I think then and there is when I stopped being a daredevil, when, if you will, I got emotionally scarred--and scared--of bikes and speed and stupidity. And obviously, with bike, clothing, and person damage, I couldn't hide the situation from my folks, either, so the lesson got reinforced, you understand.

So now, my private vehicle is just a tool to get me from point A to point B. It is not for looks or for an investment, and it is not for thrills. Anything beyond the engine, wheels, and basic controls is just for safety, convenience, and efficiency. I loved my old 4x4 rice-burner pickup, and I love my Explorer, as they do what I want and fit me like a glove, and my music sounds so nice in the smaller compartment vehicles. But they're still just vehicles, not my lover, not my goosebump-bringer, not my caffeine-substitute.

Yeah, I rode a 10-speed in med school as my primary transportation (until I met my wife, who had a car), and I have a 21-speed bike still, but there just hasn't been any fun since that fateful day, and I have no interest in a motorized 2-wheeler (unless, of course, it's that cool gyro-stabilized T-thingy you just stand on!!!).

I can understand about the destination/journey thing, because that's how I approach fishing--the fishing is always great (the journey), but the catching (the destination) is not always so hot! But my greater journey, my life here, is really centered on the destination after this life, with some allowance for family, work, and play along the way, so I'm not out to maximize my experiences here--I'm not trying to grab all the gusto I can while I circle the drain (my version of "you only go around once"). And I've chosen the safer past-times in general in keeping with that. Shoot, I don't even go out after dark without asking myself, now is it worth it (this gallon of 2% milk I'm going to go get for my fruit-loops for the morning), if I get shot or run over by some crazy on my way to or at or coming back from the convenience store? I don't live in fear, I just am careful and weigh the risks and benefits of most activities. So far, the ratio on motorcycles is way below the "don't even think about it" range.

What would it have been like if my crash had been under adult supervision, on a closed and groomed course, and with protective gear on? I'll never know, maybe I could have "gotten back on the horse" and moved on up to a motorcycle, but I hope that's how people really are doing risky things with their little ones these days.

Now it really pisses me off when someone tells me, You don't NEED to hunt, You don't NEED to shoot guns, You don't NEED to own another weapon, etc. So I'm not about to tell you that you don't NEED to ride motorcycles. I'm just saying, enjoy it but be careful, and ride a little extra for me, because I sure won't be doing it anytime soon.

[Lamron]

I just got back from camping this weekend with my family. They took all the gear in their car and I rode my motorcycle. Seventy miles there and seventy miles back. Very nice roads for riding and I was quite happy that it didn't rain while I was riding! I had a great time, even if my hands are a little numb from vibration.

I always wear a full face helmet. Even if it was made of cardboard and offered no impact protection, I would still wear it just for the wind/bug protection of my face. The very few times I've ridden short distances without my helmet I wished I had it. Wind in your eyes makes it very hard to see, and a bug feels like a rock at any kind of speed.

If I'm involved in an accident with another object, like a truck or one of those trees that like to dart across the road without warning, my gear may not do much good. In fact, there are some types of accidents were the extra few pounds of helmet can be the cause of such serious neck injury that you would have been better off without it. Fortunately, objects big enough to hurt you are also visible, and can usually be avoided if you're paying attention, and ride as if your Cloaking Device is always turned on, and no one can see YOU.

My helmet and head-to-toe leather will help immensely in the kind of accident I'm more likely to experience. If I lose control and do a spectacular tumbling, sliding, scraping kind of dismount, then I have a good chance of not losing all my skin, or ending up retarded. Broken bones heal much better than skin grafts and metal plates in my skull.

BUT, I don't think helmets should be mandated, other than if you're under 18 (as it is here in Indiana). Government intrusion is always a bad thing anyway, and I think we have WAY too many safety devices on things. If you're too stupid to take steps to protect yourself, why should anyone care if you're dead? If you're riding for the first time, and aren't even wearing a shirt, and going 80 from one stoplight to the next, you kind of deserve what you get.

I think if we removed all safety devices from things, people would pay more attention, or weed themselves out. If you're trying to use a hairdryer and a toaster while taking a shower, its not the manufacturers problem. Instead, WhooHoo! one less moron in the world!

Back to the increased fatalities. A large part of the problem is that people are taught that there will be NO consequences for their actions. Drive drunk and kill people and you get a 6 month license suspension. Fail every class in school, and you still graduate. Don't read the sales contract and throw a fit, and stores will let you return ANYTHING.

More and more in recent years you see that cagers that kill motorcyclists are not held responsible in any way. Run a stop sign and kill 3 bikers, and you might get a ticket for "failure to obey stop sign". They act like you didn't just murder three people!

Kids think there won't be consequences, but the semi that runs you down only cares about physics. The bridge support you hit has no sympathy for the fact that your parents never beat sense into you. I'll bet the last thoughts of some of these riders is surprise and indignation that this kind of thing would dare happen to THEM.


Desmo2, I'd say if they run chase them. Chase them until they either remove themselves from the gene pool, or until you catch them and fine them enough that they can't even afford gas for the bike.

I'd better stop now, before I'm in danger of having the longest post in this thread!

Edit: most of the statistics on helmet deaths are pretty meaningless. A car could run over your chest, and they would still report whether the rider was wearing a helmet or not even though it wouldn't have made any difference. The accidents are often reported that way to make it sound like the biker is ALWAYS at fault.

[RedRock]

admin said:

BUT, I don't think helmets should be mandated..... If you're too stupid to take steps to protect yourself, why should anyone care if you're dead? If you're riding for the first time, and aren't even wearing a shirt, and going 80 from one stoplight to the next, you kind of deserve what you get.......I think if we removed all safety devices from things, people would pay more attention, or weed themselves out....one less moron in the world!

I agree, with the following exception. When these geniuses try to take themselves (and my innocent friends and families in their way) out of the picture permanently, along the way they automatically activate our wonderful, money-is-no-cost-they'll-never pay -anyway-you-and-I-and-our-grandchildren's-grandchildren-will -liberal-tolerance-and-diversity-universal EMS and health care systems, which will try to save their near-worthless hides, or at least spend zillions (of others' money) trying. And then the even more worthless lawyers get involved, and we all get raped all over again (sloppy seconds). And then social security will try to pay for survivor's benefits and children's education, and hey, guess what, now we're in for bloody thirds. Oh, and there will be more lawyers to help with the latter, and higher taxes and insurance costs at every step, too.

So the mandatory helmets, seatbelts, insurance, etc. are there to try to cut down the overall tremendous dollar cost to the rest of society, seeing as how, and I'm sorry to have to put it bluntly, these people will never never never ever change. They live and act this way in ALL aspects of their lives--sex, education, jobs, kids, bikes, cars--you name it. To this extent, I agree with government intrusion in these areas. And my wife adds, she really doesn't want to be forced to see these morons kill themselves, or her babies, before her very eyes, by their actions or inactions. Now, I give the young ones a little leeway because they are so young, and that's why I think they shouldn't even be allowed to ride a motorcycle, drink, or vote until they're 21 or even 25. By that time, either they've wised up, or genetics will prove true.

So, in a sense, remember the old maxim, "your right to swing your fist ends at the point where it begins to threaten my peace or body" (RedRock variation)? Well, the right to drive a dangerous vehicle in a reckless fashion and without protective devices or insurance ends when it impacts my wallet, directly or indirectly!.

Well, I wish that WERE the case, actually, but it's not.

So if bikers get bad looks when they roll up to a stop sign, maybe it isn't the speed issue or even jealousy, but instead the dollar and cents one that garners the perceived ugly vibes.

Nothing personal to anyone reading this--I can't imagine for a second that any of you are "these people." I just repeat, ride and enjoy, truly, but be careful.

Sorry for the length of these postings, but I wanted to make sure Lamron didn't write more than I did. And I don't anticipate writing anymore on this topic after this one.

[Lamron]

The monetary cost savings to society at large in the form of increased taxes, insurance, etc. is often used as a justification for further government control in our lives. But while that makes practical sense and is an appealing justification because it effects our wallets, its really another way of saying that two wrongs make a right.

It still stems from a lack of personal responsibility. Somehow this idea that I should pay for other's mistakes/problems has become so prevalent that no one even questions it anymore.

If someone gets hurt and goes to the hospital, but can't pay for medical attention, that is a truly terrible thing. But is it my problem? NO. Should I take pity on him and use the resources God has blessed me with to help him? Absolutely. I should, but its still my decision to do so or not. But if that money is stolen from me and given to him, then we will never know what type of character I have.

There is no justification for robbing me to give money to the poor, the injured, or the lazy. They are responsible for their own life as I am for mine. If you examine your resources, and find them lacking, then its up to you to join groups that voluntarily pool their resources to lessen personal loss. Its called insurance. Individuals have a moral responsibility to help those friends and family around them that need it, but no one has a right to demand that others pay for them.

Walk down the street and pick a house a random. Ask them to pay your electric bill and see what kind of response you get. Now think about how many personal thank you notes you've gotten from welfare recipients who have their bills paid because the money was stolen from you. Forced charity only breeds a society of bitterness and laziness.

The government MANDATES that you pay for other people's problems, then MANDATES restrictions on your life to help you be able to afford it. Two wrongs don't make a right. There is no way that we come out ahead in this equation.

It does makes sense to legislate items that lessen the effects of your stupidity on innocent victims. But you wearing a helmet or not makes no difference to the person you hit. Making toast while taking a bath doesn't hurt your neighbor (unless it causes a power outage while he's playing SpearHead).

Requiring your car to have certain lights, and standardized bumpers does serve the public good, while not intruding on personal liberty in any meaningful way. Preventing drunk drivers is another way of keeping your stupidity from hurting others.

I know that I am talking about an ideal world of people taking personal responsibility and expecting the same out of everyone else. And I know that we are too far gone for there to be any hope of that actually happening. I just think its sad that we've come to a point that forcing others to be "safe" just so it doesn't cost us, seems like a reasonable course of action.

redrock said:

Now as to the Florida helmet law, "Florida requires helmet use by riders under the age of 21 or by older riders who do not carry a minimum of $10,000 medical insurance coverage

I like this. While maybe not ideal, it does show that there are people out there thinking in the right direction. Its basically establishing that if you are willing/able to take responsibility for yourself, these restrictions don't need to apply to you.

This may be an idea worth expanding on. Prove willingness to accept responsibility = less restrictions on your life. Applying this concept to other things might allow more freedom, while at the same time helping protecting society from the "cost of stupidity".