Opinions on wearing motorbike helmets

Irish Wolf

It seems that a lot of American states are repelling their helmet laws. In the light of this...

Pittsburgh, Pa. — Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger remains in serious but stable condition after undergoing more than seven hours of surgery today to repair multiple facial fractures.

Roethlisberger broke his nose and jaw when he crashed his motorcycle this morning in Pittsburgh. The lead surgeon said doctors were not aware of any other serious injuries.

The doctors said they do not expect Roethlisberger's condition to change through Monday night, and they will not update on his condition until Tuesday morning.

Police said Roethlisberger wasn't wearing his helmet when the accident occurred.

Roethlisberger has said he likes to ride without a helmet, a habit that led to a stern lecture from Steelers coach Bill Cowher

Roethlisberger, 24, helped guide the Steelers to the Super Bowl championship last season in only his second year of NFL action.

What are the thoughts of Irish bikers on wearing helemts?

If it's in the wrong forum - apologies... also if you can't access the link, I can paste it in later.

spurious

Anyone who would considering driving or being carried as a passenger on a motorbike without a helmet doesn't have much that would need protecting by a helmet.

Metacortex

Irish Wolf wrote:

It seems that a lot of American states are repelling their helmet laws. In the light of this...



What are the thoughts of Irish bikers on wearing helemts?

If it's in the wrong forum - apologies... also if you can't access the link, I can paste it in later.

Roethlisberger has said he likes to ride without a helmet, a habit that led to a stern lecture from Steelers coach Bill Cowher

So he was already lectured about it before the accident.
Smart guy.
I hope he likes his new look. Maybe his teammates will give him a cute nickname. Like scarface?

whizzbang

its just natural selection at work.

No helmet, you're out of the gene pool.

done.

Houston Griffin

After a certain speed, it's just the difference between an open casket or a closed casket funeral.

whizzbang

Houston Griffin wrote:

After a certain speed, it's just the difference between an open casket or a closed casket funeral.

what speed would that be? are crashes under the speed limit generally survivable if you heav leathers on etc? it would be interesting to see.

Hobbes

whizzbang wrote:

what speed would that be? are crashes under the speed limit generally survivable if you heav leathers on etc? it would be interesting to see.

Under 30mph / 50kph is generally a good chance of living after the crash. Anything over that and it goes down fast.

what I find funny about the US and seatbelt/helmet laws is that people go on about thier freedoms to do this. Its like you have broken thier constitutional rights or something.

Houston Griffin

I don't know about specific speeds, but in the city I live in (Atlanta, Georgia) the average speed on the interstate highways is around 75-80 mph. In most cases, any wreck involving motorcycles is usually fatal for the motorcycle driver on the interstates. My state has a helmet law, but what what really makes me cringe is seeing half the motorcyclists riding around in just shorts and a t-shirt. Duane Allman (of the Allman Brothers) died in a motorcycle crash in 1971 in a city an hour south of me. He was wearing a helmet, but it got knocked off during the crash (although I'm sure they got better helmets nowadays).

whizzbang

Thanks for that, I guess if you are a responsible rider you are fine (helmet, leathers, boots gloves etc), but taking risks is much more dangerous (to you) than in a car.

mang87

you'll never get me on one of those glorified crotch rockets even with a helmet, let alone without one

Houston Griffin

Hobbes wrote:

what I find funny about the US and seatbelt/helmet laws is that people go on about thier freedoms to do this. Its like you have broken thier constitutional rights or something.

It's just an American trait. People get stubborn and fight stuff at local/state level (even if they agree with it) and tend to be passive on a federal level. Personally, I never ride with anyone unless they're wearing their seatbelt.

drunkdaz

the speed you have the accident at doesn't matter, its the speed you hit something at, and how hard it is. Anyone who ever watched closed circut racing knows this.

Stephen

Anyone who rides a motorbike without a helmet is a moron. Drove a bike for 3 years myself, I'd never go out on it without helmet, proper jacket, pants and gloves.

Houston Griffin

drunkdaz wrote:

the speed you have the accident at doesn't matter, its the speed you hit something at, and how hard it is. Anyone who ever watched closed circut racing knows this.

Doesn't the speed you hit something at directly corroralate to the speed you were driving? I'm not trying to be a smart ass, it's an honest question. Also, I would think motorcycle racing curcuits are set up to reduce fatalities whereas real life situations do not.

Donegal Lass

Stephen wrote:

Anyone who rides a motorbike without a helmet is a moron. Drove a bike for 3 years myself, I'd never go out on it without helmet, proper jacket, pants and gloves.

totally agree, i love going out for a day on the back of a bike but would NEVER even think of gettin on it without a helmet, thats just idiotic!!

PS i love your louis walsh must die comment-genius!!:D

Sam Vimes

drunkdaz wrote:

the speed you have the accident at doesn't matter, its the speed you hit something at, and how hard it is. Anyone who ever watched closed circut racing knows this.

the speed you hit something at = the speed you have the accient at.

how can one matter but not the other?

i'm not sure i understand your point

seamus

Houston Griffin wrote:

My state has a helmet law, but what what really makes me cringe is seeing half the motorcyclists riding around in just shorts and a t-shirt.

Yeah, annoys me too. If you're not going to wear these, you may as well not wear a helmet - crash at anything above 30mph with no protective gear and you'll wish you'd died anyway.

Mad Mike

At risk of speaking out of turn I believe the problem is one of relative velocity. The severity of the crash depends on the difference in speed between you and the thing you hit. For example if you are travelling at a sedate 50 km/hour and run into the back of a truck travelling at 40km/hour then collision occurs at a relative velocity of 10km/hour - you will probably walk away from this one. On the other hand if you veer across the centre line , still travelling at 50km/hour and hit a truck coming in the opposite direction at 40km/hour then the collision happens at a lethal 90km/hour.

The situation is complicated somewhat on a motorbike because once you come off the bike then a second collision occurs between you and the ground. The ground doesn't move (outside of earthquakes or great sex) so the speed at which you hit the ground is the speed at which you bounce off the truck. This is a problem in mechanics. In general it depends on the initial velocities of you and the truck, the respective masses of you and the truck and the elasticity of the collision. To get a rough estimate we can assume that the truck is much heavier than you and that the collision is perfectly elastic. In this case the relative velocity between you and the truck will be reflected back after the collision and will add to the initial veloicty of the truck. So if you hit the truck from behind you will hit the ground at the trucks initial velocity minus the relative velocity = 40-10 = 30km/hour. Similalrly if you hit the truck head on you will hit the ground at the trucks initial velocity (-40 because it is coming towards you) minus the relative velocity = -40 - 90 = -130 km/hour. You will be flung backwards into the ground at 130km/hour - definitely strawberry jam.

To tie this back to the original post - I suspect that a helmet and protective clothing would greatly improve your chances in the 30 km/hour grounding that results from hitting the truck from behind but even a full suit of medieval armor wouldn't save you after a head on collision as you crunch into the ground at 130km/hr. It is my understanding of US roads that the vast majority of their highways are dual carriageways with a barrier in the middle - suggesting that tail shunts are more likely than head on collisions and therefore helmets are a very good idea indeed.

chump

drunkdaz wrote:

the speed you have the accident at doesn't matter, its the speed you hit something at, and how hard it is. Anyone who ever watched closed circut racing knows this.

I think you'll have to retract this point... it doesn't make any sense

Esel

chump wrote:

I think you'll have to retract this point... it doesn't make any sense

It does if you think about it. Say you highside and fall off at 120 mph, slide along the track, enter a gravel pit (safety feature) which decelerates you to 40mph, at which point you hit the wall of tyres.

If only the no-helmet morons in the US and elsewhere could be charged with wasting medical time/resources, things might change. It's not just your life - it's also the lives of the people who fail to get medical attention while the medical/surgical team is busy trying to save your life.

ArphaRima

It kinda does make sense. Its just a badly made point. Relative speeds is what he's referring to.
As for Mad Mike. I get your point. Didnt check your maths, but I believe you made one invalid assertion. Falling off does not mean you hit the ground at the speed you are travelling. Your vector is roughly forward at the speed you were travelling, with the downward fall generally being the same as if stationary (ie not much force). This is where leathers will save you. Assuming you dont hit anything.

I live in a country where nobody wears helmets really(and 90 percent of the population owns motorbikes), there are 12,000 deaths a year, (suspected much higher) and I have never even seen anybody wear gloves, leathers, or boots.
One answer is education. The other is temperature. I wear a half face european made helmet (but still no gloves etc).Its 35 degrees on average. I get stares. The traffic rarely gets faster than 50-60kph. I nearly die with the heat daily. But I have seen people die without helmets. For that reason the government is slow to legislate, and the people are happy for it (genuinely). I assume it's this popular move against protection in favour of comfort that the Americans are allowing. Legislature is just reflecting it. Its a tight balance.

r3nu4l

I think the type of helmet is important too! If you've ever seen the movie "Sideways"* then you will see that the girl who rides the bike has one of these open-faced helmets.

Now, that will offer better protection than nothing but if you crash then your face is going to be badly messed up! Broken nose, jaw, teeth etc.

I don't ride a bike so I don't know how Irish law is on helmet type. Anyone know?



*Excellent movie but don't get me started on the amount of drunk driving in it!!

Houston Griffin

Mad Mike wrote:

It is my understanding of US roads that the vast majority of their highways are dual carriageways with a barrier in the middle - suggesting that tail shunts are more likely than head on collisions and therefore helmets are a very good idea indeed.

Depends on if you're on an Interstate or a state highway or a local road. But that's not really the point. Americans will fight for their right to be a moron and not wear helmet if the state tells them they have to. Logic has nothing to do with it.

padi89

Only my opinion but here goes.I used to be on the road all day with work and from my experience it was the riders in full gear,helmets,gloves,leathers etc that seemed to have the best road manners.In general they were very curtious to those road users around them and drove with due care.
The worst culprits for me are generally around in the summer.I actually get the shivers when i see some young guy tearing along with his girlfriend on the back with only t-shirts and shorts on.
Either way the same can be said for car drivers without seatbelts.We all know the risks its up to the individual how much they want to lessen those risks.

Mad Mike

fluffer wrote:

Falling off does not mean you hit the ground at the speed you are travelling. Your vector is roughly forward at the speed you were travelling, with the downward fall generally being the same as if stationary (ie not much force).

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. So hitting the ground may not be so fatal - as long as you don't hit a vertical stationary object like a tree or lampost. Of course there is still a very severe sandpaper effect from skidding along the ground at 120km/hour - Leathers would definitely seem advisable. The general point about gear being more useful in tail shunt collisions as opposed to head on collisions remains however.

ArphaRima

I'm under no illusion that if I crash at speed with a half face I will be seriously messed up. I will lose half my skin, and break more than one bone. I am never wearing even longsleeve shirts. Its just too bloody hot! Practicality comes into it. It would be physiologically impossible to wear the safety gear prescribed in Ireland by the NSC. You would pass out trying to start the bike. But I just dont travel at speed. Its the only option.

http://img1.travelblog.org/Photos/16471/64680/f/384439-Saigon-Traffic-0.jpg

*Dont get me started on the amount of drunk driving here!

Kinetic^

The guy is a dumbass. He's getting payed millions of dollars a year and he goes and does something stupid like that. If I were the team's GM i'd fire him without pay.

kincsem

No helmet,tee shirt, no gloves, runners

MORON

fishfoodie

In certain southern states, Az for one, you arent required to wear a helmet. The most often quoted reason is that when summertime temperatures reach 130f its not a good idea to wrap your head in an insulator :-)

That said this a trade off against the other risks out there on the road !

New_Departure06

I am a motorcyclist and always wear the helmet. It should always be worn.

madrab

personally i think you should be allowed to ride a bike without a helmet, but you are an idiot if you do (it should be your choice)

its the same opinion i ave for seatbelts

Dr Pepper

drunkdaz wrote:

the speed you have the accident at doesn't matter, its the speed you hit something at, and how hard it is. Anyone who ever watched closed circut racing knows this.

I agree. Those fellas come off all the time at 100+mph and the vast majority walk off the track.

As someone here said recently: Motorbikes aren't dangerous.. It's those 60mph trees that are lethal!!

Hotblack Desiato

Major irony: This professional American footballer isn't allowed play his sport without a helmet, he seems ok with that...

Open face vs. full face helmet - wear whichever you prefer. You can still get messed up good with a full face lid on. Some believe that open face helmets are less likely to cause a neck injury. There's no doubt they're lighter and much more comfortable in warm weather, generate less wind noise and allow you to hear surrounding traffic more easily. I wear one sometimes.

I also would prefer that there was freedom of choice, purely on the convenience factor - you could give a friend an unplanned lift for instance. It's their head, after all. An improperly sized or fitted helmet (common on pillions) will just fly off anyway so although it keeps you legal, but it's a waste of time.

Why is the RIDER held responsible for ensuring the passenger wears a helmet? This is not the case with seat belts for adult passengers in cars.

Helmets are certified to guarantee protection up to TWELVE mph impacts. Anything above that, you will need some luck, i.e. if you go head first into a wall at 15mph you could still be killed or seriously injured. They do protect, but a false sense of security is more dangerous.

Oryx

madrab wrote:

personally i think you should be allowed to ride a bike without a helmet, but you are an idiot if you do (it should be your choice)

its the same opinion i ave for seatbelts

If it was just a question of idiots making bad choices and killing themselves Id agree with you, but its not. The health services, insurance providers, and families left behind pick up the tab when someone dies through their own stupidity.

Helmet laws (and seatbelt laws, and rules of the road) are not their to spoil our fun. They are there because unfortunately as a society we cannot be trusted to be sensible about our own safety.

nesf

esel wrote:

It does if you think about it. Say you highside and fall off at 120 mph, slide along the track, enter a gravel pit (safety feature) which decelerates you to 40mph, at which point you hit the wall of tyres.

That only applies if you are wearing full protective gear. Hit the tarmac at 120mp without leathers and it doesn't matter if there are safety features tbh. Plus, on a normal road there aren't any safety features so in essence it's a moot point for the vast majority of us who don't race on tracks.

Relative velocity is also extremely important. On a track usually no one is travelling in the opposite direction, on a road this isn't the case.


Actually thinking about it the comment about the speed of impact means little in terms of helmet laws. It's the wrong way of looking at it from a public safety point of view. On the track yes it makes a lot of sense, but for people driving on roads it can only misguide them into believing that not wearing a helmet when travelling at 25mph is safe.

nesf

fluffer wrote:

Falling off does not mean you hit the ground at the speed you are travelling. Your vector is roughly forward at the speed you were travelling, with the downward fall generally being the same as if stationary (ie not much force). This is where leathers will save you. Assuming you dont hit anything.

Depends on the incident. The vector doesn't have to remain as being forward in every accident. If you hit something and are deflected from it at a bad angle then you could potentially have a vector pointing towards the ground, this is where the leather isn't going to save you and your impact protection will.

I agree completely on the education issue.

madrab

KatieK wrote:

If it was just a question of idiots making bad choices and killing themselves Id agree with you, but its not. The health services, insurance providers, and families left behind pick up the tab when someone dies through their own stupidity.

Helmet laws (and seatbelt laws, and rules of the road) are not their to spoil our fun. They are there because unfortunately as a society we cannot be trusted to be sensible about our own safety.

im not talking about spoiling our fun, i think we should have the right to choose whether or not to wear one

babybundy

i am for wearing helmets but wats the point in openface helmets if your clostophobic wear one with a large visor

Hotblack Desiato

The point of open face helmets, or any helmet, is to give you a better chance of staying alive and avoiding brain damage. Not to protect your good looks. Why not wait for the next cheap Lidl offer (their helmets are very cheap and good quality) and buy an open face lid and give it a try on a warm day. That's what I did and it's much more comfortable in stop-start commuting in hot weather. Comfort is important for safety too.

sutty

lol I like the way people are going on about the laws of phyics here... Sadly you are on the wrong forum. even 10Kph is enough to kill you if you dont have a lid on. The human head isn't as hard as you think it is. Then again. You dont need to brake open your skull to get killed, there are plenty of head injorys that will do it for you.

If someone wants to drive a bike with out a lid. Then they should think about things like their familys and friends. I've met a lot of people who survived a crash. But Damaged something or other. In the past I have driven with out armor on (only a lid) and it was only because my gear at the time would not alow my body to cool down in hot weather and it was more dangrus for me to wear it. That said. I quickly replaced all that gear for the next summer.

Back to my point. If someone doesn't want to wear on, then fine. Dont expect anything from me if you die. If you wear one. Good. But it mightn't do what you expect it to do. So dont EVER think you are ok in one.

As for Irish law. I beleave it is illegal to drive with out and is also considered to be driving with out if the chin strap is not closed. Too big a helmet can be just the same. If you hit the ground and the helmet turns because its too big. Then you'll brake/remove your Jaw/nose.

Esel

ninja900 wrote:

Why is the RIDER held responsible for ensuring the passenger wears a helmet? This is not the case with seat belts for adult passengers in cars.

Are you sure of this? As I understand it, the driver gets penalty points if the passengers are not belted up.

sutty

esel wrote:

Are you sure of this? As I understand it, the driver gets penalty points if the passengers are not belted up.

Yeah I beleave that is right. As if a taxi driver gets caught with passangers without their belts on. He will get the points. I beleave the same goes for the driver of a privet car.

Garibaldi

"Privet car" heh! A bush with four wheels.

Anyhoo, I believe that weating any gear that can lessen the damage to yourself in an accident is absolutely essential. I totally agree with the cringe comments when you see some clown out in the t-shirt and shorts. Mind you, jeans, shorts, frilly knickers, you might aswell be naked as wear these and think you're in any way protected.
The comfort argument can be compelling in the right circumstances, but we don't get anything like Central European temperatures here (let alone SE Asia), so it doesn't really count for much in this country. And yes, I've ridden around Europe a good few times in Summer, and never had a serious problem with overheating.
People who find themselves requiring serious medical treatment as a direct result of their own stupidity/personal freedom should be penalised in some way. It seems that being hit in the wallet is the only penalty that people take any heed of, unfortunately. Still, that's a whole other complex can of worms.
Bottom line, the ability of decent gear to lessen the damage caused to you in an accident far outweighs any temperature/style concerns to my mind. My two most serious accidents both happened during 15 minute trips to work, and if I hadn't been wearing the right gear, I'd have plastic kneecaps, at best, right now. The point being, it's important to get suited up, even for short trips. Seems like a strong enough argument to me.

Hotblack Desiato

esel wrote:

Are you sure of this? As I understand it, the driver gets penalty points if the passengers are not belted up.

Only fine+points for the driver if the car passengers are under 17. If they're an adult, the car passenger gets a fine, nobody gets points.

MizzKattt

whizzbang wrote:

its just natural selection at work.
No helmet, you're out of the gene pool.
done.

Well said. Laws are made to protect us from each other. Why should law mandate how we treat ourselves? If someone wants to gamble with his/her life by not wearing protective gear, let them.

Why stop with helmets?
*Why not mandate that a person cannot mountain climb because its potentially fatal?
*Why not make a a law to determine how fast one can run and in unslippery conditions only?
*What about a law on sex? After all there are STDs that can kill us and we can't be trusted to make the best decisions for ourselves.

Screw that!

I happen to live in a state that does not demand a helmet be worn. I choose to wear mine each and every time I sit on my bike, but I am glad I get to CHOOSE.

madrab

MizzKattt wrote:

Well said. Laws are made to protect us from each other. Why should law mandate how we treat ourselves? If someone wants to gamble with his/her life by not wearing protective gear, let them.

Why stop with helmets?
*Why not mandate that a person cannot mountain climb because its potentially fatal?
*Why not make a a law to determine how fast one can run and in unslippery conditions only?
*What about a law on sex? After all there are STDs that can kill us and we can't be trusted to make the best decisions for ourselves.

Screw that!

I happen to live in a state that does not demand a helmet be worn. I choose to wear mine each and every time I sit on my bike, but I am glad I get to CHOOSE.

here here

thats my point, we should have the right to choose whether we should were one or not

subway

i think you may be missing the bigger picture.
biking is on the ropes around the world.

the people who make the laws see us unsafe, loud and a danger to ourselves.
we are a small minority and if you think for a second that you need the choice to not wear a helmet your fooling yourself.
maybe youll be grand and make it safe,
maybe youll become another statistic in the list of bikers killed in road accidents.
if we didnt wear helmets more of us would be dead, then the argument that biking really is unsafe and we're a danger to ourselves becomes valid.

then they legislate and take it away. 100%. gone.
just look at euro3 emission laws.
how many bikes are off the market?
there is a camapign in the UK for people to stop buying loud cans so that by the time euro4 comes around more am\zing bikes wont become illegal.

no, this isnt america, and we dont have the choice
but a, we dont actually need that choice, too many idiots and youngsters on an rs or nsr would be kill themselves.
and b, id gladly trade ahving to wear a helmet than live in america.

Dr Pepper

Anybody else reminded of this scene for 'The Life Of Brian'?
(Not 'slaggin' anyone. I just thought it was funny!)

FRANCIS:
Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN:
I want to be one.
REG:
What?
STAN:
I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG:
What?!
LORETTA:
It's my right as a man.
JUDITH:
Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA:
I want to have babies.
REG:
You want to have babies?!
LORETTA:
It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG:
But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA:
Don't you oppress me.
REG:
I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA:
[crying]
JUDITH:
Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS:
Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG:
What's the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

subway

very good

MizzKattt

subway wrote:

biking is on the ropes around the world.

I disagree. Sales for motorcycles is on the rise especially with inflated gas prices.

subway wrote:

we are a small minority and if you think for a second that you need the choice to not wear a helmet your fooling yourself.

If you reread my post, you'll see I agree with the need to wear a helmet and all protective gear. I, however, do not want a lawmaker to force me to do only whats safe. Where will it end? Will they require speed limits on closed tracks to keep me safe from harming myself?

What I'm saying is this. I am an adult. There are risks in most ventures of my life. I would like to continue to make choices for myself whether or not the reward is worth the risk.

The Doktor

Im all for choice, but when someone elses choice to be an idiot costs others money, then I`m not so sure.
If someone is not wearing a helmet, then they are more likely to be more seriously injured than if they were wearing a helmet. As a consequence, my insurance premium goes up.

As it is costing me €800 a year, I`d really rather it doesnt increase any more, especially due to gob****es who want their choice (and I include the shorts wearing brigade in this too).