Road Cycling · Public discussion

Natural selection at work

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 21 posts · 877 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
9 August 2005
Last activity
12 August 2005
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
21
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
877
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 21
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?

    Deaths up since Florida helmet law repealed

    Tuesday, August 9, 2005; Posted: 6:35 a.m. EDT (10:35 GMT)

    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Motorcycle fatalities have risen sharply in Florida
    since the state repealed its mandatory helmet law.

    States that repeal such laws run the risk of increased deaths and
    mounting health care costs for injured bikers, according to two studies
    released Monday, one by the government, the other by the insurance
    industry.

    The first, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found
    that in the three years following Florida's repeal of its mandatory
    helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81 percent
    increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

    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.

    The cost of hospital care for motorcycle injuries grew from $21 million
    to $44 million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were
    adjusted for inflation.

    The study, conducted by the Connecticut-based Preusser Research Group,
    mirrored the findings of a 2003 federal review that found that
    fatalities grew by more than 50 percent in Kentucky and 100 percent in
    Louisiana after those states struck down their mandatory helmet laws.

    "The results are remarkably similar that when you repeal a helmet law,
    you can expect an increase in fatalities and you can expect an increase
    in medical costs," said NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson.

    The second study released Monday, by the Insurance Institute for
    Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02
    increased 25 percent compared with the two years before the repeal of
    the helmet law in Florida.

    The debate has generated legislative struggles during the past decade,
    with motorcyclists rumbling through state capitals and unleashing
    torrents of phone calls and e-mails to lobby for repeals. Some
    motorcyclists complain that they should have the choice of wearing a
    helmet and urge states to focus more on rider education.

    But safety groups contend that less restrictive laws lead to more
    fatalities and burden society through higher medical costs. They mostly
    have waged a losing battle since the mid-1990s, when Congress removed
    federal sanctions against states without helmet laws and a handful of
    states weakened their statutes.

    Twenty states and the District of Columbia require all motorcycle
    riders to wear protective helmets, a decline from 47 states in 1975,
    according to the institute, which is funded by the insurance industry.

    Nationally, fatalities increased nearly 8 percent to 4,008 in 2004, the
    first time they have surpassed 4,000 deaths since 1987.

    Motorcycle deaths have increased seven years in a row.

    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. The state's climate allows for year-round riding, and Daytona
    Beach's Bike Week attracts hundreds of thousands of motorcyclists every
    March.

    In the institute's report, the motorcycle-crash death rate increased 25
    percent in the two years after Florida's law changed, growing from 30.8
    deaths to 38.8 deaths per 1,000 crashes.

    Tom Lindsay, a spokesman for the American Motorcyclist Association,
    noted that both studies failed to show the causes of crashes, such as
    the rider's behavior, road and weather conditions or the motorcycle
    itself.

    The federal highway bill approved by Congress in late July included
    funding for the first major study of motorcycle crash data since the
    late 1970s.

    "We're looking forward to real research that surveys many factors of
    motorcycling crashes and comes up with ways that we can reduce this
    number," Lindsay said.

  2. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    The federal highway bill approved by Congress in late July included
    funding for the first major study of motorcycle crash data since the
    late 1970s.

    That's nothing but pork for "scientists."

    Quoted message said:

    "We're looking forward to real research that surveys many factors of
    motorcycling crashes and comes up with ways that we can reduce this
    number," Lindsay said.

    Sure he is "looking forward to real research," as long as someone else,
    meaning taxpayers, pays for it. Why be careful and lower one's risk if
    taxpayers -- who have little choice in the matter -- will bear the cost
    of risky behavior?

  3. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?

    Could this mean you can't read?

    " 81 percent increase" in motorcycle fatalities.

    This article 'neglects' to mention that there was a 300% increase in new
    motorcycle sales with the dropping of mandatory helmet laws.

    Could it be that the helmet zealots aren't anxious for anyone to know the
    truth?

  4. "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?

    Could this mean you can't read?

    " 81 percent increase" in motorcycle fatalities.

    This article 'neglects' to mention that there was a 300% increase in new
    motorcycle sales with the dropping of mandatory helmet laws.

    Hmm, that's not what this study says.

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/FlaMCReport/pages/nationaltrends.htm

    Looks like fatalities increased more than motorcycle registrations after
    helmet laws were repealed. 300% increase in sales? Did you pull that # out
    of your ass?

    Quoted message said:

    Could it be that the helmet zealots aren't anxious for anyone to know the
    truth?


    Why is someone that conducts a scientific study a "helmet zealot?" Look,
    nobody cares if YOU don't want to wear a helmet, but don't you think it's
    wrong to try to suppress scientific proof that might save even one life?

    Quoted message said:
  5. "Suz Weldon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Tom Kunich" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?

    Could this mean you can't read?

    " 81 percent increase" in motorcycle fatalities.

    This article 'neglects' to mention that there was a 300% increase in new
    motorcycle sales with the dropping of mandatory helmet laws.

    Hmm, that's not what this study says.

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/FlaMCReport/pages/nationaltrends.htm

    Looks like fatalities increased more than motorcycle registrations after
    helmet laws were repealed. 300% increase in sales? Did you pull that #
    out of your ass?

    Quoted message said:

    Could it be that the helmet zealots aren't anxious for anyone to know the
    truth?


    Why is someone that conducts a scientific study a "helmet zealot?" Look,
    nobody cares if YOU don't want to wear a helmet, but don't you think it's
    wrong to try to suppress scientific proof that might save even one life?

    Quoted message said:



    Is a helmet really going to help if a motorcyclist dumps it at highway
    speed? I can't imagine that a helmeted head hitting pavement at 60mph is
    going to be in very good shape. Isn't the brain still going to suffer
    deceleration trauma when it bounces off the skull?

  6. Dumbass,

    I call a physics violation. Your head doesn't hit the ground at 60 MPH.
    Your head hits the ground at the velocity it attains based on the
    height from which it fell. Unless you high-side like Beloki, then
    you're in hurt city. In any case, try to remember not to drop your head
    onto the ground from great heights. The brain cell you save could be
    your own.

  7. "Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Is a helmet really going to help if a motorcyclist dumps it at highway
    speed? I can't imagine that a helmeted head hitting pavement at 60mph is
    going to be in very good shape. Isn't the brain still going to suffer
    deceleration trauma when it bounces off the skull?

    Having wrecked about 3 helmets back in my motorcycle roadracing days at
    speeds well above 60mph, the answer is is yes, it will help a lot...a
    lot....a lot...a lot with no lingering effects either...ther...ther....ther.

    -Andy B.

  8. "Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hglKe.1971>
    Is a helmet really going to help if a motorcyclist dumps it at highway

    Quoted message said:

    speed? I can't imagine that a helmeted head hitting pavement at 60mph is
    going to be in very good shape. Isn't the brain still going to suffer
    deceleration trauma when it bounces off the skull?


    Of course it will help. Coincidentally, we had a patient just yesterday who
    crashed at 70mph just 3 days ago. He broke a couple bones in his hand and
    foot, but suffered only a mild concussion in his head. His helmet was
    crushed.

  9. In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?
    Deaths up since Florida helmet law repealed
    Tuesday, August 9, 2005; Posted: 6:35 a.m. EDT (10:35 GMT)
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Motorcycle fatalities have risen sharply in Florida
    since the state repealed its mandatory helmet law.
    States that repeal such laws run the risk of increased deaths and
    mounting health care costs for injured bikers, according to two studies
    released Monday, one by the government, the other by the insurance
    industry.
    The first, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found
    that in the three years following Florida's repeal of its mandatory
    helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81 percent
    increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

    Raw numbers are not a good way to gauge safety. Deaths per number of miles
    traveled is a better indicator. That they are not using that number leads
    one to believe they are trying to hide something. They want to manipulate
    the numbers to support thier hypothesis, or at least give the impression that
    the numbers support it.

    Quoted message said:

    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.

    That means that 55 percent of those killed were wearing helmets and died
    anyway. An important piece of information that is missing is how many
    miles were traveled by all those motorcycle riders. If the number of miles
    traveled increased, then the number of deaths would also increase even if
    the helmet law had not been repealed.

    Quoted message said:

    The cost of hospital care for motorcycle injuries grew from $21 million
    to $44 million in the 30 months after the law changed; the figures were
    adjusted for inflation.

    Of course it did. You have more injured folks, so the costs will go up.
    What were they expecting, the cost to go down with more injuries?

    Quoted message said:

    The study, conducted by the Connecticut-based Preusser Research Group,
    mirrored the findings of a 2003 federal review that found that
    fatalities grew by more than 50 percent in Kentucky and 100 percent in
    Louisiana after those states struck down their mandatory helmet laws.

    Again, unless they tell you how they came up with the numbers, they are
    meaningless.

    Quoted message said:

    "The results are remarkably similar that when you repeal a helmet law,
    you can expect an increase in fatalities and you can expect an increase
    in medical costs," said NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson.

    Another parrot repeating the same old story.

    Quoted message said:

    The second study released Monday, by the Insurance Institute for
    Highway Safety, found that the death rate of motorcyclists from 2001-02
    increased 25 percent compared with the two years before the repeal of
    the helmet law in Florida.

    The IIHS is a organization that is fully funded by the insurance industry, so
    they will always come up with results that support what the insurance industry
    wants to support.

    Quoted message said:

    The debate has generated legislative struggles during the past decade,
    with motorcyclists rumbling through state capitals and unleashing
    torrents of phone calls and e-mails to lobby for repeals. Some
    motorcyclists complain that they should have the choice of wearing a
    helmet and urge states to focus more on rider education.

    Good for them. Too bad rider education isn't going to help them against
    the idiots in cars who don't see a motorcycle on the road.

    Quoted message said:

    But safety groups contend that less restrictive laws lead to more
    fatalities and burden society through higher medical costs. They mostly
    have waged a losing battle since the mid-1990s, when Congress removed
    federal sanctions against states without helmet laws and a handful of
    states weakened their statutes.

    Now if this kind of thinking would also be applied to other stupid laws
    the feds want states to pass, we would be making real progress.

    Quoted message said:

    Nationally, fatalities increased nearly 8 percent to 4,008 in 2004, the
    first time they have surpassed 4,000 deaths since 1987.

    Again, raw death numbers are meaningless.

    Quoted message said:

    In the institute's report, the motorcycle-crash death rate increased 25
    percent in the two years after Florida's law changed, growing from 30.8
    deaths to 38.8 deaths per 1,000 crashes.

    Finally we see a number that makes some sense. But the it is still not the
    number they should be using. They should be using deaths/miles travelled.

    ----------------
    Alex

  10. In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    Why is someone that conducts a scientific study a "helmet zealot?" Look,
    nobody cares if YOU don't want to wear a helmet, but don't you think it's
    wrong to try to suppress scientific proof that might save even one life?

    At what cost are you willing to save that one life?
    ------------
    Alex

  11. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Suz Weldon said:

    "Gooserider" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:hglKe.1971>
    Is a helmet really going to help if a motorcyclist dumps it at highway

    Quoted message said:

    speed? I can't imagine that a helmeted head hitting pavement at 60mph is
    going to be in very good shape. Isn't the brain still going to suffer
    deceleration trauma when it bounces off the skull?


    Of course it will help. Coincidentally, we had a patient just yesterday who
    crashed at 70mph just 3 days ago. He broke a couple bones in his hand and
    foot, but suffered only a mild concussion in his head. His helmet was
    crushed.

    hey [censored]...Pro's don't wear helmets.

    CP

  12. Actually, deaths per crash is exactly the number they should be using.
    The claim is they reduce head injury and prevent death when a crash
    occurs. Another valid metric would be the severity of injury in each
    crash.

    Deaths per mile would be valid only if the helmet were designed to let
    you ride farther before you die, no matter how many crashes you have.

  13. Racer said:

    Actually, deaths per crash is exactly the number they should be using.

    Considering the impact of MHL on the total number of cyclists is a
    major part of the argument against such laws, your comment is
    simplistic at best. Unless you think just stoppign people from riding
    at all (which will surely reduce the number of deaths) is the goal.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  14. "Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,
    [email hidden] says...

    Quoted message said:

    Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?
    Deaths up since Florida helmet law repealed
    Tuesday, August 9, 2005; Posted: 6:35 a.m. EDT (10:35 GMT)
    WASHINGTON (AP) -- Motorcycle fatalities have risen sharply in Florida
    since the state repealed its mandatory helmet law.
    States that repeal such laws run the risk of increased deaths and
    mounting health care costs for injured bikers, according to two studies
    released Monday, one by the government, the other by the insurance
    industry.
    The first, by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, found
    that in the three years following Florida's repeal of its mandatory
    helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81 percent
    increase from the 515 bikers killed from 1997 to 1999.

    Raw numbers are not a good way to gauge safety. Deaths per number of
    miles
    traveled is a better indicator.

    That is also addressed here:
    http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/FlaMCReport/pages/nationaltrends.htm
    as well as deaths per motorcycle registration.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    In the institute's report, the motorcycle-crash death rate increased 25
    percent in the two years after Florida's law changed, growing from 30.8
    deaths to 38.8 deaths per 1,000 crashes.

    Finally we see a number that makes some sense. But the it is still not
    the
    number they should be using. They should be using deaths/miles travelled.

    Quoted message said:
  15. "Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
    says...

    Quoted message said:

    Why is someone that conducts a scientific study a "helmet zealot?" Look,
    nobody cares if YOU don't want to wear a helmet, but don't you think it's
    wrong to try to suppress scientific proof that might save even one life?

    At what cost are you willing to save that one life?
    ------------
    Alex

    ???
    what is the cost???

  16. OK. I've been known to take a simplistic approach to things. Can you
    explain, how deaths/mile is a valid measure of helmet effectiveness?
    If you can't do it simplistically, feel free to use a convoluted
    argument.

    John Forrest Tomlinson said:
    Racer said:

    Actually, deaths per crash is exactly the number they should be using.

    Considering the impact of MHL on the total number of cyclists is a
    major part of the argument against such laws, your comment is
    simplistic at best.
    Unless you think just stoppign people from riding
    at all (which will surely reduce the number of deaths) is the goal.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************

  17. Quoted message said:

    Could this mean helmets on bike riders also saves lives?

    Why even change or create a new subject line? Why not just have an
    everpresent "Helmet Thread" and those concerned can just feed it from
    time to time?

    -eric

  18. "SH" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1123677109.994209.260520
    @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    Quoted message said:

    Dumbass,

    I call a physics violation. Your head doesn't hit the ground at 60 MPH.
    Your head hits the ground at the velocity it attains based on the
    height from which it fell.

    You're right, your head doesn't hit the ground at 60 mph. The correct
    answer is 63 mph.

    Assuming a perfect ejection at 60 mph and a head height of 6 feet above
    ground, the vertical component due to falling is about 19 mph. The
    horizontal component is, of course, 60 mph. The sum of the two vectors
    gives 63 mph. In the real world the number will be less due to drag.

    Forward velocity is the most important factor. On a 40mph descent you
    really, really need your helmet.

    (*)if any RBR readers wonder how 19 + 60 = 63, see
    http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/physics/chapter4section2.rhtm
    l.

  19. In article <[email hidden]>,

    PanFan said:

    "SH" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1123677109.994209.260520
    @g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    Quoted message said:

    Dumbass,

    I call a physics violation. Your head doesn't hit the ground at 60 MPH.
    Your head hits the ground at the velocity it attains based on the
    height from which it fell.

    You're right, your head doesn't hit the ground at 60 mph. The correct
    answer is 63 mph.

    Assuming a perfect ejection at 60 mph and a head height of 6 feet above
    ground, the vertical component due to falling is about 19 mph. The
    horizontal component is, of course, 60 mph. The sum of the two vectors
    gives 63 mph. In the real world the number will be less due to drag.

    Forward velocity is the most important factor. On a 40mph descent you
    really, really need your helmet.

    This is marvelous! Your response, like the punchline to the joke about
    the guy in the helicopter asking directions, is both factually correct
    and virtually useless.

    I need to point out that you wouldn't need to worry about a helmet if
    that "impact" with the ground was at 60 mph (because helmet or not,
    they'd be picking your head out of your chest, and your spine would be
    sticking about a foot out of your butt), but this is an oblique impact.

    Let's observe a rider crashing with an impact speed of somewhat more
    than 63 mph:

    http://www.phys.unm.edu/~mph/crash1.jpg

    Oopsie. I don't know the circumstances, but I'll bet he touches down at
    a speed somewhere between 60 and 100 mph, and sustains no serious
    injuries. Of course, he was protected by around 8 mm of leather, and a
    cyclist trying the same trick would probably risk fatal levels of road
    rash (blood loss, infection...) on the parts of their body not covered
    by a helmet. Kids: do not try this at home!

    Quoted message said:

    (*)if any RBR readers wonder how 19 + 60 = 63, see
    http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/physics/chapter4section2.rhtml

    Yes, very impressive, you know how triangles work. When talking about
    the impact speed, the lateral component only matters if there's a curb
    in the way or you break your neck in the ensuing deceleration or you
    sustain a lot of road rash. The first two cases won't be helped by a
    helmet, and in the last case landing anywhere but your head might be a
    problem, but I have not seen anyone advocate for the cyclist's
    butt-helmet yet.

    So the helmet-saving velocity component we care about is...19 mph. This
    is still significant, but it's not 60 mph.

    BTW, a word to the wise: do NOT do a Google Image Search for "motorcycle
    crash" with SafeSearch off. Urgh.

    --
    Ryan Cousineau [email hidden] http://www.wiredcola.com/
    "I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
    to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

  20. Ryan Cousineau said:

    but I have not seen anyone advocate for the cyclist's butt-helmet yet.

    Only for cyclists whose heads are permanently up their ass.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.