Helmet vs. No helmet: some figures

"yeah but warin a helmit is against the bill of hooman rights in Amerika. The feds is tryin to control what we the peeple do ain it. They put mind changin tech in those helment to contoll wot we dooo"

Good article. Anyone who reckons not wearting a helmet is better than wearing is....a helmet.

Posted: 20/07/2012 at 10:29

NOT wearing a lid is better,its the greatest feeling when you go from EUROPE to the states and have the opportunity to ride, in the wind no lid everyone who rides should experience it,BUT, you cannot ride day to day without a lid and expect to live long! i have been in a couple of major bike wrecks (not my fault 100%)and i WAS wearing a lid but it is personal choice,something not experienced in a lot of places(Britain for one) so NOT wearing a skidlid is better, but just not an option for some, and not safe, agreed, we all do unsafe things every day but do not consider the risks.it is a matter of choice,the right to choose and make your own decisions, i lived in texas for 5 years and wore a lid to and from work (morn.- eve.) and no lid on my own time.THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE,DEMOCRACY without these you might as well live in europe !!

Posted: 20/07/2012 at 11:53

"Helmets don't prevent accidents."

Technically speaking he is right. The accidents will still happen. However, helmets DO prevent injuries.

Posted: 20/07/2012 at 12:57

Props for the line "Anyone who reckons not wearting a helmet is better than wearing is....a helmet." Made me lol.

It's not about democracy and the right to choose. We are part of a society, that society has to pay for and care for those injured or affected by accidents. To that end, the state has to step in and protect the interests of the state, and that means people who can still function normally.

I wear a helmet, and armour, and full gear. I don't even pop to the shops without all of the above. That's because my family,friends, and my continued place with them is more important to me than the extra 120 seconds it takes to put the gear on.

Statistically 90% of accidents occur within a mile of my home... I'm moving.

Posted: 20/07/2012 at 13:46

Oh get a grip.
If you can't ride to the shops without crashing you shouldn't be riding anyway.
It should be the responsibility of the individual to wear whatever is appropriate to their journey.
If you are going out for a thrash it you would have to be daft not to lid up but as a grown adult I would prefer to be able to choose to potter around on my old xt with no lid if I felt like it.

Posted: 20/07/2012 at 14:00

The data as presented doesn't confirm whether you are more likely to crash when wearing a helmet. Lets say for the sake of argument that half the riders stopped wearing a lid after the ban was lifted. The figures say there were 3 times as many crashes involving helmeted riders as non-helmeted. That means you would be 3 times more likely to crash if you wear a helmet.

Posted: 20/07/2012 at 14:08

Quote: "If you can't ride to the shops without crashing you shouldn't be riding anyway."

Sorry that is a bit harsh. There are riders of all abilities and you can't get 20 years of experience instantly.

If you can't ride to the shops without crashing yes, you should wear a helmet.

Posted: 20/07/2012 at 14:19

I say people should be allowed to ride without a helmet if they want to. They should also be allowed to drive without a seatbelt too

We interfere with Darwin's theory way too much.
Let the ones who want to feel the wind through their hair and skull on the tarmac remove themselves from the gene pool.

(This is not a jab at anyone, just a subject I feel strongly on as I would be very very dead were it not for my helmet and safety gear)

Posted: 20/07/2012 at 14:47

@Ripsaw

Because it's my riding skill in question here, and not the doddery old twat that pulls out with no warning that's the problem?

I don't question my skills, I ride every day, 10k miles plus a year, I do question the appalling driving of others. Since I can't change that, I ride defensively and protect myself with decent gear.

Anyway, you know what they say about arguing on the internet... I'm off out for a ride, since it is actually sunny for once! ;)

Posted: 20/07/2012 at 15:05

There are studies that show you will ride more dangerously if you "Feel safer". So... you are probably more likely to have an incident if you are in full kit. I live in Michigan. More and more bikers are going without helmets. But as I predicted to my riding buddies. Watch how many people start cruising in tank tops, shorts and flip flops. Sure enough. Just seems that if you put on the helmet, many people go with a coat and boots and gloves. No helmet... Heck I'm going to die anyway, might as well have the wind blowing up my shorts when I do!

Posted: 21/07/2012 at 16:28

The stats don't show what time of year is being compared. Is it Spring v Summer?
Helmet is better if you crash no question. Not riding a motorcycle is even safer because that way you avoid crashing. Ski-ing? Ban it. Rock climbing? Ban it. Parachuting? Ban it.
Want to ride a motorcycle with no helmet? I think it should be your choice and yours alone. Although a helmet is definitely warmer and drier in the UK almost any time of year.
I suppose society takes a look, and the electorate through our politicians decide what is acceptable. They haven't banned smoking just yet after all.

Posted: 24/07/2012 at 14:18

The problem, RipsawII (really? You actually call yourself that?) is not your expertise when popping down the shops, but the idiot that never saw you and knocks you into the middle of A&E.

Posted: 24/07/2012 at 15:04

I fly planes at 500mph in a short-sleeved shirt. It should be my decision what equipment to wear on my motorcycle. For those who don't believe that drivers/riders who feel safe are actually more dangerous to others just think how wide a berth you give to the average bunny in a Volvo.

Posted: 24/07/2012 at 15:50

"Vince Consiglio, president of ABATE, the motorcycle-lobby group that forced the change in law, said: "Helmets don't prevent accidents."

Good one, Vince!"

Right, so if that's a "good one" (said, presumably, in a sneering tone) then surely the author of this piece will also support compulsory gloves, jackets, boots, back protectors, Hi-Viz, headlights, ABS, sealing of the power train to prevent bikers from modifying their bikes and so on because all of those will also help prevent bikers from being injured? After all, some of those are what the EU wants to introduce already to "protect bikers", aren't they, so more must be a good thing, mustn't it?

And then let's introduce even more stringent motorcycle tests such that a 17 year old biker will have to pass *four* tests before they can ride any bike they want (at age 22), even though a 17 year old car driver only has to pass *one* test and then immediately drive any car.

Oh, hang on, we've already got those now, haven't we, even though the DfT's own figures show that in around 2/3rds of KSI accidents involving a motorcycle and another vehicle are *not* the fault of the biker...

Posted: 24/07/2012 at 17:43

to have a accurate view would be to see how those died.i am all for helmets but saying that in each case it was the cause is just stats talk. if only jeremy clarkson would add a comment

Posted: 25/07/2012 at 14:21

It is my contention that it is possible to ride a motorcycle so defensively that even the most idiotic driver won't hit you unless they actually give chase, in which case a helmet may not be as effective as, say an Uzi.

Posted: 25/07/2012 at 14:23

Interesting. The stats say 2% 936 riders were fatally injured and 15% incapacitated. Whereas 5% and 25 respectively out of 288 riders in the same period. Putting aside the variance in ratio of accidents of helmet/non-helmet riders, there is other great info here.

The headline figure is that there is a 13% more chance of incapacitation or death for non-helmet riders. However ...

140 helmeted riders incapacitated;
18 helmeted riders killed.

v

72 non-helmeted riders incapacitated
14 non-helmeted riders killed

... In the same period. This is what the stats actually bear out.

Posted: 26/07/2012 at 10:53

I wear a helmet and am all for safety...however if you want to be told what to do and what to wear get a wife.

Posted: 27/07/2012 at 16:52

The majority of people who have a problem with a crash helmet are yanks, similar to their problem with any kind of protective clothing.

We need these people to have such disregard for their own life, my only hope is that when they kill themselves and free the world of such stupidity, nobody else is involved.

It's all very well having the freedom to choose, but sometimes people are so damn thick the choice must be taken fom them.

Posted: 27/07/2012 at 20:50

Your thoughts on the Yanks are incorrect sir. Most Americans who complain about helmet laws are harley riders and sure they break laws but statistically speaking sport bike riders who wear safety equipment are the ones crashing more thus causing insurance and other costs to rise. So who is your issue with?

Posted: 27/07/2012 at 22:59

I wear an Aria full face on my Hayabusa because the wind across me at 90-130mph is fierce. I wear a so-called novelty helmet on my Harley. I have health and accident insurance. Been riding since I was 14 and I'm 67 now. I'm college educated, still work and don't consider myself "thick." I'll take a calculated risk to put on a Schott Perfecto, a pair of 501s and Red Wing engineer boots and head out to the Sierra foothills. Rarely get above 80 on the Harley and steer well clear of traffic.

Europe and Great Britain have much narrower roads and a pervasive nanny state. Here, the freeways in Sacramento CA range from eight to 14 lanes across. Even the country roads are better paved and much wider. It's a different riding experience and a different culture. You are welcome to think of us as clots; but if you rode here a while you might see things differently.

YMMV and no problem. and what the heck was the Olympic opening ceremony all about? Sheesh... -L-

Posted: 28/07/2012 at 21:13

@Tom Quinn: the roads I rode in CA were some of the worst I've ever ridden. The freeways are largely slabs of concrete with a lot of grooves and seams that can cause wheel tracking issues, while the back roads in the Santa Cruz mountains were all narrower and twistier than anything I've ever seen in the UK. The surface was very poor owing to a combination of heat, tree roots and heavy SUVs, causing the tarmac to resemble a Dali painting at times.

You're right that UK roads aren't great. The roads in Germany are of a much better quality, and the roads in northern Spain are far more fun. But IMO the roads themselves have little to do with whether a helmet is a good idea or not. There's a combination of risk homeostasis and culture / ambient road danger. With a crappy helmet, or no helmet at all, you'll ride far more carefully if you have any brains to protect; but as others have said, that doesn't help you for the idiots who run red lights, stop signs, SMIDSYs who turn across your lane as you approach, etc. In those unavoidable incidents, a helmet makes all the difference. You may have all the insurance, but not everyone does; and US emergency rooms can't turn anyone away for not having insurance. You're paying for those freeloaders as it is; it's in your interest that they wear something.

Posted: 29/07/2012 at 22:53