Quite some time ago, I was browsing the good ol internet, when I ran across the Helmet Law Defense League website. Basically, they are trying to get rid of all state helmet laws, so I posted a message on their board...

I posted on the site:

I feel that the choice to wear a helmet is up to the rider ...however, if you get on a motorcycle, and you don't put a helmet on, your a friggin idiot. Ever heard of Darwin's rule of Natural Selection, that the weak of mind will vanquish due to their own stupidity, (not an exact quote, but close enough.) Well, if you don't wear a helmet, say hi to Darwin for me.

Shortly thereafter, I received an e-mail from a supporter of the group. Here was the e-mail I received in response:

Red, (I hope I can call you Red), I just read your comment on the guestbook. You stated that someone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is a friggin idiot. I've been riding now for over 30 years. I do wear a helmet, because I live in georgia, where I can be fined up to $1000 for not wearing one. I've NEVER had to use it.

In fact, I'd hazard to say that I can prove that it wouldn't protect me from harm 99% of the time that I do wear it. The proof is as simple as looking at the brain injuries sustained by impact, where the skull isn't crushed.

If the skull is intact, and there is still a brain injury, then the problem is that the brain impacts the INSIDE of the skull with enough force to cause damage. This occurs in impacts above about 15 miles per hour.

If you ask any helmet manufacturer how fast they will certify that you won't get hurt wearing their helmet, you'll get some idea of what I'm talking about. Bell, my favorite helmet company, only certifies their helmets up to 13.7 miles per hour. I don't drive that slow.

Please come back from the Dark Side, and quit spouting insults at those of us who have done our research, and still choose to ride lidless at times.

David Chamness

p.s. Feel free to write back. I'd love to hear your reasoning for insisting that an inch of Styrofoam can save your life.

To which I replied:

Well David, let's argue this point by point.

First, you state that you have been riding a bike for over thirty years, you wear a helmet (to your own chagrin and to avoid expense), and that you have never had to use it. Ok, well, your one of the lucky few. You can chock your fortune to the aforementioned "luck" and after some time, rider experience, and then back to luck again. I unfortunately, have not been that lucky. I was once hit in the visor of my SHOEI with a rock flung by a truck tire. The velocity of the rock, multiplied by my speed (around 70 or so), cracked the hell out of my visor and damn near knocked my head off. Had I not been wearing that helmet, I would have at minimum, been knocked cold. Had I not been wearing a helmet, it might as well have killed me, because after being knocked cold, I don't think the cars on the highway behind me would have had the reaction time, nor the ability, to avoid hitting my flailing body as it was hurled from the bike. And do not try to argue that point with that ridiculous comet story on the same site I posted my original message (http://www.usff.com/hldlhome.html --The helmet hoax page). Getting hit by a rock is very possible, the comet theory is totally, ok I'll just say it monosyllabically so that it sinks in, DUMB!!!

Second, I would hazard to say that you could prove that a helmet wouldn't protect you from harm 99% of the time YOU wear it. Of course, being how you don't agree with helmets, you probably wear a non-DOT approved helmet that barely covers the top of your head. In that case, you are absolutely right. That P-O-S brain bucket isn't worth the gray matter that it's not protecting. Additionally, almost all the helmet fighting arguments are usually no-win situations. Normally, the arguments used to argue against helmet laws involve an accident that would have caused brain damage or killed the rider regardless of whether they were wearing a helmet or not.

Third, you mention that looking at brain injuries when the skull isn't crushed (I'll come back to that), that there is still brain injury. Well duh. Any blunt trauma to any part of the body due to impact is going to cause some sort of damage. That goes without saying and the fact that you even use that as an argument simply reinforces mine. I find it funny that you have to specify head injuries when the skull ISN'T crushed. Had the person with the crushed skull been wearing a helmet, his/her head wouldn't be crushed, now would it.

Forth, there is a very good reason why motorcycle helmet manufacturers will not state specific levels of protection or speed limitations on their products, but let me break it down for you. First, you seem to forget what country we live in, or at least the current mind-set of most consumers. Whenever something bad happens to them, of course, it is never their fault, and they are looking for someone to blame, or to be more specific, sue. Second, any manufacturer of anything has an expected level of liability with any product placed on the market, especially those dealing with some sort of protection. To reasonably expect a motorcycle helmet company to put a hard number on the level of protection based solely on the factor of speed would be imbecilic and financial suicide. There are endless factors to motorcycle accidents, but some lawyer would see some accident where the rider was going some 40 mph, and the helmet company said that their helmet protects up to, let’s say, 45 mph…do you see where I am going here. Oh, and one more thing I just thought I would mention, given your apparent disgust for helmets, the fact that you even have a favorite, is laughable. Choose a side dude.

Ok, now to some short and to the point facts directly from the National Highway Traffic Safety Association:
• Per mile traveled, a motorcyclist is approximately 15 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile occupant.
• Head injury is a leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes.
• An unhelmeted motorcyclist is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury and 15 percent more likely to incur a nonfatal injury than a helmeted motorcyclist when involved in a crash.
• NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29 percent in a crash.
• The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) study found that motorcycle helmets are 67 percent effective in preventing brain injuries and that unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in crashes were three times more likely to suffer brain injury than those using helmets.
• From 1984 through 1997, NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 8,474 motorcyclists. If all motorcycle operators and passengers had worn helmets during those years, NHTSA estimates that 6,817 additional lives would have been saved.
• A study conducted at the University of Southern California, which analyzed 3,600 traffic crash reports covering motorcycle crashes, concluded that helmet use was the single most important factor governing survival in motorcycle crashes.
• In a recent study the National Public Service Research Institute concluded that wearing motorcycles helmets does not restrict a rider’s ability to hear auditory signals or see a vehicle in an adjacent lane.

While I’m rambling about helmets, maybe you should research them a little more. I wear a 2003 model Shoei X-Eleven. This helmet is designed specifically with the race track in mind. I’m pretty sure that it will protect well past your stated 13.5 miles per hour.

In conclusion, I will agree with you on one point, which I believe I stated in my posting, but I will be more specific. I do not agree with helmet laws, I think it should be up to the rider, however stupid or inexperienced that rider may be.

I look forward to your response,

Red

Back to Road Rash.