ONONDAGA, N.Y. -- Police say a motorcyclist participating in a protest ride against helmet laws in upstate New York died after he flipped over the bike's handlebars and hit his head on the pavement...I do understand that because of the physics involved, the rationale for helmets for motorcycle riders is different (and perhaps weaker) than for bicycle riders, but the outcome here is neverless rather ironic.
Troopers say Contos hit his brakes and the motorcycle fishtailed. The bike spun out of control, and Contos toppled over the handlebars. He was pronounced dead at a hospital.
Addendum: A hat tip to Jerry for providing a link to his blog post at Tread Life. An excerpt -
“The speed on your speedometer is very seldom any indication of how hard you’re going to hit your head,” Thom said. “The only situation where it is an indication is if you hit a vertical object, like a bridge abutment. Then your speedometer speed is very important.” But in most motorcycle accidents, the rider’s head falls straight down and hits the ground at 13.4 mph or less. “We found way back in the Hurt studies that the typical impact on a head at the 90th percentile was less than the DOT impact speed of 13.4 mph.”More at the link.
If you need further proof that the bike’s forward, or horizontal, velocity is far less important than the vertical velocity of the rider’s head, said Thom, go to a motorcycle race. “If you’ve ever seen a guy fall off at 120, they almost always get up even though their forward speed was huge. They fall off, and they very likely hit their head at least once, but they have that six-foot fall, which is what we test helmets at.”
Once you understand the bike’s forward velocity is nowhere near as important as the speed at which the rider’s head hits the ground, the argument that helmets don’t work because they aren’t designed to protect you at speeds higher than 13 mph loses virtually all of its weight.
Darwin.
ReplyDeleteYou obliquely mention a difference of rationale for bicycle and motorcycle helmets. As an avid cyclist who hates helmets, I am eager to know more...am I crazy for not wearing a helmet?
ReplyDeleteAs an avid cyclist, I learned long ago - "wear a $10 helmet for a $10 head". And it would stand to reason that if no helmet is worn, well...
ReplyDeleteMotorcycles are still the ultimate symbol of freedom, at least here in the US.
ReplyDeleteThe demographic which rides them is also prone to rebel against any sort of enforced constriction like helmets.
Personally, I wear one. Not because I don't trust my own riding ability, but because I have ZERO trust in the driving ability of the rest of these half brained morons they let on the roads.
"You obliquely mention a difference of rationale for bicycle and motorcycle helmets..."
ReplyDeleteChris, what I'm remembering (or misremembering - I'm too busy/lazy to look it up now) is that the weight of a motorcycle helmet becomes a factor at highway speeds, increasing the momentum of the head in the event of a crash. I believe there was evidence of neck injuries either more severe or more frequent than among motorcycle riders without helmets.
For low-speed bicycle riding, I think it's unquestioned that the helmets prevent cranial injuries during falls and collisions.
I may be wrong on this. Someone reading this blog will probably know.
Though I am not a motorcycle rider, I am completely against requiring helmets for said riders. That's because it is inevitable that some riders will wear a helmet, along with swim trunks and flip-flops. Let those idiots go without a helmet and let them die quicker is what I say.
ReplyDeleteBike helmets though are another thing, my nephew was saved during a bad accident because he was wearing a helmet.
As a paramedic, we spent a lot of time on trauma. As a motorcyclist, I've spent a lot of time trying to stay out of the hospital.
ReplyDeleteThat said, helmets can be shown to reduce the severity of head injury at the expense of possibly exacerbating a neck injury. It's not the extra weight, necessarily, but the shape of the helmet. Which is why you see the MotoGP riders wearing that weird "hunchback." Either way, it's like flood insurance: you really don't want to have to use it, but isn't it better to take every precaution?
"Let those idiots go without a helmet and let them die quicker is what I say."
ReplyDeleteThat's the same argument that spoken re users of ETOH, drugs, cigarettes, unprotected sex etc. The problem is the malefactors don't always die quickly; sometimes they get chronic illnesses, paraplegia etc and wind up requiring support services paid for by taxpayers. Including you.
Legislating other people's behavior (or not doing so) gets complicated.
I don't know about you, but I've never seen a motorcycle either fishtail or spin out.
ReplyDelete"I've never seen a motorcycle either fishtail or spin out."
ReplyDeleteTwo of my college roommates spun out their WWII Zundapp motorcycle when they hit wet leaves on a Massachusetts suburban street.
So I've seen it happen.
I didn't know much about this, but it intrigued me so I did a little research.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the basis for the anti-helmet rationale is a study from 1986, conducted by an economist (Jonathan Goldstein), which seemed to show that while helmets do reduce head injuries, they also increase the severity of neck injuries, as Minnesotastan pointed out.
However, this study has been criticized, notably by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, for its apparently flawed statistical reasoning.
I also found at least 3 studies conducted by health professionals, and ranging from 1993 to 2011, concluding that wearing a helmet has at worst no effect on spinal injuries, and may even reduce them. As well as drastically reducing head injuries of course.
So not wearing a helmet may be more fun, but it most definitely is a risk, not a precaution as some would like to imply.
Thanks, Seban678.
ReplyDelete"It's not the extra weight, necessarily, but the shape of the helmet. Which is why you see the MotoGP riders wearing that weird "hunchback."
ReplyDeleteThe "hunchback" is actually part of the rider's leather racing suit, not the helmet, and is there for aerodynamic purposes. It may also hold a supply of water the rider can drink through a tube in the front of the helmet. Racing helmets are sometimes shaped to help air flow smoothly over the gap between the helmet and the hunchback.
I once wrote a blog post about how helmets work that you might find enlightening:
http://treadlife.blogspot.com/2010/02/beanies-and-bullshit-just-one-of-things.html
Sorry, I don't have a link to the study (here is the citation from a class paper my wife wrote Houston, D. J., & Richardson, L. E. (2007). Motorcycle Safety and the Repeal of Universal Helmet Laws. American Journal of Public Health, 97(14), 2063-2069.), but when states were repealing their universal helmet laws (opting for either laws for minors/new riders or no helmet laws) in the late 70s and early 80s, helmet use went from around 97% to below 50%, and motorcycles fatalities and head trauma both increased immediately after repeal.
ReplyDeleteAnother study on this phenomenon is Muller, A. (1980). Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Motorcycle Helmet Laws. American Journal of Public Health, 70(6), 586-592.
Excellent, Chris. Thanx for providing links to real data.
ReplyDeleteExcellent, Jerry. I've added your link (with an excerpt) to the post.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
I've seen people take a spill at very low speed and it smashed their helmets up enough it would have been very bad for them otherwise.
ReplyDeleteSome of my friends complain a helmet would never save them and then they put on a layer of cloth, leather and heavy boots on their feet when they go riding...
Less of you hitting and being shaved off by the ground is a good thing.
The ones that bug me are the bikers who claim that loud pipes are "for safety reasons" and then ride without a helmet or useful gear.
ReplyDelete@Anon "I don't know about you, but I've never seen a motorcycle either fishtail or spin out."
ReplyDeleteI can tell you from experience that motorcycles fishtail. Particularly bikes that have a rear drum brake. If you hit the rear brake too hard, it locks the wheel and you fishtail. I've never fallen because of it, but I've definitely had it start to go.
A bicycle is so lacking in safety compared to a motorcyle that I've never worn a helmet on one. At least on a motorcycle you get real lights, turn signals, speedometer, horn, mirrors, dot approved tires, etc. - and since you are not working your butt off to climb a hill you can wear a helmet that works (i.e. against impact and road rash).
ReplyDeleteAlso, when I was younger and more foolish, the more protective gear I wore, the greater risks I chose to take (off highway, of course).
...my 2 bits
I would guess the rationale is stupidity and stubbornness. But that's me.
DeleteAs a mostly ex motorcyclist, I have two personal data points:
ReplyDelete1] A (lucky for me) small car ran a red light and hit me broadside. I went up on the hood of the car and smashed the windshield with my head, which, also lucky for me, was wrapped in a top end helmet. I had a sore ankle, but that was it.
2] I have also been hit in the face, again thankfully completely protected, by many things while on a bike, from golf ball sized june bugs to lit cigarette butts. I can't imagine not having a full faced helmet on while riding. There's been some trips along side a river where I have had to stop every couple of miles to clean off the face shield because of bugs squashed on it. Can't imagine what it would be like without it!
I think anyone is crazy for not riding a motorcycle without a full faced helmet, leather jacket and at least blue jeans.