Here's a positive news report

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3992122

[misunderstood]

Nice to see a reasonable report. Thanks for posting. http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif

[Cajunrider]

First upbeat / encouraging media report on motorcycling I've seen. Thanks for posting it.

[aj]

Some great stats and positive story, but they (media) still need to include the "gore".

[dantama]

Nice Kawasaki banner in the background of the story photo :)

[cactusjack]

It's nice to not read the "usual" story about how motorcycle fatalities are rising, while failing to mention of the increasing number of motorcycles on the road.

Thanks for posting that, Wolfie!

[scion0]

That is nice (Go Kawasaki!!!)

[VulcanE]

That was an interesting report, like the man said "wear your helmets"

[Yellow Jacket]

"Helmet laws do nothing to prevent an accident, and a helmet only provides the illusion of safety, while rider education is proven to prevent accidents and save lives."

The above statement was pulled directly off the ABATE of Georgia website. I added the emphasis on the word illusion.

I don't want to get a into big debate about helmet laws but I sure don't understand how they can state that a helmet only provides an "illusion" of safety. I don't see any NASCAR/NHRA/IHRA/SSCA, ad infintum, drivers stating that it should be their "choice" as to whether or not they wear a helmet.

Back to the subject of this thread, I think that was the most reasonable TV report I've ever seen in regard to motorcycles.

[cactusjack]

"Helmet laws do nothing to prevent an accident, and a helmet only provides the illusion of safety, while rider education is proven to prevent accidents and save lives."

The above statement was pulled directly off the ABATE of Georgia website. I added the emphasis on the word illusion.

I don't want to get a into big debate about helmet laws but I sure don't understand how they can state that a helmet only provides an "illusion" of safety. I don't see any NASCAR/NHRA/IHRA/SSCA, ad infintum, drivers stating that it should be their "choice" as to whether or not they wear a helmet.

Back to the subject of this thread, I thing that was the most reasonable TV report I've ever seen in regard to motorcycles.

Not to stir the pot, so to speak - but all racing participants wear helmets, even motorcycle racers. That doesn't mean that they wear them when driving on vacation or to the local Target.

I agree that wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle only provides the illusion of safety. There's a thousand different ways you can die on a motorcycle. A head injury is only one of them.

I'm not saying anyone should or should not wear one, just making another point of view.

[markusmaximus]

[/quote]

Not to stir the pot, so to speak - but all racing participants wear helmets, even motorcycle racers. That doesn't mean that they wear them when driving on vacation or to the local Target.

I agree that wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle only provides the illusion of safety. There's a thousand different ways you can die on a motorcycle. A head injury is only one of them.

I'm not saying anyone should or should not wear one, just making another point of view.[/quote]

I'm not so sure I agree, CJ. I do agree that there are many ways to die in a crash. A head injury is one of them. If taken to an extreme, would full head-to-toe body armor reduce motorcycle fatalities? Conventional wisdom says yes. But practicality doesn't justify it. Then why would helmets not reduce those fatalities resulting from head injuries. I just don't buy the illusion theory.

Having said that, I advocate freedom of choice. If wearing a helmet takes the joy out of riding, then don't wear it. I do.

[markusmaximus]

I beg your forbearance as I analyze this further. Me just being me.

"... of the 25,000 riders who've taken the course, only three have been killed in motorcycle crashes."

Not trying to rain on otherwise refreshing news, but how do they possibly know this? I don't doubt the efficacy of MSF or other safety courses and I feel comfortable saying that they do save lives. But this statement is one of those feel good statistics that's probably not accurate. I also wonder if similar trends are elsewhere in the US.

And now back to our regular programming.

[skeeter]

A minor spill could have been more serious but I was wearing a helmet with a face shield and saved my purdy face. I've still got the shield. I don't like wearing a helmet but I do anyway. Thanks for the article Wolfie.

[Cajunrider]

I agree that there are many, many ways a rider can die on a motorcycle with a head injury being only one of the possibilities. But I would venture to say that the head injury would be the most likely fatal one out of all besides maybe a broken neck or severed spine.

[Yellow Jacket]

I'm not arguing the freedom of choice in wearing or not wearing a helmet. I'm arguing the statement about helmets only providing an "illusion" of safety. How about a little experiment?

I will give anyone $50 to let me hit them in the head with a baseball bat. You can choose to wear a helmet or not. You will of course have to sign a waiver releasing me from all liability in either case.

Personally, I wouldn't let someone hit me in the head with a baseball bat even if I was wearing a helmet for any amount of money. But I can sure as heck guarantee you I wouldn't even think about it without one! If my only choice was to wear a helmet or not because I'm going to get hit in the head by some big sumbitch with a baseball bat, I am going to choose the helmet.

I'm not trying to be an unreasonable idiot about this. But I think it is very unreasonable to claim that wearing a helmet doesn't provide any protection and if you think it does you are suffering from an "illusion."

P.S. Wolfman, I apologize for getting off the subject of your thread here. I will say no more on this subject in this thread.

[socwkbiker]

Bob, this is a case of not thinking literally but conceptually. The reference to the illusion is just like Markus said. The notion that by wearing a helmet, no matter what happens, the person will survive an accident. Hence, the "illusion" of safety. This statement is designed to give those who have not or will not take a MSF course insight into the benefits of taking a course and to not simply rely on a helmet to save them.

My 2 cw.

[Yellow Jacket]

Thanks SWB. I probably was being too literal (close-minded :-/) in my interpretation of the statement as you suggested.

Therefore, I will chill out a little and we can get back to having some fun! http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif

I'm opening a Sam Adams right now! http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif

[cactusjack]

Thanks SWB. I probably was being too literal (close-minded :-/) in my interpretation of the statement as you suggested.

Therefore, I will chill out a little and we can get back to having some fun! http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif

I'm opening a Sam Adams right now! http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif

Say hi to Sam for me.

[cactusjack]

I apologize for straying off the topic at hand. The point I was making was wearing a helmet may save your life in a certain percentage of crashes, but not in all crashes, and I don't think anyone here would dispute that. The people who try to force mandatory helmet laws on the motorcycling public make it sound as though it's a panacea, hence the "illusion" of safety. BTW, I do wear a helmet.

I don't really think we are straying from the topic, besides, what fun would it be if we didn't stray a little bit http://s2.images.proboards.com/grin.gif
I am definitely for wearing helmets. The problem I see with a lot of people is when friends of mine that know that I ride ask me "you wear a helmet, right?" and I say "yes" and they say "Oh, then its OK then" as if a helmet is going to save my life 100% of the time. I've only been in 1 motorcycle accident (so far) I wasn't wearing a helmet, but I broke every bone in my left wrist. The statement that helmet laws do nothing to prevent an accident is 100% true. The only problem is that after the accident has happened, wearing a helmet will probably help you fare better. I guess after reading the article, (in Utah anyway) you have less than 0.05% chance of being killed on a motorcycle. It doesn't sound anymore dangerous than anything else we do really, in fact, I heard on the radio last week that prescription drug overdose is the #1 killer of Utahans. Anyway, If someone wants to ride without a helmet and tempt fate I'm not one of those that drive by and say "what an idiot" like some people I've been in the car with. More than likely the rider will not crash. I support the Libertarian (http://www.libertarianparty.com/) view point of maximum freedom with minimal government involvement so I'm not necessarily for mandatory helmet LAWS, although I do think its smarter to wear one.

So, I got thinking about the excuse "I didn't see him" (when cars hit motorcycles) I mean car/car accidents are much more frequent than car/motorcycle accidents. Whats their excuse when they hit a semi, or a Grey Hound bus, or another car. I think some people just don't pay attention and most accidents are a result of that, and many car/motorcycle accidents are the bike being in the wrong place at the wrong time meaning if they were in a car they would have still been involved in the accident (cars pull out in front of other cars all the time and get T-boned). In some accidents, both drivers are somewhat at fault in which case it may be much SAFER to ride a motorcycle, because you are extra vigilant, you can "drive for the other guy" and avoid an accident that you otherwise may not have if you were on your cell phone, tying your shoes or putting on make-up.

I'm pretty much of the same viewpoint as Wolfman. My Libertarian philosophy is: "let those who ride decide." (If you're a minor, your parents get to decide for you.)

My personal decision is to wear as much gear as I can stand to wear on any particular day.

That always means a minimum of helmet, shatterproof eye protection, gloves, heavy boots, and jeans. I usually wear an armored perf leather/mesh jacket if I'm on the highway (even if it's 100^o) and real heavy leather jacket if it's cool enough, plus leather/cordura overpants when it's wet or cold.

I've crashed bikes without enough safety gear before and survived with very minimal injuries, but it was mostly dumb luck and no more. I realize that nowdays. Even though I'm more skilled, I take more precautions. Living long enough to get old tends to make you more cautious, I believe. My advice is: don't buck that trend.

[VulcanE]

I agree with you Wolfman & CQ. Although I wear my helmet (and owe my life to one), I think that it should be left up to the individual whether he/she wants to or not. I strongly recommend it, but I don't think it should be forced on us.

[Yellow Jacket]

I wish we had enough Libertarians to make a majority in the government, i.e. Congress and the Senate, maybe even the President. It wouldn't be perfect but better than what we have now IMO.

(I know, not exactly the subject of this thread, but this is what I love about KawaNOW!)

[markusmaximus]

Bob, this is a case of not thinking literally but conceptually. The reference to the illusion is just like Markus said. The notion that by wearing a helmet, no matter what happens, the person will survive an accident. Hence, the "illusion" of safety. This statement is designed to give those who have not or will not take a MSF course insight into the benefits of taking a course and to not simply rely on a helmet to save them.

My 2 cw.

I too was taking the comment too literally. Bottom line, helmets do not prevent accidents, will not prevent all fatalities and are not substitutes for completing a safety course. I wish they used softer language. It certainly is misleading if you don't continue reading.