• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

Not a fatality if wearing a helmet?

just because they point out that he was not wearing a helmet and died from the crash, that does not mean that they would not also have pointed out that he was wearing a helmet (had he been) and died from the crash.

there are better things too be offended about, and when i read a news report like this, my first thought is not to pick a non-existent bone with the author, but instead, "my thoughts and prayers are with those he left behind. i wish them well."
 
Good Point

just because they point out that he was not wearing a helmet and died from the crash, that does not mean that they would not also have pointed out that he was wearing a helmet (had he been) and died from the crash.

there are better things too be offended about, and when i read a news report like this, my first thought is not to pick a non-existent bone with the author, but instead, "my thoughts and prayers are with those he left behind. i wish them well."

I whole-heartedly agree that helmets save lives, but the author does not say the rider may have lived if he had been wearing a helmet.

JacketHelmet.jpg
 
I've seen more than a few fatal (car) accident reports where it is mentioned the deceased was not wearing a seatbelt, I don't see it as any different.
 
The article does not say what the COD was, so it is hard to tell if the lack of a helmet had any relevance to the fatality (although if he hit a concrete sign, it seems likely that his unhelmeted head hit the sign . . . probably not good). However, it is common for these type articles to state whether a motorcyclist was wearing a helmet and whether a car or truck driver was wearing a seatbelt.
 
just because they point out that he was not wearing a helmet and died from the crash, that does not mean that they would not also have pointed out that he was wearing a helmet (had he been) and died from the crash.

there are better things too be offended about, and when i read a news report like this, my first thought is not to pick a non-existent bone with the author, but instead, "my thoughts and prayers are with those he left behind. i wish them well."

I guess I don't really see where any "bones were being picked". I think the original poster was just posing the question of whether the rider would've lived had he been wearing a helmet.

The story itself seemed pretty objective; nothing but the facts, one of which was the rider wasn't wearing a helmet.

And, yes, I agree, it's a tragedy for this person's family and friends, and that's really what it's all about.
 
We had a motorcycle vs car fatality here in my town on Sunday. 51yo man on a harley went head on with a Jeep Liberty. Bikes fault. He crossed into the path of the Liberty. Put his helmeted head right through the drivers side windshield. He died.

I would change the saying to "helmets can help save lives and prevent serious trauma, but if you use your head to stop, helmet or not it ain't gonna be good"

I don't know the details on his wreck. I don't know if alcohol was involved or not. It is under investigation. My condolences to his family and the folks in the Liberty. That had to be super scary.

Brian
 
Here is the entire article below. I don't see where there is any reason to be upset by it. It's short and limited to the minimal facts available prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The guy ran into a concrete sign. He didn't have a helmet on. There certainly wasn't any question about it being counted as a "fatality" and nothing in the article indicated the lack of helmet caused or didn't cause the collision. There is a refreshing LACK of speculation in the article.

Helmet use is a reportable fact just like seat belts, it's no biggie. Just because a person rides a bike is no reason to give them a free ride or figure they didn't screw up. I doubt the concrete sign jumped out in front of this guy. Sorry he's dead but there is no indication yet that anyone else was involved in the collision.

"One dead in motorcycle crash
By HECTOR CASTRO
P-I REPORTER

A motorcyclist in Snohomish County died late Monday after crashing into a concrete sign.

The 28-year-old man was not wearing a helmet at the time of the incident, the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office reported.

The crash happened just before 8 p.m. at the intersection of 140th Street Southwest and 64th Avenue West near Lynnwood. The man was riding a 2006 Harley-Davidson motorcycle when he drove into the sign. He was declared dead at the scene.

It was unclear why the man crashed. There were no other vehicles involved and no one else was hurt.

The incident remains under investigation."
 
We had a two fatality accident here a few weeks ago. Two motorcyclists on two bikes were on a two lane and a fellow crossed over the centerline and hit them head on. When interviewed, the IL State Police person said that they were wearing helmets, but that is not enough. You have to be alert too. No comment about the car driver.
 
I'm not sure it is officially mandated by any bureaucracy (it might be a conspiracy...), but nearly all of these reports will state if a helmet or seatbelt was not used, but will not state if one was used. They also usually state, "The rider was not licensed" if that is the case, but they won't state if a rider was licensed. It's a type of bias. Helmets don't save lives. Not crashing saves lives.
 
"One dead in motorcycle crash
By HECTOR CASTRO
P-I REPORTER

IMO Hector's a pretty decent reporter.

The local (Seattle) papers almost always mention whether or not a motorcylist was wearing a helmet at the time of an accident. In Washington we have mandatory helmet usage laws so it is an interesting point that the rider in question was not wearing one at his untimely demise.
 
Here in Myrtle Beach, a cool to not wear a helmetkinda town, it's always interesting, albeit sad, seeing how many croak in the myriad of wrecks that happen in a given year. The Harley bike week always averages 7-10 and the following Atlantic Beach fest about the same. In my personal experience, I've observed almost all of them don't wear helmets and mostly they're trashed and/or inexperiened fashionistas. You should see these anarchists! Additionally, 90% of the time the wrecks that kill these idiots would have been minimal had they been protecting their domes. While it certainly isn't bulletproof, it sure is cheap insurance. It saddens me so that fashion is so preeminent in such a risky activity.
 
A rider in my area went over the center line and hit a semi truck head on at highway speed. Of course he died, but they mentioned he was not wearing a helmet, like it would have made a difference!

I don't know why, but I always get a kick out of these news articles when they mention that the rider was wearing a helmet or not. Most of the time it really does not matter. When the trauma to the body is severe does it really matter that his head was in great shape? Or no helmet, severe head injuries, but it wouldn't have matter anyway from the severe trauma to the body.

I had a friend that rode a lot and had a car pull out in front of her. She always wore a helmet, but it did not save her. The injury to her brain was too much even with the helmet. The rest of her injuries were fairly minor.
 
Like so many things nowadays, the “writers” are writing content without any real understanding of what they are writing about. Recently, it was announced that the motorcyclist involved in a crash wasn’t wearing a seatbelt :scratch
I frequently wonder of the fun if I could get into the TelePrompTer feed :evil
OM
 
1. Helmets do save lives. It's been a fact for quite some time.

This article, while dated, shows that.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6123a1.htm

2. How is it biased to report only when a law is broken? It's required to follow. While I don't personally agree with helmet or seatbelt laws, I universally use both. Police reports, in particular, tend to capture violations, and don't catalog all the laws that were being followed at a particular incident.
 
No argument that helmets save lives, but if the impact is so severe the body is destroyed what difference did it make. Also I see news reports of accidents with helmets use in this area and we are not required to wear them, so no law broken, no need to report.
 
Helmets work from about a 6ft drop, the distance you are from the pavement. You might survive a bounce or two or a glancing blow hitting a car at 55+, but they only absorb so much energy. In some people's heads you can go head first into a guardrail at 70 and survive because of a helmet, not true.
uyWe are now learning that head injuries, even minor ones can be cumulative. People like MX racers experiencing them on a regular basis. Travis Pastrana is a good example and he wore one the best helmets you could buy, 100% of the time.

We also know that age plays a huge factor as well. You may easily survive 3 major, non-life threatening injuries as a 24 year old, but have those same injuries kill you at 70. As we age our body struggles to recover and multiple injuries can be catastrophic even if they are not that serious individually.

Statistically speaking using a helmet 100% of the time, having ZERO alcohol in your body and having an actual motorcycle license means you will never be killed in a motorcycle accident, there are always exceptions, but in most fatal motorcycle accidents one or more of these three things are often at play. If you know this you can manage (decrease) the risk of riding a motorcycle a huge amount by simply staying on the correct side of those factors.

The thinly veiled posts about how we are ATGATT and the HD riders aren't make up a huge amount of the content of this forum, it is sad. Almost all threads morph into an us vs. them position where we feel we are superior.

The last rider I casually spoke to in person was at an ice cream shop on Saturday evening. He was on a new RT, he was older and had ridden BMWs and "Wings" for years. Was I supposed to feel enlightened or superior? Was I supposed to tell him he was doing it wrong? Am I to take the position he is a complete idiot as many on this forum do? Should I have muttered tsk, tsk, tsk, and expected him to be killed as soon as he rode away?

I hear a lot of medical people and a lot of law enforcement like to throw around the "you would have been killed if not for this helmet" comment, but they are not engineers, they do not know. Sure they may have seen a few accidents, but their anecdotal knowledge of accident scene recollection is not scientifically accurate. Little has been done since the Hurt Report, but most of that still remains true. Motorcycling in general is a small pastime and the 5K people killed each year are small numbers compared to most other popular activities that kill people. Helmets save lives, but how many? Would motorcycle fatalities decrease by 50% is helmets were in use? Would we save 2,500 lives per year? I don't know, but my guess is there are lots of other, lower hanging fruit that could be focused on that that would save more lives. I suspect things will remain as is.
 
Back
Top