Kawasaki Motorcycle Forums banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
the "fun" guy
Joined
·
32,859 Posts
Well...now wasn't that a cheerful bit of knowledge. :(


This paragraph was somewhat disturbing:


The U.S. study found that in 52 per cent of the fatalities, the riders were not wearing a helmet and that 66 per cent of those fatalities were in states where a helmet was not required.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,861 Posts
That would mean in 48% of the fatalities the riders WERE wearing a helmet. 52 vs 48........hmmmmmm-eversoslightly higher chance of surviving with a helmet. But no real breakdown if the type of helmet makes a difference. But the article does include ALOT of stats and percents- be wary! Stats can be skewed any way you'd like.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
exactly, you could never believe anything you read anymore. There were no statistics about displacement. I would say in most cases they got hit by a car, where a helmet aint gunna save you, or they just couldnt handle their 200hp superbike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,352 Posts
re

stats are very easy to manipulate - thats for sure :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Interesting - in the US, significant occurence of alcohol 25% with 14% 'impaired'.

Really Interesting - in the US, significant - 25%- fatalities had NO valid motorcycle license.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,201 Posts
rbentnail said:
That would mean in 48% of the fatalities the riders WERE wearing a helmet. 52 vs 48........hmmmmmm-eversoslightly higher chance of surviving with a helmet. But no real breakdown if the type of helmet makes a difference. But the article does include ALOT of stats and percents- be wary! Stats can be skewed any way you'd like.
Statistics can be manipulated and taken out of context can lead to some bad decisions being made.

Did you know that according to statistics states that don't require helmet use have a lower death rate for bike riders ?.

However this is missleading because we have no information as to the cause of deaths in this study. If a rider loses control and inpales himself on a fence should we draw the conclusion that wearing a helmet causes impalement?.

I've been collecting and analysing statistics for years now and have come to my own conclusions.

Helmets protect your head, lessening or eliminating head injuries, thereby reducing your probability of death from a head injury.

50% of documented cases of head injuries involve injuries to the face and jaw, in other words rider land flat on their face about half the time, so a full face helmet is the way to go.

Eliminate speeding, DWI and unlicenced riders and you would reduce the numbers of deaths by over 90%.
 

·
ULTIMATE Forum Supporter
Joined
·
7,748 Posts
Uncle Bob said:
I've been collecting and analysing statistics for years now and have come to my own conclusions.

Helmets protect your head, lessening or eliminating head injuries, thereby reducing your probability of death from a head injury.

50% of documented cases of head injuries involve injuries to the face and jaw, in other words rider land flat on their face about half the time, so a full face helmet is the way to go.

Eliminate speeding, DWI and unlicenced riders and you would reduce the numbers of deaths by over 90%.
Well said, I agree with all your conclusions. I just got back from a week in Florida and it was weird, the first time I've been in a no helmet state. To see literally no one wearing a helmet. I saw probably 4-5 helmets out of 30+ bikes. The few helmets I saw were cruisers wearing either beanies or half shells. I definitely would stick out as a tourist wearing a full face and full gear <g>.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
If you really want to see some statistics go to the Nation Highway Safety Commision website. Did you know deaths are on the rise for motorcycles? But did you know there were more deaths in 1990 than last year? I think every state had helmet laws then. Here something really suprising, the age group with the most deaths isnt those 20 year olds on sport bikes flying down the road, it is 40 to 49 year olds with those over 50 being second. What does that say?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,201 Posts
Here's a post I made elsewhere recently.

Ok I just did some checking at the census bureau site have have found the following info.

Excluding the younger than 15 and older than 75 age groups the remaining population is divided into the groups in the attached graph.

Combining the 35 to 44 and 45 to 54 groups ( older riders 35 to 55 according to the article ) this group makes up almost 41% the population ( with the biggest median income to boot ). The 15 to 34 age group makes up 38% of the population ( but includes a large percentage of young people with limited or no funds to buy a bike ).

The article mentions a lower number of accidents for the under 30 crowd but that only represents 28% of the population IF you include the 15 to 19 yr olds.

So in my opinion based on what I've seen "Older riders" ( over 35 ) make up over half of the riders but percentage wise are underrepresented in statistics therefore "safer" riders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
wasn't it Winston Churchill that said "there are lies, ****ed lies and then there are statistics."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Benjamin Disraeli was the guy who said it, but Mark Twain popularized it. (according to google, and Google is right 99.9% of the time) ;-)
 

·
RIP Deron Harden :-(
Joined
·
32,545 Posts
tnhunter said:
Here something really suprising, the age group with the most deaths isnt those 20 year olds on sport bikes flying down the road, it is 40 to 49 year olds with those over 50 being second. What does that say?
mid-life crisis purchase, large bike, little ability and/or knowledge
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top