Originally posted by Todrick:
but i must point out here some misconceptions aboutt helmets and their relevance...
do helmets save lives?
yeah probably some.
what about the excuse that they cause accidents because of impared visibility/hearing?
bullshit
do i support helmet laws?
HELL NO!!!
why?
i would say the vast majority of injuries without seatbelts in automobile accidents are caused by impact with the interior of vehicle(what else could it be... maybe some whiplash) a seatbelt obviously drasticly reduces your chance of impacting the interior of the vehicle(save for maybe the side window)
but the vast majority of motocycle injuries WITH OR WITHOUT HELMETS is blunt force trama... TO THE BODY, primarily broken ribs and internal injuries in fact the vast majority of fatalities in motorcycle accidents where the rider was not wearing a helmet is still BLUNT FORCE TRAMA TO THE BODY, generaly punctured internal organs from broken ribs
legislation requiring Body armour for motorcyclists makes much more sense...
Do i wear a helmet... yes. do i think i should be forced to by law because non-motorcytclist voters were misinformed and believe that head injuries are the primary injury in motorcycle wrecks... no.
will i wear one when i move to AZ in a couple days(no law in AZ) sometimes... certainly not during the summer, too damn hot.
This is one of the dumbest posts I've read in a while. I don't care WHERE you are getting your data on motorcyle injuries, but what I'd really like to see is how you could prove that IF you were in a motorcycle accident and you were NOT wearing a helmet, you wouldn't substain a head injury. I totally agree with what was posted earlier about not wearing helmets or seat belts, and substaining injuries because of it's non-use; the insurance companies should be able to say "Sorry you're not covered, go pound sand".
:rolleyes:
Previous Topic
Index
