[Ice]

 This and the rest of it there makes me wonder about aplenty about some things.

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.  Full report->http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/motorcycles/fatalityfacts/motorcycles

"Helmet use

In 2013, 59 percent of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were helmeted. Helmet use was lower, at 49 percent, for people killed as passengers on motorcycles.
Helmet use of fatally injured motorcycle drivers and passengers, 2013
   Helmet    No helmet   Unknown    Total
Number   %   Number   %   Number   %   Number   %
Driver    2,435   59   1,558   38   133   3   4,126   100
Passenger   124   49   120   47   9   3   253   100
Total*    2,559   58   1,678   38   144   3   4,381   100
*Total includes other and/or unknowns

In 2013, 91 percent of fatally injured motorcyclists were helmeted in states with helmet laws that cover all riders, in contrast to only 24 percent in states with no helmet law. In states with helmet laws that cover only some riders, 40 percent of fatally injured motorcyclists were helmeted.
Helmet use of fatally injured motorcyclists by helmet law status, 2013
   Helmet    No helmet   Unknown    Total
Number   %   Number   %   Number   %   Number   %
No law    51   24   159   75   3   1   213   100
Partial law    986   40   1,411   56   102   5   2,499   100
Universal law   1,522   91   108   6   39   3   1,669   100
Total    2,559   58   1,678   38   144   3   4,381   100 "

[pmanaz1973]

What I think the real question should be is - Out of those who were not wearing a helmet in a accident, but were not killed now suffer from extensive brain injuries?

A guy I worked with years ago was a big no helmet, sometimes no shirt or just a leather vest sort of Harley guy; we used to joke back and forth about this...nice talented guy really. 

The accident report said he left the roadway (unknown reason) at approximately 35mph corrected and ended up high-siding at about 25MPH back onto the road.  He suffered a major brain injury and could not longer speak or do daily self-maintiance tasks - super sad for his wife and kids.

 I think the fatality stats just don't tell the full story...grim as they are. 

[pknopp]

 I'm of the sort that believes we should leave others alone. I wear a helmet, always. I ride a lot in a state that I do not have to (Ohio) but I still do.
 
 What others riding beside me do is really none of my business and I've been riding long enough (around 40 years on a proper bike, longer if you count mini bikes) that I've heard all the arguments.
 
 Ride as you feel comfortable and leave others to do the same.

[mattsz]

Statistics... 

Ice - this isn't a statement about you or your thoughts about those stats - but my reaction to those numbers is, "so what?"  Reports of helmet use numbers in fatal accidents with no cause of death listed tells us basically nothing about helmet use.

Would helmets have prevented the deaths of those not wearing them?  Would not wearing a helmet have prevented the deaths of those who were?

To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about helmet laws.  Personally, I always wear one.  Arguments that higher insurance company payouts for non-helmeted accident victims contribute to higher premiums for all rate-payers seem to have merit on some levels... on the other hand, if motorcycling is so dangerous, why is my annual insurance premium so cheap, whether or not I wear a helmet?  If I'm so much safer in my car, shouldn't my car insurance be cheaper?  It isn't.

I do feel that an organ-donor card should be a requirement for all riders, however... 

[phoenixt]

...... Arguments that higher insurance company payouts for non-helmeted accident victims contribute to higher premiums for all rate-payers seem to have merit on some levels... on the other hand, if motorcycling is so dangerous, why is my annual insurance premium so cheap, whether or not I wear a helmet?  If I'm so much safer in my car, shouldn't my car insurance be cheaper?  It isn't.

I do feel that an organ-donor card should be a requirement for all riders, however... 

Matt, I think the rate difference may have more to do with liability than anything else. You can do alot more damage with a midsize or even small car than a motorbike. You can haul more passengers in a average car than a bike. Plus most people drive more miles in thier car than put miles on thier bike.

After my crazy life, I doubt my organs are of much use to anyone except me and only then because they are already use to my misadventures. Sort of broke in to my riding style you might say. 

Steve

[ace.cafe]

I think that there is little doubt that IF you go down on a bike, you are better protected with a helmet on.
Beyond that, things get a lot more muddy about types of helmets, situational awareness with or without helmet, whether a helmet really matters if you get hit head on by a Mack truck, etc.

I personally wear a helmet, and I wear the kind that I like.
I do NOT think that there should be laws about helmets, or a lot of other things, either.

[former_rider]

In 2013, 91 percent of fatally injured motorcyclists were helmeted in states with helmet laws that cover all riders, in contrast to only 24 percent in states with no helmet law. In states with helmet laws that cover only some riders, 40 percent of fatally injured motorcyclists were helmeted.

This part seems more like mere data than a meaningful statistic.
To loosely paraphrase: "In states where the vast majority of riders wear helmets, the vast majority of fatalities involved riders who were wearing helmets."

No sh*t!

[REpozer]

1)I'm a grown a$$ man.
2) Helmets are a smart thing to wear....most of the time.
3) It should be my choice to wear or not wear one.

[The Old Coot]

I think helmet use should a be a matter of choice. That said seat belt use is law and it doesn't have the heated debates that helmet use does.

As for myself I don't have any brain cells to spare...I used most up as a kid and need all the ones I have left! 

I also believe, as a friend said "Not wearing a helmet makes a statement, it says I'm so stupid that brain damage couldn't possibly hurt"

[Arizoni]

From the numbers given in the OP it is obvious.

Helmets, for unknown reasons, work much better at protecting lives, in the States that don't require wearing them.

Arizona doesn't require wearing helmets for people over the age of 18 so I'm glad to know my helmet will protect me better. 

[Ice]

Statistics... 

Ice - this isn't a statement about you or your thoughts about those stats - but my reaction to those numbers is, "so what?"  Reports of helmet use numbers in fatal accidents with no cause of death listed tells us basically nothing about helmet use.

Would helmets have prevented the deaths of those not wearing them?  Would not wearing a helmet have prevented the deaths of those who were?

To be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about helmet laws.  Personally, I always wear one.  Arguments that higher insurance company payouts for non-helmeted accident victims contribute to higher premiums for all rate-payers seem to have merit on some levels... on the other hand, if motorcycling is so dangerous, why is my annual insurance premium so cheap, whether or not I wear a helmet?  If I'm so much safer in my car, shouldn't my car insurance be cheaper?  It isn't.

I do feel that an organ-donor card should be a requirement for all riders, however... 

 Mattsz, no worries I didn't take it as such.
I am not sure yet what to think about the stats other than they are not what I would have expected.

 Also interesting is the rest of the stats in the report. To me the largest surprises were in the ages and alcohol categories, again not what I was expecting.

 

[Guaire]

When you splatter your head you create a massive cost to your community and family. Trauma treatment at ER, not reimbursed is grossly irresponsible and immoral. The 'Hurt Report' was the last decent piece of research on motorcycles. Congress politicized it and sent finances to colleges that were not prepared to match what had been done. If you don't protect your head and have a wreck you are not independent.

[tooseevee]

When you splatter your head you create a massive cost to your community and family. Trauma treatment at ER, not reimbursed is grossly irresponsible and immoral. The 'Hurt Report' was the last decent piece of research on motorcycles. Congress politicized it and sent finances to colleges that were not prepared to match what had been done. If you don't protect your head and have a wreck you are not independent.

            Thanks for that reference. I'm going to go find it and read it because most of the statistics and research and rhetoric and bullshit swirling around this subject for the past 40 years has had the stink of politics and $$$ and votes attached to it. I remember when it all started back in the '70s and it was immediately made into a political football because it involved $$$$$ and votes.

             Much of the "research" and "statistics" of the '70s, '80s and '90s were generated by federal grant money given to universities by politicians who needed to push a particular agenda (for votes); "Here is the outcome we need, create the stats and the report to support that conclusion and we will forward you the grant money". If you control federal grants, you can get any paper, report or statistics you want that reaches the correct conclusions you need to push your agenda. And this goes for ANY subject.

              I worked with ABATE a lot through RIMA in the '80s and '90s and the lies were rampant (as now) and people who had never even SEEN a real live motorcycle just believed every word and went on and on about how "they" had to pay for MY brain damage because "I" was too stupid to have medical insurance. I MUST be too stupid because "I" ride a motorcycle. (I have never not had medical insurance).   

            It's all too complicated now and political (as everything is) and I really don't care any more. I have no horse in the race any more. With me it was always a personal freedom (selfish) thing and people nowadays don't seem to even realize the personal freedoms they've lost in just the past 20 years (not to mention since the end of WW2) and are perfectly happy being told what to do and what we're told to buy by central control (There's a sticker with a warning or a regulation or a law quoted on EVERYthing now. There was even a time when there were Will Not Float stickers on ATVs). At 77 all I can really say, I guess, is that I won the lottery. So far.

           I would love to hear the screaming and squealing if someone was to try to pass Helmets In Cars legislation.

[dginfw]

Interesting stats but still leaves out a lot of info: speeds, road conditions, driver's skill level, alcohol...etc.

I too am a fan of letting people make their own decisions. If you choose not to wear a helmet, fine. If you want to wear one, that great.  Let's not make decisions for someone else

[Guaire]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurt_Report

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_findings_in_the_Hurt_Report

Here's a a partial list from the report's conclusions:

Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.
Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated. young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.
The most deadly Injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.
The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention or reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.
Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of pre-crash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use,
FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.
Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.
The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.
There is no liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had fewer neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury,
Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.
Valid motorcycle exposure data can be obtained only from collection at the traffic site, Motor vehicle or driver license data presents information which is completely unrelated to actual use,
Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.