Kawasaki VN750 Forum banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Love My Baby
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just read this news article from the CDC entitled, Motorcycle Helmet Laws Reduce Deaths. I can see it now... the Obama administration is going to push for mandatory helmet laws because what they want is more important than our freedom.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
What a stupid flawed study. If you use their figures it is SAFER NOT to wear a helmet. Using their figures 57.5% died wearing a helmet and 42.4% died not wearing a helmet. More government BS.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,865 Posts
^That's a great job of skewing data. Am sure all the anti-helmet folk will enjoy using it.

The study was not comparing the overall fatalities of helmeted riders (which make up the larger group of all riders) to non helmeted riders. What they are saying is out of all motorcycle deaths, states that have helmet laws only account for 14% of them... Meaning states with no helmet laws account for 86% of all motorcycle deaths.


Now just from that, what do you think that seems to say?
:doh:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
^That's a great job of skewing data. Am sure all the anti-helmet folk will enjoy using it.

The study was not comparing the overall fatalities of helmeted riders (which make up the larger group of all riders) to non helmeted riders. What they are saying is out of all motorcycle deaths, states that have helmet laws only account for 14% of them... Meaning states with no helmet laws account for 86% of all motorcycle deaths.


Now just from that, what do you think that seems to say?
:doh:
Not skewing data, only using theirs. They seem to also assume that the riders in states with no helmet laws are ALL not wearing helmets. That is not the case. They also do not take into account the number of registered bikes in the no helmet law states compared to the helmet law states. This study seems to have been done by a 10 year old but I'm sure it was done by someone getting a healthy government grant and has never been near a motorcycle. We should have the choice to wear a helmet or not.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,865 Posts
I'm guessing either your joking or you just "math challenged". You can't say 57.5 percent of riders died because they wore a helmet and 42.4 died because they didn't unless you can show that exactly 50% of all riders in the US wear a helmet and 50% don't. (your numbers don't even add up to 100%...)

Assuming your NOT retarded, let me give you an example of your faulty math here.

Let's say you , a man, move to a small town. After getting there, you find out that 80% of the folks living there are women. Using your logic, I should be able to say that there is a 8 out of 10 possibility that you have the ability to become pregnant.

The fact is there is a zero percent chance you'd ever become pregnant. Right?

Your using the same logic to say because more riders in the United States wear helmets that the odds are more likely that you'll die because you wear a helmet.

Another case of "skewing data" .... Sorry, but you did.

It's been shown that in states with NO helmet laws, about 79% of riders don't wear a helmet. (this figure from the National Highway folk) compare that to 100% of riders in helmet law states that wear a helmet.

If only 14 percent of ALL fatalities occur in states with
Mandatory helmet laws, then 86 percent of all deaths in states with no helmet laws then that can only mean two things:

The states with no helmet laws are just intrinsically more dangerous.
Or
That there's a higher chance of dying if you don't wear a helmet compared to if you do.

Several studies over the past 20 years have seemed to point to the fact that there's a 37% better chance of surviving a motorcycle accident if you are wearing a helmet as opposed to not wearing one. This recent study seems to not only support this , but show that that number might be on the low side.

Please let folks with actual understanding of statistical analysis do the math and keep your well intended, but wrong, interpretations of data to yourself.

KM
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
^^^ I am very far from math challenged. If you don't like their figures argue with them. I'm using their figures as they stated them. I think you are the one with the problem interpeting the data because you don't like the data. Let people do the math and they can decide how to interpet the study.Get off your bandwagon and let people make their own decisions on helmets and other safety equipment. I guess you are one of the liberal a-holes who want government to control everything and everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,253 Posts
I think this just goes to show that 67.2% of all statistical data is completely made up. :)

The fact is that statistical data can be interpreted (skewed) in a variety of ways. That is an inherent problem with statistics. You can find a way to make almost any data support a particular point of view.

Putting aside the data in the study and whether they are wasting money or not, and also putting aside whether everyone should have the choice of wearing a helmet or not, common sense tells me that hitting your head with a helmet on will do less damage than hitting your head without a helmet on. Should everyone have to wear a helmet because of that "common sense", no. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous in and of itself...so what's the real difference if you wear a helmet or not?

You can still get her pregnant if you wear a rubber and she is on the pill. The only way to ensure you won't get her pregnant is to keep it in your pants. There's only been one reported case of that not working. ;)
 

·
romeobravo172
Joined
·
842 Posts
What He Said^^^^^^^^^^^ COMMON SENSE!!!
 

·
2000 VN 750 Senior Member
Joined
·
2,494 Posts
I think this just goes to show that 67.2% of all statistical data is completely made up.
I was just wondering what statistical study showed that 67.2% data mark. lol
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,865 Posts
^^^ I am very far from math challenged. If you don't like their figures argue with them. I'm using their figures as they stated them. I think you are the one with the problem interpeting the data because you don't like the data. Let people do the math and they can decide how to interpet the study.Get off your bandwagon and let people make their own decisions on helmets and other safety equipment. I guess you are one of the liberal a-holes who want government to control everything and everyone.
I have no bandwagon. I dont give a flying fuk if you wear a helmet or not. You are the one that seems to have an agenda on the subject and that's what they would call "motive" to screw with figures until it matched your agenda. I don't care either way so I have no reason to juggle data to fit my needs.

I actually believe one should have a choice here, but I'm not going to alter data to fit that opinion. Any "study" can have it's flaws, but purposely disregarding even simple math equations to make up some fictitious and meaningless numbers to make your case is pathetic.

And sure, it's not really rocket science to see that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one. If you really don't believe this than yes, you are retarded.

This whole discussion has been gone over and over hundreds of times. Turning it into a political issue rather than a safety issue is it seems the main problem.

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck....it's a duck. Arguing freedom of choice is fine, but saying helmets are in fact bad is the stupidest thing you can attempt to do.

The real great thing I see out of this, is that the folks that refuse to wear helmets at least run a better chance of having their DNA culled from society...;)
 

·
Love My Baby
Joined
·
1,165 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Let's say you , a man, move to a small town. After getting there, you find out that 80% of the folks living there are women. Using your logic, I should be able to say that there is a 8 out of 10 possibility that you have the ability to become pregnant.

The fact is there is a zero percent chance you'd ever become pregnant. Right?

KM
KM, that is an EXCELLENT example of how the use of statistical percentages can allow a study to come to an utterly ridiculous conclusion. So let's say we leave the percentages out of the helmet study in question. The FACT is that there are many more severe or fatal head injuries that occur in CAR accidents than occur in motorcycle accidents. Granted there are many more cars on the road and that's probably why. But the FACT is that if we required helmets in AUTOMOBILES, there would likely be many more lives saved than if we restricted the helmet laws to motorcycles only, just because of the shear number of automobile-related head injuries compared to motorcycle-related head injuries (without using statistical percentages to skew the data). Professional car drivers, who likely are much better at avoiding accidents than the general public, routinely wear helmets on the track. Why is there no such outrage that typical citizen drivers are not required to do the same? So until the government is ready to require occupants of ALL vehicles to wear a helmet, don't discriminate against motorcyclists, a very small percentage of total vehicles and total vehicle-related head injuries. Thank you.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
I have no bandwagon. I dont give a flying fuk if you wear a helmet or not. You are the one that seems to have an agenda on the subject and that's what they would call "motive" to screw with figures until it matched your agenda. I don't care either way so I have no reason to juggle data to fit my needs.

I actually believe one should have a choice here, but I'm not going to alter data to fit that opinion. Any "study" can have it's flaws, but purposely disregarding even simple math equations to make up some fictitious and meaningless numbers to make your case is pathetic.

And sure, it's not really rocket science to see that wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing one. If you really don't believe this than yes, you are retarded.

This whole discussion has been gone over and over hundreds of times. Turning it into a political issue rather than a safety issue is it seems the main problem.

If it looks like a duck, smells like a duck, sounds like a duck....it's a duck. Arguing freedom of choice is fine, but saying helmets are in fact bad is the stupidest thing you can attempt to do.

The real great thing I see out of this, is that the folks that refuse to wear helmets at least run a better chance of having their DNA culled from society...;)
Maybe you should re-read my post if you can understand English. I made no judgement about wearing a helmet or not. My first words were " stupid and flawed referring to the figures and conclusions given. There is no juggling of figures here. Don't try and put words in my mouth. I have never posted an opinion on this site about not wearing a helmet. I don't need your advice on whats safe or not and I don't want it either. Another fact I'll remind you of is that I live in New York state which was one of the first states to enact the helmet law and I have been wearing one for over 35 years. The 1000s of riders in this state who have died in motorcycle accidents were also wearing helmets. CORRECTION- There was one rider killed not wearing a helmet that I know of.. Last year there was a anti-helmet law rally and ride ( Syracuse,NY ). The leader of the rally, during the rally, got in an accident and was killed. They say the helmet probably would have saved his life.
 

·
1986 VN750
Joined
·
3,255 Posts
As long as nobody is saying that helmets do not reduce deaths, then we won't have a problem here. :smiley_th
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
117 Posts
"If you use their figures it is SAFER NOT to wear a helmet. Using their figures 57.5% died wearing a helmet and 42.4% died not wearing a helmet."

If everyone wore a helmet than 100% of the deaths would be those who were wearing helmets. Helmets must definitely not be safer. :)

Note: In formal Risk Assessments, "Risk" is made up of two components: 1. Likelyhood or Probability of occurence and 2. Severity or Impact as a result of occurence. Numerical values can be assigned to these components based on statistical data and the degree of "Risk" calculated. I don't have specific numbers, but intuitively the "Risk" of head injury in a car is much less than on a motorcycle, with or without a helmet.

Note 2: I may be dating myself, but there were pretty much the same type of arguments and passion about seat-belt safety studies years ago and there are still many who refuse to wear a seat belt in a car.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,865 Posts
I'm not putting words in your mouth and I have no problem reading English.
You said:
"What a stupid flawed study. If you use their figures it is SAFER NOT to wear a helmet. Using their figures 57.5% died wearing a helmet and 42.4% died not wearing a helmet. More government BS."

First, not sure why you think it's stupid and flawed? Because you just don't understand it? Then you took their "figures" and used them out of context, to try and show they were wrong?

I pointed out your misuse of their figures and gave you an example why you can't draw conclusions based on partial data.(do I need to explain why you can't get pregnant again)

You still fail to see your mistake, or even offer any reasoning why the report was "stupid and flawed"...

To me, seems pretty straight forward, they looked at all motorcycle deaths from 2008-2011, then took each case and marked where it had occoured. When they were done, they saw that only 14% of all the fatalities happened in the 20 states that require helmet use.

And that's all they said. Seems fairly easy to understand to me.

You however took their figures of the 14,000 or so that died, subtracted the 6,000 or so that they said were NOT wearing a helmet, and made the statement that , using their figures, (incorrectly) you'd be safer by not wearing a helmet.
Disregarding the fact that nation wide,more riders wear helmets than not. Just faulty logic here. But you wrote it... So I'm not putting words in your mouth.

Here's another fun one for you. If there are only 100 riders in the US and only one of them does not wear a helmet....and he dies in an accident along with 10 of the helmeted riders. What were the odds of the unhelmeted rider getting killed? At the face of this you could say 1 out of 100. The poor helmeted riders were 10 out of 100 or 1 out of ten. Really? Out of all non helmeted riders...100% of them died. Only 10% of the helmeted riders died however.

Before you start tossing figures and odds out for folks to read, make sure your not using them incorrectly. That's all my point was here, really sorry if you don't understand.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
^^^ I don't know what your problem is.This is not my study, not my figures, and not my opinion. It doesn't matter where the deaths occured. It point blank states there were 14,283 deaths. It says 6057 deaths were no helmets. That leaves 8226 deaths wearing a helmet. I'm not taking anything out of context. I only did simple subtraction.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,865 Posts
^ it was fine untill YOU wrote , " It's safer to not wear a helmet" ...which of course we all know is ridiculous....but you wrote it anyway. Now some yahoo is going to read that and go tell his friends he
" just read on the innernet that a guberment study shows it's safer to not wear a helmet"

It's really pointless to continue here. But if you are going to say something is "flawed and stupid" at least explain why. The only stupid thing I read was your statement above. Sorry you can't see it that way.


I will add that alot of head trauma in car accidents is not caused by a blow to the head, but just the G forces at work when one goes from 70 mph to zero in a really short distance. Many folks don't wear seatbelts and not every car on the road has an airbag. The use of airbags and seatbelts has shown that wearing a helmet in a car might be more of a safety hazard than the benefits it could offer.
About 80% of the non riding public believe motorcycle riders should wear a helmet. Would guess the number is really small on those that think wearing a helmet in their car is s good idea.....;)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,803 Posts
^ it was fine untill YOU wrote , " It's safer to not wear a helmet" ...which of course we all know is ridiculous....but you wrote it anyway. Now some yahoo is going to read that and go tell his friends he
" just read on the innernet that a guberment study shows it's safer to not wear a helmet"

It's really pointless to continue here. But if you are going to say something is "flawed and stupid" at least explain why. The only stupid thing I read was your statement above. Sorry you can't see it that way.


I will add that alot of head trauma in car accidents is not caused by a blow to the head, but just the G forces at work when one goes from 70 mph to zero in a really short distance. Many folks don't wear seatbelts and not every car on the road has an airbag. The use of airbags and seatbelts has shown that wearing a helmet in a car might be more of a safety hazard than the benefits it could offer.
About 80% of the non riding public believe motorcycle riders should wear a helmet. Would guess the number is really small on those that think wearing a helmet in their car is s good idea.....;)
Wrong again. Still trying to put words in my mouth. Here is what I said:

What a stupid flawed study. If you use their figures it is SAFER NOT to wear a helmet. Using their figures 57.5% died wearing a helmet and 42.4% died not wearing a helmet. More government BS.
In both sentences I said " using their figures ". I did not say I agreed with it or condone not wearing a helmet. Their figures in this study can only be interpeted one way. It is obvious to me someone associated with the study did the math and saw the results were not showing what they wanted. That is the reason for the crap about 12% in 20 states. If you die in a motorcycle accident with or without a helmet it doesn't make a difference what state you are from or what their laws are. I started my original post by saying the study was stupid and flawed. I should have also said very misleading and potentially harmful
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,865 Posts
Their figures in this study can only be interpeted one way. It is obvious to me someone associated with the study did the math and saw the results were not showing what they wanted. That is the reason for the crap about 12% in 20 states. If you die in a motorcycle accident with or without a helmet it doesn't make a difference what state you are from or what their laws are. I started my original post by saying the study was stupid and flawed. I should have also said very misleading and potentially harmful
^Right, incorrectly by you. Saying it doesn't matter what state you live in is insanely funny to me because that was the one and ONLY thing the study showed.

You obviously got nothing out of my examples and still seem clueless on how to interpert data.

I give up.
Perhaps you can explain why only 57% of the deaths reported (using your math) were wearing a helmet when 63% of all the riders in the US, regardless of their state laws, wear helmets? (2008 NH figure) Why didn't those other 6 percent die? And if only 37% of all US riders Do Not wear a helmet, how come 42.4% of them died?

FLOL.....
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top