I'm not sure if this is the same accident from Wisconsin, but the storyline is; "helmet saved life."
Posted on 07/15/2007 7:30:18 AM PDT by BraveMan
It's been a year since Jeffrey and Christine Konrath of Slinger died in a motorcycle crash in Dodge County.
Except for the fact that they weren't drinking, the Konraths could be the face of motorcycle fatalities today: older riders - he was 45, she was 48 - on a larger bike, killed on a rural road. And neither was wearing a helmet.
It's that last point that most frustrates Christine's daughter Angeline Schreiber. She has little tolerance these days for motorcyclists who forgo protective gear.
"I would never tell people not to ride bikes," said Schreiber, who is raising her 12-year-old half sister since her mother and stepfather were killed.
"I would just like people to think about safety precautions before they do it."
Jeffrey and Christine Konrath were among 93 motorcyclists who died on Wisconsin roads in 2006, up 79% from a decade ago. Over that same time, motorcycle fatalities have more than doubled nationwide.
Much of that can be attributed to the rising number of bikes on the road. In fact, in Wisconsin, the death rate dropped in 2005 to the lowest level since 1996, when factoring in the number of motorcycles registered, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The death rate nationally rose 30% during that period.
Riders and safety officials say they are troubled by the rising death toll and some of the trends they see reflected in the numbers.
"What stands out to me is the significant increase in those killed that are 45 and older," said Dennis Hughes, who as chief of safety programs for the Wisconsin Department of Transportation is implementing new programs to target those riders.
Last year in Wisconsin, 43% of motorcyclists killed were 45 and older, up from around 10% in 1995 and under 2% in '91, according to the state.
"It's that baby boomer generation coming on board," said Hughes.
"Many of them had experience riding bikes. But they're going back to a bike that's a lot different from what they learned on. They're bigger, they're heavier and the maneuvering is a lot different."
Hughes' observations are reflected in the national data as well. Riders 40 and older made up nearly half of the fatalities in 2005, the latest year for which those numbers are available, according to NHTSA, up from 24% in 1995.
Among the other trends in Wisconsin and the nation:
• A growing number of fatalities involve larger bikes with more powerful engines (1,001 to 1,500 cubic centimeters).
• Alcohol consumption and failure to wear a helmet continue to be factors. In Wisconsin last year, 75% of those killed weren't wearing helmets and 47% had been drinking. Nationally in 2005, the latest year available, 35% had been drinking and 43% were not wearing a helmet.
• Of those killed, older riders were more likely than their younger counterparts to have been intoxicated and less likely - at least to age 60 - to wear a helmet. Younger riders were more apt to be speeding.
Brookfield motorcyclists Catherine and Peter Dhein, both in their 50s, aim to defy the statistics. He's taken the Harley Rider's Edge training course, and they always wear helmets, said Catherine, as they readied their Ultra Classic for an overnight trek from Milwaukee's House of Harley to western Wisconsin on Friday.
"We don't drink when we're riding, and we don't drive at night," she said.
Aside from the trends and the growing number of bikes on the road, it's difficult to explain the rising death toll. However, that could change in the coming years.
The Motorcycle Safety Foundation in Irvine, Calif., said this month that it would commit $2.8 million to match federal funds set aside to conduct the first comprehensive study of motorcycle crash causes since the 1970s.
The findings could have long-term implications for riders, manufacturers and policy-makers.
"When that's done, we'll understand why this is happening and what we can do to reduce these numbers, said NHTSA spokesman Ray Tyson.
"We know, for example, that increased helmet use helps, that impaired riding is a factor," he said. "But we don't know what else, for example, things we could be doing to make motorcycles safer."
Wisconsin, in the meantime, has been expanding its rider education programs, adding classes to accommodate the growing demand and targeting some to older or returning riders.
In addition to the standard safety program available through technical schools around the state, the DOT offers a refresher course for returning riders and a new Seasoned Rider program that addresses the effects of aging - for example, declining vision and reaction time. And it is launching a pilot program in the Fox Valley that pairs new or returning riders with experienced mentors.
The state is looking to expand a program tested by a motorcycle coalition in Jefferson, Dane and Waukesha counties that lets riders lock up their bikes in secure storage crates at local bars if they are intoxicated, and federal officials are interested in rolling that out nationally.
In every program, regardless of the age or expertise of the rider, safety instructors stress two recurring themes: the importance of riding sober and proper equipment, most importantly a helmet, said Ron Thompson, who manages the motorcycle safety programs for the state.
"We tell people, if you don't wear it for yourselves, wear it for your family and friends - so you can ride again," Thompson said.
I guess I’m too stupid or thick-headed to be discouraged from riding by a few minor incidents. Every time I scare the crap out of myself I just take it as a learning opportunity.
I agree as long as my tax dollars aren’t used to keep them alive while they are in a vegetative state due to brain damage. Currently, that isn’t the case. When you take my money you get my input.
Thank God your friend Ray is surviving. Send him the best out of this website.
I’d imagine the worst, if he did not have his helmet on.
And true Braveman, there was a bicycle wreck this year in fact, truck or van ran over the cyclists head (and helmet) and the newspaper showed the helmet, smashed like a pancake, but probably saved the lad.
I can provide links later for that story.
The US would do well to shift it’s focus from accident survivability to accident prevention. Its sad to think we need a multi-million dollar study by the NHTSA to figure this out . . .
In those states that do not have helmet laws, many riders wear helmets. The laws just state that children under the age of 18 MUST wear a helmet. Adults can choose to wear one or not. How refreshing. As Dirty Harry says “ A mans got to know his limitations”.
I'm not sure if this is the same accident from Wisconsin, but the storyline is; "helmet saved life."
Never happen. The powers that be have capitulated to the fact that we are a motorized society and basically everyone has a “right” to drive, regardless of their skill, or lack thereof, in doing so. Given that attitude, accidents are inevitable - even with a strict driver training and licensing system that’s the case, really. Hell, in parts of the US the roads are full of illegals who have neither licenses, registration or insurance. From there the only you can do is try to make accidents more survivable. This also leads to the “Speed Kills” way of thinking - if accidents are inevitable, then reducing the speed at which they occur will reduce the severity of them.
No way I ride without my helmet.
I’m so conditioned to wearing it that I feel naughty moving my bike from the driveway into the garage without it on.
Yep. I am. Among the 'In memory of...' patches on my 'rag', which are numerous, are only two who died of natural causes. One died from an act of stupidity, which led to a rollover of her cage. The rest, were t-boned, cut off, or left turned in front of by some nitwit who was not paying attention.
We addressed the visibility problem with day time headlight laws, and the cagers put daytime running lights on their vehicles. Advantage nil.
We ran with loud pipes so if you couldn't see us, maybe your 'Belltones' would pick us up. Cagers didn't like the rackett, and passed a law against that.
More chrome, brighter colors, different colored riding aparrel, even though it is usually inferior to leather for abrasion resistance. Despite all that, people keep 'not seeing' us.
None of that works with drivers who are centered not on driving their vehicle, but on diddling around with something inside the vehicle. And there has been an explosion of geegaws to fiddle with inside vehicles. From the MP3 music thingy to the cell phone to DVD players to navigational computers to stereos with window rattling subwoofers, it is a wonder anyone has time to steer--much less be aware of oher vehicles, no matter how many wheels they have.
Things have changed, including the shape of vehicles. Frontal impact areas are more monolithic than they were even a decade ago, and with the SUV, the profile transition from bumper to grille to hood has become a straight line. No longer is the rider impacted by the bumper, but the entire front of the vehicle.
What really ticks me off, though is the way the purveyors of safety bromides like lid laws patently ignore those who come into your purview (the ER) with massive thoracic trauma and yet claim that a 'helmet' would have saved their life.
The press is complicit in forming the impression, in that if someone was killed with a helmet on we could always tell--because no mention was made of a helmet, on or not, but if one was not on, it usually appeared in the first few lines of the article. Of course, the impression given is that helmeted riders are bulletproof and those without are just corpses looking for a convenient slab.
Orthapaedic injury studies from a couple of decades ago showed the most frequently broken bones were the tibia and fibula, followed by the radius and ulna. The femur, the humerus, and the pelvis followed, with chest trauma pretty far down the list. The skull was way down on the list (tenth, iirc). That may have changed with the shape of the impacting vehicle.
But it is easier to blame the vehicles and riders than other factors, hence, putting a helmet on everyone's head will make them 'safe' and cagers won't kill any ever again, right?
The rhetoric used today to promote helmet laws will be the same as the rhetoric used three decades ago, un-judiciously skirting the primary issue of whether or not the driver of the four-wheeled vehicle which has a better than 65% chance of being the cause of death was paying attention to what they were doing.
The arguments have not changed much on either side.
But instead of trying to find out why people are getting killed, another bromide, one we have tasted before, is being served up as the solution--before the problem has even been diagnosed.
Testy about little cutsie quips like "donorcycles" and "murdercycles"? You bet I am.
Ah, yes. The motorcycle haters ultimate talking point. More CC = more killing power. Despite the fact that most 600 sport bikes today are capable of running well in excess of 120 MPH, and getting there in less than 15 seconds.
Larry passed Bro
DISCLAIMER: I currently own four motorcycles (and three helmets). I would never discourage anyone from choosing to wear a helmet while riding.
I will tell you this. Riding without a helmet makes me a better, more cautious rider.
I would warn other riders about the very REAL (and equally false) sense of a level of invincibility one gets when wearing a helmet while riding. The increased level of protection one receives is marginal at best.
Not really. MCs are much more dangerous than flying.
The problem is you can be the best rider in the world, and all it takes is some toadie yaking on their cell phone, not paying attention, blowing a red light, or left turning into your direction of travel, and it's lights out.
I've had 3 HDs and an assortment of other street bikes. But not anymore. Way too dangerous. But I do enjoy trail bike riding now, away from the cars and concrete.
Now you have me scared. I was going to buy a motorbike so I could save on gas money and I won’t have to drive my rusty Volvo around, but now, I think I’ll take my chances with a Volvo and a pedal bike.
Great! 34 years and you’re still a newbie!
Did I say to the bone?
Did I even say the “Rider”?
I implied passenger, and I said to the muscle. Maybe you can’t see or care about the difference.
I guess I’m just not as cool as you after my 42 years of riding. But then I’m just an old hog rider so that must put me in a ‘category’.
And as long as newbies like you hate old guys like me simply because of the brand on the bike, I can still have that warm fuzzy rebel feeling knowing you’re just a brainless bigot.
I’ve been on the road for a couple years now and I rarely see bikers but when I do, I notice the difference between the ‘commuter’ and the person who apparently gets high off nearly dying multiple times a day. If you’re on a motorcycle, you have to follow the rules of the road too. That means no zipping past stopped cars just because your vehicle is narrower and no mass formations of bikers on a highway (which I saw the other day.) Treat it like a car, especially in high traffic areas like Seattle.
See post #36 and #37.
When I first started riding (way back when) a 500cc motorcycle was considered a BIG bike. Now it is considered an entry level machine.
You should also presume that the few who do see you are out to get you. :=)
Regardless of who may have been at fault, a bike is just no match against any type of automobile.
There is a plethora of idiots driving around in large steel vehicles which will easily kill anybody on a bike.
That's just the way it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.