In SC right now there is a big push on about seat belts, but motorcycle riders don't have to wear a helmet. Am I crazy, or is one just as dangerous as the other? If the states can tell us we have to have a seat belt with 4 wheels under us, why don't they make motorcyclists who only have 2 wheels under them, wear a helmet? My best friend died on a motorcycle many years ago. A helmet might not have made a difference, but we will never know. Please urge any one who rides a motorcycle and comes to the ED to wear a helmet.
Helmets and Seatbelts do different functions.
Helmets are made to protect you from impact after an accident.
Of course, the type of helmet matters as well. One that satisfies
the states that have laws, might not protect as well as others.
Seatbelts are made to keep you in the seat. They will not protect
you from injury if it comes to you. For that, we have airbags, but
they only last for seconds, then deflate. For people who confuse
airbags and think seatbelts are not needed, after the airbags deflate
there will be nothing to keep you in the seat (or car), if it's still
in motion. Helmets can not keep you on a motorcycle.
Seatbelts can also keep a minor accident from becoming major.
If you do not have a seatbelt, and get hit, and are knocked
away from the steering wheel, say to the other side of the car,
you can no longer control the vehicle, you go from a driver to
becoming a passenger (with no driver).
The question here is why not force. Some states have given up.
and most times, Darwin takes it's course. Pennsylvania I believe
does not require the driver to have a helmet, but does for passengers
and children. There are far less motorcycle drivers than car drivers,
and of those cycle drivers, chances are the majority want to wear
the helmet. So the law affects those that pretty much wouldn't wear
a helmet even if the law made them.
Personally, I would think that most riders would WANT a helmet,
not to protect when you hit the ground and whatever else you
hit, but rather to protect themselves from getting free bug lunches,
or getting hit in the eye or face by a bug at 50-60mph.
To: nursebob@yahoogroups.com From: rjarvis57@... Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:07:23 -0400 Subject: Seat Belt Laws
In SC right now there is a big push on about seat belts, but motorcycle riders don't have to wear a helmet. Am I crazy, or is one just as dangerous as the other? If the states can tell us we have to have a seat belt with 4 wheels under us, why don't they make motorcyclists who only have 2 wheels under them, wear a helmet? My best friend died on a motorcycle many years ago. A helmet might not have made a difference, but we will never know. Please urge any one who rides a motorcycle and comes to the ED to wear a helmet.
My point is not that they do different functions, but that they are both protective devices, and that if the law enforces one, they should be able to enforce the other.
I’m a
little confused, because the 1st sentence below and the last
sentence seem to contradict each other. Are you saying that seatbelts have no
protective properties? If so, I must disagree. Because I can tell you that 1)
airbags only get activated in specific circumstances, certainly not even close
to every accident and 2) just by hearing the injuries sustained, anyone in
ER/trauma can guess whether the person was restrained or not.
Seatbelts most absolutely
protect you from injury.
This time, it’s
not even my opinion. There are many examples and studies that prove this.
Mary
From:
nursebob@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nursebob@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Gallen Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:23
PM To: nursebob@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Seat Belt Laws
...
Seatbelts... will not
protectyou from injury
if it comes to you. For that, we have airbags, butthey only last for seconds, then
deflate. For people who confuseairbags
and think seatbelts are not needed, after theairbags deflatethere will be nothing to keep you in the
seat (or car), if it's still in motion.
It said, "Seat belts will not protect you from injury if it comes to you"
seat belts stop you from coming to it.
meaning, if something flys at you (glass, other car parts) or hits you (side
of door or window), seatbelts won't protect you, in that instance, airbags
will help (if deployed).
The gist of the post was you need BOTH, airbags and seatbelts.
airbags to protect you at the impact time, and seatbelts to keep
you in place after the airbags deflate (while the car is still moving not
under your control).
As for the helmet laws, I have no idea why some states repealed them,
and/or some do require them.
What would be interesting is if the states that have no helmet law, have
a law requiring children to wear helmets on bicycles. Have them explain that one.
To: nursebob@yahoogroups.com From: mkendra@... Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:59:19 -0400 Subject: RE: Seat Belt Laws
Hi, George,
I’m a little confused, because the 1st sentence below and the last sentence seem to contradict each other. Are you saying that seatbelts have no protective properties? If so, I must disagree. Because I can tell you that 1) airbags only get activated in specific circumstances, certainly not even close to every accident and 2) just by hearing the injuries sustained, anyone in ER/trauma can guess whether the person was restrained or not.
Seatbelts most absolutely protect you from injury.
This time, it’s not even my opinion. There are many examples and studies that prove this.
Mary
From: nursebob@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nursebob@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Gallen Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:23 PM To: nursebob@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Seat Belt Laws
... Seatbelts... will not protectyou from injury if it comes to you. For that, we have airbags, butthey only last for seconds, then deflate. For people who confuseairbags and think seatbelts are not needed, after theairbags deflatethere will be nothing to keep you in the seat (or car), if it's still in motion.
See, I knew I was
missing something. When you clarified it, it made more sense to me. Thanks for
clearing it up.
But, George, I did read the whole sentence; in fact, I read
it and reread it several times to try to see what I was missing. I do try to not
jump to conclusions.
In my more
cynical moments, I would like to see cyclists who decline helmets be required
to either 1) put up $500K for their immediate care and as much rehab as that
will cover or 2) sign a statement accepting responsibility for making such a
poor decision and be put on a “Do Not Treat” list in case of an
accident (of course, then we’ll lose too many of our organ donors, so we’ll
have to think that through).
Obviously, this
isn’t the answer. But then, wearing a motorcycle helmet sort of becomes a
societal responsibility, rather than a personal right. Plenty of precedents
(safety vs. personal preference) have been set and this is one that would be
easy to see if it were being followed.
I think as
nurses, many of us have seen firsthand the end-results of cyclists without
helmets in accidents or folks in MVAs who didn’t have their seat belts
fastened.
Mary
From:
nursebob@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nursebob@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Gallen Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:14
PM To: nursebob@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Seat Belt Laws
You
didn't read the whole sentence..
It said, "Seat belts will not protect you from injury if it comes to you"
seat belts stop you from coming to it.
meaning, if something flys at you (glass, other car parts) or hits you (side
of door or window), seatbelts won't protect you, in that instance, airbags
will help (if deployed).
The gist of the post was you need BOTH, airbags and seatbelts.
airbags to protect you at the impact time, and seatbelts to keep
you in place after the airbags deflate (while the car is still moving not
under your control).
As for the helmet laws, I have no idea why some states repealed them,
and/or some do require them.
What would be interesting is if the states that have no helmet law, have
a law requiring children to wear helmets on bicycles. Have them explain that
one.
To: nursebob@yahoogroups.com
From: mkendra@infoPACS.com
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:59:19 -0400
Subject: RE: Seat Belt Laws
Hi, George,
I’m a
little confused, because the 1st sentence below and the last
sentence seem to contradict each other. Are you saying that seatbelts have no
protective properties? If so, I must disagree. Because I can tell you that 1)
airbags only get activated in specific circumstances, certainly not even close
to every accident and 2) just by hearing the injuries sustained, anyone in
ER/trauma can guess whether the person was restrained or not.
Seatbelts most
absolutely protect you from injury.
This time,
it’s not even my opinion. There are many examples and studies that prove
this.
Mary
From:
nursebob@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nursebob@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Gallen Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:23
PM To: nursebob@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Seat Belt Laws
... Seatbelts... will not protectyou from injury if it comes
to you. For that, we have airbags, butthey only last for seconds, then deflate. For people who
confuseairbags and
think seatbelts are not needed, after theairbags deflatethere will be nothing to keep you in the
seat (or car), if it's still in motion.
My thought is that since helmets only protect the wearer,
whereas seatbelts can protect others besides the wearer,
Even if they are not in the vehicle at the time of the impact
(if the seatbelt keeps you from being thrown across the
Car, and can then stay behind the wheel and not hit that
pedestrian…etc)
That may be the difference in why states mandate seat belts and
not helmets.
But, I don’t think there can be any true explanation into
the minds of politics, other than money,
Is it because (tongue in cheek – sort of), the insurance
companies find it’s cheaper to treat someone without a helmet
Than with a helmet (injuries that much worse, they won’t
require treatment?, or the state’s CAT funds will treat
Them, and they don’t have to).
From:
nursebob@yahoogroups.com [mailto:nursebob@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Mary
Kendra, RN PhD Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:43 PM To: nursebob@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Seat Belt Laws
See, I knew I
was missing something. When you clarified it, it made more sense to me. Thanks
for clearing it up.
But, George, I did
read the whole sentence; in fact, I read it and reread it several times to try
to see what I was missing. I do try to not jump to conclusions.
In my more
cynical moments, I would like to see cyclists who decline helmets be required
to either 1) put up $500K for their immediate care and as much rehab as that
will cover or 2) sign a statement accepting responsibility for making such a
poor decision and be put on a “Do Not Treat” list in case of an
accident (of course, then we’ll lose too many of our organ donors, so
we’ll have to think that through).
Obviously, this
isn’t the answer. But then, wearing a motorcycle helmet sort of becomes a
societal responsibility, rather than a personal right. Plenty of precedents
(safety vs. personal preference) have been set and this is one that would be
easy to see if it were being followed.
I think as
nurses, many of us have seen firsthand the end-results of cyclists without
helmets in accidents or folks in MVAs who didn’t have their seat belts
fastened.
Mary
From: nursebob@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:nursebob@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Gallen Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:14 PM To: nursebob@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Seat Belt Laws
You didn't read the whole sentence..
It said, "Seat belts will not protect you from injury if it
comes to you"
seat belts stop you from coming to it.
meaning, if something flys at you (glass, other car parts) or hits you (side
of door or window), seatbelts won't protect you, in that instance, airbags
will help (if deployed).
The gist of the post was you need BOTH, airbags and seatbelts.
airbags to protect you at the impact time, and seatbelts to keep
you in place after the airbags deflate (while the car is still moving not
under your control).
As for the helmet laws, I have no idea why some states repealed them,
and/or some do require them.
What would be interesting is if the states that have no helmet law, have
a law requiring children to wear helmets on bicycles. Have them explain that
one.
To:
nursebob@yahoogroups.com
From: mkendra@...
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 13:59:19 -0400
Subject: RE: Seat Belt Laws
Hi, George,
I’m a little confused, because the 1st sentence
below and the last sentence seem to contradict each other. Are you saying that
seatbelts have no protective properties? If so, I must disagree. Because I can
tell you that 1) airbags only get activated in specific circumstances,
certainly not even close to every accident and 2) just by hearing the injuries
sustained, anyone in ER/trauma can guess whether the person was restrained or
not.
Seatbelts most absolutely protect you from injury.
This time, it’s not even my opinion. There are many examples
and studies that prove this.
Mary
From: nursebob@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:nursebob@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of George Gallen Sent: Monday, June 08, 2009 3:23 PM To: nursebob@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Seat Belt Laws
... Seatbelts...
will not protectyou from injury if it comes to
you. For that, we have airbags, butthey only
last for seconds, then deflate. For people who confuseairbags and think seatbelts are not needed, after
theairbags deflatethere
will be nothing to keep you in the seat (or car), if it's still in motion.
I have a tendency to think of the helmet-less motorcycle riders as "Punkin' Heads". Taking care of the survivors post crash assessment of same, there is usually some mushy area of the skull, along with residual damage of the brain. Being raised around farms, I can relate to smashing pumpkins or squash... Very similar to what happens to the unprotected human head during crash.
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device from U.S. Cellular
From: "Robin Jarvis" Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:07:23 -0400 To: <nursebob@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Seat Belt Laws
In SC right now there is a big push on about seat belts, but motorcycle riders don't have to wear a helmet. Am I crazy, or is one just as dangerous as the other? If the states can tell us we have to have a seat belt with 4 wheels under us, why don't they make motorcyclists who only have 2 wheels under them, wear a helmet? My best friend died on a motorcycle many years ago. A helmet might not have made a difference, but we will never know. Please urge any one who rides a motorcycle and comes to the ED to wear a helmet.
I try not to confuse my job, an ICU nurse, with everyone’s
freedom.
My patient just recovered from a drug overdose, (illegal
drugs), and we get to discharge her “home” to be around her 8 year
old daughter. I don’t have any right to impose my values into this
situation by calling the police and having her arrested for illegal drug use. I
can only educate her and wish for the best, letting DFS do their job, etc.
If you don’t ride a motorcycle, you don’t have
any right to force the bikers to do things just because it is your belief or
value. You can, however, educate them. I ride a motorcycle and
usually wear a helmet. There are times I do not wish to wear one, BUT
THAT IS MY CHOICE. Why should you have anything to say about that??
(P.S. If the helmet doesn’t have a face shield, which most don’t,
the helmet will not stop any bug and yes, they hurt when they hit. It’s just
a part of riding, like getting wet if you are in a boat.)
The people who are making and/or passing laws that dictate to the individual what they can and
cannot do are slowly taking your freedom away. They are on a slippery
slope, already. First the car seats, then seatbelts, then helmets, then
seatbelts on busses, then who knows? How about seatbelts in a boat?
What if a boat flips over or crashes? Who’s going to write that
law, someone who doesn’t even own a boat??? They write the laws
because they don’t want to spend the money, the time, etc. to educate
people. They would rather force them
to comply with safety.
I know the statistics. I know people who have died on
motorcycles, with and without helmets. I know people who have died in MVC’s,
with and without seatbelts. It doesn’t matter how many laws you
make. God is the ultimate decider. You can dictate all you
want. I prefer to educate, preserving one’s freedom of
choice. My patient received education today; hopefully she will make
better choices tomorrow.
Hopefully everyone can be alert to the slippery slopes they choose to climb on.
Way to go.........finally someone who actually feels the way I feel and is willing to say it.....I would have but I am worn out from my three twelves, but I agree with you, Barb, and wanted you to know it. We must stop trying to run everyone's lives and realize that freedom to choose is one of our most important freedoms.........and yes, there are those who would love to take that away from us. But the cradle to the grave mentality is one the most dangerous ideas in existence..........As a long time ER nurse, I have learned the old saying is so true...you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. He will drink when he is good and ready.