Farang Bringing Their Children On Motorbike

[Mark Wolfe]

Would this argument also apply to those taking dogs on bikes? Since they don't have dog helmets, it should stand to reason that it's too dangerous to take an unprotected pet on a bike, yes?

[OnTheSnap]

Would this argument also apply to those taking dogs on bikes? Since they don't have dog helmets, it should stand to reason that it's too dangerous to take an unprotected pet on a bike, yes?

Of course- for those that equate the importance of their dogs with the importance of their children, and especially for those who feel their pets are MORE important than their children.

You obviously relish your position as one of the local curmudgeons (ubiquitious as they are to every internet board).

[Mark Wolfe]

You obviously relish your position as one of the local curmudgeons (ubiquitous as they are to every internet board).

That's Mr. Curmudgeon to you, pal!

If a child on a bike without a helmet is unsafe, it stands to reason that it is equally unsafe for an adult to drive without a helmet. So everyone is unsafe riding or driving without a helmet.

The actual explanation came to me the other night. I watched a family drive away on the beach road in Lamai at about 9pm, where there was almost no other vehicles on the road. I thought, "They do that because it isn't dangerous. They are probably going home somewhere near here -- probably a kilometer or two away, the traffic is very thin and they are going slow."

It's like saying it's equally dangerous to ride a bicycle in a park as to ride one on the main street of Ho Chi Minh City.

People here (and this is the discussion, not about driving in Bangkok) feel that conditions are acceptable for the small amount of risk in having an accident.

[OnTheSnap]

Well, the fact is that conditions aren't acceptable, regardless of the feelings of the locals- there are dozens of bike accidents everyday (I see them all the time- we all do)- many of them don't even involve other vehicles.

I disagree that it is equally unsafe for a child to ride helmetless as opposed to an adult- I'm a fairly big, strong man- I have been in bike accidents before (I've been riding 20+ years all over the world, with several track days under my belt)- I know how to fall, and I can reasonably protect myself in the event of a get-off, especially one at a low speed (say, less than 50kph)- this is not to say I'm "invulnerable" to injury, but, rather, that I can take care of myself (the whole point of parenthood is to protect and nurture those that cannot take care of themselves)- a child would be unable to exercise the same level of self-preservation- in fact, were I riding with my child (which, as I stated, I never do), in the event of a crash all my efforts would go towards protecting him, regardless of the consequences to myself, and I would most likely be worse-for-wear than if I had been by myself.

The first rule of motorcycles (and, by extension, scooters) has always been this- there are two types of riders- those that have been down, and those that will go down- put in enough kilometers and you'll be bitten (and, yeah, I know a 75-year-old rider with 1,000,000 road miles who's never crashed- he's the exception - he still rides, though...)

The second rule of motorcycles is this- dress for the crash, not the ride.

To argue that lack of protection is acceptable for children (or even adults) completely foolish, Mr. Curmudgeon- of course, it's your choice- when it comes to me and mine, I'm always going to go the extra mile and make the choice to keep us safe.

All your doing is playing the odds, and there are some things with which you just shouldn't gamble.

Edited July 17, 2008 by OnTheSnap

[Mark Wolfe]

To argue that lack of protection is acceptable for children (or even adults) completely foolish, Mr. Curmudgeon....

All your doing is playing the odds, and there are some things with which you just shouldn't gamble.

Was I arguing that lack of protection is acceptable for children? I'm not sure that was my exact intention. Let me restate:

1. I involuntarily think, "Foolish to risk needless injury to your child," when I see this, but on the heels of that thought is, "Odds are it'll be OK." Up to them.

2. I honestly don't care if you take your baby on a bike or any other living thing, wearing full leathers or helmet or not -- as long you don't endanger me.

3. I honestly think it is not as dangerous as it looks. Dangerous ought to be defined by the risk factor and what it means to you, that is if you do something you have a (insert percentage) chance of mishap. What is "dangerous?" Fifty percent to me would be; 20 percent less so. What are the actual statistics for babies being injured in motorbike mishaps? Is one baby injured per every 100 trips on a bike? I bet it's fewer than that, but I might just ask around at the clinics and hospitals as I come by them.

[OnTheSnap]

It is not as dangerous as it looks?

There are only two kinds of motorbike trips (when the context is general transportation)- ones that are completed without incident, and ones that end in an accident- the former are absolutely safe, and the latter are guaranteed to end in at least some injury- the line isn't fine.

Do the vast majority of motorbike trips fall into the first category? Absolutely.

Are a significant number of motorbike trips going to fall into the second category? That depends on your definition of "significant"- Samui famously has the highest accident rate in the Kingdom.

Sh!t happens- on Samui, it happens a lot- sometimes it's your fault, and sometimes it's someone else's- reasons don't change the facts or the outcome.

Riding a bike anywhere is dangerous- riding a bike on Samui is certainly more dangerous than average. Ever sit in the waiting room of any hospital on the island? Barely a half hour will go by without someone's being brough in for treatment of motorbike crash-related injuries.

As far as not caring goes, I'm not with you there- I care, even about people with whom I'm not personally acquainted.

[girlx]

there is one israeli family i know of who often drives their two small children around, naked no less, on the bad roads of TNP on motorbike. tempting fate, that is.

[LtCol]

I have ridden a Motorcyle for 40+ years & it was interesting to me while partaking of a safety course some years ago that the US DOT & Australian Standards for Helmets are equivalent to an impact of connecting at 16 - 18klms per hour (10 - 12 mph) to increase the safety would make the helmet so heavy it would probably cause Cervical Spine damage just by wearing it. Just ask a SWAT Team Member or Military member how nice it is to wear the Kevlar Helmet for long periods.

Having said this , I wear a Helmet.

BUT, in Thailand,Indonesia & other parts I travel to , I don't think it would be physically possible to enforce a Helmet Law. What really blows me away is the amount of helemetless riders & passengers during Sangkron , now that is Evel Knievel riding.

[OnTheSnap]

I have ridden a Motorcyle for 40+ years & it was interesting to me while partaking of a safety course some years ago that the US DOT & Australian Standards for Helmets are equivalent to an impact of connecting at 16 - 18klms per hour (10 - 12 mph) to increase the safety would make the helmet so heavy it would probably cause Cervical Spine damage just by wearing it. Just ask a SWAT Team Member or Military member how nice it is to wear the Kevlar Helmet for long periods.

No offense, but you're confusing the speed at which helmets are tested for their actual protection value (provided you're not riding directly into a steel wall).

(From Wikipedia- relevant passage in bold):

Standards testing

Most motorcycle helmet standards use impacts at speeds between 4–7 m/s (9–16 mph) At first glance, this is confusing given that motorcyclists frequently ride at speeds higher than 20 m/s (45 mph). This confusion is relieved by understanding that the perpendicular impact speed of the helmet is usually not the same as the road speed of the motor cycle and that the severity of the impact is determined not only by the speed of the head but also by the nature of the surface it hits. For example, the surface of the road is almost parallel to the direction the motorcyclist moves in so only a small component of his velocity is directed perpendicular to the road while he is riding. Of course, other surfaces are perpendicular to the motorcyclist's velocity, such as trees, walls and the sides of other vehicles. The other vital factor in determining the severity of an impact is the nature of the surface struck. The sheet metal wall of a car door may bend inwards to a depth of 7.5–10 cm (3–4 inch) during a helmeted head impact, meaning that it generates more stopping distance for the rider's head than the helmet itself. So a perpendicular impact against a flat steel anvil at 5 m/s (11 mph) might be about as severe as a 30 m/s (67 mph) oblique impact against a concrete surface or a 30 m/s perpendicular impact against a sheet metal car door or windscreen. Overall, there is a very wide range of severity in the impacts that could conceivably happen in a motorcycle impact. Some of these are more severe than the impacts used in the standard tests and some are less so.

The speeds are chosen based on modern knowledge of the human tolerance for head impact, which is by no means complete. It is possible to deduce how well the 'perfect' helmet outlined in the Function section of this page would perform in an impact of a given severity. If currently available data suggest that the rider is unlikely to survive in such an impact, regardless of how well his helmet performs, then there is little point in demanding that helmets be optimized for this impact. On the other hand, if an impact is so mild that the rider is unlikely to be injured at all so long as he is wearing a helmet than that impact is not a demanding test. Modern standards setters choose the severity of the standard test impact to be somewhere between these two extremes, so that manufacturers are doing their best to protect the riders who can be helped by their helmet during a head impact.

http://' target="_blank">

[frankman]

Tis is Thailand! Enough said!

[Mark Wolfe]

There are only two kinds of motorbike trips (when the context is general transportation)- ones that are completed without incident, and ones that end in an accident...Do the vast majority of motorbike trips fall into the first category? Absolutely.

So what you are saying confirms my assessment -- the odds of you getting into an accident are what I might term the opposite end of your "completed without incident" statement. Put another way, "The vast majority of motorbike trips are absolutely completed without incident."

Are a significant number of motorbike trips going to fall into the second category? That depends on your definition of "significant"- Samui famously has the highest accident rate in the Kingdom.

Well, you've just proven that the "vast majority" of trips on bikes are "absolutely completed without incident," so the word significant isn't applicable here. (Significant, in this instance would seem to be under the definition of "fairly large," as in, "A significant number of foreigners ride motorbikes on Samui without a helmet.")

By the way, where is the data for the "famously" highest accident rate claim?