I sent this to Serchak, Bridget at NTSB and she replied with "UNSUBSCRIBE". I guess the TRUTH " HURT "

I did not know that the Hurt Report was one in the same as below. I learned something new...did you know?

"In 1969, the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles issued a study on motorcycle injuries conducted by Raeder and Negri."

The implications of that report led NTSB to issue Safety Recommendation H-73-30, which recommended that NHTSA " take immediate steps to confirm or disconfirm the implications of the New York State report that the wearing of helmets, as currently designed, increases the number of fatal neck injuries."

In response to the NTSB recommendation, NHTSA conducted an analysis of all available statistical data on motorcycle crash injuries. NHTSA published the results as a Technical Report DOT HS-801-137, " Motorcycle Safety Helmet Study" March 1974, which was provided to the NTSB on Sept 18th 1974. After reviewing the report, the NTSB stated that " The study indicates that helmet usage does not adversely affect the neck to a significant extent during accidents. But it does not prove this beyond all doubt. The NHTSA plans as soon as possible to initiate clinical research to resolve the question fully.

So then in 1975 NHTSA contracted with USC to conduct a comprehensive Study of motorcycle accidents to further try and eliminate the question of neck injury through the : Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures" , "THE HURT REPORT"
DOT HS-805-862.

Quigley received a letter from the NHTSA concerning neck Injuries, saying, " A case by case review of the nine critical or fatal neck injury cases indicated that the helmet neither caused nor prevented the injuries" Goes further to say, " The NTSB closed Safety Recommendation H-73-030 on January 1, 1980, stating that NHTSA's actions on the recommendation were acceptable.

The basic design of helmets has not change drastically over the last 30+ years.

"Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures," (1981) produced under DOT HS-805-862 January 1981 which is the "The Hurt Report"!!!! So the Hurt Report was really to eliminate accusations from New York Department of Motor Vehicles that Helmets caused Neck Injuries. That the Hurt Report really wasn't an over all Motorcycle Accident Causation Study after all. Therefore there was never an actual Motorcycle Accident Causation Study done in reality. The data showed that there were 88 cases of neck injury among the 900 on-scene accidents investigated by the USC teams. "

So go to the link below to Archives-to Old Documents
you'll find this Letter to Quigley from the NHTSA.
usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html

So there really has not been an actual Motorcycle Accident Causasion Study that included Driver Distraction issues at all."The Hurt Study" was done to disprove if helmets caused neck injuries. Bottom Line! This was blatantly admitted and there was NO conclusive evedence that helmets did't cause neck injuries.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 4:31 AM
Subject: The Helmet is not the cure all solution to the Distracted Driver issues retating to auto/motorcycle accident!



The Helmet is not the cure all solution for the Distracted Driver issues relating to auto/motorcycle accident!

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 7:58 PM

Subject: RE: KILL 0R MAIM A MOTORCYCLIST-GO TO JAIL/PAY A FINE

Garry,

Unfortunately, I was one of the victims of an inattentive driver. He pled no contest to a failure-to-yield charge, paid a fine, and walked away free as a bird. He never said he didn’t see me, he said “I thought I could beat him”. Talk about impaired judgment. If he thought he could beat me, how the hell did he hit me with his right front. Where is the justice here? He gets off with a several hundred dollar fine, and I get 2.5 months in a COMA, almost five months in intensive care, 8 months with 24 pins through my leg, amputation after 8 months of all that, and, not to mention the 3 million dollars in medical bills. Here’s another clincher, in the state of PA (where the accident happened), drivers are only required to carry $15,000 of accidental medical, whether they are at fault, or not. In my case, he may as well not even had insurance. Lucky for me, I had better insurance coverage that enabled up to live for the year-and-a-half that me and my wife were out of work.

There are many reasons for this type of accident, many of them listed here. Many tend to forget that driving is a privilege, not a right. The American public has become much too comfortable driving. I have watched drivers that pay more attention to their pet, than they do to their driving. One of my pet peeves has become drivers that make turns with a cell phone in their ear. I have been beside many that are not watching and go wide in a turn, encroaching on the parallel turning lane. I don’t ride a bike anymore, but I do drive a full-size pickup. I am just waiting for some idiot to challenge me in a turn lane. A day doesn’t go by that I don’t miss riding, something that an inattentive driver took away.

If you think I’m bitter, you are right on. An-Eye-For-An-Eye? How about a Leg-For-A-Leg? I am doing better now, but my life ended the day that idiot’s mind was on something else, and I just got in the way.

Keep up the fight,

Ron K.

By far this is the most blatant example of the attitude from drivers towards motorcyclist.

The NTSB has no Idea of the concerns we have as motorcyclist. The Helmet Band-Aid solution will not work

under the antiquated clinical study that was reported under The Hurt Report in 1980 as a remedy to disprove the

accusations from The New York Department of Motor Vehicles regarding neck injuries caused by the wearing of

Helmets. The Helmet is not the cure all solution for the Distracted Driver issues relating to auto/motorcycle accident! There for:

Driver Inattention:: Nearly 80 percent of all crashes and 65 percent of all near-crashes involved driver inattention (due to distraction, fatigue, or just looking away) just prior to (i.e., within 3 seconds) the onset of the conflict(Crash). Setting up

www.vtti.vt.edu/PDF/10...-Sheet.pdf

the Study Study Sponsors:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)

Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC)

Virginia Tech (VT)

Mark Rosenker (mark.rosenker@ntsb.gov)
Chairman
National Transportation Safety Board
429 L'Enfant Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20024
202-314-6000

Mr. Rosenker:

The universal helmet law mandate you proposed this week fails to address
the causes of approximately 84 percent of all motorcycle fatalities. Not
only do we have the NTSB's admitted issues with understated motorcycle
registrations and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the denominators of
key NHTSA statistics, you made even greater and more reprehensible
misrepresentations by overstating the numerator:

In your Tuesday morning meeting, you and your fellow NTSB members and
staff implied that as many as 4,810 motorcycle accident fatalities in
2006 could have been avoided by the enactment of universal motorcycle
helmet laws. This was a gross and I suspect intentional overstatement.
In 2005, 4,553 motorcyclists died on our highways ... 2,521 (55%) of
them were wearing helmets AND DIED ANYWAY ... and of the 2,032
remaining, quoting NHTSA, only "... 728 more [lives] could have been
saved if all motorcyclists had worn helmets." Applying those same
percentages to the 2006 death toll of 4,810, the maximum number of lives
that MIGHT have been saved by helmet laws is only 769, not even 16
percent of the 4,810 you implied. In other words, Mr. Rosenker:

IF THE NTSB MOTORCYCLE SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS RELEASED ON TUESDAY HAD
BEEN IN EFFECT NATIONWIDE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR OF 2006, ONLY 769 LIVES
MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAVED, WHILE EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT (84%) OF THE 4,810
MOTORCYCLISTS WHO DIED ON OUR ROADWAYS WOULD PROBABLY HAVE DIED ANYWAY.

At the same time, as NTSB Chairman you either knew or should have known
that (a) we have 236 million cell phone subscribers on our roadways, (b)
73% of them are talking while they are driving, (c) cell phone
conversations impair their driving skills as much if they were
intoxicated with alcohol, consequently (d) they are four times more
likely to cause or be involved in an accident than motorists who
responsibly shut up and steer, and resultantly (e) assuming reports of
the Oklahoma Highway Safety Office are a reliable measure, roughly ONE
IN FOUR ACCIDENTS in 2006 occurred when a driver was talking on the
phone. So barring evidence to the contrary, as NTSB Chairman you either
knew or should have known that it would be reasonable to assume that
cell phone conversation-impaired motorists could have been responsible
for 25 percent (or more) of the 2,575,000 traffic injuries and 42,642
traffic fatalities reported by NHTSA for 2006.

And rather than using the taxpayer-provided resources of your
bureaucratic office to pursue restrictions on the use of cell phones
while driving, which might have saved 10,660 lives (25% of 42,642
fatalities) last year, you chose instead to go on what the press calls a
mandatory helmet law "crusade", which in comparison might have saved at
best only 769 lives. Had you made the responsible choice, Mr. Rosenker,
our nation could be saving almost 15 TIMES AS MANY LIVES by restricting
the use of cell phones by drivers rather than requiring helmets for
riders.

I am no lawyer, but given these facts and pursuant to the provisions of
United States Code Title 49, Chapter 11, Subchapter II, Paragraph (c) as
I understand them...

***

(c) TERMS OF OFFICE AND REMOVAL.--The term of office of each member is 5
years. An individual appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the
expiration of the term for which the predecessor of that individual was
appointed, is appointed for the remainder of that term. When the term of
office of a member ends, the member may continue to serve until a
successor is appointed and qualified. The President may remove a member
for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.

ntsb.gov/alj/NTSB_statute.htm

***

...I believe that immediate steps should be taken to see that you are
removed from office on the grounds of clearly demonstrated inefficiency,
neglect of duty, and malfeasance.

In distributing this communication, I am calling on all American
motorcyclists, all motorcycle clubs and riding groups, and all state and
national motorcyclists' rights organizations to call, write and email
the White House and their United States Senators and Representatives to
petition for and demand your resignation or termination as Chairman of
the National Transportation Safety Board.

Speaking strictly for myself and no other entities or organizations,


Garry Van Kirk
Bikers Accident Survivor Forum
www.bacsuv.com
bikeraccsurvivor @ bacsuv.com