Lawrence man, 72, suffers critical injuries in motorcycle crash southwest of Lawrence / LJWorld.com

Archive for Monday, June 29, 2009

A 52-year-old Lawrence man was flown by helicopter ambulance to Kansas University Hospital in Kansas City, Kan., with critical injuries after an accident southwest of town.

By Jesse Fray

June 29, 2009, 2:38 p.m. Updated June 29, 2009, 3:16 p.m.

Google Map

Motorcycle accident

View Motorcyle accident in a larger map

A Lawrence man was hospitalized with a serious head injury on Monday afternoon, after losing control of his motorcycle near the Clinton Lake Dam.

Chas McElhinney, 72, was flown by helicopter ambulance to Kansas University Hospital in Kansas City, Kan., with critical injuries after the accident, at east 1000 Road and County Road 458. The man was not wearing a helmet, said Sgt. Steve Lewis, Douglas County Sheriff's spokesman.

"He lost control for unknown reasons," Lewis said. "He does not remember what happened.”

McElhinney was riding south on County Road 458, past Wakarusa School, when he crashed about 1:30 p.m. He was thrown from the motorcycle and hit his head on the pavement, said Lewis.

A previous version of this story had an incorrect age for McElhinney.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

29 June 2009
at 3:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gsxr600 (Anonymous) says…

Wonder how he would've turned out had he had a helmet on.
29 June 2009
at 3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

applejuice (Anonymous) says…

Helmets should be mandatory, just like seat belts in a car!
29 June 2009
at 4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

red_devil (Anonymous) says…

Jesus, here we go….
29 June 2009
at 4:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

qb2 (Anonymous) says…

i ride a harley and i prefer to wear a helmet because i feel more comfortable but honestly if i really think about it… i dont think it would do me a whole lot of good if i were going 50-70 down a highway and we crashed. just my opinion…..
29 June 2009
at 5:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gsxr600 (Anonymous) says…

Right. Leathers and full gear + a helmet could save your life. Unfortunately when I see motorcyclists (of all kinds) out on the road, 95% aren't wearing gear. It varies from the squid on the sport bike in a t-shirt, no helmet, and shorts to the cruisers with no helmets (or bowl helmets that offer no protection), no armor padding, etc.

As much as I disapprove of this, I firmly believe people should have the choice to wear what they want. I don't think seatbelts should be mandatory either. In some instances, a belt can do more harm than good. I always utilize a belt and a helmet whenever I'm traveling, but that's because I try to be responsible and don't really want to die all that quick.

Just my 2 cents.
29 June 2009
at 5:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Irish (Irish Swearingen) says…

gsxr600, you are so right. I remember way, way back in the day in SoCal when I would ride on the back of a Harley in short shorts, tee, and bare feet. I shudder to think of it now.
Maybe some people can't afford full leathers or just think they are too hot to wear in this head.
I know someone who had such a head injury and he never fully recovered from it.
29 June 2009
at 5:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KEITHMILES05 (Anonymous) says…

Very few people on cycles now wear helmets. That is just so dumb of them.

29 June 2009
at 5:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yankeevet (Anonymous) says…

Motorcycles;………..nothing but death machines…………
29 June 2009
at 6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RoeDapple (Anonymous) says…

Had a friend who wanted a motorcycle many years ago. His father told him to be sure to get the shipping crate so they would have something to bury him in……………

So he would borrow mine when he wanted to ride………..
29 June 2009
at 6:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

muddfoot55 (Anonymous) says…

Helmets save just enough to ID them by their dental records…sorry, had to go there.
29 June 2009
at 6:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gsxr600 (Anonymous) says…

A motorcycle doesn't kill anybody. It's the fault of the rider (drinking, inexperience) and the unforeseeable events (sand, that DAMN tar patching all over Lawrence, nails in the road, etc) that trigger accidents. Same for cars.
29 June 2009
at 7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Hoots (Anonymous) says…

Gsxr600…I guess I'm not the only one who hates all the tar around town and in the county. That stuff is dangerous for anything on two wheels. It's almost got me more than once on my motorcyle and my bicycle. I always wear a helmet.

I did a research paper years ago and helmets do save lives. The brain is by far the part of the body that is least likely to recover from trauma. That full coverage also protects you from bug and gravel strikes at 80 mph. If you've ever been hit by a bug even at 50 it hurts. People can do what they want but I'll keep my helmet on.
29 June 2009
at 11:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mdrndgtl (Anonymous) says…

Bad news, hopefully he recovers…
30 June 2009
at 6:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

458 was just chip sealed. Lots of loose gravel. He lost it on the first turn just south of Waky school. Be careful out there.
30 June 2009
at 8:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LA_Ex (Anonymous) says…

Those tar snakes are the worst. Scares the crap out of me every time my front tire hits one. The sun hits it, heats it back up and it's like riding on ice.

Gixxer, I don't think I've ever heard of a case where a seat belt did more harm than good, but I agree with you on everything else you said.

Hopefully the rider comes out okay.

30 June 2009
at 8:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LA_Ex (Anonymous) says…

One more exception, I think helmets should be mandatory.
30 June 2009
at 8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Sure. Helmets should be mandatory. Why not make body armor mandatory, too, while we are at it? Hey, how about neon pink body armor for better visiblity? It is all about the government protecting us from ourselves. God bless the nanny states of ameriKa.
30 June 2009
at 9:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LA_Ex (Anonymous) says…

Pretty selfish. You go down and get a head injury doesn't affect just you. It affects your family, friends, and every person who has to pay more for health insurance because you've just contributed to the raising cost of health insurance. I know it's greedy of the insurance companies, but lets face it, if they have to pay more so do the subscribers.

Sometimes the government needs to step in when the citizens lack the common sense to do whats right.
30 June 2009
at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Yep. The gubermint should make the speed limit 45, completely outlaw all firearms, jet skis, motorcycles, etc. cuz we might hurt our little selves. Sky diving…outrageous! Parasailing…unthinkable! It certainly defies “common sense”.

I will never give up liberty or freedom in the name of safety. This is exactly why I am a life member of ABATE and the NRA.
30 June 2009
at 10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SoupBone (Anonymous) says…

Every time I get on my motorcycle, I understand that anything COULD happen.

Hopefully all the pro-nanny-law folks realize that the same is true every time they get in their car, every time they cross the street, every time they visit the swimming pool, every time they load their firearm.

Accidents do happen.

Usually, I choose NOT to wear a helmet. Anything that impedes my hearing and/or vision seems to me like a bad trade-off. It is what is IN my head, not what is ON my head, that is more likely to protect me.

I've logged somewhere between 75K and 100K miles (incident free) on two wheels in my life and I realize that doesn't guarantee me safe passage today on my way home, but I am going to make my own decisions about how I protect myself, thank you very much.

Seems like it's only the non-riders who think they know what is best?
30 June 2009
at 12:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

LA Ex~ Amen to that. Obviously, the gubmint can't legislate everything, but if you run stats on auto fatalities and catastrophic injuries before and after seatbelt laws were implemented, household poisonings before laws governed security measures (safety lids vs screw-top or pop-off caps), and many other areas where leaving (whatever it is) to “common sense” commonly resulted in preventable deaths and injuries, you can see that untold thousands of lives have been saved by these legal measures.

The mistake people make when scoffing about the need for such laws is in assuming that everyone has as much sense as YOU do. They don't.

Think about all the laws that are in place—governing building codes, medical and pharmaceutical practices, the auto industry, various airline entities, from designers/builders to carriers/operators, amusement park (and other public area) parameters, and on and on… Do you want them to be nullified for the sake of “freedom”?

It would be nice to think that without such laws, individuals, builders, plumbers, electricians, doctors, pharmaceutical honchos, car & plane companies, and so on, would “do the right thing,” “use common sense,” and follow the utmost standards of safety. Alas, humans prove, again and again, that they won't.

With companies, of course, much of the driving force is greed—cutting corners to widen the profit margin. But with both companies and individuals, there is also a blatant disregard for cold statistical evidence. Some accidents will always be flukes and impossible to prevent. But even within that slice of the pie, there is a wide range of possible outcomes. Ignoring statistics is just stupid.

Obviously, some cycle wrecks (high speed ones, especially) would be fatal regardless. But how tragic to die a preventable death, which a high percentage of the sans-helmet fatalities are.

There is no easy answer to the “how many laws do we need” debate and I can't say I know what should be legislated and what should be left to individuals. But, having read a lot of statistics, I have to lean toward helmet laws—if only to protect the rest of us from rising insurance and for the enormous cost of maintaining/rehabbing people with massive head injuries who would have walked away with only minor injuries had a helmet been worn. This is just one of many instances where individuals often do not know what's best for them and where they ignore statistics in order to “feel the wind in their hair.” Should the rest of us have to pay for this indulgence when they're rendered vegetative?
30 June 2009
at 12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

My firefighter cousin in law has told enough stories, and when he says wear a helmet, i would wear a helmet.
30 June 2009
at 12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gphawk89 (Anonymous) says…

OK, I don't know the stats but I'll ask these questions again:

How many motorcyclists per year lose their lives or are permanently disabled in a cycle accident because of a head injury that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet?

Now, how many motorists (automobile drivers or passengers) per year lose their lives or are permanently disabled in an auto accident because of a head injury that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet?

I'll bet the answer to the second question is much greater than the answer to the first question.

So why don't we make helmets mandatory when driving a car? And to the non-motorcycle-riding, pro-helmet crowd: why don't you wear a helmet while driving your car? Hypocrites…

30 June 2009
at 12:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LA_Ex (Anonymous) says…

Been riding for over 25 years. I wear a full face helmet and my hearing is better due to reduced wind noise. I did loose some peripheral vision, I found I can fix that problem by turning my head. Kind of like checking your side mirrors in a car. There are more expensive helmets out there that don't restrict peripheral vision at all if it's that big of a problem for the rider.

NHTSA estimates that 37% of the fatalities of non-helmeted riders may have survived if they had been wearing a helmet. Head injuries are the most expensive of motorcycle related injuries. I've yet to have heard a good argument for not wearing a helmet.

Average cost of a brain injury victim that survives is $171,000 in the first year and $300,000 for long term care.

Typically insurance picks up 66% of the cost, then 22% is paid by public funds and the remaining 12% by other sources (ie. your wallet). Taxpayers may be picking up a large share since it's estimated 46% of un-helmeted riders don't have insurance.

But like it was said, this is America. And in America we typically have the right to make our own decisions…. no matter how stupid they are.

Sources are pretty easy to find, just do a Google search. That's what I did.
30 June 2009
at 1:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LA_Ex (Anonymous) says…

I can answer the car/helmet question pretty easily. The bulk of automobile fatalities happen because the occupant wasn't wearing a seat belt. No doubt that if that same occupant had decided to wear a helmet without the seatbelt he/she may have fared better. So yes…if you are going to drive without a seat belt, at least wear a helmet. If that occupant had worn a seat belt, they would have fared better.

Motorcycles account for only 2% of the vehicles on the road so naturally there are going to be more crashes involving a car, truck or SUV. Amazingly, out of all those crashes, the fatalities are lower when compared to motorcycles when kept in perspective.
30 June 2009
at 1:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

daschie88 (Anonymous) says…

LA_Ex - If hit at the right angle, then yes, seat belts can be dangerous. I was T-boned at 70 mph and because I'm so short and the seat belt goes across my neck, had i been wearing one it would have sliced my neck open and I likely would have lost an insane amount of blood. However, the chances of that happening again are probably pretty slim, thus I always wear one now.
30 June 2009
at 1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

“Think about all the laws that are in place—governing building codes, medical and pharmaceutical practices, the auto industry, various airline entities, from designers/builders to carriers/operators, amusement park (and other public area) parameters, and on and on… Do you want them to be nullified for the sake of “freedom”?”

Py- this really has nothing to do with an individual's freedom.

BTW - I favor helmet usage especially since I have an 18 year old son that will be riding the streets soon on a '73 Triumph Trident! He just passed his rider training course. I just don't think it should be mandatory.
30 June 2009
at 1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

LA_Ex (Anonymous) says…

That's why almost all seat belts in modern cars have height adjustments on them.

Seems like I remember reading an article about shorter drivers and improperly worn seat belts about 15 years ago. I think it said dealers have been able to retrofit seat belts to fit shorter drivers.
30 June 2009
at 1:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

riverat (Joe Hyde) says…

Assuming the news story is complete and correct (by listing Mr. McIlhinney's head strike against the roadway as the only injury he suffered) there is little reason to doubt that he'd have walked away from this accident needing only a couple of aspirin for sore muscles..if he had been wearing a motorcycle helmet.

I sure hope he comes out of this okay, with no lasting loss of mental function. I hope, in other words, that his head strike didn't result in a traumatic brain injury, one of the most fearsome injuries there is.
30 June 2009
at 1:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

gphawk89~ LA Ex did a lot of your searching for you, but you need to figure out (or look up) some stuff yourself. For instance… You ask why helmets aren't required for all car passengers. Most cars now are equipped with seatbelts and airbags, safety gear that would obviously be impossible on a motorcycle. With that in mind, do a little research and compare the fatality/serious injury statistics between vehicle occupants (using these safety features) and motorcycle riders with or without a helmet.

Compare what would happen at impacts of, say, 10 mph, 25 mph, 35 mph, 55 mph, 70 and over… Find out how many accidents typically take place at each of these impact levels (so you can roughly figure how many people are affected by a crash at each of these impact levels).

Then see if the numbers answer your question for you.

I think you'll find that an enclosed vehicle with belts/airbags, at any speed impact, is so much more protective than a bike (even if rider uses helmet & full leathers), that adding a helmet in a passenger vehicle is statistically unnecessary.

I would like to add my best wishes for a full and complete recovery to the victim of this accident. Should've done so on my previous post! I have motorcyclists among my loved ones and (as much as I am against the things for being inherently more dangerous than the Corvair or Pinto ever were!), I understand the allure and know that a lot of great folks are out there riding. I wish only the best for them—so that they can live to argue philosophical differences with me another day!

Even though this accident did not involve another vehicle (as far as we know), this is a good time to remind ourselves to watch for motorcycles! And bicycles! And pedestrians. If I ever hit one, even if it were at least partially their fault, I would have to live with that for the rest of my life. Be extra vigilant for anything on the road smaller than what you're driving or riding! In a collision, you might walk away, but if the other person didn't, could you sleep at night?
30 June 2009
at 10:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Pywacket (Anonymous) says…

Blue~ I used the examples you excerpted to help illustrate the fundamental truth that individuals (whether riding a motorcycle, driving a car, running a construction or car company, or deciding anything that impacts others) cannot always be trusted to do the right or smart or honorable thing—and that we benefit every day by laws that are already in place limiting the choices of individuals.

Helmet laws are no more unreasonable than any other laws governing individuals' choices. Seatbelt laws—which had a dramatic positive effect, despite similar public resistance—are perhaps the best example for comparison purposes, but I think laws targeting individuals at the helm of profit centers are also valid.

Point is, when enough people are making dumb decisions that impact enough other people, we often pass laws insisting that they make better choices. This is nothing new or unusual. Many bikers like to claim that they're not endangering anyone but themselves, but this is patently untrue. If they die or are disabled by a preventable head injury, their family suffers mightily, the other driver (if a factor) is scarred, and we all pay in terms of spiraling med & ins. costs.

For me, this societal cost tips the scale, so I favor helmet laws (and seatbelt laws and a lot of other “personal freedom”-limiting laws that we take for granted since they've been in place for so long). I understand that others struggle with this or reject it outright, but for me, there's adequate cause for a law.

30 June 2009
at 11:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…

Is this the dr.?
Is this the fella that works at KU Med Center, teaching, following retirement from private practice in W. Kansas?
If so, my prayers are more deeply with him. What a cool guy!

Wasn't a yellow vette enough??!!
1 July 2009
at 1:02 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gccs14r (Anonymous) says…

This isn't 1973. Full-face helmets have a much larger eye opening now, so peripheral vision isn't compromised. Still need earplugs to cut the wind blast, though. Earplugs make it easier to hear traffic, too.

The Honda Goldwing has an airbag option.

It used to be illegal to wear a helmet in an automobile. I don't know if it still is.