Irony takes a deadly turn.

steveinaz

I chuckle everytime I see a neighborhood kid on a skateboard, dressed for war--the poor kid weighs 53lbs, his "safety" gear 67lbs..God forbid we skin a knee, mommy & daddy might go to jail for neglect.

Some of you are responsible for this bed we lay in.

Upstatemax

Considering most of the motorcyclist I have seen here in NY are some of the WORST drivers I have ever seen. I say keep the helmet laws.

Not because I care if they kill themselves, but because I don't feel like sitting in traffic all day while they clean up brain matter off the highway...

Not to mention, I don't need people like my wife being involved in an accident that results in the death of a motorcyclist because they were not wearing a helmet. My wife would never forgive herself, even if the accident was 100% NOT her fault.

steveinaz

Well, I'm sure they're sorry that their death inconvenienced you.

So let me get this straight--it would be the motorocyclists fault, that your wife is feeling terrible because they died in an accident that wasn't her fault due to them not wearing a helmet; so therefore we should have a mandatory helmet law.

That's one for the books right there.

...and BTW, no law will fix stupid. If people are bad drivers, a helmet isn't gonna fix that. You don't cure the symptom, you cure the disease. California, you listening?

Upstatemax

When you act like an idiot and it causes 4hrs+ of stopped traffic for thousands of people, you better be sorry.

Demiurge

A motorcycle accident where the operator was wearing a helmet isn't going to lessen the amount of your precious time that's spent sitting in traffic than a motorcycle accident where the operator wasn't wearing one.

Jstas

steveinaz wrote: »

Automobile devices are irrelevant--they are all passive, sans non-automatic seat belts. Nobody is asking you to wear a helmet in your car.

No they're not. Airbags, retracting seat belts and even collision avoidance systems are all active. They all do something more than just being there to keep you safer than you would be without them.

Now, if you have a rope tied to eye bolts in the floor so you can stay seated on your milk crate, that would be passive.

Upstatemax

Demiurge wrote: »

A motorcycle accident where the operator was wearing a helmet isn't going to lessen the amount of your precious time that's spent sitting in traffic than a motorcycle accident where the operator wasn't wearing one.

You ever see the amount of mess an exploded head makes on the highway?

Trust me, it takes A LOT more time.

steveinaz

Jstas wrote: »

No they're not. Airbags, retracting seat belts and even collision avoidance systems are all active. They all do something more than just being there to keep you safer than you would be without them.

Now, if you have a rope tied to eye bolts in the floor so you can stay seated on your milk crate, that would be passive.

"Passive" in that they require no user input or activation.

steveinaz

Upstatemax wrote: »

You ever see the amount of mess an exploded head makes on the highway?

Trust me, it takes A LOT more time.

Yeah, I can see how that would make anybody mad....:rolleyes:

Well here's a silver lining you may appreciate. Keep the current law, let all the "dumbasses" kill themselves in accidents, and then you won't miss a single episode of Mafia Wives.

Upstatemax

steveinaz wrote: »

Yeah, I can see how that would make anybody mad....:rolleyes:

Well here's a silver lining you may appreciate. Keep the current law, let all the "dumbasses" kill themselves in accidents, and then you won't miss a single episode of Mafia Wives.

Listen, the whole "traffic" thing was mostly a joke, but yeah I really don't want to spend an extra 2+hrs in my car when I could have been spending time with my daughter and wife.

I'm mostly for free choice to kill yourself if you want, but many times, accidents that can kill someone not wearing a helmet involve more than JUST the motorcyclist. Other people have to live with that persons choice to be an idiot.

Demiurge

Upstatemax wrote: »

You ever see the amount of mess an exploded head makes on the highway?

Trust me, it takes A LOT more time.

Yes. No, it really doesn't.

sucks2beme

I say give every U.S. congressman a new motorcycle.
That should clear some of them out!

Upstatemax

Demiurge wrote: »

Yes. No, it really doesn't.

The last human explosion up here took nearly 4hrs to clean up...

Gadabout

sucks2beme wrote: »

I say give every U.S. congressman a new motorcycle.
That should clear some of them out!

I'll go this one further. Make everybody spend 2 weeks per year on a motor cycle or bike in traffic. Riding something on 2 wheels makes you a better driver because your forced to watch out for everyone. My guess is there were be fewer accidents of all kinds then.

As to the topic, I'm on the side of NO helmet laws. Just think that if the rider is of age, they should be able to have a choice if he wears a helmet. Since most of the topic has been about safety, in reality, I doubt that has very little to do with the reason for the helmet laws. I have yet to see a politician or insurance agency really concerned about my safety. Usually it boils down to money.

The insurance companies don't want to pay it. The politicians either want the campaign contribution or the revenue their city might get from it.

Scott

tonyb

You mean insurance companies don't want to pay claims ?? Well I'll be....

Like we said before, when this nanny state mentality starts to roll over into things that you enjoy, you'll start thinking differently.

Demiurge

Upstatemax wrote: »

The last human explosion up here took nearly 4hrs to clean up...

Yeah, and you think clean up and accident reconstruction for a freshly minted paraplegic is going to take less time than spraying brain matter off the freeway? I've seen it all and I assure you it's not.

Helmets have nothing to do with how long you sit in traffic.

I realize you were coming into this thread with an attempt at comedy meant to be taken with tongue firmly planted in cheek, so you didn't fail, but you've not told us why you favor an unnecessary law (unless you were actually serious about the traffic thing)...

JustinHEMI

bobman1235 wrote: »

I wouldn't call it ironic. People against helmet laws dont' think their heads are invincible, they just apparently find it worth the risk. It's his head, he should be able to smash it on the pavement if he wants to.

Agreed. I don't support nanny laws, and people should be able to take whatever risks with their own lives that they choose. He did so, in spite of the law, and instead of dying free..., he died a criminal. sad.

Demiurge

JustinHEMI wrote: »

Agreed. I don't support nanny laws, and people should be able to take whatever risks with their own lives that they choose. He did so, in spite of the law, and instead of dying free..., he died a criminal. sad.

Riding without a helmet isn't a criminal offense, just like j-walking isn't criminal...

JustinHEMI

Demiurge wrote: »

Riding without a helmet isn't a criminal offense, just like j-walking isn't criminal...

Thanks for the correction. He died "in the wrong" then.

Justin

dorokusai

Demiurge wrote: »

This one thing? No, but it's a culmination of the nanny state that causes a flake to turn into an out of control avalanche of infringements on many of our basic freedoms. Some, of course, are valid. We live in a society and our freedoms are not absolute. That does not mean we give government a wide purview over our personal lives.

Mandated helmet laws are a ridiculous overreach if you get beyond the simplicity of strapping a helmet on your melon. That's not what this is about, anymore so than mandating you wear a helmet in your car would be.

The retardation as you put it, in this instance, has no impact on you. If only we had as much outrage to muster over the dumb asses that impact us all directly as we do about those who don't.

The insurance argument is a non-starter since the insurance companies already price the risk of riding a motorcycle accordingly. Obviously the risk assessment varies from one insurance company to the next. Forcing someone to wear a helmet impacts you personally exactly not at all.

This is the government with a solution in search of a problem.

If there's a problem, the insurance companies have the legal means to put conditions on the insured. They can either not be insured or pay more for increased risk. If your insurance company is taking undue risks with motorcyclists, find one that has a more strict policy on them than your car/truck driving motorists.

I don't have an outrage at all David since I don't ride and have zero thoughts to the outcome of a helmetless rider, in any state, in any form. That may be cold but I also respect the fact that an individual can make their own choices. If you perish due to that decision, don't send your family to me or the local government and cry foul.

In regards to insurance....I think we're in the same boat. Government should be far less involved, if not zero since more control should be given to the states, as is the actual conversation anyways.

Tony - Yes, it was a drastic example but so is most of this thread.

BlueFox

To quote a line from Oath of Fealty, "Think of it as evolution in action."

Of course, when these helmet less individuals, with no insurance, go to the emergency room, somebody has to pay. Apparently, for many people at Club Polk, freedom means they can do whatever they want, and somebody else has to pay for it. :rolleyes:

cubdog

You just can't legislate to cover everthing. There will always be more dumb **** people than laws.

cubdog

inspiredsports

exalted512 wrote: »

Yea, but your motorcycle insurance doesn't pay for your injuries...unless it's a hit & run accident.

So is it really affecting your insurance?
-Cody

No, motorcylce insurance definitely pays for injuries.

If the insured is found at fault, his insurance company pays the bills.

If it's a quick 2 hour exam and release the same day by someone who was wearing a helmet, the cost is lower than if there was a head trauma and 3 months of rehab.

Again, wearing a helmet is the smart play, but I still wish it was personal choice versus mandate.

If insurance companies want to charge more if you don't wear a helmet, that's their decision. They charge smokers higher premiums for life insurance.

bobman1235

BlueFox wrote: »

Of course, when these helmet less individuals, with no insurance, go to the emergency room, somebody has to pay. Apparently, for many people at Club Polk, freedom means they can do whatever they want, and somebody else has to pay for it. :rolleyes:

I've yet to see someone prove that this argument has any merit. A helmetless rider is more likely to die, I can't imagine death is more expensive than putting someone through traction or whatever. Show me numbers to prove me wrong.

Besides you could say the same for any behavior. Do you ahve any idea how much money fat people cost society? I don't see you or anyone else trying to outlaw McDonalds.

exalted512

inspiredsports wrote: »

No, motorcylce insurance definitely pays for injuries.

If the insured is found at fault, his insurance company pays the bills.

ummm....not really.

If I get in an accident, and its my fault, my motorcycle insurance will pay up to $2,500 in personal injury protection. Some companies offer 'Medical Payments' instead of PIP...difference being PIP will also pay for loss of income at work whereas MP does not.

$2,500....that's it. It's $5 more expensive than my truck's PIP/month. I credit that due to the nature of a motorcycle vs a truck...not whether or not a helmet is involved.

So yes, they do pay for injuries. State Farm, in Texas, limits PIP and MP for motorcycles to $2,500. And like I said, the price increase over my truck is $5/month. Not exactly breaking the bank and I'm fairly certain that if helmet laws were mandatory, my insurance premium would stay the same.
-Cody

BlueFox

bobman1235 wrote: »

I've yet to see someone prove that this argument has any merit. A helmetless rider is more likely to die, I can't imagine death is more expensive than putting someone through traction or whatever. Show me numbers to prove me wrong.

What argument? That somebody else has to pay the cost of an uninsured crash victim? Numbers are not needed to prove you wrong. Common sense proves you wrong. :rolleyes:

In regard to whether or not a rider with no helmet dies more than a rider with a helmet that is not relevent as to who pays the uninsured cost. However, a Google search showed this.

Section 7: How do helmet use laws impact health care costs?

""Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. In November 2002, NHTSA reported that 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."

and

"After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed a decline in health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists. The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period."

and

"Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare.17 In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds.27 In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83.28 Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured"

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html

There are plenty of other sites showing the cost of injuries from helmet less riders with no insurance.

bobman1235

BlueFox wrote: »

What argument? That somebody else has to pay the cost of an uninsured crash victim? Numbers are not needed to prove you wrong. Common sense proves you wrong. :rolleyes:

Jesus Christ, choke on your smugness and die. I never denied that someone else had to pay for an uninsured accident victim. Not even close. I merely questioned whether all of this getting your panties in a wad over "the COST to society" strictly based on helmet use was merited. And I concede that the studies you post seem to indicate there is a correlation.

I do love how many of you caring saints talk about how much you just want to "protect people" and how all you care about is SAFETY, but when pushed it all just comes down to money. The same hippie pansies who will throw billions in welfare money down the toilet every year without making a peep make a capital case when 9 dudes bash their heads open on the state's dime.

exalted512

I don't care about their safety. But if it's substantially putting a burden on my pocketbook, then yeah, I care.

But I'm willing to bet that helmet laws aren't going to save me any money directly, so I say let 'em not wear their helmet.
-Cody

bigaudiofanatic

Let idiots be idiots i alway wear my helmet and always will and not just a skull cap but a full face one.

tonyb

BlueFox wrote: »

To quote a line from Oath of Fealty, "Think of it as evolution in action."

Of course, when these helmet less individuals, with no insurance, go to the emergency room, somebody has to pay. Apparently, for many people at Club Polk, freedom means they can do whatever they want, and somebody else has to pay for it. :rolleyes:

You mean like those wanting free healthcare,and somebody else has to pay ?
Those wanting free schooling and somebody else has to pay ? The list can go on. Nobody in this thread professed a desire for people to do whatever they want.
How is a motorcyle dude who goes to the hospital with no health insurance any different than an illegal with no insurance going in ? Incidently, your figures you quoted don't say how many of these bike accidents with those without insurance were illegals. Or is that against the law to even ask....uh, yeah,in some states it is.