Stop Helmet Laws Now...

the real issue here is one of fiscal responsibility. who pays for
emergency medical care for the vegetable with the cracked skull? right
now, emergency rooms are mandated to deal with any serious life
threatening emergencies that are dumped on them, regardless of ability to
pay...

should emergency rooms in fact determine fiscal responsibility prior to
beginning triage? so the rich or well insured can get taken care of,
while those who are poor or underinsured get left out on the street to
bleed to death?[/QUOTE]

If the government mandates this, then the government should pay for it.
Which means, of course, that if the society wants people in that
situation to be helped, then society must pay for it through taxes.

Consider what would happen if you lost your job and your health
insurance. You'd take a bus to the employment agency. On your way across
the street, you risk getting run over by some toad late for a board
meeting. You get rushed off to the hospital -- no, that's expensive.
Better see if you have health insurance coverage. Whups. You're not
subscribed. Too bad for you.

"What shall we do with him, officer?"

"Well, you can't just leave him in the street or on the sidewalk. Here,
drag him into this alley."

Oh, no, wait. I understand. Good honest folks should get indigent care,
but stupid people should not.

How about if public health insurance covered basic wound repair only.
Plastic surgery to take care of scars ... that's on your own nickel if
you were negligent.

Health insurance works the same way. However, many state have laws that
limit the ability of insurance companies to enforce seat belt usage.
IOW, if you were injured because you did not wear your seat belt, your
insurance company can't refuse to pay the bills.

There's another reason for that: office visits for checkups and minor
illnesses have become unaffordable for many people. The end up using the
emergency room as primary care. Since they have to take anyone, they do.
The economic incentive for people to go see their doctor for that flu
before it becomes pneumonia just isn't there.

(BTW, Kaiser Permanente in San Francisco [and possibly other places] has
two elvels of emergency care: emergency care for life-threatening
illnesses and injuries, and urgent care for things that are not
life-threatening but can't wait for an appointment in a few days. To put
the bite into the primary/emergency care difference, they even raised
emergency room visits to about 3x the normal office visit.)

No matter how much economic incentive we apply to folks to wear their
seat belts, there will always be some idiot who thinks the law doesn't
apply to him because he's a good driver, or he'll hold on to the
steering wheel, he's better off ejected from the vehicle, or he drives
his car into lakes all the time. What are we going to do with him --
leave him by the side of the road? Pure economic arguments just don't
cut it.

 

The issue is NEITHER safety or costs. The expense to the public is more
than likely LESS for a helmetless rider in an accident than for one
wearing a helmet overall if you only want to speak of head injuries.
Fortunately very few motorcyclists in hospitals are there due to head
injuries, it's usually other injuries, and that's for helmeted and
helmetless riders alike.

Sources, please. I've never heard that slant about seatbelts and airbags,
only safety. BTW, these are STATE laws, not FEDERAL laws.

If I had an accident and suffered head injury, you will not pay a single
dime more than you currently due. I don't know how you can think
otherwise.

That's your problem, you're thinking wrongly.

--
Odinn

'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://odinn-frigga.tripod.com/scoot
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Personal Homepage ... http://odinn-frigga.tripod.com
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

Fill in the blanks to reply

 

the real issue isn't helmets or seatbelts. It's our fucked up medical
system. either we agree to allow people to expire upon arrival if they
don't have a means of paying (free market) or we make it free to all
(socialist).

This halfway nonsense isn't working.

 

I like the part about stupid people being left out to die.

Yet until they repeal the law they can refuse to pay your bills after
a motorcycle accident, provided they informed you of such in the first
place.

 

This is right in line with preaching to the Loud Pipes Save Lives Club
to quiet down their bikes so that other motorcyclists are not banished
from the 17 Mile Drive or butterfly sanctuaries -- It is well
intentioned, but your good intentions are misplaced. Good luck with
"the cause."

-Steve Makohin | Reply to
| (hotmail acct is spam catcher)

 

What makes you think that accidents involving unhelmeted riders cost more (to
the riders, to their insurance, or to society) than accidents involving helmeted
riders? There are no studies that indicate that this is the case. In fact, as
a 26-year veteran rider (and as a licensed professional roadracer and a 12-year
veteran motorcycle safety instructor) who would NEVER ride without a helmet, I
expect to survive in many potential accident scenarios that would leave an
unhelmeted rider dead on the scene. Therefore, I expect to cost both my family
and my insurer quite a bit more money than if I were to choose to exercise my
right to ride without a helmet.

No it's not. It's quite simple. Do we wish to be a society of free individuals
or not? If we do, then we will willingly bear the costs of maintaining such a
society. Unfortunately, it appears more and more that the U.S. answer to that
question is "no," rather than "yes."

Tim

 

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Have you ever seen the hospital bills
for a rider who is devastatingly wounded but survives because he was wearing a
helmet? Unhelmeted riders involved in accidents often die like the deer we slam
into with metronomical regularity. Funeral costs are low. Rebuilding a rider
who lived because his helmet prevented his head from cracking open and his
brains splashing out is EXPENSIVE.

Try again.

 

Tim hit the nail right on the head. This is the reason why helmet
laws were lifted in some states that had them. I guess the insurance
companies found out that a helmetless rider that dies is cheaper then
one with a helmet that survives that may need medical attention for
the rest of his or her life.

Mike

 

I guess the insurance

What do you think the insurance companies think about people who can't even
meet a bare minimum certification to ride a bike Mike? Non licensed riders
are heavily represented in motorcycle accident statistics as well.

 

Hey Troy over 11,000 street miles and no wrecks. Did you have any
wrecks in your first 11,000 miles? I guess all those years of riding
MX bikes paid off for me. In my case whether or not I am certified
does not indicate one's riding ability. When I get my license it won't
be like I all of the sudden improved drastically as a rider besides I
only had one shot at the road test. I can imagine many of us had two
shots. I failed becuase they thought I did not turn my head far
enough to see behind me. That said I think the inexpirenced rider
causes most claims. Even the licensed one's. I am taking both the
beginner and expert MSF classes next year although I will continue to
ride throughout the winter. How was your trip?

Mike

 

As well, people should stop buying and riding sportbikes. As we
all know, these motorcycles are made for only one purpose -
travelling at high speeds. Users of such bikes routinely break
speed limits. Some are so callous as to actually buy competition
race bikes and run them on the streets. A 'normal' high powered
motorcycle is not enough for them; they actually see no problem
with operating machinery intended for closed courses on public
roads! Amazing! Do these people have any consideration for the
safety of others?

It's only a matter of time before legislation is passed to
prohibit all sportbikes. Please, everyone join me and purchase
a CB125. There will be no need for anti-sportbike legislation
if no one rides a sportbike, right?

-- Michael

 

I think it's mainly an issue of perception.

If we really want to address health care costs, then we need to
look at heart disease and other ailments that are caused by
an excess of the wrong foods coupled with sedentary lifestyles.
Isn't that where the real dollars are being spent?

So everyone: wear your helmet and go vegan! ;-)

-- Michael

 

[snip]

Oh, yeah, those "Liberals". <rolls eyes> The "Conservatives" are
*so* much better respecters of freedom: well, except for free speech,
gay rights, drug laws, religion...

Frankly, both sides display intolerance. I don't see one as being
particularly better than the other.

-- Michael

 

Does my MZ125 qualify? (I prefer the electric starting, the standard
tachometer, the monoshock, disk brakes front and rear, the factory braided steel
brake lines, the liquid cooling, the four-valve cylinder head, the 17-inch
3-spoke alloy wheels and tubeless tires, and the 6-speed transmission; plus I've
owned two CB125's already.... I've paid my dues!)

 

Now Mike, I seem to recall your BIKE has 11,000 miles but you were claiming
somewhat fewer?

Well, define "wreck". I would call my first wreck something that happened
some 5 years after I started riding, on my first sportbike. I had lots of
drops, oops's and stuff like that on my first bike, but nothing that damaged
me or the bike much that I couldn't bend back into shape the next morning.

You are correct of course. But it does mean you fall into a different
statistic risk category than do. And others who actually have a license to
operate a 2 wheeled vehicle.

I failed my cage exam the first time...but not the bike. Bikes are much more
important after all.

Maybe. But the unlicensed ones ( and the drunk ones as well ) are definately
more than adequately represented in accident statistics. I jut worry about
you Mike, thats all. Another rider got clobbered here in Denver, would hate
the Cheesehead cager brigade to start offing Buell riders.

Not bad. Ever been to Point Lobos south of Monterey? Wonderful state park.
The flight back was a bit bumpy, the weather in Pacific Grove was great, the
surf was high and noisy and the environment quite nice.

Wish I had a bike to ride while I was there though.

 

This is one of the stranger aspects of the whole debate to me. We often
hear the setiment you expressed above, even as part of the basis for
passing helmet laws. Later, after the law has passed, we start hearing
statistics that attribute reduced fatalities to helmet use.

The two things don't seem necessarily related to me. A person dying on
a motorcycle doesn't cost the state all that much, unless you consider
the lost tax revenue. I think there are three general outcomes when
someone crashes on a motorcycle:

1) Non-crippling injury or no injury
2) Long-term or permanent debilitating injury
3) Death

Helmet law supporters attempt to measure the third category, but I'm not
aware of many stats looking at the second category, which is the one
that costs the state. It seems to me that the difference between using
a helmet and not could result in more long term disabilities because
people survive crashes with a helmet that would have killed them
without. There may be other cases where using a helmet reduces what
would have been a crippling accident to a non-crippling one.

Without more analysis, the save lives / reduce costs arguments seem like
unrelated points, one designed to make an emotional case and the other
intended to make a fiscal one. The authors of helmet laws did an
admirable job of making sure nobody paid much attention to whether
reducing fatalities really saved society any dough.

ab

 

The authors of helmet laws did an

Andy, I would say this statement applies to most laws passed designed to
"help" people. Once its passed, rare is the case where someone runs around
afterwards and makes sure the silly law actually WORKED...I mean...maybe its
un-Americun?

Silly politicians pass silly laws, sometimes things are better, sometimes
worse. Net change, zero. Sounds about right.

Now, if it were 70 degree's warmer outside, I would go for a ride without a
helmet. Because I can, at least in Colorado.

 

I wear a helmet myself and ADVISE others to do the same but,
I've got to agree with Sunny on principle. The idea of Government
acting
'in loco parentis` as it does by enacting helmet and seat belt laws is
doing subtle and serious damage to society as a whole.
The idea that citizens must be protected from themselves because they
are not capable of acting responsibly eventually leads to the creation
of irresponsible citizens.
We wind up paying for 'V Chips` that we don't want and driving about
with blasting caps pointed at our faces because some Pol thinks it's
good for us.
[We know that 'air bags` have killed people, (as many as one per
hundred that are claimed to have been saved, and the dead are science,
the 'saved` are speculation).]
Don't you think we should be given the choice rather than have them
manditory?
We are unable to purchase useful tools, solvents, and other chemicals
because we 'might hurt ourselves` with them.
If we don't resist this kind of legislation on principle, our
motorcycles might be only one of our losses.
There is already a movement to place automotive traffic under remote
guidance. Think what fun that would be, especially when it
inevitably craps out.
The Pols have to know we don't approve of this kind of law and will
remember its supporters at the poles. The gun guys did it, why can't
we?

Pragmatist "R75/5 Forever!"

 

Did he hit the nail or his finger?

According to this source the helmet laws in CA are saving money.

http://www.ucsf.edu/daybreak/1998/09/16_helm.html

Ben

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/rockland_mc_riders

 

But he does appear to be running for King of All Usenet Trolls.