PDA

View Full Version : Helmet safety - law



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10

bufordtpisser
09-19-2007, 03:04 PM
Are you in a seatbelt state?

If so, put your theory to the test. Drive without a seatbelt, get a ticket. Then get back to us on how your assertion of "right" works out with the Judge.

Drink and drive. Get caught. Exercise your "right" to refuse the breath test. Then after your license is pulled, by law for a year, let us know how your "right" worked out.

there are laws against driving without a seatbelt and driving drunk. There is a law on the books in my state that says I can go lidless if I so choose. I am breaking no law if I decide to exercise that right.

Exercising every right that we have comes with a consequence. Should we therefore take away all of the rights that we have fought so hard to obtain or maintain?? All right carry responsibilities. I have the right to choose to wear a helmet or not. I have the responsibility to make an informed decision as to whether or not I exercise that right. I carry $50,000.00 worth of motorcycle insurance as well as $700,000.00 worth of life insurance. I believe that I am being more than responsible, and I still choose to wear a helmet. But just like your right to drink a beer or smoke a cigarette, I am not challenging your rights or privileges or asking you to carry bigger policies. Why are you doing just that to me??

FX
09-19-2007, 03:13 PM
there are laws against driving without a seatbelt and driving drunk. There is a law on the books in my state that says I can go lidless if I so choose. I am breaking no law if I decide to exercise that right.

Exercising every right that we have comes with a consequence. Should we therefore take away all of the rights that we have fought so hard to obtain or maintain?? All right carry responsibilities. I have the right to choose to wear a helmet or not. I have the responsibility to make an informed decision as to whether or not I exercise that right. I carry $50,000.00 worth of motorcycle insurance as well as $700,000.00 worth of life insurance. I believe that I am being more than responsible, and I still choose to wear a helmet. But just like your right to drink a beer or smoke a cigarette, I am not challenging your rights or privileges or asking you to carry bigger policies. Why are you doing just that to me??

You are the exception, not the rule. So, it's moot for this argument.

For me, the argument is, why should I have to pay to fix your head when you are under insured and ran up a bill I now have to pay?

Sure, there are other things that I have to pay for I resent, but through prevention, safety and responsibility, that can be avoided.

Most people are ignorant and arrogant when it comes to rights. Most arguments for rights are distorted or in more cases, just plain wrong.

That is what I'm arguing. Like I have said before, if you want to exercise your "rights", respect mine. If you cant, you fall into one of the stereotypes above.

Exercise your right to do what ever you want, but have the responsibility too. Not the arrogance of "they do it so I will too".

I'm merely arguing the point of how poor the argument is and how those who claim to be protecting your "rights" as lobbyists have failed in the debate.

bigwater
09-19-2007, 04:50 PM
You are the exception, not the rule. So, it's moot for this argument.

For me, the argument is, why should I have to pay to fix your head when you are under insured and ran up a bill I now have to pay?

Sure, there are other things that I have to pay for I resent, but through prevention, safety and responsibility, that can be avoided.

Most people are ignorant and arrogant when it comes to rights. Most arguments for rights are distorted or in more cases, just plain wrong.

That is what I'm arguing. Like I have said before, if you want to exercise your "rights", respect mine. If you cant, you fall into one of the stereotypes above.

Exercise your right to do what ever you want, but have the responsibility too. Not the arrogance of "they do it so I will too".

I'm merely arguing the point of how poor the argument is and how those who claim to be protecting your "rights" as lobbyists have failed in the debate.

FX, you seem to be very vocal about not wanting to pay for somebody else's stupidity, and that's cool. I'm with you on that. But what you seem to alude to but never get around to actually emphasizing is that the only real solution to this issue is a "pay to play" system. If you want to ride lidless, then you need to bear the responsibility of the cost of insurance to take care of you no matter what the cost if you should sustain a head injury while riding a motorcycle without a lid. That would ensure that the biker who sustained the head injury would never be a burden to society.

That's what it *sounds* to me like you're advocating, but I wonder if that's not just opening a Pandora's box? Should the guy who chooses to wear a lid not have to carry that same insurance? I don't know... and more importantly, neither do the politicians, and they'll play every angle they can. What sort of door to we open if we start mandating a "risk" fee on everything we do in order to avoid taxpayers footing the bill?

Sounds to me like we just give the government more control over the situation. At least if we're paying the bill outright, we know where the money's going. If they charge us a fee to participate, I bet we end up paying more in the long run.

jrbooe
09-19-2007, 05:43 PM
BW, part of the "privilege" of not having to wear a lid in the state of Florida is one must have a certain amount of insurance. However, realistically, many riders have no insurance period. I have a decent health insurance policy and I have adequate liability insurance. However, with the "indigency" laws for hospitals, I should not have to pay for someone's injuries for their choice not to wear a helmet, if it is a head injury. Figure that 24 hours in an emergency room for blunt trauma to the head is roughly $100,000. I realize you are in agreement about wearing a lid. Granted the initial posting of this thread was more or less an open poll on helmet safety and nothing to get into a long drawn out discussion on who has a death wish and who doesn't. Yes many riders go without a lid and are in fatal accidents. Many riders wear a lid and are fatalities in accidents. Our dear friend, Earl, for instance, always wore a lid and had one on the night of his accident. However, I can say this, there was no reconstruction involved in his head for an open casket ceremony. Simply, I feel much safer and more comfortable wearing a helmet

jrbooe
09-19-2007, 06:04 PM
As a sidenote, it is going before the Florida Legislature to repeal the Helmet law within the month. Not the repeal but the bill to repeal.

bigwater
09-19-2007, 06:12 PM
I understand jr, but my question is... if you mandate extra insurance for lidless riders, do you not open the door to mandating insurance for every other high risk activity?

I'm asking the question... when we start allowing the government to mandate special fees for high risk activites, do we as a whole not end up paying more than we pay now to fix the ones who don't have adequate insurance? After all, we're not having to fix EVERY person who rides without a lid... just the few who fall down.

All we're doing is feeding the machine when these additional fees are imposed... a machine that's designed to bleed as much money out of us as it can. Call it a pre-cursor to socialized health care if you want.

I don't know what the answer is. In the short term it's probably easy to pencil in numbers that show that individuals who ride lidless need 100k in insurance. But once you've mandated insurance for lidless riders, where does it stop? Numbers can easily be massaged to show tremendous medical costs to riders who DO wear helmets, so why do they get off without the "fees"?

I hope you see where I'm going with this. It won't stop with lidless riders. Once that door is open, it'll extend to any activity "somebody" deems to be hazardous... which could be something as benign as stepping off of a curb at a red light.

jrbooe
09-19-2007, 06:18 PM
BW, I see exactly where you are heading and I agree, to an extent. However, Why should one who chooses to wear that one bit of extra safety gear, i.e. a helmet, be mandated to carry insurance when they are taking safety precautions. Personally, I feel there should be a mandatory liability insurance requirement for "all" riders just as there is for a cage rider. However, I feel those who choose to push the limits a little more by going without a lid should be required to carry a higher umbrella. You know, it kind of reminds me of every redneck who has met his own demise, last words "Hey y'all, watch this."

You know the feds have gone as far as considering the passage of a "National" seat belt law for motorcycle riders and mandating airbags on bikes. Well, Honda will love that as some Goldwings already come equipped with them.

FX
09-19-2007, 06:26 PM
BW, I have suggested things in line with what you posted. I'm just not going to digg for it to show you. It's out there.

Once again, I could care less what happens. In the end, law or no law, we will pay for the medical care of those that crash and are under insured thanks to our great government of corporations.

At the risk of repeating myself, my point is that the debates by those such as ABATE are bullshit and easily debunked with fact. So, I won't support them.

I would support responsibility though and a debate of facts if one could properly mount one. ABATE plays on emotion, not fact IMO.

aja
09-19-2007, 06:28 PM
I need to interject this here . . . we can talk about mandatory insurance and additional insurance for riders who choose to go without a helmet, BUT when do we find out that someone is underinsured or not insured?

After the accident.

jrbooe
09-19-2007, 06:32 PM
You know, FX, the biggest problem I have with ABATE, they never, I mean never, have dealt truthfully about where their money goes. It stays in the family, plain and simple. The talk on the radio today has been such a great buzz on how ABATE will fight the repeal of Florida's helmet law until it is buried. Guess what, it aint going to happen. ABATE will finally lose one. So in this case, simply for the fact that ABATE will lose, I am going to support the repeal of the law

FX
09-19-2007, 06:42 PM
ABATE is an easy example. But all the so called lobbyists use the same emotion tactics to stir attention.

It's easier to get attention with emotion than with facts.

On the facts, especially the new facts, this debate is going to be lost with the "your freedom is compromised" war cry.

jrbooe
09-19-2007, 06:44 PM
Well,since I do not have so much hair to blow free in the wind, I will not listen to that ridiculous war cry. However, FX, the right to feel the wind in your hair as you ride is going to be severely compromised, ha ha ha ha

Ricky RoadKing
09-19-2007, 07:38 PM
My head hair is also thinning; that's why I support our right to ride w/ no pants!

jrbooe
09-19-2007, 07:41 PM
I just barfed a little in my mouth

GRB
09-19-2007, 09:14 PM
For some (without hair) the noggin is a little less than 8% of the body mass, but hey the helmet slides on easier that way.
:laugh:

bufordtpisser
09-20-2007, 08:10 AM
However, Why should one who chooses to wear that one bit of extra safety gear, i.e. a helmet, be mandated to carry insurance when they are taking safety precautions. Personally, I feel there should be a mandatory liability insurance requirement for "all" riders just as there is for a cage rider.

How much of a surcharge do you suggest that we add to the riders who do wear a helmet, but only wear a half shell or a skin helmet?? How much do we then charge for a rider who's DOT or SNELL approved helmet was the cause of his neck being snapped?? How much subsidy do we add to the drinkers and or smokers, or those who walk with stiletto heels and break an ankle and are under-insured. Where does it end?? I am not a member of ABATE, or any other pro or con organization. I can fight my own battles. But the public burden theory that has been the rallying cry of mandatory helmet law advocates has been debunked on every level. Lidless motorcyclists are no more of a burden to society than any other group who conscientiously chooses to do something dangerous without proper precautions, or even in some cases with proper precautions in place.

FX
09-20-2007, 08:16 AM
Um er, Buford, can you show us this "debunking" info? Cause I don't believe it exists.

The fact is that all the data that does exists says you fall down on a motorcycle, you get hurt. The facts don't support either side as far as the costs or the cause.

What is a fact though is that motorcycle drivers and auto drivers have no rights.

I have no idea how to solve the monetary problems. But the cost nor the rights cry is going to help either side. It's only fueling the debate. Thus the solution is a long way off.

I think that in the end, neither side will ever be happy, ever. Not the taxpayers nor the rights advocates.

jrbooe
09-20-2007, 08:29 AM
I have a suggestion, all riders pay me a surcharge of $5.00/month and I will be as fat and happy, um err, I'm already fat, as all the crooked politicians and lawyers out there.
On a serious note, I cannot make any suggestions on any surcharges. All I know is I choose to wear a lid, even on those very, very rare occassions I go without, I do have ample enough insurance to cover my medical burden. So, my suggestion is any rider who chooses not wear a helmet should be required to carry no less than a $100,000 medical policy coverage, which may possibly cover the first 24 hours in the hospital. Honestly Buf, i have no idea what to charge. While we are at it, let's ban "all" assistance to , um to be politcally correct, "Un documented Aliens, " period. I am tired of paying for Jose's medicaire when he doesn't even pay taxes and is not a citizen.

bufordtpisser
09-20-2007, 08:49 AM
Um er, Buford, can you show us this "debunking" info? Cause I don't believe it exists.

The fact is that all the data that does exists says you fall down on a motorcycle, you get hurt. The facts don't support either side as far as the costs or the cause.

What is a fact though is that motorcycle drivers and auto drivers have no rights.

I have no idea how to solve the monetary problems. But the cost nor the rights cry is going to help either side. It's only fueling the debate. Thus the solution is a long way off.

I think that in the end, neither side will ever be happy, ever. Not the taxpayers nor the rights advocates.

Myth: Without mandatory helmet laws, fatalities will increase.
Fact: According to a 1995 report of the American Motorcycle Association, there is no
discernible difference in motorcycle accident or fatality rates between states with mandatory helmet laws and those which allow for freedom of choice. In fact, states which support voluntary use routinely achieve accident and fatality rates equal to or better than states with mandatory helmet laws for all riders.

Myth: Mandatory helmet laws help prevent injuries.
Fact: Helmets are minimally effective in preventing most injuries. (National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration report to Congress, the CODES Study, 1995) After adopting a mandatory helmet law, the New York Department of Transportation found an increase in broken necks from helmet use. A four pound helmet becomes a 200 pound weight on a rider’s neck when struck at 50 mph. Interestingly, the U.S. Department of Transportation only requires that motorcycle helmets withstand direct impacts up to 13 mph without shattering.

Myth: The public will pay for injured motorcyclists.
Fact: Motorcyclists are as likely to be insured as any other motor vehicle accident victims.
A University of North Carolina study found the percentage of injured motorcyclists whose medical costs were covered by insurance was the same as other road trauma victims.

Myth: Without a mandatory helmet law, everyone’s taxes and insurance will increase.
Fact: 30 states have adult choice helmet laws and none have reported any increase in cost to the public. According to the National Center for Health, motorcyclist’s injuries account for less than 0.1 percent of the total U.S. health costs.

Myth: Motorcycle riders are irresponsible citizens.
Fact: There are over 200,000 registered motorcycles in New Jersey and over 200
organized riding clubs which regularly raise funds for charitable purposes. The average motorcycle owner in the U.S. is a 35 year old male, married with a high school degree and some college education, working in corporate management or a labor career with an annual income of approximately $40,000. And over 90% are registered to vote.

Myth: Motorcycle safety courses are ineffective at preventing accidents.
Fact: The U.S. Department of Transportation reports motorcycle safety courses as the
no. 1 reason for the decrease in motorcycle injuries and fatalities.

jrbooe
09-20-2007, 08:56 AM
Myth: Without a mandatory helmet law, everyone’s taxes and insurance will increase.
Fact: 30 states have adult choice helmet laws and none have reported any increase in cost to the public. According to the National Center for Health, motorcyclist’s injuries account for less than 0.1 percent of the total U.S. health costs.


I find that to be very incorrect as car insurance and health insurance rates have dramatically increased in Florida over the years.