www.CVOHARLEY.com
CVO Social => In The News => Topic started by: 49445CVO on June 07, 2011, 06:35:18 AM
-
Nice SERK for the photo
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2011/06/from_the_comments_should_weari.html#incart_hbx
-
Well, they have been down this road before, but maybe with the Governor change, it will happen this time? I'm originally from Illinois, no helmet law but they have been trying to institute one for as long as Michigan has been trying to repeal theirs. I'm used to it, but it would be nice to not wear one on hot days on the back roads? Have to hook up this summer....11 of us leave for Maine the 17th.
-
You guys thinking of coming in for Bike Time?
http://www.muskegonbiketime.com/
-
Just two things here to say about seat belts , helmets and any other govt. imposed laws to keep idiots from hurting themselves
1. It should not be the governments business. I don't want any govt. making laws to protect me from myself.
2.If you can take care of your own medical bills then don't use them if you like. If you can't then don't expect me to pay for your problem for you should you have an accident and have no insurance.
-
Just two things here to say about seat belts , helmets and any other govt. imposed laws to keep idiots from hurting themselves
1. It should not be the governments business. I don't want any govt. making laws to protect me from myself.
2.If you can take care of your own medical bills then don't use them if you like. If you can't then don't expect me to pay for your problem for you should you have an accident and have no insurance.
X2
-
Just two things here to say about seat belts , helmets and any other govt. imposed laws to keep idiots from hurting themselves
1. It should not be the governments business. I don't want any govt. making laws to protect me from myself.
2.If you can take care of your own medical bills then don't use them if you like. If you can't then don't expect me to pay for your problem for you should you have an accident and have no insurance.
Therein lies the problem...you will...we all will...either by paying higher insurance premiums for our coverage, or higher hospital bills for them to recover losses....and in most cases, both, and the latter fuels the former. That's a fact of life that is not going to change anytime soon. Hospitals cannot refuse care, particularly in an emergency, life threatening situation. They would be constantly battling law suits more than they already are, which also drives health care costs up for each and every one of us who is able, or has the good fortune, to have good health coverage. Not being critical of your position, but reality is reality.
-
Just two things here to say about seat belts , helmets and any other govt. imposed laws to keep idiots from hurting themselves
1. It should not be the governments business. I don't want any govt. making laws to protect me from myself.
2.If you can take care of your own medical bills then don't use them if you like. If you can't then don't expect me to pay for your problem for you should you have an accident and have no insurance.
I think the government is going to help you out on insurance and it will be cheap too. :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2: :huepfenlol2:
-
Therein lies the problem...you will...we all will...either by paying higher insurance premiums for our coverage, or higher hospital bills for them to recover losses....and in most cases, both, and the latter fuels the former. That's a fact of life that is not going to change anytime soon. Hospitals cannot refuse care, particularly in an emergency, life threatening situation. They would be constantly battling law suits more than they already are, which also drives health care costs up for each and every one of us who is able, or has the good fortune, to have good health coverage. Not being critical of your position, but reality is reality.
HMMMM --- Maybe we could say the same thing about alot of things in life ---- like smoking for example??? Where do you draw the line of big brother telling us what to do??
-
Personally, as an adult, I think you should have the option. I think states that have the 21 year old law, plus mandate certain coverage for medical care got it right. These kids on these crotch rockets are equally as dangerous as the bikes they ride, throw in the idiot driving a car texting or on their cell phone and you have a recipe for disaster. I think there is a logical way to protect the citizens that contribute to society from this liability and still allow responsible people to have the option or freedom to choose. Government is F&%#@*-up either way you look at it. You have a bunch of books with suits making power plays feeding their egos trying to control thinking they have all the answers. :soapbox: I will end it here!
-
So now it's just the kids on crotch rockets who need safety gear? Maybe where you live, but around here the vast majority of the deaths and serious injuries seem to involve folks on Harley's.
Even though riding season got a very late start this year due to the wonderful weather, we have already had several helmetless Harley riders, some sober and some drunk as a skunk, wind up in the morgue. I can think of many examples over the past year where the medical folks indicated the lack of head protection was a major factor in the death (in other words, survivable crashes otherwise).
I still like the idea of giving adults the choice, as long as they agree to sign waiver's limiting their and their estate's right to sue, and to post a bond to cover projected medical expenses and loss of income to the family if they need perpetual care. In other words, if they want to be "free to choose", then as long as the rest of us are "free to choose to not support them", go for it. All the rhetoric about right to choose is just more shifting of responsibility. If that right is so dear to someone, they should have the backbone and decency to at least hold the rest of us harmless when the stuff hits the fan. Real easy to say give me freedom or else, but not always so easy for you or your loved ones to deal with the consequences if your luck abandons you. And when it comes right down to it, it's luck. Anyone who thinks they are so good they'll never be in a crash is delusional at best.
BTW, while exercising that right to be unsafe, don't forget to disconnect the airbags in all your 4 wheeled vehicles and cut off the seatbelts, pull the fuses on the stability control and ABS, etc. Throw away the ground fault interrupters in the household wiring and the railings on the stairs too. Hate to screw up the macho image. And who cares if someone else gets injured, as long as you get to exercise your "rights".
Jerry
-
So now it's just the kids on crotch rockets who need safety gear? Maybe where you live, but around here the vast majority of the deaths and serious injuries seem to involve folks on Harley's.
Even though riding season got a very late start this year due to the wonderful weather, we have already had several helmetless Harley riders, some sober and some drunk as a skunk, wind up in the morgue. I can think of many examples over the past year where the medical folks indicated the lack of head protection was a major factor in the death (in other words, survivable crashes otherwise).
I still like the idea of giving adults the choice, as long as they agree to sign waiver's limiting their and their estate's right to sue, and to post a bond to cover projected medical expenses and loss of income to the family if they need perpetual care. In other words, if they want to be "free to choose", then as long as the rest of us are "free to choose to not support them", go for it. All the rhetoric about right to choose is just more shifting of responsibility. If that right is so dear to someone, they should have the backbone and decency to at least hold the rest of us harmless when the stuff hits the fan. Real easy to say give me freedom or else, but not always so easy for you or your loved ones to deal with the consequences if your luck abandons you. And when it comes right down to it, it's luck. Anyone who thinks they are so good they'll never be in a crash is delusional at best.
BTW, while exercising that right to be unsafe, don't forget to disconnect the airbags in all your 4 wheeled vehicles and cut off the seatbelts, pull the fuses on the stability control and ABS, etc. Throw away the ground fault interrupters in the household wiring and the railings on the stairs too. Hate to screw up the macho image. And who cares if someone else gets injured, as long as you get to exercise your "rights".
Jerry
Haha! This was such a good response that there's really nothing left to argue. Thread over! :2vrolijk_21:
-
Haha! This was such a good response that there's really nothing left to argue. Thread over! :2vrolijk_21:
Sounds like you got it all figured out.......it's must be some kind of a conspiracy!!
-
In other words, if they want to be "free to choose", then as long as the rest of us are "free to choose to not support them", go for it.
Jerry
Wish that would apply to the welfare system.
The real problem is that all the "accepted arguments" for personal safety laws have very little basis in fact. There is no factual data to support the idea that lack of use of personal safety equipment causes any burden to society whatsoever. Insurance rates, hospital costs, taxes - they will all go up no matter whether people use personal safety devices or not. Lack of use of a helmet has never been shown (and I'll go out on a limb here - never will be) to contibute to any of those increases.
To me ... the only real argument rests in the impact to loved ones. Wear (or do not wear) a helmet based on the loss (not monetarily) they will realize based on your decision.
-
Wish that would apply to the welfare system.
The real problem is that all the "accepted arguments" for personal safety laws have very little basis in fact. There is no factual data to support the idea that lack of use of personal safety equipment causes any burden to society whatsoever. Insurance rates, hospital costs, taxes - they will all go up no matter whether people use personal safety devices or not. Lack of use of a helmet has never been shown (and I'll go out on a limb here - never will be) to contibute to any of those increases.
To me ... the only real argument rests in the impact to loved ones. Wear (or do not wear) a helmet based on the loss (not monetarily) they will realize based on your decision.
TIF2 - you might want to read this link with comprehensive studies that have actually looked at the effect of helmets on healthcare costs and insurance.
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html
Of particular interest is the study suggesting that states with helmet laws actually have reduced motorcycle theft. I found that pretty interesting.
-
Looking at that now. I'll need to actually investigate every reference before I can form an opinion.
One thing is for certain - Section 7 - entitled "How do helmet use laws impact health care costs?" is a very, VERY carefully worded section. I'm still spending time with it but my first glance says it is deceptive at best. The most weight it gives in the section is an NHSTA "report" in 2002, but the reference for that "report" is mysteriously absent (when others are provided readily). Also - it tries to imply that lack of helmet use has a direct impact on whether riders carry insurance, but the points later in the section do not distinguish "helmeted" vs "non-helmeted" riders and the carrying of insurance. It makes a postulation in the first sentence that "Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance.". Again ... very deceptive - and since it is not supported - it is intellectually dishonest.
Thank you for the reference ... I find this stuff very interesting as well. :)
I suppose my ultimate point is this (my opinion of course) -
Had motorcycles never been invented - present taxes, insurance rates, and health care costs would not be appreciably different than they are. Therefore (I'm considering the previous statement to be true), no matter how it is spun by either side of the helmet law stance - use or lack of use of helmets have made no material change in costs to society.
Wear one ... don't wear one. I don't care either way.
-
This an interesting study performed in 2009 by NHSTA. I find it interesting that IIHS does not point to or reference this more recent study on their FAQ in section 7.
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811208.PDF
If you take the time to read through it carefully, you'll see how it can be easily "spun" to support helmet laws and the cost of healthcare. However, the data doesn't support non-helmeted riders to be a contributing factor over helmeted riders. While you can make big headlines that non-helmeted riders suffered more TBI than helmeted riders - the actual numbers between the two categories are small. A relevent excerpt as follows (I added the emphasis):
"In the data set, 57 percent of motorcyclists were helmeted at the time of the crashes and 43 percent were non-helmeted. For both groups, about 40 percent of motorcyclists were treated at hospitals or died following the crashes. However, 6.6 percent of unhelmeted motorcyclists suffered a moderate to severe head or facial injury compared to 5.1 percent of helmeted motorcyclists. Moderate to severe injuries were defined as a Maximum Abbreviated Injury Severity (MAIS) scale of level 2 or higher
Fifteen percent of hospital-treated helmeted motorcyclists suffered traumatic brain injury (TBI) compared to 21 percent of hospital-treated unhelmeted motorcyclists. TBI severity varied by helmet use. Almost 9 percent of unhelmeted and 7 percent of helmeted hospital-treated motorcyclists received minor to moderate TBI. More than 7 percent of unhelmeted and 4.7 percent of hospital-treated helmeted motorcyclists sustained severe TBI.
Median charges for hospitalized motorcyclists who survived to discharge were 13 times higher for those incurring a TBI compared to those who did not sustain a TBI ($31,979 versus $2,461). Over 85 percent of hospital-treated motorcyclists without a TBI were discharged home, compared to 56 percent of motorcyclists with severe TBI. Motorcyclists admitted to the hospital with TBI were more likely to die, be discharged to rehab, or transferred to a long-term care facility. While 17 percent of all hospital-admitted motorcyclists had TBI, they account for 54 percent of all admitted riders who did not survive." <-- Note that in this paragraph it does not distinguish between "helmeted" vs "non-helmeted" riders, ony those riders that suffered TBI.
So from the above study:
6.6% of non-helmeted riders suffered MAIS
5.1% of helmeted riders suffered MAIS
Difference = 1.5%
15% of helmeted riders suffered TBI
21% of non-helmeted riders suffered TBI
Difference = 6%
However, remember that the total percentage of helmeted riders in this study were larger, 57% to 43% - so the actual numbers are as follows(rounded to nearest real person):
Total helmeted riders = 59,549
Total MAIS = 3,037
Total TBI = 8,932
Total non-helmeted riders = 44,923
Total MAIS = 2,965
Total TBI = 9,434
Bottom line here is that it really makes no appreciable difference whether people wear a helmet or not as far as healthcare costs go. Helmeted riders are not imune from MAIS and TBI. While I will contend that in the above study, non-helmeted riders (as a percentage of non-helmeted riders) suffered more MAIS and TBI than helmeted riders (as a percentage of helmeted riders) - the numbers do not support a "causation" difference for total healthcare costs. You have to keep in mind that once riders are classified as "with TBI" - it doesn't matter if they were helmeted or not - the costs per the study are the same for both groups. The study goes on to state:
"A logistic regression analysis that accounted for clustering of motorcyclists within States indicated that helmets significantly reduced the odds of sustaining head or facial injury, TBI, and dying in the hospital."
I don't know what a "logistic regression analysis" when applied to "clustering of motorcyclists" is, but the actual numbers state 6% difference in TBI. Not sure I see that as "significant".
-
Ok ... my last post on the subject (well - maybe ;) )
I don't care whether anyone wears a helmet or not. Fundamentally I believe in the Right for a person to chose one's own destiny - be it right or be it wrong - and as long as that decision does not impede on other's Rights to do the same; then more power to you I say. I also believe that helmet legislation only benefits the Corporations that have a vested interest (by profit) in keeping them on the books.
The last thing helmet laws are about is "protecting society".
It is analogous to passing a law that prevents people from pissing in a creek because it might cause the oceans to flood.
I've edited the content of my original post - after having read it a couple of times I realize it could have been considered condescending to others.
Sorry about that - never meant it to come off that way.
:)
-
TIF2 well stated. Motorcycle accident costs are so minimal in regards to total Vehicle accident costs. Making helmet-less rider accidents even more minimal in regards to total Vehicle accident costs.
I notice more insurance companies starting to offer motorcycle insurance and if the accident costs were high they wouldn't touch it.
When I high-sided on my bike last fall I wasn't screaming for Jesus but I was wishing I had put my chin guard down. But a little tuck of the head and a roll of the shoulder and I didn't touch the helmet at all. I still think my helmet would have better protected my skull hitting the pavement versus my hair gel alone.
After my brother got the Mirror Post shoved through his forehead we all wished he'd had a seatbelt on. Hindsight logic for him.
People shouldn't have to breathe other people's smoke, but Helmet Laws aren't the same.
Nanny Laws are annoying. I almost want to guess that people who create these laws don't ride motorcycles, mountain bike, ride personal watercraft, boat, raft, rock climb, ski, sky dive, wind surf, hang glide, ride atvs or swing dance. But somebody (paramedics, doctors, police) must be telling Law-makers that if he had a helmet on he'd have survived.
But who asked Lawmakers to protect us educated experienced Adults from ourselves?
Lawmakers also use a process that once they reduce the current period's number one cause of accidents they move the number two to number one and start all over with protecting us. Pretty soon "walking while elderly" will be a hazard and we will be required to wear helmets and use walkers with flashing lights when over 65 years old and using a public walkway to prevent head injuries when falling. Using the public walkways is a priviledge and thus can be controlled by a Government Agency.
-
"An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Melish, January 13, 1813
'Nuff said to me.