Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GregKhougaz]

By JOAN LOWY
From Associated Press
May 30, 2013 7:13 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — The average medical claim from a motorcycle crash rose by more than one-fifth last year in Michigan after the state stopped requiring all riders to wear helmets, according to an insurance industry study. Across the nation, motorcyclists opposed to mandatory helmet use have been chipping away at state helmet laws for years while crash deaths have been on the rise.

For more than 40 years, Michigan required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. State legislators changed the law last year so that only riders younger than 21 must wear helmets. The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim was $5,410 in the two years before the law was changed, and $7,257 after it was changed — an increase of 34 percent, the study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found.

Read more:  http://my.earthlink.net/article/pol?guid=20130530/472ad148-f9b7-4a2b-8f30-0a3b97c88964

[Twolanerider]

That's not that much more than the rise in health care costs alone, which the article doesn't bother to mention.  God I hate bad writing.

[JCZ]

Political propoganda! 

[muddypaws]

I really wonder how much is teh higher cost of obama care....

[ultrarider123]

What would be interesting is to see the statistics for ALL vehicle medical claims for the same period.  My bet is all the percentages went up across the board, not just for scooters.

Just love the press......

[SneakyPete]

Political propoganda! 

This is what happens when the people who VOTE for a living begin to outnumber those who WORK for a living...

[Midnight Rider]

After adjusting for the age and type of motorcycle, rider age, gender, marital status, weather and other factors, the actual increase was about 22 percent relative to a group of four comparative states, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin, the study found.  (Quote from the article)

Even if they did not factor for a given % of increase per year in health care cost (very doubtful), treatment costs increased.

I could personally care less if a person wears a helmet or not, but no logical argument can be made saying that IF you crash, and IF you hit your head in that crash, that you are not more likely to suffer more serious head injury without a helmet than with one.  That is not to say that IF you are wearing a helmet you will NOT incur a head injury like a serious concussion, but in that same crash, with the same impact to the head, if you're NOT wearing a helmet, there is a MUCH higher probability that part of your skull will be fractured.  Personally, I'd rather have a concussion than have them picking parts of my skull out of my brain, along with gravel or glass from my head going through a car window, or tree bark after impacting a tree on the side of the road.

However, in these kinds of studies, while percentages matter, the actual NUMBER of incidents are tiny compared to accidents involving other types of vehicles, like cars, trucks, etc.

BTW....health care costs from 2009-2011 rose at about 3.9%, compared to 6+% from 2000 through 2007.  The recession played a part in that, along with other factors, but even just looking at health care unaffected by the recession, like Medicare costs, the rate of increase dropped.  What will it do in the future?  Only time will tell.

[grayghost731]

This is what happens when the people who VOTE for a living begin to outnumber those who WORK for a living...

You Nailed that one!   

[CVOJIMMYC]

This is what happens when the people who VOTE for a living begin to outnumber those who WORK for a living...

  x 10 

[grc]

That's not that much more than the rise in health care costs alone, which the article doesn't bother to mention.  God I hate bad writing.

Bad writing and poorly designed "research" are the new normal these days.  Maybe it's the 24/7 news cycle, or maybe it's just the shallow people our society has created over the past few decades.

I'm pretty sure however that medical costs didn't go up 34% in one year, so it's doubtful, assuming that number is accurate, that the difference is just due to cost increases.  Of course the right way to do it would have been to use constant dollars when doing the statistical analysis, eliminating cost increases from the equation.

It's not hard to believe the premise that eliminating helmet requirements would increase the average medical costs for those involved in collisions.  Anyone who automatically blows this idea off is obviously heavily biased against helmet laws, and isn't using what used to be called common sense.  JMHO of course.

Jerry

[dlaws01]

You know, I bet that if riders were required to wear one of those "Michelin Man" air bag suits along with a full face helmet, accident injuries would decrease even more, reducing health care cost. 

[muddypaws]

I lived in two state that had no helmet law but still wore one. With 20 year as an EMT I know for sure that a helmet helps in a crash. I still think it should be the riders choice.

[Dead_Reckoning]

I lived in two state that had no helmet law but still wore one. With 20 year as an EMT I know for sure that a helmet helps in a crash. I still think it should be the riders choice.

Maine has been a No Helmet Law State for decades.

The Press goes out of their way to point out no helmet was worn in any MC Accident.

The lates was a man who lost control for some reason on the interstate passing a jeep. The operator was unable to avoid him and ran over him breaking his pelvis.
Except for road rash, that was the worst of his injuries.
AND needless to say the press made their usual Big Deal about the fact he wasn't wearing a helmet.

PS, I have worn a helmet since 1965, My Choice.

[grc]

I lived in two state that had no helmet law but still wore one. With 20 year as an EMT I know for sure that a helmet helps in a crash. I still think it should be the riders choice.

On one level I might agree Muddy, but where do we draw the line?  How about all the regulations that require safety gear in the workplace?  Should that also be the employee's (or better yet, the employer's) choice?  Should the driver of a car have the legal right to disable all safety features, even though it puts any passengers at risk whether they like it or not?  And the list of supposed "personal" liberties goes on and on and on.

Yup, eventually someone sitting in a legislature somewhere will probably propose a law requiring anyone riding a two wheeled conveyance to be wrapped in four full layers of bubble wrap, with detailed specs on the exact kind of bubble wrap and test standards.  In the meantime, I'll just use a little not-so-common sense and use the safety equipment readily available and with a proven record.  I'll leave all the macho crap to the youngsters who think they're impressing someone.

Btw, if they really want to cut down on injuries and deaths, they need to put a Breathalyzer and ignition interlock on every motorcycle.  One more in the paper this morning, drunk falls off his Harley bagger on I-94, BAC of .13 or thereabouts, riding on a learner's permit, 41 years of age.  I've never understood how anyone could possibly think drinking and riding on two wheels was a brilliant move.  And yet those folks make up the biggest slice of the motorcycle deaths and injuries around here.  Sadly enough, a lot of them have a wife or girlfriend on the back when they get tanked up and crash.  I think about this kind of stuff every time I ride or drive by a bar and see a bunch of bikes parked outside.

Jerry

[BigLew]

On one level I might agree Muddy, but where do we draw the line?  How about all the regulations that require safety gear in the workplace?  Should that also be the employee's (or better yet, the employer's) choice?  Should the driver of a car have the legal right to disable all safety features, even though it puts any passengers at risk whether they like it or not?  And the list of supposed "personal" liberties goes on and on and on.

Yup, eventually someone sitting in a legislature somewhere will probably propose a law requiring anyone riding a two wheeled conveyance to be wrapped in four full layers of bubble wrap, with detailed specs on the exact kind of bubble wrap and test standards.  In the meantime, I'll just use a little not-so-common sense and use the safety equipment readily available and with a proven record.  I'll leave all the macho crap to the youngsters who think they're impressing someone.

Btw, if they really want to cut down on injuries and deaths, they need to put a Breathalyzer and ignition interlock on every motorcycle.  One more in the paper this morning, drunk falls off his Harley bagger on I-94, BAC of .13 or thereabouts, riding on a learner's permit, 41 years of age.  I've never understood how anyone could possibly think drinking and riding on two wheels was a brilliant move.  And yet those folks make up the biggest slice of the motorcycle deaths and injuries around here.  Sadly enough, a lot of them have a wife or girlfriend on the back when they get tanked up and crash.  I think about this kind of stuff every time I ride or drive by a bar and see a bunch of bikes parked outside.

Jerry

X 10 on the alcohol!