Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on July 03, 2011, 11:57:36 AM
-
Pretty ironic way to die. These helmet laws are sort of big brotherish, but they do save lives.
Motorcyclist Killed While Riding Without Helmet to Protest New York Helmet Law
Published July 03, 2011
Associated Press
ONONDAGA, N.Y. -- Police say a motorcyclist participating in a protest ride against helmet laws in upstate New York died after he flipped over the bike's handlebars and hit his head on the pavement.
The accident happened Saturday afternoon in the town of Onondaga, in central New York near Syracuse.
State troopers tell The Post-Standard of Syracuse that 55-year-old Philip A. Contos of Parish, N.Y., was driving a 1983 Harley Davidson with a group of bikers who were protesting helmet laws by not wearing helmets.
Troopers say Contos hit his brakes and the motorcycle fishtailed. The bike spun out of control, and Contos toppled over the handlebars. He was pronounced dead at a hospital.
Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/03/motorcyclist-killed-while-riding-without-helmet-to-protest-new-york-helmet-law/?test=latestnews
-
Didn't something similar happen to Gary Busey?
-
Didn't something similar happen to Gary Busey?
Yep.
Gary Busey ministers to brain injury community
By W. Reed Moran, Spotlight Health
With medical adviser Jonathan M. Sackier, M.D.
No one knows better than Gary Busey that life's road takes unexpected turns. "I had a nearly fatal motorcycle accident on Dec. 4, 1988," says the actor and musician. "And almost no one expected me to recover."
But Busey was able to come back from the brink, and today he says he's compelled to spread his message of caution. "I want people to understand that life is very important. And that if you're riding a motorcycle, skateboard, or bicycle without a helmet, you're challenging the face of death."
Riding without a helmet is a gamble everyone is bound to lose, sooner or later, he says. "When the odds finally catch up with you, fate will steal your life and the hearts of everyone who loves you."
Busey had just picked up his bike at a repair shop when he slid on a patch of gravel at 40 mph, flipped over the handlebars, and hit his unprotected head on a curb.
"I landed at the feet of a police officer and was rushed to an emergency room with a hole in my head the size of a half dollar," he says.
Doctors subsequently told Busey that had he arrived even three minutes later, he would not have survived. As it was, Busey fell into a coma for over four weeks, while family and friends stood by his side.
"I remember being aware of only two things during that ordeal," says Busey. "The first was that I entered and returned from a spiritual realm, and that experience has been the foundation of my faith ever since. The second, and equally important experience was feeling the healing love and support of the people who surrounded me."
Busey regained consciousness on Jan. 6, 1989, and although heavily medicated, his will to live and recover surfaced almost immediately. And to the astonishment of the medical staff, Busey left the hospital under his own power only five weeks later.
After a period of recuperation and rehabilitation, Busey returned to his film career and has since worked continuously as an advocate for traumatic injury treatment and prevention.
. . .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/spotlight/2001-07-05-busey-brain-injury.htm
-
i dunno that i'd assume busey 'recovered'.
-
So millions of us should legally have to wear a helmet because a few people die without helmets each year?
-
i'd say make it under 21 has to wear a helmet.
if you're really into bikes, wear it during those years you have the least experience.
most *smart* bikers who like going fast will wear the kevlar, like our own kh300.
if you're under 21, and you don't wear a helmet, your license is suspended, UNTIL you're 21. OH- and the bike gets AUTOMATICALLY confiscated and auctioned - no matter the owner. See how many people lend their bike out to a kid then... problem solved.
-
That's the sad part about our society really. We need helmet laws because people can't figure out for themselves that not wearing one is more dangerous.
-
That's the sad part about our society really. We need helmet laws because people can't figure out for themselves that not wearing one is more dangerous.
Listening to politicians you would think this is a serious problem, in reality the amount of people who die because they didn't wear a helmet is extremely miniscule.
I think of it as natural selection in action, which is a good thing.
-
That's the sad part about our society really. We need helmet laws because people can't figure out for themselves that not wearing one is more dangerous.
I was talking to a guy recently who worked in a hospital many years ago. He said they had a section of the ER and the hospital devoted exclusively to people involved in motorcycle accidents, most of whom were not wearing helmets.
-
There are only 0.2 motorcycle deaths per state daily.
How many of those can be attributed to not having worn a helmet?
An epidemic... ::)
-
Some stats on injuries and fatalities:
Motorcyclist deaths spike as helmet laws loosen
By John Yaukey and Robert Benincasa, Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON — Death rates from motorcycle crashes have risen steadily since states began weakening helmet laws about a decade ago, according to a Gannett News Service analysis of federal accident reports.
As deaths have increased, so has the proportion of older riders killed. Dying on a motorcycle could soon become a predominantly middle-aged phenomenon, the analysis shows.
Most states once required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. A trend in the other direction began accelerating after 1995, during the same period the federal government decided to stop withholding highway money from states without helmet laws.
As states weakened or repealed the laws, the percentage of riders who wore helmets began dropping. And fatality rates increased.
In 1996, 5.6 motorcyclists were killed for every 10,000 registered motorcycles, according to Department of Transportation (DOT) statistics. By 2006, the most recent data available, the rate had risen to 7.3, the analysis shows.
In raw numbers, the annual death toll rose from 2,160 to 4,810 over that same period.
Meanwhile, fatality rates for all other passenger vehicles have been falling, DOT officials say.
"The data are pretty compelling," said Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, herself an avid motorcyclist who survived a crash thanks to a helmet she displays in somewhat battered condition in her office. "It's discouraging to see the (fatality) numbers going up. But at least people are talking about it now."
Two decades ago, 47 states required helmets for all riders. Today, 20 do. Twenty-seven states require helmets only for younger riders. Three — Illinois, Iowa and New Hampshire — don't require helmets at all.
The analysis of data from the government's Fatality Analysis Reporting System of motorcycle deaths between 2002 and 2006 also found:
• About 42% of riders killed were not wearing helmets.
• Half of those killed lost control and crashed without colliding with another vehicle. Motorcyclists account for about 2% of vehicles on the road but 10% of all traffic fatalities, according to federal statistics
• Southeastern states had some of the highest fatality rates in 2006. Some of these states require all riders to wear helmets, but they also have long riding seasons that expose bikers to more risk over time.
• Nearly half of motorcyclists killed in 2006 were 40 and older, and nearly a quarter were 50 or older. The average age of those killed was about 38.
Transportation officials say the age trends reflect the growing popularity of motorcycles among older people with increasing incomes but decreasing physical dexterity and reaction times.
Critics of motorcycle helmet laws say riders should be guided by common sense rather than a government mandate.
They promote their views through advocates like ABATE (American Bikers Aimed Toward Education), which, with chapters in most states, tracks helmet legislation and lobbies against it.
"It's my body, and I should have the right to do with it as I choose," said Terry Howard, state coordinator for ABATE of Colorado, which fought the state's recent adoption of a helmet law for riders under 18.
Not all bikers agree.
Simon Rosa, 22, of Northern Virginia, has no problem with the helmet law there. In 2003, he crashed his Honda sport bike making a turn.
"I still have the helmet and it has scratches all over it, so I could have suffered a nasty head injury," he said. "You just never know what's going to happen, regardless of how good a rider you are."
Federal statistics show that in states that weaken or repeal helmet laws, helmet use drops. In 1994, when the U.S. government still penalized states without helmet laws, 63% of riders wore helmets. By 2006, that percentage had dropped to 51%.
The National Transportation Safety Board unanimously recommended last year that states require all riders to wear helmets — the first time in its 40-year history that the independent panel weighed in on motorcycle safety.
"Medical and other costs for unhelmeted riders involved in crashes are staggering," the board notes on its website.
Opponents of helmet laws passionately dispute such claims.
"It's just a myth that states without helmet laws are an extra burden on society," said Jeff Hennie of the Motorcycle Riders Foundation.
Last year, 25 states considered laws to increase motorcycle safety, including laws mandating helmet use, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana and Oklahoma took up bills that would have required all motorcyclists, not just young riders, to wear helmets. None passed.
The most notable change occurred in Colorado, which previously had no helmet law but now requires them for riders under 18.
Comparing accident rates by state can be tricky.
For example, New Hampshire and Iowa, which have no helmet laws, reported fatality rates of 3.0 and 3.5 per 10,000 motorcycles, respectively, in 2006. By comparison, the rates in Mississippi and Maryland, which require helmets for all riders, were much higher — 20 and 12 respectively.
Helmet law advocates note that cold-weather states like New Hampshire have a much shorter riding season and that roads in states like Iowa with flat, open terrain and extended visibility are less dangerous.
"There are a lot of factors at work here," said Russ Radar with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "You can't look at just the fatality rate of any given state and make judgments based entirely on that."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-03-26-bikehelmets_N.htm
-
In 1996, 5.6 motorcyclists were killed for every 10,000 registered motorcycles, according to Department of Transportation (DOT) statistics.
0.00056% :o
Scary, thanks...
Time for the government to stop wasting time trying to babysit us.
-
Some additional stats on the effectiveness of helmets:
Helmets decrease the severity of head injuries, the likelihood of death, and the overall cost of medical care. They are designed to cushion and protect riders' heads from the impact of a crash. Just like safety belts in cars, helmets cannot provide total protection against head injury or death, but they do reduce the incidence of both. NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent.2 Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position.3 Helmets are highly effective in preventing brain injuries, which often require extensive treatment and may result in lifelong disability. In the event of a crash, unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted riders to suffer traumatic brain injuries.2 A recent literature review estimated that helmets are 42 percent effective at preventing death and 69 percent effective at preventing head injuries.4 While no real-world crash studies have yet evaluated the effectiveness of novelty helmets, or helmets that do not meet federal performance standards for preventing injury or death, NHTSA laboratory tests suggest that head injuries are much more likely with these helmets than with ones certified to the U.S. Department of Transportation standard.5 A recent study evaluated the effectiveness of different styles of helmets, including half-coverage, open-face, and full-face.6 Crash-involved riders wearing half-coverage helmets were twice as likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries than riders wearing open-face or full-face helmets.
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html
-
How helmet laws affect safety:
In states that either reinstated or enacted universal motorcycle helmet laws, helmet use increased dramatically, and motorcyclist deaths and injuries decreased. In states that repealed or weakened their universal helmet laws, helmet use declined sharply, and motorcyclist deaths and injuries rose.
In two recent studies, researchers modeled state motorcyclist fatality rates by helmet law type, after controlling for various factors such as per capita income, population density, and annual precipitation. Death rates were lowest in states with helmet laws that cover all riders. Rates in states with helmet laws that cover only some riders were lower than those in states with no helmet law, but not as low as rates in states with helmet laws that cover all riders. These results held for all three types of rates considered: deaths per 10,000 registered motorcycles, deaths per 100,000 population, and deaths per 10 billion vehicle miles traveled.13,14
Some examples of helmet laws and their effect on helmet use and death and injury rates:
* When California's helmet use law covering all riders took effect on January 1, 1992 helmet use jumped to 99 percent from about 50 percent before the law,15 and the number of motorcyclist fatalities decreased 37 percent.16
* Nebraska reinstated a helmet law on January 1, 1989, after repealing an earlier law in 1977. The state then saw a 22 percent reduction in serious head injuries among motorcyclists.17
* From 1968 to 1977, Texas had a universal helmet use law estimated to have saved 650 lives, but the law was amended in 1977 to apply only to riders younger than 18. The weakened law coincided with a 35 percent increase in motorcyclist fatalities. Texas reinstated its helmet law for all motorcyclists in September 1989. The month before the law took effect, the helmet use rate was 41 percent. The rate jumped to 90 percent during the first month of the law and had risen to 98 percent by June 1990.18 Serious injury crashes per registered motorcycle decreased 11 percent.19 But in September 1997, Texas again weakened its helmet law, requiring helmets only for riders younger than 21. Helmet use in Texas dropped to 66 percent by May 1998, and operator fatalities increased 31 percent in the first full year following the repeal.20
* Kentucky repealed its universal helmet law in 1998, followed by Louisiana in 1999. These actions resulted in lower helmet use, and quickly increased motorcyclist deaths in these states by 50 percent and 100 percent, respectively.21
* In 2000, Florida's universal helmet law was weakened to exempt riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage. An Institute study found that the motorcyclist death rate in Florida increased by about 25 percent after the state weakened its helmet law. The death rate rose from 31 fatalities per 1,000 crash involvements before the law change (1998-99) to 39 fatalities per 1,000 crash involvements after (2001-2002). An estimated 117 deaths could have been prevented during 2001-02 if the law had not been changed.22 An evaluation of the Florida law change by NHTSA found a similar effect; motorcyclist deaths per 10,000 motorcycle registrations increased 21 percent during the two years after the law was changed compared with the two years before.11
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html
-
Another study. That first paragraph is why I don't have a problem with helmet laws. People in involved in those kinds of accidents tie up traffic, burden the healthcare system, and drive up everyone's medical expenses and taxes.
Study Hits States Without Helmet Laws
August 24, 2006
According to a study by Jeffrey Coben, M.D., a researcher at West Virginia University, states that do not require motorcycle riders and passengers to wear helmets may be contributing to the unnecessary deaths, hospitalizations, and long-term disabilities.
Traffic deaths last year reached the highest level since 1990, due to an increase in motorcycle and pedestrian fatalities. Motorcycle deaths rose for an eight straight year.
“Almost nine percent of all U.S. traffic deaths are attributed to motorcycle riding,” said Dr. Coben, director of the Center for Rural Emergency Medicine at West Virginia University. “In 2004 more than 4,000 people were killed in motorcycle accidents – an 89 percent increase since 1997 – and more than 76,000 were injured.”
Coben is lead author of a new research study that compares motorcycle injuries in states with helmet laws with those in states with little or no helmet regulation.
The researchers found that states without universal helmet laws reported a higher number of motorcycle crash victims hospitalized with a primary diagnosis of brain injuries: 16.5 percent versus 11.5 percent in states with mandatory use laws. The in-hospital death rate among states without mandatory helmet laws was also higher – 11.3 percent versus 8.8 percent.
“Helmets are estimated to be 37 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries,” said Coben. “Analyzing injuries by state, we found that patients from states that do not have universal helmet laws had a 41 percent increase in risk of a Type 1 traumatic brain injury. Type 1 brain injuries include head injures likely to result in permanent disability, including paralysis, persistent vegetative state, and severe cognitive deficits.
Coben, a practicing emergency physician at WVU and researcher at the WVU Injury Control Research Center added, “Our research shows that a large proportion of patients with severe brain injuries will require long-term care. Hospitalized patients in states without universal helmet laws are also more likely to lack private health insurance, which leaves the public to bear the brunt of the resulting financial burden associated with choosing to not wear a helmet.”
Universal helmet laws require all motorcyclists to wear this protective gear while riding. States with partial laws require that only some motorcyclists, such as those under age 18 or age 21, wear a helmet while riding. The study is based on data from 33 states, and represents the largest study and most current data available on the hospital care of motorcycle accident victims. Of the 33 states that were studied, 17 had universal helmet laws at the time of the study, 13 had partial use laws, and three had no helmet laws at all.
The study findings also suggest that partial use laws may be ineffective because researchers found little difference in the age distribution of hospitalized cases when comparing states that require those under a certain age to wear helmets to states with no laws.
Coben’s co-authors were Claudia A. Steiner, M.D., of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Ted R. Miller, Ph.D., of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation. Their study “Characteristics of Motorcycle-Related Hospitalizations: Comparing States with Different Helmet Laws” was published online in the “Articles in Press” section of Accident Analysis and Prevention. The study was funded by the AHRQ.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2006/08/24/71687.htm
-
0.00056% :o
Scary, thanks...
Time for the government to stop wasting time trying to babysit us.
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent.
So that 0.00056% is now %0.00020
Scary numbers, but I think the odds of survival are in my favor... ::)
-
So that 0.00056% is now %0.00020
Scary numbers, but I think the odds of survival are in my favor... ::)
Do you ride a motorcycle without a helmet?
-
Do you ride a motorcycle without a helmet?
Generally no, and I really don't care about this issue as much as I probably appear to.
I do find things like this, and seat belt laws extremely annoying though.
-
Generally no, and I really don't care about this issue as much as I probably appear to.
I do find things like this, and seat belt laws extremely annoying though.
I care about it as someone who is in traffic and pays taxes. People who don't wear helmets and get into accidents affect all of us. And they are stupid. I see people riding all the time here, with no helmet, no gloves, no sleeves, shorts, and rubber slippers.
I don't find seat belt laws annoying at all. They save lives, and money too.
-
i tell people who don't wear helmets to let themself fall head first into curb,they look at me like i'm crazy,then i tell them to imagine that at 60 mph
-
I care about it as someone who is in traffic and pays taxes. People who don't wear helmets and get into accidents affect all of us. And they are stupid. I see people riding all the time here, with no helmet, no gloves, no sleeves, shorts, and rubber slippers.
I don't find seat belt laws annoying at all. They save lives, and money too.
WOW, Look, Beach is a lib! :D This is a popular liberal agrument used to validate new and more government control over the people in many areas and here Beach is with it... what a gem :D
-
I've recked before, I'm still against the mandate. I tore off my fingerprints on one hand, I was bed ridden for days. It's a choice, ours!
-
Yet you feel obamacare is ok mandating that I have to buy health insurance from a private carrier?
-
Yet you feel obamacare is ok mandating that I have to buy health insurance from a private carrier?
I'm assuming Beach is also ok with mandated healthcare based on his argument above.
-
Yet you feel obamacare is ok mandating that I have to buy health insurance from a private carrier?
Who are you referring to? I don't think that's okay...
-
Was referring to the poster roccinge who frequently attacks me for my attacks on obama. Not to derail the thread, but its exactly the same concept.
-
Was referring to the poster roccinge who frequently attacks me for my attacks on obama. Not to derail the thread, but its exactly the same concept.
You definitely have an opinion I respect. What do you think of helmet laws?
-
If it doesn't cost me any money for you to not wear a helmet, then I don't care if you do or not. If it costs me money because your insurance doesn't cover the costs then wear the damn helmet.
-
If it doesn't cost me any money for you to not wear a helmet, then I don't care if you do or not. If it costs me money because your insurance doesn't cover the costs then wear the damn helmet.
it cost everyone, when these free spirited rebels crash and are in intensive care with head injuries and have no insurance or have insurance and the companies pay the rates go up for everyone
-
it cost everyone, when these free spirited rebels crash and are in intensive care with head injuries and have no insurance or have insurance and the companies pay the rates go up for everyone
wait a second. You're going to actually nail these guys even if their insurance covers it all? Wow, what else to you extend that line of thinking to for those with full coverage? Any extra laws you think should be added, because under that line of thought, there is plenty of room... ?
Please do add on,....
-
sure the insurance might pay for it all, but who's going to pay for it in the long run,all the policy holders
-
sure the insurance might pay for it all, but who's going to pay in the long run,all the policy holders
I understand your line of thought on this, how far are you willing to take that? Clearly it can be applied to much more as you've stated it. I mean you've even taken it above and beyond what BB and most have, so how far are you going with this?
If your criteria is "what will up it for the other policy holders," we're in deep shit with really nothing to do lol...
-
I understand your line of thought on this, how far are you willing to take that? Clearly it can be applied to much more as you've stated it. I mean you've even taken it above and beyond what BB and most have, so how far are you going with this?
If your criteria is "what will up it for the other policy holders," we're in deep shit with really nothing to do lol...
your right it has to stop somewhere, but when they lie in the intencive care units with brain injuries that could have been prevented by just wearing a helmet,high cost for everyone just to have the wind blow in your hair
-
I could give a fuck about helmet laws. What I want to know is why the fuck they allow motorcyclists to drive in between the cars through traffic like it's some sort of fucking lane, weaving in and out of traffic.. That is more fucking dangerous than not wearing a helmet in my opinion. That shit should be against the law.
-
I could give a fuck about helmet laws. What I want to know is why the fuck they allow motorcyclists to drive in between the cars through traffic like it's some sort of fucking lane, weaving in and out of traffic.. That is more fucking dangerous than not wearing a helmet in my opinion. That shit should be against the law.
i was in calf a few weeks ago and i could not believe they let bikes split lanes like they do .
-
I could give a fuck about helmet laws. What I want to know is why the fuck they allow motorcyclists to drive in between the cars through traffic like it's some sort of fucking lane, weaving in and out of traffic.. That is more fucking dangerous than not wearing a helmet in my opinion. That shit should be against the law.
It is against the law? It is here at least...
-
your right it has to stop somewhere, but when they lie in the intencive care units with brain injuries that could have been prevented by just wearing a helmet,high cost for everyone just to have the wind blow in your hair
hey, I think helmets are a good idea, I just think we have to be very careful in what we're telling people they "have to do" in a free country. I for one am willing to pay the extra if it keeps shit free. The next guy's demands down the road will be more, that's for sure...
-
I could give a fuck about helmet laws. What I want to know is why the fuck they allow motorcyclists to drive in between the cars through traffic like it's some sort of fucking lane, weaving in and out of traffic.. That is more fucking dangerous than not wearing a helmet in my opinion. That shit should be against the law.
That's a great question.... I wonder what the accident rate is for driving between lanes.
-
That's a great question.... I wonder what the accident rate is for driving between lanes.
I just called your ass out on the sports forum bitch...
-
I just called your ass out on the sports forum bitch...
;D
-
;D
lol, I know you rushed over there with fightin words ;D
-
If it doesn't cost me any money for you to not wear a helmet, then I don't care if you do or not. If it costs me money because your insurance doesn't cover the costs then wear the damn helmet.
It does cost you money, when those folks get into accidents and suffer injuries that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet. It increases the costs of insurance companies to do business, which results in your premiums being raised. It increases state taxes for those who wind up on worker's comp or some form of disability. It decreases your efficiency if you're tied up in traffic. It increases the cost of hospitals to do business if the person doesn't have insurance, or adequate insurance to do cover the treatment.
-
It does cost you money, when those folks get into accidents and suffer injuries that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet. It increases the costs of insurance companies to do business, which results in your premiums being raised. It increases state taxes for those who wind up on worker's comp or some form of disability. It decreases your efficiency if you're tied up in traffic. It increases the cost of hospitals to do business if the person doesn't have insurance, or adequate insurance to do cover the treatment.
I wear a helmet when I ride. I've seen the results of no helmet enough to know it's a good thing to wear one. But if someone is willing to sign a legal document stating when their insurance runs out, then treatment stops, I'd be okay with them not wearing one. LIke I said, as long as it doesn't effect me, fine. There are a lot of folks paying insurance who don't wreck. Their premiums are designed to cover the costs of those who do have the wrecks. If treatment was topped off at the insurance amounts and hospitals didn't have to continue treatment when the funds are gone, seems fair to me.
-
It does cost you money, when those folks get into accidents and suffer injuries that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet. It increases the costs of insurance companies to do business, which results in your premiums being raised. It increases state taxes for those who wind up on worker's comp or some form of disability. It decreases your efficiency if you're tied up in traffic. It increases the cost of hospitals to do business if the person doesn't have insurance, or adequate insurance to do cover the treatment.
we'll die for freedom, we'll fight for freedom, we'll bomb the shit out of them for freedom, we'll send loved ones to die for freedom, but if you raise my costs a few bucks you can count me out... LOLOLOLOL....
fucking priceless shit ::)
And said on the 4th...
-
I wear a helmet when I ride. I've seen the results of no helmet enough to know it's a good thing to wear one. But if someone is willing to sign a legal document stating when their insurance runs out, then treatment stops, I'd be okay with them not wearing one. LIke I said, as long as it doesn't effect me, fine. There are a lot of folks paying insurance who don't wreck. Their premiums are designed to cover the costs of those who do have the wrecks. If treatment was topped off at the insurance amounts and hospitals didn't have to continue treatment when the funds are gone, seems fair to me.
Smart man. My buddy has been trying to convince me to buy one, but I'm too chicken. I don't have the concentration to ride one. But he also just bought a trike, which is pretty cool. I might try one of those one day.
Unfortunately, people don't sign waivers, etc., so all of us taxpayers pay the price.
-
we'll die for freedom, we'll fight for freedom, we'll bomb the shit out of them for freedom, we'll send loved ones to die for freedom, but if you raise my costs a few bucks you can count me out... LOLOLOLOL....
fucking priceless shit ::)
And said on the 4th...
Yep... Im all about your freedom.... as long as it doesn't impact my freedom.
-
Yep... Im all about your freedom.... as long as it doesn't impact my freedom.
bold thing to say considering how many have given up their freedom for you to be free. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little, sometimes you might have to sacrifice a lot. So be it imo... Freedom is worth it buddy. ...remember, the next guy will be asking you to give up more, I fucking guarantee it... and yea, I know we're now talking about a lot more than a fucking helmet.
-
bold thing to say considering how many have given up their freedom for you to be free. Sometimes you have to sacrifice a little, sometimes you might have to sacrifice a lot. So be it imo... Freedom is worth it buddy. ...remember, the next guy will be asking you to give up more, I fucking guarantee it... and yea, I know we're now talking about a lot more than a fucking helmet.
It's a general statement regarding your right to not wear a helmet. I support your freedom, if your poor choice doesn't impact my life. About as American as you can get..
-
It's a general statement regarding your right to not wear a helmet. I support your freedom, if your poor choice doesn't impact my life. About as American as you can get..
"if your poor choice doesn't impact my life" could be saying the exact same thing BB is saying. Is that what you're saying?
-
"if your poor choice doesn't impact my life" could be saying the exact same thing BB is saying. Is that what you're saying?
I'm saying what I'm saying. You can choose not to wear a helmet. I think it's not a good choice considering, but I think you should have that right, as long as your poor choice doesn't impact me. I should not have to pay for your poor choice.
-
I'm saying what I'm saying. You can choose not to wear a helmet. I think it's not a good choice considering, but I think you should have that right, as long as your poor choice doesn't impact me. I should not have to pay for your poor choice.
so you and BB agree, ok... that's all you had to say.
Just wondering how much freedom could fall under, "as long as your choice doesn't impact me" impact being a big question that oh so many will have their own definition of... on a slippery slope....
Isn't that the way is always goes, and vanishes...
history buddy.
being made all the time...
-
so you and BB agree, ok... that's all you had to say.
Just wondering how much freedom could fall under, "as long as your choice doesn't impact me" impact being a big question that oh so many will have their own definition of... on a slippery slope....
Isn't that the way is always goes, and vanishes...
history buddy.
being made all the time...
I'm fully capable of making different decisions depending on the circumstances. Why do you feel that a statement about helmets, responsibility and accountability could mean x or y?
No slippery slope here.
-
Question:
When helmet laws were inacted did insurance rates go down?
-
Question:
When helmet laws were inacted did insurance rates go down?
hahaha, excellent question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm going to take a big fat guess that is a freaking NOOOO!!!
Unless others can show otherwise, that's going to make a bit of a problem with a few arguments here...
good fucking question...
-
Question:
When helmet laws were inacted did insurance rates go down?
I don't know. I do know in Texas, if you are going to ride helmetless legally, you must have additional insurance, or take a certified course.
-
Question:
When helmet laws were inacted did insurance rates go down?
Not sure, but the public (read taxpayers) wind up paying for a number of those dummies.
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."24
Among the specific findings of several of the studies:
* A 1996 NHTSA study showed average inpatient hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists in crashes were 8 percent higher than for helmeted riders ($15,578 compared with $14,377).25
* 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.26
* A study of the effects of Nebraska's reinstated helmet use law on hospital costs found the total acute medical charges for injured motorcyclists declined 38 percent.17
A NHTSA evaluation of the weakening of Florida's universal helmet law in 2000 to exclude riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage found a huge increase in hospital admissions of cyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull. Such injuries went up 82 percent during the 30 months immediately following the law change. The average inflation-adjusted cost of treating these injuries went up from about $34,500 before the helmet law was weakened to nearly $40,000 after. Less than one-quarter of the injured motorcyclists' hospital bills would have been covered by the $10,000 medical insurance requirement for riders who chose not to use helmets.11
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.29
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html
-
Not sure, but the public (read taxpayers) wind up paying for a number of those dummies.
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."24
Among the specific findings of several of the studies:
* A 1996 NHTSA study showed average inpatient hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists in crashes were 8 percent higher than for helmeted riders ($15,578 compared with $14,377).25
* 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.26
* A study of the effects of Nebraska's reinstated helmet use law on hospital costs found the total acute medical charges for injured motorcyclists declined 38 percent.17
A NHTSA evaluation of the weakening of Florida's universal helmet law in 2000 to exclude riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage found a huge increase in hospital admissions of cyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull. Such injuries went up 82 percent during the 30 months immediately following the law change. The average inflation-adjusted cost of treating these injuries went up from about $34,500 before the helmet law was weakened to nearly $40,000 after. Less than one-quarter of the injured motorcyclists' hospital bills would have been covered by the $10,000 medical insurance requirement for riders who chose not to use helmets.11
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.29
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html
To me, this is just the same argument used for telling fat people what to eat, parents how to raise their kids, etc.
Evenutally it boils down to where we draw the line. Should restaraunts be required to reduce salt? Should parents raising porkies have their kids taken away, etc., etc.
Personally, I'd leave the motorcyclists alone.
-
To me, this is just the same argument used for telling fat people what to eat, parents how to raise their kids, etc.
Evenutally it boils down to where we draw the line. Should restaraunts be required to reduce salt? Should parents raising porkies have their kids taken away, etc., etc.
Personally, I'd leave the motorcyclists alone.
It's not that difficult to draw lines. No, we shouldn't have a law mandating what fat people can eat, how parents raise their children, reducing salt, etc.
Really not the same as helmet laws, particularly when the failure to wear helmets has such a big impact on taxpayers. Helmet laws should be compared to seat belt laws, not taking away cookies from a fat kid.
-
It's not that difficult to draw lines. No, we shouldn't have a law mandating what fat people can eat, how parents raise their children, reducing salt, etc.
Really not the same as helmet laws, particularly when the failure to wear helmets has such a big impact on taxpayers. Helmet laws should be compared to seat belt laws, not taking away cookies from a fat kid.
So if someone has insurance, and is not a burden on the tax payer, should you still be able to take their freedoms away?
-
So if someone has insurance, and is not a burden on the tax payer, should you still be able to take their freedoms away?
Yes, we should take the freedom of dummies who don't want to wear helmets or seat belts away, because their stupidity affects every taxpayer.
Our "freedom" gets restricted all the time.
-
Yes, we should take the freedom of dummies who don't want to wear helmets or seat belts away, because their stupidity affects every taxpayer.
Our "freedom" gets restricted all the time.
Yet, you seem ok with it... That's very disheartening.
-
Yet, you seem ok with it... That's very disheartening.
Yes I'm ok with it. I think riding without a helmet is one of the dumbest things a person can do, especially when you hear about how effective helmets can be in preventing injuries or saving lives. Same with seat belts. They don't always work, but why people would complain about having to wear them is beyond me.
Pretty small infringement if you ask me.
-
Yes I'm ok with it. I think riding without a helmet is one of the dumbest things a person can do, especially when you hear about how effective helmets can be in preventing injuries or saving lives. Same with seat belts. They don't always work, but why people would complain about having to wear them is beyond me.
Pretty small infringement if you ask me.
It's the little things that add up.
I always wear a helmet, but I CHOOSE to do it.
Just like I always wear my seat belt... I don't think the laws are why people wear seat belts anyway... I think it's the understanding and teaching that people have placed upon wearing seat belts... Not the laws.
-
It's not that difficult to draw lines. No, we shouldn't have a law mandating what fat people can eat, how parents raise their children, reducing salt, etc.
Really not the same as helmet laws, particularly when the failure to wear helmets has such a big impact on taxpayers. Helmet laws should be compared to seat belt laws, not taking away cookies from a fat kid.
The justification being used is the same though - it impacts others. If the argument is helmets should be mandated because it affects others, the same can be said about obese people - especially given what we pay for in heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc.
As for whether it's small or large, I suppose that depends on the person being affected. I wear my helmet, always. Others may not feel so inclined.
Don't know what they're thinking anyway - if you've ever been popped in the head by a large insect while your doing 65...
-
It's the little things that add up.
I always wear a helmet, but I CHOOSE to do it.
Just like I always wear my seat belt... I don't think the laws are why people wear seat belts anyway... I think it's the understanding and teaching that people have placed upon wearing seat belts... Not the laws.
I disagree. Laws change behavior. They don't necessarily change mindsets.
-
I disagree. Laws change behavior. They don't necessarily change mindsets.
Time changes mindsets... laws do not.
-
The justification being used is the same though - it impacts others. If the argument is helmets should be mandated because it affects others, the same can be said about obese people - especially given what we pay for in heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc.
As for whether it's small or large, I suppose that depends on the person being affected. I wear my helmet, always. Others may not feel so inclined.
Don't know what they're thinking anyway - if you've ever been popped in the head by a large insect while your doing 65...
I agree some of the justifications may be similar, but we simply don't need to go that far. The impact isn't the same. The infringement is much greater.
I'm not a big fan of the "floodgates will open" arguments. Sometimes that is true, but often it is not.
I don't ride, so never had an insect encounter. :)
Have you ever ridden a trike?
-
It's not that difficult to draw lines. No, we shouldn't have a law mandating what fat people can eat, how parents raise their children, reducing salt, etc.
Really not the same as helmet laws, particularly when the failure to wear helmets has such a big impact on taxpayers. Helmet laws should be compared to seat belt laws, not taking away cookies from a fat kid.
Obesity has an impact on the tax payer that is ten fold that of helmetless motorcyclists and people that don't wear their seat belt...
Ban transfat, salt, etc... It costs me money!!!
-
Have you ever ridden a trike?
Had a friend carry me on his Yamaha before, but never owned one. Another dumbass thing you see riders doing is wearing shorts. Fuck that. You lay that bike down and you'll be wishing you had jeans or better on.
-
Had a friend carry me on his Yamaha before, but never owned one. Another dumbass thing you see riders doing is wearing shorts. Fuck that. You lay that bike down and you'll be wishing you had jeans or better on.
My buddy just bought one. Pretty cool. I'm actually tempted to ride one.
Just shorts? Dude. I see people here with shorts, rubber slippers, a t-shirt or tank top, no gloves, and no helmet. All the time. Insane.
-
Anyone who doesn't see the value in a helmet probably doesn't have much to protect to begin with
-
My buddy just bought one. Pretty cool. I'm actually tempted to ride one.
Just shorts? Dude. I see people here with shorts, rubber slippers, a t-shirt or tank top, no gloves, and no helmet. All the time. Insane.
All the time?
You Hawaiians got some daredevil in you.
-
All the time?
You Hawaiians got some daredevil in you.
They're all over the place.