Author Topic: Motorcyclist Killed While Riding Without Helmet to Protest New York Helmet Law  (Read 5514 times)

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
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...

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15042
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.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22727
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Question:

When helmet laws were inacted did insurance rates go down?

Hugo Chavez

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 31865
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...

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15042
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)



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. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
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.

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
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...

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
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. 

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
I disagree.  Laws change behavior.  They don't necessarily change mindsets. 

Time changes mindsets... laws do not.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (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? 

Roger Bacon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails
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!!!

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004


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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)

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. 

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41012
  • one dwells in nirvana
Anyone who doesn't see the value in a helmet probably doesn't have much to protect to begin with

Skip8282

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 7004
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.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63977
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


All the time?

You Hawaiians got some daredevil in you.

They're all over the place.