Makes sense. On the same token, the gov't should allow the insurance industry more liberties when it comes to pricing premia for risky lifestyles.
actually in many (most?) states motorcycles are not part of the no fault insurance system. So this will have no effect.
Besides, do people realise that FMVSS 218 which established helmet standards only goes up to 15 mph?
Most accidents are the result of the automobile? Riders who get into accidents are usually riders with less than 6 months of experience and have no MC endorsement (aka motorcycle license).
Also federal motor vehicle safety standard 218 has NO, ZIP, NONE standard regarding neck stresses.
just a few trivia points.
Yeah no helmet no insurance.
If you want to live like a Viking die like a Viking in a heroic blase of glory.
Just don't expect your fellow premiem payers to foot the bill for a life time in the vegetable patch.
I don't know about a lot of you others, but I've had fewer injuries in 20 years of riding, than I have had in driving.
So, would I pay higher rates when I drive?
If you are talking about 'risky-lifestyles', are you ready to suggest that smokers pay higher rates? Fat people that eat too much fast food? How about Reservists and National Gaurdsmen? That's become a bit risky lately.
How about homosexuals?
That has got to be at the very top of the risk assessment chart. (IMHO)
I disagree there. As long as the state can MANDATE that I buy insurance, it's not a free market product.