 |
FReeper Motorcycle Hooligan |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list | |
Posted on 07/30/2003 1:48:32 AM PDT by quietolong
Should there be a mandatory motorcycle helmet law in Wisconsin?
Left side of screen.
I might be inclined to agree with you except that so much fall on the state these days, like an indigent motorcycle rider without insurance suffering head injuries and running up very large medical bills.Also, I see it alot like seat belt laws and other laws that go with the license requirements.
Now if you start talking about lost freedoms over property ownership, then you are on to something bid.
its called a "risk pool" - and yes, if you can afford the "go fast" jap bikes, you can afford the premiums to subsidize the health care the rest of us have to pay in higher premiums all because of some misplaced masculinity issues.
...and if the Ins Co wants to "discriminate" on that basis, so be it - they are a private company.
Capitalism allows you to shop around for a vendor that ultimately offers what you want for what the market will bear.
Put a helmet on, pound salt and stop whining that we pay for your 'right" to a road rash
Claim: Injured motorcyclists are uninsured and rely upon the public to pay for their injuries.
Fact: Motorcyclists are just as likely to be privately insured as any other road user.
A Harborview Medical Center study reported 63.4% of the injured motorcyclists in the trauma center relied on public funds to pay their hospital bills. However, according to testimony by David Gitch, director of the trauma center, 67% of the general patient population also relied on public dollars to pay their hospital bills in the same time period.
A study by the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center reported that 49.5% of injured motorcyclists had their medical costs covered by insurance, while 50.4% of the other road trauma victims were similarly insured.
Claim: The costs associated with unhelmeted motorcyclist injuries and fatalities compel the enactment of mandatory helmet laws to save taxpayer dollars.
Fact: The costs associated with the treatment of motorcyclist injuries account for less than 0.001% of total US health care costs. Only a portion of these costs are attributable to unhelmeted motorcyclists, the majority of which are paid by privately-purchased insurance. The remainder, spread across the taxpayer base (which includes millions of motorcyclists), becomes insignificant.
Approximately 1.16% of total US health care costs are attributable to motor vehicle accidents. Motorcycles represented only 0.53% of the accident-involved vehicles nationwide in 1999.
Claim: Mandatory helmet laws are the most effective way to reduce motorcyclist injuries and fatalities.
Fact: The most effective way to reduce motorcyclist injuries and fatalities is to prevent accidents from occurring in the first place. Helmets and helmet laws do little to prevent accidents.
Between 1990 and 1999, the fatality rate for motorcyclists per 100 million vehicle miles traveled declined nearly 23% even though total vehicle miles traveled has increased 11%.
Two out of three motorcycle related multi-vehicle crashes are caused by the driver of another vehicle. The most common accident involves an automobile failing to yield the right of way to the motorcyclist.
Claim: States with mandatory helmet laws experience fewer motorcycle injuries and fatalities.
Fact: A study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) conducted during a seven-year period from 1987 through 1993 found that states with no helmet laws or partial helmet laws (for riders under 21) suffered fewer deaths (2.89) per 100 accidents than those states with full helmet laws (2.93 deaths).
|
FReeper Motorcycle Hooligan |
| Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list | |
Why the enthusiasm for helmets? Mike Osborn, chairman of the political action committee of California ABATE, says insurance companies are big supporters of helmet laws, citing the "public burden" argument. That is, reckless bikers sans helmets are raising everyone's car insurance rates by running headlong into plate-glass windows and the like, sustaining expensive head injuries.
Actually, it's true that bikers indirectly jack up the rates of car drivers, but not for the reason you might think. Car drivers plow over bikers at an alarming rate. According to the Second International Congress on Automobile Safety, the car driver is at fault in more than 70% of all car/motorcycle collisions. A typical accident occurs when a motorist illegally makes a left turn into the path of an oncoming motorcycle, turning the biker into an unwitting hood ornament. In such cases, juries tend to award substantial damages to the injured biker. Car insurance premiums go up.
Osborn sees a hidden agenda. "They [the insurance companies] want to get us off the road." Fewer bikes means fewer claims against car drivers. Helmet laws do accomplish that goal, as evidenced by falling motorcycle registrations in helmet-law states. It is interesting to note that carriers of motorcycle insurance do not complain about their clients. Motorcycle liability insurance remains cheap. Osborn pays only $125 per year for property damage and personal injury liability because motorcycles cause little damage to others.
No they don't. Being idiots is their right. Being amazed is yours.
If the injury rate is in deed less, as the data you have provided shows us, there should be no hesitation about being reassigned to a risk pool that your dta contends is less likely to be injured.
NHTSA "CODES" Study
The Hurt Report
. . . there should be no hesitation about being reassigned to a risk pool . . .
From the NHTSA 's own data.
The implication that my insurance company is somehow giving me a pass for my "risky behaviour" is using questionable logic at best. Insurance companies are not charitable organizations. The insurance premiums for my motorcycle are significantly less than for my Chevy conversion van, for good reason. The insurance company knows it incurs less overall risk with the motorcycle than with the van.
Insurance companies push for helmet laws because it reduces the number of motorcyclists on the road. California's motorcycle registrations dropped 22% following the introduction of mandatory helmet use in that state. Less bikers on the road mean less lawsuit payouts due to Oscar Grope knocking down bikers.
I am having trouble accepting that statement as writen. Insurance companies are like any other "for profit" business, they are there for the money. But, as insurance companies do have a hand in every facet of our lives, they lose a little here and make it up over there. Thus I don't see how reducing the number of motorcyclists on the road increases their overall profit.
Specifically referencing your posted graphic, it would seem counter-productive financially.
It would also make more sense to me to accept that helmet laws are feel good laws and being on either side of those laws carries a certain guaranteed number of votes. That would make helmet laws a political football. Not a proven safety feature. Pandering to control freaks is part of politics 101, isn't it?
It may not increase their overall profit, however it significantly decreases their overall loss.
Fully 70% of all motorcycle accidents are the Cager's fault, typically involving violations of right-of-way. Juries tend to award big buck settlements to the bikers who survive and take the transgressors to court. This has practically become a cottage industry for legal firms. In Milwaukee alone, three legal firms claim this as their specialty; their advertising budget is impressive . . .
Here is just one example; look at the payout from these guys . . .
The easiest way for the insurance companies to mitigate these losses is to find a way to reduce the number of motorcyclists on the road. Fewer bikers = fewer payouts.
Every state that has enacted mandatory helmet laws has seen significant decreases in motorcycle registrations immediately following. Conversely, every state that has recinded mandatory helmet laws has seen significant increases in motorcycle registrations. Your fine state of Florida is a perfect example; ridership is increasing now that the helmet law is gone. Pennsylvania is next; watch as the number of motorcycle registrations increase there as well. Bottom line, insurance companies' profitability goes up when ridership goes down.
Ride safe, bro!
Your friend is a class 1 moron. The real advantage of a seat belt isn't what it keeps you away from (although that's what is sold) but what it keeps you near. The number of minor accidents that could have been much worse if the belt hadn't kept the driver at the wheel is pretty amazing. Texas Department of Public Safety did a study on it a few years back, and it should be online somewhere. Fascinating stuff.
For this reason, I don't equate seat belts with motorcycle helmets, at all. A brain-bucket is just for me, and me alone. If I don't wear one, tough, live with it.
On the other hand, if a seat belt can keep me at the wheel, and in control after something has gone wrong, that could save your life. Also why I support compulsorary eye protection for cyclists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.