Posted On: May 25, 2007, 9:10 pm CDT

Posted By: Outsider

I'm not sure if I would necessarily consider making motorcycle riders wear helmets a violation of the 14th amendment since it's not similarly required on automobile operators (if you consider helmets and seatbelts "similar" safety equipment). Granted, seatbelts in cars are probably more effective than helmets are on motorcycles, but the reverse argument (manditory seatbelts on motorcycles) would be a terrible idea. If you have to lay it down, being strapped to a sliding 600 lb chunk of metal just sounds like a bad idea. I'm just not sure if this argument violates the true spirit of the 14th amendment. I guess I can see the argument of the 14th amendment violation, but would like to see the courts duke that one out.

As far as the money end of things (which will truly dictate what happens as far as proper training and education), it's a dang-tough situation. I'm actually roommates with a state rep here in michigan (not going to specify democrat/republican, and that I'm an independant, have voted both both sides of the isle the last 3 elections). He has been on the house appropriations committee the last two terms, and all I can say is that I in no way envy the work they go through to decide how to divide up the state budget (and more often than not lately, cutting). I just don't think when it comes to deciding where they're going to spend money, additional driver education is going to lose to medicare and school funding. And if the government thinks it can reduce hospital expenses by making people wear helmets on motorcycles, to reduce the severity of injuries when accidents occur, and it's not going to cost that much for them to do so, they're going to go that route. If there isn't a do-not-recessitate order on the person, the hospital has to do whatever it takes to keep that person alive, no matter the expense. When that exceeds what insurance is covering, the bill is going to get passed on to the government.

I know the argument concerning the monitary effect on safety is a colder/harsher one, but at the end of the day I think that's where many decisions end up being made. Of course, if you consider that lower hospital expenses results from less severe injuries, that arguement becomes stronger.

I can't remember who brought up the issue of the insurance industry backing manditory helmet laws, but people always seem to scream about insurance companies trying to reduce what they have to pay in claims. In motorcycle crashes the two expenses that are going to occur mainly are damage to the bike and the medical expenses of the rider. When compared, the medical expenses will far exceed those of the damage to the bike (especially when just a trip to the ER can cost a couple thousand dollars). The insurance company will pay the medical expenses. If it can somehow use loss prevention methods to reduce the possibility and severity of losses, they will pursue those. I know somebody might think, "Yep, just another insurance company trying to hang onto their money". People forget that if the insurance company doesn't have to pay as much in medical expenses, that's probably because the claimant didn't get hurt as badly.

Okay, I know this a very heated subject, and I by no means claim to know everything (or much some days). I'm not trying to get anybody riled up with this stuff, just partly giving my opinion and playing devils advocate. I guess take this (and all the other comments) into consideration for the sake of arguement.