Did the study differenciate between fault and at fault accidents? What type of motorcycles where they riding? Most accidents that have a fatality and a head injury also have internal organ injury which also colud be a main factor in the fatality. I think a closer look at the numbers is needed.
I live in PA and my 6 year old is required to have a helmet on his bicycle. We are also required by law to wear a seat belt and go to the extra expense of using a seatbelt AND a car seat for children in an automobile where they are suppaounded by padding, airbags, metal and safety glass. Does this make sense? Riding without a helmet is truly defenseless.
There’s a reason motorcycles are called donor cycles in Hospital ER’s. A lack of a helmet makes this even more appropriate, perhaps this will make up for the shiftting of costs onto Medicaid.
Who would have thought that the bail-out of Harley Davidson would have led to this.
that letter does not propose any logical arguments in the defense of their position. plain and simple, fatalities do not equal brain injuries. also, the letter did not take into account the growing popularity of motorcycle use obviously leading to more deaths. if expenses increased for medical treatment for the same injury, the problem is with the lack insurance coverage to pay for increasing medical prices; not the absence of a helmet. furthermore, florida’s weather allows for more riding than PA when the season is typically 30% less. i don’t know too many bikers who opt to ride in 20 degree climes. please brain injury council, compare apples to apples. now, if brain injuries increased by any amount per 1000 riders in PA, they might have a valid argument. until they provide concrete proof, i think it should be user’s discretion on how they want to ride.
afterall, this is a free country and there are too many laws on the books as it is.
as far as for helmets in PA’s arguments go, they’re not valid either. the children’s helmet law actually makes sense. with the decline of good parenting, this law makes it inexcusable to provide protection to less coordinated children who aren’t capable of yet deciding what is best for them. as far as the selt belt rule goes, this is a way for the police to look into your car for national security reasons. there are no laws stating you must have safety glass or air bags. get out of your bubble. i bet you wear a helmet to your cubicle too.
Regarding the “apples to apples” argument posted by ‘The Great One’: He is mistaken. The numbers were NOT being compared between PA & FL. They were being compared between Fl’s own statistics over a 3 year period when FL lifted the helmet requirement. That IS apples to apples. Additionally, there is NO argument to defend that an 81% increase in fatalities for riders over 21, and a 300% increase in fatalities for riders under 21 is caused by the “growing popularity of motorcycle use”. None. — And please don’t end your post with an insult like the one about him wearing a helmet to his cubicle. It lessens the effectiveness & credibility of your arguments.
And regarding the “Who was at fault?” comment. That argument doesn’t change the fact that the report indicates “FL. and U.S. taxpayers are sharing a bill of more than $10 Billion (with a “B”) over three years so that some citizens in FL can choose to ride w/o a helmet”.
And try consoling a wife and small children with the comment that “the accident wasn’t your husband’s fault” while he’s lying comatose on a ventilator with no brain activity. I doubt they’re too concerned about who the liable party is at that stage.
I wish we would all take more accountability for our actions. It seems that we have become a country that demands that our rights not be infringed upon, but we demand that others pickup the tabs for our bad decisions.
Wear a helmet, don’t wear a helmet. I could truly care less. But when you don’t wear a helmet, you should be willing to pay (perhaps through medical insurance) the medical bills your decision creates.
What happened to accountability for our actions? Less litigation and more personal accountability Alan.
Yes, it IS valid to inquire about how so-called statistics are complied. One should examine the “per capita” rate of fatal accidents and injuries and not just the raw volumn. Also, Florida is the exception to most states given their climate and the fact they host a number of national biker rallies that draw hundreds of thousands of attendees, skewing the ‘statisitics’ even more. No, trying to convince the “public” that it is footing the bill is what I call the “secondhand smoke” screen: hoodwinking everyone into believing they need to decide how those different from them should conduct their lives. It stinks.
If car drivers would respect the right of the motorcyclist by paying attention to the road and who is on it, there would be less death. How about an advertising campaign to tell the cell phone users, driving beauticians, blue hairs and in general other people on the road that their behavior could cause another person’s death. Pass stiffer laws against the inattentive drivers.
Legislationg inattentive driving by taking away a minority groups ability to choose is no way solve this problem.
In addition, force all motorcycle manufacturers to have ABS on the cycle. You will save more lives than these ridiculous helmet laws ever will.
First- let me make it clear that I am all in favor of helmets, just as I am in favor of seatbelts and people who don’t wear helmets are not too smart in my opinion. Still, I like living in a state(New Hampshire) where you and not the government decides if you can do something stupid.(Neither seatbelts or helmets are required in NH for adults.) It is not Washington’s or Harrisburg or Concord’s business if I want to kill myself.
As to the economic cost to the public of no helmets, it seems those favoring mandatory helmets are trying to have it both ways. We hear how not wearing helmets leads to increased medical costs and yet also leads to more deaths. You have to make up your mind. Are people without helmets injured or killed? I suspect they die in the crash most of the time. It wouldn’t suprise me if an objective study found not wearing helmets SAVES Medicaid $! Lots of people who would require extensive care if wearing a helmet require no medical care because they die. It is sad but true.
Finally, for all of you who feel the government shoud to keep you from hurting yourself, shouldn’t you push for the banning of motorcycles? They are dangerous with or without helmets. That seems the most rational thing for big brother to do.
Let’s have helmets for everyone. After all, more people die from head injuries in crosswalks, so let’s here it for mandatory pedestrian helmets.
Automobile rollover victims account for almost a third of highway deaths, primarily due to occupant ejection and head injury. Soccer moms, strap that helmet on.
But no one seriously considers helmets for anyone other than motorcyclists. I guess it’s always easier to pass laws that someone else has to obey.
MOST OF OUR MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENTS ARE SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. GRANTED SOME MAY INVOLVE OTHER VEHICLES. WHY NOT TELL ONES WITHOUT HELMETS YOU GONNA DIE AND LEAVE THEM BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD.
My comments regarding comparisons were simply saying that one cannot look at Florida and draw conclusions in PA. I gave a plethora of reasons why and you still neglected to acknowledge them. It does not surprise me that you are way off base about your argument. What was it again anyway?
..You took my comments personally, looks to me as you made the original post.
I believe the intent of this message board is to generate intellectual discussions, not to hurl insults like 3rd graders.
Regardless, I’d be interested in knowing the results of the most recent comprehensive brain injury study you’ve completed and published. Then again, probably not…
Regarding what studies may say about motorcycle safety with or without a helmet, should it matter? Why should it be your business or my business if someone wants to do something stupid like not wearing a helmet? Should we bring back prohibition? Make you prove you have a low cholesterol count before being allowed to buy potato chips? I am a liberal Democrat and in favor of government involvment in many instances but I fail to see why it is the government’s job to keep me from being stupid. It is ok to study the helmet issue. It is ok for the government to tell me I am stupid to not wear one. Just don’t tell me I have to wear one. It ain’t anyone’s business but my own.
Live Free – you are missing the point by a big margin. Maybe you have already fallen and hit your head?
All governments should step in and make helmut use mandatory just as they have done with seat belts.
If helmut use will save a few persons a month from a catastrophic brain injury, that would save taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
Why wouldn’t the government want to do this?
We really don’t care if you die while riding your motorcycle, us taxpayers just don’t want to have to foot thie bill in the event you are a partial or complete vegetable due to hitting your head on the asphalt or cement.
Not surprisingly, I feel the same way about seatbelt laws- anyone getting in my car wears one but what business is it of the government? Happily, I live in a state where you are allowed to be an idiot and not wear either helmets or seatbelts if an adult.
If the question of helmets turns on costs to government and society, lets see a study comparing the costs of helmets vs. non-helmets. If people are correct, that helmets prevent a large number of fatal crashes (and I believe helmets do save lives), helmets cost you and me money in the form of Medicaid taking care of catastrophic injuries to riders with helmets. If I am right that the idiots without helmets usually get a ride to the morgue and cost the county taxpayers little to nothing, is there any economic justification for requiring helmets?
And, for the record, I don’t ride a motorcycle as they are too dangerous…if the government wants to save me from my own stupidity, motorcycles should simply be banned. Even with helmets they are dangerous.
you’ve provided no intellect, no argument, and no insight; however, your reply is replete with spite.
why would i have to conduct a study? i clearly proposed that comparing statistics in florida to those in pa do no provide a logical argument for wearing a helmet in pa. i personally think the position of the organization could be better presented with the appropriate evidence.
no one hurled insults and i’m sorry you feel that way. perhaps your skin is a little thin and the problem lies with you.
i think you actually need to digest the content of the posts before spouting off and involving yourself in battles you can’t win.
What state do you live in??? Let me guess – the State of Confusion…
It IS the government’s business, when they have to pay for so many persons that become disabled for either vehicle or motorcycle accidents and the usage of a protective device could have prevented some of the injuries sustained.
IF your state doesn’t require seatbelts, lets hope the Feds hold back federal transportation dollars until such time that the state is in line with the rest of the union…
Actually the state is New Hampshire. And Uncle Sam does hold back $ but so far New Hamshire has stuck to it’s principles and not whored itself to get the federal dollars.
I agree that seat belts save $, whether insurance or Medicaid, but I still think helmet laws costs lots of money by saving people from death but leaving them seriously injured. But where do we draw the line? Outlaw cigarettes? Alcohol? Forbid rock climbing and wilderness hiking? Hang gliding? Snowmobiles? You can justify outlawing lots of things in order to protect us from ourselves so why stop with helmets and seatbelts?
I’m not even sure why I’m spending my time replying to this…
If anyone reading this goes back to my original post, you’ll see that the only point I made was that this gentleman (The Great One) was comparing FL stats to PA stats, yet he implores the Brain Injury Council to compare “apples to apples”. Read the post. Other than that, my only other point was that his comment about making someone wear a helmet in his cubicle was unprofessional and juvenille. That appears to be his choice of debate, and it’s not something I want to associate myself with, so I’m choosing to end the discussion on my end. It’s too bad that these type of discussion boards oftentimes turn to this kind of idiocy. Myself, the insurancejournal.com editors, and I’m sure many others would rather debate & discuss this topic professionally and not have to deal with this low-brow type of discussion. For the rest of the people who posted messages on this discussion board, it’s been a pleasure hearing your thoughts.
You STILL haven’t addressed anything relevant to the article and you are going critique me?
The statistics used in the article, again, are not relevant. One cannot use Florida’s statistics, for reasons previously provided, to make a case in Pennsylvania.
I think I’m dealing with someone psychologically disturbed…
Did you even read the article or understand the premise behind it?
People seem obsessed with motorcycle helmets, most likely because they don’t ride and never have to wear one.
More people die from head injuries in cars, as well as hitting pedestrians. Oh, but now you’re talking about MY freedom!
Helmets provide marginal protection, and they can hurt you in some cases. Remember when they made airbags optional because a few people got injured by them? Apply the same to helmets.
As long as it’s an “Us vs. Them” argument, the self-righteous tyrants win. I guess bikers are easy targets, both on the road and in the legislature.
Since this post is located in an insurance forum, we certainly should focus upon insurance related issues.
Clearly, the insurance arena focuses upon statistics and those statistics indicate that people who wear helmets (sorry for the typo earlier)while riding cycles are less prone to severe, debilitating injuries than those folks who do not wear them.
It might not help those who are run over by cars/trucks after losing control or hit a tree going 80 mph, but in some situations, it might be the difference in life or death or vegetable vs non-vegetable.
Did the study differenciate between fault and at fault accidents? What type of motorcycles where they riding? Most accidents that have a fatality and a head injury also have internal organ injury which also colud be a main factor in the fatality. I think a closer look at the numbers is needed.
I live in PA and my 6 year old is required to have a helmet on his bicycle. We are also required by law to wear a seat belt and go to the extra expense of using a seatbelt AND a car seat for children in an automobile where they are suppaounded by padding, airbags, metal and safety glass. Does this make sense? Riding without a helmet is truly defenseless.
There’s a reason motorcycles are called donor cycles in Hospital ER’s. A lack of a helmet makes this even more appropriate, perhaps this will make up for the shiftting of costs onto Medicaid.
Who would have thought that the bail-out of Harley Davidson would have led to this.
I Graeme
that letter does not propose any logical arguments in the defense of their position. plain and simple, fatalities do not equal brain injuries. also, the letter did not take into account the growing popularity of motorcycle use obviously leading to more deaths. if expenses increased for medical treatment for the same injury, the problem is with the lack insurance coverage to pay for increasing medical prices; not the absence of a helmet. furthermore, florida’s weather allows for more riding than PA when the season is typically 30% less. i don’t know too many bikers who opt to ride in 20 degree climes. please brain injury council, compare apples to apples. now, if brain injuries increased by any amount per 1000 riders in PA, they might have a valid argument. until they provide concrete proof, i think it should be user’s discretion on how they want to ride.
afterall, this is a free country and there are too many laws on the books as it is.
as far as for helmets in PA’s arguments go, they’re not valid either. the children’s helmet law actually makes sense. with the decline of good parenting, this law makes it inexcusable to provide protection to less coordinated children who aren’t capable of yet deciding what is best for them. as far as the selt belt rule goes, this is a way for the police to look into your car for national security reasons. there are no laws stating you must have safety glass or air bags. get out of your bubble. i bet you wear a helmet to your cubicle too.
Regarding the “apples to apples” argument posted by ‘The Great One’: He is mistaken. The numbers were NOT being compared between PA & FL. They were being compared between Fl’s own statistics over a 3 year period when FL lifted the helmet requirement. That IS apples to apples. Additionally, there is NO argument to defend that an 81% increase in fatalities for riders over 21, and a 300% increase in fatalities for riders under 21 is caused by the “growing popularity of motorcycle use”. None. — And please don’t end your post with an insult like the one about him wearing a helmet to his cubicle. It lessens the effectiveness & credibility of your arguments.
And regarding the “Who was at fault?” comment. That argument doesn’t change the fact that the report indicates “FL. and U.S. taxpayers are sharing a bill of more than $10 Billion (with a “B”) over three years so that some citizens in FL can choose to ride w/o a helmet”.
And try consoling a wife and small children with the comment that “the accident wasn’t your husband’s fault” while he’s lying comatose on a ventilator with no brain activity. I doubt they’re too concerned about who the liable party is at that stage.
I wish we would all take more accountability for our actions. It seems that we have become a country that demands that our rights not be infringed upon, but we demand that others pickup the tabs for our bad decisions.
Wear a helmet, don’t wear a helmet. I could truly care less. But when you don’t wear a helmet, you should be willing to pay (perhaps through medical insurance) the medical bills your decision creates.
What happened to accountability for our actions? Less litigation and more personal accountability Alan.
Yes, it IS valid to inquire about how so-called statistics are complied. One should examine the “per capita” rate of fatal accidents and injuries and not just the raw volumn. Also, Florida is the exception to most states given their climate and the fact they host a number of national biker rallies that draw hundreds of thousands of attendees, skewing the ‘statisitics’ even more. No, trying to convince the “public” that it is footing the bill is what I call the “secondhand smoke” screen: hoodwinking everyone into believing they need to decide how those different from them should conduct their lives. It stinks.
If car drivers would respect the right of the motorcyclist by paying attention to the road and who is on it, there would be less death. How about an advertising campaign to tell the cell phone users, driving beauticians, blue hairs and in general other people on the road that their behavior could cause another person’s death. Pass stiffer laws against the inattentive drivers.
Legislationg inattentive driving by taking away a minority groups ability to choose is no way solve this problem.
In addition, force all motorcycle manufacturers to have ABS on the cycle. You will save more lives than these ridiculous helmet laws ever will.
Keep the rubber on the road. Good day.
Make the person responsible for the brain damage pay those bills. They obviously shouldn’t be driving.
Force inattentive drivers to carry higher limits and umbrella policies as punishment
First- let me make it clear that I am all in favor of helmets, just as I am in favor of seatbelts and people who don’t wear helmets are not too smart in my opinion. Still, I like living in a state(New Hampshire) where you and not the government decides if you can do something stupid.(Neither seatbelts or helmets are required in NH for adults.) It is not Washington’s or Harrisburg or Concord’s business if I want to kill myself.
As to the economic cost to the public of no helmets, it seems those favoring mandatory helmets are trying to have it both ways. We hear how not wearing helmets leads to increased medical costs and yet also leads to more deaths. You have to make up your mind. Are people without helmets injured or killed? I suspect they die in the crash most of the time. It wouldn’t suprise me if an objective study found not wearing helmets SAVES Medicaid $! Lots of people who would require extensive care if wearing a helmet require no medical care because they die. It is sad but true.
Finally, for all of you who feel the government shoud to keep you from hurting yourself, shouldn’t you push for the banning of motorcycles? They are dangerous with or without helmets. That seems the most rational thing for big brother to do.
Is the $10,000 Medical coverage correct???
first I heard of it??
Let’s have helmets for everyone. After all, more people die from head injuries in crosswalks, so let’s here it for mandatory pedestrian helmets.
Automobile rollover victims account for almost a third of highway deaths, primarily due to occupant ejection and head injury. Soccer moms, strap that helmet on.
But no one seriously considers helmets for anyone other than motorcyclists. I guess it’s always easier to pass laws that someone else has to obey.
What a great idea. Bikers should have an organ donor boycott of states that have helmet laws.
Keep your organ donors happy by leaving them alone.
MOST OF OUR MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENTS ARE SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. GRANTED SOME MAY INVOLVE OTHER VEHICLES. WHY NOT TELL ONES WITHOUT HELMETS YOU GONNA DIE AND LEAVE THEM BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD.
Nuisance…
My comments regarding comparisons were simply saying that one cannot look at Florida and draw conclusions in PA. I gave a plethora of reasons why and you still neglected to acknowledge them. It does not surprise me that you are way off base about your argument. What was it again anyway?
..You took my comments personally, looks to me as you made the original post.
I believe the intent of this message board is to generate intellectual discussions, not to hurl insults like 3rd graders.
Regardless, I’d be interested in knowing the results of the most recent comprehensive brain injury study you’ve completed and published. Then again, probably not…
Regarding what studies may say about motorcycle safety with or without a helmet, should it matter? Why should it be your business or my business if someone wants to do something stupid like not wearing a helmet? Should we bring back prohibition? Make you prove you have a low cholesterol count before being allowed to buy potato chips? I am a liberal Democrat and in favor of government involvment in many instances but I fail to see why it is the government’s job to keep me from being stupid. It is ok to study the helmet issue. It is ok for the government to tell me I am stupid to not wear one. Just don’t tell me I have to wear one. It ain’t anyone’s business but my own.
Live Free – you are missing the point by a big margin. Maybe you have already fallen and hit your head?
All governments should step in and make helmut use mandatory just as they have done with seat belts.
If helmut use will save a few persons a month from a catastrophic brain injury, that would save taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
Why wouldn’t the government want to do this?
We really don’t care if you die while riding your motorcycle, us taxpayers just don’t want to have to foot thie bill in the event you are a partial or complete vegetable due to hitting your head on the asphalt or cement.
Not surprisingly, I feel the same way about seatbelt laws- anyone getting in my car wears one but what business is it of the government? Happily, I live in a state where you are allowed to be an idiot and not wear either helmets or seatbelts if an adult.
If the question of helmets turns on costs to government and society, lets see a study comparing the costs of helmets vs. non-helmets. If people are correct, that helmets prevent a large number of fatal crashes (and I believe helmets do save lives), helmets cost you and me money in the form of Medicaid taking care of catastrophic injuries to riders with helmets. If I am right that the idiots without helmets usually get a ride to the morgue and cost the county taxpayers little to nothing, is there any economic justification for requiring helmets?
And, for the record, I don’t ride a motorcycle as they are too dangerous…if the government wants to save me from my own stupidity, motorcycles should simply be banned. Even with helmets they are dangerous.
can you possibly contradict yourself even more?
you’ve provided no intellect, no argument, and no insight; however, your reply is replete with spite.
why would i have to conduct a study? i clearly proposed that comparing statistics in florida to those in pa do no provide a logical argument for wearing a helmet in pa. i personally think the position of the organization could be better presented with the appropriate evidence.
no one hurled insults and i’m sorry you feel that way. perhaps your skin is a little thin and the problem lies with you.
i think you actually need to digest the content of the posts before spouting off and involving yourself in battles you can’t win.
What state do you live in??? Let me guess – the State of Confusion…
It IS the government’s business, when they have to pay for so many persons that become disabled for either vehicle or motorcycle accidents and the usage of a protective device could have prevented some of the injuries sustained.
IF your state doesn’t require seatbelts, lets hope the Feds hold back federal transportation dollars until such time that the state is in line with the rest of the union…
Actually the state is New Hampshire. And Uncle Sam does hold back $ but so far New Hamshire has stuck to it’s principles and not whored itself to get the federal dollars.
I agree that seat belts save $, whether insurance or Medicaid, but I still think helmet laws costs lots of money by saving people from death but leaving them seriously injured. But where do we draw the line? Outlaw cigarettes? Alcohol? Forbid rock climbing and wilderness hiking? Hang gliding? Snowmobiles? You can justify outlawing lots of things in order to protect us from ourselves so why stop with helmets and seatbelts?
I’m not even sure why I’m spending my time replying to this…
If anyone reading this goes back to my original post, you’ll see that the only point I made was that this gentleman (The Great One) was comparing FL stats to PA stats, yet he implores the Brain Injury Council to compare “apples to apples”. Read the post. Other than that, my only other point was that his comment about making someone wear a helmet in his cubicle was unprofessional and juvenille. That appears to be his choice of debate, and it’s not something I want to associate myself with, so I’m choosing to end the discussion on my end. It’s too bad that these type of discussion boards oftentimes turn to this kind of idiocy. Myself, the insurancejournal.com editors, and I’m sure many others would rather debate & discuss this topic professionally and not have to deal with this low-brow type of discussion. For the rest of the people who posted messages on this discussion board, it’s been a pleasure hearing your thoughts.
You STILL haven’t addressed anything relevant to the article and you are going critique me?
The statistics used in the article, again, are not relevant. One cannot use Florida’s statistics, for reasons previously provided, to make a case in Pennsylvania.
I think I’m dealing with someone psychologically disturbed…
Did you even read the article or understand the premise behind it?
People seem obsessed with motorcycle helmets, most likely because they don’t ride and never have to wear one.
More people die from head injuries in cars, as well as hitting pedestrians. Oh, but now you’re talking about MY freedom!
Helmets provide marginal protection, and they can hurt you in some cases. Remember when they made airbags optional because a few people got injured by them? Apply the same to helmets.
As long as it’s an “Us vs. Them” argument, the self-righteous tyrants win. I guess bikers are easy targets, both on the road and in the legislature.
Since this post is located in an insurance forum, we certainly should focus upon insurance related issues.
Clearly, the insurance arena focuses upon statistics and those statistics indicate that people who wear helmets (sorry for the typo earlier)while riding cycles are less prone to severe, debilitating injuries than those folks who do not wear them.
It might not help those who are run over by cars/trucks after losing control or hit a tree going 80 mph, but in some situations, it might be the difference in life or death or vegetable vs non-vegetable.