Well, because we are not property of the state (be it federal, state or local) and we own our own bodies, I say to each his own. We take risks and we live with those risks.
In Michigan the PIP laws have the driver of the auto or truck insurance carrier pick up the tab for the hospital bill, regardless of fault. So, in essence the rider’s freedom is paid for by every other auto owner in Michigan, but not by the motorcycle rider.
Freedom of choice and responsibility for those choices go hand in hand. Increasing the medical payments coverage to offset the absence of a helmet only transfers the cost of our personal choice to someone else. Perhaps the companies should simply quit offering medical payments coverage entirely.
“There’s no way to know how many of the Michigan claims involved motorcyclists not wearing helmets, the study said” Just another misleading government report. Funny how they left out the one state that does track helmeted and non helmeted accidents…Pennsylvania. Dramatic increase in helmeted accidents and injuries as compared to non helmeted. But maybe the Insurance Journal should look into the real con…99% of the helmets are not tested to see if they even meet the minimal standards of FMVSS218. And of course promote lawsuits against those helmet distributors who sell those untested helmets when the riders suffers head injuries or death caused by head trauma. These reports always make it sound like all motorcyclist deaths or injuries are head trauma. Last medical report I read…stated 4% of all serious motorcyclist accidents/deaths are due to head trauma. How about reporting the class action lawsuit against Griffin Motorcycle Helmets? No one says you can’t wear a helmet…but learn the truth
How about if the person not wearing a helmet is then excluded from recovery of Social Security disability and Medicaid if the injury is caused by a motorcycle accident. Their personal freedom causes financial burden for everyone else. I believe in helping others in need – if the motorcyclist is wearing a helmet and is injured I am glad to have societal benefits help them…but if they choose not to use available safety (helmets) why should societal benefits apply?
Jerry Seinfeld said it best; Is the brain that requires a law to keep it from cracking really worth saving?
I don’t care if motorcycle riders wear a helmet or not, but I’ve seen the damage done to those that drop their bike and don’t have one on. Nothing quite like seeing a big Harley rider being spoon fed because he thought wearing a helmet wasn’t cool.
We require seatbelts, that’s the law. We require infants and children to be in approved safety seats, that’s the law. States/cities require smoke detectors in new homes or rental homes, that’s the law. Our state requires helmets for people on bicycles under the age of 16.
Why not require helmets for motorcyclists?
Sometimes it’s more about safety than a big brother conspiracy to take away personal rights.
I’ve always struggled with this issue in that I understand the personal choice argument of the rider should be able to make the choice of helmet or not. But countered by the argument that if you get injured more than you would have had you been wearing a helmet, you should bear some of the cost of the irresponsible choice to not wear a helmet.
That all being said, the fairest thing to do is to reduce any compensation due an injured motorcyclist if their injury was compounded by not wearing a helmet. A pretty simple concept in my mind but one hard to implement with our crazy legal system and boneheaded jurors. Yet another reason for rational tort reform. That being said I’d support any legislation reducing any court ordered compensation at least 50% for any head injury sustained while riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
Problem is the PIP law in Michigan has the other auto or truck driver’s carrier pay the medical bills. What a crazy gift to the motorcycle lobby. Every other driver in Michigan pays higher rates partly because of this type cost shifting. So, your freedom to ride ain’t so free, it just means you aren’t paying the bill.
DS your right and Michigan law is bad. In Mchigan they also have this deal know as MCCA which is really a surcharge that helps pay for catastrophic loss when someone is injured. Can you imagine what that cost would be if the state separated motorcycles and they had to fund their own MCCA?
The laws in a lot of these states are really stupid. It is OK to ride a motorcycle without a helmet but if a state trooper catches you without your seatbelt on in a Freightliner you can get a fine plus court costs etc.
Protecting your brain by wearing a helmet seems to be so self-evident and I think most people would agree. Keep in mind though that all helmets are not the same and do not provide the same protection standards in terms of safety. Some have limited standards (novelty helmets for example) while others like DOT approved come with higher protection standards. Helmets approved by the Snell Foundation(www.smf.org)come with the highest safety standards known.
It’s really all about wearing the “right” helmet that makes sense.
I agree in freedom of choice on this helmet subject but also believe that there should be some mechanism for forfiture of publicly funded benefits for injuries that would have been avoided had the rider wore a helmet.
As an analogy, we have no laws (that I know of) requiring people to wear sunblock when outside yet stores sell a lot of it. I am sure most of those unhelmeted bikers use it too. Maybe instead of laws we need better education along with the concept that the rider accept full responsibility and not expect the public to pay out of their pockets for your freedom. That said, if you still want to ride without a helmet I still respect you as a fellow biker and want you to respect that I wish to ride with a helmet.
And Jesus arrived in Lansing. There he found a burly dude mentally handicapped from a horrific motorcycle accident. The burly dude had a caregiver close by. “I can heal this man,” Jesus told the caregiver, “but first I have a question. Was he wearing a helmet at the time of the accident?” The caregiver shook her head no. “Oh, well, f_ck him then.”
For once Planet makes a comment that while extreme, actually I agree with.
Whether or not the person is wearing a helmet the claim should be paid.
Moving on to legality issues, which I mainly direct because of DS’s hypocrite comment: Whether or not I’m wearing a helmet is not the government’s business. It’s as many of you pointed out, Insurance business. Though some of you more liberal people seem to think that lowering the cost of insurance business is more important than civil liberties (liberals making non liberal comments because they are indoctrinated, go figure).
But let’s compare: Seat belt issue: My car, my body, my choice. The same of you who believe that seat belts stop costs and therefore we need to regulate seat belts, seem to believe that society should pay for both choices a mother has when it comes to getting pregnant regardless of costs to society. If she has the child, welfare. If she doesn’t have the child, insurance costs for abortions. All her choices are paid for regardless of cost or scenario. Should we have a provision that says it is illegal for women to have unprotected sex, or have sex without the pill because the resulting baby would cause insurance costs, and/or wellfare costs? Pay attention to how I worded that. It’s entirely true. When a woman becomes pregant from irresponsibile behavior, she has any route paid for whether it’s abortion or help raising the child from society. I’m not saying all women DS. Just the ones that match what I just said. There simply has to be a law in light of what you put above. It’s costly, unsafe, behavior that affects the entire society.
Safe sex, or else right DS? There should be consequences when people are found to be engaging in “un safe” sex with their bodies right DS? Either we shouldn’t pay, or it should be illegal right DS?
Bob, my comments were purely from the perspective that many things are legislated and required for “safety” reasons. I did not go into the insurance related aspects at all, and the implications for PIP/Medical Payment claims and payouts.
I don’t even feel like I should reply to the rest of your rant because it is so irrelevant to the topic. All I will say is this, if I can even spit it out in a reasonable way:
If a women does or does not have a child is her business. If she terminates her pregnancy, there are no FREE abortions. Even if she has insurance, and even if the insurance covers the abortion (which I don’t think they all do unless it is medically neccesary) she would still have costs (copays, deductibles etc). Planned Parenthood doesn’t use ANY government money for abortions. There are no government paid abortions. And if she keeps the child she still has costs even if she is on welfare – food, daycare, clothing, diapers etc.
And why do you people always hate on the women and mothers?! How about holding the men who father these children more accountable. It takes two to tango, and I don’t see any people on the Right ever complaining about deadbeat dads or men that are fathering multiple children with different mothers or not paying child support. Maybe if any of those issues were ever addressed, it would help “lessen the burden on society aka government aka taxes” as you see it. And maybe, just maybe, if we actually taught SAFE SEX and provided AFFORDABLE BIRTH CONTROL to people, it would help prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
I’m done and not commenting anymore because this just infuriates me. This article was about MOTORCYCLE HELMETS not everything else.
The more I read your comments the more disturbed I become at how much you genuinely dislike women.
And you claim to be a human. Shame on you.
(I understand the point you were trying to make, but I’ve come to realize any chance you get to put women down or show them in a negative light, you will do it. We’re not all monsters. We’re not all whores. And we’re not all lazy.)
I wear a helmet when I ride my horse, so I really don’t understand why people want to ride a motorcycle (which has considerably more HP) without a helmet. It shouldn’t have to be a law that people wear a helmet. Would not wearing a helmet be eligible for a Darwin award?
Helmets are a false sense of security……
What are the stats regarding other injuries a motorcyclist gets when they go down? How about all the broken
bones and internal injuries ? What do u people think a helmet would do for those accidents?
NOTHING!
Everyone says that a rider’s decision to forego wearing a helmet is an individual risk and has no social impact. Well, that’s a fallacy.
We are in the insurance industry, so we should now that a hazardous condition will lead to a rise in premium that will affect everyone within that system. Also, injured riders end up eating up our health care resources since the injuries are usually very catastrophic.
On a last note, you gotta be ‘brain dead’ to drive a bike without a helmet.
The solution should be simple. The motorcyclist who chooses to always wear a helmet gets one rate; the motorcyclist who choose not to wear a helmet gets a surcharged (higher) Rate. The motorcyclist who said they always wear a helmet, but did not at the time of the accident, would be surcharged twice – once for normal non helmet rate and then again for the stupidity rate.
Sarcasm here…..perhaps they should allow me to text and drive…..maybe I’ll hit someone on a motorcycle, who wasn’t wearing a helmet….and then maybe they’ll sue….then they’ll travel all over the country and talk to high school students about the dangers of texting while driving and the impact it can have on a motorcycle driver……….oh wait….that’s already happened.
Well, because we are not property of the state (be it federal, state or local) and we own our own bodies, I say to each his own. We take risks and we live with those risks.
Totally agree with you as long as you or the person that hits you pays for 100% of your injuries.
In Michigan the PIP laws have the driver of the auto or truck insurance carrier pick up the tab for the hospital bill, regardless of fault. So, in essence the rider’s freedom is paid for by every other auto owner in Michigan, but not by the motorcycle rider.
The motorcycle doesn’t have to have either a med-pay policy or a PIP policy? Who pays if the motorcycle is the only vehicle involved?
What a joke. Regardless of fault. I’d be all over that in a court room
Yes but it’s the other people that pay for their mistakes.
Freedom of choice and responsibility for those choices go hand in hand. Increasing the medical payments coverage to offset the absence of a helmet only transfers the cost of our personal choice to someone else. Perhaps the companies should simply quit offering medical payments coverage entirely.
“There’s no way to know how many of the Michigan claims involved motorcyclists not wearing helmets, the study said” Just another misleading government report. Funny how they left out the one state that does track helmeted and non helmeted accidents…Pennsylvania. Dramatic increase in helmeted accidents and injuries as compared to non helmeted. But maybe the Insurance Journal should look into the real con…99% of the helmets are not tested to see if they even meet the minimal standards of FMVSS218. And of course promote lawsuits against those helmet distributors who sell those untested helmets when the riders suffers head injuries or death caused by head trauma. These reports always make it sound like all motorcyclist deaths or injuries are head trauma. Last medical report I read…stated 4% of all serious motorcyclist accidents/deaths are due to head trauma. How about reporting the class action lawsuit against Griffin Motorcycle Helmets? No one says you can’t wear a helmet…but learn the truth
How about if the person not wearing a helmet is then excluded from recovery of Social Security disability and Medicaid if the injury is caused by a motorcycle accident. Their personal freedom causes financial burden for everyone else. I believe in helping others in need – if the motorcyclist is wearing a helmet and is injured I am glad to have societal benefits help them…but if they choose not to use available safety (helmets) why should societal benefits apply?
How about the girls don’t wear any pants?
If ANYONE gets that reference, you know comedy. This is a joke people, and I stole it from a hilarious sketch.
Jerry Seinfeld said it best; Is the brain that requires a law to keep it from cracking really worth saving?
I don’t care if motorcycle riders wear a helmet or not, but I’ve seen the damage done to those that drop their bike and don’t have one on. Nothing quite like seeing a big Harley rider being spoon fed because he thought wearing a helmet wasn’t cool.
That is the first Seinfeld quote I like. Completely agree.
I’m not a fan of seeing road kill, nor am I a fan of seeing brain splatter.
We require seatbelts, that’s the law. We require infants and children to be in approved safety seats, that’s the law. States/cities require smoke detectors in new homes or rental homes, that’s the law. Our state requires helmets for people on bicycles under the age of 16.
Why not require helmets for motorcyclists?
Sometimes it’s more about safety than a big brother conspiracy to take away personal rights.
I’ve always struggled with this issue in that I understand the personal choice argument of the rider should be able to make the choice of helmet or not. But countered by the argument that if you get injured more than you would have had you been wearing a helmet, you should bear some of the cost of the irresponsible choice to not wear a helmet.
That all being said, the fairest thing to do is to reduce any compensation due an injured motorcyclist if their injury was compounded by not wearing a helmet. A pretty simple concept in my mind but one hard to implement with our crazy legal system and boneheaded jurors. Yet another reason for rational tort reform. That being said I’d support any legislation reducing any court ordered compensation at least 50% for any head injury sustained while riding a motorcycle without a helmet.
Problem is the PIP law in Michigan has the other auto or truck driver’s carrier pay the medical bills. What a crazy gift to the motorcycle lobby. Every other driver in Michigan pays higher rates partly because of this type cost shifting. So, your freedom to ride ain’t so free, it just means you aren’t paying the bill.
DS your right and Michigan law is bad. In Mchigan they also have this deal know as MCCA which is really a surcharge that helps pay for catastrophic loss when someone is injured. Can you imagine what that cost would be if the state separated motorcycles and they had to fund their own MCCA?
The laws in a lot of these states are really stupid. It is OK to ride a motorcycle without a helmet but if a state trooper catches you without your seatbelt on in a Freightliner you can get a fine plus court costs etc.
Gary Busey.
Over and out.
This just in, it’s wet after rain
LOL. my initial comment to this headline was “Duh.”
Protecting your brain by wearing a helmet seems to be so self-evident and I think most people would agree. Keep in mind though that all helmets are not the same and do not provide the same protection standards in terms of safety. Some have limited standards (novelty helmets for example) while others like DOT approved come with higher protection standards. Helmets approved by the Snell Foundation(www.smf.org)come with the highest safety standards known.
It’s really all about wearing the “right” helmet that makes sense.
I agree in freedom of choice on this helmet subject but also believe that there should be some mechanism for forfiture of publicly funded benefits for injuries that would have been avoided had the rider wore a helmet.
As an analogy, we have no laws (that I know of) requiring people to wear sunblock when outside yet stores sell a lot of it. I am sure most of those unhelmeted bikers use it too. Maybe instead of laws we need better education along with the concept that the rider accept full responsibility and not expect the public to pay out of their pockets for your freedom. That said, if you still want to ride without a helmet I still respect you as a fellow biker and want you to respect that I wish to ride with a helmet.
Jethro Chapter 2, Verses 17-24:
And Jesus arrived in Lansing. There he found a burly dude mentally handicapped from a horrific motorcycle accident. The burly dude had a caregiver close by. “I can heal this man,” Jesus told the caregiver, “but first I have a question. Was he wearing a helmet at the time of the accident?” The caregiver shook her head no. “Oh, well, f_ck him then.”
For once Planet makes a comment that while extreme, actually I agree with.
Whether or not the person is wearing a helmet the claim should be paid.
Moving on to legality issues, which I mainly direct because of DS’s hypocrite comment: Whether or not I’m wearing a helmet is not the government’s business. It’s as many of you pointed out, Insurance business. Though some of you more liberal people seem to think that lowering the cost of insurance business is more important than civil liberties (liberals making non liberal comments because they are indoctrinated, go figure).
But let’s compare: Seat belt issue: My car, my body, my choice. The same of you who believe that seat belts stop costs and therefore we need to regulate seat belts, seem to believe that society should pay for both choices a mother has when it comes to getting pregnant regardless of costs to society. If she has the child, welfare. If she doesn’t have the child, insurance costs for abortions. All her choices are paid for regardless of cost or scenario. Should we have a provision that says it is illegal for women to have unprotected sex, or have sex without the pill because the resulting baby would cause insurance costs, and/or wellfare costs? Pay attention to how I worded that. It’s entirely true. When a woman becomes pregant from irresponsibile behavior, she has any route paid for whether it’s abortion or help raising the child from society. I’m not saying all women DS. Just the ones that match what I just said. There simply has to be a law in light of what you put above. It’s costly, unsafe, behavior that affects the entire society.
Safe sex, or else right DS? There should be consequences when people are found to be engaging in “un safe” sex with their bodies right DS? Either we shouldn’t pay, or it should be illegal right DS?
And you say you’re a liberal. Shame on you.
What if we punish the MEN with whom she had unsafe sex?
Bob, my comments were purely from the perspective that many things are legislated and required for “safety” reasons. I did not go into the insurance related aspects at all, and the implications for PIP/Medical Payment claims and payouts.
I don’t even feel like I should reply to the rest of your rant because it is so irrelevant to the topic. All I will say is this, if I can even spit it out in a reasonable way:
If a women does or does not have a child is her business. If she terminates her pregnancy, there are no FREE abortions. Even if she has insurance, and even if the insurance covers the abortion (which I don’t think they all do unless it is medically neccesary) she would still have costs (copays, deductibles etc). Planned Parenthood doesn’t use ANY government money for abortions. There are no government paid abortions. And if she keeps the child she still has costs even if she is on welfare – food, daycare, clothing, diapers etc.
And why do you people always hate on the women and mothers?! How about holding the men who father these children more accountable. It takes two to tango, and I don’t see any people on the Right ever complaining about deadbeat dads or men that are fathering multiple children with different mothers or not paying child support. Maybe if any of those issues were ever addressed, it would help “lessen the burden on society aka government aka taxes” as you see it. And maybe, just maybe, if we actually taught SAFE SEX and provided AFFORDABLE BIRTH CONTROL to people, it would help prevent the unwanted pregnancies in the first place.
I’m done and not commenting anymore because this just infuriates me. This article was about MOTORCYCLE HELMETS not everything else.
Bob,
The more I read your comments the more disturbed I become at how much you genuinely dislike women.
And you claim to be a human. Shame on you.
(I understand the point you were trying to make, but I’ve come to realize any chance you get to put women down or show them in a negative light, you will do it. We’re not all monsters. We’re not all whores. And we’re not all lazy.)
I wear a helmet when I ride my horse, so I really don’t understand why people want to ride a motorcycle (which has considerably more HP) without a helmet. It shouldn’t have to be a law that people wear a helmet. Would not wearing a helmet be eligible for a Darwin award?
Helmets are a false sense of security……
What are the stats regarding other injuries a motorcyclist gets when they go down? How about all the broken
bones and internal injuries ? What do u people think a helmet would do for those accidents?
NOTHING!
Everyone says that a rider’s decision to forego wearing a helmet is an individual risk and has no social impact. Well, that’s a fallacy.
We are in the insurance industry, so we should now that a hazardous condition will lead to a rise in premium that will affect everyone within that system. Also, injured riders end up eating up our health care resources since the injuries are usually very catastrophic.
On a last note, you gotta be ‘brain dead’ to drive a bike without a helmet.
The solution should be simple. The motorcyclist who chooses to always wear a helmet gets one rate; the motorcyclist who choose not to wear a helmet gets a surcharged (higher) Rate. The motorcyclist who said they always wear a helmet, but did not at the time of the accident, would be surcharged twice – once for normal non helmet rate and then again for the stupidity rate.
Sarcasm here…..perhaps they should allow me to text and drive…..maybe I’ll hit someone on a motorcycle, who wasn’t wearing a helmet….and then maybe they’ll sue….then they’ll travel all over the country and talk to high school students about the dangers of texting while driving and the impact it can have on a motorcycle driver……….oh wait….that’s already happened.
I’m waiting for the law suit to the government for lessening the law. Because had the law stayed strong, they would have been wearing a helmet.