Total Motorcycle Community Forums

captinamerica wrote:I dont like to wear a helmet, and i ussually dont. More honestly I dont wear one unless it is cold out. I think its a little harsh to consider me a dumb A**. because there are certain advantages to not wearing one. For the astute rider. such as i can hear someone bearing down on me and have escaped cetain calamity. I think the one who rides up to a light or intersection with out a plan is the dummy. or if you are ridding in the country and you dont plan for the blind idiot that is going to pull out in front of you. IT called awareness and it has saved more lives than any big brother bubble wrap safty bolognia ever has

why not get one of those half helmets, i've got a decent one that doesn't cover the ears, so you're not losing any sense of sound or vision but you're still protected.

matthew5656 wrote:
So you don't have to call me names, miss. It's mean and uncalled for.

I agree.
We all know better than to resort to namecalling....

Don't make me do the moderator thing.

Freedom of speech.........
Freedom of choice..........
Freedom of where to go and ride with or without.........

Well, I was just vacationing out in Denver at the World Science Fiction Convention....

The sheer number of scooters, mopeds and motorcycles was overwhelming. I mean... Really, wow.

Helmet use... well, mostly in the toilet really. There were a few, most notably a woman in a nice suit on her scooter and a number of sport bike riders.

It did look actually cool for those that weren't wearing helmets. I gotta admit. But some, I think looked a bit preternaturally old. I think the wind, sun and exposure make you age faster. I like my face looking younger than my current age, so I'll wear a helmet to be a little vain and look nicer for a longer time as long as I don't hit the aforementioned semi.

I saw three semis today - locking up their brakes. Drove my car in today though. Oh, and I don't know what was up, but there there 5 tires on the side of the road on the approach to the GWB. Semi tires. Glad they weren't in the middle of the road, driving a car or riding a bike.

And one day, riding on 1 & 9 on the way home instead of the turnpike, I passed a carb in the middle of my lane. Holy crap, saw it too late to do anything - and good thing - it wasn't in my third of the lane. Gave me a good scare though it was close enough to my front tire.

RhadamYgg

I'm sure the helmet debate has a long history here but, since I'm new, I thought I throw in my two drachmas.

I'm a libertarian of sorts, so place great value in personal freedom. But I also believe that freedom requires responsibility. So here's where I am on the helmet thing--I think anyone who wants should be free to ride without a helmet, but also that medical insurance companies and the state should be authorized to refuse to pay the expenses for anyone who had a head injury while riding without one. No one should expect other insurance policy holders to help underwrite the costs of exercising their personal freedom. The way it is now, safe insurance policy holders pay more than the risk of their behavior and unsafe ones pay less. If someone is willing fully bear the risks and costs of riding without one themselves, they should be free to take it off.

RockBottom wrote:I'm sure the helmet debate has a long history here but, since I'm new, I thought I throw in my two drachmas.

I'm a libertarian of sorts, so place great value in personal freedom. But I also believe that freedom requires responsibility. So here's where I am on the helmet thing--I think anyone who wants should be free to ride without a helmet, but also that medical insurance companies and the state should be authorized to refuse to pay the expenses for anyone who had a head injury while riding without one. No one should expect other insurance policy holders to help underwrite the costs of exercising their personal freedom. The way it is now, safe insurance policy holders pay more than the risk of their behavior and unsafe ones pay less. If someone is willing fully bear the risks and costs of riding without one themselves, they should be free to take it off.

This is exactly what I've always said. If you choose not to wear a helmet your insurance company and/or no taxpayer money to cover your hospital stay.

RockBottom wrote:I'm sure the helmet debate has a long history here but, since I'm new, I thought I throw in my two drachmas.

I'm a libertarian of sorts, so place great value in personal freedom. But I also believe that freedom requires responsibility. So here's where I am on the helmet thing--I think anyone who wants should be free to ride without a helmet, but also that medical insurance companies and the state should be authorized to refuse to pay the expenses for anyone who had a head injury while riding without one. No one should expect other insurance policy holders to help underwrite the costs of exercising their personal freedom. The way it is now, safe insurance policy holders pay more than the risk of their behavior and unsafe ones pay less. If someone is willing fully bear the risks and costs of riding without one themselves, they should be free to take it off.

So the burden now shifts to the hospitals who obviously cannot refuse treatment of a half-alive unhelmeted rider. So the hopital eats unpaid medical bills and no matter how you look at it, the cost will eventually be passed along to you and me.

Anyway you look at it, an unhelmeted rider is more likely to be a burden on society than a helmeted one. There is no way around it.

HYPERR wrote:

RockBottom wrote:I'm sure the helmet debate has a long history here but, since I'm new, I thought I throw in my two drachmas.

I'm a libertarian of sorts, so place great value in personal freedom. But I also believe that freedom requires responsibility. So here's where I am on the helmet thing--I think anyone who wants should be free to ride without a helmet, but also that medical insurance companies and the state should be authorized to refuse to pay the expenses for anyone who had a head injury while riding without one. No one should expect other insurance policy holders to help underwrite the costs of exercising their personal freedom. The way it is now, safe insurance policy holders pay more than the risk of their behavior and unsafe ones pay less. If someone is willing fully bear the risks and costs of riding without one themselves, they should be free to take it off.

So the burden now shifts to the hospitals who obviously cannot refuse treatment of a half-alive unhelmeted rider. So the hopital eats unpaid medical bills and no matter how you look at it, the cost will eventually be passed along to you and me.

Anyway you look at it, an unhelmeted rider is more likely to be a burden on society than a helmeted one. There is no way around it.

To some extent, but the hospital could then collect from the ininsured party the way they normally would--garnish wages, put a lien on property, etc.

RockBottom wrote:

HYPERR wrote:

RockBottom wrote:I'm sure the helmet debate has a long history here but, since I'm new, I thought I throw in my two drachmas.

I'm a libertarian of sorts, so place great value in personal freedom. But I also believe that freedom requires responsibility. So here's where I am on the helmet thing--I think anyone who wants should be free to ride without a helmet, but also that medical insurance companies and the state should be authorized to refuse to pay the expenses for anyone who had a head injury while riding without one. No one should expect other insurance policy holders to help underwrite the costs of exercising their personal freedom. The way it is now, safe insurance policy holders pay more than the risk of their behavior and unsafe ones pay less. If someone is willing fully bear the risks and costs of riding without one themselves, they should be free to take it off.

So the burden now shifts to the hospitals who obviously cannot refuse treatment of a half-alive unhelmeted rider. So the hopital eats unpaid medical bills and no matter how you look at it, the cost will eventually be passed along to you and me.

Anyway you look at it, an unhelmeted rider is more likely to be a burden on society than a helmeted one. There is no way around it.

To some extent, but the hospital could then collect from the ininsured party the way they normally would--garnish wages, put a lien on property, etc.

That only works if the person has a 7 figure asset and agrees to turn it over without a fight, which usually don't happen. Even if the person has a ton of assets, there are ways out like quick claiming the house to his wife or mother or whatever to prevent it from being taken away. Even if the Hospital does recover the costs, they will have spent a ton of money on lawyers and court fees.

Unfortunately the reality is, no matter how you look at it, an unhelmeted rider is more likely to be a burden on society than a helmeted one.

I agree with both Rockbottom and Hyperr. I would like to add that if we enacted a law tomorrow that said no helmet no coverage then we need to extend that to other vehicles as well. No seat belts no coverage. No bicycle helmet no coverage. How many thousands of people have been treated in hospitals with severe injuries that were caused by their own stupidity by drinking and driving? Why should insurance companies (and you and me) have to pay for that? If you want to see a real cost impact leave the non-helmeted riders alone and focus on these drunks out on the road.