Total Motorcycle Community Forums

RhadamYgg wrote: Of course, under this reasoning:
1) Fat people who develop Type 2 diabetes should not be covered.
2) People who smoke should not be covered
3) People who live with people who smoke should not be covered (as they have a choice in whom they live with)
4) People who ride motorcycles shouldn't be covered (risky behavior)

Of course.... I think driving a car is risky behavior... So
5) People who drive cars shouldn't be covered.

In the end, not covering people on insurance due to their behavior would result in a severe restriction of freedom... It just isn't done by law.

RhadamYgg

Thank you, Rhadam. You succinctly point out how ridiculous this argument is. Following the idea to its logical conclusion, there would only be a few people in the country that qualified for insurance. I'm guessing it woudl be some sect of vegetarian nuns tucked away in the midwest

RhadamYgg wrote: In the end, not covering people on insurance due to their behavior would result in a severe restriction of freedom... It just isn't done by law.

RhadamYgg

As I indicated, I'm a believer in freedom, but I'm not a believer in requiring other people to underwrite the costs of my freedom.

And, your analogies don't hold:

--I pay insurance premiums for my decision to ride a motorcycle so I'm not asking other people to underwrite the costs
--People who smoke pay higher insurance premiums

But people who ride motorcycles without helmets (i.e. elect to act irresponsibly) do not pay higher premiums as a result of that decision.

flynrider wrote: Thank you, Rhadam. You succinctly point out how ridiculous this argument is. Following the idea to its logical conclusion, there would only be a few people in the country that qualified for insurance. I'm guessing it woudl be some sect of vegetarian nuns tucked away in the midwest

No, you and Rhadam have created a caricature of my argument and then contended it is ridiculous. I agree that your caricature is ridiculous. But it was not what I said.

I simply argued that the costs of one's behavior should be in proportion to the risks of that behavior. In some ways it is--we all pay for motorcycle insurance. In other ways it is not--people who ride motorcycles in a way proven to increase their chances of serious injury do not pay extra for that privilege, hence other people are underwriting their risk behavior.

Yeah I gotta disagree about this "limiting freedom"

Saying Fat people with Type 2 diabetes and smokers and all that is taking it too far.

Nobody is saying "People need to lose weight so I pay less insurance!" or "Lets make it illegal to smoke!".

I'm not talking about NO coverage I'm talking about no coverage limited to what you are doing.

No Helmet + Head Injury = No Coverage

The reason that the other examples you use don't apply is that they aren't illegal and aren't part of something that is a privilege. Motorcycling, just like driving a car, is a privilege not a right. Therefore it's affected by laws that are enacted to protect everyone who chooses to exercise that privilege.

Since the majority of people do not want helmet-less riders the people who want to have the ability to decide need to make a deal to have that ability.

If they don't like it they can move to another state that supports them.

You guys are expressing some sort of Eutopian society that won't exist. If you follow you string of people should be allowed to do things where does that end? I won't even bother posting the silly examples of things all people with true "freedom" should be allowed to do.

There are some states with helmet laws. I wonder how statistics would compare with non-helmet law states, eg, head injuries, deaths, rehab costs and post-injury quality of life, etc.

Traumatic brain injury is one of the toughest long-term disabilities to live with--both for the injured and the family.

MZ33 wrote:There are some states with helmet laws. I wonder how statistics would compare with non-helmet law states, eg, head injuries, deaths, rehab costs and post-injury quality of life, etc.

Traumatic brain injury is one of the toughest long-term disabilities to live with--both for the injured and the family.

I believe they did a study in Florida when they passed the no helmet law (recently?) and they actually had less motorcycle fatalities. Don't quote me on this though.

Brackstone wrote:Yeah I gotta disagree about this "limiting freedom"

Saying Fat people with Type 2 diabetes and smokers and all that is taking it too far.

Nobody is saying "People need to lose weight so I pay less insurance!" or "Lets make it illegal to smoke!".

I'm not talking about NO coverage I'm talking about no coverage limited to what you are doing.

No Helmet + Head Injury = No Coverage

The reason that the other examples you use don't apply is that they aren't illegal and aren't part of something that is a privilege. Motorcycling, just like driving a car, is a privilege not a right. Therefore it's affected by laws that are enacted to protect everyone who chooses to exercise that privilege.

Since the majority of people do not want helmet-less riders the people who want to have the ability to decide need to make a deal to have that ability.

If they don't like it they can move to another state that supports them.

You guys are expressing some sort of Eutopian society that won't exist. If you follow you string of people should be allowed to do things where does that end? I won't even bother posting the silly examples of things all people with true "freedom" should be allowed to do.

I think the overall issue is not with the insurance companies, but in that each state decides whether it should or shouln't have a helmet requirement law. If you aren't required by law to wear a helmet, insurance companies will likely not try to force you to, as you'd probably switch to another company. Additionally, some health insurance does not cover motorcycle accidents whether you're helmeted or not. When tax payers pick up the tab from the medical bills, it'll be because the rider was put in a state or county hospital. Again, in states that dont require helmets, there is absolutely no way that rider will be turned away.

Bottom line, I can almost guarantee that the amount that tax payers are paying for badly injured or vegetable, helmetless riders is very very small compared to everything else we pay for. Less than 2% of the US population rides motorcycles. The monetary consequence to tax payers is virtually nothing.

koji52 wrote: Bottom line, I can almost guarantee that the amount that tax payers are paying for badly injured or vegetable, helmetless riders is very very small compared to everything else we pay for. Less than 2% of the US population rides motorcycles. The monetary consequence to tax payers is virtually nothing.

You may be right, I just want people to have the freedom to choose what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If people don't want to wear a helmet I say why stop them. I'll ALWAYS wear my helmet.

But if it's going to raise insurance costs or taxes or whatever then they need to sign a waiver saying they'll pay all their own costs.

Brackstone wrote: You may be right, I just want people to have the freedom to choose what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. If people don't want to wear a helmet I say why stop them. I'll ALWAYS wear my helmet.

But if it's going to raise insurance costs or taxes or whatever then they need to sign a waiver saying they'll pay all their own costs.

Brackstone, just so you know, I'm not advocating for or against helmet laws. Just like you, I always wear a helmet, but I am not really totally decided on if the Gov't should step in and dictate whether one should wear a helmet or not.

My point is that unhelmeted rider do have their cost in society. I don't know how much it is but there is a cost, no doubt about it. However there are much more important issues that needs to be adressed way before, like stricter DUI laws for example.

HYPERR wrote: Brackstone, just so you know, I'm not advocating for or against helmet laws. Just like you, I always wear a helmet, but I am not really totally decided on if the Gov't should step in and dictate whether one should wear a helmet or not.

My point is that unhelmeted rider do have their cost in society. I don't know how much it is but there is a cost, no doubt about it. However there are much more important issues that needs to be adressed way before, like stricter DUI laws for example.

I know I agree with you on that.

IMO there are always bigger issues everywhere. But you'll find people out there with a really bad stomach flu "Wishing they were dead because they can't go shopping at the outlets this weekend" and I'm sure people with Terminal Cancer would gladly change places with them.

However that being said inside the Motorcycle Community I believe that this is the biggest issue. It's always the most hotly debated topic I see. Not that I'm saying DUI isn't but that effects more communities than just motorcyclists.

I can go into any forum and say "Lane Splitting Rules!" or "I love poppin wheelies!" and it won't generate a quater as much traffic as a "Everyone should be able to choose to wear a helmet or not" thread.

I mean this wasn't even a thread ABOUT that. But the helmet talk is like dry kindling laying all over the place. Then all it takes is one person to jump in and call someone a crazy donkey and BOOM it's a fire again.