Rollin without a helmet is loud and windy

[flynrider]

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.

I don't think we created a caricature of you argument, we just extended it beyond the single point you focused on. Is there any reason that unhelmeted motorcyclist should be held more responsible than say, unhelmeted bicycle riders or unhelmeted skiers?

The real costs affecting insurance have nothing to do with unhelmeted activities. If the real point of your argument is the burden on the healthcare system, then Rhadam is correct in pointing out (perhaps using extreme examples) that those who deliberately mistreat their bodies are the real burden. Comatose motorcycle accident victims don't even register on the radar when compared to those who damage themselves by excessive smoking, eating or drinking.

The question we ask is why are unhelmeted motorcyclists picked out for your special treatment?

BTW- As I always do in these threads, I would like to remind everyone that I do wear a helmet 99.9% of the time and recommend that others do as well.

[RockBottom]

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.

I don't think we created a caricature of you argument, we just extended it beyond the single point you focused on. Is there any reason that unhelmeted motorcyclist should be held more responsible than say, unhelmeted bicycle riders or unhelmeted skiers?

The real costs affecting insurance have nothing to do with unhelmeted activities. If the real point of your argument is the burden on the healthcare system, then Rhadam is correct in pointing out (perhaps using extreme examples) that those who deliberately mistreat their bodies are the real burden. Comatose motorcycle accident victims don't even register on the radar when compared to those who damage themselves by excessive smoking, eating or drinking.

The question we ask is why are unhelmeted motorcyclists picked out for your special treatment?

BTW- As I always do in these threads, I would like to remind everyone that I do wear a helmet 99.9% of the time and recommend that others do as well.

I didn't talk about bicyclists, skiers, smokers etc because this is a thread about motorcyclists, not bicyclists, skiers, or smokers.

As a general principle, I favor maximum freedom for everyone in every endeavor so long as they accept personal reponsibility for it and don't expect any costs which their freedom entails to be spread among people who elect to not exercise the freedom.

Your argument seems to be that people other than motorcyclists do irresponsible things. That is true, but I don't think it changes or refutes my point about motorcyclists. It doesn't make sense to me to say we can't talk about risk and responsibility among motorcyclists because non-motorcyclists also act irresponsibly.

[flynrider]

I didn't talk about bicyclists, skiers, smokers etc because this is a thread about motorcyclists, not bicyclists, skiers, or smokers.

As a general principle, I favor maximum freedom for everyone in every endeavor so long as they accept personal reponsibility for it and don't expect any costs which their freedom entails to be spread among people who elect to not exercise the freedom.

Your argument seems to be that people other than motorcyclists do irresponsible things. That is true, but I don't think it changes or refutes my point about motorcyclists. It doesn't make sense to me to say we can't talk about risk and responsibility among motorcyclists because non-motorcyclists also act irresponsibly.

My argument actually asks, "why pick on motorcyclists?" I only point out that in is disingenuous to propose insurance restrictions only on a small set of the population that acts irresponsibly. Particularly when that small set is insignificant to the overall insurance pool. The insurance argument is often brought up as a way to persuade a group to make their risk assesments the way another group would like them to. If insurance costs were really a significant factor, there are a hundred other irresponsible activities that should be targeted ahead of the unhelmeted motorcyclist.

When you decide you want to make a special case for the unhelmeted motorcyclist, where does it end? I know actual people who suggest that the same restrictions be applied to all motorcyclists. After all, everyone knows how dangerous motorcycling is. Hence, my description of the only insurable people on the planet being a group of nuns in the midwest

As I said, I am a big proponent of helmet use. At the same time, I also like to participate in several activities that some people would consider risky or dangerous. I tend to get a bit defensive when folks start proposing "solutions" for my personal risk assesment.

[captinamerica]

My friend is a quadrapoligic rather than dead. thanks helmet laws. Why do we assume any life is better than dead. I think quality over quantity and because i love my friend i hate to see him suffer. I use to go and get him out of bed for work each day (He works as a salesman for the company he owns because he cant do what he use to do. play golf and ride his bike while employees did the work) while he hunted for a home health nurse that wouldnt miss treat him. It was humilliating for him to ask me to help. Now the one who helped others requires the help. I think id rather be dead my self.

[t_bonee]

People who live in tornado country need to where tornado helmets.

Seriously, our weathermen around here want us to wear tornado helmets when severe weather blows through.

Eventually there will be a law that we all just wear helmets all the time then there are no worries cause we'll always have our helmet on regardless of what we are doing.

That is what this country(world?) is coming to. Too many well intentioned but misled safety nannies anymore.

[Johnj]

People who live in tornado country need to where tornado helmets.

[RhadamYgg]

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!".

Just a note.... We do things like this - when you apply for life insurance they check you out. When you get health insurance (not through an employer) pre-existing conditions like... AIDS are not covered.

When I applied for health insurance recently... They asked many questions including rate-hiking 'do you smoke, have you ever smoked and for how long'. So, if you don't have the cash, you can't smoke if you want health insurance.

How long until they do mandatory DNA screenings for health and life insurance ... who knows? They are probably just waiting for the science to be proven.

RhadamYgg

[RhadamYgg]

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.

You know.... This driving as a privilege and not a right is propaganda from the DMVs of the country.

Figure it this way... We have knives out there. People use knives. Then somebody makes some laws to use knives then a few years later they claim it is a privilege for people to use knives.

This is no different than driving cars or riding motorcycles. It is pure crap.

Not that I disagree with regulating knives, driving cars or riding motorcycles - quite the opposite for all three. But this terminology... It places the citizen in a position of knave or subordinate to the government when in fact the government is the servant of the people. Not the other way around.

Anyway. I don't think riding without a helmet shouldn't be covered by insurance as long as it is a legal activity in your region. I do think that motorcyclists that ride without their helmet should pay appropriate premiums to cover the risk of their activity. So, questions when you fill out your insurance application should be:
1) Do you ride without a helmet?
2) How often do you ride without a helmet (percentages)?

And if you lie for lower rates in saying for #1 that you wear a helmet all the time (and get in to an accident without a helmet).... Then you committed fraud and won't be covered.

This is a form of limitation of freedom, but it is equitable. You take on more risk you pay more insurance. This is just like when I purchased my motorcycle I paid for new separate insurance for motorcycles to cover that risk.

There is plenty of precedent for this kind of activity - as in my earlier mentioned post in regard to health insurance, life insurance and many other activities.

Of course, I have problems with insurance. People pay lowered rates for insurance for living in flood zones - but the government often pays some of the costs because otherwise it would be too expensive to live in those areas. Then when disaster strikes - of course it is a problem. I mean people live on flood plains for crying out loud. Do you really think houses belong there!!!

RhadamYgg

[RhadamYgg]

BTW- As I always do in these threads, I would like to remind everyone that I do wear a helmet 99.9% of the time and recommend that others do as well.

I wear a helmet 100% of the time in NJ, and not only because it is the law.

I do actually think it is pretty dumb not to take reasonable precautions and I think helmets are a part of reasonable precautions.

But people point to costs about healthcare and then they point to unhelmeted motorcyclists.... And well as Flynrider said, this is really insignificant in terms of costs compared to the number of people in the hospital every year for diabetes caused by being overweight for many years in a row or for that matter the number of people in the hospital because they choose to smoke for years on end.

When you list priorities for saving costs and lengthening the productive good years of life for people - motorcycling is small beans. The priority should be on things that affect large numbers of people, like diabetes and emphysema.

RhadamYgg

[Gunslinger]

Lots of good, solid debate on this topic. IMO this is what this forum is all about. I used to be on the "mandatory helmet law" side of the fence. I have since changed my opinion and agree that wearing a helmet should be a personal choice. I wear a helmet 90% of the time but there are those times when I need to run to the store that I don't wear one like I should. I am like alot of other people in that I don't like the Big G telling me what to do.
I would like to know where I can purchase a tornado helmet. I live in Arizona so I would never actually have a chance to use it but just to say that I have one would be a great conversation piece.