Helmet Laws

[Jared]

According to the MN Brain Injury Alliance (http://www.braininjurymn.org/org-pdf/public-policy/Who-Pays-ExecutiveSummary-Final.pdf), motorcycle-related traumatic brain injuries have cost MN taxpayers $40M in hospital charges over the last 10 years.  This figure does not include the cost to tax payers of long-term care or rehabilitation as a result of these injuries.  According to the above article, wearing a helmet reduces the risk of TBI in a single vehicle motorcycle accident by 41%, and by 25% in multiple vehicle accidents.

I make a personal choice to wear a helmet every time I ride.  Even so, the risk of all those motorcyclists who choose not to wear one are priced into my insurance premiums.  Beyond that, my tax dollars fund their care should they suffer a TBI as a result of their decision and can't afford their medical care.

My first choice to resolve this issue would be to allow the market to take care of it.  Individuals who don't wear a helmet should have to report their decision to their insurance company and carry the extra coverage needed to hedge the extra risk they are taking.  This would also have a two-fold benefit in that the extra cost would encourage more riders to wear a helmet, and at the same time make it less likely that those who don't will end up getting care on the taxpayer's dime.

What am I missing?  For the libertarians on the board, what is your response to my feeling that I am being forced to pay for risk that I am not taking?

[Greg]

Quote" My first choice to resolve this issue would be to allow the market to take care of it.  Individuals who don't wear a helmet should have to report their decision to their insurance company and carry the extra coverage needed to hedge the extra risk they are taking.  This would also have a two-fold benefit in that the extra cost would encourage more riders to wear a helmet, and at the same time make it less likely that those who don't will end up getting care on the taxpayer's dime."

I'm in favor of the above approach.

Regarding policing bad behavior in general, where does it end? Do we fine overweight people? Do we fine those that skydive? Private pilots? Scuba divers? Mountain climbers? Hang gliders?
Once we go down that road, the "safety police" won't be happy until all risk in life is avoided. Of course, then it's not living.

[smokechaser]

From a emergency responders perspective (Firefighter/EMT for 17 years...)

As much as some like to argue that wearing a helmet is a personal choice that only affects the individual, I would point out that there are additional dangers for others when choosing to not wear a helmet. 

In a general sense, crashes are more serious when a helmet is not worn.  More serious crashes take more time to clear from the roadways. More time to clear from the roadway means more time that emergency workers are in a high risk setting.  The more time we are in a high risk setting the better the chances those same careless drivers that do not see motorcycles crash into our firetrucks, ambulances, police cars, or other motorists slowing for the accident. 

From a purely selfish standpoint, wear your helmet!

-Greg

[Vander]

I'm torn on this new helmet law proposal...

I like...
Maintaining the choice to wear or not wear.

I like...
Those that choose to accept the increased risks are directed to carry adequate insurance to incur costs of that increased risk.

I DON'T quite like...
The method in which it will be enforced:
Those that choose to not wear a helmet can only do so by obtaining a special license plate for their motorcycle (upon showing proof of the extra insurance coverage).

Problems (pending further research): 
What's going to stop the defiant riders from canceling the extra insurance upon obtaining the special license plate?
What will happen to the special plates when the bike is sold?
What about out of state riders?

And a big concern for me:
Is it really a free choice when you constantly have to prove that you are adhering to the criteria of exercising that "free choice"?

[pkpk]

Sort of a blend of arguments above.  My view has always been the "cost" to society argument always unfairly ranks motorcycles accidents above more commonplace accidents.  For example, I have always understood bicycle injuries, farm injuries and recreational sport injuries all outnumber the cost to society than motorcycle injuries (disclaimer: my wife works in the insurance industry and has said this in the past).  While this seems hard to believe, the number of bicyclists outnumber the motorcycles by a vast amount.  The injury to a head is no less costly considering a fall off a bike to the pavement or being hit by a car.  Yet the media (and subsequently the special interest groups) are always holding up motorcycling as the sport needing a "fix".

[beedawg]

What's going to stop the defiant riders from canceling the extra insurance upon obtaining the special license plate?

The same thing that keeps them from cancelling any insurance they have on their bike now.  That, and a hefty fine for not carrying the insurance that their plate says they carry.  Possibly the loss of the right to legally ride helmetless.

What about out of state riders?

If MN has a helmet law with some exemptions, then out of state riders will need to wear helmet until they can prove they're exempt.

In the real world, though, people under 18 and people on permits in Minnesota are required to wear helmets.  Some don't.  No law can create 100% compliance, but that doesn't make it a bad law.

[Vander]

While this seems hard to believe, the number of bicyclists outnumber the motorcycles by a vast amount.  The injury to a head is no less costly considering a fall off a bike to the pavement or being hit by a car.  Yet the media (and subsequently the special interest groups) are always holding up motorcycling as the sport needing a "fix".

That's surprising.
Wonder if there are any bicycle helmet laws in the works...?

No law can create 100% compliance, but that doesn't make it a bad law.

Hmmm...
That's true.

[tk]

I'm fundamentally opposed to requiring higher insurance limits on people
based on what they wear or don't wear.

[pkpk]

I'm fundamentally opposed to requiring higher insurance limits on people based on what they wear or don't wear.

Well I think you should pay higher insurance if you insist on continuing to wear that speedo in public.

Sorry..... 

[beedawg]

According to the MN Brain Injury Alliance (http://www.braininjurymn.org/org-pdf/public-policy/Who-Pays-ExecutiveSummary-Final.pdf), motorcycle-related traumatic brain injuries have cost MN taxpayers $40M in hospital charges over the last 10 years.

$40M over 10 years doesn't sound like much money for traumatic brain injuries.  That's around 75 cents per Minnesotan per year.  At that price, I wouldn't call it a problem.  And I sure can't imagine a government solution this cheap.

I make a personal choice to wear a helmet every time I ride.  Even so, the risk of all those motorcyclists who choose not to wear one are priced into my insurance premiums.  Beyond that, my tax dollars fund their care should they suffer a TBI as a result of their decision and can't afford their medical care.

I'm not legally required to carry medical insurance as part of my motorcycle policy.  I would guess that only those who do carry medical insurance on their motorcycle policy are subsidizing riders who don't wear helmets.  Doesn't seem like a problem to me.  If some insurance company wants to deny medical coverage to helmetless riders, or anyone who rides an R6, or riders who've never had training, fine.  If some insurance company wants to provide discounts to riders they deem safer than average,  no problem.  Otherwise, absent a mandate, I'm free to buy or not, based on cost vs. expected benefits.

My first choice to resolve this issue would be to allow the market to take care of it.  Individuals who don't wear a helmet should have to report their decision to their insurance company and carry the extra coverage needed to hedge the extra risk they are taking.

Forcing people to report their decision to their insurance company seems counter to your preference to allow the market to care of it.  Why not let insurance companies decide whether they will impose a surcharge for riding helmetless, or in flip-flops, or in a speedo?

My school carries liability insurance.  My insurers have rules about what my students must wear.  I operate under the assumption that if I ever file a claim, my insurer's going to want to know that the injured student was wearing the proper gear.  I don't see why this couldn't work with all motorcycle policies that cover medical expenses.  They sell me a policy based on my promise to wear gear that meets their standards.  If I get hurt and they can show that I wasn't wearing proper gear, then they don't have to pay.

Brent

[vince]

Back in the 70's I helped repeal the helmet law and I will do everything I can to keep it the way it is now. When I was down in the meeting at the capital a law almost passed that if a car hit a motorcycle with out a helmet the bike is 100% at fault. Failed by just 2 votes. It would have been open hunting on bikers. In the 80's Insurance companies decided no to insure bike injuries. It took 2 years to pass a law than made them cover bike injuries. Do you really what to go here. Fuck no. Leave it right where it's at. Yes it is sad that this girl died. She died because she got driven over by a truck got that a truck. And if that mother goes down to the capital I will be going down there to have a face to face talk with her on what the hell she is doing. Her daughter was an adult back off.
This very thing happen for snowmobiles. A kid skip school got drunk and got on his dads sled. Went down the city street speeding. It was a 30 zone and he was going over 50. Hits a girl going to get the mail and kills her. The parents go to the capital and they have a speed limit law passed. So now the maximum speed anywhere is 55 mph. So now we are the only state with this law and nobody from out of state is coming here and even I go out of state to ride. Why because you can be in the middle of nowhere, 10 miles in all directions and there is nobody but a cop and you get a ticket and it also goes on your record. Nice.We are trying to get rid of this right now.
Lets no go here.

[Jared]

I'm fundamentally opposed to requiring higher insurance limits on people
based on what they wear or don't wear.

You're a smart and thoughtful dude Tony.  What makes you opposed to it?

$40M over 10 years doesn't sound like much money for traumatic brain injuries.  That's around 75 cents per Minnesotan per year.  At that price, I wouldn't call it a problem.  And I sure can't imagine a government solution this cheap.

I'm not legally required to carry medical insurance as part of my motorcycle policy.  I would guess that only those who do carry medical insurance on their motorcycle policy are subsidizing riders who don't wear helmets.  Doesn't seem like a problem to me.  If some insurance company wants to deny medical coverage to helmetless riders, or anyone who rides an R6, or riders who've never had training, fine.  If some insurance company wants to provide discounts to riders they deem safer than average,  no problem.  Otherwise, absent a mandate, I'm free to buy or not, based on cost vs. expected benefits.

Forcing people to report their decision to their insurance company seems counter to your preference to allow the market to care of it.  Why not let insurance companies decide whether they will impose a surcharge for riding helmetless, or in flip-flops, or in a speedo?

My school carries liability insurance.  My insurers have rules about what my students must wear.  I operate under the assumption that if I ever file a claim, my insurer's going to want to know that the injured student was wearing the proper gear.  I don't see why this couldn't work with all motorcycle policies that cover medical expenses.  They sell me a policy based on my promise to wear gear that meets their standards.  If I get hurt and they can show that I wasn't wearing proper gear, then they don't have to pay.

Brent

B-Dizzle - The $40M figure is only hospital charges to the taxpayer (primary treatment).  It doesn't factor in long-term care/rehab required for some individuals or the additional costs all motorcyclists pay in premiums for coverage.  Lots of good points here though.  I really like your last paragraph, letting individuals stipulate the conditions of their coverage, and then companies can choose to pay or not pay based on if the insured met those stipulations when an accident happens.

Back in the 70's I helped repeal the helmet law and I will do everything I can to keep it the way it is now. When I was down in the meeting at the capital a law almost passed that if a car hit a motorcycle with out a helmet the bike is 100% at fault. Failed by just 2 votes. It would have been open hunting on bikers. In the 80's Insurance companies decided no to insure bike injuries. It took 2 years to pass a law than made them cover bike injuries. Do you really what to go here. Fuck no. Leave it right where it's at. Yes it is sad that this girl died. She died because she got driven over by a truck got that a truck. And if that mother goes down to the capital I will be going down there to have a face to face talk with her on what the hell she is doing. Her daughter was an adult back off.
This very thing happen for snowmobiles. A kid skip school got drunk and got on his dads sled. Went down the city street speeding. It was a 30 zone and he was going over 50. Hits a girl going to get the mail and kills her. The parents go to the capital and they have a speed limit law passed. So now the maximum speed anywhere is 55 mph. So now we are the only state with this law and nobody from out of state is coming here and even I go out of state to ride. Why because you can be in the middle of nowhere, 10 miles in all directions and there is nobody but a cop and you get a ticket and it also goes on your record. Nice.We are trying to get rid of this right now.
Lets no go here.

Vince, I get your point about the slippery slope.  It echoes what Greg said above.  My point here is that I shouldn't have to pay to subsidize the insurance rates paid by individuals who are almost twice as likely as I am to suffer a TBI in a single vehicle accident due to a choice they freely make. 

[pkpk]

Vince, I get your point about the slippery slope.  It echoes what Greg said above.  My point here is that I shouldn't have to pay to subsidize the insurance rates paid by individuals who are almost twice as likely as I am to suffer a TBI in a single vehicle accident due to a choice they freely make. 

But you can argue that line about everything in life.  You are already subsidizing uninsured/underinsured car drivers, horseback riders, bicyclists, farmer workers, obesity, smoking etc etc whom don't carry enough (or any) insurance.  One could argue that Mayor Bloomberg's attempt to make oversized soft drinks illegal in New York would have more cost returns than making riders wear helmets over the long run.  So are you on that bandwagon too?  My problem is we are falling for that line promoted by the media (motorcyclists cost $$$) and this winds up promoting the discrimination we are always having to deal with.

[beedawg]

My point here is that I shouldn't have to pay to subsidize the insurance rates paid by individuals who are almost twice as likely as I am to suffer a TBI in a single vehicle accident due to a choice they freely make. 

The fact that someone is twice as likely to suffer a TBI in an accident doesn't mean you're subsidizing them.  If you're three times as likely to have that single-vehicle accident in the first place because of how much you ride, where you ride, the way you ride, or any other reason, then they're subsidizing you.

Brent

[dl]

I recall that a few years ago, a state out east, I think, was pushing for a mandatory helmet law. They had studies showing how many life's, it would save. So the AMA, I believe it was, started campaigning that "All" occupants of cars and trucks should be also mandated to wear a helmet too, while in a motor vehicle because it would greatly reduce injuries in auto accidents. Guess what, they left the bikes alone.

Now this seams ridiculous, but really, where does it stop. And I may have read this in an Easy Rider, so I cant validate the source. While were at it, lets mandate full safety yellow riding suite, boots and gloves while were at it, cause then we'd "really" be safe. Wait a minute, motorcycles are dangerous! Lets just ban them!

I think its also BS to require extra medical coverage to be allowed to not wear a helmet. I think Texas is this way. It would seam to me that that would give a cop cause to pull a rider over that wasn't wearing a helmet at will, for no other infraction, just to check and see if the rider is legal.

Ya, and Im opposed to the seat belt law too. Little kids, sure. But adults, quit trying to save our self's from our self's.