mn-msta.com
General Category => General Banter => Topic started by: Jared on June 08, 2012, 09:55:45 AM
-
According to the MN Brain Injury Alliance (http://www.braininjurymn.org/org-pdf/public-policy/Who-Pays-ExecutiveSummary-Final.pdf (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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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"?
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'm fundamentally opposed to requiring higher insurance limits on people
based on what they wear or don't wear.
-
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..... :D
-
According to the MN Brain Injury Alliance ([url]http://www.braininjurymn.org/org-pdf/public-policy/Who-Pays-ExecutiveSummary-Final.pdf[/url] ([url]http://www.braininjurymn.org/org-pdf/public-policy/Who-Pays-ExecutiveSummary-Final.pdf[/url])), 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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Nothing is free. Everything is a tradeoff. When the cost for something becomes too high "market forces" tend to correct the situation. The same is true for personal freedoms.
Using the numbers from MN BIA as an example, I think most people don't think a $40M cost to society over 10 years is a significnt price to pay for the freedom to ride without helmets. OTOH, if the cost to society were $40B, I think allot more people would be more inclined to create a law to protect society from the cost, and if the price were $4T, people would probably be saying anyone against helmets laws was a fiscally irresponsible bleeding heart liberal. While individual rights are important, I think we all recognize that the health and well being of our country as a whole is important, and at a certain point, the interests of a few, must yield to the interests of many.
If we want don't want motorcycle helmet laws to be forced upon us, it is incumbent on us to use helmets when appropriate and to get others to do the same to keep societal costs from motorcycling related traumatic brain injuries at acceptable levels.
-
I feel everyone should wear a helmet all the time. But I do not feel the government should have the right to tell me that I have to....(but that may well end up being the only way many will wear a helmet, and what will they buy, full face that actually will protect...of course not-it'll be some 1/2 or 1/4 helmet that does little to nothing for true protection....so the law would have to be more specific if at all)
Government is already too big and too powerful, when an inch is given they take 10 miles...So no do not give the inch....
-
so if wearing a helmet is the safest, and the govt is going to make a law requiring riders to wear a helmet, why stop there? lets make sure everyone in any type of vehicle is safe. 5pt safety harnesses, fire retardent suits, gloves, boots, the whole nine yards for anything moving faster then a 2hp lawn tractor. just think of the savings in the long run.
-
"What makes you opposed to it?"
My libertarian side comes out on this issue. I think adults need to be allowed to make their own decisions on individual safety gear. It may be that in some activities (horseback riding, motorcycling, bicycling, etc.) people get seriously injured and some of the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation gets passed on to the taxpayers. It is a tradeoff. At this point I am willing to absorb slightly higher taxes and insurance premiums in order to allow individuals to make their own decisions on protective gear.
I'm completely in favor of helmet use. I think peer group pressure is the most reasonable way to get others to wear helmets.
-
This is a wonderfully intelligent discussion.
The only thing I can add is a small legal point. In MN, if the defendant in a case brought by a motorcyclist can prove the injuries sustained by a non-helmet wearing rider would have been prevented by a helmet, the defendant is not responsible for those injuries. That is, the motorcyclist bears the responsibility for his decision not to wear a helmet.
Oddly, while seat belts are mandatory, a defendant is prohibited to mentioning that the plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt.
-
This is a wonderfully intelligent discussion.
The only thing I can add is a small legal point. In MN, if the defendant in a case brought by a motorcyclist can prove the injuries sustained by a non-helmet wearing rider would have been prevented by a helmet, the defendant is not responsible for those injuries. That is, the motorcyclist bears the responsibility for his decision not to wear a helmet.
Oddly, while seat belts are mandatory, a defendant is prohibited to mentioning that the plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt.
That is interesting. Thanks for bringing that to our attention.
-
This is a wonderfully intelligent discussion.
The only thing I can add is a small legal point. In MN, if the defendant in a case brought by a motorcyclist can prove the injuries sustained by a non-helmet wearing rider would have been prevented by a helmet, the defendant is not responsible for those injuries. That is, the motorcyclist bears the responsibility for his decision not to wear a helmet.
Is this still true if the defendant violated the motorcyclists right of way? Seems like the argument should not come into play until there is an arbitration phase, where fault is divided up. A motorcyclist should argue that the helmet wouldn't come into play, had the defendant not caused the accident to begin with.
-
This is a wonderfully intelligent discussion.
The only thing I can add is a small legal point. In MN, if the defendant in a case brought by a motorcyclist can prove the injuries sustained by a non-helmet wearing rider would have been prevented by a helmet, the defendant is not responsible for those injuries. That is, the motorcyclist bears the responsibility for his decision not to wear a helmet.
Oddly, while seat belts are mandatory, a defendant is prohibited to mentioning that the plaintiff failed to wear a seatbelt.
I don't think this is true at all.
-
The section prohibiting recovery for injuries preventable by wearing a helmet was added at the same time helmet use became discretionary. My guess is that it was a legislative trade-off/compromise. As a caveat however, my current work does not involve personal injury claims.
The seat-belt gag rule was, of course, passed after a great deal of pressure by plaintiffs' lawyers; they did not like it when the defense argued that their client would not have been seriously hurt if she had worn a seatbelt. Then a plaintiff tried to argue that a seatbelt was improperly designed, causing injury. Amusingly, the court held that the rule goes both ways and a plaintiff cannot claim their injuries were caused by a seatbelt. Another great example of being careful what you wish for.
-
Eh, even though I'm a Libertarian I think there should be a helmet law. I rode through Missouri again yesterday and there were a ton of motorcyclists out and about, all happily wearing a helmet. It's all fun and games to talk about how it's nice to have the personal choice but when someone you know dies due to a stupid head trauma I'm sure that would change my view.
Once they actually put a helmet on they will realize it's not a big deal. It's a pretty mute point politically to me so I don't mind admitting I'd like to see a helmet law as long as there is state funded health coverage, of which there is and it is hugely expensive.
-
In the half dozen or so times I've ridden without a helmet (a few blocks at best, usually in Arkansas running to dinner or something) I found it very uncomfortable. Noisy, windy, a feeling of being very exposed. IMO, helmets make riding a motorcycle a much more enjoyable experience from a comfort perspective.
-
In the half dozen or so times I've ridden without a helmet (a few blocks at best, usually in Arkansas running to dinner or something) I found it very uncomfortable. Noisy, windy, a feeling of being very exposed. IMO, helmets make riding a motorcycle a much more enjoyable experience from a comfort perspective.
Honestly, this is one of the major reasons I like to wear helmets, comfort, and the bonus is, it protects your brain. Not sure what being a librarian has anything to with anything.... HAHA jk. I believe that personal choice is a right and we are losing that battle inch by inch. But saying that, if they did pass a helmet law, i wouldnt really care. If they get around to banning giant chocolate bars, its ON!(or I will just buy 3).
-
But saying that, if they did pass a helmet law, i wouldnt really care.
I used to think I wouldn't care, but I have a selfish personal reason to oppose helmet laws. I think fewer people would ride if Minnesota had a helmet law. The primary reason some of my students take a BRC is so they can ride without a helmet.
I agree with Greg that riding with a nice full-face (or modular) helmet is much more comfortable thanr riding without, but not everyone thinks so. Pat Hahn hoped to demonstrate that if people were given nice helmets, they'd like them and continue to wear them, but his experiment fell short of proving that. Some people just don't want to wear helmets when they ride.
-
greg, you should post that ironic image from the other forum... the wants more gvmt / more gvmt one.
a.s.
-
greg, you should post that ironic image from the other forum... the wants more gvmt / more gvmt one.
a.s.
Per request. I'm not responsible for the consequences ..... :P
(http://i950.photobucket.com/albums/ad343/tgyeti/Maydaywantsmoregovernment.jpg)
-
i think that nicely illustrates the misguided nature of many of the "we want you make our decisions" causes.
a.s.
-
also note, one side is wearing helmets and eye protection. :P
-
haha, that picture made me laugh out loud (literally) LOLL?
-
What metrics exist for having a helmet law in MN?
How about a graduated license system like they have in the UK?
-
How about a graduated license system like they have in the UK?
Harley and Polaris would kill that thought off in a heartbeat.
-
Eh, even though I'm a Libertarian I think there should be a helmet law.
Just to be clear, I have not expressed an opinion. :)
I did checked on the statute. When it was first enacted it included a provision that a non-helmet riding motorcyclist could not sue for injuries which would have been prevented by a helmet. This remained on the books for over twenty years. It has since been repealed. However, the seat belt gag rule is still the law.
-
Here's an interesting slant on the topic.
http://www.fairwarning.org/2012/06/despite-death-toll-motorcycle-groups-strive-to-muzzle-u-s-regulators/ (http://www.fairwarning.org/2012/06/despite-death-toll-motorcycle-groups-strive-to-muzzle-u-s-regulators/)
-
Slant is right :) I especially like the roadkill paragraph.
At the risk of introducing something tangential, but near and dear to my heart, "5.4 million people die each year — one every six seconds — from lung cancer, heart disease or other illness directly linked to tobacco use. Smoking killed 100 million people in the 20th century, and the yearly death toll could pass 8 million as soon as 2030 — 80% of those deaths will be in the developing world, where tobacco use is growing most rapidly."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1711154,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1711154,00.html)
Call me back when we have a solution to the "drain on society" that smoking is and we can talk about putting helmets on a few people that aren't smart enough to do it themselves.
a.s.
-
so what happens when we protect everyone from everything and we all live to be 120yrs old? natural selection isn't the worst thing going on . I've lost loved ones and seen accidents with helmets and without, every situation is just a little bit different. Then again i dont think there should be public assistance period, or very very minimal at best.
-
Call me back when we have a solution to the "drain on society" that smoking is and we can talk about putting helmets on a few people that aren't smart enough to do it themselves.
Is the "social cost" of smoking as high as the "social cost" of helmetless riders? The Time article you referenced makes no claim about the cost of smoking, only the death toll.
The few people I know who've died of smoking-related illnesses went pretty quickly, but I have two friends from childhood who will never live independently because of traumatic brain injury.
-
Smoking causes all sorts of peripheral issues on the body (poor circulation, reduced immunity, emphysema, cancers beyond the lungs.) I have a couple of family members who have had persistent issues since their early 60's that are traced directly back to their two-pack / day habit. While they are insured, they are well beyond their own insurance contributions at this point and are contributing to the cost of premiums.
-
What metrics exist for having a helmet law in MN?
I'm not sure what you're asking, Tim. Are you asking what evidence there is that a helmet law is ineffective in saving lives, reducing injuries, or having any other "good" effects?
How about a graduated license system like they have in the UK?
Maybe a slight thread-jack, but an interesting question to me. I personally think a graduated system is an excellent idea, although I don't support increased legal restrictions on motorcyclists. Graduated licensing seems to be more effective than training in reducing motorcycle crashes, though.
Brent
-
Call me back when we have a solution to the "drain on society" that smoking is and we can talk about putting helmets on a few people that aren't smart enough to do it themselves.
Is the "social cost" of smoking as high as the "social cost" of helmetless riders? The Time article you referenced makes no claim about the cost of smoking, only the death toll.
The few people I know who've died of smoking-related illnesses went pretty quickly, but I have two friends from childhood who will never live independently because of traumatic brain injury.
I don't know the medical costs, specifically, but even dying fast can be costly; and I'm going to bet that of the people dying every six seconds, they're not all covering all of their own expenses.
Anyhow, I'm not sure if you are thinking big picture enough. Dead people are worthless, for starters. Kids without parents, parents without parents, employers without employees, etc. etc. etc. Also I know of people that "can't" pay their child support but can afford to smoke, can't afford their house, can't keep a job, can't do any number of things but somehow make it a priority to smoke. There are dozens of people where I work that lose hours of productivity each day as they don't have time to do their work but have time to take a smoke break.
<shrug> I'm not anti-freedom to smoke, but the cost seems extraordinarily high to me.
a.s.
-
Here's an interesting slant on the topic.
[url]http://www.fairwarning.org/2012/06/despite-death-toll-motorcycle-groups-strive-to-muzzle-u-s-regulators/[/url] ([url]http://www.fairwarning.org/2012/06/despite-death-toll-motorcycle-groups-strive-to-muzzle-u-s-regulators/[/url])
There's a comment posted to this article that has me spinning...
What this article fails to lay out is the amount of deaths from states with helmet laws compared to states with. Missouri has a higher motorcycle fatality number compared to Arkansas which has no law.
Also, lets talk about the helmet. I personnaly have buried 2 close friends that dies because the strap on their helmet cut off their esophogus and they chocked to death. When is the last time the helmet has been tested… the 60s. Bikes today are faster, traffic is heavier, and yet we are still being forced to wear 50 year old technology. If the NHTSA want to force the issue that we have to wear a helmet, then force the manufactures creat a helmet that will not cause damage to the rider. If this can not be done, then the helmet should not be forced down our throut.
And while we are discussing head injuries due to accidents, just as many cage drivers recieve heand and neck injuries as motorcycle riders, yet no one is advocating mandatory helmets or neck support for drivers.
As far as the checkpoints, I have no issue, think they work to remove people off the road that have no insurance, drunk drivers and more…so why do we need one just made for motorcycles? Would we be exempt from all other check points? NO. If they want to fund a nation wide any vehicle checkpoints, so be it, but to say they need to do this only to motorcycles is the same as all people that have middle eastern look to them need to be strip searched in an airport.
-
There's a comment posted to this article that has me spinning...
I personnaly have buried 2 close friends that dies because the strap on their helmet cut off their esophogus and they chocked to death. When is the last time the helmet has been tested… the 60s. Bikes today are faster, traffic is heavier, and yet we are still being forced to wear 50 year old technology.
Yep, them damn helmet straps are always cuttin' off them-thar esophogii and chocking bikers to death. They should do like I do and cut them-thar helmet straps off. That way they won't be gettin' chocked to death.
I wonder how many people who don't wear helmets actually believe stuff like this, or if this is just someone who wants an excuse not to wear a helmet. I know that some people just assume full-face helmets have to be uncomfortable, and some cheap ones really are uncomfortable to me, but most people don't understand how comfortable a good full-face helmet can be.
Speaking of comfort: I bought a half helmet to wear in the parking lot. It seemed like a good idea, instead of beating up my nice helmet, to buy something just for classes, maybe something I could even leave on between exercises, something I could hear and be heard in.
(https://www.denniskirk.com/dk/product_images/e0/290pix/e01030316.jpg)
One day while I was riding one of the training bikes, I decided to ride off the parking lot and down the road. 45 mph was plenty for me. Half helmets aren't nearly as aerodynamic as my full-face helmets at speeds over about 15 mph. That really was uncomfortable.
And 50-year-old technology? I wonder what that means. Yeah, I've seen a few people bring some pretty old helmets to class. That's why I keep a few helmets in the trailer.
-
And 50-year-old technology? I wonder what that means.
That's what I don't understand...
I hear some pretty far-fetched and wild myths of motorcycle helmets, but I have never heard that one. It'd REALLY make me wonder if it came from an HD rider... there some pretty old technology that they are sitting on.
The choking thing has been linked to half-helmets (brain buckets). I've been told that there are cases (?) where the back edge is caught by a sliding rider and the pressure of the chin strap collapses the windpipe. I don't know how true that claim is or how many documented cases there are... but just wear a full-face... you know?
-
That guy must think full face helmets still look like this one.
Gort! Klaatu, Barada, Nikto!
-
Interesting comment at MinnPost:
Motorcycle helmets
Submitted by John N. Finn on June 11, 2012 - 7:56pm.
Since motorcycle manufacturers and motorcyclists' "rights" organizations such as ABATE (A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments) have made noise laws virtually unenforceable, I'd be in favor of a mandatory helmet law as payback for all the Harley bikers I have to listen to.
-
Interesting comment at MinnPost:
Motorcycle helmets
Submitted by John N. Finn on June 11, 2012 - 7:56pm.
Since motorcycle manufacturers and motorcyclists' "rights" organizations such as ABATE (A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments) have made noise laws virtually unenforceable, I'd be in favor of a mandatory helmet law as payback for all the Harley bikers I have to listen to.
I wish I could accurately measure the number of people who feel that way about loud pipes. I like hearing loud engines occasionally. Sometimes while I'm in my yard, I can hear a bike or a train that's at least 10 miles away. I usually like it. I would probably hate hearing it all the time. I know I hate it when I need to talk and I'm drowned out by unwarranted noise. I hear a surprising number of positive comments about loud bikes from my students.
-
I hear some pretty far-fetched and wild myths of motorcycle helmets, but I have never heard that one. It'd REALLY make me wonder if it came from an HD rider... there some pretty old technology that they are sitting on.
A lot of the "oldness" is just image. There are 10-year-old HDs with fuel injection, and some models got throttle-by-wire a few years ago. They make a pretty good ABS. Not sure whether they have tubeless wire wheels, but Harleys aren't as old-tech as the styling would suggest.
-
this is an interesting debate; I began riding in a helmet mandatory state, so it just seems normal (along with the fact it's safer and, as greg mentioned, more comfortable). after I started riding, the first time I traveled to a 'helmet optional' state and saw people riding around without helmets, I almost went crazy - it just seemed the stupidest thing possible. honestly I simply don't get it.
all that said, I am kind of torn on this whole issue. I believe people should have the right to choose how they want to live their lives; but when something such as a helmet is mandatory from a safety (and social cost/effect management) perspective, then it's a non-issue. the first thing that comes to mind when I hear about another motorcycle death is, 'were they wearing a helmet?' it would be nice not to have to ask...and if it were law, I probably wouldn't have to ask the question as often.
there are so many things in life we take for granted that are laws, whether instituted by a governing body or by social mores. many of those things we don't even think twice about; others we make conscious decisions about whether we want to break the mold. I can't help but think that, if there was a mandatory helmet law, after a generation, the only people that would even think twice about it would be those that remembered 'back in the old days'.
-
That guy must think full face helmets still look like this one.
Gort! Klaatu, Barada, Nikto!
I still have mine.
-
A lot of the "oldness" is just image. There are 10-year-old HDs with fuel injection, and some models got throttle-by-wire a few years ago. They make a pretty good ABS. Not sure whether they have tubeless wire wheels, but Harleys aren't as old-tech as the styling would suggest.
I was thinking of the push-rods and the dry sump design (big clunky oil tank)... and I realize that it's the engine sound they are going for. But aren't the numbers all screwy still? Like 30mpgs for 90hp? ...not sure.
-
Try 40 mpg and 54 hp. and if you look inside one you would think you were looking at an old John Deere.
-
A lot of the "oldness" is just image. There are 10-year-old HDs with fuel injection, and some models got throttle-by-wire a few years ago. They make a pretty good ABS. Not sure whether they have tubeless wire wheels, but Harleys aren't as old-tech as the styling would suggest.
I was thinking of the push-rods and the dry sump design (big clunky oil tank)... and I realize that it's the engine sound they are going for. But aren't the numbers all screwy still? Like 30mpgs for 90hp? ...not sure.
Ducati, BMW, and Yamaha use pushrod engines in some of their bikes. Some Aprilias and KTMs have dry sump engines.
HD claims 42 mpg and 100 ft-lbs torque at 3250 rpm for the 103 ci Road King. Tubeless wire wheels are optional, as is cruise control and ABS. HD doesn't publish horsepower numbers, but I don't think any of them make anywhere near 90 hp from the factory.
-
My 91 makes 89 hp and it is not stock. I have tested it many times. MY 2000 makes 54 hp just like the magazine say and it is all stock. If you buy a 12 you will get 57 hp at the rear wheel and a 250 Ninja will almost beat one.
-
I wonder how many people who don't wear helmets actually believe stuff like this, or if this is just someone who wants an excuse not to wear a helmet.
It is like seatbelt arguments: You are going to get caught after an accident, they are uncomfortable, etc. All nonsense for both seatbelts and helmets.
-
More stuff:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/159257065.html (http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/159257065.html)
This line caught my attention:
Minnesota's helmet laws date from less informed era.
-
The CDC press release referenced in the above opinion piece:
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0614_motorcycle_laws.html (http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0614_motorcycle_laws.html)
-
And the updated safety guide from the CDC.
-
Cue the ABATE "studies" showing the danger from helmet use. <sarcasm>
-
BTW, I got a chuckle on how the writer took a dig at Mississippi and Alabama in the first paragraph of that Strib opinion piece.
-
Some of the nuggets from the publication:
Alcohol: When people drink and ride, they are at much greater risk of crashing and dying. Twenty-eight percent of motorcycle riders who died in 2010 had a blood alcohol concentration that was at or above the legal limit of .08 g/dL.10
Motorcycle Type: The majority of people who die in crashes are riding sport motorcycles with mid-size engines designed to maximize speed and agility.9
A study of 105 motorcyclists hospitalized at a major trauma center determined that 63% of their care was paid for by public funds, with Medicaid accounting for over half of all charges.16
Unhelmeted motorcycle riders injured in a crash and admitted ?to hospitals face substantially higher healthcare costs than do helmeted riders. Unhelmeted riders also use more of a hospital’s critical resources.17
Unhelmeted motorcycle riders are twice as likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries from crashes.17,18,19,20 The median hospital charges for motorcycle riders hospitalized with severe traumatic brain injuries were 13 times higher than the charges for those who did not have a traumatic brain injury.17
Unhelmeted motorcycle riders are less likely to have health insurance and are therefore more likely to have their medical expenses paid by government-funded healthcare.15
Helmets are estimated to reduce the likelihood of death in a motorcycle crash by 37%.23 The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,544 motorcycle riders in 2010 alone.24
The United States saved $3 billion due to helmet use in 2010.
The United States could have saved an additional $1.4 billion in 2010 if all motorcyclists had worn helmets.
-
The following got my brain juices flowing... there are some compelling point/ counterpoints made here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/motorcycles_06-19.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june12/motorcycles_06-19.html)