Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What is wrong with this country is the one-sided self centered nature. People stand by their "rights" yet they have this safety net of rights that protect them, at our expense.
Why should your liberty be exercised at my financial expense?
What safety net? I don't have access to any stinking safety nets. i pay my own way and probably a good part of yours too in this world since I work and pay taxes. I get a nice 1099 form for that.
My bike is well insured too, at 1000 over it's worth.
It is you city dwellers who we country folks must always pay for..
I recall when hunting lic cost 50 cents... and now they are well over 50 bucks for locals...
I used to do state car inspections for that same 50 cents and not that is almost 50 bucks too.
Worst of all the dammned DMV whos jobs are useless get to carry guns at my tax expense.
We got more people who get high paid welfare! I don't cost you 2 cents....
Now i see you traded Liberty for Security, but I never did!
I don't believe that it's yours or public responsibility to order people to take every step possible to protect themselves from their own actions. I don't see you advocating a law that bicycle riders of all ages must wear helmets (and other desirable safety gear) when riding on public roads, either.
I would have no problem with the no-helmet law IF my health insurance costs weren't higher because I have to subsidize the medical costs of these numbnuts. After all, the death of the no-helmet aficionados improves the overall IQ of the human race.
I would have no problem with the no-helmet law IF my health insurance costs weren't higher because I have to subsidize the medical costs of these numbnuts. After all, the death of the no-helmet aficionados improves the overall IQ of the human race.
Oh BS....... This has 0 effect on your insurance or taxes. Your taxes are affected by Govt waste, and welfare, not riders.
No one even knows what speed a lid will 'save' a rider, as each crash is individual, and in a lot of crashes the lid is nothing more than a bucket.
What drives up costs is poly tics and fat scum bag lawyers, which make up insurance company's work forces.
So I just read that our state does not require Helmets for people over the age of 17. In fact, we aren't alone in a lot of states, Helmet laws have been pushed back.
So I'm listening to freak-economics. . . Motorcycles rate per death clocks in higher than most events, except for Swimming.
Some of the fun facts
- for all events, Booze is a significant factor (ups your rate)
- Skydiving is among the safest summer events (and no one ever drinks and sky dives)
Yet the crazy thing is that 40% of Motorcyclist death could be prevented if a person was wearing a helmet (. Seat Belts cut your risk of death by 45% (dept of transportation). These things are neck-in-neck. Same level (almost) of prevention.
The CDC notes that Helmet laws are a economic benefit (like seat belt laws) . . .potential cost savings 1.4Billion in 2010 (nation wide)
One final reasoning point . . is as a libertarian I don't like government interference, but at the same time I do respect the governments ownership. I.e. Roads are owned by the US and State governments. You must have a license to drive on this road. You must meet certain safety conditions for your car, being, etc.
No one is advocating that as a free individual you must wear a helmet on non-government owned roads, just saying that if you want to use the US Government roads its a fair rule to have.
How about you just worry about yourself, or are you one of those busy bodies who need to get in everyone's business?
If you want to get into economics and put a value on everything a person does, then we can play that game. I can set out an economic negative on many things you do during the day, so therefore using your logic, we should make a law against those things. After all, you use government roads to transport yourself to engage in items, like eating unhealthy foods.
I would have no problem with the no-helmet law IF my health insurance costs weren't higher because I have to subsidize the medical costs of these numbnuts. After all, the death of the no-helmet aficionados improves the overall IQ of the human race.
Someone dying has a lot less medical costs than someone injured, so not quite understanding your point, considering the OP mentioned only death, not injuries.
So why do people choose not to wear helmets if they have the option?,seems like the sensible thing to do if you are driving a bike. as hitting the ground with your head in an accident probably hurts, and getting bugs,rain or constant wind blast in your face while driving looks very uncomfortable.
Is the reason people dont wear helmets because it would upset the bad boy biker image that our weekend warriors are trying to project? i can only speculate on why some choose to not wear such an obvious major piece of personal protection as i've never heard a sensible reason to not wear a helmet when riding a bike.and i agree if you want to drive with no helmet your insurance company should be made aware of that fact..
I do not ride a motorcycle, but if I did I would not want to wear a helmet. Its all about freedom and letting the wind blow through your hair (if you have any). If your really concerned about safety you probably shouldnt be riding a motorcycle in the first place. My biggest question about not wearing a helmet is why do others care? I dont care if you dont wear a seatbelt...so dont care if others arent wearing helmets.
Im in the military and in order to ride on base you have to have a helmet, reflective gear, gloves, long pants, long sleeves, and probably something else I am forgetting. But this stuff takes away from the enjoyment of riding a motorcycle and which is why I would, if I did, never ride on base.
The majority of the motorcycle accidents I have see involve the motorcycle becoming part of the object it hit and the rider needing a spatula to get off the road. WHat good is a helmet going to do then? Sure if you fall off the bike going down your road at 30mph, it will help, but the majority of the riding is done at a greater speed with many other cars and trucks on the road. Id rather just be dead then have a mangled body with a perfect head.
So why do people choose not to wear helmets if they have the option?,seems like the sensible thing to do if you are driving a bike. as hitting the ground with your head in an accident probably hurts, and getting bugs,rain or constant wind blast in your face while driving looks very uncomfortable.
Is the reason people dont wear helmets because it would upset the bad boy biker image that our weekend warriors are trying to project? i can only speculate on why some choose to not wear such an obvious major piece of personal protection as i've never heard a sensible reason to not wear a helmet when riding a bike.and i agree if you want to drive with no helmet your insurance company should be made aware of that fact..
1 there is no need of a law for everything. if there is than maybe we need seat belts on the toilet, since most people have such bad aim.. Another law that forces men to be seated
Are you personally willing to enforce such laws?
I am almost 61 so i am not very worried about my bad boy image. Being on the short end of the stick kinda takes that argument right out of the picture don't it?
What looks uncomfortable to you might not be uncomfortable to anyone else. Maybe you need to try on womens underwear, perhaps that would be more comfortable.
It appears to me you don't even have a bike to ride and are just making things up as you go.
We riders have a saying.... let those who ride decide...... We have another saying too. There is bold riders and there is old riders, but there is no old bold riders.
Also we riders don't call riding driving. Driving is done in cages......
We also don't play with electronic toys like cagers do, or *** on the cell phone like cagers do, and or do a mess of things cagers do because to ride it pretty much takes both hands and feet.
If squids didn't buy 2 big4u bikes at the gate, they might live to ride into old age like me, but that image thing you mentioned does get in their way.
A better set of law might be buying bikes in grade levels where a begginer buys a bike made for a beginner, but no we could never do that!
Surely no one could be that dumb that they can't just throw a leg over the 2big4u and take off at 160 miles and hour..
And like that chicago guy..... we don't need more Law.... especially out of chicago!
I would have no problem with the no-helmet law IF my health insurance costs weren't higher because I have to subsidize the medical costs of these numbnuts.
Can you support your claim?
P.S. Why are you leaving off the effect of accrued OASDI benefits never being paid? There is more than this of course, just throwing out some of the breadcrumbs needed for a proper economic analysis of motorcycle social costs related to not wearing a helmet.
I thought I mentioned it, but - the CDC study noted the economic impact of non-helmet law states (such as colorado) versus helmet law states was approx 1billion dollars in 2010. - - - Rebecca B. Naumann, MSPH, Ruth A. Shults, PhD, Div of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC. Corresponding contributor: Rebecca B. Naumann, rnaumann@cdc.gov, 770-488-3922.
I found the article. It's written by someone with a public health PHD and not an economist.
The studies claims about higher rates of death, injury etc etc. is indeed quite accurate as I would expect from the cdc.
HOWEVER, the economic impact analysis is to be blunt, a crock of poop. They did not include all factors of economic loss and especially any of economic gain.
I personally would not feel comfortable citing this study as proof that there is a societal burden to helmetless riding.
In particular they seem to ignore all of the aspects of OASDI but largely because that would require a more exhaustive study. For example, if a 50yo guy dies because he didn't wear a helmet you need to compute the president value of the impact on soc. sec. payments.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They did not include all factors of economic loss and especially any of economic gain.
