Mandatory Helmet Laws

[DOMS]

I'll take you lack of an answer as "no riding experience." In other words you're just talking out your ass.

Incorrect. I'm not responding to you for a different reason. Last night I remembered talking to you in another debate. It was the thread where you said, in not so many words, that you like sucking UAW cock.

In that thread, you outright ignored the points that you didn't like and resorted to straw man arguments, just like you started to do here.

In short: you're not worth talking to.

Have a nice day.

 

[Zaphod]

Incorrect. I'm not responding to you for a different reason. Last night I remembered talking to you in another debate. It was the thread where you said, in not so many words, that you like sucking UAW cock.

In that thread, you outright ignored the points that you didn't like and resorted to straw man arguments, just like you started to do here.

In short: you're not worth talking to.

Have a nice day.

Still pissed about your low IT pay, eh?

 

[Zaphod]

Wandering through a motorcycle dealer dreaming about owning a bike doesn't count as riding experience. Neither does riding bitch.

 

[DOMS]

Still pissed about your low IT pay, eh?

Your memory is on par with your debating skills. Which makes sense. Shit begets shit.

 

[Zaphod]

Your memory is on par with your debating skills. Which makes sense. Shit begets shit.

Asking about your riding experience is and how you've become such an authority on helmet use is a valid argument. Claiming "strawman argument" isn't an argument, it's a diversion used when you honestly have no argument.

 

[DOMS]

Asking about your riding experience is and how you've become such an authority on helmet use is a valid argument. Claiming "strawman argument" isn't an argument, it's a diversion used when you honestly have no argument.

You're doing it again. You're ignoring the stuff that you don't like. I'm referring to the posts before you started asking that question.

 

[Zaphod]

I asked you that quite some time ago. So who is ignoring something he doesn't like?

What is your riding experience and how are you an authority on helmet use?

 

[Zaphod]

Here's some advice: Go back and read everything youv'e posted. It is all opinion. You've got nothing beyond "What's so bad about wearing a helmet?" Utter fluff for the sake of trying to debate a point you know nothing about.

 

[jmorrison]

Lets keep it friendly boys! Lots of people with more real world experience, case studies, education, and subject matter expertise have been arguing this for literally decades, so I think its fair to say that it is more than a "I'm right, you're wrong" scenario.

My grandpa was a pretty wise man, and he told me once, "if you have 2 smart people arguing opposite sides of the same issue, the answer is probably somewhere in the middle". I have found through my life experiences that this may have been the most accurate statement I have ever heard.

This is why I say that a good middle ground is to require riders under 21, who may or may not have achieved the maturity level to make informed decisions, and the underinsured should be mandated to wear helmets, while adults who carry sufficient insurance should be able to do as they like.

They are insured, so it will not burden society and their 9th amendment protections to civil liberties are upheld.

I stand by my assertion that the definition of reasonable that you are using is purely subjective. What you consider to be reasonable, what I consider to be reasonable, and what some 80 year old lady down the street thinks is reasonable are all very very different things. Laws should not be made subjectively.

Also you have never even broached the topic of helmet law enforcement. THIS is the area that is getting the laws repealed to begin with. WHAT constitutes an approved helmet, who does the approval, and who decides what fits that definition? This is just another judgement call, which is wrong and against everything I believe in. Laws should be standardized and the same for everyone (at least up to state level if not federal) and what is legal/illegal in one city/town/county when pulled over by one cop, should be legal/illegal in every city/town/county when pulled over by ANY cop.

 

[bio-chem]

wandering through a motorcycle dealer dreaming about owning a bike doesn't count as riding experience. Neither does riding bitch.

-1. you're skills of debate leave much to be desired

 

[Little Wing]

a bike with a helmet is like sex with a condom. who the fuck WANTS to wear one? that's what's so bad about wearing a helmet. my brain is still in my head after thousands of miles sans helmet. i understand the safety argument but it should be MY choice unless the government wants to ban tobacco, alcohol, firearms and everything else that's dangerous too. people lose their heads on roller coasters... where are their helmets? i went down on a bike, i know i posted about it here sometime in the last 6 years, no helmet and the worst of it my leather got scraped up and i had a hole in my knee. maybe people should wear helmets in cars... i think the government should take like 12 steps back and get their noses out of my ass.

 

[Little Wing]

if you took a group of 100 kids and listed the SHIT medications their drs have them on the helmet law is so much fucking bullshit. you think the government cares about our safety? they need to require insurance n stfu.

 

[bio-chem]

... i think the government should take like 12 steps back and get their noses out of my ass.

and about 86% of the men here at IM I would presume.

 

[Little Wing]

and about 86% of the men here at IM I would presume.

it's a simple ratio problem, we need more girls here. if we're nice maybe kathybird won't get scared off. she seems cool.

 

[jmorrison]

a bike with a helmet is like sex with a condom.

I didn't even think to use that example, but its better than my swimming one. Maybe the government should mandate condom use? Not using them certainly causes a larger burden to society, impacts public safety, causes more deaths, and is MUCH more risky than riding a motorcycle, so why not make it law, and punish those who have been found to not be using them?

Or is that not reasonable because it actually affects most people instead of just a niche?

It's the double standard that kills me. The typical answer to this would be "No, that's ridiculous. I don't WANT to wear condoms. I am careful in my partner selection, I don't fuck "X" type of people...blah blah blah...and anyway, if I die from an STD, whose business is it but mine? I don't need the government to tell me what I can do with my body."

DING DING DING.

What is good enough for the goose is not, in fact, good enough for the gander.

 

[Little Wing]

the government does not operate on anything as beautifully simple as common fucking sense.

 

[bio-chem]

it's a simple ratio problem, we need more girls here. if we're nice maybe kathybird won't get scared off. she seems cool.

I'm not sure you understand men that well. this could be 50% male 50% female and 86% of men would still be posting dirty sexual fantasies about you. Men are dirty, and evil. we know it, and we accept it

 

[FMJ]

I'm not sure you understand men that well. this could be 50% male 50% female and 86% of men would still be posting dirty sexual fantasies about you. Men are dirty, and evil. we know it, and we accept it

It's part of our lifestyle.

 

[maturemuscle]

I rode a lot in my teens and twenties. Naturally I thought that the helmet laws were stupid, I live in GA and it seems that we have had them forever. Now that I am in my fifties I see guys riding their bikes in other states and I think "What a idiot!"
Someone mentioned earlier that racers wear helmets, I am certain that if they were not required, they would still wear a helmet. Chances are you will not die from your severe head injury but you will have permanent brain damage and me and the other tax payers will be taking care of you the rest of your life. I raced motocross in the 70s and we had a saying, "If you dig teeth, you will wear a full face helmet."
Bottom line; if you want your liberty to ride without a helmet, I would like the liberty of not having to pay for your nursing home expense.... like a living will that says that if you are in a wreck and you have severe head trauma, go ahead and put me down!

 

[jmorrison]

Or just insist that they have insurance. Which is completely reasonable.

 

[maturemuscle]

If you purchased enough insurance for that kind of care, you would not be able to afford the bike. Look at your auto policy and look at the limits on your coverage. At the most you may have $100K for bodily injury, head trauma will use that up in a month or less. When the rider gets hurt and he is all but brain dead, you know their family will be insisting that they keep them alive and we know who picks up the bill (the tax payers and the people that actually pay their hospital bills).

 

[jmorrison]

So you are seriously for helmet laws using the ol' "Burden to society" argument? This has been disproven over and over again, but people just gloss over what they don't want to hear. In fact, it's already been covered in this thread!

Motorvehicle deaths and injuries (ALL motorvehicles) comprise a FRACTION of health care costs in this country. Motorcycle deaths and injuries comprise an even smaller fraction, and helmetless riders even smaller. This is just an asanine argument that is a knee-jerk reaction answer. In fact, helmet laws COST states more than they save. Bike rallies, bike bars and clubs, biker political organizations, and bikers in general AVOID states with helmet laws, costing BILLIONS (yes with a B) to the tourism trade annually. If you think that taxpayers are covering BILLIONS of dollars of wrecked motorcycle helmetless riders annually, you are either delusional, or once again (more likely), deliberately obtuse. This has been proven, tried, and upheld in many states.

In fact, if you want to be angry or frustrated at paying someones health bill, why not enact laws to protect the taxpayers from the idiots that are REALLY costing us big bucks. Heart disease is the #1 killer in America. We pay BILLIONS (yes again with a B) annually to pay for treatment for diabetes, strokes and obesity in general, but we have NO laws requiring any sort of change to this system. Why not some laws that say you MUST maintain a certain level of bodyfat or below? Or mandate diet and exercise for the obese? No...that would once again affect too many voting americans, and it is easier to have a double standard for a small niche of people.

I want debate, I like debate, but at least give people in the thread the courtesy of reading through it before posting. Arguing the same points is disheartening at best.

 

[maturemuscle]

Actually I am for helmets because I don't want to be burdened by someone's health care expense while they were enjoying their freedom. I do not like big brother telling me to do anything but it is a shame that big brother has to tell you to wear a helmet. When I was young and less than aware I hated the helmets too. That is until I had a major wipe out racing motocross. Don't know exactly how much the helmet did to protect me but in hindsight I am fortunate that I was wearing one.
You sound like the stubborn people I deal with that don't want to wear safety glasses, ear plugs, steel toes shoes or a hard hat. "Well we have always done it this way and we haven't been hurt yet!"
You are spewing a lot of talking points regarding lost revenue, the total cost of healthcare, etc. A fraction of healthcare, can you be a little more specific? A fraction could be one dollar or one billion dollars. I know of a case going on as we speak where a worker has a head injury from an industrial accident. It is in the neighborhood of a half million after one month. It is a worker comp claim but it makes a point on the costs involved.
I honestly cannot understand how intelligent people can make a decision to throw their leg over a motorcycle and enter the public roads. Someone made an excellent point earlier, it is the automobile drivers that make bike riding dangerous. But that doesn't change the fact that a helmet does provide head protection. How much? Any helmet on the market is better than nothing. The last thing a helmet manufacturer wants is a lawsuit from selling an inferior helmet. They will probably get sued anyway if the wearer receives a head injury but they will have enough testing data to prove that they did their due diligence.
I am not ignoring anything, I am telling you how I feel about a very serious subject based on my safety background as well as considerable experience dealing with insurance.

 

[jmorrison]

Fair enough.

A Harborview Medical Center study discovered that the percentage of motorcyclists who relied on public funding for medical treatment (63.4%) was actually lower than that of the general population (67%). Similarly, the University of North Carolina’s Highway Safety Research Center found that 49.5% of injured motorcyclists had insurance to cover their medical costs, were nearly identical compared with 50.4% of other road trauma victims.

in 2005-06, Alabama and California were 2 of the 3 states with the highest rise in the amount of Motorcycle deaths. Both have mandatory helmet laws. Ohio, New Hampshire and Illinios had the largest decrease in motorcycle deaths. There is no Helmet law for adults in any of these states. These states continue to have lower overall motorcycle deaths than many helmeted states.

Southern states, which are the biggest portion of helmet law states, (specifically the bible belt) average far more deaths than elsewhere in the country.

Motorcycle registrations have more than doubled since 1997, and new motorcycle sales have quadrupled since then. Surely, when the population is increased one must expect the crash numbers to climb as well. Simple statistics.

The last time motorcycle deaths were as high as they are now was in 1986, when motorcycle registrations were slightly more than 5 million. In 2006, almost 6.5 million motorcycles were registered in this country. That's an additional 1.5 million motorcycles and the same number of fatalities. Maybe the motorcycle fatality rate isn't as out of control as some would like you to believe.

I will look for some numbers for you on how much lost revenue a state estimates that they lose over helmet laws. Not that I predict that you will read/care or even pay attention to it.

Now would you do me a favor and show me what your definition of an approved helmet is, who approves it, and what is it approved to do. The answers may surprise you. (only because you obviously didnt read the thread in its entirety, otherwise you wouldn't be surprised at all.)

And before saying things like "spewing" in regards to my talking points, I would like to see some factual information from you.

How the hell can you use a civil litigation suit to prove your point about taxpayers dollars?! Talk about comparing apples and oranges. I thought we were talking about healthcare costs (which by the way is estimated to average around 40k for an uninsured motorcycle rider) not workmans comp. That doesnt show ANYTHING.

I have been a LOT more specific, but once again, i dont believe you read the thread. I have already said that 1.8% of ALL deaths in the US involve motorvehicles, and LESS than 15% of THAt number involved motorcycles. So 15% of 1.8%, and you are honestly concerned about the cost to taxpayers? And this is DEATHS, let alone injuries! This is just a strawman argument with zero basis in reality.

 

[Zaphod]

People drink the kool-aid and will only believe what corporate America or the government tell them.

 

[Zaphod]

-1. you're skills of debate leave much to be desired

Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.

 

[jmorrison]

I found some numbers for Michigan. Just going to have to be happy with using it as an example, unless you can show me where else to dig up lost revenue numbers.

An independent consulting firm, (Michigan Consultants) estimates an annual Tourism increase of 53.9 million dollars, New sales and accessory increases of 500 million dollars (motorcycle industry),and over 2700 new jobs between tourism and sales with a helmet law repeal.

FL vs. CA
From July 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 motorcycle registrations in Florida went from 195,306 to 473,637 which represent a total of a 143% increase.
The following is the estimated revenue increase from the registrations and bike purchases:

• 278,331 new Motorcycles at an average of $10,000 each = $2,783,310,000
• Sales tax on Motorcycles at 6% = $ 166,998,600
• Registration Fees for Motorcycles = $ 10,047,749
• Change of title = $ 8,280,347
Total = $2,968,636,696
This is almost three billion dollars in five years that has been put into the economy of the State of Florida. Over one hundred eighty million dollars in taxes went directly into the state treasury for the general fund. This does not include the tourist money that has increased because of Florida being a freedom of choice state. In the past five years over 3 billion dollars has been put into the economy in general from Bike Week and Biketoberfest.

After passage of the mandatory helmet law in California , in 1992-93 there was a 26% drop in new motorcycle sales and rider-ship dropped by 18%. This cost the state over $1 million in gasoline tax, $15 million in lost sales and payroll taxes, and $1 million in lost registration fees. There is of course no way to estimate how much was lost by the hotels, motels, gas stations, and restaurants across the state as bikers chose to visit helmet-free states for their vacations and day trips.

According to a UCF survey, Daytona Beach 's two annual motorcycle rallies (Bike Week and Biketoberfest) generated $744 million in revenue for the area and an equivalent of 17,800 full-time, year-round jobs in 2001, the year of the study. Daytona Beach actually takes in more money from its motorcycle rallies, than by the NASCAR events held there.
Myrtle Beach , South Carolina takes in $350 million in 1 week during their Myrtle Beach Bike Week.
Johnstown , Pennsylvania 's Thunder in the Valley had their attendance jump from 70,000 to over 100,000 the year after mandatory helmets were eliminated in Pennsylvania in 2003.
Sturgis , South Dakota attendance has grown to over 850,000 bikers last year during the Sturgis Rally (2004).
Laconia , New Hampshire had a record year last year when over 400,000 bikers attended Laconia Motorcycle Week (2004).
The one thing all of these states have in common is that they are states that allow motorcyclists freedom of choice when it comes to wearing a helmet.


And you want to talk about costing you money?! No my friend, paternilistic bullshit laws that take away money from your state cost you and your community money.

The Burden To Society argument is absolute bunk. There is no basis in reality to this argument. You will have to find another justification for your reasoning in stripping away someones 9th amendment rights.

 

[jmorrison]

In case this hasnt been "specific" enough for you, here is more.

California

California is proving the consistent trend that states with mandatory helmet laws have higher death rates than those which repealed the law. Instead of seeing a dramatic decrease in fatalities as proponents predicted, the truth is California 's death rate is 2% higher than the year before the helmet law went into effect. This falls in line with the experience of other states with mandatory helmet laws. In 1992, the states with the lowest fatality rates were Iowa , Minnesota , Wisconsin , New Hampshire , North Dakota and Wisconsin none of which have full helmet laws. Coincidentally, those states with the best overall safety also have comprehensive rider education courses in place. More evidence to the value of safety programs comes from the fact that in California , their award winning safety program accounted for a 43% decrease in fatalities and a 40% decrease in injuries from 1986 through 1991, before the helmet law was in effect. The decrease in injuries alone amounted to 12,258, compared to 5,829 which the California Highway Patrol attributes to the helmet law between 1992 and 1993. Did the helmet law in California cause a drop in fatalities? While deaths did go down, the number of riders decreased at even a greater number. That coupled with a national trend of continued fatality decreases, it's hard to credit the helmet law with anything more than causing a financial disaster in California .
There was a 26% drop in new motorcycle sales in 1992-1993. Ridership was down an estimated 18%. How does that compute to dollars lost to California ? Over $1 million less was received in gasoline tax and over $15 million was lost in sales taxes, payroll taxes and in state income taxes. The state lost $950,000 in registration fees. California used to account for 1/5 of all motorcycles in the United States . They are now experiencing the lowest totals since 1969.
The helmet law costs California money. It has severely depressed the motorcycle business in California with a resulting loss of jobs and tax revenue.

 

[jmorrison]

Michigan again

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF MODIFICATION TO MICHIGAN’s MANDATORY HELMET LAW [4]
Nationally, motorcycle registrations increased annually for eleven straight years though 2002. A key influence has been the aging baby boomers. The median age for motorcycle owners was 38.0 in 1998, compared to 24.0 years in 1980. A 1998 study found the median income of motorcycle owners to be over $44,000, almost three-fifths were married, and over one-half had furthered their formal education after high school.
In 2002, there were 197,735 motorcycle registrations in Michigan . On a per capita basis, Michigan was significantly below the levels of bordering states. The Motorcycle Industrial Council estimated that in the year 2002 in Michigan there were 528 motorcycle retail outlets, with 5,624 employees, and an annual payroll of over $138 million.
Modification of the helmet law holds clear potential to increase the sales of vehicles and accessories, as well as retaining a portion of the tourism spending of Michigan motorcyclists and attracting the spending of out-of-state motorcycle enthusiasts. The report details the methodology, sources, assumptions, and calculations used to generate the estimated impacts.
The key estimates are as follows:
Economic Activity--direct
New sales...................................................................... $461.2 million
Resale’s increased......................................................... $124.8 million
Accessory sales increased............................................. $ 27.7 million
Tourism ....................................................................... $ 53.9 million
Total direct................................................................... $667.0 million

Impact including ripple effect.................................... $1,200.6 million
Sales tax direct............................................................. $ 40.0 million

Employment
Direct (sales and tourism) jobs......................................1,500.2
Total jobs, including from multiplier............................ 2,700.4
The report emphasizes that conservative estimation techniques and assumptions are used throughout. The actual potential, particularly in the area of attracting the tourism spending of motorcycle enthusiasts from other states, is actually far greater than enumerated in the estimates.

 

[danzik17]

In fact, if you want to be angry or frustrated at paying someones health bill, why not enact laws to protect the taxpayers from the idiots that are REALLY costing us big bucks. Heart disease is the #1 killer in America. We pay BILLIONS (yes again with a B) annually to pay for treatment for diabetes, strokes and obesity in general, but we have NO laws requiring any sort of change to this system. Why not some laws that say you MUST maintain a certain level of bodyfat or below? Or mandate diet and exercise for the obese? No...that would once again affect too many voting americans, and it is easier to have a double standard for a small niche of people.

Fine with me. Make it maybe 23% or lower for men, 30% or lower for women. It's not hard to get those numbers. I'd also be in favor of getting someone with real knowledge into a position of power related to health in this country. It's ridiculous that a lifetime politician is secretary of health, or that an overweight woman is surgeon general.

Honestly, the health insurance companies should model car insurance companies to a degree. A car insurance company raises premiums when you engage in risky behavior such as speeding, DUI, racing. They reduce premiums for good records, seatbelt usage, etc. Why not make it the same for health? If you want to live as an obese chain smoker, fine - expect your premiums to double. On the other hand, if I'm a young person with low bodyfat that doesn't drink, smoke, etc - I should be rewarded with low premiums.