Mandatory Helmet Laws

[jmorrison]

Ok, show me the numbers now for all the vegetables on life support you are paying for because of not wearing a helmet.

 

[jmorrison]

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.

I could get behind this completely also Danzik. I just dont see why insurance companies cant just offer riders lower premiums for wearing a helmet. Probably because premiums have historically been unnaffected by helmet laws, but still!

 

[maturemuscle]

When or where did I say that worker comp is the same as the insurance for an injured biker? I was pointing out how much a head injury can cost. I am sure you already know this but a comp injury is going to be less expensive than a biker injury.
Comparing apples to oranges? Kind of like comparing lifestyle illness with an injury. I believe I told you in uncertain terms that I am not an advocate for big brother or the govt telling us how to live our lives. It is simply unfortunate that supposedly intelligent people want to ride a bike without head protection. Look how many football players suffer from injuries they incurred when they had their head slammed onto the field. If you low side a bike you probably only get road rash but if you high side the bike you will be thrown.
Lost revenue in this debate has nothing to do with the preventing an injury or serious head trauma. I am sure more revenue makes everybody happy. But if anyone is driving to Daytona they have to pass though these southern states and buy some gas, maybe stay in a hotel, eat in restaurants, etc.
It is obvious that you are not going to change my mind and I will not change your mind. As a matter of fact I could care less if you want to wear a helmet but if your state says wear a helmet I am sure your do. If your state gives you a choice, more power to you.
How many injuries is acceptable? How much is acceptable as far as dollars spent on the injuries to riders? Where I come from one is too many. Even if they have insurance it simply raises the cost for everyone else when there is a catastrophic claim. If you have been keeping up with current events you will have noticed that insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates on everyone else.

 

[maturemuscle]

Oh yeah, the helmet testing! I am sure there is a decal in your helmet that shows that some kind of testing has been done. Like I said (or did you read my response completely?) the helmet manufacturer is going to protect itself from litigation by testing their helmets. I do not know who comes up with the testing standards but these people are about 100 times smarter than you or me so they know what they are doing. When they are dragged into court they will have mountains of documentation to back up there testing.
Is that what you were referring to when you asked why I would use civil litigation when we were talking about medical costs? I was referring to the helmet testing.
You said that 64% of motorcycle riders depend on the public for health care compared to a similar number for the rest of the population. Does that mean that 64% of bike riders get injured so bad that they need the state to pick up the tab? That sounds too high but these are your numbers. 50% of NC bikers have insurance to pay for their injuries. Why would there be a separate category for bikers? But 50% with no coverage for their injuries?
Answer two questions for me:
What is the difference between an injury and an illness?
What happens to you if you wreck your bike at 60 mph and your head hits the asphalt without a helmet?

 

[maturemuscle]

The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.
The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head
Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of pre crash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.
FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.
Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.
The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.
Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.
source: Motorcycle-Accidents.com

1998 Motorcycle Accident Statistics:
2,284 motorcyclists died and approximately 49,000 were injured in highway crashes in the United States.
Per mile traveled in 1998, a motorcyclist is approximately 16 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile occupant. And 3x (times) as likely to be injured.
Head injury is a leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes.
In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash.
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29% in a crash.

In 1998, 500 motorcyclists lives were saved due to helmet usage; 307 could have been saved.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

 

[maturemuscle]

Here is the law regarding helmet testing and minimum requirements. I thought you said that there was no standards for helmet testing?

<< Back Print Version

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 (Motorcycle helmets)


[Code of Federal Regulations]

[Title 49, Volume 5, Parts 400 to 999]

[Revised as of October 1, 1997]

From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 49CFR571.218]

[Page 581-596]

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER V--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS6--Table of Contents

Subpart B--Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Sec. 571.218 Standard No. 218; Motorcycle helmets.

S1. Scope. This standard establishes minimum performance

requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists and other

motor vehicle users.

S2. Purpose. The purpose of this standard is to reduce deaths and

injuries to motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users resulting from

head impacts.

S3. Application. This standard applies to all helmets designed for

use by motorcyclists and other motor vehicle users.

S4. Definitions.

Basic plane means a plane through the centers of the right and left

external ear openings and the lower edge of the eye sockets (Figure 1)

of a reference headform (Figure 2) or test headform.

Helmet positioning index means the distance in inches, as specified

by the manufacturer, from the lowest point of the brow opening at the

lateral midpoint of the helmet to the basic plane of a reference

headform, when the helmet is firmly and properly positioned on the

reference headform.

Obviously this isn't the whole standard but you can look it up if you need want to read it all.

 

[maturemuscle]

Gotta love this statistic.....
Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

 

[jmorrison]

You are the most adept person I have met on these forums at avoiding an entire wall of text that you dont want to hear, and zeroing in on the little things that you think back up your argument. Here I will make it easy for you.

I believe I told you in uncertain terms that I am not an advocate for big brother or the govt telling us how to live our lives. It is simply unfortunate that supposedly intelligent people want to ride a bike without head protection.

Wanting to have a choice in the level of safety you enjoy during activities is not some reflection of intellect. Just becuase people do things that YOU do not do, does not make them inferior or anymore lacking in intelligence. I do not think that skydivers are stupid, although I would not personally jump out of a plane.

Look how many football players suffer from injuries they incurred when they had their head slammed onto the field. If you low side a bike you probably only get road rash but if you high side the bike you will be thrown.

I don't think anyone is debating that helmets MAY help prevent injuries. Thats not the point. Full leathers, a padded jacket, gloves and reflective vests also MAY prevent injuries, hell so would huge red flashing light on the top of the bike. That doesnt mean it is the governments place to mandate these controls.

Lost revenue in this debate has nothing to do with the preventing an injury or serious head trauma. I am sure more revenue makes everybody happy.

You are correct but it has EVERYTHING to do with your primary argument. You are backpeddling here. Your initial argument against law repeal was so that you (as a taxpayer) would not have to cover the supposed huge amount of money that injured un-helmeted riders would cost the state. I have shown you that:

1. It has been PROVEN that motorcyclists are no more likely to be uninsured than any other driver.

2. It has been PROVEN that less cyclists rely on government spending to cover their medical costs than the general population

3. It has been PROVEN that cyclists involved in accidents are just as likely to be able to pay with insurance than anyone involved in other road incidents.

4. It has been PROVEN that states with no helmet laws generate far more income based on motorcycling activites than states that do.

In other words, your societal burden argument is BULLSHIT. It has no basis in reality at all.

But if anyone is driving to Daytona they have to pass though these southern states and buy some gas, maybe stay in a hotel, eat in restaurants, etc.

Yes, and it has been PROVEN (North Carolina and South Carolina) that helmeted states are passed by and lose countless dollars over those that allow choice. So there goes that argument too.

You are the most frustrating kind of person to debate with. You feel a certain way. You dont really have any legitimate reason for feeling that way, so you use a flimsy argument. When that flimsy argument is destroyed, you ignore the facts, and go straight to another flimsy argument.

It is obvious that you are not going to change my mind and I will not change your mind.

No, what's obvious is you couldn't give a rats ass about facts. You just feel a certain way, and that's that. Who needs actual information when you have unbased accusations?

Even if they have insurance it simply raises the cost for everyone else when there is a catastrophic claim. If you have been keeping up with current events you will have noticed that insurance companies don't lose money, they raise rates on everyone else.

Here you go again with this cost crap. If you had the slightest grip on reality vs your assumptions you would know that this is a bald-faced lie. Insurance rates have NOT been impacted in states with no helmet laws. Not. At. All. This is a biased, bullshit statement.

 

[jmorrison]

Ok, those just came through, I will address them individually.

 

[jmorrison]

Oh yeah, the helmet testing! I am sure there is a decal in your helmet that shows that some kind of testing has been done. Like I said (or did you read my response completely?) the helmet manufacturer is going to protect itself from litigation by testing their helmets. I do not know who comes up with the testing standards but these people are about 100 times smarter than you or me so they know what they are doing. When they are dragged into court they will have mountains of documentation to back up there testing.

Ok, this is why you feel the way you do, and why you are so frustrating to me. You only have a loose understanding of the facts.

Helmet testing. I will use DOT for example since it is so readily known. A DOT sticker/decal on your helmet means that the helmet passed DOT quality control standards. That is it. Just like when you get a new shirt and there is a little sticker in it that says "Inspected by". It is in no way affliated with any government safety program, nor is it recognized by the government in any way to meet any sort of safety standard. It is a sham that uninformed people like yourself fall for every day. Go ahead and ask the next cop you meet to show you what an "approved" helmet is. I'll give you a hint as of right now, there is no such thing outside of manufacturer approval. Thats right, the people selling the helmet approve it. Do you know what it is approved to do? Absorb an impact from 6-9 feet simulating your head striking the pavement at 15mph. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

How much riding do you do at sub 15mph?

Now I am not arguing that helmets are safer than no helmets. Lets just get that out of the way immediately. I am saying that your idea of "approved" is misinformed. There is absolutely no safety standard set out as approved by the government.

Is that what you were referring to when you asked why I would use civil litigation when we were talking about medical costs? I was referring to the helmet testing.

Once again. A helmet manufacturer would only have to show that you were moving more than 15mph to avoid any sort of liability. Why the hell do you think they are still in business?

You said that 64% of motorcycle riders depend on the public for health care compared to a similar number for the rest of the population. Does that mean that 64% of bike riders get injured so bad that they need the state to pick up the tab? That sounds too high but these are your numbers.

I will repeat myself. 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.

To make it simpler for you I will write it in plain english less motorcyclists need any government aid to pay for any medical costs than the general population. IE: EVERYONE ELSE

And no, it means that 64% of bikers injured in highway crashes need assitance outside of their insurance to cover some cost. WHICH IS LESS THAN EVERYONE ELSE. If you think thats fucked up, fix the system. It has nothing to do with bikers. Bikers need help LESS than Suzy down the street who would never look at a bike.

50% of NC bikers have insurance to pay for their injuries. Why would there be a separate category for bikers? But 50% with no coverage for their injuries?

I am not sure what you are asking. It has been proven however that bikers are no more or less likely to be insured than an auto motorist. The insured percentiles are almost identical.

Answer two questions for me:
What is the difference between an injury and an illness?
What happens to you if you wreck your bike at 60 mph and your head hits the asphalt without a helmet?

I won't even bother to answer the first question. I wasn't the one comparing the comparative cost to tax payers of a motorcycle wreck and a workmans comp case. They are completely unrelated, and I am very, very familiar with injury vs illness, as well as RDC, LTA and workmans comp.

The second question? I could answer this in about 9 million smart ass ways, but I will give you the answer you want, simply because it proves my point more:

You would probably die. If not, and you lived, you would probably suffer brain damage. If not, you would at least suffer some horrific injuries and scarring. If not...well then you should give your life to the lord because you were insanely lucky.

Look, no one is debating that wearing a helmet is potentially safer than not wearing one. It just doesnt have anything to do with the argument. This has also been covered. It is not the governments place to protect us from ourselves. That is why we are allowed to smoke, drink, have unprotected sex, engage in all sorts of dangerous activities, and generally behave as we like. Because it is our right to live and die as we see fit as long as we do not infringe upon the rights of others.

 

[jmorrison]

The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.
The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head
Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of pre crash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.
FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.
Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.
The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.
Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.
source: Motorcycle-Accidents.com

No one is arguing that wearing a helmet is not potentially safer than not wearing one. No one is even arguing that wearing one is a good idea. I maybe am missing your point. I could just as easily prove that wearing lifejackets at the beach reduces drowning. I dont think anyone would argue with that either. It doesnt mean that people want to do it or that the government should start making them.

1998 Motorcycle Accident Statistics:
2,284 motorcyclists died and approximately 49,000 were injured in highway crashes in the United States.
Per mile traveled in 1998, a motorcyclist is approximately 16 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile occupant. And 3x (times) as likely to be injured.
Head injury is a leading cause of death in motorcycle crashes.

As well as in car crashes. Did you know that about 40%ish (I can look it up again if you need proof) of injuries sustained in motorcycle accidents involve head injuries, as opposed to 90% of those in auto accidents? Of course you didn't, because you skipped over all the shit in this thread you didn't want to hear. Does this mean that all car drivers/passengers need to wear a helmet?

In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash.

I love this. This is why statistics are such garbage. Watch this maturemuscle, I will say the exact same thing, but make it back up MY argument: In 1998, only 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets, as opposed to the 54% who were at the time of the crash.

The whole statement is stupid anyway! In non helmeted states, it is estimated that roughly half of riders wear helmets and half do not. It makes perfect sense that about half of riders killed would not be wearing helmets! This is like talking to a wall! You aren't even seeking comprehension, you are just slamming out responses. READ. UNDERSTAND. LEARN.

NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29% in a crash.

I'll buy that.

In 1998, 500 motorcyclists lives were saved due to helmet usage; 307 could have been saved.

But not that. To understand that statement, you have to understand what it is based upon. It is based upon the percentage of overall deaths that have risen between 1997-1998. What is NOT taken into consideration is the sheer amount of actual bikes on the road campared between the two years. Fatalities rise with the amount of drivers. Basic math and common sense.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

 

[jmorrison]

Here is the law regarding helmet testing and minimum requirements. I thought you said that there was no standards for helmet testing?

<followed with DOT standard>

Yes, that is the manufactures standard. This has not been approved on any government level, state or otherwise, and is the approval method I was telling you about where the helmet is dropped from 7-9 feet to simulate impacts up to 15mph.

I don't understand where you are going with this.

 

[DOMS]

Good thing your opinion doesn't matter.

bio-chem
Reputation: 2049157

Zaphod
Reputation: 10

 

[DOMS]

Yes, that is the manufactures standard. This has not been approved on any government level, state or otherwise, and is the approval method I was telling you about where the helmet is dropped from 7-9 feet to simulate impacts up to 15mph.

I don't understand where you are going with this.

Not wanting to be told to wear a helmet is one thing, trying to discount a proven safety device is another, and it hurts your argument.

I don't think that adults (21 and over) should have to wear a helmet, but I do know that helmets are a proven safety device.

 

[maturemuscle]

I just looked at your profile and I see that you are only 29 so I have to cut you some slack. You haven't been around long enough to see what really matters. Remember this:

Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

You say that I do not have any idea about these things. I just so happens that I have managed as much as 9 million dollars in injury claims, I have performed accident investigations for multi million dollar vehicle accidents, I have made decisions for the company on claims mediations where we settled the case for hundreds of thousands of dollars so we could get it off the books. I also perform DOT audits, OSHA audits and I advice companies on how to lower the risk exposures.

So I may not have as much experience as you do with how much a claim costs or dealing with those that have been severely injured,, I am sure you have gone out to more accident scenes that me and you have tons more experience in finding ways to reduce accident exposures.

In the business world if you determine that something will lower your exposure to accidental losses, you adopt that as your company policy. You already admitted that helmets are safer so in my world that is the end of the story.

Guess what? This conversation is over as far as you and I are concerned.

 

[bio-chem]

bio-chem
Reputation: 2049157

Zaphod
Reputation: 10

when has pointing out the obvious worked with this guy before?

 

[Zaphod]

bio-chem
Reputation: 2049157

Zaphod
Reputation: 10

Oh, yes. That means so much. To a twelve year old. If that really matters to you...

 

[Zaphod]

Yes, that is the manufactures standard. This has not been approved on any government level, state or otherwise, and is the approval method I was telling you about where the helmet is dropped from 7-9 feet to simulate impacts up to 15mph.

I don't understand where you are going with this.

Actually there is a DOT standard that all helmets must meet to be sold as protective riding gear. Snell is a recognized and purely optional standard for street riding. Often Snell is required for any kind of competition riding.

 

[bio-chem]

Oh, yes. That means so much. To a twelve year old. If that really matters to you...

The prosecution rests Your Honor........

 

[Zaphod]

The prosecution rests Your Honor........

So a juvenile rating matters to you?

 

[Zaphod]

Not wanting to be told to wear a helmet is one thing, trying to discount a proven safety device is another, and it hurts your argument.

I don't think that adults (21 and over) should have to wear a helmet, but I do know that helmets are a proven safety device.

Still trying to line up a ride so you can honestly lay claim to having ridden?

 

[bio-chem]

So a juvenile rating matters to you?

not at all. It's funny though, what effect do you think going around antagonizing the long time members is going to have? pretty soon no one is going to pay attention to what you say regardless of it being a legitimate point or not. good luck with that

 

[Dark Geared God]

when i was a 14 teen i when to my cousins wedding.. i had fun her husband was a big motorcycle rider . didn't wear head gear. so 6 month later he crashes and is brain dead. my cousin quit her job to take care of her husband as his nurse... she was a lawyer.. anyway he stay alive for 11 years that way ..he made a choice not to wear but if you have kids of a wife should u wear one..i don't care oneway or another but 10years of her life gone...jusr my 2cents

 

[DOMS]

when has pointing out the obvious worked with this guy before?

I wonder if he realizes that, in the greater scheme of things, our debate only matters to the people who are here? Hence the reputation reference I made.

I wonder if he thinks his opinion here is going to matter at the state capital or Washington?

 

[jmorrison]

You already admitted that helmets are safer so in my world that is the end of the story.

Guess what? This conversation is over as far as you and I are concerned.

The conversation between you and I was over before you came into this thread. You are close-minded and already have your preconceived notions firmly in place. You don't care about facts, you only care about things that seem to reinforce your opinions.

For one, I don't need your slack. I am neither untrained nor uneducated, and I have absolutely no idea where you would get this impression. If I have come across in that way whatsoever, I am shocked. Your assumptions are once again nothing more than hot air and opinion. Facts really aren't your friend are they?

I am however young. Well youngish anyway. I would be willing to bet that if you looked at the vast majority of repealed laws, and the vast majority of consitutional defense programs, they have been spearheaded by the young and passionate, before apathy rears its ugly head and the status quo becomes acceptable.

I care about the constitution, have been an oathkeeper for many years, and will continue to argue against slippery slope laws that erode our personal freedoms.

Until you can answer, with a straight face, why we dont have laws controlling obesity, smoking, drinking, and risky sports, but to limit a persons use on a motorcycle is acceptable, then you are right, we are done here. My only regret in this thread is that I wasted so much time researching facts for you that you didn't even bother to read or take into account.

This my friends, is the internet equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA LA".


Doms- I almost 100% agree with your post earlier. I too think that wearing a helmet is the more responsible choice. I just by-God dont want to be told that I have to wear it. I tried to rep you, but apparently rep is like AIDS. I have to spread it around a little.

 

[KelJu]

Jesus Christ, this thread is full of so much shit.

Why won't anyone address the issue? The issue is, of coarse, not that helmets may save you from injury or death. The issue isn't how much helmets save Americans on insurance premiums.

The issue is simple. There are a million ways to die or become injured. Most of those ways can be avoided by instituting legislation for mandatory safety precautions. Why pick on motorcyclist?

Laws against eating or drinking in cars would save 10 times as much money as helmets of motor cyclist. Tougher enforcement for basic driving safety would actually make money. Why not give tickets to assholes that impede the passing lanes? Why not give tickets to people who don't stay in their lane during a turn?

While we are at it, I ask again why is alcohol and tobacco legal? Why is hydrogenated oil legal? Why isn't exercise mandated by law? Why isn't a healthy diet mandated by law? Why isn't stress management mandated? You know what I'm talking about, the real killers of Americans. I'm talking about the majority of health care cost in America.

So lets me honest, ok. Lets cut the bullshit. Too many people, smoke, drink, eat like shit, never exercise, live on the couch in front of the tube, ect ect ect ect. Too many people would be against making the changes that would make an actual difference.
However, there aren't many motorcyclist out there, so the minority gets shit on. We have to deal with the stupid fucking rules doled out to us, while the rest of you hippocritical fucks can feel like you are some how making a difference and help to make things safe.

Bullshit!

Everyone one of you in favor of helmet laws had your mind made up before you ever came in this thread, and you will search google for hours looking for some kind of data to support your preconceived beliefs about motorcycles. Cognitive dissidence is a mother fucker I tell ya!

So be honest. If you are an advocate of helmets just be honest about it. "I think everyone should wear helmets because it saves money, and the law doesn't effect me"

 

[DOMS]

Why won't anyone address the issue? The issue is, of coarse, not that helmets may save you from injury or death. The issue isn't how much helmets save Americans on insurance premiums.

jmorrison said that helmets don't affect insurance premiums. Which sounds reasonable considering that only 2% of registered vehicles are motorcycles. And studies have shown that quite a lot of riders dies in accidents. So, only a small percentage of a small percentage raise the cost of insurance.

Short version: if you ride a bike and get in an accident, do everyone a favor and die. Thanks.

But the government, rightly or not, is mandated to keep the deaths on the roads down. Which is why they force safety measures on drivers.

The issue is simple. There are a million ways to die or become injured. Most of those ways can be avoided by instituting legislation for mandatory safety precautions. Why pick on motorcyclist?

Picking on motorcyclists? You mean like making car drivers pay for seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones? Or making truck drivers pay for all that, mudflaps, and underrun bars?

No one is picking on any specific subset of drivers. It's all in your head.

 

[KelJu]

jmorrison said that helmets don't affect insurance premiums. Which sounds reasonable considering that only 2% of registered vehicles are motorcycles. And studies have shown that quite a lot of riders dies in accidents. So, only a small percentage of a small percentage raise the cost of insurance.

Short version: if you ride a bike and get in an accident, do everyone a favor and die. Thanks.

But the government, rightly or not, is mandated to keep the deaths on the roads down. Which is why they force safety measures on drivers.



Picking on motorcyclists? You mean like making car drivers pay for seatbelts, airbags, and crumple zones? Or making truck drivers pay for all that, mudflaps, and underrun bars?

No one is picking on any specific subset of drivers. It's all in your head.

Bullshit!

Half of that isn't even relevant to the discussion anyway. Helmets are for personal safety, where as mudflaps and under run bars are for other driver's safety. You are posting anything you can think of to show you are right.

I doubt you really even care about the issue. So, I am bowing out at this point.

 

[Zaphod]

A small percentage of a small percentage doesn't raise the cost of anything. You're believing what the politicians want you to believe. The data is out there, Morrison presented it to you. In all the time you spend on the internet you should be quite adept at finding it on your own.

The government isn't mandated to do anything to keep the general public safe. There have been Supreme Court cases regarding this.

Since you have to pay for your seatbelt, crumple zone and airbags you feel that you're being picked on so it only makes sense to pick on someone else?

Once you think about it, with all the safety devices in place it could be argued that drivers are being less responsible and driving more dangerously since all of those safety devices lend a sense of invulnerability so they don't feel the need to actually drive rather than point their two ton penis extension in a general direction.

 

[bio-chem]

I wonder if he realizes that, in the greater scheme of things, our debate only matters to the people who are here? Hence the reputation reference I made.

I wonder if he thinks his opinion here is going to matter at the state capital or Washington?

but of course. everyone knows that the federal government is actively monitoring the rigorous debates here at IM in order to better understand the needs of the people and chart a course for our country.