Helmet Law repealed in Nevada

[sarapacman99]

Just read a tweet from the Las Vegas Review Journal about it, anyone whose 21 yrs or older may not be cited by a highway patrol office for not wearing a helmet. Their passengers too as long as they pass a motorcycle safety class.

Link here:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/helmet-law-...medium=twitter


That's just ^&*$-ing retarded, experienced or not, you can't tell which type of rider may get involved in an accident.

So wrong...

[Too40gawlf]

That's just ^&*$-ing retarded, experienced or not, you can't tell which type of rider may get involved in an accident.

So wrong...

I support this 100%. Anytime the government's power over the individual citizen is reduced,Im all for it. I find it interesting that youre sad/mad that the State of Nevada has one less thing to MANDATE that an individual has to comply with.

Freedom has consequences. If you need to be forced to wear a helmet by law, perhaps a motorcycle is not what you should be on.

[phr3ek]

Originally Posted by sarapacman99

Their passengers too as long as they pass a motorcycle safety class.

the msf?
i dont think anyone would fork over $250 for a 2 day course just to be a passenger......

[bdavison]

The way I look at it is...if you arent willing to wear a helmet, you shouldnt be on a motorcycle. Law or not.

[Indy250r]

Originally Posted by Too40gawlf

I support this 100%. Anytime the government's power over the individual citizen is reduced,Im all for it. I find it interesting that youre sad/mad that the State of Nevada has one less thing to MANDATE that an individual has to comply with.

Freedom has consequences. If you need to be forced to wear a helmet by law, perhaps a motorcycle is not what you should be on.

+1

I'll side with freedom every time.

[JeffM]

Everyone move along. Nothing to see here.

[FrugalNinja250]

Good, we need more organ donors. Have had two friends on the list and neither made it.

[Jinx250]

Freedom by its very definition guarantees that people will make choices which are not, in the opinion of others, "good". It's not the responsibility of the gov't to legislate what is and is not good for us.

[Indy250r]

This reminds me of this conversation in the movie Easy Rider

George Hanson: You know, this used to be a helluva good country. I can't understand what's gone wrong with it.

Billy: Man, everybody got chicken, that's what happened. Hey, we can't even get into like, a second-rate hotel, I mean, a second-rate motel, you dig? They think we're gonna cut their throat or somethin'. They're scared, man.

George Hanson: They're not scared of you. They're scared of what you represent to 'em.

Billy: Hey, man. All we represent to them, man, is somebody who needs a haircut.

George Hanson: Oh, no. What you represent to them is freedom.

Billy: What the hell is wrong with freedom? That's what it's all about.

George Hanson: Oh, yeah, that's right. That's what's it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it, that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.

Billy: Well, it don't make 'em runnin' scared.

George Hanson: No, it makes 'em dangerous. Buh, neh! Neh! Neh! Neh! Swamp!

[gfloyd2002]

Originally Posted by Too40gawlf

I support this 100%. Anytime the government's power over the individual citizen is reduced,Im all for it. I find it interesting that youre sad/mad that the State of Nevada has one less thing to MANDATE that an individual has to comply with.

Freedom has consequences. If you need to be forced to wear a helmet by law, perhaps a motorcycle is not what you should be on.

Hey, I'm down with that as long as my tax money or insurance premiums aren't paying for someone else's medical bills. Reality is that when someone makes themselves a vegetable, it isn't just them that suffers. All of society has to pay for it. And with the money coming out of my pocket, I'm going to support mandatory helmet laws.

[Xoulrath]

With freedom comes personal responsibility. I say let people who want to ride without a helmet ride without a helmet. Obviously, children may not be old enough to understand the potential for disaster, so helmets are mandatory for them (as the over 21 law basically implies).

You ride without a helmet, however, you forfeit rights to others tax dollars to keep you alive. It wouldn't surprise me if insurance companies (if they don't do this already) deny coverage to someone who was without helmet in an accident either.

[revstriker]

I wouldn't even think of riding without a helmet. But I am against any laws that only protect you from you. So no to helmet laws, and not to seatbelt laws.

Originally Posted by gfloyd2002

Hey, I'm down with that as long as my tax money or insurance premiums aren't paying for someone else's medical bills. Reality is that when someone makes themselves a vegetable, it isn't just them that suffers. All of society has to pay for it. And with the money coming out of my pocket, I'm going to support mandatory helmet laws.

Aside from the fact that there is little proof that the repeal of these laws has this effect, are you against motorcycle riding in general? How about a low cap on motorcycle engine side. The fact is, people make decisions everyday which put them in a situation of greater threat to injury and death.

By the way, have you ever considered how much tax money is spent (wasted) on keeping these laws on the books and enforcing them?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Xoulrath

You ride without a helmet, however, you forfeit rights to others tax dollars to keep you alive. It wouldn't surprise me if insurance companies (if they don't do this already) deny coverage to someone who was without helmet in an accident either.

If it is legal to go without a helmet, then your insurance company can't deny you coverage, and the government can't cut you off, should you qualify for medical assistance. But think about what you are advocating. Would you like your instance company to deny you coverage because your tires were too old? How about if the helmet you were wearing was DOT, but not SNELL. It's a slippery slope.

[Xoulrath]

I think you missed my point, Scott. You seem to be on the same page as me for the most part. I agree with the seat belt laws, but only for passengers in the back (and anyone under 18) as they could be pushed through the front seat, causing injury to the people in front of them.

As for the insurance, I am not aware of any policies that would do this now, if you were riding in a state with a no-helmet law. However, if you were riding in, say Georgia, where it is mandatory to have "something on your head", then your insurance may be legally able to deny you treatment, or at the least to sue you for reimbursement. I don't have a problem with that.

It's only a slippery slope when people try to make it one. More laws make it a slippery slope, not fewer laws. I am all for fewer laws, period. I don't care where you live in the world, fewer laws for all. I am a firm believer that one should be able to do what one wants, so long as it does not harm someone else.

Anyone who tried could of course say that in itself is a slippery slope, but again, only if you make it one. Rules create more rules create more rules and so on and so on. At what point does all of the legislation stop? I believe people do need some basic rules to keep us civilized, but I think those laws basically need to say, "Don't mess with other people or their property, the end." It really is that simple, but people refuse to take personal responsibility for anything that goes wrong in their lives, but claim all the credit for anything that might go the slightest bit right.

I'm going to stop now, because I'm starting to get more political than I know Alex cares for. I will go rant about this type of stuff on my other bike forum.

[gfloyd2002]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Aside from the fact that there is little proof that the repeal of these laws has this effect, are you against motorcycle riding in general? How about a low cap on motorcycle engine side. The fact is, people make decisions everyday which put them in a situation of greater threat to injury and death.

By the way, have you ever considered how much tax money is spent (wasted) on keeping these laws on the books and enforcing them?

I'm really happy this is just a debate about theory, and that you wear a helmet and advocate for it.

I am not against riding, obviously. I am against people not wearing helmets when that costs me money in higher motorcycle and health insurance premiums and higher taxes. There is a ton of proof that helmet laws significantly affect helmet use and injuries. According to NHTSA, in 2008, 97 percent of motorcyclists observed in states with universal helmet laws were wearing helmets, compared with 54 percent in states without laws. Helmet use decreased following the changes in helmet laws in Arkansas and Texas. Fatalities increased by 21% in Arkansas and 31% in Texas. In Kentucky, injury and fatalty rates had a 37% increase after repeal of the helmet law. In Louisiana, 48% increase after repeal. And in those states, consistent with the NHTSA study, observed helmet use dropped from 96 percent to 56 percent after repeal of the helmet law.

And as to the comparative cost to the public of paying for the brain damaged and keeping helmet laws on the books, it is a no brainer (haha, pun ). Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) in three States with universal helmet laws showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges due to brain injury would have almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000 per patient - and that is only taking into account the serious brain injury cases. A number of studies have compared hospital costs for helmeted and unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in traffic crashes. These studies have revealed that unhelmeted riders involved in crashes are less likely to have insurance and more likely to have higher hospital costs than helmeted riders involved in similar crashes. Overall, NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saves literally billions of dollars to the public per year, exceeding $2 billion in 2008, with a total savings to the public of nearly $40 billion since 1984.

So how does that $2 billion per year compare with the cost of keeping helmet laws on the books? Taking laws off the books costs more money. Check out this study funded by the Federal Reserve Bank: Red Ink in the Rearview Mirror: Local Fiscal Conditions and the Issuance of Traffic Tickets. Infractions, like those for motorcycle helmets, are money makers for cities. It's a sad fact, and it hacks me off, but ticket revenue is estimated to bring in $3.75 to 7.5 billion annually and police love infractions as a way to fund their operations. (One particularly annoying example was a blatant $35 fee tacked onto all traffic infractions in California in 2009 to pay for new courthouses.) Helmet laws don't cost local governments money, they earn money for local governments.

Originally Posted by Xoulrath

With freedom comes personal responsibility. I say let people who want to ride without a helmet ride without a helmet. Obviously, children may not be old enough to understand the potential for disaster, so helmets are mandatory for them (as the over 21 law basically implies). You ride without a helmet, however, you forfeit rights to others tax dollars to keep you alive. It wouldn't surprise me if insurance companies (if they don't do this already) deny coverage to someone who was without helmet in an accident either.

I'm pretty libertarian, believe or not, and this is appealing to me. Especially since my main objection to repeal of helmet laws is that individual decisions by the helmetless cost others money. Perhaps we might agree that insurance companies can refuse payment for those not wearing helmets, so it won't impact our insurance rates. Individual decisions = individual consequences. But then the cost shifts to government medical benefits - would we deny that too, so that the individual decision only falls upon the individual and not me as a taxpayer? It is a really tough thing to tell the guy with the brain injury (or his wife and kids) that he can't get treatment he can't afford - because we should not allow one individual's bad decisions to impact others by making them pay for it. But isn't it more humane just to make the guy wear a helmet?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by gfloyd2002

I'm really happy this is just a debate about theory, and that you wear a helmet and advocate for it.

I am not against riding, obviously. I am against people not wearing helmets when that costs me money in higher motorcycle and health insurance premiums and higher taxes. There is a ton of proof that helmet laws significantly affect helmet use and injuries. According to NHTSA, in 2008, 97 percent of motorcyclists observed in states with universal helmet laws were wearing helmets, compared with 54 percent in states without laws. Helmet use decreased following the changes in helmet laws in Arkansas and Texas. Fatalities increased by 21% in Arkansas and 31% in Texas. In Kentucky, injury and fatalty rates had a 37% increase after repeal of the helmet law. In Louisiana, 48% increase after repeal. And in those states, consistent with the NHTSA study, observed helmet use dropped from 96 percent to 56 percent after repeal of the helmet law.

And as to the comparative cost to the public of paying for the brain damaged and keeping helmet laws on the books, it is a no brainer (haha, pun ). Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) in three States with universal helmet laws showed that without the helmet law, the total extra inpatient charges due to brain injury would have almost doubled from $2,325,000 to $4,095,000 per patient - and that is only taking into account the serious brain injury cases. A number of studies have compared hospital costs for helmeted and unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in traffic crashes. These studies have revealed that unhelmeted riders involved in crashes are less likely to have insurance and more likely to have higher hospital costs than helmeted riders involved in similar crashes. Overall, NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmet use saves literally billions of dollars to the public per year, exceeding $2 billion in 2008, with a total savings to the public of nearly $40 billion since 1984.

So how does that $2 billion per year compare with the cost of keeping helmet laws on the books? Taking laws off the books costs more money. Check out this study funded by the Federal Reserve Bank: Red Ink in the Rearview Mirror: Local Fiscal Conditions and the Issuance of Traffic Tickets. Infractions, like those for motorcycle helmets, are money makers for cities. It's a sad fact, and it hacks me off, but ticket revenue is estimated to bring in $3.75 to 7.5 billion annually and police love infractions as a way to fund their operations. (One particularly annoying example was a blatant $35 fee tacked onto all traffic infractions in California in 2009 to pay for new courthouses.) Helmet laws don't cost local governments money, they earn money for local governments.



I'm pretty libertarian, believe or not, and this is appealing to me. Especially since my main objection to repeal of helmet laws is that individual decisions by the helmetless cost others money. Perhaps we might agree that insurance companies can refuse payment for those not wearing helmets, so it won't impact our insurance rates. Individual decisions = individual consequences. But then the cost shifts to government medical benefits - would we deny that too, so that the individual decision only falls upon the individual and not me as a taxpayer? It is a really tough thing to tell the guy with the brain injury (or his wife and kids) that he can't get treatment he can't afford - because we should not allow one individual's bad decisions to impact others by making them pay for it. But isn't it more humane just to make the guy wear a helmet?

Even assuming the info posted is correct, why do you draw the line at motorcycle helmets? Why not a requirement for full safety gear? Surely a requirement for full face helmets is not unreasonable. In fact, I'm sure the severity and cost of injury on motorcycles is far greater than that of cars, so why should riding a motorcycle not be prohibited? That would save the taxpayers money as well. Maybe instead of mandatory helmet laws, there should be a higher level of mandatory insurance on motorcycles. So how do you draw that line?

[Xoulrath]

Originally Posted by gfloyd2002

I'm pretty libertarian, believe or not, and this is appealing to me. Especially since my main objection to repeal of helmet laws is that individual decisions by the helmetless cost others money. Perhaps we might agree that insurance companies can refuse payment for those not wearing helmets, so it won't impact our insurance rates. Individual decisions = individual consequences.

Exactly, personal responsibility AND accountability.

Originally Posted by gfloyd2002

But then the cost shifts to government medical benefits - would we deny that too, so that the individual decision only falls upon the individual and not me as a taxpayer? It is a really tough thing to tell the guy with the brain injury (or his wife and kids) that he can't get treatment he can't afford - because we should not allow one individual's bad decisions to impact others by making them pay for it.

Right, no insurance coverage (up to the individual insurer, of course), no government medical assistance, no nothing. Someone makes a choice and then has to be accountable for it.

Originally Posted by gfloyd2002

But isn't it more humane just to make the guy wear a helmet?

I am a Libertarian (with the exception of their lax defense policies) and to me this is Draconian. To make anyone do anything is to force it upon them. I do not have it in me to forcefully make another human being bend to my will, even if what I desire may be better for them. It just isn't my choice to make if it doesn't affect me, and we've already discussed how to start going about it not affecting others.

Originally Posted by revstriker

Why...draw the line at motorcycle helmets? Why not...full safety gear? Requirement for full face helmets...not unreasonable. I'm sure the severity and cost of injury on motorcycles is far greater than...cars...why should riding a motorcycle not be prohibited? Maybe instead of mandatory helmet laws, there should be a higher level of mandatory insurance on motorcycles. So how do you draw that line?

This in a nutshell. At what point does the government simply say, "You know what? You've had your fun. You are loud and obnoxious, you speed, you ride fast around corners, you do this, you do that, and we aren't going to have it anymore. You get around emissions. You sir/ma'am, are not getting around anything anymore."

In the latest Cycle World, there are several letters about the new noise laws for California, going into effect for I believe the 2012 model year. Not surprisingly, most of the replies, from other motorcyclists, mind you, were basically, "Thank god you shut those stupid things up!" One by one, more and more laws are enacted, slowly getting the masses on board, and then one day what you loved is no more.

It doesn't matter if we agree with riders who want to ride without helmets or not. What matters is that we let people do what they want to do, so long as it is not directly dangerous to someone else, by way of intent. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in a future with no worries about helmet laws, because there won't be any motorcycles to ride.

[Jesse8931]

Im old enough to drink get drafted get shot by some nut case and do life in prison for murder. I'm old enough to choose if I want to wear a helmet.

[gfloyd2002]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Even assuming the info posted is correct, why do you draw the line at motorcycle helmets? Why not a requirement for full safety gear? Surely a requirement for full face helmets is not unreasonable. In fact, I'm sure the severity and cost of injury on motorcycles is far greater than that of cars, so why should riding a motorcycle not be prohibited? That would save the taxpayers money as well. Maybe instead of mandatory helmet laws, there should be a higher level of mandatory insurance on motorcycles. So how do you draw that line?

It is about balancing rights. An individual may take whatever actions he pleases so long as it doesn't impact others. One of the main functions of law is to protect other individuals, and society, from the irresponsible, unsocial actions of the individual. (This is essentially Hobbes' social contract theory.) This is why there are laws against fraud, heck this is why we can't commit murder. You can only take free action to the point you start hurting someone else.

And simply because I believe in helmet laws does not mean that I would mandate wearing full riding boots or abrasion resistance on the arms. Because you believe that that there should be no legislation that impacts an individuals right to choose, would you support repealing laws prohibiting fraud? Or murder? You can't rely on reducio ad absurdum arguments to discredit the idea, as that cuts both ways.

Clearly, we both agree that sometimes law should be used to prevent decisions harmful to others. The question then is where we draw the line, so I reject your argument that we must live in a world where lines can't be drawn. A reasonable balancing of the relative costs when determining what is worth legislating seems to be the thing to do. What is the cost of having the law and not having the law?

The costs of not wearing helmets is pretty high, and fairly well established. And the balancing cost to individual freedom is pretty low - no fundamental rights impacted, the individual doesn't suffer much at all. (By contrast, the costs to society of not wearing boots or abrasion resistance is far less. Because head injuries are the most severe and the most expensive, and helmets are proven to have major benefits. Road rash sucks, but head injuries are more likely to be fatal and, from what I can tell, what really costs others.)

Xoulrath has been willing to address the fact that people not wearing helmets is costing me money. And his approach barring them from public funding for health care and insurance reimbursement addresses the costs to society (and more importantly to me, and my insurance rates and health care costs), and would make the balance of rights and costs favor no helmet laws. But until the costs to others for not wearing a helmet are addressed, the balance tips to protecting my pocket book from someone else's bad decision.

[FrugalNinja250]

Looking at my last property tax statement (yes, I am a property owner) I see that $277.16 of my property taxes went to the local county hospital. That hospital is where indigent emergency care patients go to, partly because they have a top-notch trauma center. Some portion of that $277.16 is likely paying for an under/uninsured motorcyclist's head injuries due to not wearing a helmet. In fact, given that it costs millions of dollars to treat head injuries, and given the fact that in this state most people are only required to carry 50k in liability and are not required to carry medical coverage, it's a certainty that my money is paying for helmetless rider head injuries. Since nearly a third of every Texan has no access to health insurance coverage it means that I'm paying their costs to society.

In other words, freedom to not wear a helmet is equivalent to freedom to reach into my pocket and take my money to pay for a helmetless rider's bad decision.

As a member of society, I feel that the ability to reach into my pocket gives me the absolute right to have a say in the matter of helmet laws.

One way I see to deal with the issue is to set up an insurance risk pool for helmetless riding. People who don't want to wear a helmet shall pay a fee calculated such that all head injury costs among helmetless riders is paid for by the fees collected. That way you can choose to ride helmetless without making the taxpayers (me) pay for that irresponsible decision. A bonus would be making it mandatory to sign a binding organ donation document in return for the "right" to not wear a helmet. Helmetless riders are a great source of prime organs.

Edit to add: The only other option would be to give hospitals and medical professionals the right to refuse to treat someone who can't pay. Ethically this is dangerous IMHO because the first responders would be in a position to be more concerned about the financial status of a brain-damaged helmetless rider than they would about the rider's health. But maybe that's what will need to be done. That way full responsibility and costs for not wearing a helmet accrues to the person ultimately making that choice, rather than to me the taxpayer.

[CThunder-blue]

I must be of a small minority here to think that the repeal was a bad decision and no one, at least in the US, is truly free. Society thrives on rules. If we didn't, we'd have anarchy. It's a proven fact time and time again that helmets saves lives. I don't understand how you can be ok with not wearing a helmet, but against not wearing a seat belt. They're the same thing to me. How many of you have been in an accident where not wearing a seat belt would have been the better choice? I've been an in accident where it saved my life. I've also gone down and hit the back of my head and cracked my helmet. The helmet most assuredly saved me from extensive brain damage or death.

Do you think that every person will be mature enough to be accountable for his/her own safety? How many kids will think it's cool to ride without a helmet to impress their high school friends? Instead of repealing a law that has probably saved lives, they might have amended it to give the helmetless option to seasoned riders who have had their M1 for x amount of years.

[CC Cowboy]

More accidents happen in the bathroom (slip and fall causing head injury) than on motorcycles. I've been lobbying Congress for years to require helmets for anyone who uses a bathroom. Think of the medical cost we could save if everyone used a helmet while in the bathroom. Think of the amount of revenue produced from the fines accessed against the people who think they have the right not to wear something the GOVERNMENT finds best for the unthinking public.

We could save tax payers hundreds on billions that could be used to help the poor smokers, drunk drivers, people with obesity, and welfare recipients that have more kids than they can afford.

[Alex]

I have no problem with the helmet law. I have a problem with the logic that is often used to support why a helmet law should be required. The "I shouldn't pay for other people's bad decisions" only makes sense in a microcosm, as if it were an option in today's society to truly insulate oneself from the decisions or choices of any other human. Or control those choices if there were any impact, positive or negative, near or far, on oneself.

In a modern society, we do rely on others, and others rely on us. We receive benefits for our taxes (some more, some less, some much much more, some much much less). The fact that there is a collective pooling of a portion of revenue does not and should not mean that anyone who is contributing gets to make all choices for everyone else in the pool. Even if they feel that others in that pool, are making different choices than they would.

This is a motorcycle enthusiast forum, so we're completely blind to the much more logical extension of that faulty logic: "I think riding motorcycles is absurdly dangerous, and believe that the government should ban it so none of my tax dollars are used to treat patients who shouldn't have been injured in the first place if they were riding public transportation instead".

[kkim]

Originally Posted by Alex

"I think riding motorcycles is absurdly dangerous, and believe that the government should ban it so none of my tax dollars are used to treat patients who shouldn't have been injured in the first place if they were riding public transportation instead".

Public transportation!!?? hell, nobody better use my tax dollars to support public transportation. keep your grubby hands out of my pockets!!

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by gfloyd2002

It is about balancing rights. An individual may take whatever actions he pleases so long as it doesn't impact others. One of the main functions of law is to protect other individuals, and society, from the irresponsible, unsocial actions of the individual. (This is essentially Hobbes' social contract theory.) This is why there are laws against fraud, heck this is why we can't commit murder. You can only take free action to the point you start hurting someone else.

And simply because I believe in helmet laws does not mean that I would mandate wearing full riding boots or abrasion resistance on the arms. Because you believe that that there should be no legislation that impacts an individuals right to choose, would you support repealing laws prohibiting fraud? Or murder? You can't rely on reducio ad absurdum arguments to discredit the idea, as that cuts both ways.

I do not support any laws which are designed to protect you from you. Fraud and murder involve more than one person so of course I support them. But I'm still curious why you would not want laws requiring other saftey gear other than a helmet. Surely there are injuries other than head injuries which have a similar impact on others.

Clearly, we both agree that sometimes law should be used to prevent decisions harmful to others. The question then is where we draw the line, so I reject your argument that we must live in a world where lines can't be drawn. A reasonable balancing of the relative costs when determining what is worth legislating seems to be the thing to do. What is the cost of having the law and not having the law?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

In other words, freedom to not wear a helmet is equivalent to freedom to reach into my pocket and take my money to pay for a helmetless rider's bad decision.

As a member of society, I feel that the ability to reach into my pocket gives me the absolute right to have a say in the matter of helmet laws.

You have the right and a say in the matter regardless of how much it costs you. That said, what is your take on further laws on safety equipment to limit the costs to you? Why are you in favor of one law, but not in favor of another? How do you define the line?

Since you are in Texas, as I am, Texas has a minimum insurance requirement in order to ride without a helmet.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

Do you think that every person will be mature enough to be accountable for his/her own safety? How many kids will think it's cool to ride without a helmet to impress their high school friends? Instead of repealing a law that has probably saved lives, they might have amended it to give the helmetless option to seasoned riders who have had their M1 for x amount of years.

Very good question actually. First I'll say that I only support a person's right to make that decision if they are an adult. I think we should protect children from themselves. But once someone is 18, I stop caring about protecting them from themselves. If you feel that someone at this age is not mature enough to make an informed decision about riding a motorcycle, then perhaps they should not be allowed to hold a motorcycle endorsement in the first place. Never mind the fact that someone of this age is old enough and mature enough (by law) to do things such as enlist in the military.

Also like to say that I agree with CC Cowboy and Alex. I think the idea that the government needs to enact laws to protect you from yourself based on the cost to society is absurd, and is certainly a slippery slope.

[Cab305]

It's ok just Darwinism thinning out the herd. They are free to split their wigs.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by revstriker

You have the right and a say in the matter regardless of how much it costs you. That said, what is your take on further laws on safety equipment to limit the costs to you? Why are you in favor of one law, but not in favor of another? How do you define the line?

Since you are in Texas, as I am, Texas has a minimum insurance requirement in order to ride without a helmet.

A minimum insurance requirement which is de facto ignored as unenforceable. The only way to know is if a rider is pulled over, or wrecked out. Of course, after they wreck out with a head injury and it's discovered there's no health insurance it's too late, the million dollars is spent. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/msb/helmet.htm

WRT the "line" argument, that's the classic slippery slope argument and it's a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

I'm for seatbelts, because they provide a great deal of bang for the buck. I'm for helmets for the same reason. Head injuries are extremely disproportionate WRT incurred costs. So reducing head injuries should be a priority, and it is. You can't make curbs, poles, and concrete pavement all nice and soft, so protecting the brain with a helmet, absolutely proven technology, seems the best bang for the buck.

There is no line. Never was. It's about setting up rules and laws such that outcomes from the inevitable accidents can be much better with insignificant costs to get there. Helmets work. The people who revel in so-called "free choice" are really just being contrary and making others (unwillingly) pay for it. IMHO.

The whole idea is less dead people, less brain-damaged people, less money wasted treating easily preventable traumatic brain injuries.

So yeah, I don't like wasting my money on people like that. Harvest their organs, plenty of decent folks out there dying on waiting lists.

[gfloyd2002]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

More accidents happen in the bathroom (slip and fall causing head injury) than on motorcycles. I've been lobbying Congress for years to require helmets for anyone who uses a bathroom.

You mean you don't do this already?

[CThunder-blue]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Very good question actually. First I'll say that I only support a person's right to make that decision if they are an adult. I think we should protect children from themselves. But once someone is 18, I stop caring about protecting them from themselves. If you feel that someone at this age is not mature enough to make an informed decision about riding a motorcycle, then perhaps they should not be allowed to hold a motorcycle endorsement in the first place. Never mind the fact that someone of this age is old enough and mature enough (by law) to do things such as enlist in the military.

Also like to say that I agree with CC Cowboy and Alex. I think the idea that the government needs to enact laws to protect you from yourself based on the cost to society is absurd, and is certainly a slippery slope.

Maturity can't be ascribed an age. I've known plenty of 25 year olds with less maturity than some 16 year olds. Even at 18, most young adults don't have the maturity to do what it takes to protect themselves. You can't start giving psych tests to each person who wants to ride a bike.

A while back, there was an incident where a seasoned rider took a spill at 5mph and died. At 15 mph, people get carted away in ambulances. Insurance rates are another thing that you and everyone else will deal with when people start dying more from motorcycle related deaths. Insurance companies always re-evaluate the current accident rates and apply those calculations to either lower or raise your rates. I don't care if anyone wants to flirt with death, but why should the rest of the people who want to be safe get charged more due to the choices of others?

[revstriker]

A little on topic info. The following is an article by the AMA that was printed in the American Motorcyclist Magazine in June 2003.

Public Burden Theory?

Injured mortorcyclists. They're nothing but a burden on American taxpayers.

You've heard it repeated a thousand times, so it must be true, right?

Well, no. But try telling that to the people who make governmental policies in this country--or to those in the news media who cover safety issues.

The so-called social burden theory goes like this: Motoryclists get injured in accidents. Then they go to hospitals where they wrack up enormous medical expenses. And when it comes time to pay those bills, it turns out they have no insurance, so American taxpayers get stuck with the tab.

We've been hearing it for nearly 20 years, most recently in an ABC "World News Tonight" report last (2003) winter on how irresponsible riders were using up inordinate amounts of taxpayer dollars. But that doesn't make it any closer to the truth.

Amazingly, this whole issue can be traced back to a single study in the 1980's, a study in which researchers specifically avoided giving people the whole picture. And although the AMA was able to point out the obvious errors in the research at that time, the myth of irresponsible motorcyclists has taken on a life of its own.

That study looked at patients brought to Harborville Medical Center, a major trauma center in the Seattle area. It reported that 63.4 percent of the injured motorcyclists taken to Harborville relied on public funds to pay their hospital bills. If you heard that number, you might think there must be something to this whole social burden argument. But what the researchers didn't say is that 67 percent of all patients taken to Harborview were unable to pay their medical bills.

Why are the numbers so high? The main reason is that Harborview, as a regional trauma center, gets the worst injuries in the entire Seattle area. In other words, it gets the patients who are most likely to require more care than their insurance will cover.

But regardless of the reasons, the point is that motorcyclists taken to Harborview were actually less likely to rely on public funding than the general public. So if there was a group of irresponsible patients at Harborview, it wasn't the motorcyclists.

All of those were facts that the researchers chose not to report, perhaps because they didn't fit a preconceived notion of what the study ought to say.

Over the years, other studies have shown the same thing. A report by the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center, for example, found that 49.5 percent of injured motorcyclists had their medical costs covered by insurance, which is almost identical to the 50.4 percent for other road trauma victims. And the North Carolina study found that the average costs for treating a motorcyclist's injuries were actually slightly lower than the costs for other accident victims.

Despite all that, the issue continues to come up in reports from various safety organizations and in news accounts of them. As Ed Moreland, AMA's vice president for government relations, notes, its enough to make you wonder if we are all reading the same studies.

"Some researchers, members of the news media and others still subscribe to the social burden theory fallaciy that motorcyclists use more taxpayer dollars than other members of society to pay their medical bills," says Moreland. "That wasn't true in the past, and there's no evidence it's true now. Yet we keep having to make that case in legislative committee meetings and regulatory hearings.?

So, if somebody tries to tell you that motorcyclists are nothing but a burden on society, what can you do? Tell them to check their facts.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

WRT the "line" argument, that's the classic slippery slope argument and it's a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that once the government makes a restriction on something, it never goes back and increases it? They are certainly increasing bike restriction in CA with their new laws on exhaust limitations. It's certainly not out of the question to think that a helmet law could turn into a full face helmet law, and then go even further. One of the things that holds that back now is the success in 30 out of 50 states to eliminate the government protecting you from yourself.

I'm for seatbelts, because they provide a great deal of bang for the buck. I'm for helmets for the same reason. Head injuries are extremely disproportionate WRT incurred costs. So reducing head injuries should be a priority, and it is. You can't make curbs, poles, and concrete pavement all nice and soft, so protecting the brain with a helmet, absolutely proven technology, seems the best bang for the buck

There is no line. Never was. It's about setting up rules and laws such that outcomes from the inevitable accidents can be much better with insignificant costs to get there. Helmets work. The people who revel in so-called "free choice" are really just being contrary and making others (unwillingly) pay for it. IMHO..

Outlawing motorcycles would reduce head (and other) injuries even further. I'm assuming you are not in favor of this. So there must be a line that you are not in favor of crossing.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

Maturity can't be ascribed an age. I've known plenty of 25 year olds with less maturity than some 16 year olds. Even at 18, most young adults don't have the maturity to do what it takes to protect themselves. You can't start giving psych tests to each person who wants to ride a bike.

A while back, there was an incident where a seasoned rider took a spill at 5mph and died. At 15 mph, people get carted away in ambulances. Insurance rates are another thing that you and everyone else will deal with when people start dying more from motorcycle related deaths. Insurance companies always re-evaluate the current accident rates and apply those calculations to either lower or raise your rates. I don't care if anyone wants to flirt with death, but why should the rest of the people who want to be safe get charged more due to the choices of others?

Personally, I don't care about someone's maturity level if it doesn't have an impact on me. If they are over the legal adult age of 18, then they should be free to take a risk and ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or drive in a car without a seat belt. We already have no restrictions on letting them sky dive, surf, ski, snowboard, or any other activities which involve a great deal of risk to personal injury.

As for insurance costs, again, there is little proof that what you are saying is true. In fact, the rate of death for motorcycle riders is actually higher in states that mandate the rider where a helmet. I just don't buy this as a legitimate reason for the government to step in, take away your freedom to choose, and to protect you from yourself.

[sarapacman99]

Just a reminder to everyone, the Laughlin River Run is coming up, already spotted potential organ donors by the Harley Dealership across from my workplace.

Not against this really, it's just that whenever they do crash, our tax money pays for their mistakes.

[CThunder-blue]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Personally, I don't care about someone's maturity level if it doesn't have an impact on me. If they are over the legal adult age of 18, then they should be free to take a risk and ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or drive in a car without a seat belt. We already have no restrictions on letting them sky dive, surf, ski, snowboard, or any other activities which involve a great deal of risk to personal injury.

As for insurance costs, again, there is little proof that what you are saying is true. In fact, the rate of death for motorcycle riders is actually higher in states that mandate the rider where a helmet. I just don't buy this as a legitimate reason for the government to step in, take away your freedom to choose, and to protect you from yourself.

It does have an impact on you. Let's say you own a 1992 Honda Civic. This car is well known to be on a high theft list. They raise your insurance because of this. What if you race your motorcycle on a track? I know my insurance agency (State Farm) asks if I do or not, which affects my rates, because the chances of going down are much higher when you race. It wouldn't matter to them if I had been racing for 20 years without a single crash. My rates would still be higher than if someone didn't race. I don't know how old you are, if you pay for your own insurance, but if you have ever seen your rates go up and you know that you didn't get a point on your record, guess what? It's because in the last 3-6 months of the insurance company's survey, the particular model car or truck you drive has been involved in more accidents than normal. You want proof? Call your insurance agent. There's my proof.

Sky diving, skiing, etc, involves risk, but it does not impact anyone else's lives in anyway except the person involved. You may believe that you live in your own little world where everything you do affects no one else, but you are mistaken.

I'd like to see where you found the info where states have higher motorcycle deaths with helmet laws.

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Fraud and murder involve more than one person so of course I support them.

You support fraud and murder?

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by CThunder-blue

It does have an impact on you. Let's say you own a 1992 Honda Civic. This car is well known to be on a high theft list. They raise your insurance because of this. What if you race your motorcycle on a track? I know my insurance agency (State Farm) asks if I do or not, which affects my rates, because the chances of going down are much higher when you race. It wouldn't matter to them if I had been racing for 20 years without a single crash. My rates would still be higher than if someone didn't race. I don't know how old you are, if you pay for your own insurance, but if you have ever seen your rates go up and you know that you didn't get a point on your record, guess what? It's because in the last 3-6 months of the insurance company's survey, the particular model car or truck you drive has been involved in more accidents than normal. You want proof? Call your insurance agent. There's my proof.

Sky diving, skiing, etc, involves risk, but it does not impact anyone else's lives in anyway except the person involved. You may believe that you live in your own little world where everything you do affects no one else, but you are mistaken.

I'd like to see where you found the info where states have higher motorcycle deaths with helmet laws.

Your insurance goes up because the model of car/bike you are driving/riding has been deemed more risky than another. This has nothing to do with helmet laws. I've never seen one report which says that a specific bike has a higher insurance rate because that model tends to attract more riders who choose to not where helmets. In fact, sport bikes tend to have even higher insurance rates than non sport bikes, yet I would say the penetration of riders with helmets is probably highest in this area. Again, someone's decision to wear or not wear a helmet has no effect on me.

I've been driving for almost 30 years, and I have been riding motorcycles for well over 25 years. My insurance rates typically come down each year in accordance with the age of the vehicle. I'm sure there are adjustments for inflation, and I'm sure there have been adjustments if my car/motorcycle was deemed more or less likely to crash or get stolen, but I can't recall any huge swings to be honest.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

You support fraud and murder?

LOL. That would be the laws against fraud and murder which I support.

[Blackwidow]

I think its great that the government decided to not make people do something they don't want to do. I for one will never get on a bike without a helmet, law or no law...I like my brain to be INSIDE my head at all times. If someone is going to not wear a helmet cuz its not the law anymore then more power to them, their the ones that will have to have their loved ones scrap brain goo off the pavement.