What do you all think of Helmet Laws? (For Bikers)

[a_random_joel]

I'm not a biker, but I have to write an essay on it. If anyone has any strong opinions on this, either way, I'd like to hear your take.

[Blue-Jay]

1. Hey, it's YOUR brain.

If you don't mind it being scattered all over the road, that's your choice. I don't like any laws that intrude on your right to be a dumbass. For the record: I ride a motorcycle and always wear a helmet, but I'm against laws saying that I HAVE to wear one. I also always wear a seatbelt, but am against seatbelt laws (except where they concern underage passengers).

[ProfessorGAC]

18. I'm With you Blue-Jay

My sentiments are identical to yours. Nanny laws are superfluous. Sometimes i think that laws that intend to prevent natural selection are misguided.
The Professor

[LightTheMatch]

2. I'm torn.

Well, in any severe accident without a helmet, you have a good chance of dying, which is a good thing ... because in any severe accident with a helmet, you will probably end up a vegetable and be kept alive for years.

Basically, I dunno. Seeing all of my mother's patients with head injuries in rehab hospitals makes the decision very hard.

[nedlogg]

3. Let the insurance companies deal with it.

The requirement for wearing helmets (and seatbelts for that matter) should be regulated by the insurance companies, not the government. Let them write into their policies that a helmet (or seatbelt) must be worn at all times for the policy to be in effect. If a rider has an accident and splits his head open because he wasn't wearing a helmet, no payout. Same for seatbelts.

We need less laws, not more.

[kmla]

10. I agree!

Responsibility for your actions. Hmmmmmm.

May catch on someday, do ya think?


:shrug:


Nahhhhh.

[Bake]

47. That sounds almost ... conservative!

I agree with the sentiment though.

Bake

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. Only if the rider signs a contract agreeing to DIE as a result

of that accident. The burdens of traumatic brain injuries to the rider's family last far longer than does the shock of death.

[wtmusic]

4. This is a libertarian issue

in an ideal world we could all do whatever we want, not hurt anyone else, and no one would mind.

In this particular world, things like seat belts and helmets are a minor inconvenience that save state and federal governments millions of dollars a year in medicare and medicaid for rehab and aid for other public services.

I'd rather the government had that money for other public programs, not paying for someone to be a moron.

[stoystown]

6. Libertarians (for lack of a better word) can blow me.

I have to pay higher insurance premiums because idiots want the wind in their hair.

Got get a hair dryer, and give me lower insurance prices!!!

[el_gato]

23. you can blow me

Freedom is more imporatant than your insurance premiums.
Insurance companies are making the money and this bullshit
little excuse for high premiums is phoney.

[Character Assassin]

50. Try thinking with your other head

Libertarians have nothing to do with this issue as far as actual laws are concerned.

[Brucey]

9. I agree, but the interesting question is where to draw the line.

To what extent should individual preferences have a higher value than the economic good of the society? In lots of ways we support the individual (corporations, for instance, can pollute, advertise bad products, deceive people into buying things they don't want or need, etc. and these actions do have negative consequences on the society, but we still allow them), in other ways we support the society (restaurants are inspected, public health measures, speed limits on roadways, seat belts, etc.). So, where to draw the line? Is is a matter of how badly people want the choice, or is it a matter of how much it costs the society, or some combination? I ride a bike and don't wear a helmet because I feel better, and believe I can see and control the bike better without it. Maybe a rationalization. Maybe I should wear one and save my life as well as save the taxpayer some money in case I'm in an accident. I think SUV and 4-wheel drive drivers are more dangerous because they overestimate their vehicle's ability to deal with problems. Could this be true of helmet wearers?

[wtmusic]

14. The line's in a pretty good place right where it is

Seat belts, helmets. There is no doubt whatsoever, I mean NO doubt, that they save lives and money.

When you start attacking cigarettes you will run into problems, although personally I would love it if tobacco were illegal. In 2001 it killed 100 times as many people in the US as terrorism did.

[MisterP]

56. and tears for friends and relatives

I wear one: "Helmets: when your own brain-box isn't enough."

[xJlM]

5. If you're going to be in an accident on a bike...

I would say that a helmet and clean underwear are essential. The thing is, it doesn't always work that way. I was in an accident in 1984 in Florida, which is a helmet law state (or at least it was back then). I was too drunk to fasten the chin strap, though, so the helmet left me almost before I left the bike.

[meegbear]

7. Something you may want to add ...

You'll have to go online to find it exactly, but I got this from a message site posting (I know this incident happened):

If I remember correctly, in the book Saturday Night: A Backstage History of Saturday Night Live, there's a story about Al Franken's experiences covering the 1980 Republican presidential primaries while working as a writer for the program.

Supposedly, candidate Ronald Reagan had made a speech at one campaign stop speaking about defending personal freedoms from government interference. He cited his efforts as governor of California to overturn a mandatory motorcycle helmet law.

Then, at another campaign appearance, Reagan spoke out against the decriminalization of marijuana.

So Franken asked (and I'm paraphrasing): "Governor Reagan, you're against decriminalization of marijuana, but you're also against forcing people to wear a motorcycle helmet. Isn't the risk of brain damage from marijuana much less than the risk of having a serious motorcycle accident, in which, for example, actual material from the road might enter the brain?"

According to the book, Reagan gave some answer about police being able to tell if a driver was drunk, but not if they had been smoking marijuana, and then quickly changed the subject.

Franken was then thrown off of the press bus by Reagan's aides.

[a_random_joel]

12. I forgot about that one!

Thank you , thank you, thank you!

[Mountainman]

8. I am a biker and I understand both sides of the issue I think

The pro helmet folks say that the injuries and deaths that happen because someone wasn't wearing a helmet makes the costs go up for everyone. Also if you are stupid enough to not want to wear a helmet, then the State and the people need to take it upon themselves to protect you.

I think the cost issue is bogus. I have never seen health care or insurance costs go down because the helmet law was put in place. There may be fewer deaths but that doesn't reduce costs to each of us. Insurance companies didn't lower their rates when the law was passed. Nor did the medical profession.

Yes it is stupid to ride without a helmet in my opinion. You take an awlful rist of getting killed by getting a head injury. But on the other hand you can get killed even though you have a helmet on.

I use to ride without a helmet and if there were no helmet law in CA it probably would not wear one.

It seems to me to be an emotional issue. Some feel the government has no right to force it on you and others feel that they need to force it on you.

Helmets have been proven to save lives yet I think that if you have to take a side I think it is going to be taken out of emotion rather than logic or reason.

[DS1]

11. I'd say let them ride sans-helmet

but my bills would increase somewhere because of it.

[Divernan]

13. If bikers waive right to sue others & rely only on their private insurance

When I worked with insurance companies I heard a saying, "Buy your kid a motorcycle for their LAST birthday." (variation, "LAST Christmas") And I saw people left quadraplegics/paraplegics from cycle accidents. However, I don't know how helmets protect you that much in major accidents. Guess your face & head will look good in an open casket.

Also, bikers and/or their passengers will be suing other parties for their injuries - drivers of other vehicles, manufacturers of all or part of their bike or the car which may have hit them, the owner of the trucking company if a truck is involved in the accident, the governmental entity responsible for the condition of the roadway, etc., etc. Even if they don't sue, they may end up vegetables for life and use up hundreds of thousands in medical care - and collecting social security disability.

So I think, let people ride bikes without helmets, but make them waive rights to pursue claims for their personal injuries.

[AntiBushRepub]

16. My $.02

I think having somewhat relaxed helmet lwas should be okay for this reason..


I think that anyone on I-95 going 70 MPH on a bike in traffic, or driving around on a busy street, obviously they should have a helmet on, lest the have a death wish...

But I think it's good for those people who are tooling around the local park on Sunday at 15 MPH just feeling the breeze and sinshine....you don't really need a helmet to do that.

That's where I'd draw the line.

-An

[a_random_joel]

15. Thank you all

For the feedback! Much obliged. For the record, I support the Helmet Law, and will be taking that position in my paper. Which is unusual, cause I am typically closer to libertarian on these types of issues.

I guess if you are riding on private property sans helmet that is your right, but if you are riding on public streets I think the law should be enforced.

I understand the passion behind the anti-helmet folks, and will tip my hat(no pun intended) to these folks.

[greenwow]

17. I like to see guys on bikes without helmets!

As a general rule, they're the safest and most careful drivers on the road! When I was working in SC and there was an ongoing debate about their lack of helmet laws, one insurance company claimed that per mile driven, motorcyle drivers without helmets were 100 times less likely to be involved in an accident than the average car driver. Sounds good to me.

[trogdor]

19. How about MUFFLER laws?

I was in a meeting at a cafe in downtown Utica the other day, and every couple of minutes, we were rudely interrupted by idiot bikers who think more decibels = more coolness. These are the same people, coincidentally, who think helmet laws suck, and their straight pipes are a safety mod that alerts auto drivers to their presence.

[ForrestGump]

20. Déja-vu

I think that anyone who doesn't these days is simply being idiotic. If you ride a motorcycle, you WILL eventually take a tumble. Hopefully it'll be just a minor whoopsie, with nothing worse than a tad of road rash (if that), but it is probably a surprise to some people just how easy it is to become dead through even minor head-pavement interfacing.

And how the hell can anyway who HAS previously laid a bike down, and suffered as a result, possibly advocate not wearing a helmet? Can you say 'duh'? Can you say 'doesn't get a subtle hint'? I remember when Gary Busey took a shot at being brain dead, as a result of a late-'80s motorcycle crash, and moved from being fervently anti-helmet to pro-helmet - THAT is a more sane response, if you ask me.

I wrote off three helmets in my younger youth, even as the experienced rider that I already was, and in one case thehelmet was reduced to the consistency of sponge - totally shattered, and I could poke my finger through it. I have little doubt that I WOULD have died in that crash if not for my helmet and there's a possibility that I could have been snuffed out in the other two incidents, as well.

I've ridden helmetless, off-road, and all that wind-in-the-air stuff is BS when it comes to its inherent value versus the downside of not wearing a helmet. Crashes aside, insects barreling in at phenomenal relative speeds are not much fun and sandstorms, if you happen to be traveling in the desert, will really give your face that nice 'peeled' look and feel.

And a full-face helmet is best - I know that both my father and I would have lost face were it not for that chinbar....somewhere I've seen a graphic that breaks down by percentage of accidents the zone of impact on a helmet, and impacts on the chin and face are way too common to ever have me wearing an open-face helmet.

For that matter, motorcyclists owe to to themsleves and everyone concerned to deck themselves out with good footwear and gloves, at least, as well as abrasian-resistant jacket and pants. If it's leather or similar purpose-made gear, so much the better. People that I STILL see in beach areas, in particular, cruising along with just shorts and flip-flops (with their babe perched on back, wearing a bikini) are just complete morons. They're just waiting to become strawberry jam, and these squids are also the ones who tend to engage in stunting that's far beyond their capabilities AND far beyond what's safe for others in the vicinity. Those f***ers give the rest of us a bad name.

Oh, but sure, this is alleged to be the Land of the Free, and so motorcyclists have every right to do whatever the hell they want. Ride Free in your designer Harley accessories, and all that. So maybe we should forget about the costs involved in squeegeeing up the unprotected brains of smeared riders and laud anti-helmet moves as a step toward the evolutionary process known as stabilizing selection. Call me a neo-fascist, but I don't accept that. Sometimes morons do need to be told what's good for them - seat belts are one transportation-related example and motorcycle helmets are another. That's just one reason why I'd never join the national motorcycle organizations of the US, because they lobby so vociferously against helmet laws - they're the NRA of the highway. Complete with fake data about how helmets are MORE dangerous than a bare head. Give me a f***ing break.

If you don't want to wear a helmet while aboard a motorcycle, then to hell with it....good for you. Just don't come whining to me when your frontal lobes are to the road as paté is to a cracker.

"So many of these injuries are completely preventable. Helmets and seatbelts are easy and convenient methods of protecting yourself." - Gary Busey

[Wickerman]

21. Cost issues

I work in social services and get the pleasure of comparing costs of folks who are treated in various environments. I can pay for 10 folks with Alzheimers for 1 year or I can pay for one head injury for one year. Figure it out - when you bang your head, you are really fucked up. Seems a high price to me to have the wind in your hair. Don't know that it just your personal choice, either, cuz if you live, even in a vegatative state, your insurance will only pay for a year or two of care.

These are folks whose insurance either never existed or has run out. The state then gets to pick up the tab. In the meantime we don't have as many funds to feed the hungry, prevent child abuse, etc.

Find the cost of freedom, as Steve Stills once wrote.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. As the former chair for a large statewide traumatic brain injury event

I have the following to offer in support of helmets.

They save lives no matter how stupid the head inside them is.

They reduce the incident of LIVING WITH the ill effects of a traumatic brain injury which can vary immensely because the brain controls all body functions. Therefore the effects can be as subtle as forgetfulness or as severe as drooling and loss of motor skills (i.e. can't walk, pees pants, etc and YES I HAVE SEEN MANY MANY VERY BUTCH former Hell's Angels who now run around like hyperactive little boys with drool running down their beards)

Teh actual COST of treating traumatic brain injuries can be over 4 million over the course of a lifetime ( OR MORE)..often the riders were uninsured in the first place and the cost is born by society OR the individuals family.

There are 1,500,000 TBI's a year. That is MORE than the combined incidence of breast cancer, aids, MS and spinal cord injuries.


2% of the American population is currently living with the ill effects of brain injury.

For the Libertarians in the crowd, this issue simply proves your foolishness on matters of social policy. IF you believe in leaving it up to the individual, then please explain how you would do this with an individual in a wheelchair with a constellation of symptoms as complex and varied as the human brain while not infringing on anyone else's liberty, specifically the liberty of the family members and survivors who must now DEAL with the ill effects since the recipient is too impaired to do so.

[wtmusic]

24. Great post NSMA

thanks for the info

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

26. My pleasure..I will NEVER EVER forget this one guy named Bobby

Really really CUTE young man who was very obviously the "ladies' man" type before his accident. His brain injury left him with his skills in tact for understanding but his motor skills for talking were severely impaired and he was left with severe respiratory impairments as well (the brain mediates that too.) He was IN AND OUT of the hospital with abdominal complications over the course of the time I knew him ( a decade.)

He was frequently suicidal due to his loneliness as he could REMEMBER his past and the companionship of women but NO ONE was attracted to him and WHO THE HELL wants to hook up with a guy with such severe impairments and frequent complications?

His life has been EXTREMELY HARD on him (and his aging parents)since his injury. There is always some NEW complication as each surgery he has leads to adhesions and more PAIN.

He can only talk in a whisper at about one word every thirty to forty seconds even though he can think at a normal speed and is actually quite bright..this too is a HUGE source of frustration for him since people assume he is stupid since he CAN'T talk fast.

There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for any of the people above justifying their anti-helmet position in the face of this. They simply cannot relate since it has not happened to them yet.

I have a hard time, given my experience and the LITERALLY THOUSANDS of hours I have given to this cause regarding the anti-helmet people who want to feel the wind blow through their ears as anything but the fucking fools they prove themselves to be on this issue.

[ProfessorGAC]

25. My Opinion Differs, And I'm A Fool?

And don't ever think that just because you've called me a libertarian, that it makes me one.

I'm not. And your opinion is not automatically more valid than others who don't share it. Sorry.
The Professor

[a_random_joel]

27. As someone who respects BOTH of your opinions

I have to go with NSMA on this one. I certainly don't think you a fool, however.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. NSMA Was Not As Generous

I thought it a bit much to declare any disagreement to be rooted in foolishness.

The Professor

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Sorry Prof..experience matters

[ForrestGump]

30. Fools rush in.....

Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it.
--Benjamin Franklin

Logical consequences are the scarecrows of fools and the beacons of wise men.
--Thomas Huxley

Wise men learn by other men's mistakes, fools by their own.
--H. G. Bohn

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes.
--Proverbs 12:15

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.
--Proverbs 14:12

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

31. With all due respect, on this issue you are not acting like a professor

One that would do research or inform themself and THEN offer an opinion. This is no more a "nanny law" than laws that require live electric wires to be out of the reach of citizens or laws that require a guard on chainsaws so that people don't sever their limbs off or laws that restrict alcohol consumption while operating a motor vehicle.

[ProfessorGAC]

35. And You Did It Again

You've decided what you've decided. I think my point was simply that being called a fool because i don't share your opinion is based upon fairly close minded POV.

Now, to the point: I am close enough to these problems, as my wife used to work with mentally challenged adults, some of whom were the result of brain injuries not genetic disorders. I know the problems.

However, you are missing the point BADLY! The VAST majority of brain injured people are that way DESPITE taking due care for their own protection. Not because of a bad decision. (Based upon your background, you should have access to these data. I found them pretty easily.)

So, to suggest that these laws enforcing one's own protection is somehow protecting folks who are injured WITHOUT doing anything stupid is disingenuous and not supported by the facts. It IS a nanny law.

Secondly, chainsaw guards and DUI laws? Please! Those laws are meant to protect people who DIDN'T do anything wrong as well. It protects the consumer of a chainsaw from a breaking chain, or a simple slip that would result in dire injury. DUI laws protect the people in the car that aren't under the influence. You know better.

There is a huge difference between a law meant to ensure public safety and one that tries to protect individuals from poor, but willful, decisions. One is a nanny law, the other is not.

I'm out!
The Professor

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. Did the family of the brain injured individual do anything wrong?

The vast majority of brain injury recipients DID NOT have protections? Where are you getting this from. Regardless..if they wore the helmet and got an injury ANYWAY it could ONLY have been worse had they NOT had it on.

"Wearing a helmet lowers a motorcycle rider's risk of fatal injury by 29 percent and reduces the risk of traumatic brain injury by 67 percent. Despite the documented effectiveness of helmets, many motorcyclists choose not to wear them, especially when state laws don't require helmet use. Surveys show that in states without universal helmet laws, only 34 to 54 percent of motorcycle riders wear helmets. But in states where helmet use is mandatory for all riders, 98 percent of motorcyclists use this safety gear. Currently, less than half of the states require helmet use by riders of all ages."

http://safeusa.org/move/motorcyc.htm


Of the 3184 motorcyclists involved in police-reported crashes in Wisconsin in 1991, 2015 (63.3%) were unhelmeted and 994 (31.2%) were helmeted at the time of the crash. Helmet use was unknown for 175 (5.5%), four of whom were fatally injured; of 32 who were hospitalized, 13 incurred head injuries. Of those motorcyclists for whom helmet status was known, 545 were hospitalized and 74 died, including 55 who were unhelmeted and 19 who were helmeted. Of the 545 hospitalized, 187 (34.3%) had sustained a head injury (Table_1). Overall, unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in police-reported crashes were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized for a head injury (153 {7.6%}) than were helmeted riders (34 {3.4%}). Brain injury occurred among 97 (4.8%) of those who were unhelmeted and 17 (1.7%) of those who were helmeted (rate ratio {RR}=2.9, 95% confidence interval {CI}=1.7-4.9); the rate for skull fracture among unhelmeted riders (0.9%) was 4.5 times (95% CI=1.0-19.2) that among helmeted riders (0.2%). The rate for concussions among unhelmeted motorcyclists involved in crashes (1.9%) was higher than that for helmeted riders (1.5%) (RR=1.3; 95% CI=0.7-2.3).

Total initial * inpatient hospital charges for the 97 unhelmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries was $2,396,366 -- compared with $333,619 for the 17 helmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries (Table_1). Average initial hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries were $24,705, compared with $19,624 for helmeted motorcyclists with brain injuries.

Although some crashes will be so severe that a motorcycle helmet will not prevent brain injury or death, the proportion of injuries that could have been prevented if a motorcycle helmet had been worn by all riders was estimated for each category of head injury and death (3). These estimates assume that if unhelmeted motorcyclists wore helmets and experienced a similar distribution of outcomes as helmeted motorcyclists, then universal helmet use by all motorcyclists in Wisconsin during 1991 potentially would have prevented 60 brain injuries, 13 skull fractures with no intra- cranial injury, and eight concussions. In addition, universal helmet use potentially would have prevented 14 (18.9%) deaths. Reported by: TA Karlson, PhD, CA Quade, Center for Health Systems Research and Analysis, Univ of Wisconsin, Madison; Wisconsin Dept of Transportation. Div of Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00031470.htm

[ForrestGump]

42. Yes, and as one who WOULD be dead were it not for a helmet,

I get pretty f***ing peeved that doofi are out there claiming that I'd have lived through the experience sans helmet. Or that I'd even escape with lighter injury had I not been wearing a helmet. The spurious claims of greater overall danger from 'whiplash'-type injuries is quickly revealed at such times as a pathetic straw man in the face of the likely pulverization of your cranium.

I must say that I consider myself relatively indestructible, but in that case and others I owe my life not to anything intrinsic but to mere layers of fiberglass and polystyrene foam. It doesn't necessarily take much to kill a person with a blow to the head and we humans are actually surprisingly destructible.

[ProfessorGAC]

46. Who Said Such A Thing?

When i had a bike, i ALWAYS wore a helmet. It's the eminently sensible thing to do!

But, i think these laws are somewhat arbitrary, nearly unenforceable, and don't protect people who don't care about their own safety. (I know a police captain who says his dept. in a city of >100k, has NEVER arrested a biker for not wearing a helmet. Every citation they've ever given for this was AFTER somewhat had an accident and wasn't wearing their helmet. Sort of like the seatbelt laws.)

So, nobody, certainly not me, ever said it didn't increase safety. You're putting words in my mouth.
The Professor

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

49. That's the other thing I LOVE about the NO HELMET brain trust

In California, they are ticketed and fined. Then they wear a helmet or a seatbelt..why? because 100 bucks means more to them than their own brain...although I am inclined to agree with them on that point.

[wtmusic]

45. And that, Professor, is why

your position is foolish. NSMA is not saying you're foolish for disagreeing with her; she is saying WHY your disagreeing is foolish.

You're going to have to come up with better support for your position or go to the back of the class!

[ProfessorGAC]

60. Read My Other Post

I don't disagree that wearing a helmet is the smart thing to do. I always wore one.

And, BTW, you're wrong about my position being foolish. It may differ from yours, but that doesn't make it foolish. It's one thing for you to disagree with my position, it's quite another to decide that i must be a fool to have my position.

One is a fair disagreement; the other is an insult.

Now, it's your turn to go to the back of the class, as your debating skills rank quite low.
The Professor

[wtmusic]

90. I can decide whatever the hell I want, Proffy

And I have decided that your position is foolish. Come on out of that ivory tower and say hello to reality (if you're insulted that's your problem)

[Character Assassin]

51. I see that someone needs to get a grip. Or possibly a clue.

For the Libertarians in the crowd, this issue simply proves your foolishness on matters of social policy.

No, Ducky, this proves your ignorance of libertarianism.

IF you believe in leaving it up to the individual, then please explain how you would do this with an individual in a wheelchair with a constellation of symptoms as complex and varied as the human brain while not infringing on anyone else's liberty, specifically the liberty of the family members and survivors who must now DEAL with the ill effects since the recipient is too impaired to do so.

No problem: no money from the state whatsoever for those who sustain such injuries after purposefully chosing not to ride with a helmet. No exceptions.

As for the family, they can either choose to assist the injured party or not. Either way, tough luck, nothing from the state.

People make choices. Often very bad ones. It shouldn't be the state who comes in and eases the burden on the stupid and the expense of the not-so-stupid.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

52. Sorry I understand the DO NOTHING Libertarian crowd

Your answers and poor understanding of social policy and what society actually wants are exactly why you will never gain power. Tell people the REAL truth and they will laugh you off the face of the earth.

Yeah right :eyes: society is really going to leave a bunch of drooling, pants pissing males on the street to their own devices where the ones that are MOST ill will die of exposure and the ones that are not ill will cause nothing but havoc.

[Character Assassin]

53. Doing nothing, in this case, is indeed doing something.

As in removing the state as the responsible party for some idiot's foolish choice.

Your answers and poor understanding of social policy and what society actually wants are exactly why you will never gain power.

Oh, I have a fine understanding of social policy. In fact, numerous variations on that theme. The social policy I choose, however, seems to conflict with the policy that you favor. It has nothing to do with my ability to conceive of the consequences of my choice, or the ramification of yours, thanks.

As for gaining power, that may or may not be, but I, and those who share my views, are at least honest enough to come right out and say what we think, rather than endlessly fine-tuning variations on the welfare theme, depending on which party is in office.

Tell people the REAL truth and they will laugh you off the face of the earth.

As you may have noticed, I have done nothing other than tell people the 'REAL' truth. It's a matter of principle.

If they choose to laugh, that's fine. It doesn't change anything.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

54. So your principle favors human suffering over unworkable ideology?

[Susang]

59. No, it favors selfishness

As long as libertarians aren't forced to pay for things or have their "rights" infringed upon, they tend not to care what happens to others in society.

I think their opinion would radically change if there ever was a society that managed to embrace libertarianism. Which, by the way, there never has been. Libertarianism is more of a religion than a philosophy since it's never actually been put into practice. There is no libertarian country. Libertarians have "faith" that it would work, but no proof.

[Character Assassin]

63. An unwise attempt to attribute motive to something you don't understand

No, it favors selfishness.

That is a purposefully truncated viewpoint. It favors not encumbering you with the bad decisions of others.

As long as libertarians aren't forced to pay for things or have their "rights" infringed upon, they tend not to care what happens to others in society.

Ah, I see. So adherents to libertarianism, according to your simplistic model, do not and cannot volunteer their time, money and resources to assisting others in society for the benefit of all? They are somehow, magically, devoid of all traces of self-sacrifice, concern for their fellow man and altruistic tendencies inherent to human nature?

You need to rethink things, and see the hollow nature of your statements.

I think their opinion would radically change if there ever was a society that managed to embrace libertarianism. Which, by the way, there never has been. Libertarianism is more of a religion than a philosophy since it's never actually been put into practice.

No, libertariansim is a Platonic Ideal, something to be striven for which can never be completely realized or achieved, but which offers far greater benefit than not striving for it at all. To label it a religion rather than a philosophy belies a pre-extant agenda to denigrate it rather than dispassionately analyse and evaluate it.

There is no libertarian country. Libertarians have "faith" that it would work, but no proof.

Breaking: Sunrise tied to eastern horizon.

[Susang]

66. I understand quite well, thank you

As I have had close relations with libertarians for over 20 years now.

My statement never said that you wouldn't volunteer *your* time. But could you guarantee that enough people would volunteer theirs? Where's the safety net when the inevitable lack of care takers is discovered? You might want to reconsider *your* statements. Unless your particular brand of libertarianism has some sort of emergency plan that you haven't shared with all of us. And yes, btw, the many libertarians I know do not volunteer their time and rarely their money. And I know quite a few libertarians.

And please, Platonic Ideal? You just gave me a major set of the giggles. Perhaps its' Platonic to you, for most of my libertarian friends and associates (did I mention that I know a shit-load of them?) it's merely an excuse for them to keep their money and do whatever the hell they want. Ever been to a libertarian convention? I have, you should try it sometime. It's a real eye-opener.

[Character Assassin]

73. That's not evident from your answer

As I have had close relations with libertarians for over 20 years now.

Well, that just about rules out the chances of it being an airborne pathogen.

My statement never said that you wouldn't volunteer *your* time. But could you guarantee that enough people would volunteer theirs?

Why on earth would I? 'Guaranteeing' that others would do what I consider important if it weren't important to them would violate a fundamental tenet of the philosophy.

Where's the safety net when the inevitable lack of care takers is discovered?

It could conceivably come from many places, just not somewhere that involuntarily taxes you in the process.

You might want to reconsider *your* statements. Unless your particular brand of libertarianism has some sort of emergency plan that you haven't shared with all of us.

Again, it could come from many places, or not exist at all. Those to whom it is important will take steps to address it.

And yes, btw, the many libertarians I know do not volunteer their time and rarely their money. And I know quite a few libertarians.

So what? Is this miniscule subset of all libertarians somehow defacto representative of all of them?

And please, Platonic Ideal? You just gave me a major set of the giggles.

I'm glad this has been a source of merriment for you. Just flew in from the coast and boy, are my arms tired!

Perhaps its' Platonic to you, for most of my libertarian friends and associates (did I mention that I know a shit-load of them?) it's merely an excuse for them to keep their money and do whatever the hell they want.

Again, you attempt a guilt-by-association angle that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Ever been to a libertarian convention? I have, you should try it sometime. It's a real eye-opener.

I see you fail to differentiate between Libertarianism and libertarianism. They have conventions, we do not.

Now then, what were you telling me about understanding libertarianism?

[Susang]

83. I'm sorry that you feel that I don't understand *libertarianism*

I assure you that I do. Are you saying that because an individual belongs to the Libertarian party that he/she is not a libertarian. Or are you implying that you and your philosophy are superior to theirs?

I've noticed that when someone challenges or disagrees with your opinion of libertarians, you consistantly say that we do not understand libertarianism, when in fact many of us *do* understand your philosophy (see, I was polite and didn't call it your religion) and reject it. There is a big difference there.

I wish I could continue this discussion, but alas, I am off to Des Moine, Iowa for a wedding. Pity me.

[Character Assassin]

86. I understand it precisely

I assure you that I do. Are you saying that because an individual belongs to the Libertarian party that he/she is not a libertarian.

This is usually, but not always the case.

Or are you implying that you and your philosophy are superior to theirs?

No, I'm not implying that, I am directly stating that.

I've noticed that when someone challenges or disagrees with your opinion of libertarians, you consistantly say that we do not understand libertarianism, when in fact many of us *do* understand your philosophy (see, I was polite and didn't call it your religion) and reject it. There is a big difference there.

Then why the conflation between libertarianism and Libertarianism? They are two distinctly different things.

It's fine if you disagree with it, but it's best to be sure that we are talking about the same thing.

I wish I could continue this discussion, but alas, I am off to Des Moine, Iowa for a wedding. Pity me.

You are duly pitied.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

71. Thanks for acknowledging as a political decision it is unworkable

"No, libertariansim is a Platonic Ideal, something to be striven for which can never be completely realized or achieved, but which offers far greater benefit than not striving for it at all. To label it a religion rather than a philosophy belies a pre-extant agenda to denigrate it rather than dispassionately analyse and evaluate it."

SMOOCH! *wipes brains of unhelmeted biker off pavement*

[Character Assassin]

75. No ideal is 100% workable through the machinery of politics.

Thanks for acknowledging as a political decision it is unworkable.

100% pure, distilled libertarianism could not exist, and therefore would not work as such.

I like to dream of the high 80's and low 90's, though.

[Character Assassin]

62. Human suffering exists no matter what. It is part of life.

The principle here dictates that the foolish rider does not burden you with the consequences of his actions.

Where does this gov't intervention and assumption of responsibility in the name of addressing or ending human suffering itself end? How far shall it be taken?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

72. Only in fantasyland does the foolish rider not burden SOMEONE

with the consequences of his actions. The intent of insurance was that society pooled their resources in the event of catastrophe. If one can prevent or mitigate catastrophe..one does..whether wearing a helmet, a respirator when working around toxic solvents or harmful chemicals or the like.

Please...it's a FUCKING helmet!!! What do you mean HOW FAR SHALL IT BE TAKEN???? Outlawing motorcycles would be a ridiculous remedy...requiring a fucking moron whose head isn't worth the protection SPENT on it is a MINOR requirement.

Fuck...you paid MORE for the airbags in your steering wheel than what a helmet costs...


Speaking of HOW FAR...please tell me HOW far ignoramuses will take this foolish rebellious argument when bareassing a reasonable regulation?

A helmet is CHEAP insurance...think of it as a metal condom for your other head.

[Character Assassin]

77. Oh, if he/she survives, someone wil definitly be burdened

The family most likely, who hopefully had some sort of insurance policy.

The intent of insurance was that society pooled their resources in the event of catastrophe. If one can prevent or mitigate catastrophe..one does..whether wearing a helmet, a respirator when working around toxic solvents or harmful chemicals or the like.

Why are you attempting to explain something to me we both already know and are in agreement with?

Please...it's a FUCKING helmet!!! What do you mean HOW FAR SHALL IT BE TAKEN????

Well, by that I mean to what extent shall it further be pursued? To which degree should it be legislated until a point of sufficiency is achieved? How intimately shall the gov't be involved, and to what extent, until cessation of such activity?

Really, I thought that would have been clear.

Outlawing motorcycles would be a ridiculous remedy...requiring a fucking moron whose head isn't worth the protection SPENT on it is a MINOR requirement.

Yes, and still one that I would object on the same grounds that I've already mentioned.

Fuck...you paid MORE for the airbags in your steering wheel than what a helmet costs...

This is not an issue of expense, Ducky.

Speaking of HOW FAR...please tell me HOW far ignoramuses will take this foolish rebellious argument when bareassing a reasonable regulation?

I'm sorry, could you rephrase that into something clearer?

A helmet is CHEAP insurance...think of it as a metal condom for your other head.

Was someone disputing that it was anything other than that? An expensive fishbowl, perhaps? Something for chips while watching TV?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

80. Given the large number of families uninsured that is hardly workable

and if the rider is an adult then that again falls squarely on the rider and if he isn't insured falls squarely on his family unless they are devout Libertarians :D

I notice you said HOPEFULLY...I think a helmet is a bit more than a hope. In fact, I KNOW it is and statistics in Texas and elsewhere where helmet laws were repealed PROVE IT.

As far as your questions regarding extent...laws are born often of necessity. Society recognizes a problem and legislates to correct a problem. I think as long as the legislation addresses the problem in earnest (and the helmet law is one of the most effective and CLEAN in its intentions) then there is NO problem.

Riders still have a choice...no one is forcing them to wear a helmet...they are free to break the law, pay a fine and ultimately lose their license and insurance...so they still have plenty of choice in the matter :D

[wtmusic]

55. With all due respect

do you have any idea what happens to these people? What their families go through? Any personal experience? Or are we just spouting from atop the soapbox...

[Character Assassin]

64. Yes, I've seen it and see it up close and personal.

I have made part of my adult life and career such that I have seen such situations on a frequent basis.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

74. Honestly as a former cop I cannot imagine WHY you would argue

against a REASONABLE precaution such as a helmet OR a seatbelt...hell..let's take the safety bumpers off of cars too...let'stake seatbelts out...and let's remove the crinkle feature of the car's body that has the car take the brunt of a collision versus the occupant in the cage...WTF all the cars that have come out since the 70's are ugly anyway. All those features cost far more than a helmet.

[Character Assassin]

79. You misunderstand: I'm NOT arguing against reasonable precautions

I'm arguing against such precautions being enforce under the color of gov't force.

hell..let's take the safety bumpers off of cars too...

That would be stupid. Why would you suggest that?

let'stake seatbelts out...and let's remove the crinkle feature of the car's body that has the car take the brunt of a collision versus the occupant in the cage...WTF all the cars that have come out since the 70's are ugly anyway. All those features cost far more than a helmet.

Again: this is not an issue of expense. On top of that, would you purchase such a vehicle that was stripped of such devices?

If not, why not?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

81. All vehicle laws are under the color of government force

Why wouldn't a helmet on a motorcycle be under the same code as a seatbelt, traffic safety laws or laws concerning what you can drink or smoke before you operate a vehicle? If it were legislated under the Penal Code you might have a point....come on Snookums...you're going...er.... LIMP on me :D

[Character Assassin]

82. I'm quite aware of that

Why wouldn't a helmet on a motorcycle be under the same code as a seatbelt, traffic safety laws or laws concerning what you can drink or smoke before you operate a vehicle? If it were legislated under the Criminal Code you might have a point....come on Snookums...you're going...er.... LIMP on me :D

Perhaps you've failed to notice that I am, in principle, opposed to all of those being enforced by law.

I support all of them being addressed, but not necessarily in the manner or to the degree that you do.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

85. Yes I am well aware that you favor them being addressed by unworkable

and unenforcable means.....I tend to think of legislation as more than window dressing however...which is why I favor going the REAL world route. :D

[Character Assassin]

87. Well LA di FREAKIN da!

Sorry, I just love that image.

You seem to forget that I do not advocate the impossible, Ducky, as in 100% libertarianism. It's not possible, some structure is needed.

Just not in the amount and fashion that you do. If a law is to exist, it must be enforceable, nicht wahr? You would do well to reconsider your statement that I espouse 'unenforceable' laws. I have a great deal of familiarity in this regards.

I'm from the government. I'm here to help.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

91. Then use your expertise to take on bigger more important fish SNOOKUMS

This law IS enforcable..it's real simple...biker rides down road without helmet...cop sees biker..cop pulls moron man over and gives him BIG FAT ticket...biker gets fatigued from getting so many tickets the dumbfuck finally puts 2 and 2 together and buys a friggin helmet....PROBLEM SOLVED :D

[Susang]

58. How cruel

While you stated the libertarian perfectly, it only highlights its flaws. So what happens if there's no money from the state and no money from the family? What do you propose is done with the human being in question? Or do you just not care?

[Character Assassin]

65. Yes, but this is on a different level.

While you stated the libertarian perfectly, it only highlights its flaws.

Please support that contention.

So what happens if there's no money from the state and no money from the family? What do you propose is done with the human being in question? Or do you just not care?

My philosophy demands that I adhere to such positions that maximize personal liberty, its promulgation and responsible execution.

I care very much about those who suffer and who have suffered, but I am addressing this on a macro level, not a personal one, so your concern about whether I care or not is misdirected.

I also care about financial burdens and gov't structures that exist and grow due to the demands that the gov't assume the responsibility for care of such individuals removing funds and liberty from you in order to do so.

[Susang]

68. The personal is the political

Therefore if you care about the welfare of human beings, stupid though they may be, then it logically follows that your politics would reflect that.

[Character Assassin]

78. No, that is not an logical conclusion

One can care about the welfare of fellow human beings and simultaneously the liberty of others.

[Susang]

84. But what happens when the welfare of others

Conficts with your (or someone else's) liberty? What's more important? I know what I'd choose.

[Character Assassin]

88. It's a philosophical question

That someone is suffering or that their welfare is in danger does not impinge on my liberty or impede my exercise thereof.

When you force me to support them, it does.

See the difference?

[Quahog]

28. As a rider and insurance industry professional

I understand all angles of this issue, I think. I work for a not-for-profit company that provides services to the auto insurance industry, among them actuarial analysis of insurance claims (although I'm not an actuary myself, I'm an IT guy, but I work with these folks every day). I am also an avid motorcyclist, member of the anti-helmet-law AMA, member of HRCA, and proud owner of a brand new Honda CBR600RR, capable of doing 0-100 in just over 5 seconds.

Insurance facts: the burden to state and local governments (and thereby, taxpayers), health providers, and insurance companies (and thereby, anyone who pays for insurance) is greater in states that do not have helmet laws. Those who say, "My insurance bill didn't go down when the helmet law passed" are using a single bit of anecdotal evidence to extrapolate a theory about motorcycle accidents and their resultant claims that simply doesn't hold water. We all pay, in the end, for motorcyclists who crash without proper protection, for drivers who don't wear seatbelts and are thrown from their vehicles, for people who operate any vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. That's a simple fact.

For specific facts about motorcycle accidents, your one-stop-shop for information is the Hurt Report, published in the 1980's. I'm sure it's online somewhere (no time to hunt out a link, sorry). But one interesting tidbit to consider: the average speed of a motorcycle involved in a FATAL accident is 27mph. You don't have to be doing 110 to get killed falling off a bike. It happens at stoplights, in crowded intersections, in parking lots. Even at a stand-still, the weight of the bike adds force to your fall, and if your head touches down first, your chances of getting up and walking away unchanged are slim.

Helmet laws save lives. They save taxpayers and responsible drivers money. But I agree that they are another form of government intrusion that may cross the line into infringement of civil liberties. I personally would not roll out of my garage on my bike without helmet, leather jacket with armour, sturdy gloves and boots. I hit the ground once in shorts, tank top and flip-flops when I was going around 25-30mph on a motorcycle, and I do not ever want to have the experience of leaving large chunks of my epidermis on the asphalt ever again.

I think that helmet laws are necessary, until the day that insurance companies adopt the position that has been proffered by someone else in this thread: crash without a helmet and suffer a head injury, and your policy becomes null and void. I'm sure there are all kinds of laws that would have to be studied and perhaps revised on a state-by-state basis to make this happen, but it's not an unprecedented concept. When I got married and decided to buy life insurance, my medical records showed me as an ex-smoker with asthma, and because of this I was unable to buy a policy that would pay in the event that I died from lung disease. Insurers are within their rights to impose these limitations. All 50 states require you to purchase liability insurance, but no one is required to purchase medical payment or personal injury coverage. These coverages could easily be made contingent upon compliance with a helmet rule for motorcyclists. This allows each rider to exercise their personal freedom with complete understanding of the potential consequences.

One other item to consider: in states without helmet laws (like RI where I live), it's getting very difficult to even buy insurance for high performance motorcycles. The insurance companies are trying to eliminate bikes like mine from the marketplace, by making coverage either unavailable or so exhorbitantly expensive that ownership is out of the reach of most people. Helmet laws can slow this trend. Riders who protest such laws are going to wish they hadn't been so vocal in their objections when it becomes impossible to ride a motorcycle at all due to the inability to procure insurance.

[ForrestGump]

32. The (horribly aptly-named) Hurt report

www.dot.state.ct.us/hwysafety/CTDOT_Hurt.pdf (PDF file)

http://motorcyclecourse.cyberus.ca/new/hurtrep.shtml (summary Web page)

[a_random_joel]

33. Thanks Quahog and Forrest!

Kudos. Your help is appreciated.

[hlthe2b]

36. I favor helmets for obvious safety reasons, however:

I think we should rely on voluntary compliance for bicyclists along with public education to encourage use. It is arguable how necessary it is for those riding on a rural road or restricted paved bicycle trails at normal slow speeds. I wear one, though and curse the helmet hair it gives me every time! LOL (you'd think if we could put a man on the moon, we could solve this problem!)

For motorcyclists, my position is a bit paradoxical; given the high speeds and the intense risk from cars whizzing by at >75 mph, I think it insane not to be wearing one. Further, given the societal costs for caring for those who survive these serious closed brain injuries-- often for decades, I think society has both an interest and a right to require protective measures such as wearing a helmet. Much like my extreme regulatory views on tobacco. Society has an interest, since society must bear the burden.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

41. Speed isn't always a factor and bicycle helmets are MORE

effective than even motorcycle helemts in preventing TBI's. The MAIN recipients of brain injuries are young males ages 15 to 32.

[ForrestGump]

43. My crashes were all at <30 mph

MOST crashes, and most fatal accidents, are at low speeds around town. Some of this is probably a function of a proportion of commuters who use bikes - I don't know - but most is almost certainly because car drivers do not see motorcyclists (even if they should) and so riding around town is the most dangerous activity that a street/road biker is likely to engage in.

I cringe when I hear people say they don't wear their helmet when they're just puddling around town but they'd never go on the open road without donning one. If they had any sense, and really felt the need to go helmetless, they'd have it the other way around. On the open road you're far less likely to die, even if you're going for speeds of 160 mph or greater, than you are around town at less than 35 mph. A lot of people who have that attitude ride 'cruiser' bikes, so they want the helmetless look around town becaused it's so cool, like in the movies.

Motorcyclists should wear helmets at all times, along with whatever other protective gear they can manage and afford. That's a bottom line. All excuses to the contrary are stupid vanity. And people do not look particularly 'cool' after smearing half their outer layers, like strawberry jam, down the middle of a road. For that matter, ever been hit by a substantial insect at even 70 mph? Ouch.

[ForrestGump]

37. Always wear protection

Forrest always wears helmet and leathers while riding (even while not riding):


Forrest says you should wear helmet because you never know what will happen:


Hey, you! Better not be scratching my paint with that body jewelry!:


Forrest loves motorcycle:


Forrest says this is definition of a moron:

[BiggJawn]

39. Excelent example of how "the system" is suposed to work...

All debate about the effectivness of helmets aside, what you see here is what happens when a group of citizens band together and lobby/pettion their lawmakers.

The Insurance industry spent HUGE bucks fight helmet law repeals in states that had them, but a cheque to the re-election fund and a steak dinner and a Ho can't compare with daily visitors to your office, letters, phone calls, people coming up to you at glad-hand stops saying "y'know, we really need to dump that helmet law...."

Face it, the Bros got together on this, something that the Straights would have never figured in a million years, seein's how they thought the Bros were always fighting amongst ourselves, and they presented a unified front and got the lawmakers to listen.

And you thought ABATE was only about Rider Safety Education? Hell, ABATE was BORN of the helmet wars.

And I rode bare-headed until MY wreck, and then never again. not until I finally hung up the hard hat years later.

[Samuraimad]

40. My father spent 3 weeks in a coma because he chose not to wear his helmet.

While ultimately I think it should be a personal choice, you have to be fucking stupid to go without. I understand for some the balancing act of looking cool and saving your brain is a tough choice.

A year and half ago my mother and my father were in a motorcycle accident. My father forgot his helmet and waved it off as "just going for a ride." My mother the more sensible one (as usual) wore hers. At the accident my Father wasn't breathing with the grace of a RN he was stabilized to spend 3 weeks in a coma. If my mother had went without hers she would have been dead judging by the damage to the helmet at her temple. She is damn lucky she only cracked her pelvis and broke her arm. While some of you reading this have gone through the same thing or worse, getting a phone call that tells you your parents have been in a accident and they ain't sure if one will live still gives me anxiety and uncontrolled emotions to this day.
While my father has had an amazing recovery, Labor, the Democratic Party and community in general has in a lot of ways lost a great man who had a huge influence in political scene in his community. His presence is still known and respected, but any shot of him running for office and in turn doing great thing for the state is gone.
While it is YOUR choice, think good and hard about how the decision may affect your family and friends. In summary, don't be a selfish prick, wear your fucking helmet.

[MysticMind]

44. I lean towards supporting them...

If a biker isn't wearing a helmet and gets a debilitating brain injury you have to figure society will bear the costs. Also the biker would likely have high medical bills billed to insurance and potentially increase costs to everyone else. What harm do helmet laws do?

[Friar]

48. Helmet laws are unecessary

If you're so stupid you won't wear a helmet, you are too stupid to ride and shouldn't be issued a license. Aar!

[Susang]

57. You know what my brother the doctor calls riders w/o helmets?

Organ donors.

I wear a helmet and I only ride a 50cc scooter. The monetary and emotional costs of my family maintaining a vegetable (should I get into a serious accident) is more important to me than some perceived "freedom". Driving isn't a right, the state licenses and restricts who can drive and where. They have the same right to require safety measures such as seat belts and helmets.

[LadeJarl]

61. NSMA is right on the money..

I'm originally from a country which has had laws requiring seatbelts and helmets for almost 30 years now and there is no doubt that both have saved money and lifes to an extent that has totally silenced the opposition of it.

If helmets and seatbelts are not important in case of an accident why is it that all professional drivers uses them? Take a look at NASCAR, do you see any drivers without it? Take a look at bike racing, do they drive around in T and shorts? Take a look at Formula 1, T and shorts there too or?

It's sometimes hard to see the truth through your own perfection. It's so easy to say, it's my life and I can do whatever I want with it. Now, what about your loved ones? Your kids? Your job? Is it fair to all of them that you have the "right" to kill yourself by a selfish and stupid act of not protecting yourself?

[snooper2]

67. I rode my bike to work today..

Wearing sunglasses only..

My personal choice. I find full helmets block my peripheral vision way to much. If you look to the left or right you can't see anything directly in front of you.

I am thinking about getting one of those "old school" turtle shell helmets that stop above your ears, (just in case).

You might want to research various state laws for your essay. In Texas (I'm in Dallas), you are not required by law to wear a helmet as long as you have health insurance.

My bike insurance by the way is 101.54 for the entire year. I got the most stripped down policy, no PIP, no Theft, just basic liability.

[Quahog]

69. Something you ALL need to know about insurance

OK, no axe to grind here, no ideology, just a heads-up. And just so you know, I work in the insurance industry (residual market, data processing for rate making/actuarial analysis), and I did not know this little fact until my wife, who is an independent insurance agent, gave me the 4-1-1.

All states require you to carry liability insurance. This is so that in the event that YOU kill or injure someone, you are able to pay up. States don't care whether you carry insurance to cover your own injuries... as far as they're concerned, you can be self-insuring (you have a cool million in the bank to cover your medical expenses) or you can just not give a shit, doesn't matter.

BUT (and just like with J-Lo, this is a BIG BUT), a lot of people think that just because they have health insurance, they are covered for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. Depending on your health insurance provider, THIS MAY NOT BE THE CASE. I didn't want to shell out for med pay on my motorcycle insurance, and my wife had me call Blue Cross/Blue Shield (my health insurance through my work) to see if they would cover motorcycle accident injuries. Sure enough, they capped at $5k or $10k (don't remember right now), which as any health care professional can tell you, you would blow through in about two hours if you sustained major injuries.

You may not want to pay for comprehensive coverage for your bike (if it's stolen or totalled, you have to pay off your loan regardless, but hey, that's your risk to take). BUT (J-Lo again), if you sustain injuries requiring extensive physical therapy and your health insurance does not cover you for motorcycle accidents, you are basically fucked. No medical facility is going to help you recover unless you can prove financial responsibility... and I don't know about you, but I do not have a half million in the bank. I don't even have half a hundred.

So, call your insuranc agent, find out where you stand. Trust me on this, make sure you know what your situation is before you go riding blithely off thinking that you're covered. You may not be. I wasn't.

[VRSCAman]

70. I think you are crazy for not wearing one, however....

It is up to the individual. No reason the government should get involved in forcing you to wear one.

[SoCalDem]

89. It's YOUR brain, but it's MY tax dollars

when you get your noggin cracked open, and you end up in lifetime custodial care at the state's expense..

It's a total waste either way.. A waste of YOUR life, and a waste of the PUBLIC'S funds.. Those public funds could be better spent on looking for sures for illnesses, funding education, providing low interest small business loans, etc..

Being a biker has a "free-spirit" mystique about it, but if you have ever seen a brain injured person, there is nothing "freeing" about that lifestyle..

Perhaps young daredevil bikers should carry a box of depends with them at all times, as a reminder that if they crash, a stranger may be changing their poopy diapers for the rest of their lives.. That's the message I gave my sons when they hinted at getting a bike.. Take your pick.. helmet or depends :evilgrin:

Sure, there will be tales from bikers who crashed and walked away, but is it really worth risking your brain?? Would YOU be one of the lucky ones???

Think of your Mom, your girlfriend, your wife.. Would you want THEM changing your diapers and supervising your feeding tube for the rest of your life??