ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Riding > The perfect line and other riding myths
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-22-2013, 06:09 AM   #1
wiseblood OP
Hall Monitor
 
wiseblood's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: New York City
Oddometer: 12,052
State bans loud exhausts... fatalities jump 18% in one year!

....said nobody, ever.

On the other hand:

Michigan had an 18% increase in biker fatalies from 2011 to 2012


Michigan has seen an 18% increase in biker deaths between 2011 and 2012 since removing the mandatory helmet law in April 2012.

The Michigan State say that a year isn’t enough time to determine whether removing the helmet law was the cause of increased motorcycle deaths. Last year, Michigan had an unusual summer — it was hotter and drier than normal with higher temperatures and caused an increase bikers riding.

In 2012, there were 129 biker deaths compared to the 109 deaths in 2011. Whether those deaths could had been prevented by helmets is unknown.
http://hellforleathermagazine.com/20...-2011-to-2012/


Folks who promoted the change in motorcycle helmet law in Michigan should be really proud of themselves. They struck a blow for freedom, I tell ya.
__________________
"Hard Work Often Pays Off After Time, but Laziness Always Pays Off Now."

Big Apple Tag-o-Rama Maps: Click Here!
wiseblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 06:25 AM   #2
BanjoBoy
Studly Adventurer
 
BanjoBoy's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Location: Northern CA
Oddometer: 874
Don't get the title; "loud exhausts" when the article says helmet laws?
Read much?
Or are you just another biker who dun bumped his head?
__________________
2007 FJR1300
2007 FZ6 (Dirt bike)
BanjoBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 06:32 AM   #3
farmerstu
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Minnesota west central
Oddometer: 401
said the man from new york city.
whats wrong with the water in that city that makes them want to control every aspect of everyone elses lives?
farmerstu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 06:44 AM   #4
Bronco638
Nobody Home
 
Bronco638's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Itasca, IL
Oddometer: 3,661
The law doesn't say you CAN'T wear a helmet, just that you don't HAVE to wear one.
__________________
There are some simple thruths......and dogs know what they are - Joseph Duemer

Andy holds the lead. And he will, all the way to the Highway. Today is his day.
Bronco638 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 06:48 AM   #5
wiseblood OP
Hall Monitor
 
wiseblood's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: New York City
Oddometer: 12,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronco638 View Post
The law doesn't say you CAN'T wear a helmet, just that you don't HAVE to wear one.

Yup. Actually, to be more precise, the law says you still have to wear a helmet if:
  • ...you are under 21 years old
  • ...have less than 2 years riding experience
  • ...carry less than $20k health insurance policy

Nonetheless, these two things happened in the same year:
  1. Michigan repealed their existing helmet laws for riders not in the above categories. (Or "made it optional" if you prefer.)
  2. 18% more riders died
__________________
"Hard Work Often Pays Off After Time, but Laziness Always Pays Off Now."

Big Apple Tag-o-Rama Maps: Click Here!
wiseblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 09:18 AM   #6
LuciferMutt
Rides slow bike slow
 
LuciferMutt's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: New(er) Mexico
Oddometer: 11,038
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseblood View Post
Yup. Actually, to be more precise, the law says you still have to wear a helmet if:
  • ...you are under 21 years old
  • ...have less than 2 years riding experience
  • ...carry less than $20k health insurance policy

Nonetheless, these two things happened in the same year:
  1. Michigan repealed their existing helmet laws for riders not in the above categories. (Or "made it optional" if you prefer.)
  2. 18% more riders died
How do they know how long anybody has been riding? Is the date of origin listed next to the endorsement on the license?
__________________
You couldn't hear a dump truck driving through a nitro glycerin plant!

Badasses might screw with another badass. Nobody screws with a nut job. -- Plaka
LuciferMutt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 02:36 PM   #7
advNZer?
Beastly Adventurer
 
advNZer?'s Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Wellington,New Zealand
Oddometer: 2,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseblood View Post
Yup. Actually, to be more precise, the law says you still have to wear a helmet if:
  • ...you are under 21 years old
  • ...have less than 2 years riding experience
  • ...carry less than $20k health insurance policy

Nonetheless, these two things happened in the same year:
  1. Michigan repealed their existing helmet laws for riders not in the above categories. (Or "made it optional" if you prefer.)
  2. 18% more riders died
there might have been 18 percent more riders too
__________________
aka BMWST?
advNZer? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 06:52 AM   #8
DAKEZ
Beastly Adventurer
 
DAKEZ's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: OR
Oddometer: 19,607
As it should be

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronco638 View Post
The law doesn't say you CAN'T wear a helmet, just that you don't HAVE to wear one.

^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^ The rider should choose
__________________
“Watch out for everything bigger than you, they have the "right of weight"
Bib
DAKEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 06:56 AM   #9
wiseblood OP
Hall Monitor
 
wiseblood's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: New York City
Oddometer: 12,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by DAKEZ View Post
The rider should choose
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseblood View Post
Nonetheless, these two things happened in the same year:
  1. Michigan repealed their existing helmet laws for riders not in the above categories. (Or "made it optional" if you prefer.)
  2. 18% more riders died
__________________
"Hard Work Often Pays Off After Time, but Laziness Always Pays Off Now."

Big Apple Tag-o-Rama Maps: Click Here!
wiseblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 06:45 AM   #10
wiseblood OP
Hall Monitor
 
wiseblood's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: New York City
Oddometer: 12,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerstu View Post
said the man from new york city.
whats wrong with the water in that city that makes them want to control every aspect of everyone elses lives?
Not every aspect. Take a visit to CSM, and you can read all about folks far from NYC who want to have a say about what people to in the privacy of their own homes.

What's your position? You want to argue that helmet laws do NOT save lives? Make your point.
__________________
"Hard Work Often Pays Off After Time, but Laziness Always Pays Off Now."

Big Apple Tag-o-Rama Maps: Click Here!
wiseblood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2013, 06:45 AM   #11
Bill Harris
Confirmed Curmudgeon
 
Bill Harris's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Location: backwoods Alabama
Oddometer: 6,943
Always worn a helmet, even before helmet laws. It just makes sense. The only time I didn't was in 1966 when I got T-boned-- I was painting the helmet and made a quick and near-fatal trip to the hdwr store for more paint.

--Bill
__________________
'73 R60/5 Toaster
Luddite. Not just a philosophy, a way of life...
Bill Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2013, 02:23 AM   #12
Schlug
JockeyfullofBourbon
 
Schlug's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: put something on and stay in that position.
Oddometer: 7,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by farmerstu View Post
said the man from new york city.
whats wrong with the water in that city that makes them want to control every aspect of everyone elses lives?

In Michigan, the costs for long term, catastrophic accidents are paid for by the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, run by the insurance companies. The cost for the MCCA is passed directly onto the cost of everyone's insurance in the form of an extra fee. Everyone pays the additional fee every year, even if you ride a plated dirt bike to link dirt road to dirt road-- making your insurance somewhere around 200$, you then have to pay the extra fee.

In 2010 the fee was 142 dollars on top of insurance.

In 2011 the fee was an additional 145 dollars.

In 2012 it was 175 dollars.

In 2013 it is 186 dollars.

You see where this is going? Suddenly one's 200 dollar dirt bike insurance is nearly doubled because of the cost of long term, catastrophic accident victims.

And you wonder why people are asking motorcyclists to wear helmets?
__________________
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.
Schlug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2013, 05:15 AM   #13
Lion BR
I'd rather be riding
 
Lion BR's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon
Oddometer: 3,527
Thank you for bringing this up. I can't believe people still think it is the "government" or "society" or a moral issue as in "oh, we care for our fellow citizens". It is about moral hazard. Helmet law like safety belts, airbags and ABS is about our individual pocket books. "There ain't no free lunch!" If it is proven by an analysis of the odds that helmet use reduce accident costs, then we should use it. Insurance companies know the costs of all of this. If they support helmet law, believe me, it is because it is related to lower liability costs.

The way health insurance and auto/moto liability insurance are calculated is based on favorable odds to the insurance agency (otherwise they would be out of business) not the insured. Although riders with excellent safety history and good indicators for safety pay less, they still pay more than their individual risk would account for. Because there will always be the few who will generate catastrophic damage. Someone pays for that and it won't be the insurance agencies, but we, the collective insurance payers. Again, "there ain't no free lunch."

Then someone will say: well, let's then eliminate the liability insurance law. Well, good luck. The same people who prefer to ride without a helmet or seat belts are also likely to be the ones who will not have insurance. And we already established that someone will still have to pay for hospital expenses when they get into an accident, if they don't have their own funds... Moral hazard plays a big role. That is, people with fat bank accounts are not the only ones getting on accidents. Most likely, it is the ones with smaller bank accounts, according to the indicators of risk (less education, debt, are associated with higher accident risks and even no helmet use when the option is available).

But we could turn into a communist country, eliminate insurance companies... right? In the end, someone will still have to pay the bill, maybe bartering chickens for stitches. Bottom line, society (as in the collective group of individuals within a jurisdiction) still pays for it. Not for kindness, but because nothing is for free, even in a communist country.

Ok, some of my writing here is a bit simplistic, and I apologize for that. As an economist, I should write better about this, but I have been out of this field for a long time now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbySands View Post
In Michigan, the costs for long term, catastrophic accidents are paid for by the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, run by the insurance companies. The cost for the MCCA is passed directly onto the cost of everyone's insurance in the form of an extra fee. Everyone pays the additional fee every year, even if you ride a plated dirt bike to link dirt road to dirt road-- making your insurance somewhere around 200$, you then have to pay the extra fee.

In 2010 the fee was 142 dollars on top of insurance.

In 2011 the fee was an additional 145 dollars.

In 2012 it was 175 dollars.

In 2013 it is 186 dollars.

You see where this is going? Suddenly one's 200 dollar dirt bike insurance is nearly doubled because of the cost of long term, catastrophic accident victims.

And you wonder why people are asking motorcyclists to wear helmets?
__________________
Whenever we are riding, we are an ambassador to our sport

I'd rather be riding!


Lion BR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2013, 05:52 AM   #14
fallingoff
Banned
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: syd oz
Oddometer: 3,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion BR View Post
Thank you for bringing this up. I can't believe people still think it is the "government" or "society" or a moral issue as in "oh, we care for our fellow citizens". It is about moral hazard. Helmet law like safety belts, airbags and ABS is about our individual pocket books. "There ain't no free lunch!" If it is proven by an analysis of the odds that helmet use reduce accident costs, then we should use it. Insurance companies know the costs of all of this. If they support helmet law, believe me, it is because it is related to lower liability costs.

The way health insurance and auto/moto liability insurance are calculated is based on favorable odds to the insurance agency (otherwise they would be out of business) not the insured. Although riders with excellent safety history and good indicators for safety pay less, they still pay more than their individual risk would account for. Because there will always be the few who will generate catastrophic damage. Someone pays for that and it won't be the insurance agencies, but we, the collective insurance payers. Again, "there ain't no free lunch."

Then someone will say: well, let's then eliminate the liability insurance law. Well, good luck. The same people who prefer to ride without a helmet or seat belts are also likely to be the ones who will not have insurance. And we already established that someone will still have to pay for hospital expenses when they get into an accident, if they don't have their own funds... Moral hazard plays a big role. That is, people with fat bank accounts are not the only ones getting on accidents. Most likely, it is the ones with smaller bank accounts, according to the indicators of risk (less education, debt, are associated with higher accident risks and even no helmet use when the option is available).

But we could turn into a communist country, eliminate insurance companies... right? In the end, someone will still have to pay the bill, maybe bartering chickens for stitches. Bottom line, society (as in the collective group of individuals within a jurisdiction) still pays for it. Not for kindness, but because nothing is for free, even in a communist country.

Ok, some of my writing here is a bit simplistic, and I apologize for that. As an economist, I should write better about this, but I have been out of this field for a long time now.
yeh mate

a sepo economist

a contradiction in terms

no in your society you don't have to pay

as no health insurance

no bed

yep you don;t

believe in a morale conscience

you ain;t no samiatrian r u

so someone falls on hard times or falls hard

ends up living on the street

if you care for this person

he/she will be back on their feet adding to society/govt thru taxes etc

do you even know what a real communist country would be like

cuba comes close in some ways

but far from the ideal

as people are selfish

thats why it doesn't work

as for a free lunch

well if you are hungry i will feed you

go to a tropical country

food on the trees

just pick and eat

for a economist you are a worry

thank what ever god you believe you changed proffesions

yep reduce risks,

no bikes no this no that, etc

cheers
fallingoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-29-2013, 06:51 AM   #15
farmerstu
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Location: Minnesota west central
Oddometer: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbySands View Post
In Michigan, the costs for long term, catastrophic accidents are paid for by the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, run by the insurance companies. The cost for the MCCA is passed directly onto the cost of everyone's insurance in the form of an extra fee. Everyone pays the additional fee every year, even if you ride a plated dirt bike to link dirt road to dirt road-- making your insurance somewhere around 200$, you then have to pay the extra fee.

In 2010 the fee was 142 dollars on top of insurance.

In 2011 the fee was an additional 145 dollars.

In 2012 it was 175 dollars.

In 2013 it is 186 dollars.

You see where this is going? Suddenly one's 200 dollar dirt bike insurance is nearly doubled because of the cost of long term, catastrophic accident victims.

And you wonder why people are asking motorcyclists to wear helmets?
can you find any statistec, or study, or a survey or anything at all that shows non helmeted riders cost more in catastrophic care than helmeted riders. or that non helmeted riders have more accidents?

on a seperate note, i often hear or read about riders who will wear a helmet on the interstate but don't bother around town. imo thats backwards, a rural interstate, at high speed is where a rider is least likey to need a helmet and also where a helmet is least effective. in city traffic, at lower speeds a accident is more likey and a helmet is more likely to prevent death. (vs. a high speed wreck where other injuries are likely causing the fatality).

to sum up. I don't believe that unhelmeted riders are responsible for the 200.surcharge in your mich. insurance.
farmerstu is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 06:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014