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 12-11-2012, 07:21 AM   #61
Gummee!
That's MR. Toothless
 
Gummee!'s Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: NoVA for now...
Oddometer: 27,554
To throw a wrench in the monkey works, I'll glady trade a nationwide helmet law for nationwide lane sharing.

The only thing I'll say about not wearing a helmet: if you don't make your living with your brain, go for it!

M
__________________
I'm a cyclist that rides motos, not a moto rider that rides bicycles.
Gummee! is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 07:33 AM   #62
ttpete
Rectum Non Bustibus
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Dearborn, MI
Oddometer: 5,313
Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicalex View Post
When I see people riding with out helmets, or with open face helmets, for that matter, I forever wonder what all those bits of crap hitting their skin feel like, and how the hell they can stand to ride faster than 35mph or so. Then I realize that most of them don't.

I would prefer to have a helmet law and no $175 per vehicle charge. That is a better financial argument, IMO. I about fell over when my agent explained that one to me.
That $175 per vehicle in MI has nothing to do with helmets. It's for funding catastrophic care for life for anyone injured in a traffic accident. It's tacked on to every vehicle insurance policy, not just motorcycles.
__________________
10 Ducati 1098 Streetfighter S - "Sleipnir"
09 Kaw Versys
67 Triumph Bonneville TT Special
"The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" _____ Margaret Thatcher
ttpete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 07:36 AM   #63
Tripped1
Likely Lost.
 
Tripped1's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Sandy Eggo
Oddometer: 6,949
New Jersey is the first mandatory helmet law I've lived in basically since I was 18.

....I still always wore my lid. Unless I happened to be giving a member of the fairer sex a ride and then she wears the helmet and I went stag. So what, I'm a grown ass man and I know the risks, and HAVE known the risks since I was a teen.

Really, if people die because they can't wear basic safety equipment, oh well.

You can't stop darwinism. Evolution stop when stupidity is no longer fatal and all of that.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by RottenScummyTroll View Post
Show folks something with a clutch and carburetor, and it's like teaching a baboon to use a Macbook.
Tripped1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 07:50 AM   #64
aeneas
Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: Belgium, Europe
Oddometer: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith Rider View Post
Only speak for yourself. Please.

I ride daily (at least when the roads are free from ice and snow), not because I have to but because I favour it over driving a cage. I DO NOT feel any "need" for helmets or atgatt let alone a law forcing me to do so. It depends on mood and convenience how I gear up and especially if I'm only going through town at not much more than bicycling speeds I often leave the gloves and sometimes the helmet at home.
Sorry if you were offended by my generalisation in that last paragraph - I even tried not to generalize and explain that each persons situation is different.

I understand you don't feel the need for protection if you don't go higher than bicycling speeds. If your intention is to cruise and you're not required to wear gloves/helmet, indeed why do the effort.

But that's not what I want from riding. Then I could as well take a bicycle or a 50cc moped.
If I take my motorcycle I want to feel the acceleration (up to what's legally allowed..) I often drive on highways. I commute every day, even in cold, rainy weather. If I would only drive when it's warm and sunny I could only drive 2 months a year.. That is what I mean I could not imagine doing without protection - cold weather, highway speeds ?
aeneas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 08:05 AM   #65
RogerWilco
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Oct 2011
Oddometer: 285
It's those damn mountain climbers who cost society an absolute fortune, because they expect the government to pay for their comas, crushed pelvis', punctured rib cages, and bloody noses. No one needs to climb a mountain. If we just forced all the idiot mountain climbers to...not climb, the world would be a much safer place, and us poor over burdened tax payers (proxies for the government, since the government has no monies of it's own, only that which it confiscates, presumably for the greater good) could save our money...to cover medical costs for the....hang gliders.
Except the mountain climbers justly believe that society should not be forced to pay for the foolhardy actions of hang gliders. Those wishing to soar should have their wings clipped, for the monetary health of our country. We just should not allow such imbecilic activities to be lawful.
You know who hates to see the predictable taxpayer-costing carnage of downhill skiing? Hang Gliders, that's who. These compassionate souls (now I've done it! I've introduced religion into the mix!) rightly see a no-sum-gain for the government/society/proxy-taxpayer to continue standing idly by while otherwise consenting adults risk the future of not only themselves, but of their children, just for the cheap thrill of sliding really,really fast on frozen water. Hawaiians, in particular, seem to hate paying for downhill skiing accident victim's medical care; I can't imagine why.
Turn about being fair play, who could expect the skiers to tolerate all the Hawaiians reckless scuba diving, an unjustifiable pursuit if ever there was one: Just ask anyone from landlocked Oklahoma, we'll tell you. Swimming with the fishes is a pursuit best left to those who hail from New Jersey, and therefor should be declared illegal for the good of society.
Hawaiians recognize a very dangerous activity that can only cost the government money, so in their view should be outlawed immediately: riding motorcycles with a larger than 35cc displacement. The Hawaiians know that in order for a person to ride, say, a hundred miles, said person would have to lap most any of the islands about 37 times. These thrill seekers are risking their own safety and surely should be stopped. Can't they see this? No one should claim a right to ride a big, dangerous over-35cc motorcycle: no one.
Not even the guy who thinks the government should make everyone wear a helmet.
RogerWilco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 08:13 AM   #66
Wraith Rider
Beastly Adventurer
 
Wraith Rider's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2012
Location: Germany
Oddometer: 1,043
@aeneas
Of course, at highway (for me: Autobahn) speeds or in cold weather I'm with atg as well, but like DAKEZ because of comfort considerations, not because of a law or because I think it could save me in the occurance of a 150mph crash. I even do not restrict my acceleration pleasures to legal speeds.
But going through town without gloves/helmet at not more than 30mph for 1...2 miles isn't an issue even with rain and +6°C - thanks to full fairing and heated grips.

My daily commuting includes both. So why the hell should I be restricted to atgAllTheTime by law?

P.S.: I AM required by law to wear a helmet, but sometimes I do risk these 15€ and ignore it.
__________________
"Why not stay in disguise all the time? You know, look like everyone else."
"Because we shouldn't have to."
Wraith Rider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 09:50 AM   #67
fastdadio
Still gettin faster
 
fastdadio's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Location: Pinckney Mi.
Oddometer: 1,738
Just sayin...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ttpete View Post
That $175 per vehicle in MI has nothing to do with helmets. It's for funding catastrophic care for life for anyone injured in a traffic accident. It's tacked on to every vehicle insurance policy, not just motorcycles.



http://www.mlive.com/politics/index...._little_t.html
fastdadio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 12:03 PM   #68
DAKEZ
Beastly Adventurer
 
DAKEZ's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: OR
Oddometer: 19,485
How many registered vehicles in the state? That's a LOT of coin.
__________________
“Watch out for everything bigger than you, they have the "right of weight"
Bib
DAKEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 12:24 PM   #69
Splendidtutional
What does that mean?
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Location: the US Capitol
Oddometer: 47
OK, We have gone over the choice thing, the seatbelt thing, the comfort thing, but being from MI (and still holding a MI liscense and residency, being Military) here's my $0.02. DAKEZ, you make many valid points about gov't not telling you what to do blah, blah, blah and I used to agree with you about seatbelts and helmets. Knowing (a very little) more about healthcare etc. now than I did a few years back, my opinions have changed.

The hope of mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws (and now government mandates for sirbags, ABS, stability control, and slew of other driving nannies) is not only to protect the people (those who trade privacy for security shall not have, nor do the deserve, either. - Ben Franklin, paraphrase, sure me.) from a safety standpoint, but also to protect those around them.

I would be for helmet choice laws if there were a caveat that if you do not have insurance and are not wearing a helmet (or seatbelt) in the event of an accident, you will be left on the side of the road. No ambulance or hospital. Since you pay taxes, the cops will come and do an accident report, but no medical help will come. Is that what we want?

I say that is probably not what we want, hence mandatory helmet laws, which reduce the number of injuries, and therefore costs. We must also consider the value of a "statistical life." This is something that is difficult, especially when we are talking about people who may not die, but may become incapacitated. I dont have stats, so please no B.S. flags just because I dont have the numbers. I am going to assume that people who have helmets on require less medical attention, less rehab, and will be productive members of society for a longer period of time through out their life if they wear a helmet during an accident. Again, this is meant to be statistical, not anecdotal ("my father's brother's son's mother's former roomate didnt wear a helmet in an accident and it fine" type stuff.)

Also, say the insurence company decides you have to wear a helmet to be insured, and wont cover you in the event of an accident w/o a helmet. No cost to you or me right? WRONG! if they are treated at a hospital, and the insurance wont cover the $150,000 in brain surgery, rehab, and recovery, who is going to pay? You and I who have health insurance, thats who. Not directly, but in increased premiums due to the increased cost the hospital has to charge to stay solvent.

Just a rant, but jsut to recap. I disagree on principle with helmet and seatbelt laws alike, but due to the current healthcare system in the US, I feel they are necessary to protect ME from paying for YOU in the event of an accident. Sorry this was so long.

Splendidtutional screwed with this post 12-11-2012 at 12:49 PM
Splendidtutional is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 12:41 PM   #70
Offcamber
Beastly Adventurer
 
Offcamber's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splendidtutional View Post
OK, We have gone over the choice thing, the seatbelt thing, the comfort thing, but being from MI (and still holding a MI liscense and residency, being Military) here's my $0.02. DAKEZ, you make many valid points about gov't not telling you what to do blah, blah, blah and I used to agree with you about seatbelts and helmets. Knowing (a very little) more about healthcare etc. now than I did a few years back, my opinions have changed.

The hope of mandatory helmet and seatbelt laws (and now government mandates for sirbags, ABS, stability control, and slew of other driving nannies) is not only to protect the people (those who trade privacy for security shall not have, nor do the deserve, either. - Ben Franklin, paraphrase, sure me.) from a safety standpoint, but also to protect those around them.

I would be for helmet choice laws if there were a caveat that if you do not have insurance and are not wearing a helmet (or seatbelt) in the event of an accident, you will be left on the side of the road. No ambulance or hospital. Since you pay taxes, the cops will come and do an accident report, but no medical help will come. Is that what we want?

I say that is probably not what we want, hence mandatory helmet laws, which reduce the number of injuries, and there froe costs. We must also consider the value of a "statistical life" This is something that is difficult, especially when we are talking about people who may not die, but may become incapacitated. I dont have stats, so please no B.S. flags just because I dont have the numbers. I am going to assume that people who have helmets on require less medical attention, less rehab, and will be productive members of society for a longer period of time throught their life if they wear a helmet. Again, this is statistical, not anecdotal.

Also, say the insurence company decides you have to wear a helmet to be insured, and wont cover you in the event of an accident w/o a helmet. No cost to you or me right? WRONG! if they are treated at a hospital, and the insurance wont cover the $150,000 in brain surgery, rehab, and recovery, who is going to pay? You and I who have health insurance, thats who. Not directly, but in increased premiums due to the increased cost the hospital has to charge to stay solvent.

Just a rant, but jsut to recap. I disagree on principle with helmet and seatbelt laws alike, but due to the current healthcare system in the US, I feel they are necessary to protect ME from paying for YOU in the event of an accident. Sorry this was so long.
Once again see post # 49....

Cost is a BS argument....you either apply that thinking across the board or you don't do it at all. You really want the government telling you what to eat, what to drink, make you exerciser ? etc....Smoking should be illegal because I don't want to pay for your lung cancer, McDonald's should be illegal because I don't want to pay for your clogged arteries, and alcohol should be illegal because I don't want to pay for your liver cancer....oh wait we tried that....that worked out really well.
__________________
"Beer cans explode with a nice loud pop when they are hit by a Heidenau K60 at 40 miles an hour. Now my bike smells like last call..." Me
Offcamber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 12:47 PM   #71
DAKEZ
Beastly Adventurer
 
DAKEZ's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: OR
Oddometer: 19,485
Good post.

But again... It is almost a statistical wash when it comes to long term medical care of helmeted and helmet-less riders. Depending upon who you believe it is actually cheeper to go lid-less. This is due to the fact that many helmeted riders also sustain injuries that require long term care (including brain injuries) and the number of helmet-less riders that simply end up dead.

Since there is no significant increase in the cost to society either way... People need to mind their own business and keep their nanny laws off other peoples bodies.
__________________
“Watch out for everything bigger than you, they have the "right of weight"
Bib
DAKEZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 12:49 PM   #72
ShardPhoenix
Наглый ублюдок
 
ShardPhoenix's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2011
Location: Grants Pass, Oregon
Oddometer: 782
For the love of all that is interweb argument,

Will one of you clowns that keeps spouting off about the "cost on society" please do as has been asked a couple of times already and provide some god damn proof of what you're claiming?

Sure, I could look this up if I wanted to bother to do it, but I'm not the one making the argument so it's not mine to defend.

I'd just like to see some hard data on this apparent legion of riders laid up in hospitals and tax payer funded assisted living facilities due to head injury. It would greatly assist in my understanding of your point. (Truth be told, as has been said by others you probably don't have one)

Thanks,

Ignorant Man
__________________
I ride 652ccs of slug.
ShardPhoenix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 01:11 PM   #73
Aussijussi
Beastly Adventurer
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Finland-Australia
Oddometer: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith Rider View Post
Only speak for yourself. Please.

I ride daily (at least when the roads are free from ice and snow), not because I have to but because I favour it over driving a cage. I DO NOT feel any "need" for helmets or atgatt let alone a law forcing me to do so. It depends on mood and convenience how I gear up and especially if I'm only going through town at not much more than bicycling speeds I often leave the gloves and sometimes the helmet at home.


It's sickening how many people want to force others into their preferred way of life without any reason, just because they think it's nice to violate their personal freedoms.

As farmerstu said earlier:
Thanks DAKEZ for being the voice of reason!
I thought you had a mandatory helmet law in Germany? We have had it here, Finland, as long as i can remember. Being mandatory, makes no difference to me, i would wear it anyway. As for being free to choose, i'll leave that to my american friends to argue over, we have enough on our plate with the EU!
Aussijussi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 01:19 PM   #74
Splendidtutional
What does that mean?
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Location: the US Capitol
Oddometer: 47
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/...l-Spending.pdf

Cost of un-insured, $40.7 Billion/yr in 2004 dollars

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/p.../overview.html

Look at tables 3 and 5 in section 5

Table 8 shows that the cost of care for the public/government is higher when riders do not have helments on.
Enjoy.
Splendidtutional is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2012, 01:28 PM   #75
Offcamber
Beastly Adventurer
 
Offcamber's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Oddometer: 1,559
Taken from Forbes Magazine
Quote:
A report out today on the high cost of obesity serves to highlight, once again, that there is so much more to the Affordable Care Act than what has met the public’s eye.
Reuters is reporting that obesity in America is now adding an astounding $190 billion to the annual national healthcare price tag, exceeding smoking as public health enemy number one when it comes to cost.
“Obese men rack up an additional $1,152 a year in medical spending, especially for hospitalizations and prescription drugs, Cawley and Chad Meyerhoefer of Lehigh University reported in January in the Journal of Health Economics. Obese women account for an extra $3,613 a year. Using data from 9,852 men (average BMI: 28) and 13,837 women (average BMI: 27) ages 20 to 64, among whom 28 percent were obese, the researchers found even higher costs among the uninsured: annual medical spending for an obese person was $3,271 compared with $512 for the non-obese.”
The high cost of being significantly overweight manifests in a variety of ways, ranging from the increased insurance premiums we all pay to subsidize the added medical charges incurred by the obese to the surprisingly dramatic impact our collective pounds has on energy costs.
So lets ban fatty foods because its proven to cost us more money....
__________________
"Beer cans explode with a nice loud pop when they are hit by a Heidenau K60 at 40 miles an hour. Now my bike smells like last call..." Me
Offcamber 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 05:11 AM.


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