[Big Ben]

Did my headline get everyone’s attention? I think people who advocate helmet laws don’t follow their arguments to their logical conclusions, because that headline is exactly where that line of reasoning leads. People should realize that most arguments in favor of helmet laws work just as well when used as arguments against riding a motorcycle at all.

The latest silly argument in support of helmet laws is this study published in PubMed:

Mathematical extrapolation derived a charge of 12,353 dollars per unhelmeted and 8,735 dollars per helmeted motorcyclist for every crash with a difference of 3,618 dollars between helmeted and unhelmeted riders involved in a motorcycle crash.

…thus supposedly proving that unhelmeted riders are imposing a healthcare economic burden on everyone else. What the study doesn’t mention is how much less of a burden is put on the system by those who drive cars, so anyone who rides a motorcycle, even with a helmet, is guilty of the same healthcare freeriding. But wait, what about those who ride public transportation? Maybe anyone in a private car is putting an undue burden on the system! You end up at the ludicrous conclusion that anyone who doesn’t work from home is irresponsibly putting an unfair burden on the healthcare system.

Healthcare costs should never be used as a justification for taking away freedom. This idea of a healthcare burden was successfully used as an argument against tobacco, it is used as a justification for regulating fast food and sugary soft drinks, and now they’re turning it on bikers as well, but the argument fundamentally undermines human freedom. If we keep going down the road of using increased risk of healthcare costs to justify restricting people’s activities, eventually we end up banning contact sports, fried foods, loud rock'n'roll, and staying up too late typing rants on the Internet.

Riding a motorcycle is inherently less safe than other types of transportation, but many of us think the benefits outweigh the risks. All of us live our lives trying to balance the various conflicting values of comfort vs. safety vs. money vs. excitement, etc., and many of our decisions seem irrational to those who choose a different balance. (Ever try to rationally justify the money and time we spend on our bikes to someone who doesn’t get it?) But no one can make the final decision about what’s most important in our lives better than we ourselves.

That calculation of values should be made by each individual, not by the bottom line on some insurance company’s spreadsheet. Let those who ride decide.


I originally posted this on my blog, but a) no one reads my blog, and b) I wanted to put something up here where more of us are likely to agree, after all the recent debates on other topics. What do y'all think?

[stevenh]

I'm with you on this one Ben. We don't have helmet laws up here (yet) and I hope they keep it that way. I wear mine occasionally, but, 'like the fact that I can choose not to.

[chucktx]

no helmets in texas.........IF......you are over 21......have completed successfully a safety riders course, or, have $100,000 health insurance......then you pay $5.00 for a sticker to place on your plate to inform the law that you are complying. you dont have to buy the sticker, and you wont be ticketed if you are able to show proof of above.....insurance co. getting rich....state trying to get their hands in it also........too many rich lobbiests in the capitol.......
chuck

[maxpower_hd]

I'm with you too Ben. How exactly does the accident I got in effect the burden opposed on taxpayers when I was completely covered by my health insurance that I pay for?

I have had health insurance through either my parents or from my own employers for the last 38+ years. I have been to the hospital a total of three times over that span and spent the night only once. I currently pay about $360/month for the insurance I carry with my employer picking up the rest of the approximatey $800 tab.

Now if I were to add up all the payments I've made in just the last four years, I've paid over $17,000 into the insurance plan alone. My employer, another $21,000. I can guarantee that the few times I had to visit the hospital, the bills did not add up to $38,000 and that's just what has been paid over the last four years, not to mention the previous 34.

I can not swallow the "fact" that says nonhelmeted or even helmeted accidents cause taxpayers more money in hospital bills. What I can believe is that non-insured people cause taxpayers more money when they are in accidents or get sick, not that they have a choice. However, that is not what they are stating in the article.

Having had to endure a statistics class in college years ago, I know it is possible to say almost anything you want with statistics. It's all which numbers you use and how you use them.

As far as paying for health care for non-insured individuals, that's what our taxes are for. And it's also a completely different topic.

Good day.

[CD]

Originally Posted by maxpower_hd

I can not swallow the "fact" that says nonhelmeted or even helmeted accidents cause taxpayers more money in hospital bills. What I can believe is that non-insured people cause taxpayers more money when they are in accidents or get sick, not that they have a choice. However, that is not what they are stating in the article.

Having had to endure a statistics class in college years ago, I know it is possible to say almost anything you want with statistics. It's all which numbers you use and how you use them.
True, refer to the infamous Harry Hurt study.

As far as paying for health care for non-insured individuals, that's what our taxes are for. And it's also a completely different topic.
True but only to a degree. Most states have a welfare medical care plan like AZ has what is called AHCCCS. However, you have to be enrolled in the program for the state to pay the hospital bills. If you are uninsured for whatever reason, the hospital has to treat you regardless. They do not get reimbursed for it in most cases.

Good day.

Helmet usage will always be a contentious issue. Safety Nazis are even present in our own sport. I do not know of a single sponsored study that evaluates each accident and classified injuries and related costs to head or body trauma and the resulting costs. What I do see is insurance companies wanting to weasel their way out of losses any way they can. I wonder if these "concerned" people always obey every safety, caution, warning, hazard label on every product they use. Do they make sure to not boil water in a coffee cup in the microwave lest it explodes?

[stevenh]

This subject reminds me of a scene in a movie (I forget which one), but a guy is in a bumper car at some amusement park when his airbag goes off.
I think there must be a pretty strong horse riding lobby, otherwise they'd be riding cows.

[Big Ben]

It's all which numbers you use and how you use them.

Definitely. I guy I know was pointing out that even though the numbers are "extrapolated" and "approximate", somehow they get a number as exact as 12,353! Makes it sound like they're being precise and scientific, even though if you look at the fine print they're just guessing.

[SPORSTERBOY]

This Is America, We Should Have The Right To Choose. Same With The Seat Belts. I Came From 2 States That You Didn't Have To Have A Helmet. Texas And Az. After Living Here And Wearing A Helmet For 2 Years Now It's Kinda Like A Seat Belt, It's Natural. I Was Really Pissed At First But I Realized That Goi'n 70, Or 30 I Rather Have At Least Some'thn To Take The First Blow If I Go Down. Don't Get Me Wrong, I Still Think It Should Be Choice. Get This In Washington You Don't Have To Carry Insurance But You Have To Wherea Helmet. Oh, And On My Ride Up Here I Bought My First Helmet And It Kept Chocking Me So I Rode From Vegas To Ely Or How Ever You Spell It The Only Stop N. At The Border Where I Got A No Helmet Ticket. At Least It Was'nt One For My Bad Tabs. Tucson 250+, Spokane 42$, So I Took The Risk.

[maxpower_hd]

Originally Posted by Big Ben

Definitely. I guy I know was pointing out that even though the numbers are "extrapolated" and "approximate", somehow they get a number as exact as 12,353! Makes it sound like they're being precise and scientific, even though if you look at the fine print they're just guessing.

I've seen it many times in business during budget season. If someone is trying to get more money put into their budget, they round up. If they are trying to explain why they went over budget they round down.

On another note, I saw a funny bumper sticker this morning on the back of a chick's.......I mean lovely young lady's car. It read "The only Bush I trust is my own". He he he.

[chucktx]

while were talking insurance and bikes.....does anybody know why the insurance co needs my credit score before they can give me insurance????? i pay all up front. it doesnt matter, they still "need" it. nothing like giving your credit and ss# to some idiot on the phone.......identity theft come to mind????? been there done that....not doing it again!!!
chuck

[scooter]

Because, chucktx, somewhere along the line...someone in the insurance industry has violated common sense. THAT is why they want all your information even though you pay cash!!

scoot

[maxpower_hd]

Just feel lucky you don't live in Massachusetts. We are the only state that does not allow companies to compete against one another for business. As a result we only have a small choice of insurance companies to pick from. We also have the 5th highest rates in the country. I understand the rates are based on the number of claims but I haven't had any claims for over 10 years.

[CD]

Originally Posted by chucktx

while were talking insurance and bikes.....does anybody know why the insurance co needs my credit score before they can give me insurance????? i pay all up front. it doesnt matter, they still "need" it. nothing like giving your credit and ss# to some idiot on the phone.......identity theft come to mind????? been there done that....not doing it again!!!
chuck

I had that issue come up a while back. I asked an agent friend of mine and he said that they used your credit history as statistical measurement of your insurance risk.

[chucktx]

i got the same answer, but i dont follow their thinking, or do i agree with it. i feel it should be based on your claims, not the ability to have a good score. seems a bit discrimitating(sp). i also feel that my license should be insured, not the number of vehicles i own,,,,,,cant drive but one at a time. just my thoughts
chuck