KY Deaths rise after helmet-law repeal
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Here we go again... By the way, I love this wonderfully insightful comment "They can protect in some crashes, he said, but also can inhibit the motorcyclist's vision, impair hearing, and in warm weather produce heat stress." No Brains, no headaches, no helmet required.
Joined
·
878 Posts
Real liberty entitles one to make a choice (for one's self) that others may view as incorrect or unwise. Let's learn from these instances to make the correct decision, not to restrict the available choices.
Joined
·
729 Posts
Here, here!
I commend you, sir.
sbp
I commend you, sir.
sbp
Idiots on both sides
- I'm not sure which makes me angrier:
- statements like "we can't help but believe there is some correlation between a state repealing its helmet laws and the increase in fatalities." In other words "we have data, but we choose to ignore it." -- OR --
- statements like "They can protect in some crashes, he said, but also can inhibit the motorcyclist's vision, impair hearing, and in warm weather produce heat stress" ... sounds like this guy has bigger problems, like fish-eyes, wind-induced deafness, and poor circulation ... oh, and stupidity.
I agree that it is a matter of choice, but with choice comes responsibility. The line at the end of the article sums it up, "If they don't want to wear their motorcycle helmets, don't ask the taxpayers to foot the bill." If you splatter your noggin on the concrete and survive, you should never be able to dodge those medical bills. If your insurance won't cover it, YOU are responsible for the bills, no one else.
you can prove anything with statistics. of course they don't mention the relation of increase of deaths with the increase of new riders. or older riders returning to riding. or riders who crashed with the sun in their eyes. or riders who crashed from gassy build-up from stopping at too many burrito stands.
less protection = more death = less traffic for me.
less protection = more death = less traffic for me.
Joined
·
17,458 Posts
I would agree with you only on the condition that we refuse to give medical care to anyone who hurts himself through other inherently dangerous activity as well. This includes.... driving a car, skiing, mountain climbing, bicycling, playing soccer, showering.... there are many others I'm sure. All the above activites are proven by insurance statistics to be extremely hazardous.
Seriously, how would you make an exception for only motorcyclists? Especially if the person hurt is paying the taxes and insurance premiums that provide these services.
Sure, riding without a helmet is foolhardy. I'm never ever without my fullface Shoei even when I ride a Harley. But arbitrarily singling out motorcyclists is unfair.
It is not very compassionate either.
Seriously, how would you make an exception for only motorcyclists? Especially if the person hurt is paying the taxes and insurance premiums that provide these services.
Sure, riding without a helmet is foolhardy. I'm never ever without my fullface Shoei even when I ride a Harley. But arbitrarily singling out motorcyclists is unfair.
It is not very compassionate either.
Joined
·
2,752 Posts
It not free-choice for everyone
"BETWEEN 1995 and 2000, motorcyclists without helmets who were treated at University Hospital ran up acute-care charges totaling more than $1.97 million, Vitaz found. The costs did not include physicians' fees, rehabilitation and lost time from work.
"Why should society pay for their freedom" not to wear helmets, Vitaz said. "That's a significant burden." "
KPauls helmet law:
The best solution is if you don't wear a helmet you pay for injuries etc. This not wearing helmet nonsense may make getting health insurance, life insurance for bikers more expensive. My life insurance policy doesn't pay if I die flying a plane. I see the time coming when insurance companies will say we won't pay off if you die riding a motorcycle. More more people will say why should my health insurance premiums be higher so Billy Bob can ride around without a helmet.
"BETWEEN 1995 and 2000, motorcyclists without helmets who were treated at University Hospital ran up acute-care charges totaling more than $1.97 million, Vitaz found. The costs did not include physicians' fees, rehabilitation and lost time from work.
"Why should society pay for their freedom" not to wear helmets, Vitaz said. "That's a significant burden." "
KPauls helmet law:
The best solution is if you don't wear a helmet you pay for injuries etc. This not wearing helmet nonsense may make getting health insurance, life insurance for bikers more expensive. My life insurance policy doesn't pay if I die flying a plane. I see the time coming when insurance companies will say we won't pay off if you die riding a motorcycle. More more people will say why should my health insurance premiums be higher so Billy Bob can ride around without a helmet.
Let's include: not exercising enough, being overweight/underweight, eating fried foods, eating beef, having sex (you can never be too safe), exposure to the sun, going to hospitals, flying, boating, swimming, walking and OF COURSE riding motorcycles even WITH a helmet (clearly an inherently Dangerous activity if ever there was one). Let's not forget those people that are alive, statistics show that 100% of these folks die, ingratiously exposing Society to potentual Financial AND Emotional burdens! Yessiree!, I propose a law that Anyone, Ever, caught doing Anything that could be considered dangerous by Anyone be immediately Shot by the State at their OWN expense for their own good and for the Protection of and the Financial and Emotional status of the Good Citizens with enough "Common Sense" not to exgage in Dangerous things! Don't like my law? Tough, it's the law, obviously any questioning of "The Law" will result in instant Anarchy and You should be Shot! It's all for your own good and for the Protection of and the Financial and Emotional Wellness of Society.
Joined
·
17,458 Posts
You post has overstepped the bounds of The Internet Decency Act. Your irresponsible and sarcastic missive has influenced at least one young person to question the democratically determined rules of acceptable conduct and therefore someone may do something risky that could possibly result in a dollar's worth or more of public medical costs.
Therefore you willbe shot!
Therefore you willbe shot!
Helmet, full-face, all the time. My state doesn't even require it but it's like Amex and condoms, don't leave home without it.
I don't know if I'd fight to the death but I'd take a good maiming so long as it's not my face (too pretty) or anything in the groin area.
I don't know if I'd fight to the death but I'd take a good maiming so long as it's not my face (too pretty) or anything in the groin area.
I think that the whole point of my message was missed. I am not saying deny medical access. I am saying that if you life is saved, neither the hospital or the taxpayers shoud be responsible for your bills. You should have to pay it back, even if it means granishing your wages. And compassion? No. Not when it was their choice to not strap on a helmet.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Join the discussion
