[38092]

All fine and nice, IF...

I'm not opposed to this, so long as the rider in question can prove that in the event of a crash, the government has no liability AT ALL.

The rider that isn't wearing a helmet can prove that they have enough medical insurance to pay for a life long stay in the hospital.

It should be kind of like the seat belt law in that you couldn't get pulled over for it, but they could check you for it, and you could be fined or eventually mc endorsment revoked if you didn't have the proof on you when you road with out.

At the same time private insurance companies could jack up the rates or opt not to cover riders that don't wear lids. I can hear some of you saying "Oh, unfair!" but suck it up. Smokers don't get as good of rates as non smokers, so why should helmetless riders get the same rates as ones wearing lids?

 

[38092]

Re: All fine and nice, IF...

And that is the kind of conclusion you get when you over simplify.

What vehical are you most like to get hurt in/on during an accident?

Which vehical is going to cause the most damage to other people and property?

A car that is involved in an accident is FAR more likely to cause damage to others than the driver/passengers.

A motorcycle involved in and accident is more likely to cause injury to the rider/passenger.

We pay the rates we pay because

a) that's what the market will bear

b) they fit the vehicals accident and damage rates.

Keep in mind that on your insurance policies, auto, motorcycle what have you, there are property and medical provisions.

People involved in motorcycle accidents with no helmets are more likely to get life long head injuries. By removing the helmet law, or giving the rider the same insurance rates reguardless of helmet or not penelizes everyone else with the medical bills.

Insurance copanies haven't been any wiser to this yet, but it is high time they were.