Again- exhibit 15 comes up with the figures it does because it includes those who go directly to the funeral home.
It is bike week here in NH and so far we have had 6 fatalities and two serious injuries but 5 of the fatalities did not require any medical care because they died instantly . Not a pretty picture but I think it does raise questions as to whether or not the government should be involved. Where do we stop in protecting people from themselves? Prohibition again? Cigarettes? French Fries at McDonalds? All you can eat buffets?
I\’m all for freedom of choice, and the ability to make one\’s own decisions.
However, our\’s is the only state with a catostrophic insurance premium that pays lifetime benefits for costs over $250,000. These premiums are sure to rise as costs for injuries sustained as a result of not wearing increase.
If you don\’t want to wear a helmet that should be your choice, as long as my group insurance rates don\’t go up.
Wear it or don\’t wear it, the choice should be yours. If you smash in your head while not wearing a helmet, regardless of who\’s at fault, all costs should be yours, you\’ve taken the added risk, you pay the price.
Well, if your product will help reduce the cost to society when an auto accident occurs, then it should be mandatory.
Unless you are suggesting that uninsured motorists simply not be cared for when an accident occurs, that the hospital should just throw them out, then auto insurance needs to be mandatory to cover medical and auto replacement costs.
Uninsured motorists still get medical care that someone has to pay, and that ends up being you and me.
Only people with a lack of understanding of the insurance industry would make a comment such as yours.
The idea is that everyone contributes a little to cover a lot more, if and when it happens.
Personally, I\’d rather pay my auto premium, because if I am ever in an accident, instead of paying thousands for a new car and medical bills, my insurance company will cover it.
Michigan needs to strengthen not repeal it\’s hemet laws. Or better yet, ban motorcycles from all public roads.
States that have repealed or modified helmet laws are virtually littered with the corpses of bikers. Take a drive through Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois this summer and look at the carnage that litters the roads in those states. AAA\’s estimate of an 80% percent fatality rate within 24 months is quite conservative.
The very act of putting on a helmet reduces ones likelyhood of even having an accident by making the rider more aware of the dangers. Please try to convince relatives, friends, neighbors, and co-workers that ride to stop riding. Remember to always wear a helmet, because helmets do prevent accidents.
It is a given that 2/3 of the motorcycle accidents are solely or primarily caused by other drivers. That said, a solution is remove any legal protections afforded by anyone’s “I didn’t see him”. Such a statement must be considered a confession of guilt and accountability for the damage both to the person (medical, income lost and continuing care) and the property damage.
The state shouldn’t have to pay; the insurance company for the rider shouldn’t have to pay, but the inattentive, not alert and unseeing, driver and his insurance company should pay.
Capt Bly hit it on the head. Indeed fully two-thirds of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are the result of the inattention and negligence of auto drivers, mostly intersections accidents following which the auto driver will comonly say \”I didn\’t see the motorcycle.\” This is NOT due to the mith of motorcycle \”lack of conspicuity.\” Motorcycle are just as visible as cars at the distance at which a car pulling out from a side street or turning left at an intersection would pose a threat to the motorcyclist. The problem is auto driver inattention, and a major contributing factor to auto driver inattention is that they don\’t see motorcycles as a threat to them in the same way they see cars, trucks and busses as a threat to them.
Indeed, it is the auto drivers and their insurance companies who should pay for the motorcyclists medical expenses. Unfortunately most auto drivers are woefully underinsured to pay for the injuries and damages they cause when they hit a biker. Furthermore, auto drivers do not see it as their moral responsibility to pay for the injuries and damages they\’ve caused to the biker above and beyond the limits of their insurance policies. This is contemptable, and that is the problem. It is absurd that insurance companies and their lacky legislators, and state policy makers pretend that it is the motorcyclists fault or failure to obtain adequate insurance which is the reason why motorcyclist medical expense must sometimes be borne by the state. Shame on them. And right on Capt Bly, for pointing it out.
\”M-A-D-D Ray\” Henke
Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers
Helmets do NOT prevent accidents. Responsible riders prevent accidents. Responsible drivers prevent accidents. Helmets protect the rider\’s head. That\’s it.
Full face helmets CAN snap your neck. That is not my opinion, it\’s a fact. Any helmet that covers the ears and sides of the head impairs hearing and visibility. (duh!) I want to be able to see and hear the dumb-*** that is not paying attention, so I can make adjustments and not get killed. You can tell who rides and who doesn\’t !
When bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied \”Because that is where the money is.\”
You may review my previous comment below with regard to the death statistics commonly cited in support of helmet legislation. But most important to the last two postings is that head injury and death statistics, even if credited are merely a drop in the bucket in terms of the panoply of motorcyclist injury which combines to define the state public health crisis and fiscal concerns asserted by the state\’s in support of helmet laws. The states have for too long pretended that they are doing something meaningful to reduce motorcyclist injury, when bank robber Willie Sutton would laugh with disdain, as anyone who looks at the statistics recognizes that the enactment of helmet laws is no more than robbing a convenience store, while ignoring the bank next door, filled with all of the caskets and gurneys filled with bikers who have suffered debilitating or fatal internal injuries, paralyzed, faced with life long medical and convalescent or nursing care, with their limbs amputated, and with catastrophic orthopedic injuries, unable again to return to their professions.
This panoply of motorcyclist injury is what defines the public health crisis, and it also defines the state fiscal crisis, just because the auto drivers responsible for the vast majority of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are both underinsured to pay for the injuries and medical expense they cause, and are unwilling personally to take responsibility to pay the expense they\’ve caused above the limits of their insurance policies.
So, where is the bank? The bank is in reducing the incidence of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents, fully 2/3 of which are caused solely the result of auto driver negligence, without any fault at all on the part of the biker. That is where the money is. The vast majority of such accidents result specifically from auto driver inattention to motorcyclists at intersections, the remainder, lane change and rear end accidents caused by auto drivers.
If we want to solve the real, big public health issue, represented by the full panoply of motorcyclist injury, and substantially reduce the state fiscal consequence of motorcycle accidents and the injuries sustained by both helmeted and unhelmeted bikers alike, then the answer is not in robbing convenience stores, it is not in helmet legislation. The solution is mandatory auto driver education on motorcycle safety issues, and in particular on the motorcycle accident avoidance strategies which auto drivers must employ for the protection of bikers. There needs to be a well funded motorcycle awareness campaign to inform auto drivers of the importance particularly of opening their eyes and looking for the oncoming motorcyclist at intersections in particular. And the state should adopt penalty legislation, specifically, either substantial drivers license suspensions or jail time for auto drivers who recklessly or inattentively injure or kill a motorcyclist (because at the moment auto drivers don\’t attend to bikers, primarily because they don\’t see them as a threat to them in the same way they see cars as a threat to them, and so penalty legislation is needed so that they will get it, that crippling or killing a biker will affect them personally.)
That\’s where the money is, my friends, so lets not pretend that helmets are the panacea either for the public health crisis or the state fiscal concerns. Lets recognize that our auto driving state legislators just see dictating what bikers wear as a way to pretend, for their political reasons, that they are doing something about these issues when in fact they are not. Instead, lets actually do something positive for a change to reduce motorcyclist injury across the board, the full panoply of injury, among helmeted and unhelmeted bikers alike. And at the same time provide the state meaningful relief for a change, from the costs it must bear when auto drivers refuse to pay for the injuries they cause.
Ride safe, my friends, or as we at Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers would say, \”Ride Smart Until the Dumb Drivers Get Smart.\”
M-A-D-D Ray Henke
Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I don\’t know why that url I cut and pasted didn\’t work but the table I am talking about is on page 38 at :
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/CODES/codesrpt.pdf
Again- exhibit 15 comes up with the figures it does because it includes those who go directly to the funeral home.
It is bike week here in NH and so far we have had 6 fatalities and two serious injuries but 5 of the fatalities did not require any medical care because they died instantly . Not a pretty picture but I think it does raise questions as to whether or not the government should be involved. Where do we stop in protecting people from themselves? Prohibition again? Cigarettes? French Fries at McDonalds? All you can eat buffets?
I\’m all for freedom of choice, and the ability to make one\’s own decisions.
However, our\’s is the only state with a catostrophic insurance premium that pays lifetime benefits for costs over $250,000. These premiums are sure to rise as costs for injuries sustained as a result of not wearing increase.
If you don\’t want to wear a helmet that should be your choice, as long as my group insurance rates don\’t go up.
Wear it or don\’t wear it, the choice should be yours. If you smash in your head while not wearing a helmet, regardless of who\’s at fault, all costs should be yours, you\’ve taken the added risk, you pay the price.
Governor Granholm; Veto the bill!
Well, if your product will help reduce the cost to society when an auto accident occurs, then it should be mandatory.
Unless you are suggesting that uninsured motorists simply not be cared for when an accident occurs, that the hospital should just throw them out, then auto insurance needs to be mandatory to cover medical and auto replacement costs.
Uninsured motorists still get medical care that someone has to pay, and that ends up being you and me.
Only people with a lack of understanding of the insurance industry would make a comment such as yours.
The idea is that everyone contributes a little to cover a lot more, if and when it happens.
Personally, I\’d rather pay my auto premium, because if I am ever in an accident, instead of paying thousands for a new car and medical bills, my insurance company will cover it.
Michigan needs to strengthen not repeal it\’s hemet laws. Or better yet, ban motorcycles from all public roads.
States that have repealed or modified helmet laws are virtually littered with the corpses of bikers. Take a drive through Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois this summer and look at the carnage that litters the roads in those states. AAA\’s estimate of an 80% percent fatality rate within 24 months is quite conservative.
The very act of putting on a helmet reduces ones likelyhood of even having an accident by making the rider more aware of the dangers. Please try to convince relatives, friends, neighbors, and co-workers that ride to stop riding. Remember to always wear a helmet, because helmets do prevent accidents.
Now theres an idiot. I dont need to say any more about it. Why not ban all cars too ? HELMETS ARE DANGEROUS !!!!!
It is a given that 2/3 of the motorcycle accidents are solely or primarily caused by other drivers. That said, a solution is remove any legal protections afforded by anyone’s “I didn’t see him”. Such a statement must be considered a confession of guilt and accountability for the damage both to the person (medical, income lost and continuing care) and the property damage.
The state shouldn’t have to pay; the insurance company for the rider shouldn’t have to pay, but the inattentive, not alert and unseeing, driver and his insurance company should pay.
Capt Bly hit it on the head. Indeed fully two-thirds of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are the result of the inattention and negligence of auto drivers, mostly intersections accidents following which the auto driver will comonly say \”I didn\’t see the motorcycle.\” This is NOT due to the mith of motorcycle \”lack of conspicuity.\” Motorcycle are just as visible as cars at the distance at which a car pulling out from a side street or turning left at an intersection would pose a threat to the motorcyclist. The problem is auto driver inattention, and a major contributing factor to auto driver inattention is that they don\’t see motorcycles as a threat to them in the same way they see cars, trucks and busses as a threat to them.
Indeed, it is the auto drivers and their insurance companies who should pay for the motorcyclists medical expenses. Unfortunately most auto drivers are woefully underinsured to pay for the injuries and damages they cause when they hit a biker. Furthermore, auto drivers do not see it as their moral responsibility to pay for the injuries and damages they\’ve caused to the biker above and beyond the limits of their insurance policies. This is contemptable, and that is the problem. It is absurd that insurance companies and their lacky legislators, and state policy makers pretend that it is the motorcyclists fault or failure to obtain adequate insurance which is the reason why motorcyclist medical expense must sometimes be borne by the state. Shame on them. And right on Capt Bly, for pointing it out.
\”M-A-D-D Ray\” Henke
Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers
Helmets do NOT prevent accidents. Responsible riders prevent accidents. Responsible drivers prevent accidents. Helmets protect the rider\’s head. That\’s it.
Full face helmets CAN snap your neck. That is not my opinion, it\’s a fact. Any helmet that covers the ears and sides of the head impairs hearing and visibility. (duh!) I want to be able to see and hear the dumb-*** that is not paying attention, so I can make adjustments and not get killed. You can tell who rides and who doesn\’t !
When bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied \”Because that is where the money is.\”
You may review my previous comment below with regard to the death statistics commonly cited in support of helmet legislation. But most important to the last two postings is that head injury and death statistics, even if credited are merely a drop in the bucket in terms of the panoply of motorcyclist injury which combines to define the state public health crisis and fiscal concerns asserted by the state\’s in support of helmet laws. The states have for too long pretended that they are doing something meaningful to reduce motorcyclist injury, when bank robber Willie Sutton would laugh with disdain, as anyone who looks at the statistics recognizes that the enactment of helmet laws is no more than robbing a convenience store, while ignoring the bank next door, filled with all of the caskets and gurneys filled with bikers who have suffered debilitating or fatal internal injuries, paralyzed, faced with life long medical and convalescent or nursing care, with their limbs amputated, and with catastrophic orthopedic injuries, unable again to return to their professions.
This panoply of motorcyclist injury is what defines the public health crisis, and it also defines the state fiscal crisis, just because the auto drivers responsible for the vast majority of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are both underinsured to pay for the injuries and medical expense they cause, and are unwilling personally to take responsibility to pay the expense they\’ve caused above the limits of their insurance policies.
So, where is the bank? The bank is in reducing the incidence of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents, fully 2/3 of which are caused solely the result of auto driver negligence, without any fault at all on the part of the biker. That is where the money is. The vast majority of such accidents result specifically from auto driver inattention to motorcyclists at intersections, the remainder, lane change and rear end accidents caused by auto drivers.
If we want to solve the real, big public health issue, represented by the full panoply of motorcyclist injury, and substantially reduce the state fiscal consequence of motorcycle accidents and the injuries sustained by both helmeted and unhelmeted bikers alike, then the answer is not in robbing convenience stores, it is not in helmet legislation. The solution is mandatory auto driver education on motorcycle safety issues, and in particular on the motorcycle accident avoidance strategies which auto drivers must employ for the protection of bikers. There needs to be a well funded motorcycle awareness campaign to inform auto drivers of the importance particularly of opening their eyes and looking for the oncoming motorcyclist at intersections in particular. And the state should adopt penalty legislation, specifically, either substantial drivers license suspensions or jail time for auto drivers who recklessly or inattentively injure or kill a motorcyclist (because at the moment auto drivers don\’t attend to bikers, primarily because they don\’t see them as a threat to them in the same way they see cars as a threat to them, and so penalty legislation is needed so that they will get it, that crippling or killing a biker will affect them personally.)
That\’s where the money is, my friends, so lets not pretend that helmets are the panacea either for the public health crisis or the state fiscal concerns. Lets recognize that our auto driving state legislators just see dictating what bikers wear as a way to pretend, for their political reasons, that they are doing something about these issues when in fact they are not. Instead, lets actually do something positive for a change to reduce motorcyclist injury across the board, the full panoply of injury, among helmeted and unhelmeted bikers alike. And at the same time provide the state meaningful relief for a change, from the costs it must bear when auto drivers refuse to pay for the injuries they cause.
Ride safe, my friends, or as we at Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers would say, \”Ride Smart Until the Dumb Drivers Get Smart.\”
M-A-D-D Ray Henke
Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers
http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com