As best said by John Stuart Mill from An Essay On Liberty. He wrote \”That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.\”
Just because something is \”law\” doesn\’t mean people will comply. If someone really really really doesn\’t want to wear a helmet, that person won\’t wear one, law or no law.
Smoking pot is illegal in my state, but a lot of people I know still do it and have every intention of continuing to do it.
I worry that motorcycles themselves will eventually be illegal because law-makers and citizens can\’t seem to come to an agreement on helmet use. Long-shot, maybe… but then again, maybe not.
That\’s lovely and eloquent. If we all lived in the land of perfect freedom we could all eat chocolate for every meal and live on cloud nine. However, for those of us that live in a real world of consequences for stupid actions, we need to protect ourselves from the financial consequences of actions of people who insist on perfect freedom as long as others pay the cost. You can\’t do everything you want. Grow up and join the ranks of us boring and responsible people who assume the responsibility for the world. Perfect freedom only exists in books. If you want to kill yourself I have no problem. Reduce the surplus population and all. Just don\’t leave the bills for the rest of us.
The state certainly didn\’t have a problem stopping smokers from smoking in resaurants. What about liberty for smokers. Why should I have to foot the bill for the ignorance of helmetless riders. By the way, I am a rider.
Without Helmet Laws Who Pays
Motorcyclists are a social burden. Insurance rates are going up. Everybody pays the price for non-helmeted motorcyclists. That’s what we all hear. All this is what the public believes, because an agency of the government says so, it must be true! Ah, but is it true? Are motorcyclists a burden on society?
What is the reality of the social burden?
In 1992, the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center published a study titled: An Examination of Motorcyclist Injuries and Cost Using North Carolina Motor Vehicle Crash and Trauma Registry Data. The study revealed the following:
1. Motorcyclists admitted to trauma centers for treatment of crash related injuries were just as likely as other road trauma cases to be medically insured, and considerably better insured then non-road, cases.
2. Motorcyclists had the highest insurance payment rate of all groups.
3. Motorcyclists relied on Medicare and Medicaid considerably less than any other groups.
4. Motorcyclists had a higher rate of self-pay than any other group.
5. Motorcyclist average medical cost were less than other road trauma cases.
In summary of the North Carolina study, motorcyclists have lower medical bills from accidents, are better at paying with insurance, when they do not have insurance are better at paying with their own money, and rely on Medicare and Medicaid less than all other trauma victims. The National Center for Health Statistics has on its web page, http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/default.htm and a connecting link to FASTATS A to Z. In this A to Z statistical Rolodex under the category of “Health Insurance Coverage” one of the quick facts is the Percent of Persons Under Age 65 Without Health Insurance: 16.5% (1995). The inverse of this statistical statement is the percent of persons under age 65 with health insurance would be 83.5%. The percentages of insured include coverage from private insurance and private insurance obtained through the work place, as well as Medicaid or other public assistance. If these percentages are to apply to all other segments of the U.S Population, they were drawn from; they should apply to motorcyclists as well.
What happens to the medical bills that are the actual social burden? The public assistance money such as Medicaid comes from tax dollars. The same tax dollars we all pay, not just those taxes paid by non-motorcyclists. Those motorcyclists who, for what ever the reason, may not have insurance at the time of their injury have worked at some point in time and paid into the ‘public health care risk pool’ through their taxes. Should motorcyclists be singled out and excluded from the public health risk pool we all pay into? Without helmet laws who pays? We all do. With helmet laws who pays? We all do. The point is motorcyclists are just as insured as everyone else. We participate in the motorcycle insurance risk pool with our premiums and the public insurance risk pool with our taxes. Any financial burden for injured motorcyclists is as it should be, paid for by motorcyclists themselves.
So the $1,000,000 quoted in the article is just another government lie. Did your large cache of numbers that are of course not lies include a breakdown of helmet and non helmet states? Common sense. Helmets save lives, mine included. Just because the government trough is there doesn\’t mean we should just pay for people who take risks. I don\’t want my taxes to pay so you can have your perfect freedom. Where are my rights being respected?
You realize (and this is from NHTSA) that the majority of head injuries occur in cars? With all the safety features of cars – seat belts and airbags, is this also a
part of the public burden? Should we be wearing helmets in our cars?
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.
As best said by John Stuart Mill from An Essay On Liberty. He wrote \”That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.\”
Just because something is \”law\” doesn\’t mean people will comply. If someone really really really doesn\’t want to wear a helmet, that person won\’t wear one, law or no law.
Smoking pot is illegal in my state, but a lot of people I know still do it and have every intention of continuing to do it.
I worry that motorcycles themselves will eventually be illegal because law-makers and citizens can\’t seem to come to an agreement on helmet use. Long-shot, maybe… but then again, maybe not.
That\’s lovely and eloquent. If we all lived in the land of perfect freedom we could all eat chocolate for every meal and live on cloud nine. However, for those of us that live in a real world of consequences for stupid actions, we need to protect ourselves from the financial consequences of actions of people who insist on perfect freedom as long as others pay the cost. You can\’t do everything you want. Grow up and join the ranks of us boring and responsible people who assume the responsibility for the world. Perfect freedom only exists in books. If you want to kill yourself I have no problem. Reduce the surplus population and all. Just don\’t leave the bills for the rest of us.
The state certainly didn\’t have a problem stopping smokers from smoking in resaurants. What about liberty for smokers. Why should I have to foot the bill for the ignorance of helmetless riders. By the way, I am a rider.
It is too bad that the state (and insurance) could not deny benefits if the riders do not wear a helmet.
Heck, let\’s repeal seatbelt laws while we are at it.
Without Helmet Laws Who Pays
Motorcyclists are a social burden. Insurance rates are going up. Everybody pays the price for non-helmeted motorcyclists. That’s what we all hear. All this is what the public believes, because an agency of the government says so, it must be true! Ah, but is it true? Are motorcyclists a burden on society?
What is the reality of the social burden?
In 1992, the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center published a study titled: An Examination of Motorcyclist Injuries and Cost Using North Carolina Motor Vehicle Crash and Trauma Registry Data. The study revealed the following:
1. Motorcyclists admitted to trauma centers for treatment of crash related injuries were just as likely as other road trauma cases to be medically insured, and considerably better insured then non-road, cases.
2. Motorcyclists had the highest insurance payment rate of all groups.
3. Motorcyclists relied on Medicare and Medicaid considerably less than any other groups.
4. Motorcyclists had a higher rate of self-pay than any other group.
5. Motorcyclist average medical cost were less than other road trauma cases.
In summary of the North Carolina study, motorcyclists have lower medical bills from accidents, are better at paying with insurance, when they do not have insurance are better at paying with their own money, and rely on Medicare and Medicaid less than all other trauma victims. The National Center for Health Statistics has on its web page, http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/default.htm and a connecting link to FASTATS A to Z. In this A to Z statistical Rolodex under the category of “Health Insurance Coverage” one of the quick facts is the Percent of Persons Under Age 65 Without Health Insurance: 16.5% (1995). The inverse of this statistical statement is the percent of persons under age 65 with health insurance would be 83.5%. The percentages of insured include coverage from private insurance and private insurance obtained through the work place, as well as Medicaid or other public assistance. If these percentages are to apply to all other segments of the U.S Population, they were drawn from; they should apply to motorcyclists as well.
What happens to the medical bills that are the actual social burden? The public assistance money such as Medicaid comes from tax dollars. The same tax dollars we all pay, not just those taxes paid by non-motorcyclists. Those motorcyclists who, for what ever the reason, may not have insurance at the time of their injury have worked at some point in time and paid into the ‘public health care risk pool’ through their taxes. Should motorcyclists be singled out and excluded from the public health risk pool we all pay into? Without helmet laws who pays? We all do. With helmet laws who pays? We all do. The point is motorcyclists are just as insured as everyone else. We participate in the motorcycle insurance risk pool with our premiums and the public insurance risk pool with our taxes. Any financial burden for injured motorcyclists is as it should be, paid for by motorcyclists themselves.
So the $1,000,000 quoted in the article is just another government lie. Did your large cache of numbers that are of course not lies include a breakdown of helmet and non helmet states? Common sense. Helmets save lives, mine included. Just because the government trough is there doesn\’t mean we should just pay for people who take risks. I don\’t want my taxes to pay so you can have your perfect freedom. Where are my rights being respected?
You realize (and this is from NHTSA) that the majority of head injuries occur in cars? With all the safety features of cars – seat belts and airbags, is this also a
part of the public burden? Should we be wearing helmets in our cars?
Do you realize that most people drive cars and not motorcycles? I would be interested to know the ratios?