I wonder how Tennessee will fund lifetime care for uninsured head-injured cyclists…I hope this \”user\’s choice\” is backed up by \”user\’s responsibility\”.
I am an insurance broker in KY and own/ride 3 motorcycles. Our KY Motorcycle Association was instrumental in getting \’mandatory\’ helmet law repealed here in the Commonwealth. Be sure: those of us who decide to ride should also have choice about safety devices. We are NOT anti-helmets; only prefer choice. Like most freedoms, howeve, we also need to exercise responsibility and accountability when enjoying these freedoms. That includes maintaining proper health insurance. As for those statistics proclaiming carnage on the roadway, be sure you understand that increases in injuries needs to be quantified with \’miles traveled\’ vs. mere numbers for injuries. i.e. there are many more riders today than there were before helmet laws were repealed. There are actually fewer accidents per miles traveled today than 10 years ago.
Joe,
If you were in an accident and sustained injuries that could have been prevented / reduced by wearing a helmet, would you object to the insurance company saying you are partially resposible for the damages and will not cover 100% your personal injuries?
I pity the idiots (and that is what they are) who would make the choice to ride without a helmet. The legislature must have a vendetta against anyone who rides a motorcycle!!!
To answer your question TPG: no more or less than if the insurance company tried to withhold claim payments for someone driving an automobile without a helmet. What\’s your point here? If it\’s that \”you\” don\’t want to share in a claim that occured for whatever reason, then you are opting out of the insurance mechanism all together? After all, that how our insurance system works. We\’ll be leaving ourselves wide open if we let insurance companies dictate what they believe is appropriate behavior when deciding what they will be liable for.
I have to wear a helmet when driving my car? My driver Ed teacher never told me that! My point is that I know some states hold a person partially responsible for injuries sustained in an auto accident if they aren\’t wearing a seatbelt. Do you consider exclusions to be insurance companies dictating what they will be liable for?
TPG: I\’m sure I could find \”statistics\” that show if drivers/passengers wear helmets, we could \”save more lives\”. Should we pass a law requiring helmets in cars the same way professional racers do? The point here is the government (and insurers) can and will go overboard, IF we let them control every aspect of our lives. And as far as I know, there is no exclusion in any policy of insurance for coverage if one does not utilize safety equipment. As far your last comment: YES the insurance industry would love to control our personal behavior. Witness underwriting standards for smoking. Now discussions are commonplace about what to eat and not eat; what/how much alcohol should be consumed; what contact sports do we play. This is Big Brother stuff, often under the disguise of \”common sense\”. Ha.
So you will probably agree with the fact that helmets save lives, but you disapprove of \”The Man\” saying you HAVE to wear a helmet. I just don\’t get it. And please don\’t compare this personal freedom to your freedom of religion, speech or right to vote. They are NOT on the same level.
As a Libertarian, we strive to confine the government to its intended purpose. It was never intended that the government would take, by force, my earnings to pay for the consequences of others\’ irresponsible behavior. However, since that\’s exactly what it\’s doing, I expect it to mitigate those financial consequences by ensuring that hazardous choices are supported by individually-funded mechanisms, not by digging deeper into my pocket. Simple premise, I think, and I don\’t need to review accident statistics to determine the logic on this one. Neither helmets nor seatbelts guarantee anything, it\’s simply a matter of taking reasonable precautions when you\’re out on the road traveling with a few hundred of your closest friends at 50-70 mph.
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 wonder how Tennessee will fund lifetime care for uninsured head-injured cyclists…I hope this \”user\’s choice\” is backed up by \”user\’s responsibility\”.
I am an insurance broker in KY and own/ride 3 motorcycles. Our KY Motorcycle Association was instrumental in getting \’mandatory\’ helmet law repealed here in the Commonwealth. Be sure: those of us who decide to ride should also have choice about safety devices. We are NOT anti-helmets; only prefer choice. Like most freedoms, howeve, we also need to exercise responsibility and accountability when enjoying these freedoms. That includes maintaining proper health insurance. As for those statistics proclaiming carnage on the roadway, be sure you understand that increases in injuries needs to be quantified with \’miles traveled\’ vs. mere numbers for injuries. i.e. there are many more riders today than there were before helmet laws were repealed. There are actually fewer accidents per miles traveled today than 10 years ago.
Joe,
If you were in an accident and sustained injuries that could have been prevented / reduced by wearing a helmet, would you object to the insurance company saying you are partially resposible for the damages and will not cover 100% your personal injuries?
I pity the idiots (and that is what they are) who would make the choice to ride without a helmet. The legislature must have a vendetta against anyone who rides a motorcycle!!!
To answer your question TPG: no more or less than if the insurance company tried to withhold claim payments for someone driving an automobile without a helmet. What\’s your point here? If it\’s that \”you\” don\’t want to share in a claim that occured for whatever reason, then you are opting out of the insurance mechanism all together? After all, that how our insurance system works. We\’ll be leaving ourselves wide open if we let insurance companies dictate what they believe is appropriate behavior when deciding what they will be liable for.
I have to wear a helmet when driving my car? My driver Ed teacher never told me that! My point is that I know some states hold a person partially responsible for injuries sustained in an auto accident if they aren\’t wearing a seatbelt. Do you consider exclusions to be insurance companies dictating what they will be liable for?
TPG: I\’m sure I could find \”statistics\” that show if drivers/passengers wear helmets, we could \”save more lives\”. Should we pass a law requiring helmets in cars the same way professional racers do? The point here is the government (and insurers) can and will go overboard, IF we let them control every aspect of our lives. And as far as I know, there is no exclusion in any policy of insurance for coverage if one does not utilize safety equipment. As far your last comment: YES the insurance industry would love to control our personal behavior. Witness underwriting standards for smoking. Now discussions are commonplace about what to eat and not eat; what/how much alcohol should be consumed; what contact sports do we play. This is Big Brother stuff, often under the disguise of \”common sense\”. Ha.
So you will probably agree with the fact that helmets save lives, but you disapprove of \”The Man\” saying you HAVE to wear a helmet. I just don\’t get it. And please don\’t compare this personal freedom to your freedom of religion, speech or right to vote. They are NOT on the same level.
As a Libertarian, we strive to confine the government to its intended purpose. It was never intended that the government would take, by force, my earnings to pay for the consequences of others\’ irresponsible behavior. However, since that\’s exactly what it\’s doing, I expect it to mitigate those financial consequences by ensuring that hazardous choices are supported by individually-funded mechanisms, not by digging deeper into my pocket. Simple premise, I think, and I don\’t need to review accident statistics to determine the logic on this one. Neither helmets nor seatbelts guarantee anything, it\’s simply a matter of taking reasonable precautions when you\’re out on the road traveling with a few hundred of your closest friends at 50-70 mph.
Just think of the no helmet law as \”needed thinning of the gene pool\”