| Author | Message | ||
     Redbuelljunkie |
http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/News/13-11-21/ U_S_lawmaker_Is_Centers_for_Disease_Control_trying _to_reduce_motorcycle_use.aspx The idiocy and sheer gall of this makes me sick to my stomach. To suggest that people would avoid learning to ride or stop riding if required to wear a helmet is outrageous- especially considering anyone who would do such a thing shouldn't be considered a motorcyclist at all. The AMA has lost any semblance of an organization based on logic or rational thought, and I'm to the point of recommending to my customers that they avoid the AMA all together until some sanity returns to the club (if that's even possible). Yet again, we must be embarrassed by an american icon that has succumbed to greed and pandering to the lowest common denominator. | ||
| Ak_addict |
You need to read the article again, the CDC study concluded that mandatory helmet use would reduced motorcycle use. I live in NY where helmet use is mandatory but ride often in PA where it isn't mandatory but I always wear my helmet. I also wear boots, gloves and a jacket by choice. I believe in having the freedom to choose, it use to be the American way. BTW the AMA still encourages helmet use. The AMA strongly advocates helmet use but believes adult helmet use should be voluntary. Simply put, mandatory helmet laws do nothing to prevent crashes. The AMA supports actions that help riders avoid a crash from occurring, including voluntary rider education, improved licensing and testing, and expanded motorist awareness programs. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
" Helmet Law Review Team of the Community Preventive Services Task Force on Oct. 23. The 15-member task force, each of whom is appointed by the CDC director, makes recommendations to the CDC and reports to the U.S. Congress about community preventive services, programs and policies to improve health. " and who are these lobby heads, and on whose payroll - with what agenda ? The CDC - should stick to colds, flus, viruses : the 'health' architectures that these morons are building is entirely beyond scope of charter. ps - wear a helment, don't wear one - just get the g-d government outta its damn meddling | ||
| Rick_a |
I read nothing that I don't agree with. What's the problem? Did you read it? | ||
| Buewulf |
Why would the CDC be concerned with helmet use? Does helmet use lower infection rates for airborne illnesses, too?  I didn't read the article, but I don't need to. I know the AMA's position on helmets: they love to make the claim that mandatory helmet laws do nothing to prevent crashes. While that is no doubt true, mandatory helmet laws do prevent deaths and vegetative injuries. There is enough data and completed studies out there to prove that - no need to waste money having the CDC perform a study with a known result. The only way you are going to keep the government out of this is if damn near everyone starts wearing a helmet voluntarily. Fat chance on that, so prepare for some government meddling. | ||
| Ourdee |
Well, I have an opinion on the direction we are heading in. Looking towards the health system in England and the direction on helmet and safety gear their government has traveled. I get a bad feeling. | ||
| Hootowl |
Since medical care is now socialized, the government has a fiscal obligation to reduce the cost of care. Mandating helmet use is the first step. The next step is banning motorcycles. Thanks Obama voters. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
| ||
| Cityxslicker |
ban motorcycles, I f'n dare you. (this is from the idiot groups that wanted to ban mini-bikes because of lead content and dangers to children from INGESTION) There had better be room in the harbor for all the heads that should roll. | ||
| Sifo |
Hey, it is bad to ingest mini-bikes. I also support the AMA being against mandatory helmet laws. I don't see where the AMA is out of line here. Why should the AMA be in favor of imposing restrictions on motorcyclists? | ||
| Aesquire |
The only way you are going to keep the government out of this is if damn near everyone starts wearing a helmet voluntarily. I disagree. The only way to stop this is to "fundamentally change" the nation's busybody leaders. I would suggest Polonium, but to Quote a former President, "That would be wrong". Cute airbag helmet. I'm curious about the programming on the computer that runs it. When a close friend on his bike was rear ended by a car, hit & run, I spent a lot of time in the Hospital keeping him company. The most "fun" was in the ER where they were pulling gravel out of his scalp, while they waited for the OR to see if they could bolt his spine back together. I lost track of how many times I told him that he'd been in an accident, that he was in the hospital, and he was going to be OK. ( yeah, I lied. ) His memory was about a minute long. He was wearing a helmet, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to save the shattered remains, but the Ambulance crew cut it off him when they put him on the backboard. State of the art, hard shell bicycle lid. I have to say it did it's job, since his skull was intact, even though his scalp scooped up a pound of gravel. He still wears a brace. Good news is, he married his nurse, and they've had a pile of children, so the "important" stuff obviously still works, but it was a long hard road to get there. On a Motorcycle, I wear a helmet. I wear a jacket. I sometimes wear sneakers, and I know better. But while I will cheerfully mock bareheaded riders, I am against helmet laws. For me it's a matter of freedom vs. tyranny, and evolution. I want the stupid to kill themselves off and improve the breed. Far too often they've already reproduced, but there's always hope. ....no need to waste money having the CDC perform a study with a known result. So true. The first studies on helmet use were by the Brits, who come to the conclusion that getting bits of metal stuck in you by explosives can kill you, the bits of metal that hit your head were far MORE likely to kill you than in other places, and by putting helmets on soldiers that had the enemy throwing bits of metal at them they were FAR more likely to survive. If course, if they'd asked anyone from the last 13000 years, they could have saved themselves the trouble. Achilles wore a helm. Alexander. Arthur. There's a reason. Modern tests with cold, calculating terms, many graphs and print outs tell us the same thing. If you assign a numerical value to each injury, you find that a man can survive 50 hit points most of the time if the wounds are to the body and extremities. 70 hit point to the legs and arms. 15-20 hit points to the head. ( I may be off a bit, it's been a while since I read the study. but that's close ) So wearing a helm, helmet, make sense. If you assume that the Collective is the Important Thing, then Helmet laws make sense. Individuals are stupid ( obviously ) so they must be forced to do the Right Thing. If you are in charge of Health Care for the Collective, then Helmet laws make perfect sense. They save the Collective resources. The labor and material costs required for a head injury could be more efficiently spent distributed among multiple subjects. So Helmet laws make sense. Banning risky sports make sense. The same reasoning applies. The cost to Society of caring for adrenaline junkies is better spent on Viagra for the Wiser, older, more powerful. ( of course, they will tell you it's for the Children. Spin a heartrending tale of juvenile cancer. Good folk respond well to such things ) So the step from Helmet use laws to Motorcycle use laws is tiny. Microscopic. And as certain as gravity. If, on the other hand you believe that an individual is a person, responsible for his own actions................ | ||
| Blake |
>>>While that is no doubt true, mandatory motorcycle bans do prevent deaths and vegetative injuries. There is enough data and completed studies out there to prove that - no need to waste money having the CDC perform a study with a known result. How's that version strike you? Wise up! Let freedom rule! | ||
| Ourdee |
side note: When health care asks questions; "Are you interested in loosing weight this year?" Saying "Yes" could lead to penalties upon failure to loose weight by the next weigh-in. point: expressing good intentions can have consequences in our brave new world At the beginning of our republic there was not POLICE. Now? Some people ask me questions only as a lead in to express their own agenda. Please, consider any question's author. I was asked by a manager at work on how to answer a grievance that was filed against him. I am a union worker and have to be careful to not cross lines. My advice was to check with a more senior manager that works with him. What I wanted to say was if there is not any substance to the accusation, don't justify it with an answer. I knew too much about both parties, and figured it best to opt for distance. DO YOU WEAR A HELMET? WOULD YOU LIKE TO FEEL SAFER WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE UNSAFE ACTS OF OTHERS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO LIVE LONGER? NOW, AREN"T THOSE PADDED WALLS COMFORTABLE? Shine on brothers, shine on. When (gasp) I go yard selling around my neighborhood, I do not don a helmet, gloves, boots, or a jacket unless it is cold out. ATGATT sounded so good after the first sip of koolaid here. In honesty, I practice ATGMTT (all the gear most the time). Freedom is another word for nothing left to loose. I'll only be free when I give everything up. My answers bind me. I can not be free so long as I can manifest knee jerk reactions to statements made by others. I no longer desire total anarchic freedom, but, sensible forethought in my decisions. To include the ability to not justify some question's authors with answers. | ||
| Tootal |
There have been several attempts by insurance companies to restrict coverage if you have an accident while not wearing a helmet, even in states without a helmet law. Fortunately the AMA has stepped in and helped stop this nonsense. There are more head injuries per 100 equestrians than motorcyclist yet nobodies pushing for helmet use while riding your horse!! Hmmm, horses cost more than bikes so people who own horses usually have more money therefore maybe more political power to keep the gov. from taking their freedom. Just thinking out loud... I agree with the AMA and 90 percent of the time I have a helmet on but I still like to go lidless occasionally. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Ben Franklin | ||
| Ak_addict |
There have been several attempts by insurance companies to restrict coverage if you have an accident while not wearing a helmet Not sure how it is in other states but in NY (which has a helmet law) personal injury is not covered by your motorcycle insurance like it is when driving a car. It's not even available at extra cost. The only thing I could get was spousal liability which allows my spouse to sue me (and my insurance company) if she is injured while riding as a pillion. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I grew up riding with no helmet. I have never crashed other than falling over while stopped. In California the bugs are small. Here in Georgia they weigh half a pound. I will always wear it here even if the law goes away. Two words: German hornet. | ||
| 86129squids |
"Two words: German hornet." Add a couple more- June Bug, Bumblebee... a few rides ago I had JUST lowered my visor, freshly cleaned of course pre-ride, and about an inch above the bottom, SMACK goes a nice sized hornet.  Not too long ago I saw a show on some kind of Chinese giant hornet, looked to be as long as my middle finger, if you get stung your flesh starts to rot/liquefy. Could be lethal... got the serious willies after seeing that! Not only does a fullface protect your brain-bucket, it ensures that you maintain control if/when something like that hits you. I'm in... OTOH, as long as I'm wearing Terminator-style eye protection, I'd poot around the neighborhoods and slow roads without a helmet. I just feel MUCH more comfortable WITH one. | ||
| Brumbear |
I don't give a rats ass if you where a helmet or not but the insurance Co. shouldn't have to pay you for injuries if your not. That will keep the ins rates down for those of us who use their heads for more than impact buffers and a bandana holder. | ||
| Tootal |
I don't give a rats ass if you where a helmet or not but the insurance Co. shouldn't have to pay you for injuries if your not. That will keep the ins rates down for those of us who use their heads for more than impact buffers and a bandana holder. Wow, really? Hell, why don't we just ban motorcycling, horse riding, snow skiing, water skiing, mountain climbing etc.! I'm getting scared to get out of bed!! Something might hurt me!  | ||
| Court |
I've long been an advocate of "helmet wearing insurance". If you ride a motorcycle, without a helmet, your risks are, foolishly let me add, skyrocket. I'm all for you being able to get insurance . . . but you, like a smoker pays more for health insurance, should pay for the risk you are taking on. Riding a motorcycle, and I'm no novice at either riding nor stupidity, without a helmet is Russian roulette. | ||
| Sifo |
I don't give a rats ass if you where a helmet or not but the insurance Co. shouldn't have to pay you for injuries if your not. That is a completely ridiculous statement. They have entered into a contract to insure you, without any restriction on helmet use, beyond local laws. If you desire insurance that excludes riding naked, you should discuss this with your insurer. They might just be willing do do something like that if requested. I would probably take advantage of it, if it were offered. I just find the desire to impose your personal choice on this to be quite offensive. It's a personal choice that doesn't effect others. Don't start down that road. | ||
| Steeleagle |
I think that's the point some are trying to make. I'd be fine with a helmet condition in my coverage. With a helmet, I ride at a lower risk of injury (Let the games begin!), so I would also expect a lower premium. Everyone has their personal choices intact, but they are responsible for the risks they assume. Hopefully we aren't going to get into discussions about ATGATT being just as risky as riding naked. | ||
| Prior |
When I was a youngin and bought my first bike, I was in college, living in Iowa, but claimed my folks place in PA as my legal residence. 21, no real tickets, and the insurance on my used M2, with some decent medical and comprehensive, was like $1000/yr (was on my Mom's medical, so needed additional coverage and I had a lien on the bike). Paid it off in a year, PA repealed their helmet law and my insurance tripled- risk mitigation on the insurance company's part, assuming I may not wear a helmet since it I was 'based' in PA. I quickly switched 'resident' states and dropped my insurance significantly. If you dislike politics, quit reading- insurance companies need to mitigate risk- that's their whole business. Lessen your risk, you have more profits which stockholders demand as dividends. This is the basis of an insurance company- make money for those whom invest in you and provide a service folks are willing to pay for- the challenge with Obamacare. I'd go further to implement a helmet and Aerostich law- you've got a helmet and wear a 'stich, you're lowering your injury potential quite a bit, and most guys that wear them are pretty serious riders. Do the same for any rider wearing full gear. Wreck without it, pay more. Wear it, protect yourself and your financial interest. Rollie was damn fast on the flats naked, don't think I'd do the same on the streets  Prior | ||
| Buewulf |
>>>While that is no doubt true, mandatory motorcycle bans do prevent deaths and vegetative injuries. There is enough data and completed studies out there to prove that - no need to waste money having the CDC perform a study with a known result. How's that version strike you? Wise up! That "version" is just as true. It is just a fact. And any new government study commissioned to prove that would be money wasted as well since the outcome is already known, which was the context of the statement. I just find the desire to impose your personal choice on this to be quite offensive. I didn't get that from his post. He just doesn't feel he should have to fund other people's riskier choices. And he shouldn't. | ||
| Court |
By the way . . . to be clear. I am 100% for a person being able to make the choice. The government, nor the insurance companies, should have no place in the decision. The insurance company should be able, and SHOULD, ask the "do you wear a helmet" and predicate the premium structure on the appropriate risk. I guess what I am saying is that, as an experienced motorcyclist, I am aware that there are significantly different risks and I want to pay for the amount of risk I am exposing the guarantor to. Simple really. | ||
| Sifo |
I didn't get that from his post. He just doesn't feel he should have to fund other people's riskier choices. And he shouldn't. And he doesn't have to. The problem is that the "solution" being discussed is in fact imposing his choice on others. | ||
| Steeleagle |
I can guarantee that if my twin brother in the same town as me applied for insurance with the same company, and he never wears a helmet (or other protective gear)and I do, assuming identical prior claims, his insurance premiums would be the same as mine, despite being a higher risk rider. If there's a way to differentiate between the two, I'm sure not aware of it. ...and that's just ONE of my beefs with my premiums! Anybody own and drive multiple bikes (or cars?). I pay a separate and equal premium for each, despite presenting only a singular risk. We're getting off the original topic. Sorry! | ||
| Ourdee |
I am against the imposition of the cost of others risk on non risk-takers. And to be further clear; If my insurance company gave me a clear monetary benefit to my assuring them I would wear a helmet while yard selling, I would check the always wears a helmet box. I would then wear a helmet 100% of the time. I took a motorcycle safety course with mandatory helmet wear during it. <--(look, back on topic) | ||
| Buewulf |
"The problem is that the "solution" being discussed is in fact imposing his choice on others." I interpreted his solution as different insurance premiums for those who choose to ride without a helmet, though I know he didn't explicitly say that. That is the best solution in my opinion. I don't think it is right to impose choices on anyone, but it also isn't right for the more risk-inclined to expect others to finance their behavior. | ||
| Sifo |
I interpreted his solution as different insurance premiums for those who choose to ride without a helmet, though I know he didn't explicitly say that. That is the best solution in my opinion. I don't think it is right to impose choices on anyone, but it also isn't right for the more risk-inclined to expect others to finance their behavior. Well, here's his entire post, nothing taken out of context.
I'm not at all clear how that can be interpreted as a multi-tier system. He clearly states that without a helmet, an insurance co. should have zero liability. Given that things don't currently work that way, even in helmet mandatory states, I can only interpret that to mean legislation to force conformity. Even though it wouldn't change my riding habits, I have real problems with it. Here's a very short mental exercise... Would helmets prevent head injuries in a car? Before answering, ask yourself why helmets are required in virtually all forms of auto racing. Do you really want to go that direction? |
