NEW HELMET LAW in FLORIDA

[chaserkeywest]

New motorcycle licensee's under 21 will have to wear a helmet.

And have a license plate that idenifies them.

Thats a start back to everyone being required to wear a helmet.....I hope!

And I dont care if you dont like my opinion.

[Snowbird]

 

Ok, I'll bite.

Does it seem fair that these same under-21 people can decide for themselves to enter a combat zone... but they cannot ride without a helmet? Seems like 2 decisions with possibly deadly consequences.

Oh, and they can vote, FWIW.

So how is that law-- or for that matter ANY law that restricts rights based on age-- constitutional? Sure, the state will likely get away with it since few 21 YO's have the $$ to take the case to the USSC, but is it fair? And why should legislators not be prosecuted for enacting such a blatantly unconstitutional law?
Not only is the law unconstitutional, IMO, but age discrimination is a statutorily protected right, albeit for specific criteria, helmets not mentioned.

[cornishgolfer]

WTF  has this got to do with war..any war etc etc.

its done purely to protect those most vunerable and nothing else.

Its also NOT unconstitutianal at all.

Take it another step, lets smoke/drink/drive/have sex with whoever at any age............vote even!

Ridiculous

[cyjo]

Don't they issue helmets to the boys going off to war?

[forester]

WTF  has this got to do with war..any war etc etc.

its done purely to protect those most vunerable and nothing else.

Its also NOT unconstitutianal at all.

Take it another step, lets smoke/drink/drive/have sex with whoever at any age............vote even!

Ridiculous

 I think it's best for you to be wearing a helmet all day long (and at sleep too), since you are such a fucking genius, it's to protect you and nothing else.  

Helmet laws suck.  People that promote such laws swallow.

[bizarro]

Don't they issue helmets to the boys going off to war?

Yeah, but do they have to wear them?

[Mac]

No, but getting chewed out by ones sgt for NOT wearing it is usually worse than the discomfort.

[cornishgolfer]

Forester

Was the tone of your reply really necessary

[bizarro]

You'll have to pardon him, he hasn't installed sensory deprivation tank yet and is a bit out of sorts.

[mustang28027]

I agree... Forester's posting lacks class.  I respect your right to have one, but in print its not proper...

 I like helmet laws. As an insurance claim adjuster, I saw what stupidity and speed can to to the human body. Helmet laws are designed to try to protect our gray matter... once youve lost your brain there isnt much you can do, right? No recovering... ask anyone  who has a loved one that has a stroke(lost my mom to one).

I would propose that if someone didnt wish to hear a helmet that, if they were in an accident without wearing one and had a head injury, they be barred from recovery of all social security benefits, medicaid, etc.  I certainly dont want to pay for someone else's injury...

[Snowbird]

Helmet laws suck.  People that promote such laws swallow.

Shame on you, forester, for telling these dipwads what they cannot figure out for themselves: the source of the funny taste in their mouths.  

[Mr Sunshine]

Does it seem fair that these same under-21 people can decide for themselves to enter a combat zone... but they cannot ride without a helmet?

They don't choose to put themselves in a combat zone. They did choose to sign up for the miltary and the miltary choose for them to put themselves in a combat zone.  

That is a very big difference.

[jnor]

I agree... Forester's posting lacks class.  I respect your right to have one, but in print its not proper...

 I like helmet laws. As an insurance claim adjuster, I saw what stupidity and speed can to to the human body. Helmet laws are designed to try to protect our gray matter... once youve lost your brain there isnt much you can do, right? No recovering... ask anyone  who has a loved one that has a stroke(lost my mom to one). I agree well said

I would propose that if someone didnt wish to hear a helmet that, if they were in an accident without wearing one and had a head injury, they be barred from recovery of all social security benefits, medicaid, etc.  I certainly dont want to pay for someone else's injury...

[RickC1957]

If I have to wear a seat belt while caging....then everyone can wear a helmet when riding

[Snowbird]

If I have to wear a seat belt while caging....then everyone can wear a helmet when riding

Agreed... but you should also be required to wear a helmet while driving AND when crossing the street or stepping into the tub.    

I'll raise you two fingers.  

[Mini4x]

Helmet laws suck.  People that promote such laws swallow.

Helmets save lives.  PERIOD

If people weren't so friggin stupid we wouldn't need helmet laws, these laws come about because people aren't smart enough to protect themselves.  I for one couldn't care less about helmet laws because I am smart enough to wear one all the time.

[Thor]

Don't they issue helmets to the boys going off to war?

And they make them wear helmets if the ride while in the military.  

I wonder why they would do such a ridiculous and stupid thing?  I mean, we all know that helmets have never been proven to protect people, and they do kill people by breaking their necks, depriving them of oxygen, and blocking their vision.

I think it all comes from a secret society of legislators who are aroused by the sight of someone wearing a helmet.  How else can you explain the extreme facination with organized sports...other than soccer?

[cornishgolfer]

Thor.  Now we are talking...........Soccer. or Football, is THE Beautiful game.

Here in Floriduh, when the helmet law went, and there were restrictions, the death rate tripled.  And has maintained a triple rate since. Funnily enough it is the helmetless riders that are being killed, in the majority,(but the bike rider rate has increased as well.)  Mostly by ignorant and blind car/vehicle drivers as always tho.

Nearly got knocked off yesterday in fact by some a**hole cutting across infront of me. The old Lady beside me missed this twit in an SUV by a foot or so.

Keep safe

[Snowbird]

And they make them wear helmets if the ride while in the military.  

I wonder why they would do such a ridiculous and stupid thing?  I mean, we all know that helmets have never been proven to protect people, and they do kill people by breaking their necks, depriving them of oxygen, and blocking their vision.

I think it all comes from a secret society of legislators who are aroused by the sight of someone wearing a helmet.  How else can you explain the extreme facination with organized sports...other than soccer?

   

[sumo64c]

I'm against any helmet and or full gear wearing rider.........  

Job Security.  

[chaserkeywest]

Wow, really brought out the meanies.

Wearing a helmet while engaging in dangerious activity is just common sense.

Rock climbing, White Water Rafting, Mortar Attack, Motorcycle Riding, Horse Racing

Stuff like that

[jahoobob]

They don't choose to put themselves in a combat zone. They did choose to sign up for the miltary and the miltary choose for them to put themselves in a combat zone.  

That is a very big difference.

And yet they continue to sign up (and re-up) knowing their chances of going to a war zone are very high.  Go figure.  The numbers just don't support your premise.  You might have had a little traction with your statement in '03 but not in '07.

[jahoobob]

Agreed... but you should also be required to wear a helmet while driving AND when crossing the street or stepping into the tub.    

I'll raise you two fingers.  

Again, your illogic just doesn't work here.  A car has a roof or roll bar to protect your head and since crossing the street or stepping out of the tub doesn't require a license like driving, no helmet is required.

[Snowbird]

Again, your illogic just doesn't work here.  A car has a roof or roll bar to protect your head and since crossing the street or stepping out of the tub doesn't require a license like driving, no helmet is required.

Ah, but head injuries are serious problems in those activities. Even if it'd save just one life...  

[JimWilliamson]

Education before Legislation

And I believe all would agree that the amount and quality of education needs to be amped up.

[stefrrr]

Yes, but... The reason why these laws are made age-sensitive is because of the lack of willingness to be educated in those under 21. That's the phase of your life (18-21) when you think you are completely invincible, and more likely to get yourself killed.

Were you willing to listen to anyone telling you how to be safe at that age? Some of you still aren't.  

[Black Ice]

Yes, but... The reason why these laws are made age-sensitive is because of the lack of willingness to be educated in those under 21. That's the phase of your life (18-21) when you think you are completely invincible, and more likely to get yourself killed.

Were you willing to listen to anyone telling you how to be safe at that age? Some of you still aren't.  

Some folks never will.

So we keep people in the nursery until they're 16...18...21...25...where does it end?  The longer you coddle people, the less adept they'll be at making intelligent decisions.  The way I see it, you're either an adult or you're not.  "This at 16, that at 18, the other at 21, etc." is a mishmash of nonsense.  Find one age and stick with it.

[JimWilliamson]

Were you willing to listen to anyone telling you how to be safe at that age?

Yes. I was willing to go through, listen, and learn from the drivers education / training program to get the license. It just didn't teach enough / take the opportunity while it had my attention.

It didn't do much of anything for enforcing good / proper / responsible driving (intended to be a holistic comment - covering the vehicle category at hand - which for cycles has a decent amount of emphasis on gear). The current U.S. drivers ed / continuing education programs are a pittance to what they should be. It focuses on weeding out those that can't handle the basics instead of accomplishing the weeding out goal as well as educating proper responsible drivers.

Current U.S. process= 90% weed out, 10% education
Desireable process= 10% weed out, 90% education

[rodm850g]

Guys,
Just as well offer up another .02 worth of drivel from here.....there seems to be an indignation as if a right were tread upon.....boy we jump right up when we feel our rights are trampled upon.... driving a cage, a motorcycle a moped is a privilege...not a right.... one that can go away at the drop of a gavel.....mabey its  for their own good that there are limits....mabey there should be more restriction.....here in soldier city the drivers of cages have got so many important places to go that red lights are run in an alarming rate.....like the fellow just two weeks back busted through a light, in full sized pick up truck....drove through a Honda Accord....tore the car literally in half....killed a mother and child...then bounced off another and killed a motorcyclist sitting waiting for a light to change.......and some one worries about wearing a helmet.....survival is what its about out there.....I drove an emergency vehicle for almost 27 years...people instead of pulling over to let us pass...would drag race not to be hindered....give me a break ...

                                       Rod
p.s.
before you judge me think if we were going to your Mom for a call.....
 

[Black Ice]

driving a cage, a motorcycle a moped is a privilege...not a right

Really?  By what right does anyone revoke this "privilege?"  Where in the Constitution is it stated that Da Gubmint has any right to tell us when, where, what or how we can drive/ride?  

Rights are not bestowed upon us by government.  Rights are innate to us as sentient beings.  If you violate the rights of others through negligence, stupidity or malice, you should pay the price.  But those of us with a working brain are getting pretty tired of being told that we are some sort of risk because of the actions of a few fools.

Every person on Earth has the right to do any damn thing they want unless and until they violate the rights of another.  Driving/riding is, indeed, a right.  Just like you have the right to post what you just did no matter how much I might disagree with it.

Whoops...sorry.  You don't have any right to post on the internet.  After all, Da Gubmint didn't give you permission to do so.  

[Snowbird]

Yes, but... The reason why these laws are made age-sensitive is because of the lack of willingness to be educated in those under 21. That's the phase of your life (18-21) when you think you are completely invincible, and more likely to get yourself killed.

Were you willing to listen to anyone telling you how to be safe at that age? Some of you still aren't.  

Re: paragraph 1, Which is exactly why it is unethical for lawmakers to say that people of a certain age can only risk their lives in government service, aka going to war. They are taking advantage of these people for the govt's own purposes.

And I resent resemble the bolded comment.  

[cornishgolfer]

yet again............WTF has putting a helmet on to do with WAR.....any friggin war.

its there to protect the kids 'cause they all think they know best. We all did to some degree and now that we are OLDER n WISER, we realise we didnt know everything after all. No wonder our Dads laughed at us.

[hig4s]

Yes, at 18 the government say you are an adult, your parents are not longer responsible for you. You can vote and drink,, Oh wait,, you can't drink until 21.. another unconstitutional law..  

should we allow 18 year olds the right to drink?

I personally don't mind helment laws, and think anyone not wearing one is a moron. Same with seatbelts, but the government should not be telling me what I can and cannot do if it only affects me. Next they will be banning downhill skiing, or motorcycles completely,, because it saves lives. Period.  

[Snowbird]

yet again............WTF has putting a helmet on to do with WAR.....any friggin war.

And again, if you cannot read and understand the analogy, why would I respond?   

[chaserkeywest]

This is a thought that I have had running through my head lately.

An interesting question.

How many motorcycle riders are carrying a hand gun while riding for personal protection?

How many of these riders are carrying a hand gun incase they might need it but, dont wear a motorcycle helmet?

[cbsnbiker]

 

Ok, I'll bite.

Does it seem fair that these same under-21 people can decide for themselves to enter a combat zone... but they cannot ride without a helmet? Seems like 2 decisions with possibly deadly consequences.

Oh, and they can vote, FWIW.

So how is that law-- or for that matter ANY law that restricts rights based on age-- constitutional? Sure, the state will likely get away with it since few 21 YO's have the $$ to take the case to the USSC, but is it fair? And why should legislators not be prosecuted for enacting such a blatantly unconstitutional law?
Not only is the law unconstitutional, IMO, but age discrimination is a statutorily protected right, albeit for specific criteria, helmets not mentioned.

Frankly, whom do I blame primarily for any law that restricts rights of people from 18 to 21 years old, such as for this helmet law or for drinking age? ... drum roll ... Eighteen to 21 year olds!

They can vote. They can write letters. They can arrange to meet with their representatives.

If they would mobilize as a political movement and petition their legislators for redress, maybe they could gain some rights!

Of course, there's less motivation for them to do so, since all they have to do is stall, and they will no longer be discriminated against....

[Snowbird]

I can't argue with that... so, why did you post it?  

 

[meanstrk]

They don't choose to put themselves in a combat zone. They did choose to sign up for the miltary and the miltary choose for them to put themselves in a combat zone.  

That is a very big difference.

They choose to put themselves in the position of possibly going to war. No difference.

Marine Corps for 22 years and still active duty. Desert Storm and OIF vet. Voluntarily.

The President orders the combat.  We go and kill people.

[cornishgolfer]

Semper Fi

[Mr Sunshine]

They choose to put themselves in the position of possibly going to war. No difference.

Marine Corps for 22 years and still active duty. Desert Storm and OIF vet. Voluntarily.

The President orders the combat.  We go and kill people.

When you sign up you are saying that will allow a certain group of people totally control your life.  If one was able to choose to go into a combat zone or not then they could choose which combat zone they go into.  We know this isn't the case which makes the big difference in this discussion.

[Mr Sunshine]

And yet they continue to sign up (and re-up) knowing their chances of going to a war zone are very high.  Go figure.  The numbers just don't support your premise.  You might have had a little traction with your statement in '03 but not in '07.

My Brother in Law resigned up after he had already gone to Iraq for this latest round.  

For the life of me I can not figure out why he did it. (nor have a asked)

But it was two years later that he was sent back to Iraq.

[HexHead]

 

Ok, I'll bite.

Does it seem fair that these same under-21 people can decide for themselves to enter a combat zone... but they cannot ride without a helmet? Seems like 2 decisions with possibly deadly consequences.

Oh, and they can vote, FWIW.

So how is that law-- or for that matter ANY law that restricts rights based on age-- constitutional? Sure, the state will likely get away with it since few 21 YO's have the $$ to take the case to the USSC, but is it fair? And why should legislators not be prosecuted for enacting such a blatantly unconstitutional law?
Not only is the law unconstitutional, IMO, but age discrimination is a statutorily protected right, albeit for specific criteria, helmets not mentioned.

Whoa, first of all where is wearing a helmet or not a right? Even having a drivers license isn't a "right". States mandate you can't drink under 21, so they can mandate helmet use under 21.

[cornishgolfer]

which is why you cant screw/drink/smoke/vote etc etc until a certain age.

its called protecting those that dont realise they need it

Nice one Hex

[UFO]

New motorcycle licensee's under 21 will have to wear a helmet.

And have a license plate that idenifies them.

You mean they have to have special plates if the registered owner is under 21?  Like...Pink N00b Plates (tm)?

[sillyhillbilly]

 

Ok, I'll bite.

Does it seem fair that these same under-21 people can decide for themselves to enter a combat zone... but they cannot ride without a helmet? Seems like 2 decisions with possibly deadly consequences.

Oh, and they can vote, FWIW.

So how is that law-- or for that matter ANY law that restricts rights based on age-- constitutional? Sure, the state will likely get away with it since few 21 YO's have the $$ to take the case to the USSC, but is it fair? And why should legislators not be prosecuted for enacting such a blatantly unconstitutional law?
Not only is the law unconstitutional, IMO, but age discrimination is a statutorily protected right, albeit for specific criteria, helmets not mentioned.

OK I will politely bite back, the PRIVILAGE to drive is just that an privilage, and each state has their rights as well. after all we fought an civil war over states rights.  that aside I have seen too many squids hit the raod without an helmet. I dont care about age discrimination. sure the youth have lots of vigor, but wisedom, is in short supply,
 I had an 2 hour conversation with some HD riders on the use of protective gear while taking trip to Oregon and back this summer. they could NOT understand why i was wearing leathers during an heat wave in july. 100 miles down the road their lead rider took an cross wind, drifted off the right and flipped, he took heavy head tramua due to no helmet., he is 40 and doesnt know who he is anymore. what we all do is very dangerous. those who take what we all love as simple or overlook what can happen, is only lying to themselves. and i dont feel i should have to pay higher insurance prim. cause others think its cool to grind their jaw into the asphault, or leave brain matter on the road is fun. or laugh at others who have

[chaserkeywest]

Love your KAW Hillbilly, 3 cheers for the UJM with Cojones!

[CafeTBird]

Education before Legislation

And I believe all would agree that the amount and quality of education needs to be amped up.

Right - and yet we legislate that we educate  

Maybe education legislation should be adopted for motorcycle riding?

[Allan]

If someone chooses to "go into a combat zone" they also choose to abide by all the laws of the military. Some of which are designed to protect your own stupidity. I say bring on helmet laws, bring on tired licensing, bring on mandatory training. Riding/driving is a privilege not a right.

[Snowbird]

Ok, I'll ask another way. Why is it that all you who agree that it is ok for states to require helmets for those under 21 "for their own protection" also think it is ok that the same age group can sign up for military service despite the danger? Is it because in case 1 you see an advantage to yourself in lower societal costs while in case 2 you see an advantage to yourself in cheaper oil?

Why is it that when congress enacted legislation against age discrimination it did not include protections against laws that treat age groups' rights differently?

How is it consistent under the law for congress to lower the voting age (done when it was to the advantage to Demeocrats' presidential hopes, BTW) yet not allow full rights and responsibilities of adulthood the those between 18 and 21?

Do you know the difference between Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist?

[cornishgolfer]

Ah ha Snowbird, now your true colors have come out.

bugger all to do with safety, its all "political".

Jeez

[Snowbird]

Ah ha Snowbird, now your true colors have come out.

bugger all to do with safety, its all "political".

Jeez

If it's safety you want, my suggestion is to stop riding.  

[cornishgolfer]

mmmmmmmmmm no!

I wear a helmet!

[Snowbird]

And you think that makes you safe?

[chaserkeywest]

SAFE...rrr than not wearing a helmet.

[Snowbird]

I will grant you that point and that is why I always wear one. OTOH, if I decide I'd like to ride without... that should be my option.    Unless you crash, a helmet will make you no safer.

[sillyhillbilly]

 

Ok, I'll bite.

Does it seem fair that these same under-21 people can decide for themselves to enter a combat zone... but they cannot ride without a helmet? Seems like 2 decisions with possibly deadly consequences.

Oh, and they can vote, FWIW.

So how is that law-- or for that matter ANY law that restricts rights based on age-- constitutional? Sure, the state will likely get away with it since few 21 YO's have the $$ to take the case to the USSC, but is it fair? And why should legislators not be prosecuted for enacting such a blatantly unconstitutional law?
Not only is the law unconstitutional, IMO, but age discrimination is a statutorily protected right, albeit for specific criteria, helmets not mentioned.

then how does the drinking age restriction pass?

[toodles]

I wear a helmet because I want to. Don't like them? Don't wear one! Hope you have a thick head, you might need it.

GT

[Snowbird]

then how does the drinking age restriction pass?

Good question. The answer is likely due to the Federal govt threatening to withhold money it first unconstitutionally collected from the states' residents unless the states enact various restrictions on their citizens. In this case, age of drinking. Other examples have been .08 BAC, seat belt laws, pollution measures, etc.
Posted on: January 29, 2007, 06:32:57 am

I wear a helmet because I want to. Don't like them? Don't wear one! Hope you have a thick head, you might need it.

GT

So, any law is ok so long as you personally agree with it?

[Mr Sunshine]

I will grant you that point and that is why I always wear one. OTOH, if I decide I'd like to ride without... that should be my option.    Unless you crash, a helmet will make you no safer.

No a helmet is good for them bugs or shit that gets thrown at you which can then make you crash requiring the use of your helmet again.

[cornishgolfer]

Just had a phone call from my mate who is late for an appointment.

A Hardly rider is splayed all over the side of H'way 41 here near Brooksville.  Blood all over his head.

My buddy said no helmet!

Snowbird, I think that you really do need to sit down on this one. laws are put to protect people, but mainly people that cannot or dont have the brain power to protect themselves.  Thats why in this country you cant drink in the main till you are 21  etc etc and other laws.

Can this thread die. Its getting boring

[CafeTBird]

 Unless you crash, a helmet will make you no safer.

Correction: When you crash, a helmet will make you safer (alive, that is).  Better get it out of your head that you will never crash - if you actually ride your bike, eventually you will pay homage to the asphalt.  No one has enough skill to avoid every potential situation that arises.  You won't have any time to duck and cover either.

I don't wear a helmet for me as much as I do my family.  They are the ones that would have to spoon feed me in my vegatative state....  

[Black Ice]

Snowbird, I think that you really do need to sit down on this one. laws are put to protect people, but mainly people that cannot or dont have the brain power to protect themselves.

Oh, shit...not this nonsense again.  

If they don't have the brainpower to protect themselves, then they are useless parasites who need to fucking die--hopefully before they reproduce.

Yes, I said it.  And yes, I mean it wholeheartedly.  I'm so damn sick of this feel-good bullshit.  We all do stupid things.  If we're intelligent, the stupid things we do will usually be survivable, and we can learn from them.  If we're not intelligent, we'll eventually get killed by our stupidity, the way Nature intended.

Protecting people from the consequences of their stupidity does nothing more than engender a world of helpless idiots.  Helpless idiots who become not only a danger to themselves, but everyone around them due to their incompetence at life.  Open your eyes, and you'll see them all around you...and I, for one, am sick of dealing with them, compensating for their idiocy, being endangered by them on the road, putting up with them and their ill-raised brats, and seeing them breathing oxygen that could be better used to support higher life forms such as my cat.

Protecting idiots from themselves will only bring this world down to the lowest common denominator--a world of idiots.  Darwin wept.    

[Snowbird]

Darwin wept.

  Good one.

[BubbaDenkins]

I think helmet laws are great.  I don't quite understand this one, though.  I think it should be an all or nothing premise.  If you're over 18 it shouldn't matter, either you wear one or you don't, depending on the law.  However, I think everyone should be required to wear one, at least with the system we have now.  Sure, it's a personal choice.  But why should I pay for your choice?  I have to pick up the slack for uninsured people doing stupid stuff and hurting themselves through my insurance premiums.  As such, since I'm paying for it in a round about way, you damn well should be required to wear one to reduce my liabilities.  Now, if things were changed so that if you're uninsured and something happens while you're riding without a helmet such that if you don't have cash or credit to pay your bill upfront you don't get treated, then I'm all for it.  You have your personal choice and I (and other insured folks) don't have to pick up the tab after the fact.  Sounds harsh, but I don't see why I should have to pay for someone else's choice when they screw up.  I don't see this ever happening, though, so until then I'll continue to vote for helmet laws.

[Snowbird]

Sure, it's a personal choice.  But why should I pay for your choice?

What makes you think you pay for anyone's choice?

Without a helmet, riders who take a spill at, say, for argument, speeds between 2 and 7mph are statistically likely to linger in a coma for years. Above the 7mph example speed, they're all dead. Little cost to that.

With a helmet, the "statistically likely to linger in a coma for years." for-example-only speed rises to beween 14 and 25 mph. Above 25 statisitics indicate they are all dead.

The speeds chosen are fictional... but the example holds: helmets just raise the speed where the accident results in "statistically likely to linger in a coma for years" speed.

And there is no evidence that helmetless riders are less likely to be insured than helmeted riders. So, how is it that you pay?  

[Husky23]

Sure, it's a personal choice.  But why should I pay for your choice?

This WILL be the exact same rationale utilized to begin enacting more and more restrictive & intrusive laws to coerce a modification of any and most everyones personal behavioral choices.

National health care insurance.

What makes you think you pay for anyone's choice?

Trust me, they'll dream something up...

[BubbaDenkins]

What makes you think you pay for anyone's choice?

Because I am.  Can you honestly tell me that I'm not paying for ambulance rides for these people, alive or dead, through my insurance?  Or that I'm not paying the medics salaries through my premiums when they respond to these crashes?  Or that I'm not paying for the materials used to revive or keep alive someone after an accident?  The list goes on and on.  Uninsured people are a big reason why insurance premiums are so high.  People who are not insured and ride in a more unsafe manner than is needed increase the chances that my premiums will go up.  Again, I'm all for personal choices, but only when your choices do not affect me.  Once they affect someone else, they are no longer personal choices.

Just because you don't like wearing a helmet and don't think you should be required to does not mean that your choice to not wear one does not affect other people.  Sure, you're the one that will end up dead or in a coma should you crash and that's the risk you willingly take, but that does not mean that you are the only one that sees the consequences in that decision.  Again, I have, I am, and I will be paying for these choices.  Uninsured people are one of the reasons that my insurance premiums are going up every year.

Whether you think these laws are fair or not, I will support them.  And I will continue to support them until there is a change in how things work.  Once I can no longer be held financially responsible for your choice to not wear a helmet, then I'm all for you having that choice.  I don't see that happening anytime soon, so I'll continue to reduce my financial responsibilities for other's actions by supporting these types of laws.  It doesn't matter whether there is less of a chance or not that these people may or may not be insured.

However, for the sake of arguement, we'll assume that people are insured.  We all know that insurance companies, regardless of them being health or some other form, all try to reduce the ammount they have to pay out on any given claim.  Insurance companies also don't like losing any money at all, so in turn they raise premiums to recoup these losses.  We all know this happens, you get a ticket, your premiums go up.  You get in an accident, your premiums go up.  But it's not just those policy holders that see increases.  Everyone sees these increases.  My insurance just went up on my bike to the tune of about $150 per year.  I did not have any traffic citations nor was I involved in any insurance claims over the last year.  In fact, I had a speeding ticket drop off my insurance record during this past year.  So why did I see an increase in premiums?  Because of other folks that put in claims.  We all bare the responsibility from the choices you make.

Now, add in the fact that the hospital is getting short changed by the insurance company.  What happens there?  That's right, the start increasing the ammount they charge for services rendered.  So, health insurance companies are having to pay out more, even after negotiating the rates down some.  So what do they do?  That's right, they raise premiums to make up the difference.  So now I'm seeing it on both fronts.  My vehicle insurance goes up as does my health insurance.  All because someone didn't want to wear a helmet and mess themselves up pretty badly.

Again, I'm all for personal choices.  I don't care if you choose to ride in a manner that increases your chances of permanent serious injury or even death.  But I only support that choice when it does not affect me.  The way that the system works now, that choice does affect me.  Until that changes, I stand by my statement.

[Snowbird]

Basically, your position is "I think that and no matter what anyone says, I'll always think that."  

Oh... and you contradict yourself to maintain your position.

[CafeTBird]

Trust me, they'll dream something up...

Yep, insurance premiums are all dreamed up anyway - they are derived from what ever way the corporations can find to charge more money without getting sued in the process.  Explain to me what my credit score has to do with my ablility to drive safely, for instance.

Anyone ever do a correlation of insurance rates in states that have helmet laws vs. states that do not?  It would not surprise me if overall premiums are higher where there is "freedom of choice"...

[BubbaDenkins]

Basically, your position is "I think that and no matter what anyone says, I'll always think that."  

Oh... and you contradict yourself to maintain your position.

Ok, so rather than attack my position and prove me wrong, you'll just attack me instead?  Way to further your arguement  

*Edit*

I decided I'd add some content here instead of just a snide remark.  Since you seem to think that it's just my opinion that I posted and that I'm wrong in my conclusions, have a look at this...

Marcy Gray is a product manager for Progressive Insurance. She knows the numbers inside and out. "Rates are based on a lot of data," she says. "These are data we get from our own claims. When it comes to determining risk on a particular combination of rider and bike, we look at the combination of the loss frequency and the loss severity cost. In other words, it’s how often we have a claim on that particular bike, and how much it costs us to settle the claim. Those numbers come down to something we call the average loss cost." That makes it pure statistics. Take the average loss cost for a particular bike ridden by a rider of a particular age, experience and driving record, and apply those costs to all consumers in the same group. If a dozen 20-year-olds on R1s toss it down the road, you, as another 20-year-old with an R1, will get to pay for the repairs through your premium.

Quoted from here

Emphasis mine.  Yeah, I just pulled all that stuff out of my rear about having to pay for other's decisions.  If you think that they only look at the repairs for motorcycles and nothing else, I think you'd be very wrong.  Motorcycle insurance typically has medical insurance on it, unless you opt out by having your own medical cover it.  However, we'll assume that people don't bother buying the extra medical coverage.  They then rely on their own medical coverage to pay for medical bills, assuming that they have coverage.  And we're right back to where we started.  I'm paying higher premiums because of someone else's choice, regardless of whether they have medical insurance or not.

[BubbaDenkins]

Yep, insurance premiums are all dreamed up anyway - they are derived from what ever way the corporations can find to charge more money without getting sued in the process.  Explain to me what my credit score has to do with my ablility to drive safely, for instance.

Anyone ever do a correlation of insurance rates in states that have helmet laws vs. states that do not?  It would not surprise me if overall premiums are higher where there is "freedom of choice"...

I agree to an extent with what you are saying.  Your credit score has nothing to do with your driving abilities and they are just using that as yet another way to soak us for money.  That one doesn't make any sense at all, but that doesn't stop them.  However, that doesn't mean that everything they do to increase premiums serves no purpose *shrug*

[Uncle Leo]

"Soccer. or Football, is THE Beautiful game."

Soccer is a game invented for clods who can't hit a curve ball.

[Uncle Leo]

"Really?  By what right does anyone revoke this "privilege?"  Where in the Constitution is it stated that Da Gubmint has any right to tell us when, where, what or how we can drive/ride? "

Hint: take a look at the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means the State CAN tell you what to do.

[Black Ice]

"Really?  By what right does anyone revoke this "privilege?"  Where in the Constitution is it stated that Da Gubmint has any right to tell us when, where, what or how we can drive/ride? "

Hint: take a look at the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. That means the State CAN tell you what to do.

And where in the state Constitutions does it say anything about the state having any right to tell us when, where, what or how we can drive/ride?

[Baz]

Debate this to death but if you don't wear a helmet, you are an idiot.

But really, when you fall off the bike when not wearing a helmet, and become a vegtable. Don't you think that the people who will now have to pay to care for you for the rest of your sad life (the state) should have a say if you should have to wear a helmet to reduce the odds of you being a burdon to the state? I say yes.

[Black Ice]

Debate this to death but if you don't wear a helmet, you are an idiot.

But really, when you fall off the bike when not wearing a helmet, and become a vegtable. Don't you think that the people who will now have to pay to care for you for the rest of your sad life (the state) should have a say if you should have to wear a helmet to reduce the odds of you being a burdon to the state? I say yes.

GODDAMN IT!! YOUR FUCKING INSURANCE RATES HAVE NO BEARING UPON WHETHER ANYONE ELSE WEARS A HELMET OR NOT!!!!!  I DEFY ANYONE TO GIVE ME SOLID PROOF--AS IN ACTUAL INSIDE INFORMATION FROM THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY--THAT IT DOES.  IF YOU CAN'T THEN SHUT YOUR FUCKING PIE HOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

OK...sorry.    But I've had it with this same tissue of lies repeated over and over with no basis in fact.  (I get just about as pissed at people who insist that HIV comes from mosquito bites or sex with monkeys.)  This argument has been debunked, several times over, by people who actually work in the insurance industry, and therefore know more about the subject than anyone involved in this conversation.

If you insist that your assertions are true, then you'd best prove it or button it.  (insert 'wassup now, bee-yotch' emoticon here)  Do note that we're discussing a law in the US, where we don't have state-sponsored health care and we are Citizens, as opposed to subjects.  And if this nonsense comes to the US, and I do fall off my bike without a helmet yadayadayada...who said you have to pay for me?    Jesus Christ on a Huffy 10-speed, if I'm a vegetable, then kill me quickly, sell my organs to the highest bidder, and stuff and mount my penis so that women the world over can jump on and have a ride.  The admission fees will more than cover the limited amount of time I've spent in the hospital.  

[Highway Star]

There is a solution for those who feel deprived of the right to choose because they are forced to wear helmets.
1. Helmet objectors can register their objections at the helmet liberty service center.
2. Rider wears helmet because they have to event if a registered objector.
3. When the rider has an accident, a special alert will be sent to a team of service providers.
4. The service providers will arrive at the accident, remove the objecting riders helmet and...
5. Take a mighty swing and hit them over the head with a steel mallet.

That way, the objecting rider can enjoy the benefits that he would have had if he had the right to choose.

[CafeTBird]

I agree to an extent with what you are saying.  Your credit score has nothing to do with your driving abilities and they are just using that as yet another way to soak us for money.  That one doesn't make any sense at all, but that doesn't stop them.  However, that doesn't mean that everything they do to increase premiums serves no purpose *shrug*

Yeah, I exaggerated some.  Insurance rates are a mixture of statistics, legal requirements, and "fuzzy math" ;-)   Consumer Reports did an article on this recently, and could not come up with definitive answers on how rates are calculated.  I notice the article you quoted pointed out as CR did that each company uses its own unique formula for calculating how much insurance you pay.  I would say there are very few people that can tell you all the factors that influence you premiums everywhere in the country.

Insurance premiums also vary by state - and the laws in each state have an effect on premiums.  For example, North Carolina insurance rates for the same bike and rider, are significantly higher than South Carolina insurance rates (speaking from personal experience, last time I moved).  For a long time, many motorcycle insurance providers did not offer policies in NC, and I understand this was due to some of the states laws.  However, NC is a helmet law state, and SC is not, so the factors at hand were related to more things than helmet usage!   It would be interesting to compare rates on the same bike and rider in states with helmet laws and states without to see if there is an overall correlation....

[Uncle Leo]

And where in the state Constitutions does it say anything about the state having any right to tell us when, where, what or how we can drive/ride?

Here's another hint. You do NOT live in a democracy. You live in a representative republic. What the hell do you think lawmakers do??? Did you ever read you state and local laws or question your state representatives or city councilman about them? Why do you think laws like "no iPods in crosswalks" or "no transfats in restaurant foods" get passed? Your representatives have the AUTHORITY granted by (state) law to put this crappola on the books, that's how! Welcome to America.

[Snowbird]

Bubba, I almost respected your opinion... then this:

Yep, insurance premiums are all dreamed up anyway - they are derived from what ever way the corporations can find to charge more money without getting sued in the process.  Explain to me what my credit score has to do with my ablility to drive safely, for instance.

I agree to an extent with what you are saying.  Your credit score has nothing to do with your driving abilities and they are just using that as yet another way to soak us for money.

[Black Ice]

Here's another hint. You do NOT live in a democracy. You live in a representative republic.

No shit, muthafucka.  I believe I understand that better than you do.  

Now, let me drop some science on your ass.  The basis of this republic is that rights are not granted to us by any government.  They are inherent in our status as sentient beings.  The Constitution does not tell us what we're allowed to do...it tells government what it is allowed to do.  If the government is not specifically allowed by the state or federal Constitution to pass a law regarding certain activities, then it is not allowed to do so--period.

You're a prime example of the concept of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  Try again.  

[JustMe]

Weather helmets help or hinder is not the issue here. Too many well-meaning or well-intentioned laws are passed in this country under the unethical guise of "it's for your own good".

If you feel safer wearing a helmet then you should wear a helmet, if you feel safer without a helmet then you should not have to wear a helmet. No self appointed God or any overeducated idiot should be able to impose his thoughts on how we should live our lives as long as we are not putting your safety at risk.

I think I can safely say that I have more time on the motorcycle than 99 percent of you do. I think I am qualified to say what is best for me and I also believe you are most qualified to say what is good for you. I also believe that neither one of us has a right to say what is best for someone else.

[CafeTBird]

I think I can safely say that I have more time on the motorcycle than 99 percent of you do. I think I am qualified to say what is best for me and I also believe you are most qualified to say what is good for you. I also believe that neither one of us has a right to say what is best for someone else.

Hi JustMe:

I respect your age, wisdom, ability, and free will to make a poor decision, as long as it does not endanger my health and welfare, cost me anything unnecessarily, or interfere with my pursuit of happiness.  IMHO, that is what this country is all about.

Someone definitively show us that this is or is not the case with helmet, and I would say it would put this argument to bed.  Problem is, we have LOTS of opinions here, and little facts to support any of them.  As long as this is the case, this will continue to be a matter of one opinion versus another, and basically a useless discussion.  

And such ideas are from wence poor laws are borne....  

[BubbaDenkins]

Bubba, I almost respected your opinion... then this:

I'm not sure what would cause you to not respect my opinion.  I'm not saying that insurance agencies aren't looking for ways to get more money out of all of us.  They are.  But they also take into account others actions and claims when figuring out my premiums.  Those two things are not exclusive.

[BubbaDenkins]

GODDAMN IT!! YOUR FUCKING INSURANCE RATES HAVE NO BEARING UPON WHETHER ANYONE ELSE WEARS A HELMET OR NOT!!!!!  I DEFY ANYONE TO GIVE ME SOLID PROOF--AS IN ACTUAL INSIDE INFORMATION FROM THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY--THAT IT DOES.  IF YOU CAN'T THEN SHUT YOUR FUCKING PIE HOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

I already did, but you obviously are too busy getting pissed off at us that disagree with you to read what I quoted on the last page.  Accident claims (which will include medical bills that are higher when a helmet is not worn) are included in premiums quoted to other people.  That's coming straight from a Progressive Insurance employee.

[nunya]

The law that makes me wear a helmet isn't written by any legislative body.  I have first hand experience with Newton's laws of motion.  The laws and their consequences tell me that if me and my motorcycle part ways at speed, I will probably be going faster than I can run (or at least be in a posture that doesn't lend to running, standing, etc.) and I will in all likelyhood, fall.  When I fall, there is a good chance my head will hit something.  Having hit my head when falling while running (plenty of times as a kid in sports) or doing some form of a face plant, I noticed it hurt quite a bit.

When I was old enough to put together the pain PLUS the obviously higher speeds on a motorcycle, I realized a helmet was a good idea.  No one PLANS to fall, trip, crash or otherwise have a bad gravity day, but as we all know, gravity happens.  It is for those chances, regardless how slim, that I have decided to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle.  

Now, if y'all would be so kind as to think more like me, we could all get a lot more done around here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chaserkeywest]

If I owned an Insurance company, there would be big discounts for wearing protective gear including helmets.

Why? Because a person that wears the protective gear is obviously more concerned with crashing and being injured and will very likely suffer fewer injurys if he does crash.

In Florida you dont have to wear a helmet if you carry $10,000 worth of insurance, how far will $10,000 go for repairing a head?

Who pays the $100,000 med bills that are left over when the $10,000 that was spent the first day or two is gone for the 19 year old that flips burgers for a living?

His parents or the rest of us?

It sucks but what others do will effect all of us either with higher medical costs, insurance costs and more restrictive laws.

But, thats the way it is and it will continue.

Ranting about what our " Founding Fathers" would say about this is irrelevant.

[Uncle Leo]

No shit, muthafucka.  I believe I understand that better than you do.  

Now, let me drop some science on your ass.  The basis of this republic is that rights are not granted to us by any government.  They are inherent in our status as sentient beings.  The Constitution does not tell us what we're allowed to do...it tells government what it is allowed to do.  If the government is not specifically allowed by the state or federal Constitution to pass a law regarding certain activities, then it is not allowed to do so--period.

You're a prime example of the concept of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  Try again.  

Muthafucka? Try keeping your mother off the street dipstick. Who's your daddy?

The only way you could possibly appear more foolish and ignorant is to read some more Noam Chomsky. And your horrific lack of any knowledge or undersatanding of constitutional law and authority combined with your pedantic pouting and shouting only proves your midget intellect.

[CafeTBird]

The law that makes me wear a helmet isn't written by any legislative body.  I have first hand experience with Newton's laws of motion.  

Now, if y'all would be so kind as to think more like me, we could all get a lot more done around here!!!!!!!!!!!!!

++1  

[morganlafaye]

GODDAMN IT!! YOUR FUCKING INSURANCE RATES HAVE NO BEARING UPON WHETHER ANYONE ELSE WEARS A HELMET OR NOT!!!!!  I DEFY ANYONE TO GIVE ME SOLID PROOF--AS IN ACTUAL INSIDE INFORMATION FROM THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY--THAT IT DOES.  IF YOU CAN'T THEN SHUT YOUR FUCKING PIE HOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

OK...sorry.    But I've had it with this same tissue of lies repeated over and over with no basis in fact.  (I get just about as pissed at people who insist that HIV comes from mosquito bites or sex with monkeys.)  This argument has been debunked, several times over, by people who actually work in the insurance industry, and therefore know more about the subject than anyone involved in this conversation.

If you insist that your assertions are true, then you'd best prove it or button it.  (insert 'wassup now, bee-yotch' emoticon here)  Do note that we're discussing a law in the US, where we don't have state-sponsored health care and we are Citizens, as opposed to subjects.  And if this nonsense comes to the US, and I do fall off my bike without a helmet yadayadayada...who said you have to pay for me?    Jesus Christ on a Huffy 10-speed, if I'm a vegetable, then kill me quickly, sell my organs to the highest bidder, and stuff and mount my penis so that women the world over can jump on and have a ride.  The admission fees will more than cover the limited amount of time I've spent in the hospital.  

Wow, that South Park avatar speaks volumes of you. Tip: if you want people to take yourself, your opinions, and your arguments seriously, try presenting them in a dignified manner instead of capitalized swear words like a 13 year old who isn't getting his way.

[CafeTBird]

Wow, that South Park avatar speaks volumes of you. Tip: if you want people to take yourself, your opinions, and your arguments seriously, try presenting them in a dignified manner instead of capitalized swear words like a 13 year old who isn't getting his way.

+++100

[cornishgolfer]

Agree with the above 2 replies.  100%

[Snowbird]

Can this thread die. Its getting boring

I thoght you were bored by all this cornholegolfer?

[Albie]

    cornholegolfer!

[CafeTBird]

I thoght you were bored by all this cornholegolfer?

Hmmm, Snowbird - maybe you need a Southpark avatar too?  Perhaps Bevis and/or Butthead would be better...

[Albie]

Heh, Cornholiogolfer.  

[CafeTBird]

I wonder if this stuff could be developed into a viable helmet option... ?

http://www.dirtsurfer.ca/en/productsribcap.asp

[Uncle Leo]

From the ad..." Ribcap makes you look good "

Yeah, right. Did they look at their own pictures?  

[Snowbird]

I recently heard about a rider killed in Florida. He was wearing a helmet.

[BubbaDenkins]

I recently heard about a rider killed in Florida. He was wearing a helmet.

And people are killed in car accidents while wearing seatbelts.  Did you have a point, or do you just like throwing out strawman arguments?  Helmets increase the chances of survival and reduce the chances of serious injury when worn during an accident, just like seatbelts when worn in a car accident.  And with the reduction of injury and death comes a reduced chance of premium increases for everyone.

[Snowbird]

And with the reduction of injury and death comes a reduced chance of premium increases for everyone.

  That'll be the day!  

You just became Mister Strawman.  

As for me... I'm just goofing with fools like you.  

[info]

Interesting. Florida's new governor was previously the insurance commish with close ties to the industry.
I say it's a good idea. Let the old snowbirds down there, with one foot in the grave anyway, ride without them.
Educate the young.

[cornishgolfer]

Info

you'll soon find out that "snowbird" is just a wanker.  And the broken arm git too.

[Snowbird]

Educate the young.

Nice photo. If the rider wearing the helmet slid into a guiderail post he's likely dead anyway... but at least he'll look good in his casket.  

No one is disputing the wisdom of wearing helmet azzholes.  

[CafeTBird]

And people are killed in car accidents while wearing seatbelts.  Did you have a point, or do you just like throwing out strawman arguments?  Helmets increase the chances of survival and reduce the chances of serious injury when worn during an accident, just like seatbelts when worn in a car accident.  And with the reduction of injury and death comes a reduced chance of premium increases for everyone.

Give it up, Bubba - you can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed man!  I think Snowbird has already suffered a head injury.    It turned him into a troll.  

 

[stefrrr]

Nice photo. If the rider wearing the helmet slid into a guiderail post he's likely dead anyway... but at least he'll look good in his casket.  

No one is disputing the wisdom of wearing helmet azzholes.  

About the photo... If it's the helmet that I think it is, the guy who was wearing it started a webpage after that happened to educate people on the benefits of full-face vs 3/4 vs caps. He said that after the accident thanks to the helmet he was able to ride his bike home.

Now if only I could remember the link...

[Samnsc]

Here's a link to a website featuring the helmet.

http://jeff.dean.home.att.net/swisher.htm


Sam

[stefrrr]

That's the one. Thanks! I need to bookmark that for future reference.

[Splash]

New motorcycle licensee's under 21 will have to wear a helmet.

And have a license plate that idenifies them.

Thats a start back to everyone being required to wear a helmet.....I hope!

And I dont care if you dont like my opinion.

Thank you for the update on FL requirements, I was wondering how that issue was being debated and handled by the legislature. Being in TN I have NDITF (No Dog In That Fight) but I love reading the responses to this hot-button issue, almost as much fun as when a liberal caller comes on Rush!

[Fast Blue]

I'm heading to FLA for Bike week and so looking  forward  to being able to decide on my own whether I wear a helmet down there or not.

But after looking at that pic  you just kinda say shat better leave it on.
Thanks Dream Killer

[BubbaDenkins]

Give it up, Bubba - you can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed man!  I think Snowbird has already suffered a head injury.    It turned him into a troll.  

 

Nah, he's not even a troll.  He's not quick enough to be one.  I mean, it's one thing to use a term you don't know, such as strawman, but it's completely different to call someone that right after they used it on you.  He couldn't even come up with something original.  Such a shame really.  I always enjoy a good trolling.  Sadly, there isn't a good one.  Maybe if he keeps at it he'll get good at it *shrug*

[Snowbird]

You are right, I'm no troll. I have enough of a task setting you guys straight without looking for more inaccuracies, errors and omissions.

I have a quick question for you leg humpers who support helmet laws based on the "it costs me" argument. Is it only helmetless riders who cost you are are you also on the net complaining about these things that cost you?

Smokers who cause house fires resulting in injuries and death causing long term medical care and families without bread winners.... not to mention the second hand smoke health issues.

Mountain climbers, hunters and others who get lost and cost enormous sums of money looking for them?

People who fail to wear bullet-proof vests yet live in areas with high crime rates.... and the illegal gun owners who do the shooting?

Or is it just other motorcyclists who you think are costing you money?

And, jeeze, Denkins... if you think I'm going to get into a you said, but you said, no, you said with you or anyone else, or explain a common term or why I used it, and why it applied, you are (a) a bigger idiot than I think and (b)you think I have more free time on my hands than I really do.

I'm just here for the laughs at your expense.... and hopefully to poke some sense into you by pointing out the logical fallacies of your stated opinions. As for trolling... wasn't that the point of posting this thread in the first place?

[BubbaDenkins]

You are right, I'm no troll. I have enough of a task setting you guys straight without looking for more inaccuracies, errors and omissions.

I have a quick question for you leg humpers who support helmet laws based on the "it costs me" argument. Is it only helmetless riders who cost you are are you also on the net complaining about these things that cost you?

Smokers who cause house fires resulting in injuries and death causing long term medical care and families without bread winners.... not to mention the second hand smoke health issues.

Mountain climbers, hunters and others who get lost and cost enormous sums of money looking for them?

People who fail to wear bullet-proof vests yet live in areas with high crime rates.... and the illegal gun owners who do the shooting?

Or is it just other motorcyclists who you think are costing you money?

And, jeeze, Denkins... if you think I'm going to get into a you said, but you said, no, you said with you or anyone else, or explain a common term or why I used it, and why it applied, you are (a) a bigger idiot than I think and (b)you think I have more free time on my hands than I really do.

I'm just here for the laughs at your expense.... and hopefully to poke some sense into you by pointing out the logical fallacies of your stated opinions. As for trolling... wasn't that the point of posting this thread in the first place?

Oh look, directing attention from the original argument, what a shock.  Set me straight, oh great one.  Show me those great logical fallacies that are in my argument.  Please, I beg of you, show me my errors.  Grant me this wish as I am unworthy to be in your presence right now.

Oh, but before you do that, please read this again....

Marcy Gray is a product manager for Progressive Insurance. She knows the numbers inside and out. "Rates are based on a lot of data," she says. "These are data we get from our own claims. When it comes to determining risk on a particular combination of rider and bike, we look at the combination of the loss frequency and the loss severity cost. In other words, it’s how often we have a claim on that particular bike, and how much it costs us to settle the claim. Those numbers come down to something we call the average loss cost." That makes it pure statistics. Take the average loss cost for a particular bike ridden by a rider of a particular age, experience and driving record, and apply those costs to all consumers in the same group. If a dozen 20-year-olds on R1s toss it down the road, you, as another 20-year-old with an R1, will get to pay for the repairs through your premium.

That's right, I've posted something to back up my argument.  I know, it's a shock to someone like you that can't figure it out.  Hell, I even went so far as to use a quote from someone in the insurance industry to back up my claims.  All you've done is come up with vague assertions that I'm wrong and that my arguments are flawed.  Oh, and in case you were wondering where that came from, it's on page 3.  Don't strain yourself too much going back to see where it was originally posted.


Now, as to the other crap you seem to think is relevant to the discussion, well, I'll entertain you.  Or more to the point, I'll entertain the other people reading since you seem to be a glutton for punishment.

Smokers - They already are baring the brunt of their health costs via taxes.  Especially in states such as Michigan, where the tax on a pack of cigarettes is practically doubling the total cost.  Oh, and then we'll throw in the money from settlements that the cigarette companies paid, which is being used to pay for smoker education and hospital bills.  So much for that argument...

Mountain climbers, hunters, etc. - These people should be paying for their own stupidity.  And sometimes they do.  The local municipalities have the right to issue a bill to someone for these emergency services and have done so on more than one occasion.  But this is left up to politicians and is out of our hands, so to speak.  But again, not much of an argument for you in either case.  For those keeping score, that's 0 balls and 2 strikes

High crime areas - People who live in high crime areas shouldn't be required to wear bullet proof vests.  And they shouldn't be paying for the costs associated with with this.  And you know what, they aren't.  It's called victim restitution.  People convicted of crimes can and are charged with paying restitution.  Whoops, there went that last argument of yours.  3 strikes and you're out.

So, I guess you only got one thing right.  You aren't a troll.  You're a retard with a keyboard and an internet connection.  The only thing I can't figure out is how you can manage to mash the keyboard in such a way to make statements that almost make sense.  I'd ask you to help me figure that one out but I don't want you to hurt yourself.  So how about this, why don't you go outside and play and let the adults have a conversation since you can't seem to add anything worthwhile to the discussion.

[cornishgolfer]

I'm off to work and I can't wait to read "snowbird's " response.

Probably a bit of slagging off , some silly emoticons etc etc.

hey ho..

Some good points in the BD

[hig4s]

Wow, that South Park avatar speaks volumes of you. Tip: if you want people to take yourself, your opinions, and your arguments seriously, try presenting them in a dignified manner instead of capitalized swear words like a 13 year old who isn't getting his way.

I take it you've never met the Ice Man!!!  


Ice,,, Chill  

Age difference laws aren't about protecting people from their own stupidty, but from protecting the ignorant until than can be educated.    Most people gain wisdom with age,, the stupid just get old. or die trying.


Any way, for those that have commented on the age thing saying what about legislation against age dicrimination.. Be careful what you ask for,, you know darn well you don't really want it.. If it ever happened we would risk some 20 something ex teen idol being president. Who would probably be an immature hot tempered, hormone driven sex fiend nimrod, with a shoot first ask questions later attitude and his finger on the button of destruction.  

I don't think this country could take a president that has the bad qualities from BOTH our last two presidents at the same time.    


This was a bi-partisan public service announcement

[Black Ice]

I take it you've never met the Ice Man!!!  

Ice,,, Chill  

I be chillin', yo!  

A'ight STOP, collaborate and listen--Ice is back wit a brand new invention...

I'll admit I was more than a bit over the top with my posts here, but dammit--I'm sick of the Pussy Nation this country's become.  

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHEAP INSURANCE.  Welcome to reality.    If you think riding without a helmet is wrong, feel free to find a company that doesn't cover people who ride bareheaded.  Can't find one?  Why?

If you think the whole thing's a joke, ride without insurance.  You can't?  Why?  

If the whole insurance industry collapsed tomorrow, what would you do?  Stop riding?  Stop living?  Bury yourself in styrofoam-lined concrete bunkers in case something bad happens?  

You don't get it.  You don't have the right to "cheap" anything.  You have the right to live your life, to not have force or fraud initiated against you, and to keep what's yours.  Nowhere is it written that you have some sort of right to anything you want, whenever you want it....whether it's convenient or not.

I doubt the claims that have been presented.  From what I've seen, we're going to pay insane amounts evermore for any sort of insurance whenever some new study shows any kind of risk to any part of humanity because of any sort of behavior.  Why?  Because the insurance companies are butt-buddies with Our Lords And Masters government.  I was going to spell out the obvious connection here, but either you get it or you don't.  I was also going to point out that the world is round, but...same thing.

[Johnny Busa]

Agreed... but you should also be required to wear a helmet while driving AND when crossing the street or stepping into the tub.    
I'll raise you two fingers.  

Well said, Snowbird.  You too, Black Ice.

Mustang28027, you should be pushing for helmet laws for showers and climbing ladders, since 3 times as many people die from head injuries from slips trips and falls as they do from motorcycle accidents. The people left permanently injured and brain damaged is correspondingly high.

Where's the outrage ?

Man, I'm not even gonna touch on fatalities from automobile accidents.  Take a look at the numbers on those, even with your seatbelts and airbags.  These people in cars should be wearing helmets too.

If you wanna be safe all the time, then you better start wearin the lid 24-7.  

P.S.  I personally choose to wear a helmet, but I know it wont save me from dying.  All of you people who think a helmet is gonna keep you from dying in a collision need to wake up.  A 30 mph horizontal velocity collision, is the same as falling from a 4 story building.  Wonder what your chances would be, falling from a 4 story building with your helmet and gear on ?  

[Bob Hughes]

Only an idiot would ride without a helmet, or force another rider to wear one.

[Black Ice]

Only an idiot would ride without a helmet, or force another rider to wear one.

That neatly sums it up!  

[Aviator]

 
You want to ride without a helmet, go for it.... wind in yor hair.... blah blah.
Dont expect the rest of us to pay for your crash and recovery. Simple. You do have the choice.
Way it ought to be!
ATGATT baby!!
Insurance companies should really go after it. If you were not wearing gear, all the gear, they should deny ANY claim, even medical.

[hig4s]

 
You want to ride without a helmet, go for it.... wind in yor hair.... blah blah.
Dont expect the rest of us to pay for your crash and recovery. Simple. You do have the choice.
Way it ought to be!
ATGATT baby!!
Insurance companies should really go after it. If you were not wearing gear, all the gear, they should deny ANY claim, even medical.

You're willing to give up freedom to save money? We are spending 10 million dollars an hour in Iraq in the name of freedom, I don't think the little that a few helmetless riders add to that is really making that much difference. The insurance companies may use it as an excuse but it is BS.. Like someone said, more people die from head injuries from falling off ladders.

[Johnny Busa]

You're willing to give up freedom to save money? We are spending 10 million dollars an hour in Iraq in the name of freedom, I don't think the little that a few helmetless riders add to that is really making that much difference. The insurance companies may use it as an excuse but it is BS.. Like someone said, more people die from head injuries from falling off ladders.

   Insurance companies dont want us to wear helmets.  They want us motorcyclists off the road... period.  Mainly because we are crashing into their main customers who are pulling out in front of us, while talking on their cellphones, at an alarming rate.  

[hig4s]

   Insurance companies dont want us to wear helmets.  They want us motorcyclists off the road... period.  Mainly because we are crashing into their main customers who are pulling out in front of us, while talking on their cellphones, at an alarming rate.  

Bingo, we have a winner!!!

[Aviator]

You're willing to give up freedom to save money? We are spending 10 million dollars an hour in Iraq in the name of freedom, I don't think the little that a few helmetless riders add to that is really making that much difference. The insurance companies may use it as an excuse but it is BS.. Like someone said, more people die from head injuries from falling off ladders.

Been ther done that. I am a combat veteran who was there and returned after a tour of duty. Let me see, as someone previously said already, how you wipe your ass after the 1st SGT is done with you if you "excercise your freedom" and choose not to wear your gear.

[Black Ice]

Been ther done that. I am a combat veteran who was there and returned after a tour of duty. Let me see, as someone previously said already, how you wipe your ass after the 1st SGT is done with you if you "excercise your freedom" and choose not to wear your gear.

Well, this isn't the military.  Welcome back to civilian life, now get used to thinking for yourself again.  

[gamountains]

In the intrest of self preservation, I will wear a helmet.

[Swampy]

graduated licensing like in Europe - makes the most sense to me. Start out with student sticker and a speed limit and limited hours of operation. Slowly get more experience and get higher speeds and unlimited times. For bikes, start out with low CCs and work your way up.....duh?