Go Back   Motorcycle Forum > Motorcycle.Com General Discussion > Motorcycle News > Old News > Paranoid News Clips

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-11-2002, 02:58 PM   #1
elizilla
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

First post...



Oh no, not another helmet thread!



So, how about that AMSOIL? Glock in the tankbag anyone?
elizilla is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum
Advertisement
Old 01-11-2002, 03:13 PM   #2
snakedocter
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 1
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

I'm glad that I live in a state that has no helmet law. I believe it should my decision to wear a helmet or not. I'm 49 years old and have been riding for 30 years and I very seldom wear a helmet. I enjoy the feeling of freedom of riding without a mass of plastic wrapped around my head. When it gets hot it's nice not to have sweat running down in my eyes,not to mention what it does to my hair. If my only concern was safety I would be driving a car.
snakedocter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2002, 04:25 PM   #3
McCueRC
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 5
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

I got it.



The debate, such as it is, seems to be comparing apples and oranges.



Your position, firmly and honestly held, boils down to the willingness to take suicidal risk as your own business. If the rider were the only person impacted that I could agree with that as an absolute. I do not think that is the case, but then my survey sample gives me a bias. In my experience not every rider who is hit, slides on a oil patch, or suddenly discovers someone in his way on a country road dies. Some of them live. Most with brain injury. It's hard to express how ugly that is for the person trashed and their family. Almost all of them end up on public assistance after exhausting what they thought was adequate insurance, bankrupting themselves and their families.



The argument for society imposing helmet laws is the same argument that applied in imposing seatbelt laws. A minimal intrusion on liberty saves lives (that's the selling point) and reduces the burden on you that injuries and deaths from collisions imposes on you. We do not let people die on the public street from lack of care anymore. We do not let gunshot victims bleed to death (thus the irony of vicious gangsters getting some of the best and most expensive treatment) we do not let the brain injured rot too badly. That common decency costs us. I'm happy to pay it; I would also like to keep the total bill down. (Yeah, I think the helmet laws are a necessary evil.)



The lack of comprehensive data for motorcycle fatalities and serious injuries makes most discussion, other than pointing out the gap, pretty useless. We need to go beyond the Hurt/USC study. Miles ridden by all riders (by survey), hours ridden (by survey), where ridden (by survey), tickets issued against all riders (what violation, age of rider; pullable from DMV records), total number of reported accidents/collisions (DMV records cross referenced to insurance records), helmet use (by coroner/ med examiner, paramedic or police report cross referenced to insurance reports), protective clothing use, deaths of rider, deaths of passengers, deaths of other motorists, deaths of pedestrians (don't laugh, those are messy), same sequence for severe disability, same sequence for plain injury. Blood alcool levels of all participants. Drug use by all participants. I suppose that would be a start.



Looking at large sets of data will show things that no one suspected. Life is like that. Neither you nor I can predict them. My position could turn out to be wrong, the cost per mile ridden to society may not be effected one way or another by helmet use. Or it could be so large that you, reluctantly concur with me. Who knows? Let's go find out. That is the only rational and decent thing to do.



Until then all we can individually do is what we individually think best. Ride carefully. It's good to have you around.



McCueRC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2002, 07:08 PM   #4
Weezel
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 52
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

McCueRC makes a logical and compelling argument that should serve as a reasonable approach toward data gathering, interpretation, and public policy. Nice job.
Weezel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2002, 07:14 PM   #5
hola
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 35
Default inform yourself before open mouth

First of all, a study a few years ago regarding costs of society (auto deaths, smoking etc) Helmetless motorcyclists edged slightly above sexual harassment. However the study did not include (perhaps due to insufficient data) costs to society such as chemicals (or EPA mandated reform gas - i.e. benzene etc), excessive fat and cholesterol intake etc, etc... all of which COSTS money. Of course, you may perhaps call for government to mandate what you eat, drink and how much of it too -- in addition to prohibiting alcohol and tobacco (we've been there I believe). Not to mention full roll cage in your car, 5 point harness and helmet. Save some $$$ you know.



Nevertheless I checked out FED national data and if I recall, during 97-98 the death rate for helmetless and helmeted riders was exactly the same. People die from a vast amount injuries other than head. duh! The helmet is over rated, not because it is not effective, but because it is overrated as to it's capacity to save lives.



But science, logic and reason do not apply in politics, only perception.
hola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2002, 11:04 PM   #6
BigMike_1
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

Another note in the continuing saga of overly powerful insurance companies and their satellite institute attempting to take away freedom of choice for American citizens.



Insurance companies are some of the most profitable organizations in our country, and continually attempt to negate risk to their bottom line. I many ways, they are worse than organized crime syndicates.
BigMike_1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2002, 06:54 PM   #7
grover750
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 142
Default inform me, please..

Is this study (about helmet wearing death rates vs. non-helmet wearing death rates) you cite available on the internet? Or in a public library? I've never heard of such a study being done, and if it has been done, I'd be really interested in reading it. Honestly, I really have my doubts about the death rate being exactly the same.
grover750 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2002, 04:49 PM   #8
blackvalkster
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 13
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

I wouldn't have been able to enjoy the last

35 years of motorcycling if I hadn't been wearing a helmet when I crashed my first bike

about the time I thought I was a hotshot

motorcyclist!

All, they need is to raise insurance for all the

Harley riders.

After all, if they can pay thousands too much for their bike, they won't mind paying a couple

hundred extra for insurance!

That way all us poor slobs who really enjoy

motorcycling won't suffer and we can still ride

for the fun of it, not just to be seen acting cool!

Hey, I've got it! "Armor Plated Dew Rages"?
blackvalkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2002, 06:47 PM   #9
hola
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 35
Default re: inform me, please..

Yes it is in fact. I got the info some months ago and i do not recall where (should have bookmarked it). It was gov data, and was collected, if i recall. from CDC; but i am not too sure. But yes, there were two years (97-9 that nationwide, the deaths for helmet and helmetless riders were the same. Over all, for most years the deaths for helmetless is riders is slightly above those with helmet.
hola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2002, 04:40 AM   #10
das
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 237
Default Re: AMA Challenges Recent IIHS Report

I always thought of insurance companies as being very much like casinos. Yeah, individual players may win (get a claim paid), and sometimes win big, but, overall, the odds (rates) have been calculated so that the casino (insurance company) always ends up winning more that it's losing.



Being legally required to have insurance is like being legally required to play a few rounds at a casino.

das is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off