Motorcycle Deaths Up...

[kwats]

With respect to Michigan, is the extra cost based on a person fessing up to not wearing a helmet and charged specifically to that person? Or are rates based on the fact they don't have a mandatory helmet law and everyone pays higher rates because of the law in general?

I would tend to disagree that the 150 hp/3 times the legal limit issue contributes more to rates than not wearing a helmet.

A "smallish" 550 cc bike like my 1983 Nighthawk 550 will outrun most pony cars in the 1/4 mile, and accelerate faster than any car away from a dead stop in traffic, which is absolutely in my control. In an accident, I absolutely do not have any control for the most part about where my head lands, and insurance companies know that.

Much of insurance rates that are high on the 150 hp/3 times the limit bikes are the costs of new bodywork if you are carrying comprehensive and collision coverage.

Higher liability coverage cost is based on the fact of what every other person has done wrong on those bikes (and the ignoramus's that don't have insurance), and last I checked, the person is in control not the bike, so it is ultimately bad judgement (the person) that raises rates, not the bike.

With that said, certain bikes play to certain demographics on the whole and the 150/3x bikes are naturally going to raise rates on that specific bike because of the past performance of that demographic's ability to ride safely, and many of them choose to ride without a helmet. I see it ALL THE TIME, a CBR, GSXR, ZX 600/750/1000 cruising down the interstate with the rider wearing shorts, tank top and no helmet.

I see the helmets strapped to the bike, like it's some cool thing to have the helmet but not wear it.

I do not want to subsidize someone's choice with higher insurance payments on my behalf. but it isn't an option at this point. It's kind of like Joe the plumber, eh?

Michigan requires helmetless riders to carry an additional 20K in medical coverage, not all riders.
We can endlessly debate laws and it is clear that you favor helmet laws for your own personal reasons. I, however, strongly disagree with you. I feel we have enough laws in place already to protect us from ourselves.
Personally, I would like to travel back in time to a simpler era, before we were inundated with all the little bull**** laws and mandates that attempt to control our lives.
If you drink Coke, does it contribute to my health care costs? Probably....

This could go on forever....

[KevRG]

Ha, I love how almost everyone who has been so concerned about the "arrogant riders" who don't wear helmets are only worried about their insurance rates going up. How bout this: repeal insurance laws for motorcycles and then riders who choose not to wear a helmet won't be an issue to you anymore! Who gives a sh*t if they die, it won't effect your insurance bill!

As for where I stand, Montana has no helmet law (for riders over 18), and requires no insurance on a motorcycle. Let's keep it that way. I have plenty of other things that I could spend that 80-100$ a year for insurance on. And I'm pretty certain that if I get into a wreck while riding my XS, the last thing anyone is going to have to worry about is the damage my motorcycle did to some moron's car who wasn't paying attention. And if it just so happens that it is my fault, how much damage can a motorcycle really do to another vehicle before I am splattered into the pavement in the process...

[TopCatGr58]

Thanks for keeping this thread CIVIL!

I've worn safety belts ever since I started driving in '76, and also a helmet ever since I started riding a MC, also in '76. I've been in 3 serious "accidents", 2 were essentially my fault, 1 was NOT. I walked away from all of them with just bruises...and road rash the one time I wasn't wearing "the gear"!

I'm also in the medical field, and while stationed in Japan in the early 80's, Japan didn't require helmets OFF base, and I got to PREP a newly promoted Navy Chief's BODY for identification by his wife....he wrapped his motorcycle around a pole riding it both DRUNK and without a helmet. I recall wiping the blood from his NOSE and EARS that was draining out from his BASAL SKULL FRACTURE that had killed him instantly. I didn't have the particulars as to how fast he was going, etc.,so I can't say whether the helmet would have protected him or not?

I'm still in the medical field, civilian, and it urks me to no end to review a patients health history...acquired diabetes because they are OBESE, Emphysema and COPD because they smoked for 40 years...and many STILL smoke. Yes, the population is getting older because of the baby boomers portion, and they were/are the "ME" generation, I'll do this or that because it pleases me, and "I" don't care how it affects others....."I" have a "RIGHT" to be happy, so I'll divorce my wife of 25+ years, etc.!!

This was also the Modern Technology and Science age, and "we' will find a pill to fix anything and everything. So....."I" won't have to be responsible for myself, I'll eat, drink, smoke anything "I" want to as much as I want to because SCIENCE/MEDICINE will "fix" it when I get sick......heart disease will just get a set of arterial stents or quadruple bypass; burn my liver up with alcohol, just get a transplant, ETC.!

My health insurance company actually offers me a discount on my premiums when I can show that I live a healthy lifestyle, no smoking, maintain my weight to height ratio...body mass index(BMI), and my physical exam laboratory results confirm this with good blood sugar and cholesterol levels!
So...the folks that are NOT taking responsibility for their health will be paying MORE for their premiums because they are the ones that will USE more and cost the system more, so they SHOULD PAY MORE! I feel the same should be applied to other insurance situations....go ahead and ride without a helmet, but pay your share of increased premiums because you'll cost the system more WHEN you wreck without a helmet than I will with one! Of course situations can occur that could negate the benefits of a helmet, but at least I'll have a PRETTY FACE/CORPSE!

We have many rights, voting, gun ownership, pursuit of happiness, etc, but we do NOT have a right to DRIVE! Driving IS a privilege that is earned through demonstration via tests that we know how to operate a vehicle properly and safely, and that WHEN we operate it wrecklessly then we have reaped the consequences of having our privilege revoked.

End of rant!
T.C.

[jimbyjimb]

I just don't understand how anyone thinks driving is a privilege. We all pay for it, therefore it is a right. The amount of taxes taken from drivers is considerable, it is absolutely not a privilege without first being a right of any qualified individual who is a citizen of the United States and pays taxes. Particularly those attached to motor vehicles.

We don't have privileges at citizens, we, unlike most nations, give ourselves rights based on a majority system. The government is not our babysitter, they are our German Shepard. We tell them what we want, they don't create privileges for us to pacify us and make us feel good. They are supposed to do our bidding and represent and enforce the will of the majority.

As I said, when it becomes a voted law and not a large-scale swear jar I'll shut up about it.

[BA80]

, but at least I'll have a PRETTY FACE/CORPSE!

That could be open to discussion.

We have many rights, voting, gun ownership, pursuit of happiness, etc, but we do NOT have a right to DRIVE! Driving IS a privilege that is earned through demonstration via tests that we know how to operate a vehicle properly and safely, and that WHEN we operate it wrecklessly then we have reaped the consequences of having our privilege revoked.

End of rant!
T.C.

Exactly. If you get a lot of citations or are involved in a lot of accidents your insurance goes up. if you get a no seatbelt ticket it doesn't. I fail to see the difference.

Why not have cheaper insurance for those who wear seatbelts as opposed to those who don't?

Apples and oranges.

[tv5150]

On the Fence or Off your Rocker

For those naysayers that don't belive there's a direct coralation of accident numbers to insurance rates, I would submit that back in 85 when I traded my 79 XS11SF in on the then newly released V-Max, I paid about twice the insurance premium from what I had been paying on my XS11 for like 6 yrs. (which was no big shock seeing as what the replacement value of my Max was) OK, the next year my premium almost doubled from the the 1st yr of coverage because of the increased risk the insurance companies were noting of the extreme AND lethal power (in some cases) that the Max represented on paper (btw,my driving record was unchanged from the previous yr). Cause and Affect...plain and simple...nothing else needed to get my point across...

[crazy steve]

...As I said, when it becomes a voted law and not a large-scale swear jar I'll shut up about it.

These laws are voted on; by your duly-elected representatives in the legislature. Don't like how they vote, support someone else. And Washington state has the initiative system, get enough like-minded people to sign one and get your issue on the ballot...

Oh wait; ABATE has tried that, and can't get enough signatures.... go figure...

[BA80]

These laws are voted on; by your duly-elected representatives in the legislature.

With the NUMBERS the only facts to go by.


ie; 1 death in 19? and 3 deaths in19? = 300% increase.

[zookey]

With the NUMBERS the only facts to go by.


ie; 1 death in 19? and 3 deaths in19? = 300% increase.

Technically that is only a 200% increase..... 3-1=2 ..... 2/1=2.00 ..... move the decimal ..... add the percent ..... 200%

Anyway...... On the news the other night they announced the increase in Motorcycle deaths on Minnesota roads so far this year. The 13th motorcyclist died just the other day when they were hit by a shedding tire tread that came off a vehicle in front of them. It knocked them off their bike and they would have been fine..... had they not gotten hit by the car following too closely behind. This time last year the number of motorcycle deaths was only 5, that is still 5 to many, but....

My point is..... Minnesota only has a helmet law for those riding under the age of 18 and those riding on a permit. What we have noticed in our little corner of the state has been that most riders we see now wear helmets of one kind or another. Those that you consistently see without helmets tend to be the kids in their early 20's who ride the forward leaning sport bikes. What I find is shocking is that there are LOTS of motorcycle riders we know ride without a license/permit OR insurance, but they are wearing helmets.

It used to be in order to buy MN license tabs you had to present your current insurance proof card and record your policy number on the tab renewal. Apparently that became an issue so they no longer require proof of insurance to get your plates renewed.

As far as if helmets will save your life and if they should be a law? I think we need it a law for younger riders (under 18), those riding on a permit, and maybe even those with a new MC endorsement -- like a restriction that would be lifted after the first renewal (4 years). By that time maybe the wearing of a helmet would be as much habit as putting on their pants. I do know that one of my cousins got hit on city streets on his bike without a helmet and suffered a severe head injury and will have issues forever. His older brother got hit on the freeway, launching him over the assaulting car and then he got hit by yet another car and flipping over that one before landing on the pavement. But he was wearing a helmet and he got up and limped away with only a cracked/broken bone in his ankle plate and a lot of body bruises. His bike was a pile of scrap metal, his helmet was cracked/scratched/and full of broken glass, but his head was fine with very little neck strain. The paramedics told him that the helmet saved his life due to the embedded glass alone from the two windshields his head had smashed. Funny thing was he didn't realize his head had hit the windshields hard enough to have broken them.

Helmets are a choice yet in MN (for most). I don't know if it should be a law or not, but my choice is to wear a helmet. Not only does it keep the bugs out of my face and my ears from ringing, but it keeps the snarls out of my hair. My husband has also taken to wearing his every time he rides now. Which was a good thing on a recent ride. After getting home from about a 100 mile trip the other day we noticed that he had a chip/crack in his helmet at about the temple. It was not there the previous day before we went on 130 mile ride with 411 other bikes. So somewhere in the last 230 miles something hit him hard enough to do damage to his helmet....or his head if the helmet had not been there.

[trbig]

Sorry, getting here late to this topic.

"The proof is in the pudding, so don't argue about being safer overall on a motorcycle without a helmet. I won't tell you to wear a helmet, but don't insult my intelligence by telling me you think you are better off and in a better possition to escape injury without a helmet. That isn't a winnable argument."

Greg has it correctly with his arrogance posting. Anyone who thinks they have the only correct answer, even though there's plenty of conflicting evidence, falls smack dab into that category.

"Statistics can be manipulated, however it is clear these statistics are a direct and irrefutable reference to, and referendum on, not wearing a helmet and/or other gear and the correlation to motorcycle fatalities."

Greg is still correct with his arrogance posting. I guess the discussions and findings the SCIENTISTS and DOCTORS have come up with can just be thrown away because hbonser says they are irrefutable. Since you're absolutely right, there's no need for you to look at this link or any of the other countless sites that come with the same conclusions that there are an INCREASE in spinal injuries due to helmets and the helmet usage does NOT reduce fatalities.

http://www.bikersrights.com/statistics/twisting.html

Roads are a right because I pay taxes, not a privilege. A privilege is something you don't earn or pay for. I earn the roads by buying tabs, paying for gas, through my income, etc, etc...

WRONG. You pay taxes on your car and pay driver's license fees and taxes as well, but that's still a privilege. This is a PRIVILEGE that can be taken away. You can't take a right away from someone. Whether paying taxes on the roads or not, they remain state and/or county property and are therefore allowed to say who does and doesn't get to use said roads... even though you'll still pay for them in your taxes. They can ban you for certain weight limits, or types of vehicles, and can definately ban your use of using non DOT approved vehicles on those roads.

"Didn't realize freedom in America meant exercising your right at the literal expense of others. Hmmmm...."I'm sharing that with no desire to have more laws and regulations... Come on, do you really think that's what I was saying???? However, why should my plight in life be to make up for those that are not using simple care and prudence?"

You contradict yourself. So what you ARE saying, is any decisions others make that may have a monetary effect on you shouldn't be allowed? So, in that effect, it should be OK for there to be laws banning anything someone else decides is bad for us. I mean, enjoying that cheeseburger isn't good for you and is probably going to make someone else's health insurance go up. Correct? Why shouldn't someone then be allowed to decide what you eat? Same theory you have against non helmet wearers.

"Did you do your part to be reasonable and prudent with the same care a reasonable and prudent person would use?"

That's basically the "Good Samaritan Law" that protects those trying to administer help to injured persons, and not quite sure what you're getting at here or what it has to do with helmet/no helmet discussions? Since your "Facts" say helmets save lives, it's your JUDGEMENT that those that don't aren't being prudent, even though those same people might have their own "Facts" to back up their OPINION. Reasonable and prudent are two completely different things to any two different people you talk to, yet you want to judge everyone by these things and standards that you personally believe in. Again, Greg seems to have hit the nail on the head.

[jimbyjimb]

Absolutely in this country the voters may take rights away. Look at all the anti-smoking laws recently put up to vote. To argue the opposite is simply ridiculous.


State and/or county property is owned by me and 1.5 million other people. It's not 'government' it's citizen owned. The government is the enforcer, or should be in theory.

My taxes pay for my right. My grandfather fought in world war two for these rights.

The right is removed if/when I break rules that the voting public has decided shall be enforced. If that isn't the case then it's a prime example of our government becoming a dictator rather than dictated to by it's people.

If I can't take a right from someone please enlighten me by defining a right as I'm fairly sure anyone with a firearm pointed at your face can remove any 'right' you seem to perceive.

If under your definitions paying for road use isn't a right then I'm positive a compelling argument may be made that existence altogether is not a right. How far do you think it goes?

Do I and others owe you every breath? When does it become dictatorship or anarchy? If you have positive, infallible definitions please enlighten us to your insights.

If you explain adequately other than just saying I'm wrong I'll happily acquiesce.

[motoman]

I just don't understand how anyone thinks driving is a privilege.

Easy, it's the law.........in all states.

[BA80]

Technically that is only a 200% increase..... 3-1=2 ..... 2/1=2.00 ..... move the decimal ..... add the percent ..... 200%

Yes, but 3 would be 300% of the year there was only 1. You see how easily numbers are manipulated?

[BA80]

Absolutely in this country the voters may take rights away. Look at all the anti-smoking laws recently put up to vote. To argue the opposite is simply ridiculous.


State and/or county property is owned by me and 1.5 million other people. It's not 'government' it's citizen owned. The government is the enforcer, or should be in theory.

My taxes pay for my right. My grandfather fought in world war two for these rights.

The right is removed if/when I break rules that the voting public has decided shall be enforced. If that isn't the case then it's a prime example of our government becoming a dictator rather than dictated to by it's people.

If I can't take a right from someone please enlighten me by defining a right as I'm fairly sure anyone with a firearm pointed at your face can remove any 'right' you seem to perceive.

If under your definitions paying for road use isn't a right then I'm positive a compelling argument may be made that existence altogether is not a right. How far do you think it goes?

Do I and others owe you every breath? When does it become dictatorship or anarchy? If you have positive, infallible definitions please enlighten us to your insights.

If you explain adequately other than just saying I'm wrong I'll happily acquiesce.

Definition of RIGHT;

1: righteous, upright
2: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper <right conduct>
3: conforming to facts or truth : correct <the right answer>
4: suitable, appropriate <the right man for the job>
5: straight <a right line>
6: genuine, real
7a : of, relating to, situated on, or being the side of the body which is away from the side on which the heart is mostly located b : located nearer to the right hand than to the left c : located to the right of an observer facing the object specified or directed as the right arm would point when raised out to the side d (1) : located on the right of an observer facing in the same direction as the object specified <stage right> (2) : located on the right when facing downstream <the right bank of a river> e : done with the right hand <a right hook to the jaw>
8: having the axis perpendicular to the base <right cone>
9: of, relating to, or constituting the principal or more prominent side of an object <made sure the socks were right side out>
10: acting or judging in accordance with truth or fact <time proved her right>
11a : being in good physical or mental health or order <not in his right mind> b : being in a correct or proper state <put things right>
12: most favorable or desired : preferable; also : socially acceptable <knew all the right people>
13often capitalized : of, adhering to, or constituted by the Right especially in politics


Definition of PRIVILEGE;

: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

[trbig]

OK, how about this then. A RIGHT can't be LEGALLY taken away from you without first changing a law to do so. You have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. (As long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights to do the same) Your idea that something is a right simply because you pay taxes on it is absurd. If you think you own a portion of highway simply because you pay taxes on it, try to sell some of it. Your taxes pay for a multitude of things, but that doesn't make you part owner in any of it. It may give you an oportunity to vote on things concerning that highway, but you retain no ownership. You pay taxes on government lands, yet you retain no rights to use them if they say you can't.

Do some reading and you'll see that driving is indeed a privelege whether you actually like it or agree with it or not. Just about any driver's ed book for any type of vehicle in any state is going to start out saying this.