Motorcycle Deaths Up...

[mack]

Drivers

I've noticed a lot more elderly people behind the wheel now days as compared to thirty years ago. And the volume of traffic is heavier now as well, but the number of large trucks is unbelievable. I won't even go on a main highway anymore. As for helmets, I wear a full face and glad of it. With no fairing, it stops the bugs and birds from getting stuck in my teeth.

[crazy steve]

More food for thought....

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/p...-la03/TOC.html

Bottom line, helmets required, deaths drop. Repeal helmet laws, they go up.

Beware the pedulum; the further it swings one way, the further it goes the other, sooner or later...

[ViperRon]

Insurance

These statistics may also be skewed by other things. I had not had a motorcycle on the road for several years and when shopping for insurance it was explained that there is a limit on personal injury medical insurance on motorcycles in Virginia. If you buy the cheaper insurance you have no medical coverage for you or a passenger. You have liability coverage for anyone you may hit or cause injury but you personally have no coverage. If you decide to get the additional medical coverage the price will more than double but the coverage is limited to 2000 medical coverage. So in many cases there may not be any be medical coverage for people involved in motorcycle crashes and for that reason medical care may be limited. Actually 2000 is nothing if you go into a hospital for an injury. If other states have persued this same path then I can see where in single motorcycle crash incidents the hospital may handle you just as if you are un-insured.

[kwats]

It is real easy to assign blame for motorcycle deaths to various causes, but the reality is we put ourselves in harm's way just by merely getting on a bike; everything we encounter on the road can be a hazard to our safety. Anybody who has ridden for many years can attest to all the hidden dangers to our bodies that the streets have waiting for us as well as the obvious ones.
I am noticing that around here (SW Mich) that there are many novices riding 750 lb bikes with little to no practical experience simply because they are trying to fit into the "biker" crowd. We all know it takes time to develop the skills to handle a bike of that size and power.

Case in point:

My current daily rider is a '79 SF that I bought 2 years ago. It was quietly rusting away in a fellow's garage, and had been setting there for over 30 years because it scared him. It had 5200 miles on it and the PO told me every mile terrified him so he parked it.
We all know an 1100 with around 95HP might be a little much for a 1st time rider, but it happens all the time. If I had that much power when I was young, I wouldn't be here to talk about it for sure. I would certainly have become a stastistic.

Of course we can all think of laws that would possibly make our interests safer; at one time I thought people should be required to start with smaller bikes....30 seconds later I had a WTF moment.

In the 70's, I was very active in the helmet law repeal in Indiana; a group of us made countless trips to the state house for endless mettings and hearings concerning Indiana's helmet law. Indiana at the time was setting standards for helmets and was trying to legislate polycarb helmets as the standard issue. Polycarb helmets of the time were like wonderballs; drop them 2 ft and they would bounce 2 ft 2 inches and were causing many basal skull fractures, but some dummass legislator bought into using those as the standad, probably through a campaign donation from the manufacturer.

The point I'm trying to make is this:

We live in America and by virtue of this we are able to make educated or uneducated choices concerning our lives.

[Bonz]

The good point that has been made, is the choice of one DOES affect another in this debate.

The argument that "it's my choice, it's a free country" is absolutely valid.

The argument I share in return is "So, your right to not wear a helmet makes it my privledge to pay higher insurance rates, both for my cycle and my car".

Didn't realize freedom in America meant exercising your right at the literal expense of others. Hmmmm....

[crazy steve]

Didn't realize freedom in America meant exercising your right at the literal expense of others. Hmmmm....

That's the bottom line in all this...

At some point the non-motorcycle-riding public is going to realise just how much money it's costing them because of a vocal minority that refuses to use even minimal safety equipment and react (more likely over-react) by demanding restrictions that will affect all riders. What form it will take, who knows? It could be mandatory medical insurance (enough to cover actual possible injuries instead of a laughable $20K that would be gone in a matter of days) that no one can afford, or maybe second-class medical status (that 'roadkill' remark comes to mind) by responders. You'll never see an outright ban on motorcycles but you may see changes you won't like...

[BA80]

The good point that has been made, is the choice of one DOES affect another in this debate.

The argument that "it's my choice, it's a free country" is absolutely valid.

The argument I share in return is "So, your right to not wear a helmet makes it my privledge to pay higher insurance rates, both for my cycle and my car".

Didn't realize freedom in America meant exercising your right at the literal expense of others. Hmmmm....

This is true of all things. It sounds to me that you would be in favor of eliminating freedom of choice and opting for others to make choices for you. That sounds a bit communist/socialist to me.

Every choice is made at some expense. That's part of the cost of freedom.

[crazy steve]

This is true of all things. It sounds to me that you would be in favor of eliminating freedom of choice and opting for others to make choices for you. That sounds a bit communist/socialist to me.

Every choice is made at some expense. That's part of the cost of freedom.

I don't think anyone here is interested in limiting personal freedom. Where the problem comes in is if your choice affects me. You have now made a decision (that I may or may not agree with) and removed my choice in the matter; in effect, stolen all or part of my choice. That's the basis for our entire legal system; allowing as much individual choice as possible, while preventing those choices from affecting others.

[jimbyjimb]

I'm going to take it one step further...

You have kids? Did you ride a motorcycle while they were under eighteen? If you had died who would have been footing the bill for them? If that answer was the government then you are no longer allowed to ride your motorcycle.

Same ideal. WHEN the taxpaying public votes on the issue, which has not happened in Washington State, it's all good. Seatbelt laws were never put to vote, and neither were helmet laws. We have the right to take our rights away, the government does not. We have the right to grant ourselves more freedom, the government does not. The government enforces OUR will, not it's own.

Do you honestly think this is how it works? It doesn't. That's how it's supposed to work. That's how I want it to work. That's American.

I think taking away our own personal liberties is beyone insane, but it's a country, and if over 50% of my countrymen VOTE on the issue, then it's decided. Til then it's a threat to my freedom.

[Bonz]

Please don't go there with the almighty "communist/socialsit" BS. Here's my quote again...

"The good point that has been made, is the choice of one DOES affect another in this debate.

The argument that "it's my choice, it's a free country" is absolutely valid.

The argument I share in return is "So, your right to not wear a helmet makes it my privledge to pay higher insurance rates, both for my cycle and my car".

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?

I say it because some folks will not look any further beyond their own nose to see anything but themselves, and make a choice that costs me and others significant money and resources.

It's is a-ok with me for if insurance companies would rate a policy as to whether the person wears a helmet or not. You get hurt in an accident due to no helmet, no benefits for you.

It's about due dilligence, in my opinion. Did you do your part to be reasonable and prudent with the same care a reasonable and prudent person would use? That standard has held true for a long time.

[kwats]

I would tend to believe our ability to purchase bikes with 150 hp that can run more than 3 times the legal speed limit has more of an effect on the actuarial tables than my choice of whether or not to wear a helmet.

Personally, I think Michigan did it right....no helmet? OK, just carry more medical insurance so others don't have to pick up any costs.

It's all about personal responsibility.

[Jerry]

This is one of those threads where it is unlikely that anyone's opinion is going to be changed by anything said. Still, I am going to throw in my 2 cents worth.

I wear a helmet all of the time, even in a non-helmet state. Helmets keep my head more comfortable, with a visor to stop bugs, grit, and rain. My summer helmet, a G-Max 68, flows a lot of air and keeps my head cooler than riding without a helmet. Back in '74 I had an accident and am convinced my helmet saved me from serious injury. The bike was totaled.

Having said all of that, I don't like mandatory helmet laws. I don't like the government taking that choice from me.

Riding a motorcycle is not prudent to begin with. Unles you put on a lot of miles, having a bike is more of a toy than a necessity. What if the government decides to outlaw bikes as "too dangerous" in comparison with driving a car? And yes, there are some places in this country where it illegal to ride a bike. Canyon Lake, California, is one such place. "Canyon Lake forbids all public use of any "two-wheeled motorized vehicle" (that is, all motorcycles, mopeds, and dirt bikes) on all private streets throughout the CLPOA,.."

So, to me the matter of choice outweighs the benefits of mandatory helmet use. I strongly believe the benfits are there and strongly encourage everyone to use safety gear, but the right to choose, even if my premiums are higher because of it, is still the gold standard.

[Bonz]

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?

[BA80]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Motorcycles don't kill people, people kill people.

Airplanes don't kill people, wait, yes they do.

There are valid reasons for wearing helmets and other types of safety gear in all these instances but it's not manditory. And if you want to I don't believe anyone would mind. Well, DHS might if you were carrying it onto a plane.

[Elevener]

So, let me get this right. If we outlaw motorcycles our car insurance will go down? Sounds good to me.