#2 2011-07-04 07:32:39
Fled wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/upstate-ny-motorcyclist-dies-after-hitting-head-on-pavement-during-protest-against-helmet-laws/2011/07/03/AGNicNwH_story.html
Anyone else remember the maybe apocryphal story of the biker who protested CA's late 60s helmet law the day it went into effect by attaching his to his knee?
"Didn't say where I was supposed to wear it," he reportedly said. The cop citing him wasn't impressed and the cyclist wrecked 20 minutes later, suffering a crushed knee.
Offline
#3 2011-07-04 15:27:34
Thanks Mr. Darwin!
Offline
#4 2011-07-05 08:56:46
At least he died and I don't have to pay for his ventilator for the next 20 years.
I guess it kind of summarizes my thinking that I have a "Helmet Laws Suck" sticker on the helmet that I wear every time I ride, even though I live in a state that doesn't require helmets.
Offline
#5 2011-07-05 19:13:35
I wear a helmet every time I ride too. However, I'd like to see a law that would penalize bikers for failing to pull a driver out of car and beating him severely if they can see an active television in the dashboard. Reading a book or newspaper while driving should result in crippling injuries.
Offline
#6 2011-07-05 20:04:30
I just think that it should be the call of the insurance company. If they offered rates of $100 a year for people who wear helmets and $1000 a year for those who don't. Crash without a helmet and if you haven't paid the no-helmet rate, you go home empty handed.
But FL doesn't require insurance either...
Offline
#7 2011-07-06 08:02:39
GooberMcNutly wrote:
I just think that it should be the call of the insurance company. If they offered rates of $100 a year for people who wear helmets and $1000 a year for those who don't. Crash without a helmet and if you haven't paid the no-helmet rate, you go home empty handed.
But FL doesn't require insurance either...
That only takes care of part of the problem.
First, if X is riding without a helmet and without insurance, and he runs into a brick wall, the public is going to pay for his medical care.
Second, if X is riding without a helmet, Y knocks him over, and X gets a head injury, X sues Y for damages, including lost wages and pain and suffering. The insurance company's premium policy can't address that problem.
I am no fan of laws regulating risk one takes on for oneself, but allowing no-helmet riding does put everyone else at financial risk. It's also true that a lot of personal behavior can be put in this same box (i.e., that risky activities can expose the public to financial risk), like smoking, drinking, getting high on certain substances, bicycling, rock climbing, kayaking . . . . The list is endless. Better to stay in a bomb shelter surrounded by pillows.
Offline
#8 2011-07-06 08:09:53
Fled wrote:
GooberMcNutly wrote:
I just think that it should be the call of the insurance company. If they offered rates of $100 a year for people who wear helmets and $1000 a year for those who don't. Crash without a helmet and if you haven't paid the no-helmet rate, you go home empty handed.
But FL doesn't require insurance either...That only takes care of part of the problem.
First, if X is riding without a helmet and without insurance, and he runs into a brick wall, the public is going to pay for his medical care.
Second, if X is riding without a helmet, Y knocks him over, and X gets a head injury, X sues Y for damages, including lost wages and pain and suffering. The insurance company's premium policy can't address that problem.
I am no fan of laws regulating risk one takes on for oneself, but allowing no-helmet riding does put everyone else at financial risk. It's also true that a lot of personal behavior can be put in this same box (i.e., that risky activities can expose the public to financial risk), like smoking, drinking, getting high on certain substances, bicycling, rock climbing, kayaking . . . . The list is endless. Better to stay in a bomb shelter surrounded by pillows.
If X is riding without a helmet and without insurance, and he runs into a brick wall, most likely he or she will wind up in a box and the collective IQ of the nation will nudge upwards ever so slightly. Why do you think they're called Donor-Cycles?
Offline
#9 2011-07-06 10:02:43
Fled wrote:
Second, if X is riding without a helmet, Y knocks him over, and X gets a head injury, X sues Y for damages, including lost wages and pain and suffering. The insurance company's premium policy can't address that problem.
Still, under my plan, if you want to ride without a helmet, regardless of fault, you don't get the protection from your insurance company. Of course you can still sue Y's insurance company, but your chances of winning without legal help from your own insurance company is going to be pitiful.
I don't support mandatory helmet laws. But I also don't support infinite public support of bad decisions, either. Riding is an inherently dangerous behavior, like SCUBA diving or driving with a cell phone in your ear. So I have my million dollar life insurance policy to protect my family and pay nearly $600 a month for good health insurance. It's all part of the cost.
Offline
#10 2011-07-06 13:56:25
Offline
