Riding

[lkraus]

Honestly, this battle has been lost to the folks that demand the right to incur head trauma. No amount of logic can ever change their core belief that they have a divine / constitutional right to a pointless level of risk that others will pay for.

Logic will not change their mind, but maybe their insurance company can by adjusting coverage and/or rates based on the level of protective gear actually worn.

[36654]

Logic will not change their mind, but maybe their insurance company can by adjusting coverage and/or rates based on the level of protective gear actually worn.

No employer or insurance company is going to "drill down" to that level of actuarial detail to determine rates for an individual. Besides, the expense of head trauma will be born by social security and medicaid, once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. Thus, it is ultimately is a welfare issue.

[lkraus]

No employer or insurance company is going to "drill down" to that level of actuarial detail to determine rates for an individual. Besides, the expense of head trauma will be born by social security and medicaid, once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. Thus, it is ultimately is a welfare issue.

The main issue with protection requirements seems to be the costs to others of preventable injuries. I'm speculating along the lines of basing paid out coverage on the actual circumstances of an accident. So if you scrape your ear off on the asphalt because your helmet was strapped to the seat, you get to pay your own medical bills. Or if you did not survive, the insurance pays $X to your estate versus $5X dollars to a helmeted riders estate. If the rider knows in advance he will not wear a helmet, let him pay a higher rate for full insurance. Maybe the broken leg would be covered, but not the skin grafts for the abrasions since you were wearing shorts when that car cut you off.

The intent being to base the payout on the riders' willingness to accept responsibility for his own safety as reflected in his choice of protection, even if another party is at fault.

Yeah, this sounds harsh, so it will never happen in our society. As a whole, we seldom expect individuals to live with the results of their own stupidity.

[greenwald]

The main issue with protection requirements seems to be the costs to others of preventable injuries. I'm speculating along the lines of basing paid out coverage on the actual circumstances of an accident. So if you scrape your ear off on the asphalt because your helmet was strapped to the seat, you get to pay your own medical bills. Or if you did not survive, the insurance pays $X to your estate versus $5X dollars to a helmeted riders estate. If the rider knows in advance he will not wear a helmet, let him pay a higher rate for full insurance. Maybe the broken leg would be covered, but not the skin grafts for the abrasions since you were wearing shorts when that car cut you off.

The intent being to base the payout on the riders' willingness to accept responsibility for his own safety as reflected in his choice of protection, even if another party is at fault.

Yeah, this sounds harsh, so it will never happen in our society. As a whole, we seldom expect individuals to live with the results of their own stupidity.

Good points were made.

Insurance companies already ask such questions as "Are you a smoker or use smokeless tobacco?" and underwriters adjust rates and conditions of benefits accordingly.

All they need to do is simply add the question "If you operate a motorcycle, do you plan to wear a DOT-approved helmet?"

If you answer yes, the insurance company doesn't need to start shadowing you on rides to verify compliance. It simply means if you're in a crash without a helmet, you forfeit certain coverages that you might have received for documented injuries.

Say 'NO' to that question, and you either pay much higher rates or find yourself excluded from coverage for such an event alltogether.

My premiums should not have to help build the fund insurance companies need to pay for the poor judgement of others.

I have been denied certain levels of insurance in the past due to being a SCUBA diver, and had to secure coverage thru an alternate provider. It happens. Not a burden the rest of you should have to bear.

[Anyname]

Mandatory helmet use? Think what that will do to the workers in the do-rag industry.

I do always marvel at the cruiser types who wear heavy boots, leather chaps, leather jacket, heavy gloves (often w/o fingers) and a do rag. What is it about their noggin that means it has to go unprotected.

I also see a lot of young riders on sport bikes wearing shorts, tanktop and flip flops, so I guess the cruiser guys are better off than that.

[osbornk]

Good points were made.

Insurance companies already ask such questions as "Are you a smoker or use smokeless tobacco?" and underwriters adjust rates and conditions of benefits accordingly.

All they need to do is simply add the question "If you operate a motorcycle, do you plan to wear a DOT-approved helmet?"

If you answer yes, the insurance company doesn't need to start shadowing you on rides to verify compliance. It simply means if you're in a crash without a helmet, you forfeit certain coverages that you might have received for documented injuries.

Say 'NO' to that question, and you either pay much higher rates or find yourself excluded from coverage for such an event alltogether.

My premiums should not have to help build the fund insurance companies need to pay for the poor judgement of others.

I have been denied certain levels of insurance in the past due to being a SCUBA diver, and had to secure coverage thru an alternate provider. It happens. Not a burden the rest of you should have to bear.

I dont think the insurance departments and government officials would ever allow coverage to be denied because someone wasn't wearing a helmet as they promised. They won't allow coverage to be denied because the costs would be shifted to government (me and you through taxes) to care for them or their survivors the rest of their lives through social programs.

[greenwald]

I dont think the insurance departments and government officials would ever allow coverage to be denied because someone wasn't wearing a helmet as they promised. They won't allow coverage to be denied because the costs would be shifted to government (me and you through taxes) to care for them or their survivors the rest of their lives through social programs.

Sounds like a reasonable premise.

Disappointing, but you're probably correct.

[36654]

I dont think the insurance departments and government officials would ever allow coverage to be denied because someone wasn't wearing a helmet as they promised. They won't allow coverage to be denied because the costs would be shifted to government (me and you through taxes) to care for them or their survivors the rest of their lives through social programs.

Social security and medicaid already pay the bills once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. And, in the case of head trauma, that occurs fairly quickly.

The real issue is .......no one in the US, and even less so in any other developed nation is going to be denied hospital care for simple stupidity. Even if that was the case and we had vegetative bikers laying on the sidewalk outside of the ER, there would still be lots of helmet-less bikers riding by and waving the thumbs-up to the veggies.

It just who we are and we apparently like it........

[36654]

The main issue with protection requirements seems to be the costs to others of preventable injuries. I'm speculating along the lines of basing paid out coverage on the actual circumstances of an accident. So if you scrape your ear off on the asphalt because your helmet was strapped to the seat, you get to pay your own medical bills. Or if you did not survive, the insurance pays $X to your estate versus $5X dollars to a helmeted riders estate. If the rider knows in advance he will not wear a helmet, let him pay a higher rate for full insurance. Maybe the broken leg would be covered, but not the skin grafts for the abrasions since you were wearing shorts when that car cut you off.

The intent being to base the payout on the riders' willingness to accept responsibility for his own safety as reflected in his choice of protection, even if another party is at fault.

Yeah, this sounds harsh, so it will never happen in our society. As a whole, we seldom expect individuals to live with the results of their own stupidity.

Wait, in one case you're talking about life insurance and in the other health insurance.

[greenwald]

Social security and medicaid already pay the bills once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. And, in the case of head trauma, that occurs fairly quickly.

The real issue is .......no one in the US, and even less so in any other developed nation is going to be denied hospital care for simple stupidity. Even if that was the case and we had vegetative bikers laying on the sidewalk outside of the ER, there would still be lots of helmet-less bikers riding by and waving the thumbs-up to the veggies.

It just who we are and we apparently like it........

Of course we'll never have bikers, clueless as to why their helmet-less heads are mangled, cast out onto the sidewalks outside of the ER entrance at medical centers.

No different than we don't turn away smokers for their COPD, lung, throat and mouth cancers, etc., SCUBA diver-related injuries, snake-handler envenomation - whatever. I worked as an ER tech and ambulance attendant for 11 years at Memorial Medical Center (WI) - been there, seen it all.

But let them pay a significantly higher premium for their 'lifestyle' - that's only fair to the rest of us who exercise greater caution. Sort of a "safe driver/safe rider" discount.

That's 'Insurance Underwriting 101.'

[kantuckid]

Mandatory helmet use? Think what that will do to the workers in the do-rag industry.

I do always marvel at the cruiser types who wear heavy boots, leather chaps, leather jacket, heavy gloves (often w/o fingers) and a do rag. What is it about their noggin that means it has to go unprotected.

I also see a lot of young riders on sport bikes wearing shorts, tanktop and flip flops, so I guess the cruiser guys are better off than that.

Meanwhile, many don't even wear eye protection where I live(must have by law in KY) & I seriously doubt anybody is being stopped. Truth is, from my limited experience I almost never see a bike stopped for whatever reason. We gotta a local that has got one of those yarn knit "skeleton faces" that he has been sporting around in lately on his HD & seems incongruous to me, what with the fingerless gloves? In the summer he wears "Lee Marvins", so it's apparent they don't stay on with the yarn thing in place.

As to Hi-viz, my solution was to go for the hi-viz safety mesh over vest. It's not only arguably brighter than a whole jacket , it also fits over anything you've got on, such as summer mesh,rain wear, whatever-PLUS, you spend like $15 or so rather than a pricey whole jacket or 2! Also, if it fades you can replace on the cheap.
I have noticed few snickers from people in parking lots when I put on all that garb. My hope is to outlive some of them.
Of course, another reason to do the "right thing" is the season, cause ole St. Nick is watching you...

[36654]

But let them pay a significantly higher premium for their 'lifestyle' - that's only fair to the rest of us who exercise greater caution. Sort of a "safe driver/safe rider" discount.

That's 'Insurance Underwriting 101.'

Find an insurance company that will work hard enough to write health insurance policies that will reward safety awareness or conversely penalize recklessness. I'm not aware of any. A pre-existing medical condition or age might get you rejected for medical insurance on the single policy market, but not much else.

[mike m]

Say what you will about mandatory helmet laws, I'm guessing many injuries are caused by slapping your head on the pavement----and in many of those cases it can be a minor get-off, which leads to severe head trauma. You can recover from broken limbs and rash but if you crack the coconut-----I just don't know why you would chance that when a helmet can prevent it.

No kidding.

Even the mere whisper of mandatory helmet use around here can exile you to the Witness Protection Program.

[BCKRider]

Say what you will about mandatory helmet laws, I'm guessing many injuries are caused by slapping your head on the pavement----and in many of those cases it can be a minor get-off, which leads to severe head trauma. You can recover from broken limbs and rash but if you crack the coconut-----I just don't know why you would chance that when a helmet can prevent it.

Three reasons I can think of:

1. Man, those big helmets are NOT cool. (Meaning, my friends don't wear them. They also cost much more than beannies. That money could better be spent on chrome polish and after-market exhausts.)

2. I am an expert rider and will never crash. (Actually, I've read that over 50% of those riders who confine themselves to paved roads DON'T EVER CRASH. Can't say if this is true. Not true for me or most experienced riding friends I've talked to. But that is a very small percentage of people who ride motorcycles. Perhaps those helmet-less riders really are more careful, especially after drinking.)

3. Bugs, rain, and the occasional stone in the face are an important part of the riding experience. Avoid those and you might as well be in a cage.

Hope this clears it up.

[ka5ysy]

No kidding.

Even the mere whisper of mandatory helmet use around here can exile you to the Witness Protection Program.

Kevin, you think that is bad ? try teaching a Harley Riders Edge class about ATGATT, Hi-Vis, Helmet use (not skid lids!), and then show up riding a BMW RT at the range

What is even more fun is when BOTH instructors show up at the range on BMW's. It makes for interesting discussions !