Michigan helmets and injuries merged threadfest

[canuck750]

Many good arguments here, a full variety of opinions, links to studies, first person accounts etc... I just get so tired of the argument that helmets will not prevent all injuries or death, suggesting that if we can't prevent all injuries or deaths we should not encourage helmet use to prevent riders suffering a brain injury or a family loosing a loved one.

Bottom line,

regardless of the cause, single vehicle or multiple vehicle, road conditions, weather et all.... If you are riding a motorcycle at more than running speed and you fall off, get knocked off, whatever causes ones head to strike the ground, tree, light pole, curb, turnip wagon etc... without a helmet you have a high likelihood of suffering a major brain trauma or death.

I am not advocating legislating wearing of a helmet but if one chooses to ride without one then the cost of their insurance should reflect their choice.

[Joliet Jim]

People riding motorcycles are already required to have insurance specific to their mode of transportation.

Really not in my helmetless state. I have bike insurance which covers my bike and me for liability. You basically are saying that insurance coverage should be based on riding gear which you seem to deem sufficient. why should my health care rate or taxes have to cover your motorcycle injuries if the exceed your coverage just because you choose to ride a motorcycle?

take it a step further and i'd say that your normal life insurance shouldn't have to pay out if you die riding a motorcycle, unless you pay for a specific die on a motorcycle rider.

[rocker59]

I am not advocating legislating wearing of a helmet but if one chooses to ride without one then the cost of their insurance should reflect their choice.

Tonight, I'm sitting here pondering the price of tea in China.  And, how helmet laws and the cost of motorcycle insurance in Michigan have any interest to a motorcyclist in Alberta Canada.

Tomorrow, I shall ride helmetless here in Arkansas, in your honor. 

 

[charlie b]

Interesting.  But, I don't care if there is a helmet law or not.  Kinda like seat belts for me.

Yeah, I know, big brother and all that.  Big whoop.

If I had a choice, there would be no helmet laws, no airbag laws, no seat belt laws, and fewer laws in general.

I am only ticked cause there is still ice in the driveway and the temp for my commute this morning was 7F.  :(

[canuck750]

Tonight, I'm sitting here pondering the price of tea in China.  And, how helmet laws and the cost of motorcycle insurance in Michigan have any interest to a motorcyclist in Alberta Canada.

Tomorrow, I shall ride helmetless here in Arkansas, in your honor. 

 

Helmet laws in Michigan have nothing to do with me, rider safety, lives saved, etc... well I do care about that, regardless of location

Ride safe, lid or no lid, the site needs a moderator with his full faculties

[rocker59]

the site needs a moderator with his full faculties

Luap is still searching for one of those...

 

[oldbike54]

Helmet laws in Michigan have nothing to do with me, rider safety, lives saved, etc... well I do care about that, regardless of location

Ride safe, lid or no lid, the site needs a moderator with his full faculties

 

Luap is still searching for one of those...

 

  Good luck with that 
 
 Dusty

[kirby1923]

When you think! about it, and this is just a wild guess, the main cause of death in a crash is either a bad head injury or you bleed to death.
I know that all late model autos have airbags but my bet is its the same for both types of vehicles, either single track or autos.
So why do we not have helmet laws for autos/

:-)

[oldbike54]

 Or 5 point restraint harnesses for motorbikes 

 Dusty

[kirby1923]

Ha!
No matter what type of restraint system I'd bet the cause of death will be the same!

[redrider90]

Interesting.  But, I don't care if there is a helmet law or not.  Kinda like seat belts for me.
Yeah, I know, big brother and all that.  Big whoop.
If I had a choice, there would be no helmet laws, no airbag laws, no seat belt laws, and fewer laws in general.

Who bails out the helmet-less riders when they wreck?   Here is an interesting quote from an article discussing the possible upcoming mudslides in Los Angles via the El Nino. It's the same concept. All these very rich people have built homes on the sides of hills that are prone to mudslides. In 1983 250 homes collapsed and who footed the bill because rich people built homes in a mud zone?
Technology has improved reducing the risks of these home sliding down the hill but there is still a risk. Who is going to foot the bill (again) if the rains are extreme and the million dollar mansions are destroyed?

From this article http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2016/1/12/el-nino-threatens-homes-built-on-california-hillsides.html

"In 1983, 250 Malibu homes collapsed, cracked or slipped off their foundations in the Big Rock Mesa landslide, one of the worst in state history. A tentative settlement was reached more than four years later with the county, state and insurance companies that paid homeowners $97 million in damages or about $200,000 for each homeowner.

“We have the technology to be able to build in those areas, sure, but you do calculate some risk in that,” Lang said. “What’s the social responsibility for sharing an insurance risk with a person who’s rich and lives on a risky hillside. It’s within their right as a land purchaser to build but the issue is more public responsibility of the public pool of insurance.”
In a sense, he said, everybody ends up bailing out the rich."

[rocker59]

All of those homes have been issued building permits by their local government.  City, County, whatever.  At some point, they should not issue permits to properties that are sure to fall.   My guess is the permits department didn't think all those houses would fall.

All of those homes are insured, and probably have mud slide riders.  Shame on the insurance companies for taking FOUR YEARS to pay their policy holders !!!

I know mud slide riders exist, because a local family here just got fv<ked by their insurance company after the recent heavy rains caused a mud slide that damaged their house.  You guessed it:  No mud slide rider.  (mud slides are exceedingly rare here).  No homeowners insurance coverage for the damage.  Crazy.

[canuck750]

Back in the mid 80's the city where I live decided to redevelop the low lands along the river. Previous council bought up most of the properties in the floor plain (several 100 homes) with grand plans of building a weir and creating a man made lake in the centre of town. Well that plan was abandoned and so the city sold all the properties and re-serviced the whole area with upgraded utilities.

The caveat on the sale was that new property owners would release the city form all future claims related to flooding. The river is controlled up in the Rockies by several dams but inevitably the river still will and has flooded, last time was the year before I bought into the neighbourhood. On top of that there is no flood insurance available in Canada. And lastly the 100 year flood plain is about smack through the middle of my property. Home insurance policies do not cover any damage at or below the flood plain, meaning the whole basement, yard, any utilities damage by flood etc.

I accept the risk for living in the river valley, and when it floods I hope to be long gone and living on the West Coast so I only need to worry about forest fire, tsunami's and earth quakes.

Should the 100 year flood come before I leave I will be in for a lot of work and out a lot of $$$.

[canuguzzi]

A lot of money changes hands when developers want to build. Those areas in California prone to mudslides were approved for building by the planning and permitting authorities.

The permits don't mean someone is required to tell the developer how to build a house to survive a mudslide, the owner should do some due diligence and get engineering help to build for that condition. That probably happened to some extent but follow the money. Someone made a lot if money building those homes and since from the developer to the building inspection money changed hands, and a lot if it, it got covered.

Don't forget who got on TV and said that California would make it right, movie star governor and guess who owns a lot of those homes affected? The rich and famous.

Insurances are allowed to exclude so many things you really don't get a lot for the premiums these days.

The first thing they do is exclude what is likely to set the policy holder back with a life changing event. Take earthquakes and floods. Good luck if you aren't selling out extra but the building methods exist, at least for earthquakes to build so that most home would survive, yet there is no building requirement to do so.

The damage from an earthquake isn't covered, the fire resulting from the earthquake is. Go figure.

[sib]

.... why do we not have helmet laws for autos/

Well, we do have seat belt laws for autos, not that they're enforced very strictly.  And, like helmets for motorcyclists, seat belts for car occupants do seem to save lives.  Not every time, but often enough.  We can extend the logic by supposing that parachutes probably save lives of sky divers.

[LowRyter]

I like to vacation at a condo on N Padre Island (south of Port Aransas).  There are a few condos and a Holiday Inn built right off the beach.  Everything built since have been built about a block from the beach.

I am told that these few properties retain flood insurance for one time.  After that, rebuilding the property must be done a block away like the remainder of the subsequent contraction.  Flood insurance would not be extended to rebuild on the beach.

And then I go to Florida and see many Gulf Coast properties built right on the beach.   

[canuguzzi]

Someone already posted, above a certain speed, helmet or not, your brain is pretty mushed up. You might look OK but you could still be in the wheelchair or bed sipping food through a straw, or worse.

How do we know the rider who hits a tree at 40 mph and dies would not have were they wearing a helmet or had they survived wouldn't be a vegetable for the remainder of their life?

How does the type of life remaining after a serious head impact above a certain speed come into consideration when we talk about medical benefits and who gets them?