shropshire 0 #76 May 6, 2014 regulator***Good, its about time. I've always called riders who choose not to wear helmets dumbasses, but in the land of the FREE, they should choose whats right for THEMSELVES. That's the thing about freedom. But you can go right ahead and let everyone else choose whats best for you, and soon enough you'll be wearing depends waiting for the gubment worker to come change them out. Seriously are all australians raging vaginas or do any of you actually have a pair? So you are still deluded and think that you live in a free country. Bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #78 May 6, 2014 QuoteMy thought process may be flawed, but it is MY thought, my body, my life. I should have that right to make a decision of my own, regardless of risk of loss of life or limb, without laws governing, mandating or modifying my rights to do so. I'm fine with you making your own decisions. I just want you to know I think your reasoning is off. People should be free to make bad decisions, but that shouldn't stop others from trying to educate them. I also don't want to pay for your bad decisions. I'm glad you have good insurance. There are a lot of people who make bad decisions who don't. The public shouldn't have to pay for those people's medical care when the inevitable happens. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #79 May 6, 2014 QuoteI'm glad you have good insurance. There are a lot of people who make bad decisions who don't. The public shouldn't have to pay for those people's medical care when the inevitable happens. Yet insurance does kind of mean that others pay your bills. It sort of is the concept of insurance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #80 May 6, 2014 SkyDekkerQuoteI'm glad you have good insurance. There are a lot of people who make bad decisions who don't. The public shouldn't have to pay for those people's medical care when the inevitable happens. Yet insurance does kind of mean that others pay your bills. It sort of is the concept of insurance. Indeed. http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1084540_motorcycle-helmet-law-repeal-could-cost-michigan-taxpayers-money I support the principle of people's freedom to choose to ride w/o a helmet (which is more than the risk I'm willing to assume for myself) the same as I support the principle of their freedom to choose to BASE jump (which is more risk than I'm willing to assume for myself). But BASE jumping doesn't make everyone's auto insurance premiums higher. Un-helmeted bike riders do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #81 May 6, 2014 QuoteYet insurance does kind of mean that others pay your bills. It sort of is the concept of insurance. In part. Insurance also means you're paying into the group fund to help others out when they get hurt. If you're not paying in, why should the group help you out when you get hurt due to your own dangerous behavior? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygypsie 2 #82 May 6, 2014 So back to my original comment... this is all based on insurance industry backing ! Its not the individual humanitarian concerns of safety & well being of individuals who chose to ride helmetless... its what potential costs may be incurred & result of, spreading across the board. Just find it so bizarre & hypocritical tobacco smoking is still legal, affecting so much in medical costs, insurance premiums rates & so many more lives Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #83 May 6, 2014 Andy9o8 I support the principle of people's freedom to choose to ride w/o a helmet (which is more than the risk I'm willing to assume for myself) the same as I support the principle of their freedom to choose to BASE jump (which is more risk than I'm willing to assume for myself). But BASE jumping doesn't make everyone's auto insurance premiums higher. Un-helmeted bike riders do. Why doesn't base jumping make rates higher? Why is health insurance out of the mix? Are you basically saying that small groups of people (like skydivers and base jumpers) can do dangerous shit that costs far more than their premiums, but being such a tiny minority it doesn't really register? But larger groups like bikers cannot? Football players? Speaking specifically to auto insurance brings up a different sore point - when there is a collision between a biker and a cager, the cager is responsible the great majority of the time. So maybe they should start driving with a clue? Or take responsibility for their fuckups? And last, have you actually provided foundation that unhelmeted riders are costing most in insurance payouts? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #84 May 6, 2014 Quotethis is all based on insurance industry backing ! Sigh.. it's really not conspiratorial as you seem to think. Beyond, that, I'm not going to expend energy convincing you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #85 May 6, 2014 Quote when there is a collision between a biker and a cager, the cager is responsible the great majority of the time. Really? Well, I've worked vehicle-crash cases (professionally) from both sides for almost 30 years (plus I've been driving for almost 40 years) and my experience is that the VAST, VAST majority of multi-vehicle crashes, including those involving motorcycles, result from shared liability. Quote have you actually provided foundation that unhelmeted riders are costing most in insurance payouts? Given that I've neither said nor meant to imply that, No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #86 May 6, 2014 Andy9o8 But BASE jumping doesn't make everyone's auto insurance premiums higher. Un-helmeted bike riders do. Let me get this straight. You point to a poorly written and referenced article that even with bias said that premiums might go up in the future IF a ONE year "trend" continues. (If an IF was a fifth we'd all be drunk). And then state it as fact???? I emphasize trend because some points were just plain dumb. Like the unreferenced(still the Detroit news? Very vague on that with his writing style) 25 helmet-less serious injuries that jumped to 195. No mention of how many serious injuries there actually were with helmeted riders. With tens of thousands more helmet-less riders in the state it is no wonder that a some broken bones here and there now fall into the helmet-less side regardless if the helmet had any bearing other than switching categories. No idea where the data came from or what the used. Racers? Mx'rs? Hospital room reports? Phone surveys? Bar polls? Nothing. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skygypsie 2 #87 May 7, 2014 Andy9o8 Quote this is all based on insurance industry backing ! Sigh.. it's really not conspiratorial as you seem to think. Beyond, that, I'm not going to expend energy convincing you. No convincing needed ! I'm pretty up front with my thoughts given my statements. Anything else another assumes to know what I "think" is purely entertaining speculation ! Here you go so need to assume to know what I'm thinking... Do I think it is "conspiratorial" ? Not at all. My thought is it is blatantly clear insurance industries have been setting the pace from the get go... no surprise there. Of course, I may be wrong. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #88 May 7, 2014 craddock*** But BASE jumping doesn't make everyone's auto insurance premiums higher. Un-helmeted bike riders do. Let me get this straight. You point to a poorly written and referenced article .... No, I'm afraid you don't have it straight. I certainly don't base my point on that one little article. I first made the point in this thread 2 days previously in my post #40, and I've made the same point in other threads previously. I base my point not on guesswork, but from actually knowing what I'm talking about, based on practicing insurance law and vehicle liability law, as well as working both in and closely with the insurance industry, all for about the past 30 years. Look, I really don't care if people choose to assume the risk of helmet-less riding, any more than I care what the hell whuffos think about you or me assuming the risk of skydiving. But when I'm aware of a cause-and-effect that affects more than just the rider for his own choice, I'm not going to be shouted-down into silence just because my point is unpopular to riders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
craddock 0 #89 May 7, 2014 Andy9o8*** Let me get this straight. You point to a poorly written and referenced article .... No, I'm afraid you don't have it straight. Oh. You didn't point us to that article then. Sorry. I don't know where I got that from. That spot isn't bad at all, the winds were strong and that was the issue! It was just on the downwind side. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #90 May 7, 2014 craddock*** Let me get this straight. You point to a poorly written and referenced article .... No, I'm afraid you don't have it straight Oh. You didn't point us to that article then. Sorry. I don't know where I got that from. ======================== Seriously? That's the level you want to take this to? Your reading comprehension is just fine; I seriously doubt you truly failed to understand my complete post as badly as you pretend. Sorry; I'm just not going there with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #91 May 7, 2014 QuoteMy thought is it is blatantly clear insurance industries have been setting the pace from the get go... no surprise there. I am trying to understand this argument. Are you saying that insurance companies want helmet laws, because somehow that would make them more money? How exactly would that work? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #92 May 7, 2014 Quote (to skygypsie): I am trying to understand this argument. Well, there's your first mistake. You can either choose to go down the rabbit hole.... or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #93 May 7, 2014 SkyDekkerQuoteMy thought is it is blatantly clear insurance industries have been setting the pace from the get go... no surprise there. I am trying to understand this argument. Are you saying that insurance companies want helmet laws, because somehow that would make them more money? How exactly would that work? They do not have the massive payouts to fix idiots who want to "be free".... they make more money. If you want to ride free... pay the freight yourself and do not expect the rest of us to pay for you whn you screw the pooch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #94 May 7, 2014 Andy9o8Quote when there is a collision between a biker and a cager, the cager is responsible the great majority of the time. Really? Well, I've worked vehicle-crash cases (professionally) from both sides for almost 30 years (plus I've been driving for almost 40 years) and my experience is that the VAST, VAST majority of multi-vehicle crashes, including those involving motorcycles, result from shared liability. The most common scenario of a bike/car collision is a failure to yield by the car. Your VAST VAST experience, from your own description, is of "multi vehicle" collisions, not ones involving bikes, and it's hardly surprising that the ones that require your work are ones with more ambiguous liability. The obvious ones don't require litigation (or shouldn't, if the insurance companies acts honorably). Quote have you actually provided foundation that unhelmeted riders are costing most in insurance payouts? Given that I've neither said nor meant to imply that, No. "But BASE jumping doesn't make everyone's auto insurance premiums higher. Un-helmeted bike riders do." That wasn't a subtle implied statement, but rather an absolute. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #95 May 8, 2014 QED, I hope you realize. This isn't a reading comprehension class, nor am I willing to keep repeating myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #96 May 8, 2014 Andy9o8 I've been driving for almost 40 years Newbie!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #97 May 8, 2014 kallend*** I've been driving for almost 40 years Newbie! Put your teeth in when you say that, mister. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #98 May 8, 2014 Andy9o8****** I've been driving for almost 40 years Newbie! Put your teeth in when you say that, mister. Oddly enough, my tendency to wear full-face helmets is an outgrowth of losing five front teeth (and a lot of bone) in a motorcycle accident. This was 10 days after I got my braces off, well over 40 years ago. I know, I know, locking the barn door after the horse is stolen and all that... BSBD, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #99 May 8, 2014 QuoteThey do not have the massive payouts to fix idiots who want to "be free".... they make more money. Death is relatively cheap though. Long term disability is a lot more expensive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #100 May 8, 2014 Andy9o8QED, I hope you realize. This isn't a reading comprehension class, nor am I willing to keep repeating myself. fine - stop spewing then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
