Ben Roethlisberger bike crash

[wncbmw]

From my libertarian standpoint, I am against helmet laws and seatbelt laws, even though I use both religiously. I feel it removes some of the folks at the shallow end of the gene pool, hopefully before they reproduce!

And the broken neck because of using a helmet argument sounds like it comes from the "loud pipes saves lives" crowd. I don't buy either.

[Harry]

I think that there is a bottom line to this debate: Helmet use should *not* be mandated by law. But if you ride a motorcycle and *don't* wear a helmet, you're a douche bag.

[ebiker]

I think that there is a bottom line to this debate: Helmet use should *not* be mandated by law. But if you ride a motorcycle and *don't* wear a helmet, you're a douche bag.

Trolling is a thankless job Harry, but someone has to do it!

Ed..

[Harry]

"Trolling is a thankless job Harry, but someone has to do it!"

Ed..

*Ouch* That hurt!

I've been wearing a Arai "three quarters" helmet for six years. It's not as safe as a full face, but at least it offers more protection than a typical police officers helmet.

I did have one accident while wearing it; a pick-up truck stopped cold in front of me because a family of DUCKS that I couldn't see were crossing the road in front of the truck. I rode up the back of the truck and got dumped onto the grass. I was OK, but it definitely didn't look cool:>~

But NO MORE. I won't ride my bike again until I have a quality full face helmet!

And I'll just consider myself *extremely* lucky.

[Shaman]

I suppose an extra three-four pounds on your head would not make a impact on your neck structure in a body whiplash? A motorcycle rider usually goes airborne in a crash. How many football players suffer paralyzing neck injuries in a low speed contact?

Ed..

You contradict yourself right there.

Football players wear helmets SPECIFICALLY because it makes their head to head/body/ground contact MUCH less severe than not wearing the helmet.

By your logic, to reduce the small risk of paralytic injury people should expose themselves to lacerations, contusions, bone factures and breakage, and potential brain damage on a scale MUCH higher for non helmet wearers.

I'll use a crappy analogy myself.
As a rock climber in a thinner life, using your advise I should have chose to free climb instead of use a rope. If if I fell with a rope, I might get whiplash, or abrasions on my hands/body. And it is my right to free climb anyway.


And I agree with Harry.
If the law allows, I have no issue with you not wearing a helmet as I agree with personal freedoms. But I dont 'respect a person for going helmetless. I find it an irresponsible risk towards yourself, towards your loved ones, your insurer, and against my tax payer dollars.

[beekstersocal]

he had head and face injuries ,so if he had a helment on chances are the injuries would not be as severe, what a dumb ass

[rdsmith3]

must resist getting drawn into helmet debate ... must resist ... must ...


Oh heck.

If you assume that a helmet helps to reduce the incidence of severe head trauma, which I believe is a reasonable assumption, then there is a very important point that has not been mentioned.

At first glance, it seems logical to say that helmet use is a matter of personal choice. If you want to risk having your brains splattered like scrambled eggs, that is your choice, right? Not exactly. There is always a cost. I pay a lot for health insurance and car insurance. I do not want my premiums to be higher because the insurance company is paying for more incidents of head trauma that could have been prevented, or could have had a reduced severity, because of a helmet. The risk is shared. We all pay for the cost of someone making a decision to incur more risk, assuming that we all participate in the U.S. in some form of private medical insurance. So as much as I hate the government telling me what to do, I think it is warranted in this case. It is no different than a seat belt law.

For a celebrity like Ben R., there are other costs. He is an entertainer of sorts. I would rather watch Super Bowl winner Ben guide the Steelers, than Charlie Batch or some other backup. In Pittsburgh, the number of people watching games could decline; vendors could have lower sales; etc. All because he decided he was invincible.

[yjleesvrr]

I don't buy the whiplash argument with too many pennies. Here's why. Most people who are likely to suffer whiplash are in cars, not motorcycles. Why? Because the thing that causes a human head to swing forward or rearward and downward in an arc is the fact that the torso is not moving as fast. The head then bounces back due to the chin hitting the chest and a modicum of elasticity existing in the neck in a frontal impact crash or simply the elasticity of the neck in a rear ender. The head then swings back in an arc whereby the brain rotates a bit inside the cranium due to the reversal of rotation from the perspective of the brain. The neck of course is also strained because it is what holds the head to the body under the influence of these forces.

When are such forces imposed on a human body? When a person's torso is restrained by a seat and seatbelt. Hence Volvo and other car makers are making head restraints that are designed to limit the movement of the head/neck during an accident.

In the event of a motorcycle crash, the torso and head in the vast majority of cases will begin to move under the influence of similar forces (under inertia) until the body/head hits something. It is true that there are incidents whereby the body will hit an object that will apply a different force to the torso than to the head, but usually not nearly as dramatic as the seat/seatbelt combo that gives the torso no degree of freedom for movement. On the other hand, if the head hits something first instead of the torso, whiplash is the last thing you have to worry about!

A helmet is no cure-all for safety. But it improves the odds that you will have less injuries. Yes, helmets can increase the likelyhood in a minority of cases, but so do seatbelts. Yet the statistics will side positively with motorcyclists wearing a helmet or a cager wearing a seatbelt in a car.

[ebiker]

must resist getting drawn into helmet debate ... must resist ... must ... <snip>...There is always a cost. I pay a lot for health insurance and car insurance. I do not want my premiums to be higher because the insurance company is paying for more incidents of head trauma that could have been prevented, or could have had a reduced severity, because of a helmet. The risk is shared. We all pay for the cost of someone making a decision to incur more risk

Pick a state that imposed an all rider helmet law and then lowered insurance rate on motorcyclists.

Name me a state that raised motorcycle insurance rates after a helmet law was repealed or amended.

I'm going for a ride this weekend--about a thousand miles. Perhaps I'll wear a helmet--yeah I'll wear a helmet----but which one??

"A helmet is a safety item----helmet law is politics"--Roger Hull.

[Shaman]

Pick a state that imposed an all rider helmet law and then lowered insurance rate on motorcyclists.

Name me a state that raised motorcycle insurance rates after a helmet law was repealed or amended.

Insurance never goes down as a whole because cost continue to go up.

But, once that insurance runs out on someone afflicted with what might have been preventable trauma, then they move to disability and guess who gets to pay for that... All Of Us.

[ebiker]

Pick a state that imposed an all rider helmet law and then lowered insurance rate on motorcyclists.

Name me a state that raised motorcycle insurance rates after a helmet law was repealed or amended.

Insurance never goes down as a whole because cost continue to go up.

But, once that insurance runs out on someone afflicted with what might have been preventable trauma, then they move to disability and guess who gets to pay for that... All Of Us.

Disability-Social Security Medicare/Medicad! Yes, I'm familiar with it.

Pays families of brain defective urban kids who were eating lead base pain chips (SSI-"crazy money"). Pays ghetto females and their illegitimate children. Pays medical expenses for recovering drug/alcohol abusers. Pays disability for diabetics who lost limbs from effects of disease--usually thru poor eating habits. Pays medical costs for incarcerated persons in ALL prisons, jails and lock ups. Pays for medical treatment associated with long term smoking--cancer. Pays medical care for pregnant illegal immigrants who check into a southwest area hospital.

That's where your money goes.....Shaman!

Now, can we get back to the issue of individual insurance rates being affected by helmet laws??

Ed..

[rdsmith3]

must resist getting drawn into helmet debate ... must resist ... must ... <snip>...There is always a cost. I pay a lot for health insurance and car insurance. I do not want my premiums to be higher because the insurance company is paying for more incidents of head trauma that could have been prevented, or could have had a reduced severity, because of a helmet. The risk is shared. We all pay for the cost of someone making a decision to incur more risk

Pick a state that imposed an all rider helmet law and then lowered insurance rate on motorcyclists.

Name me a state that raised motorcycle insurance rates after a helmet law was repealed or amended.

I'm going for a ride this weekend--about a thousand miles. Perhaps I'll wear a helmet--yeah I'll wear a helmet----but which one??

"A helmet is a safety item----helmet law is politics"--Roger Hull.

I don't have that data, and neither do you. Moreover, I was referring mainly to medical insurance (or the medical part of motorcycle insurance), and I said I was assuming private insurance.

Insurers set premiums based on the risk experience of the class in which you reside, to the extent possible by law. A simple example would be that insurers charge higher life insurance premiums for smokers. Health insurers also do this. If they cannot find a way to charge you more because you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then they will spread the cost. The premiums are based on the actuarially calculated probability of future losses. The calculations are based in part on past experience. A private company stays profitable by charging policy holders for the potential losses of the future, and the actual losses of the past.

This is basic Insurance 101. Are you trying to say that health insurance does not work this way?

[ebiker]

must resist getting drawn into helmet debate ... must resist ... must ... <snip>...There is always a cost. I pay a lot for health insurance and car insurance. I do not want my premiums to be higher because the insurance company is paying for more incidents of head trauma that could have been prevented, or could have had a reduced severity, because of a helmet. The risk is shared. We all pay for the cost of someone making a decision to incur more risk

Pick a state that imposed an all rider helmet law and then lowered insurance rate on motorcyclists.

Name me a state that raised motorcycle insurance rates after a helmet law was repealed or amended.

I'm going for a ride this weekend--about a thousand miles. Perhaps I'll wear a helmet--yeah I'll wear a helmet----but which one??

"A helmet is a safety item----helmet law is politics"--Roger Hull.

I don't have that data, and neither do you. Moreover, I was referring mainly to medical insurance (or the medical part of motorcycle insurance), and I said I was assuming private insurance.

Insurers set premiums based on the risk experience of the class in which you reside, to the extent possible by law. A simple example would be that insurers charge higher life insurance premiums for smokers. Health insurers also do this. If they cannot find a way to charge you more because you ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then they will spread the cost. The premiums are based on the actuarially calculated probability of future losses. The calculations are based in part on past experience. A private company stays profitable by charging policy holders for the potential losses of the future, and the actual losses of the past.

This is basic Insurance 101. Are you trying to say that health insurance does not work this way?

Let's try it again.....Have your motorcycle insurance rates declined since New Jersey inacted an all rider helmet law? Have your medical insurance costs declined in the same time frame?

See my prior post on disability pay outs....!

This is getting to be a hassle.

People, if you want to be ORDERED to wear a motorcycle helmet, simply tell your legislative officals of your intentions. Politicans, medical experts, soccer moms and other non riders will dance with glee!

However, if you believe in choosing to legally NOT wear a helmet, then join or support an ABATE chapter. BUT, please stop quibbling about the mear pennies in medical expenses associated with riding a motorcycle while unhelmeted. Hell, the medical "profession" kills some 200,000 persons each year, or drives up insurance costs thru incompetence or sloppy hospital sanitary conditions. (Save that topic for another day)

Ed..

[rdsmith3]

Have your medical insurance costs declined in the same time frame?

Ed,

It seems like you are trying to avoid the reality of how premiums are determined. There are many factors that affect my medical premiums, such as the increase in AIDS, the increased incidence of premature births, etc. I am just saying that, all other things being equal, more smashed mellons will lead to higher medical premiums for the rest of us. The key point is that your decision to not wear a helmet affects other people. You are not making it in isolation. That is the reality of how insurance works in our country.

Neither of us has access to insurance company data that would enable us to isolate just the factors related to head trauma of motorcyclists, with and without helmets.

[yjleesvrr]

Ed - any comments regarding my last post?

[Shaman]

Disability-Social Security Medicare/Medicad! Yes, I'm familiar with it.

Pays families of brain defective urban kids who were eating lead base pain chips (SSI-"crazy money"). Pays ghetto females and their illegitimate children. Pays medical expenses for recovering drug/alcohol abusers. Pays disability for diabetics who lost limbs from effects of disease--usually thru poor eating habits. Pays medical costs for incarcerated persons in ALL prisons, jails and lock ups. Pays for medical treatment associated with long term smoking--cancer. Pays medical care for pregnant illegal immigrants who check into a southwest area hospital.

That's where your money goes.....Shaman!

I am aware of most of those, as I work in Pubic Health.
But we're not debating those.

Nice dodge though.

[ebiker]

Back around 1966, the Federal Government decided to improve motor vehicle safety, and it was determined to force states to mandate helmet use. Bear in mind, there were only about 1.2 million motorcyclists. (I was one of the bikers) Additionally, automobile manufacturers were ordered to install seat belts in vehicles, however I don't recall any seat belt law being drafted.

In the mid 1960's motorcycles were dangerous machines--tires prone to blow outs, electrical systems often failed--or were batteryless ignition, brakes usually were single leading shoes, weak fork tubes and we had the dreaded two stroke motorcycles that went like hell, but handled poorly. Riders died

About the same time, along came the Honda motorcycle rental stores which offered 50cc and 90cc bikes for rent by the half hour or the hour. All one needed was a state drivers license, then ride out and get flattened by a truck. The ads boasted:"you meet the nicest people on a Honda". Many of those nice people died.

So, in 1967 we have: No motorcycle endorsement, few states with required annual motorcycle inspection, motorcycle rental shops, crappy machines (British), no DUI laws, clueless motorist awareness and the governments fix for this mess---was a helmet law for each state, tied to Federal Highway Funds--about 10%. MOST states complied--California resisted this federal blackmail scheme while embarking on a massive highway building campaign and it's said California did not lose one cent of federal cash. Some 47 states complied, however--Georgia was first.

Along with those helmet laws in 47 states, motorcycle fatalities increased--motorcycle registrations increased. DUH.

By the late 60's the Honda rental shops were forced to close when motorcycle licensing went into effect and everyone was required to wear a helmet. States began motorcycle safety inspection campaigns. DUI legislation was being worked on. The British motorcycle industry was starting to fold and two stroke bikes went out of favor. And the motorcycle fatality rate increased!

Along about 1975 President Ford signed legislation outlawing the Federal Highway money blackmail plan. Some 30 states followed by amending their helmet laws to exclude adult riders. The fatality rate and total registrations numbers continued to increase.

In the early 1980's a few states offered motorcycle rider training classes. ABATE chapters were formed and picked up on the rider ed idea. Bikers offered to fund their own training. (It's said some politicians were shocked)

Some states reinstated a helmet law, then amended it--solely on the whim of the current political party. State fatality rates would rise and fall according to the helmet law and resulting numbers of motorcycles then in use. A California assemblyman in 1991 snookered new Governor Pete Wilson into believing an all rider motorcycle helmet law would save Golden State taxpayers a bizillion dollars in medical expenses. California had already imposed mandatory rider training for under age 20 riders and saw a dramatic drop in motorcycle accidents, but hey let's save more lives. Unfortunately, within six years of the all rider helmet law motorcycle registrations in California declined by some 248,000. (Caltrans numbers) Good way to save taxpayer money, eh? California helmet mandate was signed into law on April 1, 1991--no joke!

The safety nannies took interest in California's sharp decline in motorcycle fatalities and probably danced around singing:"helmets save lives"

Sine then we have successfully resisted a few attempts by the Feds to blackmail states into mandating motorcycle helmets. Instead, we have motorcycle rider training in nearly all states and modified or no helmet laws in 30 states. Thanks to rising fuel prices and baby boomers nationwide motorcycle registrations are at all time high and fatality numbers are well below the 5211 of record year 1980.

So, what can the safety nannies cry now, since we now know that helmets will not save each and every life??

Social burden----motorcyclists riding without a helmet and having an accident are a social burden. Not the teenage welfare mom, not the AIDS victim, not the drug/alcohol/tobacco abuser, not the illegal immigrant, not the incarcerated felon, not the uninsured motorist, not the victim of urban violence----those millions of people are not the drain on Americas medical and insurance funding. It's the biker riding without a DOT approved helmet who is the social burden on the working taxpayer!

With that, I'm out of here.....see ya' on the road,

Ed..

[Wass]

No MC endorsement on his license? This is more irresponsible than no helmet. I'm in the 'be as stupid as you want to be' camp, but riding without a license (which no endorsement IS) is really dumb. Almost as dumb as inexperienced riders buying a 'Busa. I've only been back on bikes for about 4 years and am nowhere near the skill level a Busa rider needs to be. I rode an R1 last year and it scared the $#@* out of me.
These high profile types don't think any laws (natural or man-made) apply to them.

Our European friends on the board probably wonder how this is even possible considering the major hassle they go through to be properly certified for bikes.

[sjbmw]

Let's be realistic. He is Pittsburgh's Super bowl winning quarterback.
In Pitt, this puts him on the food chain with Jesus himself.


Exactly WHAT police officer is going to haul him in for a MC endorsement?

[rdsmith3]

If we want to handle the helmet issue without government intervention, we have to let our free market system resolve it. I was thinking last night that the best way would probably be for insurers to be able to charge more for riders who do not wear helmets. This would be for health insurance and motorcycle insurance. Of course, this means that the insurance companies would pry into your lives.