Motorcyclists, insurers bang heads over helmets

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ^ | Aug. 26, 2003 | DENNIS CHAPTMAN

[BraveMan]

Madison - Wisconsin juries could not reduce damage awards in cases where motorcyclists are hurt or killed while not wearing helmets, under legislation backed by bikers at a public hearing Tuesday.

"Society says helmets must be safe and that motorcycles must be dangerous, and that's not true," Wisconsin Rapids motorcyclist Kirk "Hard Tail" Willard told the Senate Judiciary, Corrections and Privacy Committee.

The measure, which would also apply to snowmobilers and riders of all-terrain vehicles, is a response to a 2002 state Supreme Court ruling that held that the failure of an ATV rider to wear a helmet could be considered by a jury as a basis for reducing damages.

Just as Milwaukee's celebration of Harley-Davidson's 100th Anniversary prepares to kick into high gear, bikers supporting the proposal squared off against the insurance industry over the measure.

Milwaukee personal injury lawyer Michael Hupy, who said he has represented hundreds of bikers in accident cases, told the panel that the Supreme Court ruling puts motorcyclists in a perilous legal position if they are injured and their case goes to court.

Under the high court ruling, juries can weigh whether a motorcyclist's failure to wear a helmet played a role in their injury, and they can reduce damage awards by any amount they see fit.

"If there is no law requiring a helmet, there shouldn't be a penalty for not wearing a helmet," Hupy said.

In contrast, the state limits the reduction of damage awards to 15% in car crash cases in which occupants were not wearing seats belts, Hupy said.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Dave Zien (R-Eau Claire), would prevent non-use of helmets from being introduced as evidence in court cases and prevent the reduction of damage awards for failing to wear helmets.

Zien's bill would not apply to those now required by law to wear a helmet, including those with instruction permits and riders younger than 18.

The legislation also includes a provision that would allow bikers to introduce evidence of helmet use when they sue helmet manufacturers for product defects that cause injury.

Eric Englund, lobbyist for the Wisconsin Insurance Alliance, said the vehicle insurers' group opposes the legislation because it would strip juries of their ability to weigh the facts in motorcycle injury cases.

"Heaven forbid that a jury in Wisconsin doesn't get the choice to take a look and say, 'Geez, should he or she have been wearing a helmet? And shouldn't he or she bear some responsibility?' " Englund said.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, most states adopted mandatory motorcycle helmet laws under pressure from the federal government. Wisconsin repealed its law in 1978.

Personal injury lawyer Joe Weigel told the panel that the insurance industry has the resources needed to get damage awards reduced.

"The insurance companies always have experts at hand and can afford to buy them," said Weigel, who has ridden motorcycles for 45 years. "The little guy can't afford to fight that battle."

Zien, himself an avid biker, said that he believes helmets can cause injuries by limiting riders' ability to see, hear and respond to traffic situations.

In effect, Zien said, the Supreme Court ruling creates a de facto helmet law by potentially penalizing injured motorcyclists who choose not to wear helmets.

The panel did not take a vote on the legislation.

Dave Dwyer, legislative chairman for the pro-biker group ABATE - which stands for A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments - accused the insurance industry of "corporate greed."

"I'm allowed to ride a motorcycle in this state without a helmet," said Dwyer of Portage. "If one of their clients hits me and causes damage to me, why should those damages not be covered because I am in full compliance with the laws of the state of Wisconsin?"

Englund, however, said that juries should have the ability to decide whether bikers' actions were prudent.

"If I've got a pool in my backyard and a friend comes over and decides to dive in the shallow end and bangs himself up big time, we don't have a state law saying, 'Don't dive in the shallow end of the pool.' We let the jury decide," he said.

[BraveMan]

This should make for some interesting discussions regarding personal liberty . . .

[WestPacSailor]

"I'm allowed to ride a motorcycle in this state without a helmet," said Dwyer of Portage. "If one of their clients hits me and causes damage to me, why should those damages not be covered because I am in full compliance with the laws of the state of Wisconsin?"

I personally believe that riding without a helmet is one of the dumbest things a person can do, however comma Mr. Dwyer does make a compelling legal argument. Not smart, but legally correct.

[freeangel]

My personal liberty(and economic situation in the form of higher insurance rates) is threatened when some jerk biker is in an accident without a helmet. A helmet was the reason my sons life was saved. I don't have a problem with a biker not wearing a helmet--just sign a waiver that he will be held responsible for any resultant head injuries.

[-YYZ-]

Seems reasonable to me - personal liberty, personal responsibility. If you get brain damaged in an accident where a helmet likely would have prevented that damage, aren't you partially responsible for the outcome? Oh, and the bit about "a provision that would allow bikers to introduce evidence of helmet use when they sue helmet manufacturers for product defects that cause injury" sounds like the work of ABATE (know why there's not as good a selection of helmets in the US as other parts of the world, and almost no US helmet mfrs left? Lawsuits on bogus grounds drove them out), which is full of wack-jobs IMO.

Do what you like, but don't come crying to me when you crack your head open like a ripe melon on the pavement, or your unbuckled helmet comes off your head when you need it (duh!).

[smiley]

Guess you could say..."Stupid is as stupid does."

[BraveMan]

. . .just sign a waiver that he will be held responsible for any resultant head injuries.

Regardless of who is at fault?

[freeangel]

Let the injured biker take it up with the other guy if he wasn't at fault. But he still needs to take responsibility for his own injuries if a helmet would have prevented them.

[WestPacSailor]

j...ust sign a waiver that he will be held responsible for any resultant head injuries.

Ought to be a requirement for receiving a motorcycle license.

[Wolfie]

Indeed, "costs to society" for personal choices is the battle cry of the nanny state, and should be applied to all.

[freeangel]

In the operating room, we do not refer to these as motorcycle accidents, but as our newest organ donors. Brain dead is as brain does.

[lepton]

Under the high court ruling, juries can weigh whether a motorcyclist's failure to wear a helmet played a role in their injury, and they can reduce damage awards by any amount they see fit. "If there is no law requiring a helmet, there shouldn't be a penalty for not wearing a helmet," Hupy said.

There's no penalty in the legal sense. There's responsibility.

[Wolfie]

That's why they call 'em "donorcycles".

[Rubber_Duckie_27]

If someone is stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet (law or not), then they should waive any right to compensation if they have a brain injury or die.

I can't tell you how many motorcyclists I see tearing around at 80 MPH on some cheap sport bike wearing nothing but shorts and sneakers. If those idiots crash - and survive having half their skin abraded off on the road - then they should be responsible for their own medical care and rehabilitation.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The thing about it is of you study crashes resulting in the death of a motorcycle rider, there is no correlation between wearing a helmet and survivability.

However, in LOW SPEED crashes where relatively minor injuries are involved, a helmet GREATLY increases your chances of survival.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The thing about it is of you study crashes resulting in the death of a motorcycle rider, there is no correlation between wearing a helmet and survivability.

However, in LOW SPEED crashes where relatively minor injuries are involved, a helmet GREATLY increases your chances of survival.

My personal prefrence is to wear the helmet figuring that even if the helmet protect me half the time, it is better than not at all.

[BraveMan]

According to your line of thinking, the family of Randolph E. Scott, 53, of Hardwick, Minn should waive any right to compensation from Rep. Bill Janklow because Scott was not wearing a helmet when he met this . . .

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Sorry - seen too many minor bike wrecks where helmets got scuffed or bounced and the rider walked away. Without the helmet, they'd be toast.

[Balding_Eagle]

In the operating room, we do not refer to these as motorcycle accidents, but as our newest organ donors

I heard the same thing from a local doctor who called in to a talk show.

And how did he refer to those who DID wear helmets? Quadriplegics.

[PeterPrinciple]

"If you have a $10 head, wear a $10 helmet"

This was one of the best ads I ever remember for Bell Helmets. That was 15 years ago and Bell helmets were $150. I still have my Bell.

[Rubber_Duckie_27]

Correct.

I'm sorry that gentleman died, but if you're going to choose to ride a motorcycle without the proper protective gear, you deserve whatever might happen. At least a helmet and leathers gives someone a fighting chance at surviving a crash.

My mom was an ER nurse for years...they called unhelmeted motorcycle crash victims "organ donors." Most who were in a helmet made it through with broken bones...but I'd rather break both arms and legs than have a traumatic brain injury.

[Protagoras]

If I was writing policies for motorcycles and the like, I would offer one which included a clause that would pay no benefits for head injuries when the insured was not wearing a helmet. Those who wish to go without could buy one with an additional premium which reflected the risk to the insurer.

[Mamzelle]

Do you know what a motorcyclist who does not wear a helmet is called in your local ER?

"Ideal organ donor"

Young, healthy, and all that's ruined is the brain, scrubbed to mush on the asphalt. All organs other than the brain are fresh, juicy, and useful.

And who would want this brain anyway, since it was too stupid to wear a helmet?

[suijuris]

My personal liberty(and economic situation in the form of higher insurance rates) is threatened when some jerk biker is in an accident without a helmet. A helmet was the reason my sons life was saved. I don't have a problem with a biker not wearing a helmet--just sign a waiver that he will be held responsible for any resultant head injuries.

I ride a bike and sometimes ride with a helmet; sometimes not. If I were running 110 mph on a city street, and hit a pole; that would be my own fault. I could understand your reasoning. Most motorcycle accidents however, are caused by people in cars with their head's up their rectums. In these cases, whether I have a helmet on or not is unrelated to the cause of the accident. If I am within the law, the fact I'm not wearing one should have no bearing on the case.

OTOH, if insurance compaines want to require helments for insurance coverage; that is their business. However, I would expect that there would be a few companies willing to provide insurance to those who do not wear them. By the way, my full year motorcycle insurance is nearly $500 per year. I think I'm paying my fair share.

Sui

[biblewonk]

A helmet wouldn't make much difference.

[biblewonk]

But head injuries in cars are morally upright and deserve the full benefit of all socialistic and insruance programs and benefits.

[Protagoras]

Most motorcycle accidents however, are caused by people in cars with their head's up their rectums.

I presume that is personal opinion. If not, please cite sources. It has not been thus in my experience.

[BraveMan]

Please provide the facts that support your conclusion. Personal opinions don't make a sound basis for punitive legislation . . .

Relative to the number of registered motorcycles, states with mandatory helmet laws had 12.5% more accidents and 2.3% more fatalities than free choice states for the 14 year period 1977-90. (Accident and Fatality Statistics, analyzed by A.R. Mackenzie, M.D.)

Fact: There is no discernible difference in motorcycle accident or fatality rates between states with mandatory helmet laws and those which allow for freedom of choice. In fact, states which support voluntary use routinely achieve accident and fatality rates equal to or better than states with mandatory helmet laws for all riders. (American Motorcycle Association, 1995)

"It is concluded that: 1) motorcycle helmets have no significant effect on probability of fatality; and 2) past a critical impact speed, helmets increase the severity of neck injuries." (Dr. Jonathan Goldstein, Bowdoin College)

Fact: Helmets are minimally effective in preventing most injuries. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report to Congress, the CODES Study, 1995)

Automobile accidents account for 45.5% of all head injured patients and are responsible for 37.1% of all fatalities involving head injury. (The Journal of Trauma, 1989)

Fact: There are no appreciable differences found relative to fatality rate, severity of injury, hospital stay, and discharge status between motorcycle accident victims who wore helmets and those who did not. (Arizona's Governor's Office of Highway Safety Study, 1990)

Fact: Helmet use is not associated with overall injury severity, discharge status, or insurance status. (University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, June, 1992)

Fact: Injured motorcycle operators admitted to trauma centers had lower injury severity scores compared to other road trauma victims. They accrued lower hospital charges. They were less likely to rely on Medicaid and Medicare, and they had about the same level of commercial or private insurance as other road trauma victims. (University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, June, 1992)

Fact: The average inpatient charge for a helmeted motorcyclist receiving a brain injury was equal to that of an unhelmeted motorcyclist receiving a brain injury. (NHTSA CODES Study, 1995)

Fact: The average inpatient charge for a helmeted motorcyclist not receiving a brain injury was approximately $1,000 more than that of an unhelmeted motorcyclist not receiving a brain injury. (NHTSA CODES Study, 1995)

Fact: Helmet use has no impact on the cost of injury after it has occurred. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, CODES Study, 1995)

Fact: Motorcyclists are no more dependent upon public sources for medical costs than motor vehicle operators. (NHTSA, CODES Study, 1995)

[N. Theknow]

Something puzzles me.

Why is it that insurance companies can charge more for their coverage if you smoke, fly a private plane, have a risky profession (steeplejack comes to mind). But it's OK if you live a dangerous lifestyle that has a proven track record for early deaths and lengthy illnesses?

OTOH, I wonder if there is an unwritten rule that requires an agent to "use best judgement" when writing a policy. Especially if the insured is wearing pink velour slippers.

Reason I ask/wonder is because when I worked at an employment agency, there was an unwritten rule to "use best judgement" for some positions at companies. Seems some companies used employment agencies to circumvent "the law of the land."

[BraveMan]

"6. In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents."

From the aptly named Hurt Report.

[Protagoras]

Aamzing editing. Nice try.

[Redleg Duke]

Pathetic post...obviously out of valid arguments.

[BraveMan]

Yea, my bad. Far be it for me to use facts to dispel your feelgood assumptions . . .

[biblewonk]

It's all a matter of probablility. Your decision on a save probability is pathetic.

[Eva]

The insurance companies need to have a rider attatched to all personal injury policies, which would reduce damages or negate any claims resulting from no helmet during such activities as motorcycle or snowmobile riding.

[Protagoras]

Far be it from you to edit out all the facts that show your assumptions are moronic. I guess you were under the impression that no one would follow your link. You must have fallen on your head without a helmet too many times.

So,, I'll waste my time and post the UNedited FACTS. Hold tight Mr. Feelgood.

[Protagoras]

Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures
Findings

Throughout the accident and exposure data there are special observations which relate to accident and injury causation and characteristics of the motorcycle accidents studied. These findings are summarized as follows:

1. Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most often a passenger automobile.

2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

3. Vehicle failure accounted for less than 3% of these motorcycle accidents, and most of those were single vehicle accidents where control was lost due to a puncture flat.

4. In single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering.

5. Roadway defects (pavement ridges, potholes, etc.) were the accident cause in 2% of the accidents; animal involvement was 1% of the accidents.

6. In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.

7. The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision.

8. Deliberate hostile action by a motorist against a motorcycle rider is a rare accident cause. The most frequent accident configuration is the motorcycle proceeding straight then the automobile makes a left turn in front of the oncoming motorcycle.

10. Intersections are the most likely place for the motorcycle accident, with the other vehicle violating the motorcycle right-of-way, and often violating traffic controls.

11. Weather is not a factor in 98% of motorcycle accidents.

12. Most motorcycle accidents involve a short trip associated with shopping, errands, friends, entertainment or recreation, and the accident is likely to happen in a very short time close to the trip origin.

13. The view of the motorcycle or the other vehicle involved in the accident is limited by glare or obstructed by other vehicles in almost half of the multiple vehicle accidents.

14. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in the multiple vehicle accidents, and accident involvement is significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlamps (on in daylight) and the wearing of high visibility yellow, orange or bright red jackets.

15. Fuel system leaks and spills were present in 62% of the motorcycle accidents in the post-crash phase. This represents an undue hazard for fire.

16. The median pre-crash speed was 29.8 mph, and the median crash speed was 21.5 mph, and the one-in-a-thousand crash speed is approximately 86 mph.

17. The typical motorcycle pre-crash lines-of-sight to the traffic hazard portray no contribution of the limits of peripheral vision; more than three-fourths of all accident hazards are within 45deg of either side of straight ahead.

18. Conspicuity of the motorcycle is most critical for the frontal surfaces of the motorcycle and rider.

19. Vehicle defects related to accident causation are rare and likely to be due to deficient or defective maintenance.

20. Motorcycle riders between the ages of 16 and 24 are significantly overrepresented in accidents; motorcycle riders between the ages of 30 and 50 are significantly underrepresented. Although the majority of the accident-involved motorcycle riders are male (96%), the female motorcycles riders are significantly overrepresented in the accident data.

22. Craftsmen, laborers, and students comprise most of the accident-involved motorcycle riders. Professionals, sales workers, and craftsmen are underrepresented and laborers, students and unemployed are overrepresented in the accidents.

23. Motorcycle riders with previous recent traffic citations and accidents are overrepresented in the accident data.

24. The motorcycle riders involved in accidents are essentially without training; 92% were self-taught or learned from family or friends. Motorcycle rider training experience reduces accident involvement and is related to reduced injuries in the event of accidents.

25. More than half of the accident-involved motorcycle riders had less than 5 months experience on the accident motorcycle, although the total street riding experience was almost 3 years. Motorcycle riders with dirt bike experience are significantly underrepresented in the accident data.

26. Lack of attention to the driving task is a common factor for the motorcyclist in an accident.

27. Almost half of the fatal accidents show alcohol involvement.

28. Motorcycle riders in these accidents showed significant collision avoidance problems. Most riders would overbrake and skid the rear wheel, and underbrake the front wheel greatly reducing collision avoidance deceleration. The ability to countersteer and swerve was essentially absent.

29. The typical motorcycle accident allows the motorcyclist just less than 2 seconds to complete all collision avoidance action.

30. Passenger-carrying motorcycles are not overrepresented in the accident area.

31. The driver of the other vehicles involved in collision with the motorcycle are not distinguished from other accident populations except that the ages of 20 to 29, and beyond 65 are overrepresented. Also, these drivers are generally unfamiliar with motorcycles.

32. Large displacement motorcycles are underrepresented in accidents but they are associated with higher injury severity when involved in accidents.

33. Any effect of motorcycle color on accident involvement is not determinable from these data, but is expected to be insignificant because the frontal surfaces are most often presented to the other vehicle involved in the collision.

34. Motorcycles equipped with fairings and windshields are underrepresented in accidents, most likely because of the contribution to conspicuity and the association with more experienced and trained riders.

35. Motorcycle riders in these accidents were significantly without motorcycle license, without any license, or with license revoked.

36. Motorcycle modifications such as those associated with the semi-chopper or cafe racer are definitely overrepresented in accidents.

37. The likelihood of injury is extremely high in these motorcycle accidents-98% of the multiple vehicle collisions and 96% of the single vehicle accidents resulted in some kind of injury to the motorcycle rider; 45% resulted in more than a minor injury.

38. Half of the injuries to the somatic regions were to the ankle-foot, lower leg, knee, and thigh-upper leg.

39. Crash bars are not an effective injury countermeasure; the reduction of injury to the ankle-foot is balanced by increase of injury to the thigh-upper leg, knee, and lower leg.

40. The use of heavy boots, jacket, gloves, etc., is effective in preventing or reducing abrasions and lacerations, which are frequent but rarely severe injuries.

41. Groin injuries were sustained by the motorcyclist in at least 13% of the accidents, which typified by multiple vehicle collision in frontal impact at higher than average speed.

42. Injury severity increases with speed, alcohol involvement and motorcycle size.

43. Seventy-three percent of the accident-involved motorcycle riders used no eye protection, and it is likely that the wind on the unprotected eyes contributed in impairment of vision which delayed hazard detection.

44. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

45. Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

46. The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.

47. The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.

48. Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.

49. FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.

50. Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.

51. The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.

52. There is no liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury.

53. Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.

54. Valid motorcycle exposure data can be obtained only from collection at the traffic site. Motor vehicle or driver license data presents information which is completely unrelated to actual use.

55. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.

[Protagoras]

Here was the first post to which I responded.

Most motorcycle accidents however, are caused by people in cars with their head's up their rectums.

The stats which are now posted in their entireity show this to be nonsense. Shall we put the operative ones in bold?

[Guillermo]

What about the liberty of the insurance company setting the rules for who they insure?

It's not against the law to leave your car keys in your ignition, but would it be onerous on the part of the ins. co. to say they will not cover cars stolen which had their keys in them?

[-YYZ-]

"I heard the same thing from a local doctor who called in to a talk show.

And how did he refer to those who DID wear helmets? Quadriplegics."

Pardon me for saying, but that's just stupid logic. By the same measure, an accident that would leave you a gibbering idiot without a helmet could be walked away from if you're wearing one. That's the protection a helmet gives you. Yes, there are collisions energies above which no helmet will prevent your brain from being pulped, but there is all that area below there where it could make the difference between permanent brain damage and walking away.

I have no problem with people choosing not to wear a helmet. Hell, I might do it myself if given the choice, but disparaging helmets' protective abilities because you don't want to wear one is just asinine.

[spunkets]

"The insurance companies need to have a rider attatched to all personal injury policies, which would reduce damages or negate any claims resulting from no helmet during such activities as motorcycle or snowmobile riding."

A rider is fine if the cause of the accident can be attributed to one deciding not to wear the protective gear. If the cause can be attributed to the faulty, or deliberate behavior of someone else, then the waiver doesn't apply. There is absolutely no valid justification to force others to wear protective clothing to protect the pocketbooks of folks that cause problems.

[Redleg Duke]

I was living in Madison back when the bikers were rallying against the then helmet law. I remember particularly how one of the leaders of the protest and his girlfriend wiped out over by Camp Randall Statium on the campus on rain-slicked streets the evening after the protest. Neither were wearing helmets and both died of...you guesed it...massive head injuries.

I used to ride myself, and this crap about helmets causing accidents is, in my opinion, just that...crap! The folks using that are grasping at straws, just like, "Car drivers with their heads up their rectums cause accidents with bikes!"

I learned to ride defensively. I wish I had a nickel for each time some aggressive biker planted his stupid ass in my blind spot, tail-gated me or "white-lined" to cut right in front of me.

I have no problem with lowering or removing coverage according to the misuse or non-use of protective clothing and equipment. "Stupid is as Stupid does!"

[B Knotts]

Hmmm...I don't think riders should be required by law to wear a helmet, but...I certainly think a jury should be able to take that into account in a damage award phase.

[Protagoras]

There is absolutely no valid justification to force others to wear protective clothing to protect the pocketbooks of folks that cause problems.

The justification is to the insurance company. And it's not force the poster was talking about. It's a voluntary business agreement between insurer and insured.

The government is force. And they have no place in this IMO.

[BraveMan]

Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most often a passenger automobile. (Number One) In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents. (Number Six) The failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents. The driver of the other vehicle involved in collision with the motorcycle did not see the motorcycle before the collision, or did not see the motorcycle until too late to avoid the collision. (Number Seven)

OK, so maybe the heads of Oscar Grope were somewhere other than physically up their rectums. I believe Biblewonk was probably using a colorful metaphor to nevertheless accurately describe the causation of the majority of motorcycle accidents. Perhaps Biblewonk's use of sarcasm was not noted by you . . .

[BraveMan]

Shall we put the operative ones in bold?

Please do . . .

[spunkets]

"The justification is to the insurance company. And it's not force the poster was talking about. It's a voluntary business agreement between insurer and insured."

I'm not sure you understand the concept. I was commenting about the application of waiver that would release a person causing an accident from responsibility for the damage caused. There is nothing voluntary about insurance cos. using first party waivers to refuse to cover damage caused by covered second parties.

[Protagoras]

1. Approximately three-fourths of these motorcycle accidents involved collision with another vehicle, which was most often a passenger automobile.

This says nothing to support your argument about who causes accidents. Only that they are with automobiles. Meaningless to the question.

2. Approximately one-fourth of these motorcycle accidents were single vehicle accidents involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or some fixed object in the environment.

One forth of the accidents are removed from the equation.

4. In single vehicle accidents, motorcycle rider error was present as the accident precipitating factor in about two-thirds of the cases, with the typical error being a slideout and fall due to overbraking or running wide on a curve due to excess speed or under-cornering.

Two thirds of these accidents are caused by motorcycle pilots with their head up their ass.

6. In multiple vehicle accidents, the driver of the other vehicle violated the motorcycle right-of-way and caused the accident in two-thirds of those accidents.

In a few of one type of accident, 2/3 of them were caused by OTHER vehicles. Some of them or even many of them might have been other motorcycles. Or other types of vehicles.

This is a very interesting but unrelated stat.

55. Less than 10% of the motorcycle riders involved in these accidents had insurance of any kind to provide medical care or replace property.

Finally, I didn't respond to anything Biblewonk said. It was a different poster. Who, BTW, didn't bother to disagree with my comment. The reason was evident to me.

Now an unscientific observation. I have personally known 5 people who were killed in motorcycle accidents. ALL of them were caused by them driving like As-holes at extreme speed.

[Geritol]

Helmet wearing will save many lives, and cost others. Any safety device, rigid restriction, vaccine, antibiotic, or government mandate may indeed save many times more lives than it costs, but there is almost always a cost.

Lets say we have a disease with a 50% death rate and a vaccine with a 1 in 100,000 death rate. Those "few" who will die from the vaccine itself are easily compared to the half of the potentially infected who would not make it, but for those few it is still a great cost.

When wearing a helmet, there are some who have been killed and others who will be killed who otherwise would not have died. The helmet makes the head a bigger target. Some glancing blows on the helmet would have missed the head. The increased torque from the increased diameter of the helmet on top of the head makes it easier to break or twist the neck. The hopefully slight decrease in hearing and vision has made all the difference needed in being able to avoid the accident or getting creamed. Some will die because of wearing helmets, while hopefully many more have and will live thanks to them.

When driving a car, most people who are ejected from a vehicle are worse off than those who are securely held. For those few who are ejected and walk away from a flattened and non-survivable car the seatbelt would have caused their death, but they are the exception, not the rule.

As a society, the tradeoff looks easy to justify. On an individual basis any rigid mandate or zero tolerance rule will be the death of some who would have otherwise survived, at least this time.

In a way this is like a giant game of russian roulette. You come upon a group of bikers or whatever with this big revolver playing this deadly game. Lets say that the cylinder has 1000 chambers and 50 of them have bullets. You force them to remove all but 2 of the bullets, (impossible to make anything intrinsically safe, so we have to leave in 1 or 2) and those are put in different chambers than they were before. You have greatly increased the odds of survival of the game, but it is still a crap shoot. Some will still get shot, and by changing the parameters, it will now include some who would not have gotten shot before.

Liberty is choosing your own risks. It may easily be argued that the unhelmeted person puts the other drivers at greater risk, and therefore full liberty can not be allowed. In my opinion this risk is a financial risk due to lawyers and lawsuits rather out of control, and it is the law profession putting all drivers at risk, not unhelmeted "fools".

It is also argueable that the "very young and foolish" are not mature enough to choose their own risks. This may indeed be true, but who am i to play God and decide that these X number of people die to save those others, whatever the ratio or final numbers are.

[martin_fierro]

	FReeper Motorcycle Hooligan
Send FReepmail if you want on/off FMH list

Fight nice, kids!