• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Chalk one up for Irony

M-Taliesin

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2011
Messages
1,504
Location
Aurora, Colorado
Motorcyclist dies on ride protesting helmet law. :uhoh:

"Troopers say Contos would have likely survived if he had been wearing a helmet." :banghead:

Howdy Pardner!
Just as I always suspected. You can't get ahead without a helmet.
(sorry, couldn't resist!)

A few years ago, my wife and I officiated a wedding near Boulder. In the afternoon, at the reception, a fairly strong thunderstorm passed through. On the way back via the Boulder/Denver turnpike, we were reduced to a rolling parking lot. Traffic was backed up for miles. When we finally got to the scene, we discovered a motorcyclist had an accident and was killed. There was a crater in the pavement not far from where his bike came to rest.

Later we learned that the guy on the motorcycle was recipient of a direct hit of lightening. The lightening passed from his head, through his body and blasted the crater into the pavement below him. He was dead before his bike finally crashed.

Reports we received indicated his helmet was melted to his skull and couldnt be removed without also removing all of the skin, scalp and ears from the victim.

Needless to say, it was a closed casket funeral.

Makes ya sorta stop and think... don't it?
Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

Blessings,
M-Taliesin
 

cyras21

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
152
Location
Stepehens City, VA
I ride...I wear a helmet...I don't think the government should have any say if I do or don't. IF my insurance company wants to make policy requiring helmet wearing then that's on them. The government should stay out of it. It's not their place to dictate how we live our lives.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I've long advocated that insurance companies, based upon data to which they have ready access, set two rates: One for clients who choose to take ordinary safety measures (seat belts, helmets, etc.) and one for those who choose not to take those measures. Set different rates for those two groups based on expected payments. Folks who buy at the with-safety-devices rate are only covered for personal injuries sustained in an accident if they were using the defined safety devices.

Also, I am in favor of State laws that shift civil liability for personal injury or death (in whole or in part) to the person not using reasonable safety devices when involved in an accident. Mandating the use of safety devices is an intrusion on personal choice in a matter in which the government has no compelling interest.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
cyras21 said:
I ride... I wear a helmet... I don't think the government should have any say if I do or don't.
Ditto, ditto, & ditto.

eye95 said:
I've long advocated that insurance companies, based upon data to which they have ready access, set two rates: One for clients who choose to take ordinary safety measures (seat belts, helmets, etc.) and one for those who choose not to take those measures. Set different rates for those two groups based on expected payments.
For once, we agree on something.
This could be expanded to home insurance - people w/ smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, updated electric panel (breakers instead of fuses), & maybe some sort of alarm or defense device (guns count) pay less than people without.
 

Jim675

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
1,023
Location
Bellevue, Washington, USA
For those who say you should wear one to be "reasonable", can you name any human activity where wearing a helmet might not potentially make you safer? Feel free to include sleeping in your own bed, walking the dog, and taking a shower. Yeah, I couldn't think of one either.

We all define our own levels of acceptable risk, unless of course we're a political minority and someone can get elected by recommended "reasonable restrictions" for our own safety.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
Ditto, ditto, & ditto.


For once, we agree on something.
This could be expanded to home insurance - people w/ smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, updated electric panel (breakers instead of fuses), & maybe some sort of alarm or defense device (guns count) pay less than people without.

USAA offers discounts in Homeowners Insurance for a lot of things, including what you mention: alarms--burglar and smoke, newer houses--better electrical wiring, etc. It's a good idea. There have always been discounts in auto insurance for the stupid driving lights, teen drivers ed, good driver, etc. I like the idea of guns, though. Let's start with an M-61 A1 Vulcan...
 

Shovelhead

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
315
Location
NO VA, ,
While you're at it,,,,,,Raise the rates for those who choose to eat while driving, talk on a cell phone while driving, program their GPS, seach on their IPOD for that 'special' song, text their BFF or read a text from their BFF, and all those other things that car drivers choose to do to distract themselves with electronic toys while they're supposed to be driving that make riding a motorcycle extremely hazardous....and don't forget to reject insurance injury claims from folks who refuse to wear seat belts. .

Or just throw in folks that own or shoot firearms. for rate hikes too........... those things are also dangerous ...........

Why not just let the Government control every thing we do?
 
Last edited:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
For those who say you should wear one to be "reasonable", can you name any human activity where wearing a helmet might not potentially make you safer? Feel free to include sleeping in your own bed, walking the dog, and taking a shower. Yeah, I couldn't think of one either.

We all define our own levels of acceptable risk, unless of course we're a political minority and someone can get elected by recommended "reasonable restrictions" for our own safety.

If this is in reference to my suggestion, "reasonable" would be defined by the numbers crunched by the insurance companies. Insurees would be free to choose the "with reasonable measures" rate, the rate without, or another insurance company. The free market will ultimately define "reasonable."

In the event of a dispute as to whether or not an insuree's actions met the definition of "reasonable" in his contract with the insurance company, a court will make that call.

The point of my suggestion is that it places acceptance of risk and the attendant financial consequences (or rewards) with the individual whose actions will accept or avoid risk--where they belong.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
While you're at it,,,,,,Raise the rates for those who choose to eat while driving, talk on a cell phone while driving, program their GPS, seach on their IPOD for that 'special' song, text their BFF or read a text from their BFF, and all those other things that car drivers choose to do to distract themselves with electronic toys while they're supposed to be driving that make riding a motorcycle extremely hazardous....and don't forget to reject insurance injury claims from folks who refuse to wear seat belts. .

Or just throw in folks that own or shoot firearms. for rate hikes too........... those things are also dangerous ...........

Why not just let the Government control every thing we do?

This would not be governmental control. This would be the free market setting premiums based upon expected payouts.

If the insurance companies could set rates based upon folks who do or do not participate in the activities you describe, and if it could usually be shown whether or not folks were participating in those activities at the time of the accident, then it would make sense for insurance companies to add not doing these things to its list of reasonable safety measures.

Personally, I'd agree to those measures if they'd save me money on my premiums. But that is the point, isn't it? Individuals (and businesses) making their own decisions about risks, rewards, and use of our resources in the face of both possibilities?
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
In the medical field they have a scientific term for people who ride motorcycles without helmets:

Organ donors...

Personally, I see it as a Darwinism issue. There shouldn't be laws requiring helmets--it should be up to the individual rider. But I DO think that if you want to ride without a helmet, you SHOULD be required to have an organ donor designation on your DL, so at least SOMEONE can benefit from your stupidity someday...
 
Last edited:

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
In the medical field they have a scientific term for people who ride motorcycles without helmets:

Organ donors...

Personally, I see it as a Darwinism issue. There shouldn't be laws requiring helmets--it should be up to the individual rider. But I DO think that if you want to ride without a helmet, you SHOULD be required to have an organ donor designation on your DL, so at least SOMEONE can benefit from your stupidity someday...

I don't think gov't should be able to mandate what happens to a corpse, regardless of how someone becomes one. Not all that sure I'd want kidneys or a liver from someone smart enough to ride a mortor cycle w/o a helmet.
 

jbone

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,230
Location
WA
I've long advocated that insurance companies, based upon data to which they have ready access, set two rates: One for clients who choose to take ordinary safety measures (seat belts, helmets, etc.) and one for those who choose not to take those measures. Set different rates for those two groups based on expected payments. Folks who buy at the with-safety-devices rate are only covered for personal injuries sustained in an accident if they were using the defined safety devices.

Also, I am in favor of State laws that shift civil liability for personal injury or death (in whole or in part) to the person not using reasonable safety devices when involved in an accident. Mandating the use of safety devices is an intrusion on personal choice in a matter in which the government has no compelling interest.
Under that though process the nanny regulation would never end. You could charge different life insurance or medical coverage rates for people owning firearms without factory installed locks and those with, or different rates for those owning a firearm, or not owning; endless. Who lives under greater liability the owner or non-owner? I of course say the non-owner. But from your reasoning I would venture to say you would advocate the owner, or non-factory lock person with the higher rates.

More intrusive regulation, just what the doctor ordered.
 
Top