Sport Bikes banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,634 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Full story in link below.

Biking without a helmet: No brainer | The Economist

STAFF at the Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska can sometimes guess the home state of the motorcyclists they treat. Nebraska obliges all riders to wear helmets; neighbouring Iowa, Kansas and South Dakota do not. The helmetless are distinctive, says Dr Lori Terryberry-Spohr: they suffer “diffuse” internal bleeding and cell death across large areas. Such patients typically run up $1.3m in direct medical costs. Fewer than a third work again. A study of helmet-shunning bikers admitted to one large hospital, cited by the Centres for Disease Control (CDC), found that taxpayers paid for 63% of their care.

During the 2013 legislative session, 19 bills were introduced in 11 states to repeal all-rider helmet laws. None passed. Appeals to thrift can take some of the credit. For years, helmet-advocates stressed human suffering when giving evidence to state legislatures. Now they also stress costs to taxpayers. Libertarians often demand: “Let those who ride decide,” says Jacqueline Gillan, who heads Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, an insurer-funded lobby group. Her retort is: “Let those who pay have a say.”

When states repeal or weaken motorcycle-helmet laws, as dozens have, helmet use falls, fatalities rise and head-injury hospitalisations soar. Biker deaths rose 18% after Michigan repealed its all-rider helmet law in 2012. A rule obliges unhelmeted Michigan riders to carry at least $20,000 in medical-payments coverage. That does not even cover initial stabilisation in intensive care after a nasty crash.

Helmet-haters claim that increased deaths merely reflect a jump in miles ridden after laws are repealed, as bikers enjoy the wind in their hair. Not so. Some studies measure death rates by motorcycle-miles travelled: deaths-per-bike-mile rose 25% when Texas scrapped helmets, for instance. In Washington Tom Petri, the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives committee that oversees highways, wants the CDC to stop researching motorcycle safety. The agency seems to have “an anti-motorcycle agenda”, he growls. Asked about accidents involving the helmetless, he says: “I don’t think there’s that clear a correlation.”
 

·
Silent pipes take lives
Joined
·
12,981 Posts
Of course, the arguments for requiring helmets can also be used for banning the use of motorcycles entirely. Both groups make others pay for their choices. The difference being that the jump from "car" to "motorcycle" is far more costly than the jump from "helmet" to "no helmet" over a population.

(Riding increases your risk of death by ~3,500%, but going helmetless versus wearing a DOT helmet only increases your risk of death by 61%.)
 

·
Silent pipes take lives
Joined
·
12,981 Posts
Some studies measure death rates by motorcycle-miles travelled: deaths-per-bike-mile rose 25% when Texas scrapped helmets, for instance.
That's actually kind of low. 2.8% of riders who wreck while wearing DOT helmets die in all recorded wrecks (which necessarily excludes less serious wrecks where emergency services weren't called). 4.5% of those who don't wear DOT helmets die in the same kinds of wrecks.

I wonder if Texas had a higher-than-normal number of non-DOT helmets in use. Nationally only 15.6% of helmets worn are not labeled as DOT.
 

·
Mediocre Strafer
Joined
·
9,137 Posts
The caption of the article picture says "wildly irresponsible", which applies to this ridiculous piece of "journalism".

"Biker deaths soared 18%" - Um, is that cost effective or NOT cost effective? No information or discussion given.

"Such patients typically run up $1.3 million in direct medical costs." - Context? Is that high or low? Does it include that 18% that died? How many were DOA and incurred NO direct medical cost? How does that compare to the ones who recovered due to helmet use, but did so expensively? Where do you factor in the percentage that would have been DOA without helmets, but now go on to die of cancer in twenty years?

This article is something I would expect from USA Today. For a publication like The Economist it is beyond garbage.

An individual choice of helmet use is based on a personal assessment of risk. If you want to make the big picture statistical argument of cost to society, better bring a WAY more comprehensive perspective.

KeS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
848 Posts
Dude the numbers are right


its not us sportbikers that raise the numbers.


Its those damn pirates who think they know how to ride.


Letting those fools go unhelmetted is asking for trouble.





I grew up in the days of no helmets here and sporttbikes, nothing like a midnight summer slow cruise with no helmet. If we planned on carving, we geared up.
 

·
Pit Bike Legend
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
Hey Kevin, ever hear of space limitations? That story would be long as hell if it delved into everything you are talking about in detail. Instead it touched on all of it, and made the editor happy by not filling multiple pages with an article that most people wouldn't read. The stats are out there, go look it up yourself.

The simple fact is that every state that has repealed a helmet law has see a huge increase in tax dollars going towards head injuries to riders. That takes into account everything. More dollars is more dollars no matter how you slice it or justify it.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
Hey Kevin, ever hear of space limitations? That story would be long as hell if it delved into everything you are talking about in detail. Instead it touched on all of it, and made the editor happy by not filling multiple pages with an article that most people wouldn't read. The stats are out there, go look it up yourself.

The simple fact is that every state that has repealed a helmet law has see a huge increase in tax dollars going towards head injuries to riders. That takes into account everything. More dollars is more dollars no matter how you slice it or justify it.
And the injustice there is not that people are allowed to make their own choices.
The injustice is that people are forced to pay for the consequences of other people's choices.
IOW, the culprit here is not freedom, but socialism and government. Surprise!

PhilB
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldSchlPunk

·
Pit Bike Legend
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
So what's the solution phil?

Somebody exercises their freedom to be stupid and ends up in the hospital with a fractured skull, but only $20k worth of insurance. Should we simply let them die because they were irresponsible both with their choice of headwear, and their choice of insurance?

I'd say the culprit is the cost of healthcare and the fact that hospitals are required to treat anyone in need.
 

·
Mediocre Strafer
Joined
·
9,137 Posts
Hey Kevin, ever hear of space limitations? That story would be long as hell if it delved into everything you are talking about in detail. Instead it touched on all of it, and made the editor happy by not filling multiple pages with an article that most people wouldn't read. The stats are out there, go look it up yourself.

The simple fact is that every state that has repealed a helmet law has see a huge increase in tax dollars going towards head injuries to riders. That takes into account everything. More dollars is more dollars no matter how you slice it or justify it.
Simple facts are for simple people. I have a professional history as a financial analyst for an HMO, and I can't draw any conclusions from the information presented, except that the author has an agenda s/he is trying to pitch. Apparently it has worked in your case. I myself have absolutely no idea whether helmet use is an overall win, lose, or draw financially speaking, and have never seen anything close to a thorough study. This fluff piece certainly isn't it.

KeS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
495 Posts
Hey Kevin, ever hear of space limitations? That story would be long as hell if it delved into everything you are talking about in detail. Instead it touched on all of it, and made the editor happy by not filling multiple pages with an article that most people wouldn't read. The stats are out there, go look it up yourself.

The simple fact is that every state that has repealed a helmet law has see a huge increase in tax dollars going towards head injuries to riders. That takes into account everything. More dollars is more dollars no matter how you slice it or justify it.
From a publication like the Economist, I'd expect it to be lengthy and well-written.

That was crap on a cracker worthy of Reader's Digest.
 

·
Silent pipes take lives
Joined
·
12,981 Posts
its not us sportbikers that raise the numbers.

Its those damn pirates who think they know how to ride.
Incorrect. Motorcycle fatalities per miles traveled are higher for riders of supersports than for riders of cruisers and touring bikes.
 

·
Pit Bike Legend
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
Gee thanks for the personal attacks there Kevin. Fuck you too.

This isn't the first article ever written about this topic, and the statistics are out there for anyone to look at. My opinion on this topic was formed years ago, based on plenty of reading. If you're too lazy to do the research yourself, but wanna trash on this little blurb for not being thorough enough.....well that's you, and you should complain about your own laziness as well.

I also think it's retarded to call an article lacking because it doesn't compare the costs of a brain injury or death to the possibility that someone might get cancer 20 years later. There's absolutely no correlation there, and absolutely no way for anyone to even do that math accurately. The discussion is the cost of helmets vs. no helmets. It's a topic with plenty of numbers and research if you want to look it up. Your opinion is yours to have, but calling somebody else simple for looking at the relevant information and forming an opinion makes you an asshole.
 

·
A guy on a scruffy bike
Joined
·
15,367 Posts
So what's the solution phil?

Somebody exercises their freedom to be stupid and ends up in the hospital with a fractured skull, but only $20k worth of insurance. Should we simply let them die because they were irresponsible both with their choice of headwear, and their choice of insurance?
Yes. It's unethical to force other people to bear those costs.

I'd say the culprit is the cost of healthcare and the fact that hospitals are required to treat anyone in need.
The cost of modern healthcare is going to very high regardless. It's a highly skilled and high-tech practice, provided individually on a custom basis. The question is who pays that high cost, not whether it must be paid.

The second part, yes, requiring providers to treat without regard to payment further drives up the cost for everyone else, and protects people from their own bad choices (thus freeing them to go out and make more bad expensive choices and pawn the costs off on the rest of us).

PhilB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Taxes shmaxes.

How many billions of dollars are being doled out to schools, parents, etc. to support a "lifestyle" that I have no interest in yet gladly support with my tax payments?

The mainstream can kiss my tailpipe if they think this argument is any less ignorant than the idiots who don't wear helmets. This country is LOST in the morass of "safety" and being "progressive" while it continues to bleed out of the Freedom jugular vein.

"Home of the Brave" and then this kind of crap? What a joke. People should shut up and focus on consuming television and breeding, the only two things anyone cares about any more. Makes me sick. The culture of this country is circling the drain.

Moooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. And then we sit and wonder why we are getting overtaken by people in other countries that don't have the same problems facing reality or mortality. Ridiculous.:gorilla
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
It is equally unethical to let someone suffer and/or die because they can't pay the exorbitant costs of modern medical care.

The answer is to mandate adequate insurance as a condition of obtaining a license. There should be no choice to ride/drive irresponsibly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,527 Posts
So what's the solution phil?

Somebody exercises their freedom to be stupid and ends up in the hospital with a fractured skull, but only $20k worth of insurance. Should we simply let them die because they were irresponsible both with their choice of headwear, and their choice of insurance?

I'd say the culprit is the cost of healthcare and the fact that hospitals are required to treat anyone in need.
I don't suffer fools well, let them die if they choose to not wear the appropriate gear or have insurance. I have both that I pay for. If they cannot pay their medical bill, let them file a Chapter 13/7 and pay it back over time or liquidate their assests. I'm tired of paying for everyone else's poor choices in life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,527 Posts
It is equally unethical to let someone suffer and/or die because they can't pay the exorbitant costs of modern medical care.
No, it is not. You want high quality state of the art medicine?.. it costs. If you don't want to pay for it, you better hope a band-aid and peroxide can fix what injury you have. I was not put on earth to take care of everyone, people need to be responsible for themselves and live with the consequences of their choices and actions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
LOL @ the cruiser guys in the photo on the article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
465 Posts
Of course, the arguments for requiring helmets can also be used for banning the use of motorcycles entirely. Both groups make others pay for their choices. The difference being that the jump from "car" to "motorcycle" is far more costly than the jump from "helmet" to "no helmet" over a population.

(Riding increases your risk of death by ~3,500%, but going helmetless versus wearing a DOT helmet only increases your risk of death by 61%.)
That's true.

Personally, having survived a nasty crash because I had a helmet, I would never ride without one.

On the other hand, if we start deciding what is legal based on costs to society, I'm afraid that sends us down a slippery slope to start banning anything that carries risks.
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top