Live free and die: Michigan's motorcycle helmet law four years later

[Koop]

Another point to consider in the helmet freedom of choice debate is litigation.

Let's say that a rider is out without a helmet. Through no fault of his own, a careless driver hits him and he suffers a serious head injury resulting in permanent disability. Guess what - the insurance company will argue before a jury that ample evidence of risk of serious injury while riding without a helmet exists. The rider choosing to ride without a helmet despite the evidence of enhanced safety, has contributed to the extent of his injury and disability. Therefore any damages awarded must be apportioned with the riders contribution considered. In other words, the rider wouldn't get the full amount of compensation he may have been awarded if he had a helmet on his head.

 

[robmorg]

Another point to consider in the helmet freedom of choice debate is litigation.

Let's say that a rider is out without a helmet. Through no fault of his own, a careless driver hits him and he suffers a serious head injury resulting in permanent disability. Guess what - the insurance company will argue before a jury that ample evidence of risk of serious injury while riding without a helmet exists. The rider choosing to ride without a helmet despite the evidence of enhanced safety, has contributed to the extent of his injury and disability. Therefore any damages awarded must be apportioned with the riders contribution considered. In other words, the rider wouldn't get the full amount of compensation he may have been awarded if he had a helmet on his head.

Interesting argument. However, the plaintiff's attorney would be able to argue an equally persuasive position that actions of the victim in no way mitigate the fault of the errant driver who recklessly hit and killed him. Even if the plaintiff lost that argument, it's not a justification for helmet laws. It just adds to the personal risk.

"Dancing, marshmallows?" Cute.
This discussion is about prevention, preventing you and I from paying for some one else's irresponsibility. If you'd rather pay for that in taxes and insurance premiums rather than have common sense regulation your vote not mine.

Well, the discussion often is about that, but it shouldn't be. This is a common "red herring" argument made by helmet law enthusiasts. I simply do not buy it. When you insure a vehicle - even a motorcycle - the vast majority of the premium pays for liability, and comp & collision for your own vehicle. The medical rider that covers your own injury is always a relatively low cost, non-mandatory coverage. As for the "other guy's policy" I really doubt whether liability costs for automobile polices are much effected by whether or not the state has a helmet law. Bob may be better able to address that.

If, OTOH, you were talking about the cost of medical insurance, the costs that drive those rates are so gigantic, and so massively inclusive of all that drives the cost of medical insurance, that excess risk from insuring someone living in a state with no helmet law is miniscule. Sure there may be SOME additional risk to the insurer, but I'm guessing that it would equate to less than 35 cents per year per policy (considering the amount of total medical insurance polices written statewide) - just to throw a figure out there. You mention more taxes... What tax would be effected by motorcycle injuries? I cannot think of any.

This argument about the lack of a helmet law driving up costs for everybody simply doesn't hold water. The cost to individual insureds is so miniscule that it is indeed negligible. And any regulation that infringes upon the personal rights of individual members of a society, to the benefit of no one else, could hardly be labeled as "common sense regulation". That's NOT what government should be about - at ANY level.

I hope my comments don't offend you. Be assured that I am not personally attacking you. I'm just trying to coat those "dancing marshmallows" with a little "Common Sense" reality (to use a 1776 analogy from Thomas Paine.) Sorry for that... Bob's analogy of "dancing around the fire, without cooking the marshmallows" was probably a better one.

 

[wyliec]

I'm still on vacation and shouldn't be on here. But, let me throw this out to muddy the waters. I work in physical therapy, and there are times with TBI's that the person needs quite a bit of assistance from his family, and for lack of a better word, becomes a burden once released from the hospital. Those who ride without a helmet, do you think they think about that ahead of time? Maybe if they did, they might make a different choice; I don't know. I'm just saying, it's more than a monetary thing.

I'm only talking TBI's here as they relate to motorcycles. The other cases of TBI's may have been lessened or averted by choices too numerous to mention here. No matter how they sustain their TBI, I'm more than happy to work with them.

 

[Koop]

This argument about the lack of a helmet law driving up costs for everybody simply doesn't hold water. The cost to individual insureds is so miniscule that it is indeed negligible.

I beg to differ. See my post above regarding the insurance premium increase in Michigan after the repeal of helmet law. I personally suffered the premium increase even though I always rode with a helmet on my head - this argument does hold water.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

Interesting argument. However, the plaintiff's attorney would be able to argue an equally persuasive position that actions of the victim in no way mitigate the fault of the errant driver who recklessly hit and killed him. Even if the plaintiff lost that argument, it's not a justification for helmet laws. It just adds to the personal risk.

Depends on the state. Some (many?) states have contributory negligence provisions in their civil laws. If the injured plaintiff can be shown to have been 50% responsible for his injuries, and the defendant 50% responsible, the plaintiff either gets nothing, or only 50%. I'm not sure which is the case.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

This argument about the lack of a helmet law driving up costs for everybody simply doesn't hold water. The cost to individual insureds is so miniscule that it is indeed negligible.

In order to intelligently argue this point, we need cold hard facts, which we may never get. Until then, neither side can claim the high road.

And any regulation that infringes upon the personal rights of individual members of a society, to the benefit of no one else, could hardly be labeled as "common sense regulation".

You would agree then, if a benefit can be shown to exist for the public in general, an infringement of personal rights is justified?

So the ultimate question then becomes what is the benefit to the general public? Then the next question is how great must the general benefit be to justify infringement of personal rights? And that, my friend, is the question at the core of determining how a democracy shall be governed. Two hundred years ago the answer was a lot different than it is today.

 

[robmorg]

I beg to differ. See my post above regarding the insurance premium increase in Michigan after the repeal of helmet law. I personally suffered the premium increase even though I always rode with a helmet on my head - this argument does hold water.

You didn't say what kind of insurance you were talking about – I assume it may be your motorcycle insurance policy. If so, what specific coverage on the policy increased in rates , and by how much? Most of the cost of motorcycle insurance is for comp & collision, and those coverages don't have anything to do with injuries. If they raised the premium on the entire policy across-the-board , I suspect that it was either a coincidence, and your rates would've gone up anyway, or that they used the repeal of the law as an excuse to raise rates across the state without a direct correlation to risk factor. :sour:. Like I said, personal injury coverage (for when the insured is injured) is usually a very small part of the overall premium.

 

[jerpinoy]

I don't care what other people say, I'm wearing my headbucket. It's my law to wear my helmet.:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

 

[robmorg]

...You would agree then, if a benefit can be shown to exist for the public in general, an infringement of personal rights is justified?

So the ultimate question then becomes what is the benefit to the general public? Then the next question is how great must the general benefit be to justify infringement of personal rights? And that, my friend, is the question at the core of determining how a democracy shall be governed. Two hundred years ago the answer was a lot different than it is today.

To the extent that the public in general would suffer harm, the question of what constitutes a "personal right" obviously comes into play. As for the rest of what you said above... I agree with your premise, and that the question is always evolving - sadly not to the benefit of the public , more often than not.

 

[SpyderWalter]

People keep focusing on how anyones decision not to wear a helmet is raising your insurance premiums and therefore is injurious to you.

Accordingly I demand that all of you stop eating red meat, sugar and fat (especially that delicious bacon) as your insistence on doing that is what is really raising medical costs and thus my insurance premiums.

The world has been turned upside down when the same people who scream Don't Tread on Me also demand that the government control other people's behavior if it might impact or offend your chosen behaviors.

Relax folks. Worry more about the stupid cage drivers that target us and less about your fellow riders and their decisions in this matter. Wear what you want when you want. Live and let, well, let road rash happen to someone else.

Peace.
ATWALT

 

[Dan McNally]

Helmet laws are no more intrusive than seatbelt laws - and there was just as much anger when they became mandatory. No one says a helmet will protect from all possible injury - but, all things being equal, a helmet will allow riders to walk away from many accidents that would have killed them or seriously injured them without the helmet.

As for the original post, the number of deaths per year does not, necessarily have anything to do with helmets - too many factors involved, such as more distracted drivers, more traffic, more people on motorcycles - but the following does say a lot - from the article:

"Over that same period, a 2016 hospital study found of 345 motorcycle crash victims brought to Spectrum Health Butterworth Hospital in Grand Rapids, 10 percent of riders who were not wearing helmets died, compared with 3 percent of riders who wore helmets. Riders not wearing helmets also had more severe head injuries, spent more days in intensive care, and more time on a ventilator, the study found.

The average hospital cost for non-helmeted riders was $27,760 – 32 percent higher than for those wearing helmets."

This shows that helmets do save lives, or, at least, lessen some injuries. It also shows that there is a financial cost to others when a person gets in an accident while exercising the right to not wear a helmet - and that financial cost is what gives society the right to impose laws regarding helmet use - as the decision impacts others, not just the rider.

I experienced a very trivial accident as a young man - a simple spill on a bike that embarrassed me - hardly doing 15 MPH - I got up, embarrassed, and brushing myself off - and was surprised to see the look on my friend's face - he was staring at me with his mouth open, looking shocked. He told me to look at my helmet - right over my right temple, a golf ball sized rock was embedded in the helmet. It would have been in my brain without that helmet - I'll never ride without a helmet, again. nojoke

 

[clinard]

My $.02 I'm still riding