bone crusher
Alignment Specialist
It isn't an unreasonable request to you. However you didn't address my point that merely riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than driving in a car. Is this true or not? In an accident, is any motorcycle rider more prone to injury than someone driving a car?
So lets say a non rider proposes that anyone foolish enough to ride a motorcycle is injured that they should bear 100% of their costs. If a non rider proposed this, would you support it as reasonable?
The facts are clear in both your example and mine. The difference is that my example begins to infringe upon your right to choose. So would that be acceptable to you?
Insurance cost is based on the law of large numbers. So we all do bear the cost of increased injuries. And injuries result in any motorcycle accident, regardless of helmet at a higher rate than if you were driving a car. Nothing in that business operates in a vacuum.
Who cares if motorcycles are more dangerous than cars? That's why the coverages are not blended. That has nothing to do with our discussion. Nobody with car insurance gives a hoot about you or me and our motorcycle coverage as they are totally separate.
The facts are not clear as you are describing... We have motorcycle insurance to cover us when on a bike, just as you have business, homeowner's, car, and other insurances. These insurances are there to cover you should anything happen but they are specific to what they cover. You can't compare car and motorcycles. A non-rider is not paying for motorcycle insurance like you and me.
Please allow me to give another example of a flaw in your argument...you have homeowner's insurance and you decide to build a basement with a few buddies. Depending what jurisdiction you are in, you fail to get necessary permits to do so. You have an electrical fire and your house burns down. Your insurance decides NOT to cover you even though you have insurance...why is this?? This is because you failed to be responsible...your problem, you pay. Your argument would be that you have paid your premiums...theirs would be that you did not follow the rules and had substandard electrical installation that caused a fire.
The same applies for the helmet example...simply put, there is no reasonable way to argue in favor of not wearing a helmet unless you get emotional about it, and emotion does not win against facts. Helmets save lives, period. I don't think this point needs to be argued any further...there is simply no other way to tackle this. If you don't wear a helmet, you are costing many others a lot of cash. With that being said, I think we can all agree that you should have a choice to wear one or not...this debate is not about whether you want to wear one or not...it's about bearing responsibility for your actions should you fight the data.
As far as rates go, yes, all our motorcycle insurance rates are determined by actuarial charts...and yes, people not wearing helmets raise our rates...this is clear by the findings of the study.
So again, what point are you trying to make?..that nobody should be able to ride a bike because it's inherently more dangerous than driving a car? You think people with car insurance are worrying about paying for injuries due to motorcycles? As a side note, do you realize that each car has different insurance rates as well due to crash results, safety, etc...? Again, you can get coverage, but some rides are more dangerous than others.
Bottom line: if you choose to make your ride exponentially more dangerous than others, then you should have to pay for that risk so others do not have to...this is fair for all...what issue do you have with this?