Helmets

[Dan_Ashley]

Figuring out the differing factors, the rates for each of them, and THEN having to find a way to keep folks from cheating on it would be a real pain... :shocked:

Really not too bad...I could do it. So could thousands of other professional statisticians and/or actuaries. Really, the data exists, and it could be enforced by additional DRG (diagnosis related groups) medical coding, in conjunction with accident reporting. Not too hard at all. I estimate that each insurance company would need to invest about 150 to 200 labor hours to develop, test, and validate the statistics. (Remember: I used to do this kind of stuff for a living--after I was injured on the police force, that is.)

 

[Bob Denman]

How would you insure complicnace? :dontknow:
I'd be willing to bet a mortgage payment that folks who normally don't wear helmets; would sign anything saying that they will, for a drop in premiums...

 

[Dan_Ashley]

How would you insure complicnace? :dontknow:
I'd be willing to bet a mortgage payment that folks who normally don't wear helmets; would sign anything saying that they will, for a drop in premiums...

realitively easily--if a insurance enrolee is injured without complying, and it is documented in medical records, ambulance records, or police records, then deny payment. If someone gets a ticket, then increase their rates. It is not 100% enforcement, but it would be sufficient to keep the violations down to a pretty low level. Its the same kind of thinking used by the IRS to maintain, albeit imperfect, compliance with tax law.

 

[PW2013STL]

How would you insure complicnace? :dontknow:
I'd be willing to bet a mortgage payment that folks who normally don't wear helmets; would sign anything saying that they will, for a drop in premiums...

Not to difficult. Just put in the statement that they sign stating that fulsifying information will result is denial of claim. That way if they state that they wear a helmet and the report shows that they did not - no insurance money.

Too slow with my response Dan beat me to it.

 

[SteveMac]

I am SOOOO proud of me. I was able to read this post and make no reply,,,,,oh, wait,,,,, doh! :banghead:

:roflblack::roflblack::roflblack:

Well, I for one, am very proud of you for keeping your word... For the most part...

And you deserve an award. Here ya go... :firstplace:

 

[SteveMac]

Well, I for one, am very proud of you for keeping your word... For the most part...

And you deserve an award. Here ya go... :firstplace:

Thanks very much for that, but I have some points I would really like to make!

 

[SteveMac]

Thanks very much for that, but I have some points I would really like to make!

Don't do it. Be patient, the topic will change to oil or tires or hot foot soon.

Patience and and control grasshopper. :bowdown:

 

[SteveMac]

Don't do it. Be patient, the topic will change to oil or tires or hot foot soon.

Patience and and control grasshopper. :bowdown:

Yes. You are right. Thanks for the pep talk!!!

 

[SteveMac]

Yes. You are right. Thanks for the pep talk!!!

Anytime my friend. Anytime. :thumbup:

 

[Dan_Ashley]

Not to difficult. Just put in the statement that they sign stating that fulsifying information will result is denial of claim. That way if they state that they wear a helmet and the report shows that they did not - no insurance money.

Too slow with my response Dan beat me to it.

Good idea, I almost always come up with the hard way to do stuff before someone says ,"Why not just...."

Thanks for thhe idea!

 

[dolittlejones]

Wearing a helmet since 1961

First bike and helmet in 1961, like the man says "never leave home without it" The first bike is long

gone, but the helmet is still on the shelf.

 

[Bob Denman]

Steve,
:shocked: I think that your medication for that "Multiple Personality" thing might need to be checked for freshness... :shocked:
But we like ALL of them! :thumbup:

 

[Cruzr Joe]

Steve,
:shocked: I think that your medication for that "Multiple Personality" thing might need to be checked for freshness... :shocked:
But we like ALL of them! :thumbup:

And maybe check to insure that the repeat part is not immediate.

 

[OldCowboy]

realitively easily--if a insurance enrolee is injured without complying, and it is documented in medical records, ambulance records, or police records, then deny payment. If someone gets a ticket, then increase their rates. It is not 100% enforcement, but it would be sufficient to keep the violations down to a pretty low level. Its the same kind of thinking used by the IRS to maintain, albeit imperfect, compliance with tax law.

:agree: It really is a simple solution. I wish they'd do the same for folks who don't wear seat belts. I don't mind those that are killed because they didn't wear their seat belt. It's their funeral and Darwin working as designed. nojoke What I don't like are those who don't wear seat belts and survive, although with serious injuries. Around here they usually don't have insurance, as a general rule. Which means those of us who do have insurance pay for their treatment. It's not at all unusual to see a jar at the register requesting donations for someone who chose not to buy insurance and now has a huge hospital bill. I don't feel sorry for them and I don't put money in those jars.

 

[Yfactor]

and it is documented in medical records, ambulance records, or police records, then deny payment

This can also be a problem. My nephew was struck by a lady running a red light at 80 mph in CA and suffered severe head and brain damage. The police report said he was not wearing a helmet even though witnesses reported seeing him with one on. Because they did not find a helmet in a 100 yard radius of the accident they wrote it that he was not wearing one. His helmet was found in some brush a month later almost 300 yards from the accident scene.

 

[Dan_Ashley]

:agree: It really is a simple solution. I wish they'd do the same for folks who don't wear seat belts. I don't mind those that are killed because they didn't wear their seat belt. It's their funeral and Darwin working as designed. nojoke What I don't like are those who don't wear seat belts and survive, although with serious injuries. Around here they usually don't have insurance, as a general rule. Which means those of us who do have insurance pay for their treatment. It's not at all unusual to see a jar at the register requesting donations for someone who chose not to buy insurance and now has a huge hospital bill. I don't feel sorry for them and I don't put money in those jars.

....but then somebody would sue claiming that their personal anger which causes them to refuse to take safety seriously were a result of a pre-existing psychiatric condition. So, to make it work, the idea would have to become part of the health insurance law.

I agree that people who refuse to take their safety seriously would lie to get other people to pay their bills, as Bob said above.

But the big issue for me is to just get those who would take care, to actually do so. I assume that some do not because they don't know the implications. That is why I argue so hard for facts and critical thinking when one of the proponents of not being prepared speaks up. I know those morons can't be helped, but I am fearful they will convince someone else to be equally careless.

Helmets actually reduce fatalities 41%
white helmets seem to reduce it an additional 24%
the average speed of motorcycle crashes in the US is 29 MPH
86% of motorcycle wrecks occur at less than 31 MPH
So, the arguement that helmets won't help in high speed wrecks ignores most of the facts.
Injuries to toes, feet, and ankles account for 39% of motorcycle injuries.
Wearing boots reduces this by 93% for basic armoured boots...by 53% for hiking boots.
v. So, the arguement against wearing boots is equally dumb.

I won't go sky diving without a backup chute.
I wear eye goggles when working in my wood-shop.
I wear ear protection on the pistol range.
I wear a helmet, boots, and gloves when riding. It saved my life once. I hope there is not a second time.

 

[Bob Ledford]

Dept of Defense Policy

Back in my military days You wore a helmet, gloves and a vest. The regulation so stated that if you wrecked while riding a motorcycle without then the medical bill if so deemed by your command chain.

Our supportting medical activity was Naval Air Station Jacksonville. The Base Senior Master Chief was also the Base Safety NCO and a Gold Winger and a MSF instructor so getting a safety course was easy but you did not ride on his base without a full rig.. I have been wearing a helmet since 1955 when I was 14 Now it is just like clean underwear never leave home without it like your momma always said wear clean drawers in case you have an accident. Never figured out quite what she meant????

 

[Bob Denman]

I have been wearing a helmet since 1955 when I was 14 Now it is just like clean underwear never leave home without it like your momma always said wear clean drawers in case you have an accident. Never figured out quite what she meant????

:agree: They're sure not going to be clean once you had that accident! :yikes: :roflblack:

 

[CurtG]

I still don't get the white helmet thing after the accident occurs, or do white helmets ruduce the number of accidents for[\QUOTE]

White helmets don't help AFTER the crash, they only help prevent multi-vehicle crashes. This is apparently due to increased visibility. 38% of motorcycle crashes are multi-vehicle crashes occuring at intersections. (Intersection being the junction of at least two roadways, or the junction of a roadway and a driveway)

A reduction of 63% in these type of crashes was observed in New Zealand, with similar results reported from a European study. This equates to an overall reduction in motorcycle fatalities of 24%.

The emerging theory of this measued phenomena is increased visibility. So far, I've not found anyone who has been able to construct an experiment, or a set of measurements, to prove or disprove this theory--and I have no idea how to do it myself.

An alternate theory has to do with driver's mis-perception of motorcyclists being bicyclists, and hence, traveling slower than they actually are traveling. This theory has also not been tested. A counter-point to this theory is the bicyclist crash data, for white vs non-white helmets. For bicyclists, it does not matter what color the helmet is. Also, bicyclists don't usually drive with headlights on in the daytme.

A third theory states that a motorcyclists head bobbles around as the motorcyclist is driving. This movement, that is of a bright white head, causes the human mind to perceive the oncomming motorcyclist. This theory has also not been tested. It seems more plausible than the bicyclist-based theory, though.

In short, we don't know why white helmeted riders have a 24% lower fatality rate. But we know they do have a significantly lower fatality rate.

We can describe why a lot of seemingly silly measurements reflect the real world. For example, did you know that kids with bigger feet consistently perform better on IQ tests? The reason is IQ tests are administered at usually only one time a school year, and all the kids are not the same age. But in the case of lower fatalities and white helmets, we don't know why. We only have theories.

Thanks, Dan, I sort of suspected that it was the case with improved visibility. I wonder if at the time of the studies the Hiviz Yellow helmets were available and if they are either better or worse in this category. I bought my newest helmet in Hiviz yellow figuring it would help.

Ride and ride safe,
Curt

 

[Dan_Ashley]

Thanks, Dan, I sort of suspected that it was the case with improved visibility. I wonder if at the time of the studies the Hiviz Yellow helmets were available and if they are either better or worse in this category. I bought my newest helmet in Hiviz yellow figuring it would help.

Ride and ride safe,
Curt

Remember: the better of the two studies was in New Zealand and took about ten years to complete. The other was European--primarily Germany and France. Motorcycling in those places may have different risk factors than here in the US. But with a 24% fatality reduction, I don't care if the results are overstated for American motorcyclists by a factor of ten--I am giving up my black helmet. As a fashion statement, well...I can't see it when I'm wearing it anyway.

I know the most easily seen color is white, the most easily noticed colors are luminescent orange, yellow and green in that order. The New Zealand study compared white with green, yellow and orange, as well as other colors. The New Zealand study did not include any of the luminescent colors. It did compare reflective stripes and found them to be helpful only at night. I seldom ride at night.

There have been absolutely no US based studies on this. So, what I did was to start watching motorcyclists when I'm in my cage. My non-scientific assessment seemed to support the New Zealand study. Someday, watch a sprt bike from the back. All you really see is a big black tire and a helmet! I noticed a cruiser the other day that had a white shirt and a black helmet. That seemed to be more noticible to me than all black, but not as much as a black shirt and a white helmet. So, start looking at other bikers when you are in your cage, and decide what you think.

I sat down with one of my engineering professor buddies at the university about six months ago, and discussed this over lunch. This guy is a PhD in human factors engineering. He said in the daytime he didn't think there would be much difference between white and the luminescent colors. However, he stated at night white is best--especially refective white.

So, I bought a white one. My old one was flat black. If I had originally owned a luminescent one, I probably would have waited until I normally would have bought a new one. I like to replace my helmet every three years or so. They just get so beat-up--inside and out. I ride about 1,500 miles a month, so I guess that makes sense.

oh, by the way, my wife has a luminescent pink one! She said "No!" To white. (See the exclamation point?)