[Jedison]

Governments should force you to wear a helmet. I dont want to have health care or insurance premiums going up because of retards in comas.

[loudnlow7484]

Governments should force you to wear a helmet. I dont want to have health care or insurance premiums going up because of retards in comas.

I don't agree. I think it should be your choice to wear a helmet or not..... but I think that if you don't wear a helmet, your insurance company should have the right to refuse to cover you.

[05RedKat600]

I don't agree. I think it should be your choice to wear a helmet or not..... but I think that if you don't wear a helmet, your insurance company should have the right to refuse to cover you.

This is an interesting concept. I could almost get behind something like this. The only issue is that now corporate America is telling you what you can and cannot wear. Essentially in states that require insurance, you don't wear a helmet and you aren't covered, which essentially breaks the law. Still have the same issue. I would prefer something with higher rates, rather than not covered. Higher premium for no helmet. Although that would be damned near impossible to enforce as well.

[HemiKat]

I would prefer something with higher rates, rather than not covered. Higher premium for no helmet. Although that would be damned near impossible to enforce as well.

I would love to see it that way, but you and I both know it wont happen. Some guy will say its predjudice because his head is too fat to fit into a helmet. Douchebags always ruin it for everyone else.

[05RedKat600]

I would love to see it that way, but you and I both know it wont happen. Some guy will say its predjudice because his head is too fat to fit into a helmet. Douchebags always ruin it for everyone else.

Douchebags? Yeah, that's one word for it. I prefer irresponsible ****tards myself.

[93 kat]

I wear a full face helmet, I don't wanna know what head to asphalt feels like.

[Pjolter]

In norway insurance is cheaper if youre wearing gear while riding. Helmets are mandatory, but even harley davidson buckets are allowed.

If i would have an accident, only wearing helmet, the insurance could at worst claim they are not covering me, as i wasnt following the rules for insurance. All the materiall costs due to damage would have fallen on me.
we have almost free healthcare in norway, so no conserns there.

[sekter]

i know this is kinda off topic, but to me it seems absolutely absurd that..I am required by law to wear my seatbelt in a car, yet (in the state of FL if youre over 21 and have insurance) you don't have to wear your helmet. Could this be any more *** backwards....that fact that you can even ride a bike to begin with throws needing a seatbelt out of the water. I agree it should be every persons choice, helmet or no helmet, seatbelt or no seatbelt. I'm tired of big brother pokin his fingers in any and every little crevice wide enough to fit'em

[astevens54]

i know this is kinda off topic, but to me it seems absolutely absurd that..I am required by law to wear my seatbelt in a car, yet (in the state of FL if youre over 21 and have insurance) you don't have to wear your helmet. Could this be any more *** backwards....that fact that you can even ride a bike to begin with throws needing a seatbelt out of the water. I agree it should be every persons choice, helmet or no helmet, seatbelt or no seatbelt. I'm tired of big brother pokin his fingers in any and every little crevice wide enough to fit'em

Right on, it is a civil liberty. That is what most people do not understand. BTW, Florida requires $10000 health insurance if you do not wear a helmet, not enough, but a step in the right direction. Too bad it is not enforced, but how would you? I agree that it is poor judgement not to wear a helmet. I did like what was posted higher insurance with no helmet. I do not support socialism in any form. That is not what American is about. I do believe in personal responsibility.

[scottynoface]

i know this is kinda off topic, but to me it seems absolutely absurd that..I am required by law to wear my seatbelt in a car, yet (in the state of FL if youre over 21 and have insurance) you don't have to wear your helmet. Could this be any more *** backwards....that fact that you can even ride a bike to begin with throws needing a seatbelt out of the water. I agree it should be every persons choice, helmet or no helmet, seatbelt or no seatbelt. I'm tired of big brother pokin his fingers in any and every little crevice wide enough to fit'em

You live in Florida, 95% of idiot motorcycle riders in the world live in FL...

[Cheriff]

Not 100% sure, but I don't think motorcycle insurance in PA includes any health coverage... Dont feel like going upstairs and digging out the paper with tiny words. Anyone confirm? If true, then helmet or no helmet won't affect rates.

[BareKat]

Like New Hampshire's state moto... "live free or die" ... well, "ride helmet free and die"

[TRPUT]

So, if insurance won't cover you because you're stupid, and the state washes it's hands of you as well, I guess that means your family has to foot the bill for putting you back together ... pushing you around in a wheel chair ... feeding you ... dressing you ... perhaps indefinitely.

IMHO, part of being responsible is considering how your actions impact on others. Each of us doesn't live in a personal vacuum. Here's a hard ball strategy: If your civil right means you can ride without protection, then perhaps protecting the civil rights of everyone else means you can be shot at the scene of your accident, so the only person paying for your decision is you. Why should others help you when you couldn't be bothered helping yourself??

If your wife / family / friends love you, they probably wouldn't insist you wear protection but might suggest it for your own good. If you love your wife / family / friends, you wouldn't consider riding without ATGATT.

[loudnlow7484]

This is an interesting concept. I could almost get behind something like this. The only issue is that now corporate America is telling you what you can and cannot wear. Essentially in states that require insurance, you don't wear a helmet and you aren't covered, which essentially breaks the law. Still have the same issue. I would prefer something with higher rates, rather than not covered. Higher premium for no helmet. Although that would be damned near impossible to enforce as well.

No no, you wouldn't be covered for your health costs..... states require liability insurance, and that would be unaffected by whether you are wearing a helmet or not (though I guess an insurance company could argue that if you had an accident due to getting a bee in the eye, you wouldn't have had that accident with a helmet on, but that's not the point).

If you sign up for insurance, you should be asked if you wear a helmet or not. If you do, you get lower rates for your own personal bodily injury/death. If you don't, you get higher rates for those things...... vehicle and property related coverage shouldn't be affected at all. Corporate America can dictate anything they want that pertains to their services. If you want to not wear a helmet, that's fine, but you have to pay for it. If you are 19 and want to ride a Hayabusa, you can, but you are going to pay for that also. Higher risk, higher rates.

Not 100% sure, but I don't think motorcycle insurance in PA includes any health coverage... Dont feel like going upstairs and digging out the paper with tiny words. Anyone confirm? If true, then helmet or no helmet won't affect rates.

At least here in Ohio, you can add it on to your coverage. I have no health insurance at all, but I have hospital coverage if I'm in an accident on my bike.

Honestly, and this wouldn't be popular among motorcyclists, I think that normal health and life insurance should take these sort of things into account as well. Riding a motorcycle really should raise your rates (there is no arguing that it's not dangerous..... don't lie to yourself), riding without a helmet should raise it a LOT (not only are you at higher risk, but you also obviously don't care that much about it). Regular participation in base jumping, skydiving, etc should also raise your rates. Smoking already does. Age does. Everything that makes you more or less risky should be taken into account. They probably don't already do this because there is a shortage of decent studies on which to base it.

So, if insurance won't cover you because you're stupid, and the state washes it's hands of you as well, I guess that means your family has to foot the bill for putting you back together ... pushing you around in a wheel chair ... feeding you ... dressing you ... perhaps indefinitely.

IMHO, part of being responsible is considering how your actions impact on others. Each of us doesn't live in a personal vacuum. Here's a hard ball strategy: If your civil right means you can ride without protection, then perhaps protecting the civil rights of everyone else means you can be shot at the scene of your accident, so the only person paying for your decision is you. Why should others help you when you couldn't be bothered helping yourself??

If your wife / family / friends love you, they probably wouldn't insist you wear protection but might suggest it for your own good. If you love your wife / family / friends, you wouldn't consider riding without ATGATT.

Your family has no legal responsibility to pay for your expenses. If they want to, they can, but they don't have to.

I kind of like the "shot-on-scene" idea, but only in theory. In practice, it would be more humane to allow you treatment and recovery, and then garnish your wages for the rest of your life to pay it back..... or take it from your estate if you die. It would all be avoided, though, if you just select "Motorcycle rider: no helmet" on your insurance policy.

[TRPUT]

Your family has no legal responsibility to pay for your expenses. If they want to, they can, but they don't have to.

I kind of like the "shot-on-scene" idea, but only in theory. In practice, it would be more humane to allow you treatment and recovery, and then garnish your wages for the rest of your life to pay it back..... or take it from your estate if you die. It would all be avoided, though, if you just select "Motorcycle rider: no helmet" on your insurance policy.

I kinda like the shooting idea myself!

If a family's choice is pay or let you receive poor health care / die, they would probably consider it a social / moral obligation rather than a legal one.

... assumes you CAN work or actually have an estate worth robbing.

... no "no helmet" option here - it's the law.

Many laws are 2-fold. They aim to protect the stupid from themselves, but they also attempt to protect society from the stupid. ie costs of care, insurance, health, taxes, trauma etc. I'm actually all for "Darwinian Theory" - except the morons don't just cleanly take themselves out.

There are enough of you guys who have served (with thanks) in the sand pits OS to know that certain jobs / activities have inherent dangers. And I reckon there is a very strong non-negotiable ATGATT policy in Iraq. A) for your own protection and B) so you don't become a burden to your unit. You can't sign up for a tour of duty then choose your own wardrobe. The hazards on the roads back home aren't snipers, land mines, missiles and ambushes, but they can be just as devastating. There are mandatory safety requirements for many activities / jobs. Is riding exempt?

Being prepared for the unexpected means you can enjoy the ride more.

Apparently "God helps those who help themselves". Why should we be any different?