XHD
Adjunct
Reged: 10/27/06
Posts: 320
Loc: USA Moore, SC
|
|
Read in today's Greenville (SC) News that effective 1/1/08 North Carolina will not only require helmets but that the helmets be DOT approved. Without getting into the politics of helmet wear/not wear, I wonder how they plan to enforce this. Decals proclaiming 'DOT' are widely available for any novelty helmet, after all. SteveB
-------------------- "I live the life I love and I love the life I live."
|
panman60
Adjunct
Reged: 01/11/05
Posts: 670
Loc: Satellite Beach, Fl.
|
|
Prior to the helmet repeal here in Florida, the cops rarely pulled you over just for having a non DOT helmet. But they would give you the ticket along with whatever they pulled you for in the first place. Fake DOT stickers were probably a 50/50 chance of being too much bother...
later, Tom.
-------------------- But, what do I know?
|
The_Dog33
Fe Butt
Reged: 02/01/07
Posts: 17046
Loc: NE PA USA
|
|
Won't be moving to NC now.
-------------------- I learned all I need to know about life by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Eat right ,Exercise ,Stay fit, Die Anyway!
some shots of our bikes
|
midlifecrisis
Adjunct
Reged: 07/07/07
Posts: 234
Loc: Victoria Australia
|
|
In Australia there is a small external label that indicates the helmet meets Australian Standards. It is segmented so its very difficult to remove and place on a different helmet. Also would be difficult to reproduce.
This argument is typically in the Legislation section but I fully support helmet laws. I agree that anyone should do what they what... Unless it affects someone else. The fact remains that non-helmet use accidents typically increase medical expenses which would increase premiums (thus affecting many individuals).
Australia has mandatory helmet laws for bicycles as well and thank god for that. I had an accident 10 years ago where I lost it coming around a turn on a gravel patch doing 45km/hr. Head hit the edge curb, split the helmet in two and I was unconscious for 2min. would not be alive to tell the tale.
-------------------- Adventure before Dementia...
|
satxron
Loquacious
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 3787
Loc: San Antonio, Texas--- 05 TBA
|
|
Watch out, next is the law against fat people. Obese will be a class A felony with a penalty of gastric banding.
Alcohol! Down with it! Oh, we did that once, didn't work out.
-------------------- 05 Green
06 Black
|
oneijack
Loquacious
Reged: 08/27/06
Posts: 2555
Loc: East Hampton,CT
|
|
CT's law is a little weird, you do not have to wear a helmet, but if you choose to wear one it must be DOT approved.Guess that's keep folks from riding round with football helmets and such.
-------------------- The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
|
kars
Adjunct
Reged: 03/23/06
Posts: 274
Loc: LI, NY
|
|
Well I do not believe in the government telling me what to do but I could really care less about helmet laws as I choose to wear one no matter where I ride. I think if you choose to not wear a helmet your insurance should be increased 10 times or maybe no personal coverage.
|
bennybmn
Should be Riding
Reged: 01/11/05
Posts: 12693
Loc: Long Island, NY
|
|
as far as enforcing the non-DOT thing. I see TONS of brain buckets out and about in NY. I would think it would be the kind of thing they couldn't really pull you over for, but if they pulled you over for something else and found it non-DOT, then you'd have a ticket. That sort of thing.
-------------------- Benny
Black & Silver '02
Too many mods to list
Not enough miles ridden
|
Cody
Adjunct
Reged: 01/10/05
Posts: 704
Loc: Holland, MI
|
|
Quote:
Well I do not believe in the government telling me what to do but I could really care less about helmet laws as I choose to wear one no matter where I ride. I think if you choose to not wear a helmet your insurance should be increased 10 times or maybe no personal coverage.
First of all, You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.
I keep hearing members say that they are taking a hit to their insurance premiums because other riders don't wear helmets. I don't think that is the case, and I'll explain below.
You do realize, don't you, that you are talking health insurance here. Helmet use really has no bearing on motorcycle insurance premiums, unless you get ticketed for non-complience. (That's a moving violation and it might be one case where mandatory laws would actually raise your rates.) If you fall down and smack your head, it's your health insurance that covers your costs, not your vehicle insurance.
The director of the American Motorcycle Association wrote an op-ed piece in Rider Magazine a year or so ago. He made the following points which I'll try to recite from memory the best I can.
He said there have been no definitive studies done in the U.S. on motorcycle accidents in the last 30 years. The data is very out of date. Therefore the insurance companies have no current helmet usage data to base claims on that would cause them to raise rates. The author of the Rider article said a new study was being commissioned by the government, but is not yet complete. Many things have changed. For one thing, average horsepower has nearly doubled in that time. Much of the technology has changed. There are many factors that may be affecting accident and injury rates which we don't know about. The point is the insurance companies can make assumptions and claims, but the basis of those claims is guesswork.
Police accident reports, which insurance companies use, do not record whether a death or injury is attributed to helmet non-use. The report may state whether a helmet was worn or not, but the investigating officer can't conclude that helmet usage or non-usage caused an injury or death. Conclusions like that would be very subjective and possibly libelous. Those conclusions can only be made later by doctors. There is no good public statistical record of the causes of motorcycle injuries and deaths. And nobody knows to what extent helmets actually contribute to accidents and injuries. That has never been studied.
The author made the point that when helmet use is factored in with all the other variables that contribute to the cost of health care, the impact on premiums really is insignificant, probably a small fraction of one percent. We are talking a difference of pennies here, or a few dollars at the most, if you could even quantify the amount. Consider non-helmeted motorcycle injuries and deaths (if you could even count them) against the incidents of death and illness from cancer, stroke, high-blood pressure, diabetes, athesma, car and other vehicle wrecks, industrial accidents, etc, etc. Statistically, motorcycle fatalities are almost insignificant - a blip against the background noise. (Has anyone ever seen a health insurance application that asks if you wear a helmet, or even if you ride a motorcycle?)
The author of the Rider article claimed that health insurance companies have already factored in all the risks that motorcyclists (and others) take. Even if laws were passed requiring helmet usage in all 50 states, insurance companies would not lower rates and pass the savings on to the customer. Anyone who believes that is naive. The savings, if any, would fall to the insurance company's bottom line.
Those were the points made by the AMA Director as I remember them. According to him, helmet non-use is not hitting you in the pocket book like some would have you think. That argument is false. Factors like cigarette smoking and obesity have a much greater impact on health insurance costs than helmet usage.
I have heard it said many times by members on this board that helmetless riders are costing them money. Well, I don' think that is a valid argument. We probably all agree that helmets can save your head, but to say helmetless riders are causing insurance premiums to rise is unprovable and probably wrong.
Regards, Cody
-------------------- I was born a long ways from where I was supposed to be. - Bob Dylan
|
oneijack
Loquacious
Reged: 08/27/06
Posts: 2555
Loc: East Hampton,CT
|
|
Quote:
You do realize, don't you, that you are talking health insurance here. Helmet use really has no bearing on motorcycle insurance premiums, unless you get ticketed for non-complience. (That's a moving violation and it might be one case where mandatory laws would actually raise your rates.) If you fall down and smack your head, it's your health insurance that covers your costs, not your vehicle insurance.
Not entirly true,My memeorial day weekend mishap, involved falling down and cracking my skull. My motorcycle insurance paid a good portion of the medic bills, In fact my heatlh insurace would not pay until my bike insurance medical limit was exhausted.
And btw i am now a full fledged "born again" helmet wearer, No one will ever see me on a bike again without a helmet.
But I will still never support any law that would force me to wear one.
-------------------- The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
|