Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-02-2008, 10:13 AM   #241
Endorsed
noob636's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
From: Silverdale

I Ride: 04 GSX-R 1000 (Sold). '07 R6
[QUOTE with the exception of child passengers.[/QUOTE]

Yeah exactly. seriously if i saw a kid on a bike without a helmet i'd freak. thats just plain ignorance.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 

Old 11-02-2008, 10:24 AM   #242
Superbiker
 
Joined: Dec 2005
From: Marysville

I Ride: A lifted JK 0|||||||0
“ Quote:
Originally Posted by samuidave View Post
This argument is laughable. Almost all riders are legally obliged to wear helmets; doesn't it stand to elementary reason that most of the deaths would involve people wearing helmets?

(I am still pro-choice nonetheless)
what is to argue about it. he stated that the goverment is scraping off all those brain dead riders who didnt wear helmets. today they are scraping up just as many and they are wearing helmets. i am not saying helmets are not doing any good, but there are still just as many deaths. so the arguemnt of them having to spend billions on scraping up brain dead riders is a bunch of bull.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-02-2008, 10:37 AM   #243
Peg Dragger
samuidave's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2007
From: NA
....if 100% of the people are wearing helmets, then 100% of the deaths involve riders with helmets....ok.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-02-2008, 11:17 AM   #244
Chat Whore
littleq624's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
From: Issaquah, WA
Blog Entries: 3

I Ride: whenever i want cause i got bikey fixed!
k i gave up on reading this entire thread, but i wanted to throw my 2 cents in as i stare at my old helmet.


first of i know that physics wise you are only directly hitting the ground as hard as if you fell from the same height at a stand-still (or close to this impact energy). beyond that is sliding or hitting vertical stuff to cause damage. at 20 mph my helmet cracked as it hit the truck i bounced off of (just spider cracking the shell stayed together). after i hit that truck i proceeded to slide on my face for about 10 feet...im fucking glad that helmet was there to slide on, instead of my face. i also hear the arguement that helmets can break collar bones or strain muscles or tendons. before you consider a broken collar bone a reason to not wear a helmet, GO BREAK YOURS. or admit that the bullshit excuses you are making to not wear a helmet is just to cover up the fact that you JUST DONT WANT TO. you want to call it personal choice, but you want to rationalize with bull shit excuses...if its personal choice, call it your choice...


that is all

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-02-2008, 11:36 AM   #245
Fast, Easy, and Old Fashioned
RedVFR's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
From: Spokane

I Ride: DR650
Congratulations on another helmet thread. What's next, oil or tires?

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-02-2008, 11:39 AM   #246
Chat Whore
littleq624's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
From: Issaquah, WA
Blog Entries: 3

I Ride: whenever i want cause i got bikey fixed!
“ Quote:
Originally Posted by RedVFR View Post
Congratulations on another helmet thread. What's next, oil or tires?
maybe turn it into a tire thread...if everyone used the right tires...fewer people would find themselves in need of helmets?

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-02-2008, 01:01 PM   #247
Fast, Easy, and Old Fashioned
RedVFR's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
From: Spokane

I Ride: DR650
Or maybe what engine configuration is best.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-02-2008, 01:07 PM   #248
Chat Whore
littleq624's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
From: Issaquah, WA
Blog Entries: 3

I Ride: whenever i want cause i got bikey fixed!
or what kinda oil is the slickest!

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-02-2008, 04:00 PM   #249
Chat Whore
littleq624's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2008
From: Issaquah, WA
Blog Entries: 3

I Ride: whenever i want cause i got bikey fixed!
ya know i was thinking about it and pointman is kinda right...helmets dont ALWAYS help you. you can only ask so much of a piece of reinforced plastic and styrofoam. a leather jacket with CE armor also doesn't always prevent broken bones, but it does usually prevent at least road rash. Riding pants with CE armor don't always prevent broken bones, but once again, road rash hurts. speaking of riding pants, how many out there choose to ride in jeans instead of purpose made pants. sort of like the helmet thing, you choose to not do EVERYTHING you can do to be safe. my point here is that EVERYONE needs to get the fuck down from their pedestals and stop trying to impart their opinions on each other. discussion is one thing, but this thread has gone nowhere. i feel that the OP may have posted with intent of getthing the response he got, based on the posts i frequently see from him. i feel that he lured everybody in, as he intended. the result is this 7 page thread of nothing.

that is all.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-02-2008, 04:42 PM   #250
Shredder
cal_look_zero's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
From: Grass Pants, OR
Blog Entries: 1

I Ride: 06 CBR600RR (mine) / 88 CBR600F (hers)
“ Quote:
Originally Posted by bubba_zenetti View Post
really, if another car t bones you your head is going right through your side window. not all cars have SRS systems and at best, they are not going to keep a steering wheel from crushing your chest or going through your head.

every year aproximately 50,000 people die in car accidents. and around the same amount of people die in bike accidents. i can see all that saftey equipment is doing them a lot of good.

no one ever said wearing gear is a bad thing. the point of this whole this was to point out that people should have a choice and if they do decide to not use protection, then so be it. we dont need holier than thous like yourself telling us what is good for us.


we all know that gear is going to minimize injury. but it is not the save all for everything. if it were, those 50k of people every year would still be alive.

the risk of you riding a motorcycle is no different than the risk you take living yoru every day life. your life can end at any second. so why be paranoid 24-7. if i or anyone else want to take that risk of not wearing gear, they we will and people like you who preach to us can fuck off if you dont like it. are we stupid, no. we actually can think freely unlike you.

if the goverment made you wear a bullet proof vest every day becuase random shootings went up and they are tired of paying for all the cost related to cleaning up your mess, would you do it? ill bet you are sheep like the rest of them
LMAO...

You've clearly never done an inkling of research on crash systems in modern vehicles. First of all, unless you fail to wear a seatbelt completely, any impact, even a side impact into a vehicle, will tension the seatbelt and severely reduce any violent side to side or forward/backward motions. Your head will not go through a side window. Plain and simple. Secondly, steering columns are designed to collapse on impact. Might get a few broken ribs, but an impact isn't going to jettison the steering wheel into your chest cavity or your melon. So in that aspect, your argument fails.

If you're preaching your right to decide whether or not to wear a helmet, then I would have to say that yes, you are stupid. When a piece of protective equipment is as inexpensive, readily available, and time proven as a helmet... and you bitch and complain because you don't wanna have to wear it, knowing full well it will most likely save your life in an accident. That's a stupid decision.

If caring about not spreading my grey matter across the highway makes me a sheep, then baaaaa baaaaa bitch. I guess wearing my seatbelt so I don't get launched through my windshield makes me a sheep too? How about wearing a protective helmet and bulletproof vest when I get deployed? Baaaa baaaa?

fail.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-02-2008, 07:45 PM   #251
Superbiker
 
Joined: Dec 2005
From: Marysville

I Ride: A lifted JK 0|||||||0
“ Quote:
Originally Posted by cal_look_zero View Post
LMAO...

You've clearly never done an inkling of research on crash systems in modern vehicles. First of all, unless you fail to wear a seatbelt completely, any impact, even a side impact into a vehicle, will tension the seatbelt and severely reduce any violent side to side or forward/backward motions. Your head will not go through a side window. Plain and simple. Secondly, steering columns are designed to collapse on impact. Might get a few broken ribs, but an impact isn't going to jettison the steering wheel into your chest cavity or your melon. So in that aspect, your argument fails.

If you're preaching your right to decide whether or not to wear a helmet, then I would have to say that yes, you are stupid. When a piece of protective equipment is as inexpensive, readily available, and time proven as a helmet... and you bitch and complain because you don't wanna have to wear it, knowing full well it will most likely save your life in an accident. That's a stupid decision.

If caring about not spreading my grey matter across the highway makes me a sheep, then baaaaa baaaaa bitch. I guess wearing my seatbelt so I don't get launched through my windshield makes me a sheep too? How about wearing a protective helmet and bulletproof vest when I get deployed? Baaaa baaaa?

fail.

21 year olds, think they know everything

dude, you are so far off the point of the thread....and clueless to boot.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-03-2008, 11:25 AM   #252
Shredder
Vigilante's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
From: Wenatchee

I Ride: '03 SV1000s Copper, '98 VTR1000F SuperHawk, '04 DRz400, '88 Magna, '75 CB400F SS, CB750 Cafe'
“ Quote:
Originally Posted by cal_look_zero View Post
If you're preaching your right to decide whether or not to wear a helmet, then I would have to say that yes, you are stupid.
Hmm... this stands out to me, and I should signature it, but since I don't care what others think, I guess I won't be offended by my inability to make decisions on my own.

Everyone says, "go ahead and ride without a helmet if you want to"... Well, at times I would like to, but I can't--- since it is illegal, this is what I have issues with. I wear gear that I think is appropriate for me, except for a helmet which is mandatory by law.

I usually say, "You take care of yourself and we'll both get along better." Trouble is, apparently lots of people want to take care of me. Some people have taken the choice of not wearing a helmet away from me, because in thier eyes, I can not be responsible for myself. More regulation will protect me from myself because I can't do it alone... They know what is right for me.

If I go down and become a vegetable that lives on for 60 years, an institution might have to take care of me after my family runs out of money which could end up costing a lot of money over the rest of my vegie life. How does that compare to me if I go down and end up dead? One time cost, done. Which is better? Apparently I don't get to decide... someone else decided for me that protecting my brain only (helmet law) is more important than my left shoulder, or my right leg. Why aren't spine protectors required by law? How did they end up picking out only helmets?

Insurance companies are pretty powerful entities! I have a lot of life insurance, my family would be taken care of, but they may miss me, pretty sure they would, I think, well maybe. I guess I better check for loose nuts and bolts and watch my back!

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-03-2008, 11:56 AM   #253
Permit
INW BIG's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
From: Spokane, WA

I Ride: 49 custom panhead chopper
Please read!!!!!
I'm really surprised .....ok...really I'm not surprised at all at how many people on this forum don't read up on things before they form an opinion. I understand that a bias can be imparted to someone because of a traumatic incident. And I understand that those who participate in racing, off-road events, stunting, etc are very pro-helmet. Who wouldn't be? If you participate in high risk events, it's common sense to wear additional safety gear.

However, before you reach a highly judgmental attitude against those who don't exactly think and feel the same way.....DO SOME F'KING RESEARCH!!

I've included some AMA excerpts here so that you can read them....PLEASE take the time to read through it. You might be surprised. Keep in mind that these conclusions are based on 1990 to 1999 figures because there has been NO independent study since that time. The AMA is lobbying for another study so that the government can make informed decisions. The NTHSA has clearly shown bias towards helmets, so their statistics can NOT be trusted. If you think that is bunk.....think about this. The federal government REPEALED the national helmet law because of an independent study, and NOT the NTHSA study which showed that the helmet was the one thing that would save lives.

For those of you who think that the AMA is an organization who only represents one faction of the motorcycling community.....YOU ARE WRONG! In case you don't know who the AMA (American Motorcycle Association) is, then maybe you should go through their website and find out more about them. Regardless.......I'm not an AMA rep, nor am I trying to sell you anything AMA. What I am trying to do is to get you to research before you spout off uneducated, insanity. All too often, we see people who take a hard stance on something which they have NO information about.... why??...because it feels good to them or they had a friend die, or someone they trust told them "the truth". Listen people.....FEEL...does not convey facts. How you feel about something is a MOOT point when you don't back it up with facts. Spouting off things like it costs society more for lidless riders is just about the MOST ignorant thing one could say. To say lidless riders are a burden to society is only showing that the real burden to society is YOUR IGNORANCE. To say that helmets save lives or take lives is WRONG. They do neither.....and they do both. Until there is a new independent study done to analyze the statistics from the last one until present time, ALL YOUR BICKERING AND OPINIONS ARE JUST TRASH!!! And you show just how ignorant the majority of us motorcyclists are.

If you want to back something that really does show a decrease in fatalities, injuries, and accidents, then back SAFETY AND RIDER EDUCATION. Because a cursory study shows great benefit in safety courses.

Here is the excerpt:

Claim: Injured motorcyclists are uninsured and disproportionately rely upon the public to pay for their injuries.

Response: Motorcyclists are just as likely to be privately insured as any other road user.

* A Harborview Medical Center study reported 63.4% of the injured motorcyclists in the trauma center relied on public funds to pay their hospital bills. According to testimony by David Gitch, director of the trauma center, 67% of the general patient population also relied on public dollars to pay their hospital bills in the same time period.
* A study by the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center reported that 49.5% of injured motorcyclists had their medical costs covered by insurance, while 50.4% of the other road trauma victims were similarly insured.

Claim: The costs associated with unhelmeted motorcyclist injuries and fatalities compel the enactment of mandatory helmet laws to save taxpayer dollars.

Response: The costs associated with the treatment of motorcyclist injuries account for less than 0.001% of total US health care costs. Only a portion of these costs are attributable to unhelmeted motorcyclists, the majority of which are paid by privately-purchased insurance. The remainder, spread across the taxpayer base (which includes millions of motorcyclists), is insignificant.

* Approximately 1.16% of total US health care costs are attributable to motor vehicle accidents.
* Motorcycles represented only 0.53% of the accident-involved vehicles nationwide in 1999.

Claim: Mandatory helmet laws are the most effective way to reduce motorcyclist injuries and fatalities.

Response: The most effective way to reduce motorcyclist injuries and fatalities is to prevent crashes from occurring in the first place. Helmets and helmet laws do not prevent accidents.

Comprehensive Programs That Promote Motorcycle Safety

Between 1990 and 1999, the fatality rate for motorcyclists per 100 million vehicle miles traveled declined nearly 23% even though total vehicle miles traveled has increased 11%. Of course, there remains room for improvement. Several less personally-intrusive measures can be taken to make motorcycling safer:

* Creative motorcycle safety programs that promote licensing and testing can reduce accident and fatality statistics further. Nearly one out of seven motorcycle operators (15%) involved in fatal crashes in 2000 were operating with an invalid license.
* Almost 40% of all fatal motorcycle crashes involve alcohol. Alcohol awareness programs and "Dial a Ride" campaigns can drastically reduce alcohol-related accidents and fatalities.
* Two out of three motorcycle related multi-vehicle crashes are caused by the driver of another vehicle. The most common accident involves an automobile failing to yield the right of way to the motorcyclist. Motorist awareness campaigns and conspicuity programs can reduce the frequency of these types of accidents.

Motorcycling Facts

* Motorcycles represent only 0.5 percent of the crash-involved vehicles nationwide.
* Between 1990 and 1999, annual motorcycle crash fatalities per 100,000 registered vehicles declined 16% while crash injuries dropped more than 35%.
* Between 1990 and 1999, annual motorcycle crash fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled fell over 22% while crash injuries plunged over more than 40%.
* There are 5.7 million motorcycle owners nationwide. The average motorcyclist is 38 years old, married, college-educated and earns slightly more than $44,000 a year.
* Nationwide, over 120,000 motorcyclists completed the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) Motorcycle RiderCourse:Rider and Street Skills (MRC:RSS) rider education course and more than 9,100 riders completed the Experienced Rider Course (ERC) in 2000.
* Forty-seven states have rider education programs designated through legislation.
* The economic value of motorcycling in the U.S. was $14.3 billion in 1999.



If you want to argue, push, or get behind a cause.... tell your local representatives they need to push for another independent study so we can really know what has happened from 2000 until now. We can talk all we want, but until we know the real unbiased results, we know NOTHING!

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-03-2008, 12:18 PM   #254
Pit Crew
Spraguepsycho1's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
From: Clover, SC

I Ride: K5 GSXR-750, '90 Katana 600, '86 FZX700 Fazer
“ Quote:
Originally Posted by cal_look_zero View Post
LMAO...

You've clearly never done an inkling of research on crash systems in modern vehicles. First of all, unless you fail to wear a seatbelt completely, any impact, even a side impact into a vehicle, will tension the seatbelt and severely reduce any violent side to side or forward/backward motions. Your head will not go through a side window. Plain and simple. not always true, my wife is still here today because when she rolled her '96 Tacoma while properly wearing her seat belt, her head did take out the drivers side window, knocking her unconsious (moderate concussion). Once knocked out she slumped in the seat, which lowered her head below the top of the back rest, instead of her normal position where her head normally would have been 3 or 4 inches taller than the head rest. The roof stopped after the seat frame bent from compression of the roof. Secondly, steering columns are designed to collapse on impact. Might get a few broken ribs, but an impact isn't going to jettison the steering wheel into your chest cavity or your melon. it has been proven also that modern airbags, can and have broken necks and caused fatalities in even minor accidents, to drivers who were wearing their seat belts properly. So much so that Toyota even sent out letters to owners of their vehicles, warning them to position their seats as far away as possible, while stil being able to operate the vehicle safely, and to tilt the steering wheel down as much as possible in an attempt to aim the airbag away from the face. Airbags that have failed to deply in an accident due to malfunctions , have also deployed while firefighters were in the process of extricating drivers and passengers, killing the would be rescuers, so maybe not all modern automobile safety features are as safe as the government and manufacturers want us to think they are. "So in that aspect, your argument fails."

If you're preaching your right to decide whether or not to wear a helmet, then I would have to say that yes, you are stupid. When a piece of protective equipment is as inexpensive, readily available, and time proven as a helmet... and you bitch and complain because you don't wanna have to wear it, knowing full well it will most likely save your life in an accident. That's a stupid decision.

If caring about not spreading my grey matter across the highway makes me a sheep, then baaaaa baaaaa bitch. I guess wearing my seatbelt so I don't get launched through my windshield makes me a sheep too? How about wearing a protective helmet and bulletproof vest when I get deployed? Baaaa baaaa?

fail.
I'm not going to say seat belts don't save lives, because they do in most likely 95+% of the time, but some safety features advertised as the save all don't. I would ride without a helmet sometimes if I wasn't required by law to do so (when riding in areas with little to no traffic, just cruising at a safe and sane pace), but I would have it on anytime I was riding in high traffic areas, or taking a ride at a spirited pace.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-03-2008, 01:00 PM   #255
Moderator
PeteN95's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
From: Muk, WA
Blog Entries: 4

I Ride: fast, except on the road.
“ Quote:
Originally Posted by Spraguepsycho1 View Post
my wife is still here today because when she rolled her '96 Tacoma while properly wearing her seat belt, her head did take out the drivers side window, knocking her unconsious (moderate concussion). Once knocked out she slumped in the seat, which lowered her head below the top of the back rest, instead of her normal position where her head normally would have been 3 or 4 inches taller than the head rest. The roof stopped after the seat frame bent from compression of the roof.
Her head would only have been slumped if the truck were upright, however for the roof to be crushed, the truck would have to have been inverted, so your wife's head was hanging down toward the roof, along with her body from the seatbelt. Without the belt, she would have been tossed around the inside of the vehicle during the roll and possibily thrown out through the window?

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-03-2008, 01:05 PM   #256
Pit Crew
Spraguepsycho1's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
From: Clover, SC

I Ride: K5 GSXR-750, '90 Katana 600, '86 FZX700 Fazer
“ Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteN95 View Post
Her head would only have been slumped if the truck were upright, however for the roof to be crushed, the truck would have to have been inverted, so your wife's head was hanging down toward the roof, along with her body from the seatbelt. Without the belt, she would have been tossed around the inside of the vehicle during the roll and possibily thrown out through the window?
no she was slumped because of the centrifugal force still being applied to her body as it rolled over the roof, before comming to rest on it's side.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-03-2008, 01:18 PM   #257
Permit
Moses's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
From: Seattle, WA

I Ride: SV1000(n)
To sum up my position:

- There is no loophole, just poor reading comprehension.

- Wearing a helmet is safer than not.

- I understand that some people would rather not wear a helmet anyway.

- In WA, you have to wear a helmet by law and I can think of so many more civil liberties to get bent out of shape about that I can't be bothered at all to care that someone wants to go lidless. Pick up a skull-cap lid with some eagles, an American flag or a flaming skull. There, you look awesome again and can still get hit in the face with rocks.

- Telling me that I'm safer without a helmet is absurd and only makes you sound like a tool. If it was actually safer, racers wouldn't wear helmets. Period, end of discussion. They crash, a lot, and if wearing a lid was that much MORE dangerous, they'd all be dead. They're not.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-03-2008, 01:39 PM   #258
Chicken Strips
1crazygsxr's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2008
From: Silverdale wa/ San Diego Ca 619

I Ride: 2014 Hayabusa Limited
“ Quote:
Originally Posted by Moses View Post
To sum up my position:

- There is no loophole, just poor reading comprehension.

- Wearing a helmet is safer than not.

- I understand that some people would rather not wear a helmet anyway.

- In WA, you have to wear a helmet by law and I can think of so many more civil liberties to get bent out of shape about that I can't be bothered at all to care that someone wants to go lidless. Pick up a skull-cap lid with some eagles, an American flag or a flaming skull. There, you look awesome again and can still get hit in the face with rocks.

- Telling me that I'm safer without a helmet is absurd and only makes you sound like a tool. If it was actually safer, racers wouldn't wear helmets. Period, end of discussion. They crash, a lot, and if wearing a lid was that much MORE dangerous, they'd all be dead. They're not.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Old 11-03-2008, 01:41 PM   #259
Banned Camp
 
Joined: Mar 2007
From: Seattle, WA
Blog Entries: 1

I Ride: BMW K1200GT, KTM 990 Adv, Ducati SF
I agree with most of what you wrote here, but I want to clarify the quoted point.


Harborview is THE level-1 trauma center for a VERY large geographic area. Most serious trauma cases from most of Washington, SE Alaska, parts of Oregon , (i.e. bad motorcycle accidents), end up there.

Harborview is also a public hospital, which means it ATTRACTS patients , walk-in or otherwise, without insurance.

My point here is this: Trauma patients go there, but not by choice. The un-insured go there by choice because it is a public hospital

Comparing the percentages of those two disparate groups of patients is, pardon the cliche, apples to oranges.

That the crashed-MC-trauma-patient-crowd's percentage of insurance EQUALS (more or less) the uninsured-and-by-choice-attracted-to-the-public-hospital-crowd . . . . tells me that MC riders (in general) are less insured that the overall public.

If I were a public policy maker, trying to best utilize finite public health funds . . . . I would ask the uninsured to be more careful . . . . because their carelessness costs more public money than the carelessness of the insured. AND I would hazard a guess that the uninsured (as a group) are generally more careless to begin with.


“ Quote:
Originally Posted by INW BIG View Post
* A Harborview Medical Center study reported 63.4% of the injured motorcyclists in the trauma center relied on public funds to pay their hospital bills. According to testimony by David Gitch, director of the trauma center, 67% of the general patient population also relied on public dollars to pay their hospital bills in the same time period.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter

Last edited by FireDave; 11-03-2008 at 01:45 PM..
 
Old 11-03-2008, 02:26 PM   #260
Permit
INW BIG's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2007
From: Spokane, WA

I Ride: 49 custom panhead chopper
“ Quote:
Originally Posted by FireDave View Post
I agree with most of what you wrote here, but I want to clarify the quoted point.


Harborview is THE level-1 trauma center for a VERY large geographic area. Most serious trauma cases from most of Washington, SE Alaska, parts of Oregon , (i.e. bad motorcycle accidents), end up there.

Harborview is also a public hospital, which means it ATTRACTS patients , walk-in or otherwise, without insurance.

My point here is this: Trauma patients go there, but not by choice. The un-insured go there by choice because it is a public hospital

Comparing the percentages of those two disparate groups of patients is, pardon the cliche, apples to oranges.

That the crashed-MC-trauma-patient-crowd's percentage of insurance EQUALS (more or less) the uninsured-and-by-choice-attracted-to-the-public-hospital-crowd . . . . tells me that MC riders (in general) are less insured that the overall public.

If I were a public policy maker, trying to best utilize finite public health funds . . . . I would ask the uninsured to be more careful . . . . because their carelessness costs more public money than the carelessness of the insured. AND I would hazard a guess that the uninsured (as a group) are generally more careless to begin with.
FireDave,

You left out the bulleted item below that which brings a bit of clarity to your point of view.
* A study by the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center reported that 49.5% of injured motorcyclists had their medical costs covered by insurance, while 50.4% of the other road trauma victims were similarly insured.

Also:
The costs associated with the treatment of motorcyclist injuries account for less than 0.001% of total US health care costs. Only a portion of these costs are attributable to unhelmeted motorcyclists, the majority of which are paid by privately-purchased insurance. The remainder, spread across the taxpayer base (which includes millions of motorcyclists), is insignificant.

* Approximately 1.16% of total US health care costs are attributable to motor vehicle accidents.
* Motorcycles represented only 0.53% of the accident-involved vehicles nationwide in 1999.

The point of the Harborview statistic is to show that motorcyclists are no different than any of the general populace. An assertion that is quite often made. How many times in this thread has it been asserted that riders who ride lidless cost the public more dollars and raise insurance rates? Lots. A public hospital, or general hospital is the perfect place to show that motorcyclists are not any different than the general populace and assertions that they are largely uninsured is false.

There is absolutely NO way that you can derive your conclusion from the rest of the stats that the AMA listed. You have to derive conclusions from the rest of the statistics also like any good thesis.

Here's what you have to conclude with the above data:
1. Only one-half of one percent. (.53%) of vehicle accidents are motorcycle related.
2. Less than half of those had their costs covered by private insurance.
3. That's just slightly more than one-half of one-half percent (.049%) had to rely on public insurance.

Or further refined by the AMA, the conclusion is spot on:
Response: The costs associated with the treatment of motorcyclist injuries account for less than 0.001% of total US health care costs. Only a portion of these costs are attributable to unhelmeted motorcyclists, the majority of which are paid by privately-purchased insurance. The remainder, spread across the taxpayer base (which includes millions of motorcyclists), is insignificant.

__________________
Follow PNW Riders on Facebook and Twitter
 
Reply

  PNW Riders > PNW Riders > Motorcycle Talk


Thread Tools
Display Modes



/pnwriders @pnwriders PNW Riders RSS Feed