He's at it again.......

ebiker · Post by **ebiker** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:01 pm

......It seems Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey is coming after us again...through our Governors! It's not enough that we killed his safety-Nazi agenda during the amendment process in TEA-LU. Now, it appears that he won't stop until we're all wearing helmets.

Read his latest attempt at stealing away your "right to choose" at the following link:

http://www.solriders.com/pdf/lautenberg.pdf

IMHO, we should spread this news far and wide. EVERY motorcyclist in America needs to see how this politician is working against us - not only in Washington - but in our statehouses, too! Every motorcyclist needs to contact his/her governor tomorrow and explain that you and your state don't appreciate Senator Lautenberg trying to force his will upon us.

And it might not hurt to send Senator Lautenberg a message about how he should stay out of issues that are strictly "states rights".

Here's a link to his "contact page"...as these elected servants don't use regular email anymore:

http://lautenberg.senate.gov/contact/

If you choose to contact Senator Lautenberg via the old fashioned way:

Hart Senate Office Building, Suite 324.

Washington, DC 20510

Phone: (202) 224-3224

TTY: (202) 224-2087

Fax: (202) 228-4054
*********************
Ed.. (ABATE of Arizona)

Post by **NoRRmad** » Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:50 pm

...One thing I've noticed while doing a fair amount of travelling: In no-helmet-law states, nobody wears a helmet. (Present company excepted, of course.)

ebiker · Post by **ebiker** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:45 pm

NoRRmad wrote:...One thing I've noticed while doing a fair amount of travelling: In no-helmet-law states, nobody wears a helmet. (Present company excepted, of course.)

Well that's your choice, which I do respect.

On my recent trip into Pennsylvania, which has a modified helmet law for adults, at one Harley Davidson dealership, nearly 90% of all riders I saw there wore some type of helmet. At another HD dealer, also near Philadelphia, almost 90% riders did not wear a helmet. This was on a Saturday when dealer traffic is heavy.

In Rapid City and the Sturgis event, which I attended last month, I would judge helmet use to be about 50-50.

Ed.. Yeah, I usually choose to wear one.

popgazer · Post by **popgazer** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:13 pm

ebiker wrote: Ed.. Yeah, I usually choose to wear one.

Yeah, you choose to wear a helmet! But do you choose how much insurrance you have to pay ?
The riders who choose NOT to wear a helmet raise YOUR premium, too. Differently put, you don't mind paying for the freedom to let some kill themselves.

I am usually against the legal system's defining the way we should live, but there are some evils that are necessary, so to speak. Many laws are there to protect us against our own stupidity.

IMHO, Mr. Lautenberg is right. Study after study show that the fatality rate is higher when a rider is not wearing a helmet.

What would be more productive is to ask for legislation that would increase car driver's awareness toward motorcyclists.
For example, if a car driver collides with a motorcycle and s/he is at fault, s/he automatically receives a fine, driver license points, higher insurrance hikes and would have to do traffic school.
That would certainly make car drivers watch for motocyclist before they do their stupid left turn, then say "I didn't see him, he came from nowhere !!!"

kill a motorcyclist and treat it like a mere fender-bender.

ebiker · Post by **ebiker** » Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:54 pm

popgazer wrote:
ebiker wrote: Ed.. Yeah, I usually choose to wear one.
Yeah, you choose to wear a helmet! But do you choose how much insurrance you have to pay ? The riders who choose NOT to wear a helmet raise YOUR premium, too.

Show us some written proof on that claim.

Never mind the B.S. your insurance man might have "told" you, just show us some written proof that relaxed helmet laws result in higher insurance premiums.

In 1991 when California enacted an all rider helmet law, did your insurance rates decline? Did rates fall in Maryland or Louisiana when helmet use was mandated?

My Daryland insurance premiums in Pennsylvania DID NOT increase after the Keystone state modified it's helmet law for adults in 2003.

I am usually against the legal system's defining the way we should live, but there are some evils that are necessary, so to speak. Many laws are there to protect us against our own stupidity

You're telling us you need a law to make you wear a helmet?

IMHO, Mr. Lautenberg is right. Study after study show that the fatality rate is higher when a rider is not wearing a helmet

Why don't you show us that "study"?

You know where to find me.

Ed..

Post by **boxermania** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:05 am

The thing that pisses me off about these politicians is that they take "data"
and they use it freely without any type of corroboration.

I'mcertainly not privy to any information regarding motorcyclists deaths, but the first thing that I would ask would be "How many bike registartions in the US at the two periods in question"

That still does not provide a clear answer, then I would go and see where the fatalities took place and also check the registartions between the two periods.

If everything checks out, then have your say..........

Post by **sjbmw** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:33 am

"Hey Govenor, make sure you let us know when the people of your state try and pass a law you disagree with".

We will get statistics in the next 2 years. The AMA sucessfully lobbied funding in a recently passed transportation bill to analyze why there has been an increase in US motorcycle fatalities in the past 5 years. The study will be done in 2007 at Oklahoma University.

I encourage anyone who cares strongly about their protecting their right to ride a motorcyle in the USA to join the AMA. Helmet laws are the least of our worries.

http://www.amadirectlink.com

P.S. If this thread gets too political it's going into the Playhouse.

Post by **Biff's R** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:16 am

I believe in letting the free market work here. When you sign up for insurance, there should be two rates given. One if you are going to wear a helmet, and one if you choose not to. You decide, but if you sign up for the insurance with a helmet, and get injured without one, then you coverage is reduced.

Just a thought, but a fatal accident may be a lower $ claim than an injury accident, and therefore there is no difference for the insurance.

Post by **sjbmw** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:58 am

Biff's R wrote:I believe in letting the free market work here. When you sign up for insurance, there should be two rates given. One if you are going to wear a helmet, and one if you choose not to. You decide, but if you sign up for the insurance with a helmet, and get injured without one, then you coverage is reduced.

Just a thought, but a fatal accident may be a lower $ claim than an injury accident, and therefore there is no difference for the insurance.

If the goal is to reduce insurance costs, then helmet laws should be repealed in all 50 states. Dead people are less of a drain on the healthcare system.

The facts from 1990-1999 are not what we think.
http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/p ... helmet.asp

ebiker · Post by **ebiker** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:39 am

Biff's R wrote:I believe in letting the free market work here. When you sign up for insurance, there should be two rates given. One if you are going to wear a helmet, and one if you choose not to. You decide, but if you sign up for the insurance with a helmet, and get injured without one, then you coverage is reduced

Hmmm, let's look at that insurance claim reduction proposal from a different angle. Head trauma in an enclosed motor vehicle crash is the leading cause of head and neck injury. Falls in the home is second with pedestrian injury a distant third. Should we mandate reduced medical coverage or claim settlement for motorists who don't wear seat belts and become injured in a crash? Would MOM get reduced medical care if she was uninsured and used an unsafe step ladder at home, fell off and got hurt?

How about the uninsured motorist injured in a crash thru no fault of his own....would he receive a reduced claim settlement simply because he had no insurance? I'm sure there are plenty lawyers out there who would say..NO!

So, why pick on the motorcyclist, who probably has more than adquate insurance coverage, and decides to legally ride without a helmet?

Ed..

Post by **Dr. Strangelove** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:45 pm

>> you don't mind paying for the freedom to let some kill themselves. <<
>>Dead people are less of a drain on the healthcare system.<<

Both true. Dead people are not the ones that raise costs. It's the "near dead." The ones that are disabled the rest of their lives, the ones that lay in neuro wards on ventilators for weeks/months getting bedsores, septic, back to the OR and then die. Or go to PT forever and build ramps to enter their house. And those don't make the news. And there are many more of them than those that die.

The ones that die on the street do not accrue the $10,000 ER visit on their way to the $10,000 surgery and then in ICU at more than $1000/day.

The helmetless ones that die quickly are being fiscally responsible.

It's the helmetless ones that try to live that raise the vehicular and health insurance rates.

And who pays for that? Everyone else. I do mind paying for those who "need" that so-called freedom.

John

Post by **sjbmw** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:04 pm

Dr. Strangelove wrote:>> you don't mind paying for the freedom to let some kill themselves. <<
>>Dead people are less of a drain on the healthcare system.<<

Both true. Dead people are not the ones that raise costs. It's the "near dead." The ones that are disabled the rest of their lives, the ones that lay in neuro wards on ventilators for weeks/months getting bedsores, septic, back to the OR and then die. Or go to PT forever and build ramps to enter their house. And those don't make the news. And there are many more of them than those that die.

The ones that die on the street do not accrue the $10,000 ER visit on their way to the $10,000 surgery and then in ICU at more than $1000/day.

The helmetless ones that die quickly are being fiscally responsible.

It's the helmetless ones that try to live that raise the vehicular and health insurance rates.

And who pays for that? Everyone else. I do mind paying for those who "need" that so-called freedom.

John

Read the statistics. The total $ we are talking about are insignificant.
Let's stop masking helmet law debates in the context of cost because that is not the issue.

There are no indicators that helment free states are paying anymore than helmet required states. It's a cop out argument based upon emotion and not on facts.

Rider and auto driver education are the most important factors for costs anyway.

The question is this:

Exactly how far is the government allowed to go to protect us from ourselves?

Sky diving is a very dangerous sport! Shall we close all the sky diving schools?? (we just had 2 fatalities in my area)

How about bars and taverns? People make a lot of mistakes when they leave those places. Get hurt and killed and drive med costs through the roof! Close them down? Statistics show that ALCOHOL use is more deadly than riding without a helmet, and much more costly, if cost is the real issue

Riding without a helmet is only risky to the decision maker. It's their melon.

I will ALWAYS side on a person's right to choose.

We Americans are being slowly cooked like frogs by politicians that think they know what is best for everyone else.

For the record, I wear a helmet. I tried it once for 45 minutes when PA changed their law. Too much shrapnel.

Post by **Dr. Strangelove** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:02 pm

It is just common sense that seriously injured people cost $$$

It is common sense that most anything that separates you from the shrapnel or the asphalt is good.

If the $$$ don't show up in statistics it's probably because the insurance companies make their money whether we live or die--it's built into their rates. Are rates lower for "helmet" states? I don't know, but here in Louisiana--a helmet state--our rates are high on a national basis--my RR is 1200/year with Progressive.

Seeing numerous closed head injuries on vents week after week on neuro wards has jaded me into thinking that helmets are a good idea, like not drinking and driving.

Should government mandate anything? I would hope that one's cerebral cortex would.

OK--off my soapbox!--Helmet free states are Darwinism at work; more road for the rest of us! Right?

John--the guy in the very visible red helmet.

Post by **wncbmw** » Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:08 pm

Helmet free states are Darwinism at work

Dang! As I was scrolling down, that is what I had decided to post!

I believe that stats and insurance are not the issues, try as the politicians try to make it the issue. (You know, lies, damn lies and statistics.

). I am a believer in the state's rights version of the argument.

I was against seat belt laws for the same reason. My Libertarian streak rearing it's head!

Although, I might add, you are a damn fool to ride helmetless or without your seatbelt. (See Darwin comment above.)

johno · Post by **johno** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:56 pm

In Australia it is law you must wear a helmet if travelling over 15kph.
No exceptions.
Must wear seatbelts in cars, hefty fines if not.
I always have worn both. I value my life.
Insurance here is usually age related, and better if in a M/cycle club.
Also goes on your driving history.No prangs, less cost.

Post by **DJ Downunder** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:20 pm

Dr. Strangelove's comments make a lot of sense to me....I can only imagine what it would be like with no helmet laws in Oz.

Our ICU's would be full of squids who want to take the risk..and other people could die because of not enough ICU beds.

Just my thoughts.

DJ

ebiker · Post by **ebiker** » Tue Sep 19, 2006 8:52 pm

johno wrote:In Australia it is law you must wear a helmet if travelling over 15kph. No exceptions. Must wear seatbelts in cars, hefty fines if not.

I've been meaning to ask you guys, are you folks still under the Kings thumb??

Ed..

Motorrad · Post by **Motorrad** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:40 pm

"Oh, but it messes up my hair!"

Tripton · Post by **Tripton** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:38 pm

I wear a helmet most of the time. I do however support the freedom of not wearing one. Seems that in many cases of fatal accidents that they will protect you enough to have an open casket funeral.

You are already taking a pretty damned big calculated risk just being on a bike in the first place...why not let people push that one more level and wear whatever they want. (Even if it that super sweet doo rag with skulls on it.....

)

Doc Strangelove....you pay 1200 a year for an RR? GEEZ, do you have an OWI or something? I am 24...male...and do not have a clean record....and I am at something like $532 through Progressive Drive.

Oh...and i am from a state that has no helmet laws....not even for kids or passengers....and very few laws regarding your bike in general...no turn signals...apehangers over your head...no eye protection...no shoes....anything goes!!

Post by **Dr. Strangelove** » Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:23 pm

Hey, Tripton

that's right 1200. My driving record is completely clean and I am a grandfather. USAA and Geico were even more expensive. My Vespa--an ET4--was $450. Took the MSF and that made no difference in rates.

stay safe

John