National Helmet Laws. Comming soon?

[beemerman2k]

Why is this a need in the first place? This is a desire of yours. Your statement there is not too far astray from saying "Everyone must be a Catholic because that's where true salvation lies." Mods please, humor me here, I'm not attacking anyone's religion.

 

I'm sorry you see it that way. I would submit that "true salvation" rests in making wise choices and to that degree I am simply encouraging a trend where our industry becomes better known as that of honoring wisdom while we exercise our freedoms. If you're going to make an analogy from religion, then I would say that I am advocating evangelism, not forced conversions.

 

Like St. Francis said, "preach the gospel, if necessary use words."

 

Let's all try to communicate without preaching the "sermon" of ATTGATT, injuries, accidents, etc. stop the name calling/finger pointing junk and just go out and ride the way WE are comforatable. As riders, we're all in it together and should try harder to appreciate the ride others take. Inclusion is good, riders are a small portion of the vehicular traffic here in the states, let's forget about the elitism and get over ourselves so that we who choose to wear the suits are not fragmented from the rest of the riding fraternity.

 

Well, on that we absolutely agree. I am not advocating yet more divisions among motorcyclists. Here is what I am trying to get at: in my lifetime (I am 47 years old) I have seen our American society change in many ways for the better. I am old enough to remember when referring to people by derogatory racial, gender, or sexual preference terms was totally and completely acceptable. I am also old enough to remember when domestic violence was an accepted part of life, driving while drinking was perfectly OK, and throwing your trash out the window while driving down the highway was a real problem (remember that commercial with the tear running down the face of that Native American Chief?).

 

Now, one can argue that "laws" changed things, but I would disagree -- those acts have always been illegal (well, maybe not the racial slurs, a freedom of speech that I fiercely protect even though the practice disgusts me). What ultimately changed things were the social attitudes toward this behavior. The average white guy doesn't call me a racial slur out of fear of public repercussions, he doesn't do so because it is no longer an acceptable social behavior! Neither is gross littering or any other form of discrimination or domestic violence whether it gets reported or not. Guys are no longer saying to each other, "way to keep her in line, Joe!". Instead we say, "That Joe is a sick b*stard! He needs serious help." Today we view such behavior as being distinctly crass, base, and disgusting.

 

And that's what I am getting at here. I would love to see a shift in our industry where good safety equipment comes with every new bike purchased. No, the rider doesn't have to wear it of course, and he can turn around and sell it on Craigslist or something. But the hope is that over time, as newby riders enter the fray too young to know that wearing good gear is for "sissies", begins a new trend in our lifestyle. Then, in another 30 years, when all of the knuckleheads have died off, the vast majority of riders will be riding in good gear, totally not even entertaining doing otherwise. And such a shift could be led by the manufacturers of motorcycles themselves.

 

I could buy a chopper, tattoo myself all over, join a gang and commit acts of violence against the non-riding public, but I won't. Why? That lifestyle all but died a long time ago. No one is legally preventing me from making that choice, I just don't see the thrill in it! It would be nice if a day came when riders no longer wanted to ride without good protective gear, that's all I'm getting at.

 

And that would be far more effective than any law could ever hope to be.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Ah, then the issue is total cost.

Of course it is. When the perceive losses to a society bubbles up to the level where they first garnish attention, then later action, that is it working exactly as it's suppose to.

 

 

Why should we make decisions on the basis of perceived losses as opposed to actual measured losses? That's like trying to balance your checkbook based merely on how you feel about the numbers instead of actually running them through a calculator to see if they add up to the right amount.

 

Thus the point that I made earlier, which I don't agree is particularly off-topic: if your objective is to minimize the total cost to society of traumatic brain injuries, why would you exclusively pursue helmetless riders, ignoring the much larger costs incurred by helmetless drivers? The means (enforcing helmet laws exclusively for motorcyclists) does not square with the stated objective.

 

There is no such thing as "reality." Perception IS reality when it is perceived the same by enough people.

 

A quote I saw some where - "Fiction becomes truth through endless repetition."

 

Truth by concensus? Good grief. Then you believe that 1000 years ago, the sun really did orbit the earth.

[russell_bynum]

Why should we make decisions on the basis of perceived losses as opposed to actual measured losses?

 

Simple: There's no such thing as reality.

[Matts_12GS]

Beemerman,

I merely took you at what you wrote. You said we need it, instead of "I'd like to see." I think you may be more "evangelising" than advocating "evangelism" but that we're on essentially the same page here.

 

The behaviors you referenced that ultimately changed were the result of legislation in some cases and adaptation in others, and I certainly think that more riders wearing protective gear is good for the sport. I'm hesitant to believe it will lower insurance rates or do much to decrease the burden to the public that Ken refers to.

 

I don't know that I want to have to fork over extra $$ to buy a motorcycle so that gear can be provided with it though. Maybe rebates or exchanges for what you to to what they have, there are ways to do it though. When I bought the softail in 06, HD was offering to extend the loan $2000 about purchase price so I could buy apparel or accessories. That might be the better approach?

 

Given the way the manufacturers are going about it now, It will wind up like 90% of the bikes out there, build for a 5'5" 150lb Japanese guy!

[Bob Palin]

On that basis, anyone advocating mandatory helmets for motorcyclists ought to be positively screaming for mandatory helmets for car occupants.

Off topic. My prior point made.

It is most definitely not off topic, you are using the 'divide and conquer' tactic to try and achieve/justify something you believe in. What is really under discussion here is a principle, namely - should the government be dictating behaviour that does not harm others. You say that it does harm them, financially, I say that that is not a basis for removing freedoms. If you think that it is a basis then you have to consider all the other things that need that principle applied to them, otherwise you are just being arbitrary.

[TyTass]

A quote I saw some where - "Fiction becomes truth through endless repetition."

Here is the quote:

 

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

 

And who said it? Survey says ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adolph Hitler!

[Dave McReynolds]

You say that it does harm them, financially, I say that that is not a basis for removing freedoms.

 

Harming others is always a basis for limiting freedom, depending on the significance of the harm. As I discussed in my earlier post, I think a thorough analysis would show that the cost to society over the long haul from helmetless motorcyclists is not significant.

 

Of course, I could be wrong.

 

Statistics probably already exist showing the amount of government services consumed by the average American in excess of the amount he or she pays. I'm talking about specific services, like education, welfare, medicare, social security, etc., and not those that benefit society as a whole, such as national defense, police, highways, etc.

 

Statistics probably don't exist showing the amount of government services consumed by the average unhelmeted motorcyclist in excess of the amount he or she pays. But if anyone really cared, they could be developed.

 

My guess is that the average unhelmeted motorcyclist consumes less government services over his or her life than the average American, even considering uncompensated or uninsured medical care for catistropic injuries.

 

But I could be wrong about that.

[KMG_365]

Adolph Hitler!

 

TIME!!

 

 

Tell him what he's won, Greg!

[exwingnut]

Ever seen the movie "I, Robot"?

 

Yeah. Wish I hadn't. What did Asimov do to make Hollywood hate him so much? (Seen "Nightfall"?)

 

No, I missed that one...I keep waiting for them to screw up "Foundation"; or, prehaps, that story is a little too close to reality for the media giants to want to tackle.

 

I was struck by the "for your own good" angle immediately when I started reading the arguments for manditory helmet compliance.

[Bud]

You say that it does harm them, financially, I say that that is not a basis for removing freedoms.

 

Harming others is always a basis for limiting freedom, depending on the significance of the harm. As I discussed in my earlier post, I think a thorough analysis would show that the cost to society over the long haul from helmetless motorcyclists is not significant.

 

Of course, I could be wrong.

 

Statistics probably already exist showing the amount of government services consumed by the average American in excess of the amount he or she pays. I'm talking about specific services, like education, welfare, medicare, social security, etc., and not those that benefit society as a whole, such as national defense, police, highways, etc.

 

Statistics probably don't exist showing the amount of government services consumed by the average unhelmeted motorcyclist in excess of the amount he or she pays. But if anyone really cared, they could be developed.

 

My guess is that the average unhelmeted motorcyclist consumes less government services over his or her life than the average American, even considering uncompensated or uninsured medical care for catistropic injuries.

 

But I could be wrong about that.

 

Why would any motorcyclist, helmeted or not, consume less than the average American? It doesn't seem to make sense to me. What is it about being a motorcyclist that would make this statement true?

[russell_bynum]

Why would any motorcyclist, helmeted or not, consume less than the average American?

 

Read the rest of Dave's post for the answer.

 

In a nutshell...they die sooner than the average American, so they don't consume as many resources.

[Bud]

Even though SCUBA diving and skydiving may have a greater "per-participant cost", the small number of participants in our society (compared to motorcycle riders) don't add up to a significant cost to society.

 

Ah, then the issue is total cost. the total societal cost of head injuries incurred during car accidents is very high; the per-participant cost is of course much lower than motorcycles but (citing data for New Hampshire here) because of the much larger number of drivers on the road (and # of miles driven per year), the total number of head injuries due to car accidents is four times the total number of head injuries due to motorcycle accidents. (see page 19)

 

On that basis, anyone advocating mandatory helmets for motorcyclists ought to be positively screaming for mandatory helmets for car occupants.

 

Same table shows "falls" as approx 175% more than auto accidents. Maybe helmets "all the time" should be the rule?

[Dave McReynolds]

In a nutshell...the die sooner than the average American, so they don't consume as many resources.

 

Not just that, but do unhelmeted motorcyclists draw as much welfare as the average American? Do they consume as much post-secondary public education as the average American? Do they have uncompensated head injuries in car accidents as much as the average American?

 

You see, the only way to level the playing field, and see if unhelmeted motorcyclists are burdening society with more than their share of costs, is to compare the average public resources consumed by unhelmeted motorcyclists with average public resources consumed by the public as a whole.

[Matts_12GS]

A quote I saw some where - "Fiction becomes truth through endless repetition."

Here is the quote:

 

Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

 

And who said it? Survey says ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Adolph Hitler!

 

Joseph Stalin is also attributed with "A lie told often enough becomes truth"

[Jones]

Absolutely fascinating!! A spirited discussion on helmet laws on a BMW site and someone ends up quoting HITLER!!!

 

This is just too good!

[Gary in Aus]

"quoting Hitler"

 

and Stalin !

 

I went back and re-read your original post .

 

Were you after the 5 pound or 10 pound session and did you pay?

 

Python

[harleyjohn45]

Why should unhelmeted riding be particularly singled out for attention when there are activities with a far greater aggregate societal cost (such as unhelmeted driving, or junk food) and activities with a much greater per-participant societal cost (such as SCUBA or skydiving)?

 

There is no data to support wearing a helmet when driving, but how many race car drivers choose not to wear helmets? And, yes, laws are being passed to restrict junk food starting in schools where it may make a difference. Even though SCUBA diving and skydiving may have a greater "per-participant cost", the small number of participants in our society (compared to motorcycle riders) don't add up to a significant cost to society.

 

Proposed helmet laws are not really about the here and now, their value is in the precedent they set for future losses of freedom.

 

I remember the same fears when seat belt laws were imposed, but look at how many lives have been saved (and there is data to support it), yet no additional Draconian laws have further restricted our driving freedom.

 

every state in the union has an exemption, i have an exemption. the thing that really surprises me is the fact that, school busses in my state do not have seat belts.

[John in VA]

[ the thing that really surprises me is the fact that, school busses in my state do not have seat belts.

 

School buses are among the safest of all street transportation. Proper seatbelts use could be difficult with kids of many different heights and weights -- improper seatbelt use can be dangerous.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/SchoolBus.html

[Francois_Dumas]

Boy on a (souped-up) moped died here two days ago...... ran wide on a corner, straight into an oncoming car.

 

He DID have a helmet (is is youngsters that tend to ignore the rules), but he didn't have it fixed ! Died of head injuries.

 

So yes, improper use of a helmet can be dangerous too....

 

The bottom line is not to mandate helmets per se, but to mandate proper education, for both riders and drivers (and make it expensive enough to make it count?).

[Amac]

When socialized medicine (or for that matter insurance companies with high dollar lobbyists) end up paying for the ER charges that result as a consequence of motorcycle crashes, they will demand that helmets be worn.

[Ken H.]

The bottom line is not to mandate helmets per se, but to mandate proper education, for both riders and drivers (and make it expensive enough to make it count?).

It's a nice sentiment, but unfortunately I don't believe that it would work. I suspect a large percentage of non-helmet wearing riders already know they would be safer with one on. They choose not to wear it anyway. The personal choice - 'It's nobody's business if I kill myself on a motorcycle' issue is part of it. Also, remember, for some people the risk associated with riding a motorcycle is (a portion of) the attractiveness of riding one. Not wearing a helmet adds to that risk, and to them that is a positive thing. That's why education won't work. You're not telling them anything they don't already know. And if/when society decides the costs to it of their decision is too high, it has to step in.

[John Bentall]

In the UK it is reckoned that each death on the road costs $3,000,000 in emergency service time, accident investigation, court time, autopsy etc . The people who die through deliberately not wearing helmets are making other people pay for this, thus infringing their freedom.

So when is a risk a silly risk?

[Dave McReynolds]

In the UK it is reckoned that each death on the road costs $3,000,000 in emergency service time, accident investigation, court time, autopsy etc . The people who die through deliberately not wearing helmets are making other people pay for this, thus infringing their freedom.

So when is a risk a silly risk?

 

Is it the people not wearing helmets dying on the road that are making other people pay for this, or the cumbersome bureaucracy that requires that $3,000,000 be spent? Do you think that the equivalent of $3,000,000 was spent 50 years ago? If not, why not? Do the citizens today get any more for their money, or is the conclusion the same as it would have been 50 years ago: "Poor Mr. X crashed his motorcycle and died, and the accident either was or wasn't his fault."

[Bob Palin]

Is it the people not wearing helmets dying on the road that are making other people pay for this, or the cumbersome bureaucracy that requires that $3,000,000 be spent?

Helmet laws have been in force in the UK for over 30 years and it would be extremely rare for somebody not to wear one. $3M is a crazy number, I'd have to see the accounting before I would believe anything like that.

[Stir]

they want to mandate helmets because they believe society has a right to control behavior that supersedes an individual's right to free expression of will.

Society ALWAYS has the right to control behavior. It's one of the rights we implicitedly grant it by agreeing to participate in, and benefit from, it. Because if we didn't grant it that right, it wouldn't successfully exist at all. And then by extension nor would the benefits of it we enjoy.

 

I've given this some thought. IT comes down to might versus anything else. So, I am born into a society, i.e. in Iraq. I am forced to fight for the dictator...ect. Or I am one of the lucky ones and am born in a "free" society. In this free society, if I want anything for myself, I have to pay tributes to the might. I can't opt out. I also don't get a choice in the matter of joining the human race. So we are cattle no matter where we are born. Some pastures are a little freer than others but there is always constraints and you never can opt out. So what it boils down to is that society only has the right because if you do what you really want and it is opposed to society, they will put you in a little cage until you comply. Very weird stuff. The first guy who builds a space ship and can leave this place will be the first truely free individual. Wonder if he will wear a helmet?

[John Ranalletta]

Society ALWAYS has the right to control behavior.

No. Governmental bodies can limit some types of behaviors, but only when a majority of like-minded people vote in sufficient numbers to gain control.

 

There are many behaviors that have a much higher cost than riding helmetless. Unprotected sex with many partners comes to mind; yet, whenever laws are proposed, the "right to privacy" is held forth as a bar.

 

So, we choose to not make laws about bedroom behaviors for a number of reasons, the primary of which is they can't be enforced. Since we can see who's wearing a helmet and who isn't, that law would be easy to enforce; so, it becomes the law that's passed.

 

This entire argument is about control and who will wield it. Helmet proponets are no more interested in cost to society and similar bullshlt. It's about the ability to control the agenda and therefore society in general. They need the government or "society" to help them lead their lives and make decisions for them and think it's only fair that everybody else live by the same rules.

 

It's like the kid who does his homework because he's AFRAID not to and tells the teacher which of his classmate don't.

[Motors]

Darwin was right! If "they" don't wear helmets, so what!

Let them die and leave the gene pool

We don't need these morons except for fodder.

[Jones]

Helmet vs. no helmet is a very poor filter for the gene pool.

 

Given the billions of people on the planet, motorcycle crash death or survival numbers are statistically insignificant when trying to maintain the purity of the human genome.

 

Purity of the human genome??? Damn! We are back to HITLER on this thread! Curious on a BMW site.

 

After riding around this summer, I think I need to wash my helmet in someone's gene pool. Kinda funky.

[Bob Palin]

Darwin was right! If "they" don't wear helmets, so what!

Let them die and leave the gene pool

We don't need these morons except for fodder.

Here we go again, personal attacks.

[Francois_Dumas]

The first guy who builds a space ship and can leave this place will be the first truely free individual. Wonder if he will wear a helmet?

 

OR he might run straight into an even more oppressive force than the one he left behind...... we'll never know

[John in VA]

[i've given this some thought. IT comes down to might versus anything else. So, I am born into a society, i.e. in Iraq. I am forced to fight for the dictator...ect. Or I am one of the lucky ones and am born in a "free" society. In this free society, if I want anything for myself, I have to pay tributes to the might. I can't opt out.

 

This reminds me of an anecdote by a journalist who wrote a book about Iraq recently. He had been to Iraq many times before and after the war. He recounts a ride in a Baghdad taxi shortly after the war where the Iraqi driver cavalierly ran numerous red lights. He asked the driver why he was running all the red lights and the driver replied that under Saddam he would never have done that -- but now there's democracy and freedom!

[awagnon]

The difference between requiring a helmet for car drivers and motorcycle riders is the nature of the injury. With motorcycle accidents, there is ofter very serious and significant head trauma without any other life threatening injuries. So, the rider would have walked away if it weren't for the head injury which probably would have been prevented with a helmet. I don't think you see as many "head only" injuries with car accidents. However, I'm not sure of the data.

 

As a physician, I've never seen a motorcycle accident victim say, "boy, I'm sure glad I wasn't wearing a helmet." On the other hand, I've seen a number of family members say, I wish he had been wearing a helmet. Sure, it was his/her choice.

 

Maybe there should be a compromise. Require helmets for minors (? under age 16) because they probably aren't mature enough to make an informed, rational choice. Then let anyone over 16 decide for themselves. However, insurance companies could give rate reductions for wearing a helmet, just like they do for not smoking or other risky behavior.

[russell_bynum]

Maybe there should be a compromise. Require helmets for minors (? under age 16) because they probably aren't mature enough to make an informed, rational choice. Then let anyone over 16 decide for themselves. However, insurance companies could give rate reductions for wearing a helmet, just like they do for not smoking or other risky behavior.

 

Call it 18 instead of 16, and I'd be OK with that.

[velomoto]

... However, insurance companies could give rate reductions for wearing a helmet, just like they do for not smoking or other risky behavior.

Fortunately for everyone who rides and has HEALTH insurance, for what ever reason we seem to be able to fly under their radar screen. In other words, the cost (financial risk) of a MC rider hasn't made a large enough impact that the health insurance co's feel the need to adjust rates. Two factors which come to mind quickly:

 

One is that as a percentage of the insured MC riders are a very small minority.

 

Another possible factor is that a high mortality rate in MC accidents is keeping the cost down.

 

On another completely different thot... A friend is a tongue-in-cheek advocate of smoking and motorcycling without helmets. He doesn't do either - his contention is encouraging this behavior will help solve the looming social security crisis!

[velomoto]

Call it 18 instead of 16, and I'd be OK with that.

Just curious - what's the significance???

[russell_bynum]

Call it 18 instead of 16, and I'd be OK with that.

Just curious - what's the significance???

 

18 is when we've decided that people are "adult" enough to vote, to buy property, enter into contracts, die for their country, etc.

 

Seems like this should fit in with all that other stuff. At 16, you really can't do much of anything without parental consent anyway.

[harleyjohn45]

[ the thing that really surprises me is the fact that, school busses in my state do not have seat belts.

 

School buses are among the safest of all street transportation. Proper seatbelts use could be difficult with kids of many different heights and weights -- improper seatbelt use can be dangerous.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-11/SchoolBus.html

 

are semi's as safe as school buses. they are required to wear seat belts.

[harleyjohn45]

In the UK it is reckoned that each death on the road costs $3,000,000 in emergency service time, accident investigation, court time, autopsy etc . The people who die through deliberately not wearing helmets are making other people pay for this, thus infringing their freedom.

So when is a risk a silly risk?

 

3 mil, where did that come from. UK must be rich. how much if he is killed in a car. or just dies of old age. geesh.

maybe stalin is in here now.

[Boffin]

In the UK it is reckoned that each death on the road costs $3,000,000 in emergency service time, accident investigation, court time, autopsy etc . The people who die through deliberately not wearing helmets are making other people pay for this, thus infringing their freedom.

So when is a risk a silly risk?

 

3 mil, where did that come from. UK must be rich. how much if he is killed in a car. or just dies of old age. geesh.

maybe stalin is in here now.

 

That figure is the average total cost of a fatal road accident (all vehicle types) to the public purse based on:

 

the hourly rate of all the police time in attending the accident;

 

the costs of police attending court to give evidence

 

the ambulance and hospital time including medical costs for non-fatally injured victims (socialised medicine remember)

 

fire service time for attendance/rescue

 

accident investigation unit time,

 

local council time cleaning up the accident scene

 

planning office time considering need to change road layout

 

autopsy costs,

 

coroner's inquest costs

 

economic costs from the road closure associated with investigating fatal accidents,

 

court time including lawyers fees for any prosecutions.

 

In other words all of the costs of all of the people who get tied up in an accident, either directly or indirectly. It soon adds up. I suspect the only difference in costs in the USA would be the medical costs.

 

Andy

[velomoto]

Not sure what percentage of people "just die of old age", but I'd bet in the USofA this is a very low number as we seem to have a problem with allowing nature to take it's course. Typically life (survival?) gets MUCH more expensive as one gets older (more doctor visits, hospital time, drugs, etc.).

 

I've seen a similar fiscal conservative argument against handguns - it's REALLY expensive when someone picks up a gun and shoots someone else in some crime of passion or a drunken rage. In any case it is expensive when people die, but if one looks at the cost of care in a hospital ICU and attorney fees, a prolonged injury and lawsuit can be much more costly than a quick death. Go figure!

[Jones]

[Bud]

On the way back from Myrtle Beach last weekend, I picked up a paper and the editorial page was about this subject. The editor claimed that even though motorcycles account for 1% of all vehicles in the US, deaths from motorcycle accidents account for 10% of all fatalities. Didn't quote source.

 

What has been lost in all of this discussion is that motorcyclists won't decide this issue. All of our debate won't change the result.

 

It most likely will be determined in Congress.

[TyTass]

Obviously, Congress will decide. It's how our laws are made on a National Level. But we are not just left to waiting until the next ballots come out to have a voice? Definitely not.

 

Sure, on this board, we can but discuss an issue, put forth facts, opinions, or learn of new studies. We can talk of core principles and values, and how for some those are the litmus test for creating any new law as opposed to a pragmatic appraoch. And perhaps any/each of us can walk away better understanding a different perspective enough to make us question or strengthen our previous position - to one way or another gain a bit of wisdom.

 

Now what we do with any of the pearls of wisdom we may come away with however is a different story. Must we sit back and wait until election day to vote? Is that all we can do?

 

We can write our representatives, both local and national level. Perhaps we can point them toward new studies - ones that support or oppose legislation being considered. And if we are so inclined to be heard through a lobby, we can join and write the AMA, and make our views known in that forum and try to sway others them.

 

Now any of us can take the opinion that all off that is fruitless. We can think that discussion here is pointless. Anyone here is welcome to say, "You're naive, Craig ... what do they care about your views?"

 

My response? Knock yourself out if that works for you.

 

On the whole, I apreciate the discussion.

[Shaman97]

That figure is the average total cost of a fatal road accident (all vehicle types) to the public purse based on:

 

the hourly rate of all the police time in attending the accident;

 

the costs of police attending court to give evidence

 

the ambulance and hospital time including medical costs for non-fatally injured victims (socialised medicine remember)

 

fire service time for attendance/rescue

 

accident investigation unit time,

 

local council time cleaning up the accident scene

 

planning office time considering need to change road layout

 

autopsy costs,

 

coroner's inquest costs

 

economic costs from the road closure associated with investigating fatal accidents,

 

court time including lawyers fees for any prosecutions.

 

In other words all of the costs of all of the people who get tied up in an accident, either directly or indirectly. It soon adds up. I suspect the only difference in costs in the USA would be the medical costs.

 

Andy

 

Andy,

Thanks for the cost breakdown, but as I look at all the people cited above: police, coroner, ambulance, etc. these are people that are going to be paid anyway. It's not an above-and-beyond cost of the normal day-to-day jobs these people already perform. I suppose if the total budget of a city (police, fire, etc) were to be divided by the number of individual incidents that occur, the per-use cost of any incident would be more than would seem reasonable. But do we want our civil corps of service providers to be only 'on-call?' - I think not.

 

Here in the US, we hear of the US Navy going on non-war exercises. These exercises will usually include the salaries of the sailors, fuel expended by the ships, etc. It always costs many millions of dollars, but in most situations, it's the day-to-day cost of doing business; not an 'extra'.

 

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics"...or something like that...

[MikeB]

What about when the Feds decide that motorcycles are too dangerous and take them away from us? Motorcycles are dangerous and ridden by morons seeking cheap thrills, right?

[russell_bynum]

Motorcycles are dangerous and ridden by morons seeking cheap thrills, right?

 

I resemble that remark.

[Bud]

What about when the Feds decide that motorcycles are too dangerous and take them away from us? Motorcycles are dangerous and ridden by morons seeking cheap thrills, right?

 

 

Hmmmm..... Let's see. 325,000+ HD's a year made in America. Loss of jobs, dealers, accessory mfgs etc.

 

Not likely.

[harleyjohn45]

its the speed. entirely speed. this weekend a motorcyclist

on his GSXR was killed here in this little country berg. he was riding a sport bike at a high rate of SPEED. he hit the rear end of a car comming out onto the highway. he caved in the rear end of the car and broke the rear wheel. he and the motorcycle was 100 feet from the scene of the accident. he was pronounced dead at the scene. he had his helmet on. i think the first thing legislators will try is limiting horsepower by limiting displacement. that may be our salvation.

[Bob Palin]

i think the first thing legislators will try is limiting horsepower by limiting displacement. that may be our salvation.

I don't exactly consider that a salvation...

[russell_bynum]

i think the first thing legislators will try is limiting horsepower by limiting displacement. that may be our salvation.

I don't exactly consider that a salvation...

 

I agree.

 

There's more to it than displacement, anyway. My 600cc sportbike will easily do 140mph. It'll top around 160, but 0-140 comes pretty damn quick. So...if I can do 160 on 600cc's, then where do we put the limit...400cc?

 

400cc would still be resonably quick in a sportbike, but a 400cc touring bike with all the amenities that this crowd has grown to expect would probably have a top speed of about 35mph.