Helmets

[David]

Do you have a citation/link to that study?

[Albert]

Two Phx hospitals did a study that proved that helmets saved not only lives but billions yes billions of dollars in health care and rehabilitation of a brain injured party.

 

While certainly true this begs the question, just how much risk are we all willing to elimate and at what cost? What do I mean? If that statistic is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, wouldn't it be interesting for an actuary to consider the costs associated with head injuries deriving from automobile accidents. When was the last time you watched an automobile race where the drivers didn't wear helmets? Would they be useful in everyday highway type accidents? You could hardly argue againts that idea. So the question becomes, are we willing to make helmet use manditory in automobiles for the sake of insurance and health care costs? I'm not sure how one argues for one and not the other (although I'm sure I'll be educated on that point shortly ).

[Firefight911]

Two Phx hospitals did a study that proved that helmets saved not only lives but billions yes billions of dollars in health care and rehabilitation of a brain injured party.

 

While certainly true this begs the question, just how much risk are we all willing to elimate and at what cost? What do I mean? If that statistic is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, wouldn't it be interesting for an actuary to consider the costs associated with head injuries deriving from automobile accidents. When was the last time you watched an automobile race where the drivers didn't wear helmets? Would they be useful in everyday highway type accidents? You could hardly argue againts that idea. So the question becomes, are we willing to make helmet use manditory in automobiles for the sake of insurance and health care costs? I'm not sure how one argues for one and not the other (although I'm sure I'll be educated on that point shortly ).

 

We could always ask OSHA for their opinion on mitigating risk!

[Twisties]

I'm simply at a loss to understand your position. Family? Friends? Employer? Medical costs beyond the rider's ability to pay? Economic cost of lost productivity? None of these suffer from or are consequences that reach beyond the rider?

It's been said several times in this thread already but I guess it bears repeating... that argument could easily be used against anyone riding a motorcycle. All the safety equipment in the world won't make a bike nearly as safe as a car. Why do you ride and and subject your family, friends, employer, and society to your reckless disregard?

 

Hope your surgery went well BTW.

 

I'm only responding to the absurd suggestion that the consequences are the rider's alone. They are not, that's just fact. I've made no argument for or against helmets, helmet laws, riding or anything else.

 

So far it seems my eye is fine. Won't know how the vision is until the dilation comes down, hopefully by morning. No pain anyway.

[AZKomet]

Certainly a good q. Interesting enough I was having a cup of coffee with a trauma nurse this A.M. who is taking care of the passenger of the m/c fatality. Her out come is unknown at this point. What is interesting is that she too (passenger) is a trauma nurse and certainly knew the risks of riding w/o a helmet.

What also evolved out of that same conversation is that a local physcian was involved in an MVA over the w/e as well in a cage. He too is severely injured and his outcome is unknown due to a brain injury and a spinal cord injury. At the very least he will be a quad from that MVA. So what does that mean??

 

Stats show that you have a 11 % greater chance of dying once you leave your home. By what means? Dunno, but that is the stat. What are the chances of one being struck by an errant bullet?? Don't know that either, but it happens. So do we know how it's all gonna end for each of us?? No clue, but although I am a known risk taker I certainly weigh the end result and make a decision before I act. And yes I will jump out of a perfectly good airplane!!

 

And David, as for the study? It was in the late 1980's. Will do my best to dig it up. No promises, but I have nothing better to do today!

 

Typically there are 40K plus killed a year in MVA's. 20K are teens and about 5K are m/c riders with the rest being....well the rest! Anyway there is creedance in your question.

[AZKomet]

Absolutely hilarious!!

[4wheeldog]

We all draw our lines and take our risks when it come to safety gear. Myself, I would never ride without a helmet or boots. Almost 40 years ago, I saw my first full face helmet, and have always worn one ever since, it just seemed so obviously a good idea to me.

I have ridden without a jacket on a few limited occasions when the heat was unbearable. I quite often ride with jeans, no other leg protection. I am willing to accept the risk of lower limb/skin injuries, but not willing to risk thumping my noggin or smashing my face. And I say this despite the fact that my helmet has never touched the ground or anything else of note in 40 years of riding (Knock on wood!)

We all get to make those decisions of acceptable risk everyday. Why these decisions should be the subject of laws offends my libertarian leanings. If people want to ride nekkid, it is OK with me, as long as it doesn't scare the kids and animals. I might laugh, though.

 

[dogboy11]

Two Phx hospitals did a study that proved that helmets saved not only lives but billions yes billions of dollars in health care

 

My last trip to the hospital .... "billions of dollars in savings" would have barely covered the stitches they put in my knuckle

 

Don't mean to downplay this situation but these arguments just get old to me. I don't believe in helmet laws because I don't believe the government belongs in EVERY aspect of our lives. I wear a helmet everywhere I go but I have friends who don't. They make a decision for themselves.... it doesn't make them any less valuable than those of us who wear them. I have friends that smoke.... I don't... I try to convince them not to but in the end, it is their decision not mine. They are still my friends and some of the smarter people I know.

 

DB

 

[Bob Palin]

[it's been said several times in this thread already but I guess it bears repeating... that argument could easily be used against anyone riding a motorcycle. All the safety equipment in the world won't make a bike nearly as safe as a car. Why do you ride and and subject your family, friends, employer, and society to your reckless disregard?

Oh darn, I wanted to be the first to say "slippery slope".

[Dave McReynolds]

You're probably not going to stop people from assuming whatever level of risk they want to assume by making them wear helmets. For example, what would (all of) you do if motorcycles themselves were outlawed? Take up quilting?

 

Risk homeostasis is a subject we have discussed before on this forum, which generally means that people will adjust their activities to produce the level of perceived risk they want to accept. Which means that if you really want to ride without a helmet, and you're forced to wear one, you'll probably ride faster, not use a condom, or do something else to replace the lost risk.

 

You can see that in our own forum or even moreso with the sportsbikers. We all pretty much wear the best helmets we can buy, and we all pretty much ride as fast as we think we can get away with. People who ride without helmets don't seem to have the same need for speed as we do.

 

I suppose it goes back to the caveman days, when men would chase down game with spears, rocks, or whatever they had handy. At such close quarters, the game would bite or kick back, and sometimes the hunter wouldn't come home. I would imagine you either grew to like that kind of thing and looked forward to the risks of the hunt, or else you stayed home and gathered nuts, berries and bugs.

 

It doesn't seem sensible now to accept the risk of riding a motorcycle, with or without a helmet, when it doesn't put any food on the table, but I think we have been genetically programed to seek risk, and if we don't need it to put food on the table, we'll find it some other way.

 

So maybe it does cost billions to treat head injuries for helmetless motorcyclists, but that cost doesn't factor in costs to treat the injuries that are likely to be incurred if our now helmeted motorcylist seeks to maintain the same level of risk through other means. (There's a lot of other things that aren't factored in as well, such as the avoidance of costs that might have been incurred to care for the motorcyclist in old age if he had worn a helmet that now are not incurred because he didn't make it to old age, the need for a more rational system of allocating health care resources based on expected benefit that would limit these costs, and the gross inflation in costs that occurs whenever costs are tallied up that nobody ever had any intention of actually paying, but expanding on each of these factors would exceed my self-allocated screwing-off time).

[smiller]

[it's been said several times in this thread already but I guess it bears repeating... that argument could easily be used against anyone riding a motorcycle. All the safety equipment in the world won't make a bike nearly as safe as a car. Why do you ride and and subject your family, friends, employer, and society to your reckless disregard?

Oh darn, I wanted to be the first to say "slippery slope".

I wasn't so much trying to suggest a slippery slope argument as just pointing out how arbitrary people can be when drawing a line at what they consider to be an unacceptable risk.

[AZKomet]

[it's been said several times in this thread already but I guess it bears repeating... that argument could easily be used against anyone riding a motorcycle. All the safety equipment in the world won't make a bike nearly as safe as a car. Why do you ride and and subject your family, friends, employer, and society to your reckless disregard?

Oh darn, I wanted to be the first to say "slippery slope".

I wasn't so much trying to suggest a slippery slope argument as just pointing out how arbitrary people can be when drawing a line at what they consider to be an unacceptable risk.

 

 

Yes, I have people tell me that they would have never been an LEO. Fact is every 59 hrs on average one dies on duty. Truth is I accepted those risks and went to work woth pleasure. Not once did I say..."I don't want to be here." (Well except for court, what a circus that was). So that is how I feel when I climb on my bike....risky, but I want to be there!

[knight88]

Okay, I'll pipe in too! I wear a hemet, and all the gear on every ride even if it's down the block, why? Because I was in an accident that nearly took my life, I was in the hospital for 3 months, tons of scrapes through the gear I had on, and the ability to put several fingers through my helmet that ate a rock. But I won't blast someone that doesn't want to wear a helmet or all the gear, it's their decision and it ain't hurting me if they don't wear a helmet. There's studies that say helmets saves lives, but then there are studies that say they don't do anything or contributed to injuries.

 

 

[James_H]

Dave,

 

That's the most brief and intellectually sound analysis I have seen on any forum of a complex issue. It’s logical and I can identify with it. If you don’t mind, I might use it somewhere else.

 

[Bob Palin]

I wasn't so much trying to suggest a slippery slope argument as just pointing out how arbitrary people can be when drawing a line at what they consider to be an unacceptable risk.

I believe totally in the slippery slope argument, the evidence is all around us in the nanny states.

[smiller]

I believe totally in the slippery slope argument, the evidence is all around us in the nanny states.

Yes, the slippery slope argument is usually considered to be a logical fallacy but I think one can make an exception when governments are involved...

[DiggerJim]

Risk homeostasis is a subject we have discussed before on this forum, which generally means that people will adjust their activities to produce the level of perceived risk they want to accept. Which means that if you really want to ride without a helmet, and you're forced to wear one, you'll probably ride faster, not use a condom, or do something else to replace the lost risk.

Ah ha! Excellent argument. We now need to enlist the help of the safe sex crowd...can you see the ads? "Repeal mandatory helmet laws & stop the spread of AIDS/HIV/STDs!" or "Helmetless riders support Safe-Sex through real action!"

[SageRider]

Ah ha! Excellent argument. We now need to enlist the help of the safe sex crowd...can you see the ads? "Repeal mandatory helmet laws & stop the spread of AIDS/HIV/STDs!" or "Helmetless riders support Safe-Sex through real action!"

This will only work with D.O.T. & Snell approved condoms...

(I imagine the anvil test might be rather painful... )

 

[Stokes]

I did not suggest that the consequences are the rider's alone. Not by a long shot. What I said was that the rider has to accept responsibility for their decision to ride without adequate protection.

 

I specifically stated that this does not imply the legal responsibility or liability for causing the accident is the rider's. Perhaps you should try reading what I said again before you characterize my statement as absurd.

 

What I am saying is, if you chose to ride without adequate protection then you are assuming a certain level of risk. I think that is undeniable. The risk you are assuming is the degree to which you may suffer injury.

 

It is also clear that wearing adequate protection, a misnomer at best, is no guarantee that you won't still incur significant injury as a result of an accident. In that case, IMHO, one still has to accept that what we do when we get on a motorcycle is inherently risky. That again does not imply legal liability or responsibility it is simply a statement of fact.

 

If I am in an accident, my decision to ride with or without a helmet, or whatever else might be considered reasonable protective gear, will have a direct bearing on severity of the injuries I may suffer. My choosing to get on a motorcycle without a helmet is my decision not the person's who 'caused' the accident. That is the consequence of my decision and to some degree my responsibility. The accident may not be my fault but not wearing a helmet certainly is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Bentall]

A helmet might not have made any difference.

I am interested to know whether, if the couple had a clear picture of bodies on the ground with their oozy, squirty brains being scooped up by some tired emergency service workers , would that have made a difference to their choice. If it would not have done, then I am afraid that the result has to be a Darwinian evolution thing.

 

[David]

What the heck does "Darwinian evolution thing" mean. And how consistent are you on this, or is it just grandstanding? For example, have you seen tired emergency service workers scooping up the body of a motorcyclist who died and WAS wearing a helmet? I have, but I'm still riding.

[Bob Palin]

The whole Darwinian thing is just ignorant nonsense, the OP doesn't say how old the couple were but riding 2 up on a Harley they were probably old enough to have had children already. Is helmet wearing a genetic trait anyway? I would think it it much more likely to be a 'nurture' issue. (Risk taking may well be genetic of course, but we're all on the thin end of that wedge just for riding).

[AZKomet]

The whole Darwinian thing is just ignorant nonsense, the OP doesn't say how old the couple were but riding 2 up on a Harley they were probably old enough to have had children already. Is helmet wearing a genetic trait anyway? I would think it it much more likely to be a 'nurture' issue. (Risk taking may well be genetic of course, but we're all on the thin end of that wedge just for riding).

 

The riders were mid 50's. The rider a retired LEo...his wife a trauma nurse so they both knew the dangers. And evolution by Darwin? He referrred to it as "faunal succession" and not evolution. Nonetheless gene pool thinning seems to be the end result.

[Bob Palin]

Nonetheless gene pool thinning seems to be the end result.

Can't see how. Were they planning on having more children? If they have already had children wouldn't their current activity have dissuaded their children from riding without helmets?

[AZKomet]

Sorry, wasn't talking about that in terms of the rider/paasenger. That would be disrepectful. My statement was referring to what others refer to as thinning the gene pool by Darwin's theory. So forgive me for that...sure looked very insensitive. My apologies.

[rfc1992]

I wear my helmet because it is a really cool looking fashion accessory.

 

My favorite thing about carrying it into a restaurant is the standard, "Do you ride motorcycles?" question that I get. My reply, "No. I get shot out of a cannon a lot."

 

I am a member of the "To each their own" club on this issue. I choose to wear a helmet and may choose not to ride with those that don't.

 

My real reasons are for safety; I also wear a full-face helmet because I am too good-looking to risk a face-smash (my wife is snickering right now, she must have read something funny).

 

 

[4wheeldog]

I wear my helmet because it is a really cool looking fashion accessory.

 

My favorite thing about carrying it into a restaurant is the standard, "Do you ride motorcycles?" question that I get. My reply, "No. I get shot out of a cannon a lot."

 

I am a member of the "To each their own" club on this issue. I choose to wear a helmet and may choose not to ride with those that don't.

 

My real reasons are for safety; I also wear a full-face helmet because I am too good-looking to risk a face-smash (my wife is snickering right now, she must have read something funny).

 

 

I also carry an extensive first aid kit.......But I screen those whom I will ride with, because I really never want to have to use it.

[Les is more]

The consequences of the decisions we make when we get on our bike's are our's alone, that's the risk we all take.

 

I think it's this pesky little part of your first post that caused the reaction. In reading the first part of your post and this last one, it becomes clear that "responsilbility" was what you first said and what remained your intent.

 

 

[Twisties]

I did not suggest that the consequences are the rider's alone. Not by a long shot. What I said was that the rider has to accept responsibility for their decision to ride without adequate protection.

 

I specifically stated that this does not imply the legal responsibility or liability for causing the accident is the rider's. Perhaps you should try reading what I said again before you characterize my statement as absurd.

 

What I am saying is, if you chose to ride without adequate protection then you are assuming a certain level of risk. I think that is undeniable. The risk you are assuming is the degree to which you may suffer injury.

 

It is also clear that wearing adequate protection, a misnomer at best, is no guarantee that you won't still incur significant injury as a result of an accident. In that case, IMHO, one still has to accept that what we do when we get on a motorcycle is inherently risky. That again does not imply legal liability or responsibility it is simply a statement of fact.

 

If I am in an accident, my decision to ride with or without a helmet, or whatever else might be considered reasonable protective gear, will have a direct bearing on severity of the injuries I may suffer. My choosing to get on a motorcycle without a helmet is my decision not the person's who 'caused' the accident. That is the consequence of my decision and to some degree my responsibility. The accident may not be my fault but not wearing a helmet certainly is.

 

 

I am reminded of the time a student came in to complain of her grade.

 

She had written a three word response to an essay question that required a three or four sentence response. We talked about it for a bit, and it seemed she really did understand the material. Then she demanded the grade, and couldn't understand when I refused. Finally, I showed her another student's response that had earned a perfect score. She insisted that she had written the same thing and should get the same score. Needless to say, she had not written anything close, and she left very dissatisfied.

 

Stokes, I agree with what you are saying in this last post. In fact now I think we probably have no disagreement whatsoever with respect to the issues here.

 

I have gone back and read through the thread and your prior posts though, and they don't say what you are saying now. I would appreciate it if you would also go back and take a look at what you wrote.

 

It's an important distinction, this business of taking responsibility for your decisions, and the recognition that those decisions have far reaching consequences. You stepped into something that's been ongoing on this board for some time. I often see people argue that their riding affects only them. That if they crash and die, they hurt no one but themselves. This argument, crazy as it is, is used to justify all sorts of behavior and to condemn all government regulation as inappropriate. So I felt it was important to challenge that assertion.

 

I see now that you did not realize the distinction in your earlier post, and I'm really glad we agree in the end.

 

Sincerely,

 

Jan

[ERdok]

As a licensed medical professional, I hereby pronounce this horse Dead

[Marek]

+1

[Bob Palin]

As a licensed medical professional, I hereby pronounce this horse Dead

Maybe, but there's nothing we like more than

[philbytx]

David????????????

That comment didn't make ANY sense

[David]

Try reading it slower.

[philbytx]

I know its early....I read that as a "cup half empty" statement

[Ken H.]

IMy favorite thing about carrying it into a restaurant is the standard, "Do you ride motorcycles?" question that I get. My reply, "No. I get shot out of a cannon a lot."

 

Hee hee!

 

I'll have to remember that one.

 

AFA the rest of the helmet discussion, I'm staying out of it!

[Mark P]

A helmet might not have made any difference.

 

I think the clue might lie in the nature of the passenger's injuries - if she has a serious head injury, there's a very good chance that it would at least have been less serious had she been wearing her helmet!

[David]

Excellend observation. Somehow I missed it.

[Jerry in Monument]

While I am a strong defender of peoples rights to choose and be as stupid as they want, keep the govenment out of our business, I think that helmets should be mandatory for children.

 

However, I think adults should be able to make the decision as to whether or not they will wear helmets.

 

But I also think that if someone chooses NOT to wear a helmet, gets involved in an accident resulting in some sort of head trama, the insurance company should be able to deny payment for the medical bills and the government (taxpayers) should NOT be allowed to foot the bill either.

 

Still allowing the freedom of choice, but knowing the consequences.

 

As the survivor of a 70mph crash in 1981 when a board fell off a pickup in front of me, hit the front tire and the world was suddnely all wrong.

 

I woke up in the ditch, never found the front tire, possibly went in the river, bike was stuck by the front forks in a steel culvert.

 

I was wearing full leathers and my helmet was cracked into three pieces. Mild concussion, cracked ribs, bruises, scrapes, nothing serious. Thank God.

 

While I had ridden some short rides or around town, when I drove in from our ranch, without a helmet before, I have never ridden without a helmet since.

 

I have my own opinions, but I'm not going to force anyone other than my family, to wear helmets.

 

I have also voted against legislation mandating helmet wearing. While I think wearing a helmet is the right thing to do, I'm not for 'Big Brother' controlling every aspect of our lives.

 

'Nuf said.

[David]

But I also think that if someone chooses NOT to wear a helmet, gets involved in an accident resulting in some sort of head trama, the insurance company should be able to deny payment for the medical bills and the government (taxpayers) should NOT be allowed to foot the bill either.

 

Two things I'd be curious about:

 

1) Should insurance companies be allowed to exclude any claims related to your motorcycle riding, whether or not you were wearing a helmet? In other words, are you okay if THEY draw the line elsewhere?

 

2) If the gov't (taxpayers) are not going to be allowed to help a helmetless rider in an accident, what's the net result? Are you going to force the hospital to absorb it? Would you be okay if the ambulance pulled up to emergency admitting and--upon the hospital discovering that the rider was not using a helmet and had no insurance--they dumped his stupid bloody self in the grass next to the handicapped parking area and called a relative? These kind of pulpit pronouncements seem to be fairly devoid of significant thought.

[Bob Palin]

But I also think that if someone chooses NOT to wear a helmet, gets involved in an accident resulting in some sort of head trama, the insurance company should be able to deny payment for the medical bills

Insurance companies can write whatever policies they like and since they are in it to make money you can bet they've done the calculations on whether it would be good to exclude all sorts of classes of claim. I wouldn't buy a policy that made motorcycle exclusions, they know that...

[Dave McReynolds]

But I also think that if someone chooses NOT to wear a helmet, gets involved in an accident resulting in some sort of head trama, the insurance company should be able to deny payment for the medical bills and the government (taxpayers) should NOT be allowed to foot the bill either.

 

Two things I'd be curious about:

 

1) Should insurance companies be allowed to exclude any claims related to your motorcycle riding, whether or not you were wearing a helmet? In other words, are you okay if THEY draw the line elsewhere?

 

2) If the gov't (taxpayers) are not going to be allowed to help a helmetless rider in an accident, what's the net result? Are you going to force the hospital to absorb it? Would you be okay if the ambulance pulled up to emergency admitting and--upon the hospital discovering that the rider was not using a helmet and had no insurance--they dumped his stupid bloody self in the grass next to the handicapped parking area and called a relative? These kind of pulpit pronouncements seem to be fairly devoid of significant thought.

 

I think these questions, and many others, are going to have to be a part of a comprehensive discussion of how to allocate health care resources as we move away from a system of allocation based on the $$ available to the patient, whether through insurance or otherwise. I don't mean to reopen the debate on public healthcare, which we have debated about as exhaustively as it could be in a motorcycle forum. I realize a lot of you hate the idea of it, and I respect your reasons....well, some of your reasons.

 

But aside from whether we ought to be moving towards public healthcare or not, looking at the writing on the wall, we seem to be doing it. And the debate among medical professionals about how scarce healthcare resources ought to be allocated has been going on for many, many years.

 

There seems to be some general agreement that healthcare resources should be allocated where they would be expected to provide the most benefit. Then, of course, things break down when it gets to the details.

 

But dumping a rider off in the parking lot who was injured while not wearing a helmet on the one hand, or providing him with the same level of care you would give to a child who fell and injured his head on the school playground on the other, are both probably outside of the parameters of what level of care would be expected to provide the most benefit.

 

In determining the level of care, you would take into account whether the actions/judgement of the person were a primary contributing factor to the problem, and what effect those actions/judgement would be likely to have on recovery and the number of years of life to be gained by treatment. For example, it would influence the decision on how much cardiac care to provide to someone who was an alcoholic and 100 lbs overweight, vs. someone who wasn't.

 

They're not asking me to make these decisions, of course, but if I were, I would opt for someone with a head injury from not wearing a helmet being given basic first-aid and a hospital bed for a while to stabilize or die in.

 

Since we're talking PUBLIC healthcare, we should also take into account the effect of our decisions on others in the public. I would think it might discourage others from riding without a helmet if they knew they would receive very limited care in the event they were injured while riding without one.

 

And this is from someone who believes people ought to be able to ride without helmets if they want to.

[David]

Since we're talking PUBLIC healthcare, we should also take into account the effect of our decisions on others in the public. I would think it might discourage others from riding without a helmet if they knew they would receive very limited care in the event they were injured while riding without one.

 

Here's the thing, Dave. Riding (and crashing) without a helmet is just easy to identify. The ride started without affixing a helmet, the rider went boom, someone called 911.

 

But in theory, the insidious gobbling of one BigMac per day is no less different in the end result. One means blood on the cracked head and the other means no blood in a heart starving for oxygen. But somehow we're more forgiving of "the public" that does these little things to itself while being a bit self-righteous about the more obvious acts of omission.

[Jerry in Monument]

David,

If you reread my original post, I did not say anything about denying care.

 

My point is who pays the bill based upon what level of responsibility the injured person took upon themself.

 

I know several people that ride without helmets and do NOT have their own insurance. Two of them have had more than one accident resulting in head injuries, nothing major but still expensive, and they have been cared for with the bill being footed by taxpayers.

 

They still do not wear helmets.

 

Just because someone misreads something and then disagrees with what they failed to understand, does not warrant verbal assault.

 

I meant no offense, but have my own opinions based upon my life experiences. You have yours and while we may disagrre, I respect your opinions and will try not to be judgemental or offensive in my replies.

[Bob Palin]

Just because someone misreads something and then disagrees with what they failed to understand, does not warrant verbal assault.

Wow, you aren't going to last long here! David asked intelligent and to the point questions, no assault whatsoever (he could have left out the last sentence but it's pretty trivial).

[David]

I was trying to move us away from the pronouncement method to more of a discussion method. That was not a personal attack--if it made you uncomfortable, think about maybe not ending your posts with "Nuf said"...or putting a helmet on and joining in.

 

Until last week, I paid nearly $1,800/month for health insurance premiums, so I obviously don't have the solution yet. I'm looking for the solution like everyone else. I'm not going to turn my mind off while I look, though.

[Jerry in Monument]

Killer,

Your right, David's last sentence could have been left off. Am I bothered by it? Not really, just wanted to point out that it wasn't really necessary.

 

I have thick skin; being a conservative these days, one has to.

 

David,

The "Nuf said" remark was in no way meaning I had the answers and everyone has to believe the way I do. Probably should have thought better about how that could be taken in such a heated debate. Sorry.

 

If you go back you can see that I used "my opinion", "I think" and "I believe"; these are all used to let people know what I think.

 

So with those things said, I apologize for my part in getting this sideways.

 

Back to the fray.

[David]

I'm fine with the last sentence you and Bob alluded to.

 

Okay, then, "back to the fray." How would you navigate the two questions I proposed?

[AZKomet]

Since we're talking PUBLIC healthcare, we should also take into account the effect of our decisions on others in the public. I would think it might discourage others from riding without a helmet if they knew they would receive very limited care in the event they were injured while riding without one.

 

Here's the thing, Dave. Riding (and crashing) without a helmet is just easy to identify. The ride started without affixing a helmet, the rider went boom, someone called 911.

 

But in theory, the insidious gobbling of one BigMac per day is no less different in the end result. One means blood on the cracked head and the other means no blood in a heart starving for oxygen. But somehow we're more forgiving of "the public" that does these little things to itself while being a bit self-righteous about the more obvious acts of omission.

 

Absolutely a true observation. We are what we eat. And it is true that it is kind of no different only that the end result may be further down the road for one of the end results. But what I think is telling is that we have choices to make in terms of our own personal safety.

 

I find it funny that I donn the helmet and other gear on my bike and then put on a seat belt in my car but no helmet? Seems crazy. If I could be assured that nobody would centerpunch me on my bike and that no other thing would cause me to crash I probably wouldn't wera a helmet who knows?? It is just natural for me to put on my helmet and my seatbelt. There are many, many cases of head injuries that result in death when one is in a cage crash. I mentioned a local physcian who was injured the same w/e as the m/c crash while driving in his car in Phx. He is a quad now...is there an argument to be made about wearing cervical collars in cars once you climb in?? I bet someone would make it.....

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

David,

If you reread my original post, I did not say anything about denying care.

 

My point is who pays the bill based upon what level of responsibility the injured person took upon themself.

 

If the victim's health insurance doesn't pay, and the government doesn't pay, then there are three options:

 

A) Victim pays out of pocket for emergency care/rehabilitation. Not likely; if he could pay, he wouldn't have bothered buying insurance.

 

B) Hospital pays for emergency care/rehabilitation. All this means is that the rest of us pay indirectly via inflated costs for the care that we/our insurers pay for.

 

C) No emergency care/rehabilitation is provided.

 

Since option B is little different than having our insurance pay, the only remaining option that restricts the consequences of the victim's actions to the victim himself is C, denial of care, i.e. victim is discharged onto the front lawn.

 

And so the question persists: are you willing to see such policies adopted, and are you will to accept that they will creep to other aspects of personal injury?

 

To cite David's example, when a 50-year-old man needs a quad-bypass operation due to a lifetime of cheeseburgers and indolence, should we make him pay out of pocket?

 

If a guy's car falls on him because he was too stupid/cheap to use jackstands while he worked under it, should the rescue crew fish a credit card out of his wallet (or wait while his wife writes a blank check) before they extract him?