Michigan Lawmaker who opposed helmet laws dies in motorcycle crash

[Rustic]

A corporation should be something that can protect its owners from the fucking federal government… Because the fucking federal government can't be trusted whatsoever

 

[JoeMoma]

Wearing a helmet may increase the need for medical care because dead people need very little medical care.

That's an argument?

It's an observation.

It's an invalid observation. Helmet laws reduce medical care, not increase.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html

Helmet laws significantly reduce the strain on public resources. Unhelmeted riders cost more to treat at the hospital, spend a longer time in rehabilitation, and are more likely to require some form of public assistance to for pay medical bills and rehabilitation. In 1991, prior to enacting its helmet law, California's state medical insurance program paid $40 million for the treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. That figure dropped to $24 million after enactment of a universal helmet law.

The obsevation is still valid. Dead people don't need medical care. While you may still be correct that helmets do reduce medical costs, there are other medical costs other than head injuries. So the stats you give paint an incomplete picture of the situation.
That being said, my previous statement was meant tongue and cheek.

The stats I provided paint a picture in regards to head injuries which is what helmets prevent. They reduce the cost of medical care, not increase it. What you are doing (with no data at all) is saying those that die don't have medical bills. Ok, so? As a whole helmets reduce medical bills, why do you focus on just the dead?

The dead guy doesn't have all the medical bills to have his legs rebuilt if there are also massive leg injuries. At any rate, I am for wearing helmets. I am for saving lives.

That being said, if the purpose of manditory helmet laws is to reduce the amount of benifits payed out due to motorcycle injuries, you have to look at the cost of all motorcycle injuries, not just head injuries.

 

[Rustic]

My personal view if you have to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle, why not drive a car?

 

[HappyJoy]

No, driving is a privilege and there are costs associated with it. You don't have to have insurance, you can also post a bond and get your money back when you stop driving, choice is yours.

Just because of the law does not mean it's right, that's how fucked up things have become. The federal government is not the be-all end-all of all things.

Correct, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's correct. But you've done a piss poor job of demonstrating the laws are incorrect and I'm sure there is a perfectly rational argument to make, it's just that you two clowns aren't getting it done. Your rhetoric sounds like the John Birch society.

Lol
Admit it, you just want to control other people. It seems to give you a hard on

Nope, have no desire to control anyone. Helmet laws are not up to me and to be honest before this thread started I probably would have described myself as in the middle, probably leaning towards these types of laws. Now, since looking into this more, finding some real data and then listening to you guys fall all over yourselves ranting about slavery and tyranny I think I've moved a little further into the pro-helmet law camp. Doesn't appear to be a valid argument against them. Who knows, maybe someone else will chime in that is a more grounded.

Why don't you leave things as they should be, pro choice. Or you get your rocks off telling other people what to do?

As they should be? Are you the one who gets to decide that? I'm not declaring myself to be the arbiter of what laws should or should not exist. Why do you guys are worse than Alex Jones, where do these arguments come from?

 

[Rustic]

Just because of the law does not mean it's right, that's how fucked up things have become. The federal government is not the be-all end-all of all things.

Correct, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's correct. But you've done a piss poor job of demonstrating the laws are incorrect and I'm sure there is a perfectly rational argument to make, it's just that you two clowns aren't getting it done. Your rhetoric sounds like the John Birch society.

Lol
Admit it, you just want to control other people. It seems to give you a hard on

Nope, have no desire to control anyone. Helmet laws are not up to me and to be honest before this thread started I probably would have described myself as in the middle, probably leaning towards these types of laws. Now, since looking into this more, finding some real data and then listening to you guys fall all over yourselves ranting about slavery and tyranny I think I've moved a little further into the pro-helmet law camp. Doesn't appear to be a valid argument against them. Who knows, maybe someone else will chime in that is a more grounded.

Why don't you leave things as they should be, pro choice. Or you get your rocks off telling other people what to do?

As they should be? Are you the one who gets to decide that? I'm not declaring myself to be the arbiter of what laws should or should not exist. Why do you guys are worse than Alex Jones, where do these arguments come from?

you have several post saying why your way is better, and why you want to tell other people what to do with their lives.
Collectivism is the most fucked up thing ever put on the society…

 

[HappyJoy]

That's an argument?

It's an observation.

It's an invalid observation. Helmet laws reduce medical care, not increase.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html

Helmet laws significantly reduce the strain on public resources. Unhelmeted riders cost more to treat at the hospital, spend a longer time in rehabilitation, and are more likely to require some form of public assistance to for pay medical bills and rehabilitation. In 1991, prior to enacting its helmet law, California's state medical insurance program paid $40 million for the treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. That figure dropped to $24 million after enactment of a universal helmet law.

The obsevation is still valid. Dead people don't need medical care. While you may still be correct that helmets do reduce medical costs, there are other medical costs other than head injuries. So the stats you give paint an incomplete picture of the situation.
That being said, my previous statement was meant tongue and cheek.

The stats I provided paint a picture in regards to head injuries which is what helmets prevent. They reduce the cost of medical care, not increase it. What you are doing (with no data at all) is saying those that die don't have medical bills. Ok, so? As a whole helmets reduce medical bills, why do you focus on just the dead?

The dead guy doesn't have all the medical bills to have his legs rebuilt if there are also massive leg injuries. At any rate, I am for wearing helmets. I am for saving lives.

We've gone over this, your argument lacks any statistical merit.

That being said, if the purpose of manditory helmet laws is to reduce the amount of benifits payed out due to motorcycle injuries, you have to look at the cost of all motorcycle injuries, not just head injuries.

The purpose of mandatory helmet laws is to save lives and money. But to answer your larger point, no. If someone breaks their leg in a motorcycle accident then I wouldn't think them wearing a helmet comes into play, though I suppose an insurance company could void coverage if wearing a helmet is a stipulation.

 

[Rustic]

It's an observation.

It's an invalid observation. Helmet laws reduce medical care, not increase.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html

Helmet laws significantly reduce the strain on public resources. Unhelmeted riders cost more to treat at the hospital, spend a longer time in rehabilitation, and are more likely to require some form of public assistance to for pay medical bills and rehabilitation. In 1991, prior to enacting its helmet law, California's state medical insurance program paid $40 million for the treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. That figure dropped to $24 million after enactment of a universal helmet law.

The obsevation is still valid. Dead people don't need medical care. While you may still be correct that helmets do reduce medical costs, there are other medical costs other than head injuries. So the stats you give paint an incomplete picture of the situation.
That being said, my previous statement was meant tongue and cheek.

The stats I provided paint a picture in regards to head injuries which is what helmets prevent. They reduce the cost of medical care, not increase it. What you are doing (with no data at all) is saying those that die don't have medical bills. Ok, so? As a whole helmets reduce medical bills, why do you focus on just the dead?

The dead guy doesn't have all the medical bills to have his legs rebuilt if there are also massive leg injuries. At any rate, I am for wearing helmets. I am for saving lives.

We've gone over this, your argument lacks any statistical merit.

That being said, if the purpose of manditory helmet laws is to reduce the amount of benifits payed out due to motorcycle injuries, you have to look at the cost of all motorcycle injuries, not just head injuries.

The purpose of mandatory helmet laws is to save lives and money. But to answer your larger point, no. If someone breaks their leg in a motorcycle accident then I wouldn't think them wearing a helmet comes into play, though I suppose an insurance company could void coverage if wearing a helmet is a stipulation.

Oh now you're saying that you have to have permission by a fucked up insurance agency to ride a motorcycle, that is so fucked up LOL

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is a fucking moron. That said, in a supposed free country grown adults have the right to be fucking morons and it is not the place of politicians to protect us from ourselves

 

[HappyJoy]

Correct, just because something is a law doesn't mean it's correct. But you've done a piss poor job of demonstrating the laws are incorrect and I'm sure there is a perfectly rational argument to make, it's just that you two clowns aren't getting it done. Your rhetoric sounds like the John Birch society.

Lol
Admit it, you just want to control other people. It seems to give you a hard on

Nope, have no desire to control anyone. Helmet laws are not up to me and to be honest before this thread started I probably would have described myself as in the middle, probably leaning towards these types of laws. Now, since looking into this more, finding some real data and then listening to you guys fall all over yourselves ranting about slavery and tyranny I think I've moved a little further into the pro-helmet law camp. Doesn't appear to be a valid argument against them. Who knows, maybe someone else will chime in that is a more grounded.

Why don't you leave things as they should be, pro choice. Or you get your rocks off telling other people what to do?

As they should be? Are you the one who gets to decide that? I'm not declaring myself to be the arbiter of what laws should or should not exist. Why do you guys are worse than Alex Jones, where do these arguments come from?

you have several post saying why your way is better, and why you want to tell other people what to do with their lives.
Collectivism is the most fucked up thing ever put on the society…

Yes, I do have several posts that say why my way is better, you should try putting something together on your end.

And once again, laws aren't up to me the individual, so your point is mute.

Collectivism? Let's go back to your thoughts on mandatory insurance. Who pays the medical bills of someone who was hit by a driver who is uninsured if that drive can't afford it?

EDIT: mute = moot

 

[HappyJoy]

Anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is a fucking moron. That said, in a supposed free country grown adults have the right to be fucking morons and it is not the place of politicians to protect us from ourselves

That is a valid point.

 

[Rustic]

Anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is a fucking moron. That said, in a supposed free country grown adults have the right to be fucking morons and it is not the place of politicians to protect us from ourselves

Well, I have since my teens.
Like I said wearing a helmet feels like putting a blanket on your head then putting on a 5 gallon pail. You can't hear shit you can't see shit you feel like a fucking bobble head. But yes to your point it should be personal choice it is not up to the fucking government to be A fucking nanny…

 

[HappyJoy]

Anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is a fucking moron. That said, in a supposed free country grown adults have the right to be fucking morons and it is not the place of politicians to protect us from ourselves

Well, I have since my teens.
Like I said wearing a helmet feels like putting a blanket on your head then putting on a 5 gallon pail. You can't hear shit you can't see shit you feel like a fucking bobble head. But yes to your point it should be personal choice it is not up to the fucking government to be A fucking nanny…

Props to you, someone calls me a fucking moron and I'd take issue with it.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
Admit it, you just want to control other people. It seems to give you a hard on

Nope, have no desire to control anyone. Helmet laws are not up to me and to be honest before this thread started I probably would have described myself as in the middle, probably leaning towards these types of laws. Now, since looking into this more, finding some real data and then listening to you guys fall all over yourselves ranting about slavery and tyranny I think I've moved a little further into the pro-helmet law camp. Doesn't appear to be a valid argument against them. Who knows, maybe someone else will chime in that is a more grounded.

Why don't you leave things as they should be, pro choice. Or you get your rocks off telling other people what to do?

As they should be? Are you the one who gets to decide that? I'm not declaring myself to be the arbiter of what laws should or should not exist. Why do you guys are worse than Alex Jones, where do these arguments come from?

you have several post saying why your way is better, and why you want to tell other people what to do with their lives.
Collectivism is the most fucked up thing ever put on the society…

Yes, I do have several posts that say why my way is better, you should try putting something together on your end.

And once again, laws aren't up to me the individual, so your point is mute.

Collectivism? Let's go back to your thoughts on mandatory insurance. Who pays the medical bills of someone who was hit by a driver who is uninsured if that drive can't afford it?

EDIT: mute = moot

There nothing to put together, it is and should be a personal choice. As far as insurance or paying, I pay for everything out of pocket. I have never used insurance for anything or claimed it...

 

[Rustic]

Anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is a fucking moron. That said, in a supposed free country grown adults have the right to be fucking morons and it is not the place of politicians to protect us from ourselves

Well, I have since my teens.
Like I said wearing a helmet feels like putting a blanket on your head then putting on a 5 gallon pail. You can't hear shit you can't see shit you feel like a fucking bobble head. But yes to your point it should be personal choice it is not up to the fucking government to be A fucking nanny…

Props to you, someone calls me a fucking moron and I'd take issue with it.

Everyone has their opinion, I see no reason even ride a motorcycle if you have to wear a fucking helmet.

 

[HappyJoy]

Nope, have no desire to control anyone. Helmet laws are not up to me and to be honest before this thread started I probably would have described myself as in the middle, probably leaning towards these types of laws. Now, since looking into this more, finding some real data and then listening to you guys fall all over yourselves ranting about slavery and tyranny I think I've moved a little further into the pro-helmet law camp. Doesn't appear to be a valid argument against them. Who knows, maybe someone else will chime in that is a more grounded.

Why don't you leave things as they should be, pro choice. Or you get your rocks off telling other people what to do?

As they should be? Are you the one who gets to decide that? I'm not declaring myself to be the arbiter of what laws should or should not exist. Why do you guys are worse than Alex Jones, where do these arguments come from?

you have several post saying why your way is better, and why you want to tell other people what to do with their lives.
Collectivism is the most fucked up thing ever put on the society…

Yes, I do have several posts that say why my way is better, you should try putting something together on your end.

And once again, laws aren't up to me the individual, so your point is mute.

Collectivism? Let's go back to your thoughts on mandatory insurance. Who pays the medical bills of someone who was hit by a driver who is uninsured if that drive can't afford it?

EDIT: mute = moot

There nothing to put together, it is and should be a personal choice. As far as insurance or paying, I pay for everything out of pocket. I have never used insurance for anything or claimed it...

Of course, you don't have any argument of your own to put together. You guys threw out words like 'slavery' and 'tyranny' because of a public safety law and expect your argument to have some amount of weight. It doesn't, it's just more crazy crap from the remnants of far right wing conspiracies.

And dodged my question about mandatory insurance. Here it is again, try harder...hell, just try:

Let's go back to your thoughts on mandatory insurance. Who pays the medical bills of someone who was hit by a driver who is uninsured if that drive can't afford it?

 

[Rustic]

Why don't you leave things as they should be, pro choice. Or you get your rocks off telling other people what to do?

As they should be? Are you the one who gets to decide that? I'm not declaring myself to be the arbiter of what laws should or should not exist. Why do you guys are worse than Alex Jones, where do these arguments come from?

you have several post saying why your way is better, and why you want to tell other people what to do with their lives.
Collectivism is the most fucked up thing ever put on the society…

Yes, I do have several posts that say why my way is better, you should try putting something together on your end.

And once again, laws aren't up to me the individual, so your point is mute.

Collectivism? Let's go back to your thoughts on mandatory insurance. Who pays the medical bills of someone who was hit by a driver who is uninsured if that drive can't afford it?

EDIT: mute = moot

There nothing to put together, it is and should be a personal choice. As far as insurance or paying, I pay for everything out of pocket. I have never used insurance for anything or claimed it...

Of course, you don't have any argument of your own to put together. You guys threw out words like 'slavery' and 'tyranny' because of a public safety law and expect your argument to have some amount of weight. It doesn't, it's just more crazy crap from the remnants of far right wing conspiracies.

And dodged my question about mandatory insurance. Here it is again, try harder...hell, just try:

Let's go back to your thoughts on mandatory insurance. Who pays the medical bills of someone who was hit by a driver who is uninsured if that drive can't afford it?

If everyone would take care of their own shit, we would not have this curse of collectivism…

 

[JoeMoma]

It's an observation.

It's an invalid observation. Helmet laws reduce medical care, not increase.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html

Helmet laws significantly reduce the strain on public resources. Unhelmeted riders cost more to treat at the hospital, spend a longer time in rehabilitation, and are more likely to require some form of public assistance to for pay medical bills and rehabilitation. In 1991, prior to enacting its helmet law, California's state medical insurance program paid $40 million for the treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. That figure dropped to $24 million after enactment of a universal helmet law.

The obsevation is still valid. Dead people don't need medical care. While you may still be correct that helmets do reduce medical costs, there are other medical costs other than head injuries. So the stats you give paint an incomplete picture of the situation.
That being said, my previous statement was meant tongue and cheek.

The stats I provided paint a picture in regards to head injuries which is what helmets prevent. They reduce the cost of medical care, not increase it. What you are doing (with no data at all) is saying those that die don't have medical bills. Ok, so? As a whole helmets reduce medical bills, why do you focus on just the dead?

The dead guy doesn't have all the medical bills to have his legs rebuilt if there are also massive leg injuries. At any rate, I am for wearing helmets. I am for saving lives.

We've gone over this, your argument lacks any statistical merit.

That being said, if the purpose of manditory helmet laws is to reduce the amount of benifits payed out due to motorcycle injuries, you have to look at the cost of all motorcycle injuries, not just head injuries.

The purpose of mandatory helmet laws is to save lives and money. But to answer your larger point, no. If someone breaks their leg in a motorcycle accident then I wouldn't think them wearing a helmet comes into play, though I suppose an insurance company could void coverage if wearing a helmet is a stipulation.

Say two riders have the same type of accident. One rider survives because he wore his helmet. He has severe injuries to hid leg requiring several surgeries and months of physical thearpy. The other rider died instantly because he was not wearing a helment. He had the same injuries to his leg. But who cares, he is dead. This rider has less medical bills due to his legs.

A law requiring wearing helmets will reduce deaths, but it can shift medical costs to other areas because more people live to have the medical costs. That's a good thing. But to calculate a reduction in medical costs due to a helmet law, one will have to look at cost other than head injuries because costs are shifted to other areas because more people live. There is no need to do reconstructive leg surgery to the guy that died because he did not wear a helmet.

 

[HappyJoy]

Anyone who rides a motorcycle without a helmet is a fucking moron. That said, in a supposed free country grown adults have the right to be fucking morons and it is not the place of politicians to protect us from ourselves

Well, I have since my teens.
Like I said wearing a helmet feels like putting a blanket on your head then putting on a 5 gallon pail. You can't hear shit you can't see shit you feel like a fucking bobble head. But yes to your point it should be personal choice it is not up to the fucking government to be A fucking nanny…

Props to you, someone calls me a fucking moron and I'd take issue with it.

Everyone has their opinion, I see no reason even ride a motorcycle if you have to wear a fucking helmet.

As they should be? Are you the one who gets to decide that? I'm not declaring myself to be the arbiter of what laws should or should not exist. Why do you guys are worse than Alex Jones, where do these arguments come from?

you have several post saying why your way is better, and why you want to tell other people what to do with their lives.
Collectivism is the most fucked up thing ever put on the society…

Yes, I do have several posts that say why my way is better, you should try putting something together on your end.

And once again, laws aren't up to me the individual, so your point is mute.

Collectivism? Let's go back to your thoughts on mandatory insurance. Who pays the medical bills of someone who was hit by a driver who is uninsured if that drive can't afford it?

EDIT: mute = moot

There nothing to put together, it is and should be a personal choice. As far as insurance or paying, I pay for everything out of pocket. I have never used insurance for anything or claimed it...

Of course, you don't have any argument of your own to put together. You guys threw out words like 'slavery' and 'tyranny' because of a public safety law and expect your argument to have some amount of weight. It doesn't, it's just more crazy crap from the remnants of far right wing conspiracies.

And dodged my question about mandatory insurance. Here it is again, try harder...hell, just try:

Let's go back to your thoughts on mandatory insurance. Who pays the medical bills of someone who was hit by a driver who is uninsured if that drive can't afford it?

If everyone would take care of their own shit, we would not have this curse of collectivism…

Here's a pro-tip for you. People don't take care of their own shit sometimes. So, with that truth in hand, please actually try to answer the question:

Let's go back to your thoughts on mandatory insurance. Who pays the medical bills of someone who was hit by a driver who is uninsured if that drive can't afford it?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Anyone that has ridden a dirt bike, and then a street bike, understands with all due clarity why you want to wear as much leather and as expensive a helmet as you can afford. Asphalt and skin were never meant to meet at 50mph. Asphalt ALWAYS wins.

 

[HappyJoy]

It's an invalid observation. Helmet laws reduce medical care, not increase.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/costs.html

Helmet laws significantly reduce the strain on public resources. Unhelmeted riders cost more to treat at the hospital, spend a longer time in rehabilitation, and are more likely to require some form of public assistance to for pay medical bills and rehabilitation. In 1991, prior to enacting its helmet law, California's state medical insurance program paid $40 million for the treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. That figure dropped to $24 million after enactment of a universal helmet law.

The obsevation is still valid. Dead people don't need medical care. While you may still be correct that helmets do reduce medical costs, there are other medical costs other than head injuries. So the stats you give paint an incomplete picture of the situation.
That being said, my previous statement was meant tongue and cheek.

The stats I provided paint a picture in regards to head injuries which is what helmets prevent. They reduce the cost of medical care, not increase it. What you are doing (with no data at all) is saying those that die don't have medical bills. Ok, so? As a whole helmets reduce medical bills, why do you focus on just the dead?

The dead guy doesn't have all the medical bills to have his legs rebuilt if there are also massive leg injuries. At any rate, I am for wearing helmets. I am for saving lives.

We've gone over this, your argument lacks any statistical merit.

That being said, if the purpose of manditory helmet laws is to reduce the amount of benifits payed out due to motorcycle injuries, you have to look at the cost of all motorcycle injuries, not just head injuries.

The purpose of mandatory helmet laws is to save lives and money. But to answer your larger point, no. If someone breaks their leg in a motorcycle accident then I wouldn't think them wearing a helmet comes into play, though I suppose an insurance company could void coverage if wearing a helmet is a stipulation.

Say two riders have the same type of accident. One rider survives because he wore his helmet. He has sever injuries to hid leg requiring several surgeries and months of physical thearpy. The other rider died instantly because he was not wearing a helment. He had the same injuries to his leg. But who cares, he is dead. This rider has less medical bills due to his legs.

Why are we just looking at those two riders? I get what you are saying, a guy dies in an accident so no medical bills. Sweet (or kind of morbid, really). But that's not the full story. Statistically people who wear helmets spend less time recuperating and have fewer medical bills.

However, if you want to get specific. What if the dead guy was the sole provider for his family? How expensive is that going to get? Let's get super hypothetical and statistics be damned, what if that guy was going to discover the cure for cancer 2 months from now? What if he was going to prevent a bank robbery? We can say a lot of things, but why?

A law requiring wearing helmets will reduce deaths, but it can shift medical costs to other areas because more people live to have the medical costs. That's a good thing. But to calculate a reduction in medical costs due to a helmet law, one will have to look at cost other than head injuries because costs are shifted to other areas because more pepole live. There is no need to do reconstructive leg surgery to the guy that died because he did not wear a helmet.

It reduces medical costs as well.