Federal Government Will Conduct First Major Motorcycle Crash Causation Study In

[angler]

Problem is, what happens when the guy who chooses not to wear a helmet crashes and doesn't have health insurance? Who pays then? You will.

Here's a question for you: Why is it no one pregnant doges about seatbelt laws and the government mandating airbags?

We all do.  We all also pay for all the people that eat too much, eat , smoke, drink, take drugs, bungee jump, skydive, ride skateboards, ride bikes, make the beast with two backs without a condom (kids and std's), and I could go on for pages.   

Guess what?  Even if they have insurance, we all pay for the risky behaviors.  Ask your insurance agent.......

So, does that mean we need to pass laws to stop these behaviors?  I say hell no.  Look at the drug laws - do they work?  Hardly.  One could argue that drug laws actually greatly increase the violence associated with their trade, which greatly increases the bill society has to pay to deal with it. 

I pregnant dog about seatbelt laws and mandated airbags......

 

[NAKID]

I can't comment on health insurance. I'm in the military...

[ducatiz]

We all do.  We all also pay for all the people that eat too much, eat , smoke, drink, take drugs, bungee jump, skydive, ride skateboards, ride bikes, make the beast with two backs without a condom (kids and std's), and I could go on for pages.   

Guess what?  Even if they have insurance, we all pay for the risky behaviors.  Ask your insurance agent.......

you make a great argument for banning insurance..

wait..

banning health CARE

[EvilSteve]

As for the pilot analogy, motorcyclists don't have such closely regulated traffic patterns or controlled airspace worries, we don't have intricate emergency procedures, or instruments to learn, or flight characteristics to be aware of, or complex weather effects to be wary of, or radios to operate, or ATC centers to deal with, or a federal agency that closely controls every aspect of how we operate......... I think there is a big difference between me hopping on the bike and riding down a country highway and me submitting a flight plan, prepping a plane, getting clearance to taxi/take-off, having my heading/airspeed/altitude controlled by the tower, having my subsequent heading/airspeed/altitude controlled by a Center, navigating by instruments, constantly monitoring a plethora of performance indicators, etc.  I'm not trying to be a smartass, so please don't take offense. I just think we're talking apples/oranges.

The only difference between bikes & planes is altitude and scale.

We have strictly controlled traffic laws (depending on location).
We have intricate emergency procedures.
We have plenty of instruments, we learn them mostly before we get on the bike.
We have "flight" characteristics that vary based on weather, machine, road surface, leaves, dirt, tire state
We have complex weather to be aware of - temperature, pavement temperature, type of pavement, moisture levels, wind conditions, etc.

There's a scale argument here but you're talking about a vehicle that is more complex as compared to a car. It does not fail gracefully like a car does and requires a much higher skill level to operate than a car. You're taking a more complex example of flight than going out and jumping on your bike. When you do that, you have traffic rules and control towers (they're called lights ) to contend with until you get out of the city - same deal with planes. Aircraft don't all have to adhere to the same level of control depending on what type of aviation rules they're operating under. You should be doing a pre-flight check on your bike too, you may not be checking fuel for issues but that only takes a couple of minutes anyway.

I'm not suggesting that a FMA is required for motorcycle operation, I'm saying that riding a motorcycle is way more complicated than driving a car. We can sit around & say that we're all responsible adults but that's bullshit.

As for posting the declaration of independence, you're completely missing the point. It seems that every argument about graduated licensing or helmet laws gets (or just about any regulation) devolves into a petty argument about people's rights being taken away which is bad(tm). When personal self interest overrides personal responsibility we have a problem because your rights are now affecting my rights.

As for this study, as was already mentioned, it has nothing to do with regulation by the government. I'm really looking forward to learning from the study and hopefully becoming a safer rider. I don't imagine that the findings will be all that different than they were in the Hurt report but I could be really wrong there (wouldn't be the first time!). There's been anecdotal evidence for several years which supports the findings of the Hurt report.

I think we should all be glad that there is investment in the motorcycle industry that will directly benefit the riders and that discussions about rights and regulation is extremely premature.

[il d00d]

Keep your laws off my body (to steal a protest from another debate).

Keep your risky, expensive behavior off my deductible  

(Freedom from social or financial cost is a freedom)

[Triple J]

Keep your risky, expensive behavior off my deductible  

(Freedom from social or financial cost is a freedom)

Some (probably most) would say you should get rid of your motorcycle then...and we all should only drive Volvos with <100 hp.  ...and that's just the beginning.

[il d00d]

Some (probably most) would say you should get rid of your motorcycle then...and we all should only drive Volvos with <100 hp.  ...and that's just the beginning.

No, there is a difference between mitigated and unmitigated risky behavior.   When you have numbers to back that, then there is a fairly easy calculation of cost. 

Look, I do get the argument.   How do we balance personal freedoms with public safety?  It is not an easy question to answer.  But when people -on the basis of some ideology- argue against the mandate for things like seatbelts -which is itself an easily defensible practical idea- I think, geez people, pick your battles.

Also, keep in mind what costs are being distributed to the public by imposing this idea of freedom.  I think we are getting to the point where we are paying for our individual set of behaviors.  You smoke or eat 12 bacon cheeseburgers a day?  That'll be 50% more insurance, please.  I think that is fair.  All I am saying is that we can't expect other people to foot the bill for other people's costly decisions.  Freedom ain't free - if you want to go seatbelt commando, then pay more.  I want to pay for safe person insurance.  You can pay for unsafe person insurance if you choose.

Also, you can't say because the industry already supports all these other risky behaviors, then it is a good idea to add another one to the tab.  You can argue that it should be grandfathered in, but not that it is a good idea.  Or, that it serves some concept of "freedom".

[Triple J]

You smoke or eat 12 bacon cheeseburgers a day?  That'll be 50% more insurance, please.  I think that is fair.  All I am saying is that we can't expect other people to foot the bill for other people's costly decisions.  Freedom ain't free - if you want to go seatbelt commando, then pay more.  I want to pay for safe person insurance.  You can pay for unsafe person insurance if you choose.

Mitigated vs. unmitigated risk is a function of perspective. Pro-helmet moto riders say proper gear is adequate risk mitigation...anti-motorcycle proponents think that banning motos all together is the only adequate mitigation.

I agree with all the paragraph above. But that is not govt. mandated safety...it is insurance company mandated safety/health through higher premiums. I have no problem with an insurance company saying a person will not be covered if they get in a moto accident and they weren't wearing a helmet...or into a car accident and they weren't wearing a seatbelt...or that their premiums are higher if they're classified as obese. The terms just have to be stated in the policy.

Anyway...I'm pro helmet...I don't think its a bad thing that the govt. is doing another moto crash study...if anything comes from the study hopefully it is a renewed emphasis on training and safety, not a restriction of our rights to ride. I'm out...too hard not to get at least a bit political. 

[ducatiz]

Some (probably most) would say you should get rid of your motorcycle then...and we all should only drive Volvos with <100 hp.  ...and that's just the beginning.

my volvo has 240 hp stock

(but i upgraded the ECU and turbo cooler and now it's >320 hp)

[Triple J]

my volvo has 240 hp stock

(but i upgraded the ECU and turbo cooler and now it's >320 hp)

I wasn't saying they actually have 100 hp...just that the safety nazis probably think they should only have 100. That's what I meant anyway.

[ducatiz]

I wasn't saying they actually have 100 hp...just that the safety nazis probably think they should only have 100. That's what I meant anyway.

i gotcha..

like i said, ban health care..   the morons will gradually be weeded out of the population and the survivors will be the safe drivers..

[EvilSteve]

I know you're being facetious but it would be really nice if we could be sure that only the stupid people got killed in car accidents but that's most definitely not true.

[herm]

I know you're being facetious but it would be really nice if we could be sure that only the stupid people got killed in car accidents but that's most definitely not true.

or at least only the drivers who refuse to exercise proper safety

[ducatiz]

I know you're being facetious but it would be really nice if we could be sure that only the stupid people got killed in car accidents but that's most definitely not true.

its true, utterly facetious

it is contrapost to those who think there should be no regulations on riders, such as helmet or rider training.  at some point, everyone takes a dive.  if you've got your bucket on, i am less likely to skid and crash due to your brains being strewn about the motorway -- and we all know brains and spinal fluid are very slippery.

if someone believes there should be no safety rules for riders, then let's go the distance and get rid of everything down the line...

it's our duty to do as much right as possible.. support the reasonable and fight the idiotic (like that maryland delegate who wanted to ban sportbikes recently.. brownwad?  brainfud?  what was his name?)

[ducpainter]

its true, utterly facetious

<snip>
it's our duty to do as much right as possible.. <snip>

The Three Stooges  - Men In Black - Minisode

Couldn't help myself.....