Helmet law in MI may be 86'd soon.

[Punx Clever]

No, it isn't.  It's their job.  They took an oath as part of the training.

If it's against your faith to treat people who act stupid then you're in the wrong profession.

Nope... but that doctor who decided to work at the hospital has to treat everyone as a job requirement from his employer.  Doctor in his own practice... not so much.

[SDRider]

Nope... but that doctor who decided to work at the hospital has to treat everyone as a job requirement from his employer.  Doctor in his own practice... not so much.

Well that's what we've been discussing...hospital/emergency care.

Last time I was in the ER was for taking a surfboard to my lower lip.  Split it right open so I needed stitches, and not just regular ER doctor stitches either, plastic surgeon stitches.  I had to wait 2 hours because the Doc was sewing some guys nose back on who got in a fight in the county jail.  The plastic surgeon had a private practice of his own but did this work pro bono.  Lucky for me.  Otherwise I'd have a lower lip that doesn't look quite right.

Maybe we should have doctors asking if you're a liberal or a conservative before working on you?  Or if you believe in abortion?  It's about as arbitrary as did you do something stupid.  Nah, how about we just leave it as it is currently and they work on everyone?   

[ducatiz]

IMHO is well known to mean "in my honest opinion." It does not denote "speaking hypothetically." The word "should" in your comment suggests that you are of the opinion doctors actually "should" be able to deny their services if they believe someone acted stupidly.

it also means "in my humble opinion" , which is all i meant it to be.

Last time I was in the ER was for taking a surfboard to my lower lip.  Split it right open so I needed stitches, and not just regular ER doctor stitches either, plastic surgeon stitches.  I had to wait 2 hours because the Doc was sewing some guys nose back on who got in a fight in the county jail.  The plastic surgeon had a private practice of his own but did this work pro bono.  Lucky for me.  Otherwise I'd have a lower lip that doesn't look quite right.

so the doc who fixed you up was voluntarily donating his time?  good on him.

[ungeheuer]

In my humble opinion.... this thread has meandered off to someplace only vaguely associated with the original topic.

Not that thats necessarily bad.... just saying.

Carry on  .

[SDRider]

it also means "in my humble opinion" , which is all i meant it to be.

so the doc who fixed you up was voluntarily donating his time?  good on him.

That's what he told me.  Can you imagine the expense of having a plastic surgeon on staff at an ER full time?

Believe me, I'm very thankful he did.  I'm not an overly handsome man but I don't want scars all over my face either and you can barely see this one if I point it out to you.   

Yes, this thread is now officially derailed.

[ItsaDuc]

Its official

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120413/POLITICS02/204130397/1409/metro/Snyder-signs-repeal-Michigan-s-motorcycle-helmet-law

Great, higher insurance rates for both health and the bike but hey, they say tourism will be up.

DICKS!

[hillbillypolack]

Saw this posted in one of the local papers editorial columns.  To the point, methinks.

"So... this issue was not offered up to the electorate for a vote. Which means we all will 'benefit' from this freedom by paying higher insurance premiums without our input. In a nutshell, that should arouse suspicion.

I have no issue with the 'freedom' aspect of the helmet law. What would have been more forward-thinking is if those seeking 'freedom' would post a 2 million dollar bond in case they were incapacitated, debilitated or otherwise put in a long-term medical situation. The bond would hold the rider liable without the need for insurance to cover the costs. I don't want to directly or indirectly pay for some other rider's misfortune (which is compounded) during an accident without a helmet.

By the way, have you ever seen what a motorcycle crash headstrike looks like?

Sometimes freedom isn't free. I've been a rider for 21 years. This is a step backward in transportation safety. Does that mean we take air bags out of cars if someone believes they want their freedom?"

[ducatiz]

multiple states have had no helmet laws for a while.  it would be a realatively easy matter to examine insurance and medical costs before and after the law was passed.

there are plenty of riders who wear "novelty" helmets which provide no protection.

[CayoHueso]

Outside of the cost caused by injuries involving riders not wearing helmets (which I am not sure any of us can answer right now).


Who gives a shit? I personally would never ride without proper gear. That is called common sense.


For all these "road pirates" in their doo rags.....let them scrape their head for all I care. Darwinism at work.

[SDRider]

Helmets are for people who crash.  Since I have never crashed I don't see a need to wear a helmet... or be required to wear a helmet. 

Seatbelts are for people who crash too.  I'm not one of them.  I don't crash so I don't wear a seatbelt.  It's common sense right?

I'll be sure to tell my son to wear a helmet though even though I don't.  Why should he look to me to set an example?

[Duck-Stew]

In my opinion: It should fall to the insurance companies. 

1- If you elect to ride without a lid:
your choice. 

2-But, since there is higher potential for much higher medical costs involved:
you pay a higher premium.

3-Should you ride w/o a helmet & sustain a head injury:
insurance covers your medical costs until the $ runs out then the burden falls onto family & friends.

My Two Cents..

[ItsaDuc]

In my opinion: It should fall to the insurance companies. 

1- If you elect to ride without a lid:
your choice. 

2-But, since there is higher potential for much higher medical costs involved:
you pay a higher premium.

3-Should you ride w/o a helmet & sustain a head injury:
insurance covers your medical costs until the $ runs out then the burden falls onto family & friends.

My Two Cents..

I would agree with this, however there is no way for an insurance company to police this. Very easy to say "sure I'll wear a helmet" to get the lower premium then not wear one. Of course once the report is filed after an accident and no helmet was used, insurance companies could refuse payment. This would only lead to court battle, Im sure.

[muskrat]

7 pages of helmet debates. 
this subject is just like any morality issue to me.  Do as you wish and you pay the price, I'm sick of "holier than though" pricks trying to infiltrate every aspect of our lives.   Insurance companies have the right to deny any treatment for someone not wearing a helmet......period.

[ducatiz]

7 pages of helmet debates. 
this subject is just like any morality issue to me.  Do as you wish and you pay the price, I'm sick of "holier than though" pricks trying to infiltrate every aspect of our lives.   Insurance companies have the right to deny any treatment for someone not wearing a helmet......period.

I am not certain that is the case, in fact, if it's legal to ride in your state without a helmet an insurer cannot deny a claim based on that UNLESS you contractually agreed to wear one.

[ducatigirl100]

Riding whitout a helmet is just plain stupid! Period!