Good point.
Something even more important, IMO, that isn't known, and is largely subjective anyway, is how did rider's lives turn out?

Does wearing, or not wearing, a helmet have impact on brain injuries and resultant effects on a rider's life?

 

I was that rider except I was laid up for 2 months for broken bones and severe lacerations but my noggin was unharmed, thank god!

 

Pro choice on helmets for you. Pro use of helmets for me. I don't evangelize on the subject of whether they should be worn. Motorcyclists live and die every day by the choices they make, and helmets are just one of them.

 

I just returned home to Florida from a 1,830 mile trip to a friends house in Jonesborough, TN and this retired in the mountains friend was an FDOT Certified Riding Instructor who conducted the classes for new riders to qualify for their Motorcycle License Endorsement and he gave me a serious talking to that caused a reversal of my previous position on wearing a lid as he told me that the term the insurance companies lawyer would use against me and/or my wife acquiring and insurance benefits including death should the event occur while I chose to not wear a helmet is “Contributory Negligence” and that term used in a court of law could absolve the insurance company from paying out the benefit.

For my wife and families sake I will be wearing my Microdot helmet from this day forward.

https://www.southfloridainjurylawyer...etless-riders/

 

Wow, what a BS "reform". As if insurance companies need more ways to weasel out of paying out claims. This is gross.

 

They would use the same excuse with your micro DOT helmet. They are the worst of the worst, never want to pay, but happy to take your money.

 

Real DOT certification or not? However, some EU countries require ECE-certificated helmets, and DOT won't be valid. In other countries it doesn't matter, so even a helmet from the 50s will be legal because it is a motorcycle helmet by design.

 

The chance of a court ruling against you, the insured, in a situation like this are damn near zero. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? You could say that operating a motorcycle in itself, is contributory negligence. Swimming in the ocean and bit by a shark? That's partially your fault too. Heart failure because you ate McDonalds once a week for the past 22 years? Or maybe you picked up a smoking habit after going through your life insurance medical screening, and you've been paying non-smoker premiums for 20 years and smoking the whole time.

It can be said that it's contributory negligence to wear a microdot when you have full face helmets available. Surely you have some of those left over from your sport bike days? Why wouldn't you have just worn one of those?

Granted I'm not a lawyer, but I do have experience in this industry and I have seen courts rule against the insurance company, and in favor of the insured, in a LOT of ridiculous situations. A lawyer can throw around "contributory negligence" till he's blue in the face...doesn't mean anything. In my opinion that whole article boils down to this:

"Contact the South Florida personal injury attorneys at Halberg & Fogg PLLC by calling toll-free at 1-877-425-2374. Serving West Palm Beach, Miami, Tampa, Orlando and Fort Myers/ Naples. There is no fee unless you win."

I've seen a court force the insurance company to pay out on a claim over a month after the policy was canceled for non-payment of premium, because the signature on the formal cancelation notice was the president of the insurance company, but he wasn't the one who personally took the letter to the post office himself.... so he couldn't be sure that the notice was mailed when it was supposed to be. Courts almost always lean in favor of the consumer, I'd say with the exception of obvious fraud.

Or another time when a painting client of mine had 2 workers comp policies, one for NY operations and one for CT operations. NY policy had better benefits (and also labor law) but the CT was put in place for specific CT payroll, which is how it's supposed to be done. Painter employee on CT payroll, on a CT jobsite, falls off a step ladder (less than 3 ft) and gets hurt. Claim goes in under CT policy, everything is fine. However in CT, the payouts are limited because they don't have labor law like NY does. As soon as the employee's feet left the ground, it becomes a height related injury, meaning a labor law claim, which opens EVERYBODY up for lawsuits and huge payouts... basically what happens is it allows the injured party to collect payouts that are way in excess of the benefits that are provided by the workers comp policy.

Next thing you know, a lawyer gets ahold of the injured guy, they sue the NY company for benefits, and the court decides the NY insurance company is also going to pay out...which goes against every bit of insurance logic. And of course the client is wondering why he's been paying for a CT comp policy all these years if he's just going to get banged in NY.

In that case, the employee openly admitted, on record in court, that he knew his shoes were untied before he climbed the ladder, amongst a few other safety issues. That's a good example of admitted contributory negligence meaning absolutely nothing when challenged in court. To the point where the employee was able to collect a payout from a policy written in an entirely different state where he's never worked.

All of that to say... it doesn't matter what you're wearing. ATGATT or shorts, flip flops, and a baseball hat. If they don't want to pay they will break your ***** all day long, but if you end up in court, every experience I've had ends with the "consumer" being the clear winner.

 

call me real skeptical of that too, Jinks
Nevertheless, if he could cite a court case verifying his claim that lack of a helmet caused a forfeit , I'll donate a $100 bukz to his favorite charity


..L.T.A.

 

Absolutely!