Man, you just don't get it do you? There's no "two wrongs' here.
Just you.
You reference the non-use of helmets and then use under/uninsured riders to qualify your position. That's like trying to make apple juice with oranges and then complaining 'cause your orange juice tastes too much like apples.
The reason it cost the taxpayers is because she had NO INSURANCE. The no helmet part was inconsequential - hitting a deer and suffering serious injury could happen to anybody, helmet or not.

 

Here's how I look at it.

It's already illegal to cross the center line, hit other drivers, run red lights, etc. Making laws with the expectation that these things will stop happening is futile. It's like Bloomberg passing the Big Gulp ban. He thinks people will be healthier and skinnier, but we all know that's not going to happen.

We should be held accountable for the consequences of our own actions, not trying to control the actions of others in an effort to prevent what will inevitably happen.

The bottom line is our court system is terribly broken. Bad deeds go barely punished. We don't need more laws, we need common sense. That goes for our lawmakers and the judges who are "supposed" to interpret existing laws as they are written.

 

In simplest terms, I don't find commonality in the two laws. My question isn't are the two laws any different or the same. My question is, if on the one hand riders WANT the government to enact laws against other motorists to protect them, why do they then complain when the government makes laws that require the RIDER to do something for their own safety? I feel that riders want their cake and eat it too.

And just to be real clear. I am not arguing that there SHOULD be helmet laws or that there SHOULDN'T be laws against things like cell phone use while driving. My observation is about riders attitudes about these subjects and how they seem to create a sense of contradiction among them. It seems that riders WANT the government to have a say in their safety but they want it directed at everyone else but themselves.

 

I'm referring to the statement in bold. You can't seriously believe that? Wearing a helmet was inconsequential? You're saying a full face helmet wouldn't have had some effect on preventing an eye injury?

 

mandatory helmet usage does save lives...been documented many times in states when the laws are changed. wearing seat belts saves lives and is mandatory. nothing wrong with either law.
how about mandatory helmet usage for the first 4 years after you receive your license...get caught without a helmet and you would lose your right to ride for a year.
after that first 4 years, it would be your choice as to whether you wear a helmet--provided your insurance policy has a rider of $100,000 for head injury. no exceptions or exclusions. would not matter if the helmet would have made any difference in the severity of the injury or even if it contributed to the accident. since most insurance companies believe that helmets do help, the extra premium should not cost much--as they would be paying out less in claims if everyone was wearing a helmet or carrying insurance(which would help pay for the poor guy that is hurt).
there is absolutely no reason for me to have to pay higher taxes to help support the hospitals that have to treat injured bikers that do not wear a helmet. as far as that goes, neither should i have to pay for illegals, welfare moms that keep pumping out kids to get more aid, etc.. nor do we need national health insurance. let's not get into these issues---the question is should you be allowed to ride without a helmet.
riding without a helmet is a poor choice, but one that a rider with a few years of experience should be allowed to make---provided he is willing to provide the necessary insurance to not unnecessarily burden the taxpayers. JMO

 

Helmets in cars would save lives too. Where should the line be drawn?

 

I agree with you on this, at one time, years ago, Michigan had a law (or proposed a law) kill a biker go to jail, somewhere along the same as injuring a road worker. Can't remember if it pass and was appealed or what. It was in my younger days when muff was king.

But I think after a few offenders get sent to prison for life the masses may stop and think about WTF they are doing. Of coarse there will always be "those few" so we can never let our guard down.

 

While I agree with the overall position...

However, how many motorcycles are on the road vs cars? And then, in the number of car accidents total per year, what percentage of those suffer substatial head injuries? Then break that into two groups of "Those wearing seatbelts" and "Those not wearing seatbelts". Then compare those figures to similar figures in motorcycle accidents replacing seatbelts with helmets and see what the results are. I'm willing to bet that motorcycle accidents have a higher percentage of head injuries per number of accidents than do auto accidents and that your number injured without helmets will be far greater than number injured with helmets just as your number injured without seatbelts will be far higher than number injured with seatbelts. Just taking a statistic like "[the] number of head injuries in car crashes lead motorcycles by more than 10,000 to 1" isn't taking some critical factors into account and just using partial information to make a point. Not really a good argument.

You're helping prove his point. We require motorists to have insurance because the health care costs placed on the government and individuals for paying medical bills as a result of someone eles' neglegence were too high. Thus we require a motorist to carry insurance to cover that expense. The OPs argument is simliar. You need to wear a helmet to reduce the cost of medical expenses you may inccure in an accident. Same argument.

I do, however, like the idea that if you are knowledgably doing something that, by it's very nature increases your chances of injuring or killing someone, that there should be a "ryder" if you will where we can say "Yea, normally for doing X you get Y but because you were doing Z which everyone should know will increase your probably of doing X you're going to get YY in addition to Y."

I get what you're saying but you're missing one very important part.

Our sense of Freedom and the boundaries where your freedom intersects my freedom.

My right to swing my arms around in the air like a maniac ENDS at the tip of your nose. My right to have loud pipes ENDS at your right to enjoy life with reasonable noise levels. Someones right to drive over a line ENDS at my right not to be hit head on by them.

The argument you make is my right not to wear a helmet ends at your right not to pay for my medical bills. I agree with that. However, I carry insurance both auto and medical just for that reason. Therefore if I chose not to wear a helmet and got injured you're NOT paying my medical bills. With that removed, my right to choose whether or not I MUST wear a helmet should me MY right. This goes the same for seatbelt laws, by the way, except in the case of minors.

Now, that said I DO wear a DOT helmet by choice and I would wear my seatbelt by choice...so luckily I'm not at odds with the law infringing on my choice but yet I still believe people should HAVE the choice.

Thus riders calling for stricter laws that keep motorists from doing things that infringe on our right to live without being injured isn't hypocritical. Should we have a mandatory helmet law that everyone must wear one all the time so people can go around swinging their arms in the air like maniacs whenever they want? That's about the same argument. People shouldn't do things that infringe on the rights of others and helmet laws, as long as they are writen with the caviat that the rider must carry insurance (which, by law, is already covered) do not protect others from my actions...they only infringe on my own rights to do what I want so long as it doesn't affect others.

 

How about what is wrong with allowing some one who is on Medical Assistance still making enough money to buy a motorcycle? It sounds like they need to lower the income levels.

And lets not even get into why the medical care cost a quarter of a million dollars so the the Doctors can have 3 houses and the hospital can have Italian marble floors.

Life is not something any of us will get out of alive, since the beginning of time there have been people who will not take personal or financial responsibility. More laws will not change that.

 

It is completely hypocritical for bikers to expect the freedom to choose wearing a helmet and want stiffer penalties for cagers who injure a biker in an accident.

You're asking to be able to engage in risky behavior and hold someone else accountable for the additional danger you put yourself in.