A motorcycle helmet significantly improves the chance that the rider will survive an accident with a serious body injury that could leave him requiring assistance the rest of his life, thereby taxing health care.
Without a helmet on, there is a much greater chance that a crash that causes serious bodily harm will be fatal. A corpse doesn't cost the health care system much.
Isn't the argument for helmet laws really the best argument against them?
2006-07-10 20:50:57 · 21 answers · asked by Hillbillies are... 5 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Motorcycles
A lot of you really aren't getting my point, are you?
2006-07-10 21:07:21 · update #1
Choice
2006-07-11 07:19:07 · answer #1 · answered by bigjerry61 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
If you are going 30 mph and dump your bike without a helmet on there is a good chance you may split your wig open and die. If you are wearing a helmet and the same scenario occurs there is a good chance you will live thru the accident and come out of it skinned up at worst. However if your going 60 mph and collide with a truck the only difference between wearing a helmet and not wearing one is an open or closed casket funeral. The choice should be up to the individual to make just as the seat belt or the condom or Pepsi vs coke or drugs or religion am I making my point?
2006-07-11 09:22:47 · answer #2 · answered by skipitdude 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I like that you have asked this question for the sake of argument or playing devils advocate but I don't think the helmet law is the source of the problem. I think if anything outlaw the motorcycle then no one gets hurt by that. Though I don't really even support that because I think people should have that freedom but maybe people shouldn't have the freedom to use the health care system if they've been doing dumb ****. Make people sign a waiver when they buy a bike but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have safety standards.
2006-07-11 03:57:00 · answer #3 · answered by timmyill 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dig a little deeper, you are like most off in left feild. Motorcycle deaths number one cause is internal bleeding. The helmet reduces for the most part road rash to the head, horrible to look at. It also has been found to be the reason for the 1200% increase in severe neck injuries. The reason many states have dropped helmet laws is partly due to the fact that with the exception of california, no one has successfully tied the use of helmets to reduced mortality rates for motorcycles
2006-07-11 13:03:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A corpse doesn't cost the health care system much.
That's not true! In Los Angeles right now corpses are costing the city a lot of money because of people who choose not to accept the responsibility of burying their dead kin. Those corpses add up - that's storage costs, refrigerating costs, burial costs, transporting the bodies costs, etc.
That's money that could have been saved if the person had survived the crash and learned to be nicer to his parents/siblings/offspring so that they will give him a decent private funeral using their own money.
2006-07-11 03:57:02 · answer #5 · answered by kitt 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With out a helmet motorcycle riders would be a good source of organs for transplant. How about if they signed a donor card instead of wearing a helmet?
2006-07-11 03:57:52 · answer #6 · answered by Sam 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because you got some people who don't know any better and won't wear a helmet becaus its NOT the law... and other dimwits who just want to die. Seat belts and helmet laws create revenues for the state so I don't think there will be any argument for that one. I think it just saves lives for those who just don't know any better... i can just see this coming out of someone's mouth "if it saved lives, why isn't it a law?"
2006-07-11 04:04:24 · answer #7 · answered by therightangle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
With that mentality; all sonograms that predict an unabled baby is coming should be grounds for immediate termination; all children that are born with a handicap should be put down immediately; and all survivors of any type of accident that are left with a measley health care paycheck should be put in a gas chamber. Hold on! Hasn't this been tried before? I think it was HITLER who thought of it! Are you related?
I think it would be cheaper just giving all the simple-minded racists, bigots and discriminatory Nazis a gun and a bullet so they don't have to suffer their own stupidity and can put themselves out of the world's misery!!!
2006-07-11 04:05:44 · answer #8 · answered by canguroargentino 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Outlaw seatbelts while you are at it. Outlaw not murdering people to if you get the chance.
In any law there is implicit the idea that we are trying to preserve human life and the quality of human life.
Its not just about the money but about seeing a mother standing over the battered body of her son, paramedics wrestling to bring a mutilated man back to life, police dealing with violent accidents day after day, there is just generally a feeling of melancholy associated with these kinds of tragedies, and while perhaps laws should only serve utilitarian purposes, it is inevitable that people will use the power of government to prevent tragedy.
2006-07-11 03:54:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I say let the insurance companies sort that out. It's their problem, after all. They'll do studies and figure out what the risks are, and adjust rates accordingly.
No laws about helmets whatsoever. It's my head. Don't tell what or what not to put on it.
2006-07-11 03:54:45 · answer #10 · answered by I Know Nuttin 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋