If helmets were optional...
Discussion
Steve Bass said:
Lots here bang on about how they feel they are capable of mitigating any risk they may encounter, how only they can judge any particular risk to themselves and no one else can have any idea, which is fine if you were the only road user. So whilst controlling your own risk is fine, how do you go about controlling everybody else? And thats the rub. We, as riders take responsibility for our actions, but what when events completely out of your control cause an accident? How did you not control the risk of the errant, careless, texting, distracted driver? You can't and never will so that arguement kinda falls flat.
And the fiscal impact cannot be overlooked. If you had the slightlest inkling of how much it costs to support a severely injured or brain damaged person for rest of life you'd s
t a cat. Or are you happy that your wife or children become your carer? Or what if the wife leaves, as is often the case, who looks after you then? And remember that you've gone from a net contributor to a net consumer so who pays the difference? And for the price of a helmet? Seriously?[/footnote]
Ledengary skillful riders reducing their risk is not the issue; on average riders are 20 or so more likely to be killed or seriously injured than car drivers. Bikes are transport, cars are transport, trains are transport so if your argument is that it is selfish for non-helmet wearing riders to increase state funded medical costs, then it is almost as selfish for helmeted riders to increase state funded medical costs by close to the same amount when other transport options are available. You will find plenty of brain damaged or permanently disabled bikers in the UK right now, who were injured wearing helmets, being looked after by their families so I can't see validity in the "what about your family" argument, given the risks associated with motorcycle riding in general.And the fiscal impact cannot be overlooked. If you had the slightlest inkling of how much it costs to support a severely injured or brain damaged person for rest of life you'd s
t a cat. Or are you happy that your wife or children become your carer? Or what if the wife leaves, as is often the case, who looks after you then? And remember that you've gone from a net contributor to a net consumer so who pays the difference? And for the price of a helmet? Seriously?[/footnote]It seems to me to be a matter of degree. There have been several threads about compulsory ATGATT. Some people seem to like the idea for the same reasons put forward for mandatory helmets - that it reduces injury severity and state funded medical costs. Some people don't like the idea of compulsory ATGATT. Of those that don't like the idea of compulsory ATGATT, some also don't like the idea of compulsory helmets.
I do wear helmets even in juristictions where they are not required and almost always have ATGATT btw, I just don't agree with state intervention in the lives of private individuals.
Steve Bass said:
Then you're obviously fine with the potential costs of medical care or repatriation should anything happen.
Or you're fine with not being able to cover these costs and suffer whatever this may cause.
Indeed, I am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. Fortunately I have never had a problem despite not wearing a helmet on the slopes... Or you're fine with not being able to cover these costs and suffer whatever this may cause.
catso said:
Steve Bass said:
Then you're obviously fine with the potential costs of medical care or repatriation should anything happen.
Or you're fine with not being able to cover these costs and suffer whatever this may cause.
Indeed, I am prepared to accept the consequences of my actions. Fortunately I have never had a problem despite not wearing a helmet on the slopes... Or you're fine with not being able to cover these costs and suffer whatever this may cause.
But accepting the consequences and affording them are two different propositions.
creampuff said:
I just don't agree with state intervention in the lives of private individuals.
But you do, whether you accept it or not. The state imposes a myriad of rules and regualtions on our lives. There isn't a single aspect of your life that doesn't have some form of requiremnt or legislation accompanying it.
But for that aquiesence, you get benefits. The state undertakes to look after you, provide safety, medical welfare, unemployemtn benefit, police protection, the list is endless.
Decrying the mandatory use of helmets is infantesimal compared to the other "intrusions" the government make into our lives. But we gave them this ability by voting them in as a society.
The alternative is to live in a place or country where such impositions are minimal, but then accept the downsides such as loss of social care, no ambulances, no power, no telecoms, no running water, no anything really.
Freedom is an illusion. You subscribe to the larger societal scheme because of what it gives you as a trad off against what you lose. Wild animals are free. Have a look at their life if you want to see what freedom costs
Edited by Steve Bass on Wednesday 3rd February 13:27
Steve Bass said:
But accepting the consequences and affording them are two different propositions.
Emergency medical care in the EU would be state funded due to your EHIC card and mutual agreements between EU member states. Ongoing medical care in the UK would be state funded.
Medical transport from continental Europe to the UK would be at the cost of the individual, but even a full charter flight would not normally bankrupt an individual though it would be many thousands of pounds and in any case medical transport would happen after emergency care had finished, so it would likely be by normal scheduled air services and therefore inexpensive.
I don't see too many bikers on this forum boasting about their private medical cover and income protection insurance so as to alleviate the British state the costs of their medical care resulting from a crash while voluntarily choosing a mode of transport 20 times as risky as driving a car.
creampuff said:
Steve Bass said:
But accepting the consequences and affording them are two different propositions.
Emergency medical care in the EU would be state funded due to your EHIC card and mutual agreements between EU member states. Ongoing medical care in the UK would be state funded.
Medical transport from continental Europe to the UK would be at the cost of the individual, but even a full charter flight would not normally bankrupt an individual though it would be many thousands of pounds and in any case medical transport would happen after emergency care had finished, so it would likely be by normal scheduled air services and therefore inexpensive.
I don't see too many bikers on this forum boasting about their private medical cover and income protection insurance so as to alleviate the British state the costs of their medical care resulting from a crash while voluntarily choosing a mode of transport 20 times as risky as driving a car.
Here's a guide ...
[b]Terrifying figures from AA drive home the point that taking chances on the slopes without adequate insurance could cost you a fortune. Helicopter mountain rescue, at about £20 a minute flying time, works out at £500-£1,000 in Europe and £1,000-£2,500 in the US. Manipulation treatment of a dislocated shoulder, meanwhile, costs up to £2,000 in Europe and £10,000 in the US, while flying you back to Britain from Europe with a fractured hip can hit £10,000 and double that from North America.
Do not assume your "free" bank account insurance, or the annual policy you took out for a beach holiday, will cover you unless it specifically includes winter sports cover.
Many medical costs in Europe may be covered by the free European Health Insurance Card (Ehic), but it is not a suitable substitute for travel insurance on a winter sports trip. The Ehic will not pay to get you down off the mountain, for example, nor will it necessarily pay for all transport costs and medical treatment you may need if injured, and of course it won't cover you for lost baggage, cancellation or having to cut your holiday short.[/b]
And it might be a salient moment to remember a certain Mr Schumacher. An accomplished skier who fell and banged his head WITH a helmet on. it happens, a lot. Shame Loon isn't here to furnish figures but you'd be amazed how common it is.
As for geting a normal flight home, most commercial airlines will not carry passengers with injuries or medical conditions beyond a cut or scratch type of thing due to liabilities and the inability to manage proper medical care if required.
As for the cost of a flight, including medical staff etc would be unaffordable for most. I was medivac'd out of darkest Africa and the company who flew me charged 55000USD for a Falcon Medical jet, a doctor and a nurse and all landing fees. I know this because a good friend works for them and saw my case file pop up and told me the case cost. But even if it's 10,000 or 20,000, do you have that instanly available??
Add to that the other costs not covered by the Euro medical card and you can be balls deep in s
t in no time.Edited by Steve Bass on Wednesday 3rd February 13:39
Steve Bass said:
You see, a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Here's a guide ...
Yes, you will end up with a bill of a few thousand pounds if you do not have medical coverage and have a ski crash in the European Union. Hardly enough to break the bank if you can already afford a ski holiday and a tiny fraction of the cost to the British state of having a serious motorcycle crash, while wearing a helmet, in the UK. Do you have private medical coverage and income protection insurance so that you will not be a burden on the state if you have a motorcycle crash?Here's a guide ...
I don't consider myself any more likely to be injured skiing than riding a bicycle and I don't have insurance (or wear a hat) for that either, I may fall in the street...
Although I now live far away from the nearest skiing so sadly don't do so much as I did, when I lived in Italy we would go skiing every weekend & holiday (in the season) so it would hardly have been practical to get insurance every time, probably wasn't even available in the earlier days and certainly people there weren't so obsessed with it, so if I get injured I'll accept what's on offer or pay for a better service if need be.
Obviously we all have to accept many of the conditions, restrictions and general bullst that's been foisted on us by 'those who know best' in recent years but I find it sad that younger generations are so keen to defend so much of the bks that we oldies find intrusive, but indoctrination of the youth and then waiting for the old farts to die out is how they achieve such changes.
Guess I'm just a grumpy old fart...
Obviously wearing a helmet on a bike is good and I would choose to do so most of the time just as I will choose to wear all the gear but there are occasions when I wouldn't (and don't).
I do get a bit pissed off with those stating an 'If I wasn't wearing one when...' or 'I know someone who wasn't wearing one...' story as a reason why I should be forced to. They remind me of the 'I know someone who died on a bike' brigade once you tell them you're a biker.
Everyone chooses a level of risk in life that is acceptable to them, I don't smoke for example but it doesn't bother me that others do and it's certainly not for me to tell them they shouldn't, or take drugs, climb mountains, skydive, have unprotected bumsex etc.
Live and let live (or die if they bang their head too hard)...
Although I now live far away from the nearest skiing so sadly don't do so much as I did, when I lived in Italy we would go skiing every weekend & holiday (in the season) so it would hardly have been practical to get insurance every time, probably wasn't even available in the earlier days and certainly people there weren't so obsessed with it, so if I get injured I'll accept what's on offer or pay for a better service if need be.
Obviously we all have to accept many of the conditions, restrictions and general bulls
t that's been foisted on us by 'those who know best' in recent years but I find it sad that younger generations are so keen to defend so much of the bks that we oldies find intrusive, but indoctrination of the youth and then waiting for the old farts to die out is how they achieve such changes.Guess I'm just a grumpy old fart...
Obviously wearing a helmet on a bike is good and I would choose to do so most of the time just as I will choose to wear all the gear but there are occasions when I wouldn't (and don't).
I do get a bit pissed off with those stating an 'If I wasn't wearing one when...' or 'I know someone who wasn't wearing one...' story as a reason why I should be forced to. They remind me of the 'I know someone who died on a bike' brigade once you tell them you're a biker.
Everyone chooses a level of risk in life that is acceptable to them, I don't smoke for example but it doesn't bother me that others do and it's certainly not for me to tell them they shouldn't, or take drugs, climb mountains, skydive, have unprotected bumsex etc.
Live and let live (or die if they bang their head too hard)...
Edited by catso on Wednesday 3rd February 14:06
creampuff said:
Yes, you will end up with a bill of a few thousand pounds if you do not have medical coverage and have a ski crash in the European Union. Hardly enough to break the bank.....?
And you know this how? Have you presonally suffered such an incident and had to pay out? The insurance industry might have a different opinion on the total costs.
The point is, you argue that individuals should be free to chooose rather than have the state mandate things.
Have you considered the full extent of this position?
It's very easy to get all excited about the "Nanny State" yet you are part of it. If this is the crux of your objection, then why have you not moved to a place where you and your family are free of any governmental intervention or regulation?
Or is it the case that you actually want to pick and choose what suits you and what doesn't??
Steve Bass said:
And you know this how? Have you presonally suffered such an incident and had to pay out?
The insurance industry might have a different opinion on the total costs.
The point is, you argue that individuals should be free to chooose rather than have the state mandate things.
Have you considered the full extent of this position?
It's very easy to get all excited about the "Nanny State" yet you are part of it. If this is the crux of your objection, then why have you not moved to a place where you and your family are free of any governmental intervention or regulation?
Or is it the case that you actually want to pick and choose what suits you and what doesn't??
Well you did put a figure on the costs yourself and they are of the region of a few thousand pounds. We are talking a skiing accident in the European union where there is free (at point of delivery) emergency medical cover in the EU and free (at point of delivery) ongoing care in the UK. We aren't talking about some incident in deepest Africa which requires a medical evacuation charter flight to the UK. The insurance industry might have a different opinion on the total costs.
The point is, you argue that individuals should be free to chooose rather than have the state mandate things.
Have you considered the full extent of this position?
It's very easy to get all excited about the "Nanny State" yet you are part of it. If this is the crux of your objection, then why have you not moved to a place where you and your family are free of any governmental intervention or regulation?
Or is it the case that you actually want to pick and choose what suits you and what doesn't??
As I said, motorcycles are about 20 times as likely to kill or injure you than a car, so if you want to say something cannot be done because of costs, then you should ban motorcycling. If you want to say that somebody has to have ski insurance to relieve the burden on the state and themselves, then you should also have private medical cover and income protection insurance if you ride a motorcycle.... so do you have private medical cover and income protection insurance?
creampuff said:
Do you have private medical coverage and income protection insurance so that you will not be a burden on the state if you have a motorcycle crash?
yes. And i've used it for things like my Ti wrist and ankle following bike accidents.
The point is every decision comes with consequences.
To complain about state intrusion is laughable, you already allow the state to mandate your life. what makes you get so upset about this particular issue compared to all the other impositions placed upon you?
creampuff said:
Well you did put a figure on the costs yourself and they are of the region of a few thousand pounds. We are talking a skiing accident in the European union where there is free (at point of delivery) emergency medical cover in the EU and free (at point of delivery) ongoing care in the UK. We aren't talking about some incident in deepest Africa which requires a medical evacuation charter flight to the UK.
As I said, motorcycles are about 20 times as likely to kill or injure you than a car, so if you want to say something cannot be done because of costs, then you should ban motorcycling. If you want to say that somebody has to have ski insurance to relieve the burden on the state and themselves, then you should also have private medical cover and income protection insurance if you ride a motorcycle.... so do you have private medical cover and income protection insurance?
Thats an obtuse arguement. Everything has the potential to kill or injure in some way. So if we ban motorcycling, then ban everything. We must all live in shielded cocoons and not venture out.As I said, motorcycles are about 20 times as likely to kill or injure you than a car, so if you want to say something cannot be done because of costs, then you should ban motorcycling. If you want to say that somebody has to have ski insurance to relieve the burden on the state and themselves, then you should also have private medical cover and income protection insurance if you ride a motorcycle.... so do you have private medical cover and income protection insurance?
But it's about balancing risks and outcomes. If the use of a cheap, simlple device can prevent a large number of fatalities or injuries, it's common sense to require their use by all, for all. Same for HiVi vest or steel toe boots on a construction site. Or should we ban construction because someone doesn't like wearing a hardhat?
And thats the point. You're not an individual. Every decision you make impacts others. And sometimes the state needs to legislate for the inherently stupid for their own good..
Steve Bass said:
yes.
And i've used it for things like my Ti wrist and ankle following bike accidents.
The point is every decision comes with consequences.
To complain about state intrusion is laughable, you already allow the state to mandate your life. what makes you get so upset about this particular issue compared to all the other impositions placed upon you?
In that case, do you also have income protection insurance so that in the event of an extended period of inability to work, you would not need to claim a state pension and would you also say to the majority of bikers who don't have any medical or income insurance, that they should get it?And i've used it for things like my Ti wrist and ankle following bike accidents.
The point is every decision comes with consequences.
To complain about state intrusion is laughable, you already allow the state to mandate your life. what makes you get so upset about this particular issue compared to all the other impositions placed upon you?
Steve Bass said:
Thats an obtuse arguement. Everything has the potential to kill or injure in some way. So if we ban motorcycling, then ban everything.
But helmets reduce your risk by about a third from what I have read. Banning motorcycles and making you take a car or a train would reduce your risk by a lot more than a third. More like reduce your risk by 95%. It is a matter of degree. My comfort level for state intervention is for the state to not do a whole lot. Your is obviously for the state to do a bit more. Edited by creampuff on Wednesday 3rd February 14:23
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff