You are making facts and arguments up as you go along.
The real facts are that helmets reduce medical costs because they reduce head injuries. This has been linked here and is all over google. I'm sorry you don't believe the sky is blue but its true.
Now, increasing the costs of injuries has an impact on everyone else because either insurance rates increase to absorb the costs or hospitals absorb the uninsured medical costs through EMTALA.
As for wrongful death claims, they may or may not be applicable in a one motorcycle accident. That doesn't eliminate the high costs associated with motorcycle accidents in general, which is why such insurance has different clauses (including payouts on no fault for higher premiums).
The conservative in me is about saving societal costs for everyone due to increased medical costs (through EMTALA and insurance)and requiring the use of helmets.
The liberal in me doesn't like the idea of the government telling people what to do.
Tough call.
Lets be fair now what exactly is he making up?
Also thank you for stepping in as he started getting into his name calling
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
What on earth are you talking about?
You are making facts and arguments up as you go along.
The real facts are that helmets reduce medical costs because they reduce head injuries. This has been linked here and is all over google. I'm sorry you don't believe the sky is blue but its true.
Now, increasing the costs of injuries has an impact on everyone else because either insurance rates increase to absorb the costs or hospitals absorb the uninsured medical costs through EMTALA.
As for wrongful death claims, they may or may not be applicable in a one motorcycle accident. That doesn't eliminate the high costs associated with motorcycle accidents in general, which is why such insurance has different clauses (including payouts on no fault for higher premiums).
The conservative in me is about saving societal costs for everyone due to increased medical costs (through EMTALA and insurance)and requiring the use of helmets.
The liberal in me doesn't like the idea of the government telling people what to do.
Tough call.
Lets be fair now what exactly is he making up?
Also thank you for stepping in as he started getting into his name calling
You are making facts and arguments up as you go along.
The real facts are that helmets reduce medical costs because they reduce head injuries. This has been linked here and is all over google. I'm sorry you don't believe the sky is blue but its true.
Now, increasing the costs of injuries has an impact on everyone else because either insurance rates increase to absorb the costs or hospitals absorb the uninsured medical costs through EMTALA.
As for wrongful death claims, they may or may not be applicable in a one motorcycle accident. That doesn't eliminate the high costs associated with motorcycle accidents in general, which is why such insurance has different clauses (including payouts on no fault for higher premiums).
The liberal in me is about saving societal costs for everyone due to increased medical costs (through EMTALA and insurance)and requiring the use of helmets.
The conservative in me doesn't like the idea of the government telling people what to do.
Tough call.
The stats that you google are skewed, if a person riding a MC without a helmet crashes into a tree and is killed instantly there is relatively no hospital cost involved.
The stats you found don't compare the cost that don't incur when the MC rider is killed instantly or has fatality photos taken at the scene of the accident.
Of course, your stats compare head injuries of helmet wearers versus the non-helmet wearers. Simple minds will look at that and move on with the same conclusion you came to.
I am not making an argument that it is not stupid to not wear a helmet. I am making the argument that it is a personal choice.
Fixed it for ya!
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
What on earth are you talking about?
You are making facts and arguments up as you go along.
The real facts are that helmets reduce medical costs because they reduce head injuries. This has been linked here and is all over google. I'm sorry you don't believe the sky is blue but its true.
Now, increasing the costs of injuries has an impact on everyone else because either insurance rates increase to absorb the costs or hospitals absorb the uninsured medical costs through EMTALA.
As for wrongful death claims, they may or may not be applicable in a one motorcycle accident. That doesn't eliminate the high costs associated with motorcycle accidents in general, which is why such insurance has different clauses (including payouts on no fault for higher premiums).
The liberal in me is about saving societal costs for everyone due to increased medical costs (through EMTALA and insurance)and requiring the use of helmets.
The conservative in me doesn't like the idea of the government telling people what to do.
Tough call.
The stats that you google are skewed, if a person riding a MC without a helmet crashes into a tree and is killed instantly there is relatively no hospital cost involved.
The stats you found don't compare the cost that don't incur when the MC rider is killed instantly or has fatality photos taken at the scene of the accident.
Of course, your stats compare head injuries of helmet wearers versus the non-helmet wearers. Simple minds will look at that and move on with the same conclusion you came to.
I am not making an argument that it is not stupid to not wear a helmet. I am making the argument that it is a personal choice.
The stats that you google are skewed, if a person riding a MC without a helmet crashes into a tree and is killed instantly there is relatively no hospital cost involved.
The stats you found don't compare the cost that don't incur when the MC rider is killed instantly or has fatality photos taken at the scene of the accident.
Of course, your stats compare head injuries of helmet wearers versus the non-helmet wearers. Simple minds will look at that and move on with the same conclusion you came to.
I am not making an argument that it is not stupid to not wear a helmet. I am making the argument that it is a personal choice.
Fixed it for ya!
Wow.
This might be the absolute dumbest argument I have ever heard on covers.
Lack of helmet laws lead to lower insurance rates because of more deaths.
I hope your children's mother is educated.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
The stats that you google are skewed, if a person riding a MC without a helmet crashes into a tree and is killed instantly there is relatively no hospital cost involved.
The stats you found don't compare the cost that don't incur when the MC rider is killed instantly or has fatality photos taken at the scene of the accident.
Of course, your stats compare head injuries of helmet wearers versus the non-helmet wearers. Simple minds will look at that and move on with the same conclusion you came to.
I am not making an argument that it is not stupid to not wear a helmet. I am making the argument that it is a personal choice.
Fixed it for ya!
Wow.
This might be the absolute dumbest argument I have ever heard on covers.
Lack of helmet laws lead to lower insurance rates because of more deaths.
This might be the absolute dumbest argument I have ever heard on covers.
Lack of helmet laws lead to lower insurance rates because of more deaths.
I hope your children's mother is educated.
I'm all ears for you to explain where the flaw is in my rationale.
It's pretty easy for people to just say that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard...without any facts or ANYTHING to base that judgement on is ignorant. So far all that have said they don't agree with me have done precisely just that.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Wow.
This might be the absolute dumbest argument I have ever heard on covers.
Lack of helmet laws lead to lower insurance rates because of more deaths.
I hope your children's mother is educated.
I'm all ears for you to explain where the flaw is in my rationale.
It's pretty easy for people to just say that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard...without any facts or ANYTHING to base that judgement on is ignorant. So far all that have said they don't agree with me have done precisely just that.
I don't think there should be a law for people over 18. I think you'd be foolish to ride without one but is a choice people should have on their own. I just put 18 cause of minor status.
As far as insurance I work in insurance and know a rider who rides without a helmet assumes more risk than a rider with one. That's obvious but what it means is if we, a company, are liable for a loss with a motorcycle then we'll usually have to pay a smaller settlement in helmetless driver cases.
Phew! Glad to see I'm not the only one who recognizes this.
There are a few uncredible hulks that despise personal experiences or personal stories...
Perhaps, he relishes fantasy land fables a bit more.
0
Quote Originally Posted by mightiestmojo:
I don't think there should be a law for people over 18. I think you'd be foolish to ride without one but is a choice people should have on their own. I just put 18 cause of minor status.
As far as insurance I work in insurance and know a rider who rides without a helmet assumes more risk than a rider with one. That's obvious but what it means is if we, a company, are liable for a loss with a motorcycle then we'll usually have to pay a smaller settlement in helmetless driver cases.
Phew! Glad to see I'm not the only one who recognizes this.
There are a few uncredible hulks that despise personal experiences or personal stories...
Perhaps, he relishes fantasy land fables a bit more.
I'm all ears for you to explain where the flaw is in my rationale.
It's pretty easy for people to just say that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard...without any facts or ANYTHING to base that judgement on is ignorant. So far all that have said they don't agree with me have done precisely just that.
You are asserting a fact that apparently not one other study thought of or concluded.
Now either you are smarter than every person who created such studies or you are making outlandish claims unsupported by any facts.
I think we know the answer.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
I'm all ears for you to explain where the flaw is in my rationale.
It's pretty easy for people to just say that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard...without any facts or ANYTHING to base that judgement on is ignorant. So far all that have said they don't agree with me have done precisely just that.
You are asserting a fact that apparently not one other study thought of or concluded.
Now either you are smarter than every person who created such studies or you are making outlandish claims unsupported by any facts.
I'm all ears for you to explain where the flaw is in my rationale.
It's pretty easy for people to just say that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard...without any facts or ANYTHING to base that judgement on is ignorant. So far all that have said they don't agree with me have done precisely just that.
Says the guy with no facts and nothing to base his judgment on.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
I'm all ears for you to explain where the flaw is in my rationale.
It's pretty easy for people to just say that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard...without any facts or ANYTHING to base that judgement on is ignorant. So far all that have said they don't agree with me have done precisely just that.
Says the guy with no facts and nothing to base his judgment on.
Says the guy with no facts and nothing to base his judgment on.
I don't blame you guys with no personal experience and a clear common sense deprivation for your collective ignorance.
I, on the other hand have an older brother ( as mentioned in previous posts ) that was paralyzed from the waist down from a MC accident that he was at fault for. ( Ran a stop sign and T-boned another car )
More than one medical expert said that he very likely would have been killed had he not been wearing his helmet.
Doing the math...he was only 17 at the time and is 45.5 now. Because it happened before he had a chance to start his career, he has been on SSDI ever since, not to mention Medicare, and Medicaid.
Do you think being in a wheelchair for that long doesn't provide other costly health problems?
Many urine infections over the years from having to use a catheter. Many shoulder surgeries due to using arms as dual purpose.
Tailbone operation because it was protruding through soft skin tissue.
Skin graft surgeries for road rash.
Broken femur's (2)
Broken tibia and fibula on right leg. (compound fracture)
Broken pelvis.
Broken Left arm.
Do you really think that it would have cost more money had he truly died at the scene and been taken to the morgue?
The RO actually waited 20 minutes to call an ambulance for him because he assumed he was either dead already or close to it.
Is my claim really so 'outlandish' after all?
I love arguing with idiots!
0
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
Says the guy with no facts and nothing to base his judgment on.
I don't blame you guys with no personal experience and a clear common sense deprivation for your collective ignorance.
I, on the other hand have an older brother ( as mentioned in previous posts ) that was paralyzed from the waist down from a MC accident that he was at fault for. ( Ran a stop sign and T-boned another car )
More than one medical expert said that he very likely would have been killed had he not been wearing his helmet.
Doing the math...he was only 17 at the time and is 45.5 now. Because it happened before he had a chance to start his career, he has been on SSDI ever since, not to mention Medicare, and Medicaid.
Do you think being in a wheelchair for that long doesn't provide other costly health problems?
Many urine infections over the years from having to use a catheter. Many shoulder surgeries due to using arms as dual purpose.
Tailbone operation because it was protruding through soft skin tissue.
Skin graft surgeries for road rash.
Broken femur's (2)
Broken tibia and fibula on right leg. (compound fracture)
Broken pelvis.
Broken Left arm.
Do you really think that it would have cost more money had he truly died at the scene and been taken to the morgue?
The RO actually waited 20 minutes to call an ambulance for him because he assumed he was either dead already or close to it.
welcome to fantasyland dream world that bowslit lives in
I've always found it quite amazing how you, a proclaimed conservative, can get along with the liberals of this site so well yet have beef with most or all of the conservatives on the site.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
welcome to fantasyland dream world that bowslit lives in
I've always found it quite amazing how you, a proclaimed conservative, can get along with the liberals of this site so well yet have beef with most or all of the conservatives on the site.
Where do I proclaim myself a conservative? its funny how you have to end up making stuff up... I think I have said many a time that I am a non-partisan independent...
perhaps the concept of a non-partisan independent thinker is beyond the simple minded dichotomy you are programmed to believe...
some how because i simply point out how you think, you resort to making things up to argue against... you usually do this when you get all upset because you have gotten pwned in a discussion...
Funny how you have a consistent pattern of dreamworld fictitious thinking... funnier even that the rest of the site seems to see it also...
And how do I have a "beef" with anyone here?
I seem to get along with everyone... especially since I am not concerned with their proclaimed affiliation, simply comment on what people post... usually humorously... not sure why you are so bent out of shape...
0
more fantasy land...
Where do I proclaim myself a conservative? its funny how you have to end up making stuff up... I think I have said many a time that I am a non-partisan independent...
perhaps the concept of a non-partisan independent thinker is beyond the simple minded dichotomy you are programmed to believe...
some how because i simply point out how you think, you resort to making things up to argue against... you usually do this when you get all upset because you have gotten pwned in a discussion...
Funny how you have a consistent pattern of dreamworld fictitious thinking... funnier even that the rest of the site seems to see it also...
And how do I have a "beef" with anyone here?
I seem to get along with everyone... especially since I am not concerned with their proclaimed affiliation, simply comment on what people post... usually humorously... not sure why you are so bent out of shape...
some how because i simply point out how you think, you resort to making things up to argue against... you usually do this when you get all upset because you have gotten pwned in a discussion...
Funny how you have a consistent pattern of dreamworld fictitious thinking... funnier even that the rest of the site seems to see it also...
Funny that I'm the one living in a dream world or fantasy land just because some lamos like you and detox post it on the interwebs....yet I am the only one in the discussion that actually has personal experience on the matter.
Does that still mean that I got pwned in the discussion? At least the Credible hulk knew when to quit and backed out of the discussion.
Just because you say you won the argument doesn't make it so.
0
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
more fantasy land...
some how because i simply point out how you think, you resort to making things up to argue against... you usually do this when you get all upset because you have gotten pwned in a discussion...
Funny how you have a consistent pattern of dreamworld fictitious thinking... funnier even that the rest of the site seems to see it also...
Funny that I'm the one living in a dream world or fantasy land just because some lamos like you and detox post it on the interwebs....yet I am the only one in the discussion that actually has personal experience on the matter.
Does that still mean that I got pwned in the discussion? At least the Credible hulk knew when to quit and backed out of the discussion.
Just because you say you won the argument doesn't make it so.
Bowlislit - My great grandfather apparently ate biscuits and gravy, fried pork chops, chicken fried steak, fried eggs, smoked, and drank heavily his while life yet lived until his mid 90s. That is my personal experience.
Damn the medical field. Cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes etc. smoking is bad for your health? Lifetime of drinking is bad for your health? Nothing but fired foods is bad for your health? What a crock of shit they are feeding us.
After all my great grandfather lived a long life.
Smoke away gents.
0
Bowlislit - My great grandfather apparently ate biscuits and gravy, fried pork chops, chicken fried steak, fried eggs, smoked, and drank heavily his while life yet lived until his mid 90s. That is my personal experience.
Damn the medical field. Cholesterol, hypertension, diabetes etc. smoking is bad for your health? Lifetime of drinking is bad for your health? Nothing but fired foods is bad for your health? What a crock of shit they are feeding us.
Also I have a close friend who never even finished high school. But owns a very successful business and has more money than you can ever wish for.
I will tell you one thing. My 6 year old daughter will never waste her time stepping one foot into a high school or classroom ever.
After all there is No sense wasting her time. She can be insanely successful without it right? My friend is living proof.
First off...props to you Mattbrot because you're one of the few people on here that will have a discussion without the BS. I have much respect for you for that.
If I read what you're saying correctly, you seem to be saying that a case like my brother's is/can be somewhat of an anomaly.
In that case can I ask you what is wrong with the formula used for my argument?
No helmet + motorcycle accident + killed at the scene of accident < Helmet + motorcycle accident + not killed at the scene of accident
I fully understand there are many variables involved but there are many people that have said that my argument is the dumbest ever but few, I mean none have been able to elaborate why it is ludicrous.
You'd think that it would be hella easy to elaborate about the dumbest idea ever right?
0
Quote Originally Posted by mattbrot:
Also I have a close friend who never even finished high school. But owns a very successful business and has more money than you can ever wish for.
I will tell you one thing. My 6 year old daughter will never waste her time stepping one foot into a high school or classroom ever.
After all there is No sense wasting her time. She can be insanely successful without it right? My friend is living proof.
First off...props to you Mattbrot because you're one of the few people on here that will have a discussion without the BS. I have much respect for you for that.
If I read what you're saying correctly, you seem to be saying that a case like my brother's is/can be somewhat of an anomaly.
In that case can I ask you what is wrong with the formula used for my argument?
No helmet + motorcycle accident + killed at the scene of accident < Helmet + motorcycle accident + not killed at the scene of accident
I fully understand there are many variables involved but there are many people that have said that my argument is the dumbest ever but few, I mean none have been able to elaborate why it is ludicrous.
You'd think that it would be hella easy to elaborate about the dumbest idea ever right?
First off...props to you Mattbrot because you're one of the few people on here that will have a discussion without the BS. I have much respect for you for that.
If I read what you're saying correctly, you seem to be saying that a case like my brother's is/can be somewhat of an anomaly.
In that case can I ask you what is wrong with the formula used for my argument?
No helmet + motorcycle accident + killed at the scene of accident < Helmet + motorcycle accident + not killed at the scene of accident
I fully understand there are many variables involved but there are many people that have said that my argument is the dumbest ever but few, I mean none have been able to elaborate why it is ludicrous.
You'd think that it would be hella easy to elaborate about the dumbest idea ever right?
Bowl -- I am not making light of your personal experience in any way. I am sure you realize this but just wanted to get that out there.
I am making light of using a few personal experiences to generalize a topic. We all know people / scenarios that have worked out and have gone against the grain.
I agree with your formula in that specific scenario. But that does not take into account the times when injuries were avoided and lives were saved simply by wearing a helmet. I do not know the numbers on this (and truthfully do not care enough to look into it) but I assume that there are many many scenarios where a helmet saved injury and lives and also significantly reduced insurance costs. It is not always one or the other.
Way to complex to apply a simplistic formula.
I stand by my original opinion. Decide as you wish to not wear a helmet. But if you decide to make a dangerous decision than that should be factored in when dealing with the insurance companies.
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
First off...props to you Mattbrot because you're one of the few people on here that will have a discussion without the BS. I have much respect for you for that.
If I read what you're saying correctly, you seem to be saying that a case like my brother's is/can be somewhat of an anomaly.
In that case can I ask you what is wrong with the formula used for my argument?
No helmet + motorcycle accident + killed at the scene of accident < Helmet + motorcycle accident + not killed at the scene of accident
I fully understand there are many variables involved but there are many people that have said that my argument is the dumbest ever but few, I mean none have been able to elaborate why it is ludicrous.
You'd think that it would be hella easy to elaborate about the dumbest idea ever right?
Bowl -- I am not making light of your personal experience in any way. I am sure you realize this but just wanted to get that out there.
I am making light of using a few personal experiences to generalize a topic. We all know people / scenarios that have worked out and have gone against the grain.
I agree with your formula in that specific scenario. But that does not take into account the times when injuries were avoided and lives were saved simply by wearing a helmet. I do not know the numbers on this (and truthfully do not care enough to look into it) but I assume that there are many many scenarios where a helmet saved injury and lives and also significantly reduced insurance costs. It is not always one or the other.
Way to complex to apply a simplistic formula.
I stand by my original opinion. Decide as you wish to not wear a helmet. But if you decide to make a dangerous decision than that should be factored in when dealing with the insurance companies.
Lack of helmet laws lead to lower insurance rates because of more deaths. 
Hot Forum Topics
