• Welcome Guest! If you are already a member of the BMW MOA, please log in to the forum in the upper right hand corner of this page. Check "Remember Me?" if you wish to stay logged in.

    We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMWMOA forum provides. Why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the club magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMWMOA offers?

    Want to read the MOA monthly magazine for free? Take a 3-month test ride of the magazine; check here for details.

  • NOTE. Some content will be hidden from you. If you want to view all content, you must register for the forum if you are not a member, or if a member, you must be logged in.

Riding

Good points were made.

Insurance companies already ask such questions as "Are you a smoker or use smokeless tobacco?" and underwriters adjust rates and conditions of benefits accordingly.

All they need to do is simply add the question "If you operate a motorcycle, do you plan to wear a DOT-approved helmet?"

If you answer yes, the insurance company doesn't need to start shadowing you on rides to verify compliance. It simply means if you're in a crash without a helmet, you forfeit certain coverages that you might have received for documented injuries.

Say 'NO' to that question, and you either pay much higher rates or find yourself excluded from coverage for such an event alltogether.

My premiums should not have to help build the fund insurance companies need to pay for the poor judgement of others.

I have been denied certain levels of insurance in the past due to being a SCUBA diver, and had to secure coverage thru an alternate provider. It happens. Not a burden the rest of you should have to bear. :deal

I dont think the insurance departments and government officials would ever allow coverage to be denied because someone wasn't wearing a helmet as they promised. They won't allow coverage to be denied because the costs would be shifted to government (me and you through taxes) to care for them or their survivors the rest of their lives through social programs.
 
I dont think the insurance departments and government officials would ever allow coverage to be denied because someone wasn't wearing a helmet as they promised. They won't allow coverage to be denied because the costs would be shifted to government (me and you through taxes) to care for them or their survivors the rest of their lives through social programs.

Sounds like a reasonable premise.

Disappointing, but you're probably correct. :rolleyes
 
I dont think the insurance departments and government officials would ever allow coverage to be denied because someone wasn't wearing a helmet as they promised. They won't allow coverage to be denied because the costs would be shifted to government (me and you through taxes) to care for them or their survivors the rest of their lives through social programs.

Social security and medicaid already pay the bills once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. And, in the case of head trauma, that occurs fairly quickly.

The real issue is .......no one in the US, and even less so in any other developed nation is going to be denied hospital care for simple stupidity. Even if that was the case and we had vegetative bikers laying on the sidewalk outside of the ER, there would still be lots of helmet-less bikers riding by and waving the thumbs-up to the veggies.

It just who we are and we apparently like it........:dunno
 
The main issue with protection requirements seems to be the costs to others of preventable injuries. I'm speculating along the lines of basing paid out coverage on the actual circumstances of an accident. So if you scrape your ear off on the asphalt because your helmet was strapped to the seat, you get to pay your own medical bills. Or if you did not survive, the insurance pays $X to your estate versus $5X dollars to a helmeted riders estate. If the rider knows in advance he will not wear a helmet, let him pay a higher rate for full insurance. Maybe the broken leg would be covered, but not the skin grafts for the abrasions since you were wearing shorts when that car cut you off.

The intent being to base the payout on the riders' willingness to accept responsibility for his own safety as reflected in his choice of protection, even if another party is at fault.

Yeah, this sounds harsh, so it will never happen in our society. As a whole, we seldom expect individuals to live with the results of their own stupidity.

Wait, in one case you're talking about life insurance and in the other health insurance.
 
Social security and medicaid already pay the bills once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. And, in the case of head trauma, that occurs fairly quickly.

The real issue is .......no one in the US, and even less so in any other developed nation is going to be denied hospital care for simple stupidity. Even if that was the case and we had vegetative bikers laying on the sidewalk outside of the ER, there would still be lots of helmet-less bikers riding by and waving the thumbs-up to the veggies.

It just who we are and we apparently like it........:dunno

Of course we'll never have bikers, clueless as to why their helmet-less heads are mangled, cast out onto the sidewalks outside of the ER entrance at medical centers.

No different than we don't turn away smokers for their COPD, lung, throat and mouth cancers, etc., SCUBA diver-related injuries, snake-handler envenomation - whatever. I worked as an ER tech and ambulance attendant for 11 years at Memorial Medical Center (WI) - been there, seen it all.

But let them pay a significantly higher premium for their 'lifestyle' - that's only fair to the rest of us who exercise greater caution. Sort of a "safe driver/safe rider" discount.

That's 'Insurance Underwriting 101.' :deal
 
Last edited:
Mandatory helmet use? Think what that will do to the workers in the do-rag industry.

I do always marvel at the cruiser types who wear heavy boots, leather chaps, leather jacket, heavy gloves (often w/o fingers) and a do rag. What is it about their noggin that means it has to go unprotected.

I also see a lot of young riders on sport bikes wearing shorts, tanktop and flip flops, so I guess the cruiser guys are better off than that.

Meanwhile, many don't even wear eye protection where I live(must have by law in KY) & I seriously doubt anybody is being stopped. Truth is, from my limited experience I almost never see a bike stopped for whatever reason. We gotta a local that has got one of those yarn knit "skeleton faces" that he has been sporting around in lately on his HD & seems incongruous to me, what with the fingerless gloves? In the summer he wears "Lee Marvins", so it's apparent they don't stay on with the yarn thing in place.

As to Hi-viz, my solution was to go for the hi-viz safety mesh over vest. It's not only arguably brighter than a whole jacket , it also fits over anything you've got on, such as summer mesh,rain wear, whatever-PLUS, you spend like $15 or so rather than a pricey whole jacket or 2! Also, if it fades you can replace on the cheap.
I have noticed few snickers from people in parking lots when I put on all that garb. My hope is to outlive some of them.
Of course, another reason to do the "right thing" is the season, cause ole St. Nick is watching you...:laugh
 
But let them pay a significantly higher premium for their 'lifestyle' - that's only fair to the rest of us who exercise greater caution. Sort of a "safe driver/safe rider" discount.

That's 'Insurance Underwriting 101.' :deal

Find an insurance company that will work hard enough to write health insurance policies that will reward safety awareness or conversely penalize recklessness. I'm not aware of any. A pre-existing medical condition or age might get you rejected for medical insurance on the single policy market, but not much else.
 
Say what you will about mandatory helmet laws, I'm guessing many injuries are caused by slapping your head on the pavement----and in many of those cases it can be a minor get-off, which leads to severe head trauma. You can recover from broken limbs and rash but if you crack the coconut-----I just don't know why you would chance that when a helmet can prevent it.

No kidding.

Even the mere whisper of mandatory helmet use around here can exile you to the Witness Protection Program. :nra
 
Say what you will about mandatory helmet laws, I'm guessing many injuries are caused by slapping your head on the pavement----and in many of those cases it can be a minor get-off, which leads to severe head trauma. You can recover from broken limbs and rash but if you crack the coconut-----I just don't know why you would chance that when a helmet can prevent it.

Three reasons I can think of:

1. Man, those big helmets are NOT cool. (Meaning, my friends don't wear them. They also cost much more than beannies. That money could better be spent on chrome polish and after-market exhausts.)

2. I am an expert rider and will never crash. (Actually, I've read that over 50% of those riders who confine themselves to paved roads DON'T EVER CRASH. Can't say if this is true. Not true for me or most experienced riding friends I've talked to. But that is a very small percentage of people who ride motorcycles. Perhaps those helmet-less riders really are more careful, especially after drinking.)

3. Bugs, rain, and the occasional stone in the face are an important part of the riding experience. Avoid those and you might as well be in a cage.

Hope this clears it up.
 
No kidding.

Even the mere whisper of mandatory helmet use around here can exile you to the Witness Protection Program. :nra


Kevin, you think that is bad ? try teaching a Harley Riders Edge class about ATGATT, Hi-Vis, Helmet use (not skid lids!), and then show up riding a BMW RT at the range :ha

What is even more fun is when BOTH instructors show up at the range on BMW's. It makes for interesting discussions ! :hide
 
I do always marvel at the cruiser types who wear heavy boots, leather chaps, leather jacket, heavy gloves (often w/o fingers) and a do rag. What is it about their noggin that means it has to go unprotected.


Brains in the other end maybe :scratch
 
Honestly, this battle has been lost to the folks that demand the right to incur head trauma. No amount of logic can ever change their core belief that they have a divine / constitutional right to a pointless level of risk that others will pay for.

Could this also be a conversation about folks who choose to drink, or smoke, or eat fast food, or lay about their whole lives on the couch, causing our insurance rates or national health care costs to rise outrageously? :scratch

Nobody questions any of those choices, but not wearing a helmet, or defending the "choice" not to wear one?
:hide


Maybe on the couch forums, the McDonalds forums, the drinking forums, etc.- they 're all saying "What IS it with these motorcyclist types driving our insurance rates & medical costs up?!?!" :dunno
 
Could this also be a conversation about folks who choose to drink, or smoke, or eat fast food, or lay about their whole lives on the couch, causing our insurance rates or national health care costs to rise outrageously?

I don't think helmet-less bikers get anymore grief than other risk takers...............

Just recall, a recent campaign to educate school children on healthier food choices was considered to be a form of class warfare. The same goes for smokers............that's almost a political issue in many parts. If some one cries wolf and enough of his neighbors are too intimidated to just say "shut-up, you're being stupid", some politician will appear to defend the "constitutional" right to stupidity.

Sadly, some folks have no clue how stupid they are when they're claiming the constitutional right to stupidity......
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is, I have so many family and friends who ride and all wear full face helmets. The one quote I have heard from all is "after I got hit in face with that, I can not understand how anyone would not wear a full face helmet!"
How many accidents are caused by a rider getting hit by something and either knocked out or just silly enough to crash?
I can not help but laugh when I see some "COOL" guy getting plastered by rain, squinting from wind, sunburnt, ETC. because they are too cool for a helmet. and when the cooler temps hit, all those guys that strap all kinds of crap to their faces to protect from cold because thats better and quicker than putting on a helmet.
Sorry little off topic.

Not off topic! You and somebody else above made a very valid argument FOR wearing a helmet: Comfort! My wife and I used to ride WITHOUT helmets a lot when we were still mainly part of the HD community. Until we made a trip to NM one year, riding around there all by ourselves during the "monsoon" season. We wore our halfshells (!) all day on our FXDWG and we felt soooo great at the end of the day. Not beaten by wind and weather and no humming in our ears.
Ever since we wear helmets.
 
Could this also be a conversation about folks who choose to drink, or smoke, or eat fast food, or lay about their whole lives on the couch, causing our insurance rates or national health care costs to rise outrageously? :scratch

Nobody questions any of those choices, but not wearing a helmet, or defending the "choice" not to wear one?

I think some of it is our PC mindset. The bad habits you list are perceived as happening more with the lower income population. On the other hand, owners of motorcycles are seen as more financially secure than the population in general. You can't pick on the "poor" but you are free to pick on the "rich". An uninformed or misinformed population and press is a scary thing.
 
Originally Posted by bmwrider88
Could this also be a conversation about folks who choose to drink, or smoke, or eat fast food, or lay about their whole lives on the couch, causing our insurance rates or national health care costs to rise outrageously?

Nobody questions any of those choices, but not wearing a helmet, or defending the "choice" not to wear one?

I think some of it is our PC mindset. The bad habits you list are perceived as happening more with the lower income population. On the other hand, owners of motorcycles are seen as more financially secure than the population in general. You can't pick on the "poor" but you are free to pick on the "rich".

You're the 2nd person to mention that these are habits predominantly of the poor. Yet, it describes LOTS of people I know! Relatives, friends, family of friends, people in town or at the mall... etc. Look around at the general population and see how unhealthy everyone seems. I cannot support the argument that it's just poor people who smoke, drink, eat badly, and lie about on the couch for their primary activity outside of work. I would guess that our fellow citizens' health issues like diabetes, heart disease, etc. not only stem directly from all this bad behavior, but add to the over all cost of insurance, just as motorcycle accidents do. Since more folks don't ride, V folks who DO ride, I'll go ahead and assume that health issues in general also cost us more than crashes do. Anyone want to offer up some hard data to prove me wrong, I'll eat the crow.

Just trying to make the point that we cry foul over helmetless motorcyclists, yet think nothing of people making an entire lifestyle out of generally unhealthy habits.

If it were up to me, we'd each pay health insurance costs relative to our OWN lifestyle, our bloodwork results, our doctor bills/hospital receipts.
Unhealthy? Eat bad food? Don't exercise? Smoke cigarettes? Sick a lot? Pay out the nose.
Healthy? Work out often? Eat well? Walk a lot? Rarely get sick? Costs go down accordingly.
 
Originally Posted by bmwrider88
Could this also be a conversation about folks who choose to drink, or smoke, or eat fast food, or lay about their whole lives on the couch, causing our insurance rates or national health care costs to rise outrageously?

Nobody questions any of those choices, but not wearing a helmet, or defending the "choice" not to wear one?



You're the 2nd person to mention that these are habits predominantly of the poor. Yet, it describes LOTS of people I know! Relatives, friends, family of friends, people in town or at the mall... etc. Look around at the general population and see how unhealthy everyone seems. I cannot support the argument that it's just poor people who smoke, drink, eat badly, and lie about on the couch for their primary activity outside of work. I would guess that our fellow citizens' health issues like diabetes, heart disease, etc. not only stem directly from all this bad behavior, but add to the over all cost of insurance, just as motorcycle accidents do. Since more folks don't ride, V folks who DO ride, I'll go ahead and assume that health issues in general also cost us more than crashes do. Anyone want to offer up some hard data to prove me wrong, I'll eat the crow.

Just trying to make the point that we cry foul over helmetless motorcyclists, yet think nothing of people making an entire lifestyle out of generally unhealthy habits.

If it were up to me, we'd each pay health insurance costs relative to our OWN lifestyle, our bloodwork results, our doctor bills/hospital receipts.
Unhealthy? Eat bad food? Don't exercise? Smoke cigarettes? Sick a lot? Pay out the nose.
Healthy? Work out often? Eat well? Walk a lot? Rarely get sick? Costs go down accordingly.

I didn't say they were habits predominately of the poor. I said that was the perception.. That is why I also said "An uninformed or misinformed population and press is a scary thing.
 
I didn't say they were habits predominately of the poor. I said that was the perception.. That is why I also said "An uninformed or misinformed population and press is a scary thing.

Your perception or their perception?
 
Back
Top