Helmet law

[Mike Cash]

The states don't have powers which are granted them by the federal government; the federal government has powers which were ceded it by the states. A federal system is a "bottom-up" arrangement while a national government is a "top-down" arrangement. The states delegate to the federal government the sole authority to carry out certain specific and enumerated functions on behalf of all the states. All other functions and powers are reserved by the states unto themselves.

To ask why the federal government shouldn't legislate helmet law is to fail to recognize the whole point of the nature of a federal government versus a national government. "Legislate every aspect of our daily lives" was not one of the powers the states handed over to the federal government. The federal government has gone so hog-wild usurping power and the education system has done such a crap job teaching civics that sadly very few people upon hearing a proposal that the federal government take action regarding X will even pause to ask that very important question: "How is this a function of the federal government?" A prime example of that would be your hypothetical situation where the federal government mandates the states all make a decision one way or the other on helmets. Under what authority do you propose they issue such a mandate?

 

[Lou Wambsganss]

Honestly, I don't know the mechanics of how something like that might happen.
Like I said, I don't support a federal helmet mandate. Given that it is an individual choice to wear a helmet, I would just like my choice of wearing a helmet to be reflected in a lower premium, since it is the statistically lower risk (cost) option for the insurance company to insure me. Right now, if I wear a helmet and an identical rider on an identical bike does not, my lower risk is just additional profit margin to the company.
The theorizing about federal helmet laws is just me playing devil's advocate to try to expand my own knowledge base by getting other people's input on the situation. I appreciate you taking the time to talk about things in a civil manner.

 

[Lou Wambsganss]

In general, nothing is black or white. Everything is "shades of grey". I think we can all agree that it is not the federal government's job to control every aspect of everyone's lives. But to the other extreme, we need the federal government and federal laws to maintain a cohesive and functional country. Is is possible that something like a helmet law, which would affect everyone (every rider and even non-riding taxpayers) equally regardless of state, could be most effectively established by the federal government. At this point, if you want to take a cross-country trip, you have to bring a helmet anyway due to differing state laws. Getting all 50 states to agree to require helmets would be like herding cats. With the legislative process, is any slope really that slippery? If Congress passes a federal law to require helmets everywhere, how does that open the door to additional regulations? If additional regulations are proposed in the future, they would have to be voted on in the same manner. If it is deemed to be on the other side of the line in the sand, it will not pass.
The same thing happens in talks about gun control. Most people support some sort of gun registration system (similar to motor vehicles). There are some who say that is a slippery slope to total gun seizure. If we elect a congress that passes a federal gun registry law, and it turns out that the majority of the population doesn't like it, we can petition existing officials to repeal the law or elect officials that will repeal it. If someone proposes a bill to ban all guns, it would have to be voted on, just like the registry bill was voted on. I think that the constitutional checks and balances prevent the slope from being too slippery. We should be able to make new laws and codes (and change existing ones) for the common good of the majority of the population without one little choice opening pandora's box to a "1984" situation.

 

[anglachel]

Honestly, I don't know the mechanics of how something like that might happen.
Like I said, I don't support a federal helmet mandate. Given that it is an individual choice to wear a helmet, I would just like my choice of wearing a helmet to be reflected in a lower premium, since it is the statistically lower risk (cost) option for the insurance company to insure me. Right now, if I wear a helmet and an identical rider on an identical bike does not, my lower risk is just additional profit margin to the company.

I still struggle with the idea that a helmet makes someone less costly to insurance.

If you and this identical rider, are involved in an identical crash, and the helmet saves your life, and not his, you get rushed to the hospital, he gets taken to the morgue. Your ambulance ride costs a lot more than his ride.
You get treated for head trauma, road rash, etc. Your medical costs build up. His medical costs are non-existent.


Numbers I'm finding online suggest helmet laws reduce the average cost of a medical claim after motorcycle accidents by ~1/5th or 20%. But fatalities increase without helmets by 35%.
which reads to me like simple numbers 20% higher medical bills for helmet wearers BUT we will have 35% fewer medical bills...


Insurance companies can't come right out and say "we'd rather our clients die in an accident" cause that'd just be mean (and killing off your customers is usually bad business) but they can just pretend like helmeted and unhelmeted riders cost them the same amount (i.e. not give you a discount for using a helmet) under the pretense that they don't care if you wear a helmet or not...



Now the numbers above are open to some interpretation, but ultimately helmets might not make things cheaper, However, they do save lives, and since I'm more concerned about my life then the costs that might have to be paid out by my insurance company, I wear a helmet.

 

[OriginalRocket]

anglachel , Post #44

In Reply,

Yes you most likely are correct in this case scenario, but you are looking at the worst case outcome.

On the flip side, much more people are injured than killed on a motorcycle. The cost savings is the amount of hospitalization and rehabilitation, and financial obligation and support that they will need AFTER the incident.

Example: 2 riders, just like you stated, one has a helmet, the other no helmet.

Both crash, both survive! Now, in almost every conceivable outcome, the person with the helmet has substantially less injuries, and requires less medical care, less rehabilitation, and less financial help.



Or view it like this, slam your head into a concrete wall, with a helmet first. Then try doing it without a helmet.
Don't try this the other way around.

 

[OldJeff]

Wow, you guys are having fun with is

So 10.4 million riders in the US out of 313.9 million total. 2012 saw 3922 motorcycles fatalitlies total. So 3.3% of the US population rides and of that 3.3%, 0.00125% of the total US pop. have fatal motorcycle accidents or .0377% of the total pecentage of riders.

Again, I ask how much did that Federal Task force spend? From the numbers above, is this really about safety? or is it about control? Not control of us people so much much as it is about control of the states by the Feds?

Tempst in a teapot? So much ado about so little?

 

[casselmb]

The states don't have powers which are granted them by the federal government; the federal government has powers which were ceded it by the states. A federal system is a "bottom-up" arrangement while a national government is a "top-down" arrangement. The states delegate to the federal government the sole authority to carry out certain specific and enumerated functions on behalf of all the states. All other functions and powers are reserved by the states unto themselves.

To ask why the federal government shouldn't legislate helmet law is to fail to recognize the whole point of the nature of a federal government versus a national government. "Legislate every aspect of our daily lives" was not one of the powers the states handed over to the federal government. The federal government has gone so hog-wild usurping power and the education system has done such a crap job teaching civics that sadly very few people upon hearing a proposal that the federal government take action regarding X will even pause to ask that very important question: "How is this a function of the federal government?" A prime example of that would be your hypothetical situation where the federal government mandates the states all make a decision one way or the other on helmets. Under what authority do you propose they issue such a mandate?

I certainly agree with the ideological point you make. However, the federal government has a history of making such mandates, especially when it comes to transportation issues. They could do this the same way they encouraged states to adopt 21 as the legal drinking age via the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. The feds would withhold a percentage of federal highway dollars from states that refused to adopt the minimum age law. It seems to me that a helmet law would pass the same legal test that the Court upheld in that case. So to answer your question - the federal government could issue a helmet law under the authority of its spending power.

 

[anglachel]

Wow, you guys are having fun with is

So 10.4 million riders in the US out of 313.9 million total. 2012 saw 3922 motorcycles fatalitlies total. So 3.3% of the US population rides and of that 3.3%, 0.00125% of the total US pop. have fatal motorcycle accidents or .0377% of the total pecentage of riders.

Again, I ask how much did that Federal Task force spend? From the numbers above, is this really about safety? or is it about control? Not control of us people so much much as it is about control of the states by the Feds?

Tempst in a teapot? So much ado about so little?

Playing the numbers game... 2011 (wikipedia didn't have 2012 numbers) had 32,367 traffic related fatalities.. assuming that your 3922 number is accurate (and 2011 and 2012 will be close) 12% of all fatalities on the road are motorcyclists...

If 3.3 % of the US population rides, but they die at a rate of 12% of all fatalities on the roads...
If you were tasked to reduce fatalities is 12% of all traffic fatalities a big enough number to make a justifiable target to reduce that percentage?

In 2002 when 24% of all highway fatalities were caused by rollovers, the NHTSA started doing more rigorous roll over tests, was that also about control?

 

[OldJeff]

1 in 10 vs. 1 in 4? Do rollover test equate to federal laws?

Just a quick note, I live in Arkansas, a helmet free state and I wear a helmet 99% of the time