02-19-2019, 10:26 AM
Helmets and public health cost
If a motorcyclist is involved in a crash and is waering a helmet, odds are much better he will survive, likely with serious injuries, with high medical treatment and rehabilitation costs, which might, depending on his personal circumastances and the public health cost-sharing legal framework in his domicile jurisdiction, be borne by the community.
If, on the other hand, he is not wearing a helmet, it is much more likely he will be "dead on arrival", in which case the medical costs are non-existentet. The funeral cost are in most instances born by the family, and even if he is an orphan and single, most local administrations have "pauper's grave" programms, with the cost per motorcyclist negligable compared to even to a single limb amputation.
(02-18-2019, 03:07 AM)baxtercat_imp Wrote: I agree with Ferret too, about personal choice. But here's the thing: a rider who is in an accident and not wearing a helmet, or a driver not wearing seatbelts, gets brought into the emergency room, and doesn't have insurance, or not enough insurance to pay for the MRIs and hours of brain surgery and everything else they have helped bring upon themselves. Who pays for this, then? We do, those who have proper heath insurance, which is expensive in part because of uninsured or underinsured patients. So the "as long as it doesn't hurt others" part needs to be understood broadly. No one seems willing to tell the person arriving in the ambulance that they won't be treated because they don't have enough coverage--which would seem to be the logical extension of the "personal responsibility for your choices" philosophy. One argument for a single national program in the US, I guess.I've heard this (or similar) argumetnt before, and I believe the sitution is exactly the opposite: from the public health cost perspective, motorcyclists should be encouraged not to wear a helmet!
Random stops and binoculars seem to be overreach, and invite abuse, however. People should be allowed to ride their motorcycle, speak Spanish, wear whatever garment they choose without fear of harassment by officials, as long as they are breaking no law. I'm a fan of freedom, too.
If a motorcyclist is involved in a crash and is waering a helmet, odds are much better he will survive, likely with serious injuries, with high medical treatment and rehabilitation costs, which might, depending on his personal circumastances and the public health cost-sharing legal framework in his domicile jurisdiction, be borne by the community.
If, on the other hand, he is not wearing a helmet, it is much more likely he will be "dead on arrival", in which case the medical costs are non-existentet. The funeral cost are in most instances born by the family, and even if he is an orphan and single, most local administrations have "pauper's grave" programms, with the cost per motorcyclist negligable compared to even to a single limb amputation.