12-04-2014, 10:40 AM
Good posts, Ferret, Pterodactyl and RandyB.
And from CIP: 15-20 pages at least, I reckon.
I intend to try to find time to have a hunt for stats on the outcome of motorcycle accidents. I'm with Ptero in suspecting that many of the 'go-home' people carry injuries forever and that there is ongoing cost associated with that—for example acquired brain injuries, loss or sustained damage to limbs, loss of damage to internal organs.
Part of the cost of registering any vehicle in Australia is what's called Compulsory Third Party insurance (CTP) which covers every vehicle for injury caused to another person in the event of an accident. In other words, there's a state-mandated system of compulsory insurance by which those of us who register vehicles contribute to the cost of road trauma. I'm not sure that, in the event of, say, acquired brain injury resulting from an accident, CTP would end up covering all the costs. In that case, at least some of the burden is likely to fall on the public health system (i.e. the taxpayer) would end up with at least some of the burden of supporting the person.
People in Australia do carry personal health insurance; but, because we have a universal health care system that people cannot not opt out of, there are statutory limits on what it can cover. Other than optical, dental and allied medical costs (eg physiotherapy, chiropractic, acupuncture and the like) it basically covers you for choice of doctor, and all or some private hospital costs depending on your level of cover. Most of us requiring serious health care, even when we have private health insurance, end up with a reasonably hefty bill. Anecdotally we hear of horrendous health costs landing on the individual in the US that, because of our Medicare and private health insurance, we would not have to wear, but I've no idea how true they are.
Hence my comment last night about the cost of vehicle accidents to the community in Australia giving the State some right to mandate things like wearing seatbelts and wearing crash helmets, both of which are mandatory everywhere in Australia. Indeed, I think I'm right in saying it is also mandatory to wear an approved helmet when riding a bicycle on a public road anywhere in Australia. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
So far as I know, there are no laws in Australia about motorcycle gear other than helmets; nor am I aware of any proposal for such laws. I agree with Ferret about the helmet and that what other gear you wear is a matter of personal choice made on the basis of an understanding that, if you come off wearing nothing but shorts, a singlet and a helmet, you're likely to receive an induction to the truth of the saying about the world being a belt sander. My choice is to wear protective gear most of the time, although if I'm just going to the local town, I may well be spotted in shorts, a T-shirt and my helmet.
From the little I know, the US has a very different system of health insurance which essentially leaves the burden with the individual. In that case, government may well be reluctant to enter into the debate about helmets and people may well resist if they tried to. God knows, mandating seat belts here was a hard fought battle for the proponents.
If the cost of accidents and health care is sheeted home to the individual, I strongly support Randy's proposition that helmets and gear are a matter of personal choice. However, I would add that every serious accident with a long and expensive rehabilitation period and involving an insurance company ends up driving up premiums and adding to the cost of everybody's insurance so, in the end, anyone who drives or rides and insures ends up shouldering the burden.
I wonder do US (or other) insurance companies offer premium discounts or reduced excesses where people habitually wear helmets or impose some form of additional excess in the event they are not at the time of an accident?
Finally, Pterodactyl, I'm reflecting this morning on whether my Barossa-Valley-inspired characterisation of your post as 'cute' was fair and reasonable. I've not reached a conclusion. That said, I strongly endorse you closing comment, "No matter how good riding makes you feel, it is a choice that carries risk and community costs. That's putting it as it is, not coating it with feel good fairy dust. I love it."
Me too. If there's any suggestion of putting a stop to it in the interests of harm minimisation and cost reduction, I'll be right there at the barricades with you.
But here we start to stray into a political discussion about how far the state should go to protect us from ourselves. I'm not going there.
And from CIP: 15-20 pages at least, I reckon.
I intend to try to find time to have a hunt for stats on the outcome of motorcycle accidents. I'm with Ptero in suspecting that many of the 'go-home' people carry injuries forever and that there is ongoing cost associated with that—for example acquired brain injuries, loss or sustained damage to limbs, loss of damage to internal organs.
Part of the cost of registering any vehicle in Australia is what's called Compulsory Third Party insurance (CTP) which covers every vehicle for injury caused to another person in the event of an accident. In other words, there's a state-mandated system of compulsory insurance by which those of us who register vehicles contribute to the cost of road trauma. I'm not sure that, in the event of, say, acquired brain injury resulting from an accident, CTP would end up covering all the costs. In that case, at least some of the burden is likely to fall on the public health system (i.e. the taxpayer) would end up with at least some of the burden of supporting the person.
People in Australia do carry personal health insurance; but, because we have a universal health care system that people cannot not opt out of, there are statutory limits on what it can cover. Other than optical, dental and allied medical costs (eg physiotherapy, chiropractic, acupuncture and the like) it basically covers you for choice of doctor, and all or some private hospital costs depending on your level of cover. Most of us requiring serious health care, even when we have private health insurance, end up with a reasonably hefty bill. Anecdotally we hear of horrendous health costs landing on the individual in the US that, because of our Medicare and private health insurance, we would not have to wear, but I've no idea how true they are.
Hence my comment last night about the cost of vehicle accidents to the community in Australia giving the State some right to mandate things like wearing seatbelts and wearing crash helmets, both of which are mandatory everywhere in Australia. Indeed, I think I'm right in saying it is also mandatory to wear an approved helmet when riding a bicycle on a public road anywhere in Australia. I'm not sure how I feel about that.
So far as I know, there are no laws in Australia about motorcycle gear other than helmets; nor am I aware of any proposal for such laws. I agree with Ferret about the helmet and that what other gear you wear is a matter of personal choice made on the basis of an understanding that, if you come off wearing nothing but shorts, a singlet and a helmet, you're likely to receive an induction to the truth of the saying about the world being a belt sander. My choice is to wear protective gear most of the time, although if I'm just going to the local town, I may well be spotted in shorts, a T-shirt and my helmet.
From the little I know, the US has a very different system of health insurance which essentially leaves the burden with the individual. In that case, government may well be reluctant to enter into the debate about helmets and people may well resist if they tried to. God knows, mandating seat belts here was a hard fought battle for the proponents.
If the cost of accidents and health care is sheeted home to the individual, I strongly support Randy's proposition that helmets and gear are a matter of personal choice. However, I would add that every serious accident with a long and expensive rehabilitation period and involving an insurance company ends up driving up premiums and adding to the cost of everybody's insurance so, in the end, anyone who drives or rides and insures ends up shouldering the burden.
I wonder do US (or other) insurance companies offer premium discounts or reduced excesses where people habitually wear helmets or impose some form of additional excess in the event they are not at the time of an accident?
Finally, Pterodactyl, I'm reflecting this morning on whether my Barossa-Valley-inspired characterisation of your post as 'cute' was fair and reasonable. I've not reached a conclusion. That said, I strongly endorse you closing comment, "No matter how good riding makes you feel, it is a choice that carries risk and community costs. That's putting it as it is, not coating it with feel good fairy dust. I love it."
Me too. If there's any suggestion of putting a stop to it in the interests of harm minimisation and cost reduction, I'll be right there at the barricades with you.
But here we start to stray into a political discussion about how far the state should go to protect us from ourselves. I'm not going there.