Detox, great post. Geez i would have thought the resident insurance salesman would have known these type of facts.
I also would have thought the people always saying why arent there seatbelts on a bus would have actually done a little homework and found out the reason why they arent needed.
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
For more than 40 years, Michigan required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. State legislators changed the law last year so that only riders younger than 21 must wear helmets. The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim was $5,410 in the two years before the law was changed, and $7,257 after it was changed — an increase of 34 percent, the study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found.
"The cost per injury claim is significantly higher after the law changed than before, which is consistent with other research that shows riding without a helmet leads to more head injuries," David Zuby, chief research officer for the data institute and an affiliated organization, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said.
Detox, great post. Geez i would have thought the resident insurance salesman would have known these type of facts.
I also would have thought the people always saying why arent there seatbelts on a bus would have actually done a little homework and found out the reason why they arent needed.
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
For more than 40 years, Michigan required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. State legislators changed the law last year so that only riders younger than 21 must wear helmets. The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim was $5,410 in the two years before the law was changed, and $7,257 after it was changed — an increase of 34 percent, the study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found.
"The cost per injury claim is significantly higher after the law changed than before, which is consistent with other research that shows riding without a helmet leads to more head injuries," David Zuby, chief research officer for the data institute and an affiliated organization, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said.
For more than 40 years, Michigan required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. State legislators changed the law last year so that only riders younger than 21 must wear helmets. The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim was $5,410 in the two years before the law was changed, and $7,257 after it was changed — an increase of 34 percent, the study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found.
"The cost per injury claim is significantly higher after the law changed than before, which is consistent with other research that shows riding without a helmet leads to more head injuries," David Zuby, chief research officer for the data institute and an affiliated organization, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said.
Me thinks your research is skewed in your favor. (as usual)
Me thinks your case study on INJURY claims doesn't involve cases where the rider was killed instantly and considered DOA of emergency response professionals.
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
For more than 40 years, Michigan required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. State legislators changed the law last year so that only riders younger than 21 must wear helmets. The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim was $5,410 in the two years before the law was changed, and $7,257 after it was changed — an increase of 34 percent, the study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found.
"The cost per injury claim is significantly higher after the law changed than before, which is consistent with other research that shows riding without a helmet leads to more head injuries," David Zuby, chief research officer for the data institute and an affiliated organization, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said.
Me thinks your research is skewed in your favor. (as usual)
Me thinks your case study on INJURY claims doesn't involve cases where the rider was killed instantly and considered DOA of emergency response professionals.
yeah research, facts, statistics, reality usually aren't skewed in your favor.
glad you recognize that
You used to be kind of cool Darryl. Well not really. But now all you do is try to start shlt with people. Why no attempt to just have discussions and cut the BS?
If you did just engage in honest debates...after about 10 years of that I actually might start to respect you again.
My money says you keep up the childish BS, however!
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
yeah research, facts, statistics, reality usually aren't skewed in your favor.
glad you recognize that
You used to be kind of cool Darryl. Well not really. But now all you do is try to start shlt with people. Why no attempt to just have discussions and cut the BS?
If you did just engage in honest debates...after about 10 years of that I actually might start to respect you again.
My money says you keep up the childish BS, however!
Me thinks your research is skewed in your favor. (as usual)
Me thinks your case study on INJURY claims doesn't involve cases where the rider was killed instantly and considered DOA of emergency response professionals.
"it makes more sense that the helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers"
Me thinks that is the dumbest statement I'll read all week.
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
Me thinks your research is skewed in your favor. (as usual)
Me thinks your case study on INJURY claims doesn't involve cases where the rider was killed instantly and considered DOA of emergency response professionals.
"it makes more sense that the helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers"
Me thinks that is the dumbest statement I'll read all week.
"it makes more sense that the helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers"
You believe that statement is true because people that don't wear helmets die in accidents. When people die, insurance companies don't have to pay out.
I'm embarrassed to be involved in this discussion.
"it makes more sense that the helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers"
You believe that statement is true because people that don't wear helmets die in accidents. When people die, insurance companies don't have to pay out.
I'm embarrassed to be involved in this discussion.
"it makes more sense that the helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers"
You believe that statement is true because people that don't wear helmets die in accidents. When people die, insurance companies don't have to pay out.
I'm embarrassed to be involved in this discussion.
I can see why you'd be embarrassed.
Life insurance algorithms don't have much to do with auto or MC insurance ones.
There may be a question that involves a YES I do ride a MC or NO I do not ride a MC. I have written life policies that don't even consider whether the the insured rides an MC or not.
Even if you choose to purchase a MC for the first time 5 years after you have a life policy written...there is no way for the Life insurance company to know that you now have increased your risk of death by MC.
I would advise you to back out of the discussion since you have a tendency to jump to conclusions regarding pseudo victories.
Duh!
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
"it makes more sense that the helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers"
You believe that statement is true because people that don't wear helmets die in accidents. When people die, insurance companies don't have to pay out.
I'm embarrassed to be involved in this discussion.
I can see why you'd be embarrassed.
Life insurance algorithms don't have much to do with auto or MC insurance ones.
There may be a question that involves a YES I do ride a MC or NO I do not ride a MC. I have written life policies that don't even consider whether the the insured rides an MC or not.
Even if you choose to purchase a MC for the first time 5 years after you have a life policy written...there is no way for the Life insurance company to know that you now have increased your risk of death by MC.
I would advise you to back out of the discussion since you have a tendency to jump to conclusions regarding pseudo victories.
Deaths from all motorcycle crashes in Michigan -- with or without helmet use -- rose 18 percent from 109 in 2011 to 129 last year.
The average cost of insurance claims resulting from motorcycle crashes is up dramatically since Michigan repealed its mandatory helmet law last year, largely because injuries are more severe.
A study released Thursday by the industry-funded Highway Loss Data Institute reported the average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim is $7,257, compared to $5,410 in the two years before the helmet law was repealed in April 2012. That's an increase of 34 percent. Adjusting for the fact that unhelmeted riders must carry higher insurance, medical payouts rose 22 percent.
So, how does this statement make any sense....
"it makes more sense that the helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers"
Deaths from all motorcycle crashes in Michigan -- with or without helmet use -- rose 18 percent from 109 in 2011 to 129 last year.
The average cost of insurance claims resulting from motorcycle crashes is up dramatically since Michigan repealed its mandatory helmet law last year, largely because injuries are more severe.
A study released Thursday by the industry-funded Highway Loss Data Institute reported the average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim is $7,257, compared to $5,410 in the two years before the helmet law was repealed in April 2012. That's an increase of 34 percent. Adjusting for the fact that unhelmeted riders must carry higher insurance, medical payouts rose 22 percent.
So, how does this statement make any sense....
"it makes more sense that the helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers"
Deaths from all motorcycle crashes in Michigan -- with or without helmet use -- rose 18 percent from 109 in 2011 to 129 last year.
The average cost of insurance claims resulting from motorcycle crashes is up dramatically since Michigan repealed its mandatory helmet law last year, largely because injuries are more severe.
A study released Thursday by the industry-funded Highway Loss Data Institute reported the average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim is $7,257, compared to $5,410 in the two years before the helmet law was repealed in April 2012. That's an increase of 34 percent. Adjusting for the fact that unhelmeted riders must carry higher insurance, medical payouts rose 22 percent.
So, how does this statement make any sense....
"it makes more sense that the helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers"
Does this deal with the issue of single motorcycle accidents where the driver was considered dead at the scene?
Does this INJURY claim statement deal with single or multiple vehicle deaths where the driver was considered dead at the scene?
Quote Originally Posted by I_Need_A_Detox:
Deaths from all motorcycle crashes in Michigan -- with or without helmet use -- rose 18 percent from 109 in 2011 to 129 last year.
The average cost of insurance claims resulting from motorcycle crashes is up dramatically since Michigan repealed its mandatory helmet law last year, largely because injuries are more severe.
A study released Thursday by the industry-funded Highway Loss Data Institute reported the average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim is $7,257, compared to $5,410 in the two years before the helmet law was repealed in April 2012. That's an increase of 34 percent. Adjusting for the fact that unhelmeted riders must carry higher insurance, medical payouts rose 22 percent.
So, how does this statement make any sense....
"it makes more sense that the helmet wearers are driving up the insurance rates more than the non wearers"
Does this deal with the issue of single motorcycle accidents where the driver was considered dead at the scene?
Does this INJURY claim statement deal with single or multiple vehicle deaths where the driver was considered dead at the scene?
You used to be kind of cool Darryl. Well not really. But now all you do is try to start shlt with people. Why no attempt to just have discussions and cut the BS?
If you did just engage in honest debates...after about 10 years of that I actually might start to respect you again.
My money says you keep up the childish BS, however!
DL36 Bowlslit
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
You used to be kind of cool Darryl. Well not really. But now all you do is try to start shlt with people. Why no attempt to just have discussions and cut the BS?
If you did just engage in honest debates...after about 10 years of that I actually might start to respect you again.
My money says you keep up the childish BS, however!
did someone really make the argument that insurance rates are impacted by instant death as opposed to head injuries?
Ever hear of wrongful death claims for insurance purposes...
I'm curious to hear how/why you think wrongful death claims are affected by single vehicle accidents where the operator of the single vehicle is at fault?
Once you answer that we can delve into other aspects of MC accidents and also whether or not it is possible to acquire substantial head injuries in an accident involving two 4 wheeled vehicles.
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Cool it both of you.
And I just skimmed this thread...
did someone really make the argument that insurance rates are impacted by instant death as opposed to head injuries?
Ever hear of wrongful death claims for insurance purposes...
I'm curious to hear how/why you think wrongful death claims are affected by single vehicle accidents where the operator of the single vehicle is at fault?
Once you answer that we can delve into other aspects of MC accidents and also whether or not it is possible to acquire substantial head injuries in an accident involving two 4 wheeled vehicles.
I'm curious to hear how/why you think wrongful death claims are affected by single vehicle accidents where the operator of the single vehicle is at fault?
Once you answer that we can delve into other aspects of MC accidents and also whether or not it is possible to acquire substantial head injuries in an accident involving two 4 wheeled vehicles.
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.
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
I'm curious to hear how/why you think wrongful death claims are affected by single vehicle accidents where the operator of the single vehicle is at fault?
Once you answer that we can delve into other aspects of MC accidents and also whether or not it is possible to acquire substantial head injuries in an accident involving two 4 wheeled vehicles.
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.
Just to say that ANYONE who rides a motorcycle with or without a helmet is a complete moron. Might as well play Russian roulette for excitement, because it will get you eventually.
I just skimmed this thread too.
Just to say that ANYONE who rides a motorcycle with or without a helmet is a complete moron. Might as well play Russian roulette for excitement, because it will get you eventually.
Bowlslit
Hot Forum Topics
