The Associated Press reports that a Pennsylvania state legislator has submitted a bill to reverse the 2003 law that made wearing a helmet op...
The Associated Press reports that a Pennsylvania state legislator has submitted a bill to reverse the 2003 law that made wearing a helmet optional for riders 21 years and older...
http://www.centredaily.com/116/story/70950.html
The old public healthcare burden excuse is always raised but never proven. Frankel doesn't provide actual numbers on how much helmetless riders have cost the state because it's impossible to determine the cost.
That is, in order to quantify the cost in dollars, he has to determine how much money helmetless riders have consumed in public healthcare versus how much money they would have saved if riders had wore helmets. Since it is impossible to measure the cost of hypothetical scenarios, it's all high-temperature banter.
Besides, it's very rare for public healthcare money to be spent on motorcycle accident victims mostly because these injuries are liability issues, and are paid out of liability insurance. And if not a liability case, it's paid out of group or private healthcare insurance.
Though, there is definitely a slim chance that a motorcycle accident victim who did not wear a helmet could wind up on the public dole. However, even if he was wearing a helmet, his injuries could be such that he still winds up on the public dole. Which begs the question, exactly how much money do helmets save the public, and is it worth taking away our freedom of choice?
But state Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Allegheny, has introduced legislation to reverse the law.Read the full article here...
He said there are too many deaths and injuries suffered by helmetless motorcyclists and that the associated medical costs are driving up costs to the public.
http://www.centredaily.com/116/story/70950.html
The old public healthcare burden excuse is always raised but never proven. Frankel doesn't provide actual numbers on how much helmetless riders have cost the state because it's impossible to determine the cost.
That is, in order to quantify the cost in dollars, he has to determine how much money helmetless riders have consumed in public healthcare versus how much money they would have saved if riders had wore helmets. Since it is impossible to measure the cost of hypothetical scenarios, it's all high-temperature banter.
Besides, it's very rare for public healthcare money to be spent on motorcycle accident victims mostly because these injuries are liability issues, and are paid out of liability insurance. And if not a liability case, it's paid out of group or private healthcare insurance.
Though, there is definitely a slim chance that a motorcycle accident victim who did not wear a helmet could wind up on the public dole. However, even if he was wearing a helmet, his injuries could be such that he still winds up on the public dole. Which begs the question, exactly how much money do helmets save the public, and is it worth taking away our freedom of choice?
