Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!nsc!amdahl!mat
From: mat@amdahl.UUCP (Mike Taylor)
Newsgroups: net.cycle,net.legal
Subject: Re: Re: The government preventing us from hurting ourselves
Message-ID: <3519@amdahl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Aug-86 11:36:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdahl.3519
Posted: Tue Aug  5 11:36:34 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Aug-86 22:59:22 EDT
References: <1022@im4u.UUCP> <1050@dataio.UUCP> <931@hoptoad.uucp> <436@ll1.UUCP>
Organization: Amdahl Corp, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 23
Xref: mnetor net.cycle:1103 net.legal:2991

In article <436@ll1.UUCP>, cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) writes:
> >>If unhelmeted motorcyclists will take on all responsibility to
> >>insure themselves then I will gladly allow them to take the
> >>additional risk that coincides with riding without a helmet. 
> > 

Is there any evidence that unhelmeted motorcyclists increase the cost
of insurance vs. helmeted motorcyclists ? This is an area where anomalies
often occur. For example, the wearing of a helmet increases the probability
of surviving an accident (I think a generally well-documented fact).
However, this means other injuries must be treated (broken bones,
internal injuries, cuts, abrasions, etc.) at some expense. Whereas,
a motorcyclist who dies in an accident requires no further treatment,
and the insurance company has no long-drawn-out hospital stay to cover.
The higher survival probability attributable to the helmet may mean
a higher expected cost per accident for the helmeted motorcyclist.
While I'm not suggesting I know the facts either, I think that the
assumption that unhelmeted motorcyclists cost more to insure bears some
examination.
-- 
Mike Taylor                        ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!mat

[ This may not reflect my opinion, let alone anyone else's.  ]