Helmet law in MI may be 86'd soon.

[zarn02]

Riders under 16 don't get head injuries?

That's very extremely true.

I found I was generally immortal till sometime in my mid-20s. I may have actually become mortal early, as I believe the onset of mortality is pretty variable.

[Lore]

Helmets for bicycles are mandatory over here as well. 

But only for riders over 16 years of age, which I still don't understand. Riders under 16 don't get head injuries?

funny
in Croatia bicycles helmets have to wear children under 16 , us "adults" don't have to wear them at all
but at night time all bicycle riders must have reflective vest

[ungeheuer]

That's very extremely true.

I found I was generally immortal till sometime in my mid-20s. I may have actually become mortal early, as I believe the onset of mortality is pretty variable.

[Punx Clever]

That's very extremely true.

I found I was generally immortal till sometime in my mid-20s. I may have actually become mortal early, as I believe the onset of mortality is pretty variable.

Still young, dumb, and invincible at 23 over here... I'll let you know what happens after tomorrow when I get older.

[SDRider]

I can't see why it wouldn't affect insurance rates in a negative way.  In states with helmet laws nearly 100% of riders wear helmets.  In states with no helmet law it's around 50-60% of riders who wear helmets.  These are FACTS...not hearsay.

This is not a freedom issue, this is a convenience issue...nothing more.  It's akin to wearing a seatbelt in a car, it is a minor inconvenience.

One thing you'll never get the "freedom" fighters to admit is that you are setting a bad example for young riders by not wearing a helmet.  You are basically telling them that it's okay not to wear a helmet.  Don't do as I do, do as I say...

Personally, I have no problem with mandatory helmet laws.  They exist in the state I live and ride in and I support them.

[ducatiz]

I am really ambivalent about the laws.

Mainly because I would wear it either way.

With our current laws covering required care at hospitals though, I lean towards mandatory use.

But I don't think hospitals should be required to treat everyone who comes thru the door.

thats' just me.

[lemond]

they should treat everyone that comes thru the door, that's a moral issue.

they also should be billed for the expense, that's reality.

I am really ambivalent about the laws.

Mainly because I would wear it either way.

With our current laws covering required care at hospitals though, I lean towards mandatory use.

But I don't think hospitals should be required to treat everyone who comes thru the door.

thats' just me.

[ducatiz]

they should treat everyone that comes thru the door, that's a moral issue.

they also should be billed for the expense, that's reality.

IMHO forcing doctors to treat any patient is tantamount to involuntary servitude, something banned by the 13th Amendment.  moral issues are problematic when you put them into law. 

maybe i'm a doctor and it's against my faith to treat people who act stupidly (ride without a helmet) or are harmed due to an intentional self-inflicted act (such as a drug overdose)..  that's a hypothetical, but it just gets hairy when you tell people how to act "morally" and put the force of law behind it...

that's all i'll say... 

[SDRider]

I'm sure the ambiguity favors them no matter what.  I still think if you're on two wheels or four you should show proof of medical insurance regardless, it's the responsible thing to do.  If you can afford bikes and cars you have enough money to pay medical insurance.

Have you seen the cost of medical insurance lately?

[SDRider]

IMHO forcing doctors to treat any patient is tantamount to involuntary servitude, something banned by the 13th Amendment.  moral issues are problematic when you put them into law. 

maybe i'm a doctor and it's against my faith to treat people who act stupidly (ride without a helmet) or are harmed due to an intentional self-inflicted act (such as a drug overdose)..  that's a hypothetical, but it just gets hairy when you tell people how to act "morally" and put the force of law behind it...

that's all i'll say... 

No, it isn't.  It's their job.  They took an oath as part of the training.

If it's against your faith to treat people who act stupid then you're in the wrong profession.

[ducatiz]

No, it isn't.  It's their job.  They took an oath as part of the training.

If it's against your faith to treat people who act stupid then you're in the wrong profession.

have you actually read that oath?  there is nothing in the hippocratic oath that says you have to treat everyone.

http://tinyurl.com/muwm92

[SacDuc]

IMHO forcing doctors to treat any patient is tantamount to involuntary servitude, something banned by the 13th Amendment.  moral issues are problematic when you put them into law. 

maybe i'm a doctor and it's against my faith to treat people who act stupidly (ride without a helmet) or are harmed due to an intentional self-inflicted act (such as a drug overdose)..  that's a hypothetical, but it just gets hairy when you tell people how to act "morally" and put the force of law behind it...

that's all i'll say... 

Your argument fails when you ask "who decides what is stupid?"

Your frame snaps and your are injured in the crash. The doctor looks at you and says, "Didn't he thoroughly inspect the welds on the frame before he went riding? Its not about engaging in risky behavior or expectation that the manufacturer did their job well. After all, I inspect all of my equipment when I rock climb. He shouldn't have been on the damn thing in the first place if he is going to be irresponsible like that. Boy is he stupid. I'm going to let him die."

Or maybe he starts mulling the situation over and five minutes later he decides you are not stupid and he will treat. Unfortunately you died 4 minutes after getting to him.

Save lives first, ask questions later, bill appropriately. That seems like a sane policy to me.

Firefighters, cops, air traffic controllers, general contractors and a slew of other professions have a huge chunk of their discretion taken away from them by law and regulation. This makes them do their job regardless of whether they want to or not. This is so they don't kill people while deciding whether they want to do their job for this particular person.

There are plenty of doctors who have their own clinics and can pick and choose their patients. There is nothing illegal about this. But in hospitals are required to require their doctors to help their patients. Follow?

sac

[SDRider]

Your argument fails when you ask "who decides what is stupid?"

Your frame snaps and your are injured in the crash. The doctor looks at you and says, "Didn't he thoroughly inspect the welds on the frame before he went riding? Its not about engaging in risky behavior or expectation that the manufacturer did their job well. After all, I inspect all of my equipment when I rock climb. He shouldn't have been on the damn thing in the first place if he is going to be irresponsible like that. Boy is he stupid. I'm going to let him die."

Or maybe he starts mulling the situation over and five minutes later he decides you are not stupid and he will treat. Unfortunately you died 4 minutes after getting to him.

Save lives first, ask questions later, bill appropriately. That seems like a sane policy to me.

Firefighters, cops, air traffic controllers, general contractors and a slew of other professions have a huge chunk of their discretion taken away from them by law and regulation. This makes them do their job regardless of whether they want to or not. This is so they don't kill people while deciding whether they want to do their job for this particular person.

There are plenty of doctors who have their own clinics and can pick and choose their patients. There is nothing illegal about this. But in hospitals are required to require their doctors to help their patients. Follow?

sac

Agreed, I have friends who are EMTs and they all think motorcyclists are nuts for riding but they always scrape them off the pavement and cart them to the hospital because that is their job.  If they don't do it, they aren't doing their job.

[ducatiz]

Your argument fails when you ask "who decides what is stupid?"

Sac, I was speaking hypothetically, which is why I used the well-known "IMHO."

Clearly, both the AMA and courts disagree with me.  I'm fine with that. 

However, to answer your initial comment, it doesn't fail at all if one (as a physician) is using one's personal judgment, which they are allowed to do within the scope of treatment. 

A physician in private practice may also choose not to take on a patient, or to cancel the relationship with an ongoing patient. 

I know hospitals are required to do otherwise for ER patients, stabilize them, and then discharge them when they can't pay, and I know that's the law almost everywhere.  You just missed my intent.

Your frame snaps and your are injured in the crash. The doctor looks at you and says, "Didn't he thoroughly inspect the welds on the frame before he went riding? Its not about engaging in risky behavior or expectation that the manufacturer did their job well. After all, I inspect all of my equipment when I rock climb. He shouldn't have been on the damn thing in the first place if he is going to be irresponsible like that. Boy is he stupid. I'm going to let him die."

Or maybe he starts mulling the situation over and five minutes later he decides you are not stupid and he will treat. Unfortunately you died 4 minutes after getting to him.

Save lives first, ask questions later, bill appropriately. That seems like a sane policy to me.

Firefighters, cops, air traffic controllers, general contractors and a slew of other professions have a huge chunk of their discretion taken away from them by law and regulation. This makes them do their job regardless of whether they want to or not. This is so they don't kill people while deciding whether they want to do their job for this particular person.

There are plenty of doctors who have their own clinics and can pick and choose their patients. There is nothing illegal about this. But in hospitals are required to require their doctors to help their patients. Follow?

sac

not really relevant to my comment though.. thanks for the input.

Agreed, I have friends who are EMTs and they all think motorcyclists are nuts for riding but they always scrape them off the pavement and cart them to the hospital because that is their job.  If they don't do it, they aren't doing their job.

EMTs are wonderful people for a lot of reasons, but they are not doctors and they do not take the Hippocratic oath. 

[SacDuc]

Sac, I was speaking hypothetically, which is why I used the well-known "IMHO."

IMHO is well known to mean "in my honest opinion." It does not denote "speaking hypothetically." The word "should" in your comment suggests that you are of the opinion doctors actually "should" be able to deny their services if they believe someone acted stupidly.

not really relevant to my comment though.. thanks for the input.

Um . . . er . . .




Okay then.

Boy it sure seems like the trend is to repeal mandatory helmet laws. That's something, isn't it? I wonder why that is he says hoping to veer back on topic.

sac