Roethlisberger injured in motorcycle accident

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by LadyT

Sorry, I can't agree that it's all about personal freedom. When morons refuse to wear helmets or buckle up, and then get hurt in accidents, it affects us all in terms of higher insurance rates for everyone. The cost of surgery, medical care, rehab is covered by insurance and then passed along (in a fashion) to all policy holders by the insurance company. You don't honestly think that the premiums you pay would cover all of your medical expenses in a major car accident, do you? Because they won't and the insurance company recoups its costs by allocating their expenses to all of us.

I agree with this 100%. The financial burden is passed on to the rest of us who choose to use our friggin heads.

Of course, I find myself conflicted. When these morons get in crashes, there's a pretty good chance they're going to die. Dying would be doing us all a favor, so part of me says let them ride helmet free if they wish.

[BrudLee]

By the way, since I haven't heard it mentioned:

To those who think that Ben will be ready in seven weeks (since that was the last estimate for his bones to heal), remember that will be seven weeks of a liquid diet. Them teeths ain't growin' back in that busted jaw overnight.

[MTK]

I dunno, I managed to gain weight on my liquid diet in college.

[gibbsisgod]

a beer belly doesn't count

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by warriorzpath

I agree that it's a personal decision - it's stupid not to wear one, but it should be a personal freedom to make that decision. Do we let the government tell us what is good for us and make us do everything their way ? Where would the line be drawn ?

+1

Oh, and can I remind everyone of the "he got what he deserved" ilk, that at this point it appears he was not at fault for the accident. I agree that he is an idiot for not wearing a helmet, but I thought that before he was in an accident. Don't blame the rider for something that was not his fault. He is the victim in this situation. Blame the asshat in the car that pulled in front of him illegally.

I don't remember hearing this "he got what he deserved" crap when Derrick Thomas (chiefs LB) died from a car crash in which he was not wearing a seat belt?!?!?!

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by LadyT

Sorry, I can't agree that it's all about personal freedom. When morons refuse to wear helmets or buckle up, and then get hurt in accidents, it affects us all in terms of higher insurance rates for everyone. The cost of surgery, medical care, rehab is covered by insurance and then passed along (in a fashion) to all policy holders by the insurance company. You don't honestly think that the premiums you pay would cover all of your medical expenses in a major car accident, do you? Because they won't and the insurance company recoups its costs by allocating their expenses to all of us.

So it's just a financial issue, then?

If you've ever ridden a bike you'd know that you're far more aware when riding without a helmet. Obviously this can't take into account accidents caused (in this case) by some stupid old biddy who "just didn't see" the poor sod on the bike.

Motorcylcles are inherently dangerous vehicles but they are also made far more so by bad car drivers.

How about we retest regularly the (old) people out there driving who shouldn't be behind a wheel of a car before we go after bikers?

Compared with cars, motorcycles are an especially dangerous form of travel. Per mile traveled, the number of deaths on motorcycles in 2003 was about 32 times the number in cars

http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html

[redskinsfanatic]

what a dumba$$!i heard some pittsbirg emts say if he would have had a helment on,he would have walked away with bumps and bruises.

[gibbs4life]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

After KWII had his "accident", Roethlisberger told reporters that he rode, and would not wear a helmet. This is no one's fault but his own.

i couldn,t have agreed more bud.
it,s his choice to make.

get well ben.

[redskinsfanatic]

i bet this,and this alone changes the no helment law in pennslyvania.the league may even try to work this, and other things like sky diving and climbing a mountain,and maybe even stock car racing
into players contracts too!!!

[mheisig]

There was an interview transcript on ESPN done with Roethlisberger right after KWII's accident asking him all about his riding habits, why he rides, etc. Probably a half dozen times he stated that he just rides his "chopper" and his cruiser, doesn't ride sportbikes, saying that the sport bikes were dangerous and he was basically safe on his cruiser. Not just once, but over and over.

Kind of funny (in a sick way) that in this accident he was on a Hayabusa - basically the fastest production sportbike on the market.

Guess things changed a bit since that interview.

[TheInspector]

Originally Posted by LadyT

Sorry, I can't agree that it's all about personal freedom. When morons refuse to wear helmets or buckle up, and then get hurt in accidents, it affects us all in terms of higher insurance rates for everyone. The cost of surgery, medical care, rehab is covered by insurance and then passed along (in a fashion) to all policy holders by the insurance company. You don't honestly think that the premiums you pay would cover all of your medical expenses in a major car accident, do you? Because they won't and the insurance company recoups its costs by allocating their expenses to all of us.

You are totally correct, but I think you have confused what IS with how it OUGHT to be--just because that is the reality, doesn't mean that it is right or acceptable. I see that insurance is the problem here--not negligent people. The government doesn't have the right to tell people how to live, unless it endangers other people (people should have the right to endanger their own lives, IMO). Riding without a helmet only endangers the bike rider (and not others). So if the only justification for telling people how to live their lives is so insurance premiums will not rise, that is a weak argument.

The problem with insurance rates is the government's problem--they are supposed to provide for the healthcare of their citizens (IMO). Since they cannot (read: do not want to), they have created the health insurance industry (privatization at its worst). If the government's only solution for their failure to provide adequate healthcare is to impose unnecessary restrictions on how their citizens live, then we are in desperate need of a revolution.

BTW, if you cannot already tell, I HATE insurance. It's the biggest scam EVER. ...and yes, I am ready for everyone to tell me how BAD things would be without insurance (and how naive I am).

EDIT-I should not say that I "HATE insurance", that is not accurate and I would like to retract that statement. It would be more accurate to say that I am truly frustrated with the entire situation.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

BTW, if you cannot already tell, I HATE insurance. It's the biggest scam EVER. ...and yes, I am ready for everyone to tell me how BAD things would be without insurance (and how naive I am).

You've pretty much answered your own question but I'll just elaborate.

If it wasn't for the people out there scamming the insurance companies, you probably wouldn't hate the insurance companies as much.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

The problem with insurance rates is the government's problem--they are supposed to provide for the healthcare of their citizens (IMO). Since they cannot (read: do not want to), they have created the health insurance industry (privatization at its worst). If the government's only solution for their failure to provide adequate healthcare is to impose unnecessary restrictions on how their citizens live, then we are in desperate need of a revolution.

What do you base that opinion on?

[BrudLee]

According to Jim Rome, there are reports that Roethlisberger did not have his motorcycle license. This slight sympathy I've had for him is disappearing.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by TheInspector

You are totally correct, but I think you have confused what IS with how it OUGHT to be--just because that is the reality, doesn't mean that it is right or acceptable. I see that insurance is the problem here--not negligent people. The government doesn't have the right to tell people how to live, unless it endangers other people (people should have the right to endanger their own lives, IMO). Riding without a helmet only endangers the bike rider (and not others). So if the only justification for telling people how to live their lives is so insurance premiums will not rise, that is a weak argument.

The problem with insurance rates is the government's problem--they are supposed to provide for the healthcare of their citizens (IMO). Since they cannot (read: do not want to), they have created the health insurance industry (privatization at its worst). If the government's only solution for their failure to provide adequate healthcare is to impose unnecessary restrictions on how their citizens live, then we are in desperate need of a revolution.

BTW, if you cannot already tell, I HATE insurance. It's the biggest scam EVER. ...and yes, I am ready for everyone to tell me how BAD things would be without insurance (and how naive I am).

I work for a Health System in Philadelphia in the finance department. I'm not going to get into a big thing, but suffice it to say you know nothing about the business. Socialized healthcare results in horrible standards of care.

Healthcare in the US is some of the most expensive in the world, but it's also BY FAR the best.