Quote:
Quote:
Helmet laws are universally backed by insurance companies, but not for the reason you might think.
I believe your misguided emotions have taken over. Why wouldn't the insurance industry insist on legislation that theoretically reduces medical liability regardless of who is "at fault"? It's perfectly rational underwriting logic that you and others apparently don't get. Like everything else in the USA and elsewhere, it's all about money, and saving your cranium is part of the equation (target or not). But then again I suppose some folks would have a problem with licensing itself being a legal requirement too . . .
I myself would choose to fight another fight (hmmm, that's a real easy one -- lock up all the bastards having the audacity to ride & drive without insurance.)
It's cheaper to not pay out anything because of a reduction in the number of expensive 'targets'.
As for medical liability, helmets provide another boon to car insurance companies. Statistically, they increase the number of deaths per accident, and it is cheaper to pay out a one time death "benefit" than to pay for the long term disabilities that often result when someone survives being run down on a bike.
Let's hope there's intelligent life somewhere in space 'cause it's buggar all down here. -- Monte Python
| 
