ear an approved helmet when riding. Michigan is one of 15 states that still have mandatory helmet laws. This week the Michigan Legislature voted to repeal our mandatory helmet law. In principle I absolutely agree that the state should not be able to force anyone to do anything, including wear a helmet. However, in this tangled social web we live in where everyone is responsible for everyone else, the person who is catastrophically injured by his own stupidity never bears the financial cost of that decision. Tax payers and the medical system do. It's a bad law and, much as it pains me to say it, Granholm should veto it again.The governor vetoed a similar bill just last year. Last year's bill just repealed the helmet law without imposing any responsibility on the injured rider. The new bill at least addresses that issue.
The new bill would allow motorcyclists over 21 to ride without helmets if they pay for a special permit: $100 annually or $200 for a three-year permit. They also would have to complete a motorcycle safety course, carry at least $20,000 of medical insurance and have been licensed to operate a motorcycle for at least two years before chucking their helmets. Unfortunately, the provisions are too anemic to alleviate the problem created: radically increased costs on the system.
No one really disputes that wearing a helmet significantly reduces injuries and fatalities caused by motorcycle accidents. For comparison's sake, the per capita rate of motorcycle deaths in states which do not require that helmets be worn by adult riders is 41% higher than in states with mandatory helmet laws.
According to a 2004 study undertaken by the Michigan State Police, it is estimated that, if passed, this new law will result in at least 22 additional fatalities each year, and 742 additional injuries and $140 million in added economic costs to Michigan citizens. In 2005, there were 3,605 motorcycle crashes involving motorcycles in Michigan which resulted in 122 riders killed and 2,721 injured. And these victims don't all expire instantly on the road. The majority linger for a time in the hospital while natural selection catches up with them. The average cost of a hospital stay is now somewhere north of $8,000 per day, not including surgeries or special rooms. That means the mandatory $20,000 medical coverage imposed by this bill will provide barely two days of hospital care.
A recent federal survey found that the average hospital cost to treat a head injury in an accident was $45,602. But that is just the hospitalization costs. Following that, a moderate to severe closed head injury typically requires months or years of rehab. According to the Michigan Association of Insurance Agents, a survivor of a severe closed head injury is likely to need $9 million in care over a lifetime. Obviously the paltry $20,000 in medical coverage is nowhere near adequate to cover even the hospitalization costs, much less the follow up care. Nor does it attempt to address the issue of long-term or permanent disability.
When Florida repealed its helmet law in 2000, motorcycle fatalities in that state increased by 49% in just the first year, according to a study published in the American Journal of Public Health. A University of California study found that after California passed its mandatory helmet law in the early 1990's, there was a 35% reduction in health care costs for motorcycle related injuries.
It is estimated the increased license fees will raise an additional $15 million for the state. That's good news, right? Unfortunately, the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning estimates that repealing the helmet law would add $140 million in costs for the state to cover the injured, brain damaged and paralyzed and their families.
Now, I'm all for the government not telling me what to do. Even though I don't own a motorcycle or smoke, I sympathize with motorcycle riders and smokers alike. Lansing and the feds have no business telling us what to do--even if it's bad for us. It may just be cigarettes and motorcycle helmets today, but next week it's going to be bacon and foie gras. (Don't laugh--Chicago has outlawed foie gras. That's what happens when the Goose Lobby gets too powerful).
The problem is, when the Parliament in Lansing passes a no-fault insurance law that requires me to pay for all medical treatment to an injured motorcycle rider who rode without a helmet, that's where I have a problem. As the insurance law presently exists, if a motorcyclist is injured in an auto accident with a car, the PIP insurance on the car pays for his medical bills, wage loss, rehabilitation, and a whole host of other expenses--possibly for the rest of the rider's life if he or she survives.
If the crash does not involve a car and just involves the motorcycle, then the injured rider's coverage will likely pay. It will, that is, if the rider has purchased the optional PIP coverage or, failing in that, if he has the new mandatory health care coverage mandated by the law and if it covers the injuries. If he is uninsured or underinsured, basically all of us pick up the tab through Medicaid, taxes or increased medical costs charged by the hospitals to cover uninsured patients. And then, if the guy is really hurt and can't go back to work, well, he gets to go on SSI and we still pay the bills.
Amazingly, another study done in 2004, this one by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, found that 44% of motorcyclists involved in a crash are not even licensed to operate the machine. That means that even if the injured rider has the optional PIP insurance or the mandatory$20,000 under this bill, the carrier likely won't pay. And so we're back to the public footing the bill through higher taxes and higher medical costs. And let's not forget that not every rider is single with no children. When the bread winner in the house is disabled or killed, the rest of the family has to be supported by us, too.
People who don't engage in risky behavior are perpetually subsidizing people who do, and there are precious few penalties built into the system to shift the real costs to those who are doing dumb things and overburdening the system. Whether it's smoking or riding without a helmet, there should be some downside to engaging in that behavior so that I don't have subsidize it. While this bill seems to at least acknowledge that problem, it creates much more of burden than it remedies.
And where do these people in Lansing find the time to work on stupid bills that they know are going to be vetoed? They've known that this hideous budget crisis was coming for a year and instead of fixing that problem, they waste time and scarce resources passing this kind of vanity legislation. Another beautiful argument against a full-time legislature (like we needed another one).
If this bill were drafted in a perfect world as the ultimate embodiment of the pay-as-you-go, laissez-faire, assume-your-own-risk philosophy, and helmetless riders were forced to assume all of their own injury costs in the event of an accident with absolutely no cost passed on to the medical system or taxpayers (including the costs to support their widders and orphans), then it would make sense. But as long as "we're all in this together" it's a bad idea. Now, where did I put my foie gras and bacon sandwich. . .?
1 comment:
This is great info to know.
Post a Comment