Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil
Wearing helmets isn't so much about health care costs as it's about liability in the event of an accident.
It's not about decreasing cost on the taxpayer, as in the end it's probably not that much. It's about protecting individuals.
What happens if a driver clips a bicyclist wearing a helmet vs not wearing a helmet? Both are the driver's fault for causing the accident, but in one the liability he has for covering the losses of victim is less.
We can talk about the cost of healthcare, but even in an extreme scenario, we are talking about $1 million in health care expenditures. But that pales in comparison on the loss of productivity to individuals involved in the accident and even to society. The loss in quality of life can never be covered by publicly funded healthcare. The taxpayer will do what it can to make you not sick, but the taxpayer can't make you whole again.
You might decide to put your life up to fate by not wearing a helmet, but when you are involved in an accident that's totally not your fault, do you really think you can successfully sue to cover your expenses and maintain your standard of living? Can you really place all blame on someone else for your injuries when you made the personal decision to not wear adequate protection?
My auto insurance might have $3 million personal injury liability, but do you think ICBC is going to jump at the chance to pay that out to someone not wearing a helmet? It's similar to jaywalking; how much compensation is a jay walker entitled to? If you wear stiletto heels on an clearly icy sidewalk, is the property owner liable for your stupidity? If you don't wear a baseball helmet and you get beaned in the head, is the pitcher liable?
That's what the bicycle helmet law tries to accomplish, it puts all bicyclists on even legal ground when they are injured. If all bicyclists are equally as safe as possible, then all are entitled to the same level of compensation for their injuries. But if some are safer than others, then some will be more deserving of being compensated than others.
I don't mind paying healthcare expenses for people who've made bad choices, but that's as far as my compassion goes. If you decided to not limit your potential of injury and get in an accident, then you have decided to live with a life full of brain trauma with no help or compensation (if you're lucky enough to survive).
|
In some off hand way what you are saying is related to the cost of giving medical attention to someone.
Example you have two different people who are cycling. One is wearing a helmet the other is not. Both get hit by a car in different incidents. The driver of the car is at fault in both cases. The guy with the helmet has few broken bones, while the guy without the helmet not only has the broken bones but major head trauma.
ICBC through the driver's insurance covers the cost of both cyclists injuries. Of course the person without the helmet who had the head trauma is going to require more extensive medical help. Thus a higher medical bill.
So the insurance companies notice this and ask the government to put in a manadatory helmet law. So that the guy with the major head trauma doesn't show up as often. Thus the insurance company doesn't have such a big medical bill to pay.
Of course if you want to put it under the idea of liability you can. Same crap different pile.
Prev
Linear Mode
