2003 House Bill 4325 (Repeal motorcycle helmet requirement)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Leon Drolet on March 11, 2003, to repeal the mandatory helmet motorcycle helmet law for persons 21 years old or older who have been licensed to operate a motorcycle for at least two years, or who have successfully completed a motorcycle safety course; and for motorcycle passengers 21 years old or older, if the driver meets these requirements. Operators of roofed "autocycles" would also be exempt. Senate Bill 321 is the same bill.
- Referred to the House Transportation Committee on March 11, 2003.
- Reported in the House on May 27, 2004, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Passed in the House (69 to 37) on November 10, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on November 30, 2004.
- Referred to the Senate Government Operations and Reform Committee on November 30, 2004.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Rep. Leon Drolet on March 11, 2003. Passed in the House (69 to 37) on November 10, 2004. New Comment

1) freedom [by Anonymous Citizen on September 13, 2006]
what ever happened to the freedom of choice
Reply New Comment

Line

2) It's Gone [by Anonymous Citizen on September 14, 2006]
The dem/socialist nannys know whats best for you. Just trust them.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) MY CHOICE [by Anonymous Citizen on January 31, 2006]
EACH PERSON SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE HIS OR HER CHOICE ON WEARING A HELMET.THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON THE BELIEF IN, "FREEDOM OF CHOICE". PEOPLE ARE QUICK TO SUPPORT A LAW THAT TAKES SOMEONE ELSES FREEDOM, SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT EFFECT THEM!

HOW ABOUT??????

ANTI-SMOKING LAW.... NO LONGER WILL TOBACO PRODUCTS BE LEGAL. THE SURGEON GENERAL HAS DETERMINED SMOKING IS BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH, AND HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DEATH OF THOUSANDS.

ANTI-DRINKING LAW... NO LONGER WILL BEVERAGES WITH ANY FORM OF LIQUOR BE LEGAL. IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT TOO MANY DEATHS AND INJURIES HAVE OCCURED DUE TO DRINKING.

ANTI-ROCK CLIMBING, SKYDIVING, MOUNTAIN CLIMBING,
NASCAR RACING, SWIMMING ON A FULL STOMACH LAW...

YOU GET MY POINT!

MY LIFE, MY CHOICE, MY FREEDOM!

WHO WILL BE THE NEXT TO BE TOLD,
"SORRY,THATS AGAINST THE LAW, YOUR RISKING YOUR LIFE, WE'LL MAKE THE DECISION FOR YOU!"

Reply New Comment

Line

4) Helmet Law [by Anonymous Citizen on March 31, 2005]
Give the rider a choice as to wear a helemt or not while operating a motorcycle.

Educate drivers to look out for motorcycles. With the price of gasoline on the rise more and more bikes will be on the road.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) Stop forcing the issue [by Anonymous Citizen on March 18, 2005]
I believe every rider should have the right to wear or not to wear a helment. Look at the statistics in other states that do not require helmets to be warn. Their survival rate is no lower than that of Michigan, which states that
the whole issue is just control. Give it up. LET THE BIKERS CHOOSE!

Thanks, Brigid
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Grumblegutz Uber Alles [by Anonymous Citizen on March 17, 2005]
Doody, doody, drop a beauty.

Ah what joyous fardles do I bear?

Helen Gill Viljoen was the worst professor I ever had at Queens College in NYC. What a doddering and mean-spirited and BORING old bitch she was. And her work on John Ruskin has been subsequently shown to be totally askew and incorrect on most interpretations. What a moron.

Have a lovely day.
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Time for a choice [by Anonymous Citizen on March 16, 2005]
It's time for the motorcycle rider to make his own choice on whether to wear a helmet or not. I have been riding for almost 40 years so I know a little bit about this subject, a helmet cuts down on hearing cuts down on vision and will not help on any speed over 25. There is no state that borders Michigan that has a helmet law, when I have a few days off I head to one of those states to have the pleasure of riding without a helmet, I think that most riders from those states will not go to the trouble of putting on(or buying)a helmet just so they can ride in Michigan. It's time for a CHOICE.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Necks "Break" with helmet weight whiplash [by Anonymous Citizen on March 16, 2005]
Try riding a solid mounted motor in a big v-twin motorcycle with a full faced helmet.
You might see your vision blurred, by the helmet weight altering the view with the vibration; let alone a sudden stop.

Reply New Comment

Line

9) Reply to "Necks 'Break'" [by Anonymous Citizen on March 18, 2005]
You must ride Harley! Try quality motorcycle and you won't have that vibration problem.

...Just kidding.

Good luck to the sponsors of this new bill from Colorado.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) helmets brak necks! [by Anonymous Citizen on March 16, 2005]
I may be alive because I didn't have the weight of a helmet snap my neck.
Instead I got a cut on the skull fortunately, only. A slight gash of the skin cap of the skull.

Reply New Comment

Line

11) WHERE CAN WE FOLLOW WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? [by Anonymous Citizen on December 18, 2004]
I love it! Is there a real time governmental web site that tracks this bills progress? I'm taking off my helmet the day it passes, but I want to make sure I have my facts right so I don't get a ticket.
Reply New Comment

Line

12) The Bill Died In the Senate 2004 now what ? [by Anonymous Citizen on December 22, 2004]
James L Koetje wrote to explain to me it passed (he voted for it),,
But it died in the Senate.
Now what is the next step ??
Reply New Comment

Line

13) my mistake - didnt read soryy. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 22, 2004]
my questions were answered already- i just needed to read.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) WHATS NEXT ? WHEN WILL WE KNOW WHEN WE ARE FREE ? [by sdanville on December 17, 2004]
Pardon my ignorance. I know about everything there is about motorcycles. I have own over 50 Bikes. I ride 5,000 to 10,000 miles per year for 35 years. What I don't know is Now what ? The bill passed the house. Now what ?
My guess is somebody will veto it.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) to whats next [by Anonymous Citizen on December 20, 2004]
join ABATE and get informed thats whats next.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) Do this [by Anonymous Citizen on December 20, 2004]
You can do this by logging on to abateofmichigan.org

Get informed, get involved, we will beat this.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) new info? [by Anonymous Citizen on January 19, 2005]
The last time region 15 updated there helmet law page is 2/1/04. is there another region with current info?
Reply New Comment

Line

18) dead bill [by Anonymous Citizen on December 18, 2004]
Well sdanville, our elected officials began their SIX WEEK holiday break so all pending legislation will die on January 1st. Hopefully in 2005 we will have better luck.
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Responsibility [by Anonymous Citizen on December 6, 2004]
I would like to see a rider attached to the bill that would relieve hospitals and nursing homes of the responsibility of keeping helmetless riders alive after their insurance runs out. Same for those who will not use seat belts etc. Also, why should the public be responsible for raising the families of those people? We need relief from costs associated with those who do not care about their families or themselves.
I'm all for eliminating the helmets if the riders will accept the responsibilities. It will also help thin the herd.

Reply New Comment

Line

20) well let's take away all personal freedoms [by Anonymous Citizen on December 7, 2004]
Nowhere did you mention the cost smokers cost the health care system. Well let's ban smoking. How about skiing? People get hurt skiing. Well let's ban that too. How about people walking across the street? Pedestrians get killed in accidents more than motorcyclists do. So I guess we're going to have to ban walking across the street too.

As ridiculos as that may sound that's the way society is going. Your attitude is part of the reason. People are going to be people and live life. I'd be willing to bet that if something happens to you and your insurance isn't enough to cover you would not have these same feelings.
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Sounds good to me [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2004]
What's wrong with accepting responsibility for your own actions. Yes, there are places that will not hire those who smoke etc, due to the high costs of insurance, absenteeism due to health reasons. Too many people want the freedom to do whatever they please and have others accept the responsibility. The walking across the street scenario is ludicrous, but if you are stupid enough to walk against the light in heavy traffic, why should the car (or cycle driver) have to pay? If the person walking against the light causes you to spill and suffer serious injury, who should be held responsible?

I'm not against repealing the helmet law, I just would like to see people held responsible for their choices.
Reply New Comment

Line

22) Welcome to [by Anonymous Citizen on December 15, 2004]
Michigan, THE NOFAULT STATE. it means that if I run a red light and hit you not only am i at fault SO ARE YOU(because you were there) and both insurances go up.
I can tell 2 things by your remarks and comments.
1. you have been listining to way too much of the insurance propoganda. and
2. YOUR NOTHING MORE THAN A FRIGGINN SHEEP. grow a backbone.
Reply New Comment

Line

23) Thank you for allowing me to decide [by Anonymous Citizen on November 22, 2004]
Thank's for allowing me as a free citizen of this state to decide what I feel is right for me.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) no helmets [by dwtrk on November 14, 2004]
It's about time that Michigan gets in tune with Ohio,Indiana,Illinois,Wisconsin,South Dakota,Minnestoa,Kentucky and remaing states that allow riders decide whether or not to wear a helmet. Not to mention all of the tourism dollars that will be generated by thousands of additional touring motorcyclists to our beautiful state who currently bypass us because of this archaic law.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) Helmets [by SMURLS on November 14, 2004]
If i have to wear a seatbelt inside a car shouldnt a biker be required to wear a helmet?Sorry neither one of them look kool.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) Another uninformed non-rider [by Anonymous Citizen on November 14, 2004]
Smurls is it? Judging by your wonderful spelling skills I can assume you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Did you know that most states do not have mandatory helmet laws for adult riders? Most non-riders probably don't know that. Comparing helmets to seat-belts is like comparing apples to oranges. One has nothing to do with the other. Although I do not favor seat-belt laws I can't argue the fact that seat-belts, for the most part, save lives. There is the rare case when a seat-belt caused the victim to die, but for the most part that is not the case. That is not the case with helmets. If it were then every state would have helmet laws just as every state has seat-belt laws. Logic and common sense should make that pretty obvious. Michigan is in the minority when it comes to helmet laws. It's time for our state to catch up with the times and amend this old, outdated, useless, stupid law and allow our citizens freedom of choice. Not to mention the money this state will make by increased tourism and motorcycle sales. I respect the fact that you care enough to log on to this site and state your opinion, but please try to educate yourself more about the subject before posting a negative opinion.
Reply New Comment

Line

27) Wake up Smurls [by Anonymous Citizen on November 14, 2004]
Smurls one has nothing to do with the other! Your seatbelt is not rated for crash speeds way under what you would normally be traveling! You could argue the helmet law much more effectivly if you weren't worried about what all the other kids have to do. And look at the facts, these buckets do nothing but impair your vision, hearing, and in some instances on very hot days cause extreme irritation and discomfort. It is a major distraction to all of us who do ride. If you don't ride, you have no say so, just as if I didn't drive a car I would have nothing to say about the seatbelt law which by the way I do not agree with either. Educate yourself on the issue and then make an informed decision. don't worry about what other people are doing unless it directly concerns you.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) About time [by Anonymous Citizen on November 13, 2004]
It's about time our legislature update this 30 year old helmet law that does nothing but limit my freedom of choice. Please get this bill passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor. The State of Michigan will benefit from increased motocycle sales and increased tourist dollars from out of state motorcyclist that currently refuse to ride in Michigan because of our current helmet law.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) those that voted "no" [by Anonymous Citizen on November 12, 2004]
If the insurance and fatality/ injury rate statistics indicate an increase on the magnitude that you are talking of then why do the other 30 states give you the choice? if you are concerned with the mcca fund then why have you not drafted,supported and pushed a bill to have them annually audited. the last time the mcca books were aduited they "found" a surplus of cash and then the residents who have insurance recieved a rebate.
The genral feeling is that this is an insurance controlled state.
"RoadTrip"
Reply New Comment

Line

30) EXCELLENT!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 11, 2004]
Nice job reps! I hope the Senators and the Governor see the light and do the same.
Reply New Comment

Line

31) Rep. Bieda's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on November 11, 2004]
Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted 'no' on House Bill 4325 because of concerns of how it would affect the receipt of claims from the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Administration, which pays for health care needs resulting from the most serious traffic accidents in which private insurance caps are exceeded. It has been argued that eliminating the helmet requirement will dramatically increase these claims and ultimately the cost of insurance for Michigan citizens. Although I appreciate and respect the sentiments of those who argue for the abolition of this law, I think this Legislature owes the greater public the consideration of how this substantial change in the law may affect insurance rates. I say this in deference to the expense borne by insurance customers in this state, and the potential for far greater increases in rates that could result from this change in the law. Just this last summer, Michigan residents were hit with a twenty-seven dollar increase per vehicle for the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, and if the recent experiences of other states that repealed the mandatory adult helmet law are any indication, Michigan can expect to see a dramatic increase in motorcycle fatalities if this law is adopted. I note that upon abolition of similar laws in several states, notably Kentucky, which experienced a fifty percent increase in motorcycle fatalism; Louisiana, which experienced a one hundred percent increase; Arkansas which saw a twenty-nine percent increase in fatalities and Texas which saw an increase of thirty-seven percent. Indeed, a study at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute demonstrates that repeal of a mandatory and universally applied motorcycle helmet law in favor of an age-restricted helmet law has the following effects: Observed helmet use decreases from 99 to 40 percent; fatality rates increase from 38-70 percent; severe brain injury rates increase from 50-360 percent; and, hospital costs for motorcycle injuries increase from 38-50 percent.

Clearly the weight of the evidence is that motorcycle helmets reduce injury severity, that repeal of helmet laws decreases helmet use, and that states that repeal universal helmet laws experience increased motorcycle fatalities and injuries. While I fully believe that an informed and educated motorcycle driver can make his or her assessment of the risk, the rate payers of Michigan should not be subjected to the increased costs that another's freedoms may entail. The current law is not simply a matter of protecting individuals from themselves. The cost of treating injuries suffered in motorcycle accidents is high, and in many cases the public must indirectly bear those costs (via surcharges on vehicle insurance for catastrophic claims, as one example).

If there was a way of ensuring that others will not be paying the increased insurance costs associated with the increased risk, I would feel more inclined to support this bill. After all, adults should be treated as adults. But as it stands, with Michigan's No Fault Insurance statutes, House Bill 4325 carries the risk of higher insurance rates, and that is something I cannot support. Thank you."

Reply New Comment

Line

32) insurance co. half-truths [by Anonymous Citizen on November 12, 2004]
Insurance companies like to tell the portion of the truth that best suits their agenda. For example, you stated that Kentucky saw a 50% fatality increase when they repealled their helmet law. In reality that probably means the death toll went fron 80 to 120. Since 40 is 50% of 80 the 120 total is 50% higher. Here's the half of the truth the insurance companies leave out. New bike sales increase by 20% when a state repeals it's helmet law. In Michigan that would mean 40,000 more new bikes sold. (How good would that be for our states economy.) With an increase of that magnitude of course more fatalities are going to happen. However the percentage of fatalities PER BIKE will not change. In most states it is SLIGHTLY lower but not enough to make a difference one way or another. Insurance companies are like lawyers when it comes to the way they word things. Be careful to not get caught up in their half-truths.
Reply New Comment

Line

33) Representative Bieda [by Anonymous Citizen on November 12, 2004]
You aren't really that stupid are you? Several times you mentioned that the MCCA fund would be increased. Well here's something you probably don't know. Motorcyclists can't use it, we just get to pay for it. The MCCA fund is payed on a per vehicle basis. If you own a car and a motorcycle you pay double. Once for the car, once for the motorcycle. However if injured on the bike you can't use the fund you payed into TWICE.

As far as increased injuries and fatalities go NHTSA clearly states that helmet laws do nothing to prevent accidents or make them safer. A helmet is only rated at 13mph. Furthermore when you compare states that allow helmet choice to those that have mandatory helmet laws the injury/fatality rates aren't any different. These are NHTSA stats this is not my opinion. I don't know what insurance company stats you're looking at but if they were true than why do the majority of states allow helmet choice? Honestly you really don't think helmet choice states are going to pay out of the kindness of their heart do you? The only two states that pay more for insurance than Michigan are California and New York. Both of which are helmet states. That means that EVERY helmet choice state pays LESS than Michigan. I am so tired of insurance company B.S. Shame on you for buying into it.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) What? [by Anonymous Citizen on November 11, 2004]
I understand your concerns about insurance rate and fatality increases. However the majority of states do not have mandatory helmet laws. I do not believe for one minute these other states would pick up this imaginary tab you speak of. As far as injuries and fatalities go, I also do not believe if they increased the way insurance companies would have you believe they did that the majority of states would allow helmet choice. They would all have helmet laws just as all states have seat-belt laws. Look at Ohio, Indiana, and Wisconsin. All border Michigan and all allow helmet choice. All pay LESS for auto insurance and all do not have higher injury and fatality rates. Mandatory helmet laws are nothing more than feel-good laws that kiss the ass if insurance companies. Your concerns are understandable however untrue.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) Rep. Robertson's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on November 11, 2004]
Rep. Robertson, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

In my first term in the House of Representatives in 1991, I was a co-sponsor of the Helmet Law repeal. I continue to believe in the individual liberties which motivated me to co-sponsor the bill at that time and are at the heart of the proponents arguments in favor of passage of HB 4325. This is one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult votes I have cast in my term in office. I opposed this bill because I believe the goal of HB 4325 proponents cannot-and will not- be achieved until a more comprehensive bill can be drafted to address the concerns raised by those who believe that the repeal of Michigan's helmet law will result in higher insurance costs for all Michigan residents under Michigan's unique No-fault auto insurance system. I believe those concerns have merit, and are the reason attempts to repeal the mandatory helmet law have continuously failed for more than two decades. This bill may be acted upon by the Senate in the few remaining days of this legislative session. If, however, it is not acted upon, and today's vote ends up a merely symbolic one, I look forward to working with ABATE and all other interested parties in the coming legislative session to craft a legislative solution that addresses the concerns of all Michigan residents, can secure passage of both the House and Senate and be signed into law by the Governor. I believe in adult choice. With resolution of the insurance issues, that goal can be achieved."

Reply New Comment

Line

36) No Helmets [by Anonymous Citizen on November 11, 2004]
I have been riding for 32 years and have done my reserach on helmets. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard only requires that a helmet withstand a 13 mph impact. The tempeture in a helmet can reach 130 degrees or higher,this will impair my reaction time. It adds more mass to my head creating more force on my neck which can fracture. The extra weight also causes fatique.
If a helmet is so safe, why do 30 states allow the freedom of choice?

Abate Member,
Jim Garron
Reply New Comment

Line

37) no helmets [by Anonymous Citizen on March 23, 2005]
WELL SAID
Reply New Comment

Line

38) Rep. or Dem? [by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2004]
I think that people should vote on issues rather than if a person is a Republican or a Democrat. I think a lot of union people voted for Granholm just because their unions told them to. Well let me ask you something, are you making any more money? Didn't think so. I am also a union worker but I voted for Posthumus. One of the reasons why is because he believed in adult helmet choice. If he were Governor, Michigan right now would be a helmet choice state. Instead we have to wear helmets and pay higher taxes. Hope that was worth it. I am not endorsing or opposing either party. They both have their good and bad points. We have support and opposition from both parties. I would just ask to research wear a politician stands as opposed to blindly voting for someone because of their party.
Reply New Comment

Line

39) Point taken [by Anonymous Citizen on October 22, 2004]
I agree that both parties have their good and bad points. As far as this issue goes we have Democratic support from those who feel we should not be discriminated, however we have opposition from those who feel that they know what is best for us. Those who feel we can't make a decision on our own. On the Republican side we have support from those that feel we should be able to think for ourselves and make our own decisions. The opposition comes from the Republicans who side with big business over the rights of the individual. And unfortunatly the insurance companies are big business. They have a lot more money and power and influence in Lansing than the common American citizen.
So what to do? How about considering the Libertarian party. All decisions made by the constitution, PERIOD! No special intrest groups (like insurance companies) can buy and sell our rights and freedoms. Small government and as much personal freedom as possible. It has to happen sooner or later. Americans are tired of having their rights deficated on. Time for another tea party!
Reply New Comment

Line

40) Abortion Law? [by Gator on June 21, 2004]
If this were about the repeal of an abortion law, denying a woman the freedom to choose, would our "Lady Governor" be reluctant to sign it? Would she oppose such a bill if it denied a woman the right to choose, would any democrat sign, support or vote for a bill that denied a woman the right to choose? Probably not, but when the insurance lobby gets involved, along with citizens who don't ride, never intend to ride and in many cases, don't know anyone who does ride, our rights are trampled upon.
Trite but true statement: Let those who ride decide, not those who are "looking out for our best interest." What best interest are they looking out for?
Reply New Comment

Line

41) absolutely correct [by Anonymous Citizen on June 22, 2004]
Michigan unfortunetly is an insurance controlled state. All of our neighboring states allow adult helmet choice, and have since the late 70's, and they have none of the negative effects that the insurance companies claim. They also pay less for insurance than we do. So you tell me who's running this state!
Reply New Comment

Line

42) Insurance Co. Runs MI [by Anonymous Citizen on July 25, 2004]
Lansing has been the puppets of the insurance industry for years. Just look at the huge costs where in OH I can get insured for 60 bucks, in MI, over 200. It makes no sense. MI is a ripp-off state, no jobs, high bills, just isn't worth it!
Reply New Comment

Line

43) Amen brother [by Anonymous Citizen on August 22, 2004]
Basically, Michigan sucks! For all the reasons you mentioned, all by the way true, Michigan sucks. If all my family wasn't here, I'd be long gone!
Reply New Comment

Line

44) Michigan - where to live [by sdanville on December 17, 2004]
My good buddy for 30 years (he was my best man in my wedding 25 years aog) He moved out of state 20 years ago. He won't move back to Michigan because of the helmet laws. Period.
If the bill passes he will move back to Michigan. His Mother and brothers all live here.
Reply New Comment

Line

45) thats simple [by Anonymous Citizen on June 21, 2004]
MONEY.
Reply New Comment

Line

46) common sense [by Anonymous Citizen on May 31, 2004]
It's a popular opinion that helmets save lives, but if you are hit by a truck going 60mph the helmet is wearing YOU for protection. The helmet is as useless as a pea-shooter against a battleship. Let's amend this stupid law.
Reply New Comment

Line

47) Adult Motorcyclist [by Anonymous Citizen on May 31, 2004]
I fully support HB-4325. Motorcyclists are not a public burden. The government does not own me. I am an adult who is capable of making my own decisions. This bill does not outlaw helmets.
Reply New Comment

Line

48) FREEDOM!!!!!!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on May 29, 2004]
Mel Gibson in Braveheart "FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!" Chances are on the road going 55/60 miles an hour a helmet is not going to save your life anyway. Lets put things into perspective and allow people who are riding the bikes have the choice!!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

49) Bring Tourism to Michigan [by Anonymous Citizen on May 28, 2004]
We are surrounded by Helmet free states. Out of state bikers won't put on a helmet to speend there money here, and we continue to spend ours in other helmet-free beautiful warmer states-
Popeye
Reply New Comment

Line

50) Popeye [by Anonymous Citizen on May 28, 2004]
Adult responsible Freedom to choose
Reply New Comment

Line

51) Tired of waiting [by Anonymous Citizen on May 24, 2004]
This was schedueled to be voted on May 20th. Why hasn't that happened? Why is this being stalled yet again? Let's get it done already!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

52) Outlaw Big Macs Next? [by sofffftail on May 11, 2004]
Helmet choice is a personal freedom issue. Just like ordering a Big Mac or having a beer. Shall we outlaw those health damaging activities? In this Land of the Free, personal freedoms must be carefully guarded to prevent government from evolving into Big Brother or "Safety Nannyhood."

In 2002, 3,276 motorcyclists lost their lives - total, with or without a helmet. Let's put this in perspective. That same year, more people died in a fire - 4,000. Illegal drugs - 6,000. Alcohol - 105,000. Smoking - 434,000.

Let's talk public burden one MORE time...
Never mind that bikers are just as likely to have health insurance as non-bikers.

Never mind that ALL motor vehicle accidents account for ONLY 1.16% of TOTAL US healthcare costs. The 0.001% attributed to motorcyclist injuries is an extremely small part of these costs. Out of 100% of vehicles involved in accidents nationwide, motorcycles represented less than 1%, only 0.53%.

Let's DO mind that... A 1999 STUDY BY THE INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY REVEALED THAT, EACH YEAR, AS MANY AS 98,000 PEOPLE DIE AS A RESULT OF PREVENTABLE MEDICAL ERRORS WHICH COST THE NATION AN ESTIMATED $29,000,000,000. THE STUDY CITES MEDICAL ERRORS AS THE FIFTH LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE UNITED STATES.

Please excuse if I sound like I'm shouting - that's all caps because I pasted it from a Pennsylvania HOUSE BILL: HB 158, found at: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/BT/2003/0/HB0158P1973.HTM

"Public Burden" Perspective:
98,0000 dead patients every year. 3,276 dead bikers in 2002.

So I ask, who is the real public burden? Biker injuries that represent 0.001% of all vehicle accident-related healthcare costs? Or the $29 BILLION, 98,000 lost lives, and FIFTH leading cause of death in the US that's attributed to "preventable medical errors" performed by the medical profession that lobbies so hard to put lids on our heads? Sound like a re-direction tactic?
Opponents to freedom of choice should join forces with us and spend those lobby dollars instead to start PREVENTING motorcycle accidents through motorists awareness promotion and rider training programs. Not to mention spending their money to clean up their own act.

In these days of absurdly rising gasoline costs, riding a motorcycle and reducing our dependence on foreign oil is patriotic! Let us who ride decide what to wear. We don't lobby for mandatory helmets in 4-wheel vehicles (99.47% of all vehicle accidents) or for mandatory helmets on golf courses. I ask you, if your state mandated helmets on golf courses, would doctors drive to a free state to enjoy freedom of choice?

Stay out of my closet and I'll stay off your golf course.

Reply New Comment

Line

53) If you don't ride you have no opinion!! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 27, 2004]
It is my head my body my brain I am an adult and know the consequences of riding with out my helmet
it is my choice, my right!, now go attack the abortion rights and stop wasting our time!!
Reply New Comment

Line

54) Helmet Law-woldoog2 [by woldoog on June 20, 2003]
I find it very interesting that no one speaks to the issue of increased motorcyle deaths and why it may be happening. Helmet or no helmet you have very little chance of survival if you are impacted by an auto driver who is not schooled to look for motorcycles and do not know the signals we are tested on. What good is it for me to give a hand signal when a driver of an auto is not aware of what they mean and is hurried, impatient and selfish. What good is it for a motorcycle rider to place himself in his lane correctly- when a driver of an auto keeps you in his blind spot. What good is for the motorcycle rider to be able to turn within a certin radius when a driver of an auto will cut you down "'cuz I did not see him/her". These people who want helmeted riders are the very people who do not chose to learn about the use of motorcycles, safety in their use( so they know what the motorcycle is doing). These are the very drivers who are killing the motorcyle rider. We need education for the auto driver.
Reply New Comment

Line

55) I agree [by Anonymous Citizen on May 31, 2004]
I couldn't agree with you more. Rider and car driver education and awareness make motorcycling safer, not helmet laws. That's just common sense. Why can't our lawmakers see that?
Reply New Comment

Line

56) not aone [by Anonymous Citizen on June 18, 2003]
about time we get our right to choose back, I've
been rideing 59, yep 59 years most of them with out a helemt. this spring I bought a new dot and snell approved helment . three days later the helement had a two inch crack on the top, it had not been droped, in fact i onley wore it once. don,t it will protect my head very well. GIVE ME BACK MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE! Helements don,t always save lives they sometimes KILL.
Reply New Comment

Line

57) Set Aside Your "Facts" [by Anonymous Citizen on June 7, 2003]
When I awake tomorrow and fire up my 10 year old cruiser, it will be my choice...
When I stop for gas, pumping in regular or premium, it will be my choice...
When I head for the Ohio State line, to ride without a helmet, it will be my choice...

When I spend my money in Ohio, rather then Michigan, it will be my choice...

And if I dump my bike, and it results in my death because I did not wear a helmet...

I WILL HAVE DIED WITH THE WIND ABOUT MY FACE, ENJOYING AN ACTUAL RIGHT, AND FREEDOM....
AND IT WILL HAVE BEEN MY CHOICE!
Reply New Comment

Line

58) I don't need a bucket [by Anonymous Citizen on May 21, 2003]
I agree with this bill. The only difference in a crash with a helmet and one without is either an open or a closed casket. It might also save you from a little road rash if the crash isn't bad enough. The only thing a helmet really does is make my neck sore, and my head sweat. One night going down the freeway I turned my head to check the lane deside me, the strap snaped on my lid and it flew off. I pulled off and went back for it, and let me tell you that peice of plastic would not have been much help for my skull. It broke like the shell on a hard boiled egg.
Reply New Comment

Line

59) I don't need a bucket [by Anonymous Citizen on May 21, 2003]
I agree with this bill. The only difference in a crash with a helmet and one without is either an open or a closed casket. It might also save you from a little road rash if the crash isn't bad enough. The only thing a helmet really does is make my neck sore, and my head sweat. One night going down the freeway I turned my head to check the lane deside me, the strap snaped on my lid and it flew off. I pulled off and went back for it, and let me tell you that peice of plastic would not have been much help for my skull. It broke like the shell on a hard boiled egg.
Reply New Comment

Line

60) when will this voted on? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 9, 2003]
Anybody got an idea of the time frame? Before spring ends? in the summer?
Reply New Comment

Line

61) Choice, Vets, Unions, motorcyclists, citizens [by Anonymous Citizen on April 3, 2003]
Please, allow the bill to procede so that we; those you are trying to protect might have a choice.
The Helmet Laws are made to protect OTHERS LIABILITIES,,, not our HEADS,.
Ken Berry,
previous state employee, MAGE, Combat vet Viet Nam, purple hearts, Hit in head by cycle in Florida, Insurance = MCCA coverage non existent but we pay
Cycle insurance in Michigan doesn't cover
Cycle is not a motor vehicle in Michigan
We are not protected by this legislation
We need to give better SAFETY instruction for ALL riders, especially NEW and YOUNGER cycle riders.

Thank You
Reply New Comment

Line

62) Doctor/biker speaks [by Anonymous Citizen on April 1, 2003]
I am from Ohio, I am a biker and a doctor who has witnessed all the trauma from motorcycle accidents. I now have to move to Michigan and be forced to wear a helmet. Do I support a manditory helemet law - NO! As a rider I accept the fact that if I where hit by another vehicle - the outlook is grim. But this is the crux of the fight- I am an adult and I am well aware of the reprecussions of my decision. I have insure to cover my medical bills. So why cant the Michigan State government treat me like an adult.

I will support everyone of these bills that allow a choice.
Reply New Comment

Line

63) Freedom of choice [by Anonymous Citizen on March 21, 2003]
This bill does not outlaw helmets. It lets adults choose what they feel is correct for themself. There are currently 30 free choice states. None of these 30 states have seen an increase in their insurance rates. There are NO FACTS that support the need for an adult helmet law in the state of Michigan.
Reply New Comment

Line

64) Not riding much in Michigan [by Anonymous Citizen on March 28, 2003]
I think that it would be about time for a freedom of choice, I'm a resedent of Waterford, and ride about 15-20k miles per year, most of which is spent south and west of the border a.k.a. OH, IN, IL and further west. How nice it would be to ride in the great lakes state , with the wind blowing through my hair. but untill this law is changed I will have to contiue to head stright for the border, so I can remove that worthless thing from my head, which by the way stayed nicely tucked away in my saddle bag from Toledo to Casper, WY and back. Funny thing, I don't remember my insurance company saying anything about not paying the bill if i fell down out of state.
And for any wise guys outthere, I checked, the tab will be paid by my insurance company provided i'm abiding by the laws in the state in which I ride. So for now, I will be happy to pay all the other states my hard earned dollars to ride free.
Reply New Comment

Line

65) Michigan loses [by Anonymous Citizen on August 11, 2004]
I agree, I live south of Ann Arbor, so getting out of this state is easy for me. If I'm going out for a day ride, I automatically head south. Ohio has no helmet law, better maintained roads, and on the way home, I can pick up a carton of Cigarettes for about 13 bux less than I would pay in Michigan. The motorcycle group that I ride with has over 13,000 members worldwide. Our average get-together provides about 80 bikes minimum. We have multiple large gatherings per year that bring in over 600 bikes. Unfortunately, due to the helmet law, the ride that I organize in Upper Michigan every year basically goes unnoticed. This year there were 13 bikes in attendance, 13! that's less than 1/10th of 1 percent of my club, all because they don't want to ride in Michigan, when they could ride in OH, IL, IN, WI, IO, etc that do not impose their ideas of safety onto their citizens. The way I look at it, the community that we visit is losing out on about $60,000 if you figure 180 more bikes staying 3 days at an expense of about $340 per person in food and lodging. And that doesn't include the fuel and other costs of getting there. Michigan's helmet law is a Lose-Lose situation, we lose tourist revenue, and we lose our own riders for weeks at a time when they choose other states to ride in, instead of our own.
Reply New Comment

Line

66) Into Wisconsin [by Anonymous Citizen on May 25, 2003]
Live in Michigan, 6 miles from Wisconsin border. 95% of our riding is done in Wi. We fuel up there also, saves a stop to take the helmet off. Have friends in Wi. that won't attend ralleys in Mi. or even enter the state.
Reply New Comment

Line

67) Choices [by Anonymous Citizen on March 18, 2003]
Understand it is all about choice, The Surgeon General has determined that Smoking Causes
Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysems, and May Complicate Pregancy. Yet a lot of Adults
make the choice and can make the Choice to Smoke. What about Drinking another Adult Choice
yet it causes Liver Problems and other health problems, yet it is an Adult Choice.

The numbers in Adult Choice States for Helmet Usage show that only about 30% of the Riders
will Ride without a Helmet, and it is Adult Choice. Do we want to Abolish Helmets? NO.... Does
this mean If I make the Adult Choice not to wear a helmet I'm going to force every Rider I see
with a helmet on not to wear theirs? NO..... I don't Smoke my Adult Choice and I don't bother you.
I don't Drink again my Adult Choice and I don't bother you.

Do the Research ask the Questions you'll find out Your being Lied to even by Insurance Compnies.
Reply New Comment

Line

68) Adult Choice [by Yooperpete on March 29, 2003]
As a long term motorcycle rider, 38 years, I feel that I am qualified to decide if I should ride with a helmet or not. This is about our Freedom of Choice. Why should this state make laws that can take away the freedoms that we as individual adults are more able to to decide than those who have never ridden on a motorcycle? Who has suddenly made these people more of an experienced rider than myself? The insurance companies passed this law with a faulty study done by them back in the 60's and we have been force to live with it since. Their data was greatly flawed back then and their arguments are just as flawed today. Motorcycle Rider Education has proven that it will save lives but insurance companies don't want to have it taught to new and old riders. Why has it been cut from next years state budget? We, the riders, pay for it with lisence fees. Motorcycle Awareness classes for new drivers has also proven effective. The states that promote these classes have the safest roads for all in the country and most of them do not require helmet use for adult motorcyclists. There are now 30 states that allow Freedom of Choice and most of them have lower insurance rates than Michigan. Has the insurance industry ever followed through on a promise they have made to the people of Michigan? Not that I can remember. They have been forced to do things after some laws were passed but even then not all of us benefitted from it. Don't beleive their threats of higher rates because they would not be justified. Let Freedom finally come to the state of Michigan and change this law.
Ride Free Ride Safe
Reply New Comment

Line

69) The Issue of CHOICE. [by Anonymous Citizen on March 18, 2003]
The purpose of this bill its to give a choice, not to abolish helmets in MICHIGAN. Does this Mean That the Minute when (and if)this bill passes every motorcyclist in this state that is eligible to ride without a helmet will throw it in the trash ?? No, it doesn't. probably about half will still continue to wear a helmet.
The issue of anyone paying for lifelong medical bills and the mcca fund is pure BS.
I have a job, I am a motorcylst, and here is the real shocker I HAVE MY OWN MEDICAL COVERAGE.
We all pay into the MCCA fund on a per vehical basis. Not a per car or truck basis,but for every car, truck or motorcyle that we own. These funds are to cover medical bills that exceed a certain limit. Except that motorcylist are exempt from using this fund. so I put it to you that it is not the car driver paying for the care of the motorcyclist but it is the motorcylist who pays for the injuries to a car drivers who hit another car,truck,tree,deer or anything else that the driver may hit.
To all of you that know someone who was killed while riding a motorcycle, ask yourself two questions, 1. were they wearing a helmet ? 2. what good did it do.
if I offended anyone then I apologize, but please here both sides before making an uninformed
jugement or a one sided jugement.
Remember, All we want is a choice.
Reply New Comment

Line

70) Cop/Bikerspeaks [by Anonymous Citizen on March 15, 2003]
I am a biker, a cop, and a military reservist presently on active duty in a foreign land. I love Michigan, the USA, and my freedom. I will protect it and yours at the cost of my life. I would never wear a motorcycle helmet if I did not have too. I have been riding for 26 years. A helmet never kept me out of an accident. I know how to make decisions regarding the sanctity and security of my life. I do it every day. I do not need the Government,(read insurance industries), telling me what (safety) equipment to use on my motorcycle. I know what I need. I have seen the paid lobbyists for the insurance companies outside the capitol house and senate floors more times than I can count. They outnumber the lobbyists from any other organization. Tell me this is about safety, and not money. Tell me there are no lies being told regarding this ordeal. I have no tolerance for lying and conniving on any level. Leave me, and my AMERICAN way of life alone. Take your Non-freedom loving, panseyassed, scaredycat rearend to one of the many other countries across this planet where you can just about pick the amount of ruling and regulating of your life you feel COMFORTABLE with.
Reply New Comment

Line

71) Iceman [by Anonymous Citizen on March 14, 2003]
Public awareness and training will do much more for motorcycle riders than helmets. Research the numbers and see that the insurance companies are not telling the whole story.
Reply New Comment

Line

72) Adult Choice [by Magilla on March 14, 2003]
Helmet's are not a safety device for motorcyclist's, and mandatory helmet laws are nothing
more than a mandatory dress code with the ability to cause injury and death. But a helmet will
protect a headform in a laboratory (up to 13.66 mph), unfortunately, headforms do not ride
motorcycles. Yea up to 13.66 mph why is a DOT approved helmet only good for an impact up to
13.7 mph, and this is Okay? On my daily ride to work I average 40 mph this helmet will do me
no good. Helmets are nothing more than a false sense of security. The best protection any
rider has is Experience, Education, Rider Awareness, and Public Awareness.
Think about this, on a Go-Fast Bike that can do 0 to 60 mph in 2 seconds. Less than 1/10th of
a second into that run the Helmet is no longer effective and could not withstand the impact you
would receive if you left that bike. About the only thing the Helmet would do is make you a
recognizable corpse.
Lets make it my choice to wear a helmet, It sounds to me like they will do more damage than
good.
Reply New Comment

Line

73) It's time to pass this bill [by Anonymous Citizen on March 14, 2003]
As an informed citizen who has taken the time to research this issue, I fully support this bill. Let's not let the insurance industry ruin it. People need to make their own personal decision to wear a helmet or not. The 2 leading causes of motorcycle fatalities are automobiles and blunt trauma injuries. Helmets can't protect you from those.
Reply New Comment

Line

74) This bill kills! [by Anonymous Citizen on March 13, 2003]
This bill selectively kills or permanently injures those over 21 who have meet all the safety instruction etc., etc. Unbelievable, to me, that any responsible legislator would introduce such a bill. What could, possibly, be the motive in doing so? Irresponsibility in leadership is not sometning which we need!
Reply New Comment

Line

75) Ignorance [by Anonymous Citizen on March 9, 2005]
Please look down the list again and read the deffinition of ignorance. Studies show that states with a choice or no helmet requirement at all have a lower fatality rate than Michigan! As much as 40% lower in some cases! These are studies done my the NHTSA and the AMA and numerous institutes around the country!
Reply New Comment

Line

76) Education [by Fatboy on November 29, 2004]
This country needs more education and less legislation. Automobile drivers should be cited for their infractions. Driver education needs to be MUCH more comprehensive. There are way too many idiots on the road who do not have a clue as to how to percieve traffic situations or indicate their intentions (turn signals etc.)
I suspect you are probably one of those idiots!
-Fatboy
Reply New Comment

Line

77) do you enjoy fredom [by Anonymous Citizen on September 15, 2004]
obbveiosly you thik that guns kill to. it is narow minded people like you that promot these obserd ideas that the government should save us from our selves. you'r wrong! guns don kill, people do. ower fredom of choice has ben tred appon long enough. i don't personally ride with out a helmit, but i do it by choice. how ever in michiga wearing a helmit is shoved dow your throught wether you like it or not. people like you make me sick. you probably drink and drive to.
yeah it's a choice but that puts other people in danger, my not wearing a helmit dose not harm any one but posable me, how ever i've been rideing for more than 20 years now and have never had an accednt, not due to wearing a helmet but due to safe operating practices. so go blow it out your ear.
Reply New Comment

Line

78) This bill kills [by Anonymous Citizen on November 17, 2003]
I can see you dont want to make any Free choice of your own. So you let someone else control them for you.My choice is to make FREE choices for myself.I think it should be up to the individual if they want to wear a helmet or not!!!!!!.
Let Those Who Ride Decide!!!!!!!.Ride Safe Ride Free.
Reply New Comment

Line

79) ICEMAN [by Anonymous Citizen on June 19, 2003]
If people like you would at least read the proof about how helmets really don't and can be a Cause of personal injury even death,you are being lied to about how safe they really are and if you don't belive me which by the way I have had 29 years of riding motorcycles without one accident , let me decide what is best for me! Not a misinformed person as yourself the facts are right here please go to the link and at least read and then judge for yourself but don't you dare tell me what is good for me you my friend are part of the problem not the soultion!

http://www.abateofmichigan.org/7%20Legislative/Miscon/Truth_About_Helmets.htm
Reply New Comment

Line

80) Interesting concept! [by Anonymous Citizen on April 7, 2003]
A bill that kills. Next thing you will be telling me is that guns kill people. If you followed the news from other states you would discover that helmet laws do not help.
Reply New Comment

Line

81) killer bill? [by Anonymous Citizen on March 27, 2003]
This is not a killer bill. look at ALL the information before you think and act on an impulse and ignorace. What we (or at leat I) do not need is is a group of peaple sitting leather chairs deciding on what is best for ME. I am not 2 years old.
Reply New Comment

Line

82) No, But you write lke you are. [by Anonymous Citizen on April 4, 2003]
Learn to write before you post. That way you won't be used as an example of the intelligence level of people against helmet laws.
Reply New Comment

Line

83) Definition: IGNORANCE [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2004]
Anyone who voices an opionion on something they have not educated themselves on is ignorant. When you have no facts you attack a persons writing ability. Facts, when looked at, clearly prove helmets make no difference is saving lives of motorcyclists. Educate yourself on the issue then use some learned facts.
Reply New Comment

Line

84) Killer Bill [by Anonymous Citizen on March 14, 2003]
Something like thirty states do not mandate helmets for riders over 21. Michigan is in the minority on this issue.

There once was a nation founded on the notion that people could make their own decisions regarding risks and rewards. The popularity of convertibles (no roof? The HORROR!!) and rollercoasters would seem to indicate that many FREE humans derive substantial pleasure from high speeds and wind rushing through their hair.

It should come as no surprise that motorcycle riders in a majority of our states think the same way about their particular thrill (which actually requires training and safety lessons before you can participate).

With this freedom comes the valid option of relocation for those -- like the previous writer -- who prefer an all-protecting, 'Big Mother', state to make sure that neither boo-boos nor a good times are had by anyone.

Granting this liberty also brings a risk of serious injury borne by the unhelmeted rider. That risk is less than chance of a smoker getting a life ending illness, an auto racer dying in an accident, and any number of other legal activities that seriously endanger life.

'Selective killing' is not the issue. Enjoying life requires risk. Some people can enjoy life with a lower level of risk. Others need more, or are willing to risk more as a means toward greater reward (and/or wealth). The issue here is whether we live in a nation where the first group should set the rules for the latter group.
Reply New Comment

Line

85) freedom [by Anonymous Citizen on July 22, 2003]
Lets face it its all about freedom. If safety were the issue, we could all sit in a padded box. Motorcycles are not a safe way to travel and I dont know anyone who rides that does it to be safe. We love the freedom and wind in our hair. The way we turn into a corner, the feel of power as you twist the throttle. As for helmets I feel that they make riding less safe, vision, heat, vibration ect. Not to mention the dangers of a helmet in a crash. If the State police ever did approve SAFETY HELMETS I would wear one so my widow coud sue the pants off them.!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

86) Free AND Liable [by spitfire on March 14, 2003]
I agree that adults have the right to scramble their brains by not wearing a helmet in a motorcycle accident. My only reservation is, I do not want to pay one cent toward the maintenance of a 21-year-old who has made this choice and become brain dead or paraplegic for life, with a 60-year life expectancy.

Given the nanny-state we have created, including the unlimited health coverage provided by our MCCA accident injury insurance system, I am not convinced that I will NOT have to pay. Even without MCCA, when the 21-year-old paraplegic is indigent and living in a nursing home with Medicaid paying the bills, that is ME paying the bills. And don’t tell me Medicaid is going away – get real; not in our Oprah-fied culture.

Therefore, if motorcyclists are genuinely serious about wanting to fully accept responsibility for their actions, they will agree to an amendment which requires optional "no helmet" insurance that completely covers 100% of all potential medical and living costs. Would it be expensive? Maybe, but too bad - if you refuse it, you are refusing to accept genuine responsibility. Further, I would require helmetless riders to have a highly visible "I have bought the no-helmet insurance" tag on their license plate, and if they don't, WHAM - traffic tickets with big fines and license points. Because I REALLY DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR YOUR LIFELONG MEDICAL CARE!
Reply New Comment

Line

87) Amen [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2004]
Amen-Free and Liable.
Reply New Comment

Line

88) Duh! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 14, 2004]
The simple fact that a helmet is only rated for about twenty miles an hour is enough to argue the need for this bill! It is a proven fact that bicycle helmets afford more protection in a crash than Michigan D.O.T approved helmets do. Wearing a piece of plastic on my head so that i can't hear you morons with a cell phone attached to your heads comeing is not my idea of safety!
Get your head out of your rectum and put a helmet on while your driving your SUV and talking on your cell phone to your buddy about the motorcycle that your tailgaiting in front of you. Get real this bill will cost no one money but the people who vote against it. Helmets are expensive and useless.
Reply New Comment

Line

89) free and liable guy [by Anonymous Citizen on March 23, 2004]
Sorry for the late response, but never have I heared such an uniformed OPINION. Obviously you are unaware of the FACTS. The fact is helmet choice states have a slightly lower injury/fatality rate than helmet states. Why? Because helmets are completely usless at speeds over 30mph. Bet you didn't know that. Good thing 31 other states do. Let's use common sense here (provided you have any) if your OPINION were true, do you honestly think these 31 other states would pick up the bill? HELL NO! By the way, did you know that 1 out of 3 smokers will need medical care? I guarentee the number of injured bikers isn't nearly a fraction of that. So do know what I do, I don't smoke. I don't go around telling other people they can't. So next time you have something to say be sure you have the FACTS to back it up don't just preach your OPINION!
Reply New Comment

Line

90) Given your FACTS, no reason to oppose "free and liable" [by spitfire on March 26, 2004]
If "the helmet choice states have a slightly lower injury/fatality rate," then there is no reason to oppose my proposed amendment to require optional "no helmet" insurance covering 100% of all potential medical and living costs. Indeed, if your facts are correct, you should support this, since it would likely be a CREDIT on the insurance bills of the helmetless, rather than an additional charge. Given this, the only reason for your insulting, ad-hominem attacks on a good faith suggestion is because you do not have faith in your "facts," and are trying to foist off a subsidy for motorcyclists. Actually, I think your facts are probably correct, so the nastiness is a mystery. Surely the stereotype about surly bikers can't be true?
Reply New Comment

Line

91) is there [by crazycajun on July 6, 2006]
guaranteed 100% coverage mandated for automobile drivers? one that covers EVERY PENNY of medical expenses that those drivers create by driving while on a cell phone?

no.

why should there be for motorcycles?

insurance companies don't want to cover much these days, especially "total catastrophic medical coverage".

they are getting a little queazy over "flood coverage" too.
Reply New Comment

Line

92) free and liable [by Anonymous Citizen on March 29, 2004]
If my response came off as nasty, I appoligize. I'm just so sick and tired of the insurance arguement. We pay way too much in insurance already. You pay into the catastrophic fund on a per vehicle basis so if you own a bike and a car you pay into it twice. However if you are injured on a bike you can't use it, you just get to pay for it. Insurance is a dirty business. They have done everything in their power to keep bikers off the road. Insurance rates in Indiana and Ohio are lower than they are here, yet they allow adult helmet choice and Michigan does not. Since we are already being way overcharged additional helmet-free insurance rates are not nessasary. We pay more than enough. If I were to get injured on my bike, helmet or not, my medical insurance through work would cover me anyway. Although I understand your concerns, it's not unhelmeted bikers that you should worry about, it's the insurance companies lying to you and ripping you off.
You might be intrested in HB4012 and SB209. These bills would require an annual audit of insurance company claims. If insurance companies are not accounted for they can (and do) say whatever suits their agenda. 31 states allow adult helmet choice and they do not have higher injury and fatallity rates like the insurance companies would like you to believe. If they did they would all have helmet laws, just like all 50 states have seatbelt laws.
Reply New Comment

Line

93) ILL PAY IF YOU PAY [by Anonymous Citizen on January 30, 2004]
SURE MAKE BIKERS PAY EVEN MORE INSURANCE, MOST OF US ARE PAYING FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF CAR DRIVERS WHO CHOSE NOT TO CARRY INSURANCE. IF YOU WOULD NOT BAT AN EYE TO DISRIMINATION AGAINST US HOW ABOUT MAKING CAR DRIVERS PAY HIGHER PREMIUMS FOR THE REST OF THIER LIVES WHEN THEY RUN US OVER AND SIMPLY SAY SORRY I DIDNT SEE YOU.
Reply New Comment

Line

94) you are already Liable. [by Anonymous Citizen on March 18, 2003]
To whoever posted this response,
Ok so you dont want to pay for a 21 year old parapalegic with a 60 year life expectency. Hey wait a sec, guess what you already do! although it might not be motorcyclist, but a car driver who was drunk and cracked his car into a tree, or maybe a prison inmate who was in a fight, just who do you think pays for their medical cost over long period of time? The insurance industry takes it out of their back pockets, hey wanna buy a bridge? look at what they did after 911,a horrid and tragic event, but the first thing the insurance industy did was to figure out a way to recoupe their losses, and they did, by raising insurance rates. If you have been listing to the insurance propaganda remember their job is to keep shareholders happy.
As far as the inmates recieving medical care. you pay for that too. with your tax dollers.
now if you really dont want to pay for anyones problems but yours i suggest that you quit paying insurance on everything. house, car, apartment everything that way if you should happen to need help at some point and time you wouldnt be such a burdon to the next person.
Oprah-fied culture??? there is very little in this state that an individual does not need insurance for. stop and think about it car, home, health, dentel, vision, life oprah-fied? Nope Just insurance controlled.
oh and one last thing. MOTORCYLIST ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE THE MCCA FUND BUT WE PAY INTO IT!
Reply New Comment

Line

95) Head Injuries and Scrambled Brains [by Magilla on March 15, 2003]
Hey I think you should check the numbers, 92% of all Automobile fatalities are caused by
Head Trauma. Were as 18% of Motorcycle is head, the other 82% is blunt force trama. This is
when a Car, Truck, or Etc. crushes lower body parts causing internal oragans to stop working, IE.
lungs can't hold air or hearts stops pumping blood.

So with these numbers in mind, the auto drivers should be wearing the helmets and stop hitting
the motorcycle........ Because I didn't see him officer, I had my ear to the phone, working on my
laptop, steering with my knee, while picking my nose.

Motorcyles are every where "Look Twice Save a Life" we deserve the same amount of road as you.
Reply New Comment

Line

96) thank you [by Anonymous Citizen on September 15, 2004]
right on brother.

Reply New Comment

Line

Home
Create an account
Legislation watch
Search Legislation
Search Voting Record
Reports
- Recent Laws
- Missed Votes Report
Links
About
Tell a friend about this site