Michigan Votes

2003 Senate Bill 321 (Repeal motorcycle helmet requirement)

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

  • Introduced by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on March 20, 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, and who have successfully completed a motorcycle safety course, for motorcycle passengers 21 years old or older if the driver meets the age, licensure, and safety training requirements, and for persons operating or riding in an “autocycle” if the vehicle is equipped with a roof that meets or exceeds standards for a crash helmet.
    • Referred to the Senate Transportation Committee on March 20, 2003.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey on March 20, 2003. New Comment

1) where are [by Anonymous Citizen on January 8, 2007]
all the IMPROVEMENTS that the democrats on this thread, and others, promised when the democrats took over?

they are NON-EXISTANT.

we still have high taxes.

we still have businesses leaving in droves.

we still have DO NOTHING GOVERNMENT.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED, where is the improvement.

YOU promised it. DELIVER!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

2) do you REALLY [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2007]
think that a democratically controlled state will LOWER TAXES???

democrats are the party of TAX & SPEND.

our little SINGLE STATE RECESSION is proof positive.

jennie isn't talking about improvements, shes talking about HIGHER TAXES.

thank you, democrats. now i have less money to spend. my time and effort are now WORTH LESS.

my rights are being trampled on as well.


Reply New Comment

Line

3) my, my, my [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2007]
you are an antsy little squirt, aren't you

the democans have been in control of only one Michigan legislative house for a week, and the legislature hasn't even convened its 2007-08 session yet. but already you're tossing out inaninties like, "where are all all the IMPROVEMENTS that the democrats on this thread, and others, promised when the democrats took over?"

for crying out loud, give 'em a chance to at least get started before you tee off on the new guys with your criticisms. otherwise you make yourself out to be nothing more than a shrill idiot.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) do you always refer [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2007]
to other posters as "antsy little squirts"?

kind of RUDE, don't you think?

but then, liberal democrats never were much on the social graces.

more proof of the mental disorder.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) my, my, my [by Anonymous Citizen on January 10, 2007]
testy little bugger, aren’t you

on top of being an antsy little squirt

and don’t call anyone rude for telling it like it is

when you incessantly refer to liberals as being mentally diseased
Reply New Comment

Line

6) rude [by crazycajun on January 10, 2007]
little liberal, aren't you?


Reply New Comment

Line

7) to my, my, my... [by Anonymous Citizen on January 10, 2007]
maybe you should stop proving him right so very often.
Reply New Comment

Line

8) i'm only telling [by Anonymous Citizen on January 10, 2007]
it like it is.

you are living proof.

sometimes the truth hurts.
Reply New Comment

Line

9) the governor has [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2007]
been in charge of the executive for more than four years.

you defending her (and the rest of the democrats) so single mindedly makes YOU sound like an automaton for the democratic party.

the governor only has a few more months to make good on her promise from the FIRST election over four years ago, it went something like...

"in five years, you'll be blown away."

she's done NOTHING so far to blow me away.

CHASE ME AWAY, MAYBE, but blow me away, not...


Reply New Comment

Line

10) Bottom Line [by Anonymous Citizen on June 18, 2005]
All arguments aside, Pros - Cons. The Bottom Line Is Freedom of Choice! The government is continually hacking away at our rights and freedom to peruse Life Liberty and Happiness. My right to choose how to live my life is being infringed upon. The government should have no right to make me or any adult wear a helmet, seat-belt or any other personal safety device.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) MoPed? [by Anonymous Citizen on August 20, 2005]
I just got back from Woodward Dream Cruise; and two tickets for not having my helmet. I was driving my Ural with sidecar.
I couldn't believe that the city has the money to spend on two officers and a dog to give out tickets for no helmits. Everywhere we went people were taking our pictures; and it was just a better picture without the helmit; it was a perade. we were doing 15 - 20 MPH!
While I wated for my ticket I noted the farmer on his tractor; no helmit. By the way, did you know that farming is one of the most dangerous professions there is? I also noted many mopeds riding up down Woodward. They were great as they used both the sidewalks and the road and didn't need a helmet I was informed!
Cool, I need to get one of those soon!
Just on a lark I went out to see how much one would cost and how fast they would go.
They can reach speeds of 60 miles an hour!
Gosh, that's for me! I can do 60, without a helmet, and use the sidewalks as well!
Heck, my Ural has a top speed of 52.5 MPH going downhill with a tail wind.
Sorry if my spelling is poor, and I seem to skip around; I am still confused by the lack of uniformity in our laws.
I know why it is that people are not passing police millages; they are tired of having punitive laws passed that benefit the insurance industry or helmet manufactures at the expense of my liberty; my freedom.
I remember what it was like when the police were respected, when they were a part of the community. Now they are another branch of government assigned to collect. The motto serve and protect has been replaced with secure and collect; just another form of revenue enhancement and behavior modification.
It amazes and terrifies me when I see just how many of our presonal liberties have been taken away in thee past 30 years; I am 58. I fear that my children will not realize just how much they have lost.

Qwill
Reply New Comment

Line

12) moped [by Anonymous Citizen on August 23, 2005]
you are not alone in your distaste for law enforcement. i'm 55 years old. i remember when the police DID help and protect. now days the way they are trained it's shoot first, ask later. they will tell you there are no quotas for tickets. yeah right. if everone in the state went one day with out a ticket, it would throw lansing a pretty big blow. not to mention the countys. the revenue from tickets funds things like liberary, womens defense funds, the judge, etc. how can a ticket in 1965 for 5 mph over the limit go from $13.00, to $100.00 in 2005 ? it's all about the MONEY. the state of michigan has figured out that they can run this like a business and they keep all the profit. the thing about the moped. alot of people are hurt on mopeds without helmets, kids included. the speeds of mopeds are usually 30 mph and under. these injurys are usually listed with bicycles as alot of them are not licenced. we had a man killed this a.m. in grand rapids. he was wearing a helmet. they never tell you the cause of death. thats because the leading cause of death in a motorcycle accident is blunt trama to the torso. to which a helmet does no good. i love this state, but hate the state it's in.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Moped [by Anonymous Citizen on August 22, 2005]
Michigan Law (at least used to) define "motorcycle" under two thresholds: (1) Engine size/horsepower; (2) Attainable speed.

The speed threshold is in the low thirties.

Unless the scooter you describe is specifically exempt or there has been a recent change in the law, your 60 mph moped is, by definition, a "motorcycle" under Michigan Law.


Reply New Comment

Line

14) helmets block vision [by Anonymous Citizen on June 13, 2005]
especially in town driving. The helmet limits view and can distract hearing of side road vehicles. I have ridden motorcycle for several years. I have been to many places that helmets are not a law. and have decided on not wearing one due primarely that hearing and vision is obstructed. I notice that any way of attention from other drivers, is the first line defence. I say let the rider decide.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Whats a Brain Worth? [by Anonymous Citizen on May 31, 2005]
When I purchased my first motorcycle, a few decades ago, I asked a friend who worked behind the counter why the big price differences between various helmets. I was told that's a personal decision - "It just depends on what you think your brain is worth". I didn't buy cheap.

After an accident with a motorist who "didn't see" me, I am here to tell you that was a decision I have lived, never to regret.

Now come the brilliant brains in Lansing telling us that when you drive an automobile you must "click it or ticket".

To put this into perspective, if you drive a vehicle with four wheels, surrounded by a steel cage, airbags, collapsible steering column, antilock brakes, you must wear a seat belt.
However if you drive a two wheeled vehicle, none of the above is necessary, and perhaps a helmet is unnecessary as well!

If it were not for the tragedies that this legislation will certainly create - in terms of lives, pain, and dollars I would say let the rider decide.

I believe the Darwinian aspect of the repeal of the helmet law will eventually strengthen the remaining gene pool.

Reply New Comment

Line

16) Reply - What's a Brain Worth [by Anonymous Citizen on June 1, 2005]
That a helmet is beneficial is intuitive belief. It is also incorrect.

Personally, I think that wearing a helmet increases the the liklihood that one will be involved in an accident in the first place, but that's another issue.

I just pulled down the MSP crash data and did a quick number crunch, averaging all available fatal accident stat's for Michigan motorcycles. The annualized motorcycle death-to-accident ratio for the ten year period ending 2003 in Michigan is .025. Some like to state it as a per-hundred accident number, which is .25.

In Colorado, the only safety mandate for motorcycles is that eye protection be worn. The same DAR analysis for Colorado yields a LOWER number: .024/.24.

If helmets were a significant safety measure, don't you think that Colorado would have a higher death rate on a per-accident basis? Given all the screaming by the nanny-statists, it should be MUCH higher. The fact that it's actually lower should tell you something about helmet use and the real motivation behind these kinds of laws.

And I'll tell you what...I'm not just relying on ABATE (which, arguably, cherry picks years with the most favorable data)...every state data I independently review has shown the same thing: Helmet use is either statistically insignificant or has a negative effect to crash outcomes, at least in terms of fatal accidents.

Said another way: You are statistically less likely to die if you're not wearing a helmet.

As an FYI, do you know that the new helmet laws were originally (late sixties/early seventies) opposed not on the basis of choice, but on the basis of safety? Anti-helmet law advocates honestly believed that a helmet was actually detrimental in real world, on-road motorcycle accidents.

So perhaps your Darwinian theory is correct. But in a slightly different way. Dumb motorcyclists are not being phased out; "sheeple" are being advanced.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) Educate [by Anonymous Citizen on March 31, 2005]
Let the operators of motorcycles decide if they want to wear a helmet or not.

Educate the rest of the drivers on the road to look out for cycles. With the price of gas going up you are going to see as lot more bikes on the road. Educate the drivers of automobiles and you will save lives.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) I don't Clearly See your Logic [by Anonymous Citizen on March 13, 2005]
You quote some interesting statistics, but your argument is weak. There's no clear correlation between a manditory helmet law and the causes of death you cite.

If cause of rider death is equally distributed, I can also infer that there may be more riders in Michigan than most other states, or that we have a population of riders that practice riskier behavior while riding. Where do you clearly show that wearing a helmet is no safer than riding without one?
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Reply [by Anonymous Citizen on June 1, 2005]
I am not the original poster, but you can check the crash stat's on-line easily enough. Michigan's are available through the Michigan State Police website.

Some states maintain the data with the state DOT, others the DMV, others have a particular department. DOT is a good place to start in any state, if you're interested.

The logic is this: If helmets did provide a significant measure of safety, this would show up as in the number of deaths per reported accident.

Unlike the the number of registered motorcycles in a state or speculation about the number of miles that each bike is ridden per year, accident involvement is not arbitrary.

So, if a state with a helmet law has a higher death to accident ratio than a non-helmet state, it is reasonable to conclude that the lack of a helmet law has no negative effect on fatal rates.

When this comparison holds up in averaging in states across the country and over multiple years, then one has to wonder about the real "benefit" of wearing a helmet.

And when this benefit becomes questionable, one also has to wonder whether the state has a legitimate interest in imposing the restriction.

It's like telling cagers that they have to wear a red shirt whenever they're behind the wheel. Doing so might actually reduce traffic congestion and the total number of fatal accidents, too. But not because a red shirt is safer, just that the fact that one would have to change clothes everytime they wanted to take a trip would result in fewer total trips and, therefore, reduced exposure and fewer accidents.

And that's really all the helmet law does.
Reply New Comment

Line

20) Supplement [by Anonymous Citizen on June 1, 2005]
Pennsylvania repealed its helmet law. After the first year of the repeal, the Pittsburgh Herald Tribune is today carrying a story entitled: "PA Drops Helmet Requirement, and Motorcycle Deaths Drop, Too."

The content of the article follows the title.

Go figure.
Reply New Comment

Line

21) In 2002 [by Anonymous Citizen on January 25, 2005]
In 2002 the number of motorcycle fatalities per state ranged from 51 to 94. Michigan, a mandatory helmet state, had 82. That means that the majority of states that do not have mandatory helmet laws probably had fewer than Michigan since we are on the high side of the spectrum. Proving positive that helmet laws are innefective.

In 2002 there was a total of 1,279 motor vehicle fatalities in Michigan. While there were 82 motorcycle fatalities the number of pedestrian deaths was more than double that figure. In addition, in 2002 there were 3,276 motorcycle fatalities nationwide. In that same year: smoking caused an estimated 434,000 deaths; alcohol, 105,000 deaths; AIDS, 31,000 deaths; fires, 4,000 deaths; and cocaine, crack, heroine, and morphine, 6,000 deaths. (National Center for Health Statistics) As you can clearly see, there is no LOGICAL reason for Michigan to have a mandatory helmet law.
Reply New Comment

Line

22) Nice going [by Anonymous Citizen on January 1, 2005]
This legislation was introduced in March '03. It had almost two years to get a vote, and now it's dead! Our ELECTED lawmakers failed US! Insurance company money has tainted democracy yet again! Isn't it great to live in a counrty where we are free to make our own decisions? I live in Michigan, therefore I wouldn't know.
Reply New Comment

Line

23) Daschle Him [by Anonymous Citizen on January 4, 2005]
In the last election, voters in South Dakota finally gave U.S. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle the boot. John Thune, a Republican, defeated the Democrat machine with a war chest that included donations from Republicans across the country.

ABATE is planning to try again with the helmet repeal. Meantime, maybe we could make Sikkema a target in the same way as the Thune campaign went after Daschle? I wonder how his stance might change if he starts receiving copies of e-mails reporting contributions to ABATE -- and to his defeat in the next election cycle -- from riders not only across the state, but across the country.

When does Sikkema next stand for election?
Reply New Comment

Line

24) great idea [by Anonymous Citizen on January 4, 2005]
I like the way you think. However, I believe that he is in his last term. After 2006 he's gone (thank god). I had heard a rumour that he was thinking of running for Governor in 2006, but was later told he would not run because he had betrayed the Republican party too many times to ever be nominated. We have got to make sure whoever replaces him is not an insurance company whore like him.

However this helmet non-sense needs to be taken care of THIS YEAR. Not next. In 2006 everyone in Lansing will be too preoccupied with elections to get anything done legislatively.
Reply New Comment

Line

25) state nick-name [by Anonymous Citizen on December 28, 2004]
We should change our state nick-name from "wolverine state" to "insurance co. state" since they are clearly the ones who are in charge. Better yet, let's just change the name Michigan to AAA. At least then we would come first alphabeticly.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) Escape [by Anonymous Citizen on December 28, 2004]
I am a former resident of Michigan. My wife and I relocated to Colorado a few years ago and have never looked back.

As I write this, I have just returned from our annual Christmas vacation in Clinton and Shelby Townships to visit relatives. The week that we spend in Michigan each year always reinforces our decision to get the hell out of there. The public policy relating to motorcyclists is but one of the many reasons that we will never return as residents.

My wife and I both ride. In Colorado, the law only requires a rider to wear eye protection. Based on my experience, none of the horrible things that are alleged to happen when riders are given the choice to wear or not wear helmets actually happens.

I don't advocate bear-headed riding. I advocate choice. And as an American, my choice to wear or not wear a helmet is a right. Period. My risk is my choice...and the extent to which an insurance system arbitrarily restricts freedom is the extent to which that system is destructive and should be changed.

In Michigan, the nanny-statists and insurance industry are in cahoots. As a result, unfortunately, I don't think that the Michigan legislation has a snowball's chance in hell. These special interests are simply too entrenched.

In addition, there is no urgency in the minds of your legislators because it just isn't a broad issue in Michigan. The lousy weather, rotten roads and traffic congestion (at least in metro-Detroit) prevent a lot of guys from ever getting into the sport; therefore, motorcyclists represent a relatively small voting block.

As long as you have a garbage no-fault insurance law that refuses to treat individuals as individuals and that causes excessive inflation of premiums, non-rider, holier-than-thou types will continue to have their justification to arbitrarily restrict the behavior of others. Until you can break that mindset, the law will never be changed.

My advice: Screw it. Pack your saddlebags and head west. Otherwise, good luck to you. I hope you win this fight.

Jim
Arvada, Colorado
Reply New Comment

Line

27) lucky man [by Anonymous Citizen on December 28, 2004]
I wish I had that option. My wife is so close to her family that moving is not an option. Unfortunatly, I'm stuck here. I've been to Colorado, it's a beautiful state. I envy you.
Reply New Comment

Line

28) How to take action [by Anonymous Citizen on December 20, 2004]
If you are a biker who is interested in making Michigan a helmet choice state you should join ABATE of Michigan. You can do this by logging on to abateofmichigan.org $20 buys you a one year membership, it's well worth it. This will teach you what you need to know to make helmet choice in Michigan possible. Get informed, get involved.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) But Remember [by Anonymous Citizen on December 21, 2004]
ABATE of Michigan is more than just helmet laws. There is also Motorcycle awareness, where we go to the drivers ed classes in schools and teach them HOW to look for motorcyle riders (wich is getting hard to do with all the privitization.) plus a whole lot more. The more the riding community as a whole gets involved the greater the chances are that we will succeed in all of our efforts.
ride safe

"Road Trip"
Abate region 13
Reply New Comment

Line

30) Thank you [by Anonymous Citizen on December 22, 2004]
Thank you for adding that. Rider education is the key to safe riding. So why then don't the insurance companies support the rider education program?
Reply New Comment

Line

31) simple... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 23, 2004]
The reason that They Dont support Rider education is THEY DONT WANT US. Now I'm Not saying that ALL insurance CO. are that way but I cAn think of A couple that Are. Why else would they choose NOT to cover us or when they do its at twice the cost of the rest of the industry (insurance that is) rates.
Hope to see you in Saginaw, Its always a good time.
Just look for region 13 and ask For road trip.
Ride(?) safe and stay warm.
Road trip.
Reply New Comment

Line

32) congradulations.... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 20, 2004]
The he senate is on thier 6 week holiday break so when they come back its back to the begining.
I hope the senators that held this bill up are pleased with themselves (but they will only know if they are pleased with themselves if the industry pulling thier strings is pleased and lets them know that they too should be pleased.) Sen. ken sickama and sen. gilbert have proven that they are no more then insurance company prostitutes who will do the whatever enough dead presidents tell them too, not the peaple. If they would have voted this out of committee and onto the senat floor then I might think different. but the fact is that they did everything in their power to let this die in thier comittees. Michigan will lose out on more then 1 million dollars that this law prevents us from getting, in the way of tourisim, industry, and taxes. But i suppose that as long as they have the school systems and state agencies budgets to slash they dont need the monies that this could generate (up to 1.2 billion dollars).
They cry show us the money. We did.
they cry safty, We showed studies and statistics that proved that the helmet law is ineffective.
and for the last 10 years it has been that way, always next year. except when next year turns into the year after that we still have the helmet law. Not all senators and congressman bend to the will of BIG industry, and to those I say thank you, but unfortunatly we will have the same meetings with you next year that we did this year. to those who are controlled by industry, do us all a favor..either START working for the CITIZENS OF THIS STATE OR QUIT, because you are not doing the job that you were ELECTED to do, and you know which one of the two that you are. We will not go away as industry would like us to.

"ROADTRIP"

Reply New Comment

Line

33) Check this out [by Anonymous Citizen on December 17, 2004]
This from the State of Mich website.
Look at Motorcycles final crash results pdf.


The severity of injuries among motorcyclists not wearing helmets was greater than among
motorcyclists wearing helmets. From 1997 through 2002, 2-3% of crash-involved
motorcyclists wearing helmets were killed in the crash. The proportion of those not wearing
helmets who were killed ranged from 0% to 10% in the 6 years. Of crash-involved
motorcyclists wearing helmets, 20-23% sustained incapacitating injuries, as compared to 27-
31% of those not wearing helmets. Furthermore, 21-24% of crash-involved motorcyclists
wearing helmets were not injured at all, while only 8-16% of those not wearing helmets were
not injured in the crash.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) Tell the whole story.... [by Anonymous Citizen on December 18, 2004]
Not just the facts that you see fit to quote.
In the opening comments It states that in 2002 only 56% of those were licensed to operate a motorcycle
and if you read farther another 7.5%of males and 9.9% of females didnt have a license at all. So 61.4 % of them HAD NO BUSSINESS BEING ON THE BIKE TO BEGIN WITH.these are just the 2002 figures. now lets add in the HBD (had been Drinking) Single rider crashes 8.6% multi vehical 6.7%. Now our total of idiots is 76.7(**but that figure is from the hbd for the 97-2002 therefore not acurate in this because the rest of the data used for figures is only from 2002. so for arguments sake lets stick with the 61.4%.**)
like I said Tell the whole story. Somthing is drastically wrong whene over half of the peapole involved in the study should not have been on the motorcyle to begin with. the helmet is NOT a preventitve measure, it is a feel good law.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) mute point (for now) [by Anonymous Citizen on December 16, 2004]
I've been reading comments and feel both sides are biased. Statistics can easily be manipulated to suit ones agenda. But I'm sure most people already know that. That being said I favor this legislation. Two reasons. One, I believe in freedom of choice over governmental mandates. Two, Since most states allow helmet choice, I have to believe it is not as big an issue as the insurance industry makes it out to be. If it were than all states would have them just as all states have seat-belt laws and drunk driving laws. Helmet laws do not promote safety, they discourage riding. That's is what the insurance industry really wants.

AS far as being responsible for your own actions goes, I'm all for that. However, Michigan is a no-fault state. Therefore if a car driver hits a motorcycle, and the car driver is at fault (as is the case 85% of the time), the motorcyclists insurance pays for his or herself, not the insurance of the car driver. Therefore motorcyclists are not only responsible for their own actions, they are responsible for the actions of others as well.

Unfortunatly this all is a mute point (for now). The legislators are done for the year and will not be back until the third week of January. Therefore all pending legislation will die on Jan. 1st. Six weeks of for the holidays, must be nice. Glad to see our tax dollars hard at work.
Reply New Comment

Line

36) Thanks, [by Anonymous Citizen on December 18, 2004]
But, In michigan if a car driver hits me, it DOES fall onto his insurance to pick up the medical bills, Im speaking from experiance.
If I were to hit a deer or loose it on loose gravel (single vehical accident) then the medical cost falls on my medical insurance or my automobile policy.
Nice to know that the state will lose 1.2 billon dollars because sen? sickama is a stooge for the insurance industry.
Reply New Comment

Line

37) Debate this [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2004]
Being as one of the writers is fond of quoting stats from the NHTSA, I am submitting more excerpts- with links.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-715/pages/Conclusions.html

Both the design and materials used in manufacturing motorcycle helmets have improved throughout the 1990’s, resulting in a significant improvement in their effectiveness in protecting against fatal head injuries. Despite the improvement in effectiveness, from 29 percent to 37 percent, motorcycle fatalities continue to increase as riders choose not to take advantage of the protection afforded by helmets. The weakening or repeal of compulsory helmet use laws in many states has been shown to be associated with a dramatic drop in the percentage of motorcyclists who wear helmets.
Using the new, recomputed effectiveness to calculate the number of lives saved over the ten-year period from 1993 through 2002 shows that motor-cycle helmets have saved 7,808 lives, 2,378 more than was previously thought. Unfortunately, with the declining use rates in some states more riders are dying unnecessarily. If all riders consistently wore proper helmets, the number of additional fatalities that could have been prevented over the same ten-year period would have raised the total lives saved to 11,915 persons.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/reducing.html



http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/traffic_tech/2003/TT285.htm

Nationally, motorcyclists killed per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased 18 percent and injures declined by 2.9 percent from 1997 to 2001. The increases in fatalities in Kentucky and Louisiana were more than twice the national average increase and the increase in injuries even greater.

Fatality Rates
In Kentucky, motorcyclists killed per 10,000 registered motorcycles averaged 6.4 in the two years just before the helmet law repeal and averaged 8.8 in the two years following its repeal, an increase of +37.5 percent. Persons injured per 10,000 registered motorcycles averaged 187 in the preceding two years and averaged 219 in the two years following its repeal, an increase of +17 percent.
In Louisiana, the fatality rate averaged 4.5 in the two years prior to helmet law repeal and rose to 7.9 in the year following, an increase of +75 percent. The injury rate averaged 126 persons in the two years before the helmet law repeal and increased to 152 persons in the year following repeal of the universal motorcycle helmet law, an increase of +20.6 percent.
At the same time, the number of registered motorcycles increased (by 20%), and vehicle miles traveled increased approximately 6%, based on national numbers. Calculating injury and fatality rates based on the number of registered motorcyclists takes into account the increase in the number of motorcycles. These findings are similar to the increases in motorcycle fatal crashes and fatalities in Arkansas (+29%) and Texas (+ 37%) following repeals of their universal helmet laws.

Conclusions
The 1998 universal helmet law repeal in Kentucky and the 1999 repeal in Louisiana produced similar effects. Observed helmet use dropped from nearly full compliance under the law to the 50 percent range without the law. The rate of motorcyclist fatalities per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased more than the national average -- by 37 percent in Kentucky and 75 percent in Louisiana. Injuries per registered motorcycles increased in both states (+17% and +21%) following the law repeals while the national injury rate per registered motorcycles decreased –2.9 percent.

The experience in Kentucky and Louisiana is similar to the experience in Arkansas and Texas (see TRAFFIC TECH 231), the other states that have repealed universal laws in recent years, leaving little doubt that such repeals have demonstrable negative safety consequences. 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.

Reply New Comment

Line

38) I'm for it,if--- [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 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

39) please read [by Anonymous Citizen on December 15, 2004]
the comment posted above titled "What about".
and the next opportunity that you get please drop all of your insurance so we wont have to pay if anything happens to you.
as far as your comment about "thinning the heard". remember that while we might all dress the same while riding a bike we are still doctors,lawers, policemen,firemen, and just about any other occupation that you can think of. Also, dont forget that many of us have a wife and children to come home to. come to think of it maybe the ones that need to have "the herd thinned" are the NARROW MINDED PEAPOLE WHO THINK LIKE YOURSELF!

ROADTRIP.

Reply New Comment

Line

40) Fault v.s. no-fault [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2004]
Ohio and Nevada are both fault states. Ohio allows helmet choice, Nevada does not. Florida and Michigan are both no-fault states. Florida allows helmet choice, Michigan does not. So as far as fault v.s. no-fault goes for having helmet choice, I don't know if that makes a difference, but I know fault is better. In a fault state if someone else is at fault you do not get an accident on your driving record and your rates do not go up. Maybe that's why Ohio's insurance rates are about half of what Michigan's are, and maybe that's why our insurance lobby is so strong.
Reply New Comment

Line

41) Fed up with Sen. Sikkema! [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2004]
So his majesty, MI State Senate Republican Majority Leader SINGLEHANDEDLY prevented a vote on SB 321 huh? Way to go Mr. Sikkema! Democracy in action has been proven (again!) to be a farce in the state of Michigan. I and several thousand ABATE members have worked from the ground up for years, educating our legislators about the helmet RULE instituted by the MSP. I ride whenever and wherever I can OUTSIDE of Michigan without my helmet. I will spend winter (and my dollars!) in helmet free Florida. Mr. Sikkema, you have denied a legitimate vote to be taken because you know we have a majority of senators supporting our bill.
Michigan remains in the dark ages.
Reply New Comment

Line

42) Me too! [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2004]
One person singlehandedly stops a vote. Seig heil Senator Sikkema. And Michigan has the nerve to call itself a Democracy. Even if it was voted on and it failed at least I could feel like I don't live in a communist state. I hope Senator Sikkema gets raped by an unmarried gay man with aids!
Reply New Comment

Line

43) Dispute this. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2004]
Hey Blue Lady, Your Caps lock key stuck?

Read this:. AAA Michigan states that legislation passed by the state House would increase the number of motorcycle deaths and injuries. House Bill 4823 would remove the mandatory helmet requirement for all riders and passengers 21 years of age or older, but does not require riders to carry Personal Injury Protection insurance coverage.
June 2, 2002

Dearborn, MI - Legislation just passed by the state House and sent to the Senate for approval would increase the number of motorcycle deaths and injuries in Michigan, said AAA Michigan.

House Bill 4823, sponsored by Rep. Gene DeRossett (R-Manchester), would remove the mandatory helmet requirement for all riders and passengers 21 years of age or older, but does not require motorcycle riders to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance coverage.


"It is well known that motorcycle helmets decrease the severity of injury, the likelihood of death and the overall cost of medical care," said Richard J. Miller, manager of Community Safety Services for AAA Michigan. "Motorcycle riders are much more at risk than persons driving or riding in a passenger vehicle. In fact, more than 80 percent of all motorcycle crashes result in injury or death to the motorcyclist."


The high rate of catastrophic injury is reflected in data from the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA). According to the MCCA, although fewer than 2 percent of all registered motor vehicles in Michigan are motorcycles, 6.2 percent of all reported claims are from motorcyclists.


Since motorcyclists are exempt from Personal Injury Protection coverage and often ride uninsured, said Miller, all Michigan drivers pay higher MCCA assessments and higher insurance premiums to cover these losses.


Miller also cited Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, which shows that younger riders (25-34 years old) incur both the greatest number of motorcycle fatalities in Michigan and the highest level of non-compliance with the state's mandatory helmet law. In 2000, said Miller, 29 young riders were killed in Michigan - more than any other age group - and at least one-quarter of those killed were not wearing helmets.


This is despite the fact that Michigan's mandatory helmet law is long established and strictly enforced.


Nationwide, motorcycle fatality rates have been rising. The total number of fatalities is up 44 percent between 1997 (2,116 deaths) and 2001 (3,067 deaths). In addition, the fatality rate per 100,000 registered motorcycles is up -- from 55.3 in 1997 to 65.9 in 2000.


2000 MICHIGAN MOTORCYCLE FACTS: - In 2000, there were 3,180 motorcycle-involved crashes (compared with 2,820 in 1999) in which 78 riders were killed and 2,541 injured. - Average paid motorcycle claim is $377,830, up from $345,602 in 1997. - In Michigan, the helmet law has saved an estimated 800 lives over the past 13 years.



Reply New Comment

Line

44) MCCA FUND [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2004]
AAA cares about us? the MCCA fund goes up becaouse of us? Truth : AAA cares about shareholders and paper that has dead presidennts on it.
now for the good one... MCCA fund.
1. Every person who has an automobile policy or motorcyle insurance policy pays into it. (I state the two policies seperate because in this state we are not considerd an automobile. the bike is PROPERTY and the RIDER is a PEDESTRIAN.)
2. The MCCA fund does not have to be audited or show thier books to no one.
3. the nice rebate check that we recieved a few years back was due to the fact that they did a VOLUNTARY AUDIT to show how acurate their system was and actually found a surplus of cash.
4. it is written in legislation about the mcca increase that it will continue to go up by x amount of dollars untill it reaches 3 million (I think)then it will increase by 5% of that 3 millon per year.
so in summery I think that it can be safe to say the following. The mcca fund is extremly flawed system that the genral population pays into. The insurance companies use it as a scape goat, and it gets away with it by saying "TRUST ME". as far as AAA goes. if they worry so much about us "BIKERS" then why CANT you get a motorcylce policy though them without having a house or car policy with them? even then its TWICE THE RATE of anyone else and trust me its not the service that they give you. last thing. the mcca fund is not a insurance company charge. it is a fee set up by the state.
Reply New Comment

Line

45) MCCA FUND [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2004]
AAA cares about us? the MCCA fund goes up becaouse of us? Truth : AAA cares about shareholders and paper that has dead presidennts on it.
now for the good one... MCCA fund.
1. Every person who has an automobile policy or motorcyle insurance policy pays into it. (I state the two policies seperate because in this state we are not considerd an automobile. the bike is PROPERTY and the RIDER is a PEDESTRIAN.)
2. The MCCA fund does not have to be audited or show thier books to no one.
3. the nice rebate check that we recieved a few years back was due to the fact that they did a VOLUNTARY AUDIT to show how acurate their system was and actually found a surplus of cash.
4. it is written in legislation about the mcca increase that it will continue to go up by x amount of dollars untill it reaches 3 million (I think)then it will increase by 5% of that 3 millon per year.
so in summery I think that it can be safe to say the following. The mcca fund is extremly flawed system that the genral population pays into. The insurance companies use it as a scape goat, and it gets away with it by saying "TRUST ME". as far as AAA goes. if they worry so much about us "BIKERS" then why CANT you get a motorcylce policy though them without having a house or car policy with them? even then its TWICE THE RATE of anyone else and trust me its not the service that they give you. last thing. the mcca fund is not a insurance company charge. it is a fee set up by the state.
Reply New Comment

Line

46) P.I.P. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2004]
P.I.P. is a scam and it is not nessasary. Ever take a look at your auto and or motorcycle insurance bill? We pay more than enough already.
Reply New Comment

Line

47) O.K. I will dispute this [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2004]
Richard J. Miller is the Community Safety Servises Administrader for AAA. Since he is speaking in behalf of AAA one can assume that this report just may be biased. But let's look at these claims anyway. Miller claims that 29 young riders were killed in 2000, and less than one quarter of them were not wearing helmets. That means that more than three quarters of them WERE wearing helmets. Apparently the helmets did nothing to save their lives.

He also claims that 80% of motorcycle crashes result in death. If that's the case, that only proves that helmets are ineffective. If your odds of dying in a crash are that great what is the point of wearing one?

He also claims that nationwide the total number of motorcycle fatalites increased from 2,116 in 1997 to 3,067 in 2001. an increase of 44%. This is an example of insurance company half-truths. Here's the other half of the truth: In total that is an increase of 951 or about 238 a year. That is a very small number compared to auto fatalites. Never do the insurance companies mention the increased number of bikes on the road. Florida alone saw an increase of 40,000 bikes from 2000 to 2001. If Florida saw an increase of that magnitude in just one year imagine what the entire nation saw in four. That would explain the fatality increase.

He also claims that it is "well known" that helmets save lives. Actualy, it's not. How could it be when a DOT approved helmet is only certified safe at speeds of 13mph? Furthermore the added weight of a helmet can actualy caues a neck injury when a high speed impact occurs. In addition to all this the most obvious statistic is that helmet choice states accident/fatality rates are virtually the same as mandatory helmet states. In most cases they are slightly lower. That is why most states allow helmet choice.

I think I disputed that very well. That is why two thirds of the state Representitives voted in favor of helmet choice.


Reply New Comment

Line

48) AAA con-man [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2004]
You must be a AAA spokesperson due to how far your head is up your ass. Since you obviously work for AAA (or are in bed with then like Sen. Sikkema) one can only assume you are full of it.
When someone sees AAA says, it's like seeing (the Iraqi minister of information says.) You know it's bull before you hear it.

Dispute this:
Every state which surronds Michigan is a helmet choice state. They have not had these increases in injuries and accidents as you claim. If they did every state would have helmet laws just as every state has seat-belt laws. Common sense, right? As for the MCCA fund, Michigan motorcyclists have to pay for it with thier motorcycle insurance policies, however if injured on a motorcylce they can't use it!! That doesn't seem very fair to me. That's why Senate bills 0209 @ 0210 need to be passed even before this bill. As far as your accident and injury increase claim is concerned I don't know where you get your stats from, I get mine from NHTSA, and it clearly states that fatalities in helmet choice states are 2.9 per 10,000 registered bikes as compared to 2.98 per 10,000 registered bikes in mandatory helmet states. That's an increase of .08 in states WITH MANDARORY HELMET LAWS!! Even if these numbers were reversed it would not be enough to justify the raping of freedom you insurance criminals love to do. Another fact: No helmet can prevent an accident. A DOT approved helmet is only approved to be safe at speeds of 13mph. According to your numbers there must have been a lot of 12mph accidents. Furthermore the added weight of a helmet increases the chance of a neck injury in a high speed impact.

Bottom line:
Motorcylce riding can be a dangerous activity. Rider education is key to making a safer motorcycle rider. Nowhere did you mention that. ABATE wants to educate riders and car drivers. If the insurance companies and our legislatures REALLY wanted safer motorcyclists they would adopt education bills we are trying to pass. Truth is motorcyclists are disrciminated against. Mandatory helmet laws equals less bikes on the road. That is what the insurance companies REALLY want. So save your B.S. You're not fooling anybody with a room temperature I.Q. Your lies can easily be dismissed with NHTSA stats. Michigan unfortunatly is an insurance controlled state. This is evident being that we are only one of 19 mandatory helmet states. We are in the minority, and we're being left behind.

By the way, how come helmet choice Ohio and Indiana's auto insurance rates are about half of what they are in communist mandatory helmet Michigan?
Reply New Comment

Line

49) Here's more stats [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2004]
Being as one of the writers is fond of quoting stats from the NHTSA, I am submitting more excerpts- with links.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2004/809-715/pages/Conclusions.html

Both the design and materials used in manufacturing motorcycle helmets have improved throughout the 1990’s, resulting in a significant improvement in their effectiveness in protecting against fatal head injuries. Despite the improvement in effectiveness, from 29 percent to 37 percent, motorcycle fatalities continue to increase as riders choose not to take advantage of the protection afforded by helmets. The weakening or repeal of compulsory helmet use laws in many states has been shown to be associated with a dramatic drop in the percentage of motorcyclists who wear helmets.
Using the new, recomputed effectiveness to calculate the number of lives saved over the ten-year period from 1993 through 2002 shows that motor-cycle helmets have saved 7,808 lives, 2,378 more than was previously thought. Unfortunately, with the declining use rates in some states more riders are dying unnecessarily. If all riders consistently wore proper helmets, the number of additional fatalities that could have been prevented over the same ten-year period would have raised the total lives saved to 11,915 persons.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/reducing.html



http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/traffic_tech/2003/TT285.htm

Nationally, motorcyclists killed per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased 18 percent and injures declined by 2.9 percent from 1997 to 2001. The increases in fatalities in Kentucky and Louisiana were more than twice the national average increase and the increase in injuries even greater.

Fatality Rates
In Kentucky, motorcyclists killed per 10,000 registered motorcycles averaged 6.4 in the two years just before the helmet law repeal and averaged 8.8 in the two years following its repeal, an increase of +37.5 percent. Persons injured per 10,000 registered motorcycles averaged 187 in the preceding two years and averaged 219 in the two years following its repeal, an increase of +17 percent.
In Louisiana, the fatality rate averaged 4.5 in the two years prior to helmet law repeal and rose to 7.9 in the year following, an increase of +75 percent. The injury rate averaged 126 persons in the two years before the helmet law repeal and increased to 152 persons in the year following repeal of the universal motorcycle helmet law, an increase of +20.6 percent.
At the same time, the number of registered motorcycles increased (by 20%), and vehicle miles traveled increased approximately 6%, based on national numbers. Calculating injury and fatality rates based on the number of registered motorcyclists takes into account the increase in the number of motorcycles. These findings are similar to the increases in motorcycle fatal crashes and fatalities in Arkansas (+29%) and Texas (+ 37%) following repeals of their universal helmet laws.

Conclusions
The 1998 universal helmet law repeal in Kentucky and the 1999 repeal in Louisiana produced similar effects. Observed helmet use dropped from nearly full compliance under the law to the 50 percent range without the law. The rate of motorcyclist fatalities per 10,000 registered motorcycles increased more than the national average -- by 37 percent in Kentucky and 75 percent in Louisiana. Injuries per registered motorcycles increased in both states (+17% and +21%) following the law repeals while the national injury rate per registered motorcycles decreased –2.9 percent.

The experience in Kentucky and Louisiana is similar to the experience in Arkansas and Texas (see TRAFFIC TECH 231), the other states that have repealed universal laws in recent years, leaving little doubt that such repeals have demonstrable negative safety consequences. 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.



Reply New Comment

Line

50) Miss the point [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2004]
I think the answers to my "Dispute this" post show the rationality of the thinking of some of the supporters of this bill.
Death is not the issue. Head injuries among motorcylists, and the resulting high costs are the issue with me. Why not have special medical insurance rates for those who choose not to wear helmets (or seat belts). That way we could both have it our way. You pay the costs of the decisions you make. It's called responsibility for your own actions. What would be wrong with that?
Comparing the laws between states with or without helmet laws is not valid as there can be much variation between states in everything from driver training to traffic, speeds, law enforcement,weather etc. Why not compare cost of head injuries etc. of wearers of approved helmets and those who do not wear them or wear something that poses as a helmet. I have also seen cyclists wearing things that could hardly be called head protection. But the law is seldom enforced, people put DOT stickers from other helmets onto the play helmets etc. I saw one biker who wore his helmet on his knee because he claimed the law only required he wear one and didn't say where he had to wear it. I guess he knew what was worth more.

And no, I am not an AAA stooge, I have owned several bikes and may get another. I have been in wrecks with bikes and my son-in-law and daughter are alive today because of helmets. I have a son who races motocross who has been spared severe head injury because of helmets.

There-and I managed to say that without wishing anyone get raped by someone with aids etc.
Reply New Comment

Line

51) injuries and cost. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 15, 2004]
in this state, the monies collected from the insurance angencies goes to one big pool. so not only is it you who is responsible for others actions but all of us as well. Ive made this next statement before "so if you truly dont want to be responsible for anyones actions but your own then drop ALL of your insurance policies."
I live in michigan and had a chance to go to St.Louis this year for the mrf meeting of the minds. while I was there I talked to several peapole from other states (Ohio, Indiana,Illinois and Wisconsin.) on the issue of insurance cost heres what I found out. a rider with a bike valued at 3 times the amount of mine and the same age and driving record pays half to two thirds LESS than I do in Michigan. Yet all of the people that I talked to come from helmet CHOICE state. WHY? If the helmet law is so good then WHY are we paying MORE than those who get to choose. Our medical cost should be less.
If the insurance company "model" is broken then maybe sombody should pattern it after one of the states who is paying less, seems theirs is working.
now talking injury wise, 80 to 85% of all motorcycle fatalites are due to blunt force trauma to the TORSO in any state with or without a helmet law.
the Capitol in lansing is nothing more than a big insurance company subsidiary anymore.
(just so that you know dont forget you are paying for inmates too and there are a lot more of them then there are bikers in this state.)

ROADTRIP.

Reply New Comment

Line

52) see both sides [by Anonymous Citizen on December 13, 2004]
I'm glad you son is o.k. However comparing motorcross to everyday riding is like comparing apples to oranges. First off racing is not mandated by state traffic laws, second, the risk factor in racing is far greater than in every day driving. If Dale Jr. had as many accidents on the road as he did on the track he would never be allowed to drive. Therefore rollcages are not nessasary in everyday vehicles.

I have to disagree with you about not comparing helmet choice states to mandatory helmet states. If mandating a helmet law does not show a significant decrease in injuries when compared to a choice state, how can one say it makes a difference? Granted training and weather conditions do make a difference, however Michigan law-makers have done everything in their power to all but kill the rider safety program. I believe education is better than legislation. As for weather conditions, you are most at risk in rain and snow. Conditions in which you should not ride.

One of the reasons you see so many novelty helmets in Michigan is because the helmet law is unenforcable. I too would be interested to see a study that compares head injuries to the type of helmet used, the type of bike riden (rocket bike v.s. cruiser), as well as neck injuries due to added weight of a helmet. I think all would be contributing factors.

I agree that people should be responsible for their own actions. Michigan motorists pay way more for insurance than most states. There is talk of increasing the motorcycle insurance rate $200 if this bill is passed. Since I currently pay $400, that would be a 50% increase. That would be fair, and I would be willing to do that. However there is also talk of making motorcyclists pay personal injury protection (p.i.p) insurance, helmet law or not. That would increase the rate anywhere from $3,500 to $5,000. At the low end that would be a 1,000% increase! That is unreasonable! It is especially unreasonable since motorcycle injuries total less than 6/10ths of 1% of all medical expenses.

As for Sikkema, I don't ask for his support. What I do ask is that he allow a vote therefore letting democracy take place.
Reply New Comment

Line

53) The same [by Anonymous Citizen on December 14, 2004]
We're talking cycles, accidents and injuries and wheteher the use of helmets saves lifes etc. Type of riding has little to do with the discussion. There are other posts which compare NHTSA data within the same state, for injury rates severity WITHIN THE SAME STATE, before and after helmet laws were repealed.

This is the data that should be looked at. I too, want a choice-to not have to be responsible for the actions of others. I may be getting another bike this spring, but would be willing to pay an insurance premium based on actuarial data on accidents and base my decision of whether or not I wear a helmet on that data. I am willing to accept responsibility for my decisions. I don't understand why some people would be against my freedom to do so.
Reply New Comment

Line

54) Do not pass this law. [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2004]
Do not pass this law without first calculating the increase this will have on the catastrophic claims law. It is noted that motorcycles result in over 3 time the claims per vehicle under the CCA. This is with the helmet law! We need to tie the claims under this act to the insurance premiums for motorcycles and make them separate from autos etc.That too is freedom.
Reply New Comment

Line

55) Hey dummy [by Anonymous Citizen on December 10, 2004]
You're wrong about motorcyclists using 3 times the MCCA fund, even with the helmet law, as you wrote. 1st off motorcyclists pay twice into the MCCA fund, once for their bike, once for their car. However if injured on their bike under the current law they cannot draw money out of it. So that right there disproves that. Even if you were right about 3 times the rate, EVEN WITH THE HELMET LAW, that only proves the helmet law is useless. The helmets clearly aren't saving lives.
Reply New Comment

Line

56) FREEDOM OF CHOICE [by BLUELADY on December 6, 2004]
EVERY TIME I AM AT THE CAPITOL I SEE ALL THE YOUNG SCHOOL CHILDREN TOURING THE BUILDING. GOING INTO THE HOUSE AND SENATE CHAMBERS (AND THE WASTE OF TIME TO INTRODUCE EACH AND EVERY CLASS THAT IS THERE) AND I HEAR THEIR TEACHERS TELL THEM ABOUT THE DEMOCRACY IN THIS COUNTRY. HOW THIS IS WHERE LAWS ARE MADE FOR MICHIGAN RESIDENTS. I SO WANT TO TAKE ALL THOSE KID ASIDE AND TELL THEM WHAT A BUNCH OF CRAP THAT IS. ONE PERSON CAN STALL AND ESSENTIALLY KILL A BILL IF HE CHOOSES AND IS IN THE RIGHT POSTITION AT THE TIME TO DO SO. SB321 HAS BEEN STUCK IN THE SENATE WITH ONE PERSON HOLDING IT UP AND PREVENTING IT FROM BEING VOTED UPON. NOW THAT HB 4325 HAS PASSED THE HOUSE THIS SAME PERSON HAS MADE SURE IT GETS STUCK IN A COMMITTEE HE IS IN CHARGE OF ESSENTIALLY KILLING IT AND SAYING THAT IS IS TOO "SEXY" OF AN ISSUE TO DEAL WITH THIS LATE IN THE SESSION. HELLOOOO IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST 2 YEARS IN THE SENATE. IT IS NOTHING NEW, JUST NOW IT HAS PASSED THROUGH ONE HOUSE. WHY IS IT THAT WE ARE TAUGHT THAT THIS IS A DEMOCRACY AND THAT OUR LEGISLATORS ARE WORKING FOR US AND LEGISLATION CAN BE HELD UP BY ONE PERSON??? MEMBERS OF ABATE HAVE WORKED MANY HOURS EDUCATING OUR LEGISLATORS TO THE FACTS AND WE DESERVE A VOTE ON OUR BILLS THIS YEAR! COME ON GUYS, GET ONE OR BOTH OF THESE BILLS ON THE SENATE FLOOR AND SHOW US WHAT A DEMOCRACY IS ALL ABOUT.

KATHY-REGION 14
Reply New Comment

Line

57) Exactly [by Anonymous Citizen on December 7, 2004]
That senators name is Ken Sikkema. Fortunatly this is his last term. He cannot run for re-election in 2006. We just need to be sure that his replacement isn't an insurance company bitch like him.
Reply New Comment

Line

58) 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

59) What About [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2004]
The thousands of peapole that you already pay for? you pay for their housing, medical, dental, hospital visits, thier shrinks, eye doctors, meals (3 per day), heat, electricity, water, clothing,cable, and toilitries. And they dont even WANT TO BE THERE! If you havent gussed by now (From your previous statment you have either made an uniformed decision on this subject or you are completly ignorant.) Im talking about those who are in the house of many doors, the big house, butt slam hotel, PRISON. what happens to their families when dad goes on vacation for a while (usually quite a few years). Who picks up their COST TO SOCIETY? Two years ago I was hit by a drunk driver thank god I had my helmet on or my FOOT might have been alot worse that helmet probably saved me from breaking my leg.
If you have not looked at both sides of this situation or you do not ride then please either buy a motorcyle or go to your nearest SMRO (state motorcycliest rights orginization.) and bring these questions up with them. We constantly here how much of a public burdon that we are yet there is no underlying proof of that from anywhere. just so that you know, a seatbelt is tested at highway speeds, a helmet is tested at no more than 13.8 mph (miles per hour.) Snell has stated and I paraphrase "no helmet will be effective in any situation at speeds greater then 20 mph (miles per hour)." michigan is losing 4 million this year alone in tourisium thanks to the helmet law. Loose this "LAW" and catch up with the rest of the country
"ROADTRIP"

Reply New Comment

Line

60) What About [by Anonymous Citizen on December 11, 2004]
The thousands of peapole that you already pay for? you pay for their housing, medical, dental, hospital visits, thier shrinks, eye doctors, meals (3 per day), heat, electricity, water, clothing,cable, and toilitries. And they dont even WANT TO BE THERE! If you havent gussed by now (From your previous statment you have either made an uniformed decision on this subject or you are completly ignorant.) Im talking about those who are in the house of many doors, the big house, butt slam hotel, PRISON. what happens to their families when dad goes on vacation for a while (usually quite a few years). Who picks up their COST TO SOCIETY? Two years ago I was hit by a drunk driver thank god I had my helmet on or my FOOT might have been alot worse that helmet probably saved me from breaking my leg.
If you have not looked at both sides of this situation or you do not ride then please either buy a motorcyle or go to your nearest SMRO (state motorcycliest rights orginization.) and bring these questions up with them. We constantly here how much of a public burdon that we are yet there is no underlying proof of that from anywhere. just so that you know, a seatbelt is tested at highway speeds, a helmet is tested at no more than 13.8 mph (miles per hour.) Snell has stated and I paraphrase "no helmet will be effective in any situation at speeds greater then 20 mph (miles per hour)." michigan is losing 4 million this year alone in tourisium thanks to the helmet law. Loose this "LAW" and catch up with the rest of the country

Reply New Comment

Line

61) RESPONSIBILITY [by BLUELADY on December 6, 2004]
IN REPLY TO YOUR COMMENT. MOTORCYCLISTS ARE LESS OF A PUBLIC BURDEN THAN AUTOMOBILE DRIVERS. WE ON AVERAGE CARRY MORE INSURANCE THAN THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND REPRESENT LESS THAN 1% OF THE COSTS DUE TO AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS. OVER 75% OF ALL MOTORCYCLE/AUTO ACCIDENTS ARE CAUSED BY THE CAR DRIVER WHO WAS NOT PAYING ATTENTION. MOTORCYCLISTS HAVE TO BE TWICE AS ALERT AS CAR DRIVERS BECAUSE WE NOT ONLY HAVE TO PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO WHAT WE ARE DOING AND THE CONDITION/DEBRIS IN THE ROAD, WE ALSO HAVE TO TRY TO ANTICIPATE WHAT YOU CAR DRIVERS ARE GOING TO DO (SUCH AS PULLING OUT IN FRONT OF US, TURNING IN FRONT OF US, PULLING INTO THE SAME LANE WITH US AND TAILGATING US TO NAME A FEW, AND YES I HAVE HAD ALL HAPPEN TO ME PERSONALLY) AND TRY TO AVOID THE PENDING COLLISION. MAYBE YOU CAR DRIVERS SHOULD BEAR THE BRUNT OF OUR INSURANCE AS YOU CAUSE OVER 75% OF THE ACCIDENTS??? WOULD ONLY BE FAIR THAT YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR ACTIONS!
MY HUSBAND WAS RECENTLY RUN DOWN BY A MOTORIST IN ANOTHER STATE, THAT DRIVER TOOK RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS BY ONLY CARRYING $10,000 OF MEDICAL COVERAGE FOR DAMAGE HE CAUSED. THIS DIDN'T COVER THE FIRST HOUR IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM, LET ALONE THE SURGERY (AND BY THE WAY A HELMET WOULD HAVE DONE WONDERS FOR THE INJURIES TO HIS LEG!) AND GEE, MY INSURANCE GETS TO PICK UP THE TAB. WHERE'S THE RESPONSIBILITY THERE??????
Reply New Comment

Line

62) Hurry up [by Anonymous Citizen on December 5, 2004]
This bill has to be passed before the end of this year. Hurry up and pass it already.
Reply New Comment

Line

63) superbowl or helmet choice? [by Anonymous Citizen on November 19, 2004]
Years ago a buddy of mine and I made a $100 bet on what would happen first, the Lions winning the superbowl or helmet choice in Michigan. I bet on the Lions winning the superbowl. At the time I didn't think either one of us would live long enough to know the outcome of this bet, and I'm still not sure we will. However I hope this is a bet I lose. If I'm going to lose this bet I want to lose it now. Not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now, NOW. Let's face it the Lions aren't winning a superbowl any time soon.
Reply New Comment

Line

64) State police approval of helmets? [by Anonymous Citizen on November 15, 2004]
This is absolutely ridiculous. The Michigan State Police (MSP) should not have any authority to make personal safety decisions for individuals. Inserting the department into this debate is another example of “mission creep” - the MSP originally had the sole mission of ensuring the governor’s safety. See how that has grown!

Under our system, the legislature has the duty of reflecting the will of the citizens, not the bureaucrats and state departments.

State Representative John Garfield

Reply New Comment

Line

65) I agree [by Anonymous Citizen on November 18, 2004]
Thank you for voting in favor of this legislation. It is good Republicans like you who favor individual freedom of choice that make this country great. However it is those who put big business (like the insurance industry) ahead of individual freedom that bring this country down. Senator Ken Sikkema is such a Republican of which I speak. This tool is nothing more than an insurance company puppet that cares nothing about this states citizens individual freedoms. This bill has enough support to pass the senate however he his sitting on the bill and will not allow a vote. I fear that this bill will die on January 1st. Please talk to your boy and try to get him to at least allow a vote even if he himself votes against it. If he at least doe's that and it passes then it's all on Granholm.


Grand Rapids you're responsible for him so it is up to you to get him the heck out of Lansing in 2006!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

66) how? [by Anonymous Citizen on November 18, 2004]
How can one person hold up a vote that the majority of the people clearly want? This is America isn't it?
Reply New Comment

Line

67) Riders and non-riders [by Anonymous Citizen on November 14, 2004]
Both riders and non-riders should support the passage of this legislation. Riders obviously would benefit by having a choice. Some riders would still choose to wear there helmet and that's fine because this bill is not anti-helmet it is pro-choice. Non-riders would benefit from the states economic boost it would receive from increased tourism and motorcycle sales. An economic increase without having to raise taxes or cut services benefits everyone. This is a win-win situation. There is no logical reason for Michigan not to do this.
Reply New Comment

Line

68) 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 they claim if a state repeals it's helmet law fatalities will increase by 50%. Sounds terrible doesn't it? The reality goes something like this. If a state had 80 motorcycle fatalities one year repealed it's helmet law and then had 120 the next year that would be a 50% increase. The truth is that's only a total of 40. 40 is 40 too many certainly, but when you look at the big picture it is a very small number. Here's the half of the truth they like to leave out. When a state repeals it's helmet law new bike sales increase by 20%. In Michigan that would mean 40,000 more new bikes sold. (How great would that be for our states economy?!) With an increase of that magnitude of course the total of fatalities is going to go up. However the number of fatalities PER BIKE will not go up. In most helmet choice states the fatality per bike rate is slightly lower than in mandatory helmet states. Not a lot just slightly lower. Insurance companies are like lawyers when it comes to how they word things. Be careful not to get caught up in their half-truths.
Reply New Comment

Line

69) pass this bill [by Anonymous Citizen on November 12, 2004]
Yesterday the house passed their version of this bill @ 2-1. Two thirds of State Reps (as well as two thirds of States) can't be wrong. I hope you Senators do the same.
Reply New Comment

Line

70) VOTE!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 2, 2004]
Today is election day. I don't need to tell to get out and vote. Vote for freedom, vote for change, vote because it is your duty as an American, vote because you can! If we bikers get out and vote and become politicly active we will be heard. Those in Lansing will have to keep us in mind when they vote on such issues as this. Their jobs will depend on it.
Reply New Comment

Line

71) another wasted season [by Anonymous Citizen on October 27, 2004]
Here we are, it's late October and STILL NO VOTE! I was really hoping that this would be our first helmet choice summer. Hopefully it will be our last mandatory helmet summer. We in Michigan have been saying "maybe next year" for 35 years now. Hopefully next year won't be the 36th. Keep writing to the governor and your senators and maybe just maybe it will FINALLY happen.
Reply New Comment

Line

72) I'm for it! [by Anonymous Citizen on November 3, 2004]
Way I figure it, it will help so many people who are in desperate need of a donated organ!
Reply New Comment

Line

73) Why [by Anonymous Citizen on November 12, 2004]
By the sounds of your statement you obviously dont know that a BRAIN transplant is nt possible yet.

"ROADTRIP"
Reply New Comment

Line

74) ignorant [by Anonymous Citizen on November 5, 2004]
That is a very ignorant point of view. Obviously you do not know the facts about motorcycle safety and you have an opinionated emotional view on the subject. Unfortunetly this is a popular opinion of those who do not ride a motorcycle. Most states do not have mandatory helmet laws and motorcycle injuries and fatalities are not any worse in those states than they are here.
Reply New Comment

Line

75) reverse the curse [by Anonymous Citizen on October 30, 2004]
Last Wednesday the Boston Red Sox did something that they had not been able to do since 1918. They won the world series. Many believed that team to be cursed. They were always next years team. They would be right on the doorstep until their arch rivals, the New York Yankees, would ruin it. This year however while down 3 games to 0, and only 3 outs away from being swept by the Yankees, they battled back by winning games 4 and 5 in extra innings, and then having to win games 6 and 7 in Yankee Stadium. A task that was all but impossible. No team in the history of baseball had ever come back down 3 games to none to win a series but they fought hard, changed history, and made the impossible come true. Then they beat the St.Louis Cardinals 4 games to none to win their first world series in 86 years. They NEVER took their eyes off the prize.

Michigan motorcyclists have faced a similar curse. With all of our neighboring states having helmet choice, and having it since the late 70's, we are the only ones in this part of the country who do not. Like the Red Sox we have fought hard year after year only to come up short. Our arch rivals, the insurance industry, have ruined it for us year after year. The insurance industry, like the Yankees, are the ones with all the money. That makes the fight all the more difficult. However we are closer than ever to winning this battle once and for all. Keep writing the Governor and your Senators. Maybe 2004 could be the year we kill our curse as did the Boston Red Sox. Never take your eyes off the prize. If we don't do it this year, we will only be stronger next time around. It's not a matter of IF but WHEN. The Red Sox proved no curse lasts forever and the good guys do eventually win.
Reply New Comment

Line

76) our law [by Anonymous Citizen on October 19, 2004]
We absolutely LOVE our mandatory helmet law.


Sincerely, France.
Reply New Comment

Line

77) just do it [by Anonymous Citizen on October 7, 2004]
Michigan bikers have waited long enough for their freedom. We have fought hard for it. Other states have gotten it done with less effort. Just do it already!
Reply New Comment

Line

78) C'mon now [by Anonymous Citizen on October 16, 2004]
I agree Michigan should do this. All our neighboring states have been helmet optional for as long as I can remember and they dont have any of the problems that the insurance would like you to believe. If they did then there would not be any helmet optional states just as there no seat-belt optional states. The fact is most states are helmet optional because helmet laws are proven to do nothing.
Reply New Comment

Line

79) embarrasing [by Anonymous Citizen on October 2, 2004]
I live in the Toledo area and I can't even imagine how much it must suck not to have helmet choice. We've had it for 1/4 century now, and our fatalties, head injuries, and insurance rates aren't any higher. Sucks to be you. You having to wear helmets like retards on the short bus knowing all the surrounding free states don't. All ball busting aside Michigan is a beautiful state. I hope you get this mandatory helmet crap straightened out so we can come up and ride (and spend money) in your state. I've talked to Michigan bikers that come down here. They really want helmet choice and I hope they get it. Good luck.
Reply New Comment

Line

80) You're not kidding [by Anonymous Citizen on October 22, 2004]
I moved up here from Ohio in 4-02. When I did I was really concerned about living in a state that does not allow helmet choice. I thought, well I usually wear one on my way to work in the morning anyway when it's chilly. I just won't be able to not wear it on the way home. It can't be that bad, right? WRONG!! I knew not having helmet choice would suck but I didn't realize it would suck as much as it does. I didn't know I would miss it as much as I do. I guess I was so used to always having it that I took my freedom for granted.
What I don't understand is insurance in this state. In Ohio my auto insurance was $60 a month. Here it's $120 a month! My coverage is the same here as it was there but it cost twice as much! Double the price for the same exact coverage and this state STILL has a mandatory helmet law! If I knew the insurance companies controlled this state the way that they do I would NEVER have moved here. My work contract expires 4-05. If Michigan hasn't repealed it's helmet law by then, I'm moving back.
Reply New Comment

Line

81) The problem IS the Insurance companies [by Anonymous Citizen on October 28, 2004]
Michigan could have repealed the helmet law a long time ago, but when we went to a "no-fault" insurance system, the rates have continued to go through the roof each year as good drivers and riders are penalized to cover lousy drunk and irresponsible drivers who should have had their licenses yanked permanently. So its really an issue that must be confronted on two fronts, but I don't think many of our kowtowing represenatives, conservative and liberal alike will work for us on this issue.
Reply New Comment

Line

82) 5-7-5 [by Anonymous Citizen on September 30, 2004]
Helmet law haiku:


Helmet laws still s**k

Vote Granholm out of office

Ken Sikkema too
Reply New Comment

Line

83) Losing jobs in Michigan [by Anonymous Citizen on September 27, 2004]
If your so worried about losing jobs in Michigan, you should be interested in bill 4610. It's backing the slots at the horse racing tracks. Without the slots, the racing business will go down the drain. .20 of every dollar is now given to the State, with the slots the state will take in more. If the bill does not pass 40,000 horsemen will have to move from this state, or go out of business. This does not include the people working at these tracks, farmers and grain elevators that provide the feed. We're talking about at least 60,000 to 100,000 people involved.
Please back this bill, Michigan has already lost too many jobs. Other States have passed these bills, and more money has been generated. Think about your job.
Reply New Comment

Line

84) Accidents [by Anonymous Citizen on September 27, 2004]
I have read many comments on how safe you bike drivers have been. My uncle is a safe driver also, but that did not stop a teenager from smacking him from behind at 20 mph at a light and sending him sailing 100 feet!!! What saved his life you ask??? A helmet and a full body leather riding outfit (in 70 degree sun!) He was in the hospital for a couple months and have several reconstructive bone surgeries, but no skin grafts thanks to the outfit he had. I think that is responsible riding. You may know you are safe, but what about the person behind you not paying attention. (Why didn't he go through the light you might ask? A semi was coming through the intersection, but turned right before the light)

When I see the people riding in tank tops and shorts, I think, there is another idiot rider thinking of his comfort and not his safety. Keep riding without helmets and protective wear, when I see you on the side of the road looking like a hamburger I will try not to feel sorry for you.
Reply New Comment

Line

85) Another example [by Anonymous Citizen on October 1, 2004]
I have a friend who lives in Chicago. He and his girlfriend were on the same bike. He was not wearing a helmet she was. A senior citizen failed to stop at a stop sign and T-boned them at @ 25mph. They both suffered broken right legs (side of impact) neither one had a head injury. However his girlfriend broke her neck due to the weight of the helmet adding more force to her neck. Thank goodness there was no spinal cord damage or else she would be paralized because she was wearing a helmet. You never know the outcome of an accident until it's too late. A helmet may help or harm you. Either way it should be a choice not a law.
Reply New Comment

Line

86) glad hes ok. [by Anonymous Citizen on September 30, 2004]
And most riders do agree that tank tops shorts and tennis shoes (or even flip-flops) are not riding gear.
I just recently returned from st. louis Mo, and did close to 450 miles with out a helmet, and the only thing that happend to me was a sunburned forehead, but that was my CHOICE (not screaming just emphisising).
The makers of helmets were recently asked at what mph does a helmet protect to, most gave the canned "the helmet modles are tested at yadda yadda yadda " but Snell replied that there is no way a helmet would protect a rider beyond 26 mph.
Im happy that you think everyone should wear a helmet, just dont force your belifes on others.
as far as seeing someone on the side of the road looking like hamburg... Im glad you care so littel of others. we need to educate the drivers ed students on how to watch out for motorcylist and we also need to educate the motorcyclist themselves, by taking a yearly refreasher course.
Only through education can we achive the real lifesaving action that is needed, to prevent the accident from occuring in the first place.
Like I said in the title I'm Glad hes ok, how old was the person that hit him?
Reply New Comment

Line

87) Michigan sucks [by Anonymous Citizen on August 22, 2004]
High taxes, high cost of living, lack of good jobs, bad weather, and the helmet law. Need I go on? If we got rid of the helmet law that would boost our states economy with new bike sales and increased tourism. It has in the 31 states that have gotten rid of theirs. As I ride in Indiana and Ohio I see lots of bikes with Michigan plates, but when I get back to Michigan, I no longer see bikes with out of state plates. Nobody's coming here and I don't blame them. When I go out for a weekend ride I hit I75 south and as soon as I get to the first Ohio exit I buy my gas there, buy my lunch there, (spending my money there and not here) put my helmet in my saddle bag and have fun. Hopefully next year I will be able to go north and have the same fun experience, but I doubt it.
Reply New Comment

Line

88) Useless [by Anonymous Citizen on July 18, 2004]
I've been riding for 14 years. During that time I've been in exactly ZERO accidents. Therefore the helmet I was forced to wear on my head was as useless as a screen door on a submarine. Even if I had been in an accident I seriously doubt a piece af plastic is going to do me any good against a car T-boning me at 60mph. Why have I had 14 accident free years? Luck? Luck has nothing to do with it, experience and education are what make me a safe rider. (And yet our governor wants to take away the rider education program). Not riding like an idiot like some of these fools I see on crotch-rocket bikes. Not putting myself in dangerous situations has kept me safe all these years. Could doing all the right things prevent accidents 100%? No, but a helmet cannot prevent an accident at all. Therefore education and common sense riding are a better defense against accidents than helmets. That being said, am I anti-helmet? No, I am pro helmet CHOICE. Wearing a helmet should be a choice made by the rider and only the rider. Not the governor, not your senator, and especialy not the insurance companies. We know what's best for us, NOT THEM!
Reply New Comment

Line

89) Quotes [by Anonymous Citizen on July 14, 2004]
"Those who are willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither"

Benjamin Franklin

"I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves"

Ronald Reagan


Helmet laws seem pretty un-American to me.
Reply New Comment

Line

90) 3-20-03 [by Anonymous Citizen on July 12, 2004]
This was introduced on 3-20-03, and still NO VOTE! Take your time senators, we've only been waiting 35 years. We wouldn't expect you to actully do your job and serve the people who elected you.
Reply New Comment

Line

91) In Ohio [by Anonymous Citizen on July 7, 2004]
I spent the 3-day holiday weekend in Ohio, one of 31 states that allow adult helmet choice. While there I saw HUNDREDS of bikes with Michigan license plates. Funny thing, when I got back to Michigan I did not see ANY bikes with Ohio plates. NOT ONE! Hmmm, I wonder why? Could it be adult choice? You betcha. Michigan is clearly loosing tourism dollars due to our mandatory helmet law.
Reply New Comment

Line

92) ticket in jackson [by Anonymous Citizen on July 3, 2004]
This was printed in the jackson citizen patriot.
to make the long story short guy runs out of gas in downtown jackson. up pulls a state trooper and lays into him about not wearing a helmet while he is PUSHING his non operational bike.
I have his court date and am planning on going.
if this guy looses were all screwd.
just think having to wear a helmet to put gas in your bike, start your bike, work on your bike, or even to just be neer your bike.
now i know that not all troopers have this pee braind mentality, but have you ever seen a cop get into his car and write a ticket wearing his seatbelt???
this has got to be voted on so crap like this doesnt keep happening.
Reply New Comment

Line

93) Freedom [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2004]
This bill was suppost to be voted on in February. Imagine that. If it was voted on and passed when it was suppost to be we could be celebrating freedom of choice this holiday weekend. Instead I will have to go to the free state of Ohio (again) to enjoy freedom of choice. I will also be spending my money there instead of here as a result of our restrictive law. Maybe next year. How many years have we been saying that, 35? Thirty-five years from now it will be 2039. Hopefully the wait won't be that long.
Reply New Comment

Line

94) Over half my life [by Anonymous Citizen on June 23, 2004]
I was born in 1939. I started riding motorcycles in 1955 at age 16. Then in 1969 at the age of 30 Michigan took away my right to choose. Now at age 65 I've wasted all of my 30's, my 40's, my 50's, and half of my 60's in this commie, anti-choice, insurance-run state. I only hope that my freedom will be restored before I die. I fought for freedom in Korea, and I've seen freedoms slowly taken away over the years right here in America. I can remember when it was legal to not have insurance much less wear helmets abd seat-belts. I pity the younger generation.
Reply New Comment

Line

95) Thanks for Service [by Mike Hignite on June 28, 2004]
Thank you for your service to the people of Korea. I am sorry that here in America we continue to lose more freedom every hour.

Benjamin Franklin said that the founding fathers gave us "a republic, if you can keep it."

Thomas Jefferson said that the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the blood of patriots from time to time.

I hope that we do not need war to restore freedom in this country. I don't want to see brother fighting brother.
Reply New Comment

Line

96) I remember [by Anonymous Citizen on June 26, 2004]
I can also remember a better time. A time when Michigan wasn't a safety-police nanny-state. Remember riding in the back of your dad's pick-up truck when you were a kid? Remember how much fun that was? Good luck trying that now. If you put your kids in the back of a truck today they would call you a bad parent, take away your kids and your truck. I can also remember when insurance wasn't mandatory. It was a lot better then and it was more reasonably priced. Insurance companies actully cared about you then. Your rates didn't go through the roof or get cancelled if you made a claim. Back then they needed your business and they took care of you. It was good customer service. As soon as it became mandatory to have it the rates practicly tripled and customer service went out the window.

Let's look back when all this mandatory helmet crap began. It was the late '60s. Back then bikers were seen as outlaws. The federal government passed a bill to enforce mandatory helmet laws. The law stated that it would be up to the state to decide, however those states that did not comply would be punished by not receiving federal highway money.(That is no longer the case). All but 3 states complied. Their reasoning was to promote safety. Do you honestly think for one minute that the government cared about the safety of outlaws? They didn't do it for safety, they did it to get rid of the bikers. Well thankfully they failed, and thankfully not all 50 states complied. After 5 or 10 years came the energy crisis. And after comparing the helmet states to the choice states statistics proved that helmets made no difference. And so in the late '70s all our neighboring states repealed their helmet laws. The reasoning motorcycles use a lot less gas. We now have a similar situation. You are not limited to a 2 gallon gas purchase like in the '70s however gas prices are way too much. Motorcycles still use a lot less gas.

This is the closest helmet modification becoming a reality I can remember. I thought in the '70s when all our neighboring states repealed their's we had a shot. Not since then have we been this close. God I hope we can have our freedom like in the good old days. Keep presuring the governor and your senators and maybe it will finally happen.
Reply New Comment

Line

97) more info [by Anonymous Citizen on June 22, 2004]
According to the Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation it was determined that, in fatal motorcycle accidents there, 28-29% of fatalities were from head injuries. The percentages were the same (within 1/2%) whether the victims were WEARING HELMETS OR NOT. Specifically, in fatal motorcycle accidents where the victim WAS wearing a helmet, 29.4% of those fatalities were from head injuries. By comparision, in fatal cycle accidents where the victim WAS NOT wearing a helmet, 28.9% of the victims died of head injuries. The Governor initiated a requirement to investigate all motorcycle accidents after Wisconsin modified their helmet law in 1978. This study was suppost to "prove" whether or not helmets made a substantial difference in fatalities of helmeted riders v.s. non-helmeted riders. Wisconsin still allows adults their "choice" on the helmet issue. I think our Governor and our state should do the same.

After Florida modified their helmet law in 2000 a significant increase in motorcycle sales quickly occurred. Florida saw a motorcycle sales increase of 20.4% over the previous year. Would such an increase happen in Michigan? I would have to think that it would. If modification to the law creates a 20% sales growth, this represents an increase of 41,920 new bikes. The average cost of a new bike is $11,000. Using the $11,000 figure, the additional sales of new bikes could represent $461 MILLION in direct economic activity. The 6% sales tax could total $27.7 MILLION.

In closing if the fatality level doesn't increase due to helmet law modification, and the states economy would improve because of it, what is there to think about? Why would you not support this legislation? Well then, what are we waiting for? Let's get this done already. Let's definetly do this before this years legislative session ends!
Reply New Comment

Line

98) hemit law [by Anonymous Citizen on June 21, 2004]
i think u shood ware hemits. the guvorment no more than u. the guvorment shood make choices for u. i think if u dont ware hemits u r dum
Reply New Comment

Line

99) HEMITS? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 22, 2004]
I think whoever posted that last comment has wearing a "HEMIT" while trying not to drool on the keypad.
Reply New Comment

Line

100) Communist state [by Anonymous Citizen on June 13, 2004]
Do you think we can acually have a vote and let this bill pass before it dies at the end of the year? Well, this is the communist state of Michigan so I wouldn't count on it. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I fear I will be right. God bless America.
Reply New Comment

Line

101) this is not a communist state [by Anonymous Citizen on June 14, 2004]
But unfortunatly it is money controlled and the insurance companys have more money than we do.
to bad that there are those in lansing when elected forget that it was the citizens of the state that put them there and not the insurance companies. not all are that way but I can think of a couple names right off the bat.
Reply New Comment

Line

102) amen [by Anonymous Citizen on June 15, 2004]
You're absolutely right, this is an insurance controlled state. I can't help but wonder why our insurance lobby is so strong here. What did the 31 choice states do that we haven't? If this bill passes new bike sales would increase. More bikes on the road would mean more insurance policies bought, so even the insurance companies would benefit if this bill were to pass. More bikers would have to pay into the MCCA fund that they can't use. How do the insurance companies lose?
Reply New Comment

Line

103) Voodoo-science [by Anonymous Citizen on June 4, 2004]
Many of us are guilty of making a decision or forming an opinion on how we feel instead of looking at the facts. In politics this is referred to as voodoo-science. For example, many people believe that violence we see in movies and t.v. is the reason we have violent people in society. Well that's just plain silly. The world has had violence long before it's had movies or t.v. Movies and t.v. being responsible for violence is a theory, an opinion, nothing more. There is no proof, no documented facts to back these statements up. Therefore if a politician makes a decision on theory instead of fact he or she is believing in and carrying out voodoo-science. We do not need this in politics.

The insurance companies are textbook examples of people who practice voodoo-science. They claim that helmets save lives when in fact they don't. ABATE of Michigan and other freedom of choice groups have prooven this with documented facts, the insurance companies would rather believe theories. Anything they have ever claimed has been prooven wrong, and yet Michigan still has a mandatory helmet law! Let's take a look at the facts. 1st, 31 states allow helmet choice only 19 do not. That alone should be proof enough. If the insurance companies claims that accidents and fatalities would increase if the helmet law were to be repealed why haven't they in the 31 states have? Why don't they tell you the numbers of accidents and fatalites in helmet states v.s. choice are virtually the same? Because they want you to believe what they claim not what they can proove. They want you to believe in voodoo-science.
Reply New Comment

Line

104) common sense [by Anonymous Citizen on May 31, 2004]
It's a popular opinion that helmets save lives, but if you're hit by a car or truck going 50-60mph the helmet is wearing YOU for it's protection. The helmet is as useless as a pea-shooter against a battleship. Let's amend this stupid law.
Reply New Comment

Line

105) insurance cost [by Anonymous Citizen on May 29, 2004]
Do the history of injury due to not being fatal, what will happen to the COST of motorcycle and auto insurance.
Reply New Comment

Line

106) cost [by Anonymous Citizen on May 30, 2004]
when a state goes from manditory to CHOICE there never has been a state in wich the insurance has gone up. Also when a state goes from CHOICE to mandatory the insurance has never gone down.
so to answer your question NOTHING.
Reply New Comment

Line

107) Outlaw Big Macs? [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

108) Stall technique [by Anonymous Citizen on April 27, 2004]
They are stalling us riders, they can pas a bill on the flower for clean water but not get to the real fact that they are pushing us off till they break again and we will wait till next year to go through the same crap again.
Reply New Comment

Line

109) Motorcycle awareness month [by Anonymous Citizen on May 1, 2004]
May is motorcycle awareness month (thanks ABATE of Michigan). I wonder if our elected lawmakers know that. This should have been done in the 2002 lame duck period. Then we were told it would be done last February, then it was going to have to wait until March, now it's May and nothing has been done. Why? I hope motorcycle awareness month includes our elected lawmakers being aware that we want our freedom and are getting really tired of waiting. Let's get this done already!!!
Reply New Comment

Line

110) Sounds excellent [by Anonymous Citizen on April 19, 2004]
If it will pick up our economy, lets do it!
Reply New Comment

Line

111) The economy [by Anonymous Citizen on April 17, 2004]
Michigan's economy will greatly improve if this bill passes. In 2000 Florida passed a similar bill and their economy improved tremendously. How? In Florida's first year as a helmet choice state new bike sales increased by 40,000. Say the average cost of a new bike is $10,000 (and that is a low average) multiply that by 40,000 new bikes and that comes to $400 million dollars, just in new bike sales. Now figure titles, plates, registrations, sales tax, etc. That figure is now in the range of $500 million. Now throw tourism dollars into the equasion and we're talking in the neighborhood of $1 BILLION economic improvement in just one year, without having to raise taxes one single penny. Even though the economy has been bad Florida's increased new bike sales have have stayed steady over the past four years. As you can see Michigan can only benefit if this bill passes. Economic improvement without raising taxes, not to mention Michigan motorcyclists will be much happier. It's a win win situation.
Reply New Comment

Line

112) It's time [by Anonymous Citizen on April 11, 2004]
All of our neighboring states allow adult helmet choice, and have for many years. In 1989 21 states allowed adult helmet choice. In 1993 there were 25 choice states. In 1999 there were 29 choice states, and today 31 states allow adult helmet choice. The pendelum has swung in favor of choice. Michigan needs to become choice state number 32 NOW!

It's time. The time is now, we're long overdue!
Reply New Comment

Line

113) hate it here [by Anonymous Citizen on April 9, 2004]
I was looking at other states laws and only 5 states have more restrictive motorcycle laws than Michigan. Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Vermont, and West Virginia are the the only states worse to live in than Michigan if you are a motorcyclist. I don't even want to mention what these other states do to make riding less enjoyable in fear that some insurance company puppet (like Tom George) will read this and try to pass more ridiculous laws here. The 13 other mandatory helmet states suck equally. I am absolutly ashamed to live here sometimes. I have 4 more years until moving is an option. If our mandatory helmet law is not repealed by then I'm outta here.
Reply New Comment

Line

114) Greetings from Indiana [by Anonymous Citizen on April 4, 2004]
I'm so thankful to live in a choice state. Every state that borders my state is a choice state, except Mi. I have riden in OH.,IL.,and KY., but not in Mi. My club does not plan trips in Mi. And everyone that I know who rides will not go into Mi. because of your helmet law. That's a shame because Mi. is a beautiful state and we would love to come up there. A friend of mine who lives in Mi. told me of this site and asked me to log on and post an outsiders opinion. From everything I have seen people would love to ride there but don't because of your helmet law. Why would we when we have the choice here? Hopefully your law will soon change. That would be great! I really would love to ride there. Then I could ride free here and cross all 4 of my states borders and continue to ride free!

Good luck!
Reply New Comment

Line

115) nothing special [by Anonymous Citizen on April 2, 2004]
Asking for adult helmet choice is nothing special, or out of the ordinary. 31 states currently allow this. All we are asking for is the same rights as the majority of other states currently have. Every state surronding Michigan has these rights, Ohio since the early 90's, Indiana, Illinios, and Wisconsin since the