2009 House Bill 4028: Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate

Legislation watch

Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next

Introduced by Rep. Richard LeBlanc (D) on January 22, 2009, to repeal the mandatory motorcycle helmet requirement. The bill does not impose any conditions or fees on an individual’s choice to ride without a helmet.
- Referred to the House Regulatory Reform Committee on January 22, 2009.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate ) by Freerider on March 22, 2010

EDUCATION, NOT LEGISLATION...

...is the key to motorcycle safety. Michigan has a helmet law, Wisconsin has allowed 18 and older adult-choice since 1978. In 2005 Michigan had 121 motorcycle fatalities, Wisconsin had 99. Michigan has approximately 220,000 registered motorcycles, Wisconsin has 300,000. That means Michigan's fatality RATE (fatalities per 10,000 bikes) was 5.5, Wisconsin's was 3.3. How could this be? Wisconsin not only has great riders ed programs, they also have one of the best, if not the best, driver awareness programs in the country. Michigan does have very good riders ed programs, but when it comes to driver awareness, not so much. I'm sure you have seen plenty of "click it or ticket" and "you drink, you drive, you lose" PSA commercials on TV. But I bet you have never saw a "look twice, save a life, motorcycles are everywhere" commercial. Why not? It seems to be working there. You wouldn't even have to run them year round, just 6 months, April thru October.

Riders ed is key too. Kentucky (free state) and Louisiana (helmet state) both have higher fatality rates. They also have little or no riders ed programs avaliable. Therefore it is education, not legislation, that should used to promote motorcycle safety. 8 of the top 10 states with the lowest fatality rates (Wisconsin being one of them) do not have helmet laws. They instead choose to educate. Michigan needs to do the same. In today's society where freedoms and liberties seem to be disappearing, it sure would be nice to get this one back.

Line

2) Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate ) by Freerider on March 19, 2010

WHAT IF?;

Wearing a helmet did reduce the severity of head injuries, but also increased your odds of having an accident. Would you then be any safer? Fact- 30 states allow choice, 20 do not. Fact- the states that do allow choice have a slightly lower fatality rate than those that do not. Helmet states have a fatality rate of 5.6 per 10,000 bikes, in free states it's 5.4 per 10,000. I have a couple of theories on this. One that involves car drivers, one that involves motorcyclists.

90% of motorcycle accidents are CAUSED by car drivers. The number one reason given is always; "Sorry officer, I didn't see him." If you have ever driven in any of our neighboring states you may have noticed a motorcyclist riding helmetless. Even if you reaction was; "Oh my God, that guy's not wearing a helmet." The fact is, you saw him. And just by seeing him, you reduced his odds of having an accident by 90%! A few years ago I was in Ohio on my way to Cedar Point. The girl I was with at the time had that exact reaction. I asked if she had noticed the 3 previous bikers who were wearing helmets, she hadn't. There was a bicyclist in England who had noticed that cars tended to give him more passing space when he rode helmetless. He decided to test this theory. He had gotten a lasercam that measured the passing distance. He rode 500 miles, half with a helmet, half without. He had discovered that cars gave him, on average, an additional 2 feet of passing space while he was helmetless. He was even once sideswiped while wearing his helmet.

Helmets may also give a rider a false sense of security. You are much more aware of your surroundings when riding helmetless. Instead of trying to beat that yellow light, you slow down for it. I had a buddy of mine who is a nice guy, but kind of a dumbass. We went down to Ohio to ride helmetless. While we were there I had noticed that he appeared to be much more aware of his surroundings. We never went any more than 5mph over the posted speed limit, and obeyed all other traffic laws. Once we got back to Michigan and were forced to put our helmets back on he, on more than one occasion, passed multiple cars in a no passing zone. Through curves and over hills where your sight of oncoming traffic is limited. He took a lot more risks when he was wearing a helmet.

These are just theories I've made from personal observations. The Englishman's test is telling, but one test isn't enough to declare something a fact. But it is, at least, something to think about.

Line

3) Re: 2009 House Bill 4028 (Repeal motorcycle helmet mandate ) by gypsy on February 8, 2010

Now that was a lot of energy used to explain to me why insurance companies don't like paying claims. You could have said it in one sentence. It affects their bottom line. Whether a law is passed allowing you to ride helmetless or not will not change the fact that insurance companies are in the business of making money.

Good luck with your bill, and be safe, (as safe as you can be without a helmet).

For my sake, keep up your medical insurance. I can barely afford my own medical bills.

Line

View Full Conversation