Michigan Votes Forum

Mel Gibson in Braveheart "FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!" Chances are on the road going 55/60 miles an hour a helmet is not going to save your life anyway. Lets put things into perspective and allow people who are riding the bikes have the choice!!!!

I fully support HB-4325. Motorcyclists are not a public burden. The government does not own me. I am an adult who is capable of making my own decisions. This bill does not outlaw helmets.

It's a popular opinion that helmets save lives, but if you are hit by a truck going 60mph the helmet is wearing YOU for protection. The helmet is as useless as a pea-shooter against a battleship. Let's amend this stupid law.

I couldn't agree with you more. Rider and car driver education and awareness make motorcycling safer, not helmet laws. That's just common sense. Why can't our lawmakers see that?

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

MONEY.

Michigan unfortunetly is an insurance controlled state. All of our neighboring states allow adult helmet choice, and have since the late 70's, and they have none of the negative effects that the insurance companies claim. They also pay less for insurance than we do. So you tell me who's running this state!

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

Lansing has been the puppets of the insurance industry for years. Just look at the huge costs where in OH I can get insured for 60 bucks, in MI, over 200. It makes no sense. MI is a ripp-off state, no jobs, high bills, just isn't worth it!

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

Basically, Michigan sucks! For all the reasons you mentioned, all by the way true, Michigan sucks. If all my family wasn't here, I'd be long gone!

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

right on brother.

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

I have been riding for 32 years and have done my reserach on helmets. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard only requires that a helmet withstand a 13 mph impact. The tempeture in a helmet can reach 130 degrees or higher,this will impair my reaction time. It adds more mass to my head creating more force on my neck which can fracture. The extra weight also causes fatique. If a helmet is so safe, why do 30 states allow the freedom of choice? Abate Member, Jim Garron

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

Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted 'no' on House Bill 4325 because of concerns of how it would affect the receipt of claims from the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Administration, which pays for health care needs resulting from the most serious traffic accidents in which private insurance caps are exceeded. It has been argued that eliminating the helmet requirement will dramatically increase these claims and ultimately the cost of insurance for Michigan citizens. Although I appreciate and respect the sentiments of those who argue for the abolition of this law, I think this Legislature owes the greater public the consideration of how this substantial change in the law may affect insurance rates. I say this in deference to the expense borne by insurance customers in this state, and the potential for far greater increases in rates that could result from this change in the law. Just this last summer, Michigan residents were hit with a twenty-seven dollar increase per vehicle for the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, and if the recent experiences of other states that repealed the mandatory adult helmet law are any indication, Michigan can expect to see a dramatic increase in motorcycle fatalities if this law is adopted. I note that upon abolition of similar laws in several states, notably Kentucky, which experienced a fifty percent increase in motorcycle fatalism; Louisiana, which experienced a one hundred percent increase; Arkansas which saw a twenty-nine percent increase in fatalities and Texas which saw an increase of thirty-seven percent. Indeed, a study at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute demonstrates that repeal of a mandatory and universally applied motorcycle helmet law in favor of an age-restricted helmet law has the following effects: Observed helmet use decreases from 99 to 40 percent; fatality rates increase from 38-70 percent; severe brain injury rates increase from 50-360 percent; and, hospital costs for motorcycle injuries increase from 38-50 percent. Clearly the weight of the evidence is that motorcycle helmets reduce injury severity, that repeal of helmet laws decreases helmet use, and that states that repeal universal helmet laws experience increased motorcycle fatalities and injuries. While I fully believe that an informed and educated motorcycle driver can make his or her assessment of the risk, the rate payers of Michigan should not be subjected to the increased costs that another's freedoms may entail. The current law is not simply a matter of protecting individuals from themselves. The cost of treating injuries suffered in motorcycle accidents is high, and in many cases the public must indirectly bear those costs (via surcharges on vehicle insurance for catastrophic claims, as one example). If there was a way of ensuring that others will not be paying the increased insurance costs associated with the increased risk, I would feel more inclined to support this bill. After all, adults should be treated as adults. But as it stands, with Michigan's No Fault Insurance statutes, House Bill 4325 carries the risk of higher insurance rates, and that is something I cannot support. Thank you."

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

Nice job reps! I hope the Senators and the Governor see the light and do the same.

If the insurance and fatality/ injury rate statistics indicate an increase on the magnitude that you are talking of then why do the other 30 states give you the choice? if you are concerned with the mcca fund then why have you not drafted,supported and pushed a bill to have them annually audited. the last time the mcca books were aduited they "found" a surplus of cash and then the residents who have insurance recieved a rebate. The genral feeling is that this is an insurance controlled state. "RoadTrip"

You aren't really that stupid are you? Several times you mentioned that the MCCA fund would be increased. Well here's something you probably don't know. Motorcyclists can't use it, we just get to pay for it. The MCCA fund is payed on a per vehicle basis. If you own a car and a motorcycle you pay double. Once for the car, once for the motorcycle. However if injured on the bike you can't use the fund you payed into TWICE. As far as increased injuries and fatalities go NHTSA clearly states that helmet laws do nothing to prevent accidents or make them safer. A helmet is only rated at 13mph. Furthermore when you compare states that allow helmet choice to those that have mandatory helmet laws the injury/fatality rates aren't any different. These are NHTSA stats this is not my opinion. I don't know what insurance company stats you're looking at but if they were true than why do the majority of states allow helmet choice? Honestly you really don't think helmet choice states are going to pay out of the kindness of their heart do you? The only two states that pay more for insurance than Michigan are California and New York. Both of which are helmet states. That means that EVERY helmet choice state pays LESS than Michigan. I am so tired of insurance company B.S. Shame on you for buying into it.

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

It's about time our legislature update this 30 year old helmet law that does nothing but limit my freedom of choice. Please get this bill passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor. The State of Michigan will benefit from increased motocycle sales and increased tourist dollars from out of state motorcyclist that currently refuse to ride in Michigan because of our current helmet law.

If i have to wear a seatbelt inside a car shouldnt a biker be required to wear a helmet?Sorry neither one of them look kool.

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

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

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

It's about time that Michigan gets in tune with Ohio,Indiana,Illinois,Wisconsin,South Dakota,Minnestoa,Kentucky and remaing states that allow riders decide whether or not to wear a helmet. Not to mention all of the tourism dollars that will be generated by thousands of additional touring motorcyclists to our beautiful state who currently bypass us because of this archaic law.

Thank's for allowing me as a free citizen of this state to decide what I feel is right for me.

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

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.

Nowhere did you mention the cost smokers cost the health care system. Well let's ban smoking. How about skiing? People get hurt skiing. Well let's ban that too. How about people walking across the street? Pedestrians get killed in accidents more than motorcyclists do. So I guess we're going to have to ban walking across the street too. As ridiculos as that may sound that's the way society is going. Your attitude is part of the reason. People are going to be people and live life. I'd be willing to bet that if something happens to you and your insurance isn't enough to cover you would not have these same feelings.

Amen-Free and Liable.

What's wrong with accepting responsibility for your own actions. Yes, there are places that will not hire those who smoke etc, due to the high costs of insurance, absenteeism due to health reasons. Too many people want the freedom to do whatever they please and have others accept the responsibility. The walking across the street scenario is ludicrous, but if you are stupid enough to walk against the light in heavy traffic, why should the car (or cycle driver) have to pay? If the person walking against the light causes you to spill and suffer serious injury, who should be held responsible? I'm not against repealing the helmet law, I just would like to see people held responsible for their choices.

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

Pardon my ignorance. I know about everything there is about motorcycles. I have own over 50 Bikes. I ride 5,000 to 10,000 miles per year for 35 years. What I don't know is Now what ? The bill passed the house. Now what ? My guess is somebody will veto it.

My good buddy for 30 years (he was my best man in my wedding 25 years aog) He moved out of state 20 years ago. He won't move back to Michigan because of the helmet laws. Period. If the bill passes he will move back to Michigan. His Mother and brothers all live here.

I love it! Is there a real time governmental web site that tracks this bills progress? I'm taking off my helmet the day it passes, but I want to make sure I have my facts right so I don't get a ticket.

Well sdanville, our elected officials began their SIX WEEK holiday break so all pending legislation will die on January 1st. Hopefully in 2005 we will have better luck.

join ABATE and get informed thats whats next.