Michigan Votes Forum

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.