Michigan Votes Forum

How things change over time. When it comes to technology things change for the better, when it comes to personal freedoms and individual choices, things change for the worse. Think back when you were a kid, did anybody ever wear a bicycle helmet? Was there ever a need to? When I was a kid Evel Knevel was my hero (and my mothers worst nightmare). My buddies and I would build ramps to jump our bikes off of, one time I even rode my bike off the carport. The worst that ever happened to any of us was a cut or a scrape. No one ever had any broken bones or a head injury. No helmets, no serious injuries, no problem. And we were pretty wreckless. Now just about every kid you see wears a bicycle helmet for everyday riding, not for the crazy stuff we did as kids. When I was a kid the only one who wore a helmet was Dennis, the retarded kid who lived on our block. So when I see kids with helmets today, I hate to say it but they look like little retards. Therefore I never force my son to wear a bicycle helmet, but I never tell him he can't wear one either. These kids will one day grow up and be our future reps, senators, and governor. If they grow up assuming helmets are safer on a bicycle, helmet choice on a motorcycle, forget it. That's why we have to take care of this problem NOW!! The longer we have this law, the harder it will be to change it. We have had this law for so long now that no one under 40 can remember any different. In all of our neighboring states who took care of their helmet problem back in the 70's, helmet choice is no longer an issue, it is already long established. It is a common opinion in those states that wearing a helmet should be a choice, not a law. That is the general opinion of riders and non-riders alike. Never do you hear anyone in those states complain that they DON'T have a helmet law. Let's please end the non-sense and pass this law.

Nancy (the Nazi) Cassis wants to pass a law MANDATING that kids wear bicycle helmets. If a kid rides a bicycle without one, then the parents will be fined and ticketed. I'M NOT JOKING!! And she wants to be the next governor? I don't think so Nancy. The last thing anybody needs is more ridiculous legislation telling us how to live our lives. Hopefully we will have a better choice for governor. God I hope so!

This is the number of motorcycle fatalities per 10,000 motorcycles in our neighboring helmet choice states compared to mandatory helmet Michigan from 1993 to 2001: Illlinois: # of bikes-1,817,000 # of fatalities-1,023 #of fatalities per 10,000 bikes 5.6 Indiana: # of bikes-937,000 # of fatalities-563 # of fatalities per 10,000 bikes 6.0 Minnesota: # of bikes-1,138,000 # of fatalities-334 # of fatalities per 10,000 bikes 2.9 Ohio: # of bikes-2,116,000 # of fatalities-1,059 # of fatalities per 10,000 bikes 5.0 Wisconsin: # of bikes-1,613,000 # of fatalities-542 # of fatalities per 10,000 bikes 3.4 5 state total: # of bikes-7,621,000 # of fatalities-3,521 # of fatalities per 10,000 bikes 4.6 Mandatory helmet Michigan: # of bikes-1,398 # of fatalities-658 # of fatalities per 10,000 bikes 4.7 Source: NHTSA As you can clearly see our helmet choice neighbors fatality rates are virtually the same as ours are with a helmet law. Therefore our mandatory helmet law is unfounded and needs to be changed.

This is the number of fatalities per 10,000 motorcycles in ALL helmet choice states v.s. ALL mandatory helmet states from 1993 to 2001: 1993: Helmet-6.5 Choice-5.4 1994: Helmet-6.3 Choice-5.2 1995: Helmet-6.5 Choice-5.3 1996: Helmet-5.8 Choice-5.3 1997: Helmet-5.7 Choice-5.1 1998: Helmet-6.1 Choice-5.8 1999: Helmet-6.2 Choice-5.7 2000: Helmet-6.4 Choice-6.6 2001: Helmet-6.9 Choice-6.2 Source: NHTSA NOTE: In 1993 there were 25 helmet choice states, in 2001 there were 30. NOTE: With the exception of calender year 2000, every year has had a lower fatality rate per 10,000 motorcycles in states that allow helmet choice. CONCLUSION: There is absolutely no reason for Michigan to continue having a mandatory helmet law. The law is completely unfounded and needs to be changed.

Wearing a motorcycle helmet is a lot like wearing a knit wool cap. Great to wear one when it is cold outside, but I would hate to wear one on a hot summer day. When the temps are in the 50's, the wind chill on a bike can make it feel as cold as a winter day ice fishing in the U.P. I would never do that and not wear a winter hat, just as I would never ride when the temps are in the 50's without a helmet. Helmets, like winter hats, lock in heat and prevent evaporative cooling. That's why you never see anyone wearing a knit wool cap on a hot summer day. This can actually be dangerous. Without evaporative cooling taking place, the risk of heat stroke increases dramatically. My observations in helmet choice states is that on cooler days most people choose to wear helmets, and on hot days most people choose not to. It has also been my observation that most people do not wear winter coats in the summer either. Since it is statistically proven that helmets and helmet laws do not prevent accidents or save lives, how about giving us the choice? Having a mandatory helmet law is just as ridiculous as having a law mandating that we wear winter coats in the summer. It's stupid!

When you cross the state line into Mighigan (form any state that shares a border) the sign should read; "Welcome to Michigan, put your helmets on and leave all your rights and liberties at the border. Your freedom ends here!"

Helmet laws do not do what many people are led to believe. They do not save lives, they do not reduce accidents, and they do not cause insurance rates to go up if repealed. This is nothing more than scare-tactic rhetoric. There are many examples of scare-tactic rhetoric that the nay-sayers have used. For example, when Michigan passed its CCW bill, all the nay-sayers cried out that there would be more gun crimes, more shoot-outs on the streets, more violence and bloodshed. That did not happen, in fact gun crimes have dropped dramatically since the passing of this bill. When Michigan voters voted in favor of casinos the nay-sayers claimed that casinos would bring in organized crime and ruin families. That did not happen. Casinos have brought in BILLIONS of dollars and created tens of thousands of jobs. When Michigan raised its speed limit from 55 to 70mph, all the nay-sayers (and insurance companies) claimed that accidents and fatalities would increase dramatically, and there would be more bloodshed on our states highways. Well, that didn't happen either. Now the nay-sayers are claiming (without any actual proof, but rather out of emotion) that if Michigan modified its helmet law to allow adult choice that accidents and fatalities will increase along with the cost of our insurance rates. That simply is not the case. Helmet laws do nothing more than make the nay-sayers feel good. Therefore the helmet law is just that, a feel good law. There is no evidence that allowing helmet choice has any of the negative reprocusions that the nay-sayers claim. Just like the CCW, the casinos, and the 70mph speed limit, nothing that they claimed would happen, did happen. Why would allowing helmet choice be any different? What allowing helmet choice would do is increase our states suffering economy. According to the Lansing based account firm, Michigan Consultants, Michigan could expect to see a $1.2 BILLION dollar increase by allowing helmet choice. Allowing helmet choice would increase revenue generated from increased motorcycle sales and tourism. With every state surrounding Michigan allowing helmet choice, nobody from out of state is coming here to ride, and those who live here are going out of state to ride, myself included. I go down to Ohio to ride any chance I get. I would not have to do that if Michigan allowed helmet choice. Michigan is losing a lot of money due to our helmet law. That's not my opinion, THAT'S A FACT! ! Please look at the facts objectively. Please don't buy into the nay-sayers anti-choice, scare-tactic rhetoric. Because that's all that it is. The nay-sayers were wrong about changing other feel good laws, and they are wrong about this as well.

I'm from Illinois. It does NOT have no fault insurance. Accident is your fault? - you pay other driver for your mistake as you should. People should be held accountable for thier actions.

The reason for the nationwide furor against MANDATORY helmet laws arises not so much from a concern for public safety, but as a concern for an individual's RIGHT to self-determination. The success of our CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED REPUBLICAN form of goverment is in many ways dependent upon the ability of our citizens to develop into mature, responsible individuals. And, the very essence of maturity exists in the process of SELF-DETERMINATION. For a government to pass regulations designed to protect individuals from themselves, it assumes that is necessary to do so. How is it possible for a government to make such an assumption and still have it's people believe that they govern themselves?

Hopefully those that were elected by WE THE PEOPLE (not the insurance industry) will be aware of this legislation and vote in favor of it. Everybody else please; look twice, save a life, motorcycles are everywhere. Thank you :)

Who actually believes helmets are safer to physically PROVE IT to me. I do not want to see stats, I want to see results. Here's what you can do. Go to the roof of the Ren-cen building, put a helmet on, jump off, and if the helmet saves your life, THEN AND ONLY THEN, will I actually believe they are safer. Until then there is no actual proof. I do not believe what cannot be proven, that's why I don't believe in Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, or that helmets make you safer. For those who do believe they are safer, who knows, maybe someday you may see a leprechan, a mermaid, or a unicorn.

Number One: I don't know about those other guys, but let me tell you, buddy, Santa Claus does EXIST! He does, he does...he does! Number Two: Stat's are very important, because they disprove the claim that helmets significantly mitigate injury in motorcycle accidents. I was corresponding with some safety guy in Nebraska who kept throwing numbers around. He had consumed a significant amount of the pro-helmet Kool-Aid and was hard-core in his opposition to repeal of Nebraska's helmet law. For all his injury and death stat's, the one thing this expert apparently never considered was relative ridership. We both know that overall saddle time (actual vehicle miles) drops when a helmet law is passed and increases in response to a repeal. The commie-cap advocates are unable or unwilling to understand this dynamic model and continue to insist that helmets are beneficial simply because total injuries and deaths drop when helmets are mandated. We know that the very same thing could be accomplished -- and for the very same reason -- by reducing total motorcycle registrations and limiting annual vehicle miles. So next time they play the statistics game, simply ask them to weight the data based on registrations, miles or reported accidents. If they were honest in their pro-helmet position, they will admit surprise when they see the result. If they instead continue to argue, you know that they are insincere...that their position is anti-motorcycle, not pro-safety.

Helmets do not promote safety, they discourage riding. That is what the insurance companies really want. We have a governor who will most likely veto this bill, and her reason will be safety. Keep in mind this is the same woman who cut the funding for the motorcycle safety program in 2003. The safety program is funded by motorcycle registration fees, not taxpayer dollars. In otherwords, it's self-funded. Not to mention that riders safety programs are proven to prevent accidents and fatalities, helmets are not. Someone who would cut such a program can't be THAT concerened with safety.

30 other states have, why not Michigan?

Does anyone know when the house will vote on the bill and what about Granholm? Will she veto it? She said she is not in favor of the bill and there are not enough votes to override a veto if she does it.

It was to be heard on may 3rd, But ABATE has postponed it to better prepare. What ever that means.

As a rider (and ABATE member) from Wisconsin who comes to the Michigan / Indiana area often, I am very concerned about this bill and whether or not it passes. I have written a letter to the Gov. of Michigan letting her know about some statistics and facts (that were published in Michigan newspapers) about riding with and without helmets. I also informed her that as a rider I choose to not ride in to Michigan from Indiana and choose not to spend my money in Michigan because I also have chosen not to wear my helmet. Now it’s great that everyone here has posted comments about how this bill should pass and that the Governor should sign it, but I strongly urge you all to also write to the Governor herself and let her know directly how you feel. It’s one thing to have one of her aids tell her that “There are some threads posted on the internet” but another for her to get an actual letter that she can see and read about how you fell. So please write to your Governor, your state representatives, tell them how you feel. If they are against the bill, tell them why they should be for it. If they are for the bill, thank them!

What that means is there is no point in having a vote until we are absolutely certain that Granholm will not veto the bill. AAA is counting on Granholm vetoing this bill. What YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE who wants this bill to pass needs to do is write to her or call 517-335-7858 and let her people know that you are a registered voter and you want Michigan to allow adult helmet choice. Any and all the info you need to write the governor can be found at abateofmichigan.org log on, join, and help the cause.

We the people (not we the insurance companies) is the opening of the Declaration of Independence, and yet the insurance companies, not we the people, seem to be the ones in control. We need to change this. Just like the Colonists wanted freedom from British tyranny, motorcyclists want freedom from the insurance companies tyranny. (Ain't it funny how history repeats itself?) If history has taught us anything it's that freedom has to be fought for, it's not given away. What YOU can do is boycott AAA (they are the number one enemy of freedom), log on to abateofmichigan.org and get any information you may need to write the governor to support helmet choice. You can also call 517-335-7858 and tell Granholm's people that you want her to support helmet choice. It's up to YOU! You can be a sheep, or you can be a patriot, the choice is your's. If you do nothing then nothing will happen, GUARANTEED! If the Colonists choose to be sheep where would we be today?

If you love freedom and want Michigan to be a free state, you should boycott AAA and go with someone else. Their money is spent lobbying against our freedom, so stop giving them any.

"Here's to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The trouble-makers. The square pegs in round holes. The ones who see things differently. They are not fond of rules, and have no respect for the status-quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify, or vilify them. But the only thing you cannot do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race foward. And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do." Unknown "The history of liberty is a history of the limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it." Woodrow Wilson "100% of the shots you don't take don't go in." Wayne Gretzky "Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing in the world is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent..." Calvin Coolidge "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Albert Einstein "I have discovered the art of deceiving bureaucrats; I speak the truth, and they never believe me." Unknown "Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." Mark Twain "Nothing scares me more than someone who knows, WITH CERTAINTY, what is best for me." Unknown "The right to revolt has sources deep in our history." Supreme Court Justice William O'Douglas And for the insurance companies: "Our motto must be to lie in order to conquer." Benito Mussolini "The size of the lie is a definate factor in causing it to be believed." Adolf Hitler

AAA is sending Granholm plenty of anti-choice propaganda as we speak. We have to fight them hard, and fight them NOW if we want choice in Michigan.

ABATE's position supporting ADULT CHOICE instead of Michigan's mandatory motorcycle helmet law DOES NOT seek to eliminate the use of helmets. Although ABATE questions the MANDATORY nature of a law that forces the usage of so-called self-protection equipment with questionable benefits, it is the use of "DOCTERED" statistics, the misrepresentation of facts, and the outright lies used by the insurance companies to support their position which is especially bothersome. It is easy to see that the incidence of injuries is directly related to the incidence of accidents. The fact of the matter, though, is that the incidence of accidents and, thus, the incidence of injuries along with the "fatality rate", (fatalities per 100 accidents), has been steadily DECREASING since the mid-80's, even with 30 states allowing "choice". This is CONTRARY to what people are led to believe by these same so-called "safety experts" according to the NHTSA. This can be easily verified. The real question is "what can be done to curb the motorcycle accident rate even further?" Helmets do not prevent accidents, they have not reduced fatalities, nor do they make for a safer motorcycle rider. Helmets MAY reduce some types of injuries OR they may INTENSIFY the severity of injuries. The crash helmet's effectiveness is totally dependent upon the particular circumstances of the accident over which a helmet has no control. An experienced, educated motorcycle rider knows that their ability to ride their motorcycle in a safe and alert manner will do more to determine the probability of their involvement in an accident than all the "safety" equipment that they could possibly carry. Therefore, the solution to reduce the motorcycle accident rate and more importantly, the fatality rate, is to initiate comprehensive education and awareness programs for BOTH the motorcycle rider and the car driver, PERIOD! This information is provided to encounter the misrepresentations of the pro-helmet law crowd with clear, rational, objective responses to their emotional rhetoric. With 30 states allowing adult helmet choice this PROVES that neither fatality rates nor accident rates increase with adult choice. Furthermore, there is not one state in the Union that has increased it's insurance rates with the modification of their mandatory helmet law to allow adult choice. Conversely, there is not one state that has DECREASED their insurance rates with the passing of a mandatory helmet law. CASE CLOSED! Finally, from "Motorcycles--Fatal Accident Reporting System" (FARS), as far back as 1977 comes the statement, "There is no significant difference in the fatality rates of states requiring and not requiring the wearing of a motorcycle helmet".

It is evident that mandatory helmet laws are not reducing motorcycle fatalities. The decision on when and under what conditions to wear a helmet while operating a motorcycle should remain with each responsible adult rider for the following reasons; 1) Helmets do not prevent accidents. 2) Mandatory helmet use does not result in lower fatality rates. The Michigan motorcycle fatality rate per 10,000 bikes is not significantly different from the total for the surrounding Great Lakes States, all of which allow helmet choice. They are virtually the same. 3) In 2002, 32% of all fatally injured motorcycle operators were intoxicated with BAC's of .08 or greater. 4) In 2002, 25% of the motorcycle operators involved in fatal crashes did not have a valid motorcycle license. Rather than focusing on mandatory helmet use, which does nothing to reduce accidents, energies should be directed toward reducing riding under the influence and improving motorcycle operator education and licensing along with car driver awareness prograns in the state. This is why ABATE of Michigan has recently introduced the Ride Straight program, which is a joint venture of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the American Motorcycle Association (AMA) and is aimed at reducing/eliminating alcohol consumption while riding. This is also why we continue to stress the importance of the rider education programs and to teach new car drivers to look out for motorcycles.

NHTSA recently released data on motorcycle accident fatalities. The data did not compare helmet to non-helmet fatalities, just overall motorcycle fatalities. It concluded that motorcycle fatalities, whether weighted on a per-million mile basis or on a per-hundred thousand registration basis, are increasing every year. It's a regular upward spiral of death! When I worked the numbers backward, however, I found that NHTSA is basing its upward trend in fatalities on some questionable data, including an assumption that the average motorcycle is ridden approximately 579 miles per year. At least, this the assumption for 2003. For the dozen or so years prior, each year uses a different assumption. I wonder about the basis of this arbitrary number and why it changes (slightly upward) every year? Also according to the NHTSA data, there has been a significant upward trend in motorcycle registrations beginning in the mid-1990's. So...if NHTSA is undercounting the average mileage (which we know goes way up when helmet laws are repealed) at the same time motorcycle registrations are increasing, the difference between the actual exposure rate for motorcycle accidents on a per-mile basis and NHTSA's assumption can be expected to become greater every year. I think that this built-in error is the reason that NHTSA has concluded that there has been an X-percentage increase in fatalities per million vehicle miles every year for the past number of years: They undercount miles per bike and therefore underestimate exposure. Of course, having it's finger on the scale this way does give the group the results they want. In fairness, the fatality rate on a per-registration basis has also increased. But in light of the above, I find myself questioning how they count registrations. Maybe they assume a low X-year life of a motorcycle, which would result in fewer estimated active registrations, thereby increasing estimated fatility rates?

There's so much propaganda on both side of this issue that I did a little checking here in Colorado. I just received some info from the Colorado Dept of Transportation regarding motorcycle accident and fatality rates. The most recent data available is for 2003. The fatality rate for motorcyclists and pillions on a per-100 accident basis is: 2003/.32; 2002/.29; 2001/.22; 2000/.24. The average is less than .24, which is pretty low. Colorado does not have a helmet law.

It is essential to make a clear distinction between the use of a helmet and laws mandating such use. Helmets may be desirable under some, but not all conditions. Laws mandating such use at all times are unjustified. The decision to use a helmet, at what times, and under what circumstances or conditions should remain with the adult operator. Mandatory helmet use laws were initiated by the Federal government in the Highway Safety Act of 1966, and subsequently repealed by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1975. Most states repealed the imposed mandatory helmet use laws for adults after the Federal pressure was removed. Yet motorcycle safety statistics improved dramatically throughout the 1985 through 2000 period, with NHTSA figures showing a 51% decline in motorcycle fatalities in that time frame. Some of those who drank the pro-helmet kool-aid believe that uninsured costs of injured motorcyclists, which must be born by the public, would increase if voluntary helmet use was permitted. This is not supported by the experience of states that have modified their helmet laws. As for any "burden" that uninsured motorcyclists may be thought to place on health care costs, it has been consistently determined that motorcyclists are just as likely, if not more likely, to be privately insured than the general population of trauma patients. Motorcyclists do not represent any greater potential cost to taxpayers than a person driving a car or engaging in any other activity with a potential risk, be it skiing, horesback riding, or climbing the stairs in your house. Motorcycle accidents represent less than 6/10ths of 1% of all vehicular accidents. Compared with automobile drivers, motorcyclists represent a minuscule part of all motor vehicle costs. Laws mandating helmet use at all times have no significant effect on the safety of motorcycling in general. Therefore this bill should be passed and signed into law.

I was spending my time enjoying freedom of choice in the free states of Indiana and Kentucky. I was also spending my money, about $1,000, that would've be spent here, if Michigan were a free state. Hopefully Michigan will soon realize they are losing out on a lot of tourism dollars simply because of this ridiculous law.

that the Governor is not to popular these days. If the election were today, she would lose. Perhaps signing this bill into law would help her. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I vote for the person (not the party) that best suits my interests. I did not vote for Granholm in ' 02 because she did not support this legislation and Posthumus did. If Michigan still has a helmet law in ' 06, I will again not vote for Granholm. If she were to sign this bill into law, then I would vote for her. If she won't support this legislation simply because it is the right thing to do, maybe she will do it to get re-elected. Just something to think about.

Governor Granholm's popularity is in a downward spiral. Perhaps it's because all she has done is raise taxes since she has been in office. I do agree however, that if she were to sign this bill into law I would then at least consider voting for her in the next election. She would be the first Michigan Governor to have the stones to sign such a bill. That in itself would earn her my respect. Besides, Engler stunk, she so far has stunk, what's to say the next guy would be any better? I think signing this bill would be good for her.

Have you been making any more money since Granholm has been Governor? Didn't think so. Enjoy wearing your helmets!

I'm a teamster. Friday morning I was listening to newsradio 760 AM, and helmet-choice supporter Dick DeVos announced that he would be running for Governor next year. If come election day Michigan still has a helmet law, he will be getting my vote, not Jennifer Granholm. I am so sick and tired of this mandatory helmet non-sense that I would be willing to vote the other way if that's what it's going to take to get this legisation passed.

The entire state is in the toilet! Today GM announced elimination of another 25,000 jobs over two years. The schools are in the tank and jobs are leaving the state at a record pace thanks to Clintons NAFTA treaty. The state is looking at cutting 9,000 people off welfare cold turkey. If you think Granholm cares about helmets when the state has all these other problems you are dreaming. I will vote Dick DeVos for sure!!

I'm sure anyone living in the metro Detroit area has heard about the city laying off many of it's officers. The good news is that Denver, Dallas, and Ft.Lauderdale are willing to hire us and give us better wages. Colorado, Texas, and Florida are all helmet choice states and are offering better wages. And I want to stay in Michigan...........why?

I relocated to Colorado from metro-Detroit a few years ago. I spent basically my entire working life in the City. If you decide to escape, there are a few differences between Detroit/metro-Detroit and metro-Denver that you would have to work through: (1) The roads out here are smooth and driveable. And they're generally not closed for construction. (2) The mountain air is fresh. (3) The sun shines during the winter months. This is big. Really. (4) People are friendly, helpful and acknowledge each other as they pass on the street. (5) Union non-think, bureaucratic bungling and special interests don't control local government. (Kilpatrick would have been run out of town on a rail if he pulled the same crap.) (6) There are virtually no mosquitoes. (7) Humidity is very low. (8) Trash, broken glass and abandoned vehicles are not commonly observed around town. (9) Downtown Denver is actually pleasant. People can and do actually walk around the city -- even at night. (10) Mountains, mountains, mountains. On the other hand, you do have the Pistons and, when they're playing, the Red Wings.

I thought that this was suppost to be dealt with before the legislators took their 12 week paid summer vacation (complements of our tax dollars). I guess Granholm is the only one holding it up. If this is not dealt with before this year comes to an end, be sure to vote for helmet-choice supporter Dick DeVos in 2006. Maybe then summer of ' 07 could be our first helmet-choice summer. That would ONLY be about 3 decades later than ALL of our neighboring states. God, Michigan blows!

That is what Granholm had said to a group of bikers at a political gathering. Well Jenny, if you CHOOSE to wear a helmet and I CHOOSE not to, that would be agreeing to disagree, and that's fine. But when the government mandates helmet usage, FORCING their decision on everyone, that is not agreeing to disagree, that's fascism. All we are asking for is the right to choose. This is not an anti-helmet issue, it's a pro-choice issue. I would NEVER support a law banning helmets. We are not asking you to agree with us, or like our decisions. But the right to choose is something that should not be taken lightly. It's like abortion. Nobody likes abortion, but it's necessary sometimes. If you feel strongly against it, then don't have one. But don't take away the right to have one. The right to choose is something that I hold dear as an American. Even if I don't agree with it personally.

Pennsylvania repealed their helmet law in 2003. After the first year of Pennsylvania's helmet law repeal, The Pittsburgh Hearld Tribune carried a story entitled; "PA Drops Helmet Requirement and Motorcycle Deaths Drop Too." The content of the article follows the title. Go figure.

The main cause of head trauma and head trauma fatalities is caused by the brain tearing away from the soft tissue INSIDE the skull cavity. While a helmet may provide protection from injuries on the outside of the head, such as abrasions, no helmet can protect injuries that happen INSIDE the head. These injuries are the ones proven to be fatal. This is the reason why helmet-choice states do not have higher head injuries/fatalities than mandatory helmet states.

I have given up on the loser legislature and the governor. Its just like seat belts. I don't see them changing anytime soon. They impose their will on us with bogus laws and regulations, and yet we keep re-electing them. I rest my case!!