Michigan Votes Forum

Dear TBI nurse, You evidently don't get the sheer irony of your statement, "I see the horrific and life changing events everyday from motorcylce (sic) acidenets (sic) even with helmets." This is the very point of the argument! Jim Still riding free in Arvada, CO

There are seven states who have helmet laws on the books today. These seven states have the LOWEST fatality rates for motorcyclists in the US. Coincidence? I think not. AAA is telling us that this law will cost us 22 more lives a year, and over $140000000 each year. Michigan is in a budget crisis, and for some reason, our appointed representatives don't seem to care that this is only going to make things worse. I am personally going to campaign against my three government officials that voted for this bill. I dont care who wins, provided it is not Corriveau, LaJoy or Patterson. For those of you who think that I care about the paltry few million dollars that your motorcycling will bring to Michigan, you are wrong. This will never make up for the 140 million dollars that health insurance companies are going to levy against us. It will never bring back the 22 lives each year that are estimated will be lost. It will never allow those hundreds who will be permanently injured and/or paralyzed. Wear your helmet. You people who are complaining are the same ones who overpopulate the country because 'condoms keep you from enjoying the act.' You can enjoy your ride wearing a helmet the same way as if you didnt. If not, I hear Ohio has some pretty riding country.... go there.

I applaud you! There is no excuse for not wearing your helmet. It doesnt hinder your ability to enjoy a ride, it doesnt "Infringe on your first amendment rights" like ABATE would have us think. We dont get the right to decide if we want to wear our seatbelts, because EVERYONE knows that seatbelts save lives. So do helmets. This should have been a non-issue... but for someone being bribed by lobbyists to introduce this horribe horrible idea. I STRONGLY recommend emailing Jennifer Granholm at http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-21995---,00.html and letting her know you DO NOT support this bill. She has vetoed the last couple bills like this to cross the desk of the Governor... let us pray she does again.

petty little control freak that keeps posting over on the so called "road rage" thread. Get a Life and quit trying to control ours.

I am a rehabilitation nurse who sees the results of motorcycle vs car/tree/rough road crashes. The incidence of life altering head injuries in these types of accidents is way too high with helmets. Without helmets this would only increase. Add to this that the funding for rehabilitation of these types of accidents would fall to the auto/health insurers. It doesn't take too much insight to realize that these costs would be passed on to all individuals with auto & health insurance in MI. I am all for individual freedoms, but those who want these freedoms should bear the cost & responsibility for it, not all of the rest of us who can not drive w/o auto insurance and need health care coverage to fund our medical care. If those who want to ride a motorcyle w/o a helmet are able & willing to pay both the intellectual and monitary costs of their decision then they should have the freedom to do so, but to place that burden on the citizens of Michigan is irresponsible. Any legistrator who votes for this bill should visit a head injury rehabilitation facitity & write out a check for a million $'s. I know my family can't afford this bill.

how many lives we could save if everyone wore a helmet in their cars? How about we outlaw bathtubs, they are responsible for lots of injuries, Bicycles, way to dangerous, football same thing. maybe we can just all report to jail and sit in a cell and live a long long time. Life is dangerous and will kill you sooner or later. You nannie's have already turned all our boys into wimpy azz little girly boys and then you wonder why they're getting fat. People like you should not be allowed to vote.

Senator George's statement, in which Senators Hardiman, Birkholz, Pappageorge and Kahn concurred, is as follows: I want to point out that just as the previous attempts to repeal our motorcycle helmet law have been flawed, this bill is equally flawed and contains two new flaws which deserve discussion. Like its predecessors, the proponents of this bill falsely argue that laws requiring helmet use are part of a plot by evil hospitals and doctors who conspire to make riders wear them in order to bring more victims into the clutches of the intensive care unit. The proponents claim that helmeted riders are more likely to be in accidents due to the helmet' interference with hearing and vision, and then they argue that the outcomes of the accidents are worse. They say that the helmets block the body's natural defense which is supposedly for the cranium to break open to relieve the pressure around the brain. Of course, none of this is true. Study after study shows that wearing helmets does not increase the risk of being in an accident, and we know for a fact that helmets reduce the risk of death and injury. That's why baseball players, construction workers, hockey and football players know to wear them. The body's natural defense is not for the skull to crack open. It is the opposite. God protects our brain with a hard casing because the brain is soft and easily damaged. A hard helmet supplements the natural protection the Creator has endowed us with. You are better off if you are in an accident if you happen to be wearing a helmet. In states which have repealed helmet laws, both the number of deaths and injuries have increased. Without helmets, minor injuries become major injuries and major injuries turn into fatalities. States which have repealed their helmet laws see an increase in fatalities from 30-50 percent. In Michigan, in 2005-2006, we had 116 motorcycle fatalities. We would expect an increase of 30-50 new fatalities per year. That would be about one per Senate district. In each of our districts, there will be about one new person a year who will likely die if this bill becomes law. Most of these victims will be young men. Some of them will have families. There will be children in our districts who will grow up without fathers because of our actions today. In addition to the suffering and social costs, we've already discussed the cost to the motorists and to the taxpayers. Another new flaw in this bill, as I mentioned earlier, is its treatment of out-of-state and Canadian riders. They are exempt from the requirement to purchase a certificate. Maybe we should put up signs at our borders. Maybe we should put up one at the Blue Water Bridge or the Ambassador Bridge that says "Welcome to Michigan. You don't have to follow any of our laws. They are only for our residents. We hope you enjoy your stay." This bill is actually more flawed than the previous attempts to repeal the helmet law because it exempts the out-of-state residents and because of the change in the MCCA threshold which is now at $420,000. When we last considered this, the threshold was at $320,000. It goes up, every year, and when it goes up that means that the motorists are covering more until the MCCA kicks in. This bill will result in unnecessary suffering and death. It places the public's health at undue risks. I ask you to join me in casting a "no" vote.

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows: As I said earlier, as a former school psychologist, I personally know the toll of brain-injured people--the parents of kids, parents who survived a helmetless motorcycle accident but lost their quality of life forever. How can we ignore the human costs--emotional, social, and financial. Senator George offered a common-sense solution, an amendment accountable and responsible to all insurance paying citizens. I, again, say for the record I would have supported House Bill No.4749 if the amendment was adopted. Alas, it wasn't, and I, therefore, will vote "no." I cannot support motorcycling without a helmet.

Senator Jacobs' statement is as follows: I really wasn't planning on getting up to speak, but I guess I really have to because I was in committee yesterday when we had our hearing. And, honestly, I'm sorry I wish I had known that we were going to be taking this up because I would have brought some other notes. While I appreciate the work that Representative Farrah put into this in trying to make this a better bill, and I really do appreciate the hard work that she put into this, I'm looking at some of the sweeteners that were put in to help us vote for this. One of them being this $100.00 fee and I think we're trying to sort of help balance the state's budget not on the backs of motorcycle drivers, but on their heads. Dr.Petterson was one of the people who testified in committee yesterday, and he was sort of addressing the whole issue of the choice of adults and the sort of $100.00 permit fee, and he made some interesting points that I just kind of want to share. He said, "Should we be able to pay $100.00 to for us to decide that we don't want to wear seat belts in the car? Should we pay $100.00 fee to allow us to put baby carriers in the front seat next to moms instead of in the back seat? Should we pay $100.00 to allow toddlers to get out of their car seats and kind of scrunch their noses up on the windows of the back seats? Should we pay $100.00 to allow hunters to wear sweatshirts instead of hunter-orange apparel?" The fact is that our job really is to protect our constituents, and I think that if we were to pass this bill, we would not be doing our job. So I would ask you to join me in not supporting this bill so that we can do our job and protect the very people who sent us here to do our job.

Senator Basham's statement is as follows: I'm going to support the bill. I agree with the previous speaker. I don't think we should have to pay $100 to exhibit our rights in the state of Michigan, but I don't think our rights should be taken away from us. Regardless of what happens with this legislation, I'll be wearing my helmet when I ride my motorcycle. The riders have always wanted to have the choice to determine whether they have to put it on, especially if it's 80, 90, or 100 degrees and their heads are sweating, they might want to pull it off for five minutes. They might want to ride up the block again. So those are things that I think that the riders should be able to decide themselves. If we had the same passion on both sides of the aisle on the issue that I've been working, on again smoke-free workplaces, as we do on this bill that just sailed through the Senate just like a, I guess, a bullet or a speeding hare, but it's amazing when we have so much passion on a bill that's been before this legislative body a number of times and I can't even get a hearing on bill that affects more lives and more costs and affects workplaces. You're talking about dying or having injuries and dying a slow death, try 17 respiratory diseases, emphysema, and heart attacks. I'd love to hear the good doctor from the other side of the aisle with his passion talk about giving me a hearing and giving me a--trying to do that, Mr.President. I think things are related. As a matter of fact, when we talk about riding without a helmet, we are talking about health care. That was the main argument on this piece of legislation health care--I'm trying to draw a correlation between them. There's other things that we can do besides this bill, and maybe I missed my opportunity to put an amendment on that said that if you ride a motorcycle, you should not work in a workplace that has smoking or any of those sorts of things. So maybe I missed an opportunity to put on some amendments that would give us a meaningful discussion in this chamber about health care and the billions we are losing as a result of not moving my legislation.

To the nurses and rehab folks I commend you. I certainly appreciate the emotional and intense postion you approach this issue from. Your intent is admirable, but, sadly misguided. To the rest of the non-riding public who deems themselves armchair specialists on this subject. I can only say I wish your outrage and emotion and motivation would bleed over on behalf of our young men and women literally being blown to pieces in Iraq and Afghanistan. To the handful of motorcyclists who feel that they need to pursue a continuation of a failed policy, even though this modification will have no effect on them what so ever in terms of wearing or not wearing their own helmet,I say Geez bro, give me a break. Mind your own damn business and go focus on something important. The utility of a helmet is undeniable. A helmets limitations are well acknowledged by Government, Helmet manufacturers, and independent testing agencies. A helmet may save a life, or limit TBI, within a very small and defined set of crash circumstances. This is readily obvious to anyone who rides in Michigan, because we all know dead people who were wearing helmets. LIMB LOSS. PARALYSIS. BLUNT FORCE TRAUMA INDUCED ORGAN DEVASTATION. MASSIVE BONE BREAKAGE. SEVERE CUT AND GASH BLEEDING. No helmet prevents or even effects these leading causes of death and life changing injury. Okay here is the biggy. HELMETS DO NOT PREVENT CRASHES. A helmet is akin to putting a bandaid on a bullet hole. Any government agency that has stats on motorcycle crashes will show that 2/3 of all motorcycle crashes are the result of a Right of Way violation by an automobile driver. And its gotten worse. In the last 10 years cell phone use while driving has become epedemic. It is well proven driving while engaged in cell phone conversation, including hands free, is as dangerous as drunk driving. Add to that text messaging, fast food, DVD players, GPS, computers, and everything else and we have created chaos on the highways. Build cars with surround sound air bags, crash resistant frames, and mandatory seatbelts to keep passengers inside the safety bubble. This has created drivers who are so self assured of their personal safety that they feel free to relax and enjoy distractions that are effecting their attention, and killing people. ABATE of MICHIGAN wants education of new motorcyclists on how to safely ride on our roads. ABATE of MICHIGAN wants education of all drivers on driving with motorcyclists on our roads. ABATE of MICHIGAN wants MOTORCYCLE AWARENESS campaigns rivalling click it or ticket campaigns conducted yearly. ABATE of MICHIGAN wants license renewal exams that require correctly answering questions pertaining to sharing the road with motorcycles. ABATE of MICHIGAN wants realistic penalties and fines for Right of Way violations that cause injury or death to ANYONE. ABATE OF MICHIGAN is the STATES LEADER on what encompasses motorcycle safety. We are Michigan bikers who have the combined experience of having ridden thousands of years, and millions of miles on Michigans roads. We are Veterans, Fathers, Mothers, Grandparents, and your neighbors carrying on a tradition in this State and Country that goes back a hundred years. If the issue of head injuries were all this was about, it seems like people would be scrambling to get them on car drivers. Statistics are easily found that there are over 100 TBI's for car drivers for every 1 motorcyclist. And even pedestrians outnumber motorcyclists for TBI. Hell, household injuries outnumber TBI's for motorcyclists. My final comment is emotional and personal. Since when did the idea of freedom become so blaise? I am sick and tired of indivduals scooting personal freedom aside as being a "cute" but irrelevant issue. Freedom from tyrannical government is the basis upon which this country was founded, and why I have felt inclined to spend over 10 years in the military. Including a year away from my family since 911. As adults we have the god granted freedom to make our OWN choices about how we live our life. You think about how many are dead to gaurantee that. A little government intervention here. A little government intervention there. A few taxes here, a few taxes there, all to make your life a little more comfy here and there. How long before government takes on a form that looks strikingly like the one we fought to be free from? I will finish by leaving with this. Written well over a hundred years ago. AN APPEAL FOR LIBERTY By Joseph Story I call upon you, fathers, by the shades of your ancestors-by the dear ashes which repose in this precious soil-by all you are, and all you hope to be- resist every encroachment upon your liberties, resist every attempt to fetter your consciences, or smother your public schools, or extinguish your system of public instruction. I call upon you, mothers, by that which never fails in a woman, the love of your off-spring; teach them, as they climb your knees, or lean on your bosoms, the blessings of liberty. Swear them at the altar, as with their baptismal vows, to be true to their country, and never forget or forsake her. I call upon you, young men, to remember whose sons you are; whose inheritance you possess. Life can never be to short, which brings nothing but disgrace and oppression. Death never comes to soon, if necessary in the defence of the liberties of your country. I call upon you, old men, for your counsels, and your prayers, and your benedictions. May not your gray hairs go down in sorrow to the grave, with the recollection that you have lived in vain. May not your last sun sink in the west upon a nation of slaves. No; I read in the destiny of my country far better hopes, far brighter visions. We, who are assembled here, must soon be gathered to the congregation of other days. The time of our departure is at hand, to make way for our children upon the theatre of life. May god speed them and theirs. May he who, at the distance of another century, shall stand here to celebrate this day, still look round upon a free, happy, and virtuous people. May he have reason to exult as we do. May he , with all the enthusiasm of truth as well as of poetry, exclaim, that here is still his country.

Michigan is a leader in major socioeconomic categories including unemployment, obesity, foreclosures, smoking related deaths etc. Why not become the leader in motorcycle fatalities too?

The government is still at risk of shutting down and Lansing is dealing with helmet laws, tax check offs and to many other items that prove we do not need nor can we afford a full time legislature!

When are our REPRESENTATIVES going to get it? They are there to represent us, not protect us. I spent 6 years in the military and I thought that was my job then. The state is in such dire shape now because of this Lansing mentality it makes me sick. The biggest mistake this country ever made was letting our representatives become Career politicians.

The money generated by allowing motorcyclist to ride helmet free will make a dent in the recovery to michigan. It will have a greater impact than taxing the massage profession. You should worry about you and the rock you live under. It is our choice to live our lives the way we want as it is yours to live your the way you choose.

Rock on. Twenty years ago the state was concerned about public reaction to the seat belt law. It had to be sold as a "secondary" offense. As we all know, that law has been expanded and today, the fact that seat belt legislation exists is used to justify further intrusions into personal freedoms. There's no question that seat belt use is a major factor in accident outcomes. (But should the government have the authority to mandate their use? I would expect Americans to say, "Hell no!") By contrast, in the case of motorcycle helmets, the reality is that the actual benefit that they provide is negligible, at best. Why would anyone want to allow their government to interpose its preferences based on a false assertion? One obvious non-rider wrote: "It [the motorcycle helmet] doesnt [sic] hinder your ability to enjoy a ride...." I can tell that anonymous writer from personal experience that the standard DOT helmet is hot and uncomfortable. Moreover, it acts as a drag against the wind. For these reasons, it significantly contributes to fatigue and, in my opinion, increases the liklihood of an accident. After my summer trip to Michigan to visit family, I'll never again knowingly ride into or through helmet states for the very reason that it is so damned uncomfortable and tiring. Christ...I sweated like mad across Nebraska. My goggles puddled with perspiration. By the time I was halfway through that miserable state I had stripped off my clothes and protective gear and was riding in a T-shirt. When I reached the eastern border of Nebraska, I was exhausted and ready to stop short of my first night's goal. Thank goodness for Iowa: Off came the helmet. Within a few miles I had my gloves and vest back. I found myself revitalized and ultimately did make my destination of De Moines. So...for all you non-riders who assume that the helmet is a non-factor with regard to comfort, you're dead wrong. Wearing a bowling ball manufactured to Thermos standards on one's head is fatiguing as hell. And for my part, never again will I voluntarily ride into such helmet hell. Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and beyond...that's enough territory for me. Funny thing, the insurance argument keeps coming up in this forum. I carry my own health insurance policy and insure two motorcycles and a pick-up as well. I'd put my rates against Michigan any day. In fact, I'll give you my most recent monthly statement: 2006 Honda ST 1300 - $39.30 2003 Honda ACE - $30.13 2001 Chevy S10 - $48.52 Until the democRats put the under-18 crowd in helmets this year, Colorado had no helmet law whatsoever. How do your commie-cap state rates stack up? Go ahead and check the rates in WY, SD, NM, AZ, UT and TX too. Listen kids, there is no insurance argument against the repeal. Finally, the same guy who thinks helmets are innocuous also wrote, "[I]t doesnt [sic] 'Infringe on your first [sic] amendment [sic] rights' like ABATE would have us think." Now...I keep having to write "[sic]" so that no one mistakenly thinks that I'm guilty of the same stupid errors as the original writer, who apparently left school after the second grade. That said, no one connected with ABATE has ever cited the First Amendment, which protects speech, press and religion, in connection with motorcycle helmet legislation. This anonymous writer's assertion is a lie, nothing more. I am not affiliated with ABATE, but our positions are based on issues related to fundamental freedom coupled with the fact that motorcycle helmets simply do not have the "as-advertised" safety benefit in real world accidents. Jim Still riding free in Arvada, CO -- and throughout the West, for that matter

more deaths for not wearing a helmet. geez, you would think that after all the information GIVEN on this site people would finally GET IT !!!! IF, and i mean IF, the fatality rate goes up because of this new law, it will be because of INCREASED RIDERSHIP !!!! you see when people are given FREEDOM they embrace it. when florida repealed their helmet law thier ridership increased sharply. they also enjoyed millions in revenue they didn't know what to do with all the extra $$$$$. but not in michiganistan....we have to PAY. just like anything else in this sorry state. it is not about anything but MONEY> jenny vetoed the bill last time. met with AAA on thursday, vetoed the bill on friday. kinda makes you wonder how much $$$ AAA slipped her to veto the bill !! and NOW this woman is endorsing HILLARY. i guess this explains everything.

If you read the bills ours is the only one that offered money to the state to help out in the sut down!!!!

You sound like you might need rehab. If people like you had your way we would all wear helmets during our every day chores. Did you know that more pedetrians have head injuries after accidents then bikers? Oh oh, now she will push for helmet use to cross the street.......

We are very close to leading all states in head injuries {per 10,000 riders} How has the helmet law helped? The law doesn't cut down on crashes, education does. If you really want to lower head injuries you must first lower the amount of crashes, put down the make-up, paper and cell phone when you are driving and PAY ATTENTION.....In the meantime repeal the helmet law. Its a law we CAN LIVE without.

should have had an abortion! We would have all been better off.

My God, He doesn't know what he is talking about.

right on about the 500 for no seat bel dont give Jenny any ideas she should go back across the border and take her garbage with her!!!!!!! whiteowl

Which constituents are you protecting? Motorcycle riders? Have you polled them to ask them if they want your protection? Helmets save lives,that is never the question,if it were you would pass a law requiring helmets in cars,busses,trains,etc.,and any activity where you could possibley sustain a head injury,showering,climbing a ladder,cleaning the snow off your roof,etc. So I say again Poll the motorcycle riders and see what hey want.

I agree the cost of the injuries is high. Now you would say that cost should be paid by the injured. I say the cost should be paid by the person that caused the injury.I know of very few motorcyclist that managed to crash all by themselves. Most seem to be getting run down by other drivers. You passed a law to protect road workers from idiot drivers,how about something along those lines for motorcyclist.

So True pro sports lik baseball,football and hocky require helmets for the reasons you point out. So does pro stock car racing.By this logic everyone in a car should be wearing a helmet.And don't even try to argue that this also wouldn't save lives and protect against injury.Also by this logic every player in pickup game of these same sports should be wearing a helmet. But I doubt that the police have the time to check every yard or ball diamond on a nice weekend to see if every kid or adult involved a baseball or fooeball game is wearing a professional grade helmet.

You're joking right?! I thought as an elected leader your job was to see that our tax dollars are spent wisely on things such as public schools, roads and Michigan jobs. When I was a child it was my parents job to protect me, now I'm a parent and it is my job, and soley my job, to protect my child. It is this type of "big brother" paternal governing that makes many American's feel that their rights are slowly being taken away one by one. That's also why any freedom loving American would never support a politician such as yourself, Jennifer, or Hillary!

I could not have said it any better myself!!!

...however the numbers speak for themselves. That's why Hillary becoming our next president is a VERY REAL threat! Hopefully the rest of the American voters aren't as stupid as Michigan's!

I've haven't meet anyone who as anything good to say about Jenny. Makes me wonder how she got re-elected in the first place!

I truely believe your comments are sincere. However you have to take a more logical approach to this. 1st, you yourself stated that motorcycle accidents are horrific, even with helmets. Exactly! Wearing a helmet on a motorcycle makes you as much safer as a seatbelt does on a plane. Either way you crash, you're screwed! 2nd, if you want to talk about head and c-spine injuries, helmets are far more likely to cause a c-spine injuries. That's why it's illegal to wear one while driving a car. Statistically speaking you are far more likely to have a head injury in a car accident than a motorcycle accident. 3rd, look at the facts. 30 states allow choice, Michigan is one of only 20 that still don't. There's a reason for that. If it were really an issue than all states would have helmet laws just as every state has seat-belt laws and laws against drunk driving. 4th, again, look at the facts. In 2004 Louisiana's governor Kathleen Blanco (the same governor that let all those people drown in New Orleans) signed a helmet re-instatement bill. In 2006 Louisiana set a record for the most motorcycle fatalities EVER!! If you, or anyone for that matter, want to make motorcycling safer the key is rider education and driver awareness. In 1976 Indiana repealed it's helmet law. 10 years later the motorcycle safety program was put into place. Since then motorcycle fatalities in Indiana dropped by 65% even without a helmet law. When Ben Roethlisberger had his accident last year all everyone was focused on was the fact he was not wearing a helmet. Everything ABATE has ever preached came into play in that situation. 1st off no helmet can prevent an accident, riders ed and driver awareness do. Ben did not have a proper licence, he only had a permit. Under Pennsylvania law he was still required to wear a helmet, Michigan's would be the same. 2nd, the accident was not his fault, it was the fault of the woman who failed to yield the right-of-way and pulled out in front of him. As is the case in 90% of all car/bike accidents. This is where driver awareness comes into play. 3rd, the injuries sustained were a broken nose and jaw. He had no closed-head injury. Had he have been wearing a perfectly legal half or 3-quarter open face helmet, we would have suffered the exact same injuries. If he had been wearing a full face helmet his head would have been pushed further backwards upon impact causing a c-spine injury. In Ben's case he was lucky he WASN'T wearing one. He's doing just fine. The Steelers are in 1st place in their division. I realize this issue is contraversial to some. But there are many perfectly legal things like smoking and eating fatty foods that are a far greater cost to the medical community than motorcycle related injuries. But what you failed to mention the fact that America is suppost to be a free country. When freedom is taken away, even in the name of safety, that is one step backwards from what our forefathers fought for. How often is a right taken away and then given back? The repeal of prohibition in 1933 is the only example I can think of. Freedom isn't free. Many people have fought and died for it. If you want to wear a helmet, fine. I will never tell you not to. All we ask for is the same courtesy if we choose not to.

...you didn't read the part of the bill that requires extra insurance coverage to ride free. Keep in mind that we are already overpaying.

It's still way better than Michigan but last year I read my MRF bi-monthly newsletter that reported noise restrictions in Denver. Now Colorado, once 1 of only 3 totally free states, now has 18 and under helmet requirements just like OH, IN, and WI. 18 is still better than 21 but if this legislation was allowed to pass in your state I'd be worried that the flood gates are starting to open in your state for further freedom-violating legislation. You stated you have no affiliation with ABATE. Maybe it's time to re-think that. You may want to consider the MRF too. If the Feds enact a nationwide helmet law, WE'RE ALL SCREWED!

1st off there are 20 states with helmet law, not 7. Get your facts straight before you outright lie. 2nd the 30 free states have a lower fatality rate than the 20 that do. Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois don't have helmet laws, Michigan does. Guess who also has the highest fatality rate. If you want to lower fatalities, hang up, learn how to drive, and wash the sand out of your vagina!

Ever hear of freedom of choice? This bill was first introduced as a freedom of choice issue in which Americans are suppose to have. The governor is the one who changed this to a safety issue. Myself, I'm way over 21 and have been watching our rights be taken from us drastically since Vietnam, when is it going to stop? All we want is our rights given back, this fee being applied to the bill is ridiculus, I really don't think the governor will pass this bill, being from Canada, how can she know what freedom of choice is.

Life and living encompass many choices. As much as we would like to be, we are not personally in total control of how we live. We live with (and under) rules and regulations (laws) to co-exist peacefully among the population, and along the way develop (hopefully) our internal moral compass to help steer us as we move through life. The essence of Freedom is the possession of choices, to live as we see fit without the bringing of harm onto others. Webster's Dictionary defines freedom (in part) as "1. the state or quality of being free; esp., a) exemption or liberation from the control of some other person or some arbitrary power; liberty; independence; b) exemption from arbitrary restrictions on a specified civil right; civil or political liberty..." Always remember: this is not granted by government; on the contrary--men are "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." (as validated in our Declaration of Independence.) Most of us have a daily routine and working life; some may consider it a "grind." Our culture and free-market/capitalistic system dictate we need to earn an income to meet financial obligations. In addition, what you want materially is a choice you make, and you pay for it. So we commute, work, and perhaps stress. And when it's time to take a break or vacation, lots of us swing a leg over our motorcycles for a day ride or overnighter, maybe a couple of weeks out on the open road to distance ourselves from conflict, clear the mind, refresh the spirit, and experience 'just being.' The Freedom of Choice again comes into play--you claim it because it is yours, you decide--where to go, when to do it, what to see/experience, why you want to, and how you want to do it--on two wheels. Perfect. I can think of no better expression of personal freedom. The Freedom of movement, Freedom of the road. Concerns? OK: next tank of gas, what to eat, maybe where to sleep. All this while, and in your own good time, you're minding your own business and making no demands of anyone (except for other drivers' obligation to pay attention and see you, maybe?) In return, no demands are being made of you, right? Wrong. More on that in a bit... You have a legally-owned, titled, licensed, and insured motorcycle. In addition, you have your license, endorsement, and operator skill and experience. I believe these are fair expectations and requirements of the system we all live with and the same obligations you would expect from anyone else among the spectrum of all highway users. We're all in the traffic mix and rely, with an x-factor of trust, on each other to do the proper things. In spite of that reliance, vehicle operators commit 'fouls' on other roadway users, and/or themselves, to the tune of millions of collisions, crashes, and "accidents" every year in the U.S.A., resulting in 40,000-plus fatalities every year, to include an escalating percentage of motorcyclists in that figure. It's a sad fact. What must be understood is that 95% of all accidents are due to human causation factors! About forty years ago, a federal regulatory agency was created by act of Congress to address highway safety and promulgate vehicle design standards upon the manufacturers and industries. This agency is the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), typically headed-up and staffed by epidemiologists and researchers that subscribe to a passive approach, i.e., that the vehicle and its' equipment should reduce injuries and help save lives, removing drivers more from the equation because the thinking is that vehicle operators can't be educated and depended upon enough to prevent the accidents that cause injury and death: tinyurl.com/2ttq9v NHTSA has essentially remained inflexible and adhered to this mindset, even though the desired fatality outcomes have not dropped so dramatically and the U.S.A.'s transportation safety record has fallen in comparison to other countries in the world. It needs to be understood that advances in vehicle technology have indeed provided survivability to scale not experienced prior to our time, but you have to ask yourself: should crashes be considered inevitable, therefore acceptable? The fact is, the more the vehicles assume 'control', the more responsibility and skill-set is removed from the driver, with the inverse effect being the evermore dumbing-down and awareness-deficient operator on the roadway. Who wants to share the road with people like that? These days, not only are accident violations accepted as an everyday inevitable occurrence, but also in sheer numbers (it appears) tolerated by a justice system in that prosecutorial and judicial disposition of traffic offenses is generally rapid via the plea bargain and forgiven too easily, minimizing the gravity of accountability that should be placed upon the driver, and ultimately shoveling it over to insurance and dollar figures. The battleground comes down to accident prevention vs. safer crashing and motorcyclists have a tremendous stake in the issue. We are exposed on the roads and understand that "going down" stands to have a dire outcome. The astute motorcyclist will understand this completely, be aware, skilled and educated constantly, and manage his/her risk accordingly. What about education and skill set for the everyday driver? NHTSA, as well as most state DOT Motor Vehicle divisions, places very little effort in further education of the mass of drivers. While there is movement afoot to require tiered training, licensing, and "life-long" learning of motorcyclists, I have not seen nor heard of any parallel effort being proposed for drivers anywhere, nor any type of evaluation at license renewal time. Get a license "once upon a time" and good-to-go for a lifetime? I think not. But ask anyone with a driver's license, "How's your driving?" The response? "Oh yeah, I think I'm a good driver..." I never heard anyone say "No, I suck and need more work." Ironic, isn't it, that our government's leaders bang the drum on the value of formal education, that's it's the best tool and avenue we have to advance ourselves and our individual and collective futures here and in the world, and that it's continually publicly funded. Except for vehicle operation, where lives are at stake. The motorcycling community is relentlessly pounded upon by NHTSA, and more so in the last few years due to the increase of motorcyclist fatalities as a percentage of the yearly highway total. The news media are fed the stats, latch on and stoke the flames through inference among the general public, who view us riders as a careless liability, damn-near miscreants who ride "donor-cycles" and deserve what we get because motorcycles are 'dangerous.' And you have to wear a helmet. If you don't wear a helmet you brought it on yourself. Well, first of all I've never seen a dangerous motorcycle (I've seen some "rat bikes" I wouldn't care to ride but that's another story.) Secondly, if anyone were to approach a motorcyclist and ask them what their biggest concern is, I think almost invariably the response would be "other drivers on the road." Thirdly, motorcycles have every equal right and entitlement to the roads and highways as any other vehicle. We don't deserve disdain, nor airs of expendability. Fourth, we know we're not perfect, and we admit it. It's been said the most fundamental and important function of government is to ensure the safety of its citizens. This is true but only to an extent and is not open-ended in the U.S.A. The function extends to protecting borders, providing defense of the Homeland, public safety from predators, scam artists, much more, etc., etc.--in other words, relief and protection from harm that others, or outside influences, would bring upon your being. It does not include imposition of laws upon your physical being, where you bring no harm to others in the course of going about your business. You and your body are private and personal property. "...Each person owns himself or herself, by right and without question; a right that is prior to and above any government or social organization."--Donald Beezley. I certainly hope that you agree with the above; if not, then perhaps it's too esoteric for those except for the most freedom-loving among us. With that stated, I'm going to talk freedom of choice as it concerns helmets. It's a known fact that NHTSA and other 'safety' organizations have lobbied for years to have legislatures implement laws concerning mandatory use of helmets upon motorcyclists' bodies. You must be "protected." (crash survival--remember the passive approach.) The newest 'player' in the fray is the National Traffic Safety Board (NTSB), who has been unquestionably, deliberately, and non-transparently recruited into the mix to advocate among the federal and state governments for total motorcycle helmet laws, despite having little or no experience and expertise in the motorcycle safety arena: tinyurl.com/2l4evp They do, however, possess credibility among legislators simply because of what they are, which is the perception of being all-knowing authorities on the issue--Elitists, if you will. The push for helmet laws is historically relentless and will always be so until they get what they want and as long as they have taxpayer dollars to spend--its' part of what the regulators' and bureaucrats' agenda is. While these agencies and their people, and organizations similar in scope, are free to speak and recommend, what you need to understand is that none of them are under any obligation to reconcile your freedoms as an American in the course of their agenda. Their end justifies their means. The debate here is not about helmets themselves--they can, and do, provide protection and reduce injury: tinyurl.com/4heqs They also can, and do, cause injury. Seat belts do the same thing. Fact is, these aren't a 100% 'Silver Bullet' for protection--not even close. You might question why states are immunized by laws against liability suits in cases where helmets and belts either didn't save lives, didn't prevent injuries, or caused them. You should decide to use them according to advisements and educational materials provided, and not be penalized and have your money extracted because they weren't worn on your body. A question that an activist friend of mine likes to pose is: "Who, or What, are you trying to protect me from?" A question I like to ask is, "What is government's compelling interest in requiring me to have a helmet on my head?" About the best response I can think of is to "save lives." Well, that's noble enough but I can make that decision for myself. I think its nobler and higher ground to have my freedoms defended and respected. It's time to resurrect the mantra, speak loudly--Get Your Laws Off My Body! This is not a request! I truly believe that no one, nor entity, is more concerned with motorcyclists' safety outside of motorcyclists themselves. That is why motorcyclists crafted the language in the massive federal transportation (TEA-LU) funding bill to include motorcycle safety grant monies and funding for a new, comprehensive, and independent study of motorcycle crash causation factors--the first since the 1980 year Hurt Report. The Oklahoma Transportation Center will undertake the new study at the Oklahoma State University and it should begin soon, taking about two years. With that in mind, I have to question the "urgency" proffered to implement laws on bodies as the panacea for motorcycle crashes by NHTSA, NTSB, et al--when all the causation factors haven't been established, therefore not addressed: tinyurl.com/ytxee7 Could it be found out the dogma they've adhered to for so many years might be so flawed as to be a national embarrassment? Will they attempt to influence the outcome of an "independent" study? The study must remain independent with a lot of 'sunshine' on the methodology and demographic. "Without helmets, we all pay" says NHTSA, as they create polarity in the public realm and influence opinion, deliberately against motorcyclists--attempting to establish motorcyclists as a disproportionate drain of injury and medical dollar consumption. This is called the Public, or Social Burden theory. Guess what folks, we all pay for everything, everyday. Think about that for awhile--I'll take that up and debunk it in Part 2, next month. Until then: "Freedom also demands that we refrain from interfering in others' enjoyment of their unalienable rights. Freedom encompasses not simply the opportunity to make choices but the responsibility for those choices. Just because one choice seems wiser or safer doesn't justify using the force of government to require everyone to make the same choice. Likewise, government shouldn't protect those who make irresponsible choices from the consequences of their actions, or worse yet, make someone else bear the cost."--Mark Hillman Written by Dave Christy

...WITH YOUR WHINE?! GOD DAMN!

...or like the bill the way it is written. The $100 annual fee is a load of crap. However with the state having a budget crisis on it's hands, this is a way to put money into the state budget without cutting services or raising taxes. I know Jennifer doesn't support this bill, but we motorcyclists don't like the fee's and restrictions of this bill. The definition of a good compromise is when neither side is happy. We feel the law should be helmet choice for anyone 18 or older, pediod. Jenny believes there should be no choice. We don't like the fee but we spend way more than $100 per year leaving Michigan to ride in a free state. And it would be fiscally irresponsable on Jenny's part to turn away this "free money." Therefore this is a good compromise. We are both not totally happy with it but it's better than what we currently have.

illinois,ohio,indiana ????? these people can come here after the law is passed ans not pay a dime. you see, we in michiganistan are second class citzens. thats why jenny will probably veto the law again. we will have to pay $100.00 to $300.00 to ride without a helmet. our visiting neighbors...nothing. you idiots that voted for jenny......are you BLOWN AWAY YET ????? i aready carry $500,000 per accident which is way beyond what to minumum is. i also have "UNDER INSURED COVERAGE" for those that don't have enough insurance. now does that sound responsable enough ?? yet we have a governor (?) that wants total control, but, nothing is getting any better. YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR A LAWYER AND EXPECT TO HAVE CONTROL OF YOURSELVES.

Drivers who ignore the right of way. In the Motorcycling publications I receive I have seen many articles on states that are introducing legislation in the way of "RIGHT OF WAY " bills with very strong fines and jail terms for those idiots who injure or kill a person because of negligence. Icannot count the number of times I have had some buffoon pull out in front of me and then look all surprised when I am being run off the road and they look out their window, "where'd he come from". No one knows what the true outcome would be but the norm shows that all the baloney about 2 fold increases is bs. I for one think that holding us bikers for ransom to enjoy a ride without a helmet is ludicrous, but then again I'll help this god forsaken state if thats what it takes. Jenny, wake up, it has overwhelmingly passed on two occasions, loosen up on the power trip and get the hand off the Veto stamp and do something right, do what the people, the senate and the house want. And to all the non riders who seem to be so emotional about this subject, get a clue, get your facts straight, remember the stink on concealed weapons permits, everyone thought it was going to be the OK corral and there'd be countless shootings due to the passing of that law, wrong. You know what they say about opinions.......