Michigan Votes Forum

There is no time like the present to tap into the revenue from one of Michigan's most abundant and attractive resources - tourism.  Helmet freedom will invite a flow of guests from our neighboring states: Indiana, Ohio, and Wisconsin, and the nearby state of Illinois - all of which allow helmet freedom!

Call your legislators now, let's get the momentum rolling again!

 finally...

another step in the right direction.

FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

Finally, an issue we can agree on cajun. Every citizen has the right to be stupid.

 yes, we can be stupid. but according to you and your leftist fellow travellers, we CANNOT BE FREE.

Feel free to be stupid, it's your right.

 just as it is to CHOOSE FOR MYSELF whether or not to wear a helmet.

it's NOT your right, nor is it the right of the legislature to choose for me.

maybe YOU'RE stupid enough to allow the legislature to make important choices for you, but i'm not.

YOU support freedom of choice for abortions, but not for helmet use... why is that?

I'll return the bass-ackwards compliment to you cajun. I support your right to be stupid, as in not wearing a helmet on a motrocycle. Get it, I support your choice, same as I support a woman's right to control her body, I support your right to control yours, or damage it, if that's your choice.

Even agreeing with you is difficult.

 you have a funny way of agreeing.

you SUPPORT a woman's choice to kill her baby, a STUPID thing to do.

you SAY YOU SUPPORT a motorcyclist's choice to not wear a helmet, but you call  THAT stupid.

have you ever worn a helmet on a motorcycle? NO, but i have.

have you ever worked a motorcycle accident that killed the rider because the driver of an automobile was inattentive? NO, but i have.

by the way, of the dozens of fatalities involving cars and motorcycles, the motorcyclist was VERY SELDOM in the wrong. but the DRIVER OF THE CAR WAS ALWAYS INATTENTIVE. they all said 'I DIDN'T EVEN SEE THEM'. those very words sealed the conviction.

one of those fatalities was an officer i helped train in the academy. he was also a good friend of many years, and a good cop.

he got ran into a railing on a highway by a woman who was talking on a cell phone instead of paying attention to what she was doing. she spread him across thirty feet of steel railing. his body was cut into three pieces. i was one of the first on the scene after it happened.

if she would have glanced into her rear view mirror, she would have seen him. in fact, she MUST have seen him, she passed him then plowed him into the railing. the jury found her guilty of murder in the second degree, and she got life. she should have gotten the chair.

a helmet didn't help him. nothing but taking that woman's cell phone from her would have possibly saved my friend's life.

pity you don't find THAT a priority. perhaps when one of your loved one dies at the hands of an inattentive driver, you'll change your mind.

by the way. drunk driving fatalities are DOWN, WAY DOWN... BUT  innatentive driving fatalities are WAY UP.

let's see if you are as hip on taking a leftist yuppie's right to talk on her cell phone as you are to take away a motorcyclist's choice about helmet use. 

 by the way... you STILL haven't come up with a bona-fide justification for killing the person inside that woman.

we're WAAAAAITINNNNNG....

I don't have to come up with a bona fide justification for an abortion, as I never will be in the position to make that choice. Get it? It's not my decision.

That was a heartbreaking story you told, sort of like the heartbreaking one about you father. Seems when you run out of argument, you go to a heartbreaking, personal story. Mmmmm.

 so, you admit that there is no bona-fide reason to get an abortion?

you must, you have CRAWFISHED yet again.

by backing out you admit that you haven't found a good enough reason for a woman to CHOOSE TO KILL THE INDIVIDUAL LIVING INSIDE HER.

well, the medical community hasn't either. they were asked to produce one for the supreme court hearings. they couldn't. the surgeon general was asked, no he was ORDERED by the president, to produce one. he couldn't.

if the doctor who is performing the proceedure cannot come up with a reason to do so, other than at the request of the woman who wishes to kill the person living inside of her, then he has the DUTY to call it what it is. MURDER.

now, you have yet to convince me that it is anything other than murder. nor have you yet to try.

all you keep doing is upholding the woman's right to commit murder.

you gotta work harder than that...

 you also don't have to mandate helmets.

IT'S NOT YOUR DECISION.

your own logic has bitten you on the butt.

thank you.

You are totally confused. I do not, repeat, do not have to make the decision about having an abortion, due to my physical structure. Because of that fact, I support a woman's right, because of her physical structure, to make that decision, without state intervention.

I also, with the same reasoning, support your right to be stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, without state intervention in your decision. I would support your right to play football without a helmet too, if you so desired. It's your body, like a woman's is hers.

Your position of insisting that a woman not have the right to choose, is like the state saying that I could not wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle, I could not choose to protect my own body. A woman has a right to protect her own body, just as a motorcyclist has a right to protect his.

I know this is hard for you, but I've got a little free time today, and I'd like to help.

jmangan:

You are totally confused. I do not, repeat, do not have to make the decision about having an abortion, due to my physical structure.

<yes, you do. you get to decide if killing a person living inside a woman is murder or not.>

 Because of that fact, I support a woman's right, because of her physical structure, to make that decision, without state intervention.

<so you SUPPORT murder by a woman, but you DO NOT SUPPORT THE DEATH PENALTY. what did that person in the woman do to deserve to die? what is the woman's justification for killing that person? you never do say. is it because there IS NO JUSTIFICATION?> 

I also, with the same reasoning, support your right to be stupid enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, without state intervention in your decision. I would support your right to play football without a helmet too, if you so desired. It's your body, like a woman's is hers.

<NO, you support the state telling everyone what to do. repealing the helmet law would not end helmet use, but it WOULD end government interference into AT LEAST ONE PERSONAL DECISION. i'm beginning to think YOU have played a little too much helmetless football in your youth, it's showing in your posts.> 

Your position of insisting that a woman not have the right to choose, is like the state saying that I could not wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle, I could not choose to protect my own body. A woman has a right to protect her own body, just as a motorcyclist has a right to protect his.

<no, my position is the position of the law. in law, it is ILLEGAL TO KILL A PERSON WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION. that's called murder. so, killing that person inside that woman without justification is murder, pure and simple. there is no CHOICE about it. if you CHOOSE to kill a person without justification, there will be consequences. now, tell me that the person living inside that woman is NOT A PERSON.>

I know this is hard for you, but I've got a little free time today, and I'd like to help.

<help what? stopping an abortion? try teaching those women you say have the CHOICE whether or not to kill the person living inside them that they also have the CHOICE to say no to the guy who puts it there. i believe HE should be held responsible for the killing of the person inside the woman just as well as the woman herself. you got a problem with that?>

 

You are a little off topic cajun. No, a lot off topic. If you want to debate abortion, do it on the so-called partial birth abortion bill forum. Sane is much beter at explaining to you the medical definitions you need to understand the issue. Me, I'm just glad I don't have to make that decision.

  As I stated originally, you have every right to ride your motorcycle without a helmet. I think that's what you want. Have at it. I don't encourage it, as I fear for your safety, but that's your choice.

Be a good idea to wear one of those vest the guys working on road construction wear, so you can be seen. Wouldn't want you to end up like the guy in your story.

 might be a good idea to criminalize cell phone usage while driving.

distracted drivers kill.

even a helmet can't save you from a distracted driver.

if we did that, we wouldn't need orange vests...

by the way. if you can't see a bright white motorcycle with reflective stickers and strobe lights on it, you deserve to get life in prison.

Why is it that abortion ALWAYS comes up when argueing this, or any other point? For the last time Rowe v. Wade was decided in the Supreme Court in January 1973. No President, Governor, or Senator can do anything to change it. Whatever their opinion on the issue might be is just that, an OPINION! No different than mine, yours, or anybody elses. There has never been a more "anti-abortion" President than George W. He had a Rebuplican majority in the House and Senate for his first 6 years as President. If he COULD HAVE outlawed abortion, he WOULD HAVE.  He is no longer President, and guess what, abortion is STILL legal. It is a moot point. Why it always keeps coming up around election time, I will never know.

Anyway, this bill is about FREEDOM OF CHOICE. Something ALL of our neighboring states have allowed for 30+ years. Something that could be, and should be enjoyed here. Jennifer is the ONLY reason it isn't! Every possible arguement for keeping the law can easily be refuted by fact, logic, and statistical data.

For example, the most common arguement for keeping the law is; "I don't want my insurance rates to go up." Not even a safety issue. Well, there is absolutely no truth to that statement. ALL of our neighboring "free" states pay about half as much for auto insurance as we do here in Michigan. That has nothing to do with helmets, it has EVERYTHING to do with no-fault insurance. All our neighboring states are at-fault states. Furthermore, no state has ever raised their rates when they have modernized their helmet law to allow adult choice. More importantly, no state has ever LOWERED their rates for enacting a helmet law.

The 2nd most heard arguement is; "Fatalities will go up if the law is repealed." This is how insurance companies "misrepresent" the facts. When Florida repealed their law in 2000, fatalities did go up as much as 80%. This sounds terrible, I know. But what the insurance companies failed to mention is that motorcycle usage went up by 150%. Therefore the fatality RATE, as in the number of fatalities PER BIKE had actually lowered. There are many reasons motorcycle usage may increase. Mandatory helmet repeal, high gas prices, and warm weather all play into it. I guarantee there will be more motorcycle fatalities in the summer, than in the winter. If 2 people ride a motorcycle in the winter and one of them dies, then the fatality RATE would be 50%. If 200,000 people ride in the summer, and there are 100 fatalities, that is 100x more than in the winter, but the fatality rate would be much lower than 50%. I guess the insurance companies will try to blame warm weather for motorcycle fatalities.

More important than insurance and fatalities is the issue of freedom. If you've ever read the constitution you will notice that you have "The Right To Pursue Happiness." As written in the constitution you, as an American, have the right to do whatever you want as long as you do not harm others, or their property. Riding without a helmet does neither! Therefore not supporting this "right to choose" issue is un-American! If you oppose it, is only because you don't like it. You have the right to have your own opinion. That's fine. But if you use your opinion over fact, logic and statistacal data to make laws, that's FASCISM! Pure and simple!

If you don't believe me, this is how fascism is defined in the dictionary;

Fascism- (noun). A system of government (often ruled by a dictator) in which the state has complete power over individuals.

I'm no genius, but I know the difference between freedom and fascism. This bill falls in the category of freedom. Therefore it has my FULL SUPPORT! That's the America I want to live in!

 bringing up abortion is their way of changing the subject. they compare and contrast the two. hoping to make helmet use sound more intelligent than it actually is.

this bill will not reduce helmet use, but it will increase FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

crazycajun:

 bringing up abortion is their way of changing the subject. they compare and contrast the two. hoping to make helmet use sound more intelligent than it actually is.

For the record here, the subject of abortion was introduced into this discussion first by the poster called "crazycajun," in an entry posted 9:39 AM, Feb. 6, 2009.  It was the 7th post in the thread.

Cajun, you really shouldn't fib about things that are so easy to check out. 

As for motorcycle helmets?  I don't ride one of those things, so this bill doesn't mean much to me, personally.  But if the folks who do ride motorcycles want to do so without helmets, I say "let 'em." 

 If Jennifer had went to Washington with Obama (LIKE WE ALL HAD HOPED) the ONLY positive thing to come from her time as governor would be the tax incentives to bring the film industry here to Michigan. Since it looks like she is going to be here another two years, I have very little hope that this bill will pass. However, much to my suprise, Jennifer has recently shown me a few good ideas. It's clear that she FINALLY realizes just how bad the Michigan economy really is. Therefore she has opted to cut the state budget, by about 670 million, instead of raising taxes (again). And she is also entertaining the idea of allowing bars to stay open until 4am. I don't think that she would normally want to do these things, but apparently she is desperately trying to get the state economy on the right track before her time is up. If she is NOW willing to cut taxes and willing to allow bars to stay open later, maybe (just maybe), she would NOW be more willing to allow adult helmet choice.

Allowing adult helmet choice WILL help the state economy here like it has in ALL states that allow it. ALL states that surround Michigan are free states. 95% of out of state motorcyclists surveyed have said that they will not come here to ride due to our helmet law. They had also said that they would come here if the law were changed. Of course they would, Michigan is a beautiful state. Great wooded areas and thousands of miles of coastline. Furthermore, motorcyclists who live here often leave Michigan to ride in a free choice state. Therefore we are being double whammied when it comes to tourism. In 2003 and 2008 Harley Davidson had it's 100th and 105th anniversary party in Milwaukee. Millions of motorcyclists came out to these great events. Whenever you get millions of people together, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS will be spent! Each time a multi-state ride was put together. And each time Michigan was not included. Our helmet law was the only reason. Think of all the hotels, gas stations and local mom-and-pop shops that missed out on all that potential tourism money. Maybe when HD has there 110th anniversary party in 2013, Michigan's helmet law will be changed and we can be included in the ride.

Allowing adult helmet choice will also help the state economy with increased motorcycle sales. When Florida repealed their law in 2000, motorcycle sales increased by 150%. That means more money will be circulated in the state through sales tax money, registrations, plates, licenses, and insurance policies. All of this money would go directly into the state budget.

If Jennifer is REALLY willing to do whatever it takes to help our state economy, she should really consider signing this bill into law. So now is the time to write to her and your state representatives and ask them to support this bill! To find out how log on to either abateofmichigan.org or michigan.gov

 so, sane... why don't you support repealing the helmet law?

it gives riders freedom of choice. which will attract riders from other states seeking to ride as they choose.

it gives the law enforcement community one less unfunded mandate to tackle. which gives them the freedom to tackle REAL crime.

it gives the state one less source of revenue stolen from honest law abiding citizens. which gives them the impetus to change their ways and start saving the taxpayer's money. it is not in unlimited supply.

if you think that criminalizing legal activities like riding without a helmet (or using a cell phone while driving) is a good idea, you cannot support the repeal of this bill.

if you think that the cure for "stupidity" is legislation, outlawing cell phone usage is necessary today.

if you support freedom of choice, you cannot oppose this bill.

the only thing stopping you from supporting this bill is the fear of responsibility.

crazycajun:

 so, sane... why don't you support repealing the helmet law?

So, space cadet, read my post of Wed., Feb 11, 2009, 1:04 am.

Maybe if you would pay a little more attention to the actual discussion and a little less attention to foisting off your incessant inanities on us you would not have to ask such ridiculous questions. 

you mean the one twenty-seven repetitions ago?

so much for incessant inanities. and name calling is not very becoming.

What off-topic crapola are are you prattling about now?

 the same off topic crapola YOU are prattling about. but at least i'm letting you know what my opinon is, not just how many times i can cut and paste the same blurb.

crazycajun:

 the same off topic crapola YOU are prattling about. but at least i'm letting you know what my opinon is, not just how many times i can cut and paste the same blurb.

Listen, I told you above if you want to know my opinion in respect to this bill, read my post from Wed., Feb. 11, 2009, at 1:04 AM.  If you are not satisfied with that, tough beans.

 you mean THIS opinion?

"As for motorcycle helmets?  I don't ride one of those things, so this bill doesn't mean much to me, personally.  But if the folks who do ride motorcycles want to do so without helmets, I say "let 'em." 

crazycajun:

 you mean THIS opinion?

"As for motorcycle helmets?  I don't ride one of those things, so this bill doesn't mean much to me, personally.  But if the folks who do ride motorcycles want to do so without helmets, I say "let 'em." 

 that opinion was written at 06:04 that's just after six in the morning, according to the time stamp on the post.

this opinion, in another thread was made at 13:11 according to the timestamp.

"The description of this bill provided by MichiganVotes is erroneous.

Holy cow!  Can't you ever stay on topic?

 the topic is OPINIONS. not repetition. can you ever answer a question? NO.

you skirt questions, avoiding them like the plague. only answering them when you must. never clarifying your point, or giving your reasoning.

so, given your history of question phobia, why should i stay on topic? to make you happy? that is not my mission or my concern.

my goal is to educate the ignorant and point out the stupid and ridiculous. it's amazing how many times i've had to point at you.

 the topic of this thread is freedom of choice.

what is your problem with freedom of choice?

you support it for women who wish to do murder to unborn people, yet you oppose it for adults who wish to ride motorcycles without a helmet.

you SAY you are for repealing the helmet law, yet you never support that repeal.

can't you ever stand on your convictions? must you change with the political wind?

I support this proposal.

This is my first post. I'm intrigued by some of the comments and how in some cases they don't apply to the topic or proposal referenced. AFTER this post, I will make every effort to stay on task.  

Some laws I like. Some I don't.

Some politicians I like. Some I don't.

Some are R's. Some are D's.

I would like to have the option to wear a motorcycle helmet. If it costs me more for insurance, then I'll let the market figure that out. I believe using helmets in most cases prevent additional injuries in an accident, but I still want to be able to make a helmet decision myself. I feel the same way about mandatory seatbelt laws, but I also believe they save more lives than are lost because of usage. I wonder whether anyone has the guts to propose removing that restriction too?

The politicians better not make a mountain out of a molehill by outlawing cell phones in cars, unless they also plan to outlaw eating, talking, singing, fidgeting and anything else that causes distraction. Laws already exist to be cited for careless driving.

Enough already. I'll try to stay on the subject from this post forward.

 thank you, speedy.

another voice for freedom of choice.

those on the left will call you stupid for not wanting to wear a helmet.

there are those of us who DO oppose seatbelt use, especially MANDATORY seatbelt use. the reason we will never see it changed is because the federal government mandates that states enforce the federal seatbelt laws in certain ways, mandates that the states copy federal laws into state statutes, and threatens to withhold federal funding for highways if they don't.

that is called extortion.

we can't do it, but the government can.

 I can understand the seat belt Law, and I understand the helmet Law as well. We'll let's call it April of 1990, about 2000 hrs (8:00 pm). My first year on the Fire Dept. The first time I saw a baby without the top of it's head. The mother I guess figured she could do a better job of holding this child then a seat belt. The car was heading west on E. Genesee, there is about a 30 degree turn in the road. The driver lost control of the car, and hit a light post, which took the door off, along with the female's arm, and guess what the baby too. No need to mention about the brain matter on the street. They both died, the baby at the scene and the female died later that night, oh, did I mention her arm came off with the door.......

Another story, this one hit close to home. It was my niece. She was involved in an accident about five years ago. She decided not to where her seat belt. Got hit and thrown from the car when the door swung open, she was lying in the street, until someone pulled her to the curb, because another car didn't see her. Can You Say DUMB? My sister had the nerve to say it's a good thing she didn't have on her seat belt, because it would have wrapped around her neck, STUPID !!!!!! I had to explain to her that doesn't happen, unless she wraps it around her neck. The purpose in wearing the seat belt is to keep you in the seat and behind the steering wheel. You have a better chance keeping the car under control, instead of becoming a projectile in the vehicle bouncing all over the place. STUPID !!!! It's the same thing when people put a box of tissue in the back window. You know if you are doing lets say 45 MPH everything in the vehicle is going the same speed. Imagine if you will a box in the back window hitting you or an infant in the face or in the back of the head. OUCH, lets call it Blunt Force Trauma.

I'm sorry, off point,... I think. If you want to bring more money to the State, relax the Law (helmet). I go to D.C. almost every year, and that's all I hear down there. If Michigan change the helmet Law we will ride through the State. Even if they relax the Law some of us (me) will still wear our helmet. Can you say "Closed Head Injury?" Oh I forgot to tell you of the lucky (NOT!!) person riding his motorcycle. Let's say that helmet didn't help his cause......

I have a lot of stories to tell, if you want to listen. I've been a Firefighter for 19 years. We only have I believe 57 firefighters. Roughly 19 per shift, give or take an injured body here and there. When I started we had 105 on the Dept. If I included staff then it's 63. We are supposed to have 74....... You might remember us, about three years ago our little City had 56 fires in 10 days. Welcome to Saginaw, MI.

 a good friend lost a partner to a seat belt accident. he was a driving in a police car, his partner was in the passenger seat. they were hit by a car driven by a woman who had a chip on her shoulder. such a big chip that she decided to smash her car into a few police cars. she started with his.

his partner died in the passenger's seat, belted in. his partner's liver in his lap. the belt was resting against his partner's spine. their car was parked when it was hit. there was nothing they could do to avoid the collision. it haunts him to this day. not that he blames the seat belt, but still, the thought that if his partner hadn't been belted in, he could have survived remains with him.

i'm all for seat belt use myself, but i'm definately against it being mandatory. i respect your right to life, i also respect your choices concerning how you live your life.  

What a gut wrenching story. I haven't heard one like that since crazy told his last gut wrenching story. I can't remember now what it was about, I just know it was gut wrenching. 

I'll never wear a seat belt again.

What about helmets? You must have a gut wrenching story about helmets too. This thread is about helmets.

 more insults?

this thread IS about helmets, not gut wrenching. but you don't wear a helmet, do you?

 here's a gut wrenching story about helmets.

the human brain is just a little bit more fragile than jello. it is housed in a shell of bone. when accellerated, it can move around inside the skull surrounded by spinal fluid. when brought to a sudden stop, it suffers from something called coup/counter coup. meaning it bounces off the inside of the skull, causing brain damage. this happens whether or not the skull is fractured, or even damaged. it happens whether or not the skull is encased in a helmet.

it sometimes causes death, and helmets do nothing to alleviate this problem. in fact, helmets do very little to alleviate any problem. they are very useful for falling down, but not a lot of motorcycle riders simply fall down. most are hit by four thousand pound automobiles being driven by distracted drivers chatting on cellphones.

as most helmets are only rated for thirteen mile per hour crashes anyway, i don't see the REAL utility in using them. perhaps we should lower the speed limit to thirteen miles per hour to accomodate the mandatory helmet wearers, making it a felony to hit a motorcyclist at any speed.

Again you misread my position. Here it is for you to study.

Don't wear a helmet if you don't want to. Repeal this law if you have the votes. It is your choice. I have my opinion of the intelligence of that choice, but it is yours, and will not effect the rights of anyone else. As Thomes Jefferson said about his neighbors religion: " It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket."