Michigan Votes Forum

 but it does break my leg, and pick my pocket. our state could really use the revenue gotten from those out of state who now stay away because michigan does not trust them to ride helmetless, or to even choose whether or not to ride helmetless if they so desire. this breaks my leg because i must make up that shortfall with my taxes. it picks my pocket because it takes my income to replace the loss of income that would be derived by allowing helmet freedom.

every state that repealed the helmet laws experienced a rise in tax revenues immediately. and every state that re-instated the helmet laws experienced a drop in tax revenues just as quickly.

Then stop whinning and get this bill passed.

 no one is whining but you. i take it i can expect your support and your vote? you DID promise to vote for it in another thread.

I did, and if it is on a referendum, I will vote to repeal the helmet mandate, for adults. That's not whining, in anyone's book but yours.

You see, as long as your rights don't infringe on the right's of the public, it is my opinion you should have them. Some would argue the financial burden, in the form of higher medical cost, is infringing on our rights. That may be so, in an indirect way.

 Should you tragically be involved in an accident and suffer a head injury, I guess I will just have to help pay for your stupidity. I don't mind, we're all in this together. Some of us are prudent, some not so.

Be careful.

 one wonders how you would ever be saddled with my medical bills in the event of an accident? if i'm in a motorcycle accident, my head injury will probably not be what kills me, but the blunt force trauma the rest of my body endures. as the chances are good that said trauma will be delivered by an inattentive driver, more often than not involved in a cellphone conversation, i'd say that banning cellphone use is a good way to actually make the roads safer.

as an aside, coup/counter-coup is what is called 'closed head injury' and can happen in an automobile as well as a motorcycle. in fact, it happens a lot more often in an automobile than it does on motorcycles. would you suggest, as a matter of safety, that we mandate helmet use in automobiles as well as on motorcycles? a reasonable person wouldn't. helmets don't protect against the laws of physics. nor can they. the impact that would cause your skull to split open is greater than the impact that would split the helmet open. so there is no safety or protection from that either. it seems that, from a safety and protection standpoint, helmets are pretty much useless.

Uber, rationalize however you want so that you can convince yourself not to wear a helmet. It reallly doesn't matter to me. I won't be saddled with your medical bill, whatever injuries you receive. What another poster brought up was the increased medical cost for everyone if you, or anyone else, is not carrying enough insurance to pay for the treatment required for head injuries sustained. Hospitals and treatment providers usually make this loss up by increasing prices on everyone.

As I said earlier, that doesn't matter to me either, as I believe you have a right to live dangerously, as long as you don't endanger me. I am not for mandating helmet use, in cars, on bikes, or anywhere else, for adults.

Just as an aside, being as you mentioned it, you seem to be alright with taking the rights away from someone to talk on a cell phone and drive, to protect the public. I like that.

 you haven't answered uber-liberal's question of how you end up paying his, or anyone else's medical bills. you don't seem to mind taking my rights away for 'the public good', banning cellphones would give you a taste of your own medicine. not very pleasant, is it.

Maybe you can't read while you type.

I did answer uber's question, but you have to read my post to see it.

I also said I would "like that", if talking on the cellphone was banned while driving. It's for the common good.

I support the bill that repeals the motorcycle helmet mandate.  However, doesn't it also make sense to repeal the seatbelt mandate as well?  Or at least change it so that persons over 18 are not required to use them?  To me, that would be a consistent framework.

I'm living in Kentucky now after living in Michigan my entire life.  There are no helmet laws down here though some people wear them and some don't.  I ride a motorcycle and I wear mine but I certainly like having the option.  However, you have to wear a seatbelt.  This seems very inconsistent.

jmangan:

I also said I would "like that", if talking on the cellphone was banned while driving. It's for the common good.

I went for a motorcycle ride over the weekend and passed an old lady, easily in her 60's, driving with her farking cellphone in her face, texting.  Left my jaw hanging open long enough for a junebug to fly in it (not really just going for the dramatic).  I was quite incredulous... some people.

Aeroslin:

I ride a motorcycle and I wear mine but I certainly like having the option.  However, you have to wear a seatbelt.  This seems very inconsistent.

I agree, it is inconsistent. They both should be repealed for adults. As long as someone is only endangering their lives, they should be free to do so.

Understand our insurance rates would go up, and medical cost also. Everything has a price.

 i see that on seatbelts and helmets you are pro-choice. as you are on abortion. but definately anti-choice on smoking. such inconsistencies.  i wonder what price you place on personal liberty?

 such a masterful side-step to such a simple question. we are discussing the principle of freedom of choice, and discussing your ideas as to where other citizens have a choice, and where they do not.

the freedom to choose whether or not to ride a motorcycle without a helmet is not 'granted' by government. nor is riding a motorcycle a 'privelege' granted by the state. both decisions by the legislature to the contrary have resulted in lost citizenry, lost tax base, lost income, lost jobs, and lost prestige for the state. none of which seems to matter to the legislators, as long as the 'proper controls' are allowed to be put in place upon the people.

freedom under government control is not freedom.

 it would appear to be that you support a free citizen's right to not to wear a helmet, but you refuse that same citizen the right to smoke. i'm curious as to the disparity. i'm also curious as to the attitude that dictates that disparity. if you truly believed in a citizen's right to choose, you would support it in all circumstances. but it appears that you are very selective in your 'apportioning' of that right to choose.

that 'apportioning', it would appear, is based on your personal preferences, not on any 'rigid idealism'. the fact that you choose smoking bars in particular to imbibe is quite telling as to your zeal to 'apportion' that right in your personal favor. you have stated that you are a man of reason, but have not stated what your reasons are.

the democrat tactic of 'mandate and ban' is counter to the freedom of choice in every instance. it's use is counter to the belief that we are all equal and that we should all make important life decisions for ourselves, and no one else. helmet use and smoking are not political issues, they are personal issues. the state has no place in either decision.

your support of repealing the helmet mandate is laudable, but counter to your support of a smoking ban. your reasoning for one doesn't hold up to the reasoning for the other. it all boils down to whether or not you truly believe in a citizen's right to choose, for better or for worse.

if you would take that from a citizen, what other rights are you willing to sacrifice?

OK, we'll go through this again.

There is no condradiction in my being for the helmet mandate repeal, and being for the ban on smoking in a place of public accommodation or workplace.

One's rights to do something come with the responsibility not to interfere with another's rights. Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, though not very smart, is not interfering with any one elses rights.

Smoking in a workplace or place of public accommodation does impose on the other people in those places. They have a right to air not fouled with toxins.

Your argument that non-smokers should choose another public place to eat or drink doesn't (excuse my pun) hold water. These are places that cater to the public for their business. They invite the public in, and in doing so, make a bargain to provide good service and a safe environment and safe products at a price. The state, as the public's representative, insures that these businesses keep their end of the bargain, and also that the public keeps it's end of the bargain; which is paying for those goods and services.

If a business wants to limit it's clietele, it should be able to do so, by clear signage and advertising itself as limited to certain members of the public only, such as smokers. Most restaurants and bars want both smokers and non-smokers of course. Being as only 21% of people in Michigan are smokers, it would be foolish for them to turn away 79% of their clientele. Therefore, it is only common sense, as many other states have found, that smoking should be banned in restaurants and bars where the businesses want the most business.

Nobody's freedoms are taken away. Smokers can still legally smoke. That is their right. They should be able to jump on their Harley, take their hair out of the ponytail and not put a helmet on, light up a Marlboro, and ride off, obeying the speed limits of course, for the safety of the motoring public, who also have a right to use the road.

Another point just as important, but you don't seem to be so concerned with, is the fact that restaurants and bars are also workplaces for many people. They should have a workplace that is safe, as that is another bargain struck, in this instance between the employer and employee. A healthy employee is an asset to the employer. The government has a whole entity dealing just with workplace safety, on both the state and federal level. I must assume you don't agree, but nonetheless they exist.

Now if all that seems contradictary to you, it doesn't to me.

jmangan:

OK, we'll go through this again.

There is no condradiction in my being for the helmet mandate repeal, and being for the ban on smoking in a place of public accommodation or workplace.

(so where is the bar owner's right to choose his clientele? where is his right to accommodate smokers primarily? if you have your way, this right will go away, and the bar owners will have to go to the additional expense of meeting the government standards for a 'cigar bar'. if you are willing to concede to a 'cigar bar' why are you not willing to concede to a 'cigarette bar', and work to get more non-smoking bars opened, instead of shutting down the rights of smokers in bars they already go to but you do not?)

One's rights to do something come with the responsibility not to interfere with another's rights. Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, though not very smart, is not interfering with any one elses rights.

(but shutting down the right to smoke in bars where smoking was previously condoned is interfering with another's rights. you just refuse to admit it. your argument of interfering with non-smoker's rights smacks that responsibility theory right in the face. while it is not the smoker's responsibility to provide clean fresh air for non-smokers in a smoking bar, it IS the non-smoker's responsibility to avoid the hazards of smoking if he so chooses. that is why it is called a PERSONAL responsibility.)

Smoking in a workplace or place of public accommodation does impose on the other people in those places. They have a right to air not fouled with toxins.

(not so. they have an expectation of air not fouled with toxins. if the place does not meet expectations, the individual non-smoker has the responsibility to leave, but is still free to stay, according to his choice.) 

Your argument that non-smokers should choose another public place to eat or drink doesn't (excuse my pun) hold water.

(yes it does, in fact, you support this very idea two paragraphs down.)

these are places that cater to the public for their business.

(can you say that a 'cigar bar' caters to the public, or a small fraction of the public? what about topless bars? gay bars? *** bars? the bar at the back of the v.f.w. hall?)

 They invite the public in,

(no, they invite a small portion of the public. only those able to purchase and consume alcohol. the 'public' is not invited, nor are they allowed. this shoots your 'public' accommodation theory out of the water. some of these places have big burly bouncers at the door to keep the underage and the 'riff-raff' out.)

and in doing so, make a bargain to provide good service and a safe environment and safe products at a price.

(no, the bargain is for the goods the customer orders, as the customer expects it, at a price the customer is willing to pay. safety is not the prime concern during these negotiations, as the goods being bargained for in this instance are considered toxic in and of themselves. this fact does not diminish the customer's right to purchase it, nor does it diminish the bar owner's right to sell it. you simply object to one toxic substance being consumed in your presence while you are consuming another.) 

 The state, as the public's representative, insures that these businesses keep their end of the bargain, and also that the public keeps it's end of the bargain; which is paying for those goods and services.

If a business wants to limit it's clietele, it should be able to do so, by clear signage and advertising itself as limited to certain members of the public only, such as smokers.

(your legislation, and your rhetoric, offers no such option for the bar owners, or the smokers. this option would allow bar owners to exercise their wishes in this matter, but no such freedom is permitted by a total ban on smoking.)

 Most restaurants and bars want both smokers and non-smokers of course. Being as only 21% of people in Michigan are smokers, it would be foolish for them to turn away 79% of their clientele.

(so, to prove your theory, why are there not 79% more non-smoking bars in michigan? this would give you plenty of options to choose from, but it seems that there are not ANY non-smoking bars in michigan, save one. for being in such a majority, non-smokers are surely under-represented in the bar clientele department. surely if 79% of the people at a bar were non-smokers, the bar would be too.)

 Therefore, it is only common sense, as many other states have found, that smoking should be banned in restaurants and bars where the businesses want the most business.

(but bar owners do want the most business, and most of their business comes from smokers, and a very small percentage of their business comes from non-smokers. until you change that fact, you will have to trample smoker's rights to achieve your goals.)

Nobody's freedoms are taken away.

(yes, they are.)

 Smokers can still legally smoke.

(but not in YOUR presence, and not in a bar in michigan.)

 That is their right.

(no it isn't. it is a privilege that you have taken away at a whim. a perk granted at your discretion.)

 They should be able to jump on their Harley, take their hair out of the ponytail and not put a helmet on, light up a Marlboro, and ride off, obeying the speed limits of course, for the safety of the motoring public, who also have a right to use the road.

(but they cannot ride their harleys to the bar and light up. you are trying to make sure of that.)

Another point just as important, but you don't seem to be so concerned with, is the fact that restaurants and bars are also workplaces for many people. They should have a workplace that is safe, as that is another bargain struck, in this instance between the employer and employee. A healthy employee is an asset to the employer. The government has a whole entity dealing just with workplace safety, on both the state and federal level. I must assume you don't agree, but nonetheless they exist.

(and this entity doesn't think it important enough to ban smoking in the workplace, or the bar. so why do you? don't you trust your government? obviously not.)

Now if all that seems contradictary to you, it doesn't to me.

(it doesn't just seem contradictory, it is contradictory. i've shown you where and how again, but you refuse to see truth or reason.)

You have shown me a few things crazy, I mean silence. You have shown me that you are against banning smoking in bars and restaurants,  and will definetly not be persuaded by reason to change your mind. You have shown me that you view smoking in a public place to be a birthright, rather than a danger to your fellow citizens. You have shown me that you view your rights above any others, and that government is your enemy, rather than an expression of our societies will. You have shown me that you are a tool of the organization that sponsors this site. And you have also shown me that you can't seem to discuss the topic of the thread without veering into your ideological dream world, bringing every subject back to your hatred of our government, and attacking the person posting opinions that don't match your anarchistic interpretation of government. Your post are meant to evoke argument, rather than express an opinion. Believe me, I know your opinion, no matter what user name you sign in under. (I understand the need to use multiple identities, being as your group is such a minority.) But I know the wizard is still the little guy behind the curtain, just making a lot of noise.

 how does one man house so much paranoia? first you thought i was crazycajun, now you think silence is.  is everyone you oppose going to be referred to as crazycajun?

i am opposed to the removal of freedom of choice. i don't care what bar owners decide to ban, but it's not the government's job to decide for them, and it's not yours either. silence and i agree almost totally on that point. you disagree.

i believe that smoking is a choice, and the choice is the  birthright. you keep getting that wrong. my view is that my rights are exactly equal to yours, your view is that your rights are superior, you have even admitted as much several times. i am not a 'tool' of anyone. i think for myself, i believe what i believe ,and you are just ticked off that the organization that sponsors this site are thinking more like i do than you do. if you do not agree with the "editorial slant" you perceive, then feel free to move on to some sites that will think more closely to your views.

i can recommend "speaking minds" if you want exclusive leftist content. trueblue is a beloved figure there, you should find a receptive audience. i find it a source of much hilarity. they even discuss eugenics as a viable option of eradicating conservatives.

your disregard for the rights of the citizens of the state of michigan is contemptible to me, as it is to many, but your right to speak your mind is always respected.  your paranoia intrigues me, as does your constant assertion that all of your opponents are crazycajun. in re-reading his posts compared against yours, i take your paranoia as a compliment.

so, how many crazycajuns do you suppose there are? at least three so far, and counting. i think i'm going to have another cup of coffee to celebrate your irritation with me.

LOL. I can't remember when I had this much fun. Please, tell me more. Tell me how you're really a freedom fighter, just disguised as an anarchist, and tell me why you answered this post, and not one of your alter ego's. And explain to us all how anarchy is really freedom. Freedom for the strongest, the luckiest, the most dishonest, and slavery for anyone else. Tell us how freedom means you get to do anything you want, to anyone you want. Tell us why conservatives need to rationalize selfishness. And tell us what you are so afraid of. Explain all that to us. Choose any identity you wish. I'm up for some more laughs, although I don't want to miss Stewart eviscerating Cramer tonight.

I find that idea of eradicating conservatives with eugenics not appealing at all. What would we do for fun? We need you, like a bat needs a ball.

 i'm touched. you have compared me to a great person. i'm sorry to burst your bubble, but i'm not crazycajun either. you say i will not be persuaded by reason. of course i will be persuaded by reason, but it had better be a good reason. so far you have given only your personal wishes. not reasons to change my mind. you say i view my rights as being above others. isn't that what you have been accused of doing by me several times? each time citing examples? i'm waiting to see your examples of where i feel my wishes are to be held above yours.

how do you get that i am a "tool of the the organization that sponsors this site'? is that another fantasy manufactured out of whole cloth? as for your anarchist comment, i'm a person who believes that less government is better, and more freedom is to be desired. i see you have a problem with that philosophy. you seem to enjoy arguing with anyone who opposes your views, and blaming one person, crazycajun, for your arguments.

  not for nothing, i know your opinions as well, and i don't agree with them, but i listen carefully to your rantings, perhaps there is a pearl of wisdom in there, though i have found none so far. your complaints about the 'guy behind the curtain' are a sure sign that you are feeling like you are on the losing end of most of the discussions we have. you using the 'minority' reference is a sure sign that you believe that the rights of the mob outweigh the rights of the minority. you come across as the type who would tar and feather someone who disagrees with you just to prove your point.

let's see.. trueblue is trying to put democratic socialism out as our new form of government, sanemichigander is trying to get our system of government to move further left to accommodate his multiple social programs, and you are trying to get our system of government to stop smokers from blowing smoke in your face. three different log-in names... three very similar viewpoints... three very similar 'styles'. one goal.

could it be that the 'big three of the left' are one in the same? hmmm....

(have i gotten your 'style' right?)

i've never met this cajun fellow, but i've read what he's written. our views are quite similar, and we do agree on almost everything. that doesn't make us one in the same. i'm not as crotchety and down on the state of michigan and women in general.

I'm not comparing you, I'm saying you're a clone, a reflection, a ditto head. That doesn't compare, that matches. Same talking points, same slogans, same excuses, same insults, same person. If that "touches" you, you have my sympathy.

Nice to hear your "listening", but I'm really not talking to you. I have no delusions about changing yours, or your alter ego's minds on anything. You're too invested in your ideology. It's too much about you, and not about what's right, or what works. It's your way or the highway.

I'm speaking to people who aren't burdened by such weight. They do occasionally traverse this site. They have opinions, and wish to hear other opinions. Yours, and your clone's are here for them to see, so is mine. That's fair.

 Sir, this forum is not here to provide you with a 'fun' sport of personal attacks with someone having an opposing view, please find another venue for that.  If you decide to stay in this forum, please stay on topic.  As a reminder, it is about the repeal of Michigan's motorcycle helmet mandate - not smoking, seatbelts or any other freedom.

Thank you.

If you sir, took the time to look back in this thread, you would see my futile attempts at staying on topic.

If you have an opinion on the helmet ban, give it, and save your self righteous comments.

 is that how you see it? the right to choose for ourselves is a 'sliding ideal'? that's what you are saying.

perhaps if you had an actual ideology about the freedom of choice, not a 'sliding' idea of when you wish to grant it, then you would see things differently.

this is why our founders didn't want EVERYONE to have the right to vote.

 i am a right wing ideologue, and proudly so, but i do not do you or anyone else any harm. i do not remove your rights or anyone elses. in fact, i stand up for the very same rights you wish to abolish or diminish. there are those that would say that removing and diminishing rights is evil. you seem to believe that such removal of rights is a necessity.

your democratic agenda will bankrupt this state and this nation. it will cause the worth of every individual to fall. it will cause strife and division between factions that should and have worked together for generations. and lastly, they will make those who work pay for those who will not work.

Warning! The editor has received complaints of excessive levels of personal attacks and off-topic posts on this thread. Please, stick to the topic. Off-topic discussions should be taken to the "take it outside" or "political discussion" threads. Personal attacks are forbidden anywhere on this website.

Fourm Rules:

The presumption of goodwill must be granted to all other commenters on this website. Characterizing any participant on this forum as being motivated by anything other than goodwill is prohibited. Demeaning another member of this forum for his or her views or affiliation, sneering, name-calling, etc. are prohibited.

Though not very smart, I think people who want to take the chance should be able to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. My only concern, other than for their safety, is the increased medical cost to the general public if these people do get seriously injured and don't have enough insurance. Maybe an extra rider on their insurance policy would be appropriate.

Increased insurance rates is one of the most predominant arguments.  Of course it would be, because increased insurance rates would touch us all.

I don't have any figures in front of me, but from what I have seen regarding states that have repealed helmet laws, the accident rates do not impact insurance.  And for example, Florida's accident rate for motorcycles actually went down.  [Total number of accidents rose slightly, but that was due to the large increase in the numbers of motorcycles on the road.]

Motorcyclists without enough insurance vs automible drivers without enough insurance...what's the difference?  It is up to the operator of the vehicle to purchase the right insurance in all cases.  An extra insurance rider for a motorcyclist has several disadvantages:  1) If insurance becomes too expensive, some won't purchase it.  Now we're getting into everyone's pockets. 2) Extra insurance...above and beyond what?  How do you know how much is the right amount?  Just because there is more, does that mean it is right?  3) Speaking of right, charging even more for a motorcyclist with a clean record is discriminatory.

What is the predominant injury on a motorcycle?  Blunt force trauma to the torso (that's right - not the head).

What is the predominant injury in an automobile?  Head injury!  Do you want to wear a helmet in a car?

Let the rider decide, and educate the automobile drivers.  Awareness is the key.

 sage words well spoken.

alas, lost on liberal ears.

The sage words are wrong. What follows is from a review done by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

Wolfram Hell and Günter Lob, two doctors from Munich, Germany, took up a number of questions that were not dealt with in any other articles we encountered in the course of this project. Working with a sample of 210 injury victims from 173 motorcycle crashes, they analyzed each crash and each injury in minute detail. They not only examined the severity and body region of each injury, but they also looked at the relationship between these injury dimensions and crash types -- i.e., the motorcycle’s relationship to its crash opponent (if any) and what happened to the rider(s). In addition, they considered the benefits of protective leather clothing and helmet performance in crashes. It should be noted that their sample is probably not a representative sample of all motorcycle crashes. In their sample, 50 victims (24 percent) died, while on average only about 2 percent of police-reported crashes in Germany result in death.

Of all crashes involving injuries of moderate or greater severity (AIS�2), 43 percent involved injuries to the head, followed by lower extremities (37 percent), upper extremities (30 percent), thorax (25 percent), abdomen (16 percent), spine (12 percent), and pelvis (8 percent). In a US study based on 1992 GES data, Miller and Galbraith (1994) found a much higher share of injuries to the lower extremities and a lower share of injuries to the trunk.

More from the aforementioned review:

Analysts at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, working under a NHTSA contract, identified 25 motorcycle safety studies for review. Most were published in the 1990s, and most addressed the subject of the costs of injuries resulting from motorcycle crashes. Most of the studies reviewed employed data from a state, locality, or medical institution in the United States. Seven of the studies linked data from multiple sources -- e.g., police crash reports and hospital records -- with varying degrees of success, in order to compile detail on individual crashes and their victims. A few other studies drew data from multiple sources in computing aggregate estimates of crash costs, but most of the studies worked from a single medical dataset. Most of the studies focused on either the benefits of wearing motorcycle safety helmets or the impact of state laws requiring the wearing of such helmets.

The studies that examined the impact of safety helmets or helmet laws consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, the probability and severity of head injuries, the cost of medical treatment, the length of hospital stay, the necessity for special medical treatments, and the probability of long-term disability. This work reinforces similar conclusions from earlier studies.

A number of the reviewed studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government. Some crash patients are covered directly through Medicaid or another government program. Others, who are listed by the hospital as “self-pay” status, might eventually become indigent and qualify for Medicaid when their costs reach a certain level.

A few studies examined the frequency of alcohol use by motorcycle crash victims. They found high rates of alcohol use and intoxication, particularly among unhelmeted crash victims.

While the literature has widely explored acute medical costs, research is sparse in the areas of long-term medical and work-loss costs. For victims of serious head injury, acute hospital care might be only the first stage of a long and costly treatment program. For many crash victims, lost wages from missed work days will outweigh medical costs. And for victims who are permanently disabled, their earnings might be reduced for the rest of their lives. More research is needed on these subjects to provide a more comprehensive picture of the full cost of motorcycle crash injuries.

 Great input, Gypsy!

I have a couple of things to ask you about regarding your in-depth information.  First, in order to validate your comments, will you please provide a link to the information you cite?  We will all thank you for the link.  Next, I'd like to make a few observations.

I will point out that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is an advocate of helmet use, and is not in favor of helmet choice.  Their motivation for that position is immaterial, but is important to know.  A quick look at their web site will confirm this point.

As you state, the study was performed by an organization, "working under a NHTSA contract".  Tell me, who doesn't want to please their employer?  These sorts of commissioned studys are often tilted.

You cite, "Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage."  I say, so what?  That has absolutely nothing to do with it.  Because that statistic applies across the board, it has nothing to do with a person wearing a helmet or not.  This statistic will not change unless a person feels that they are being slighted for having to pay extra insurance.  I can see where their attitude may be one of rebellion and help them justify not paying for insurance, or at least the extra that they feel is unfairly imposed.

The study you cite offers that helmet use reduces fatalities in a crash.  I do not dispute that.  Some may, but I do not.  Even though I've gone to the pavement on three separate occasions, and not once has my helmet touched the ground, I do believe that a helmet affords protection.  On the other hand, if the accident is severe enough that the helmet prevented death, I believe that there is still an amount of brain trauma, and a significant amount of other damage to the body.  That will amount to large medical bills.  Perhaps a morbid thought, though reality; that same accident without a helmet may have cost only a funeral (not to minimize the life, but we're talking insurance cost here).  Do you really want lower insurance, or simply to impose what appears to you to be a logical restriction?

A NHTSB paper (Traffic Tech, Technology Transfer Series Number 127, June 1996) states that helmets are about 29% effective in preventing crash fatalities.  Hmmm, not very good odds by their statistics.  And remember, the helmet prevents a crash 0.0% of the time. 

It still comes down to freedom of choice.  It's sort of like a woman's right to choose - it is her choice and hers alone.  But remember, when she chooses to abort a baby, the world misses out on the riches that that person would have offered, that person had no right to choose, and a person dies 100% of the time.  When you see a rider without a helmet, they are enjoying freedom and their God-given right to choose...and rarely does anyone die.

Freedom!

As I've said in an earlier post, I am in agreement with jman in so far as I favor this bill, as a personal freedom that doesn't do harm to anyone else, notwithstanding the disputed medical cost to us all. But I do not agree that foregoing a helmet is in anyway an intelligent decision, and to portray it as such is deception.The evidence doesn't support that. Any prudent rider who looks at the evidence from all sources, would choose to wear a helmet.

I noticed you didn't provide a link for your information.

 True enough, no links.  My sources are cited, however, and can be easily looked up.

Thanks for the support of helmet freedom, especially when you personally believe that a helmet should be worn.  That is very big of you to look past your personal desire and recognize what freedom means.

I don't think one can necessarily make a blanket statement that any prudent rider will choose to wear a helmet.  Of course, that depends on what you mean by prudent, so perhaps you are correct from your point of view.  Where I'm going though is that we all weigh risk.  Then, we decide if we are willing to take the risk.  We do this many times per day - cars, bicycles, flying, sports, roller coasters, and so on.  I'd say that most folks who elect to not wear a helmet are well aware of the risk.  To them, the reward is great enough, and the risk small enough that it makes sense.  I wouldn't conclude that anyone who does not wear a helmet is unwise, I will concede that some are, but I would stop short of a blanket conviction.  I understand that you belive them to be unwise, so I guess that's where we differ even though we're basically on the same page.

Webster defines prudent as marked by wisdom or judiciousness.

Yes, we are basically on the same page, but differ only in whether we feel it is prudent for one to decide to ride sans helmet. Your discussion about the risk we take every day is applicable, but to decide to take any risk when a safer method is at hand is obviously, to my mind, imprudent. It would follow that foregoing a helmet to enjoy the freedom one might feel, whether it is the freedom to decide, or the freedom of wind blowing in your hair, is still imprudent.

 then you choose to be prudent, and let others choose to be imprudent.

Agreed.

 why apply prudence here, but not in a smoky bar?

That's another thread.