Michigan Votes Forum

 then answer it there.

Ask it there.

 does it really matter where you answer?

Yes.

 then go there and post your answer.

Go there and post your question.

 you forget that quickly?

 the root of contention here is who should make the choice for or against helmet use, the state or the rider?

I believe the rider, even though not wearing a helmet is imprudent.

 why doesn't the state trust you to make that decision for yourself?

I believe the state, or at least the legislators who originally passed a bill mandating helmet use, felt it was lessening the financial burden on it's citizens and the insurance companies. I don't agree with that, therefore support this bill to repeal the helmet mandate.

 it is not the job of those legislators to interfere with the individual lives of a particular group to benefit another group. why do they keep doing it? why do the supposedly constitutionally savvy leftists continue to elect them?

 why isn't our state supreme court standing up for our rights? some say the state cannot afford to be without the additional federal income this helmet mandate generates.

trading rights for money is tyranny.

I don't really think the state will lose money if this law is passed. I think if your looking for a villian, the insurance companies are the most likely candidate. I'm sure they are lobbying to keep this law in place.

 what would make you think that? have you seen any insurance companies supporting this bill? these are the same insurance companies that are seeing increases in business in states that have repealed helmet use. the federal government is pushing this, and it's time we took our rights back.

OK...., just trying to help. As I said, I support this bill.

 some insurance companies charge motorcyclists less in 'helmet choice' states.

Could you verify that?

bugman:

 some insurance companies charge motorcyclists less in 'helmet choice' states.

That would be awsome, Bug - please, help the cause by providing some additional information that we can use to bolster our case!

 go to your insurance company's website. pick a 'helmet choice' state, look up rates for your bike as if it were registered there instead of here. you may be surprised at the result.

I see what you're saying now, but that's like comparing apples to oranges.  The insurance is simply different from state to state, I believe that the difference is not necessarily related to helmets, but rather to the insurance statistics specific to the particular state.  Certainly, some helmet choice states could have lower rates, and some will have higher rates, but how to the other rates (automobiles, for example) compare?  We need to be careful to look at all of the statistics if we're going to use this logic.  We can't necessarily infer that our state will have lower rates with helmet choice.

A good statistic would be to do a comparison in a state that recently went to helmet choice.  Comparing the before and after insurance rates would give a fair comparison of how (in that state at least) insurance rates have changed.  Again, we would need to also look at insurance for other vehicles to see if motorcycle rates follow a state trend.

I'm just not sure where to go to dig up this sort of information.  Would you, or anyone else, be able to provide data?

 not apples to oranges, but apples to apples. if an insurance company in a 'choice state' is charging less, it obviously is paying less. market forces, and accident rates, are fairly consistent state to state despite what the opponents want you to think. insurance rates are based on what insurance companies pay out. lower cost insurance always equals lower payouts.

I'd like to see those statistics also.

 then look them up.

Can't find them anywhere.

 where are you looking?

Being as you are making the claim bugman, it is incumbant on you to provide the evidence.

"That would be awsome, Bug - please, help the cause by providing some additional information that we can use to bolster our case!"

Rabid agrees with me.

 find it the same place i found it. i contacted my insurance company and asked them the rates in 'helmet choice' states. some are lower. in fact, most are lower. government intervention doesn't seem to be keeping the prices artificially high. market forces do not seem to be driving the prices up. it seems that free people choosing to ride helmetless may have a point that in some cases, it is safer to do so. my insurance company believes that helmetless riders can see and hear better, thus avoiding some accidents. avoiding accidents prevents accidents. preventing accidents saves money.

I don't doubt your word, bug, but it would really mean a lot to rabid if you could prove what you are saying. Like maybe show us a chart or something.

 i'm not your insurance agent. he can provide you with a chart if you wish. i personally don't need a chart. do you?

No, I don't. I know the facts, I don't make them up, I look them up.

You can't prove your claim. OK.

Comparing Michigan's insurance rate to a helmet choice state is incorrect science.  All it shows is that another state has rates that are different, it says nothing about how helmet choice affects the rates.

http://personalinsure.about.com/cs/vehicleratings/a/blautominimum.htm

http://ezinearticles.com/?Automobile-Insurance-Location&id=232034

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/167283/what_factors_affect_motorcycle_insurance.html

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=434715

These sites above explain that minimum requirements vary by state, and even within a state the rates will vary according to the metropolitan area and other factors.  The factors involved are varied and include things such as population density, number of accidents and crime rates.

Your assertion, bugman, relies on the flawed assumptions that cost of insurance from state to state is essentially the same, and that the cost within a state is essentially the same.  As you stated earlier,

"not apples to oranges, but apples to apples. if an insurance company in a 'choice state' is charging less, it obviously is paying less. market forces, and accident rates, are fairly consistent state to state despite what the opponents want you to think. insurance rates are based on what insurance companies pay out. lower cost insurance always equals lower payouts. "

Your assumptions are incorrect.

Michigan and a few other states have no-fault insurance, so that adds yet another factor to make rates different between states.

The bottom line is that rates are simply different from state to state, and are even different between different locations in the same state.

I support your assertion that you can look up insurance rates in another state and compare those with what we pay here in Michigan.  However, it is a mistake to believe that any difference in cost is due to helmet choice (certainly not the choice factor alone as you imply).  There are way too many other factors included in the rate calculations, so while helmet choice is likely to be a component of the calculations, it is not the determining factor.

Our rates in Michigan will be calculated using the factors that exist now, and would add the choice factor when it applies.  The only way to know what our rates would do is to know how the choice factor impacts the calculation.  At this time, I do not know that impact.

I stand by my earlier statement,

A good statistic would be to do a comparison in a state that recently went to helmet choice.  Comparing the before and after insurance rates would give a fair comparison of how (in that state at least) insurance rates have changed.

I want freedom of choice as much as you, gypsy, and a lot of others who may read this forum but not chime in.  We need to be factual in order to maintain credibility.  Simply stating that you know the facts and we need to find out on our own undermines your credibility, and undermines our cause.  Only when we present a credible, defensible position backed up with facts will doubters and fence-sitters be able to seriously consider what we have to say and perhaps change their position.  If we fire off unfounded "facts" that cannot be proven, it further entrenches them in opposition.

If you can provide data that supports your assertion and refutes mine, I'm interested in seeing it.  I'm fairly certain we would all be interested in seeing it.

 why would you refute the statistics from your own insurance company about it's pricing from state to state? would they be wrong about their own statistics? i doubt it. they are in business to make money. they cannot make money if their own statistics are wrong. insurance is based on statistics and statistical analysis. their pricing is a product of that analysis. if they are charging less, it is because the history of that area leads them to believe that it costs less to take on the risk of insuring a particular group of drivers.

i accept their analysis. why don't you?

Because you haven't proven it, bugman. Just saying it, as Rabid has pointed out, doesn't help the cause. To make claims that are unverifyable actually hurt the cause.

Let me say before I post the folowing that I am in favor of repealing the helmet law for adults, as it is a personal choice that has no adverse effects on others, save for how it may affect overall medical cost. But I believe it is a bad choice for someone to ride sans helmet.

Motorcycles: Study Hits States Without Helmet Laws

 and yet, despite this study, it is still cheaper to buy motorcycle insurance in ohio, and florida than it is to buy motorcycle insurance here. based on the same person (me) riding the same bike for the same miles, calculated by the same insurance company.

as the insurance companies have to 'foot the bill' for those increased tragic injuries, they should know full well what the consequences of riding helmet-less are. but they haven't. that shows that 'real world' experience contradicts the study you quote.

You say that bugman, but you have yet to produce prove. I am not doubting your word, but to continue to evade providing support for your statements can only undermine your credibility.

 find out for yourself. i did. ask your own insurance agent how much you would pay if you rode in florida, or ohio, or tennessee, or almost anyplace. compare your insurance company's rates for yourself. in other words, shop around. do you need a chart to figure out how to do that?

insurance rates are based on insurance history. actual incidents. ask your insurance agency to provide you with a list of their rates for 'helmet choice' states as compared to here. they will be glad to do it. i'm not going to try and mislead you by giving you a 'slanted' chart from a 'slanted' organization. i'm sending you to an agent you obviously trust (or you wouldn't be giving him your money) and asking you to ask him.

you  cannot say the data you get from them is in any way slanted, except towards having you buy insurance.

 by the way, if you cannot, or will not do this, it is your credibility that suffers.

I really hate to push this issue bugman, but you just can't say things without some proof..

How on earth would my credibility suffer when it is your claim?