Michigan Votes Forum

 i really hate to push this issue, gypsy, but talk to me AFTER you have spoken to your insurance agent. you may post his 'facts' for all to see. i told you to look for these facts from an unimpeachable source, your own insurance agent.

i have a political slant, and may choose to use that slant to 'skew' any statistics i would show. you contacting your insurance agent keeps my 'slant and skew' out of your figures. pure facts from the source. if you will not get your facts there, you are afraid of what the facts really are.

now, do you really want to see my 'slanted' facts, or your insurance agent's 'pure' facts?

 

A very obvious attempt at trying to get out of proving your outlandish statements. I am not making the claim that insurance companies are charging less in states where helmets are not mandated, you are. I am in fact in support of this bill. If you can back up what you say with verifiable prove, great. I will still be in support of this bill. Just don't try and con me into proving your outrageous statements.

 Time to stop arguing, gypsy.  It is obvious that he doesn't get the point.  No matter how many ways it is presented, he has only one (non)answer.  He is ignorant of the truth, refuses to acknowledge facts, and he is wrong.  Let's let it be and move on.  He is correct that insurance is cheaper in some other states, it is also more expensive in others.  Rates are also cheaper in other communitys right here in Michigan.  That being said, his assertion that helmet choice states have cheaper insurance because of helmet choice cannot hold water.

As for your position, gypsy, I really respect the fact that you can understand and support freedom, even though you believe we're a bunch of buffaoons for riding lidless.  Thanks for your selfless stance.

Thank you rabid, although we may not agree on all issues, it is refreshing to hear a sensible voice.

 how is it that two 'helmet choice' states were cheaper than michigan? if motorcyclists were splattering their brains all over the highways, it would cost more. but it doesn't. i told you, and i tell everybody to ask your own insurance agent. get the facts from a reliable source, not from a 'slanted' or 'biased' source.

the doom and gloom predicted by the left for helmetless ridership, like the predictions of mass carnage in the streets when concealed weapon permits were issued, have not come to pass. several states that have had their 'helmet choice' taken back by their legislatures are using those very insurance cost statistics to win their battle for 'helmet choice'.

large numbers of non-riders can certainly trample rider's rights, and they have. especially when given intentionally false or misleading information. i sent you to the only authorative source for the 'straight skinny' on actual costs of riding helmetless.

i'm sure that you didn't go to your insurance company's site and look for a quote, but you still should. it will be very enlightening.

Getting quotes for motorcycle insurance cheaper in a helmetless state is meaningless. Motorcycle insurance, like car insurance, insures the vehicle, for damage you may cause to others, and the driver. It will vary for the kind of bike, the area you live in, urban or rural, the experience of the driver, the amount of deductible the driver wants, and the amount of insurance the driver wants on himself. The only factor having to do with helmets is the amount of medical coverage the driver wants on himself. This medical coverage is secondary to any other medical coverage he may have. Some helmetless states require riders to carry a minimum amount of medical coverage if they ride helmetless. Riding without a helmet does not increase your chances of an accident, but it does increase your chances of serious injury or death if you are in an accident.

So if you're trying to make a point that repealing the helmet law will make your insurance cheaper, you're wrong. If you make the point it is your right to choose to ride helmetless, you're right.

 the point is, all the doom and gloom predicted for 'helmet choice' states hasn't happened. it couldn't have or rates would skyrocket. they haven't, as evidenced by lower rates in helmet choice states. bad science, bad law.

You still don't get it. Helmets are to protect the rider. Motorcycle insurance is to insure the motorcycle, and the damage it may cause to another vehicle, property, and people in an accident. Wearing a helmet or not doesn't change that risk.The medical insurance you buy on yourself can be as expensive as you want coverage for. It's secondary anyway, to any other medical insurance you have. So the insurance issue is not an argument either for or against helmet use. It's irrelevant, other than some states insist you buy extra medical coverage for yourself if you ride helmetless, so that would increase your insurance cost. The difference in insurance prices in different states, whether they have helmet laws or not, is because of many factors not related to helmet usage.

 no, you don't get it. insurance rates would be higher if accident rates and severity were higher without helmets. and you also forget the 'bottom line'. it is not the job of government to make decisions for me. it is my job to make decisions for the government. we are a government of the governed. not a totalitarian state run by our current governor. her performing a job that is not the proper function of government is tyranny. her making decisions that are best left to the citizen is tyranny.  

I think the best way for you to oppose this tyranny is to ride without a helmet, and get the cheapest insurance you can find.

 no, the best way to oppose this tyranny is to work to have this, and all other laws that take rights from citizens repealed. next would be to work to remove those who impose this tyranny voted out as soon as possible, impeached if possible, recalled if necessary. all riding without a helmet now would do is make me a petty criminal. it would do nothing to curb the tyranny.

I am trying to take you seriously, but it is becoming harder with your every post. I will soldier on. We are in agreement on this bill. The helmet mandate should be repealed.

If you are not happy with your representative, by all means don't vote for him, impeach, or recall him, if a majority of the voters in your district are in favor of those actions.

If you want to call the helmet law tyranny, ok. But according to the dictionary, that is not accurate.

Tyranny: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.

Webster.

 totalitarianism is where absolute power is vested in a single ruler. tyranny is where any ruler abrogates the rights of the citizens.

Tyranny: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.

Webster.

You'll have to take that up with Mr. Webster.

 there are benevolent monarchies, even benevolent dictatorships. but any leader who usurps rights and abrogates freedom is a tyrant. mr. webster has been known to be wrong in the past, especially when political correctness rears it's ugly head.

 let's try this one.

tyranny: dominance through threat of punishment and violence; despotism.

 or perhaps this...

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

 Folks, as this conversation has grown away from the debate regarding HB 4028, Repeal of the motorcycle helmet mandate, I kindly ask that you move the discussion to a better suited forum.  Thank you.

 and i guess it does matter which definition you choose...

tyr·an·ny Pronunciation: \ˈtir-ə-nē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural tyr·an·nies Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant Date: 14th century

Research, albeit minimal. I'm impressed.

 Happy 40th Linda

56-20-1. The number of yes votes needed to pass a bill. 56 from the house, 20 from the senate and 1 from the gov. Unfortunately our last count was 67-24-0! To override a veto we would need a minimum of 74 house votes and 26 senate votes. A little shy at the moment. We could probably get the GOP majority senate to override it just to spite Granholm, but then we would still need 7 more votes from the Dem mojority house. However even they may want to spite Granholm at this point!

The Sunday before election day I was watching the news. The reporter had stated that those close to Granholm were packing their belongings. Why? It was reported that Granholm would be appointed a cabinet position if Obama were elected. She has stated that the reason she "decided" to stay was- "I'm going to finish the job that the people of Michigan have elected me to do." Translation- Obama realized her incompetence and withdrew his offer. I have a very reliable inside source who has confirmed this. Had she have stepped down, Lt. Gov John Cherry would be governor right now and freedom would be a reality. But Granholm's 29% approval rating has forced Cherry out of the race! Just as Bush was so damaging to the GOP that he CAUSED Barack Obama to be elected, Granholm has all but guaranteed our next governor will be a Republican. In other words, Granholm has "BUSH-whacked" the Dems!

Now that Cherry is out of the race, let's see who is in for the Dems. We have the Mayor of Lansing, Virg Bernero, who supports this bill. As well as Speaker of the House Andy Dillon, also a supporter. On the GOP side we have AG Mike Cox, Oakland Co. Sheriff Mike Bouchard and U.S. Rep Peter Hoekstra. All of which support this bill! So as far as 56-20-1 is concerened we will definately have our 1!! The problem now becomes the senate. 30 of our 38 senators are term limited and will not be here when we get a better governor. What YOU need to do is find out who is running in your district and if they support this issue. If so, we need them to get elected. If we can keep our senate support, freedom in 2011 becomes a VERY REAL likelyhood!

In 1998 Pennsylvania's house and senate passed a helmet-choice bill only to be vetoed by then governor, Tom Ridge. PA would have to wait until Nov '02 to elect a better governor, Ed Rendell. In the summer of '03 PA finally passed their freedom-of-choice bill. That would not have happened if PA had not elected the right people in '02. This year for Michigan is a carbon-copy of '02 for PA. We have this thing on the ropes, time to knock it out!!!

 I understand your concern for motorcycle crash victims and respect your opinion. But there are a couple of things to consider. First off, you're getting your information from an insurance agency. Everybody knows that the insurance companies have an agenda against motorcycles. Second, you're forgetting the root cause of injury, the crash itself. 90% of all car/motorcycle crashes are caused by the car driver "not seeing" the motorcycle. Motorcycle deaths rose for the 8th straight year in ALL states, not just those without helmet laws. This, I believe, is because during the last eight years distracted driving has constantly been on the rise. Eight years ago not nearly as many people were on there cell phones while driving and texting while driving has become a bigger threat than drunk driving! States have just recently begun to pass laws against distracted driving. The law Michigan just passed is merely a cash-grab and does little or nothing to deter distracted driving. I believe laws against texting while driving should be just as severe as laws against drunk driving. I strongly believe that crash avoidance is a far more successful way to prevent injuries that trying to make a crash safer.

Insurance companies have an agenda against paying claims.

It doesn't matter what the cause of the crash is, unless the victim is alive to sue.

I agree with your theory on distracted drivers, but then why, with all the distracted drivers on the road today, would someone choose to make riding a motorcycle even more dangerous by riding helmetless? Seems crazy to me, but have at it. Just be sure you have enough medical insurance, or money in the bank, to pay for your long term care.

 

 If insurance companies have an agenda against paying claims (which they do) then they, more than anyone, should be banging the drum against disrtacted driving. Distracted driving effects everyone on the road, not just motorcyclists. Of course the cause of the crash matters that's why there are speed limits and laws against drunk driving. They are in place to try to minimize the number of crashes on the road.

You are also making the assumption that riding helmetless is more dangerous. I understand why one would make that assumption but NHTSA's own stats refute that. The speed at which a D.O.T. approved helmet is certified safe is 13.6mph. Therefore if you are in a crash above 30mph a helmet may still protect the head from abrasions and lasserations, but as far as brain injuries are concerened, they are ineffective. That's why there are 30 states where wearing a helmet is the riders choice, Michigan is one of only 20 that do not allow this choice. Among the 20 who do not are California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusettes. The usual big-brother government states that try to ban everything.

I am insured. But if I am not at fault in an accident then the perpetrator should be the one that has enough money and/or insurance to cover my injuries. Whether I'm wearing a helmet or not.

As I stated in a previous post, have at it.

Seems contradictory though for you to rail against "big- brother" states that force motorcyclist to wear helmets, and then in the next sentence depend on the other driver for your medical care if they are at fault in the accident that injures you. What if they are uninsured or underinsured? It would be the state that would have to pay for your care then. Hey, wait a minute, that's me! Maybe I should have an interest in your safety, since I may have to take care of you.

The Brain Injury Association of America says:

An unhelmeted motorcyclist
is 40% more likely to suffer
a fatal brain injury and 15%
more likely to suffer a nonfatal
brain injury than a helmeted
motorcyclist when involved
in a crash.

 How is it contradictory for me to expect someone to pay for damages that THEY CAUSED? If someone vandalized your home do you not have the right to sue for damages? Or would you blame the homeowner for not leaving their lights on? Last time I checked it is illegal to drive without insurance. So an uninsured driver who causes an accident, I imagine, would be in a whole lot of legal trouble. If you're that concerened about safety on the road I suggest you hang up and drive.

You have gotten info from insurance companies and now the brain injury association. They wouldn't have a biased opinion, would they? Why not ask the pope if he thinks pedophile priests are a problem? The NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Association) a govenrment agency none-the-less, says the fatality rates (as in fatalities per 10,000 bikes registered) is 5.6 in helmet states compared to 5.4 in free states. (Sadly, both are about 2 points higher than a decade ago). The free states are slightly lower, But even if those numbers were reversed, they are not sufficent enough to justify taking away peoples rights. I'm not trying to suggest that riding helmetless is safer, I'm just saying there's not much difference. That's why the majority of states allow choice. Even though I also don't like the seat-belt law, I cannot deny that your chances of surviving an accident are much greater when wearing a one. That's why every state has a seat-belt law. Although my cousin survived his accident BECAUSE we wasn't wearing his seat-belt, I know that is the exception, not the norm.

There seems to be some kind of anger towards motorcyclists by those who don't ride. When Ben Roethlisberger had his accident people seemed to be angry at him. Even though the accident was CAUSED by the woman driving her car failing to yield the right-of-way and pulling out in front of him, all the focus was on Roethlisberger not wearing a helmet. As if that somehow CAUSED the accident, or made it his fault. Roethlisberger suffered a broken nose and jaw from his face hitting her windshield. Had he have been wearing a half or a 3/4 open face helmet, he would have suffered the same injuries. They may have even been more severe due to the added weight of a helmet upon impact. Had he have been wearing a full-face helmet, which sticks out about 4 inches in front of your face, his head would have been pushed that much further backward upon impact. Even though that may have prevented his broken nose and jaw, it may also have caused his neck to break. That would have been a lot worse!

 

Freerider:

You have gotten info from insurance companies and now the brain injury association. They wouldn't have any vested intrest, would they?

Insurance companies interested in having to pay claims, and the brain injury association interested in brain injuries? Ya think they have a vested interest? Dah!

You are putting a lot of energy into defending your decision to ride without a helmet. I have stated before, and will again, you have a right to be stupid. Just don't give me your doctor bill.

 I can see that we are going in circles. My point is that asking insurance companies about helmet laws would be like asking O.J. if he did it. What do you think he's going to say? Throughout the years insurance compaines have told half-truths, misrepresented facts and outright lied to fulfill their agendas. Whether it be motorcycles, cars, medical or homeowners insurance, their agenda is to charge you as much as they can and do everything in their power not to pay you when you need it. Years ago you did not need auto insurance to legally drive a car. It was definately a good idea to have it, but not required. When it wasn't required they bent over backwards to help you. Once they paid their lobbiests (with the money they made off their customers) to make it mandatory, the rates skyrocketed and the customer service went out the window. I'm not suggesting auto insurance should be optional, but it seems pretty underhanded to me to gouge the prices once they legally have you by the short-hairs.

Here is a classic example of half-truths and misrepresented facts; In 2000 Florida repealed their helmet law. By 2005 AAA claimed that the number of motorcycle fatalities had increased by 80%. Sounds horrible, I know. But the other half of the truth that they "conveniently" left out was that the number of bikes registered in Florida had increased by 150% during that time, with a 50% increase during their first year of repeal. That means that the fatality RATE, as in "fatalities per 10,000 bikes registered" had actually lowered during that time. This is how they get the numbers they want and that is why they can't be trusted. Mark Twain once said that there are "lies, damn lies and statistics."  Why do you think there is a bill in the works to make them open their books to cooperate with the freedom of information act? Seems a little curious to me that they are so unwilling to open their books.

When it comes to auto insurance rates Michigan's are among the top 5, if not top 3 most expensive. After all we did invent the no-fault system. This is also why the insurance lobby is so powerful in this state. There are a lot of lawmakers in this state who's campaigns are financed by AAA (guess who's pockets AAA is getting this money from?)  AAA has a vested intrest in not opening their books under the freedom of information act and lawmakers aren't in any hurry to pass the bill to force them to do so. Don't you find that just a little shady? ALL of our neighboring at-fault states pay about half as much as we do here in Michigan and they all allow helmet-choice. No state has ever raised their rates when helmet-choice was legalized. More importantly, no state has ever LOWERED their rates when a helmet law was enacted. Part of our overpriced insurance rates go into the MCCA (Michigan Catostrophic Claims Association). As far as I know we are the only state that has this. You pay into this on a "per vehicle" basis. Therefore if you only drive one car and I drive a car and a motorcycle, you pay once and I pay twice, even though I can only be catastrophic once. But here's the real kicker, if you are injured in a car, you get it whether you are at fault or not (hence no-fault). If I am injured on a bike I can only get it if I am not at fault, even though I pay double! Bottom line, we overpay already. Repealing this law is not going to change that or raise our rates. You will not be getting any doctor bills in the mail either.

The reason insurance companies lobby so hard for helmet laws is because being forced to wear a helmet discourages people from riding. Every state that has repealed their law has seen an immediate increase in bikes on the road. More bikes on the road means that there will be more accidents. That is why there are more motorcycle accidents in the summer than in the winter. Summer doesn't "cause" accidents, but there are more bikes on the road. Riding a motorcycle can be very dangerous with or without a helmet. But the helmet law is just a tool used to keep the motorcycle population lower. That is why they tell half-truths, misrepresent facts and even lie.  To try and justify having a helmet law. Not so much for safety, but to achieve there goal of less bikes on the road.

I can see that when it comes to insurance and the safety a helmet may or may not provide, we can agree to disagree. But you have stated that you support my right to make my own decisions. And for that I thank you.

 

Now that was a lot of energy used to explain to me why insurance companies don't like paying claims. You could have said it in one sentence. It affects their bottom line. Whether a law is passed allowing you to ride helmetless or not will not change the fact that insurance companies are in the business of  making money.

Good luck with your bill, and be safe, (as safe as you can be without a helmet).

For my sake, keep up your medical insurance. I can barely afford my own medical bills.

 WHAT IF?;

Wearing a helmet did reduce the severity of head injuries, but also increased your odds of having an accident. Would you then be any safer? Fact- 30 states allow choice, 20 do not. Fact- the states that do allow choice have a slightly lower fatality rate than those that do not. Helmet states have a fatality rate of 5.6 per 10,000 bikes, in free states it's 5.4 per 10,000. I have a couple of theories on this. One that involves car drivers, one that involves motorcyclists.

90% of motorcycle accidents are CAUSED by car drivers. The number one reason given is always; "Sorry officer, I didn't see him." If you have ever driven in any of our neighboring states you may have noticed a motorcyclist riding helmetless. Even if you reaction was; "Oh my God, that guy's not wearing a helmet." The fact is, you saw him. And just by seeing him, you reduced his odds of having an accident by 90%! A few years ago I was in Ohio on my way to Cedar Point. The girl I was with at the time had that exact reaction. I asked if she had noticed the 3 previous bikers who were wearing helmets, she hadn't. There was a bicyclist in England who had noticed that cars tended to give him more passing space when he rode helmetless. He decided to test this theory. He had gotten a lasercam that measured the passing distance. He rode 500 miles, half with a helmet, half without. He had discovered that cars gave him, on average, an additional 2 feet of passing space while he was helmetless. He was even once sideswiped while wearing his helmet.

Helmets may also give a rider a false sense of security. You are much more aware of your surroundings when riding helmetless. Instead of trying to beat that yellow light, you slow down for it. I had a buddy of mine who is a nice guy, but kind of a dumbass. We went down to Ohio to ride helmetless. While we were there I had noticed that he appeared to be much more aware of his surroundings. We never went any more than 5mph over the posted speed limit, and obeyed all other traffic laws. Once we got back to Michigan and were forced to put our helmets back on he, on more than one occasion, passed multiple cars in a no passing zone. Through curves and over hills where your sight of oncoming traffic is limited. He took a lot more risks when he was wearing a helmet.

These are just theories I've made from personal observations. The Englishman's test is telling, but one test isn't enough to declare something a fact. But it is, at least, something to think about.

 

 EDUCATION, NOT LEGISLATION...

...is the key to motorcycle safety. Michigan has a helmet law, Wisconsin has allowed 18 and older adult-choice since 1978. In 2005 Michigan had 121 motorcycle fatalities, Wisconsin had 99. Michigan has approximately 220,000 registered motorcycles, Wisconsin has 300,000. That means Michigan's fatality RATE (fatalities per 10,000 bikes) was 5.5, Wisconsin's was 3.3. How could this be? Wisconsin not only has great riders ed programs, they also have one of the best, if not the best, driver awareness programs in the country. Michigan does have very good riders ed programs, but when it comes to driver awareness, not so much. I'm sure you have seen plenty of "click it or ticket" and "you drink, you drive, you lose" PSA commercials on TV. But I bet you have never saw a "look twice, save a life, motorcycles are everywhere" commercial. Why not? It seems to be working there. You wouldn't even have to run them year round, just 6 months, April thru October.

Riders ed is key too. Kentucky (free state) and Louisiana (helmet state) both have higher fatality rates. They also have little or no riders ed programs avaliable. Therefore it is education, not legislation, that should used to promote motorcycle safety. 8 of the top 10 states with the lowest fatality rates (Wisconsin being one of them) do not have helmet laws. They instead choose to educate. Michigan needs to do the same. In today's society where freedoms and liberties seem to be disappearing, it sure would be nice to get this one back.