Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on March 31, 2009

Click here to view bill details.

 Why not add to the bill a requirement that we (taxpayers, medical institutions etc.) will not be responsible to pay for the medical expenses and raising of the cyclists family if he/she sustains injuries that could have been prevented by wearing an approved helmet. Responsibility is the key here.

 

I have yet to see in any of these bills where motorcyclists are held responsible for the costs of injuries or the costs of raising their familiy should they be killed or disabled.. Maybe next we could repeal the seat belt laws for children and adults.

I would think that Mr. LeBlanc would consider all the medical professionals that vote. You know the ones that will have to treat the head injuries resulting from this proposed legisltation. Considering that notable the majority of Medical Organizations has opposed this in the past with MI and other states.

 Arguing children's seatbelts and adult choice on helmets is comparing apples and oranges.  Certainly, they are both meant to prevent or limit injury.  Children, however, are not able to assess risk and make decisions for themselves, they need that done for them (I would prefer the parent rather than the state).  Adults on motorcycles are capable of assessing risk and making an informed decision.

The question on the table is freedom, not safety.  If we you are genuinely interested in safety you would have pedestrians don safety gear, more pedestrians are killed annually than motorcyclists.

About 5,000 pedestrians are killed.  http://legalcatch.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/pedestrian-accident-statistics/

About 4500 motorcyclists were killed.  http://legalcatch.wordpress.com/?s=motorcycle+accident+statistics

Of those 4500, not all were riding without a helmet.  From these stats we can conclude that unhelmeted motorcyclists are but a fraction of deaths compared to pedestrians.

If you are concerned about saving lives, or concerned about paying bills for the families of persons killed - focus on pedestrian safety, you'll get much more bang for your buck.  From your argument, pedestrians should be your focus area.  Unless, of course, you feel that by mandating the wearing of safety gear you would be imposing upon the freedoms of pedestrians.

I agree with rabidog, the issue is adult choice, although I would not agree parents are the best decision makers when it comes to children's safety. The collective wisdom of the people is a better choice there.

I do not agree the issue is freedom. No one's freedom is at stake by mandating helmets, the same as mandating safety features on cars.  Adult choice is the issue. Adults should be able to make bad choices, as well as good choices, as long as their choice does not result in the harming of anyone else.

The issue of medical cost could be addressed if we mandated riders who opt out of helmet wearing have a sufficient amount of health insurance to cover the extra risk they take by not wearing a helmet. Mandatory health insurance is coming eventually for everyone.

I don't think comparing the number of pedestrian's killed to the number of motorcyclist killed has much bearing on the question of helmet use. What is the total number of pedestrians compared to the total number of people riding motorcycles? This would need to be known to make a valid comparison. I would presume the major cities have, on any given day, thousands, if not millions more pedestrians than motorcycle riders.

 Good conversation, gypsy.  I'm a bit confused about a point you make - you state that the issue is adult choice, yet you do not agree that the issue is freedom.  In my mind they are the same, how are they not, to you?

I already have insurance on my motorcycle.  It will cover both the machine and injury.  FWIW, I purchase more than the amount currently mandated.  The point here is that coverage is already mandated.  In earlier discussions on the topic we noted that insurance companys will mandate a premium commensurate with their risk (many factors go into that, helmet choice would be just one).  As such, for a person in a helmet choice state to purchase insurance, the medical cost is built into the premium.  Therefore, assuming a person purchases insurance, they automatically have the sufficient amount of coverage.

You make a point on the pedestrians.  My point, however is neither the ratio of pedestrians to pedestrians killed, nor the ratio of riders to riders killed.  My point was the bottom line - the number of persons killed at each activity.  If a person wanted to reduce the number of deaths, certainly, the effort toward reducing pedestrian deaths would be most beneficial for the effort.  The agrument typically turns into not wanting to pay more insurance (stats show that states who rescind helmet laws do not raise rates, and states who reinstate helmet laws do not reduce rates), but it is more of a 'feel good' thing to tax a person for the freedom of not wearing a helmet.  As I stated earlier, we will automatically have the sufficient amount of coverage when we purchase insurance.

We could take the 'extra health insurance' concept a bit further as well - how much extra health insurance is a smoker required to purchase?  The activity of smoking (a personal choice, ie, freedom) is detremental in all cases, and is an undisputible contributor to more deaths than any other activity.

I agree with you that we are all responsible to make choices, even if others believe they are bad choices.  Freedom has risk.  The freedom to choose to use tobacco (always with negative consequences) has a risk that is shared equally among the folks, even with those who do not participate in tobacco use.  Freedom to choose to ride without a helmet (seldom having negative consequences) has risk that should be shared equally among the folks as well, even among those who do not participate in motorcycling.

 Just curious, Rabidog.  How many people are seriously injured in motorcycle accidents, to the point where large amounts of money are needed for their care?  And especially, how many of those sustain head injuries?    There's not much monetary cost to a dead motorcyclist, whether or not they were wearing a helmet.  The cost is from those who are injured, hospitalized for months, and/or require months or years of rehab/therapy or life in a long-term care facility.  I don't care how much extra insurance a motorcyclist purchases, it's the ones that LIVE with permanent injury or disability who do impact society.  All of our insurance rates go up because the insurance companies have to pay more...plus our tax dollars are impacted as well.

 Good question, I'm sorry I don't have the answer.  Your concern appears to be paying for people's long-term care due to a motorcycle accident where the person lives.  I'm just not understanding the logic that wearing a helmet lowers health care cost.  A helmet is immaterial as to whether the accident happens in the first place, the helmet simply mitigates the injury during the accident.  So, the accident rate will not change, but with more riders wearing helmets more riders involved in accidents will live, and they will live with permanent injury or disability (think blunt force trauma to the torso).  The morbid fact is that if that same person had not been wearing a helmet, the odds are they would have died, thereby lowering the health care costs.  That's less impact to society (read: less money out of your pocket).

This same statistic is available with the smoking debate - when fewer and fewer people smoke, health care costs go up.  Healthier people take much longer to succumb to illness and old age than do smokers.  Smokers die with much less protracted time in health care.  So while it is good that we try to eliminate smoking to imrove health, the unintended consequence is more people living longer, and dying more slowly - thereby needing more health care as they grow older.

And help me out with the tax dollar thing - I'm not at all sure how you not wearing a helmet costs me more tax dollars.

Rabidog:

you state that the issue is adult choice, yet you do not agree that the issue is freedom.  In my mind they are the same, how are they not, to you?

Freedom  allows us to buy and ride motorcycles. With all freedoms come responsibility. We should have the right to choose to be responsible for our own safety, as long as we don't endanger others.

Does your insurance include PIP, personal injury protection? If so, is there a limit to it's maximum payout? Riders at this time are not required to have PIP.

You cannot ignore the fact that only 500 more pedestrians are killed annually than motorcycle riders, when there are millions more pedestrians than motorcycle riders. To do so would be disingenuous.

Insurance rates are determined by many factors; local, experience of riders, riders driving records, riders age, type of motorcycle, amount of protection and type being purchased, etc.. I think you would have a difficult time proving helmet laws are a determining factor at all in setting insurance rates.

I like your analogy with smokers. They too make a choice to live a riskier life. Maybe that's why some of them smoke filtered cigarettes. Sort of like a helmet on a cigarette.

 

 

 

 You say that comparing children's seatbelts and adult choice on helmets is comparing apples and oranges, then you compare motorcyclists and pediestrians? LOL. Tell me, How many pedestrians are there compared to motorcyclists at any given time. As a matter of fact, all mobile persons including motorcyclists are pedestrians at one time or another including motorcyclists, but not all pedestrians are motorcyclists. Given any motorized transportation, motorcycles are the most dangerous form by the mile, or if comparing them to pedestrians, by the hour or mile. I have no problem with motorcyclists not wearing helmets. They know what the contents of their skull and their familys are worth. I just don't want to have to pay for their medical expenses, raise their family, or pay to keep them in a vegetative state for injuries that could have been prevented if they had used the safety equipment available. Add personal responsibility for these items to the bill and I will become a strong supporter.

PS-and not all motorcyclist that had head injuries while wearing a helmet, were wearing an Snell or DOT approved helmet. DOT and Snell stickers are available for sticking on any helmet at some motorcycle shops.

As a health and safety advocate I am appalled at this legislation. Michigan has a law that works. Leave it alone! As a parent, I am concerned about the message adults who choose unsafe behaviors i.e.; not wearing a helmet, drinking and driving, not wearing a seat belt, reckless driving, or speeding etc.are are giving to our children.The benefits of wearing helmets is long proven. Parents who are trying to get their kids to wear bicycle helmets, seatbelts and operate machinery in a safe manner will agree, seeing adults speeding down the highway on motorcylces in the name of individual freedom without a helmet makes their job more difficult.  There is tons and tons of research that proves helmets save lives. Do they save all?  Of course not!  Do seatbelts save us in all cases?  No, but the majority are helped. Tell a child that it is better to have a dead father than a live but injured one.  Please do not repeal the Michigan safety laws that are working. In states that have repealed their helmet laws motorcycle deaths have increased, insurance rates have increased and not just for motorcylists.  Repealing our helmet laws is an unwise decision.  Adults always have the right to choose not wear a helmet legally or not.  Legally condoning an unsafe behavior is like making suicide legal. Does having a law against suicide or assisted suicide stop it? No, but it tells people what we believe is the healthy and wise choice.  Michigan has a responsibility to set an example for other states about safety and as more people ride motorcycles or scooters, due to the economy, repealing any safety law that is working does not make sense.  I have many friends and relatives that are motocyclists, I also enjoy riding. I support helmet use. I want to encourage maintaining the current laws in Michigan to protect our kids and families.  I do not want my loved ones making a choice to be unsafe as they ride or drive.  Safety needs to be our prime concern.  Driving is a privilege and not a right.     

 No big deal anymore. Now that we have Obamacare, we won't have to pay for your medical costs if you crash. The government will. we also won't have to raise your kids or pay for their education. The govenment will. Ain't Socialism wonderful!

 Amazing-only one proponent group spoke for the bill ( a bikers group) and these spoke against it. But it passed. The legislators must have felt the other groups were just out to restrict bikers freedoms. Similar to what the Federal house did to the Healthcare bill. (The majority of Americans didn't support it, but they passed it anyhow).

The following testified against or indicated opposition to the bill on 3-24-10: The

Department of Community Health, the Department of State Police, Michigan Health and

Hospital Association, the Michigan College of Emergency Physicians, the Michigan

Osteopathic Association, the Michigan State Medical Society, the Michigan Association

of Insurance Agents, the Property Casualty Association, State Farm, the Brain Injury

Association of Michigan and the Brain Injury Providers Council, AAA Michigan, the

Epilepsy Foundation of Michigan, the Insurance Institute of Michigan, Farmers

Insurance, the Michigan Driver and Traffic Safety Association, and SMARTER (Skilled

Motorcylists Association -- Responsible, Trained, and Educated Riders).

Legislative Analyst: Susan Stutzky

Chris Couch

Fiscal Analyst: Ben Gielczyk

Steve Stauff

Here we go again!  I commented on this legislation in April of 2009 and my comments and concerns are still the same.  Are  you people crazy or term limited?  It is difficult for me to believe that an educated legislator would support this unsafe behavior.  Look at the long list of reputable organizations and state agencies that are opposed?  Do the right thing and let this die a needful death.  Please drive safely in Michigan and wear your helmet.  Encourage all to do what is right and good!!! 

I am always so completely amazed when I hear seemingly intelligent people espouse a point of view that they are just fine with the idea that government should take away all freedom of choice if an activity exhibitss the least amount of perceived danger when the adults participating in that lawful activity freely choose to do so! Leave me alone and allow me to make MY own choices based on MY own perception of MY safety. Who do you think you are that you could possibly have the right to make these choices for me based on your perception of my reality? Worry about your life and what is yours and leave me alone! Give up your own freedoms if you want to but stay away from mine! The government (and individuals like you) do not need to protect me from myself. I am college-educated with a well above average IQ, a good paying job and I have excellent health insurance. I am extremely skilled in my chosen activity of motorcycling and in over 42 years of riding have never had an accident (over three quarters of a million miles ridden). "I do not want my loved ones making a choice to be unsafe as they ride or drive.  Safety needs to be our prime concern." Wow! I can only imagine what your views on firearms ownership, use of alcohol, smoking, skiing (no helmets required), bicycling (no helmets required for adults), skateboarding (no helmets required), etc - all perfectly legal activities but I'm certain you want to "protect" me from making an "unsafe choice" since "safety needs to be our prime concern"!

 Who are you to decide whats unsafe.Everything in this country is unsafe if your looking for something to complain about.You really want to help?,why don't you focus on the unsafe medical treatment people are getting because they don't have insurence,or a job to feed thier families,or the people retired from federal or state office that get more money retired than the avarage worker does working!!While your at it,why don't you get a real job where you come home tired & sweety & dirty from working an unsafe job thats gonna get rid of you when your body cant take it anymore & you break down.Better yet,you really want to make a difference?,take your butt to an unsafe part of town and get rid of the unsafe gang bangers & dope pushers that are making criminals to support thier habits.In the mean time,put your nose back on your face and stay out of other peoples lives,then maybe you can get a life.  

 31 other states have it ,we need the money it would bring in millions of dollars in tourism . wake up and smell the money ask the business owners if they would like NEW business and help put people back to work.

 as for safety maybe if we put the same sign up as we do our road workers ,kill a motor cyclist 15 years ,7500.00 fine . and for everyone  put down the phone and drive safely look both ways for motorcycles .thanks 

Rider education courses and a reasonable amount of miles ridden, does much more to prevent personal injury to a motorcyclist than the best (or most expensive) helmet.

BTW, in supporrt the idea of increased penalties for drivers who kill or injure a motorcyclist. Afterall, we are people too.

 In the world that I live in; all are responsible for their own debts.  If you choise to feel that you are responsible for my debts than let me know where to send the bills.  Until such time I will continue to act in a responsible way as I interpret responsibility.  I have insurance which covers all of my medical expenses and an assured income which will cover all of my necessities.  Perhaps if you had retired from the United States Military you to would have learned how to be responsible for all of your debts.  Or are you responsible but do not believe any one who choises a motorcycle as their means of transportation could be that responsible?  I defended the Constitution as I understand it and no where within that document do I see where you have the right to tell me how to live my life as long as it does not interfere with you living your life also.  Kelly From The USA

 I'm glad to see this pass. But unfortunately I believe it is merely a vote count to see who is and isn't on our side come November. Remember who is and be sure to vote for them. Bad news, Granholm will ultimately veto this bill. Good news, every legitimate candidate for governor (except the nerd who has not yet committed one way or the other) supports this bill. So as long as we can keep our house and senate support, 2011 should be the year we FINALLY but this thing to bed. This may very well be our last choiceless summer!

I have read several posts. Kelly, 2am guy, and Tyrone Twp are right. As for the nay-sayers, it's the same old rhetoric. Skyrocketing insurance/fatality rates, blah, blah, blah. But the one GIANT CLUE they all seem to be missing (much like 12 idiots on a California jury overlooking all the DNA evidence in the white Bronco) is that the MAJORITY of states (30) allow adult helmet-choice. If any of that "doom and gloom" rhetoric were true, than all 50 would have helmet laws. Just as all 50 have seat-belt laws, speed limits and laws against drunk driving. There are other clues that those who do not ride may not realize. No state has ever raised their insurance rates when modifying a mandatory helmet law to allow adult-choice. More important, no state has ever LOWERED their insurance rates when enacting a helmet law.  In fact, Michigan (the state that invented no-fault) along with CA, MA, NJ and NY have the most expensive insurance rates. They also all have helmet laws. Since the top 5 most expensive all have helmet laws, that tells me that states with helmet laws are also states that have a powerful insurance lobby. Do you want to live in a state where the insurance companies are making the rules? I don't!  Here's another fact non-riders may not know. On average, the motorcycle fatality RATE, as in fatalities per 10,000 bikes registered is 5.6 in helmet states compaired to 5.4 in free states. Even if those numbers were reversed, it wouldn't be enough to justify keeping the law.

Michigan's fatality rate is 5.5, Wisconsin's is 3.3. Michigan has a helmet law, Wisconsin has allowed choice since 1978. We both have good rider's ed programs but Wisconsin also has an excellent driver awareness program. Since 90% of motorcycle accidents are caused by car drivers, it is clear that driver awareness programs work a lot better than helmet laws. The numbers don't lie.

Again, I have read a lot of the posts. I do understand the non-riders opinion about helmet laws. But if they looked a little more closely at the facts they would realize that having a helmet law has virtually no impact on motorcycle safety. Education works, legislation does not.

 

Even though wearing a helmet seems to be a great idea most people are unaware of just how little a helmet actually protects a motorcyclist, especially at higher speeds. Hemlet manufacturers will not guarantee that a rider or passenger will not die while wearing their product, quite simply because most deaths related to motorcycle accidents are due to internal injuries, not head injuries. A helmet, at speeds under 20 MPH can reduce head injuries but how often does a street licensed vehicle operate at 20 MPH or less?

I have owned and ridden a motorcycle(s) for forty years and have traveled through many states where helmets are not required. Even when wearing a helmet is not required, I most always wear one because I choose to, but I believe that should be my choice. And whether I'm helmeted or not, I ride and operate a motorcycle in the same manner as I drive a car.

Those who voted against this bill probably did so thinking that they had to protect us from ourselves. If they truly want to protect current and future motorcyclists, they will take a serious look at the best methods of doing that.

 

 MICHIGAN MOTORCYCLISTS CELEBRATE 30 YEARS OF FREEDOM!!!

 

Unfortunately this is just an April fool's joke. But it didn't have to be. Back in 1980 a similar bill passed the house and was tied in the senate. One vote was all that was needed to pass. Indiana passed their bill in '76. Ohio and Wisconsin passed theirs in '78. Between '76 and '82 approximately 20 states had passed similar bills, so this was the national trend at the time. But a biker and a senator got into a heated arguement at the capitol that lead to pushing and shoving. The senate said; "That's it, we're done." We didn't have our next vote until 1995!

I know that this is an issue that many (myself included) feel very strongly about. But you have to get your point across with facts and logical explaination of why passage of this bill not only benefits bikers, but benefits the state as a whole. Anyone who rides can tell you the economic benefits Michigan is sure to gain when this passes.

I bring this up because I do not want history to repeat itself. 30 years ago we were 1 vote shy in the senate. We are 1 vote shy now with Granholm. Even if the bill had failed in '80, that was an election year. Vote out just one "no" voter and we could have been riding free since '81! This year our 1 "no" vote can't run again (thank you Jesus!) Every legitimate candidate (on both sides of the aisle) is on our side, except the nerd who has not yet committed one way or the other. As long as we can keep our house and senate support, next year should be the year.

I know first hand that working with the Legislature can be very trying and cumbersome. But if you remain persistant good things will eventually happen. Reguardless of how you feel about the smoking ban that goes into effect next month, it was persistance that got it done. This bill had been coming up for the last 8 to 10 years. There were a few Republican senators who had always voted against it that finally voted for it because they were "tired of dealing with it."

Keep up the good work. Now more than ever!

@ albaby2

Proponent group? Proponent of what? Take a look at their web site - they are 100% dead set against anyone ever riding anything without a helmet. Just because they have fun on two wheels it does not make them the spokesmodels for motorcyclists. Sheesh!

 On May 1st the smoking ban went into effect (blown away yet?) I don't smoke, so on a personal level, I will admit it is nice to go out and not reek of smoke at the end of the night. But I strongly believe that it should not be up to the govt to tell the private sector what they can and can't do. Anyway, May 1st could have (and should have) been the 7 year anniversary of freedom of choice. Granholm signed the smoking ban in Dec '09, and Engler would have signed our bill in Dec '02 had it reached his desk. Here's what happened;

On 5-29-02, the helmet-choice bill passed the house. Engler said that he "did not support nor oppose" our bill. Since he did not support it, he was not going to lift a finger to help us get it through the senate. However since he also did not oppose it, if we were able to get it through the senate, he felt that the people have spoken and would allow it to become law. There are 38 senators. Therefore you need 20 or more "yes" votes to get it through. We were deadlocked at 19-19. In the event of a tie, it is up to the Lt. Governor to cast the tiebreaking vote. Lt. Governor Posthumus assured us that he would cast his vote in our favor, that's why we supported him in the Governors race that year. But before you can have a full senate vote, it must first go through committee. There were 17 senators in the transportation committee at that time, 9 yes and 8 no. But senator Bill Bullard (R) puposely waited until 12-5-02 to have the committee vote. Why? Because 3 of our 9 yes votes were absent that day. So instead of winning 9-8, we lost 6-8. Here we are, 8 years later, with no hope of passing this bill until after this election.

Why would a GOP senator do this? Because not all Republican's are about freedom of choice and small govt. Some put the intrests of big business ahead of what's best for the people. And there are no business' bigger than oil and the insurance industries. Bullard was in bed with the insurance companies, just like Rick Snyder and Tom George. Bush and Cheney were in bed with the oil industry. In fact, B.P. rented the oil rig that blew up in the gulf from Haliburton. Keep in mind the oil companies make BILLIONS. Every financial quater they seem to make record profits. Cheney allowed B.P. to save $500,000 by not having an acustic safety valve on Haliburton rigs which would have stopped the oil flow in such a situation as this. So if you vote Republican, you must be sure the candidate you vote for is not in bed with the oil and/or insurance companies. They will sell your rights down the river and not think twice about it!

Personally, I don't cast my vote by whose name is in front of the "D" or "R" box, I vote for the person who I feel is best reguardless of party. On the Dem side of this election I like both Dillon and Bernero. However after 8 years of failure under Granholm, Obama's approval rating at 43% and Dem lead Washington's approval rating at 7%, our next governor will be a Republican, guaranteed. Here's where they stand today 5-18-10;

1) Hoekstra 27%

2) Cox 22%

3) Snyder 18%

4) Bouchard 13%

5) George 7%                13% undecided

Hoekstra, Cox and Bouchard are all good, I have no problem with any of them. Snyder and George are both in bed with the insurance companies so we can't have them. There is more than helmet choice on the line here. In Flordia they are having a senate race between Gov. Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio. Rubio is in bed with the insurance industry, Crist isn't. Rubio introduced legislation that would've raised homeowners insurance in FL by 47% in poor neighborhoods and 100% in wealthy neighborhoods. Crist vetoed this bill and the insurance industry is backing Rubio in the FL senate race, and Rubio is leading. Hopefully FL residents are aware of this. My point, a Republican is only good when they are not in bed with the oil and/or the insurance industry. Get out and vote accordingly on Aug 3rd!

Of all the petty reason's for choosing a candidate for Governor, the helmet issue has got to be near the top of the list, just below the bill to allow guns in colleges, in my opinion.

 First of all, I stated that I did not want a Governor (Dem or GOP) that is in bed with the oil and/or the insurance companies. Second, for those who do not ride a motorcycle helmet choice probably has no baring, one way or the other, on who they vote for. But to those of us who do, yes it does matter. Especially when ALL of our neighboring states put this issue to bed 30+ years ago AND the current governor is the ONLY reason Michigan still remains among the minority of states who still enforce such a law. Try waiting a few decades for something you want, it isn't fun. Especially when one person is single-handedly preventing it from happening. For the record, there PLENTY of other reasons to not like Granholm. But for me, this is just the icing on the cake.

Many of Michigan's resident's are struggling to pay their mortgages, feed their families, and keep their jobs. I hope you get to ride your Harley without a helmet, if that's what flips your skirt, but don't expect most of the population to care. We have more important things to be concerned with.

 I agree that motorcycle helmet legislation should not be at the top of the list of concerns for the governor. Motorcycle riders Should wear a helmet for their own protection--but if they don't --taxpayers should not be responsible for medical costs or supporting their widow and family. Michigan has more pressing issues than helmet laws.

 

ATLANTA or DALLAS?

Leave it to the guy trying to pimp his helmet website to favor the law. Is that even allowed on this site? Anyway, Atlanta or Dallas. That is the choice a friend of mine had to make recently. Apparently ATnT is yet another company seeking greener pastures by sending jobs out of Michigan. Since he doesn't have family in either location the first deciding factor is climate. Neither is nice year-round like Florida, but both have nicer winters than Michigan. Their winters are like March or April here. It could be 70 and sunny, or it could snow. But usually temps are around 50 degrees. So climate was a wash. Six of one, half-dozen of the other. The second deciding factor was state laws. Is there something you can do in the one state that you can't do in the other?  Well, Georgia is still among the minority of states that still has a mandatory helmet law. Texas allows adult-choice. I got to tell you, he LOVES being a Texan! I'll be down there from Nov 18th-24th. Looking foward to seeing the Lions play at their new stadium. And, weather permitting, doing some free riding in the Lone Star State!

Enjoy your stay in Texas. Give the beaches a try, and take a fishing charter into the Gulf. They say life in Texas is as smooth as 10W-40.

 Dallas isn't anywhere near the gulf. I think you need to look at a map my friend. By the way, what does the gulf disaster have to do with motorcycles?

 On 4-13-09 a poster going by cindagle gave an educated statement. She said (and I quote) that there was "tons and tons of research" on the safety of wearing a helmet. I think she meant to say "in her opinion." Cindagle is a mom. We all remember the movie "A Christmas Story." Ralphie wanted a BB gun and his mom told him that he'd shot his eye out. That is the typical mom response. That's fine, but we did not elect Granholm to be our mom. I was smart enough never to have voted for her, unfortunately 53% of Michigan voters weren't.

Cindagle is entitled to her opinion, and I respect it. It is, actually, a logical assumption. But what I don't respect are those who state their opinions as fact. Tons and tons of research? Apparently she hasn't studied NTHSA's stats. They disprove the myth of helmet safety on a scientific basis. I've posted them several times. If you choose not to read them and/or do the research, that's on you.

To those who post their opinions as fact, maybe you shouldn't believe everything you think!

There has been countless statistics provided proving that  neither health care nor insurance costs rise within a state not requiring riders to wear helmets.  Insurance statutes are already in place for motorcyclists.  Many speak of more pressing issues in Michigan, and they are correct.  A big one is TOURISM!  Tourism can provide a big economic boost to 100's of communities in Michigan.  Has anybody thought of the 1000's of big spending tourists on motorcycles whom avoid Michigan like the plague because we are require motorcyclists to wear helmets in this state.  Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio ... None of these boardering states require helmets... This means that they have to plan accordingly if they wish to tour on motorcycle... rather they just avoid the state all together. I work in the Tourism Industry in Mackinaw City.  The average motorcyclist spends approximately 190.00 per day while touring.. This is inclusive of gas, hotel, food and shopping... So if a realistic 10,000 motorcyclists now decide to tour through Michigan for 2 days (Realistic number here) that would boost the tourism economy by almost 4 million per year... I believe these numbers are VERY light.

Freerider:

 Dallas isn't anywhere near the gulf. I think you need to look at a map my friend. By the way, what does the gulf disaster have to do with motorcycles?

I didn't say Dallas was near the Gulf, and the Gulf disaster has nothing to do with motorcycles. It does has something to do with Texas, (Texas is still on the Gulf, I checked my map).

Try to keep up.

 

 

To COnv1ctiOn;

You are exactly right. There was a study done by a Lansing based firm that estimated Michigan could see up to $1.2 BILLION in tourism revenue if and when this law is modernized. Every 5 years on Labor Day weekend Milwaukee has an anniversary party for Harley Davidson. The 4 day event brought in over $1 BILLION in 2008. Not bad for a 4 day event! They want to do a Lake Michigan circle tour, but won't ride in Michigan due to our helmet law. The next one is schedueled for 2013. Hopefully by then Michigan will be among the MAJORITY of free states. The only gubernatorial candidate who is against it is the "rich nerd," Rick Snyder. Although now (I've heard) he may be re-thinking his position on this issue. Currently Pete Hoekstra is the front-runner in the GOP primary with a double-digit lead over Bouchard, Cox, and Snyder who are in a virtual 3-way tie for 2nd. Both the Dems support this as well, however after 8 years of failure under Granholm, I don't see either of them winning in November. The Governor's race will be decided on August 3rd, but we are losing 30 of our 38 state senators due to term limits. That needs to be our focus come November. If we get the right people in place, we will finally have freedom next year!

 Insurance:

I just recently renewed my insurance on my motorcycle. I am fortunate enough to still have heath insurance through work but just for sh--'s and giggle's I asked my insurance agent (Progressive) what type of medical coverage they have. Their top package is $25,000 in medical coverage. How much, I asked? Only an additional $93 a year! That's only $7.75 a month! I think it's well worth it. Now I'm extra insured. So now if some dumbass in a car hits me and CAUSES an accident (as is the case in 90% of all car/bike accidents) I'll be covered on my end until I call Sam and become a millionaire!

Hang up and drive!

 I can see better, hear better and I am more comfortable. This allows me to be more aware of my surroundings which in turn helps prevent the accident in the first place. This is a tiring debate because the opponents refuse to research the results of D.O.T testing, which can be found quite easily, and proves that you would be just as safe buying a DOT sticker and slapping it on a cereal bowl.

You can wear a helmet if you like, but at least find out why others choose not to. If I really thought people wanted to learn I might post more but the truth is it's easier to just jump to a conclusion that looks good on paper.

In Michigan you are not required to wear a helmet on a scooter/moped. If these vehicles share the same roads as motorcycle riders, why haven't I heard more complaints on this? I think its because public safety is the back burner issue... hypocrites.

And above all this, the state is broke and unemployment is around 15%, this is not what I want my representatives focusing on right now...

 If it were truely about safety we should all be strapping on Helmets in our auto's.

It is about insurance control of goverment nothing more.

I seems the more safety equipment we install in vehicles the safer people feel and the more dangerous they are to everyone around them. Riding without a helmet makes you a more defensive rider.

Just last week we returned from vacation, rode in obnly states that do not mandate wearing a helmet.

I'll never visit the lower peninsula on amotorcycle until the helmet law is change

Every chance I get it's off the Wisconsin or Minnesota for riding

We have friends in Wisconsin that refuse to come here because of the law.

No one will ever convince me Michigan isn't losing big dollars because of this law.

It's time for a change

LPC 

 

 You are exactly right. I live 50 miles from Ohio. Today I rode @ 250 miles, 50 of which were getting out of Michigan, 50 were getting back home and the remaining 150 were helmetless. Guess what, nobody died, got hurt, or caused anyones insurance rates to go up. In fact, Ohio's insurance rates are about half of what ours are. (So much for that arguement!) This weekend was about celebrating freedom. Hopefully by this time next year we can do that here in Michigan. The primaries are August 3rd (4 more weeks). Get out and vote!