Michigan Votes Forum

Have the other states added additional insurance rates for passing helmetless motorcycle riders?  The states that have allow helmetless motorcycle operation have benefited by bikers spending.  I feel the state of Michigan should be a state of choice and hope this gets passed.   

Yes. From '97-'03 approximately 10 states (including Texas, Florida and Pennsylvannia) have repealed their helmet laws. Most of which have had an insurance requirement of $10,000. None have had $20,000. However if you are insured through your employer, you should be fine. If not, you can purchase it through your insurance company. My vehicles are insured through Progressive. They offered me $25,000 injury protection on my bike for an additional $93 per year.  Even though I am already insured through work, I took it. $93 a year, why not? Better to have too much than too little.

However states that repealed their laws in the late 70's, early 80's, including ALL of our neighboring states, have no additional insurance requirements. They also allow choice for riders 18 and older, while states that have more recently  repealed their laws the age limit is 21. This proves that as time goes on and government gets bigger our rights and freedoms get chipped away little by little. Communism is accomplished through revolution, socialism is accomplished through evolution. The end result is the same, the only difference is the time it takes to get there. God help our kids.

That being said 21 and $20,000 is still better than what we currently have and it is a bold stance against big government. At least by today's standards.

Freerider, your name says it all.  In Michigan, your injuries should you collide with a car are paid by the PIP afforded by the owner of the car's automobilie policy, not you.  So yes, you get a free ride.  So you don't have to be responsible.  Even if you lay your bike down, you always have the "phantom red pickup that pulled out in front of me and took off" and you get a free ride from your own coverage at no additional cost.  Your $25,000 doesn't kick in if there are existing PIP payments available.  And are you sure your insurance through work pays for injuries from a motorcycle accident?  Many plans do not, they exclude injuries from a motor vehicle accident of any kind.  This was a cost saving measure common at the end of the 90's, and most folks are not aware because they don't read that little packet of info sent to them every year by their health carrier.

If the legislature really wants to correct a heinous wrong, they'll make motorcyclists get their own darned PIP, and leave the rest of us the heck alone.  Then you can brag all you want about riding without a helmet.  Otherwise, as long as I"m paying, you don't have the right to brag.  

And yes, I'm an insurance agent, and it has been my (30 years) experience that motorcycle owners will not purchase one dime of med pay, so at least you're trying to be responsible.  The last motorcycle PIP claim paid through my office was on behalf of one of my clients minding his own business sitting at a red light in his car that was rear ended by a motorcyclist showing off for his girlfriend on the back, and that one went well over $50,000.  The at fault driver (motorcyclist) didn't have to pay a dime.

 I would think anyone involved with this state's messed up insurance industry would be licking their chops over this one. I'm sure they'll have no problem figuring out a way to gouge riders for the new coverage.

From the front lines, I don't see too much messed up in the auto and homeowners insurance industry except for the fact that people who live in high-risk areas don't pay enough for their risk, and the 1990's laws meant to cut down on auto insurance buyers who "certificate shop" within days of their birthdays and then let their policies lapse for the rest of the year and drive without insurance were gutted less than 6 months after passing so that there are no real consequences for driving without insurance, making the rest of us pay for their crimes.  Those and motorcyclists not having to pay for their risks.  

If you have insurance and you're injured in an auto accident, you don't have to worry about your bills being paid for life, and 2 years worth of lost wages until your disability kicks in.  You don't have to sue someone to be compensated for your injuries or damage to your car, and wait and see what's left over after the lawyers get done with it, and you don't have to worry about ridiculously low dollar caps on injuries.  Sounds pretty good to me. 

 Since you're in the insurance industry you have a biased viewpoint. How could you not? And I do understand that the insurance industry, just as any other, is in business to make money. The car being rear-ended by a bike is the exception, not the norm. I'd be willing to bet he was kid on a crotch-rocket and not a more mature adult, but that's another issue. 85% of all motorcycle accidents/fatalities are CAUSED by car drivers "not seeing us." The problem is no-fault. ALL of our neighboring states are at-fault states. Their insurance rates, on average, are about 40-50% less than Michigan's. In fact, Michigan's rates are among the top 5, if not top 3, most expensive in the country. Having a helmet law certainly hasn't kept the rates lower considering ALL of our neighboring states pay far less and yet have allowed freedom-of-choice for 30+ years. So that arguement has become very tiresome. I don't expect anybody to pay for my injuries unless they CAUSE them. Whether I choose to wear a helmet or not.

You also seem to be under the misconception that a helmet will somehow magically save lives. That just isn't the case. Even the NHTSA's own stats (who, by the way, have never been motorcycle friendly) clearly state that the accident/fatality rates in helmet states compaired to free states is virtually the same, if not SLIGHTLY favorable towards the free states. I'm not saying riding without a helmet is safer, I'm just saying it's not any more dangerous. A DOT compliant helmet is only ceritfied safe at 13.6mph. Meaning that's as high of a speed they feel safe certifying out of fear of legal liability. In reality they're still only effective at speeds up to 30mph. Anything beyond that they can only protect from abrasions but not from closed-head injuries.

The key to motorcycle safety is crash avoidance, not a lame attempt to make a "safer crash." The safest crash is the one that doesn't happen. I believe that Riders Ed and heightened car driver awareness of motorcycles are a far better way of keeping us safe on the roads. For the past decade motorcycle accidents nationwide have been on the rise, however the last year or two they have gone down. Not coincidently within the last year or two many states, including Michigan, have passed tougher distracted driving laws. Especially banning texting while driving. Studies have shown that texting while driving is even more dangerous than drunk-driving. Since 85% of motorcycle accidents are CAUSED by car drivers "not seeing them" I think that is definately a step in the right direction.

The motorcycle driver was a 45 year old guy on a Harley.  And do you disagree that the car owners' PIP paid the loss, not the motorcyclist?  Because that would be incorrect.

And are you old enough to remember what Michigan's insurance laws were before no fault?  I am.  Here's how it worked.  If your injuries were over $XX amount of dollars (a rediculously low number even in the 70's),  and you were at fault, you got nothing and prayed your health insurance didn't exclude auto accidents.  If you were not at fault, you paid  for your own injuries, or if you were lucky, your health insurance did, paid for the damage to your own car, and then you sued the other driver, assuming your could find an attorney willing to think your payoff might be big enough for him to bother with, spent months in depositions awaiting trial, then a week or more sitting in court, and IF you were lucky, you might win.  After you paid your lawyer, and if the other driver had more than 20/40/10 limits,  you maybe got 1/2 of what you won.  Sounds like a great plan, eh?  

And you are ill-informed if you believe the coverages in other states are 50% less.  They are not if you take out MCCA.  No other state has anything like an MCCA since they all have ridiculously low dollar amounts for injury coverage so insurance companies in other states have the luxury of promulgating rates based on known quantities.  Motorcycle drivers should absolutely have to pay their fair share of their MCCA at least, since they don't have to pay anything towards their coverage for MVA's with autos or phantom autos. Our rates are actually less than some states who do not have no-fault, and we are 13th in the nation for auto insurance rates.

Best of luck with that whole no helmet thing.  I'll keep wearing my seat belts.  My uncle was killed in a 50 mph head on collision with a drunk driver.  Seatbelts didn't save him.  But seatbelts alone (and the grace of God) saved my aunt in the front passenger seat and my cousins in the back seat.  The drunk driver?  He was not wearing a seatbelt and the first responders found him 10 fee up in a tree where he landed after going through a windshield.  I have several clients who credit helmets with saving their lives, including one who keeps his old helmet on his desk at work.  That's the helmet with the tri-corner 6" crack in it where the helmet it the pavement at 40 mph.  He had a broken arm and a mild concussion, but that was all.  Without the helmet the 6" tri-corner crack would have been in his skull.  

That is all.

Thank you for introducing this bill.  I ride with a lot of bikers who can't wait to get to a helmet option state.  If they want to be stupid, be my guest, but don’t expect me to pay for your mistake when your drooling into a cup.  I’ll take my chances wearing a helmet. 

 Prove the biker spending comment.  You can't!

 I believe that if indeed a motorcyclist hits a car and causes his own injuries through his own stupidity, the innocent person should not be liable. The same should be true if the motorcyclist is not at fault, as is the case 85% of the time. I am too young to remember how insurance worked in the 70's, I'm 40. I got my license in '86. But here's a true story; A woman I know bought a car for her daughter but put the car and insurance in her name. The daughter had an A-hole boyfriend who FINALLY got a job after 2 years of milking off the gov't teet and by the way they have a one-year old daughter of there own. After one whole agonizing week on the job the boyfriend decides to get high on weed and prescription pills. The daughter is driving and they proceed to get into an arguement. The A-hole boyfriend then proceeds to jump out of the car, while moving, and gets his leg run over in the process. Michigan's "wonderful" no-fault law only recognizes that his injuries were caused by this womans vehicle. And he has the audacity to sue. Last I heard they were looking to SETTLE for $300,000 and (here's the best part) 3 years of LOST WAGES! Are you f--king kidding me?! In what universe is this acceptable?! He should be entitled to nothing. Whoever is at fault should be responsible for their own actions, period. In a perfect world personable responsibility would come into play. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world. But for those who want to whine about the high cost of insurance rates, it's these frivolous cases that end up costing us all. Maybe the old way of doing business was lousy, but no-fault sucks too. There has to be a better option.

 I'm glad you brought up the MCCA. Motorcyclists DO pay their fair share, and them some. The MCCA is payed on a "per vehicle" basis, not per driver. Meaning anyone who owns both a motorcycle and a car (as is the case with every motorcyclist I know) is paying double, even though they can only be catostrophic from driving one vehicle. I don't know anybody who can drive two vehicles at the same time. If you happen to own a car, a pick-up, an RV, and two motorcycles, you are paying into the MCCA five times. You still can only be catostrophic once! By the way, it's my understanding, that if a motorcyclist hits a deer or is involved in an accident that does not involve another vehicle, they are not eligible for MCCA benefits even though they may pay into it multiple times. There have been bills in the past (and I'm sure it will come up again) about making insurance companies open their books, under the freedom of information act, to look into the MCCA fund to see if they are overcharging and where the money is going. I do remember about 10 years ago the insurance companies chose to send out checks, rather than open their books, hoping this issue would go away. Insurance companies, thus far, still refuse to open their books even though they have to by law. The bills they have tried to pass would basically force the insurance companies to obey laws that already exist! Yet these bills "mysteriously" never seem to be voted on. I guess some special intrest group must have a powerful influence in Lansing!

 Wearing a seat-belt is a great decision, but the gov't forcing that decision is unconstitutional. If I had to guess, wearing a seat-belt probably saves lives 9 times out of 10. However there are those cases where not wearing a seat-belt prevented death, my cousin being one of them. He was thrown out of the car and seriously injured. But if he had not been thrown out the dashboard would have crushed him. But even he will tell you that that is the exception and not the norm.  That's why the helmet to seat-belt comparision is very apples to oranges. An apples to apples comparision would be wearing a seat-belt to wearing a helmet on rollerblades. On rollerblades you are traveling at a low enough speed that a helmet would prevent injuries if you bumped your noggin on the pavement. An oranges to oranges comparision would be wearing a helmet on a motorcycle to wearing a seat-belt on a plane. You are traveling so fast that if you crash, you're screwed. No helmet or seat-belt can really do anything at that point. That's probably why all 50 states have seat-belt laws and only 20 still enforce mandatory helmet laws.

Great discussion about this proposed legislation.  Some good points on both sides but at the end of the day, choice wins.  I have been around Lansing for 25 years and listened to the Insurance lobby whine the whole time.  Not just about this helmet issue but about EVERYTHING.  They have one tactic: "This will raise your rates!!!" Its always the same....then they get their a-- handed to them by a bunch of bikers and it drives them nuts.  This year will be tougher than expected for the bikers because of the unprecedented amount of money poured into the campaigns by the insurance industry.  Lets hope freedom tips the scales this time and the republicans don't bow down to these greedy execs. Motorcycle fatality rates are about the same or lower in choice states.  It is clear that helmets don't save lives.  

Since you are an insurance agent I have to ask you:  Isn't insurance supposed to be about pooling risk to cover losses make it affordable for everyone to live?  Now you want to stick it to the poor people because they cant afford to leave the ghetto? I work out every day and eat healthy.  I know an obese insurance agent who is strictly on a McDonalds diet and smokes 2 packs a day.  Aren't people like me paying a much higher rate because of people like him?  I am paying more for my health insurance because he is lazy.  Maybe if he spent less time on the blogs and buffet and more time at the gym, the rest of us wont have to foot the bill for an early quadruple bypass.  Those hospital stays are expensive! I am just trying to follow your logic since you don't want to pay for bikers that ride without helmets even though no-helmet states have the same fatality rate.  Just trying to get my arms around it.....The insurance industry is all about making money and I am certain the market will determine the rates.  Is every company mandated to offer coverage to motorcyclists?

 LET ME SEE IF I CAN GUESS, YOUR MAN AT THE LIGHT WAS ON HIS PHONE, TEXTING, NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE LIGHT? MAYBE IT TURNED GREEN, AND HE DIDN'T SEE THAT.  ANYWAY, IF YOU GO BACK , IF YOU A TRUE INSURANCE AGENT, YOU'LL KNOW THAT BIKERS HAVE CARS TO, AND THAT'S WHERE WE PAY THE EXTRA.  I PAY FOR MY JEEP COMMANDER, AND MY TAURUS, SO DON'T BE SLAMIN US BIKERS FOR THE FREE RIDE, YOU SAY WE GET.  HOW MANY POLICIES DO YOU WRITE THAT ARE FULL COVERAGE?  I'LL BET YOU WRITE 65% JUST TO GET THE DOE TO PAY YOUR BILLS..  I WEAR AN ILLEGAL HELMET, A $10.00 PLASTIC BEANIE.  WHY DO I ,  OUT OF 27 BIKERS I'VE ROAD WITH IN MY 44 YEARS OF RIDING 5 HAVE DIED  IN WRECK'S 3, OF HELMETS SPLINTERED INTO BRAIN, 2 FROM IDIOTS, LIKE YOU  INSURE, RAN INTO THEM ON THE ROAD.  SO DON'T TELL ME YOU DON'T WRITE CHEAP POLICIES.  I'VE MADE MY BIKE LOUD,  I WEAR THAT CHEAP HELMET SO I CAN HEAR OTHER THINGS AROUND ME, AND I PAY WAY MORE FOR COVERAGE THAN I SHOULD, AND I ALREADY HAVE THAT EXTRA $20.000, ON TOP OF $40,000 ALREADY ON MY POLICY.  MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU RIDE A BIKE, OR DO YOU JUST LIKE TO P--- OFF PEOPLE LIKE ME, WHO KNOW THE FACTS.  READ SOME OF THE KICK BACKS YOU'VE RECEIVED. DON'T THEY MAKE ANY SENSE TO YOU.  GO WRITE YOUR INSURANCE POLICIES, AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT IF WE'RE GOING TO RIDE WITH OR WITHOUT OUR HELMETS.  AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE A BIKE, GO GET ONE, AND LET US KNOW YOUR OPINION THEN, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE ONE............................

IT'S all about the nanny state knowing what's best for us, better than WE know what's best for us........seat belts, child restraints, etc etc etc.  If it weren't for the low life ghetto scum who let their kids bounce around inside cars like rubber balls, the child restraint laws wouldn't be necessary either.  That's called NATURAL SELECTION folks - the dumb ones are meant to die!!

SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO HELMETS - even if this law passes  and I'm given the choice,  I probably will continue to wear mine.  But its about the CHOICE.  I'm a grown up.  Mr. Gummint - quit telling me what to do!  Get outta my bedroom, my doctors office, my WALLET and off my motorcycle!!

 If Republican's are REALLY the party of "freedom and small gov't" now's the year to prove it. Let's hope so!

I certainly hope they are not fooled by insurance company rhetoric and half-truths. Here's a classic example; In 2000, Florida MODERNIZED their helmet law to allow adult helmet-choice. The number of bikes registered at that time was about 235,000. The number of fatalities that year was 100. In 2005, their were 180 fatalities. The insurance companies were quick to point out that there was an 80% increase in fatalities. But that is only HALF of the truth. The OTHER HALF of the truth they "conveniently" forget to mention is that the number of bikes registered in 2005 was about 500,000. That's about a 110% increase from 2000. What you have to look at is the fatality "RATE" as in number of fatalities per 10,000 bikes registered. So 100 fatalities out of 235,000 bikes gives you a fatality RATE of 4.3, while 180 fatalities out of 500,000 bikes gives you a fatality RATE of 3.6, slightly lower than when they had a helmet law. Even if those numbers were reversed, a difference of 0.7 isn't enough to justify having the law. But a 110% increase in bikes registered IS reason enough to allow adult-choice. I lived in California for 3 years, '91-'94. On 1-1-92, their helmet law took effect. Bikes registered were cut in half. The local Harley dealership was booming in '91. Just about every weekend they had some kind of event going on. But by Christmas of '93 they had a "going out of business" clearance sale. Although it was nice to get a $100 pair of boots for $30 it was sad to see this business go from booming to dead within 2 years. The enactment of the helmet law was the reason this business went under. It certainly wasn't the economy, the economy was good in the '90s!

I almost forgot to mention; INSURANCE RATES DID NOT GO DOWN AFTER THE LAW WAS ENACTED!!!

 Here's an interesting fact;

 "...The government CANNOT make any objective standards for helmets without taking on liability. And since they are expressly forbidden from taking on any liability, they can NEVER make an objective standard for helmets. There it is. Without an objective standard it all becomes ad hoc and arbitrary- Ad hoc and arbitrary is the FOUNDATION of vague law- Vague law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL."

-Richard Quigley

 EXCELLENT COMMENT MR. Q. AND EVERYONE ELSE CAN GET THAT VERIFIED BY GOING TO  A WEB SITE HERE IN MI.... WWW.MICHIGANTRAFFICCRASHFACTS.ORG.  FULL OF INFO.

 Interesting site. The 1st half of the decade ('00-'04) there was an average of 84 fatalities per year. The 2nd half ('05-'09) the average went up to 120 fatalities per year. Why the increase? We've had a helmet law this whole time. Actually, 2000 was the year we discovered that the law was unenforceable. Many bikers were riding helmet-free that year. Number of fatalities that year- 82. 2005 was the year of the big increase. 81 in '04 to 121 in '05. I believe that it was around this time that cell phone use and texting while driving really started to become a big problem. '09 was the first year the number dropped. 127 fatalities in '08 compaired to 105 in '09. Not coincidentally, right around the time the texting while driving ban took effect. Not only here, but nationwide. These numbers are virtually the same in free states during the same time period. Proving yet again this has nothing to do with helmets. Time to pass this bill!

 NEW BILL; Please see SB 291

" I'm glad you brought up the MCCA. Motorcyclists DO pay their fair share, and them some. The MCCA is payed on a "per vehicle" basis, not per driver. Meaning anyone who owns both a motorcycle and a car (as is the case with every motorcyclist I know) is paying double, even though they can only be catostrophic from driving one vehicle. "

Beautiful. I own six vehicles in a household with two licensed drivers. MCCA is a joke.

But, to tax (these fees are simply a TAX) a license is also BS since many people use a driver's license as a simple form of ID and do not own a vehicles.