Michigan Votes Forum

So people who choose to have a drink in a bar have no right to expect clean air? I didn't know drinking alcohol required me to breath in toxic chemicals too. I do share your disgust with smoking being allowed in casinos. I blatant cave in to lobbying money. In regards to whose fault a highway accident is, of course those at fault should bear responsibility for the accident, but should their economic future be destroyed due to their mistake because someone chooses to do a dangerous act, like ride a motorcycle without a helmet? I agree with albaby that making a choice to do something dangerous, like helmet less riding, shouldn't mean the rest of us bear the extra cost. I agree you have a right, as an adult, to make that choice, but with the physical risk comes financial risk.

 Gypsy-your last sentence says it all and says it better than I could.  BTW-I think this is the first time we've agreed on anything! Obama must really be a great uniter. Or is it untier. Whatever,

albaby2:

 And the car drivers should be held liable because you chose to drive a vehicle that is inherently dangerous and offers no protection?

 

If they are at fault, then yes! First off, from the bottom of my heart, I'm glad your daughter and son-in-law survived their accident. There's nothing I hate to see more than a motorcycle accident. But judging from your own description of the accident, I'm guessing that they were cut off by the car driver. If that's the case, that's not your son-in-laws fault, it was the car drivers fault. As is the case 85% of the time. They were just out enjoying a ride on a nice summer day. What if a drunk driver hit you and their insurance company only paid half of the damages you were entitled to because their reasoning was you were half at fault. After all, if you would have just stayed home, the accident would never have happened. Pretty absurd, right? Thinking that a helmet can prevent an accident, or somehow liability of fault is transfered if one is not worn, is equally absurd.

The safest accident is the one that doesn't happen. There's a reason that the accident/fatality rate is virtually the same in free states as it is in helmet states. In free states it's actually slightly lower. The number one cause of motorcycle accidents is the car driver "not seeing them." When you drive across the state line one of the things you will notice is motorcyclists not wearing helmets. By noticing them, you have just greatly reduced the chances of you hitting them. True story; My wife, my mother-in-law (who is the authority on EVERYTHING) and I were driving down to Cincinnati to visit their relatives. About ten minutes after crossing the state line she pointed out "that crazy guy not wearing a helmet." I asked if she had noticed the previous pair of bikers that were wearing helmets? She hadn't! You will always notice a helmetless biker before you notice a helmeted one. And the biker that gets noticed, is the biker that doesn't get hit! If this law passes, the non-riding public will start paying more attention to bikers. This is also why loud pipes save lives. It's not that we are trying to be rude or obnoxious, we're just trying to make car drivers aware of our presence on the road.

As a biker you have to educate yourself on safe riding. Of the 15% of bikers who are at fault in accidents, @ 40% are alcohol related. The remaining 60% are new and inexperienced riders. Many of which don't even have cycle endorsements on their license, just a temporary permit. Look for this to change in the near future. I took the safety course when I was 18, I think it should be a requirement to pass this course to get your cycle endorsement. As an experienced rider you learn crucial things like never ride in someones blindspot. Always assume that if a car driver isn't looking directly at you, they don't know you're there. Always leave yourself an out. If on a freeway with 3 or more lanes, never ride in the far right merging lane. Try to ride with another person or a group whenever possible. It's always easier to notice multiple bikes than single bikes. And of course, NEVER drink and ride! Rider education and car driver awareness ads are far greater tools for motorcycle safety than helmet mandates. Every state that has offered riders education has seen a dramatic drop in motorcycle accidents, without exception. The same cannot be said about the minority of states that still enforce mandatory helmet laws.

Freerider, I appreciate your reasonable and civil approach to discussing issues on this forum. I also agree with your point that most accidents involving autos and motorcycles are because the car driver didn't see the motorcycle. They are, after all, smaller than a car. I also agree that when driving into a state with no helmet law, from Michigan, one is more apt to notice motorcyclist without helmets than with. How long do you think that would be the case after helmet laws are repealed here? I estimate about a year. Then drivers would be used to it, and we're back where we started. And the loud exhaust. C'mon. I used to ride, in my younger days, and I never revved my Harley to warn drivers of my presence. It was to attract attention alright, but had nothing to do with highway safety. Your advice in the last paragraph is spot on, and I would hope all riders take heed. But the fact remains riding a motorcycle is dangerous, more so when you share the road with much larger vehicles, and a helmet offers some measure of protection to a most vulnerable part of your anatomy. Although one may be seriously injured, disabled, or even killed injuring many other parts of the body, a brain injury can, and very often does, make one dependent on very expensive care for many years. Also, I've read that 45% of motorcycle fatalities are single vehicle accidents. It makes sense then if one chooses to take the chance of riding without a helmet, they be financially prepared for the worst to happen. Depending on it being the other guys fault, and his insurance paying for it, is too big a gamble for a prudent person, especially when there may not be "the other guy" involved. It also makes sense for the state to require helmet less riders carry enough insurance, to protect the taxpayers.

albaby2...Yes, it's nice to agree on something, but I don't think we can give Obama credit for this. I'll bet that makes two things we agree on.

 Freerider. When a motorcycle is involved-what might have been a minor fender bender can result in a serious injury or death. That is something a biker knows when he gets on the machine. That is part of the biker death-defying image. It is his/her concious choice to ride something that offers absolutely no protection to the operator or it's passengers. It is a choice you make and you should accept that reponsibility. If the collision is the fault of a car driver, then how about if the car drivers just pays that amount of damages or injury that would have occured if the motorcycle had offered the protection of an automobile? BTW- I feel the same way about car drivers that won't buckle up, decide to text, talk on the phone or read books etc. while driving. I am looking for another bike and realize the dangers inherent in operating one and am willing to pay the insurance to cover me.

 Gypsy-right again. BTW,do you post to the South Bend Tribune?

albaby2... No, I do not.

 Happy Presidents Day everyone. Gypsy, albaby2, I think we are pretty much in agreement on this issue. Of course there is a bigger risk riding a motorcycle than driving a car. If you don't know that, you have no business saddling a bike in the first place. Probably why most people don't. That is why I encourage everyone who is seeking to try motorcycling to take the Riders Ed course. I did when I was 18. At the time I had been riding dirt bikes for 10 years and thought that I didn't need to take it. The only reason I did was because my dad was so insistant that I take it. And, once again, he was right!

As for insurance, Michigan already has the highest insurance rates in the country. Meaning ALL the free states pay less for insurance than we do. And if this bill passes, Michigan will have the strictest motorcycle insurance requirements of any free state. So I think we have that pretty well covered. The only differing opinion we have is the effectiveness of a helmet. Most states don't require helmet usage for adults. That, unto itself, speaks volumes. The accident/fatality rate is virtually the same in free states and helmet states. In free states the rate is actually slightly lower. DOT compliant helmets are only "certified" safe at 13.6mph. In reality, I'm sure that means that is all the lawyers would allow. But anything over 30-35mph you still risk a closed head injury even with a helmet. This is why our current law is unenforcable. The law, as written, states that ALL motorcycle riders and passengers shall wear a crash helmet approved by the Michigan State Police. Just one problem, the MSP never has and never will approve helmets. To do so, would be knowingly taking on liability, which they are expressly forbiden from doing. For example, if they approved "helmet X" and someone suffered a head injury wearing "helmet X", they would then be liable for their injuries. Aren't lawyers wonderful?! That's why you see so many bikers riding with novelty helmets, which provide about as much protection as a baseball cap. These people are the ones most likely to go helmetless, so really nothing much will change if this law passes. If anything, these people will just be carrying more insurance than they do now.

Although we do have differing political opinions, I do prefer intellectual discussion over name-calling. One thing all we posters have in common is we care about what is going on in our gov't and community. I recommend you all look into becoming a precinct delegate. It is the lowest rung on the political ladder. It doesn't pay anything, but you are not required to do anything. You do, however, get invited to go to their monthly meetings. You get to meet the legislatures personally. You get to tell them face to face about issues that are of importance to you. This works a lot better than Email. You also get to vote for nominees in state elections. For example, the citizens got to vote for their parties nominee for Governor in the August 2010 primary, but the delegates are the ones who voted for the nominees for Attorney General and Secretary of State. It's easy to do. Just go to your city hall and fill out a form. Your name will be on the ballot in this years August primary. If you get elected, you're in. Depending on the size of your town, you may be unopposed. You have until May 15th to do this. I've gotten to know my state rep, senator and congressman on a first name basis. I've meet Governor Snyder once, but I certainly don't know him well. However this is a redistricting year and my district is one that will be changed. So as of 1-1-13, I'll be starting over at square one.

 I do prefer intellectual discussion over name-calling. Seems to work a lot better. I think that we are pretty much in agreement on this issue. As for insurance, Michigan has the highest rates in the nation. Meaning ALL the free states pay less for insurance than we do. That being said, if this law passes, Michigan will have the strictest motorcycle insurance requirements of any state. So I think we have that issue pretty well covered.

I like what you are saying name-calling isn't the way to work this out....   Just love riding in those helmet free states and would love to be able to do this here in my home state. Hoping someday soon I get that chance to do so.  And we do already have the highest insurance rates in the nation.  WHY!  Something that would also happen it would bring more money into this state by all the states aruond us that are helmet free states.  Michigan is one of the most beautiful state in this country and bikers would love to be able to see it with out the cost of a helmet they don't need at home state.     

I hadn't even mentioned tourism, but you're absolutely right. And tourism is something of great interest to Gov. Snyder! A few years ago a survey was sent out to bikers in OH, IN, IL, WI and MN (all of which are free states) and 95% of those surveyed said they would not take a motorcycle based vacation in Michigan due to our helmet law. They also said that they would only consider vacationing here if our law was modified to allow adult choice. Since all of our neighboring states are free states we are getting double-whammied on tourism. No out-of-staters are coming here and Michigan's bikers, like you and I, are taking our vacations out of state. Last summer my wife and I, along with 3 other couples, spent the first two weeks of July on the Wisconsin side of Lake Michigan. Would love to spend this summer vacation on our side of the lake! But if this bill hasn't passed by then, I guess we'll be headed back to Wisconsin. 

 A lot of these so called helmets I see bikers wearing can't cost too much. They are nothing more than bump caps and you can get a "DOT approved" sticker from many bike shops to stick on it. But looking at a helmet as a cost rather than a a lifesaving device is not a good thing. Why do we have the highest insurance rates for motorcycles? Could it be that this is a no-fault state and they go by claims experience. I honestly don't know,but there is also a cahnce that the catastrophic claims portion is part of the high cost. I don't know if that is available for bikes. It costs me 74.13 per 6 mos. per vehicle this year.

albaby2:

 A lot of these so called helmets I see bikers wearing can't cost too much. They are nothing more than bump caps and you can get a "DOT approved" sticker from many bike shops to stick on it.

 

You bring up a good point. These novelty helmets offer about as much protection as a baseball cap. And about half of Michigan's bikers wear them. In free states, voluntary helmet usage is @ 50%. Therefore one can only assume that those who are wearing the novelty helmets are most likely to go helmetless if this law passes. Maybe that has a lot to do with why our injury/fatality rate is virtually the same as our neighboring free states.

As for our high insurance rates, we are one of the few remaining no-fault states. Most states, including all of our neighboring states, are at-fault states. Hence the reason they have allowed freedom of choice for the last 3 1/2 decades and we are still fighting this issue. We are also the ONLY state where the catastrophic claims portion is mandatory. Hence the reason we have the highest rates. Even though you can only be catastrophic from driving one vehicle, this is paid on a "per vehicle" basis, not per driver. Meaning if you own a car and a motorcycle, you are paying double that of the single car owner. However car drivers are entitled to the catastrophic claims fund no reguardless of fault. Motorcyclists are only eligible if they are not at fault. If they are in a single vehicle accident, or hit a deer, they are not eligible, even though they pay double! See why we are tired of the whining of non-riders about insurance!

Michigan is not the only state trying to repeal their law. Tennessee (which is the closest state south of Michigan with a helmet law) had a hearing today before their House transportation subcommittee. Their bill, just like ours, would only allow choice for riders and passengers 21 and older. However, unlike ours, there are no additional insurance clauses to ride helmetless. In their local newspaper, The Tennessean, they had a survey asking if TN residents favored allowing helmet choice in their state. The results, 77% yes, 21% no and 2% undecided. History has a way of repeating itself as repeal has come in pairs. IN and OK both repealed their law in '76. OH and WI both repealed their law in '78. AR and TX both repealed their law in '97. Hopefully MI and TN become the 31st and 32nd free state in '12! And in that order!

albaby2:

 A lot of these so called helmets I see bikers wearing can't cost too much. They are nothing more than bump caps and you can get a "DOT approved" sticker from many bike shops to stick on it.

 

You bring up a good point. About half of the bikers here in Michigan wear these so-called "novelty" helmets, which provide about as much protection as a baseball cap. In any given free state, voluntary helmet usage is usually @ 50%. So it stands to reason that if this law passes, it will most likely be those who wear the novelty caps who opt to ride helmetless. Perhaps that has something to do with why the injury/fatality rate is virtually the same in free states as it is in helmet states.

As for insurance, we are one of the few remaining no-fault states. Most states have caps to their catastrophic claims and you can choose how little or how much coverage you want to have. Michigan is the ONLY state that has unlimited lifetime catastrophic claims coverage. And it's mandatory that you have it. It's great to have if you need it, however it is also the reason that we have the nations highest rates. It is also the reason we have one of the highest rates of uninsured drivers in the country. @ 20% of car drivers in Michigan are uninsured! In Detroit that number is @ 40%! Conversely, Wisconsin did not make insurance mandatory to have until 2009. At the time WI had one of the lowest rates of uninsured drivers. Once they made it mandatory to have, the price went up and so did the number of uninsured drivers. (This is one of the fears of Obamacare, but that's a whole other issue). The Michigan Catastrophic Fund, which is mandatory to have, covers medical expenses exceeding $300K. This is paid on a "per vehicle" basis, not per driver. Meaning that if you own a motorcycle and a car you are paying double that of a single car owner. If you are in a car accident, you are entitled to the full benefits of this fund. Even if you are at fault. If you are in a motorcycle accident, you are only covered if you are in an accident with a car and the car driver is at fault. If you are in a single vehicle accident, in an accident with another motorcycle, or hit a deer, you are not entitled to these benefits. Even though you pay double! See why bikers are tired of the whining of non-riders about THEIR insurance rates!

Michigan isn't the only state that is close to repealing its helmet law. Tennessee (which is the closest helmet state south of Michigan) yesterday had a hearing in their House transportation subcommittee about repealing their mandatory helmet law. Their bill, just like ours, would allow adults 21 and older the choice to ride helmetless. However, unlike our bill, there is no additional insurance clause to ride helmetless. Like MI, both houses of their legislature are controlled by Republicans, many of which value individual liberties over governmental protections. If MI and TN both repeal their laws, it would not be the first time repeal came in pairs. In '97 AR and TX both repealed their laws. I would love to see MI and TN become the 31st and 32nd free state. And in that order! There was a poll in their local paper, The Tennessean, asking TN residents if they favor helmet law repeal. 77% yes, 21% no and 2% undecided.

I really don't care if bikers wear a helmet or not. What I believe in is they should pay the cost of injuries that occur because they choose to drive  an inherently unsafe vehicle. Insurance companies base their rates on actuarial data and not emotion or dislike of certain modes of transportation.

 They are only unsafe if hit by a negligent car driver, or if you ride like an idiot. Motorcyclists pay more than their fair share when it comes to insurance, especially here in Michigan. Hang up and drive!

Can anyone update us on the following Bill 291: Allow helmetless motorcycle operation in the state of Michigan.  Where is it and is it going to be passed in 2012? 

 It is back to the Senate for a "concurrence" vote. Meaning a straight up "yea" or "nay" vote to the changes made in the House (which is what we want). It is expected to pass the concurrence vote. Then it's up to Governor Snyder. Now would be an EXCELLENT TIME to contact Governor Snyder and tell him you want to see SB-291 signed into law! You can be sure that our opposition is contacting him, therefore we need as many positive calls and letters as possible. To contact Governor Snyder, write to;

Governor Rick Snyder

State Capitol

P.O. Box 30013

Lansing, Mi. 48909

And/or call 517-335-7858

 Last day of winter and I've already put over 1,000 miles on the bike! Sure hope that this gets passed before the last day of spring, or the last day of summer, or the last day of my life for that matter!

In communist Cuba, they allow helmet choice! Think about that. A communist nation allows its citizens a right/liberty that is currently not allowed here! Not only do I find that to be absolutely offensive, quite frankly, it's embarrassing! Shame on any lawmaker (Dem or GOP) that would vote against this!

 And in Communist Cuba, they would automatically harvest those organs that remained usable. BTW-can you show me where you have a "right" not to wear a helmet? I'm looking for the part that says I have the responsibility to pay for your mediacl care and raise your family if your death or injuries could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.

You wont find the "part" you are searching for...it doesn't exist. Glad your argument proved our point. Approval of this bill will not cause taxpayers to be forced to pay for injuries from motorcycle accidents in any new or more expensive way. The logic of your argument is unfounded.

albaby2:

 And in Communist Cuba, they would automatically harvest those organs that remained usable. BTW-can you show me where you have a "right" not to wear a helmet? I'm looking for the part that says I have the responsibility to pay for your mediacl care and raise your family if your death or injuries could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.

Wrong. Others insurance costs go up to pay for the bills accumulated by those people who won't use safety devices.  Surely you must have realized that. If not, then perhaps you have already suffered serious head trauma.

As far as raising your family etc, It's all part of the welfare program. Some families are on welfare thru not fault of their own, others because their dads were too macho to wear a seatbelt or helmet etc.

Wrong. I can do that too.

Show me some data again proving your theory..... right, isnt any. There is not any significant data supporting your theory that there will be more bills accumulated than there is now. The fact is that states that do have free to choose laws do not statistically have more fatal/non fatal motorcycle accident than Michigan. Additionally, asking someone to buy additional insurance is absurd .

 LOL-just talk to any hospital or insurance people. It's easy enough to find on the Internet if you dare get away from your biker sites. Just who do you think pays for those bills? You are sorely lacking in not only knowledge, but also common sense.

So your data is word of mouth from "hospital people"?? Nice. .............. LOL Wow. If my knowledge is so lacking, educate me? Prove me something other than just blathering away nonsense you have heard through the grapevine. I don't subscribe to any "biker site" whatever that means. Sounds like your anti-biker not anti helmet law. I suspect your ex husband rode a bike and thereby the rest of us are all forced to deal with your uneducated attacks. FYI, I hold two college degrees and probably don't conform to your stereotype very well. I own a bike, I ride it. Its my choice whether I want to throw my helmet on to run to the market or not, and I shouldn't be punished for it.

albaby2:

BTW-can you show me where you have a "right" not to wear a helmet?

 

Here it is in alphabetical order;

1) Alaska 2)Arizona 3)Arkansas 4)Colorado 5)Connecticut 6)Delaware 7)Florida 8)Hawaii 9)Idaho 10)Illinois 11)Indiana 12)Iowa 13)Kansas 14)Kentucky 15)Maine 16)Minnesota 17)Montana 18)New Hampshire 19)New Mexico 20)North Dakota 21)Ohio 22)Oklahoma 23)Pennsylvania 24)Rhode Island 25)South Carolina 26)South Dakota 27)Texas 28)Utah 29)Wisconsin 30)Wyoming.

In other words the MAJORITY of states including ALL of our neighboring states! Of which, only 3 that I know of (FL, PA, TX) require you carry an additional $10,000 in medical. Our bill would require $20,000 which would make us the strictest of any free state! I think we have that pretty well covered. BTW- MD and TN also currently have helmet-choice bills that may get voted on this year, neither has an additional insurance requirement!

 Spot on DaveK! The very fact that the MAJORITY of states allow helmet choice amazingly says absolutely nothing to the non-riding majority when it should speak volumes!

And every one of them has lower insurance rates as well....but that's not really the issue we are debating today.

Because there is not a requirement to wear a helmet, does not mean you have a 'right' not to wear one. There is probably no law against stepping in front of a semi in those states either, but that doesn't mean you should do it.

 I'm sorry to have to tell you this but although I don't have a bike at this time, I may get another one. I still have my CY endorsement. My daughter and son in law got into an accident with a car and although they were badly injured, their helmets saved their lives. The cracks in the helmet and the dents in the card roofline was proof to me and the investigators. I also have son who raced Motocross and has dozens of trophys and many hospital visits that has proved the value of helmets. He now races go karts and wears a helmet. Maybe you can tell me why helmets are required in places like race tracks etc.

I really don't care if you wear a helmet or not. I just don't think I should have to pay your medical costs and have to raise your family in the event of your preventable death.  Think responsibility.

 Hospital people includes EMTs that spoon people like you off the roadways.

 "Hospital people" include EMTs who spoon bikers of the roadway and ER personnel who try to reassemble the mess.

 

Unhelmeted riders have higher health care costs as a result of their crash injuries, and many lack health insurance. In November 2002, NHTSA reported that 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the governmentAmong the specific findings of several of the studies:

• A 1996 NHTSA study showed average inpatient hospital charges for unhelmeted motorcyclists in crashes were 8 percent higher than for helmeted riders ($15,578 compared with $14,377).
• After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed a decline in health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists. The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period.
• A study of the effects of Nebraska's reinstated helmet use law on hospital costs found the total acute medical charges for injured motorcyclists declined 38 percent.
• A NHTSA evaluation of the weakening of Florida's universal helmet law in 2000 to exclude riders 21 and older who have at least $10,000 of medical insurance coverage found a huge increase in hospital admissions of cyclists with injuries to the head, brain, and skull. Such injuries went up 82 percent during the 30 months immediately following the law change. The average inflation-adjusted cost of treating these injuries went up from about $34,500 before the helmet law was weakened to nearly $40,000 after. Less than one-quarter of the injured motorcyclists would have been covered by the $10,000 medical insurance requirement for riders who chose not to use helmets.

Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare. In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds. In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83. Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured.

8

albaby2:

Because there is not a requirement to wear a helmet, does not mean you have a 'right' not to wear one.

 

Actually, that's EXACTLY what that means.

 Show me where it's a "right". So you figure because there is no law against something, it becoames a "right"?  If there's no law against me having sex with your wife, does that constitute a "right"?

 Only 3 states have no helmet laws. New Hampshire, Iowa, and Illinois. 21 have requirements for all riders, the rest have either age or insurance restrictions.

albaby2:

After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed a decline in health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists. The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period.

 

 I lived in CA from '91 to '94. I remember that well. What this study doesn't tell you is that motorcycle registrations decreased by by 1/3 after their law was enacted. Therefore 1 out of 3 dealerships had to close up shop as a result of the law. The dealership in the town I lived in had an event going on just about every weekend in '91. By Christmas of '93 I bought a $100 pair of boots for $30 due to their "Going out of business" clearance sale! I also remember like it was yesterday that the CHP got busted for falsifying statements. In cases where the accident victim WAS wearing a helmet and the paramedics removed the helmet BEFORE the CHP arrived to the scene, that those were reported as "unhelmeted." This was not discovered until '94, 2 years after the law was enacted. That would explain a 50% unhelmeted accident rate in a helmet state! What it also fails to mention is that Florida saw a 50% increase in bike sales in their first year of freedom and 110% by year 5. The increase and decrease in bikes on the road have a lot more to do with the number of accidents/injuries that whether or not a helmet is used. That's why there will always be more bike accidents in July that in January. Many of the states you mention are helmet states. That just proves the ineffectiveness of helmets.

Again, I'm glad your daughter survived her accident. But because you have experienced something so tramatic, you can't possibly have a fair and balanced opinion on this issue. That's the reason why judges who lost loved ones in drunk driving accidents aren't supposed to try DUI cases. If this law passes you will still have the "right to choose" to wear a helmet if you choose to ride again. I will never tell you or anybody else NOT to wear one. This is a freedom of choice issue, nothing more.

If you are interested in seeing the other half of the truth, I have a website you can check out;

www.sbumaui.org/helmet_law_facts.pdf

albaby2:

 Show me where it's a "right". So you figure because there is no law against something, it becoames a "right"?  If there's no law against me having sex with your wife, does that constitute a "right"?

 

 As far as I know consensual sex between two adults is legal as long as there is no exchange of money, then it's prostitution. However there would be 3 very unhappy people if that were ever to happen!