Transportation and Driving

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

chrisrich — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:26:45 GMT

To me it just makes sense for everyone to wear a helmet. You can surivie a broken neck....but not a broken head. Where I am from, helmets are the law. It has not afftected my enjoyment of riding at all.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

rjollis — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 17:41:11 GMT

The use of safety equipnent is the RIGHT of the user. The state has no right to tell me what to wear on my head or on my ass. If the state of Michigan politicians would tend to performing their elected responsibilities the state would not be in the mess that it is.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

crazycajun — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:47:18 GMT

by the way.. motorcycle insurance doesn't drop a dime if i die. only if i'm hurt.

life insurance covers what happens when i die. perhaps we should require, as part of the sentence for criminal negligence for the driver's with cellphones in their ears, that they carry an extra life insurance policy to cover the deaths that occur from their negligence.

that way, every driver who owns a cell phone must have a life insurance policy payable to whomever they hit. sounds good to me. true DRIVER'S RESPONSIBILITY.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

crazycajun — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:39:16 GMT

and when the cop finds that the motorist who killed me was talking on a cell phone. the careless driver should be charged with my murder.

nothing less. distracted driving is worse than drunk driving. drunk drivers are impaired and intoxicated. intentionally distracted drivers are criminally negligent.

i suggest charging every driver on a cellphone with felony criminal negligence.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

jmangan — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 04:06:10 GMT

I'm with you crazy. You have a right to be as stupid as you like. There shouldn't be a law forcing you to wear a helmet on your Harley. You shouldn't be forced to buy extra insurance either. If you don't have enough, then the cop that finds your busted head without a helmet should just drop a couple aspirin in your mouth, if he can find it, and tell you to call your doctor in the morning.

You get what you pay for.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

crazycajun — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 00:33:40 GMT

how about we require more insurance from cell phone users?

they cause more accidents than drunks and kill more people than even ride motorcycles.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

crazycajun — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:30:51 GMT

how does having extra insurance help the driver be safer?

the truth is, it doesn't. it just gives one more thing for the legislature to criminalize.

how does having extra insurance help the state?

the truth is, it doesn't. the state WILL NOT AND SHOULD NOT assume any financial obligation for any citizen because of an accident, unless the accident was the state's fault. that's what we have civil courts for.

head injuries are not the big killers in motorcycle accidents. blunt force trauma to the body is. it's been said a thousand times. besides, if the head is 'safe' and the body is busted, you are just as dead, you'll just feel it more. besides, what of the people who go for 'sliders' and get the lip of the helmet stuck, and it breaks their neck. they go from road rash to coffins real quick.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

crazycajun — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:24:52 GMT

what number is that?

you want the websites?

national highway safety institute?

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

jmangan — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:45:59 GMT

I may be surprised at the number of people using helmets, if you would be so kind as to provide that number.

I am all for motorcyclist having the right to choose. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? The right to choose.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

crazycajun — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:30:13 GMT

if you READ the research from highway safety institute, you will find that a helmet is actually a safety hazard at highway speeds in an accident. doctors will tell you hundreds of stories of people having their necks broken by the helmet.

besides, what usually kills in a motorcycle/automobile accident is blunt force trauma to the body, not the head. the head is usually not even involved.

helmets ARE useful for higher speed accidents, the head will usually be IN IT, not necessarily WITH THE BODY, but IN THE HELMET.

i can't say i'm ready to TOTALLY give up helmet usage, but it would be nice to be able to ride helmetless when the conditions are right.

you may be surprised at the amount of people who STILL USE HELMETS even though the law says they don't have to.

i know you think that motorcyclists are not smart enough to make our own decisions, but we are.

give us the right to choose.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

cindagle — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 11:20:25 GMT

This makes no sense to me. There is overwhelming research that wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle is a safer option than not wearing a helmet. I can tell you several stories of family members and friends that would be dead or severely injured if it were not for the helmet they were wearing. How are we to enforce such a law? Do we stop every hemetless motorcycle rider and ask for proof that they have this insurance and what about the out of state motorcyclists? Do we stop them at the state line and ask for proof of insurance? We have a law that requires a helmet and it works and it needs to be maintained for the safety and economic welfare of Michigan residents and out of state visitors. There has been an increase in motorcycle use since the gas prices went up, why would we want to encourage anyone not to wear a helmet or any safety device that we know works? It sets a bad example for our youth that we want to encourage to wear safety equipment such as seatbelts and helmets when biking. Adults who do not want to be safe drivers are not needed in Michigan. Lets keep Michigan a safe state, a helmet requiring state and defeat this legislation for the good of all our citizens and our economy.

2009 House Bill 4138 (Require extra insurance for helmetless motorcycle rider )

admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the House on February 4, 2009

Click here to view bill details.