Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on March 10, 2005, to repeal the mandatory motorcycle helmet requirement for persons at least 21 years old who have held a motorcycle license for two years and successfully completed a motorcycle safety course. See also 2003 House Bill 4325 and 2003 Senate Bill 321

The vote was 21 in favor, 13 opposed and 4 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 52 at Senate Journal 25)

Click here to view bill details.

Passing this bill could put Michigan back into the tourism industry. Thousands of motorcyclists avoid states that do not have a freedom of choice when it comes to wearing/not wearing a helmet. We are losing out on a lot of money to this state because of the current law.

YES, YES, YES!!!!! It's about time. Get this bill passed so we can enjoy the same FREEDOM as ALL of our bordering states. I have friends who live out of state that would like to come to Michigan for a visit, but they refuse to come here as long as we have that stupid helmet law.

Two weeks ago I worked at the ABATE booth at the motorcycle show at Cobo. EVERYONE asked if we still had a helmet law, and how close are we to getting rid off it. EVERY out of state rider who came to the booth said they would love to ride here, take a motorcycle vacation here (which means spend money here) but will not until our law is changed. So as long as we still have this useless, outdated helmet law Michigan will continue to lose MILLIONS of tourism dollars each and every year.

There is absolutely no reason Michigan should still have a mandatory helmet law. 30 states allow helmet choice, Michigan is one of 20 that do not. Any arguement for keeping the helmet law can easily be proven wrong. Most people who argue to keep it base that opinion on emotion rather than fact. They have not looked at the facts, so they assume that helmets are safer. If one did not know the facts that would seem like a logical opinion. But when you look at crash data from choice states and compare them to helmet states, choice states injury/fatality rates are usually slightly lower than helmet states. The biggest, and most tired arguement is insurance. Most people think that their insurance rates will go up if the helmet law is repealed. That simply is not the case. No state has ever raised their rates when a helmet law has been repealed. Furthermore no state has ever LOWERED their insurance rates when a helmet law has been enacted. Ask California. When they enacted a helmet law they were promised lower insurance rates that they did not get. In fact they have gone up. As stated by the previous loggers on Michigan is losing MILLIONS of tourism dollars because of the helmet law. When Florida repealed their law 5 years ago, they have experienced this. Daytona bike week and Biketoberfest have been bigger and have brought in more money than they did prior to repealing the law. They also have sold 40,000 more new bikes in just their 1st year of having helmet choice than they did the year before, which also means more money in that states economy. If history repeats itself as it has when other states have repealed their helmet laws, repealing Michigan's law would mean more tourism dollars, more money from increased bike sales, no increase in insurance rates, and no increase in injuries and fatalities. So why then would you want to keep it?

I do not ride a motorcycle, and I support this legislation. Two reasons. One, I am a freedom-loving American. Over the years I have seen freedoms taken away one by one slowly but surely. Seldom when a freedom is taken away is it ever given back. The repeal of prohibition and certain states motorcycle helmet laws are the only examples of freedom restoration I can even think of. Second, I believe that this can be good for our states economy. Since Michigan's economy is as bad as it has ever been anything to improve it would be good. If you could help the economy without raising taxes or cutting services, why not do it?

lets face it, anyone twenty one and older is supposed to be an adult, taking responsablity for their dicsions. being a fifty five year old man i think i can make my own choice to wear or not wear a helmet when i ride. just returning from bike week for 2005 i can tell you i wore my helmet twice the two weeks i was there. once because of rain, the other was cold temperature. but, it was MY CHOICE . i too have talked to people from surrounding states that have said they will not ride in michigan with the helmet law still inforce. when florida has bike week, millions of dollars are brought into the state. there are no major motorcycle events in michigan. we have one of the most beautiful states in the nation, let's share that with other people. MODIFIY THE STUPID LAW !!!

1. It's good for the medical industry 2. It's good for the tourism industry 3. It's good for the ambulance industry 4. It's a step towards improving our genetic pool GO FOR IT!!!

Your negative comments are clearly uninformed and unwelcome. Study the facts and then have an educated opinion.

January 1992, the Washington Redskins beat the Lions in the NFC championship game. My buddy said "typical lions, they will never win a superbowl." I said "they could be next years team." He then said "yeah right, Michigan will get rid of the helmet law before the lions will ever win a championship." I then bet him $100 the lions would win the superbowl before Michigan got rid of the helmet law. It's 13 years later and the lions have yet to win another playoff game much less the superbowl. I'm ready to lose this bet RIGHT NOW! I just hope I live long enough to see the outcome of the bet one way or another.

It is time for the state of Mi to get rid of there helmet law. I live in Wis where the helmet law has not been in use in years. I think it is an individual choice to wear one or not, for me I choose not to wear one and that is my right. Here is Wis we get thousands of bikers spending millions of dollars each year in tourism, and one of the biggest reasons we have bikers spending all the hard earned cash is because we have a right to wear or not wear a helmet, and the people love coming here for the freedom on having that choice. I for one would love to go to Mi on my scooter as I only live an hour away from the great U.P., but once I cross that bridge into Menominee Mi, the helmet HAS to come on or I get a ticket. Would I like to spend my money in Mi riding free like the rest of the states around here, you bet I would, and so would a thousand other bikers who love to ride free too. Peace... Ed

For years I've been waiting for this law to get smashed. As a biker, theres nothing better than hitting the open road. Well, that is except without a helmet. For years, my friends and I have traveled out of state, just to ditch the brain bucket and fell the wind blow through your hair. Were planning to go to Sturgis this year, and Michigan is the only state along the way you have to wear lids. Boy it sure would be nice to be able to ride the whole way without. There are times I would still wear a lid, but it should be MY CHOICE.

I'm glad to see that this bill has been resubmitted. Good luck with it. As I posted the last time around, I think that it has only a small chance of passage for the reason that Michigan still has a "no-fault" motor vehicle insurance law. The insurance industry and the nanny-statists are going to fight like hell, basing their argument on the allegation that non-riders will have to cover the cost of all the carnage that is to be expected if the helmet law is repealed. It's a garbage argument, but that's what they'll claim. Based on my observation of how Michigan legislators work, I'd forget about "choice" arguments. The concept of America is largely foreign to many of the jackballs in Lansing. That helmets may cause greater injury in accidents is another loser. Even if you believe it, it's not statistically supported. Money. Now that'll get you somewhere in Michigan. I think the most effective argument is based on the fact that border states allow riders to wear or not wear a helmet. Just like casino gambling, which only took off after Windsor had made a killing, the helmet law will be repealed when and if the legislators realize that the state is losing revenue due to resident riders heading out of Michigan and non-resident riders staying away from the border. Again, good luck from a happily former Michigan resident now in Colorado. Jim

I was tranfered to Mi,10 yrs ago. The manditory helemet law has Irked me since. So i choose to ride out of state, Its only 60 miles to a choice state for me.So until Mi becomes a choice state.Ill choose to spend the lions share of my money in a free state. which i have been doing for the last 10 yr. Wake up mi your losing millions in tourist dollars

what exactly is substitute (S-1)?

I rode a bike some 20 years ago and would today if I wanted to. I am not afraid of them, but, 20 years ago I had a driver run a stop sign and I hit him broad-side. I flew 100ft. landed on my back. My helmet cracked from front to back yet I had very little damage. 12 broken ribs and a sore hand. No head injury. The doctors all said that The helmet saved my life as well as saving me from becoming a living vegetable. Anyone who visits to trauma center at any major hospital will find many injured for life people who rode a bike without a helmet. If people who want to be “free” want to make sure their families pay for their vegetative state and not public welfare will sign a waiver, let them at it, as far as the money is concerned for those who sell the bikes, all they are concerned about is the money. R.Wood

This will dramatically increase the insurance premiums for Michigan drivers. Motorcyclists don't even pay into the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) but if there is a "Motor Vehicle" anywhere near them when they have their accident then they get the coverage that all of the other drivers in Michigan pay for. The MCCA surcharge is a large part of each "Motor Vehicles" insurance premium. The motorcyclists can pay WAY less but are a much larger burden on the insurance industry.

Hey Raise your Rates: Get your facts straight, motorcyclists do pay into the MCCA fund. 75% percent of crashes that involve motorcylcists are the other drivers fault, the automobile. If automobile drivers would become more aware of motoryclists, lives would be saved and less people would become injured. From a survivor of a near fatal crash that has permanent injuries as a result of the other automobile being 100% at fault!

I'm not sure why people just asume we don't pay into the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA). Not only do I ride a motorcycle, but I also have two motor vehicles with full coverage. So I do pay into the MCCA. Yes, I also have full coverage on my two Harleys. I've been licensed since 1974, taken the Motorcycle Safety Courses and if this passes into law I will ride (my choice) without a helmet and my passenger will ride with one (her choice). Michigan will also bring in a lot of revenue from our brothers and sisters in neighboring states.

Most bikers are automobile owners as well, there fore any possible rate hikes would affect them as well. How may automoblie drivers and passengers wear a seat belt beacuse they fear a ticket and not because it might save there life if they are in an accident- at a certain speed ,if committed at a certain angle, and the sun is shining from exactly some certain degree? How many people drive five miles over the posted speed limit? How many people Drive in a snow storm? How many people cross a road at a point other than a designated cross walk? The point is we all make decisions everyday that could possibly put us in a life or death situation. For some reason we have decided that bikers are not capible of making the same type of decisions that nonbikers make every day.Bikers are not just roughnecks or gang members. Today cycle enthusiast are made up of blue collar as well as white collar workers, including corporate presidents and chief finacial officers.Yet they(we)are not allowed to decide if they(we) should wear a helmet or not? What is next, take away our right to bear arms, or tell us that we are only allowed to have 1.5 children, or that we are only allowed to consume so many cubic feet of oxygen. We need to stop making laws that affect everyone to protect a few from themselves. Do we need a law prohibiting Mcdonalds from selling hot coffee? The answer is no! We do not need nor want a government that tells us how much to breath or when is the right time to cross the road. Let the government do the job they were intended to do. That is to insure that our rights as free men and women are not trampled on or taken from us.

As the last post stated we do pay into the MCCA fundnot once but Two times (once for the bike and again for the car(s) that we own.). As far as the ability to use this fund is however skewed and it is not in favor of the motorcyclist. If I am involved in a two vehical accident then I get to POSSIBLEY use this fund AFTER the other individuals insurance runs out, AFTER my automobile policy runs out, and AFTER my medical insurance that I have through my shop runs out(that must be a shocker for you.). But if I hit a deer, or anything else the mcca benifits do NOT apply. As far as the Burdon on the insurance industry. Heres somthing to think about. THERE WERE MORE PEDESTRIANS INJURED LAST YEAR THAN THERE WERE MOTORCYCLIST. You stated that the motorcycle dealers only want the money... so what do you belive the insurance industry wants? Do you really belive that they care? Ask yourself this. why is it in Michigan our insurance premiums are twice that in the states that border Michigan, and please remember that those states DO NOT have a mandatory helmet law.

Senators George, Brater, Hammerstrom, Cassis, Sikkema, Birkholz, Jacobs, Clark-Coleman and Hardiman, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No.297. Senators George, Brater and Hammerstrom moved that statements they made during the discussion of the bill be printed as their reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator George's statement, in which Senators Cassis, Sikkema, Birkholz, Clark-Coleman and Hardiman concurred, is as follows: I would like to give my "no" vote explanation and to summarize some of the arguments that I've been making. First, I wanted to dispel some of the myths that have been propagated during the debate. Really there are three of them. The first one is that wearing a helmet somehow increases the chance that you'll be in an accident. That's because the helmet goes over your ears and maybe there is a visor, and you can't see as well and you are more likely to be in an accident. There have been numerous studies done that show that that is simply not true. You are not more likely to be in an accident if you wear a helmet. There is no relationship between wearing or not wearing a helmet and the likelihood of suffering an accident. The second myth that we heard earlier is that somehow the helmet itself makes the injury worse; that somehow if you have a helmet on, it blocks the body's natural defense, which is that if your head hits a tree or a pole or some other hard object, the body's natural defense is to crack open and to relieve the pressure around the brain, and somehow the helmet prohibits that and that the damage and the accident is worse if you are wearing your helmet. That is ludicrous. Football players wear helmets; hockey players wear helmets; people at construction sites wear helmets; soldiers in the field wear helmets; and they do it for a good reason. It's they save lives and they know that. Study after study has shown that if you wear a motorcycle helmet, your risk of being killed is lower, and your risk of being injured is lower wearing a helmet. They are probably the most effective, single safety measure that we have. We require motorist to wear seatbelts. We require infants to be in infant seats in the car. We have all kinds of safety provisions, and most of them don't have the solidity of the evidence behind them like motorcycle helmets do. They are more effective than most of the other measures that we've put into place. If we're going to repeal the helmet law, why don't we just repeal all of them? The third myth that I've heard is that somehow requiring the helmets, because they increase the number of accidents and they block the body's natural defense, which is for your skull to crack open and relieve the pressure around the brain because the helmets do those things, they help keep our hospitals filled with patients. The medical community knows this, and that is why they are opposed to repealing the helmet law because the medical community likes to take care of injured motorcyclist. Hospitals want to be filled; they want to have their beds filled with people who have their heads injured, but not cracked open because they had their helmets on. That's simply ludicrous. Medical professionals do not look forward to taking care of more motorcycle injury victims; that's just not true. The truth is that helmets are a safety measure. They protect you. They protect your head. Passing this law will increase the number of deaths, injuries, and the cost. I want to talk for a moment about something that we've not touched on, and that is the question of the freedom of choice. There is an implication made by some of the proponents from time to time that it is un-American to require motorcyclists to wear helmets or to impose safety regulations on law-abiding citizens. I want to point out that our state constitution calls for us to protect the public health. Article 4, Section 51, says, "The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health." We daily in our activities as legislators provide--or we attempt to provide--for the safety of the public by regulating new technologies, whether it be dangerous and potential physical forces such as the generation of energy and the transmission of power, or new technologies such as the Internet or powerful machinery such as railroads or manufacturing equipment or motorcycles, and to suggest that this is not the providence of the Legislature is ignoring our own state constitution and ignoring our duty to protect the public's health. Now, colleagues, I know you know that I work from time to time in my medical practice when I'm not here. I want to tell you that in my work as a physician, I am regularly involved in direct patient care. I must tell you that most of the time it is rather routine and mundane. Most of my hours are spent caring for people who come in for gallbladder surgery, hip replacement surgery, or cesarean sections, all of which are now considered fairly commonplace and routine. It is an uncommon day in my medical practice when I can say that I've actually saved someone's life. That happens rarely, but it does happen once in awhile. Occasionally, I will take some action that will save a life. I might put in a breathing tube in someone who has stopped breathing and who is on the brink of death, or I will put a big IV in their neck so I can give them a blood transfusion to resuscitate someone who is in shock or bleeding to death from a traumatic injury. It doesn't happen often, but once in awhile I actually get to save a life in my medical practice. I would say that it is very similar here in the Legislature. Most of our days and time are spent doing the day-to-day mundane work of government, handling constituent questions, working on regulations and budgets. They are important and they affect people, usually in modest ways or in small ways. But occasionally, we do have right here in state government right before us the chance to make life or death actions--to actually save lives. Today is one of those days. Now, up in the Gallery above us we have the passionate supporters of this measure. They've worked very hard. We've come to know them and admire them for their persistence and zeal. I commend their spirit of activism, but they are wrong. What we do not see when we look in the Gallery, we do not see those whose lives who would be forfeited by passage of this measure. In recent years, there have been about 80 or so motorcycle fatalities per year in Michigan--about 80 per year. Experience in other states would lead us to expect an increase in the number of fatalities by 30-50 percent. It could be as much as 40 new deaths per year in Michigan. I repeat, about 40 new deaths per year if we repeal the helmet law. I would like to point out that that would be about one for every one of our districts. Imagine, if you would, we each have about one constituent per year who will die as a result of repealing Michigan's motorcycle helmet law. I look forward to serving with many of you for the remainder of this session, and hopefully, in another term we may serve together for six years--some of us. If you added up the 40 deaths per year for six years, that would be more than 200 Michigan citizens who could be filling this Gallery today. That is not a legacy that I wish to claim. Those citizens are not here today because they don't know who they are, but if they were here, they would fill the Gallery above us. They are most of them young men in your districts. Some of them have families, children, spouses, parents, and friends. Some are women, some are older, but they are real, living people. All of them have one thing in common--their lives could end as a result of your vote today. Today is a day where you have an opportunity to make a life or death decision that will affect people in your district. You can cast a vote today that will save the life of someone in your district. I ask you to examine your conscience. You may have been grappling with this issue, but think of the person in your district whose life depends on your decision today. I ask you to join me by casting a "no" vote.

Senator Brater's statement, in which Senators Jacobs and Clark-Coleman concurred, is as follows: It is difficult to follow that passionate discussion of why we should vote "no" on Senate Bill No.297. I think Senator George, M.D., has done an excellent job and has firsthand knowledge of the injuries that result when people are not wearing a motorcycle helmet. But nevertheless, I also want to offer a summary of some of the views as to why I plan to vote "no" on this bill and will also request that these remarks be printed as my "no" vote explanation. I oppose Senate Bill No.297 in order to protect public safety and health and avoid increased insurance and health care costs to be paid for by the general public. Numerous peer-reviewed studies consistently report that mandatory helmet use reduces fatality rates, severe brain injury rates, and hospital costs related to motorcycle injuries. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reports that an unhelmeted motorcyclist is 40 percent more likely to incur a fatal head injury and 15 percent more likely to incur a non-fatal head injury than a helmeted motorcyclist involved in a crash. A national Department of Transportation review of the effects of motorcycle helmet use found that unhelmeted riders are more likely to need ambulance service, be admitted to hospitals as an inpatient, have higher hospital charges, need neurosurgery or intensive care, need rehabilitation, and be permanently impaired and need long-term care. In a time of inflationary health-care costs, we simply should not be adding to these costs. Although a vocal minority has advocated for the right to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, public opinion polls consistently demonstrate public support for common sense and maintaining the prohibition against riding a motorcycle without a helmet. Clearly, the weight of the evidence is that motorcycle helmets reduce injury severity, that repeal of helmet laws decreases helmet use, and that states that repeal universal helmet laws experience increased motorcycle fatalities and injuries.

Senator Hammerstrom's statement, in which Senators Sikkema, Birkholz, Clark-Coleman and Hardiman concurred, is as follows: Michigan's current motorcycle helmet law saves lives and prevents serious head injuries. When Michigan enacted the mandatory helmet law in 1969, there had been 145 fatalities with motorcycles that year. In 1996, that number had been reduced to 61 fatalities. Seventy-five percent of the people in this state get it, and they oppose repealing the mandatory helmet law. Now I'm not going to get up here and throw out a lot of numbers. Both sides on this issue have compiled numbers that support their position. I'm not going to get up here and tell you that if we pass this bill, your next insurance premium is going to go up because of it, but I am going to predict that over time repealing the helmet law is going to impact the cost of health care, the cost of insurance--both medical and vehicle--and the cost of Medicaid in this state. Ultimately, every citizen in our state will bear a portion of the cost in one way or another. In these days when we are debating how to contain the cost of health care and encouraging people to avoid risky behaviors that will impact their individual health, this bill actually goes in the wrong direction. By removing a provision that has saved lives and prevented head injuries for nearly 40 years, we are opening the doors that seem to encourage a risky behavior. We put our kids and grandkids in helmets when they ride tricycles, for heaven's sake. Why would we want to make it an option to wear safety equipment when riding a motorcycle at much faster speeds? This is bad legislation; I'm going to be voting "no."

Senator Cassis moved that the statement she made during the discussion of the amendment offered by Senators George and Hammerstrom be printed as her reasons for voting "no." The motion prevailed. Senator Cassis' statement is as follows: I'm sure we could debate this issue all day and night, but I offer a little down-to-earth perspective. At a time when our state's economy is in dire distress, our focus is distracted--at a time when health care insurance costs are soaring and Medicaid costs are skyrocketing; at a time when Michigan's Governor wants to increase taxes on the insurance industry; at a time when gasoline prices at the pump is well over $2.00 with no end in sight. Today we are asked to take a quantum leap of faith--to take leave of common sense, to defy logic. All this in order to reverse the helmet law requiring motorcyclists to exercise good judgment and responsible self-protection. And what's the result? Passing on increased costs to all of us automobile drivers.

Senator Switalski's statement, in which Senator Jacobs concurred, is as follows: I just wanted to congratulate my colleagues on the high quality of the debate today. I feel proud to be a part of this institution and to have been part of this debate. I think it does come down, as several speakers have said, to trying to draw balance between freedom on the one side and safety on the other--something we've done several times this year. On the side of freedom, you have choice--the exhilaration of riding without a helmet, living the American Dream. Those things are very important; there is no question about that. On the other side, you have public safety, both for the motorcyclist and for someone and their conscience who may hit them and cause an injury or death. It's a very close call; it's a tough call.

Senator Patterson's statement is as follows: Mr.President, through you to colleagues, reflecting on the previous speaker, I find it even more difficult to follow the eloquence, the passion, the logic, the dedication, and the purpose of the immediate previous speaker who has indicated and articulated as a patriot that this is also about liberty. Freedom takes constant vigilance. I never find the defense of freedom to be mundane. So while I hear others talk about their passions, I know that I'm a free person and that people have died so that we can be free. So we are gathered together today to make a choice to allow people to be free in a free land, unencumbered by big government's intrusions.

Senator Cropsey's statement is as follows: This bill has been around for literally decades and is very simple. Currently, any operator of a motorcycle has to wear a helmet. The bill would allow a person riding a motorcycle to make a personal decision whether or not to wear a helmet if they meet the following conditions: They have to be 21 years of age or older with two years of riding experience, or they have to be 21years of age or older and have successfully completed a motorcycle safety course. None of the proposed changes apply to any young men or young women under the age of 21. All teenagers would have to be helmeted no matter what. I think one of the--and I do appreciate the passion shown by the first speaker in this part--but keep this in mind: When it actually gets into court and the doctors have to testify as to the efficacy of helmets, they have said that when it comes to the brain lag injuries inside of the skull, it is a physical characteristic of a human head in motion and is in effect, with our without any helmet on the head. The described mechanism is invariably present in this type of head trauma and is irrelevant of the presence or the absence of a helmet on the head. When we have this type of thing going on, I think we need to get right down to the point. When it comes to court, they aren't saying that a helmet is helpful.

Lets see, it will be vetoed by the Gov. Reason will be safety, real reason, control freak or special interest (insurance) group that is just a guess. If safety was a factor lets do something about cell phone use in cars. Give bikers a choice, Id still where my helmet but I would like to make the choice....

how many accidents are caused by the bike?

improving our genetic pool, heee hheeee

Isn't that the same generic pool Hitler swam in?

Expect vehicle insurance rates to rise as the Michigan Catastrophic Fund dwindles as closed head traumas from bikers suck dry the existing fund base and require further revenue source. The majority of motorcycle accidents occur at speeds under 35mph and are typically survivable. Helmets have been extremely successful in increasing the survivability as well. I would urge anyone to review the motorcycle deaths from the past decade and make a comparision to the same from the decade immediately prior to the institution of mandatory helmets. It's telltale - helmets save lives and money!

Most motorcycle accidents are caused by irresponsible people behind the wheel of automobiles. If more drivers were educated about motorcycles, there would be a lot less accidents. Another thing, we also pay into the Michigan Catastrophic Fund, so why do you keep bringing up this issue? A good share of us bikers also have full coverage with medical insurance on our bikes. Please watch out for us, share the road because you can't use the excuse any more...'Honest officer I didn't see the motorcycle!!'

You are one ignorant jackass. First, motorcyclists pay twice into the MCCA fund. Once for their car and once for their bike. However if injured on a bike we can't use it! How fair is that? Second, no state has ever raised insurance rates due to allowing helmet choice. Third, no state has ever LOWERED their rates for having a mandatory helmet law. Why do helmet choice Ohio and Indiana pay about half as much for auto insurance as we do here in Michigan? Besides the bill as passed would require motorcyclists to carry medical insurance to ride helmet free. If you ride and still CHOOSE to wear a helmet, that's fine. If you don't ride this does not effect you in any way. If it doesn't effect you then SHUT UP!

You hit the nail on the head. Nice job:)

You clearly made an EMOTIONAL decision. If you looked at the facts you would see that crash data from the MAJORITY of states that allow helmet choice have a slightly lower injury/fatality rate than mandatory helmet states. You call yourself a Republican? The Republican party is suppost to represent freedom of individual choice and less government control. And you want to be Governor? As much as I would like to have a Republican governor I would have to vote for Granholm over you out of default. I can bet there are tens of thousands like me who feel the same way. Hopefully your NO vote ruins your run for the governors seat.

Does anybody with a room temperature I.Q. honestly think the government or the insurance companies care about the safety of you or me? Brief history lesson. Prior to 1966 there was no such thing as a helmet law, not in any state. Back in the 50's and 60's bikers were considered outlaws. They terrorized towns and ran drugs. So the federal government decided to create a helmet law. Not for the safety of outlaws, but rather to discourage riding. They gave the individual states the choice to mandate a helmet law, however those that did not comply would be punished by not receiving federal highway money. By 1969, 48 states had helmet laws. Only Illinois and California remained free. In 1968 the Illinois Supreme Court ruled helmet laws to by unconstitutional (and they are). In 1969 California passed a helmet law in their house and senate but was vetoed by then Governor Ronald Reagan. In 1975 after 6 years of studying crash data in Illinois and California comparing them to the other 48 states and realizing that helmet laws did nothing, the federal penalty was lifted. There are currently 30 helmet choice states. Allowing helmet choice in Michigan would make us normal as we are now in the minority on this issue. Since our elected lawmakers won't let us have helmet choice simply because it is the right thing to do, maybe more money by increased tourism and motorcycle sales will sway them to reason. After all it's never been about safety, EVERYTHING is all about money.

If this bill doesn't pass i guess i'll do all my Touring other states where freedom of wearing a helmet is allowed. Michigan is a rip off State. Insunace Co. You all know what iam saying: High Premium rates,MCCA> thats why there's so many Bad drivers here in Michigan (SUE crazy),And the old 55 MPH .

Very Disappointed :(