Michigan Votes Forum

I'm with you. Ding-a-ling Ralph Nader got the ball rolling back in the sixties with auto safety. The DOT and NHTSA had such fun with cars that it decided to try to regulate anything with a motor. Unfortunately, there wasn't a heck of a lot for it to regulate when it came to motorcycles...except to push a helmet agenda. The agencies got their way, and in response to the fed's threat to withhold highway funds from any state that failed to enact the appropriate legislation, a helmet-law craze swept across the country. The federal government no longer ties highway funds to helmet laws and many states have repealed that silliness, but it still carries on in others...including Michigan. In addition to this short history, there are some fundamentals that you have to understand, Spaz: (1) There are a whole lot of people out there who think that it's entirely proper for them to run around making decisions for others. (2) Many of these people think that motorcycles are bad. (3) Most people have no interest in motorcycles and therefore don't give a tinker's damn about helmet laws. (They accept being told that they must wear their seat belts in their cages, after all.) (4)One unintended effect (some would argue that it was, in fact, the actual intent) of helmet laws was to cause a reduction in overall ridership, both in terms of the number of bikes on the road and the frequency and distance that those bikes were ridden. Fewer bikes ridden less often naturally resulted in fewer accidents and therefore fewer total deaths. Number 4 above was not missed by the Safety Police and Dudley Dorights of the world. They realized that mandating helmet use was one way that they could strike a significant blow against the evil motorcycles while appearing to be nothing more than concerned safety advocates. And so it goes. As long as the sheeple in Group 3 continue to allow Groups 1 and 2 to legislate their preferences, you're screwed.

what is bad about 48 - 50 mpg on your harley?what is bad about taking up less space in parking lots? what is bad about taking up less space on the highway's? NOTHING AT ALL . it's using your head to conserve energy. all the while the suv gas guzzler type, wants you off the road. you might be doing the speed limit, they are in a hurry. ride your back fender. did i mention they want you off the road ? the only way to get this law passed is to get rid of mommy governor. she has no clue about what this new law will do to the state's income. her aids and others involved are not giving her the information that abate, and, other organizations are trying to get to her. it's insurance industry, and, " let me take care of you democrats ", that want to control your live's. let's get rid of them in 2006 !!!

Prior to 1966 no state had a helmet law. Then in 1966 the federal government passed a law requiring that all states enforce a mandatory helmet law. It was up to the state to decide if they wanted to pass this law, however any state that did not comply would be punished by not receiving federal highway money. By 1969 all but 2 states, California and Illinois, had mandatory helmet laws. California's helmet bills passed their states house and senate, but were vetod by then governor Ronald Reagan. Illinois bills passed the house and senate and did get signed by their governor, however before the law could take effect it was overturned by the Illinois state supreme court ruling the law to be unconstitutional (and by the way it is). In 1975 the federal government overturned the federal helmet agenda after studing California and Illinois accident/fatality data and finding no significant difference in their data and the rest of the countries data. Shortly thereafter many states started repealing their helmet laws since there was no longer a ban in federal highway money for doing so. In 1976 Indiana repealed their helmet law. In 1978 Ohio and Wisconsin did the same. Since 1978 Michigan has been the only state in this region to have a helmet law! Michigan has had a helmet law since 1969! That's 37 years too many! The time is now to end the non-sense!

How many people do you see riding with non-D.O.T. approved novilty helmets? I'm one of many who wear one pretending to comply with the law. Since these novilty helmets provide as much protection as a bandana, and bandanas will replace all the novilty helmets once the law is repealed, nothing will change as far as injuries and fatalities are concerned.

Since the law is unenforcable, police cant legally ticket you for wearing a commie cap, not to mention that helmets that are D.O.T. approved provide questionable protection at best, I also believe that nothing will change if the law is repealed.

...a state has repealed it's helmet law. In 1997, Texas repealed it's helmet law. In 2000, Florida repealed it's helmet law. In 2003, Pennsylvania repealed it's helmet law. It's now 2006 which means it's time for another state to repeal it's helmet law, so why not Michigan? We have more than enough support in the house, it has already passed in the senate, it is the most viewed bill on this website, the majority of poeple want it, all are neighboring states already have it, so why not have Michigan be the state that repeals it's law this year? Oh, I forgot, Granholm. She is the only one keeping the dream from becoming a reality. Keep the pressure on her to sign these bills into law. It's up to you to get it done this year. If she vetos these bills and she beats DeVos in the election, we're screwed until 2011! ! ! Here's what you can do, write her @ Governor Jennifer Granholm State Capitol P.O. Box 30013 Lansing, Mi. 48909 or call 517.335.7858 and tell her people you want this bill passed. If history repeats itself, some state will repeal it's law this year, so why not have it be Michigan's turn?

the only time there might be an increase is when the ridership goes up because of the repeal. but, the increase will be minimal if the state of michigan uses our motorcycle plate money to stress motorcyle awareness. they robbed $200,000.00 of it from the motorcycle safety a couple of years ago, and, gave it to public education. i ask you, what does public education have to do with motorcyle safety ?

Would agreee that it is in everyones best intrest to pass this legislation. After all it would mean that the doctors, insurance companies, some FEDERAL agencies, and "specialists" would be WRONG! what a tragedy, next thing you know a lot more of the states taxpayers are thinking for themselves and not listining to the rest of the sheep.

I can read your post as being both pro-helmet (the doctors aren't all wrong) or pro-choice (people should think for themselves). I think it's probably the latter. If so, let this build on yours.... If you believe that the primary impetus behind motorcycle helmet requirements is rider safety, I think that you're giving the safety police too much credit. As a rider, I can tell you that motorcycle helmets represent a significant nuisance factor. Because they're such a bother to many, fewer guys buy bikes (on a per-capita basis) and those who do ride them less often. As a result, the net total fatalities and injuries are reduced. When I was a Michigan resident, I chose to drive a convertible instead of a motorcycle. One of my primary considerations was the fact that a helmet was mandated on the motorcycle, but I could be relatively free and easy in the car. Encouraging that kind of choice -- against riding a motorcycle -- is the real purpose for many in the pro-helmet lobby. Toward that end, pressing a helmet requirement is one way that the safety Nazis can appear to advocate "safety," while achieving their goal of discouraging use.

I am completely pro choice, I am a member and a regional officer of ABATE of Michigan. you are correct not all the doctors are wrong There are a few in this state that can see that the statistics don't change in a mandated state vs a pro choice state. I was just being a little sarcastic.

This arguement is an apples to oranges comparision. A seat-belt in a car is like waering a helmet on a bicycle. It probably would give you some protection. Wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is more like wearing a seat-belt on an airplane. In either case if you crash, you screwed. No helmet or seat-belt is going to protect you under those circumstances.

...I failed to recognize yours before I started reading. Similar to the "what a great site," garbage, I've been trying to avoid reading any cut-and-paste junk that ends up posted here. One got through. You really might want to do some research about this -- beyond whatever the DNR might be putting out. Fish kills, water quality and other non-concerns have all been forwarded as justification to go after the anglers. Not just in Michigan, but in other parts of the U.S., Canada and overseas. These arguments haven't held water, so they've staked out a position based on allege harm due to waterfowl lead ingestion. The Canadian Wildlife Association primarily relies on two papers to support it's new and proposed reg's relating to lead sinkers. Both have been shot full of holes. And to just give you one quickie summary of this anti-angler issue: According to Dr. C.D. Ankney, Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biology at the University of Western Ontario, "There is absolutely no evidence that loon populations in Canada are anything by stable and even increasing in some areas." Further, he opined, "Unless [the] Canadian Wildlife Service can show that lead sinker mortality is limiting the size of loon populations, they should turn their attention to something important instead of dithering about something trivial." This was published last year. Hell, common sense ought to tell you that there's something other than conservation going on here. How deep do you think these birds are diving to retrieve lead sinkers? Who is using sinkers in ankle-high water? Are you kidding me? Dither on, my friend.

What does this have to do with motorcycle helmets? Have you been playing heavy contact sports without your helmet?

this stupid law came in just after i got my licence. for years i've been going out of state to ride free. spend my money elsewhere. it would be nice to ride in michigan lidless...if i chose, helmeted....if i chose. after riding 45 years, i think i know whats best for me. all that riding out of state was without a helmet. i'm still here, and, i plan on taking my money out of michigan this riding season every chance i get. sorry governor!!!!

I am neither a Republican or a Democrat. I vote for whoever I feel is best for the job. I also do not like to make a change unless a change is necessary. In other words, if it works, don't fix it. Apparently I'm in the minority here. How Bush got re-elected is beyond me. How Kwame got re-elected is defys all logic. And this morning I heard on the radio that if the election was today that Granholm would carry 53% of the vote! WHAT THE F--- HAS SHE DONE TO DESERVE 53% OF THE VOTE! ? ! What has done that is of any significance? How could this be possible? The answer, people blame the bad economy on Bush and not her. 3 or 4 years ago I may have bought into that, but the economy is recovering in the rest of the nation. Michigan's economy, like our outdated helmet law, is still being left behind. With the rest of the nation recovering Michigan's bad economy can no longer be blamed on the President. We still have the highest unemployment rate despite the rest of the nation's improvement. Therefore it's time for a change at home. Remember, if it works, don't fix it. Well since it's not working, the time to fix it is now! Vote for DeVos this November. We're already have the worst economy in the country, he CAN'T do worse!

He can't do worse, AND at least we would have helmet choice. Otherwise we're screwed for another 4 years. Then our BEST CASE SENARIO would be helmet choice in 2011! ! ! WAKE UP MICHIGAN! ! !

...he is one of the richest men in Michigan. A man with his kind of money cannot be bribed by any special interest groups (like AAA and the other insurance companies). I feel that he is our best hope for a truly FREE Michigan.

is...she thinks that goverment creates jobs. well, it's not so. the private sector creates jobs. goverment trys to find ways to either tax it to death, or, put so many regulations on that it can hardly survive. so with slow growth from either taxes, or regulations no additional people get hired. thus slow economy. the helmet law....yes, we know that it will bring in $$. we know how may millions florida brought in, in just three years. we also know alot of people from surounding states have called, wrote, e-mailed the governor about this intrusive law. i have. when is your turn ????????

The thing that pisses me off to no end is that I'm 41 tears old, and Jenny feels she has to protect me from myself. I've made it this far in life....I really don't need someone telling me I'm safer being FORCED to wear a helmet, how bad and dangerous guns are, or how bad cigarettes are for me. You can throw all the statistics or arguments you want at me, I should still be able to do what I want to do, not what someone else thinks is best for me......I'm not a little kid, and I already have a mother. I think alot of Michigan's problems are due to the lack of testosterone in Lansing. If she (Jenny) has 53% of the vote right now, it has to be from all the other mommies, because I can't believe any real man in his right mind would vote for her.....now go clean up your room.

"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -- RONALD REAGAN (1986)

It is shocking to see that she is slightly favored, however at this point in ' 92 Bush Sr. was favored by the exact same number (53%) as Granholm is now, and he didn't get re-elected. Not to mention that a year earlier, during the first gulf war, he had a 91% approval rating. Granholm has never had that high of an approval rating. The problem is, those who are not as politically active as we bikers are, do not know who DeVos is at this point in time. Once summer gets here, we'll have the primary elections. Then the debating and mudslinging and the real fun will begin. Granholm's people will have to try to convince us that she has accomplished something, or anything, during her time as Governor. That won't be an easy task. Not to mention that Michigan's economy is in the toilet. Remember Bush Sr. had a 91% approval rating, the economy took a crap, and one year later Clinton got elected. It's going to be very difficult for Granholm's people to convince us that she can improve our economy after it has been this bad her entire time in office. Hopefully the majority of Michigan voters will see through the b.s. and not get duped into re-electing her. It is alarming to see that she is currently favored, however the election is still a long ways away.

Have you been making any more money, or felt any more secure with your job since Granholm has been Governor? Didn't think so! I hope you have enjoyed wearing your helmets these last 4 years. This year, try voting for what you love to do.

Because if he is elected we WILL BE riding helmet free summer of ' 07! Not "maybe" Not "probably" Not "hopefully" Not "more than likely" But we "WILL BE" riding helmet free GUARENTEED! ! ! As for the economy, jobs in Michigan, and everything else either one may claim, who knows? It's all speculation. If it improves, they'll take the credit. If it stays bad, they'll get the blame, wheather they deserve it or not. But one thing is certain, with DeVos at least we will have helmet choice, with Granholm we'll have 4 more years of being forced to wear helmets. I am blue collar, but unless Jenny signs this bill, I will be voting for DeVos!

jenny wants to take care of you. devos will make the tools available to you to take care of yourself. jenny is a former lawyer. devos is a busniessman. jenny wants your money. devos knows how to make money. jenny can operate in the red. devos has to keep his checkbook balanced. ther are alot of differences between the to, but, it's very obvious to me who i want running michigan. it's not the one that wants to take care of me .

Below are 14 quotes linked to their corresponding NHTSA letters taken from NHTSA's website. As you can see, the NHTSA/DOT DOES NOT approve equipment. As such, "DOT Approved" helmets do not exist. So how can folks like those Michigan comply with their law? They can't! Still doubtful? Call NHTSA 202-366-9511. "A DOT sticker does not represent any 'approval' by DOT. We (NHTSA) have no authority to 'approve' or 'disapprove' vehicles or equipment." 8-15-02, Jacqueline Glassman, Chief Counsel NHTSA. "Motorcycle helmets are subject to FMVSS No. 218 (49 CFR 571.218), which specfies performance requirements for helmets to ensure that helmets reduce the likelihood of head injuries in crashes. The DOT symbol on the helmet is a certification by the helmet manufacturer, not the DOT, that the helmet conforms to FMVSS No. 218. The standard does not specify performance requirements for motorcycle helmet visors. Their currently is no FMVSS that applies to visors." 2-11-02, John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel NHTSA. "You also mentioned that 'all the assembly parts are already DOT approved parts'. We do not know what you mean by this statement . The DOT neither approves nor disapproves parts. You must not use this statement in any manner in connection with your products". 3-21-01, John Womack, Acting Cheif Councel NHTSA. "This term (DOT Approved) has no basis in either fact or law. We have no authority to approve or disapprove items of motor vehicle equipment". 6-26-00, Frank Seals, Chief Counsel NHTSA. "As a matter of law, there is no such thing as 'DOT approved parts'. We (NHTSA) have no authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicles or equipment items". 6-20-00, Frank Seals, Chief Counsel NHTSA. "You use the term 'DOT approved' but we have no authority to approve or disapprove vehicle lighting equipment, and such language is improper". 6-5-00, Frank Seals, Chief Counsel NHTSA. "NHTSA neither approves, disapproves, endorses, tests, nor grants clearances for products prior to their introduction into the retail market". 3-23-99, Frank Seals, Chief Counsel NHTSA. "DOT has no authority to approve or disapprove ANY equipment item (including motorcycle helmets)". 9-22-98, Frank Seals, Chief Counsel NHTSA. "DOT has no authority to approve or disapprove items of equipment, nor are there any DOT licensing requirements". 5-13-98, John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel NHTSA. "DOT itself has no authority to approve or disapprove any item of equipment and the term 'DOT approved' has NO MEANING and should not be used". 4-8-98, John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel NHTSA. "Applicable laws do not provide authority for DOT approval of vehicles or vehicle equipment items". 6-16-97, John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel NHTSA. "The phrase 'DOT/SAE approved' should never be used. DOT does not have authority to approve or disapprove motor vehicle equipment. In cases where DOT/SAE approved appears on auxiliary lamps and their packages, the marking is meaningless". 1-8-97, John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel NHTSA. "You have used the term 'DOT approved' equipment which reflects common misconception that the agency approves equipment. The agency has no authority to approve or disapprove any vehicle or equipment items". 5-9-96, Samuel Dubbin, Chief Counsel, NHTSA. "Neither NHTSA nor the DOT approves, endorses, certifies, or gives assurances of compliance of any product". 5-18-94, John Womack, Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA. As you can clearly see Michigan's helmet law, as written, is completely unenforcable. For more information log on to; www.bikersrights.com/nhtsa/notapproved.html

On February 6, 2006 James "Doc" Reichenbach II, President of ABATE of Florida and Chairman of the Board for the National Coalition of Motorcyclists, released the following economic impact report covering the 5 years since Florida modified their mandatory helmet law to exclude adult riders 21 and older: 278,331 new motorcycles at a low average of $10,000 each = $2,783,310,000 Sales tax on motorcycles at 6% = $166,998,600 Registration fees for motorcycles = $10,047,749 Change of title = $8,280,347 Total = $2,968,636,696 "This is almost $3 BILLION dollars in 5 years that has been put into the economy of the state of Florida. This is a low figure as it does not include antique motorcycles or mopeds that are licensed in Florida," said Doc. "Over $180 MILLION went directly into the state treasury for the general fund, and this does not include the tourist money that has increased because of Florida being a freedom of choice state." In the past 5 years over $2.5 BILLION has been spent at "Bike Week" and "Biketoberfest." For the report, the motorcycle registrations were compiled fron the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The tax and fees came from the Florida license and registration bureau. From July 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 motorcycle registrations in Florida went from 195,306 to 473,637 which represents a total of a 143% increase. "I hope these figures will help anyone who has heard the bad publicity that has come out of our amended law," said Doc. "The motorcyclists have certainly paid their fair share into the Florida economy and it can be done in EVERY state." So why not Michigan?

congradulations abate of florida for fighting for your rights, and, the forsight how to help the states economy. as a life long 55 year old michigan resident, i envy your " FREEDOM OF CHOICE ". unfortunatly communisum is still alive and well in this " POOR" state of michigan. i will be leaving friday, 24 th, feb. for three weeks in your great state. my harley and i, " no helmet" and, a few thousand dollars to help the states economy. not to mention exercise my " choice " to ride without a helmet. there is light at the end of the tunnel though. dick de vos will be running for governor in november. he supports freedoms that have been repressed in michigan for years. vote !!!

According by a study done in the state of New York helmet laws, or lack there of, make no difference in the overall numbers of fatalities per bike. You are only trading off the cause of death. New York has had a helmet law since 1967 (2 years longer than Michigan). In that year New Yorks ridership decreased 43% from 1966. Therefore the total number of motorcycle fatalities dropped. The number of head injury related fatalities per bike also dropped. These numbers were the only ones used to justify the law. However what was not mentioned was the percentage of fatalities PER BIKE had not changed. What was also not mentioned was that while head injuries did decrease, neck injuries dramatically increased. The added weight of a helmet during an impact was snapping necks like twigs. Basically head related injuries/fatalities were traded off for neck related injuries/fatalities. Dead is dead! What difference does the cause of death make? Since ridership decreased by 43%, motorcycle dealerships and supply stores took a big financial hit, and jobs were lost as a result. The only thing the helmet law accomplished was a weakened economy. So therefore if Michigan repealed its helmet law it would have the opposite effect of New York. This has been proven in Florida and Pennsylvania and it will work here. Let's repeal the damn law already!

WEDNESDAY JUNE 7th NOON, CAPITOL BUILDING, LANSING BE THERE!! MAKE IT HAPPEN!! LET THIS YEAR BE THE YEAR!!

WEDNESDAY JUNE 7th NOON, CAPITOL BUILDING, LANSING BE THERE!! MAKE IT HAPPEN!! LET THIS YEAR BE THE YEAR!!

WEDNESDAY JUNE 7th NOON, CAPITOL BUILDING, LANSING BE THERE!! MAKE IT HAPPEN!! LET THIS YEAR BE THE YEAR!!

I am a policeman. I am very active in the community. I am registered. I DO vote. I will vote for DeVos and urge everyone that I talk with to do the same. Lets send Jenny back to Canada. Its time for her to go.

It's time....Register to vote. Get 3 others to do the same.....Lets send Jenny back to Canada. VOTE DEVOS!!! Let freedom ring.

VOTE FOR DEVOS!!!!!!!!!!

Let's cut a whole lot of this stuff down to something simple and basic - something easy to follow and understand - something easy to remember and repeat correctly... Fact - To comply with government standards, a motorcycle helmet must withstand an impact of less than 126 foot pounds. Fact - The average adult male can throw a punch that delivers between 100 and 190 foot pounds of impact. Fact - A professional boxer in the heavyweight category can deliver a punch exceeding 300 foot pounds of impact. Logical Conclusion - An approved motorcycle helmet is designed to protect the wearer from an impact of less than that of the punch of the average adult male. Extrapolation - A helmet will absolutely save your life only if you have a physical abnormality that would allow for the punch of the average high school junior or senior to kill you in a school-yard brawl. Fact - The human neck is perfectly designed, and trained throughout a lifetime of use, to hold the human head through an impact of up to 80 gravities of impact. That means if your head weighs the average 9 pounds, your neck can withstand the impact of 740 foot pounds, which translates as up to 60 mph, depending on directionality and type of impact. The skull itself is capable of withstanding far greater impact, again depending on the type and directionality of the impact. Fact - Adding the 6+ pounds of helmet to the head, and increase of 66% in supported weight) significantly reduces the impact absorbing capabilities of the neck. Fact - A helmeted person is at significantly greater risk of neck injury at any given speed or force of impact, when all other factors are equal. (For a better understanding of this, investigate the HANS Device) Logical Conclusion - You are at least 66% more likely to suffer significant cervical spine or neck injury while wearing a helmet during any given impact, when all other factors are equal. The percentage is actually considerably higher than 66%, but I said I'd keep this simple, so I won't get into the physics of mechanics and impact. Extrapolation - If you were involved in a motorcycle accident while wearing a helmet, and didn't suffer significant neck injury, it is very unlikely that you would have suffered significant head injury/trauma without a helmet. Fact - The average six foot tall person's head achieves a higher velocity during a standing fall than an approved helmet is designed to withstand. Fact - Proponents of helmet laws make big noise about the fact that motorcycle fatalities increased by 11% in Florida during the 5 years after the repeal of the helmet law. What they don't want people to know, and work very hard to keep very quiet is the fact that motorcycle registrations increased by 20% during that same time frame, and motorcycle tourism increased by roughly 43%. In other words, fatalities decreased significantly during the oft quoted time period. Fact - By digging a bit into the studies oft quoted by the NHTSA, and many of the other alphabet soup groups, we discover that motorcycle helmets MAY have prevented injury in only .46% of motorcycle accidents. 46 injuries out of every 10,000 MIGHT have been prevented. That's injuries, not fatalities. Injuries include bumps, scratches, etc. Fact - And, an odd fact at that - By digging even more, we find that the numbers are the same for people that MAY have lived had they been wearing a helmet. That is to say, of 10,000 fatalities, 46 MIGHT not have died had they been wearing a helmet. It's actually 459 out of 100,000, but that's being a bit nit picky. Fact - Contrary to oft repeated urban myth, NHTSA's numbers also show that fewer people die when they don't wear helmets than when they do. I know, you're just chomping at the bit for an explanation of that one. Unfortunately, since the numbers go against the party line, they've made a real study of not making a study of this "oddity". I'd venture a theory, or two, but that's not what this is about. This is about facts. Fact - The NHTSA also claims that unhelmeted riders create a 5% additional burden in medical expenses when injured. What they don't mention is that this is not a standardized cost. They simply took the total, without accounding for variations of costs at differing facilities. The actual difference when these variations are accounted for is insignificant at .043%. Fact - Refering to the previous, what they also fail to make significant mention of is the fact that helmeted riders who paid for their own care had a 19% higher standardized cost than non-helmeted riders. Fact - Of the average two million traumatic brain injuries sustained each year in this nation, 780 of them are attributable to motorcycle riding. Half a million are attributable to automobile use. Fact - Of the various causes of accidents, fatigue is always very high on the list, depending on the study referenced. Adding 66+% to the weight the neck is required to hold is an absolute guarantee of increased fatigue. Ok, that's enough of that. Time for me to hit the sack. I need the rest. Tennessee's still a helmet state, too. *sigh*

Amen brother, maybe on her way back through the tunnel she could stop and pick up Kilwami and take him with her.

I have 27 years of accident investigation experience. I have concluded that helmets do little if any good in preventing death in a accident over 25 mph. Anyone that says anything different does not know what they are talking about. If you want to wear a helmet, wear one. If you don't want to wear one YOU SHOULD NOT be forced to........

I ride a sport bike. I don't wear a racing suit all the time, its not necessary. I do wear a helmet all the time, I like my face and would prefer to keep it looking as it does. But to lump all sport bike riders together like that is incorrect. That'd be like me saying all the people I see driving cruisers are just hopping from bar to bar getting drunk then riding home. While I do know cruiser riders that do this, it doesn't account for all of them. Let's keep the generalizations out of this because there are always bad apples.

I want a sticker to come with all mandatory helmets stating that If I wear a helmet it will GUARANTEE my survival. What? You cant guarantee my safety with a helmet?? Then BACK OFF and let us who chose to ride free,ride free.Simple solution.

i can believe i'm still alive. two weeks in florida, 1500 miles, all with " NO HELMET ". thanks again to jeb bush for signing that helmet repeal law. it's amazing, some people still chose to wear them, BUT, it's their choice. someday when michigan gets out of the dark ages, we again will have personal freedoms restored. oh yeah, i spent a few thousand $$$ to florida's economy, not to mention the other states i drove thru for fuel, motels, food, etc. sorry jenny, you didn't any of it!!!