Michigan Votes Forum

 i really hate to push this issue, gypsy, but talk to me AFTER you have spoken to your insurance agent. you may post his 'facts' for all to see. i told you to look for these facts from an unimpeachable source, your own insurance agent.

i have a political slant, and may choose to use that slant to 'skew' any statistics i would show. you contacting your insurance agent keeps my 'slant and skew' out of your figures. pure facts from the source. if you will not get your facts there, you are afraid of what the facts really are.

now, do you really want to see my 'slanted' facts, or your insurance agent's 'pure' facts?

 

A very obvious attempt at trying to get out of proving your outlandish statements. I am not making the claim that insurance companies are charging less in states where helmets are not mandated, you are. I am in fact in support of this bill. If you can back up what you say with verifiable prove, great. I will still be in support of this bill. Just don't try and con me into proving your outrageous statements.

 Time to stop arguing, gypsy.  It is obvious that he doesn't get the point.  No matter how many ways it is presented, he has only one (non)answer.  He is ignorant of the truth, refuses to acknowledge facts, and he is wrong.  Let's let it be and move on.  He is correct that insurance is cheaper in some other states, it is also more expensive in others.  Rates are also cheaper in other communitys right here in Michigan.  That being said, his assertion that helmet choice states have cheaper insurance because of helmet choice cannot hold water.

As for your position, gypsy, I really respect the fact that you can understand and support freedom, even though you believe we're a bunch of buffaoons for riding lidless.  Thanks for your selfless stance.

Thank you rabid, although we may not agree on all issues, it is refreshing to hear a sensible voice.

 how is it that two 'helmet choice' states were cheaper than michigan? if motorcyclists were splattering their brains all over the highways, it would cost more. but it doesn't. i told you, and i tell everybody to ask your own insurance agent. get the facts from a reliable source, not from a 'slanted' or 'biased' source.

the doom and gloom predicted by the left for helmetless ridership, like the predictions of mass carnage in the streets when concealed weapon permits were issued, have not come to pass. several states that have had their 'helmet choice' taken back by their legislatures are using those very insurance cost statistics to win their battle for 'helmet choice'.

large numbers of non-riders can certainly trample rider's rights, and they have. especially when given intentionally false or misleading information. i sent you to the only authorative source for the 'straight skinny' on actual costs of riding helmetless.

i'm sure that you didn't go to your insurance company's site and look for a quote, but you still should. it will be very enlightening.

Getting quotes for motorcycle insurance cheaper in a helmetless state is meaningless. Motorcycle insurance, like car insurance, insures the vehicle, for damage you may cause to others, and the driver. It will vary for the kind of bike, the area you live in, urban or rural, the experience of the driver, the amount of deductible the driver wants, and the amount of insurance the driver wants on himself. The only factor having to do with helmets is the amount of medical coverage the driver wants on himself. This medical coverage is secondary to any other medical coverage he may have. Some helmetless states require riders to carry a minimum amount of medical coverage if they ride helmetless. Riding without a helmet does not increase your chances of an accident, but it does increase your chances of serious injury or death if you are in an accident.

So if you're trying to make a point that repealing the helmet law will make your insurance cheaper, you're wrong. If you make the point it is your right to choose to ride helmetless, you're right.

 the point is, all the doom and gloom predicted for 'helmet choice' states hasn't happened. it couldn't have or rates would skyrocket. they haven't, as evidenced by lower rates in helmet choice states. bad science, bad law.

You still don't get it. Helmets are to protect the rider. Motorcycle insurance is to insure the motorcycle, and the damage it may cause to another vehicle, property, and people in an accident. Wearing a helmet or not doesn't change that risk.The medical insurance you buy on yourself can be as expensive as you want coverage for. It's secondary anyway, to any other medical insurance you have. So the insurance issue is not an argument either for or against helmet use. It's irrelevant, other than some states insist you buy extra medical coverage for yourself if you ride helmetless, so that would increase your insurance cost. The difference in insurance prices in different states, whether they have helmet laws or not, is because of many factors not related to helmet usage.

 no, you don't get it. insurance rates would be higher if accident rates and severity were higher without helmets. and you also forget the 'bottom line'. it is not the job of government to make decisions for me. it is my job to make decisions for the government. we are a government of the governed. not a totalitarian state run by our current governor. her performing a job that is not the proper function of government is tyranny. her making decisions that are best left to the citizen is tyranny.  

I think the best way for you to oppose this tyranny is to ride without a helmet, and get the cheapest insurance you can find.

 no, the best way to oppose this tyranny is to work to have this, and all other laws that take rights from citizens repealed. next would be to work to remove those who impose this tyranny voted out as soon as possible, impeached if possible, recalled if necessary. all riding without a helmet now would do is make me a petty criminal. it would do nothing to curb the tyranny.

I am trying to take you seriously, but it is becoming harder with your every post. I will soldier on. We are in agreement on this bill. The helmet mandate should be repealed.

If you are not happy with your representative, by all means don't vote for him, impeach, or recall him, if a majority of the voters in your district are in favor of those actions.

If you want to call the helmet law tyranny, ok. But according to the dictionary, that is not accurate.

Tyranny: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.

Webster.

 totalitarianism is where absolute power is vested in a single ruler. tyranny is where any ruler abrogates the rights of the citizens.

Tyranny: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler.

Webster.

You'll have to take that up with Mr. Webster.

 there are benevolent monarchies, even benevolent dictatorships. but any leader who usurps rights and abrogates freedom is a tyrant. mr. webster has been known to be wrong in the past, especially when political correctness rears it's ugly head.

 let's try this one.

tyranny: dominance through threat of punishment and violence; despotism.

 or perhaps this...

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

 Folks, as this conversation has grown away from the debate regarding HB 4028, Repeal of the motorcycle helmet mandate, I kindly ask that you move the discussion to a better suited forum.  Thank you.

 and i guess it does matter which definition you choose...

tyr·an·ny Pronunciation: \ˈtir-ə-nē\ Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural tyr·an·nies Etymology: Middle English tyrannie, from Middle French, from Medieval Latin tyrannia, from Latin tyrannus tyrant Date: 14th century

Research, albeit minimal. I'm impressed.