Michigan Votes Forum

 Why not add to the bill a requirement that we (taxpayers, medical institutions etc.) will not be responsible to pay for the medical expenses and raising of the cyclists family if he/she sustains injuries that could have been prevented by wearing an approved helmet. Responsibility is the key here.

I have yet to see in any of these bills where motorcyclists are held responsible for the costs of injuries or the costs of raising their familiy should they be killed or disabled.. Maybe next we could repeal the seat belt laws for children and adults.

I would think that Mr. LeBlanc would consider all the medical professionals that vote. You know the ones that will have to treat the head injuries resulting from this proposed legisltation. Considering that notable the majority of Medical Organizations has opposed this in the past with MI and other states.

 Arguing children's seatbelts and adult choice on helmets is comparing apples and oranges.  Certainly, they are both meant to prevent or limit injury.  Children, however, are not able to assess risk and make decisions for themselves, they need that done for them (I would prefer the parent rather than the state).  Adults on motorcycles are capable of assessing risk and making an informed decision.

The question on the table is freedom, not safety.  If we you are genuinely interested in safety you would have pedestrians don safety gear, more pedestrians are killed annually than motorcyclists.

About 5,000 pedestrians are killed.  http://legalcatch.wordpress.com/2008/03/18/pedestrian-accident-statistics/

About 4500 motorcyclists were killed.  http://legalcatch.wordpress.com/?s=motorcycle+accident+statistics

Of those 4500, not all were riding without a helmet.  From these stats we can conclude that unhelmeted motorcyclists are but a fraction of deaths compared to pedestrians.

If you are concerned about saving lives, or concerned about paying bills for the families of persons killed - focus on pedestrian safety, you'll get much more bang for your buck.  From your argument, pedestrians should be your focus area.  Unless, of course, you feel that by mandating the wearing of safety gear you would be imposing upon the freedoms of pedestrians.

I agree with rabidog, the issue is adult choice, although I would not agree parents are the best decision makers when it comes to children's safety. The collective wisdom of the people is a better choice there.

I do not agree the issue is freedom. No one's freedom is at stake by mandating helmets, the same as mandating safety features on cars.  Adult choice is the issue. Adults should be able to make bad choices, as well as good choices, as long as their choice does not result in the harming of anyone else.

The issue of medical cost could be addressed if we mandated riders who opt out of helmet wearing have a sufficient amount of health insurance to cover the extra risk they take by not wearing a helmet. Mandatory health insurance is coming eventually for everyone.

I don't think comparing the number of pedestrian's killed to the number of motorcyclist killed has much bearing on the question of helmet use. What is the total number of pedestrians compared to the total number of people riding motorcycles? This would need to be known to make a valid comparison. I would presume the major cities have, on any given day, thousands, if not millions more pedestrians than motorcycle riders.

 Good conversation, gypsy.  I'm a bit confused about a point you make - you state that the issue is adult choice, yet you do not agree that the issue is freedom.  In my mind they are the same, how are they not, to you?

I already have insurance on my motorcycle.  It will cover both the machine and injury.  FWIW, I purchase more than the amount currently mandated.  The point here is that coverage is already mandated.  In earlier discussions on the topic we noted that insurance companys will mandate a premium commensurate with their risk (many factors go into that, helmet choice would be just one).  As such, for a person in a helmet choice state to purchase insurance, the medical cost is built into the premium.  Therefore, assuming a person purchases insurance, they automatically have the sufficient amount of coverage.

You make a point on the pedestrians.  My point, however is neither the ratio of pedestrians to pedestrians killed, nor the ratio of riders to riders killed.  My point was the bottom line - the number of persons killed at each activity.  If a person wanted to reduce the number of deaths, certainly, the effort toward reducing pedestrian deaths would be most beneficial for the effort.  The agrument typically turns into not wanting to pay more insurance (stats show that states who rescind helmet laws do not raise rates, and states who reinstate helmet laws do not reduce rates), but it is more of a 'feel good' thing to tax a person for the freedom of not wearing a helmet.  As I stated earlier, we will automatically have the sufficient amount of coverage when we purchase insurance.

We could take the 'extra health insurance' concept a bit further as well - how much extra health insurance is a smoker required to purchase?  The activity of smoking (a personal choice, ie, freedom) is detremental in all cases, and is an undisputible contributor to more deaths than any other activity.

I agree with you that we are all responsible to make choices, even if others believe they are bad choices.  Freedom has risk.  The freedom to choose to use tobacco (always with negative consequences) has a risk that is shared equally among the folks, even with those who do not participate in tobacco use.  Freedom to choose to ride without a helmet (seldom having negative consequences) has risk that should be shared equally among the folks as well, even among those who do not participate in motorcycling.

 Just curious, Rabidog.  How many people are seriously injured in motorcycle accidents, to the point where large amounts of money are needed for their care?  And especially, how many of those sustain head injuries?    There's not much monetary cost to a dead motorcyclist, whether or not they were wearing a helmet.  The cost is from those who are injured, hospitalized for months, and/or require months or years of rehab/therapy or life in a long-term care facility.  I don't care how much extra insurance a motorcyclist purchases, it's the ones that LIVE with permanent injury or disability who do impact society.  All of our insurance rates go up because the insurance companies have to pay more...plus our tax dollars are impacted as well.

 Good question, I'm sorry I don't have the answer.  Your concern appears to be paying for people's long-term care due to a motorcycle accident where the person lives.  I'm just not understanding the logic that wearing a helmet lowers health care cost.  A helmet is immaterial as to whether the accident happens in the first place, the helmet simply mitigates the injury during the accident.  So, the accident rate will not change, but with more riders wearing helmets more riders involved in accidents will live, and they will live with permanent injury or disability (think blunt force trauma to the torso).  The morbid fact is that if that same person had not been wearing a helmet, the odds are they would have died, thereby lowering the health care costs.  That's less impact to society (read: less money out of your pocket).

This same statistic is available with the smoking debate - when fewer and fewer people smoke, health care costs go up.  Healthier people take much longer to succumb to illness and old age than do smokers.  Smokers die with much less protracted time in health care.  So while it is good that we try to eliminate smoking to imrove health, the unintended consequence is more people living longer, and dying more slowly - thereby needing more health care as they grow older.

And help me out with the tax dollar thing - I'm not at all sure how you not wearing a helmet costs me more tax dollars.

Rabidog:

you state that the issue is adult choice, yet you do not agree that the issue is freedom.  In my mind they are the same, how are they not, to you?

Freedom  allows us to buy and ride motorcycles. With all freedoms come responsibility. We should have the right to choose to be responsible for our own safety, as long as we don't endanger others.

Does your insurance include PIP, personal injury protection? If so, is there a limit to it's maximum payout? Riders at this time are not required to have PIP.

You cannot ignore the fact that only 500 more pedestrians are killed annually than motorcycle riders, when there are millions more pedestrians than motorcycle riders. To do so would be disingenuous.

Insurance rates are determined by many factors; local, experience of riders, riders driving records, riders age, type of motorcycle, amount of protection and type being purchased, etc.. I think you would have a difficult time proving helmet laws are a determining factor at all in setting insurance rates.

I like your analogy with smokers. They too make a choice to live a riskier life. Maybe that's why some of them smoke filtered cigarettes. Sort of like a helmet on a cigarette.

 You say that comparing children's seatbelts and adult choice on helmets is comparing apples and oranges, then you compare motorcyclists and pediestrians? LOL. Tell me, How many pedestrians are there compared to motorcyclists at any given time. As a matter of fact, all mobile persons including motorcyclists are pedestrians at one time or another including motorcyclists, but not all pedestrians are motorcyclists. Given any motorized transportation, motorcycles are the most dangerous form by the mile, or if comparing them to pedestrians, by the hour or mile. I have no problem with motorcyclists not wearing helmets. They know what the contents of their skull and their familys are worth. I just don't want to have to pay for their medical expenses, raise their family, or pay to keep them in a vegetative state for injuries that could have been prevented if they had used the safety equipment available. Add personal responsibility for these items to the bill and I will become a strong supporter.

PS-and not all motorcyclist that had head injuries while wearing a helmet, were wearing an Snell or DOT approved helmet. DOT and Snell stickers are available for sticking on any helmet at some motorcycle shops.

As a health and safety advocate I am appalled at this legislation. Michigan has a law that works. Leave it alone! As a parent, I am concerned about the message adults who choose unsafe behaviors i.e.; not wearing a helmet, drinking and driving, not wearing a seat belt, reckless driving, or speeding etc.are are giving to our children.The benefits of wearing helmets is long proven. Parents who are trying to get their kids to wear bicycle helmets, seatbelts and operate machinery in a safe manner will agree, seeing adults speeding down the highway on motorcylces in the name of individual freedom without a helmet makes their job more difficult.  There is tons and tons of research that proves helmets save lives. Do they save all?  Of course not!  Do seatbelts save us in all cases?  No, but the majority are helped. Tell a child that it is better to have a dead father than a live but injured one.  Please do not repeal the Michigan safety laws that are working. In states that have repealed their helmet laws motorcycle deaths have increased, insurance rates have increased and not just for motorcylists.  Repealing our helmet laws is an unwise decision.  Adults always have the right to choose not wear a helmet legally or not.  Legally condoning an unsafe behavior is like making suicide legal. Does having a law against suicide or assisted suicide stop it? No, but it tells people what we believe is the healthy and wise choice.  Michigan has a responsibility to set an example for other states about safety and as more people ride motorcycles or scooters, due to the economy, repealing any safety law that is working does not make sense.  I have many friends and relatives that are motocyclists, I also enjoy riding. I support helmet use. I want to encourage maintaining the current laws in Michigan to protect our kids and families.  I do not want my loved ones making a choice to be unsafe as they ride or drive.  Safety needs to be our prime concern.  Driving is a privilege and not a right.