Michigan news on helmets. . .

[KW]

I don't know if this has been posted yet or not, but the new law is expected to sail through and it's understood the Gov is going to sign it into law. It may even be soon. Here's a link to the latest news;

 http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/06/michigan_senate_repeals_helmet.html

[GreenLantern57]

It always amazes me how many non riders feel they have the right to demand we wear helmets.  Most seem to think it is always the motorcycle at fault. Helmets don't protect you from a rear end when some jack wagon is not paying attention. Or, when you are proceeding through an intersection and some ape decides he can run the damn redlight.  But after all, it is always our fault, they just didn't see us!  

[Grumpy]

Went down at 65 mph 2 years ago, after I was side swiped. Ground through the chin guard and both sides of the helmet were cut into the foam liner. Not a mark on my noggin, I will not ride with out one.

[f6john]

Went down at 65 mph 2 years ago, after I was side swiped. Ground through the chin guard and both sides of the helmet were cut into the foam liner. Not a mark on my noggin, I will not ride with out one.

     That would probably make a believer outa' me too! I have more trouble with the legal issue than whether wearing a helmet is a good idea or not.

[Jabba]

I wear one.  I do not like it being a law.

Too many laws.

Jabba

[Cliff]

I wear one.  I do not like it being a law.

Too many laws.

Jabba

Ditto on all points.

[Chili Pepper]

I heard Snyder was against the no-helmet law but maybe "the nerd" feels he needs to find some kind of constituency now that there's a recall effort building. 

Anyhoo...I've been fortunate to never be involved in a serious accident so maybe that's why I'll probably become one of those who goes without a brain bucket most of the time if it becomes legal to make my choice as an adult.

Now if they would only make celling and driving illegal. Driving ANY vehicle is no time to be multi-tasking. 

[scoot]

The new Law will say "you must be at least 21 yrs old, and carry at least $100,000 personal injury insurance. So, the question of the hour is "How is this going to be enforced"? If you are riding without a lid does that give LEO a reason to stop and check your ID for your age? You gonna carry a copy of you insurance policy so you can show the value of your personal injury? Just another idiodic law to make you think they are on your side.

[ValkFlyer]

I've been down four times in the 38 years I've been riding, once without a helmet.  Never again.....You can talk about freedom all you want...but you may not be talking at all after one poor choice.  Ah but then three always...the fact that you just might turn out looking better than you do now with part of you face missing....naaa! what are the chances?????

[Dubsvalk]

Helmets save lives no matter who is at fault.  The law is there to protect all those who do not ride and are forced to pay for all the medical expenses of those injured who do not want to protect themselves.  I could care less whether or not there is a law or wheather someone else doesn't wear a helmet.  Just don't make me have to pay the medical bills.  I wear a full face helmet and hope that it never has to protect me.  It's like our fire departments; I hope they never have to put out a fire or save lives but am glad they are there if needed.  Just one person's humble opinion.
Dubs

[solo1]

I believe that you should have a choice to wear or not to wear.  I wear a full face helmet.

However, if this becomes a law, it is a slippery slope which many won't realize.  Buying 'special' insurance is an admission that riding is dangerous and that the motorcyclist is a 'risk taker'.. 

This would establish a precedence in Michigan and for the FEDS for more legislation.  For example, I'm on Medicare. It would be very easy to deny ANY medical claims because I ride.  It could also open the door for private insurance companies to do the same.  Effectively, it could keep many of us from riding by indirect legislation.  If a trend like this would start, there could be many ramifications

This issue, in general, is far more important than whether we are required to wear a helmet or not.

This is my opinion brought about my distrust of government doing 'what's best' for us.

Tell me I'm wrong, it would be good to hear.

[x]

I wear one.  I do not like it being a law.

Too many laws.

Jabba

I disagree.  Not too many laws.  Rather, a rational approach to controlling the risk and expense of a motorcycle accident.

Look at Grumpy.  Had he not been wearing the helmet, he would have most certainly sustained far larger medical expenses than he did.
 
If he were uninsured/under-insured, then his treatment would have come at taxpayer expense.  Even if he is insured, his additional expenses incurred by not wearing a helmet increase medical costs and thus, premiums for all.
 
Helmet laws are a rational way that the public (aka taxpayer) and those carrying medical insurance protect themselves against those who don't want to wear helmets... I don't want to pay for your stupidity... and not referring to you specifically, Jabba... just those that think there are no consequences beyond their own for not wearing a helmet.

[Devl]

I agree with Scoot here.  Unless they pull over (and they will) everyone riding without one...its an unenforceable law.  Our new Governor is sinking in popularity and his buddies are big Insurance.  Yes, you will get pulled over, so expect it.  Have a copy of your insurance policy and cycle safety class or proof that you've had your cycle endorsement for over 2 years or you WILL get slammed with a ticket.
We don't like scraping brains and teeth off our road ways up here in Michigan after accidents.  The state would have to hire another coupe of people to do that, and its not in our budget!!  lolol

[3fan4life]

I disagree.  Not too many laws.  Rather, a rational approach to controlling the risk and expense of a motorcycle accident.

Look at Grumpy.  Had he not been wearing the helmet, he would have most certainly sustained far larger medical expenses than he did.
 
If he were uninsured/under-insured, then his treatment would have come at taxpayer expense.  Even if he is insured, his additional expenses incurred by not wearing a helmet increase medical costs and thus, premiums for all.
 
Helmet laws are a rational way that the public (aka taxpayer) and those carrying medical insurance protect themselves against those who don't want to wear helmets... I don't want to pay for your stupidity... and not referring to you specifically, Jabba... just those that think there are no consequences beyond their own for not wearing a helmet.

While you are not wrong (yes I actually said that) the line of logic that you are using is very dangerous indeed.

That is the same logic that opens the door for Government Intrusion into "ALL" areas of our lives.

"See SOLO1 's post".   

[John Schmidt]

I won't ride without one, never have, never will. I always figured  helmets(seatbelts also) are a lot less restrictive than a wheelchair.

[Trynt]

I appose helmet laws in principle, but wish MN had one for selfish reasons. Despite endless talks, pleading and lectures etc. my two 20 something sons ride without one. To my embarrassment I find I would like the state to do my parenting for me in this instance. 

[Jack]

I wear a helmet and jacket always and usually gloves and boots.  I know for a fact I would be dead now if I had not.  I didn't for years but I wasn't as smart then.

[x]

I disagree.  Not too many laws.  Rather, a rational approach to controlling the risk and expense of a motorcycle accident.

Look at Grumpy.  Had he not been wearing the helmet, he would have most certainly sustained far larger medical expenses than he did.
 
If he were uninsured/under-insured, then his treatment would have come at taxpayer expense.  Even if he is insured, his additional expenses incurred by not wearing a helmet increase medical costs and thus, premiums for all.
 
Helmet laws are a rational way that the public (aka taxpayer) and those carrying medical insurance protect themselves against those who don't want to wear helmets... I don't want to pay for your stupidity... and not referring to you specifically, Jabba... just those that think there are no consequences beyond their own for not wearing a helmet.

While you are not wrong (yes I actually said that) the line of logic that you are using is very dangerous indeed.

That is the same logic that opens the door for Government Intrusion into "ALL" areas of our lives.

"See SOLO1 's post".   

3f4l,

I don't consider it an intrusion.  I consider government action in cases like this as the means by which responsible persons protect themselves from irresponsible persons.

For example, I am fine with laws that prevent lead in paint and in children's toys.  Cheap buggers could care less if they poison our youth, they just want to make money.
 
I am fine with laws that force corporations to not pollute... corporate bottom lines will never make this a voluntary activity.
 
I would be fine if our government would pass laws that penalize companies for sending jobs overseas.  I don't know if this would be an 'intrusion' but I d*mn sure know that companies that benefit from being located in the greatest company in the world are irresponsible when the only consideration is the bottom line, with no concern about the welfare of the country or its citizens.

[designer]

Its a choice, and should be a choice.  glad to see the government push it off on the insurance companies to enforce it.  if you want to ride without one then pay up so the rest of us don't have to.

[Momz]

If MI does repeal the mandatory helmet law, it only means that riders will have a choice to ride without a helmet.

A repeal does not make it illegal to wear a lid if you so choose, it does not make it mandatory to go without.
 
There have been M/C user groups that feel that it would outlaw helmet useage,....defineatly not true!

We in MI are surrounded by states that have no mandatory helmet laws and the fatality rate and insurance rates are no higher than Michigans.

Rider training and awareness programs are the most effective way to reduce M/C accidents.

My wife (Damselfly) is currenytly a certified MSF rider coach and I am an Awareness instructor.

Get the real facts; join the AMA, ABATE, and the MRF.

[KW]

I view this as a ‘power of government’ argument and NOT as a ‘what is safer’ debate. I DIRECTLY affect no one else if I choose not to wear a helmet. The higher insurance cost is a bogus argument – at least here in Michigan. We’re a ‘no fault’ state and you will be covered regardless of the type of wreck or the vehicle you’re driving. I guess I also have problems with basing any law strictly on a perceived possible monetary cost. And, if you buy into the “higher cost for all” argument then the logical next step is not to allow motorcycling at all. Man, what a slippery slope that way of thinking is. . .  but, I suspect that "if" some of our more enlightened friends here are ‘honest liberals’ (oxymoron) their list of what ‘We the People” shouldn’t be allowed to do would be a lengthy one. 

(Yeah. . . I just made it more political than it already was.  It’s been a few weeks and I was starting to go through withdraws.)

Solo; several ‘no helmet’ states already have an ‘insurance clause’ including Florida which mandates a minimum amount of healthcare insurance if you intend to ride sans helmet. Interestingly; if you WEAR a helmet in Florida you’re NOT required to have ANY healthcare insurance.  If I’m wrong, one of my Florida brothers please correct me

For the record; I will still wear a helmet 90% of the time. The other 10% should be my choice.  

[tank_post142]

Florida:no helmet, 21 yrs old , $10,000 in medical coverage. wear a helmet and there are no insurance requirements to ride or license your bike at all. the ticket has to be incidental to another infraction.(you cannot be pulled over just to check your insurance)

[designer]

No fault means the state or insurance company picks up the ticket.... means higher taxes or insurance rates. 

Compared with cars, motorcycles are an especially dangerous form of travel. The federal government estimates that per mile traveled, the number of deaths on motorcycles in 2007 was about 37 times the number in cars.1 There were 4,281 fatalities among motorcyclists in 2009 — more than double the number in 1997 but down from 2008, when 5,112 people were killed. That was the highest number of motorcyclists killed in one year since the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration began collecting fatal motor vehicle crash data in 1975. In contrast, both 2008 and 2009 marked record lows for passenger vehicle occupant deaths.

Motorcycles often have excessive performance capabilities, including especially rapid acceleration and high top speeds. They are less stable than cars in emergency braking and less visible to other motorists. Motorcyclists are more prone to crash injuries than car occupants because motorcycles are unenclosed, leaving riders vulnerable to contact with hard road surfaces. This is why wearing a helmet, as well as other protective clothing, is so important. Helmets are the principal countermeasure for reducing crash-related head injuries, a leading cause of death among unhelmeted riders.2 Many countries have laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear helmets, but fewer than half of the U.S. states have such laws.


1 How effective are helmets?
Helmets decrease the severity of head injuries, the likelihood of death, and the overall cost of medical care. They are designed to cushion and protect riders' heads from the impact of a crash. Just like safety belts in cars, helmets cannot provide total protection against head injury or death, but they do reduce the incidence of both. NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of crash fatality by 37 percent.2 Norvell and Cummings found a 39 percent reduction in the risk of death after adjusting for age, gender, and seat position.3 Helmets are highly effective in preventing brain injuries, which often require extensive treatment and may result in lifelong disability. In the event of a crash, unhelmeted motorcyclists are three times more likely than helmeted riders to suffer traumatic brain injuries.2 A recent literature review estimated that helmets are 42 percent effective at preventing death and 69 percent effective at preventing head injuries.4 While no real-world crash studies have yet evaluated the effectiveness of novelty helmets, or helmets that do not meet federal performance standards for preventing injury or death, NHTSA laboratory tests suggest that head injuries are much more likely with these helmets than with ones certified to the U.S. Department of Transportation standard.5 A recent study evaluated the effectiveness of different styles of helmets, including half-coverage, open-face, and full-face.6 Crash-involved riders wearing half-coverage helmets were twice as likely to suffer traumatic brain injuries than riders wearing open-face or full-face helmets.

[3fan4life]

3f4l,

I don't consider it an intrusion.  I consider government action in cases like this as the means by which responsible persons protect themselves from irresponsible persons.

For example, I am fine with laws that prevent lead in paint and in children's toys.  Cheap buggers could care less if they poison our youth, they just want to make money.
 
I am fine with laws that force corporations to not pollute... corporate bottom lines will never make this a voluntary activity.
 
I would be fine if our government would pass laws that penalize companies for sending jobs overseas.  I don't know if this would be an 'intrusion' but I d*mn sure know that companies that benefit from being located in the greatest company in the world are irresponsible when the only consideration is the bottom line, with no concern about the welfare of the country or its citizens.

The point s that you make are good ones.

However, they don't relate to the issue of personal freedom.

Here is Solo1 's post (I have highlighted the part that I am directly referring to):

 

I believe that you should have a choice to wear or not to wear.  I wear a full face helmet.

However, if this becomes a law, it is a slippery slope which many won't realize.  Buying 'special' insurance is an admission that riding is dangerous and that the motorcyclist is a 'risk taker'.. 

This would establish a precedence in Michigan and for the FEDS for more legislation.  For example, I'm on Medicare. It would be very easy to deny ANY medical claims because I ride.  It could also open the door for private insurance companies to do the same.  Effectively, it could keep many of us from riding by indirect legislation.  If a trend like this would start, there could be many ramifications

This issue, in general, is far more important than whether we are required to wear a helmet or not.

This is my opinion brought about my distrust of government doing 'what's best' for us.

Tell me I'm wrong, it would be good to hear.

I see how this line of logic can be applied to multiple areas of our lives:

Football is dangerous, so parent's that allow their children to play football should be charged with child endangerment.

Skateboarding is dangerous  so you "must" wear full protective gear to ride a skateboard or be fined. or Why not just do away with skateboards completely.

Hunting is dangerous so let's not allow it.

People can drown when swimming so let's not allow people to go swimming.

Alcohol is dangerous let's pass a constitutional amendment banning it. (Oh wait we did that already, How'd that one work out?)

The list could go on and on and on................

And that is THE PROBLEM.   

[Willow]

I disagree.  Not too many laws.  Rather, a rational approach to controlling the risk and expense of a motorcycle accident.

Look at Grumpy.  Had he not been wearing the helmet, he would have most certainly sustained far larger medical expenses than he did.
 
If he were uninsured/under-insured, then his treatment would have come at taxpayer expense.  Even if he is insured, his additional expenses incurred by not wearing a helmet increase medical costs and thus, premiums for all.
 
Helmet laws are a rational way that the public (aka taxpayer) and those carrying medical insurance protect themselves against those who don't want to wear helmets... I don't want to pay for your stupidity... and not referring to you specifically, Jabba... just those that think there are no consequences beyond their own for not wearing a helmet.

Although your argument is logically defensible, I object to it because the exact same argument could be used to prohibit entirely motorcycling rather than only mandating certain safety gear.  Applied in that manner it may make even more sense.  In the case of Grumpy's accident, it's likely that had he been in a cage it would have been a minor fender bender hardly worth registering as a real "motor vehicle accident".

To some who always wear helmets the choice of one who does not is stupidity.  To some who do not ride, the choice of all who do is stupidity.  I'm sure you can see my concern.

Where is the study to show how much helmets would reduce injuries for automobile passengers in crashes?  I'm fully convinced it would be significant.

I would have quoted designer's post, but I didn't want to repeat that much verbiage.  While the points made are, no doubt, accurate in regards to half coverage helmets versus full face helmets, they leave me with a question.  How many of us have noticed that almost no police departments equip their motorcycle officers with full face helmets?  In fact, the half coverage helmet is almost universally part of the motorcycle policeman's gear.  

I'm against mandatory helmet laws.

[solo1]

Having been employed both in the medical field and environmental testing.  I can relate to the laws of Physics and the effects on an unprotected head. G forces of upwards of 300 -400 G's can be easily exerted on the head and brain in an impact.  Try this.  Simply walk through a doorway  with your head sideways so as to contact the door frame with your forehead.. ............ Yeah, it would be stupid.  The results would not be as many g's as a getoff.

Helmets are designed to spread the g's over a longer period of time, resulting in a lower g level.   In addition, helmets protect the head and jaws from a grinding impact.  Of course helmets have their limitations in absorbing energy but a DOT or Snell helmet works  well within its design limitations.

Having said all this, I am still against any mandatory helmet wearing laws but I always wear one.  I'd rather leave this world as a worn out human being instead of living  my life as  a vegetable.

[~ Timbrwolf]

. . ....my opinion on helmets when I was 22





. .....35 years later. ....my feelings on the subject havent changed all that much..

[hubcapsc]

I love living here in South Carolina where they let you decide...

I always wear my boots and gloves and helmet and jacket... I tried to ride with
a cooling-vest instead of my jacket once last year when it was 100... it was still
100  ...

Stanley Steamer sez: it is better to sweat than to bleed...



-Mike

[BradValk48237]

I don't care..I will always wear a helmet....

 But if you have been pulled over in Michigan recently or applied for tags online, you will find out that the State of Michigan has access to computer insurance information... They know if you have coverage of not...... At the time I went to renew my tags, I could not use the online service or kiosk, because I had not renewed my insurance. Had to go down and show proof.. when I did go down with the new policy, the girl at the counter did not even look at it, because when she pulled up my info, it showed I had a new policy in effect. May not be all insurers, but they know that I had coverage

I don't know if that is all the info they can access, but If they know if you have coverage, may not be too far away to know what the coverage is...

Big Brother is watching......LOL
Cops here routinely run plates when sitting at lights, etc., see them do it many times.

B

[Jabba]

If obesity is costing America billions of $$, then we should simply REQUIRE that people fall within "normal" BMI guidelines.

Waivers for some could be issued in the event of ACTUAL medical reasons for it. But for those of us like me... who simply eat too much, and have a genetic framework of "gigantic" it'd be appropriate to fine us monthly until we comply.

 

It makes as much sense as the other "good" arguments for helmet laws.  I don't want to pay for healthcare for those who choose to smoke, or eat too much, or become diabetic, or blah blah, blah. 

I would suggest that the amount of $$ spent on taking care of brain injured bikers is NEGLIGIBLE when compared to that spent to care for illegals, and welfare rats squirting out babies like vending machines.  Or compared to the healthcare for medicare dependent persons... or (fill in the blank here).

What we need is less entitlements, and some national pride, and willingness to look after ourselves, and each other without Nanny-State doing it for us.

I have a welfare recipient at my house.  My older brother.  No job.  No insurance.
No benefits. and not taking ANY form of welfare.  WE take care of him.

We need more of that, and less palms out to the government.

Jabba   

[fiddle mike]

... If you are riding without a lid does that give LEO a reason to stop and check your ID for your age? You gonna carry a copy of you insurance policy so you can show the value of your personal injury? Just another idiodic law to make you think they are on your side.

.
That is something that should be spelled out.

In TX (2009), a law went on the books  saying that being bare-headed is not cause for an officer to stop a motorcyclist and check his age or insurance (someone in Austin must be fed-up with the Insurance racket).
 It also got rid of the sticker, indicating compliance, that was supposed to affix to the license tag  (I actually saw one of these). 
.
A legislator's job is to stay in office, sometimes they have to throw us a bone.
.

[Damselfly]

Risk management, when we ride we accept the risk. If you choose to manage your risk by riding in full gear that is your choice and you are reducing your risks. If you choose to ride without full gear you are also accepting the risk.
Knowledge is power, with the proper training you are also reducing your risk because you can develop the skills to avoid accidents. I would encourage everyone who rides to sharpen your skills and become the best rider you can.
Again it is all about the choices we make every time we ride.
My feeling is everyone deserves to be able to make a choice. 

[Fla. Jim]

For those that advocate freedom to choose I'm with you...For those that choose not to wear....Here's a book for you . Thanks for doing your part. Been down helmet saved my noggin.

[fiddle mike]

For those that advocate freedom to choose I'm with you...For those that choose not to wear....Here's a book for you . Thanks for doing your part. Been down helmet saved my noggin.

Wow,  there should be an award for the most  people insulted at one time.  
.

[RoadKill]

I rode my skull down the pavement for 138 ft and bounced it off a Buick at 65mph. Didnt cost the taxpayers a nickle and for the $150k that was left to pay after insurance, I am paying for the right to choose and will probably pay for most of my life!  I payed for it,it's mine and I will share it with my friends..screw yer law !  

And Darwin only gave me a runners up award....more bills ! 

[Momz]

Several years ago when the mandatory helmet issue was close to a repeal bill, a spokesperson for AAA made a comment eluding to a study (bogus) that showed that a motorcyclist that wore a helmet was 85% less likely to be involved in an accident. This spoksperson also that if the law were repealed, that more than 75% of non-helmeted rioders would suffer a fatal accident within 24 months. He also said that the states surrounding MI that had no mandatory helmet law had their roadways littered with the bodies of dead motorcyclists.

B.S. is B.S.

Lets take a poll amonst us VRCC members that have shot themselves with their own handguns. It makes just as much sense.

[ValkFlyer]

welfare rats squirting out babies like vending machines. 

Jabba   

Now that's there's a visual....Do you think they should be wearing helmets? ???

[fudgie]

welfare rats squirting out babies like vending machines. 

Jabba   

Now that's there's a visual....Do you think they should be wearing helmets? ???

Well one of the babies daddy shoulda wore something on his 'head'. 

[fudgie]

Whoo hoo! Might travel to MI more often. But it is the only time we blow dust off the novies. We cant tan with a lid on. 

Most on here dont want to pay for others that were injured in a mc wreck. Hell you pay for those with a stubbed toe everyday. Also for the border jumpers. So why would you not help pay for those that really need it? If you wreck, its yours or theirs auto insurance that foots the bill. Medicare denies alot of stuff. If they dont think its medically necc then they dont pay. Good to have a secondary or deep pockets.
I've seen all types of mc wrecks. Dead ones, live ones, some wow ones, etc. Honestly, with me, all my dead ones had helmets on.    Alot of blunt force trauma to the chest.
For us, we want to be 'in the wind'. Like I said before, its better to die doing something you enjoy then to set on the couch and die. I would be pissed if I was in a helmet State and wrecked and woke up in a wheel chair never to ride again. I'd put a bullet in my head. If I wrecked and was a vegatable, I'd pull the plug. I want to know what its like to be in the wind, not remember what its like. Ol lady feels the same.

[mrider]

k here is my 2 cents, the law they are trying to pass with having the extra insurance realy isn't a big deal, here in Tx the helmet law here has been tossed around as long as i can remember. First none requried no matter what age, then anyone under 18 had to wear one then everyone had where it but for the last 15+years or so they instated the law that anyone under 21 has to wear a lit and if you were over 21 you had to by the extra insurance to cover you.You also had to buy a little sticker to put on yor plate stating you the insurance that was needed. Now what they aren't telling you is that most poeple are covered on this dollar amount from work or personal from home are already covered, as for the little sticker it was 5 bucks a year ( money scam ) no one was buyng the sticker and if you had to go to court over no wearing a lit it was thrown out of court as soon as you proved you had the insurance. I normaly ride lidless but that is my personal choice many of my friends wear one and thats cool for them, like i said just my 2 cents.