Mich. Lawmakers Pass Bill to Repeal State Helmet Law, According to AAA Michigan

March 17, 2005

  • March 18, 2005 at 12:03 pm
    W. MacLeod says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m sorry but these estimated Quotes on how many more people will die from not wearing a helmet, is exactly that. An estimate. I’ve been riding for over 20 years, with and without a helmet. A helmet is a false sence of security, much like the large SUV syndrome. If your driving over 35 miles an hr a hemlet is not going to help you. An impact at that speed will cause damage with or without a helmet. Also most motorcycle fatalities are caused by internal bleeding or internal injuries and very few are results of a head impact. Other disadvantages of a helmet, are its weight and the fact that it blocks your side view. The weight of the helmet can and does cause excess strain and stress on the neck and shoulder from wind buffeting and it’s weight. This can cause fatique during long rides which can result in a less aware rider. Again these are “can cause” and “can’t do’s” much like the quotes in the article I’ve just read. Much like the selfish greed of most insurance companies this is just another excuse for them to not want to insure Motorcyclists. We are not stupid, we know we are part of the insurance area that does not want to be delt with. That’s why, Many insurance companies who don’t want to insure us, but by MIchican law have to provide it, have raised there qoues so rediculously his that it is designed to prevent us from insuring through them. Also take a look at the States around us that already have the no helet law. Compare the ratios. Youwill see the fataliy levels are actually lower.

  • March 18, 2005 at 12:39 pm
    Jim says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Mr. MacLeod, you are wrong. I have been alive for the past 35 years because I was wearing a helmet. A truck backed out on my bike in 1970 and during the impact my helmet hit the truck and a piece was broken out of my helmet instead of my head. I was going 50 miles an hour. Statistics such as yours are so dangerous. I lived though this event and will continue to live because of one item, my helmet. Lives will be lost, disabilities will occur and millions of dollars will be spent due to the inaccuracies of the information of people like you. I am in Senator Cropsey’s district and he has permanently lost my vote. I hope the governor I didn’t vote for and seldom agree with does a better job than the legislature and vetos this foolish bill.

  • March 18, 2005 at 1:12 am
    Doug says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The simple fact is that if you are not endagering anyone else the government has no right to legislate a helmet law for an adult. I agree your an idiot to not wear one but guess what, we have the right to be stupid. Otherwise we better start making everything else illegal, donuts, cigarets, sex.

  • March 18, 2005 at 1:18 am
    Umpire says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Like many things, let’s stop focusing on the wrong thing.

    Wearing the helmet, for an adult, should be their personal freedom. Government should not interfere – that’s what we love about this country.

    Now, if the State has to provide benefits that are proven to cost them more, then focus on that issue. In some States, if you’re not wearing a seatbelt, you give up part of your damages if injured in an auto accident — because you failed to protect yourself. The same can be true here, if you merely address the correct issue.

    As for insurers – they should be free to make their own decisions as well. If the cycle carrier does not want to pay excessive costs for the lack of a helmet, then let them put a restriction on the policy to reduce the benefits to any rider that elects not to wear the helmet.

    And, allow a life insurer to reduce benefits as well. After all… if you’re wife knows that riding your bike without your helmet will reduce the benefits to your children should you die because of not wearing the helmet… most fellas are going to be wearing that helmet. Those that don’t care, or want to assume that risk — LET THEM.

    Don’t argue about the “maybe’s” – make the legislation about the cost to the government only. If it costs the government more, then address only that issue, and then leave the citizens with their freedom of choice. If they choose not to lose the benefits, then they’ll wear the helmet. If they want the freedom, then they’ll give up the benefits and not complain. Freedoms, no matter where you address them, DO have a pricetag associated with them. But merely REMOVING freedoms is NOT the answer.

  • March 18, 2005 at 1:26 am
    Jeff says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My vote would be keep the helmet law. Especially in Michigan which has the nation’s strongest no-fault coverage by far (medical coverage without dollar limit).

    I also believe in helmet laws for bicycle riders (and I ride a couple thousand miles a year).

    Not a popular opinion, I know, but…

  • March 18, 2005 at 1:29 am
    John O'Brien says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I love the personal freedom line! Its ok for helmets and guns, but those same people feel they have a right to dictate what a women does with her body.

    As long as there is the Michigan Catastrophic Care Association giving these morons unlimited medical care that I have to contribute to, I am firmly against the no helmet law!

    Insurance Agency Owner and unsucessful candidate for State Senate 30th district this past election cycle.

  • March 18, 2005 at 1:31 am
    Susan says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Someone please tell me why it is ok to regulate use of seatbelts but not helmets. This is a crazy bill – most importantly is the issue of saving lives!

  • March 18, 2005 at 1:38 am
    Alto says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Gentlemen: it’s all about choice. Hell, getting on a motorcycle and riding is considered dangerous, when compared to other forms of transportation. Should we then ban motorcycles? How about any other forms sporting activities considered “risky”: skydiving, snow skiing, skate boarding, football, flying airplanes, etc. etc. Sure, the safety nazies would know no boundaries if everyone catered their philosophies.

  • March 18, 2005 at 1:38 am
    grant says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I wonder how people would feel if there was a mandatory helmet law for passenger vehicles. If it would be OK to pass a law for that…why not, wouldn’t it be safer for the occupants?
    Do you think there would be a protest from the citizens…there would be an uproar! The majority of people want helmets….for other people. They are not the ones having their heads cooked like an egg on a 90 degree day, or vision blurred from the wind buffeting, vibrating your noggin like a paint shaker…is that safe?
    I want to wear a helmet when I choose to…not forced to, also like the seat belt law.

  • March 18, 2005 at 4:06 am
    Yvonne says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    My husband and father are both alive because a helmet saved their lives. It made me sick to my stomach when PA passed this same law over a year ago. And in that same month they passed the seatbelt law. It did not make any sense. And now that the riding season is upon us, I cringe each time I hear about a cycle accident and it is one of our insureds that has been hurt. WE sell cycle insurance all day, and year long. Our company’s revenue is based on this. But out of the 10 companies we write for now no longer cover the medical on the policy. We are just waiting for the other shoe to drop, and then the tort options will take place, your ride with a helmet all is good, your go without your screwed. I agree that a person has their right to choose but do you think that Insurance Companies and the Goverment will allow that Choice?



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*