Mich. House Passes Controversial Motorcycle Helmet Repeal Bill

June 7, 2006

  • June 8, 2006 at 2:21 am
    insurance purchaser says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    If motorcyclists choose to ride without a helmet, fine. However, they should also be required to pay for no-fault benefits for which they are currently exempt from paying. If faced with the true cost of insuring their PIP benefits ($10K is a joke)at an additional cost of several thousand dollars in insurance premium, they might think twice. Remember, this was part of the deal which was struck back when Michigan went to no-fault in an effort to keep motorcycle premiums low.

  • June 8, 2006 at 2:36 am
    A Veteran says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The last time I remember, we are a country of freedom and of choice. I served my time to enjoy the freedoms of my country and to have a choice in how I live. My son is a U.S. Marine and is currently in Iraq preserving those very same ideals and fundamentals that make this country great. There are always two sides to every story and if you look closely it does come down to one very philisophical issue. We should have the choice to wear a seat belt or wear a helmet. Just as we choose the many other things that we enjoy in life. It truly comes down to holding people responsible for their choices. If you are the cause of an accident then you should be held accountable period. We as a society lack the fortitude to hold accountable ourselves to correct standards and morals but seem to readily want to hold others to them. Responsibility for ones actions begins with ourselves. Make your own choice.

  • June 8, 2006 at 3:25 am
    wjk says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I love all this take responsibility talk coming from the very people who will demand that that government pay for their injuries because they cannot afford the extremely high costs of care associated with head injuries. I trust the Governor will exercise her good judment and veto this pandering legislation. This law is not about a fundamental freedom, but protecting the public from the burden of caring for those seemingly incapable of acting in their own self-interest and expecting us to pay for their foolishness. I didn\’t see anyone volunteering to give up access to the catastophic injury fund in exchange for the right to ride without a helmet.

  • June 8, 2006 at 3:49 am
    Growing Old for a Reason says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    wjk – You hit the BULLSEYE. Allow any cyclist to go Helmet Free with the understanding they are also Free of Subsidy by Other Drivers and the Government. Free to Forfeit No Fault Benefits paid by Automobile Insurers and Free to Forfiet Government Subsidized Health Care.

  • June 8, 2006 at 4:02 am
    Live Free or Die says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The assumption being made by those favoring requiring helmets is that not requiring helmets will raise the medical costs resulting from accidents. But what if the cost of an accident is less when helmets are not used? Are those who use the economic rationale to justify requiring helmets prepared to change their positions if not wearing helmets results in the same or lower costs to the government and insurance buying public? I have not seen a study on this issue (perhaps not studied by the \”experts\” because they suspect they will not like the outcome?) but I would guess that not wearing helmets does not result in higher costs. I hear of very few motorcycle accidents where the rider without a helmet receives a serious injury. Rather, the outcome of traveling through the air at a high speed with on no protection is often fatal. Not a pretty outcome but a rather inexpensive one in terms of medical costs.

  • June 8, 2006 at 6:21 am
    Gord says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This will just eliminate more stupid people from the gene pool. It\’s the families of the dead riders and the vegetables (aka \”survivors\” of accidents) that I feel sorry for.

    And how ill the law be enforced? You have to have ridden a bike for two years, and have a training course, and have insurance. Will cops pull over every driver without a brainbucket to check?

  • June 9, 2006 at 7:25 am
    jayb says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Whiny Witch-I hope you are just being facetious.It\’s people that think they would rather die than lose a limb that do dumb$#@&% things all the time that end up costing the rest of us. Obviously you don\’t have a family that cares for you or children to take care of. If you did you\’d just wear the stupid helmet.

  • June 9, 2006 at 1:36 am
    Brett says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Agree on the cellphone … though that is so ingrained I don\’t think it will ever change.

  • June 12, 2006 at 11:24 am
    Still Alive says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    So for the last 36 years since my helmet saved my life and I lost a limb I have been in error thinking I was better off than the other fellow in my room who had permanent brain damage from no helmet. Wow, Whiney Witch, I would have been better off dead than leading a productive life all of this time. Sorry, my error.

  • June 12, 2006 at 11:46 am
    Tom Monticup says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Would Hilary Rotten Clinton wear a helmet?
    1/2 the Politicians have wigs, and the women with their hair.



Add a Comment

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

*