I ride a bike, and believe in individual freedoms. However, you bikers that don\’t wear helmets don\’t seem to have a problem with the tax payers picking up the tab when you are laying in ICU for 30 days and have run out of your own insurance and your own personal assets. If you can cover 100% of your injuries, then go without a helmet. If you want the rest of the world to pick up the tab when you are vegetable, then that\’s another story.
In Virginia have far fewer firearms homocides per capita than DC and MD, where guns are almost totally banned. Just proves that gun control freaks don\’t need anything more than good intentions to screw things up royally.
Same goes for helmet laws, which save lives by driving bikes off the road (and out of state). With fewer motorcycles you get fewer motorcycle accidents. Duh.
Insurance Guy should know enough to check the numbers. Unlike seatbelts, which reduce your risk of injury and death if you\’re in an accident, helmets don\’t reduce risk to the individual rider.
Helmet laws save lives by reducing the riding population. Don\’t believe it? Look at data on accident victims, not ambiguous totals. Motorcycle fatality totals are predominantly driven by population.
And yes, I served and wore safety gear as a Marine. Unlike motorcycle helmets, my kevlar was effective.
Motorcycle helmets only protect you from traffic tickets.
Hey Insurance Guy!
I\’ve done as much research on MCCA as I can and it is mostly a dead end. I know MI is the ONLY state in the country to provide unlimited injury protection. I also know if I\’m on my Harley, and hit by a looney car driver (cager) I am not eligible for un-limited care or any care from MCCA for that matter.
I do grant you that insurance companies don\’t benefit directly from MCCA and they are required to \”collect\” this for the state of MI.
I also was told by my local \”insurance guy\” that MCCA is backed by a pool of insurance companies and he feels it is a good thing MI has it.
I disagree! I own 3 vehicles, and pay $150/year for each. I can only drive or ride one at a time. Besides that, MCCA is in TOTAL violation of the open meetings act – common citizens like me are not entitled to view their activities…just forced to pay their ridiculous charges which go up every year. Remember when they were $2/year???
MCCA is a terrible SCAM foisted upon the citizens of MI, and along with Guv. Jen\’s veto of our democratically empowered effort to repeal it, just one more reason I\’m strongly considering moving to Florida where I can ride free all year around! MI, under this guv will continue its downward spiral!
Al
Congratulations to the State of Michigan for having a Govenor with smarts and common sense. Allowing motorcyclists to ride with out a helmet would be like allowing a five year old to play with a loaded a gun. Thank you, Govenor!
Perhaps a way to let all the \”Live Free or Die-ers\” have their way and interject fairness into the process would be this:
1) Permit free choice in wearing helmets while riding on a motorcycle if rider is at least 18. Let Darwinian process improve the gene pool;
2) Costs above direct insurance to be paid out of fund assessed against motorcycle manufacturers, thus spreading the cost of \”freedom\” back to the riders who, judging from the passion of comments, are fully willing to accept the consequence of their choice; and
3) The maximum bodily injury liability amount payable to an unhelmeted rider to be the $10,000 that helmet-law-repeal drafters deemed to be adequate medical cover for injured riders.
And congratulations to Becky for so adroitly twisting injury statistics to \”prove\” no difference in medical costs between helmeted and unhelmeted riders. The article she cited expressly stated that once brain injuries were inflicted, the average costs were about the same between the two groups, but that the unhelmeted riders were much more likely to suffer brain injuries than the helmeted riders, hard as that might be to accept.
If there are fears that the choice of wearing a helmet or not would cost the families of Michigan more, can you explain why the fatality rate went up 65% in Michigan last year with the helmet law still in place?
Our neighboring states ALL are helmet choice states, and have had no increase in fatalities. Was our increase more fatal neck / back injuries caused by a helmet that protects you or your head from falls at 13 MPH or below? (There is not one road I can safely ride on).
What a great safety device! We should join with the insurance companies passing legislation that helmets be used in cars as well… race car drivers use them, shouldn\’t we all?
The current Governor will probably not be re-elected because of this decision, and the cost that this decision has cost the state in tourism. Although the insurance companies have probably donated a lot of money to Governor Granholm.
Remember the good old days when the Democrats were of, and for the people not bought by big business? Things sure have changed.
This fact that people listen to AAA at all about this issue is interesting, and they do not even insure motorcyclists with their company. Does AAA operate or own other insurance companies? Which ones?
Bikers demographically are older, make more money, and spent more than most groups when traveling.
We wonder why our state is in financial trouble? We no longer need to wonder why tourism dollars are down. Just send the Governor a letter thanking her for saving us from ourselves, and asking motorcyclist around the country to avoid our state.
Becky:
Sorry you got picked on by Underwriter2 when I was the one who cited a government study showing that the average medical costs in an accident was more if you are wearing a helmet. That\’s right– more! To make it clear, I am not saying people shouldn\’t wear a helmet. The conclusion that medical costs are slightly higher when wearing a helmet actually speaks in favor of wearing helmets as the medical costs for many not wearing helmets are zero as they skip the hospital and go directly to the funeral home.
I am not arguing that helmets shouldn’t be worn. I am just saying that society has no great interest in whether someone has a helmet on or not. No real interest unless you want to outlaw all behavior that might lead to premature death with a reduction in tax revenue and that may be what the politicians really fear, but then maybe we should outlaw lots of “bad” things. Booze and tobacco come right to mind but lets not stop there. Inefficient SUVs pollute and thus increase the death rate from lung diseases among the elderly. AIDS is a terrible problem but one that could be easily solved by either outlawing sex( all risky sex, i.e., no more of that Bill&Monica stuff- that is sex too!) outside of marriage or making it a misdemeanor to have sex without a condom unless married (to each other). And how about obesity? Maybe we should regulate what fast food places sell. No more supersizing by Ronald !
I would like those in favor of helmets being required to show how the overall cost to society in terms of medical costs is any more if helmets are not required. Where is the proof ? Where are the studies supporting your position? The federal government’s study showing helmets to be effective at the same time stands for the proposition that the cost to society for medical costs is the same regardless of whether or not you wear a helmet.
If interested in this government report check out table 15 at page 38 at :
Now hold it a minute, who do you think MCCA is. It\’s a panel of 5, I believe, and you better bet they come from the insurance companies. They are appointed by the monarch in the governor\’s office, the same one that vetoed SB 297. Soon to be Michigan\’s former governor.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I ride a bike, and believe in individual freedoms. However, you bikers that don\’t wear helmets don\’t seem to have a problem with the tax payers picking up the tab when you are laying in ICU for 30 days and have run out of your own insurance and your own personal assets. If you can cover 100% of your injuries, then go without a helmet. If you want the rest of the world to pick up the tab when you are vegetable, then that\’s another story.
Oh, but it\’s okay to pick up the tab for auto accident victims who account for half of all head injuries. Hypocrite.
In Virginia have far fewer firearms homocides per capita than DC and MD, where guns are almost totally banned. Just proves that gun control freaks don\’t need anything more than good intentions to screw things up royally.
Same goes for helmet laws, which save lives by driving bikes off the road (and out of state). With fewer motorcycles you get fewer motorcycle accidents. Duh.
Insurance Guy should know enough to check the numbers. Unlike seatbelts, which reduce your risk of injury and death if you\’re in an accident, helmets don\’t reduce risk to the individual rider.
Helmet laws save lives by reducing the riding population. Don\’t believe it? Look at data on accident victims, not ambiguous totals. Motorcycle fatality totals are predominantly driven by population.
And yes, I served and wore safety gear as a Marine. Unlike motorcycle helmets, my kevlar was effective.
Motorcycle helmets only protect you from traffic tickets.
Hey Insurance Guy!
I\’ve done as much research on MCCA as I can and it is mostly a dead end. I know MI is the ONLY state in the country to provide unlimited injury protection. I also know if I\’m on my Harley, and hit by a looney car driver (cager) I am not eligible for un-limited care or any care from MCCA for that matter.
I do grant you that insurance companies don\’t benefit directly from MCCA and they are required to \”collect\” this for the state of MI.
I also was told by my local \”insurance guy\” that MCCA is backed by a pool of insurance companies and he feels it is a good thing MI has it.
I disagree! I own 3 vehicles, and pay $150/year for each. I can only drive or ride one at a time. Besides that, MCCA is in TOTAL violation of the open meetings act – common citizens like me are not entitled to view their activities…just forced to pay their ridiculous charges which go up every year. Remember when they were $2/year???
MCCA is a terrible SCAM foisted upon the citizens of MI, and along with Guv. Jen\’s veto of our democratically empowered effort to repeal it, just one more reason I\’m strongly considering moving to Florida where I can ride free all year around! MI, under this guv will continue its downward spiral!
Al
Congratulations to the State of Michigan for having a Govenor with smarts and common sense. Allowing motorcyclists to ride with out a helmet would be like allowing a five year old to play with a loaded a gun. Thank you, Govenor!
Perhaps a way to let all the \”Live Free or Die-ers\” have their way and interject fairness into the process would be this:
1) Permit free choice in wearing helmets while riding on a motorcycle if rider is at least 18. Let Darwinian process improve the gene pool;
2) Costs above direct insurance to be paid out of fund assessed against motorcycle manufacturers, thus spreading the cost of \”freedom\” back to the riders who, judging from the passion of comments, are fully willing to accept the consequence of their choice; and
3) The maximum bodily injury liability amount payable to an unhelmeted rider to be the $10,000 that helmet-law-repeal drafters deemed to be adequate medical cover for injured riders.
And congratulations to Becky for so adroitly twisting injury statistics to \”prove\” no difference in medical costs between helmeted and unhelmeted riders. The article she cited expressly stated that once brain injuries were inflicted, the average costs were about the same between the two groups, but that the unhelmeted riders were much more likely to suffer brain injuries than the helmeted riders, hard as that might be to accept.
If there are fears that the choice of wearing a helmet or not would cost the families of Michigan more, can you explain why the fatality rate went up 65% in Michigan last year with the helmet law still in place?
Our neighboring states ALL are helmet choice states, and have had no increase in fatalities. Was our increase more fatal neck / back injuries caused by a helmet that protects you or your head from falls at 13 MPH or below? (There is not one road I can safely ride on).
What a great safety device! We should join with the insurance companies passing legislation that helmets be used in cars as well… race car drivers use them, shouldn\’t we all?
The current Governor will probably not be re-elected because of this decision, and the cost that this decision has cost the state in tourism. Although the insurance companies have probably donated a lot of money to Governor Granholm.
Remember the good old days when the Democrats were of, and for the people not bought by big business? Things sure have changed.
This fact that people listen to AAA at all about this issue is interesting, and they do not even insure motorcyclists with their company. Does AAA operate or own other insurance companies? Which ones?
Bikers demographically are older, make more money, and spent more than most groups when traveling.
We wonder why our state is in financial trouble? We no longer need to wonder why tourism dollars are down. Just send the Governor a letter thanking her for saving us from ourselves, and asking motorcyclist around the country to avoid our state.
Becky:
Sorry you got picked on by Underwriter2 when I was the one who cited a government study showing that the average medical costs in an accident was more if you are wearing a helmet. That\’s right– more! To make it clear, I am not saying people shouldn\’t wear a helmet. The conclusion that medical costs are slightly higher when wearing a helmet actually speaks in favor of wearing helmets as the medical costs for many not wearing helmets are zero as they skip the hospital and go directly to the funeral home.
I am not arguing that helmets shouldn’t be worn. I am just saying that society has no great interest in whether someone has a helmet on or not. No real interest unless you want to outlaw all behavior that might lead to premature death with a reduction in tax revenue and that may be what the politicians really fear, but then maybe we should outlaw lots of “bad” things. Booze and tobacco come right to mind but lets not stop there. Inefficient SUVs pollute and thus increase the death rate from lung diseases among the elderly. AIDS is a terrible problem but one that could be easily solved by either outlawing sex( all risky sex, i.e., no more of that Bill&Monica stuff- that is sex too!) outside of marriage or making it a misdemeanor to have sex without a condom unless married (to each other). And how about obesity? Maybe we should regulate what fast food places sell. No more supersizing by Ronald !
I would like those in favor of helmets being required to show how the overall cost to society in terms of medical costs is any more if helmets are not required. Where is the proof ? Where are the studies supporting your position? The federal government’s study showing helmets to be effective at the same time stands for the proposition that the cost to society for medical costs is the same regardless of whether or not you wear a helmet.
If interested in this government report check out table 15 at page 38 at :
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/CODES/codesrpt.pdf
Now hold it a minute, who do you think MCCA is. It\’s a panel of 5, I believe, and you better bet they come from the insurance companies. They are appointed by the monarch in the governor\’s office, the same one that vetoed SB 297. Soon to be Michigan\’s former governor.