Gov. Granholm is not in the insurance industry’s hip pocket – far from it.
Granholm based part of her reelection campaign in 2006 on bringing down insurance costs for her core supporters in the metro Detroit area, particularly auto insurance. To that end, she has attempted to restrict the use of territory and credit information in rating or underwriting. Thankfully, she has not been successful.
She has created the office of the “Insurance Consumer Advocate,” whose duties and powers are ill-defined (and should already be performed by the commissioner). One more pseudo-regulator to appease…
Thanks to the unlimited no-fault benefits, Michigan has some of the highest-cost auto insurance in the country. Measures that could add to that cost should be very carefully considered.
Gov. Granholm is term-limited out of the office after 2010. She hasn’t done the industry any lasting harm yet, but that’s not for lack of trying.
However, why single out motorcyclists for state mandates to lessen the impact our informed freedom of choice?
Since the vast majority of fatal auto accidents are head injuries, why limit the protection of helmets to a small minority of vehicles? Let’s mandate helmets for ALL vehicles and all passengers in or on those vehicles. That would save far more lives than just mandating them for motorcycles. Common sense would dictate this. Perhaps this is not such a good idea since it would affect you?
Has anybody told the governor that Michigan is missing out on about 40 -50,000 in tourists each summer for this crazy helmet law. Thats ok, people from Indiana and Chicago will just ride to Wisconsin and spend all their vacation time. It should be riders choice with the same resrictions that almost all other states have made: 21 years old, licence at least 2 years. I guess Michigan doesn’t need any money brought into this stat. If we loose much more there wont’t be anybody left in Michigan to do anything. Its time to wake-up and get on board as all the other states have done. Time for a change.
ok, so u really think its the freedom of the helmet. are you willing to unprotect your brain? because the skull will not survive a crash. helmet is not about freedom of choice! thankfully its for you protection and that you might be around to ride some more. we have the helmet law in my state and we have many riders that come here. so don’t blame tourists because of the helmet law! if i happen to be in a state where there is no helmet law, and forbid that i have an accident w/helmetless rider – i am not going to pay for his suffering when he was supposed to protect himself. same thing if your not wearing your seatbelt. again, in many states this is a law and is protecting and saving the costs of your medical bill.
wake up america, it’s not a loss of freedom but your safety. i think that on the second hand smoke, it’s a farse. the harmful product you already inhaled. think about this, when you have a campfire, where is that smoke going? so please, 2nd smoke is a conlusion to close restaurants and bars because some folks are offended. so what? many times we get offended and turn the other cheek or go somewhere else.
back to the helmet! it’s brain and head that is being protected. if you are not riding with one on, then i think that your iq is probably smaller than the shoe size you wear.
Really? do we need the Michigan gov’t to be our mother? no. I don’t think so. repeal all of the laws that we should have a choice in. We are adults treat us that way.
Seat belts also, and how about the brainchild of them all, let’s make 8 yr olds ride in BOOSTER SEATS? why so they can lick the windows?
Get real… it’s time to take back our gov’t vote her out.
I don’t need a helmet or those other stupid laws. We don’t need helmets or smoke detectors or seat belts, we shouldn’t have to buy plates or insurance also.
problem with you thoughts is that most laws were put on the books for safety of all, not just one. it’s like the crosswalk or the stop bar. it’s like the traffic device that is red.
if you have an accident and you are helmet less, you medical bills will be likely higher. your costs go up and then the insurance has to pay for it and the stupid choice of not wearing a helmet. now, if you put together a string of helmetless riders who get involved in accident, means more severity of medical bills and that means insurance will probably need to be raised for all and more so for those who are at-fault to cover all the losses. eventually, if you have a lot of these losses, they might likely to drop the insurance. then you have to shop for insurance elsewhere and start all over again for risk and cost will be high like walking to the front door again. matter of fact, it’s not a right to ride either a motorcycle or car on the road, it’s a priviledge. if insurance companies wanted to, they could make an exclusion of your own medical bills if you are helmetless. that would mean you’d have to cover your expensive medical bill. would you truly want that on your hand? as an auto driver, i would not want to pay any extra for your medical just because you did not wear a helmet? if i hit you and you did not take any precautions for your own safety, then why should i pay for more costly medical bills? if i have to wear a seatbelt, then you should be wearing a helmet.
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.
Gov. Granholm is not in the insurance industry’s hip pocket – far from it.
Granholm based part of her reelection campaign in 2006 on bringing down insurance costs for her core supporters in the metro Detroit area, particularly auto insurance. To that end, she has attempted to restrict the use of territory and credit information in rating or underwriting. Thankfully, she has not been successful.
She has created the office of the “Insurance Consumer Advocate,” whose duties and powers are ill-defined (and should already be performed by the commissioner). One more pseudo-regulator to appease…
Thanks to the unlimited no-fault benefits, Michigan has some of the highest-cost auto insurance in the country. Measures that could add to that cost should be very carefully considered.
Gov. Granholm is term-limited out of the office after 2010. She hasn’t done the industry any lasting harm yet, but that’s not for lack of trying.
However, why single out motorcyclists for state mandates to lessen the impact our informed freedom of choice?
Since the vast majority of fatal auto accidents are head injuries, why limit the protection of helmets to a small minority of vehicles? Let’s mandate helmets for ALL vehicles and all passengers in or on those vehicles. That would save far more lives than just mandating them for motorcycles. Common sense would dictate this. Perhaps this is not such a good idea since it would affect you?
Has anybody told the governor that Michigan is missing out on about 40 -50,000 in tourists each summer for this crazy helmet law. Thats ok, people from Indiana and Chicago will just ride to Wisconsin and spend all their vacation time. It should be riders choice with the same resrictions that almost all other states have made: 21 years old, licence at least 2 years. I guess Michigan doesn’t need any money brought into this stat. If we loose much more there wont’t be anybody left in Michigan to do anything. Its time to wake-up and get on board as all the other states have done. Time for a change.
ok, so u really think its the freedom of the helmet. are you willing to unprotect your brain? because the skull will not survive a crash. helmet is not about freedom of choice! thankfully its for you protection and that you might be around to ride some more. we have the helmet law in my state and we have many riders that come here. so don’t blame tourists because of the helmet law! if i happen to be in a state where there is no helmet law, and forbid that i have an accident w/helmetless rider – i am not going to pay for his suffering when he was supposed to protect himself. same thing if your not wearing your seatbelt. again, in many states this is a law and is protecting and saving the costs of your medical bill.
wake up america, it’s not a loss of freedom but your safety. i think that on the second hand smoke, it’s a farse. the harmful product you already inhaled. think about this, when you have a campfire, where is that smoke going? so please, 2nd smoke is a conlusion to close restaurants and bars because some folks are offended. so what? many times we get offended and turn the other cheek or go somewhere else.
back to the helmet! it’s brain and head that is being protected. if you are not riding with one on, then i think that your iq is probably smaller than the shoe size you wear.
Really? do we need the Michigan gov’t to be our mother? no. I don’t think so. repeal all of the laws that we should have a choice in. We are adults treat us that way.
Seat belts also, and how about the brainchild of them all, let’s make 8 yr olds ride in BOOSTER SEATS? why so they can lick the windows?
Get real… it’s time to take back our gov’t vote her out.
I don’t need a helmet or those other stupid laws. We don’t need helmets or smoke detectors or seat belts, we shouldn’t have to buy plates or insurance also.
problem with you thoughts is that most laws were put on the books for safety of all, not just one. it’s like the crosswalk or the stop bar. it’s like the traffic device that is red.
if you have an accident and you are helmet less, you medical bills will be likely higher. your costs go up and then the insurance has to pay for it and the stupid choice of not wearing a helmet. now, if you put together a string of helmetless riders who get involved in accident, means more severity of medical bills and that means insurance will probably need to be raised for all and more so for those who are at-fault to cover all the losses. eventually, if you have a lot of these losses, they might likely to drop the insurance. then you have to shop for insurance elsewhere and start all over again for risk and cost will be high like walking to the front door again. matter of fact, it’s not a right to ride either a motorcycle or car on the road, it’s a priviledge. if insurance companies wanted to, they could make an exclusion of your own medical bills if you are helmetless. that would mean you’d have to cover your expensive medical bill. would you truly want that on your hand? as an auto driver, i would not want to pay any extra for your medical just because you did not wear a helmet? if i hit you and you did not take any precautions for your own safety, then why should i pay for more costly medical bills? if i have to wear a seatbelt, then you should be wearing a helmet.