My point is that your adventures should not come out of everyone else’s pockets. You can’t waive your rights so you have responsibility to all of us who are required by law to take care of you. I would love to see the law changed. Governor Jenny would never agree to it.
If they wear no helmut, then they receive no medical care for the head if they are injured. In other words they forfeit any public monies to aid in their recovery or maintaining their life.
Now how many want to ride without a helmut?
I have ridden since the 70’s and it is just crazy to ride anywhere without a helmut.
It seems strange to require seatbelts to be worn in autos, but not require any safety/protection for those on motorcycles. This can affect helathcare costs as well as Bodily Injury Liability for everyone else. I guess Michigan is in such great financial shape that they don’t have to worry about it. Their legislators seem to think so.
Agree totally oblack. The general public should not be required to pay a dime for the consequences of negligence, stupidity, and ignorance. I do support peoples rights to maime and kill themselves by their own hand. It’s part of the natural selection process. However, any compensation for injury or death that would have been prevented by wearing a helmet should be forfeited. The same should apply to motor vehicles. You choose not to utilize safety features, you deal with the consequences.
Michigans law are as your subject heading refers, bass-ackwards.
I’m an insurance agent, so I’m in the “know” on this subject……A motorcyclist gets unlimited lifetime medical payments from the auto they collide with……..regardless of fault. So, I’m sitting at a stop sign, and a crotch rocket rearends me…..and my policy pays……..only in Michigan :-)
These threads seem to want eveyone to get involved in eveyone else’ lives. Haven’t we had enough of that by the government. As for the economic argument, it is a dangerous path to tread as one can make an excuse for controlling someone else’s behavior based on a theoretical societal cost. We already have had that argument used in tobacco cases, fat, pop, and God knows hom many obtuse argument will be made to control pet peeve behaviors. Perhaps the helmutless rider should bear some degree of responsiblity but often, a helmut would not have made any difference e.g. hitting a wall head first a 50 MPH.
Hitting the wall at 50 MPH would have no sociatal financial consequences other than a possible funeral in a paupers grave. No months or years of medical bills.
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.
My point is that your adventures should not come out of everyone else’s pockets. You can’t waive your rights so you have responsibility to all of us who are required by law to take care of you. I would love to see the law changed. Governor Jenny would never agree to it.
This the only thing I know of that I can completely agree with our extinguished Governor on.
If they wear no helmut, then they receive no medical care for the head if they are injured. In other words they forfeit any public monies to aid in their recovery or maintaining their life.
Now how many want to ride without a helmut?
I have ridden since the 70’s and it is just crazy to ride anywhere without a helmut.
It seems strange to require seatbelts to be worn in autos, but not require any safety/protection for those on motorcycles. This can affect helathcare costs as well as Bodily Injury Liability for everyone else. I guess Michigan is in such great financial shape that they don’t have to worry about it. Their legislators seem to think so.
Do they still get unlimited medical payments benefits under their auto policy?
Agree totally oblack. The general public should not be required to pay a dime for the consequences of negligence, stupidity, and ignorance. I do support peoples rights to maime and kill themselves by their own hand. It’s part of the natural selection process. However, any compensation for injury or death that would have been prevented by wearing a helmet should be forfeited. The same should apply to motor vehicles. You choose not to utilize safety features, you deal with the consequences.
Michigans law are as your subject heading refers, bass-ackwards.
I’m an insurance agent, so I’m in the “know” on this subject……A motorcyclist gets unlimited lifetime medical payments from the auto they collide with……..regardless of fault. So, I’m sitting at a stop sign, and a crotch rocket rearends me…..and my policy pays……..only in Michigan :-)
Is that a sweet way to arrange for a weekly back massage at the chiropractors or what?
These threads seem to want eveyone to get involved in eveyone else’ lives. Haven’t we had enough of that by the government. As for the economic argument, it is a dangerous path to tread as one can make an excuse for controlling someone else’s behavior based on a theoretical societal cost. We already have had that argument used in tobacco cases, fat, pop, and God knows hom many obtuse argument will be made to control pet peeve behaviors. Perhaps the helmutless rider should bear some degree of responsiblity but often, a helmut would not have made any difference e.g. hitting a wall head first a 50 MPH.
Hitting the wall at 50 MPH would have no sociatal financial consequences other than a possible funeral in a paupers grave. No months or years of medical bills.