No Helmets?

[Jono]

Just saw this was a top story on yahoo. Michigan is trying to approve motorcyclists 21 and older would have the option of riding helmet-free if they have two years of experience or have taken a safety course, and if they buy at least $20,000 in medical insurance. http://www.freep.com/article/20111103/NEWS06/111030440
So stupid. I don't even ride my bicycle without a helmet. Some people really don't care about their lives. It is sad.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Jono

Just saw this was a top story on yahoo. Michigan is trying to approve motorcyclists 21 and older would have the option of riding helmet-free if they have two years of experience or have taken a safety course, and if they buy at least $20,000 in medical insurance. http://www.freep.com/article/20111103/NEWS06/111030440
So stupid. I don't even ride my bicycle without a helmet. Some people really don't care about their lives. It is sad.

Nobody is saying that helmets don't save lives. However, the point is to preserve biker rights. That is, we can be responsible bikers without have to have a law forcing personal safety on us.

[Heed]

$20,000 in med insurance isn't going to be of much help when your skull cracks open like a watermelon.

[Magz]

If there are people that want it, then it's their life. The less government control the better in my eyes, but I would hope that people who took a safety course would give some consideration to safety.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Nobody is saying that helmets don't save lives. However, the point is to preserve biker rights. That is, we can be responsible bikers without have to have a law forcing personal safety on us.

Yeah, but what I don't get is why motorcyclist can have so much freedom but car owners can't. I would love to be able to get a new car without airbags but that is not allowed. Why should car owners be forced personal safety? I can be a responsible car driver without the law forcing me to only be able to get a new car with airbags. Last summer I hit a curb in my car and the side curtain airbag deployed. I could have fixed the mechanical issues to the front of the car without taking it to a shop. But since that airbag destroyed parts of the interior I had to claim it on insurance to pay for the damages. Also when the airbag goes off they have to replace the airbag control unit and tons of other stuff. This adds up to thousands of dollars worth of damages. Just because car companies and the other big businesses like money. And for the sake of drivers being responsible, why must we wear seatbelts?

Well because being responsible doesn't mean nothing when an irresponsible driver slams into your car or motorcycle and kills you because you didn't wear that seatbelt or that helmet. Yes, safety equipment saves lives that is the point of them, but why should car drivers be forced to use such items but motorcyclists have a choice? That is what I don't get.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by Heed

$20,000 in med insurance isn't going to be of much help when your skull cracks open like a watermelon.

That plus the biker's motorcycle insurance plus the liability insurance of the cager that caused the accident in the first place. Its enough.

With the mandated MSF course, which is what FL did also, the fatalities actually go down in spite of repealing the helmet law. Overall, the fatalities among bikers is about the same as pedestrians. So why don't they force pedestrians to wear helmets?

[Jono]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

With the mandated MSF course, which is what FL did also, the fatalities actually go down in spite of repealing the helmet law. Overall, the fatalities among bikers is about the same as pedestrians. So why don't they force pedestrians to wear helmets?

This is true but if they were wearing helmets there would have been even fewer fatalities.

I can see how not wearing a helmet would make a rider ride much more cautiously or at least I would hope a rider would. This is probably why so many people suck at driving cars and it is only going to get worse. They think they are deathproof in these vehicles because of all the safety equipment nowadays. I know for a fact that having a manual transmission car makes you a better driver because you are more aware with what is going on. You can't really eat and drive or text. Now throw out airbags and traction control and ABS and I bet more people would become better drivers if they were risking more every time they drove somewhere. But that is not going to happen. So why can't motorcyclists evolve like car drivers have and just wear a helmet!

[rockNroll]

Originally Posted by Jono

Yeah, but what I don't get is why motorcyclist can have so much freedom but car owners can't. I would love to be able to get a new car without airbags but that is not allowed. Why should car owners be forced personal safety? I can be a responsible car driver without the law forcing me to only be able to get a new car with airbags. Last summer I hit a curb in my car and the side curtain airbag deployed. I could have fixed the mechanical issues to the front of the car without taking it to a shop. But since that airbag destroyed parts of the interior I had to claim it on insurance to pay for the damages. Also when the airbag goes off they have to replace the airbag control unit and tons of other stuff. This adds up to thousands of dollars worth of damages. Just because car companies and the other big businesses like money. And for the sake of drivers being responsible, why must we wear seatbelts?

Well because being responsible doesn't mean nothing when an irresponsible driver slams into your car or motorcycle and kills you because you didn't wear that seatbelt or that helmet. Yes, safety equipment saves lives that is the point of them, but why should car drivers be forced to use such items but motorcyclists have a choice? That is what I don't get.

you serious? You hit a curb, you aren't a responsible driver. You need a helmet while driving your car

[Jono]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

you serious?

I think so?

[Jono]

Originally Posted by rockNroll

you serious? You hit a curb, you aren't a responsible driver. You need a helmet while driving your car

I said I can be responsible. Not saying I was being responsible at that time. In a way I was because their were no other cars on the road I was on. And I have an auto racing helmet. Wasn't wearing it at the time. Haha. Only at autocross events do I wear it. But my story isn't the point of this topic. I was just sayin why are car drivers so forced into safety but motorcyclists aren't.

[ScorpionNinja]

Originally Posted by Heed

$20,000 in med insurance isn't going to be of much help when your skull cracks open like a watermelon.

Originally Posted by Magz

If there are people that want it, then it's their life. The less government control the better in my eyes, but I would hope that people who took a safety course would give some consideration to safety.

The Senate here wants to up that to $100,000 med insurance.
and I agree, even with 100,000 insurance, with an open head injury, saying if you live... you think 100k will cover the cost of brain surgery n ****?
Answer is Hell Noooo!

This is a bad topic for us in Mi.

So now "MY" Insurance is going UP, cuz other people Dont wanna wear a Helmet and bitch about "Freedom".
Wheres "MY FREEDOM" from having to pay more money outta my god damn pocket?

I will always wear a FULL FACE HELMET!!! (PERIOD)

In my short 3 (seasons) of riding (we dont get to ride year long in Michigan), Ive had enuff encounters with debris and other crap, which just reinforces the BEST thing to wear is a FULL FACE HELMET!!!

Even with an 1/2 or 3/4 helmet... wheres your Eye protection? Sunglasses???

Most Harley riders wear 1/2, 3/4 helmets without proper Eye protection. Their just asking for **** to get into their eyes, forcing you off the road, or PLOWING into a 4,500 lbs SUV head on...

[ScorpionNinja]

but thats my problem with this. My Insurance will go up, even though IM NOT gonna go helmet-less!!!


IDC if a biker doesnt want to wear a helmet, thats their choice, but the way things work these days... IM gonna have to pay more outta my pocket for the same insurance ive been paying... only cuz "someone else" is choicing to go helmetless!!!

I pay $394 1 yr. for the 250R!

Ill bet it jumps up $100.

You guys just watch...

[Numbersix]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Nobody is saying that helmets don't save lives. However, the point is to preserve biker rights. That is, we can be responsible bikers without have to have a law forcing personal safety on us.

No offense to ABATE guys, but as long as no-fault means I have to pay for someone to change a smashed-up biker's diapers for life, I'm not in support of the no-helmet law. When I was at the ABATE rally on the capitol steps, the speakers there advocated for no-helmet and keeping the current lifetime care.

Take your own responsibility, and I have no qualms supporting no-helmet. I'll keep wearing my helmet, however, thanks; I have an irrational attachment to my face and brains.

[Jono]

It would suck to be a rider who wears gear and lives in a state that doesn't require helmet use while riding. I would HATE paying higher insurance rates because of it. I am sorry for those that are in that situation.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by ScorpionNinja

but thats my problem with this. My Insurance will go up, even though IM NOT gonna go helmet-less!!!


IDC if a biker doesnt want to wear a helmet, thats their choice, but the way things work these days... IM gonna have to pay more outta my pocket for the same insurance ive been paying... only cuz "someone else" is choicing to go helmetless!!!

I pay $394 1 yr. for the 250R!

Ill bet it jumps up $100.

You guys just watch...

No offense, but that is total BS. Its just propaganda by the anti-biker rights folks - and you're spreading it around like its true.

For the record, I only pay $160 a year for my Ninja and I live in FL which already has abolished its helmet law. My insurance will probably go up, because that's what insurance does, but its not going to be because some other biker got plastered to the side of an SUV making an illegal U-turn.

People who ride without helmets and suffer head injuries have a bad habit of dying. That's bad for them, but great for people who pay the medical bills. A helmetless biker with $20K insurance is plenty.

[TBC]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Nobody is saying that helmets don't save lives. However, the point is to preserve biker rights. That is, we can be responsible bikers without have to have a law forcing personal safety on us.

This. I wholeheartedly support your right to be an idiot.

Originally Posted by n4mwd

No offense, but that is total BS. Its just propaganda by the anti-biker rights folks - and you're spreading it around like its true.

I'm not sure I understand - why is it not true? Less helmets = more injuries = larger payouts by the insurance companies = higher rates across the board to pay for them?

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by TBC

This. I wholeheartedly support your right to be an idiot.


I'm not sure I understand - why is it not true? Less helmets = more injuries = larger payouts by the insurance companies = higher rates across the board to pay for them?

Its not true because its a lie. Spun statistics. It didn't cause more injuries in Florida and it didn't cause everyone's rates to go up. The main point is that its not a law making it illegal to wear helmets, its a repeal of big brother getting in your personal business.

For the record, I wear a helmet and most gear everywhere I go.

[nezumiamalek]

Most motorcycle helmets look badass, I will always wear mine regardless of the law.

Perhaps someday they could have something which authenticates you wear your helmet on a regular basis to keep your insurance down. Something along the lines of the progressive snapshot program.

[TBC]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

The main point is that its not a law making it illegal to wear helmets, its a repeal of big brother getting in your personal business.

I understand that (and I'm all for it). But if riders are permitted not to wear helmets, doesn't that mean that it's likely that the annual number of head injuries due to motorcycle accidents will increase?

[Jiggles]

Don't wear a helmet, and sign up to be a donor.

All the idiots will die and there will be a surplus of life saving organs.

[TBC]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

All the idiots will die and there will be a surplus of life saving organs.

Not to mention fewer idiots to reproduce .

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by TBC

I understand that (and I'm all for it). But if riders are permitted not to wear helmets, doesn't that mean that it's likely that the annual number of head injuries due to motorcycle accidents will increase?

That's not what happened in Florida. Of course, the anti-biker folks will spin the data to suit them.

The guys I've seen riding helmetless tend to be older guys on cruisers. Its rare to see a sport biker riding helmetless. The law requires new riders to take the MSF course and wear a helmet until they are 21. By that time, any problems they might have had with helmets has been worked out and they've had a few years to get over their squid fever. The older guys, as long as they had a legal motorcycle endorsement, were exempted from taking the MSF course.

The last I checked, of all the biker fatalities, about 40% of them would have been saved by a helmet. The other 60% would have died anyway. Don't listen to people that say no biker ever dies wearing a helmet, that is BS too.

About half the guys that attend the ABATE meetings wear helmets too.

A half helmet is all that is required to protect a person from brain injuries (provided that its a real helmet and not just decorative). Motorcycle cops down here wear them as well as 3/4 helmets. The full face helmet protects other things too as well as prevents bugs from smashing your eyeballs.

And yes, badass full face or modular helmets are the way to go on a Ninja IMHO.

[TBC]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

That's not what happened in Florida. Of course, the anti-biker folks will spin the data to suit them.

Fair-enough.

Originally Posted by n4mwd

The guys I've seen riding helmetless tend to be older guys on cruisers. Its rare to see a sport biker riding helmetless.

Around here most of the riders I see don't have helmets. It's quite sad .

[alex.s]

the $20k part isn't for surgery or hospital... it's for burial

[k-os]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

The guys I've seen riding helmetless tend to be older guys on cruisers. Its rare to see a sport biker riding helmetless. The law requires new riders to take the MSF course and wear a helmet until they are 21.

This sounds like a good reason for people to be pulled over for any reason with the officer claiming that he "thought" you looked under 21.

Helmet law should either be you must wear a helmet or not. I prefer a helmet law requiring people to wear one.

[n4mwd]

Originally Posted by k-os

This sounds like a good reason for people to be pulled over for any reason with the officer claiming that he "thought" you looked under 21.

Helmet law should either be you must wear a helmet or not. I prefer a helmet law requiring people to wear one.

Do you want a law forcing people to wear business suits on the beach? I support freedom of choice.

As far as the "you look under 21" thing, the cops are prohibited from stopping for that reason. However, the license tag clearly says "under 21", so they can stop you if you are riding helmetless on a bike owned by someone under 21.

[EsrTek]

We have similar law here in TN, with xtra Ins you can go w/o a helmet.
I have yet to see 1 person taking that option in this state....

[akima]

It sickens me that governments enforce these kind of laws on people using the threat of violence. As an adult, it's my choice whether I wear a helmet or not.

Helmets are an essential part of motorcycle riding for me, but I don't want or need some control-freak, nanny-state figures telling me how to look after the one thing that unequivocally belongs to me: my body.

[Numbersix]

I think you've completely missed the relevant issue in Michigan, which is that we are one of the few states with no-fault insurance and a lifetime catastrophic claims clause.

Because of this, the extra fee assessed on *every* vehicle insured in MI has increased from $14 ten years ago to $145 this year (and up from $108 only 3 years ago). Here's the data from the group that keeps the fund going that pays for all this long-term care:

http://michigancatastrophic.com/Cons...9/Default.aspx

http://michigancatastrophic.com/Link...%3d&tabid=2943

No helmet may not make for more crashes, but it is more likely that an accident will result in an injury requiring long-term care.

Again, as long as I have to pay the cost for your choice, no thanks. Pay for your own consequences (responsibilities and rights together) and you can wear a hat with nails pointing inward if you like.

[Boom King]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

No offense, but that is total BS. Its just propaganda by the anti-biker rights folks - and you're spreading it around like its true.

It's not "total BS". In reality, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. If an insurance company sees an increase in their loss ratio and risk, they will consider raising premiums to protect their reserves. The numbers behind this are obviously more complicated. Some groups may see no to little effect while others bare more of the brunt. Having said that, I'm not sure if the impact from an optional helmet law would have a substantial enough effect to say that it would cause a dramatic increase in your insurance premiums.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by EsrTek

We have similar law here in TN, with xtra Ins you can go w/o a helmet.
I have yet to see 1 person taking that option in this state....

No we don't!!! The driver of a motorcycle and any passenger are required to wear a helmet by law. I don't know where you heard otherwise, but don't believe it. Us Tennesseans must wear a helmet no matter what insurance you have.

[EsrTek]

I heard it when I got my 1st Insurance (Nationwide), their agent asked me if I wanted to 'no helmet optional coverage'.. I declined and didn't look it up further as I have no interest in riding w/o a helmet.
I've heard of it in other states, so just assumed TN had same thing since I was asked....

[Liist]

The people who wear no helmets here are older guys with Harleys and assholes. The Harley riders are generally safe riders and the assholes will splatter sooner or later.

And you guys should see how many scooter riders there are with no helmets, sandals, shorts, and listening to an iPod. And they won't have insurance and don't have to take an MSF class, either. Just last week some woman almost died because the person rear ended her.

[n4mwd]

As far as insurance going up because of the state having a no-helmet law, again, this is BS. Florida riders insurance did not go up and there is no reason michigan will either. Florida is also a No-Fault state.

Regarding the point about the catastrophic clause, it would cause an increase if and only if helmetless bikers were the ONLY people who ever got catastrophically injured. The FALSE presumption is that you can't be seriously injured if you are wearing a helmet.

Far more people get injured or killed in cars every year in spite of all the airbags and such. Numerous children get their necks snapped every year when a 5 mph impact causes the airbags to deploy. Likewise, people having head on impacts without wearing their seat belts find out that the air bag redirects their head from the relatively soft windshield to the hard steel roof.

BTW, I feel the same way about seat belts. I wear them because I want to, but don't tell me I have to.

If the people of michigan really want to do something to prevent bikers from collecting under the catastrophic clause, then they can STOP PULLING IN FRONT OF THEM!

Regarding TN law, as far as I can tell, TN requires helmets as of 2005. They also require liability insurance on motorcycles. Florida has no motorcycle insurance requirements - only for cars.

We have "Dead Biker's Curve" down here which is the ramp between I-95 and I-595. Every month or two, a biker goes over the elevated overpass at the curve (almost always at night). Generally speaking, the bikers without helmets are usually found dead on the ground below (about 35 feet down). The helmeted bikers have a greater tendency to survive, but they are usually messed up so bad that they need medical care from then on.

Using the same "It makes my insurance go up" argument, there are political forces down here arguing for an outright ban on motorcycles.

[Lil_Green_Demon]

Originally Posted by Jono

But since that airbag destroyed parts of the interior I had to claim it on insurance to pay for the damages. Also when the airbag goes off they have to replace the airbag control unit and tons of other stuff. This adds up to thousands of dollars worth of damages. Just because car companies and the other big businesses like money. And for the sake of drivers being responsible, why must we wear seatbelts?

I don't want to argue with you over this matter, but it's my understanding that airbags are there to save you, not for big companies to profit from your crashes.
I'm pretty sure car manufacturers would save money by not installing all sorts of airbags everywhere.

[akima]

* Akima goes to hi-five n4mwd *

[Magz]

I would agree that if legitimate studies can be found that getting rid of helmet laws increases insurance rates, then there would be more flames to the fire of those in favor of keeping the law. Use them to support that side.

The concept of laws which have the explicit purpose of protecting people from themselves is something I find difficult to support. I support riders always wearing a helmet. I also support people taking a firearms safety course before owning a gun and people going to a place like Planned Parenthood before having a child. However I would support a law for none of them.

[Boom King]

Originally Posted by n4mwd

Regarding the point about the catastrophic clause, it would cause an increase if and only if helmetless bikers were the ONLY people who ever got catastrophically injured.

It's obvious that bikers, helmeted or not, aren't the only ones that are catastrophically injured. I think the argument is not that a no helmet law would be the sole reason for an increase but rather it would or may contribute to social costs along with other factors and risks already existent.

Originally Posted by Magz

I would agree that if legitimate studies can be found that getting rid of helmet laws increases insurance rates, then there would be more flames to the fire of those in favor of keeping the law. Use them to support that side.

Like I said earlier, insurance doesn't exactly work like that. You won't always get a knee-jerk reaction as what people are purposing here and that's why the argument easily gets shot down. The numbers behind it are more complicated.

What you will find are government and independent studies that suggest that a no helmet law increases social costs. When insurance companies and governments incur increased costs, who do they past it on to? Some people will of course argue that these stats are spun by the propagandists and big brother conspirators and round and round the debate will go. I'm not shooting down anyone's opinion on this topic. Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in on a healthy debate.

[Numbersix]

Nobody (here) is implying that helmets magically protect users from all harm.

They do reduce injuries or else sports players, race drivers, MotoGP racers, etc. wouldn't wear them. Yep, a deadly injury might become a crippling injury, but a crippling injury can be reduced to nothing more than a need for a new helmet.

Again, I'm all for letting everyone choose their own level of risk; I'm just advocating that the no-fault reform that's also moving through the MI legislature is also needed. (They're not tie-barred, so my opinion is entirely moot).

Heck, only a small fraction of catastrophic claims even deal with motorcycles; this crazy law currently covers everything from truck drivers, an unlicensed 49cc scoot rider, bike riders, to a pedestrian who had one toe in the road when injured. Obviously FL has different law, which is why FL's cost per claim is six times less than MI's.

[thisismrjones]

1. Helmets don't really work, in fact they are More dangerous than no helmet.

rediculous.

2. I am a better rider than anyone who has ever been injured or killed in an accident.

idiotic.

3. I am luckier than other riders who have been injured or killed in an accident.

stupid.

4. Whatever God there is, loves me more than other riders who have been injured or killed in an accident.

wow, you really do think you are special, don't you?