Michigan No Helmet Proposal

[tlhamon]

I think this passes the House every year and then is vetoed by the governor.

I can't imagine riding my bike without a helmet. I actually reach for my seatbelt when I get on and it takes me a few minutes before I feel comfortable.
When I go to Ohio and see people on crotch rockets without helmets going 80 mph on the freeway, I just about faint.
I realize that the Harley culture is "I'm so tough I can take it." Which, really should be, "My ego is so huge it will cushion my fall." Around here you can tell it takes them an hour to get dressed before they ride - 100 pounds of leather fringes. Is it really that much trouble to put on a helmet? Even those useless tuperware bowl things they all wear?

[Banzai]

While I support freedom, all "No Helmet" laws do, really, is increase the price of insurance for everyone else.

[tlhamon]

That's exactly why the governor vetos it everytime. Although, they did propose that you would pay an extra $200 for a licence to ride without a helmet, they wouldn't offset the cost of some dummy without health insurance landing on his head.
I even feel guilty riding my bike down the driveway to turn it around and get it back into the garage if I don't have my helmet on.

[ScraitT]

We don't have a helmet law here, and it's personally something I support. It should be the riders decision.
The weirdest part to me is that you have to wear your seatbelt in a car, but you don't have to wear a helmet if your on a bike? Minors are of course a different case (just like minors ARE required to wear a helmet here).

Insurance on a bike is also optional here, so the higher insurance rates doesn't matter as much here.

Regardless, I believe it's the riders choice. Stupid not to wear? yes. But even still, it's their choice. I wear a helmet 99% of the time, but there is the occasion where I might be out somewhere and my helmets goes to a girl, or the occasional ride to the beach where usually once I get there, at a redlight I'll take my helmet off to take in the air.

[clegg]

While I Am all for personal freedoms when something doesn’t impact me or anyone else... But Helmet and seatbelt laws are something I fully think should be law nationwide.

The simple reason is... in the next 4 years we are now instituting a national health care system... in that, we all now have a vested interest in keeping up our collective national health. Which we did before and do today as well, just no one sees it that way. Encouraging someone to ride without a helmet just so they can end up a vegge on private insurance or tax funded insurance for a decade or more is very irresponsible.

I not only think Helmets should be required, but helmets that cover more of the head as well, none of these small top of the head helmets, but 3/4 coverage helmets at a minimum, stricter DOT standards, retro reflective and color requirements (Flat black is the new chrome it seems... and its ohh so visible right?) for helmets. I also think that each helmet should be required to have safe removal systems installed (Like the airbag system some race helmets use, where there is a valve on the top that a EMT can pump air into easily and it pushes the helmet off the top of the persons head from inside the helmet, so not putting strain on the neck or spine.)

The way I see it, (and regardless of your political views), this week, we all just became investors in the nation’s health and wellbeing, and with that some "personal freedoms" that cost the country considerable amounts of money may need to be adjusted.

[Rayme]

People should be able to ride with or no helmet. It's their decision to judge what impact it might have on their family / income if anything happens...though people with poor judgement is unlikely to survive any stupid move on the highway helmet or not. I myself can't imagine riding without anything on my head, it's not even just about the potential accident, it's the rocks, wind, rain and bugs hazard flying in my face! We don't have the nicest windshield around..

What I do not like is like previously said, fatal accidents will increase insurance premium for the good riders...It's always the good riders' premium who pays for the bad one's decision, sadly...Good thing at least we pay lower wages because of the 250 is not statisticaly associated with crashes like supersports.

[cnichols79us]

Originally Posted by Rayme

People should be able to ride with or no helmet. It's their decision to judge what impact it might have on their family / income if anything happens...though people with poor judgement is unlikely to survive any stupid move on the highway helmet or not. I myself can't imagine riding without anything on my head, it's not even just about the potential accident, it's the rocks, wind, rain and bugs hazard flying in my face! We don't have the nicest windshield around..

What I do not like is like previously said, fatal accidents will increase insurance premium for the good riders...It's always the good riders' premium who pays for the bad one's decision, sadly...Good thing at least we pay lower wages because of the 250 is not statisticaly associated with crashes like supersports.

To me it is kinda funny that we, as a group, USUALLY preach ATGATT from what I have read here on this forum. BUT, a lot of people feel it should be a CHOICE to wear a helmet. Some D-Bag riding down the freeway in a t-shirt and shorts is called a Squid by many, but he should have the choice to not wear a helmet also???? ME personally, I think it is a lack of common sense and respect to others that makes laws like this Improper and costly to EVERYONE. I don't think that people do see ALL the costs involved in making a choice like this. I personally would NEVER go w/o a helmet knowing that with my luck, that WOULD be the time I crash and smash my face into a telephone pole, or something.

I know it kinda comes down to the Individuals Rights. Their choice to decide. I can still remember people being up in arms about the New Seatbelt law when it passed. Now, Most people just put on their seatbelt when they get in, some don't. But, I think that the law has benefited everyone for the most, without being an unruly intrusion of Individual Rights.... depending on how YOU view it, I guess. Not to get on a soapbox rant here. Sorry y'all. Just my 2 cents. Only worth about 1 1/4 cents though....

[Rayme]

Originally Posted by cnichols79us

To me it is kinda funny that we, as a group, USUALLY preach ATGATT from what I have read here on this forum. BUT, a lot of people feel it should be a CHOICE to wear a helmet. Some D-Bag riding down the freeway in a t-shirt and shorts is called a Squid by many, but he should have the choice to not wear a helmet also???? ME personally, I think it is a lack of common sense and respect to others that makes laws like this Improper and costly to EVERYONE. I don't think that people do see ALL the costs involved in making a choice like this. I personally would NEVER go w/o a helmet knowing that with my luck, that WOULD be the time I crash and smash my face into a telephone pole, or something.

I know it kinda comes down to the Individuals Rights. Their choice to decide. I can still remember people being up in arms about the New Seatbelt law when it passed. Now, Most people just put on their seatbelt when they get in, some don't. But, I think that the law has benefited everyone for the most, without being an unruly intrusion of Individual Rights.... depending on how YOU view it, I guess. Not to get on a soapbox rant here. Sorry y'all. Just my 2 cents. Only worth about 1 1/4 cents though....

All I'm saying is , individuals who wear protective gears or not has more to do with their personality than the laws. I wear all my gear all the time but I'm not going to preach to somebody who's already riding without gear.. I'm pretty sure they know already the risks. It's kind of going out and telling everybody you see smoking "hey you know smoking is bad?". My .02 $

[cnichols79us]

:

Originally Posted by Rayme

All I'm saying is , individuals who wear protective gears or not has more to do with their personality than the laws. I wear all my gear all the time but I'm not going to preach to somebody who's already riding without gear.. I'm pretty sure they know already the risks. It's kind of going out and telling everybody you see smoking "hey you know smoking is bad?". My .02 $

Very True Remy, very True. I guess this is a bad place in the thread to admit that I smoke.... But I don't smoke without my Helmet on, EVER!!!

[dowmace]

I feel that once you hit 18 it should be you choice, if you want to be an idiot then you can be an idiot. We have the seatbelt law here in oklahoma, but not a helmet law after you turn 18.

While it is stupid and a terrible decision, why have a helmet law if you don't have a jacket or pants law?

[tlhamon]

Hey, this page is all about opinions. And I have to admit that I am somewhat of a hipocrite as I ride my pedal bike sans helmet, which is also dangerous. I would say that as long as people can afford to be dangerous, let them. I would pay to sky dive and no one is going to convince me that it is safe. It's when it starts costing others that it becomes a real problem, i.e., insurance premiums.

[tlhamon]

Well, I know that when I ride naked, the cops get pretty upset, so I think we have a jacket and pants law here in Michigan. :P

[ScraitT]

Oddly enough I almost always wear a helmet on the ninja, but never wear a helmet when I ride my offroad bikes. I guess I have faith in myself as a rider, but not in others, and being offroad you don't have to deal with others.
Risky? Definitely. But I love to take in the fresh air...just like taking my helmet off at the beach on the ninja. I don't mind it in traffic, but when i get a chance to take in the air, I love it.

A nice option for those opposed to insurance rates and family members and such would be to have two different motorcycle plates. Maybe one white and one yellow or something along those lines. If you have a white plate, feel free for whatever. If you have a yellow plate, you sign that you will ALWAYS wear a helmet as if there was a helmet law.
The yellow plate would be mandatory for those under 21, and for those over 21 who wish to keep a yellow plate, it would bring lower insurance rates.
The white plate is for those over 21 who wish to not wear a helmet, but would come at an expense with higher insurance rates, and possibly a higher registration fee.
Cops could then enforce helmets for those with yellow plates issuing tickets and such which would ensure to the insurance company (and family members) that the rider is in fact wearing a helmet.

Florida currently has a similar system


Thats so that cops can recognize riders under 21 who are required to wear a helmet.

[karlosdajackal]

it should not be a personal choice if it affects other people if you mess your head up after an off.

Apart from your own friends/family, it could affect the people who see your brains all over the road, the guy who has to scrape them off. Assuming you make it to the hospital that stuff is payed for (by tax payers here, don't know how your system works as its just changed) assuming you have a long road to recovery that takes time/effort on some peoples parts. What if you have no insurance of your own or government assistance, your family will probably bankrupt themselves to look after you rather than leave you to die. The list goes on off people indirectly affected.

Someone should not have the right to choose they don't care about all that enough to put a bit of plastic on there head. Their are no downsides to wearing a helmet other than how cool you think you look. Last I heard the us constitution does not protect your coolness

[CC Cowboy]

Freedom is a beautiful thing. Too bad we loose more and more of it each year.

[ninjabrewer]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

Freedom is a beautiful thing. Too bad we loose more and more of it each year.

I disagree, and agree, on some points. CA, in the last few years, has really cracked down on nudity at traditionally clothing optional beaches. Yes we are losing freedoms every year, but in what way are you referring too?

My on the helmet issue, and I know I may get flamed on this, as also to the above comment, is this; when you get your license, and everytime you get it renewed, if you choose to ride without a helmet or safety equipment in general, and you are critically injured in a accident, you must sign a statement that you understand that the taxpayers are not going to take care of you for the rest of your vegetative life. They will take you to the hospital so you can die comfortably, and, you will have to sign to NOT be an organ donor, not the other way around. I can see why some would not want to wear a helmet, as has been said before, it is a personal decision.

nb

[Flow]

Personally, I'm all for getting rid of helmet laws. It'll weed out the inferior people from the gene pool.

By "inferior," I mean "stupid."

[Alex]

Without taking sides on the helmet vs. no helmet law, I'd be interested in some raw data about whether it is more expensive to take care of 100 crashed motorcyclists who weren't wearing helmets compared to 100 crashed motorcyclists who were wearing helmets.

All of us would likely agree that a helmet-wearing motorcyclist is likely to sustain the same or less injury than that same motorcyclist in the same accident without a helmet. But if the injury to a non-helmeted rider = fatality, and injury to helmeted rider means survivable yet very, very costly injuries and rehabilitation, in that case the use of a helmet caused increased costs for that individual & the general population as well.

But without that actuarial data, any of us supposing that mandatory helmet usage saves cost, is just that, supposition. We'd be on firmer ground stating banning smoking or banning fast food would save healthcare costs, as those are pretty much slam dunks.

[ScraitT]

Originally Posted by ninjabrewer

you will have to sign to NOT be an organ donor, not the other way around.

nb

Why would you have to sign up to NOT be an organ donor if you didn't wear a helmet? Or did you mean it the other way around, you must be an organ donor to pass on wearing a helmet?

[CC Cowboy]

What about smokers?. Should we have to take of them? Should they get million dollar settlements?

What about illegals? Should we have to take care of them?

The list can go on and on.

I believe people should have to take care of themselves? I believe in freedom and with that comes responsibility.

[devinjc]

I'm all for freedom, what you do on your road is your business. On the road I paid taxes for you have to obey laws, and one of them should be you have to wear a helmet. Just like you have to get a license and you have to be a certain age.

[Banzai]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

I believe people should have to take care of themselves? I believe in freedom and with that comes responsibility.

Too bad Obama just stole that option from us all and took over responsibility.

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by devinjc

I'm all for freedom, what you do on your road is your business. On the road I paid taxes for you have to obey laws, and one of them should be you have to wear a helmet. Just like you have to get a license and you have to be a certain age.

You mean that some laws aren't just for collecting money? Like speed limits? It's funny how when the limit was 55MPH and you were doing 70MPH you were driving reckless. Now the speed limit is 70PMH but it's not considered dangerous or reckless.

The license is an other tax.

The registration is another tax.

Your helmet law is just another tax!

Need I go on?

Just a thought but; all of you who condemn the Harley guy, who doesn't wear a helmet but has been riding for years (with no accidents), and the 250 rider with all the gear (and crashes), are hypocrats.

[FrugalNinja250]

Twice in my first year of riding I'd been hit in the visor by very large grasshoppers at highway speeds. One exploded over my right eye, leaving a spatter/streak that was an inch wide and several inches long. The other hit dead center over the bridge of my nose and left a splatter disc so large I had to finish that ride with my head turned so that I could see out the side of my helmet.

Both hits would have cause severe eye injuries, possibly blindness, and either would very likely have taken me off my bike in the middle of high-speed heavy traffic.

I for the life of me cannot understand why someone wouldn't want to wear a helmet. Is it just pure orneriness and spite?

[backinthesaddleagain]

Originally Posted by ninjabrewer

I disagree, and agree, on some points. CA, in the last few years, has really cracked down on nudity at traditionally clothing optional beaches. Yes we are losing freedoms every year, but in what way are you referring too?

My on the helmet issue, and I know I may get flamed on this, as also to the above comment, is this; when you get your license, and everytime you get it renewed, if you choose to ride without a helmet or safety equipment in general, and you are critically injured in a accident, you must sign a statement that you understand that the taxpayers are not going to take care of you for the rest of your vegetative life. They will take you to the hospital so you can die comfortably, and, you will have to sign to NOT be an organ donor, not the other way around. I can see why some would not want to wear a helmet, as has been said before, it is a personal decision.

nb

Regarding the beaches thing - Chris has the before and after photos to prove it - JUST KIDDING CHRIS!!

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Twice in my first year of riding I'd been hit in the visor by very large grasshoppers at highway speeds. One exploded over my right eye, leaving a spatter/streak that was an inch wide and several inches long. The other hit dead center over the bridge of my nose and left a splatter disc so large I had to finish that ride with my head turned so that I could see out the side of my helmet.

Both hits would have cause severe eye injuries, possibly blindness, and either would very likely have taken me off my bike in the middle of high-speed heavy traffic.

I for the life of me cannot understand why someone wouldn't want to wear a helmet. Is it just pure orneriness and spite?

I think they aim for us.

[backinthesaddleagain]

Originally Posted by Banzai

Too bad Obama just stole that option from us all and took over responsibility.

Maybe Obamacare will has a hidden helmet law written into it??? Or it will exclude treatment of certain groups including bike riders.

[Dano]

We don't have a Helmet law in PA except for those under 18 and those with less than 3 yrs on a moto liscense. I see people all the time not wearing a helmet, mostly Harley and Harley type bike riders but the occasional sportbiker. I always wear my helmet and gear because even a minor accident could turn fatal without gear on. Its pretty much worthless preatching to people who don't wear their gear so I don't bother.

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by Dano

We don't have a Helmet law in PA except for those under 18 and those with less than 3 yrs on a moto liscense. I see people all the time not wearing a helmet, mostly Harley and Harley type bike riders but the occasional sportbiker. I always wear my helmet and gear because even a minor accident could turn fatal without gear on. Its pretty much worthless preatching to people who don't wear their gear so I don't bother.

And that's the way it should be.

[revstriker]

I always wear a helmet when I ride, and I always wear a seatbelt when I'm in the car. But these should be personal choices. I don't need the government protecting me from me. As for the price of insurance angle, I have not seen this to be true. I live in a state which does not require helmets and my full coverage insurance is pretty cheap compared to what I've seen others post up.

[backinthesaddleagain]

My buddy didn't wear a helmet the other night. We went out around 6pm sunday as the temps started dipping below 50. I took him on a back road he had never been on, then I had one more to show him but his face and ears were too cold. Had he worn a helmet we could have taken a couple more good roads. Oh well a small consequence compared to others that riders without helmets have had.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by ninjabrewer

My on the helmet issue, and I know I may get flamed on this, as also to the above comment, is this; when you get your license, and everytime you get it renewed, if you choose to ride without a helmet or safety equipment in general, and you are critically injured in a accident, you must sign a statement that you understand that the taxpayers are not going to take care of you for the rest of your vegetative life. They will take you to the hospital so you can die comfortably, and, you will have to sign to NOT be an organ donor, not the other way around. I can see why some would not want to wear a helmet, as has been said before, it is a personal decision.

This argument is quite a slippery slope. Would you then apply these standards to personal choices and acts which could be deemed dangerous? Should you sign such a waiver if you ski? Play football? Hockey? What about if someone smokes or drinks? And probably the most important question of them all: Who decides these things?

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by ducducgooseit

Big Brother is here and he rode in on the pretense of change. Do this, do that, wear what I say, act my way. Jesus tap-dancing Christ, didn't anyone read Metropolis, Animal Farm, or 1984. Or watch Logan's Run or Gattaca?.

You can't say that!

Actually Obama has made the changes he promised. The fact is only a few of us did the research to find out what he meant by these changes.

salam

[ninjabrewer]

Originally Posted by revstriker

This argument is quite a slippery slope. Would you then apply these standards to personal choices and acts which could be deemed dangerous? Should you sign such a waiver if you ski? Play football? Hockey? What about if someone smokes or drinks? And probably the most important question of them all: Who decides these things?

very good points, and I don't have the answers for them. And I see the point that you are making. One suggestion always opens up more questions.

nb

[ninjabrewer]

Originally Posted by ScraitT

Why would you have to sign up to NOT be an organ donor if you didn't wear a helmet? Or did you mean it the other way around, you must be an organ donor to pass on wearing a helmet?

Every place that I have gotten a license, you had to volunteer to be an organ donor. What I was saying is that if you ride without a helmet, then you will be an organ donor unless you say specifically that you will not be.

nb

[ninjabrewer]

Originally Posted by Banzai

Too bad Obama just stole that option from us all and took over responsibility.

not getting into a political discussion, but I don't see how Obama stole that option.

nb

[cnichols79us]

I think this is one of those topics that could be argued for YEARS. It is Brilliant in the fact that it makes us think. We will ALL have are own opinions, and you know how the saying goes about those... We ALL have our own Hypocracies also. I have my own feelings on riding without a Helmet, but I also smoke and drink. Is One cigarette or drink going to Kill me. No. Is One crash without a helmet going to Kill me. Maybe. Might Kill me with the Helmet on too! Now, I have been training for a considerable amount of time in the tactical use of Firearms. Someday, I would like to train Law Enforcement. Can one slip up in a training scenario Kill me. Darn Tootin' it could. Does the cost outway the benefits for me? No.... I LOVE doing it and I just try to be as SAFE as humanly possible. Kinda like riding Motorcycles. LONG story short, we all do some things that seem Stupid, or not , to other people. Some people just do things that are more blatanly obvious than others, like riding with no helmet, or smoking, or drinking, or smoking AND drinking with No Helmet on.....

[devinjc]

Originally Posted by CC Cowboy

You mean that some laws aren't just for collecting money? Like speed limits? It's funny how when the limit was 55MPH and you were doing 70MPH you were driving reckless. Now the speed limit is 70PMH but it's not considered dangerous or reckless.

The license is an other tax.

The registration is another tax.

Your helmet law is just another tax!

Need I go on?

Just a thought but; all of you who condemn the Harley guy, who doesn't wear a helmet but has been riding for years (with no accidents), and the 250 rider with all the gear (and crashes), are hypocrats.

Roads aren't built for free. When you build your own I don't care what you do on it. We're in a thing called a society, there are rules, some of them are arbitrary, some are not. It turns out that governments have to collect taxes to build things. Eisenhower was not a magic fairy who waved a wand and created the interstate system, he was part of a system of government that collects taxes and attempts to do things for the good of the country.

And that's also not the definition of hypocrite. Not even vaguely. If we condemned the Harley guy for not wearing a helmet while not wearing helmets ourselves, then we'd be hypocrites.


Also the speed limit was 70 before it was 55 before it went back up to 70. Feel free to read up on why, and if you still think it was for speeding ticket revenue (which isn't enough to pay for the cops spending time to do it) then read some more.

[ScorpionNinja]

Fine, you wanna ride without a Helmet?
Its your choice, but "Dont" make the rest of us suffer Higher insurance prices in the event your Helmet-less ass Dies in a motorcycle crash!

So, there you are at the SOS, you are going to choose No-Helmet, and you /sign on the line! Small print should read...
"In the event of a crash Without your Helmet on, causing your own DEATH, No Insurance companies or Americans will be charged or taxed."

You dont wear a Helmet in a crash in which you Die, then the rest of us have the Right to NOT faqing pay higher Insurances for Fools like these!

[CC Cowboy]

Originally Posted by devinjc

Roads aren't built for free. When you build your own I don't care what you do on it. We're in a thing called a society, there are rules, some of them are arbitrary, some are not. It turns out that governments have to collect taxes to build things. Eisenhower was not a magic fairy who waved a wand and created the interstate system, he was part of a system of government that collects taxes and attempts to do things for the good of the country.
And that's also not the definition of hypocrite. Not even vaguely. If we condemned the Harley guy for not wearing a helmet while not wearing helmets ourselves, then we'd be hypocrites.

Also the speed limit was 70 before it was 55 before it went back up to 70. Feel free to read up on why, and if you still think it was for speeding ticket revenue (which isn't enough to pay for the cops spending time to do it) then read some more.

The government collects taxes to build things like bridges to nowhere and airports that aren't needed but a Senator had some power to get it done. Pork barrel projects and waste are everywhere.

The attempt for the good of the country is actually for the good of their re-election purposes.

There are many things done that help the country but there is also so much waste with never an attempt to reduce taxes.

The speed limit was not 70 before it was 55 (unless you lived in Nevada or Montana or some other rural area). I remember the great President Carter and all his follies.

I take it Harley riders (in your eyes) are the only riders who don't wear helmets. You either don't live in a busy motorcycle area or have missed all the sport bikers who don't wear helmets doing wheelies at high speeds.

I am not saying people should not wear helmets. I am saying it should be their choice. Maybe you need the govenment to tell you how to live, I don't.