You are viewing this article in the AnnArbor.com archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see MLive.com/ann-arbor
Posted on Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:04 a.m.

Ann Arbor area residents react to possible repeal of motorcycle helmet law

By Tina Reed

Motorcycle.jpg

Since he first began riding motorcycles seriously in 1994, Saline resident Hank Taylor has had the chance to ride through all but four of the 50 states.

So he knows first-hand the draw that cross country riding has for motorcycle riders. And he knows how big of a deterrent a motorcycle helmet law can be for many riders in deciding whether to visit a state.

Especially, he notes, when neighboring states like Ohio and Indiana are “states of choice,” and those without helmets have to turn around at the Michigan state line or risk a ticket. 

“There are a lot more people on motorcycles these days than people realize,” Taylor said. “It’s a tourist issue.”

Michigan’s legislature is considering whether it should repeal the state’s helmet law for riders over the age of 21. Last Thursday, the state House passed a measure 63 to 46 to repeal a state law requiring motorcycle riders to wear a helmet. It will now be considered by the state Senate.

On Friday, the Michigan Department of Community Health released a statement against repealing the law, saying it would increase the number of serious injuries and deaths in motorcycle accidents. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has indicated she would veto a move to remove the helmet law.

“The decision to repeal the Michigan Helmet Law is completely misguided, and it is a disservice to the people of Michigan,” said Janet Olszewski, director of the state health department. “The current law protects motorcycle riders from serious and in many cases fatal injury. If this law is removed, there will be great potential for more injuries and deaths related to motorcycle accidents.”

Many of those cases would be uncompensated care or billed to Medicaid, which means the general Michigan population would be left to pay the bill, the statement from the state said.

Joe Knopp, vice president of Ann Arbor Insurance Centre, which sells motorcycle insurance, said repealing the law would almost certainly raise insurance premiums for motorcycle riders. “I can’t see how it wouldn’t because losses will increase,” he said.

Data on motorcycle accidents supports requiring motorcycle riders to wear helmets. “Helmets are good. They save lives and decrease the severity of injuries we see in motorcycle injuries,” Knopp said.

However, motorcycle rights groups have questioned the accuracy of government data that indicates large increases of injury rates in states that don't have helmet laws. They also say while there are safety benefits from using helmets while riding, helmets also carry safety risks and can decrease ridership.

For his part, Taylor said he'd likely keep wearing a helmet even if the law was repealed because he’s used to wearing one by now. And it provides a place for him to hang his CB radio.

Taylor said he thinks those who choose to take the increased risk of riding without a helmet shouldn't be included in the catastrophic insurance fund.

But riders should still have the option, he said, particularly when helmets do provide a limited risk reduction, he said. 

“Anything over 30 miles per hour isn’t going to do you much good anyway, he said.

Tina Reed covers health and the environment for AnnArbor.com. You can reach her at tinareed@annarbor.com, call her at 734-623-2535 or find her on Twitter @TreedinAA.

Comments

Rusty

Thu, Apr 1, 2010 : 9:28 p.m.

Well Said Little Sister! American Citizens have forgotten the face of their fathers. The attitude prevails that the revolution, the risks and perils of our founding fathers are a quaint old story from long by gone days. My life is mine. My property is mine. My money is mine. NOT the governments. We The People are the ones running this show, not we the sheeple. Supreme Court Chief Justice Joseph Story made this speech a couple hundred years ago on Independence Day. I call upon you, fathers, by the shades of your ancestors-by the dear ashes which repose in this precious soil-by all you are, and all you hope to be- resist every encroachment upon you liberties, resist every attmept to fetter your consciences, or smother your public schools, or extinguish your system of public instruction. I call upon you, mothers, by that which never fails in a woman, the love of your off-spring; teach them, as they climb your knees, or lean on your bosoms, the blessings of liberty. Swear them at the altar, as with their baptismal vows, to be true to their country, and never forget or forsake her. I call upon you, young men, to remember whose sons you are; whose inheritance you possess. Life can never be to short, which brings nothing but disgrace and oppression. Death never comes to soon, if necessary in the defense of the liberties of your country. I call upon you, old men, for your counsels, and prayers, and your benedictions. May not your gray hairs go down in sorrow to the grave, with the recollection that you have lived in vain. May not your last sun sink in the west upon a nation of slaves. No; I read in the destiny of my country far better hopes, far brighter visions. We, who are assembled here, must soon be gathered to the congregation of other days. The time of our departure is at thand, to make way for our children upon the theatre of life. May god speed them and theirs. May he who, at the distance of another century, shall stand here to celebrate this day, still look round upon a free, happy, and virtuous people. May he have reason to exult as we do. May he, with all the enthusiasm of truth as well as poetry, exclaim, that here is still his country.

Little Sister

Thu, Apr 1, 2010 : 7:42 p.m.

Less than 2% of long term care patients are motorcyclists that become the cost of the public in this debate. More are from alternative non roadway use sporting injuries (sports on grassy fields), obesity initiated health issues, and other diseases (cancer, aids, etc.). The morbid descriptions and judgmental name calling of stupid and smart is so ridiculous in this forum. During the Revolutionary War, "Live Free or Die: Death is not the worst of evils." General Stark toasted the annual Battle of Bennington reunion party with this toast. He couldn't make the annual gathering when he was 81 years old because he felt ill that year. After fighting on fields of this land in his teens into his 20's, he continued to live into his nineties despite dodging bullets to live in the "...land of the free and home of the brave." With that image in my mind of all soldiers in history, it amazes me when silly folks want to quibble about a piece of plastic deemed to be a safety device that has some supposed ultra power to promise life or death to anyone wearing it. We all know of someone that passed away in some strange, unfair, selfless, selfish, expected and/or unexpected manner. Laws do not help fate. If it is your time to pass, you will do so no matter how legislature deems that you shouldn't. Folks as General Stark said,":Death is not the worst of evils." It is not fair to say that a helmet is a preventative of death when there are people that die every day in cars, walking, sitting at their desks at work when planes unexpectedly fly into the buildings, an angry postal worker goes to work, and so on...point made...Legislative laws do not prevent newspapers from printing a daily obituary...daily - get it every day folks that wear safety devices or don't still happen to pass on. Repeal the law, stop letting Legislation make new ones and think of what country our forefathers expected us to be living in and how they wanted us to proudly and peacefully live in it.

Streamer

Thu, Apr 1, 2010 : 9:54 a.m.

The proposed legislation is to allow riders to make the choice. Remember that insurance exists because risk exists. If you are not driving the safest car on the road, are you driving up everyone else's insurance rate? Are you advocating that the government should step in and MAKE everyone drive ONLY the safest rated car, because anything else is a higher risk? The 31 states that have some type of "choice" helmet law have not experienced any of the "high insurance penalties" or created "huge head injury hospitals" with people laying around ready to donate organs. Just look at what has actually happened in those other states. Michigan's motorcycle fatality count recently increased over 50% from one year to the next. The law wasn't changed. Does that mean staying with the law caused the increase?

rrt911

Wed, Mar 31, 2010 : 8:16 a.m.

Don't be an idiot, put your helmut on and shut up. This comes from a woman who broke her leg, knee cap, and wrist 6 months ago. If I hadn't worn the helmut---I WOULD BE DEAD. It's just that simple.

Skeet

Wed, Mar 31, 2010 : 7:18 a.m.

there is a seatbelt law which forces drivers to be safe when driving in a vehicle, so its only fair to force bike riders to wear a helmet while riding...

snapshot

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 11:10 p.m.

Jon Sealberg, I will assume you are perfect and not overwieght, smoke, text or use a cell phone while driving, drink and drive,or drink period, all of which add to insurnace costs. Or are you just a self rightious, hypocrite?

sbbuilder

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 5:45 p.m.

Spring of 1982. Up north riding my BMW R65. Got a high speed wobble and was thrown in less than two seconds. I bounced down the pavement for 135 yards. Today I still have the helment that saved my life, and show it to my kids when I tell the story. (My fault, because I didn't change the fork oil per manufacturers' specs.) It's hard to demand that everybody wear helmets. It seems such a painfully obvious safety precaution. With the new onerous healthcare legislation, it's anyone's guess how insurance liability will be changed. Now if we can just get motorcyclists to stop texting while...

Anonymous Due to Bigotry

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 11:38 a.m.

Actually the DOT approval for a helmet doesn't really mean much. The standard that really matters is Snell Certification because it's much more rigorous. Make sure you get one bearing the Snell certification mark. http://www.smf.org/ Also, as @in4mation says, even though helmets are generally only rated for 30mph or so, people don't usually run head-on into concrete walls. The 30mph rating doesn't mean helmets don't help if you're going more than 30mph. It usually means that you'd need to be thrown in the air high enough that gravity would accelerate you above 30mph before you hit the ground. (@atnaap: Sorry, I guess the stat on 80% that I remembered was either out of date or just a poor source. I think it was a state DOT report in some state or the other. Perhaps the 80% stat was limited to the state.)

loran

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 10:21 a.m.

I'm not riding a bike, so I don't feel too concerned. I am more concerned by the number of people using their cell phone while driving. THOSE people are dangerous to me and my family. You want to reduce the number of injuries and fatalities on the road? Ban the cell phones and ENFORCE it.

eyeloveypsi

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 9:49 a.m.

Why is logic never even tried? Professor Higgins

Jon Saalberg

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 9:32 a.m.

Doesn't matter. The governor will veto this misguided effort, as she should, and it will not become law. As mentioned already, as long as cycle riders bear 100% of the costs of treating their injuries while riding without a helmet, the law would be fine with me.

jernalyzt

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 7:51 a.m.

Steve, what's more important is the people in Michigan who weren't killed in an accident that very easily could have been fatal (freeway) because they WERE wearing a helmet. I'm married to one.

steve

Tue, Mar 30, 2010 : 1:40 a.m.

Every biker killed in MI.last year was wearing a helmet.I guess they don't work very well.Nobody has ever proven that wearing a helmet prevents accidents!Most accidents are caused by distracted car drivers outlaw car radio's and all other electronic divises.why would anybody belive the ins.companys remember these are the people that screw you every 6mos.and after every claim!

snapshot

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 10:26 p.m.

I wonder how many of the critics who bring up insurance costs are overweight? Smoke? Drive using cell phones? Don't use seatbelts? Have high Cholesteral? Drink and Drive? Smoke while driving? Eat while driving? Engage in conversaztion while driving? Before you criticize and start making financial demands of others, look at yourselves. Most bikers go down as a result of inattentive drivers who are at fault. So here's the scoop. You critics want to save lives? Pay attention to driving when you're behind the steering wheel of a 4,000 lb moving vehicle,don't tailgate, use your turn signals, come to complete stops at stopsigns and lights, and look both ways, twice, before pulling out or making left turns. Do these things and YOU will save lives and reduce insurance costs.

snapshot

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 10:08 p.m.

If you want to really protect bikers, outlaw cell phone use while driving and tailgaiting, then bikers won't be bouncing off the pavement as frequently.

rkhpa

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:48 p.m.

In general I support an individuals right to live and act as they please. I don't support the assumption that society should foot the bill for their mistakes. When I worked the trauma unit there is a reason we called them donorcycles. Repealing the helmet law is a bad idea. I helmet law for bicycle riders is a good idea too but is a separate discussion.

elligur

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:47 p.m.

There's a good reason doctors call motorcycles - "donorcycles." 'Nough said.

Ryan Munson

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 8:28 p.m.

All I'll say is I even wear a helmet on my non-motorized scooter. All it takes is the right imbalance for you to seriously injure yourself.

Matt Cooper

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 8:06 p.m.

Atticus: "why should people who drive cars have to pay for people who drive motorcycles, when they are much more dangerous than cars?" It's the cars and the people driving them that make life on a motorcycle dangerous. That's an undisputable fact. How often do you hear stories about motorcycles running red lights and slamming into cars vs. the car slamming the bike? How many times do you hear of cars making illegal U-turns in front of motorcycles and causing accidents vs. the opposite? How many times do you read or see reported incidents of drunken motorcyclists crossing 3, 4 or 5 lanes of traffic, running across the grassy median and slamming into oncoming traffic killing whole families? Whoever is causing the geatest portion of deadly accidents should bear the burden of over-insuring themselves. Helmets, like seat belts in cars, are a totally reasonable amount of protective gear to require under the law. we require seat belts in cars to save lives. We require emissions testing to protect the environment. We require child car seats to protec children. We require cars to be built in certain ways (ie. gas tanks located within the frame of the car to prevent explosions on rear impact. Think: Ford Pinto of the late 70's) to protect lives. We require speed limits to protect lives. Why not require a helmet...to protect lives? And to suggest we make illegal those other activities is plain foolishness.

Betty

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:53 p.m.

Do Helmet laws really protect anything of value? I mean isn't it clear that we are trying to preserve a brain whose function is so poor; it does not even try to avoid the cracking of the head it's in. Stop the "nanny" state. We need to thin the herd every once in a while.

aj

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:28 p.m.

Hey folks, didn't you know that ALL healthcare is now FREE? So what's with all this "increased insurance cost" BS? The feds are gonna cover everything, so who cares about insurance or medical costs, right? I mean if I'm going to have to foot the bill for the welfare mamas that sit on their obese butts eating bon bons and swilling down the Pepsis, why shouldn't they have to pay for me if I want to ride without a helmet? But seriously folks, watch and see; the feds are going to start OUTLAWING any type of behavior they deem is "risky" and could result in "increased costs". So all you folks out there who like snowmobiling, horse-back riding, skiing, parasailing, bungee jumping, etc., just wait; very soon now the sport YOU love will be illegal and then maybe you'll understand what we're saying.

Mick52

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 4:59 p.m.

Okay so you can't talk on your cell phone because its more dangerous but you don't you have to wear your helmet because its more dangerous. I am sooo happy that our representatives in Lansing are not over stressed by the fact that Michigan ranks last in the nation in practically all economic difficulties and all of our cities, counties and schools are in dire need of assistance, so that they can debate foolish legislation like this one. Since our bank accounts are being picked clean for health care, we should legislating more to keep people healthy and safe to keep health care costs down.

girlhunter

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 4:40 p.m.

My husband and I both ride, have riden with and with out a helmets.. I prefer to ride with one. I feel that the state Michigan forces us to were a seatbelt.. why not a helmet? we are being forced to not smoke in public, not to drink and drive, and urged not to have unprotected sex..all of the above metntioned was done to protect us from harms way... so why would they vote to make wearing a helmet opptional? makes no sence!!!!

jcj

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 4:12 p.m.

A number of post here say OK if the cyclist are required to purchase more coverage and their ability to sue is limited. I could not agree more. I would like to see a poll that ask motorcycle riders if they would support the repeal with these stipulations. Put your money where your mouth is.( Or Was )

Atticus F.

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 4 p.m.

^^^^ so you admit that you are aware there is an assumed danger when riding your motor cycle. So if you are willing to assumne a risk, why are you trying to deny other people the right to assume risk? Is it because there is a greater leve of risk? and who made you the person who decides what an apropriate level of risk is?

RuralMom

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 3:55 p.m.

Atticus, yes we put ourselves in danger by riding a Road King. At that same time we were all the protective gear that is REQUIRED and more importantly RECOMMENDED. On top of that we are also proactive in watching OTHER DRIVERS. There is always a level of assumable risk, what we don't do is thumb our noses at the protective gear, training, WATCHING what other drivers are doing and anticipating a bonehead move on their part. Its not preemptively blaming, its called EXPERIENCE in over 30+ years of riding without an accident I might add, due to our dilligence, training and anticipation.

Atticus F.

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 3:50 p.m.

BTW, I personally think people should be able to angage in dangerous activity...so long as they dont try to blame someone else when they get injured or killed. this includes motorcycle riding, high school sports, professional sports, ect...

Atticus F.

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 3:47 p.m.

Ruralmom, if you think you're putting yourself in so much danger by riding your bike, the simple solution would be to stop riding... instead of trying to preemptively blame people who drive cars. I personally do not want them to put "I was right" on my tombstone.

gene tracy

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 3:46 p.m.

Everytime I travel out of state and see a motorcyclist without a helmet, I just view him as a potential organ donor. Look at the bright side if the law is repealed.

RuralMom

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 3:17 p.m.

Atticus, what makes it more dangerous? USUALLY drivers of CARS who are NOT paying attention! (I am not talking about crotch rockets blazing down the freeway at 100mph). Every close call we have had on our bike has been by people in cars NOT paying attention. The only way we came out unscathed is to ANTICIPATE that there are oblivious people out there that don't see 5 headlights facing them, nor hear the roar of our engine. So under YOUR theory, people should not be able to drive cars.

Atticus F.

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:47 p.m.

Matt Cooper, under that reasoning, we should just ban motorcycles all together...after all, why should people who drive cars have to pay for people who drive motorcycles, when they are much more dangerous than cars? We could take that belief even a step further and say that anything remotely dangerous should be illegal...Including high school sports, bike riding, mountain climbing, ect...

Matt Cooper

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 2:25 p.m.

Bottom line, in my mind at least, is that we need not forget that driving any motorized vehicle on public roadways is a privelege, not a right. And the social contract we agree to when we live amongst other people is that we will not do things that will needlessly injure or endanger ourselves or others. As an avid motorcyclist for the past 20 years, I wouldn't ride without a helmet even if I could. And this crap about a helmet obstructing vision and/or limiting mobility is a bunch of bunk. If you wear a helmet and can't see where the hell you're going and can't move your head to check your mirrors, you shouldn't be on the road in the first place. Secondly, there are two problems with helmetless riders buying catastrophic-type of insurance coverage. 1. That kind of coverage would drive up the rates for EVERYONE, not just the helmetless rider. Insurance companies don't make money by paying out huge claims. They do it by charging higher premiums. 2. Once the insurance companies get tired of paying huge claims and either go out of business of stop selling motorcycle insurance, guess who then must be saddled with taking care of the traumatic brain injured helmetless rider? That's right...you and I! I personally don't think my tax dollars should be covering some other morons lifetime medical costs when the whole thing could have been avoided by simply putting on a protective device called a helmet.

RuralMom

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 1:15 p.m.

Lokalisierung it WILL eventually affect you and your rates. Since the majority of the time its a CAR that hits a BIKE, because despite the BEST of equipment people still don't see or pay attention to us, if you think YOUR CAR insurance rates won't go up your living in another world. I bet my pay check that if they abolish the helmet law, have a rash of CAR verses CYCLE crashes, even YOUR policy will go up in cost.

Lokalisierung

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 12:59 p.m.

@ Rural Mom I thought, Atticus was refering to "us" as "non notorcycle" people, at least that's the way I took it. So if my car rates don't go up then then i don't care if they wear one or not. Your stance seems to be coming from that of a rider who wants to wear one? So what may be true for us may not be true for you.

RuralMom

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 12:52 p.m.

"The "it cost us money" excuse has zero credability in this debate." If that's true then I say let them ride anyway they want. THAT'S NOT TRUE! As it is we pay $900 per year for about 6 months worth or riding. The cost of insurance on ALL bikes will go up in absence of a mandatory helmet law. We pay enough for coverage, we wear ALL our safety gear, have the bike lit up like a Christmas tree, AND of course the loud pipes save lives, and yet STILL there are drivers who don't see us coming. Its a risky sport, if you choose to participate you should be required to have at least a helmet it on when doing so.

Lokalisierung

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 12:24 p.m.

"The "it cost us money" excuse has zero credability in this debate." If that's true then I say let them ride anyway they want.

Atticus F.

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 12:18 p.m.

@aareader, it's important to note that all motorcycle riders are required to purchase motorcycle insurance(MI law). So infact nobody is asking you to "pick up the tab" for their dangerous behavior. The "it cost us money" excuse has zero credability in this debate.

Old West Sider

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 12:11 p.m.

Let em ride without helmets that's OK with me but don't make the rest of us pay for their medical care, sometimes for decades.

Lokalisierung

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 11:40 a.m.

Always a tough situation with personal freedoms and these types of laws. I would never ride a motorcycle without a helmet but I don't know if I want to put laws on someone else to do it. Of course I don't want to pay more money for them, but insurence is pretty much a scam anyway. This one always confuses me.

Streamer

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 11:39 a.m.

I find it interesting that the annarbor.com editorial this weekend chose to support "not passing" a restriction on cell phone use while driving as it hasn't been shown to reduce the number of accidents where such legislation has been enacted. The very same thing has been shown to be true when mandatory motorcycle helmet law states(19) are compared to helmet "choice" states(31) regarding fatalities per motorcycle accident. The mandatory law states and the helmet "choice" states have the same fatality rate of 2.9 per 100 motorcycle accidents. Yet the old Ann Arbor News continued to champion retaining this ineffective law every time the issue presented itself. No one is arguing that helmets shouldn't be used for any activity in which the participant feels so inclined to be so protected. If you are going to be struck on the head doing anything, a helmet would likely lessen the injury. But, a mandatory helmet law does NOT change the fatality rate per motorcycle accident and it's the law we're talking about. The last time this issue came up, I checked on auto insurance premiums around the country and compared the helmet "mandatory" states with the "choice" states and found comparitive coverage to be less expensive in the "choice" states. I can find no helmet "choice" state with any increase in insurance penalties because of modifying the helmet law. Why would the state of Michigan experience "penalties" no other state has experienced? The real issue here appears to be with the governor. She has twice vetoed this bill over the majority vote of both state chambers. Could she be influenced by the fact that motorcycle registrations normally increase (20%) when such restrictive laws are reasonably modified? Could she be influenced by the fact that motorcycle miles driven normally increase by both state residents and state visitors when such a law is so modified? Even though the number of fatalities per accident doesn't change, the number of accidents will likely go up proportionately to the increased participation. Insurance lobbiests hate that. Insurance lobbiests know that the end of the mandatory helmet law will cost insurance companies $ because participation will increase the number of claims, not the absence of a helmet. A helmet CANNOT prevent an accident. The real issue SHOULD be to reasonably modify the mandatory helmet law in Michigan to allow choice by the participant, increased participation by residents and visitors, thus bringing increased revenue to the state. The by-product could even be restoration of liberty to the riders. Michigan remains the ONLY Great Lakes State bullheadedly hanging on to this mandatory helmet law. Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania are all enjoying the tourist $ we're sending them, I'm sure.

aareader

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 11:30 a.m.

All race car drivers in protected cars wear helmets, pilots in high performance acrobatic aircraft wear helmets. These folks are highly experienced and they think it is important to wear helmets. Anyone that does not want to wear a helmet while driving an unprotected bike should have that right. BUT they DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT to expect us as a society to pick up the tab for their injuries if they have an accident... that could have been minimized by sensible safety gear. If this issue is that important to them then let them be responsible for all of their expenses with no help from us. They may be insurance companies that might write a policy just for them ($$$). Then let us see how important this "right" is for them.

TreeTown

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 11:25 a.m.

Bobby: Alexander Hamilton said we are not angels, therefore we need the government. Not everyone is an angle (like you and me, alway wear our seat belts and hemlmets), a lot of us needs "government's help" to do it. Just curious, if there is no IRS, will you give the "government" money to fix the roads just because you know the roads are bad?

Kelly

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 10:53 a.m.

My husband and I ride our Motorcycle in MI and very much support the helmet law. To us, helmet laws are equivalent to seatbelt laws - these safety mechanisms cannot protect you from accidents, but they can protect your body in the case of an accident. When helmets are law, bikers are much more likely to also wear complete safety equipment - boots, gloves, leathers, etc. These items are kind of like air bags on cars - they provide an extra layer of protection if one was to be in an accident. This issue is not why does MI have a helmet law when neighboring states do not, but rather, why don't the other states care about the brains of their citizens? I would also like MI to require a motorcycle safety course for anyone to receive a motorcycle driving endorsement on his or her license. Right now, motorcycle drivers can choose between a written skills test and a safety course. Car drivers have to have both tests, at least initially.

Atticus F.

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 10:31 a.m.

I think that it's important that we dont let the cost of insurance be used as an excuse to descriminate against someome. Nowhere is it written that your right to cheap insurance over rides someone elses right to live their life free of descrimination.

Are you serious?

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 10:24 a.m.

@abc "Smokers they do pay more for insurance Drinkers they do pay more for insurance (some studies point to benefits) Over eaters If you are overweight you do pay more for insurance Drug users it is already illegal Drivers with no seat belts it too is already illegal" Where do you get your information about smokers and drinkers paying more insurance? For the last two categories I don't get your point. Who should pay for their uninsured medical bills?

Atticus F.

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:38 a.m.

One could also argue that most from a cost/risk standpoint, that people who dont use helmets cost us less. Because they often die immediately, while people who wear helmets are often saved, but end up requiring long term care. And no I'm not trolling with that comment, I actually used to work with spinal injury patients...quite a few of which were injured in motorcycle accidents. This time of year we started to see a huge influx of spinal injuries, mainly due to motorcycle and diving accidents.

theodynus

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:31 a.m.

NHTSA says 63% of dead riders in '08 weren't wearing helmets, vs the 40% from '02 to '06 in the FARS database. Still, a long way off from 80%.

theodynus

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:27 a.m.

I am not a motorcycle rider, but I really don't care if I have to foot the bill for their long-term care. It's not enough money to worry about. It's _nothing_ compared to the money we spend on smokers or the morbidly obese. According to FARS, 42% of of motorcycle riders killed between 2002 and 2006 weren't wearing a helmet, AnonymousDuetoBigotry. Not 80%. In that period, around 35% of riders didn't wear a helmet, so 42% is only slightly higher than the base per-rider death rate. No clue on per-mile death rates (do helmeted riders ride more or less?). In an accident, motorcycle riders are about 40% more likely to die if they're not wearing a helmet. However, a helmet does reduce visibility, mobility and a rider's sense of danger. Is that enough to make you 40% more likely to be in an accident in the first place? I'm open to the possibility. You really don't want to go down the road of taxing a few risk takers because you don't "get" their choices.

Ethics Advocate

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:23 a.m.

I remember some years ago that any state that did not have a motorcycle helmet law was penalized by a reduction of federal money for highways. Is that no longer the case?

abc

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:19 a.m.

When I first began, I was taking off from a standing start with my wheel turned too much. I quickly went to the pavement and remember thinking how I would never ride without a helmet as my head bounced off the ground. Head was OK, helmet a little scratched." We were teaching a friend to ride and he did this in a parking lot and was fine. However a friend or a friend (an experienced rider) lost his balance straddling his bike in his driveway. He had no helmet on, he died. Personal freedom? Give me a break. My personal freedom is limited by the state in a hundred ways the minute I turn the key. Riding without a helmet is stupid. Other risky things? Smokers they do pay more for insurance Drinkers they do pay more for insurance (some studies point to benefits) Over eaters If you are overweight you do pay more for insurance Drug users it is already illegal Drivers with no seat belts it too is already illegal

jernalyzt

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 9:18 a.m.

Clarification to my above post...meant to say if my husband had had a serious head injury, the healthcare costs would've been high. He did not have a serious head injury, and that's because of a good quality helmet that proved well worth the investment. And the leathers...please, please weather leather! When I see a motorcyclist wearing nothing but a tshirt, it's all I can do to stop myself from jumping out of my car and staging an intervention.

Are you serious?

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 8:40 a.m.

I generally agree with the assessment of risk for motorcycle riders. The thing that seems to be missing is where do you draw the line on risky behavior? How about a poll on which of the following categories of people should be required to provide extra insurance: Smokers Drinkers Over eaters Drug users Drivers with no seat belts I'm sure there are other categories of "risky" behavior that could be included. It's just not obvious where the line should be drawn. One of the things about this country is that we are willing (in various degrees) to share the risk with fellow citizens because we all take risks of some sort.

jernalyzt

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 8:36 a.m.

My husband, a father of two young kids, was on his way to work in 2008 when an out-of-control driver on I94 passed over three lanes of traffic within two seconds, taking out my husband. Speed was about 70 mph. Do you know what it's like getting a phone call from a hospital at 7:30 a.m., telling you to "come quickly" because they're not sure how bad the head injury is? You can't imagine the relief I had walking in that ER room to see him talking. My knees literally buckled, I was so thankful.His MRI didn't show any major problems. He was lucky to just have sustained a dislocated shoulder, broken thumb, and mild concussion. Those relatively minor things, at 70 mph, in morning commute traffic. Was this a miracle? No. It was because he was wearing a helmet (scraped down on one side 1/2 inch deep) and full leathers (back of jacket scraped down to nothing). Our family was saved that day from horribe tragedy because of a helmet and leathers. Even if he lived, can you imagine the healtchare costs to our family and potentially taxpayers? So for those in Ohio and elsewhere who make the decision to not wear a helmet, remember that your decision doesn't affect just you. No, it's not a "personal choice." It's a choice you're making for those who love you and any other individuals affected by the accident.

vicki honeyman

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:35 a.m.

If a motorcyclist is stupid enough to choose to ride without a helmet, it's her/his choice to take the risk of brain damage or death in case of an accident. Indeed the insurance rates for motorcycle drivers would probably go up, but again, it's their choice.

hockeymom

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:35 a.m.

IT'S SIMPLE: Riders who *choose not to wear helmets* should be forced to sign insurance waivers stating all injuries obtained while riding sans helmet are financially responsible for the medical expenses, not the insurance company.

dfossil

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:34 a.m.

Hey, if they are stupid enough not to take basic caution, then I want the right to SUE THEIR FAMILY for My trauma at seeing their brains splashed all over the road!

hockeymom

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:33 a.m.

It's simple: Riders who choose not to wear helments should be forced to sign an insurance waiver stating all injuries obtained while riding w/o a helmet are financially responsible for their medical care, not the insurance company.

Ignatz

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:27 a.m.

I can't imagine riding without one. When I first began, I was taking off from a standing start with my wheel turned too much. I quickly went to the pavement and remember thinking how I would never ride without a helmet as my head bounced off the ground. Head was OK, helmet a little srcatched. I do agree that others have the right not to wear, but should totally carry the burden of the consequences. That includes not having any state funds be spent for hospitalization or rehab for those who choose not to wear a helmet. I don't like the government protecting me from myself, as they do with the seatbelt law. It's none of their business.

Bill Sloan

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:24 a.m.

Like the other person's friend I too went to Toledo to receive a kidney transplant. My donor was a 35 year old young man and father of two small children who sustained a fatal head injury while driving a motorcycle without a helmet. My waiting time for the transplant was nearly half of what it would have been in Michigan. I would rather have waited.

Graz

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 7:18 a.m.

I may be biased having likely been saved from death or serious injury due to being forced to wear a helmet by NC helmet laws. While living in NC, I was hit by an inattentive driver head-on as he pulled out of a parking lot. I came off of the motorcycle and my head struck the vehicles windshield as I passed it. I then continued to fly over the car and landed on the pavement behind the vehicle, again striking my helmeted head on the pavement. I was still injured, but was able to stand up minutes after the crash. Until then, I was like others who grumbled about the helmet laws and "loss of freedom". There's not much freedom in being paralyzed, in a coma or dead. This is just my opinion, but anyone that rides without a helmet is foolish. And should the laws be repealed, anyone who rides around A2 or east of it along the I94/ I96 corridor is foolish squared. I've had more close calls where people have nearly run me over on my motorcycle in this area during the 8 years that I've lived here than I've had riding nearly a million miles in other states since 1983.

treetowncartel

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:58 a.m.

Anyone who decides not to wear a helmet should have to opt out of Michigan's no-fault auto insurance catastrophic fund. The fund is designed to take care of people who have maxed out their policy limits, and anyone who pays auto insurance in Michigan contributes to this. An individual receiving care through the fund as opposed to something like Medicaid typicaly gets a higher level of care and treatment. Does anyone else see the irony in this same legislature passing a smoking ban for the health and welfare of the citizens and visitors to this state, and then turning around and passing a bill like this?

DagnyJ

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:49 a.m.

ER doctors call 'em "donor-cycles." My doc friends would remind us to visit nursing homes where riders who suffered head injuries might live for a decade or more, but require constant care. If you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then you should be prepared to pay the cost of that long term health care if you need it.

Michael

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:47 a.m.

Simple solution: Those who wish to ride without a helmet must buy SPECIAL insurance that will cover them for LIFE if they are made a vegetable in a wreck. Those who shell out the money get a special colored license plate so the cops don't pull them over for no helmet. Helmetless riders will NOT become a burden on their family or the State. Because ultimately, dying from a massive head trauma mostly affects your little circle of family/friends, but if you're left in a coma we ALL pay.

lg

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:42 a.m.

Its not an option to wear a seatbelt. We need laws to protect people from themselves Ive rode motorcycles since I was eight years old I've raced, cruised, and traveled. I've owned more motorcycles than I can remember. And never once without a helmet. I got hit and drug 300' down packard by a guy crossing the centerline. I walked away because I landed on his hubcap! butt on hubcap and head in helmet a major portion of the helmet was gone! both elbows are still scarred from bearly touching pavement. I was a firm believer then and even more so after.

Jack

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:30 a.m.

It should be a rider's choice to wear a helmet based on his or her own risk assessment. However They should have to carry extra insurance, If there is an accident with a motorcycle you cannot be sued and they will not be covered by the The Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association. Also bicycle riders on the road should have insurance and abied by the same laws as stated above.

John

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:25 a.m.

My friend from Ann Arbor went to Ohio for his kidney transplant. I wonder why they have more kidneys available than in Michigan?

Levelheaded

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:21 a.m.

You may have seen the bumper sticker...Kill a biker, go to jail. Now, I'm not completely opposed to repealing the helmet laws - provided that it's adult choice only and an automatic opt-in for organ donation. It's just that as a driver, I don't think I should face additional liability or punishment if I kill a biker who didn't take basic precautions like wearing a helmet. Of course a biker wearing a helmet is still more likely to be injured in an accident than a person in another car, but many car-bike accidents are survivable. If you take away helmets, bikers might as well be made out of glass. Without a helmet, a biker can suffer a fatal closed head injury falling off a bike that's not even moving. Bikers (or the estates of bikers) who choose not to wear helmets should give up any right to sue drivers for injuries or deaths that could potentially have been prevented by wearing a helmet. Automobile drivers should also be immune to prosecution for said injuries or deaths. And while we are talking about freedom for adult choice, let's repeal the seatbelt laws that allow police officers to stop and ticket adult drivers who don't buckle up. I'm not stupid and still will wear mine, but what is the difference between choosing not to buckle up and choosing not to put on a helmet?

John

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:18 a.m.

Watch our insurance rates skyrocket. It makes no sense that the Democrat led House of Representatives of Michigan would approve of this. A good example of the disastrous consequences of term limits. This issue is revisited every year, and we need to keep a Democratic Governor in place to make sure it never passes.

Anonymous Due to Bigotry

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 6:08 a.m.

"How could any thinking person not want to put on a helmet." I agree. With 80% of motorcycle deaths being those of people with no helmet, it's just insane not to wear one. Still, if people want to be stupid and accept the risk then let them as long as other people don't have to pay for the cost of that risk. Another thing that would work is requiring them to buy an additional insurance policy to cover any costs of dealing with head injuries attributable to not wearing a helmet. Anyone without that coverage gets a ticket if they aren't wearing a helmet. I suppose the main problem is that cops would have to randomly pull over those with no helmets in order to check their insurance cards. If we're going to have a helmet law though, it needs to cover bicycles as well. I'm not sure why there should be an exception for bicycles if we're paying for their head injuries too.

yohan

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:42 a.m.

I have also had my life saved by a full face helmet and I would never ride without one but I support those who would make a different choice. Survival of the fitest / smartest.

MDavid

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:32 a.m.

My vote is for optional only if there is a way that their insurance risk group covers 100% of treatment for injuries or any ongoing care as a result of head injury when riding without a helmet. I like the organ donor idea too. Basically I don't care how many who ride helmetless are injured or die -- it's their choice, let them make it.

Matt Cooper

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:23 a.m.

How could any thinking person not want to put on a helmet. I have personal experience with my life being saved by a full-face helmet. In 1997, I was riding through Depot Town in Ypsi and hit some gravel doing about 35 miles per hour. I was thrown over the handlebars and hit a curb face first. The ER doctor and I both know that had I not been wearing my full-face helmet, I would not have survived. You simply cannot sustain a blow like that to the face and survive, at least not without significant brain trauma. But even if you take the medical quesion out of it, why do motorcyclists think they have the right to make me and every other citizen of the state of Michigan run the risk of paying millions for their health care once their insurance runs out in the event of a serious head injury as a result of their decision to not wear a helmet? And we're not talking small change here. I work in an ICU unit at the University of Michigan and you wouldn't believe how costly it is to take care of someone even for only one day in an ICU bed. Governor Granholm, please veto any proposed bill that repeals the mandatory helmet law.

Anonymous Due to Bigotry

Mon, Mar 29, 2010 : 5:20 a.m.

80% of motorcycle deaths involve riders without a helmet. The problem is that there's no such thing as a "fender bender" on a motorcycle. Most accidents are going to involve some sort of injury. Without a helmet, an otherwise relatively minor accident could result in death. On the other hand, people choose to take unnecessary risks playing various sports, bicycling, rock climbing, etc. Bicycling in particular should have a helmet law if motorcycles do. I suppose it's worth mentioning that people without helmets are more likely to die without damage to internal organs and thus are more likely to supply organ donations. Perhaps the law could implicitly require anyone not using a helmet to donate viable organs if they die in a motorcycle accident. It's possible that would offset health costs.