Posted on Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 11 a.m.
Michigan voters oppose changes to motorcycle helmet law
By AnnArbor.com Staff
This story has been removed from our site after 30 days as required by our digital use agreement with the Associated Press.
Comments
KJMClark
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 1:54 p.m.
So what's with all the scooter drivers I see around town without helmets? Isn't that exception only for adults on mopeds? But the people I see doing it on Plymouth Rd. are going faster than 30 (mopeds, by definition, can't go faster than 30 on a level road). I'm doing 20 on my bike there. And what happened to the old definition of a moped as a vehicle that can either be pedaled or operated under power? Seems like scooters, which you can't operate on human power, are a class of motorcycle. Apparently California and some other states still require a moped to be a moped, but other states, including Michigan, call scooters mopeds.
Cable Chef
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 1:46 a.m.
Thanks to the trigger happy moderators for removing my post. You guys are a peach. Next time try reading it in it's entirety prior to clicking the "Remove post" button. The point being made was about how the government is telling each and everyone of us how we should live our lives. Your personal choice isn't calculated into the final equation. Next time, be intelligent enough to know what your own GUIDELINES are before you remove a post which adheres to your own GUIDELINES.
KJMClark
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
JohnnyA2 - the ninth amendment guarantees to the people any rights not enumerated in the Constitution. The right to travel is one of those rights, though that doesn't mean the particular means of travel can't be regulated. I'll say it's to reduce costs (somebody should). Closed head injuries are very expensive to the rest of society. Pay for the extra insurance to cover the extra risk and I'm OK with a lack of helmet. The fact that healthcare costs are already rising has nothing to do with it. That's like throwing gasoline on a fire and claiming there was already a fire.
1bit
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 11:36 a.m.
Chef: It's outside the scope of this topic to argue rising healthcare costs. What we are discussing is the economic impact of not wearing a helmet. Read this: <a href="http://www.smarter-usa.org/PDF%20DOCUMENTS/Motorcycle_Helmets_&_Helmet_Laws.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.smarter-usa.org/PDF%20DOCUMENTS/Motorcycle_Helmets_&_Helmet_Laws.pdf</a> Only about half of motorcycle riders have private health insurance. When the others crash, the goverment ("us") picks up the tab. Here's a quote from the above: "Michael L. Prince, Director of the Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, stated in part, in a June 2008 press release, "Based on analysis conducted by our office, if Michigan's mandatory motorcycle helmet law was to be repealed, the state should expect to see an annual increase of at least 30 fatalities, 127 incapacitating injuries and $129 million in economic costs.""
Cable Chef
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 8:27 a.m.
I will when you show me where it states in the Constitution that I don't have the right to choose my own destiny. Good bad or indifferent I am my own person and am capable of assessing the risks and then making a choice. And as to address your comment "Nobody is saying it is to reduce costs." I beg to differ. Haven't you been paying attention or did you try your own experiment and bump your head? I am part of the conversation. You are obviously ill-informed as to what has been said thus far. Reading comprehension 101.
johnnya2
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 7:15 a.m.
Nobody is saying it is to reduce costs. It is to stop brain injuries. If you can show any study where a rider has lower head injuries without a helmet than he does with one, you have an argument. I suggest we start the experiment with you. Pound your head against the pavement at 10 MPH on a motorcycle without a helmet. Please tell me which amendment to the constitution mentions a RIGHT to ride a motorcycle?
Cable Chef
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 3:44 a.m.
The fact that healthcare has been monopolized into a business, that's why your rates go up. Not because someone got injured in a motorcycle accident without a helmet or a driver without a seatbelt. These things have been law for years. Yet your healthcare costs keep rising each year. Why is that? People are wearing their seatbelts and helmets. They are obeying a law that is supposed to "protect" the people. So why do my healthcare rates keep increasing? My personal responsibility or lack thereof has nothing to do with healthcare costs in this country. To believe otherwise is sheepish at best.
1bit
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 3:12 a.m.
Chef: Didn't see your original post but "the government" is us. If you don't like it then voting is your right. Riding a motorcycle is not a right, it is a licensed privilege. I don't like "the government" telling me that I have to pay more for someone else's carelessness and irresponsibility.
1bit
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 10:59 p.m.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Some expound personal liberty in a phony sense of Libertarianism when what they are advocating is Anarchism. There is a difference. Personal liberty does not outweigh collective responsibility. Riding a motorcycle is not a right, it is a privilege. It costs our Union more when people make poor choices. I do not have the right to beat my children, because of "personal liberty". I do not have the right to defecate publically, or perform other unsundry acts, because of "personal liberty". The irony, of course, is that many of the same folks arguing for "personal liberty" in this situation are the same who are vehemently against abortion. If you want to be logically consistent, you need to choose what you believe in carefully.
Dog Guy
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 10:07 p.m.
Some riders apparently don't have a head worth $17.94 (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/German-Helmets-Motorcycle-Helmet-Black/dp/B00076FM00/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1310766369&sr=8-10)," rel='nofollow'>http://www.amazon.com/German-Helmets-Motorcycle-Helmet-Black/dp/B00076FM00/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1310766369&sr=8-10),</a> but the $162.30 which I pay annually on every one of my vehicles goes toward their closed-head injuries. For some of my vehicles that "statutory assessments, including MCCA" of $162.30 exceeds the annual insurance amount because I buy only PL/PD/Personal/Bodily high limits. This state tack-on of $1,298.40 each year on my eight cars and trucks is a rip-off by the totally improvident. Riding a motorcycle is dangerous; riding without a helmet is grand larceny.
Ron Granger
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 9:56 p.m.
This article is completely useless because it does not tell us all (or any) of the specific questions asked. It is very easy to influence the outcome of a poll by designing the questions in a particular way. It is common.
kathryn
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 9:55 p.m.
I like the "helmet-less" insurance idea. People can ride helmet-less so long as they have purchased a rider on their insurance that covers the increased risk of injury....that way the costs are not spread to the rest of us. It would be fun to see the actuarial numbers on this to see just how expensive it is.... - K.
johnnya2
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 8:43 p.m.
This whole personal choice fallacy is silly. Will you allow the "personal choice" not to get a drivers license? Why not? It is MY personal choice. Will you allow me the personal choice to drive drunk? Why not? Its my personal choice. There is no constitutional right o drive a car or motorcycle. The state CAN and does mandate what the restrictions on allowing you to do so will be. If you do not like those laws, nobody forces you to wear a helmet, you just can not drive the motorcycle. If you don;t like wearing a seat belt, DONT DRIVE A CAR. If any person can honestly say they think it is safer to ride without a helmet, they are either a liar, or just plain stupid. How is that hard to understand?
John B.
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 9:02 p.m.
+1 Well-said.
Joe Hood
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 8:16 p.m.
My personal choice is to ride with a helmet. My personal choice is to eat healthy and get exercise.
Hot Sam
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 7:18 p.m.
Whenever these questions come up I am torn between my Libertarian instincts and the whole of the situation. It always evokes the chicken and egg argument, like smoking, where one side says "they die quicker, and don't cost the system as much" and the other side says "they get injured (or sick in the case of smoking) and cost the system more! I have yet to see an argument that wasn't skewed to the desires of whoever is making it, so I will call that one a draw. What really makes me an advocate for helmets is my windshield. I have in my lifetime had numerous pieces of whatever hitting and breaking my windshields. I can only imagine what that would do to a forehead. And while the damage to the drivers head may be quite gruesome, I also consider the effect of the bike going out of control and injuring others. You may consider not wearing one a right, but that is a choice to me that is not very bright.
KJMClark
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 1:29 p.m.
Of course, the same object hitting a relatively unprotected face (for a helmet that only covers your head), would be an equal problem. Maybe we could legalize a lack of helmet if the person has the course, pays the extra insurance, has a maximum speed limit of 55, *and* is only allowed to use non-expressway roads? That would deal with the "objects hitting at high speed" problem. We'd also need special plates for helmetless-allowed drivers, and stiff fines for driving helmetless without the course and insurance. Seems easier for everyone to just keep the helmet.
Tom Joad
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 7:05 p.m.
Only if you have a $10,000,000 liability coverage. Your addled brain after a collision will cost as much in medical care. Believe it. We are all in the great insurance pool. You only drive (legally) on your insurance company's terms.
ME2
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 6:23 p.m.
If we're going to let helmets be optional, why do we require seat belts in automobiles? Seems to me that our lawmakers should be consistent in how they treat safety & personal responsibility. Either eliminate both laws, or stand by both laws. The logic to support or eliminate the personal safety laws should be the same.
xmo
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
The insurance companies could provide "helmet-less" insurance for those Free-spirits who want to go without. I do not think that many of them could afford the insurance but then it would be a matter of personal choice.
Tex Treeder
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 8:13 p.m.
Interesting idea. Sort of like non-smokers discounts or discounts for people with smoke detectors in their homes.
Cash
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.
"Helmetless Motorcyclist Killed While Riding to Overturn Helmet Law A Parish man who was participating in a motorcycle helmet protest ride was killed this afternoon when he went over the handlebars of his motorcycle and injured his head on the pavement, state police said. Philip A. Contos, 55, of 45 East St., Parish, was not wearing a helmet while driving a 1983 Harley Davidson motorcycle south on Route 11 in Onondaga with a large group of other motorcyclists, troopers said. … Evidence at the scene and information from the attending physician indicate Contos would have survived if he had been wearing a Department of Transportation approved helmet, troopers said." ______________________ We have always heard that certain politcal groups want to keep voting turnout low. Perhaps this is the real goal.
lugemachine
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:48 p.m.
A rare "enough said" moment: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclist-dies-ride-protesting-helmet-law-143217859.html" rel='nofollow'>http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclist-dies-ride-protesting-helmet-law-143217859.html</a>
Mike
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 8:11 p.m.
His choice, something many cannot comprehend.....freedom to choose
newsboy
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.
When I ride in traffic with my motorcycle or bicycle, I know I'm taking a personal risk. I have also driven off-road bikes and trucks, taking the same personal risk. No one has to tell me what the difference in risk levels are between these types of vehicles, I've wrecked in all of them. I've had several experiences where someone has struck one of the many trucks I've owned over the years and the out come is always the same. I walk away unscratched and the other drivers car is totaled. I've been in an accident where I was a passenger in an older model car, and my life was saved by the heavy steel around me. I have made the same choice between economy or safety, I don't commute to work. I have seen the body's in the morgue over the years, and I know they made the same personal choices too. Right or wrong, It is the right of the individual and not a legislative body or insurance lobby. So lets make personal safety devices optional, but please don't hold the cautious individual libel for death, injury or increased insurance rates, just because you don't like hats.
Mike
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 8:10 p.m.
Good post my friend. This is the point some many of our cradle to grave protectionist friends miss. Although well intention it removes the freedoms we are inherently born with. The rules do a good job of driving revenue into government coffers but won't stop people from being killed or making bad decisions.
Cash
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:44 p.m.
If you think you can stop the insurance industry from raising all of our rates by asking them, good luck. We cannot afford higher rates in Michigan.
Jon Saalberg
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:17 p.m.
"The Michigan Senate has approved a bill that would allow riders 21 or older to go helmetless if they have been licensed to operate a motorcycle for two years or have passed a safety course. Motorcyclists also would need certain insurance." Yes, and once passed by our very busy, GOP-dominated legislature, sticking to the vital issues affecting all Michiganders, who will pick up the additional law enforcement costs of determining exactly which bare-headed riders have the appropriate documentation to risk life and limb?
alan
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
"Clearly a personal choice". That's fine if we get the choice to just leave you to die on the side of the road. Otherwise it costs everyone. I think legislators should have something better to do. What do ER docs call motorcyclists? Donors.
alan
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 11:54 p.m.
Nonsensical analogies Mike. We, as a society agree to fund police and fire protection, the military, etc. because we perceive a benefit. We pool our normal risks through insurance when doing things that we perceive to be necessary such as driving a car. But the risk of death per mile on a motorcycle is already 35 times that of a car, higher with no helmet. We do not agree, as a society, to share in the excess risk in participating in dangerous activities for fun. We don't share your risk through homeowners insurance if you choose to heat your home with an open fire pit. We shouldn't share your risk if you choose to engage in dangerous activities purely for the sake of fun (or to prove some point). If you want to share the risk with others who do the same thing then that's fine. The problem is that your insurance would cost more than you could afford so the insurance companies pool your excess risk with those of us who do not choose to take those risks which increases cost for everyone.
Mike
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 8:07 p.m.
What do they call police officers, fire fighters, scuba divers, soldiers, etc...? Life is full of danger, most of us will make it through unscathed, some won't. No mater how many rules, protections, laws, etc. you put in place people will die. All of these rules cost money too. It's not your choice when or how you die, if not on a motorcycle then maybe a car or airplane or terrorist attack.....Leave people to die by the side of the road because of an accident? Really??????????
Roy Munson
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 3:44 p.m.
organ donors
Ross
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 3:40 p.m.
It's a personal choice whether to put on the helmet. But it's NOT a personal choice when you get a head injury and end up in the hospital, potentially, and unfortunately somewhat often, WITHOUT INSURANCE. Now, if we were barbaric enough as a society to say that unless you can afford 100% of your medical bills in the case of an accident, we just let you lay there and die... then I might be ok with this. Should we repeal seatbelt laws also? How about drinking age? Why are drugs illegal? There are plenty of common sense safety laws that SERVE THE GREATER GOOD. Wearing a helmet on any unsecured fast moving vehicle is a GOOD LAW.
Plubius
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.
Not barbaric at all - it call 'personal responsibility' - something the liberals in this town seem to know nothing about.
Tex Treeder
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 8:09 p.m.
Yes, we should repeal seatbelt laws. I think you're a dummy if you don't wear them, but I also believe in personal responsibility. No insurance, wear your seatbelt: I'm willing to support the cost through taxes. Accidents happen and we're not barbarians, as you put. However, no insurance, don't wear your seatbelt: sorry about that, you're on your own. Yes, lower the drinking age. Eighteen is old enough to vote, join the military, etc. It should be the same thing. Why are drugs illegal? Good question. Yes, decriminalize drugs for personal use. One man's common sense is another man's violation of personal responsibility and civil liberties.
Mike
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 8:02 p.m.
Don't forget air bags that have killed children and injured people far worse than they would have been in low speed crashes. And anti-lock brakes systems that quit working when cars get older. And tire pressure monitoring equipment, side impact air bags, etc.....No wonder we can't afford to buy cars and sales are down. What ever happened to cars as basic transportation? Who asked everyone to save our lives and increase the cost of everything we buy and the freedom to live as we choose? I'm all for seatbelts but I'd like that to be my choice. I'm all for helmets but I'd like that to be my choice. I'm all for antilock brakes but I'd like the option to pay for them as an option. Same with air bags, fire protection sprinklers in my home, don't get me started...................
Ken Boyd
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 5:28 p.m.
GUYS, really? We already have laws on the books regarding seatbelts, and yet people still get injured. How is this possible since we have laws against non-seatbelt use. If I follow your fascist logic, then we need laws to protect us from cheeseburgers since someone may have a heart attck and require public monies to be treated. Your nanny government logic is hedious and dangerous!
Bradley Pearsall
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:57 p.m.
Amen Ross. If we start repealing safety laws then we might as well get rid of all of them. Would the people that choose not to wear helmets also decline to use child safety seats. I work in physical therapy and worked in traumatic brain injury for 8 yrs, I've seen the results of bad decisions behind the wheel and on bikes both physically and financially and the damage it does to the families. Add that to what it's going to do to the insurance rates across the board. My insurance has gone up 3 times in the past year, here comes the 4th time!!!
Monica R-W
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.
It clearly a personal choice. They allow adults to decide on helmets in Ohio, so why not Michigan!
KJMClark
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 12:35 p.m.
Cedar Point, King's Island, real caves, 8 US Presidents (all elected), the *real* birthplace of aviation, largest Air Force base, Air Force Museum, Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Pro Football Hall of Fame, Proctor and Gamble, Ivory Soap, Kroger, Hoover vacuums, Tappan microwaves (the first home microwaves). I was born and mostly raised in Michigan (dad was a Marine, so we spent some time in NC), but my wife was born and raised in Ohio. I admire Ohio as much as Michigan. But that has nothing to do with the helmet law.
Cash
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:41 p.m.
Sorry but there is NOTHING about Ohio that I admire, and this just adds to the list.
Ignatz
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 3:30 p.m.
It's a personal choice, just don't expect the taxpayers or those with insurance to fund your recovery/funeral/lawsuit.
1bit
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 3:16 a.m.
Barb's Mom: That's exactly my point, though I don't think I was incredulous enough in retrospect. I'm not even sure a $1million policy would cover the costs (including the rehab/care necessary outside of the hospital).
Barb's Mom
Sat, Jul 16, 2011 : 12:06 a.m.
@1bit, $20,000 won't even cover 1 day in an intensive care unit where most people with a head injury end up.
1bit
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 8:59 p.m.
Yes, it does require insurance, however, the limit is only $20,000. How many days in the hospital will that cover?
Ignatz
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 7 p.m.
Ken, I saw that, but the lack of insurance might be discovered only after the accident. Then who picks up the tab?
Cash
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 5:33 p.m.
Ken, gosh that would be a first.
Ken Boyd
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 5:21 p.m.
The law would require a rider to insure himself for medical coverage to address the injury issue. ANY argument to the other would be an insurance industry attempt to steal your money.
Cash
Fri, Jul 15, 2011 : 4:39 p.m.
That's a nice thought but ALL insruance rates to drive on Michigan roads will increase...just ask AAA. There is a HUGE liability for riding a bike without a helmet....and insurance companies won't take that loss. All Michigan drivers will see that increase.