Michigan Riders. Helmet law.

[DetroitBusa]

Passed Committee 5 to 1 vote on the 7th. headed to the Senate floor.

Senate Bill 291, sponsored by Sen. Phillip Pavlov, R-St. Clair, would not require helmets on riders 20 or older if they have passed a safety course or carried a motorcycle endorsement the previous two years.

From what I read from the article they are trying to get the measure passed before the legislature goes on vacation.

Gov. Snyder supports the bill if other drivers are not forced to pay.


Lets watch out insurance go up now. Damn no fault and catastrophic crash fund.

 

[sportcustoms71]

that's a bummer

 

[Pardini]

How does a helmet law increase rates?

 

[dadofthree]

Due to the increased deaths and head trauma that the insurance companies end up paying out for, actually it's the policy holders that pay.

 

[sk8snw8s]

Can't wait to see hair blowing in the wind on 75, 94, 96, 696. I'll keep my helmet on tho.

 

[karnage]

Thats a dumb bill to pass.I will stick to wearing my helmets.I guess the politicians have nothing better to do.

 

[OH-boy]

Ins. rates in Mi already went up this year for my bikes, this will only add to the cost, I live close to the stateline MI/Ind, I like riding w/o helmet when weather permits (not busa). However on the major roads look-out it only makes sense. Alot of stateline business`es lose clients because of the helmet laws, alot of Ind riders would come up this way if there was no helmet (choice). Figure this out tho,, Ind riders have a choice (cool), but the rates are way cheaper than in Mi. Believe me, I know the prices, I`m getting raped by MI no-fault and uninsured motoriest rates. Excellent credit, homeowner, 49yo, clean driving record. It`s really a racket for ins groups. Easy money for them.

 

[wesleycharlessmith]

I live in Northern Michigan and am still on the fence about this law. I work for a court so I understand that some laws are there to protect the public from themselves, like the seatbelt law. I will keep my helmet on but should the state have the right to make someone wear a helmet? What about a seatbelt?

I do like the fact that there is some kind of oversight on this as it relates to the 20-year age limit and the motorcycle safety course. Michigan politicians had enough sense to plan for when it is voted in unlike the medical marijuana mess we are in now!

 

[Mrschemmy]

IMHO I think that it is ludacris to not wear a helmet. I was just reading two threads this morning; one about PPE and one about watching his 2 best friends go down in front of him. To me it's common sense. Even though I am always a passenger, I will always ride fully geared from now on. I have a family that I want to see grow up. But that is just my .02

 

[MelodicMetalGod]

<sigh> Whatever. I have no problems with folks taking themselves outta the game, but I wish their choices didn't rely on others to clean up the mess.

Simply facts: Helmets prevent accidents/help ensure rider control by protecting the head/eyes and face from wind and anything that flies throug the air (bugs, birds, debris, stones/gravel, etc).

In the event of an accident, helmets without question, protect the rider and reduce the severity or even completely prevent head injury.

Not wearing a helmet, while pleasurable to many, is simply a bad bet in terms of not crashing and surviving a crash if it happens.

Oh well. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it put on a dress, chug a bottle of wine, OD on heroin and cocaine, have illicit sex with strangers and shoot itself in the head. Only a human will do that last bit.

But remember...we ARE the smartest species on the planet! Right? ???

 

[IG.]

I have mixed feeling on helmet-less laws. Downer is obviously the fact that it's less safe. However, it simply gives a rider a freedom to make their own decision. It's funny how we became to rely on governments to tell us what is safe and what is not safe.

How about some common sense and personal responsibility for your actions? This law does not force anyone to take their helmet off, right?

I see nothing wrong riding a few slow blocks to a local hangout without a helmet.

And if someone decides to go on a serious and long ride without a helmet... well, it's their decision to deal with pebbles, bees, insects, possible crash, etc. And if they live through it, maybe every ride after that will be putting on a full face helmet.

 

[Rainbow7]

How does a helmet law increase rates?

Is that a serious question?! I mean, come on...???

EDIT: For those of you who consider helmet laws to be some sort of intrusion on your personal freedom, I wonder what you think about things like voluntary euthanasia? - You have a Government which tells the terminally-ill that they are not allowed to end their own suffering, nor can a family member assist them to do so. I regard that as a much more serious infringement of someone's rights.

 

[cqt1414]

Everyone keeps pointing out it is safer to ride with a helmet than without. DUH!

The real point is some arrogant lawmaker telling people what they can and cannot do. I was always told growing up; we live in a free country. But is this entirely true?

I've rode for 30 yrs and have always worn a FF helmet, and always will. Because I choose to! Not because some a-hole lawyer or dishonest politician forced me to.

Peoples lives are already structured enough. Don't become so conditioned, that you follow every dictated order "to protect yourself from yourself". All in all we're just another brick in the wall......

 

[Rainbow7]

I was always told growing up; we live in a free country. But is this entirely true?

Freedom can only exist within given boundaries. A state with no boundaries/limits is called "chaos".

 

[MelodicMetalGod]

Freedom can only exist within given boundaries. A state with no boundaries/limits is called "chaos".

Actually, if some moron kills everyone else on the planet, they'll have TOTAL freedom. Well, except for being stuck here on the planet. And gravity will still restrain them. And they won't be able to fly like a bird. Or swim like a fish. Oh, yeah, and they'll BE FORCED to work to survive each day - maintain their own home, repair their own tools, grow their own food, manage/maintain their own health. Almost forgot, they'll have to defend themselves against all the remaining life on the planet, no easy task now that they'll be outnumbered. Wow, one more thing, they won't get to choose to heaven or hell when they die (I mean, c'mon, they DID just kill EVERYONE on the planet).

Other than that stuff (and a few other "small" things), they'd be TRULY free.

 

[cqt1414]

Freedom can only exist within given boundaries. A state with no boundaries/limits is called "chaos".

Once upon a time around 1765, a bunch of colonists opposed and protested Great Britain’s Parliament who wanted to impose additional taxes and regulations. At the time Britain suggested these “boundaries” were fair and would keep the 13 colonies stable and prevent ”chaos”. Americans didn’t go for that crap.

Example: Drunken driving laws are good because they protect the public and the uninvolved. An educated and licensed motorcyclist should decide which safety gear to wear. His gear selection only impacts HIS safety. No helmet law in Texas, and I see people daily in Texas riding without helmets, and that is their choice.
The only argument against this is the “insurance increase” perspective, and I live in a pro-choice helmet state and my rates are normal.

Ultimately if we want to reduce motorcycle incidents, it takes education, experience, mentoring new riders and many other positive steps, which have minimal government involvement. I enjoy reading other opinions. Those are my feelings, to each his own. :colgate:

 

[GsxrBots]

I like riding w/o helmet when weather permits (not busa). However on the major roads look-out it only makes sense.

So somehow you are safer on a different type or brand of motorcycle??

Actually, if some moron kills everyone else on the planet, they'll have TOTAL freedom.

Was that a threat??

 

[GsxrBots]

Example: Drunken driving laws are good because they protect the public and the uninvolved. An educated and licensed motorcyclist should decide which safety gear to wear. His gear selection only impacts HIS safety.

I don't know about this one. If we are licensed and educated, there wouldn't even be drunken driving, correct?? You think 99 percent of riders pick helmets based on safety, or looks?

Ultimately if we want to reduce motorcycle incidents, it takes education, experience, mentoring new riders and many other positive steps, which have minimal government involvement. I enjoy reading other opinions. Those are my feelings, to each his own. :colgate:

The only way we can reduce motorcycle incidents is to force everyone to ride a motorcycle for a few months.. If cagers knew what it was like, they'd respect us more, and look out for us... I wonder how many motorcycle "incidents" there are in countries like Vietnam, and the like which motorcycles rule and cars are rare.. Just wondering... ???

 

[cqt1414]

I don't know about this one. If we are licensed and educated, there wouldn't even be drunken driving, correct?? You think 99 percent of riders pick helmets based on safety, or looks?

I hear ya brother. I'm just saying a rider with no helmet does not endanger everyone (only the rider). However drunk driving endangers everyone.

Laws that protect people from others negligence are helpful. But riding with no helmet does not put other motorists at risk; instead the risk incurred is only to the rider.

And to reiterate, I always wear a FF helmet (as I'm sure you do also based on that white outfit ). I just prefer to make that choice for myself.

 

[Rainbow7]

The only way we can reduce motorcycle incidents is to force everyone to ride a motorcycle for a few months..

I've been saying that for years! - If everyone was forced to ride a motorcycle for 12 months before they were allowed to drive a car, the roads would be a lot safer. - People would learn to use their eyes before changing lanes, for example.