View Single Post
Old 12-29-2012, 06:50 AM   #211
Schlug's Avatar
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: put something on and stay in that position.
Oddometer: 7,440
Originally Posted by PhilB View Post

And this! And even if it does, that is ZERO justification for violating your rights.

I'll say again: It amazes me that people cannot make that simple logical connection. If you claim the right to decide what level of safety another person must take, don't be a bit surprised if someone else claims the same right over you.

That 'level of safety' is already decided upon for us. Every OSHA reg, PPE reg, building code, speed limit, airbag, tire pressure monitor.
FFS man, are you serious?

It amazes me that you cannot make a simple logical connection: There is no explicit right stated anywhere which says, "you may engage in dangerous activity without a helmet."

There is a simple "Life, liberty, Pursuit of Happiness" issue here.

So the question is this and only this. Is it a reasonable infringement on the right of 'happiness' to require you to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. The State Supreme Court said absolutely not. Requiring the use of a helmet in not a sufficiently serious restriction on the rider when viewed next to the benefit to society (even to those too stupid to understand it).

But the right-wing Govenor and legislation did away with the law. In the name of freedom. I'll remind you people of this:

Michigan has a Catastrophic Claims Association, which, among other things, requires every motor vehicle (motorcycles too) to pay a fee every year. It covers the expenses generated by accidents JUST LIKE those the helmetless are far more likely to sustain vs. helmeted riders. Long term hospitalization, rehab, etc. The insurance companies pay into this. Of course, all they do is pass that fee straight to the consumer. It's actually listed in the policy, as it's broken down as a line item. MCCA Fee.

The year the state repealed the helmet law, the MCCA fee was increased. That's right. The same people who decided it was a good idea for people too stupid to wear a helmet also decided the rest of the state should pay more into the fund covering (among others) people who are too stupid to wear a helmet.

What about the freedom of the public not to pay the bill for people who 'decide' under the guise of some 'it's my right, man' to make themselves 60% more likely to sustain serious injury?

So where's all this talk about freedom and personal responsibility to decide? You want to be responsible for your decisions? Fine-- no money for you. How about this, those involved in a motorcycle crash sustaining head injuries and not wearing a helmet receive no money from the State-- from the rest of the people who live in the State. Once their insurance is used up (in a matter of days) the hospital pulls the plug and the become organ donors or cadavers for med schools.

The Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA), a private non-profit unincorporated association, was created by the state Legislature in 1978. Michigan's unique auto insurance no-fault law provides unlimited lifetime coverage for medical expenses which result from auto accidents. The MCCA reimburses auto no-fault insurance companies for each Personal Injury Protection (PIP) medical claim paid in excess of a set amount. Currently that amount is $500,000. That means that the insurance company pays the entire claim, but is reimbursed by the MCCA for medical costs over $500,000.

All auto insurance companies operating in Michigan are assessed to cover the catastrophic medical claims occurring in Michigan. Those assessments are generally passed on to auto insurance policyholders. The 2012-2013 assessment is $175.00 per vehicle.
"So what makes this protest different is that you're set to die, Bobby?"
--May well come to that.
"You start a hunger strike to protest for what you believe in. You don't start already determined to die or am I missing somethin' here?"
-- It's in their hands. Our message is clear. They're seeing our determination.
Schlug is offline   Reply With Quote