Michigan Helmet Laws - A Detailed Look Into a Newly Helmetless State

Thanks.

You are confusing helmets with helmet LAWS. I'm fully in favor of helmets and use them every time I ride. It is very likely that doing so has saved my life as well. That does NOT mean that I claim the right to dictate that others use them. You SHOULD "give a rat's ass" if ANYONE takes ANY liberty away from ANYONE ELSE. Otherwise, the liberties you do care about are not safe either.

Most of those are illegitimate, and for the same reason. Yes, I'm serious. We are WAY over the line on nanny-state bullshit already.

The reason some people objected to the Bill of Rights being included in the Constitution was the fear that people would misinterpret as the list of rights, and feel free to violate any rights not listed. hat's exactly why the 9th and 10th Amendments were added -- to try to make it clear that the rights explicitly stated were NOT to be taken as anything like a complete list -- they were only the few rights thought to be the most critical for keeping political freedom, for protecting people from the government. It appears that their concern was well founded, as even with that added clarity, a lot of people still somehow claim that if a right isn't listed then it isn't protected.

The very meaning of the word "liberty" is that you have the right to do whatever you want, provided only that you respect the equal right of others to do the same.

And I have lost all respect for courts, up to and including state and U.S. Supreme Courts, at abiding by the Constitution and protecting and respecting our rights and liberty. You'd get better results by flipping a coin.

I absolutely agree there -- no one has the right to expect others to pay for his decisions, no one has the right to force some to pay for others. But that's a problem with the practice of forcing people to pay for others, and the answer is to stop doign that. It is NOT to violate yet more rights and freedoms in order to minimize the damage done by the previous violations.

I'm all for this, as long as it is applied fairly across the board. No money for you if at the time of your accident you were driving drunk, on the phone, not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, have a headlight out, have bald tires, or in any other way contributed to the accident or the injuries received.

PhilB

+1!

+1 and nicely done. Of course he will fail to grasp your points entirely, but that's not your fault.

Whaddyaknow -- I'm a freaking Nostradamus.

Well, some of us are concerned not with JUST our own personal freedom, but have the integrity to care about the personal freedom of other people, even if those people make different choices than we would. Principles are good, and integrity is good, and being rational and consistent in one's own beliefs is good. More people should try these things.

Another fine post he won't understand.

PhilB

Thank you so very much for making my point!!!


Do you care to take it further and share with the class as to how many of those deaths were wearing helmets?

How about the percentage of those 56,000 that were injured that were wearing helmets?

Oh please do go on and show just how insignificant your squeaky wheel is in the big picture of what costs society money.

Your sniveling like a little girl about a statistically insignificant cost angle is laughable. Tell us please once you get motorcycles banned, what is the next freedom squashing nonsense bandwagon going to be?

Do share. You are a selfish little boy throwing a temper tantrum because other thinking adults want to be left alone. You think motorcycles are dangerous... They are not. It is the human at the controls of the bike that makes them dangerous.

The crazy part is we are both in complete agreement that helmets work to protect riders from some unnecessary head injuries. Where we part ways is you feel the need to force others to comply with your belief and say the cost to others is significant when the truth says otherwise.

You want to reduce cost? Focus of the 50% of the crashes that were impaired by alcohol. Focus on the 37% of collisions that are do to right of way violations from other road users. I am not talking about "Watch Out for Motorcycles" billboards. I blame the riders for not catering to how human vision works. Those billboards would do more if they read "Motorcycles Watch Out"

If you want to lower costs focus on teaching riders how to be seen. Those that ride impaired deserve their fate.

Helmet use is a grain of sand in a bucket full of waste and you sir are an arrogant freedom hating joke.

p.s. How is your colon?

Is this the same Center for Disease Control that doesn't recognize Chronic Lyme as a disease and tells me I'm cured cause I took doxycycline for 3 weeks

Ya, I believe em

Now I know you're just being thick. Intentional or not. I have never suggested outlawing motorcycles much less hinted at it. In fact I have written a goddamn thesis about how, despite the dangers, we (especially me) continue to ride them while trying reduce the dangers the best we can. That includes training, gear, motorcycle maintenance, and riding motorcycle like a professional.

This does nothing to limit the enjoyment of motorcycling, as FajitaDave eloquently said, you can't finish your ride, enjoy your adventure and drink fully from the well of life with an otherwise easily avoided closed head injury suffered on the first day of the trip.


Where are the double standards? There are no double standards. Your argument-- which, sir, you must respectfully let go as you mature in your thinking-- is pure hogshyte.

We're building a new house and we cannot afford to sod the lawn. According to you we needn't bother putting the roof on, either. The logic is horrible.

When engaging in an undisputably dangerous activity you have the obligation as a family member, as a productive member of society to mitigate those risks that can be easily mitigated.

That is my position. There are no one-way concessions included in it.

Futhermore, perhaps you forgot that people in Michigan have to pay that MCCA fee which went UP the year that helmets were no longer required. Anyone who says that the cost of catastrophic hear injuries isn't a burden shared by the rest of the public can stop saying that now as it is concretely shown by that fact.

Imagine you want to plate and insure you WR450X. No comprehensive, no theft. You'll be riding it on roads just to link up trailheads. It might cost you 400 dollars for the season-- except that you have to add 175 additional dollars for the MCCA since you will be on the roads and you know, all of us share the burden for those catastrophic accidents.

So this is the level of discourse you want to share: calling names, mixing metaphors in an embarassing fashion and still refusing to come to grips with the wickedly confusing and monumentally challenging your/you're conondrum?

You refuse to address the salient points the issues put forth and instead prefer to fling poo. That is the sort of exchange employed by chimps.

So, if you want to continue any sort of discussion with me, you need to tighten up both your logic and your manner of dialogue or you will be disinvited from the conversation. This is not jomomma, sir.

For the record, I wrote about a fellow who crashed Fourth of July without his helmet and his current status and the impact on his wife, his family, his union, etc. That one wreck is more than enough to consider reinstating that law. It has cost the public an amazing amount of money and his family an amazing amount of pain and his union was nearly brought to its knees over this wreck because he had a crash on a two lane road at 45 mph with no helmet and sustained a closed head injury. Because there's no law and he couldn't be arsed to take 10 seconds to clip on his helmet.

OSHA regs are illegitimate?

You have made your position (somewhere orbiting neptune, I think) completely clear.

Thank you for your participation.

I made an assertion which you ignored (probably while smearing yourself with peanut butter and howling at the moon) that anyone not wearing a helmet and sustaining a head injury would receive no money from the State. Therefore we would be following your logic that his 'liberty' of not protecting himself in a very easy, simple way from a serious risk would not 'disrespect' the rights of those forced to pay the MCCA.

Once their private insurance was used up, they were unplugged and either used as organ donors or cadavers for the state med schools. I fhey were on some sort of government program or had no insurance, organs would be harvested immediately. Or perhaps the members of ABATE would gather together and pay for the care needed.

Deal?

(sorry about the peanut butter comment-- just taking the piss, sir. No disrespect intended)

There's no cause-and-effect there. At least not that you can prove. You might start by going to the MCCA website and familiarizing yourself with it. Michigan has no-fault insurance for everything EXCEPT motorcycles. MCCA only pays off if the motorcyclist has contact with a four or more wheeled vehicle. It doesn't cover single or multiple motorcycle accidents that don't involve the mentioned vehicles.

MCCA rates are keyed to the amount paid out the previous year, and have, with one exception, risen EVERY year. They look at total costs and don't categorize anything.

It sucks because motorcyclists are paying full price for half the coverage.

huh, what bobbysands is wrong? you mean mr. thesis didn't properly vett his sources? why, if that's true it means he's just a blowhard dink. whoda thought.

Maybe we can all tone down the rhetoric and discuss this civilly?

Helmet laws are Constitutional, but that doesn't mean they are good. And we can all have logical reasons why we prefer one law, or lack thereof, over another.

I don't see that you have addressed any of my issues with helmet laws, they are two fold:

Can you show helmetless riders cost society more money than helmeted ones? I don't mean assumptions since they are protective that they save money, but actual numbers showing accidents by helmetless riders cost society more than accidents by helmeted riders (lack of insurance being an entirely separate issue). Your example is hardly exclusive to helmetless riders. The fact that you have shown how a helmetless riders' accident can cost society money, you have not shown how that is any worse than the same accident by a helmeted rider.

-- Now lets assume you can even show that (which nobody has done so far). What is a reasonable cost per resident to pay for the personal freedom of riding how they wish? Your answer may be $0.00, that society shouldn't bear a cost for such a silly freedom. Nothing wrong with that, but that is your OPINION. A reasonable person may believe society should be willing to pay $XX.XX for that freedom. That would also be their opinion. Clearly, many people here are willing to pay for that freedom even if we never plan to use it.

-- The second issue that arises is that if your justification for the state to enact a law is the cost to society, you have started sliding down a slippery slope. Here's where many of the previous posters took issue with your posts. If cost to society is the justification, then the same justification could/should be used to prohibit riding motorcycles. By your own post, you have shown they are more dangerous than cars. But you have drawn your own line (opinion) at a helmet law, rather than a prohibition of motorcycling. But if I were to enact a motorcycle ban, I would simply use your logic as justification. I guess that logic would be foolproof, no?

I don't intend to say any of this disrespectfully. I am more than happy to re-visit my logic if you can show where it is flawed.

Yeah, between 2010-2011 it went up $1.91

The people in that state have to cover the victims of catastrophic accidents. Because that state has no limit on policies:

The MCCA is necessary in Michigan because insurance policies issued to drivers in the state are unlimited in the amount of coverage they provide.

So every motorcycle crash victim without a helmet who sustains an otherwise avoidable head injury will be taken care of by the other people in the state, and depending how much was paid out the year before that amount will increase. It's an incredibly selfish move and has nothing to do with personal freedom.

These fact are irrefutable.

Furthermore, of the 10's of assertion having been made in the last couple days, THAT's the one upon which all others rest?

Nice name calling as well. Well, when you got nothing else in the rucksack...

Show me where I was being uncivil in that quote and an apology will be forthcoming. I'm not sure what you mean by rhetoric but it was one my strong suits. I hope it still is.

I don't understand. You want me to prove to you that a fellow riding a motorbike without a helmet who sustains an otherwise avoidable head injury costs the general public money?

Honestly? I think you just want me to spend time digging up statistics. Why did I spend time writing about that fellow who crashed the fourth of July?

Who do think will pay for his care, his childrens social security, and the mountain of medical bill already generated?

The line is drawn by the courts, which have stated that there will be a weighing of restrictions/regulations vs. the infringement of the rights of the public.

the image of a slippery slope is one commonly thrown out by those who dislike a regulation or rule or forced registration. But more often than not it's a complete myth.

The courts will alway judge the good of the many vs. the personal rights of the individual. In which case, putting a ban on all motorcycle riding next a law requiring the use of a helmet or the use of a seatbelt is a meaningless parlour game. The two aren't even close in amount of infringement and trying to make that assertion is waste of time.

Mainly, because any reasonable fellow would see, if he weren't blinded by-- I don't know what makes this so hard to understand since every other industrialised nation has a helmet law-- some twisted, mutated, mangled idea of liberty.

I also want to point out that I mentioned emotiona distress to his children and his wife, but you haven't included that at all. For people who speak about 'liberty' also talk at other times about personal responsibility. Yet in this case, the incredibly selfish act of not wearing a helmet is met with a hearty pat on the back. It is bewildering.

-end thread-

Damn. I added your name at the end so that when I quote it I give proper credit.

Sir, you can most easily mitigate much risk by simply not riding dangerous motorcyles, period. To state that you do "what can easily be done to mitigate the risk" of riding motorcycles is to ignore the fact that I, along with the many taxpayers who will have to support you and your family after you are injured or killed while riding, recognize that the easiest thing that can be done is to simply prevent you from riding this most dangerous of conveyances.
You seen to think it is okay to mandate that others be forced to abide by that which YOU deem resonable: wearing helmets.
You seem to ignor that there are others who would mandate that which is reasonable to THEM: that YOU not be allowed to ride a dangerous motorcycle, when you could simply utilize an option that THEY feel is quick, easy and reasonable: automobiles.

(pssst. I've determined he's far too thick, self-righteous and arrogant to grasp it.)


BTW, I always wear a full face helmet (usually Arai), and I think it is stupid not to, but I do not support helmet laws.

The civility and rhetoric comment was not directed at you, but to the whole thread.

Here's the point on costs . . .

You can't pick one incident and say it costs more. If all else is equal and accident happens to two riders, one wearing a helmet and the other not, the helmetless rider may be more likely to die while the helmeted rider sustains a life altering disability. In that case, the cost may be significantly higher for the helmeted rider. Again, one example doesn't prove the point. Until an actual cost to society can be shown, as a whole, that helmeted riders riders actually cost less money, the cost argument is based on assumptions that may not be true. I am in no way saying riding without a helmet is safer. But I am not convinced that riding without a helmet actually costs society more since the higher fatality rates my actually offset costs. I don't know that, but nobody seems to have any concrete data.

Even if we did have that data and it did show increased costs, the next question is: "How much is that freedom worth?" Reasonable people will differ on that. I am willing to pay a nominal amount for others to enjoy that freedom (even though I do not intend to ride without a helmet). Others may not be willing to pay anything and others may be willing to pay a lot. How can there possibly be an objectively right or wrong answer to that?

Requiring riders to wear a helmet is hardly a major government intrusion. But if allowing others to live their life as they please costs you pennies, that is hardly an intrusion either.

Again you're fixed on the monetary cost that people in Michigan do pay. I don't know how you can discard it. Neglecting to take 10 seconds to put on a helmet is not something I am will to pay .25 cents a year. Not a nickle, in fact. Because there is no cogent, responsible argument for not wearing a helmet. The other costs, emotional and the like? Even more subjective but even more selfish and uncaring to ride a motorbike without a helmet and risk essentially ruining your family's life or your friends'.

Smart people have to weigh these issues and make better or worse judgements. They may be subjective and that is precisely why we have discussions like this in a public sphere. Only this particular public sphere is often over ridden by people who want to argue one side with only sound bite and spleen on their side

What, again, are the arguments for not wearing a helmet?

So, not one of the no-helmet advocates has addressed my proposal. When one decides to ride a motorbike with no helmet and suffer a head injury, one must forgo any money from the state. Heck, it's just pennies, as you say. After the crash one will be treated until the private insurance is exhausted and then organs harvested or the body will be used as a cadaver for med schools or, if the family will pay for the delivery, turned over to them for burial.

In this scenario the rider has the right to choose, the tax payers will not be burdened, and aside from the trauma to the family and the first reponders or trauma team, the harm has been minimized -- and -- someone might be saved with donated organs!

I'm don't mind the safety net we have set up for people who cannot afford their medical care, but those people have to do the minimum to earn it. Putting on a helmet is a very, very low bar.

ONCE AGAIN--

the measure of whether a law requiring the use of helmets was constitutional or not depended on exactly the argument I have laid out about 4 times in this very thread already.

Was the burden on the rights of the public worth the good which would be gained from insisting that helmets be worn?

And the answer, in 25 states, was yes.

Now if another law regarding the riding of motorbikes at all were proposed, that same measuring stick would be employed-- does the outlawing of motorbikes constitute an unreasonable burden on the rights of the public vs. the benefit of having fewer crashes.

So-- please read this and understand this-- it's a matter of how serious the restriction to the rights of the people vs. the benefit gained thereby. To require 10 seconds be taken to clip on a helmet was never considered to heavy a burden, especially since there are no-- none- zero good reasons not to wear one.

If someone put forth a legislation that was miraculously voted into state law which outlawed motorbikes the court would easily find the burden on the rights of the people far too great vs. the benefits of fewer crashes. Especially since arguments for the use of motorbikes-- actual, logical, substantive arguments- exist. That is why I highlighted that portion of your post. That is where you are, in fact, legally and logicall incorrect.

You have fallen into the same logic failure as the other fellow.

Since we can't remove all risks we shouldn't bother reducing those which are easily reduced.

We have a tail light out. We might as well not turn the lights on at all, then.

There are 25 State Supreme court opinions which are you encouraged to read if you want to further understand the legal positions on both sides of the matter.

That might do nothing to limit YOUR enjoyment of motorcycling. But you cannot make that statement for everyone. Many people enjoy motorcycling a lot more without a helmet on. Hell, I do. I wear a helmet every time because I think it's stupid not to, but I love the feeling of not having one on and can easily understand why someone else might make a different choice than I do.

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. THERE is your double standard. You are reserving the right to engage in your choice of a dangerous activity, while arguing against respecting the rights of others to do the same.

This is not an argument for why helmet laws are ethical. It's an argument for why the MCCA is unethical.

PhilB

Kind of funny how you excoriate DAKEZ for stooping in his rhetoric, yet do the same. There's a word for that.

And I DID address this very comment. I said I was fine with it as long as it applies equally to anyone who contributes to his own accident or injuries. Singling out one particular bad choice while continuing to cover a myraid of others would be unfair.

PhilB