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

[BobbySands]

Originally Posted by PhilB

This!!!

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.

PhilB

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The year the state repealed the helmet law, the MCCA fee was increased.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.

[DOGSROOT]

Originally Posted by DAKEZ

Let those who ride decide. Keep your laws off my person.

So, Dakez, do you extend this philosophy of "Keep your laws off my person" to the abortion issue too?

(Let those who ride decide.)



















































Just wondering...
.
.
.

[DAKEZ]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

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:

Your use of "right wing Govenor" is telling. It tells me (and others) that you are a left wing libtard. An asswipe that screams for tolerance until you come across something or someone you disagree with. Then you are suddenly intolerant. You scream for "HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!!! ... But not for you unless you do what we say"

You and your kind are a joke.



The question was never as you blindly state "Is it a reasonable infringement on the right of 'happiness'... blah blah"


The question is and always has been liberty or as the powers that be so susictly put it "freedom".


The Mythical "benefit to society" does not exist. Even if it did exist it is so ridiculously minuscule as to not even warrant a second look.


Of course those on the extreme Left and extreme Right are too blinded by their own idiocy to see things as they so clearly are. They have only one goal... To program the sheep like you under their control into blindly following their agenda. The only thing that keeps this country going it the free thinking moderate people that refuse to be sheep. But you would know nothing about that.
.

[farmerstu]

Originally Posted by DAKEZ

Your use of "right wing Govenor" is telling. It tells me (and others) that you are a left wing libtard. An asswipe that screams for tolerance until you come across something or someone you disagree with. Then you are suddenly intolerant. You scream for "HEALTHCARE FOR ALL!!! ... But not for you unless you do what we say"

You and your kind are a joke.



The question was never as you blindly state "Is it a reasonable infringement on the right of 'happiness'... blah blah"


The question is and always has been liberty or as the powers that be so susictly put it "freedom".

The Mythical "benefit to society" does not exist. Even if it did exist it is so ridiculously minuscule as to not even warrant a second look.


Of course those on the extreme Left and extreme Right are too blinded by their own idiocy to see things as they so clearly are. They have only one goal... To program the sheep like you under their control into blindly following their agenda. The only this that keeps this country going it the free thinking moderate people that refuse to be sheep. But you would know nothing about that.
.

well said, the socialist agenda is going to destroy this country from within.

[DAKEZ]

Originally Posted by DOGSROOT

So, Dakez, do you extend this philosophy of "Keep your laws off my person" to the abortion issue too?

(Let those who ride decide.)



Just wondering...
.
.
.

I Actually believe that the same thinking should apply to both. That is what is so baffling. Those that scream loudest about keeping your laws off my body are the same ones that scream for helmets. It makes NO SENSE.

Keep your laws off my person.

[farmerstu]

it seems odd to me, being this is an adventure riders forum,that there seems to be a lot of inmates who do not fit the definition of adventure i.e. daring,risk taker,explorer,self determined,etc. seems like a lot of pansies who either want to tell others what to do or have someone else tell them what to do.

[DOGSROOT]

Originally Posted by DAKEZ

I Actually believe that the same thinking should apply to both. That is what is so baffling. Those that scream loudest about keeping your laws off my body are the same ones that scream for helmets. It makes NO SENSE.

Keep your laws off my person.

Glad to see you're consistent.


I entirely agree w/ you that moderate free-thinkers are what is needed politically.

However, it's always seemed to me that those who scream against helmet laws tend to be on the right,

along w/ all the anti-abortionists.

An odd situation.

Of course, you see the opposite.

As to whether Rick Snyder's a right winger or left winger, I'm pretty sure Mr. Sands nailed that one.

The Governor is anti-union, anti-abortion, anti-education, anti-corporate tax; doesn't sound too moderate to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Snyder
.
.
.

[BobbySands]

Originally Posted by DAKEZ

Edit: You know nothing about my politics, sweet fuck-all, to be exact, so stop assuming.

The question is and always has been liberty or as the powers that be so susictly put it "freedom".


The Mythical "benefit to society" does not exist. Even if it did exist it is so ridiculously minuscule as to not even warrant a second look.

You are incorrect on both accounts. You'd LIKE it, hell, you'd love it if weren't so. But you cannot provide a single iota of evidence to support such a claim.

But I can. A rider in this state falls, not wearing a helmet. Passenger, not wearing helmet dies. His children are now collecting social security. The survivor has massive head trauma. They drill holes, release pressure, he comes out of the coma-- to a point. His wife leaves their house and moves in the survivors brother bring his 4 children with her. His hospital and care facility stay was 5 months. He has only limited speech, can't walk without support, and will never work again or enjoy beer and watch the footie match. He nearly bankrupted his union's health care fund and expended his lifetime allowance according to his insurance carrier. His care is now in our hands. His 4 children have a shell of a father, his wife is now a full time caretaker of a man who only sometimes recognises her.

This wreck has cost a bloody fortune to his family's emotions, his estate, his union.

And that one wreck-- that's enough in my eyes and in the eyes of the TWENTY FIVE state supreme courts who have upheld helmet laws, has cost enough to impinge upon your happiness enough to make the sacrifice of clicking one fucking strap on a helmt.

more to the point, in your fit of imbecility, you didn't address one salient point of my post. You made a slanderous attack on my person and incorrectly identified the legal issues surrounding rights and helmet laws.

If you have nothing cogent to say, save the bandwidth next time.

From the moment of the injury, society picks the person up off the highway; delivers him to a municipal hospital and municipal doctors; provides him with unemployment compensation if, after recovery, he cannot replace his lost job, and, if the injury causes permanent disability, may assume the responsibility for his and his family�s continued subsistence. We do not understand a state of mind that permits plaintiff to think that only he himself is concerned

From a man smarter than you.

Motorcycles are only 2 percent of the registered vehicles nationally, but motorcyclist fatalities are 5 percent of traffic fatalities each year. Motorcyclists account for over 2,100 fatalities and 56,000 injuries. The fatality rate per mile traveled for motorcyclists is 16 times that of car occupants, and the injury rate is about 4 times that of car occupants.

[Chaplain]

Among other thing, I drive a school bus from time to time. To my limited knowledge, only in NJ are passengers in a school bus required to have a seat belt. No seat belts for passengers in school buses makes sense from a statistical or scientific point of view. Statistically it is more important to be able to get out of a school bus quickly that the protection a seat belt offers in a big 'ole yellow school bus. But, School Bus Drivers are required to have a seat belt! Why? Is the driver more important that the kids?? The answer is that if the bus takes a bounce, the belt keeps the driver in the seat where all the controls are. So, safety devices are not EXCLUSIVELY about injury mitigation, but in part, sometimes safety devices increase the ability to control a vehicle when something bad happens.

Certainly, helmet laws are primarily directed protecting the brains of people who would choose to not wear helmets. As has been pointed out, helmet laws may only shift the point at which death occurs. This may be of benefit to society because more accidents occur at low velocity that at high speed (with more kinetic energy comes more injury and higher death rates).

But: The roads are built and maintained at expense to the people in general. Every EMT dispatch comes at cost. (Even when the EMTs are volunteer - Mrs. Chaplain is an Ambulance Driver volunteer). So, there is some measure of cost when those in minor accidents suffer injury because of inadequate protection.

And: Helmets also mitigate loss of control in the event of foreign object strikes. (pebbles, rocks, birds, big juicy bug). A strike to the face or the head can result in loss of control. Riding into rain or hail without a helmet!? Now the 2000 mile a year rider who only rides on days not too hot, not too cold, not too wet, etc. may not experience these things as frequently. But, anyone who uses bikes for transportation is going to eventually experience getting hit with something that without gear would cause an off or an accident. How many 'non-accidents' happen because a rider has a helmet? And, how many minor offs result in no injury because of a helmet (and no injury means no accident report). I had one of these minor offs myself. If I didn't have a modular helmet I would have at least broken my jaw, and likely would have needed a ride to the ER, treatment, etc. As it was, I had a minor soreness and no visible marks. So, I saved myself some out of pocket expense, but I also saved some Rescue Squad a dispatch, and I also saved my insurance risk pool the bigger dollar payout. The local PD did not have to write an accident report. The bike did not have to be towed. Traffic was not tied up on the road.

Perhaps people should have the freedom to do things that others think is stupid - as long as it does not affect others. But, if an individual does not take reasonable steps to mitigate risk to others, then we end up with silly laws.

If I wanted to mitigate risk completely I would not even get out of bed in the morning. I choose to ride. I will do reasonable things to mitigate risk of injury. I won't ride without a helmet (well maybe duck walk the bike back to the regular parking space after changing the oil). I want to protect my head as much as I can. And, I don't want to take a bird to the face and, loose control, and hurt or kill someone (be that me or some innocent bystander).

More than any other vehicle on the road the motorcycle and the motorcyclist are an integrated system. A motorcycle can not even remain upright without the control input from the rider. So, the question is, how much a part of the ride is the rider? Is a helmet law so much different than the DOT requiring cars to have a windshield to pass inspection? Or, is a helmet law a subtle form of tyranny?

Motorcyclists represent, sadly (maybe) a very small percentage of vehicle miles on US roads. We are statistically insignificant. So, as one who has sworn an oath to defend and protect the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic,... I believe I would prefer to error on the side of liberty. We should not need laws to make people do what they should do anyway. But, when the day is done, if not wearing a helmet causes injury (physical or financial) to others then the people have a right to pass a law that offers protection to "we the people".

[Craneguy]

Here are some numbers to chew on from a study by the CDC:

CDC study finds universal motorcycle helmet laws increase helmet use, save money
Annual cost savings in states with universal motorcycle helmet laws were nearly four times greater (per registered motorcycle) than in states without these comprehensive laws, according to a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report study released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Universal helmet laws require that motorcycle riders and passengers wear a helmet every time they ride.

Full press release here: http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/20...ycle_laws.html

[Wraith Rider]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

one wreck-- that's enough in my eyes
[...]
Motorcycles are only 2 percent of the registered vehicles nationally, but motorcyclist fatalities are 5 percent of traffic fatalities each year. Motorcyclists account for over 2,100 fatalities and 56,000 injuries. The fatality rate per mile traveled for motorcyclists is 16 times that of car occupants, and the injury rate is about 4 times that of car occupants.

Obviously we have someone here who thinks motorcycling should be outlawed.

Originally Posted by Chaplain

Helmets also mitigate loss of control in the event of foreign object strikes.

In about 100,000 miles there was one foreign object impact that would have been able to cause me trouble if I was helmetless. But then that was at triple the speed than I would ride without a helmet. Also a hit to the body could as well lead to an accident, but there's no law for full armor.

Originally Posted by Chaplain

I choose to ride. I will do reasonable things to mitigate risk of injury.

That's a contradiction in itself. Take a look at Bobby's figures about motorcyclist injuries and fatalities. No one in a sane state of mind could "choosing to ride" call "doing reasonable things to mitigate risk".

[BobbySands]

Originally Posted by Wraith Rider

Obviously we have someone here who thinks motorcycling should be outlawed.



In about 100,000 miles there was one foreign object impact that would have been able to cause me trouble if I was helmetless. But then that was at triple the speed than I would ride without a helmet. Also a hit to the body could as well lead to an accident, but there's no law for full armor.



That's a contradiction in itself. Take a look at Bobby's figures about motorcyclist injuries and fatalities. No one in a sane state of mind could "choosing to ride" call "doing reasonable things to mitigate risk".

One, are you being intentionally thick or trying to use hyperbole to prove a(n incorrect) point? You know that's not what I'm trying to say. Yet, you typed those words anyway.

Two, in this forum there are a lot of people who ride a lot of miles a year. You're statistics mean nothing. Lots of us have taken a whack to the head with a stone or other object thrown up.

Most importantly, your logic is a miserable failure.

HEAD INJURIES-- not injuries to the body-- are the most dangerous, most lethal sort of injury to a motorcycle rider-- to a skateboarder, a hockey player, a cyclist. Which is why helmets are the focus here and there.

So here we have the facts, short and to the point:
Motorcycle riding is a dangerous manner of getting around.
There are some risks greater than others--including head injuries.
We should always attempt, if we care about our families, our health, our financial solvency, our career, or just being able to watch the footie match with a beer in our hand, to reduce these risks as much as possible.

To say, as you assert, that we can't remove all risk and therefore we shouldn't attempt to reduce a very clear, very dangerous, sometimes easily averted injury by wearing a helmet is absolute hog anus.

Not all accidents are survivable, even with the best kit.
But some, indeed most, are survivable.
We must do what we can to survive those accidents with as little injury as possible.
For the good of our loved ones, our personal health, and the civil society of which we are a part. (or not, depending on your locale)

[Fajita Dave]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

One, are you being intentionally thick or trying to use hyperbole to prove a(n incorrect) point? You know that's not what I'm trying to say. Yet, you typed those words anyway.

Two, in this forum there are a lot of people who ride a lot of miles a year. You're statistics mean nothing. Lots of us have taken a whack to the head with a stone or other object thrown up.

Most importantly, your logic is a miserable failure.

HEAD INJURIES-- not injuries to the body-- are the most dangerous, most lethal sort of injury to a motorcycle rider-- to a skateboarder, a hockey player, a cyclist. Which is why helmets are the focus here and there.

So here we have the facts, short and to the point:
Motorcycle riding is a dangerous manner of getting around.
There are some risks greater than others--including head injuries.
We should always attempt, if we care about our families, our health, our financial solvency, our career, or just being able to watch the footie match with a beer in our hand, to reduce these risks as much as possible.

To say, as you assert, that we can't remove all risk and therefore we shouldn't attempt to reduce a very clear, very dangerous, sometimes easily averted injury by wearing a helmet is absolute hog anus.

Not all accidents are survivable, even with the best kit.
But some, indeed most, are survivable.
We must do what we can to survive those accidents with as little injury as possible.
For the good of our loved ones, our personal health, and the civil society of which we are a part. (or not, depending on your locale)

+1000

I can't imagine anyone who would avoid taking the 10 seconds to put on a helmet that drastically reduces the chance of a serious head injury in the event of an accident. Just so they can have a tiny taste of extra personal freedom. If you had the common sense to wear a helmet in the first place than a helmet law has no effect on your personal freedom!

The human body can handle brutal punishment and still function reasonably well so its understandable that full gear is just an option. On the other hand, it doesn't take much of an impact to the head making you a dependent for life. After that you'll be nothing more than horrific emotional and financial baggage for your loved ones and anyone else you're involved with for the rest of you're life (and hopefully not theirs). All could have been avoided by just wearing a helmet..... If you don't understand why you need to wear a helmet than the government really does need to protect you from your own stupidity.

Besides what good is an adventure if you can't survive the first fall since you weren't wearing a helmet? If you wanted to finish your trip around the world wouldn't it be smart to try and survive it first? Ya know like all of the survival gear you'd bring with you to start a fire, cook your food, gather clean water, avoid heatstroke / hypothermia, and hunt for your food if required.

[Wraith Rider]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

You know that's not what I'm trying to say.

Trying or not, you DO say it. Of course you never will admit it, because that would mean to face your own double standards.

Originally Posted by BobbySands

We must do what we can to survive those accidents with as little injury as possible.

No. We can if we wish to. If we instead wish to accept a higher risk to increase our life quality that's fine as well. But again there are your double standards, telling us we must do what you think we have to while allowing the dangers you like to take yourself.

[Fidl2n]

There are enough so-called double standards to go around, as noted before. Unfortunately for the purist liberty lovers, there is no such thing as individual-only consequence in the case of a helmet law. We will never live in a country where we just leave folks to die on the road if not wearing a helmet (though strangely we do this very thing in other instances having to do with people like the homeless). Even if one were to further "incentivize" with insurance or further denial of coverage, it would all just continue to be paid by society, regardless. How many more homeless or impoverished do we want to keep. There is a huge gray area here. Not saying it's ideal (what is?). I just can't seem to get worked up about it in the face of so many other larger threats. It's wiser to pick your battles in the face of so many other attacks and threats to motorcycling and riders. I am for the idea of personal liberty in concept, but, like so many other concepts, the practical realities become unrealistic within the context of a larger "civilized" society.

Set em on an ice flow? Sure, I'm game. Never happen.


Blah, blah, blah, Tapatalk.