Michigan dropped helmet law

[meredog]

Effective this week Michigan no longer requires Motorcyclists to wear helmets --- big deciding factor was the revenue loss because of bikers not coming in from other states and Michigan bikers crossing over into Indiana to ride on weekends

 

[DanDolfn]

It's funny/sad how so many issues revolve around money rather than right or wrong.

Having said that, I enjoy the freedom of choice on helmets that I have here in Florida.

 

[pmar6004]

Effective this week Michigan no longer requires Motorcyclists to wear helmets --- big deciding factor was the revenue loss because of bikers not coming in from other states and Michigan bikers crossing over into Indiana to ride on weekends

Kudos to MI A.B.A.T.E. as I'm sure that they played a very important part in helping to get this legislation passed as well. When money becomes an issue, it often times is the loudest voice, however.

Daydreamer

 

[Rick Kay]

The law requires an additional $20,000 in medical insurance for the rider and another $20,000 for the passenger. You must be over 21 and have a motorcycle endorsement to ride without a helmet. You do not have to have proof of the medical insurance coverage with you, not can you be stopped by law enforcement to check for the insurance coverage. Many Michigan riders are out with out their helmets, already.

I applaud the right to choose whether to wear a helmet or not. I choose to wear my helmet, always.

 

[wimoonshiner]

This may be a dumb quesyion, but does the Upper Peninsula fall under the same laws?

 

[retdpd]

yep--the yoopers are still part of the state:laugh:

 

[patriot]

The law requires an additional $20,000 in medical insurance for the rider and another $20,000 for the passenger. You must be over 21 and have a motorcycle endorsement to ride without a helmet. You do not have to have proof of the medical insurance coverage with you, not can you be stopped by law enforcement to check for the insurance coverage. Many Michigan riders are out with out their helmets, already.

I applaud the right to choose whether to wear a helmet or not. I choose to wear my helmet, always.

I wonder how the state came up with $20,000? Putting your face back together surely can cost much, much more just for one surgery.

 

[Rick Kay]

I wonder how the state came up with $20,000? Putting your face back together surely can cost much, much more just for one surgery.

Agreed!

 

[retdpd]

I know the controversy on both sides.

I know as fact through my many years in law enforcement and now retired. Is that the second impact after a crash is usaully the head.

The queen and I will continue to wear our brain buckets.


:Coffee:

 

[Ol' Grey]

CONGRATS, Michigan riders! ThumbUp

"Let Those Who Ride Decide"

 

[DanDolfn]

"Let Those Who Ride Decide"

Yep, your head; your choice.

BTW, the safety difference between riding a bike and riding a car is considerably greater than the safety difference between riding a bike with a helmet and without.


Per mile traveled in 1998, a motorcyclist is approximately 16 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile occupant. And 3x (times) as likely to be injured.

In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash. [Presumably, the 54% who WERE wearing helmets were fatally injured regardless.]

NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29% in a crash.

Motorcycle Accident Statistics - webBikeWorld

 

[meredog]

Well. I certainly do not endorse the idea of riding without a helmet but i STRONGLY endorse the peoples right to choose----same with seat belts----and a business mans right to choose whether to allow smoking in his place of business.
PS: i wear seat belts and i do not smoke

 

[Ol' Grey]

"Let Those Who Ride Decide"

Yep, your head; your choice.

BTW, the safety difference between riding a bike and riding a car is considerably greater than the safety difference between riding a bike with a helmet and without.


Per mile traveled in 1998, a motorcyclist is approximately 16 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile occupant. And 3x (times) as likely to be injured.

In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash. [Presumably, the 54% who WERE wearing helmets were fatally injured regardless.]

NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29% in a crash.

Motorcycle Accident Statistics - webBikeWorld

Thanx for providing those stats, DanDolfn....The controversy has raged for decades with both sides having valid points to make.

This one is interesting:

"In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash. [Presumably, the 54% who WERE wearing helmets were fatally injured regardless.]"

By these figures, it's appears that it's at least close to 50/50 odds either way. I remember reading some stats years ago that said that the wearing of a helmet would only offer better odds up to a speed of either 25 mph or 35 mph (can't remember exactly which figure it was)........but after that given speed, all bets were off as far as guaranteeing safety by wearing a helmet (always exceptions, of course, but that's the basic drift)

From reading these stats, it appears to be a roll of the dice every time one gets on a motorcycle and 110% awareness on the part of the rider would be paramount. My choice is lid-less, but I also respect those who choose to wear helmets. As you've said "Your head, your choice".

It would be interesting to see if there's a stat involving auto/bike collisions resulting in m/c riders' fatalities (with or without helmets) and whether or not the auto driver was talking on a cell phone and/or texting. Just my opinion, but rather than mandating helmet use, I'd opt for outlawing the use of cell phones in automobiles.

In either event or no matter what one's choice is as regards helmets....Ride Safe, All..........

 

[Memnoch451]

Effective this week Michigan no longer requires Motorcyclists to wear helmets --- big deciding factor was the revenue loss because of bikers not coming in from other states and Michigan bikers crossing over into Indiana to ride on weekends

I grew up in IL ( spent 25 years there) and I have to disagree with your simplification of why the Helmet law was dropped. California is a helmet state and there are no shortage of riders year round from non helmet states I.E. AZ, NV, NM and A host of others.

Perhaps there's just nothing worth seeing in MI... LMAO :wave4: :Angel: ThumbUp

Now That was funny!

But, Really I don't think it's all money based... Perhaps money on the back side... Lobbyists!!! MI has Detroit and that in of it's self can suck the money right out of state coffers regardless of helmet laws.

The new law, which takes effect immediately, requires bareheaded riders 21 and older to carry at least $20,000 in additional medical insurance. Riders also must have passed a motorcycle safety course or have had their motorcycle endorsement for at least two years. These safeguards are woefully inadequate, given the increased risks and medical costs that come with riding without a helmet.

So it's more for the insurance companies then the riders!

 

[Memnoch451]

Well. I certainly do not endorse the idea of riding without a helmet but i STRONGLY endorse the peoples right to choose----same with seat belts----and a business mans right to choose whether to allow smoking in his place of business.
PS: i wear seat belts and i do not smoke

Oh if people can decide whether or not they wear a helmet and a seat belt should they be able to decide on the speed limit too? hmmmmm! I'm not talking about speeding like we all do as that is clearly not legal. But, to drive any speed in any given situation with out the repercussions of a traffic ticket?

Freedom of Speech ends at Yelling Fire in a crowded Theater.. Should we not as a society act safely or give it all up for the Wild wild west mentality that helmets aren't cool or are an encroachment of ones personal freedoms?

Just wondering? :Shrug:

 

[DanDolfn]

Should we not as a society act safely or give it all up for the Wild wild west mentality that helmets aren't cool or are an encroachment of ones personal freedoms?

If the Wild West decision to ride a bike at all is 50 times more unsafe than the decision not to wear a helmet, maybe you'd like to start that safe society by banning motorcycles?

 

[kwakasix3]

Given the choice I would still wear a helmet. Here in OZ there is no choice, no exceptions. But it would be nice to have the choice.
Very often American trends become Australian trends. Usually takes a year or two to become obvious. I bet the no helmets law change never happens here,though.
The Queensland State government tried to ban open face helmets years ago. On the grounds that open faces were "unsafe". The word got out and huge protest rides brought Brisbane CBD to a standstill with all the protesters bikes. That proposed law never made it to parliament .
Nanny & the Nanny State look after us here. Whether we want it or not.

 

[Ol' Grey]

Well. I certainly do not endorse the idea of riding without a helmet but i STRONGLY endorse the peoples right to choose----same with seat belts----and a business mans right to choose whether to allow smoking in his place of business.
PS: i wear seat belts and i do not smoke

I commend your objectivity...ThumbUp....seems to be in rare supply these days.

 

[Ol' Grey]

Oh if people can decide whether or not they wear a helmet and a seat belt should they be able to decide on the speed limit too? hmmmmm! I'm not talking about speeding like we all do as that is clearly not legal. But, to drive any speed in any given situation with out the repercussions of a traffic ticket?

Freedom of Speech ends at Yelling Fire in a crowded Theater.. Should we not as a society act safely or give it all up for the Wild wild west mentality that helmets aren't cool or are an encroachment of ones personal freedoms?

Just wondering? :Shrug:

For the sake of conversation, the Dept. of Transportation or whoever sets the rules of the road: Speed limit, passing lane, no passing lane, yield, stop, etc...........but I do see a difference between those rules and rules mandating one's personal safety/health such as helmets, seat belts, no smoking and I don't believe "meredog" was suggesting a scenario of no rules at all. How about letting the Dept. of Transportation set the basic rules of the road and let the drivers/riders decide their own safety practices regarding helmets and seat belts ?

On a side note: "Perhaps there's just nothing worth seeing in MI... LMAO".....I ain't touchin' that one, LOL!

"Now That was funny!"........hehehe..........

 

[kwakasix3]

As several have mentioned smoking.
In Queensland it is illegal to smoke in a car when children 12 years and younger are present. I think the fine is about $150 and 2 demerit points off the drivers license. Not smoking in an enclosed car with children has virtue but how unenforceable is this law ? Police have enough to do. Now they are expected to be the smoking police.