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

[Butters]

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.

[BobbySands]

Originally Posted by Butters

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.

[BobbySands]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

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.

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.

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BobbySands

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BobbySands

... 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.

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

PhilB

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

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) ...

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

Originally Posted by BobbySands

... 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?

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.

Originally Posted by PhilB

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

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

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.

Exactly.

PhilB

[PhilB]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

... 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. ...

Ah, the core problem. You have exactly zero idea what the concepts of individual rights and liberty and freedom mean, and completely disregard them in your analysis. Your argument allows for the government to violate any and every right a person has, if only they can come up with an adequate cost-benefit rationale. That is NOT what having rights means. That is not what liberty means. That is not what freedom means.

PhilB

[DAKEZ]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

So this is the level of discourse you want to share: calling names,.

I only lowered myself to your level of discourse as it was you that started with the names. I did so, so you would be sure to understand what I was saying.

Originally Posted by BobbySands

Idiot.

You have proven yourself unreliable for anything but spleen and sound bites.

[DAKEZ]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

Was the burden on the rights of the public worth the good which would be gained from insisting that helmets be worn? NO!

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. There is a HUGE reason. Because an individual does not want to wear one and selfish fucks like you should not have the right to force him to. Having your opinion is one thing... Forcing it upon another that does not share it is wrong.

Ride Fast and Take Chances

[BobbySands]

Originally Posted by DAKEZ

I only lowered myself to your level of discourse as it was you that started with the names. I did so, so you would be sure to understand what I was saying.

Officially disinvited. And good day to you, sir.

[DAKEZ]

Another freedom grabber gone.

What's the matter... Can't stand it when the spotlight exposes your selfish folly? Look to yourself and let others do the same.

[ttpete]

Originally Posted by DAKEZ

Another freedom grabber gone.

What's the matter... Can't stand it when the spotlight exposes your selfish folly? Look to yourself and let others do the same.

I think that we've been trolled here.........

[DAKEZ]

I don't think he is a troll. I think he is a control freak. Not only does he insist on making everyone wear helmets he is also a 2nd amendment shredder. People get to have all the rights they want to unless he disagrees with them.

[Wraith Rider]

Originally Posted by BobbySands

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.

You are incredibly selfish as well every time you hop on your bike and accept high amounts of emotional distress to the persons who like you, just for a bit of irrational, personal fun. You are preaching water and drinking vine. THAT is bewildering.

16 times as dangerous as car driving you said, 16 times as expensive to society, 16 times as likely to badly hurt the ones who love you. And YOU get off giving talks to us about being incredibly selfish. Ludicrous.

[ttpete]

Originally Posted by DAKEZ

I don't think he is a troll. I think he is a control freak. Not only does he insist on making everyone wear helmets he is also a 2nd amendment shredder. People get to have all the rights they want to unless he disagrees with them.

OK, how about "Comrade Commissar"?