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

[Butters]

If you choose not to wear a helmet, you're an idiot.

However, the result of your idiocy has a very minimal effect on me or society in general. So there is no need for the government to be involved with your decision. Any minute effect upon me or society in general does not justify the tate restricting even a simple choice.

[Barnone]

Originally Posted by Butters

If you choose not to wear a helmet, you're an idiot.

However, the result of your idiocy has a very minimal effect on me or society in general. So there is no need for the government to be involved with your decision. Any minute effect upon me or society in general does not justify the tate restricting even a simple choice.

The problem is you idiots expect the government and society to pay for your head injuries.

[Barnone]

DAKEZ,
I know where you are coming from. You sell Harleys. Enough said.

[Offcamber]

Originally Posted by Barnone

The problem is you idiots expect the government and society to pay for your head injuries.

And there is the next myth being propagated....the cost to society....increased insurance bla bla bla.....

I bet not in one state did insurance premiums go down for motorcyclist when a helmet law was instituted.

Drain on the health care system?? REALY?? What about smokers, people who drink, eat fatty foods etc....those things are not restricted or require extra insurance to protect society from your bad habits and there are far more people doing those "unsafe things" than motorcyclist that don't wear helmets....

[DAKEZ]

Originally Posted by Barnone

The problem is you idiots expect the government and society to pay for your head injuries.

The cost ($) to society is not greater due to the higher death rate of lidless riders and the simple fact that one can sustain costly head injuries with a helmet on.

It is almost a statistical wash.

[eepeqez]

Originally Posted by ParaMud

No fault insurance in a crash? What is that bullcrap?

Seriously?

So someone crashes into me and I have to pay for some of the damages?

That's how compulsory personal injury insurance works here.

Someone crashes into you and your insurance company pays for your medical and rehab costs, rather than paying for lawyers to argue over who should pay.

Insurance is cheaper and everyone gets medical and rehab.

Damn socialists eh? And yet it works far better than the American model.

[DAKEZ]

Originally Posted by Barnone

DAKEZ,
I know where you are coming from. You sell Harleys. Enough said.

What are trying to say? If it is what I think it is you could not be more wrong.




Besides, I sell TRIUMPHS and Harley's in a helmet mandate state. We sell only DOT and snell approved helmets and encourage the use of FULL face lids. Again, you couldn't be more wrong.

My stance has NOTHING to do with types of bikes and EVERYTHING to do with people having the right to make their own choices.

[Wraith Rider]

Originally Posted by aeneas

Those of us that have to drive a motorcycle daily in these conditions, do feel a need for helmets or atgatt..

Only speak for yourself. Please.

I ride daily (at least when the roads are free from ice and snow), not because I have to but because I favour it over driving a cage. I DO NOT feel any "need" for helmets or atgatt let alone a law forcing me to do so. It depends on mood and convenience how I gear up and especially if I'm only going through town at not much more than bicycling speeds I often leave the gloves and sometimes the helmet at home.


It's sickening how many people want to force others into their preferred way of life without any reason, just because they think it's nice to violate their personal freedoms.

As farmerstu said earlier:
Thanks DAKEZ for being the voice of reason!

[Ginger Beard]

Originally Posted by PhilB

The basis of seatbelt laws is the same coercive, nanny-state, bullying, protect-you-from-yourself bullshit.

Also, you're not entirely factually correct there. NH does not require seatbelt use for adults.

We elect representatives to conduct necessary governance, NOT to be our parents. They have no right to violate our rights, to force us to do as they think we ought to at gunpoint.

I firmly believe that helmets are a very good thing, and always use one when riding. I did so back in CA before the helmet law was passed. I have done so every time living in two states that do not have helmet laws since. I also always wear my seatbelt, regardless of the laws. A helmet LAW is not the same as a HELMET.

We each have the equal right to decide our own risk tolerance and levels. You think riding without a helmet is dumb. So do I. But our moms and doctors think that riding at all is dumb. They don't have the right to decide what is too dangerous for us. We don't have the right to decide what is too dangerous for others. It's that simple.

+1. This.

PhilB

x2!!!

I always wear a FF helmet by choice. I do not want to be forced to do so by an overbearing government that feels it needs to protect the assets of corporations more than it needs to protect the rights of it's citizenry.

[fastdadio]

Originally Posted by Ginger Beard

x2!!!

I always wear a FF helmet by choice. I do not want to be forced to do so by an overbearing government that feels it needs to protect the assets of corporations more than it needs to protect the rights of it's citizenry.

NIce summary right here.

[randyo]

Originally Posted by sleazy rider

Explain to me the basis of seat belt laws then. All 50 states require their use.

uh, NO,

New Hampshire does not require seatbelts

we did not cave in to the federal mandate and we didn't loose our highway funding

nor does NH require helmets OR insurance

[randyo]

Originally Posted by Barnone

The problem is you idiots expect the government and society to pay for your head injuries.

thats the argument, but show me where society has paid any more for unhelmeted riders than they have for helmeted riders

[atomicalex]

When I see people riding with out helmets, or with open face helmets, for that matter, I forever wonder what all those bits of crap hitting their skin feel like, and how the hell they can stand to ride faster than 35mph or so. Then I realize that most of them don't.

I would prefer to have a helmet law and no $175 per vehicle charge. That is a better financial argument, IMO. I about fell over when my agent explained that one to me.

[g®eg]

Originally Posted by DAKEZ

Well, kind of... It's called Rugby.

Your football reference is often parroted in these matters but is NOT applicable in any way. Football is a CONTACT SPORT. Riding a motorcycle is not.

[Butters]

Originally Posted by Barnone

The problem is you idiots expect the government and society to pay for your head injuries.

Please show me the actual impact helmetless crashes have on each individual? Can you quantify it? Is it $.01 per person, $1, $100? I'm sure there is some impact from people riding without helmets. But what is it (beyond costs associated with riding without insurance)?

Before the state can tell somebody how they need to live, there needs to be a justification, i.e. relatively significant impact on society from that choice. If it costs me an extra 3 cents per year so that people can determine for themselves how to live their lives, even to make dumb choices, I am fine with that.

We Americans sometimes talk a big game about being willing to die to protect our freedoms. But so many sure are in a hurry to restrict choices if they differ from their own or happen to cost a few pennies.

Maybe we should just replace the Constitution with some HOA bylaws.