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

Discussion in 'The Perfect Line and Other Riding Myths' started by Anywhereness, Dec 9, 2012.

  1. Butters

    Butters Kwyjibo

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Oddometer:
    3,003
    Location:
    NoVA
    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.
  2. Schlug

    Schlug JockeyfullofBourbon

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    8,221
    Location:
    put something on and stay in that position.
    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.
  3. Schlug

    Schlug JockeyfullofBourbon

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    8,221
    Location:
    put something on and stay in that position.
    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.
  4. PhilB

    PhilB Long timer

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,331
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    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
  5. PhilB

    PhilB Long timer

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,331
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    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
  6. PhilB

    PhilB Long timer

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,331
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Exactly.

    PhilB
  7. PhilB

    PhilB Long timer

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,331
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    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
  8. DAKEZ

    DAKEZ Long timer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Oddometer:
    19,772
    Location:
    Begin Op Zoom
    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. :1drink

  9. DAKEZ

    DAKEZ Long timer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Oddometer:
    19,772
    Location:
    Begin Op Zoom
    Ride Fast and Take Chances
  10. Schlug

    Schlug JockeyfullofBourbon

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    8,221
    Location:
    put something on and stay in that position.

    Officially disinvited. And good day to you, sir.
  11. DAKEZ

    DAKEZ Long timer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Oddometer:
    19,772
    Location:
    Begin Op Zoom
    :clap Another freedom grabber :asshat gone. :clap

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

    ttpete Rectum Non Bustibus

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Oddometer:
    6,734
    Location:
    Dearborn, MI
    I think that we've been trolled here......... :kboom
  13. DAKEZ

    DAKEZ Long timer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Oddometer:
    19,772
    Location:
    Begin Op Zoom
    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.
  14. Wraith Rider

    Wraith Rider Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2012
    Oddometer:
    1,604
    Location:
    Germany
    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.
  15. ttpete

    ttpete Rectum Non Bustibus

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Oddometer:
    6,734
    Location:
    Dearborn, MI
    OK, how about "Comrade Commissar"? :rofl
  16. Schlug

    Schlug JockeyfullofBourbon

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Oddometer:
    8,221
    Location:
    put something on and stay in that position.
    This was the decision of 25 state Supreme Courts, not me. I.e, people smarter than you, likely smarter than the both of us. Stop making this an ad hominem attack. (look it up)

    Apology accepted.


    Why do you insist on ignoring that fact that wearing a helmet is the easiest way to mitigate these risks?

    point 1.
    Riding a motorbike is more dangerous than driving a car. And does cost the non-motorbike riding public more money.
    point 2.
    Outlawing motorbikes is an unreasonable burden on civil society. For, to be sure, there are actual positive arguments for riding motorbikes.

    point 1.
    Riding without a helmet is a selfish, costly act in that one may suffer an otherwise avoidable head injury which causes pain and suffering and financial ruin to one's family and increased cost to the helmet-wearing and non-motorbike riding public.
    point 2.
    Insisting that motorbike riders wear helmets is not, as 25 State Supreme Courts (read: NOT ME) have found, an overly burdensome act to the rights of civil society. And indeed there are no true arguments against it including an asanine 'freedom of choice.'


    I certainly am engaging in any double standard. You are mistaken in assuming that, should a law be passed in my locale outlawing motorbikes (a completely ridiculous assertion that you, and only you propose) I wouldn't abide by that law. And I tell you, sir, that I would either relocate or I would abide by such a ruling.

    Of course this is total hogshyte and anyone who believed for a minute that motorbikes would be outlawed based on the standard of justification put forth by the state supreme courts is thicker than pigshit.

    For what it's worth, your argument is a called a 'straw man' argument. You dislike one law and then you point out another law that is well nigh impossible and wave the flag of danger. It is worthless and fallacious and, even worse, might convince others. Please don't bring that line of reason up again.
  17. ttpete

    ttpete Rectum Non Bustibus

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Oddometer:
    6,734
    Location:
    Dearborn, MI
    How about listing references for those 25 State Supreme Court decisions so we can look them up? I assume you have that data at hand, or you wouldn't have made the claim. Or are you just winging it?
  18. B.Curvin

    B.Curvin Feral Chia Tamer

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Oddometer:
    2,863
    Location:
    Left of the dial. Canton, NC
    Shirley it is a troll. No one could be this delusional, or dare I say, stupid.

    Good one Mr. Sands, you got us. Boy, you had me goin' there for a minute.





































    :hide
  19. DAKEZ

    DAKEZ Long timer

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Oddometer:
    19,772
    Location:
    Begin Op Zoom
    And here I thought that Marxists could count. They are more stupid than I previously thought.

    [​IMG]

    Oh wait... That's right, their chief thinks there are 57 states.
  20. Kommando

    Kommando Long timer

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Oddometer:
    9,641
    Location:
    By the Great Lakes
    No no no. Automobiles are too dangerous. They cost society too much. We should walk or ride bicycles everywhere. I'm cool with that.

    :lol3