Gov. Snyder just signed the optional motorcycle helmet bill into law this morning

[313WX]

It's not the people's choice they decide to charge you more because some people don't wear helmets.

Huh? Could you elaborate?

[firstandten]

This law is a bad deal for the people. Mich provides unlimited medical coverage for crash victims requiring lifetime benefits for all reasonable and necessary care this from the Mich Catastrophic Claims Assoc. Motorcyclist account for 5% of the claims [[mostly likely more now) but are only 2% of the assessment.

Also motorcyclist get special treatment under the no fault law. If an motorcycle and auto get in an accident, the auto drivers insurance pays benefits to the motorcyclist no matter who is at fault.

From the Free Press editorial page

I'm in favor of personal rights but what about the adverse affects on the general public just so you can have the right to put yourself at risk by not wearing a helmet.

Also the $20,000 additional insurance isn't enough I've seen studies that the ER cost for a injuried motorcycle driver is slightly more than double that amount

[Gistok]

I wonder if the folks who ride motorcycles who are happy about this, will be as gleeful once they get their new insurance premiums....

[shovelhead]

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars...lmet-laws.html

Part of the issue was tourism. Michigan is surrounded by states with either no helmet law or limited requirement such as riders under 17. With Michigan being "out of the way" a rider can bypass this state completely.

It's going to be a hard sell to get someone for example riding from Pennsylvania to Sturgis to travel through Michigan as they will have to buy a helmet that they may never use again.

I ride [[obviously) but will continue to wear a helmet. As a plus, it keeps me from getting sunburned on my bald spot.........

[Occurrence]

Huh? Could you elaborate?

It's not my fault the insurance company is going to charge you for people not wearing helmets. Make laws that affect the insurance companies before you take away the freedoms of grown adults.

[EastsideAl]

I'm not sure Occurrence understands how insurance functions.

[Scottathew]

Smoking is raising all of our health insurance premiums. Should we make it illegal to smoke, even if it's in the privacy of your own home where it effects no one other than you?

Making smoking illegal would lower health insurance premiums.

[Occurrence]

Fast food contributes to heart disease, which also raises premiums. Let's ban that too.

[jiminnm]

4 states have do not require helmets at all, 18 states only require helmets for under age 18, and another 7 require helmets for only under 21.

[313WX]

Smoking is raising all of our health insurance premiums. Should we make it illegal to smoke, even if it's in the privacy of your own home where it effects no one other than you?

Making smoking illegal would lower health insurance premiums.

Fast food contributes to heart disease, which also raises premiums. Let's ban that too.

The Slippery slope really isn't helping your arguments.

[Occurrence]

Well it's not hurting it either.

Why are people allowed to slop down unhealthy fast food without question?

If someone is going to complain about helmet-less crash victims raising their insurance rates, why aren't they complaining about people living unhealthy lifestyles doing the same? Stay consistant.

[Cincinnati_Kid]

Huh? Could you elaborate?

I'm sure he's referring to insurance companies charging the public higher premiums for people who decide not to wear helmets.

[firstandten]

What about this ! Individual doesn't like the healthcare insurance mandate because it infringes on his individual rights, I'll wait till I get sick, individual says, before I get insurance. Said individual doesn't like helmets because it infringes on his right to ride around with his hair blowing in the wind.

Said individual cracks up in his cycle, goes to ER probably looking in excess of $50,000 for treatment,[[if he is lucky he's not killed) but everything is OK because the ER is mandated to fix him up regardless of the money involved.

At what point does ones individual rights infringe upon societies collective rights ?

[JBMcB]

At what point does ones individual rights infringe upon societies collective rights ?

If you don't wear a helmet, insurance already requires you to carry an extra $20k in insurance. If you don't think that it's enough, you can argue that - but they are supposed to be covered.

[Roq]

This will increase vehicle insurance for all, and increase medical costs for all. Will lead to more injuries and deaths.

Agreed. I already envision the scenario -- one of these riders will end up severely injured requiring long term care and a lawyer will sue the insurance company regardless of any limits or waivers previously agreed to and the costs will be passed on to everyone.

[firstandten]

If you don't wear a helmet, insurance already requires you to carry an extra $20k in insurance. If you don't think that it's enough, you can argue that - but they are supposed to be covered.

I would feel better about the law if the amount of insurance non-helmet riders was required to carry was more, like maybe double of the 20k

[9mile&seneca]

We would all be really safe if we wore helmets in cars like NASCAR

[Wheels]

So can anyone tell me what happens when a rider without a helmet gets in an accident without the extra 20 grand insurance? Does that void all his medical coverage? How does no fault handle that? I see big law suits coming.

[firstandten]

So can anyone tell me what happens when a rider without a helmet gets in an accident without the extra 20 grand insurance? Does that void all his medical coverage? How does no fault handle that? I see big law suits coming.

I would believe that at that point he has broken the law since he didn't have the proper insurance and would be subject to whatever penalty the judge gives him. Maybe the insurance companies would come after him for the amount it took to get him fixed up.

[Vic01]

If you don't wear a helmet, insurance already requires you to carry an extra $20k in insurance. If you don't think that it's enough, you can argue that - but they are supposed to be covered.

As far as consequences go, this is yet another bullshit, unenforceable law... No "proof" required and the cops can't check for violation! 90% will be riding with no additional insurance.
Here's a quote from the news article -
"In a memo sent to all posts, Michigan State Police Director Col. Kriste Kibbey Etue clarified for officers how the law will be enforced.
-- The law does not require a motorcycle operator to carry or present proof he or she has a motorcycle endorsement for at least two years or has successfully passed the motorcycle safety course.

-- The law does not require a motorcycle operator or passenger to carry proof of the $20,000 security required to operate or ride a motorcycle without a helmet.

-- Officers may not stop a motorcyclist for not wearing a helmet based on the possibility the operator or passenger may be in violation of the helmet law.

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz1s3FbE5ch

[Novine]

Shocking! The legislature deliberately wrote a law that can't be enforced. It's all smoke screen and window dressing. As far as helmet and seatbelt laws, driving on the roads is a privilege, not a right. So all this BS about rights being infringed on or equating this to people eating fast food, etc. has no bearing on the discussion. You want to use the public roads? You have to accept the rules that are passed to make them safe for everyone.

[softailrider]

They lifted the helmet law down in Flordia a while back. Now you hardly ever see anyone riding with one on down there.

[Zacha341]

Good point. And what about the crotch rocket [[speed bike) operators and riders...? I find them to be far more dangerous and risk taking than the traditional leather and loud-pipes motorcyclists. I've been driving the freeways sometimes have had them come up in twos, threes, and more BETWEEN the lanes doing over 90 mph! Weaving in and out of lanes!

It's pretty scary and I was told by an high powered bike owner that if you see those bikes come up fast between the lanes or cutting lanes "DON'T change lanes, just let them thru" as they usually come in a group! Already sometimes they're not properly dressed for protection in an accident: women in shorts, tank tops riding these things... now no helmet?

I care because this will mean increases in insurance costs. This governor is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Civil servants were forced to take a big hit January 1 in order to decrease the cost of medical insurance, now this will increase it. Expect it to get even more harder and more expensive to get car insurance.

[Zacha341]

That's a vision - LOL! The advantage of four-wheel driving is that you're at least strapped-in [[if you wear a seat belt) and less likely to become a 'projectile' and sustain head and other injuries. When you're on a motor bike you are almost always a projectile or a skidding fresbie effect when those things come from up under you. And sometimes they do with no other vehicle envolved! I sustained a bad elbow burn biking once when cintrifical force 'ceased' on a stretch of road and I suddently had to lay the bike down fast. Not a good time...

We would all be really safe if we wore helmets in cars like NASCAR

[Zacha341]

Succinct point! Were I a rider or operator I'd be the 'odd ball' wearing a helmet what ever the law said or did'nt. A friend of mine laid down his Kawa in the 90's one a patch of damp leaves, spun out and got a severe concussion 'wearing' a helmet. He was in the hospital for a long time and still has some problems.

I would think the right to go helmet-less should have been tied to signing up as an organ donor.