Michigan will become the 31st state to give motorcyclists the option of wearing a helmet since Gov. Rick Snyder signed the legislation, his office announced today.
Motorcyclists who are 21 or older can ride without a helmet if they have at least an additional $20,000 in medical insurance and passed a motorcycle safety course or had their motorcycle endorsement for at least two years.
Opponents of state mandates feel use should be a personal choice. They say helmets can limit peripheral vision, muffle traffic awareness sounds and create additional injury risk because of their weight.
Arguments in favor of crash helmets cite safety studies, lower public medical costs, eye protection if face shields are used and reduced fatigue by improving aerodynamics.
What do you think? Vote in our poll below.
some time--what I am tired of is the insurances and State keep thinking it is right and ethical to keep passing on increased costs to all of us-even those that don't own or ride motor cycles because "someone has to pay for them". We pay in this State if they wear a helmet or use a belt in a car and we pay if they don't. It don't make a difference. Maybe without helmets, some of the "dare devil bikers" will ride more responsible.
And I didn't call you a name. I said not wearing a motorcycle helmet is a stupid choice. Which IT IS !!! And anyone that doesn't ride, and most that do, think so.
Hartland, did I not say that society should provide for the truly needy? Why should society be paying for those who refuse to prioritize their needs and wants and elect not to have insurance? I also remind you about the message of the Gospel: Jesus commands INDIVIDUALS to render assistance, ala the good Samaritan. He does not speak of a direct government mandate or spread-the-cost insurance pools. It is one thing if we as a society (on any level of government) decide to "help the poor" and define who qualifies as poor. It is quite another to say that the New Testament demands that societies do this. It doesn't. Jesus spoke to his followers and advised what they should do as individuals. There is much dissatisfaction in society with various levels of government, and part of that dissatisfaction stems from what is perceived to be too generous a stretching of the definition of "needy." Some of that contention can be laid at the feet of those who think that personal Biblical enjoinings become the responsibility of the state. This is also a back-door approach to expanding the power of government and conveniently using religious principles to accomplish it, principles not even believed in by the expanders.
These "free spirits" will quickly go bankrupt, go on Medicaid, and draw on assistance from the government for the rest of their lives.
And I see ALOT of stupid decisions (IN MY OPINION) that people do everyday. Personal pet peeve: people with Fido sitting at the driver's window on their laps, tooling down the road. Don't they realize that if they have an accident, Fido will be permanently tattooed on their face?!? IGNORANCE. Guess I should run around like people here and tell them all so, and push for laws... that don't affect me. -_-
incapacitated or in a vegetative state, due to a motorcycle accident. Besides, taxpayers and insurers are almost always stuck with the burden of providing medical care in such cases. I guess those who choose to ride without a helmet don't see the whole picture, or they just don't give a hoot. Their immediate sense of pleasure having the wind blow in their face blinds them to the realities that exist. Even the most experienced of motorcyclists are prone to unexpected and devastating accidents. Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is an indication that such an individual has lost reasonable judgment, or in my opinion, is not too bright. Or maybe I am just smarter than these riders. At any rate, the repeal of mandatory helmet laws ought to be reconsidered. Even the majority of bike riders would agree.
Maybe I am one of those people suffering from helmet hysteria. I am not denying that notion. Perhaps I am being too overly cautious about the entire matter. At any rate, after my own review of relevant fed statistics, I was certainly under the impression that fatalities and accidents would increase after repeal of the mandatory helmet law. Your claim to have the REAL data on the failure of the helmet laws spurs my interest. I did not mean to spew careless words; I was merely reflecting on the information I came to rely upon. Stastical data is often innaccurate and skewed to support a particular notion. I'm not sure what to believe now. Your reference to Congressional Helmet Testimony Surface Transportation Hearings 1975 may lend me to change my mind regarding helmet laws and/or safety. Your comments were well received by me. No hard feelings. Just the facts. Still, I do desire to be a survivor of one of those few isolated incidents where helmet safety pays off. I shall further investigate the matter as you suggested. Your input and reply to my comments were appreciated. Safe biking to you, with or without your helmet. Live to ride. Debbie
Thank you
And yes, you are very correct to what we have seen in the comments- Thank you