MI New Helmet Law - Maybe

It looks like Michigan might have or already have a new helmet law, depending on if the MI House overrides the Governors Veto.

It basically looks like this if it is passed.

Michigan House Bill 4749 allows for "adult helmet choice for Michigan motorcycle operators 21 years of age or older who have completed a motorcycle safety course, have had a motorcycle endorsement for at least 2 years, and have at least $20,000 in first-party medical benefits." The law requires a valid "no helmet" permit, costing $100 for one year or $200 for three years. Non-residents are exempt. The bill was delivered to Governor, Jennifer Granholm for signature into law.

Talk about a load of B.S. Allowing you to pay $100 or $200 for the freedom to not wear a helmet if you so choose. Of course they will claim that they are allowing you to choose your own fate, but they are putting so many flaming hoops in the way and making the cost of freedom a burden.

Next they will be making you get a permit for free speech.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838342/posts

http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=53461

I'm wondering how much the ticket will be if you don't have the permit. I'm so glad the government has to keep me safe?!?

Ever consider relocating?

masterguns

I'm wondering how much the ticket will be if you don't have the permit. I'm so glad the government has to keep me safe?!?

I can tell you right now. 100$ already payed.

So how can the tell if you have the permit or not unless they pull over everyone without a helmet. Do you have to wear a sticker on your head or something?

So how can the tell if you have the permit or not unless they pull over everyone without a helmet. Do you have to wear a sticker on your head or something?

Knowing the Government the permit will be shaped like a dunce cap and you must where that on our head.

Hey, they gotta pay for those brain injury bills somehow!!

But, I agree....if you've got medical coverage, it should be up to your insurance company to ask you if you ride a MC or not......and whether you wear a helmet. It's really between YOU and the company paying your hospital bills to determine the risk/reward ratio.

Mike

Talk about a load of B.S. Allowing you to pay $100 or $200 for the freedom to not wear a helmet if you so choose. Of course they will claim that they are allowing you to choose your own fate, but they are putting so many flaming hoops in the way and making the cost of freedom a burden.

Ever consider relocating?

 

masterguns

Talk about a load of B.S. Allowing you to pay $100 or $200 for the freedom to not wear a helmet if you so choose. Of course they will claim that they are allowing you to choose your own fate, but they are putting so many flaming hoops in the way and making the cost of freedom a burden.

 

Next they will be making you get a permit for free speech.

The difference is, and what most people miss, is that free speech IS a right, guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving is a privilege, which certainly can and should be regulated.

Since it seems logical that the more severe injuries that accompany an un-helmeted accident would lead to a higher cost to society at large, seems fair that society should get something up front.

I like it.

Paul

The difference is, and what most people miss, is that free speech IS a right, guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving is a privilege, which certainly can and should be regulated.

 

Since it seems logical that the more severe injuries that accompany an un-helmeted accident would lead to a higher cost to society at large, seems fair that society should get something up front.

 

I like it.

 

Paul

You're wrong on 2 accounts.

The Constitution guarantees freedom of travel. Driving is not a privilege, it is a right, but, as with most other rights, there are responsibilities.

Un-helmeted accidents usually end up in someone scraping gray matter off the highway and a funeral. Those who wear helmets end up in the hospitals with broken bones.

The difference is, and what most people miss, is that free speech IS a right, guaranteed by the Constitution....

 

Paul

Then explain permits for handguns? Or the complete banning of hand guns? The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional Right as well. So is the freedom of Religion. Both of those are infringed upon by our Government.

All I'm saying is we are facing the same type of tyrannical government in out local cities and states we fought to overthrow and are overthrowing in other countries.

Now back to helmet vs no helmet.

http://www.wilgeno.com/index.cfm/2007/11/4/Motorcycle-Deaths-by-the-Numbers

Last year I did some research on the deaths of motorcyclists Nation wide. When you review the raw data you find that more motorcyclist that wore helmets died than those that didn't were a helmet. The margin was only a few percentage points, but more is more.

NHTSA reports I found for 2000 and 2001 showed an overall increase in motorcycle fatalities AND and overall increase in helmet usage. Over 50% of motorcyclists killed were wearing helmets. Again this is not a shining example of "Helmets Saves Lives" like so many claim.

Now based on claims made by people that oppose freedom in Michigan I need to research Tennessee and Florida MC fatalities. It would not surprise me any to find that opponents to freedom are lying about the MC deaths in those two states. Why those two states? The opponents claim that since both states recently removed the mandatory helmet laws MC deaths increase. There are questions that need to be asked and answer in order to provided an accurate analysis of MC deaths before and after the change in the law.

Did deaths increase because of the law change? The opponents would have you believe that is the case. However, Nation MC deaths did increase at the same time helmet usage increased. At the first glance at the raw data for Tennessee I see that motorcycle registrations increased at a much greater rate than motorcycle fatalities. other gem from the report is that in 2006 21 of the 140 riders killed were not wearing helmets.

So, with just a 5 minute read of a transportation department report I can prove the people opposing the removal of the helmet law in Michigan are lying to us.

Read the report yourself.www.naghsr.org/html/publications/survey/motorcycle/tn.pdf

http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/newsreleases/2008/Motorcycle%20Fatals%201998-2007.pdf

Florida needs help.

In 2006, 244 of the 562 riders fatally injured in crashes weren’t wearing helmets. That's a lot of dead motorcyclists. However more than 56% were wearing helmets.

http://www.naghsr.org/html/publications/survey/motorcycle/fl.pdf

Here's one to think about. I just recently got a ticket in the city of Flint, Mi. for wearing a helmet ! It was a novelty helmet but it was still a helmet. The cop was a real A__hole too. Wouldn't just give me a ticket and let me leave. OH NO!! He told me I had to call someone to bring me a "DOT Helmet" or he was going to impound my bike. He wrote the ticket for No Helmet. I'm going to fight this one even if I have to go to the Mi. Supreme Court.

It looks like Michigan might have or already have a new helmet law, depending on if the MI House overrides the Governors Veto.

 

It basically looks like this if it is passed.

 

Michigan House Bill 4749 allows for "adult helmet choice for Michigan motorcycle operators 21 years of age or older who have completed a motorcycle safety course, have had a motorcycle endorsement for at least 2 years, and have at least $20,000 in first-party medical benefits." The law requires a valid "no helmet" permit, costing $100 for one year or $200 for three years. Non-residents are exempt. The bill was delivered to Governor, Jennifer Granholm for signature into law.

 

Talk about a load of B.S. Allowing you to pay $100 or $200 for the freedom to not wear a helmet if you so choose. Of course they will claim that they are allowing you to choose your own fate, but they are putting so many flaming hoops in the way and making the cost of freedom a burden.

 

Next they will be making you get a permit for free speech.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838342/posts

 

http://www.michiganvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=53461

WHAT A BUNCH OF BULL**** !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talking about a bunch of money hungry sons of *****es!!!! It's not about safety, it's all about money. What's next ????

You're wrong on 2 accounts.

 

The Constitution guarantees freedom of travel. Driving is not a privilege, it is a right, but, as with most other rights, there are responsibilities.

 

Un-helmeted accidents usually end up in someone scraping gray matter off the highway and a funeral. Those who wear helmets end up in the hospitals with broken bones.

Don't think so. Constitution says you can go where you will, but not how. You can't drive across my lawn, just because you want to travel to the next street. You're really trying to claim that motor vehicle licensing laws are unconstitutional? Good luck with that.

As far as un-helmeted accidents, how about we ask Ben Rothlisberger? Or the the local young father who dropped the bike at low speed (under 15 MPH) who hit his head and died. Helmet would have had him up on his feet wondering what he did wrong to drop the bike.

Paul

>

Then explain permits for handguns? Or the complete banning of >hand guns? The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional Right as well. So is the >freedom of Religion. Both of those are infringed upon by our Government.

 

>All I'm saying is we are facing the same type of tyrannical government in out local cities >and states we fought to overthrow and are overthrowing in other countries.

 

>Now back to helmet vs no helmet.

>http://www.wilgeno.com/index.cfm/2007/11/4/Motorcycle-Deaths-by-the-Numbers

>

>Last year I did some research on the deaths of motorcyclists Nation wide. When you >review the raw data you find that more motorcyclist that wore helmets died than those >that didn't were a helmet. The margin was only a few percentage points, but more is >more.

 

>NHTSA reports I found for 2000 and 2001 showed an overall increase in motorcycle >fatalities AND and overall increase in helmet usage. Over 50% of motorcyclists killed >were wearing helmets. Again this is not a shining example of "Helmets Saves Lives" like >so many claim.

 

>Now based on claims made by people that oppose freedom in Michigan I need to >research Tennessee and Florida MC fatalities. It would not surprise me any to find that >opponents to freedom are lying about the MC deaths in those two states. Why those >two states? The opponents claim that since both states recently removed the >mandatory helmet laws MC deaths increase. There are questions that need to be asked >and answer in order to provided an accurate analysis of MC deaths before and after the >change in the law.

 

 

>Did deaths increase because of the law change? The opponents would have you believe >that is the case. However, Nation MC deaths did increase at the same time helmet >usage increased. At the first glance at the raw data for Tennessee I see that >motorcycle registrations increased at a much greater rate than motorcycle fatalities. >other gem from the report is that in 2006 21 of the 140 riders killed were not wearing >helmets.

 

>So, with just a 5 minute read of a transportation department report I can prove the >people opposing the removal of the helmet law in Michigan are lying to us.

 

>Read the report yourself.www.naghsr.org/html/publications/survey/motorcycle/tn.pdf

 

Does the Constitution not reference the right to bear arms in reference to a militia? Are you saying that full auto weapons should be readily available? The Constitution also calls for insuring the common safety. That's why we have speed limits. Would you claim those are not constitutional? Or that you should be able to discharge a firearm anywhere you want? Don't think so.

This is not tyranny! You're not being oppressed. Not even close, and claiming you are insults those who actually fight tyranny.

There's an old saying that there are liars, damn liars, and statisticians. I've gotta doubt the statistical analysis ability of a guy who uses "whore" instead of wore. Did your analysis or his take into account miles ridden? Doubt it. Think about who you usually find riding without a helmet: the Harley crowd. And aren't those the same folks we tend to deride as owning "trailer queens" that rarely hit the road for distance? There's analysis, and then there's analysis.

Regarding Tennessee are you looking at an increase in raw numbers, or percentages? See, without all the info, it's easy to make any conclusion you want.

So far you've only proved that one can skew anything if you don't fully analyze it.

Just looked at the TN info. Unless you're comparing miles ridden, I'd say it's faulty logic to take that one piece of information and draw any conclusions from it.

Just my 0.02.

Paul

Here's one to think about. I just recently got a ticket in the city of Flint, Mi. for wearing a helmet ! It was a novelty helmet but it was still a helmet. The cop was a real A__hole too. Wouldn't just give me a ticket and let me leave. OH NO!! He told me I had to call someone to bring me a "DOT Helmet" or he was going to impound my bike. He wrote the ticket for No Helmet. I'm going to fight this one even if I have to go to the Mi. Supreme Court.

Good luck. I think you'll find that the law calls for an approved DOT helmet, which you weren't wearing.

Kinda like needing a license from the State Medical Board to practice medicine, not Bob's License shack.

As far as the cop's attitude, wonder how he feels about yours?

Paul

The difference is, and what most people miss, is that free speech IS a right, guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving is a privilege, which certainly can and should be regulated.

 

Since it seems logical that the more severe injuries that accompany an un-helmeted accident would lead to a higher cost to society at large, seems fair that society should get something up front.

 

I like it.

 

Paul

I'm sure this won't be a popular view on motorcycle forums but it is a rational one. One argument I constantly read bout is that deaths are not increased by wearing or not wearing a helmet. Deaths are the big, final injury. I've worked as an EMT for a hospital and you can get many long term or permanent brain injuries without dying. Perhaps there are studies on that, but I haven't seen them - only number of deaths.

The debate has many facets. I don't want the government to regulate me but I also don't want to pay out of my pocket (in the way of taxes, or increased license fees or insurance or anything that the government can think up) for someone else to receive care for the rest of their lives because they decided that they didn't need to protect themselves.

No matter what side of the issue you stand on, you don't have a perfect answer to the problem.

>

 

Does the Constitution not reference the right to bear arms in reference to a militia? Are you saying that full auto weapons should be readily available? The Constitution also calls for insuring the common safety. That's why we have speed limits. Would you claim those are not constitutional? Or that you should be able to discharge a firearm anywhere you want? Don't think so.

 

This is not tyranny! You're not being oppressed. Not even close, and claiming you are insults those who actually fight tyranny.

 

There's an old saying that there are liars, damn liars, and statisticians. I've gotta doubt the statistical analysis ability of a guy who uses "whore" instead of wore. Did your analysis or his take into account miles ridden? Doubt it. Think about who you usually find riding without a helmet: the Harley crowd. And aren't those the same folks we tend to deride as owning "trailer queens" that rarely hit the road for distance? There's analysis, and then there's analysis.

 

Regarding Tennessee are you looking at an increase in raw numbers, or percentages? See, without all the info, it's easy to make any conclusion you want.

 

So far you've only proved that one can skew anything if you don't fully analyze it.

 

Just looked at the TN info. Unless you're comparing miles ridden, I'd say it's faulty logic to take that one piece of information and draw any conclusions from it.

 

Just my 0.02.

 

Paul

Damn your a prick!

The Supreme Court just ruled on the Second Amendment and it they re-confirmed that the right to bear arms means individuals and not a state run militia.

I provided links to the data which is in raw numbers. The fact of the matter is more people are dieing while wearing helmets than not. Does this mean that helmets never save lives? No. Just as the claim that all these deaths could be prevented if you only wore a helmet is false. Again, I provided the links to the reports with the raw data so you could read it yourself, instead of launching a personal attack against me.

When you have 21 non helmeted riders dieing as compared to 140 who died wearing helmets (in TN) there is nothing to skew. The raw data speaks for itself. Helmets are not the life saving miracle that they claim them to be. Yes, some lives may have been saved. All? No. The fact that so many die while wearing helmets is proof of that. Just like the old campaign from the 70's-80's when the Government claimed that you never unbuckled a dead person from a car. That was a load of B.S. also. This is why it should be my choice, not the Governments. BTW: My choice has always been to wear a helmet. That's not even my point. My whole point is that the Government should not be mandating helmet usage and that their arguments for helmet usage are flawed at best and outright lies at worst.

"I've gotta doubt the statistical analysis ability of a guy who uses "whore" instead of wore."

Well excuse the hell out of me. I'm a dyslexic. I do my best and run many spell and grammar checks before posting longer posts. Even those programs make mistakes. As far as my ability to analysis statistics. I'm a computer programmer. I've been trained in computing, reading and analyzing stats.

Again, my whole point is that the Government has no right to mandate helmet usage and that their arguments are B.S.

Talking about B.S., let's talk about statistics:

If you want to know what is the more dangerous device where more than 90% of people dies every day????

Yes, it is the bed!!!!

Let's propagate the voice, may be in a short time the congress will promulgate a law forbiden the property of beds at home....

They are really dangerous....

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Talking about B.S., let's talk about statistics:

 

If you want to know what is the more dangerous device where more than 90% of people dies every day????

 

Yes, it is the bed!!!!

 

Let's propagate the voice, may be in a short time the congress will promulgate a law forbiden the property of beds at home....

 

They are really dangerous....

 

 

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Thanks for the humor. I needed that.

He wont have to pay!!

Flint, Mi. has the worst crime rate in the country and all this cop has to do is to out tickets for Novelty Helmets. He tied himself up for almost an hour. No dought, someone during that time was getting victimized by some thug. But he was "keeping the city safe" by giving me a ticket for a novelty helmet?

My appologies if I affended anyone.

Everyody has their personal choices to make. It rarely serves the individual when the government decides to make that choice for you...

I'm very comfortable wearing an (often uncomfortable) helmet when I ride.

I wasn't going to wear a helmet for a short jaunt (quite a few years ago) since I was just going for a SLOW ride through the park... never even got out of first gear. It was a wonderful autumn day and hadn't rained in a couple days and it was just glorious. But I wore the helmet... mostly out of habit.

I came to a corner and eased the clutch to continue around. I appreciated the SLIGHT moisture still on the ground but the asphalt had great grip... but I didn't fully consider the few dead leaves on the ground at the intersection which were also still moist.

But that combination was like banana peel. The rear didn't feel like it broke loose, it felt like someone hit the back end of the bike and it just slammed the ground but all I really heard was something like a rifle shot. For just a second I had NO idea what the sound was but once I started to sit up I could feel neck and head hurt.. took off the helmet and it had a BIG chip. After a second I realized the bike and I both slammed down and inertia being rather a law I couldn't counter, my head had slammed pretty hard.

I've often wanted to get back to a slow ride along the beach without a helmet, feel more air on my face... but I wear a helmet, and any passsengerr as well. Law or no law, it's a choice I make. Slow speed isn't necessarily safer.