Mich. Lawmakers Pass Bill to Repeal State Helmet Law, According to AAA Michigan
Midwest News • March 17, 2005
Michigan lawmakers on Thursday passed Senate Bill 297, which repeals the state's 36-year-old mandatory motorcycle helmet law.
It is estimated that the repeal will result in 22 additional ...
Insurance Journal is not responsible for the content of the message below.
Subject: RE: RE: Michigan No Helmet law, It's about time.
Posted On: March 18, 2005, 12:18 pm CST
Posted By: Umpire
Comment:
Like many things, let's stop focusing on the wrong thing.
Wearing the helmet, for an adult, should be their personal freedom. Government should not interfere - that's what we love about this country.
Now, if the State has to provide benefits that are proven to cost them more, then focus on that issue. In some States, if you're not wearing a seatbelt, you give up part of your damages if injured in an auto accident -- because you failed to protect yourself. The same can be true here, if you merely address the correct issue.
As for insurers - they should be free to make their own decisions as well. If the cycle carrier does not want to pay excessive costs for the lack of a helmet, then let them put a restriction on the policy to reduce the benefits to any rider that elects not to wear the helmet.
And, allow a life insurer to reduce benefits as well. After all... if you're wife knows that riding your bike without your helmet will reduce the benefits to your children should you die because of not wearing the helmet... most fellas are going to be wearing that helmet. Those that don't care, or want to assume that risk -- LET THEM.
Don't argue about the "maybe's" - make the legislation about the cost to the government only. If it costs the government more, then address only that issue, and then leave the citizens with their freedom of choice. If they choose not to lose the benefits, then they'll wear the helmet. If they want the freedom, then they'll give up the benefits and not complain. Freedoms, no matter where you address them, DO have a pricetag associated with them. But merely REMOVING freedoms is NOT the answer.
Subject: RE: RE: Michigan No Helmet law, It's about time.
Wearing the helmet, for an adult, should be their personal freedom. Government should not interfere - that's what we love about this country.
Now, if the State has to provide benefits that are proven to cost them more, then focus on that issue. In some States, if you're not wearing a seatbelt, you give up part of your damages if injured in an auto accident -- because you failed to protect yourself. The same can be true here, if you merely address the correct issue.
As for insurers - they should be free to make their own decisions as well. If the cycle carrier does not want to pay excessive costs for the lack of a helmet, then let them put a restriction on the policy to reduce the benefits to any rider that elects not to wear the helmet.
And, allow a life insurer to reduce benefits as well. After all... if you're wife knows that riding your bike without your helmet will reduce the benefits to your children should you die because of not wearing the helmet... most fellas are going to be wearing that helmet. Those that don't care, or want to assume that risk -- LET THEM.
Don't argue about the "maybe's" - make the legislation about the cost to the government only. If it costs the government more, then address only that issue, and then leave the citizens with their freedom of choice. If they choose not to lose the benefits, then they'll wear the helmet. If they want the freedom, then they'll give up the benefits and not complain. Freedoms, no matter where you address them, DO have a pricetag associated with them. But merely REMOVING freedoms is NOT the answer.