With no fault insurance this does cost me – insurance rates reflect the higher cost of these idiots. Force them to buy extra insurance for 300-500 and they can Darwin themselves right out of existence.
Two statistics when brought together may end up saving the state money:
\”A survivor of a severe head injury requires between $4.1 and $9 million in care over a lifetime\”
-and-
\”[After repeal of helmet laws] the next year motorcycle operator fatalities increased by 21 … and 31 percent…\”
More fatalities equal less lifetime care. So perhaps the increased fatality rate will save the state millions of dollars in lifetime care. It would still be legal for motorcyclists to wear helmets if they desire, even if they might become burdens to the state.
The insurance companies seem to forget what business they\’re in. They take in premiums and pay most of it out in claims. It\’s called risk.
They\’re not in the business of social engineering ala Big Brother just to enrich themselves farther. If they think a risk is higher, they can charge a higher premium, and see if anybody will play. Their latest tactic is spending $100 million a year in lobbying to have laws passed in their economic favor, like mandatory auto insurance. I wish I could get a law passed to require people to buy my product.
Funny how adamantly car drivers tell motorcyclists they must wear a helmet for their own safety, but you never see car drivers wearing helmets. Car drivers suffer head injuries too, why do you think race car drivers wear them. Why not make it mandatory for them as well?
Also, why not make car drivers take a safety course and have their ability to drive tested every few years. They are after all the party at fault in the vast majority of the crashes being used in these statistics.
I once read a report i forget by whom. But it said that if you go into any store and get a helmet off the shelf they are only tested up to a 15 mph. crash. i dont know about most ofthe riders out there but im sure that might save you in your own back yard but it isnt going to do you a hill of beans on a public road when one of those non-driving idiots who dont whatch for motorcycle riders crashes into you.
Funny. We require seatbelts be worn in cars and if in an accident, I am safer in a car WITHOUT A SEAT AND WITHOUT A SEATBELT, than I am on a motorcycle. Yet, motorcyclist don\’t want to wear helmets. Easy solution. If a motorcyclist is injured in an accident and they are not wearing a helmet, insurance does not have to cover any injuries.
i ride with a helmet every time allthe time,no exceptions.i dont like being told what to do,like most anyone else out there.but i do agree that if the dummys dont want to wear helmets then they should have to foot the bill.also,i think that all motorists should have to undergoe more extensive training more often.and ban cell phone users from driving while talking.
Motorcycle operators have a HIGHER percentage covered by medical ins. than auto drivers do.
see ALLSTATE survey
Auto accidents cause MORE head injuries than Motorcycles.
NHTSA
Let those that ride decide. 90% of AAA members oppose helmet choice laws. 90% have never ridden a motorcycle either so who cares.
Most times head injuries all the cause of death for car drivers, since there are many more car drivers and money is more valuable than personal responsibility.
If helmets are good for motorcyclists then, all people should wear a helmet at all times. In case they ride in or are hit by a car.
I would feel better just seeing that. Much like the 90% of the AAA members that do not ride and believe Motorcyclists should wear helmets.
Most times head injuries are the cause of death for car drivers.
If helmets are good for motorcyclists, then all people should wear a helmet at all times. In case they ride in or are hit by a car, since there are many more car drivers and money is more valuable than personal responsibility.
I would feel better just seeing that. Much like the 90% of the AAA members that do not ride and believe Motorcyclists should wear helmets.
I agree with this subject line. People who are scared of driving in a car have no place making decisions for someone who is quite comfortable riding on 2 wheels.
I would support an amendment to the law making it a felony to the driver found at fault of causing the mcycle accident in the first place. That might force the cell phone users and white knuckle drivers to learn how to PAY ATTENTION and SHARE THE ROAD.
Thank you for giving my freedom back Michigan. I will repay you by now riding through your state and spending money.
Forcing people to wear helmets actually increases the amount of money spent on care. The victims get severe injuries instead of just dying immediately. The insurance companies would much rather have dead customers than severely injured customers.
Like the article said – the taxpayers of Michigan are the ones who bare the cost of caring for one of these people hurt in a motorcycle accident. We are talking millions of dollars and the motorcyclists I guess don\’t care about that. This is a dumb decision and one that will cost MI millions of more dollars. With the state of the economy there in Michigan this is just more bad news for the residents of Michigan.
Here in NH neither helmets or seatbelts are required but no one gets in my car without using the seatbelt and I would seriously consider using a helmet if on a motorcycle but I agree as to leaving these matters up to the individual and it isn\’t the government\’s business. I also agree as to the earlier comment that, if not wearing a helmet leads to more deaths, less will be spent under the MI NoFault laws so the rationale for helmet laws is faulty. Actually, at $4 million per spinal injury perhaps wearing helmets should be outlawed! Is it really fair to make the rest of the public pay for someone wanting to do something crazy like going 70 mph on a couple of hundred pounds of steel and rubber with only two wheels?
\”Is it really fair to make the rest of the public pay for someone wanting to do something crazy like going 70 mph on a couple of hundred pounds of steel and rubber with only two wheels?\”
Different strokes for different folks. If you think that is crazy, you lead a very dull existence. I\’m curious what sort of hobby a person enjoys that makes such a bold statement. A you a bird watcher or botanist?
No Helmet Wearer:
I\’m on your side and think this should be up to the individual! I was just suggesting that the argument for requiring helmets could just as easily be used to outlaw helmets. Actually a better case can be made for outlawing helmets than requiring them if the goal is to protect the public treasury and insurance companies from the expense of treating spinal cord injuries. I hear of very few serious injuries involving people without helmets- for better or worse it usually is a fatality. The reasons given by those favoring helmets often seems to be a smokesceen for somebody sticking their noses where they don\’t belong.
If motorcyclists choose to ride without a helmet, fine. However, they should also be required to pay for no-fault benefits for which they are currently exempt from paying. If faced with the true cost of insuring their PIP benefits ($10K is a joke)at an additional cost of several thousand dollars in insurance premium, they might think twice. Remember, this was part of the deal which was struck back when Michigan went to no-fault in an effort to keep motorcycle premiums low.
The last time I remember, we are a country of freedom and of choice. I served my time to enjoy the freedoms of my country and to have a choice in how I live. My son is a U.S. Marine and is currently in Iraq preserving those very same ideals and fundamentals that make this country great. There are always two sides to every story and if you look closely it does come down to one very philisophical issue. We should have the choice to wear a seat belt or wear a helmet. Just as we choose the many other things that we enjoy in life. It truly comes down to holding people responsible for their choices. If you are the cause of an accident then you should be held accountable period. We as a society lack the fortitude to hold accountable ourselves to correct standards and morals but seem to readily want to hold others to them. Responsibility for ones actions begins with ourselves. Make your own choice.
I love all this take responsibility talk coming from the very people who will demand that that government pay for their injuries because they cannot afford the extremely high costs of care associated with head injuries. I trust the Governor will exercise her good judment and veto this pandering legislation. This law is not about a fundamental freedom, but protecting the public from the burden of caring for those seemingly incapable of acting in their own self-interest and expecting us to pay for their foolishness. I didn\’t see anyone volunteering to give up access to the catastophic injury fund in exchange for the right to ride without a helmet.
wjk – You hit the BULLSEYE. Allow any cyclist to go Helmet Free with the understanding they are also Free of Subsidy by Other Drivers and the Government. Free to Forfeit No Fault Benefits paid by Automobile Insurers and Free to Forfiet Government Subsidized Health Care.
The assumption being made by those favoring requiring helmets is that not requiring helmets will raise the medical costs resulting from accidents. But what if the cost of an accident is less when helmets are not used? Are those who use the economic rationale to justify requiring helmets prepared to change their positions if not wearing helmets results in the same or lower costs to the government and insurance buying public? I have not seen a study on this issue (perhaps not studied by the \”experts\” because they suspect they will not like the outcome?) but I would guess that not wearing helmets does not result in higher costs. I hear of very few motorcycle accidents where the rider without a helmet receives a serious injury. Rather, the outcome of traveling through the air at a high speed with on no protection is often fatal. Not a pretty outcome but a rather inexpensive one in terms of medical costs.
This will just eliminate more stupid people from the gene pool. It\’s the families of the dead riders and the vegetables (aka \”survivors\” of accidents) that I feel sorry for.
And how ill the law be enforced? You have to have ridden a bike for two years, and have a training course, and have insurance. Will cops pull over every driver without a brainbucket to check?
Whiny Witch-I hope you are just being facetious.It\’s people that think they would rather die than lose a limb that do dumb$#@&% things all the time that end up costing the rest of us. Obviously you don\’t have a family that cares for you or children to take care of. If you did you\’d just wear the stupid helmet.
So for the last 36 years since my helmet saved my life and I lost a limb I have been in error thinking I was better off than the other fellow in my room who had permanent brain damage from no helmet. Wow, Whiney Witch, I would have been better off dead than leading a productive life all of this time. Sorry, my error.
Is there anybody that has survived a serious MC crash that is in support of the helmet law repeal? Would Evil Knievel still be around if he didn\’t wear a helmet? I think he was going faster than 15mph at Ceasars Palace so I think a helmet did him some good. How about Indian Larry? If he could comment on helmet laws I wonder what he would have to say. Not wearing a helmet is just plain dumb.
I think I saw Indian Larry in a commercial standing by the side of the road with a tear coming down his cheek after they talked about not wearing helmets.
As an avid motorcyclist I find it appaling the number of riders who think it is ok to ride with anything less than a full face helmet. Ben Rothlisberger would have escaped his accident with only minor injuries had he been wearing one.It is foolish to think it can\’t happen to you. The personal freedom argument is BS anyone who opts to ride without a helmet should be required to higher premiums and carry higher limits to offset the high cost of medical treatment for head trauma.
Can anyone prove that not wearing a helmet results in higher medical bills? I think not wearing does not negatively impact society\’s medical costs. Not wearing may result in higher fatalities but does it lead to higher medical bills? NH has both a relatively large number of riders for a state this size along with no helmet law and it seems that many of the accidents involving no helmets (and many where helmets are used) have little to no medical costs as they sadley often are fatalities.
If we are going to prevent adults from doing stupid things then maybe we should be talking about banning motorcycles instead of half- hearted measures such as helmets.Not that I am in favor of a ban but it is the logical result of a paternalistic government making sure you don\’t hurt yourself and not trusting you to run your own life.
The government has in fact compared medical costs when wearing helmets and not wearing and found there is a slightly higher cost when wearing a helmet:
Of course, the data comes to this conclusion because many without helmets never make it to the ER and go directly to the funeral home. There may be good reasons to wear helmets but it should be voluntary and the government should butt out.
If you get broadsided by a truck or some blue hair not paying attention at 55 mph, a helmet is not going to help anyway. Motorcycling carries some inherent risks, but i should not have the government making decisions on weather or not i should be protected from myself. Helmets impair visibility, hearing, and cause neck fatigue. That i can attest to. I have 20 years experience on motorcycles. Try driving your car in a full face helmet. Really, try it. theres no law against it. You will take it off in about a minute. Anybody that would wear a full face helmet is putting their life in someone else\’s hands that is not paying attention. Only idiots wear those death traps.
Exactly. You have 20 years experience. The blue hair you mention has even more experience. So much for that. But the teenager on a crotch rocket or Ninja does not have experience or maturity to ride without a helmet. Kids on those bikes do stupid things and theres a lot of em. Its a rarity to see one being operated safely. Not all riders are the same, and not all are mature. I would think immature stupidity causes more fatalities than old ladies running red lights. Only an idiot would operate any motorcycle without a helmet and especially a Ninja or a crotch rocket. People that support the repeal need to consider all factors and not just insurance costs or statistics. You all think it wont happen to you. Much like the smoker who puffs for years and then dies of cancer.
If you had an accident with a biker not wearing a helmet and that person died, regardless of whos at fault, you get to re-live that accident over and over for the rest of your life. Suppose it\’s you that gets killed, is your family OK with the fact that you were too cool to wear a helmet and now your dumb and dead? Weather or not you died as a result of head injuries everybody that knew you is going to say \”He should have been wearing a helmet\”. Get real man.
It is MUCH cheaper for the insurance companies and/or the state to pay out a 50,000 or 1mill life policy, than the billions of dollars for medical bills!Less money paid out – more money in pockets! It makes perfect sense!
LFOD: Thanks for the cite to the NHTSA\’s report. What part did you read? Under \”Cost savings\” it says that unhelmuted riders are \”more likely to have higher hospital costs,\” that brain injuries in three states with a universal helmut law would double without the law, and in 2002 helmut use saved $1.3 Billion in medical costs. The report also reveals that in 2002 3,244 riders died while 65,000 were injured. Couple that with the report\’s finding that helmuts are 67% effective in preventing brain injury and you can only conclude that helmuts work, which is the whole point of the report. Finally, there is substantial cost to society when a head of household dies, so the fact that medical expenses are reduced (assuming the vic isn\’t flown in a helicopter and lives for 10 days) in cases of fatalities is only true if they die at the scene. I have yet to hear a sound logical argument against wearing helmuts. do you think Ben R. will ride without one if he ever rides again???
Open Letter To Michigan Governor Setting Forth Motorcyclist Safety Position of Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers In Support of Helmet Law Repeal.
Dear Governor Granholm,
I am writing on behalf of Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers which does not have as its mission the repeal of helmet laws. We are an organization the mission of which is solely to improve motorcyclist safety. Unfortunately, in our safety mission we find that politicians claiming to be concerned about motorcyclist safety seize upon helmet laws as a way to appear to be doing something for motorcyclists when in fact, any contribution to the reduction of motorcyclist injury and death is so minimal as to be essentially unproductive, indeed it is counterproductive as it deflects attention from the real motorcycle safety issues. The political tradition of pretending to solve what is certainly a very important public health issue, this obscene incidence motorcycle accidents and the consequent panoply of catastrophic motorcyclist injuries, by myopically and paternalistically focusing on what motorcyclists wear is nothing more than political contrivance. And what we are concerned about is that while politicians continue to so dishonestly focus on what is not the problem, the real solutions to the real problems are ignored, with the effect that motorcyclists continue to be maimed and killed on our streets and highways indeed in obscene numbers.
The first thing you need to understand is that this public health crisis faced by your state and every other state is much broader than very limited number of deaths which arguably might be avoided by the use of helmets. It is purely political that those who seek helmet laws or resist the repeal of helmet laws focus solely on death statistics. The fact is that motorcyclists suffer every kind of catastrophic injury in motorcycle accidents. They suffer catastrophic internal injuries, injuries which both result in death statistics and those which leave the motorcyclist\’s health impaired for the remainder of his life. They suffer quadriplegia and paraplegia and other spinal cord injuries which ruin their lives, often confined to convalescent centers, or requiring full time or part time professional nursing assistance. Motorcyclists suffer limb injuries often requiring limb amputation or catastrophic orthopedic injuries which render them unable to continue in their professions as productive members of our society. This broad landscape of catastrophic motorcyclist injury is what defines both your state\’s public health crisis and the state fiscal impact of caring for these men and women whose often substantial life long medical expense is almost universally uncompensated by the underinsured and usually impecunious auto drivers who by their inattention and negligence cause the majority of the accidents and consequent injuries.
These are the real public health and substantial fiscal issues faced by your state. The death statistics relied upon my those who urge helmet laws are misleading first of all because death can occur as the result of motorcycle accidents for many reasons other than head injury, including most obviously, internal injury, or delayed death or the shortening of one\’s life expectancy as with motorcyclists who are rendered quadriplegic. The death statistics are also often misrepresented. For example, often quoted are the statistics which focus on the number of motorcyclist deaths rising after the repeal of helmet legislation. But those statistics often fail to account for such variables as the recent steep rise in motorcycle registrations, particularly in the last several years, and the likelihood that this implies that there are a greater number of novice or less experienced motorcyclists who are getting into accidents, suffering the panoply of catastrophic injury, and contributing to the death statistics. In addition, those who report these death statistics, which are truly just unanalyzed compilations of selected raw data, apparently have no interest in discovering whether any of these deaths actually resulted from the motorcyclist\’s failure to wear a helmet. As noted, these deaths can occur from any of a dozen causes unrelated to head injury. Even with those deaths in which the motorcyclist suffered a head injury, none of those who have compiled these data have followed through to obtain the death and autopsy reports to determine, first of all, to what extent the brain damage could have been prevented by a helmet, and second, to determine whether the motorcyclist suffered internal or other catastrophic injury which likely would have resulted in his life long disability, death or foreshortened life expectancy regardless of his helmet use. Even with regard to deaths among motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets, you need to realize that helmets only serve to reduce the incidence of brain injury and death for impacts of less than 15 miles per hour. In almost every accident in which a death is reported, there is also serious or catastrophic injury quite apart from brain injury which are not accounted for by simply listing the selected raw data on deaths in helmeted riders and those who chose not to wear helmets. There are many more deficiencies in these studies which I would be pleased to discuss with you if you would permit me to speak with you or your staff. But suffice it to say that the death statistics which are so commonly cited are not compiled according to the scientific method, nor are they subjected to statistical analysis, and any legitimate scientist would tell you that as the result of their methodologically errors they unfortunately provide no meaningful information even on the narrow issue whether or to what extent helmets may reduce the incidence of motorcyclist death.
The only way to solve your true public health crisis, which can be accurately measure only by examining the full panoply of catastrophic motorcyclist injury, and motorcyclist death from all medical causes, is by reducing the incidence of motorcycle accidents. If we can reduce the incidence of motorcycle accidents then we can reduce the incidence of every category of catastrophic motorcyclist injury, and among helmeted riders and unhelmeted riders alike.
This is not an unattainable goal. Indeed, it is a goal that hasn\’t been achieved only because politicians have failed to seize the opportunity to provide the obvious solutions, choosing instead to mislead the public that dictating what motorcyclists wear is the solution.
The first thing you need to understand is that fully two-thirds of all multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are the result of auto driver inattention and negligence, without any fault on the part of the motorcyclist. There is no controversy about this. Every study confirms this. (The remaining one-third are the result of motorcyclist negligence or the combination of motorcyclist and auto driver negligence.)
Most of that overwhelming percentage of motorcycle accidents caused by auto driver negligence, results from motorist inattention while entering intersections or turning left at intersections into the motorcyclist\’s right of way. Again there is no controversy about this.
These facts, unfortunately, are excluded from the motorcycle safety debate as politicians scream hysterically about the need to dictate what bikers wear. Most politicians are in our opinion shortsighted in concluding that there is no political advantage of actually doing something to reduce the incidence of this largest category of precipitant for motorcycle accidents. If confronted by their failures to address the broader safety issue, some, whose staff\’s prepare a political response, will say that these intersection accidents are the \”unavoidable\” consequence of the motorcycle\’s \”lack of conspicuity.\” And they can find support for this false proposition in an unfortunate phrase culled from the first large motorcycle accident survey by Harry Hurt. But it is indeed unfortunate that this phrase has been so oft repeated without critical analysis by those who have political agendas other than to actually reduce the incidence of motorcyclist injury. An additional problem is that the phrase \”lack of conspicuity\” is actually a term of art which has been mistaken by policy makers and used to advantage by politicians to suggest that intersection motorcycle accidents are the result of the reduced \”visibility\” impugned to the motorcycle\’s smaller size. Putting aside the misunderstanding and misrepresentation, the fact is that motorcycles are just as \”visible\” as cars at the short distance at which a car entering an intersection or turning left at an intersection would pose a threat to the motorcyclist. Motorcycles can stop very quickly and take evasive action much more nimbly than cars so when a car entering an intersection or turning left in front of a motorcyclist causes an accident, the car must turn directly in front of the oncoming motorcycle. Furthermore, since the Harry Hurt study, motorcycle manufacturers uniformly equip their motorcycles with head lamps which turn on at ignition and remain on day and night, so it is likely that oncoming motorcycles are in truth more obvious in the visual field of an auto driver when he enters or turns left at an intersection.
The etiology of intersection motorcycle accidents does not derive from the motorcycle\’s smaller size; rather, the reason why auto drivers don\’t \”see\” motorcycles is a function of what is described in the scientific literature as \”inattentional blindness.\” This is a body of literature which analyzes why people don\’t see what is readily apparent in their visual field. There are half a dozen factors which are identified in the literature, and again if you would permit me to speak to you or one of your staff I could explain my understanding of the relevant literature or provide references for you and your staff to consider. One of the factors which I have concluded is probably the most potent in leading auto drivers to fail to consciously attend to motorcyclists in their visual field is \”relevance.\” One gross aspect of the lack of \”relevance\” many auto drivers attribute to motorcycles is derived fro the auto driver\’s perception that motorcycles don\’t pose a risk to them in the same way that an oncoming car, truck or bus would pose a risk to them when entering an intersection or turning left into the path of one of these larger vehicles. There are solutions specific to modifying that aspect of \”relevance\” including by specific conscious task oriented auto driver education, discussed below. In addition, the auto driver\’s perception of the \”relevance\” of motorcycles can be enhanced by penalty legislation, for example, by providing for drivers license suspensions or potential jail terms for reckless inattention which results in serious motorcyclist injury or death.
I\’ve been told that many politicians might find such penalty legislation \”politically unacceptable,\” as it calls for imposing upon the majority for the benefit of a vulnerable minority; but this public health crisis truly affects us all, including by the fiscal impact upon the state and all of the citizenry associated with this obscene incidence of the panoply of catastrophic motorcyclist injury caused by auto driver inattention.
But accepting that politicians must be sensitive to undermining their majority political base, a substantially less effective solution, although a good step in the right direction would be general penalty legislation for any serious injury resulting from reckless inattentive driving, if combined with a well funded public relations campaign specifically focusing upon the vulnerability of motorcyclists to serious injury, perhaps combined with photographs or film of a motorcyclist being carted off to an ambulance and the auto driver being carted off to jail.
I haven\’t yet touched upon what we consider to be the centerpiece of our proposal for effectively reducing the incidence of motorcycle accidents and hence for reducing all manner of motorcycle injury. Before I do that permit me to describe some the secondary contributory factors to the two-thirds of motorcycle accidents resulting from auto driver negligence.
As noted above, the majority result from auto driver inattention at intersections. Other factors include lane change accidents and rear end accidents. When an auto driver turns into a motorcyclist riding or passing in an adjoining lane it is commonly because the auto driver doesn\’t know that his rear view mirrors have holes in them large enough to obscure a motorcyclist in an adjoining lane of traffic. The auto driver doesn\’t appreciate that he needs to turn his head into his rear view blind spot to look for a motorcyclist riding or passing in the adjoining lane. Motorcycle rear-end accidents occur both as the result of inattentional blindness, including the sub-issue of \”relevance\” discussed above, and because auto drivers simply do not realize that motorcycles can stop much more quickly than cars so that they need to provide a greater distance when following a motorcycle.
Now, to the real solution to your public health crisis, because the real solution is one readily within the powers of the Governor. Lets first make plain the real problem. The problem is auto driver ignorance of motorcycle safety issues, and in particular, auto driver ignorance of the motorcycle accident avoidance strategies which they must employ for the protection of their vulnerable two-wheeled brethren.
The solution to ignorance is education. Specifically mandatory auto driver education on motorcycle safety issues and motorcycle accident avoidance strategies. First, modify your auto driver education booklets and written materials to include comprehensive information on motorcycle safety issues and motorcycle accident avoidance strategies. Second, include in the written tests which your auto drivers must take to obtain and renew their drivers licenses again a comprehensive list of motorcycle safety questions. Third, because of the singular importance of assuring that auto drivers fully appreciate their responsibilities to avoid endangering vulnerable motorcyclists, adopt a policy to deny driving privileges to any auto driver who fails to answer correctly even one motorcycle safety question.
This same type of information and testing process should be included in all other auto driver safety programs, including, for example, state auto driver education and instructional materials, the written materials provided in connection with driving schools, including those attended by drivers as an alternative to paying traffic violation fines, as well as every other curriculum for your state\’s auto drivers, such as those required of individuals convicted of DUI or other serious driving offenses.
I would be pleased to consult with your staff or Department of Motor Vehicles staff in developing appropriate motorcycle safety information materials and motorcycle test questions. Obviously, I would be pleased to do this without charge. I have some specific recommendations which might not be obvious to others, which are derived from my research in this subject matter. For example, since inattentional blindness is an \”unconscious\” phenomenon, it is necessary to provide auto drivers a specific conscious task to perform when engaging in the behaviors during which they pose a risk to motorcyclists. Just for the purpose of example, auto drivers might be informed that the speed of oncoming motorcycles is more difficult to gauge, and so they need to take the time specifically to assess the speed of an oncoming motorcycle before entering an intersection or turning left at an intersection when a motorcycle is within the visual field. It might appear \”common sense\” that the auto driver has to \”see\” the motorcycle before he can engage in a conscious task with respect to the motorcycle. But that is not accurate. When one has a conscious task to perform specific to a particular object in the visual field, in this case oncoming motorcycles, this actually has the effect to raise to conscious attention the object in the visual field upon which the task must be performed.
Bank robber Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. Mr. Sutton responded, \”Because that\’s where the money is.\”
Those who focus on helmet legislation are robbing convenience stores, or to put it more plainly \”convenient stores.\” There is no real \”money\” in convenience stores. It is not the scientific evidence that meaningful reduction in the incidence of the panoply of accident related motorcyclist injury can be achieved by helmet legislation, as politically \”convenient\” as it may be for politicians to pretend, in speeches to the majority, that they are doing something for the protection of our vulnerable minority, by paternalistically dictating what the minority should wear.
Your state \”bank\” is bulging at the seams with the caskets of dead bikers and gurneys filled with those who have been rendered catastrophically paralyzed, amputated, orthopedically wrecked, and disabled as the result of motorcycle accidents caused by the inattention and negligence of auto drivers.
If you veto the helmet repeal bill, all you will do is guarantee that this issue remains the focus of our legislative efforts in perpetuity, because our good freedom fighters will never give up their good fight for our personal dignity and our right to chose. By failing to take this unproductive helmet law debate off the table, by vetoing your legislatures bill to strike your helmet law, you will also tragically make it impossible for those of us concerned about the broader and much more important motorcycle safety issues to bring about a debate on the real motorcycle safety issues, and obtain real solutions to your real public health and real state fiscal realities.
Please, for the sake of your state\’s motorcycling community, show us that you are not just a political Governor, but a governor who actually cares about this peculiarly vulnerable minority of your citizenry and refrain from perpetuating the helmet debate with a veto of your good legislature\’s helmet law repeal. And then, let us turn to your real public health issues and work together to achieve the true solutions.
Thank you for your consideration, and if I can be of any further assistance in the above regard, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Again- exhibit 15 comes up with the figures it does because it includes those who go directly to the funeral home.
It is bike week here in NH and so far we have had 6 fatalities and two serious injuries but 5 of the fatalities did not require any medical care because they died instantly . Not a pretty picture but I think it does raise questions as to whether or not the government should be involved. Where do we stop in protecting people from themselves? Prohibition again? Cigarettes? French Fries at McDonalds? All you can eat buffets?
I\’m all for freedom of choice, and the ability to make one\’s own decisions.
However, our\’s is the only state with a catostrophic insurance premium that pays lifetime benefits for costs over $250,000. These premiums are sure to rise as costs for injuries sustained as a result of not wearing increase.
If you don\’t want to wear a helmet that should be your choice, as long as my group insurance rates don\’t go up.
Wear it or don\’t wear it, the choice should be yours. If you smash in your head while not wearing a helmet, regardless of who\’s at fault, all costs should be yours, you\’ve taken the added risk, you pay the price.
Well, if your product will help reduce the cost to society when an auto accident occurs, then it should be mandatory.
Unless you are suggesting that uninsured motorists simply not be cared for when an accident occurs, that the hospital should just throw them out, then auto insurance needs to be mandatory to cover medical and auto replacement costs.
Uninsured motorists still get medical care that someone has to pay, and that ends up being you and me.
Only people with a lack of understanding of the insurance industry would make a comment such as yours.
The idea is that everyone contributes a little to cover a lot more, if and when it happens.
Personally, I\’d rather pay my auto premium, because if I am ever in an accident, instead of paying thousands for a new car and medical bills, my insurance company will cover it.
Michigan needs to strengthen not repeal it\’s hemet laws. Or better yet, ban motorcycles from all public roads.
States that have repealed or modified helmet laws are virtually littered with the corpses of bikers. Take a drive through Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois this summer and look at the carnage that litters the roads in those states. AAA\’s estimate of an 80% percent fatality rate within 24 months is quite conservative.
The very act of putting on a helmet reduces ones likelyhood of even having an accident by making the rider more aware of the dangers. Please try to convince relatives, friends, neighbors, and co-workers that ride to stop riding. Remember to always wear a helmet, because helmets do prevent accidents.
It is a given that 2/3 of the motorcycle accidents are solely or primarily caused by other drivers. That said, a solution is remove any legal protections afforded by anyone’s “I didn’t see him”. Such a statement must be considered a confession of guilt and accountability for the damage both to the person (medical, income lost and continuing care) and the property damage.
The state shouldn’t have to pay; the insurance company for the rider shouldn’t have to pay, but the inattentive, not alert and unseeing, driver and his insurance company should pay.
Capt Bly hit it on the head. Indeed fully two-thirds of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are the result of the inattention and negligence of auto drivers, mostly intersections accidents following which the auto driver will comonly say \”I didn\’t see the motorcycle.\” This is NOT due to the mith of motorcycle \”lack of conspicuity.\” Motorcycle are just as visible as cars at the distance at which a car pulling out from a side street or turning left at an intersection would pose a threat to the motorcyclist. The problem is auto driver inattention, and a major contributing factor to auto driver inattention is that they don\’t see motorcycles as a threat to them in the same way they see cars, trucks and busses as a threat to them.
Indeed, it is the auto drivers and their insurance companies who should pay for the motorcyclists medical expenses. Unfortunately most auto drivers are woefully underinsured to pay for the injuries and damages they cause when they hit a biker. Furthermore, auto drivers do not see it as their moral responsibility to pay for the injuries and damages they\’ve caused to the biker above and beyond the limits of their insurance policies. This is contemptable, and that is the problem. It is absurd that insurance companies and their lacky legislators, and state policy makers pretend that it is the motorcyclists fault or failure to obtain adequate insurance which is the reason why motorcyclist medical expense must sometimes be borne by the state. Shame on them. And right on Capt Bly, for pointing it out.
\”M-A-D-D Ray\” Henke
Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers
Helmets do NOT prevent accidents. Responsible riders prevent accidents. Responsible drivers prevent accidents. Helmets protect the rider\’s head. That\’s it.
When bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied \”Because that is where the money is.\”
You may review my previous comment below with regard to the death statistics commonly cited in support of helmet legislation. But most important to the last two postings is that head injury and death statistics, even if credited are merely a drop in the bucket in terms of the panoply of motorcyclist injury which combines to define the state public health crisis and fiscal concerns asserted by the state\’s in support of helmet laws. The states have for too long pretended that they are doing something meaningful to reduce motorcyclist injury, when bank robber Willie Sutton would laugh with disdain, as anyone who looks at the statistics recognizes that the enactment of helmet laws is no more than robbing a convenience store, while ignoring the bank next door, filled with all of the caskets and gurneys filled with bikers who have suffered debilitating or fatal internal injuries, paralyzed, faced with life long medical and convalescent or nursing care, with their limbs amputated, and with catastrophic orthopedic injuries, unable again to return to their professions.
This panoply of motorcyclist injury is what defines the public health crisis, and it also defines the state fiscal crisis, just because the auto drivers responsible for the vast majority of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are both underinsured to pay for the injuries and medical expense they cause, and are unwilling personally to take responsibility to pay the expense they\’ve caused above the limits of their insurance policies.
So, where is the bank? The bank is in reducing the incidence of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents, fully 2/3 of which are caused solely the result of auto driver negligence, without any fault at all on the part of the biker. That is where the money is. The vast majority of such accidents result specifically from auto driver inattention to motorcyclists at intersections, the remainder, lane change and rear end accidents caused by auto drivers.
If we want to solve the real, big public health issue, represented by the full panoply of motorcyclist injury, and substantially reduce the state fiscal consequence of motorcycle accidents and the injuries sustained by both helmeted and unhelmeted bikers alike, then the answer is not in robbing convenience stores, it is not in helmet legislation. The solution is mandatory auto driver education on motorcycle safety issues, and in particular on the motorcycle accident avoidance strategies which auto drivers must employ for the protection of bikers. There needs to be a well funded motorcycle awareness campaign to inform auto drivers of the importance particularly of opening their eyes and looking for the oncoming motorcyclist at intersections in particular. And the state should adopt penalty legislation, specifically, either substantial drivers license suspensions or jail time for auto drivers who recklessly or inattentively injure or kill a motorcyclist (because at the moment auto drivers don\’t attend to bikers, primarily because they don\’t see them as a threat to them in the same way they see cars as a threat to them, and so penalty legislation is needed so that they will get it, that crippling or killing a biker will affect them personally.)
That\’s where the money is, my friends, so lets not pretend that helmets are the panacea either for the public health crisis or the state fiscal concerns. Lets recognize that our auto driving state legislators just see dictating what bikers wear as a way to pretend, for their political reasons, that they are doing something about these issues when in fact they are not. Instead, lets actually do something positive for a change to reduce motorcyclist injury across the board, the full panoply of injury, among helmeted and unhelmeted bikers alike. And at the same time provide the state meaningful relief for a change, from the costs it must bear when auto drivers refuse to pay for the injuries they cause.
Ride safe, my friends, or as we at Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers would say, \”Ride Smart Until the Dumb Drivers Get Smart.\”
M-A-D-D Ray Henke
Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com
Anyone making the comment helmets are dangerous are either truly ignorant of the facts or have already suffered irreversible head trauma. I suppose there is no need for helmets for any other type of activity either.
Full face helmets CAN snap your neck. That is not my opinion, it\’s a fact. Any helmet that covers the ears and sides of the head impairs hearing and visibility. (duh!) I want to be able to see and hear the dumb-*** that is not paying attention, so I can make adjustments and not get killed. You can tell who rides and who doesn\’t !
Ok, I’ve read what is here and suppose we have two areas where the state can hold everyone accountable for their actions.
I know that some cage drivers might not like the accountability but here goes.
CIVIL LIABILITY; — the best way to save the state money, to reduce the drain on taxpayers, while supporting victims rights is to set minimum insurance requirement high enough to cover the reasonably expected trauma. If it is reasonable and ordinary for medical and lost time charges to be $ 1,000,000.00 then set that at the minimum. If a loss of this level seldom occurs, the insurance companies will take that into setting the rate. The victim should never have to cover any gaps between a perpetrators insurance and cash or assets, nor should the state be on the hook.
I suggest establishing guidelines for CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for negligent actions such as inattentiveness.
1. The charges; in the worst case, vehicular manslaughter down thru simple vehicular assault. Whether I get hit with a SUV, a bat, or machete I get hurt by the person\’s actions. The crime and punishment rendered should relate to the ‘contributing actions and results’ not the weapon use to inflict the injury. I could be just a dead from the discharge of your .38 as I would be from how you drove your 4-door SUV. People have to be equally accountable when either type of weapon is not keep under control.
2. Maybe we need a table of consequences for failure to maintain adequate insurance. If you don’t have adequate insurance there must be a deterrent greater than “don’t do it again”. Mandatory driver’s license suspension at a minimum. 3 weeks of incarceration for a second offence?
3. Maybe we need to consider “I didn’t see” as an admission of criminal guilt when the outcome is dire to the victim. No matter what the punishment is, the fear of having a criminal record will prompt most into taking a second responsible look before action is taken.
Just checking out the viability of the name. I\’m following ABATE on this one. The Governor better hope that the insurance companies have more votes than the motorcycle riders of Michigan.
Right on. never mind that other americans are trampling all over basic freedoms, now the canadians are doing it to us too ! Never been a democrat, but if it was the other way around, I would vote for a democrat that wanted to repeal this stupid law. Stop trying to protect me from myself!
I am a life long democrat that is now sending a check to the DeVos for Governor Committee and will volunteer my time to defeat Granholm. She evidently doesn\’t believe that the adult citizens of this state are competent to exercise their constitutional rights and is honoring her responsibility to the states insurance and health care companies.
The Hurt Report and my 40 years of riding experience show that the majority of bike accidents to sober, legal, and adult riders are caused by the driver of another vehicle running into them.
I\’ve just come from Indianapolis yesterday. And on my way home I counted 7 motorcycle accidents in IN before crossing the MI/IN border. These accidents were all a separate locations. I can\’t say how many were killed of injured, but there was noticable amounts blood at each accident site that I saw. Now after seeing this carnage I\’d have to say that MI needs to strengthen it\’s helmet laws, and take action to discourage people from considering these machines as transportation or recreation. The state could start by limiting the number of motorcycle registrations and then reducing the limit year by year untill there are no more registered and lisenced motorcyles in this state.
Good work Governor Grandholm!!!
It appears that Mr. Dean Whittier is another person penalizing the victims, because we know that the primary cause of crashes are incompetent car and truck drivers.
Note, I did not say \”accident\”. Driving your car so as to injure another smaller than you should be considered the act of bullies and/or the incompetent.
Dean should spend 40 hours on the road on a bike. He’ll then ‘get’ the real and overpowering knowledge that they ‘are out to get you’ Your not paranoid, the car drivers, as a group, must be treated as if were either 1) aggressive & deadly or 2) nearly comatose. I believe that if every cage driver had to pass a motorcycle exam and have those 40 hours of experience things would improve. Maybe cutting the crashes in half.
Don’t like that solution. How about this? Don’t restrict of the bikes, toss the offending drivers in jail for 6 hours, 6 weeks, six month or six years for any avoidable collision. See how they like to look for a job with a conviction on their record. I believe that with in six years the worst offender will be off the road and the problem will be solved.
Do I know what I’m talking about, maybe I’ve been driving bikes and cars since 1965, had two of my bikes exceed 200,000 miles of use, and had zero moving violations and zero self induced ‘offs’. I was hit when stopped at a light (not seen), pushed of the road when a cage ‘almost’ missed an exit, and had to abandon the bike when a cage appeared going UP my down ramp.
CARS ARE 80% OF “THE PROBLEM” SO THEY MUST BE KEPT UNDER CONTROL.
Well, if motorcyclists want the right to ride without a helmet, I should have the right, as a taxpayer, to let them lie by the side of the road until they get better.
I should be forced to wear a helmet because I might, maybe, someday, at a uncertian date in the future be injured. However by girlfriend can terminate my sons life thru abortion and never even let me know what is going on.
If women can choose, so should I have the same right.
Mr Bly is quite eloquent. Rob is naive to say the least about insurance if he does not realize that premiums don\’t pay claims;returns from investments with those premiums pay claims but no they don\’t feel they have to put up with risk.
Mr Whittier, who so clearly notes blood at accident scenes and does not seem inclined to help is obviously one of those rubbernecking ghouls that cause further risk on the highway gawking instead of driving responsibly.
Like Bly I\’ve been riding since the mid 60\’s. Unlike Bly I\’ve seen an improvement, although self serving, in the way we are viewed by \’cage\’ drivers. They know now they might be running down their favorite doctor so more care is key.
This improvement, I have to admit, could be limited to Florida. In tune I think with Bly but more specifically the hemets are not the issue. When did driving become \’a RIGHT\’? We treat it like one. We cherish it with more fervor than we do most of our spouses and we allow for it with a yearly death toll of upwards of 50K. If you use a gun on someone; intentionally or negligently you face criminal prosecution. In those states where you can carry a gun you face a \’real\’ background check, pertinent training and join a part of the population that commits .01% of violent crimes,has negigible accident rates and gun ownership is a \’RIGHT\’. Our legislators will not wake up on their own. Insurance companies and Commisioners will not police themselves. it is surely a shame that the only motorists who are proactive on the subject of highway safety make their statement by accepting further risk to themselves, daring those who won\’t to stand up and be responsible.
Let those who ride decide!!
i bet all the people on here saying no to helmet law repel do not now or ever have been on a motorcycle they are just one of the people in the state that has to put there 2 cents in about everything I am not asking everyone that gets on a bike to not wear a helmet all I want is 4 everyone to leave me alone to my freedom of choice to not wear the helmet if I choose not too.
Sorry I got off on a bit of a rant before. Jim has the right approach.
1, Bikers ride because they love the freedom, the adventure, and being unique sure but it can become an addiction like any other. This libertarian bent is further shown in the desire not to be told what-to-do on what is felt to be a personal decision. What you love you protect.
2. Most bike riders after a few months consider riding on the street a privilege, and with a privilege comes responsibility.
To the many that is the responsibility to preserve themselves. Preserve themselves from not only the .01% of cage drivers that might be malicious, but mostly the bigger risk; those that fit in the ‘don’t know and don’t care’, the ‘I’m really busy so I can’t be expected to follow the rules’ crowd, or those with a chemical imbalance caused by something they ingested or just by being too tired to perform.
3. We won’t resolve this with a few letters on a page on one-of-a-million web sites but if one or two person on either side of the question really takes the time to know and FEEL the other sides concerns, it is all worth while.
And I thought Indiana was full of idiots…
With no fault insurance this does cost me – insurance rates reflect the higher cost of these idiots. Force them to buy extra insurance for 300-500 and they can Darwin themselves right out of existence.
You should have to have a DNR order tatooed on your chest. And an organ donor agreement.
Two statistics when brought together may end up saving the state money:
\”A survivor of a severe head injury requires between $4.1 and $9 million in care over a lifetime\”
-and-
\”[After repeal of helmet laws] the next year motorcycle operator fatalities increased by 21 … and 31 percent…\”
More fatalities equal less lifetime care. So perhaps the increased fatality rate will save the state millions of dollars in lifetime care. It would still be legal for motorcyclists to wear helmets if they desire, even if they might become burdens to the state.
Mike
The insurance companies seem to forget what business they\’re in. They take in premiums and pay most of it out in claims. It\’s called risk.
They\’re not in the business of social engineering ala Big Brother just to enrich themselves farther. If they think a risk is higher, they can charge a higher premium, and see if anybody will play. Their latest tactic is spending $100 million a year in lobbying to have laws passed in their economic favor, like mandatory auto insurance. I wish I could get a law passed to require people to buy my product.
I\’d rather die without a helmet than survive with a helmet and lose a limb.
Funny how adamantly car drivers tell motorcyclists they must wear a helmet for their own safety, but you never see car drivers wearing helmets. Car drivers suffer head injuries too, why do you think race car drivers wear them. Why not make it mandatory for them as well?
Also, why not make car drivers take a safety course and have their ability to drive tested every few years. They are after all the party at fault in the vast majority of the crashes being used in these statistics.
I once read a report i forget by whom. But it said that if you go into any store and get a helmet off the shelf they are only tested up to a 15 mph. crash. i dont know about most ofthe riders out there but im sure that might save you in your own back yard but it isnt going to do you a hill of beans on a public road when one of those non-driving idiots who dont whatch for motorcycle riders crashes into you.
Funny. We require seatbelts be worn in cars and if in an accident, I am safer in a car WITHOUT A SEAT AND WITHOUT A SEATBELT, than I am on a motorcycle. Yet, motorcyclist don\’t want to wear helmets. Easy solution. If a motorcyclist is injured in an accident and they are not wearing a helmet, insurance does not have to cover any injuries.
i ride with a helmet every time allthe time,no exceptions.i dont like being told what to do,like most anyone else out there.but i do agree that if the dummys dont want to wear helmets then they should have to foot the bill.also,i think that all motorists should have to undergoe more extensive training more often.and ban cell phone users from driving while talking.
Motorcycle operators have a HIGHER percentage covered by medical ins. than auto drivers do.
see ALLSTATE survey
Auto accidents cause MORE head injuries than Motorcycles.
NHTSA
Let those that ride decide. 90% of AAA members oppose helmet choice laws. 90% have never ridden a motorcycle either so who cares.
Most times head injuries all the cause of death for car drivers, since there are many more car drivers and money is more valuable than personal responsibility.
If helmets are good for motorcyclists then, all people should wear a helmet at all times. In case they ride in or are hit by a car.
I would feel better just seeing that. Much like the 90% of the AAA members that do not ride and believe Motorcyclists should wear helmets.
Most times head injuries are the cause of death for car drivers.
If helmets are good for motorcyclists, then all people should wear a helmet at all times. In case they ride in or are hit by a car, since there are many more car drivers and money is more valuable than personal responsibility.
I would feel better just seeing that. Much like the 90% of the AAA members that do not ride and believe Motorcyclists should wear helmets.
Who cares
I agree with this subject line. People who are scared of driving in a car have no place making decisions for someone who is quite comfortable riding on 2 wheels.
I would support an amendment to the law making it a felony to the driver found at fault of causing the mcycle accident in the first place. That might force the cell phone users and white knuckle drivers to learn how to PAY ATTENTION and SHARE THE ROAD.
Thank you for giving my freedom back Michigan. I will repay you by now riding through your state and spending money.
Ride on.
Forcing people to wear helmets actually increases the amount of money spent on care. The victims get severe injuries instead of just dying immediately. The insurance companies would much rather have dead customers than severely injured customers.
Like the article said – the taxpayers of Michigan are the ones who bare the cost of caring for one of these people hurt in a motorcycle accident. We are talking millions of dollars and the motorcyclists I guess don\’t care about that. This is a dumb decision and one that will cost MI millions of more dollars. With the state of the economy there in Michigan this is just more bad news for the residents of Michigan.
Here in NH neither helmets or seatbelts are required but no one gets in my car without using the seatbelt and I would seriously consider using a helmet if on a motorcycle but I agree as to leaving these matters up to the individual and it isn\’t the government\’s business. I also agree as to the earlier comment that, if not wearing a helmet leads to more deaths, less will be spent under the MI NoFault laws so the rationale for helmet laws is faulty. Actually, at $4 million per spinal injury perhaps wearing helmets should be outlawed! Is it really fair to make the rest of the public pay for someone wanting to do something crazy like going 70 mph on a couple of hundred pounds of steel and rubber with only two wheels?
\”Is it really fair to make the rest of the public pay for someone wanting to do something crazy like going 70 mph on a couple of hundred pounds of steel and rubber with only two wheels?\”
Different strokes for different folks. If you think that is crazy, you lead a very dull existence. I\’m curious what sort of hobby a person enjoys that makes such a bold statement. A you a bird watcher or botanist?
No Helmet Wearer:
I\’m on your side and think this should be up to the individual! I was just suggesting that the argument for requiring helmets could just as easily be used to outlaw helmets. Actually a better case can be made for outlawing helmets than requiring them if the goal is to protect the public treasury and insurance companies from the expense of treating spinal cord injuries. I hear of very few serious injuries involving people without helmets- for better or worse it usually is a fatality. The reasons given by those favoring helmets often seems to be a smokesceen for somebody sticking their noses where they don\’t belong.
If motorcyclists choose to ride without a helmet, fine. However, they should also be required to pay for no-fault benefits for which they are currently exempt from paying. If faced with the true cost of insuring their PIP benefits ($10K is a joke)at an additional cost of several thousand dollars in insurance premium, they might think twice. Remember, this was part of the deal which was struck back when Michigan went to no-fault in an effort to keep motorcycle premiums low.
The last time I remember, we are a country of freedom and of choice. I served my time to enjoy the freedoms of my country and to have a choice in how I live. My son is a U.S. Marine and is currently in Iraq preserving those very same ideals and fundamentals that make this country great. There are always two sides to every story and if you look closely it does come down to one very philisophical issue. We should have the choice to wear a seat belt or wear a helmet. Just as we choose the many other things that we enjoy in life. It truly comes down to holding people responsible for their choices. If you are the cause of an accident then you should be held accountable period. We as a society lack the fortitude to hold accountable ourselves to correct standards and morals but seem to readily want to hold others to them. Responsibility for ones actions begins with ourselves. Make your own choice.
I love all this take responsibility talk coming from the very people who will demand that that government pay for their injuries because they cannot afford the extremely high costs of care associated with head injuries. I trust the Governor will exercise her good judment and veto this pandering legislation. This law is not about a fundamental freedom, but protecting the public from the burden of caring for those seemingly incapable of acting in their own self-interest and expecting us to pay for their foolishness. I didn\’t see anyone volunteering to give up access to the catastophic injury fund in exchange for the right to ride without a helmet.
wjk – You hit the BULLSEYE. Allow any cyclist to go Helmet Free with the understanding they are also Free of Subsidy by Other Drivers and the Government. Free to Forfeit No Fault Benefits paid by Automobile Insurers and Free to Forfiet Government Subsidized Health Care.
The assumption being made by those favoring requiring helmets is that not requiring helmets will raise the medical costs resulting from accidents. But what if the cost of an accident is less when helmets are not used? Are those who use the economic rationale to justify requiring helmets prepared to change their positions if not wearing helmets results in the same or lower costs to the government and insurance buying public? I have not seen a study on this issue (perhaps not studied by the \”experts\” because they suspect they will not like the outcome?) but I would guess that not wearing helmets does not result in higher costs. I hear of very few motorcycle accidents where the rider without a helmet receives a serious injury. Rather, the outcome of traveling through the air at a high speed with on no protection is often fatal. Not a pretty outcome but a rather inexpensive one in terms of medical costs.
This will just eliminate more stupid people from the gene pool. It\’s the families of the dead riders and the vegetables (aka \”survivors\” of accidents) that I feel sorry for.
And how ill the law be enforced? You have to have ridden a bike for two years, and have a training course, and have insurance. Will cops pull over every driver without a brainbucket to check?
Agree on the cellphone … though that is so ingrained I don\’t think it will ever change.
Whiny Witch-I hope you are just being facetious.It\’s people that think they would rather die than lose a limb that do dumb$#@&% things all the time that end up costing the rest of us. Obviously you don\’t have a family that cares for you or children to take care of. If you did you\’d just wear the stupid helmet.
So for the last 36 years since my helmet saved my life and I lost a limb I have been in error thinking I was better off than the other fellow in my room who had permanent brain damage from no helmet. Wow, Whiney Witch, I would have been better off dead than leading a productive life all of this time. Sorry, my error.
Would Hilary Rotten Clinton wear a helmet?
1/2 the Politicians have wigs, and the women with their hair.
Is there anybody that has survived a serious MC crash that is in support of the helmet law repeal? Would Evil Knievel still be around if he didn\’t wear a helmet? I think he was going faster than 15mph at Ceasars Palace so I think a helmet did him some good. How about Indian Larry? If he could comment on helmet laws I wonder what he would have to say. Not wearing a helmet is just plain dumb.
Too bad for him since he was just in a motorcycle accident in which he hit his head on the winshield of the car.
PS the anti-spam system here sucks
I think I saw Indian Larry in a commercial standing by the side of the road with a tear coming down his cheek after they talked about not wearing helmets.
As an avid motorcyclist I find it appaling the number of riders who think it is ok to ride with anything less than a full face helmet. Ben Rothlisberger would have escaped his accident with only minor injuries had he been wearing one.It is foolish to think it can\’t happen to you. The personal freedom argument is BS anyone who opts to ride without a helmet should be required to higher premiums and carry higher limits to offset the high cost of medical treatment for head trauma.
Can anyone prove that not wearing a helmet results in higher medical bills? I think not wearing does not negatively impact society\’s medical costs. Not wearing may result in higher fatalities but does it lead to higher medical bills? NH has both a relatively large number of riders for a state this size along with no helmet law and it seems that many of the accidents involving no helmets (and many where helmets are used) have little to no medical costs as they sadley often are fatalities.
If we are going to prevent adults from doing stupid things then maybe we should be talking about banning motorcycles instead of half- hearted measures such as helmets.Not that I am in favor of a ban but it is the logical result of a paternalistic government making sure you don\’t hurt yourself and not trusting you to run your own life.
The government has in fact compared medical costs when wearing helmets and not wearing and found there is a slightly higher cost when wearing a helmet:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/new-fact-sheet03/MotorcycleHelmet.pdf
Of course, the data comes to this conclusion because many without helmets never make it to the ER and go directly to the funeral home. There may be good reasons to wear helmets but it should be voluntary and the government should butt out.
If you get broadsided by a truck or some blue hair not paying attention at 55 mph, a helmet is not going to help anyway. Motorcycling carries some inherent risks, but i should not have the government making decisions on weather or not i should be protected from myself. Helmets impair visibility, hearing, and cause neck fatigue. That i can attest to. I have 20 years experience on motorcycles. Try driving your car in a full face helmet. Really, try it. theres no law against it. You will take it off in about a minute. Anybody that would wear a full face helmet is putting their life in someone else\’s hands that is not paying attention. Only idiots wear those death traps.
Exactly. You have 20 years experience. The blue hair you mention has even more experience. So much for that. But the teenager on a crotch rocket or Ninja does not have experience or maturity to ride without a helmet. Kids on those bikes do stupid things and theres a lot of em. Its a rarity to see one being operated safely. Not all riders are the same, and not all are mature. I would think immature stupidity causes more fatalities than old ladies running red lights. Only an idiot would operate any motorcycle without a helmet and especially a Ninja or a crotch rocket. People that support the repeal need to consider all factors and not just insurance costs or statistics. You all think it wont happen to you. Much like the smoker who puffs for years and then dies of cancer.
If you had an accident with a biker not wearing a helmet and that person died, regardless of whos at fault, you get to re-live that accident over and over for the rest of your life. Suppose it\’s you that gets killed, is your family OK with the fact that you were too cool to wear a helmet and now your dumb and dead? Weather or not you died as a result of head injuries everybody that knew you is going to say \”He should have been wearing a helmet\”. Get real man.
It is MUCH cheaper for the insurance companies and/or the state to pay out a 50,000 or 1mill life policy, than the billions of dollars for medical bills!Less money paid out – more money in pockets! It makes perfect sense!
LFOD: Thanks for the cite to the NHTSA\’s report. What part did you read? Under \”Cost savings\” it says that unhelmuted riders are \”more likely to have higher hospital costs,\” that brain injuries in three states with a universal helmut law would double without the law, and in 2002 helmut use saved $1.3 Billion in medical costs. The report also reveals that in 2002 3,244 riders died while 65,000 were injured. Couple that with the report\’s finding that helmuts are 67% effective in preventing brain injury and you can only conclude that helmuts work, which is the whole point of the report. Finally, there is substantial cost to society when a head of household dies, so the fact that medical expenses are reduced (assuming the vic isn\’t flown in a helicopter and lives for 10 days) in cases of fatalities is only true if they die at the scene. I have yet to hear a sound logical argument against wearing helmuts. do you think Ben R. will ride without one if he ever rides again???
Open Letter To Michigan Governor Setting Forth Motorcyclist Safety Position of Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers In Support of Helmet Law Repeal.
Dear Governor Granholm,
I am writing on behalf of Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers which does not have as its mission the repeal of helmet laws. We are an organization the mission of which is solely to improve motorcyclist safety. Unfortunately, in our safety mission we find that politicians claiming to be concerned about motorcyclist safety seize upon helmet laws as a way to appear to be doing something for motorcyclists when in fact, any contribution to the reduction of motorcyclist injury and death is so minimal as to be essentially unproductive, indeed it is counterproductive as it deflects attention from the real motorcycle safety issues. The political tradition of pretending to solve what is certainly a very important public health issue, this obscene incidence motorcycle accidents and the consequent panoply of catastrophic motorcyclist injuries, by myopically and paternalistically focusing on what motorcyclists wear is nothing more than political contrivance. And what we are concerned about is that while politicians continue to so dishonestly focus on what is not the problem, the real solutions to the real problems are ignored, with the effect that motorcyclists continue to be maimed and killed on our streets and highways indeed in obscene numbers.
The first thing you need to understand is that this public health crisis faced by your state and every other state is much broader than very limited number of deaths which arguably might be avoided by the use of helmets. It is purely political that those who seek helmet laws or resist the repeal of helmet laws focus solely on death statistics. The fact is that motorcyclists suffer every kind of catastrophic injury in motorcycle accidents. They suffer catastrophic internal injuries, injuries which both result in death statistics and those which leave the motorcyclist\’s health impaired for the remainder of his life. They suffer quadriplegia and paraplegia and other spinal cord injuries which ruin their lives, often confined to convalescent centers, or requiring full time or part time professional nursing assistance. Motorcyclists suffer limb injuries often requiring limb amputation or catastrophic orthopedic injuries which render them unable to continue in their professions as productive members of our society. This broad landscape of catastrophic motorcyclist injury is what defines both your state\’s public health crisis and the state fiscal impact of caring for these men and women whose often substantial life long medical expense is almost universally uncompensated by the underinsured and usually impecunious auto drivers who by their inattention and negligence cause the majority of the accidents and consequent injuries.
These are the real public health and substantial fiscal issues faced by your state. The death statistics relied upon my those who urge helmet laws are misleading first of all because death can occur as the result of motorcycle accidents for many reasons other than head injury, including most obviously, internal injury, or delayed death or the shortening of one\’s life expectancy as with motorcyclists who are rendered quadriplegic. The death statistics are also often misrepresented. For example, often quoted are the statistics which focus on the number of motorcyclist deaths rising after the repeal of helmet legislation. But those statistics often fail to account for such variables as the recent steep rise in motorcycle registrations, particularly in the last several years, and the likelihood that this implies that there are a greater number of novice or less experienced motorcyclists who are getting into accidents, suffering the panoply of catastrophic injury, and contributing to the death statistics. In addition, those who report these death statistics, which are truly just unanalyzed compilations of selected raw data, apparently have no interest in discovering whether any of these deaths actually resulted from the motorcyclist\’s failure to wear a helmet. As noted, these deaths can occur from any of a dozen causes unrelated to head injury. Even with those deaths in which the motorcyclist suffered a head injury, none of those who have compiled these data have followed through to obtain the death and autopsy reports to determine, first of all, to what extent the brain damage could have been prevented by a helmet, and second, to determine whether the motorcyclist suffered internal or other catastrophic injury which likely would have resulted in his life long disability, death or foreshortened life expectancy regardless of his helmet use. Even with regard to deaths among motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets, you need to realize that helmets only serve to reduce the incidence of brain injury and death for impacts of less than 15 miles per hour. In almost every accident in which a death is reported, there is also serious or catastrophic injury quite apart from brain injury which are not accounted for by simply listing the selected raw data on deaths in helmeted riders and those who chose not to wear helmets. There are many more deficiencies in these studies which I would be pleased to discuss with you if you would permit me to speak with you or your staff. But suffice it to say that the death statistics which are so commonly cited are not compiled according to the scientific method, nor are they subjected to statistical analysis, and any legitimate scientist would tell you that as the result of their methodologically errors they unfortunately provide no meaningful information even on the narrow issue whether or to what extent helmets may reduce the incidence of motorcyclist death.
The only way to solve your true public health crisis, which can be accurately measure only by examining the full panoply of catastrophic motorcyclist injury, and motorcyclist death from all medical causes, is by reducing the incidence of motorcycle accidents. If we can reduce the incidence of motorcycle accidents then we can reduce the incidence of every category of catastrophic motorcyclist injury, and among helmeted riders and unhelmeted riders alike.
This is not an unattainable goal. Indeed, it is a goal that hasn\’t been achieved only because politicians have failed to seize the opportunity to provide the obvious solutions, choosing instead to mislead the public that dictating what motorcyclists wear is the solution.
The first thing you need to understand is that fully two-thirds of all multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are the result of auto driver inattention and negligence, without any fault on the part of the motorcyclist. There is no controversy about this. Every study confirms this. (The remaining one-third are the result of motorcyclist negligence or the combination of motorcyclist and auto driver negligence.)
Most of that overwhelming percentage of motorcycle accidents caused by auto driver negligence, results from motorist inattention while entering intersections or turning left at intersections into the motorcyclist\’s right of way. Again there is no controversy about this.
These facts, unfortunately, are excluded from the motorcycle safety debate as politicians scream hysterically about the need to dictate what bikers wear. Most politicians are in our opinion shortsighted in concluding that there is no political advantage of actually doing something to reduce the incidence of this largest category of precipitant for motorcycle accidents. If confronted by their failures to address the broader safety issue, some, whose staff\’s prepare a political response, will say that these intersection accidents are the \”unavoidable\” consequence of the motorcycle\’s \”lack of conspicuity.\” And they can find support for this false proposition in an unfortunate phrase culled from the first large motorcycle accident survey by Harry Hurt. But it is indeed unfortunate that this phrase has been so oft repeated without critical analysis by those who have political agendas other than to actually reduce the incidence of motorcyclist injury. An additional problem is that the phrase \”lack of conspicuity\” is actually a term of art which has been mistaken by policy makers and used to advantage by politicians to suggest that intersection motorcycle accidents are the result of the reduced \”visibility\” impugned to the motorcycle\’s smaller size. Putting aside the misunderstanding and misrepresentation, the fact is that motorcycles are just as \”visible\” as cars at the short distance at which a car entering an intersection or turning left at an intersection would pose a threat to the motorcyclist. Motorcycles can stop very quickly and take evasive action much more nimbly than cars so when a car entering an intersection or turning left in front of a motorcyclist causes an accident, the car must turn directly in front of the oncoming motorcycle. Furthermore, since the Harry Hurt study, motorcycle manufacturers uniformly equip their motorcycles with head lamps which turn on at ignition and remain on day and night, so it is likely that oncoming motorcycles are in truth more obvious in the visual field of an auto driver when he enters or turns left at an intersection.
The etiology of intersection motorcycle accidents does not derive from the motorcycle\’s smaller size; rather, the reason why auto drivers don\’t \”see\” motorcycles is a function of what is described in the scientific literature as \”inattentional blindness.\” This is a body of literature which analyzes why people don\’t see what is readily apparent in their visual field. There are half a dozen factors which are identified in the literature, and again if you would permit me to speak to you or one of your staff I could explain my understanding of the relevant literature or provide references for you and your staff to consider. One of the factors which I have concluded is probably the most potent in leading auto drivers to fail to consciously attend to motorcyclists in their visual field is \”relevance.\” One gross aspect of the lack of \”relevance\” many auto drivers attribute to motorcycles is derived fro the auto driver\’s perception that motorcycles don\’t pose a risk to them in the same way that an oncoming car, truck or bus would pose a risk to them when entering an intersection or turning left into the path of one of these larger vehicles. There are solutions specific to modifying that aspect of \”relevance\” including by specific conscious task oriented auto driver education, discussed below. In addition, the auto driver\’s perception of the \”relevance\” of motorcycles can be enhanced by penalty legislation, for example, by providing for drivers license suspensions or potential jail terms for reckless inattention which results in serious motorcyclist injury or death.
I\’ve been told that many politicians might find such penalty legislation \”politically unacceptable,\” as it calls for imposing upon the majority for the benefit of a vulnerable minority; but this public health crisis truly affects us all, including by the fiscal impact upon the state and all of the citizenry associated with this obscene incidence of the panoply of catastrophic motorcyclist injury caused by auto driver inattention.
But accepting that politicians must be sensitive to undermining their majority political base, a substantially less effective solution, although a good step in the right direction would be general penalty legislation for any serious injury resulting from reckless inattentive driving, if combined with a well funded public relations campaign specifically focusing upon the vulnerability of motorcyclists to serious injury, perhaps combined with photographs or film of a motorcyclist being carted off to an ambulance and the auto driver being carted off to jail.
I haven\’t yet touched upon what we consider to be the centerpiece of our proposal for effectively reducing the incidence of motorcycle accidents and hence for reducing all manner of motorcycle injury. Before I do that permit me to describe some the secondary contributory factors to the two-thirds of motorcycle accidents resulting from auto driver negligence.
As noted above, the majority result from auto driver inattention at intersections. Other factors include lane change accidents and rear end accidents. When an auto driver turns into a motorcyclist riding or passing in an adjoining lane it is commonly because the auto driver doesn\’t know that his rear view mirrors have holes in them large enough to obscure a motorcyclist in an adjoining lane of traffic. The auto driver doesn\’t appreciate that he needs to turn his head into his rear view blind spot to look for a motorcyclist riding or passing in the adjoining lane. Motorcycle rear-end accidents occur both as the result of inattentional blindness, including the sub-issue of \”relevance\” discussed above, and because auto drivers simply do not realize that motorcycles can stop much more quickly than cars so that they need to provide a greater distance when following a motorcycle.
Now, to the real solution to your public health crisis, because the real solution is one readily within the powers of the Governor. Lets first make plain the real problem. The problem is auto driver ignorance of motorcycle safety issues, and in particular, auto driver ignorance of the motorcycle accident avoidance strategies which they must employ for the protection of their vulnerable two-wheeled brethren.
The solution to ignorance is education. Specifically mandatory auto driver education on motorcycle safety issues and motorcycle accident avoidance strategies. First, modify your auto driver education booklets and written materials to include comprehensive information on motorcycle safety issues and motorcycle accident avoidance strategies. Second, include in the written tests which your auto drivers must take to obtain and renew their drivers licenses again a comprehensive list of motorcycle safety questions. Third, because of the singular importance of assuring that auto drivers fully appreciate their responsibilities to avoid endangering vulnerable motorcyclists, adopt a policy to deny driving privileges to any auto driver who fails to answer correctly even one motorcycle safety question.
This same type of information and testing process should be included in all other auto driver safety programs, including, for example, state auto driver education and instructional materials, the written materials provided in connection with driving schools, including those attended by drivers as an alternative to paying traffic violation fines, as well as every other curriculum for your state\’s auto drivers, such as those required of individuals convicted of DUI or other serious driving offenses.
I would be pleased to consult with your staff or Department of Motor Vehicles staff in developing appropriate motorcycle safety information materials and motorcycle test questions. Obviously, I would be pleased to do this without charge. I have some specific recommendations which might not be obvious to others, which are derived from my research in this subject matter. For example, since inattentional blindness is an \”unconscious\” phenomenon, it is necessary to provide auto drivers a specific conscious task to perform when engaging in the behaviors during which they pose a risk to motorcyclists. Just for the purpose of example, auto drivers might be informed that the speed of oncoming motorcycles is more difficult to gauge, and so they need to take the time specifically to assess the speed of an oncoming motorcycle before entering an intersection or turning left at an intersection when a motorcycle is within the visual field. It might appear \”common sense\” that the auto driver has to \”see\” the motorcycle before he can engage in a conscious task with respect to the motorcycle. But that is not accurate. When one has a conscious task to perform specific to a particular object in the visual field, in this case oncoming motorcycles, this actually has the effect to raise to conscious attention the object in the visual field upon which the task must be performed.
Bank robber Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. Mr. Sutton responded, \”Because that\’s where the money is.\”
Those who focus on helmet legislation are robbing convenience stores, or to put it more plainly \”convenient stores.\” There is no real \”money\” in convenience stores. It is not the scientific evidence that meaningful reduction in the incidence of the panoply of accident related motorcyclist injury can be achieved by helmet legislation, as politically \”convenient\” as it may be for politicians to pretend, in speeches to the majority, that they are doing something for the protection of our vulnerable minority, by paternalistically dictating what the minority should wear.
Your state \”bank\” is bulging at the seams with the caskets of dead bikers and gurneys filled with those who have been rendered catastrophically paralyzed, amputated, orthopedically wrecked, and disabled as the result of motorcycle accidents caused by the inattention and negligence of auto drivers.
If you veto the helmet repeal bill, all you will do is guarantee that this issue remains the focus of our legislative efforts in perpetuity, because our good freedom fighters will never give up their good fight for our personal dignity and our right to chose. By failing to take this unproductive helmet law debate off the table, by vetoing your legislatures bill to strike your helmet law, you will also tragically make it impossible for those of us concerned about the broader and much more important motorcycle safety issues to bring about a debate on the real motorcycle safety issues, and obtain real solutions to your real public health and real state fiscal realities.
Please, for the sake of your state\’s motorcycling community, show us that you are not just a political Governor, but a governor who actually cares about this peculiarly vulnerable minority of your citizenry and refrain from perpetuating the helmet debate with a veto of your good legislature\’s helmet law repeal. And then, let us turn to your real public health issues and work together to achieve the true solutions.
Thank you for your consideration, and if I can be of any further assistance in the above regard, please do not hesitate to contact me.
\”M-A-D-D Ray\” Henke
Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers
http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com
I don\’t know why that url I cut and pasted didn\’t work but the table I am talking about is on page 38 at :
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/CODES/codesrpt.pdf
Again- exhibit 15 comes up with the figures it does because it includes those who go directly to the funeral home.
It is bike week here in NH and so far we have had 6 fatalities and two serious injuries but 5 of the fatalities did not require any medical care because they died instantly . Not a pretty picture but I think it does raise questions as to whether or not the government should be involved. Where do we stop in protecting people from themselves? Prohibition again? Cigarettes? French Fries at McDonalds? All you can eat buffets?
I\’m all for freedom of choice, and the ability to make one\’s own decisions.
However, our\’s is the only state with a catostrophic insurance premium that pays lifetime benefits for costs over $250,000. These premiums are sure to rise as costs for injuries sustained as a result of not wearing increase.
If you don\’t want to wear a helmet that should be your choice, as long as my group insurance rates don\’t go up.
Wear it or don\’t wear it, the choice should be yours. If you smash in your head while not wearing a helmet, regardless of who\’s at fault, all costs should be yours, you\’ve taken the added risk, you pay the price.
Governor Granholm; Veto the bill!
Well, if your product will help reduce the cost to society when an auto accident occurs, then it should be mandatory.
Unless you are suggesting that uninsured motorists simply not be cared for when an accident occurs, that the hospital should just throw them out, then auto insurance needs to be mandatory to cover medical and auto replacement costs.
Uninsured motorists still get medical care that someone has to pay, and that ends up being you and me.
Only people with a lack of understanding of the insurance industry would make a comment such as yours.
The idea is that everyone contributes a little to cover a lot more, if and when it happens.
Personally, I\’d rather pay my auto premium, because if I am ever in an accident, instead of paying thousands for a new car and medical bills, my insurance company will cover it.
Michigan needs to strengthen not repeal it\’s hemet laws. Or better yet, ban motorcycles from all public roads.
States that have repealed or modified helmet laws are virtually littered with the corpses of bikers. Take a drive through Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois this summer and look at the carnage that litters the roads in those states. AAA\’s estimate of an 80% percent fatality rate within 24 months is quite conservative.
The very act of putting on a helmet reduces ones likelyhood of even having an accident by making the rider more aware of the dangers. Please try to convince relatives, friends, neighbors, and co-workers that ride to stop riding. Remember to always wear a helmet, because helmets do prevent accidents.
Now theres an idiot. I dont need to say any more about it. Why not ban all cars too ? HELMETS ARE DANGEROUS !!!!!
It is a given that 2/3 of the motorcycle accidents are solely or primarily caused by other drivers. That said, a solution is remove any legal protections afforded by anyone’s “I didn’t see him”. Such a statement must be considered a confession of guilt and accountability for the damage both to the person (medical, income lost and continuing care) and the property damage.
The state shouldn’t have to pay; the insurance company for the rider shouldn’t have to pay, but the inattentive, not alert and unseeing, driver and his insurance company should pay.
Capt Bly hit it on the head. Indeed fully two-thirds of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are the result of the inattention and negligence of auto drivers, mostly intersections accidents following which the auto driver will comonly say \”I didn\’t see the motorcycle.\” This is NOT due to the mith of motorcycle \”lack of conspicuity.\” Motorcycle are just as visible as cars at the distance at which a car pulling out from a side street or turning left at an intersection would pose a threat to the motorcyclist. The problem is auto driver inattention, and a major contributing factor to auto driver inattention is that they don\’t see motorcycles as a threat to them in the same way they see cars, trucks and busses as a threat to them.
Indeed, it is the auto drivers and their insurance companies who should pay for the motorcyclists medical expenses. Unfortunately most auto drivers are woefully underinsured to pay for the injuries and damages they cause when they hit a biker. Furthermore, auto drivers do not see it as their moral responsibility to pay for the injuries and damages they\’ve caused to the biker above and beyond the limits of their insurance policies. This is contemptable, and that is the problem. It is absurd that insurance companies and their lacky legislators, and state policy makers pretend that it is the motorcyclists fault or failure to obtain adequate insurance which is the reason why motorcyclist medical expense must sometimes be borne by the state. Shame on them. And right on Capt Bly, for pointing it out.
\”M-A-D-D Ray\” Henke
Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers
Helmets do NOT prevent accidents. Responsible riders prevent accidents. Responsible drivers prevent accidents. Helmets protect the rider\’s head. That\’s it.
When bank robber Willie Sutton was asked why he robbed banks, he replied \”Because that is where the money is.\”
You may review my previous comment below with regard to the death statistics commonly cited in support of helmet legislation. But most important to the last two postings is that head injury and death statistics, even if credited are merely a drop in the bucket in terms of the panoply of motorcyclist injury which combines to define the state public health crisis and fiscal concerns asserted by the state\’s in support of helmet laws. The states have for too long pretended that they are doing something meaningful to reduce motorcyclist injury, when bank robber Willie Sutton would laugh with disdain, as anyone who looks at the statistics recognizes that the enactment of helmet laws is no more than robbing a convenience store, while ignoring the bank next door, filled with all of the caskets and gurneys filled with bikers who have suffered debilitating or fatal internal injuries, paralyzed, faced with life long medical and convalescent or nursing care, with their limbs amputated, and with catastrophic orthopedic injuries, unable again to return to their professions.
This panoply of motorcyclist injury is what defines the public health crisis, and it also defines the state fiscal crisis, just because the auto drivers responsible for the vast majority of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are both underinsured to pay for the injuries and medical expense they cause, and are unwilling personally to take responsibility to pay the expense they\’ve caused above the limits of their insurance policies.
So, where is the bank? The bank is in reducing the incidence of multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents, fully 2/3 of which are caused solely the result of auto driver negligence, without any fault at all on the part of the biker. That is where the money is. The vast majority of such accidents result specifically from auto driver inattention to motorcyclists at intersections, the remainder, lane change and rear end accidents caused by auto drivers.
If we want to solve the real, big public health issue, represented by the full panoply of motorcyclist injury, and substantially reduce the state fiscal consequence of motorcycle accidents and the injuries sustained by both helmeted and unhelmeted bikers alike, then the answer is not in robbing convenience stores, it is not in helmet legislation. The solution is mandatory auto driver education on motorcycle safety issues, and in particular on the motorcycle accident avoidance strategies which auto drivers must employ for the protection of bikers. There needs to be a well funded motorcycle awareness campaign to inform auto drivers of the importance particularly of opening their eyes and looking for the oncoming motorcyclist at intersections in particular. And the state should adopt penalty legislation, specifically, either substantial drivers license suspensions or jail time for auto drivers who recklessly or inattentively injure or kill a motorcyclist (because at the moment auto drivers don\’t attend to bikers, primarily because they don\’t see them as a threat to them in the same way they see cars as a threat to them, and so penalty legislation is needed so that they will get it, that crippling or killing a biker will affect them personally.)
That\’s where the money is, my friends, so lets not pretend that helmets are the panacea either for the public health crisis or the state fiscal concerns. Lets recognize that our auto driving state legislators just see dictating what bikers wear as a way to pretend, for their political reasons, that they are doing something about these issues when in fact they are not. Instead, lets actually do something positive for a change to reduce motorcyclist injury across the board, the full panoply of injury, among helmeted and unhelmeted bikers alike. And at the same time provide the state meaningful relief for a change, from the costs it must bear when auto drivers refuse to pay for the injuries they cause.
Ride safe, my friends, or as we at Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers would say, \”Ride Smart Until the Dumb Drivers Get Smart.\”
M-A-D-D Ray Henke
Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers
http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com
Anyone making the comment helmets are dangerous are either truly ignorant of the facts or have already suffered irreversible head trauma. I suppose there is no need for helmets for any other type of activity either.
Full face helmets CAN snap your neck. That is not my opinion, it\’s a fact. Any helmet that covers the ears and sides of the head impairs hearing and visibility. (duh!) I want to be able to see and hear the dumb-*** that is not paying attention, so I can make adjustments and not get killed. You can tell who rides and who doesn\’t !
Ok, I’ve read what is here and suppose we have two areas where the state can hold everyone accountable for their actions.
I know that some cage drivers might not like the accountability but here goes.
CIVIL LIABILITY; — the best way to save the state money, to reduce the drain on taxpayers, while supporting victims rights is to set minimum insurance requirement high enough to cover the reasonably expected trauma. If it is reasonable and ordinary for medical and lost time charges to be $ 1,000,000.00 then set that at the minimum. If a loss of this level seldom occurs, the insurance companies will take that into setting the rate. The victim should never have to cover any gaps between a perpetrators insurance and cash or assets, nor should the state be on the hook.
I suggest establishing guidelines for CRIMINAL PROSECUTION for negligent actions such as inattentiveness.
1. The charges; in the worst case, vehicular manslaughter down thru simple vehicular assault. Whether I get hit with a SUV, a bat, or machete I get hurt by the person\’s actions. The crime and punishment rendered should relate to the ‘contributing actions and results’ not the weapon use to inflict the injury. I could be just a dead from the discharge of your .38 as I would be from how you drove your 4-door SUV. People have to be equally accountable when either type of weapon is not keep under control.
2. Maybe we need a table of consequences for failure to maintain adequate insurance. If you don’t have adequate insurance there must be a deterrent greater than “don’t do it again”. Mandatory driver’s license suspension at a minimum. 3 weeks of incarceration for a second offence?
3. Maybe we need to consider “I didn’t see” as an admission of criminal guilt when the outcome is dire to the victim. No matter what the punishment is, the fear of having a criminal record will prompt most into taking a second responsible look before action is taken.
Just checking out the viability of the name. I\’m following ABATE on this one. The Governor better hope that the insurance companies have more votes than the motorcycle riders of Michigan.
Right on. never mind that other americans are trampling all over basic freedoms, now the canadians are doing it to us too ! Never been a democrat, but if it was the other way around, I would vote for a democrat that wanted to repeal this stupid law. Stop trying to protect me from myself!
I am a life long democrat that is now sending a check to the DeVos for Governor Committee and will volunteer my time to defeat Granholm. She evidently doesn\’t believe that the adult citizens of this state are competent to exercise their constitutional rights and is honoring her responsibility to the states insurance and health care companies.
The Hurt Report and my 40 years of riding experience show that the majority of bike accidents to sober, legal, and adult riders are caused by the driver of another vehicle running into them.
I\’ve just come from Indianapolis yesterday. And on my way home I counted 7 motorcycle accidents in IN before crossing the MI/IN border. These accidents were all a separate locations. I can\’t say how many were killed of injured, but there was noticable amounts blood at each accident site that I saw. Now after seeing this carnage I\’d have to say that MI needs to strengthen it\’s helmet laws, and take action to discourage people from considering these machines as transportation or recreation. The state could start by limiting the number of motorcycle registrations and then reducing the limit year by year untill there are no more registered and lisenced motorcyles in this state.
Good work Governor Grandholm!!!
It appears that Mr. Dean Whittier is another person penalizing the victims, because we know that the primary cause of crashes are incompetent car and truck drivers.
Note, I did not say \”accident\”. Driving your car so as to injure another smaller than you should be considered the act of bullies and/or the incompetent.
Dean should spend 40 hours on the road on a bike. He’ll then ‘get’ the real and overpowering knowledge that they ‘are out to get you’ Your not paranoid, the car drivers, as a group, must be treated as if were either 1) aggressive & deadly or 2) nearly comatose. I believe that if every cage driver had to pass a motorcycle exam and have those 40 hours of experience things would improve. Maybe cutting the crashes in half.
Don’t like that solution. How about this? Don’t restrict of the bikes, toss the offending drivers in jail for 6 hours, 6 weeks, six month or six years for any avoidable collision. See how they like to look for a job with a conviction on their record. I believe that with in six years the worst offender will be off the road and the problem will be solved.
Do I know what I’m talking about, maybe I’ve been driving bikes and cars since 1965, had two of my bikes exceed 200,000 miles of use, and had zero moving violations and zero self induced ‘offs’. I was hit when stopped at a light (not seen), pushed of the road when a cage ‘almost’ missed an exit, and had to abandon the bike when a cage appeared going UP my down ramp.
CARS ARE 80% OF “THE PROBLEM” SO THEY MUST BE KEPT UNDER CONTROL.
Well, if motorcyclists want the right to ride without a helmet, I should have the right, as a taxpayer, to let them lie by the side of the road until they get better.
I should be forced to wear a helmet because I might, maybe, someday, at a uncertian date in the future be injured. However by girlfriend can terminate my sons life thru abortion and never even let me know what is going on.
If women can choose, so should I have the same right.
Mr Bly is quite eloquent. Rob is naive to say the least about insurance if he does not realize that premiums don\’t pay claims;returns from investments with those premiums pay claims but no they don\’t feel they have to put up with risk.
Mr Whittier, who so clearly notes blood at accident scenes and does not seem inclined to help is obviously one of those rubbernecking ghouls that cause further risk on the highway gawking instead of driving responsibly.
Like Bly I\’ve been riding since the mid 60\’s. Unlike Bly I\’ve seen an improvement, although self serving, in the way we are viewed by \’cage\’ drivers. They know now they might be running down their favorite doctor so more care is key.
This improvement, I have to admit, could be limited to Florida. In tune I think with Bly but more specifically the hemets are not the issue. When did driving become \’a RIGHT\’? We treat it like one. We cherish it with more fervor than we do most of our spouses and we allow for it with a yearly death toll of upwards of 50K. If you use a gun on someone; intentionally or negligently you face criminal prosecution. In those states where you can carry a gun you face a \’real\’ background check, pertinent training and join a part of the population that commits .01% of violent crimes,has negigible accident rates and gun ownership is a \’RIGHT\’. Our legislators will not wake up on their own. Insurance companies and Commisioners will not police themselves. it is surely a shame that the only motorists who are proactive on the subject of highway safety make their statement by accepting further risk to themselves, daring those who won\’t to stand up and be responsible.
Let those who ride decide!!
i bet all the people on here saying no to helmet law repel do not now or ever have been on a motorcycle they are just one of the people in the state that has to put there 2 cents in about everything I am not asking everyone that gets on a bike to not wear a helmet all I want is 4 everyone to leave me alone to my freedom of choice to not wear the helmet if I choose not too.
Sorry I got off on a bit of a rant before. Jim has the right approach.
1, Bikers ride because they love the freedom, the adventure, and being unique sure but it can become an addiction like any other. This libertarian bent is further shown in the desire not to be told what-to-do on what is felt to be a personal decision. What you love you protect.
2. Most bike riders after a few months consider riding on the street a privilege, and with a privilege comes responsibility.
To the many that is the responsibility to preserve themselves. Preserve themselves from not only the .01% of cage drivers that might be malicious, but mostly the bigger risk; those that fit in the ‘don’t know and don’t care’, the ‘I’m really busy so I can’t be expected to follow the rules’ crowd, or those with a chemical imbalance caused by something they ingested or just by being too tired to perform.
3. We won’t resolve this with a few letters on a page on one-of-a-million web sites but if one or two person on either side of the question really takes the time to know and FEEL the other sides concerns, it is all worth while.