Effective this week Michigan no longer requires Motorcyclists to wear helmets --- big deciding factor was the revenue loss because of bikers not coming in from other states and Michigan bikers crossing over into Indiana to ride on weekends
Michigan dropped helmet law
- Thread starter meredog
- Start date
It's funny/sad how so many issues revolve around money rather than right or wrong.
Having said that, I enjoy the freedom of choice on helmets that I have here in Florida.
Having said that, I enjoy the freedom of choice on helmets that I have here in Florida.
pmar6004
TOI - South Dakota
Kudos to MI A.B.A.T.E. as I'm sure that they played a very important part in helping to get this legislation passed as well. When money becomes an issue, it often times is the loudest voice, however.
Daydreamer
The law requires an additional $20,000 in medical insurance for the rider and another $20,000 for the passenger. You must be over 21 and have a motorcycle endorsement to ride without a helmet. You do not have to have proof of the medical insurance coverage with you, not can you be stopped by law enforcement to check for the insurance coverage. Many Michigan riders are out with out their helmets, already.
I applaud the right to choose whether to wear a helmet or not. I choose to wear my helmet, always.
I applaud the right to choose whether to wear a helmet or not. I choose to wear my helmet, always.
This may be a dumb quesyion, but does the Upper Peninsula fall under the same laws?
yep--the yoopers are still part of the state:laugh:
I wonder how the state came up with $20,000? Putting your face back together surely can cost much, much more just for one surgery.
Agreed!
I know the controversy on both sides.
I know as fact through my many years in law enforcement and now retired. Is that the second impact after a crash is usaully the head.
The queen and I will continue to wear our brain buckets.
:Coffee:
I know as fact through my many years in law enforcement and now retired. Is that the second impact after a crash is usaully the head.
The queen and I will continue to wear our brain buckets.
:Coffee:
CONGRATS, Michigan riders! ThumbUp
"Let Those Who Ride Decide"
"Let Those Who Ride Decide"
"Let Those Who Ride Decide"
Yep, your head; your choice.
BTW, the safety difference between riding a bike and riding a car is considerably greater than the safety difference between riding a bike with a helmet and without.
Per mile traveled in 1998, a motorcyclist is approximately 16 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile occupant. And 3x (times) as likely to be injured.
In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash. [Presumably, the 54% who WERE wearing helmets were fatally injured regardless.]
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29% in a crash.
Motorcycle Accident Statistics - webBikeWorld
Yep, your head; your choice.
BTW, the safety difference between riding a bike and riding a car is considerably greater than the safety difference between riding a bike with a helmet and without.
Per mile traveled in 1998, a motorcyclist is approximately 16 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile occupant. And 3x (times) as likely to be injured.
In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash. [Presumably, the 54% who WERE wearing helmets were fatally injured regardless.]
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29% in a crash.
Motorcycle Accident Statistics - webBikeWorld
- Thread starter
- #12
Well. I certainly do not endorse the idea of riding without a helmet but i STRONGLY endorse the peoples right to choose----same with seat belts----and a business mans right to choose whether to allow smoking in his place of business.
PS: i wear seat belts and i do not smoke
PS: i wear seat belts and i do not smoke
Thanx for providing those stats, DanDolfn....The controversy has raged for decades with both sides having valid points to make.
This one is interesting:
"In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash. [Presumably, the 54% who WERE wearing helmets were fatally injured regardless.]"
By these figures, it's appears that it's at least close to 50/50 odds either way. I remember reading some stats years ago that said that the wearing of a helmet would only offer better odds up to a speed of either 25 mph or 35 mph (can't remember exactly which figure it was)........but after that given speed, all bets were off as far as guaranteeing safety by wearing a helmet (always exceptions, of course, but that's the basic drift)
From reading these stats, it appears to be a roll of the dice every time one gets on a motorcycle and 110% awareness on the part of the rider would be paramount. My choice is lid-less, but I also respect those who choose to wear helmets. As you've said "Your head, your choice".
It would be interesting to see if there's a stat involving auto/bike collisions resulting in m/c riders' fatalities (with or without helmets) and whether or not the auto driver was talking on a cell phone and/or texting. Just my opinion, but rather than mandating helmet use, I'd opt for outlawing the use of cell phones in automobiles.
In either event or no matter what one's choice is as regards helmets....Ride Safe, All..........
I grew up in IL ( spent 25 years there) and I have to disagree with your simplification of why the Helmet law was dropped. California is a helmet state and there are no shortage of riders year round from non helmet states I.E. AZ, NV, NM and A host of others.
Perhaps there's just nothing worth seeing in MI... LMAO :wave4: :Angel: ThumbUp
Now That was funny!
But, Really I don't think it's all money based... Perhaps money on the back side... Lobbyists!!! MI has Detroit and that in of it's self can suck the money right out of state coffers regardless of helmet laws.
The new law, which takes effect immediately, requires bareheaded riders 21 and older to carry at least $20,000 in additional medical insurance. Riders also must have passed a motorcycle safety course or have had their motorcycle endorsement for at least two years. These safeguards are woefully inadequate, given the increased risks and medical costs that come with riding without a helmet.
So it's more for the insurance companies then the riders!
Oh if people can decide whether or not they wear a helmet and a seat belt should they be able to decide on the speed limit too? hmmmmm! I'm not talking about speeding like we all do as that is clearly not legal. But, to drive any speed in any given situation with out the repercussions of a traffic ticket?
Freedom of Speech ends at Yelling Fire in a crowded Theater.. Should we not as a society act safely or give it all up for the Wild wild west mentality that helmets aren't cool or are an encroachment of ones personal freedoms?
Just wondering? :Shrug:
Should we not as a society act safely or give it all up for the Wild wild west mentality that helmets aren't cool or are an encroachment of ones personal freedoms?
If the Wild West decision to ride a bike at all is 50 times more unsafe than the decision not to wear a helmet, maybe you'd like to start that safe society by banning motorcycles?
If the Wild West decision to ride a bike at all is 50 times more unsafe than the decision not to wear a helmet, maybe you'd like to start that safe society by banning motorcycles?
Given the choice I would still wear a helmet. Here in OZ there is no choice, no exceptions. But it would be nice to have the choice.
Very often American trends become Australian trends. Usually takes a year or two to become obvious. I bet the no helmets law change never happens here,though.
The Queensland State government tried to ban open face helmets years ago. On the grounds that open faces were "unsafe". The word got out and huge protest rides brought Brisbane CBD to a standstill with all the protesters bikes. That proposed law never made it to parliament .
Nanny & the Nanny State look after us here. Whether we want it or not.
Very often American trends become Australian trends. Usually takes a year or two to become obvious. I bet the no helmets law change never happens here,though.
The Queensland State government tried to ban open face helmets years ago. On the grounds that open faces were "unsafe". The word got out and huge protest rides brought Brisbane CBD to a standstill with all the protesters bikes. That proposed law never made it to parliament .
Nanny & the Nanny State look after us here. Whether we want it or not.
I commend your objectivity...ThumbUp....seems to be in rare supply these days.
For the sake of conversation, the Dept. of Transportation or whoever sets the rules of the road: Speed limit, passing lane, no passing lane, yield, stop, etc...........but I do see a difference between those rules and rules mandating one's personal safety/health such as helmets, seat belts, no smoking and I don't believe "meredog" was suggesting a scenario of no rules at all. How about letting the Dept. of Transportation set the basic rules of the road and let the drivers/riders decide their own safety practices regarding helmets and seat belts ?
On a side note: "Perhaps there's just nothing worth seeing in MI... LMAO".....I ain't touchin' that one, LOL!
"Now That was funny!"........hehehe..........
As several have mentioned smoking.
In Queensland it is illegal to smoke in a car when children 12 years and younger are present. I think the fine is about $150 and 2 demerit points off the drivers license. Not smoking in an enclosed car with children has virtue but how unenforceable is this law ? Police have enough to do. Now they are expected to be the smoking police.
In Queensland it is illegal to smoke in a car when children 12 years and younger are present. I think the fine is about $150 and 2 demerit points off the drivers license. Not smoking in an enclosed car with children has virtue but how unenforceable is this law ? Police have enough to do. Now they are expected to be the smoking police.
Agreed. Legislators spend way too much time thinking up ridiculous laws far too often. Seems I recall hearing that in this state, they wanted to make it illegal for adults to smoke inside their OWN HOME if minors were present. Not sure if it passed or not, but good grief! Enough is enough! LOL!
- Thread starter
- #22
I can respect the "savior" folks who implement studies with our tax dollars. To study the use of seatbelts--smoking in public places---motorcycle helmets ect.
If after their "studies" are completed , I can respect them advertising their findings and their suggestions pro or con.
Where I disagree is when they try to force their findings down peoples throats and finding a way to get into our pockets with fines ect. if we do not submit to their beleifs :Shrug:
skuuter
One of the Origionals
Keep it "NICE" Folks.....Good Discussions with Good Points so far, let's keep it there......ThumbUp
Riding a motorcycle is not an inherently dangerous under taking. You're getting way off Target. If I use your premise I would ban Autos as well. After all if you're driving can you not crash and die and more lives are lost in cars than motorcycle crashes correct? Yes!
So Back on topic... ThumbUp
1) There are laws in place that say you can not leave your house with out putting pants on.. so if you decide to not wear pants or undies isn't that an infringement of your personal freedoms?
2)Gun's and owning a gun is not against the law if you are not a convicted Felon or the state can show that you have a history of mental illness. But, there are gun laws in place for the safety of the gun owner and the general public? Do you think there should be no gun laws what so ever? Should there be no safety laws in place for Driving on the roads in the USA?
I FEEL...Some laws are bad laws and some laws are good... I don't choose the laws that are in place and I don't follow every law in place. But, when it comes to common sense like Not yelling fire in a crowded theater, unloading a clip from an AR15 in a populated city into the air on new years eve and for me wearing a helmet which is not a law in many states.. I PERSONALLY opt for the Helmet!
The only people I care about wearing a helmet.. are the people I care about! ThumbUp
I like The people on Trike Talk and I would want them to walk away from every crash and be as safe as possible...What's wrong with that? :Shrug:
Keep it "NICE" Folks.....Good Discussions with Good Points so far, let's keep it there......ThumbUp
I love a good debate and just as long as no one talks about my mom..i'm ok ThumbUp
- Thread starter
- #26
tu-shey my mom wears a helmet !! So do we when she is in sight !!:busted::
Totally in agreement with you ThumbUp
Borrowing the stats that DanDolfn provided:
"Per mile traveled in 1998, a motorcyclist is approximately 16 times more likely to die in a crash than an automobile occupant. And 3x (times) as likely to be injured.
In 1998, 46% of fatally injured motorcycle drivers were not wearing helmets at the time of the crash. [Presumably, the 54% who WERE wearing helmets were fatally injured regardless.]
NHTSA estimates that motorcycle helmets reduce the likelihood of a fatality by 29% in a crash."
The first is a no brainer as automobiles provide more protection by virtue of their design.
The second actually favors NOT wearing helmets by a slight margin (at least from the stats determined by the NHTSA)
The third..........29% is not 100%. Not even 50%. A figure of 29% is not what I'd call conclusive or even strongly compelling. If they can't CONCLUSIVELY prove that helmets indeed save lives 100% of the time, then I don't understand how they justify making it "law" in some states. In line with your train of thought, it'd be more practical if they said something like "It can't be absolutely proven, but in the interest of safety, we would recommend that one chooses to wear a helmet by their own choice, not by mandate".
Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point. <<< While I do use that line once in a while I did cut and paste from Wikipedia ( for Shame )!
I will just address the latter part of your retort.
Just because you jump from an airplane does not mean you are going to die. But, your chances for survival increase by leaps and bounds if you are wearing a parachute, or if the plane is not air borne or moving. So unless you are going to just sit on your non moving motorcycle logic dictates the use of protective gear.
There are a million other things that there are laws for and against Like insurance for you motorcycle or car.. not everyone is going to crash or hit something when they drive or ride..but I think in most states it's required by law. Good law bad law???
If a Mack truck creams you while you are on your motorcycle head on while you're doing 75 and the truck is going 75... Forget about it! Helmet or no helmet you'll be seeing a tunnel with a light sure enough in my opinion. But, for those crashes where there is not significant trauma to the body to cause death or brain damage a helmet sounds like a great idea?
hehehe.......These aren't my stats, but the NHTSA's......Shame on you for calling the NHTSA a buncha liars, LMAO!!!!!!!
O.K........more "Fun With Numbers"
:46% fatality rate without helmet/54% fatality rate with helmet = a difference of 8 points.
29% that helmets might reduce fatalities.......29% + 8 points = 37% that no helmet might reduce fatalities...........
All I know is that AZ is a rider's choice state and I don't/won't wear one.....just like this guy :Trike1:.....he's not wearing one and he's doing just fine, ROTFLMAO!
Similar threads
Welcome to the Trike Talk Community
Join our vibrant online community dedicated to all things Trikes! Whether you're a seasoned rider or just starting out, this is the place to share experiences, tips, and stories about your three-wheeled adventures. Explore modifications, maintenance advice, and rides, all while connecting with fellow trike enthusiasts from around the globe
Forum statistics
Share this page
