Ducati Monster Forum

http://www.detnews.com/article/20110404/POLITICS02/104040334/Helmet-rules-likely-to-be-nixed (http://www.detnews.com/article/20110404/POLITICS02/104040334/Helmet-rules-likely-to-be-nixed)



I would really like to hear from someone in MI what their insurance rates are now and if they go up if this passes.

Helmet Laws: Good or Bad? Discuss. (again)


sac

(http://dcmetroarea.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/istock_can_of_worms.jpg)

(http://www.scalzi.com/whatever/155-1-lg.jpg)


Good Idea.

You could still die. But at least your chances of survival aren't hindered by NOT wearing a helmet.

If you don't want to wear a helmet, your choice.

+1...although I would never ride without a full-face helmet and other protective gear.

That said, this clip from the article is ridiculous. Unbelievable that someone would actually believe not wearing a helmet would give them a better defense!  [roll]

Sen. John Gleason, D-Flushing, doesn't ride himself, but said he was convinced to support change after talking to motorcycle enthusiasts.

"What I've been told is they can see and hear better (without) a helmet," Gleason said. "Most of the accidents that occur are cars hitting bikes, and it gives them a better defense."

I also don't buy the higher insurance rates for all of us argument as to why helmets should be required. Using that logic we may as well outlaw motorcycles all together since they're more dangerous than cars.

I tend to agree but I would really like to know if everyone's insurance rates go up once helmet laws are repealed. Being a ATGATT nazi I don't want to subsidize what I see as someone else's poor decision.


sac

reminds me of a conversation i had with a grizzly harley guy at a anti-helmet (or is that pro-freedom) booth at a race.
him- ya know if you crash, that helmet will break your neck
me- ohmygod...has anybody told those guys on the track...they are all wearing them.

Idaho- no helmet law...i would estimate in town  less than 50% wear helmets (and virtually none of the cruiser riders)
out of town, i would guesstimate 70% wear helmets

All for it, as long as you take care of the extra medical bills yourself so they don't affect my rates.

The problem I have with society at large is there is no consequence to making poor decisions...other than pain, disfigurement, and possible death, that is.  If you're dumb enough to ride lidless and get hurt, and you can't afford to pay your medical bills, society will pay them for you.  That's DUMB.  I think the removal of tax subsidies for the dumb in the form of mandates that hospitals care for people who can't afford it would fix half of our society's ills.  The other half also involve personal responsibility, but for taking care of your retirement and day-to-day medical care....but I digress.

Helmet laws:  bad
Riding without a helmet:  worse

I think we are in agreement.

I look at it like back when we were kids and our parents told that us all that we had to do something because it was for your own good - I look at it the same way here.

Some people need saving from themselves. Just suck it up, protect yourself, and ride responsibly.



*Note: I'm slightly biased because a full faced helmet saved my face/life once.

Note the change I made which many cagers would happily make.


I think we agree though.

+1, I don't disagree with Cloner, but that's exactly what I thought when I read his statement. 

Saved my life more than I can count between street bikes, dirt bikes, and racing go-karts.  But once you are an adult, its your responsibility to keep yourself alive

it hasn't in Texas

I agree. Not to deviate from the OP, but isn't the helmet law the same as seat belt laws?  It's your responsibility to buckle up in case sh!t happens.  But some are just too dumb to wear seat belt.  The govn't require you to wear so you can save your dumb ass, for the benefit of your loved ones (or young ones).

I see helmet law the same way - yes, its your responsiblity but some are just too dumb for his or her own good. 

Feel free to fire back at me.  I am prepared

Good example why ATGATT:

http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=47818.0 (http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=47818.0)

It's also their responsibility NOT to legislate morality but I digress...............
It's everyone's choice to do as they wish as it's also their own responsibility to pay for the damages to themselves should they be hurt with or without a helmet.  Insurance, medical especially, should be mandatory if you ride a motorcycle - and I'm talking about the individual kind or through work, want to steer clear of Big Brother on this one.  :-X

I dont hear too many first hand accounts but I'll give you one.  While maneuvering a wide 90* turn, I slid out on a morning dew covered manhole cover and was shot headfirst into a wood picket fence.  Well, the helmet and jacket pretty much saved me from crushing my skull and getting all mashed up.   I probably wouldn't have been wearing a helmet if there wasn't a law requiring it.  Even though I believe there should be a choice, someone like me was saved by not having that choice.
I've also seen some pretty make the beast with two backsed up accidents in my job where the helmet helped to limit the injury.  I'll admit though, its nice to go for a slow cruise and feel the wind in your hair.  I'm guilty of it. [moto]

I don't wear my helmet or my seatbelt because there is a law that says I have to.  I wear them because they are tools that have a chance of significantly reducing damage to me if there is an incident.  I resent some legislator or group who insist that they know what is best for me and use the force of arms of the government to enforce it.

I don't think insurance rates will be affected greatly by a change in the law.  They are largely based on bike type, your age, and the statistics of where you live.  

and a +1 to it should be the riders choice, not law, since we have enough laws already...

and a +1 to I wear mine 99.8% of the time - I feel naked without it and have no idea how people can live with bugs and rocks striking their face.

mitt

Staunchly defend my right to choose (MN)

I choose to wear the RF1000 religiously

the whole "insurance goes up bc of claims is a bogus argument" always has been and always will be.

insurance rates go up for one reason and one reason only.  

they are private companies to make a profit.

I 100% guarantee rates would go up even if nobody made a single claim ever because the ceo has to have his extra ferrari every year.  [laugh]

do what you want, wear a helmet if you want, don't wear one if you want.  Its your head you are an adult.

Oh, why not throw my 2¢ in as well...

When I was younger and dumber I rode a lot without a lid, but a wreck where I just happened to be wearing my gear changed my outlook. At current count, a helmet has saved me from death or vegetation at least once, and maybe twice.

I now wear mine all the time, and believe everyone else should too. There's no law in Kansas saying I have to do so.

As for a law, I would oppose it. It's my firm belief that I have a right to be dumb as hell if I want to be.

(That said, I do resent subsidizing other's idiocy.)

I am in SE Mich, in one of the burbs of Detroit and just heard about this today. I pay around $250 for full coverage for the year with progressive. Not sure what to expect, but im sure rates will go up some. I personally will continue to wear one all the time should it pass, but to each his/her own.

On a side note, mother in law got a kidney thanks to a doner from Ohio who was in a bad moto accident. A doc here in Mich told her she should get on the list there since they dont have the helmet law and she may get one quicker.  :-\

Don't know whether to laugh or cry about this one.  :-\

I guess it's important to find the silver lining in everything?

Thats my thoughts. Happy for her, but as a rider, felt horrible for the rider and his family. I guess thats where free will comes in and what is important to each person....is it more important to be as safe as possible, or have the wind in your hair. (and bugs in your teeth)  :-\

I am an organ donor, and would want my guts to go to a another human if it could save their life...  That said, I still wear my helmet and try pretty hard not to die while riding my bike. 

As far as the insurance argument:  If more people die from not wearing their helmet, wouldn't that save insurance companies the cost of hospital bills?  I bet a funeral costs less than 4 surgeries and a month in the hospital. 

like sbrguy said, rates go up because they want that cash money  [thumbsdown]

But seriously, How do people ride without a helmet?  I have done it once and the pain in my ears was unbearable. 

I live in a rural, marshy area - if I didn't wear a helmet, I would have so much bug DNA injected into my face.....I'd be even less hansome than I am now?  I can't imagine catching a junebug in the face.  I have no interest in riding without a helmet period. 

Fact is we don't know if helmets increase medical expenses or reduce medical expenses.  It costs more to take care of a disabled person than to bury a dead person.

thats what i think about everytime i take off my helmet and see bug armageddon all over it...  i dont know how the people who insist on no helmets deal with it.

I wonder the same thing....

What if you bury them in this?

(http://cdn2.iofferphoto.com/img/item/177/304/519/WInJ.jpg)

I don't think neithr that or the pyramid it goes in is covered by insurance unless you purchase a special rider.

meh, let people of Michigan do what they want, it is their heads and not ours. I like my helmet cause A, it makes me look cool, and B I feel naked if I dun wear it when on a bike.  [moto]

well lets put it this way.  Most medical insurers have clauses that can deny claims to injured riders that were not wearing "safety gear" which generally means helmets.  Here in TX Aetna did just that and it was upheld.  So in the end you can choose to be cool and take your chances.  Up until about four years ago I never wore one on my cruiser but always on my sportbike.  I'm not past being cool and always wear one no matter what bike.

In my opinion, you choose to wear a helmet or not.  I prefer to wear one all the time.  But please, please, please don't be one of those douche bags who ride around without a helmet on their head but one attached to the bike somewhere.  When I see them I just about pray that they crash.

Y'know...... when I read a thread like this one.... makes me realise that America is different.   So much so that I struggle to understand why.... how there could even be... any debate.   Like many places on earth, I live in a society where medical help is not dependant on private insurance and as such its my feeling that We The Taxpayer - we who will pay your medical bills in the event of serious injury - We do have a right to expect that you take some action to minimise the impact of any.... expensive injury. 

We pay the bill if you make the beast with two backs up, so yes, We demand that you adhere to a minimum level of protection.  We demand that you - at least - wear a helmet.  I dont have a problem with this (but then I'd wear a helmet even if society didnt require it of me).

But I do understand the attraction of the Free To Do As You Like philosophy (no matter how foolish it could turn out to be) [thumbsup].   Just dont expect the rest of society to fund cleaning up any mess you may make.

This.

A body should be free to do as it wishes, so long as it doesn't infringe on the freedoms of others.

The other side of that coin that no one should be expected to pick up the bill for your idiocy.

If I believed that socialized health care was good, and we had it, I would also say that helmets should be mandatory.

But I don't, and we don't, so I still believe that, as an adult, the onus is on me to keep me alive.  [thumbsup]

that seems to be a slippery slope.  where do they stop?  boots?  Gloves? jacket? pants?  those are all safety gear for a bike rider.

Could just go with the DOD requirements... but then you'd see everyone wearing the gay little reflective vests...

BTW, DOD is:
Helmet
Safety glasses / goggles if not a full-face helmet
long sleeves
full finger gloves
long pants
boots
High visibility colors during the day, reflective at night

It's up to them, after all they are a private insurer and they can run their business as they see fit.

exactly, but my question was more to the ambiguity of the poster's description. 

It seems to me (I could be, wrong) that the ones who protest/complain the most about having to wear helmets out here (CA) are the worst riders... It always seems to be the type that rides a few miles to the bar on a large, overweight, underpowered bike covered in chrome. Then drink beers all day, then ride home. 

Of course, I had someone on an extended swingarm Hayabusa caution me once that "It's gonna be hot this weekend.  If you're gonna ride, you might wanna leave your jacket at home."  He had one of those "Penis-Head" helmets with the spike on the top.  [roll]

My take is, you should have the freedom to choose whether or not to be safe.  We don't have that choice here in Kalifornia, but it doesn't affect me, because I wear full gear 99% of the time. Occasionally I'll commute the 12 miles to work in jeans, but still armored leather jacket, full face helmet, armored gloves, and moto boots.

Now, if I'm organizing a group ride, I require the people I ride with the have full gear.  Feel free to flame me if you wish, but here's my reasoning.   If by chance you have a mishap and go down, chances are likely you'll be way better off wearing full gear than a t-shirt and shorts.  I don't want to be the guy who has to scrape you off the road with a spatula.  :P  Hey, I'm a selfish prick...  :-*

My insistence on this point has been reinforced three times in the last few years. 

Ride 1:  Friend who had been leading pulled over to take pics of us coming by.  As she was catching up to us, she took a curve slightly faster than normal, and dragged her DP low-mounts.  This caused her to straighten up a bit, but she ended up in a ditch.  She went over the bars and landed squarely on her head.  Helmet saved her life.  She ended up with a separated shoulder, and an upgrade from a 620Dark to an M800...

Ride 2:  Fellow rider here on the DMF.  On a previous ride (not mine) he showed up in jeans and Doc Marten's.  He said he was a new rider and didn't have much gear.  I lent him my spare pair of moto boots until he could get his own.  I invited him along on another ride, and he showed up with brand new boots and pants.  [thumbsup]  On the way back down the mountain, he lowsided in some gravel that had been strewn across the roadway by construction trucks.  His only injury? A skinned knuckle where a seam on his glove failed.

Ride 3:  A couple of weeks ago a buddy (fellow DMF'r) and I took a 200 mile ride to break in his new (old Ducati) bike.  On the way home he had a slow speed get-off.  His entire left leg would have been hamburger if not for his gear.  He ended up with a small scrape on his leg where the pants got pinned under the bike and tore.

In each of these instances, if not for helmets and leathers, they would have gotten seriously make the beast with two backsed up.

Okay, I jacked the thread a bit...  But my point is, if you have a choice, make it a smart one.  Wear your gear and more than likely you'll be able to walk away.  If you're really lucky, you'll be able to pick your bike up and ride home.

Please be safe, people...  [moto]


 [bacon]

Mate, thats sounds absolutely reasonable to me.

honestly i just moved there and thought it was already 86'd

Pennsylvania doesn't have a helmet law and when riding there I am amazed at the people riding with no helmets.  Staties give you $100.00 tickets for not wearing a seatbelt but no helmet and you're good to go.  Amazes me that people don't ride with one but will throw it on their bike as an accessory. 

Gear, all the time!

I'm sure the ambiguity favors them no matter what.  I still think if you're on two wheels or four you should show proof of medical insurance regardless, it's the responsible thing to do.  If you can afford bikes and cars you have enough money to pay medical insurance.

Perfectly reasonable. I used to refuse to go on mtn. bike rides with people who didn't wear a helmet.

actually, ambiguity in a contract is always construed against the drafter, which would be the insurance company.  i wonder if there has been any actual litigation on it, because while everyone might agree a helmet is a minimum safety "accessory", everything else could be arguable.

hi,
I'm reading this tread and can't belive
you don't have helmet law  :o

Sorry to be so surprised, but here in Croatia we kinda look up to americans for many things. And helemts here are manditory by our laws. Though I hate being without a glowes not to mention jacket and helmet  ;)
ticket for not wearing a helmet goes from 100$ to 400$ (considering our salaries are around 450$)  ;D

Lore

In the US, each state sets its own laws for cars and motos.  Some states do not have mandatory helment laws but most do.  It's a philosophical difference from Europe. 

[thumbsup]


I read before some time in France is manditory even to have reflective sticker on helmet  [thumbsup]


and sorry for intrusing the tread  ;D

Lore - Welcome!

It's a safe bet that most of the people here wear their gear regardless of being required to by law.  I wear mine all the time but I greatly resent a law that requires me to.  Just a different mindset.  In my state, (Wisconsin) we are not required to wear a helmet unless you are less than 18 years old. 

Do they specify what type of helmet, etc in Croatia?

Personally, I think it should be the same way here. But many American's become fearful of loosing "the right to choose" which I find (IMHO - and no offense) is really stupid because for a lot of people, it's only a reason to complain about something.

Freedom is a broad subject and covers a lot of ground. Of all the things to get all upset over, I think that this is ultimately a minimal issue. Americans tend to be are really touchy about their rights and freedoms (sometimes rightfully so) but I see that for the most part, any infringements on them aggravates the underlying fear of loosing something greater which makes little issues like this much bigger than they need to be.

I like having multiple helmets to choose from; I look at them as adding something to the riding experience, and if it adds a layer of protection - fine. I really don't see the problem.

Yes, it has to be full face helmet for "biger" bikes (we have 3 kategories od licences: <50 ccm, <125 ccm , 125<... if you don't understand I'll explain later)
for scooters may be used jet helmet
for chopers i'm not sure  ???

this kind of helmet is not regular and you can get ticket (http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkdnTR_26wYVUw2Ue6v2IlTYH5JTxTjf1jXUVWOqj8blhtdURs_g)

and all our helmet have to have EC (or somethin  ;D ) homologation mark for europe (http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2F1dGlnOqhr5m7U7FTItEh6_Jn2RAB85wJQAGJDDITD3SYDnn)

this one is a nice alternative when riding a cruiser or similar.  Have had two of them and they are DOT approved.
http://www.headtriphelmets.com/ (http://www.headtriphelmets.com/)

Freedom is freedom, no matter  how small.

Evidentally I am "really stupid" for valuing my liberties so you may want to disregard my prior posts.

true enough.  [thumbsup]

Then you agree that it's just something else to complain about?? Because that's what I said - not that anyone's values were stupid.

Read more closely.

No, I understand what are you trying to say(i think, don't know much english  ;D ) No one likes to be unallowed of anything
 For example: we have a law for manditory lights on in winter time on cars, my friend keeps them off (even he's driving instructor) just in spite so other will be "smarter" than him and turn them on  ;D

motorcycles must have lights on all year  [thumbsup] it's the law, but also keep us more visible

just think.  if they gave out free Ducatis or MVs with a hooker, no one would give a shit about helmet laws.

I'll donate the hooker to someone on the board but will keep the Duc/MV's.  :o

They are all clones of Rosaria Cannavo.

let's get it back on topic...OK?

I asked nicely...

My bad.  I replied before I saw your post.  Deleted  [thumbsup]

My face isn't much to look at, but I can't imagine grinding it on the pavement would improve matters.

My new helmet covers more.  8) Granted with this type of helmet you hope you are grinding on the grass instead of pavement. 

exfoliation is supposed to be good for you...

Helmets for bicycles are mandatory over here as well.  :-\

But only for riders over 16 years of age, which I still don't understand. Riders under 16 don't get head injuries?

That's very extremely true.

I found I was generally immortal till sometime in my mid-20s. I may have actually become mortal early, as I believe the onset of mortality is pretty variable.

  funny
in Croatia bicycles helmets have to wear children under 16 , us "adults" don't have to wear them at all
but at night time all bicycle riders must have reflective vest

[laugh]

Still young, dumb, and invincible at 23 over here... I'll let you know what happens after tomorrow when I get older.

I can't see why it wouldn't affect insurance rates in a negative way.  In states with helmet laws nearly 100% of riders wear helmets.  In states with no helmet law it's around 50-60% of riders who wear helmets.  These are FACTS...not hearsay.

This is not a freedom issue, this is a convenience issue...nothing more.  It's akin to wearing a seatbelt in a car, it is a minor inconvenience.

One thing you'll never get the "freedom" fighters to admit is that you are setting a bad example for young riders by not wearing a helmet.  You are basically telling them that it's okay not to wear a helmet.  Don't do as I do, do as I say...

Personally, I have no problem with mandatory helmet laws.  They exist in the state I live and ride in and I support them.

I am really ambivalent about the laws.

Mainly because I would wear it either way.

With our current laws covering required care at hospitals though, I lean towards mandatory use.

But I don't think hospitals should be required to treat everyone who comes thru the door.

thats' just me.

they should treat everyone that comes thru the door, that's a moral issue.

they also should be billed for the expense, that's reality.

IMHO forcing doctors to treat any patient is tantamount to involuntary servitude, something banned by the 13th Amendment.  moral issues are problematic when you put them into law. 

maybe i'm a doctor and it's against my faith to treat people who act stupidly (ride without a helmet) or are harmed due to an intentional self-inflicted act (such as a drug overdose)..  that's a hypothetical, but it just gets hairy when you tell people how to act "morally" and put the force of law behind it...

that's all i'll say...  [drink]

Have you seen the cost of medical insurance lately?

No, it isn't.  It's their job.  They took an oath as part of the training.

If it's against your faith to treat people who act stupid then you're in the wrong profession.

have you actually read that oath?  there is nothing in the hippocratic oath that says you have to treat everyone.

http://tinyurl.com/muwm92 (http://tinyurl.com/muwm92)

Your argument fails when you ask "who decides what is stupid?"

Your frame snaps and your are injured in the crash. The doctor looks at you and says, "Didn't he thoroughly inspect the welds on the frame before he went riding? Its not about engaging in risky behavior or expectation that the manufacturer did their job well. After all, I inspect all of my equipment when I rock climb. He shouldn't have been on the damn thing in the first place if he is going to be irresponsible like that. Boy is he stupid. I'm going to let him die."

Or maybe he starts mulling the situation over and five minutes later he decides you are not stupid and he will treat. Unfortunately you died 4 minutes after getting to him.

Save lives first, ask questions later, bill appropriately. That seems like a sane policy to me.

Firefighters, cops, air traffic controllers, general contractors and a slew of other professions have a huge chunk of their discretion taken away from them by law and regulation. This makes them do their job regardless of whether they want to or not. This is so they don't kill people while deciding whether they want to do their job for this particular person.

There are plenty of doctors who have their own clinics and can pick and choose their patients. There is nothing illegal about this. But in hospitals are required to require their doctors to help their patients. Follow?

sac

Agreed, I have friends who are EMTs and they all think motorcyclists are nuts for riding but they always scrape them off the pavement and cart them to the hospital because that is their job.  If they don't do it, they aren't doing their job.

Sac, I was speaking hypothetically, which is why I used the well-known "IMHO."

Clearly, both the AMA and courts disagree with me.  I'm fine with that. 

However, to answer your initial comment, it doesn't fail at all if one (as a physician) is using one's personal judgment, which they are allowed to do within the scope of treatment. 

A physician in private practice may also choose not to take on a patient, or to cancel the relationship with an ongoing patient. 

I know hospitals are required to do otherwise for ER patients, stabilize them, and then discharge them when they can't pay, and I know that's the law almost everywhere.  You just missed my intent.



not really relevant to my comment though.. thanks for the input.



EMTs are wonderful people for a lot of reasons, but they are not doctors and they do not take the Hippocratic oath. 

IMHO is well known to mean "in my honest opinion." It does not denote "speaking hypothetically." The word "should" in your comment suggests that you are of the opinion doctors actually "should" be able to deny their services if they believe someone acted stupidly.




Um . . . er . . .

(http://longtermtourists.com/fark/quizzical_dog.gif)


Okay then.

Boy it sure seems like the trend is to repeal mandatory helmet laws. That's something, isn't it? I wonder why that is he says hoping to veer back on topic.

sac

Nope... but that doctor who decided to work at the hospital has to treat everyone as a job requirement from his employer.  Doctor in his own practice... not so much.

Well that's what we've been discussing...hospital/emergency care.

Last time I was in the ER was for taking a surfboard to my lower lip.  Split it right open so I needed stitches, and not just regular ER doctor stitches either, plastic surgeon stitches.  I had to wait 2 hours because the Doc was sewing some guys nose back on who got in a fight in the county jail.  The plastic surgeon had a private practice of his own but did this work pro bono.  Lucky for me.  Otherwise I'd have a lower lip that doesn't look quite right.

Maybe we should have doctors asking if you're a liberal or a conservative before working on you?  Or if you believe in abortion?  It's about as arbitrary as did you do something stupid.  Nah, how about we just leave it as it is currently and they work on everyone?   [thumbsup]

it also means "in my humble opinion" , which is all i meant it to be.


so the doc who fixed you up was voluntarily donating his time?  good on him.

In my humble opinion.... this thread has meandered off to someplace only vaguely associated with the original topic.

Not that thats necessarily bad.... just saying.

Carry on  [popcorn].

That's what he told me.  Can you imagine the expense of having a plastic surgeon on staff at an ER full time?

Believe me, I'm very thankful he did.  I'm not an overly handsome man but I don't want scars all over my face either and you can barely see this one if I point it out to you.   ;D

Yes, this thread is now officially derailed.

Its official

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120413/POLITICS02/204130397/1409/metro/Snyder-signs-repeal-Michigan-s-motorcycle-helmet-law (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120413/POLITICS02/204130397/1409/metro/Snyder-signs-repeal-Michigan-s-motorcycle-helmet-law)

Great, higher insurance rates for both health and the bike but hey, they say tourism will be up.

DICKS!

Saw this posted in one of the local papers editorial columns.  To the point, methinks.

"So... this issue was not offered up to the electorate for a vote. Which means we all will 'benefit' from this freedom by paying higher insurance premiums without our input. In a nutshell, that should arouse suspicion.

I have no issue with the 'freedom' aspect of the helmet law. What would have been more forward-thinking is if those seeking 'freedom' would post a 2 million dollar bond in case they were incapacitated, debilitated or otherwise put in a long-term medical situation. The bond would hold the rider liable without the need for insurance to cover the costs. I don't want to directly or indirectly pay for some other rider's misfortune (which is compounded) during an accident without a helmet.

By the way, have you ever seen what a motorcycle crash headstrike looks like?

Sometimes freedom isn't free. I've been a rider for 21 years. This is a step backward in transportation safety. Does that mean we take air bags out of cars if someone believes they want their freedom?"

multiple states have had no helmet laws for a while.  it would be a realatively easy matter to examine insurance and medical costs before and after the law was passed.

there are plenty of riders who wear "novelty" helmets which provide no protection.

Outside of the cost caused by injuries involving riders not wearing helmets (which I am not sure any of us can answer right now).


Who gives a shit? I personally would never ride without proper gear. That is called common sense.


For all these "road pirates" in their doo rags.....let them scrape their head for all I care. Darwinism at work.

Helmets are for people who crash.  Since I have never crashed I don't see a need to wear a helmet... or be required to wear a helmet. 

Seatbelts are for people who crash too.  I'm not one of them.  I don't crash so I don't wear a seatbelt.  It's common sense right?

I'll be sure to tell my son to wear a helmet though even though I don't.  Why should he look to me to set an example?

In my opinion: It should fall to the insurance companies. 

1- If you elect to ride without a lid:
your choice. 

2-But, since there is higher potential for much higher medical costs involved:
you pay a higher premium.

3-Should you ride w/o a helmet & sustain a head injury:
insurance covers your medical costs until the $ runs out then the burden falls onto family & friends.

My Two Cents..

I would agree with this, however there is no way for an insurance company to police this. Very easy to say "sure I'll wear a helmet" to get the lower premium then not wear one. Of course once the report is filed after an accident and no helmet was used, insurance companies could refuse payment. This would only lead to court battle, Im sure.

7 pages of helmet debates.  [laugh]
this subject is just like any morality issue to me.  Do as you wish and you pay the price, I'm sick of "holier than though" pricks trying to infiltrate every aspect of our lives.   Insurance companies have the right to deny any treatment for someone not wearing a helmet......period.

I am not certain that is the case, in fact, if it's legal to ride in your state without a helmet an insurer cannot deny a claim based on that UNLESS you contractually agreed to wear one.

Riding whitout a helmet is just plain stupid! Period!  [roll]

 

Guess I'll look more goofy now because I'll continue to wear full gear... oh well. I worry about my mom who's back on a bike (riding cupcake w/ her "new" beau ...but she use to ride a gnarly raked out Japanese bike with a coffin tank) He's got a Rocket III but they ride with harley folk.

Insurance is gonna be a mixed bag for different states and for lack of a better word "demographics"  just like it's always been. I think this is bad  but the arguement for the repeal is valid... seat belts, recycling, passengers in the bed of a pickup may soon fall too. Morally I'm for all these but sometimes I forget to buckle up for a block or two; think it's asinine to require beverages-that-fizz bottles be recycled yet water and juice bottles can go to the landfill; and finally cruising the beach in the back of a truck was fun... don't know when the mitten turned into a nanny state...

I'm kinda torn on this one but my Shark RSX flag saved my face. The chin bar was grided a bit and it had bloody teeth impressions inside when I turned it over to the insurance agent for the claim. The 695 was totaled but I'm fine and so is all my other gear.

The repeal requires those 21 and up to get 20k in medical insurance. I think that won't cover head trauma but it doesn't matter.  There's nothing on my issuance binder saying I have extra medical. This measure that protects my wallet from the road pirates is unenforceable until after the fact like the texting and driving laws.

I guess I'm gonna acquiesce since driving/riding is not a right.  I may pay more but I'm not giving up these privileges.

Not in Texas.   It's already been through the courts.

I am sure plenty has been said for and against helmet law in this thread.  I don't think I can add any more fuel to the fire.  Just want to add this though:

18 months ago, a careless driver made an illegal turn and t-boned me while I was going 35 miles.  It's a relative slow speed collision that I didn't even see coming.  One sec I was riding, the next second I was knocked out and sliding on my side.  Although I sustained a couple broken ribs and soft tissue injury to my left ankle, my head was fine; just a small paint chip on my helmet.  Without a full face helmet (or even a helmet), I wouldn't be just doing rehab on my ankle, I'd be learning how to talk again. 

IMO, there are people who can't make the right decision to save their own lives (pun intended) that it would require a state law to help them stay alive.

My accident was slow as well, 30-35mph. Never found the face shield to my helmet...

I think a portion of the cost of a helmet should be added to the cost of the bike and be given out at the dealer when you get the bike. If you are so dumb that you don't want to wear it even after having one.. I guess it should be left to the individual to face the outcome should an event occur. And the insurance company should be allowed to cap medical payments if the rider/ pillion did not have gear when they go down (and of course have full disclosure of this when you get the insurance and NOT fine print).

Its been one year and a study in the local paper today states "Deaths jump 18 percent since allowing bikers to ride without helmets".

I can't find article online yet to link but I'm sure it will be around later today.

more funerals of bikers expected i Michegan then ?

broken legs and arms , crushed vertibrae ,busted ribs and collar bones  burned and scuffed skin can be fixed , heads smashed like eggs cant

Cigarette smoking is legal too, that doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it.

I could care less about the helmet law, i'd still wear mine.

+1, but I'm all for less laws "intended" to protect people.

Gene Pool Lifeguard....let natural selection do it's job in weeding out those who deem it unnecessary to protect themselves in the pursuit of performing risky activity.

(http://i.imgur.com/PyN2w.png)

I am an ATTGAT rider as well.  I have replaced more helmets than bikes.  That being said I did a little vacation in Hawaii and rented a V-Rod for a couple of days. 

I have to admit that it was awesome to ride around with no lid in Hawaii.  The entire time I waited to get killed by a tourist but it was still amazing and I am darn glad that I had the choice to do something stupid. 

It was the first time in 30 years I had ridden a motorcycle without a helmet and it was a treat.  Would I do it all the time?  Heck no!

i didnt read any of this thread, but my opinion is.....

helmets are always a good idea, I cant remember the last time Ive ridden without one (started riding in tx where there is no helmet law, now in ny where im pretty sure there is)
helmet laws on the other hand, bad.

if you dont wear a helmet you are not risking injury to anyone other than yourself it should be your own choice to make a dumb decision

a helmet law is just like bloombergs large soda ban..... and that one obv didnt hold up in court

Let's keep this to the helmet law in MI

We don't do politics.

from the op: Helmet Laws: Good or Bad? Discuss

i fail to see how my comment is off topic or how you can keep politics out of a thread that is discussing if a law is a good or bad idea... hmmmm [bacon]

don't poke a grizzley with a twig...you'll lose...

discussing a law and discussing politics can be 2 different things...especially with this particular subject.

 The only way that not wearing a helmet does not effect anyone but the helmetless is if the individual has not relatives or loved ones. A person living on life support is a tragedy for family and society as a whole. Why not get rid of seatbelts and airbags? Ad child seats? And on and on.....
  While we could just allow those with poor judgement to go ahead and cripple, maim, or kill themselves, should we?

i dont think there is winning or losing on a forum.
 
as to your second thing, If this is the case I admit my ignorance on not being able to differentiate which parts of my post are on or off topic. anyways I made my opinion known and shall move on [thumbsup] If its really an issue by all means pm me with specifics to avoid any further posting mistakes.

dont get me started ive been warned haha, I am against the fact you can get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt but never get in a car without wearing one (hints against seat belt laws but am all for wearing them because its smart). Anyways i retract my previous comment and now understand why you didnt want me to go there and see how this is heading off topic.

Your comments about Mayor Bloomberg are off topic and political.

Do you understand it now?

My girlfriend and I were driving around the other day when it was super nice outside, like 78 degrees on a saturday. Every 15 seconds I saw a bike. As the day went on i noticed a steady trend of harley riders and not wearing helmets. Yes, specifically harleys not just cruisers in general. For every 6 harleys we saw, only 1 was wearing ANY kind of helmet. Whereas sport/naked/adventure/import cruisers were the exact opposite, 10 helmet wearers for every 1 non-wearer.

just something that stood out to me to the point where i actually kept count throughout the day.

Darwinism  ;D

I live in MI and my bike insurance prices never fluctuated much.  I would never be caught without my RF-1100.  :)

I live in AZ, helmets are optional.

I'm MOGMOTT.  I ride helmetless (and sometimes in shorts and a t-shirt) whenever I do work on my bike (like an oil change).  I do have two miles of rarely trafficked sorta private road to play on.  This is also the only time I don't ride with earplugs.  It lets me hear if the bike is unhappy (found my second destroyed chain guard this way).

Why do I wear gear?  It makes riding so much more comfortable (with the possible exception of full face helmets... but I have those too... sometimes the wind in your face makes a half/three-quarter/motocross helmet totally worth the bugs, and less of them hit your face than get smeared on your full-face helmet.  Thank the gods of aero for that). 

You ride in your gear, I'll ride in mine.  To be honest, I don't care how much you buy into the DOT definitions, that's your choice.  I prefer having the choice to decide for myself.

+1
last year it seemed like every weekend you'd see more and more without helmets. I wonder what this spring will bring when (if) we finally get some warmer weather to ride in....

I agree. If we get some good weather, but I'm betting even more riders this year without a lid and ill wager deaths rise another 10-15percent next year.

What city are you guys in?  I am taking delivery on my 1100evo next week and would love to meet up and ride sometime this year.    8)

My brother in law was a career EMT up until about 5 years ago.  His stories of gruesome motorcycle accidents have always stuck in my mind - some of these accidents a helmet wouldn't have mattered much.  However,  I recall him explaining when dispatch would call them out to an accident involving a motorcycle they would identify "with or without helmet" as to help prepare the team for what to expect for on-site trauma care.  And yes the most brutal stories often involved riders that wanted to express their helmet-less freedom...think watermelons and concrete.  He said in these cases there was typically much more on-site care involved, more involvement of medical personal from the EMTs to the ER docs, higher ratios of helicopter medivac, higher fatality rates, and ultimately many more tax and/or insurance dollars spent.  All in the name of freedom  [clap]   

With that being said, I wear my helmet as religiously as my seat belt.

^^Same here, my dad was a career emt as well.  I grew up hearing some brutal stories.  I will never pull out on a road without my gear on.  Just the stories alone will always keep it that way.

PM sent