PSA: Wear your helmet stupid...

[vette-ss]

This story always gets me:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011 ... death.html

[iamkickstand]

i also heard that they want to legalize larger fireworks (i.e. m-80's) also. so let's get this straight, we can run atv's along county roads, ride our harleys with no helmets (argh matey's , the pirates rejoice), what's next for our brave new michigan? marrying our first cousins, lower the age of consent to 10 yrs old. why don't we just change the states name to new kentucky? shoo-dang.

The ATV law is shoulder only and depends on what county you are in. It's up to that county if they
want to allow it or not. This law came about to promote tourism, unfortunately ATVing is huge in
Northern Mi. They did it mainly so they could get from one trail to the next and to also get gas,
food etc.. ATVer's like snowmobiler's spend of alot of money when they are up north which is in
turn good for the local ecnomy. We have friends that own a local general store/resort, these two
activites are a large scource of income for them every year. This past winter was very hard
on local small businesses up north, they are hoping to make some of it back with a great summer
unlike the rainy one last year.

Yup, and the places that they are allowing them ride on the shoulders allows them (us) to get from town to town and expand on the trail system by being able to legally link the trails together to go for a longer ride. I don't see any negatives from this at all.

[utabintarbo]

This story always gets me:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011 ... death.html

Anecdotal cases rarely make for good law.

[b_b]

The atv shoulder law is a good one. Localities have full control where they want to allow it. Trails might run near a town, so this just allows them to get into town from the trail to buy gas, food, lodging, etc.

[tom]

while i may not have been from kentucky, i feel northern michigan isn't a real stretch from that type of redneck.

most harley pirates just go from bar to bar, so shifting out of first gear is not a really that big a deal. same goes for the hoped for hords of bikers coming to michigan because of the helmet law. most long haul bikers wear helmets anyway.

as for the "don't tread on me" folks, yeah, it makes sense if your are dealing with people with common sense, but those laws were made because people don't have common sense. does riding a motorcycle without a helmet seem like common sense? does it on your bicycle? if you see no downside of atv's on the side of the road kicking up dust and eroding the shoulder of the highway, your county must have a tremendous road commision budget, and when you neighbors start blowing off m-80's at 2 in the morning, just think of it as the sound of freedom.

oh, and have a happy morning out there everyone

[Critter7r]

P.S. I don't think the 'state' really incurs expenses from injured motorcyclists, but the insurance companies do. And they'll simply be raising Michigan motorcyclists' insurance rates to compensate for it.

Honestly, I'm probably not well enough informed to be commenting in this thread :-/ you are probably right. I guess what I meant by "cost to the state" was more the indirect expenses. Medical expenses (short and long term) paid through state insurance, insurance premium increases to other individuals if the insurance companies can't make up the added cost of payouts on its helmet-less customers alone, etc. Like I said, I'm not particularly well informed. I'm learning here. These may all be non-issues. If so, please set me straight

I must say though, I like your points about the government's place (or rather the absence of it) in regulating personal safety. So long as your decision to not take measures to increase your personal safety doesn't affect others.

I'm no fountain of knowledge on the subject either, but with the insurance laws the way they are, I can't see the State taking on much obligation for someone crashing.

So ... if one were to crash without a helmet, it would obviously affect others, but it would be that person's family and friends. So my take is that if a pefect stranger gets into an accident on his motorcycle, then I'm not going to be negatviely affected by his choice of whether or not to wear a helmet. And the whole argument about his medical bills making my (and everyone else's) insurance cost more is a non-issue to me. There were about 80,000 people injured on motorcycles last year in the whole country, but I can't find a statistic that shows how many of those were head injuries. Specifically head injuries that caused enough damage to make the rider become a vegtable or be in a coma that required them to be cared for as invalids for their remaining years (therefore running up huge insurance bills). I'd guess that it's a pretty small number. I'm assuming that many or most of those injuries were relatively minor (i.e. broken bones and/or lacerations that will ultimately heal completely and leave little lasting damage).

[Leroi Brown]

If you think that the bank of the taxpayers (aka the "government") won't be affected long-term by caring for motorcycle closed head injury victims, think again. They only need to carry an extra $20k of insurance! When that runs out, and their other/supplemental policies (if they even have them) run out, where do you think these people end up to have their feeding tubes primed?? State/county extended care facilities! Do you think these facilities say "well, their insurance ran out, so I guess it's time to pull the plug"? NO.....this does not and cannot happen per state law. Healthcare facilities are obligated to care for these people, and receive supplementation from the State of MI.

I sure hope the lobbyists adequately filled the pockets of whomever they lobbied, and that these people put this money into a fund to pay for the care of motorcycle head injury victims.....oh, and then we woke up and saw an additional strain on state funds!

[iamkickstand]

while i may not have been from kentucky, i feel northern michigan isn't a real stretch from that type of redneck.

most harley pirates just go from bar to bar, so shifting out of first gear is not a really that big a deal. same goes for the hoped for hords of bikers coming to michigan because of the helmet law. most long haul bikers wear helmets anyway.

as for the "don't tread on me" folks, yeah, it makes sense if your are dealing with people with common sense, but those laws were made because people don't have common sense. does riding a motorcycle without a helmet seem like common sense? does it on your bicycle? if you see no downside of atv's on the side of the road kicking up dust and eroding the shoulder of the highway, your county must have a tremendous road commision budget, and when you neighbors start blowing off m-80's at 2 in the morning, just think of it as the sound of freedom.

oh, and have a happy morning out there everyone

such a positive outlook you have on life my friend.

Common sense isn't so common, but I have enough of it that I don't need anyone telling me which personal safety items I need to use or not use, I can make that choice for myself.

As for the ATV's, sure the dust isn't ideal, and the erosion? I venture to guess the roadway will deteriorate from the logging trucks, sun, salt, and traffic long before a little shoulder erosion is going to destroy the road.

Just because an M-80 is legal, doesn't mean blowing it off at 2AM is, so you still have legal recourse if your neighbor is doing so.

I mean, thats like saying that your neighbor is gonna shoot his gun at 2am everynight, or shoot you, just because he has a gun.

[Critter7r]

while i may not have been from kentucky, i feel northern michigan isn't a real stretch from that type of redneck.

most harley pirates just go from bar to bar, so shifting out of first gear is not a really that big a deal. same goes for the hoped for hords of bikers coming to michigan because of the helmet law. most long haul bikers wear helmets anyway.

as for the "don't tread on me" folks, yeah, it makes sense if your are dealing with people with common sense, but those laws were made because people don't have common sense. does riding a motorcycle without a helmet seem like common sense? does it on your bicycle? if you see no downside of atv's on the side of the road kicking up dust and eroding the shoulder of the highway, your county must have a tremendous road commision budget, and when you neighbors start blowing off m-80's at 2 in the morning, just think of it as the sound of freedom.

oh, and have a happy morning out there everyone

No, riding without a helmet (to me) doesn't make sense. But I'm a "what's the price of failure" kind of guy. To me, the highest price of crashing without a helmet is death, and I'm not willing to pay that price. But other people may be the "what's the chance of failure" kind, and to them, the chance is low enough that they're willing to take that risk. And who am I to tell them that they can't, just because I wouldn't?

I'd assume that the folks in charge would take into consideration the extra maintenance that would be necessary for roads with ORV right-of-ways when they calculate the amount of revenue that would be generated by gas taxes, park fees and new business locating in their county due to the additional ORV'ers coming there for their great trails and ORV-friendliness.

It's not going to be any more legal to fire off an M80 at 2 am when M80s are legalized (if they're not already) due to noise laws.

[tom]

you "assume" alot. the people that seem to have a great distrust of the highest officials have all the faith in the world of the cost calcualtions of projected income from atv'ers of a local official? really? just because there is a noise ordance law, you think that will deter rednecks with much easier access to fire works? maybe if we have a warning label on the fire works that says not to light them when your drunk will solve all the problems. i guess this "new-kentucky" gig isn't that much of a stretch, maybe we can make our state a honeymoon destination for contestants on my big redneck wedding.

[flamingo]

So now. You hit a guy on the motorcycle he gets a head injury or dies which he wouldn't if he was wearing the helmet.
The court decides you caused the accident. I guess you go to jail or pay his medical expenses which you otherwise would not if he was wearing the helmet. Am I right on this one?

[mr_opjones]

People don’t set out with the intention of getting hit or hurt. It is one’s personal preference how they want to protect themselves if that were to happen. If you hit someone and you’re at fault, then you have to pay the consequences of your actions. If everyone just followed the law there would be almost no traffic crashes/incidents.

[iamkickstand]

you "assume" alot. the people that seem to have a great distrust of the highest officials have all the faith in the world of the cost calcualtions of projected income from atv'ers of a local official? really? just because there is a noise ordance law, you think that will deter rednecks with much easier access to fire works? maybe if we have a warning label on the fire works that says not to light them when your drunk will solve all the problems. i guess this "new-kentucky" gig isn't that much of a stretch, maybe we can make our state a honeymoon destination for contestants on my big redneck wedding.

You really think that m80's are hard to get your hands on? You act like making it legal to own m80's going to increase the "redneck" population's appetite for something they already have their hands on....further you act like the people who were following the letter of the law and not buying illegal fireworks are going to all of a sudden act out illegally and disrespectfully by lighting them off at 2am.....

If you speed do you think if they raised the speed limit another 5 mph you'd magically stop speeding?

[flamingo]

People don’t set out with the intention of getting hit or hurt. It is one’s personal preference how they want to protect themselves if that were to happen. If you hit someone and you’re at fault, then you have to pay the consequences of your actions. If everyone just followed the law there would be almost no traffic crashes/incidents.

People make honest mistakes. You can have a biker in your blind spot, get distracted by your baby etc. The government just increased the liability of everybody.
That's why we have the seat belt law. To protect us even if it is not our fault.

[Di_bear]

they require you to purchase an additional amount of insurance if you want to ride helmet less.

Which is funny because a dead person usually costs less than an injured, helmeted rider who needs extensive care to fix the numerous broken bones, endure physical therapy, and house them in a hospital bed that is more costly than a night at the Hilton.

The spike in insurance is a scam, but it doesn't really affect me. I'm personally not a fan of motorcycles. It's scary enough what could happen to me while driving in my SUV. If I *did* ride a motorcycle, I'd be too scared *not* to wear a helmet--which is the case with mountain biking.