Honda CBR 600RR Forum banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
I personally hope it doesn't pass (safety reasons aside - it's a no-brainer) because I don't want that lame "Michigan Catastrophic Claim Assessment" fee to take ANOTHER huge jump and in turn, raise every motorcyclist's insurance premiums.

I can only imagine insurance companies passing on a higher "surcharge" for our state's "Catastophic Claims" fee if the helmet law gets repealed.

Freedom of choice to wear a helmet - fine, OK. I get it. Cruisers enjoy it. And perhaps those on sportbikes who like to squid it up too...LOL

But don't penalize EVERY biker who chooses to gear up and continue to wear a helmet. Make the catastrophic fee increase applicable to ONLY THOSE who "choose" to not wear a helmet - since they value their "freedom of choice" so much, allow them to "choose" to pay the increases when their Michigan Catastrophic Claim assessment jumps up.

Give geared up riders a choice and don't punish all bikers with the Michigan Catastrophic Claims increases (which will surely be coming if the helmet law gets repealed)...


/end mini-rant
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,710 Posts
You know, the government should not have to tell people what to do in order to be safe. Much like the seatbelt law, if you are too stupid to wear a seatbelt in a car or helmet on a motorcycle, then you deserve the injuries that come with a crash.

The bad end of it is like the guy above me said, insurance. We all pay the price for the lack of common sense of others. I'd have to say that I see more non-helmeted riders (on cruisers) than those with helmets. It is completely retarded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
I am all for free will and all, but if every bodys insurance gets raised it seems unfair. I wonder if they could implement a program where if you are pulled over without a helmet it just informs the insurance company.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
They may be repealing the helmet law in Nevada, as well. Odd thing is the repeal is "piggybacking" on a bill to make it legal for police to pull you over for not wearing a seat belt. Soo... they're getting more strict on car drivers safety and less so on bikers?
 

·
T. BOTM Winner 10/11
Joined
·
4,508 Posts
more states don't have helmet laws than do. not to sound twisted but it's cheaper for the insurance companies if the rider dies so might not negatively affect your insurance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,191 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
You know, the government should not have to tell people what to do in order to be safe. Much like the seatbelt law, if you are too stupid to wear a seatbelt in a car or helmet on a motorcycle, then you deserve the injuries that come with a crash.

The bad end of it is like the guy above me said, insurance. We all pay the price for the lack of common sense of others. I'd have to say that I see more non-helmeted riders (on cruisers) than those with helmets. It is completely retarded.
I don't see why the government can't set laws. You are using public roads that are built and maintained through government funding. The government mandates standards for vehicle safety to try to ensure some level of safety for all vehicles. I think a helmet law is similar in the face they are trying to ensure some level of safety for the motorcycle rider. Additionally, there are people that get traumatic injuries who are either uninsured or their insurance doesn't cover the treatment they will receive. That cost is all eaten by the state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,710 Posts
I don't see why the government can't set laws. You are using public roads that are built and maintained through government funding. The government mandates standards for vehicle safety to try to ensure some level of safety for all vehicles. I think a helmet law is similar in the face they are trying to ensure some level of safety for the motorcycle rider. Additionally, there are people that get traumatic injuries who are either uninsured or their insurance doesn't cover the treatment they will receive. That cost is all eaten by the state.
By government funded, you mean funded by US, the citizens since the government does not make any money besides what it steals from us. Same with the "state eating the cost" it is actually us eating it.

This is one of the few subjects where I don't know which way to lean. I think it is incredibly stupid to ride without a helmet and if everyone had half a brain, there wouldn't need to be laws telling us we should wear helmets when riding. Unfortunately the idiots that won;t wear gear hurt themselves and the rest of us financially.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
In Illinois they have been pushing the click it or ticket campaign by pushing I mean they will have police at stop signs seeing if you wearing a seatbelt and if you arent you are ticketed. Yet despite this added harassment Illinois still does not have a helmet law. I wear a helmet every ride but it just seems ridiculous to have such a large double standard between vehicle safety and bikes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,191 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
By government funded, you mean funded by US, the citizens since the government does not make any money besides what it steals from us. Same with the "state eating the cost" it is actually us eating it.

This is one of the few subjects where I don't know which way to lean. I think it is incredibly stupid to ride without a helmet and if everyone had half a brain, there wouldn't need to be laws telling us we should wear helmets when riding. Unfortunately the idiots that won;t wear gear hurt themselves and the rest of us financially.
Yes, it should be obvious anything from the government is from tax dollars. You can call it stealing if you want but funding for schools, military, police, etc doesn't grow on trees. It's paid for by the citizens that get to utilize them. So yes the state eating the cost is us eating the cost and in turn that is money that can better be spent on other things by simply keeping a law that saves lives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,300 Posts
You know, the government should not have to tell people what to do in order to be safe. Much like the seatbelt law, if you are too stupid to wear a seatbelt in a car or helmet on a motorcycle, then you deserve the injuries that come with a crash.

The bad end of it is like the guy above me said, insurance. We all pay the price for the lack of common sense of others. I'd have to say that I see more non-helmeted riders (on cruisers) than those with helmets. It is completely retarded.
Seatbelts, & airbags. If you look at the statistics, seatbelts have caused deaths, and so have airbags. I've seen certain wrecks, where the whole side of the car was crushed, in such a way that if the person was buckled in, they would have died. The people who make these laws don't care about your freedom of choice, nor do they consider the select few who may have lived otherwise, they look at statistics, that say something along the lines of "90% of people who died in car crashes last year were not wearing a seatbelt, 10% were" and think "hey, if everybody were wearing seatbelts, less people would die"

I am 100% for seatbelts, helmets, ABS, VDC, traction control, EBFD, just so long as airbags can be turned off, and other things can be disabled.
 
  • Like
Reactions: xxumattuxx

·
i love juggggggggzzz
Joined
·
7,498 Posts
In Illinois they have been pushing the click it or ticket campaign by pushing I mean they will have police at stop signs seeing if you wearing a seatbelt and if you arent you are ticketed. Yet despite this added harassment Illinois still does not have a helmet law. I wear a helmet every ride but it just seems ridiculous to have such a large double standard between vehicle safety and bikes.
trust me there is no logic in it. seat belt tickets were went nationwide purely for monies plain and simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,191 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Seatbelts, & airbags. If you look at the statistics, seatbelts have caused deaths, and so have airbags. I've seen certain wrecks, where the whole side of the car was crushed, in such a way that if the person was buckled in, they would have died. The people who make these laws don't care about your freedom of choice, nor do they consider the select few who may have lived otherwise, they look at statistics, that say something along the lines of "90% of people who died in car crashes last year were not wearing a seatbelt, 10% were" and think "hey, if everybody were wearing seatbelts, less people would die"

I am 100% for seatbelts, helmets, ABS, VDC, traction control, EBFD, just so long as airbags can be turned off, and other things can be disabled.
Studies into the effectiveness of certain safety features have more thought put into them then what a 3rd grader would think of statistics. You wouldn't just use the raw numbers directly but properly scale them so they can be compared. Aside from that, who cares if 1/1000 accidents the person would have been better off without a seatbelt. I think I'd rather be on the side that is safer in almost ever incidence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Looks like Michigan is trying to be the first state to implement a dumbest law in the world.

Double liked the quote -

"I don't wear a helmet because there's a law, I wear a helmet because I understand physics"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
The timing that this comes out is kinda ironic given that guy in NY died during a no helmet protest. I'm surprised that they'd go backwards on the helmet laws given how everything seems to be getting more safety oriented. I guess I don't quite get Michigan's thinking on this one...
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top