Michigan State helmet law repealed

[Madness]

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/13/441...in-helmet.html

I like this bit, makes perfect sense:

The repeal of the motorcycle helmet law will result in at least 30 additional motorcycle fatalities each year, along with 127 more incapacitating injuries and $129 million in added economic costs to Michigan residents.

$20,000 US cover for a head injury? They've either got amazing doctors and hospitals or below average heads.

[tigertim20]

Off topic posting removed

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/13/441...in-helmet.html

I like this bit, makes perfect sense:


$20,000 US cover for a head injury? They've either got amazing doctors and hospitals or below average heads.

thats a bit fucked up.
why repeal a law like that? - people like to bitch about nanny states etc, but those people sometimes forget how stupid they can be themselves - some people NEED a nanny state to not kill themselves through their own stupidity.
yes, Im talking about americans.

[Winston001]

FYI whatever:

The Ducati ran out of road two years ago. Flip-up helmet absorbed head-first landing. Ripped the bottom partly open but stayed intact. Mouthful of gravel, deadish for a bit. C4 fracture, concussion, 16 days in hospital, can't remember that or much of the first year afterwards.

Alive and kicking thanks to that helmet.

[p.dath]

There was another state in the US that did the same thing - you don't have to have a helmet if you have a no-fault accident insurance policy.

I don't recall which state is was, but they found that 90% of those who chose not to wear helmets and had an accident had not taken out the mandatory insurance.

I think the other state required $30k of cover - and it was intended to only cover either the first 10 or 30 minutes of emergency care to try and stabilise the patient.

[p.dath]

Thinking back, I think it was the state of Tennessee. That had a law requiring helmets. Then they repealed it. Fatalities went up, and the motorcyclists having the accidents didn't take out the mandatory insurance so they put the law back in place again.

It looks like they are trying to repeal it again at the moment.

[YellowDog]

Removing the mandatory requirement to wear a helmet is a strange thing to advocate. Perhaps they have an unusually low number of motorcycle accidents

Didn't someone post a news snippet last year of a protestor against the mandatory wearing of helmets dying after having coming off his bike on the way to the protest rally?

[Gremlin]

Didn't someone post a news snippet last year of a protestor against the mandatory wearing of helmets dying after having coming off his bike on the way to the protest rally?

This one I think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_889427.html

It's interesting. I think everyone can agree that they save lives, reduce injuries etc, but for some, they all yell about protecting the individuals right to choose for themselves. Some complain that it reduces their vision, but I guess we're heavily biased having worn helmets all the time. When I was in the USA I did do 20-30 miles or something without the helmet on, as it was a state where you could, and I was interested to see what it was like (but my thoughts are still biased as I wore my helmet all the time otherwise).

Free, yes, vision wasn't impaired (obviously, but I didn't think it made all that much difference compared to a helmet). The day had been very hot (mid 30s I think), walking around the Sturgis rally, so not shoving yourself into the helmet was a relief, not to mention the cooling effect was that much greater when moving at suburban speeds. On the open road it felt downright scary, but still kinda free, found it a bit of a giggle. That was until a bug of some sort smacked into my forehead... my god that fucken hurt at 60mph. I was still wearing sunglasses (some states still require eye protection, I wasn't sure on the exact law but logic dictated my eyes needed protection from debris anyway) and the GSA has a big screen, so it made it easier, but yeah, I'd rather wear my helmet thanks...

[YellowDog]

On the very rare occasion that I have ridden without a helmet (35+ years ago) I always had a problem with bugs and debris getting past my sun shades and into my eyes.

Open face helmets are an option and cause minimal restriction, and go a long way towards avoiding the 'egg dropping on the tiled kitchen floor effect.'

The yanks had the same thing with seatbelts in cars and that's why they have 'child killing' strength airbags.

Civil Liberties my arse. In the USA, regardless of your age, you can't walk down the street into a bar without having ID in your pocket.

[YellowDog]

This one I think: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_889427.html

It wasn't that one. There was another last year http://news.yahoo.com/ny-motorcyclis...143217859.html

EDIT: It's the same one

What a senseless waste of life though.

Surely the protesters should be getting the message by now

[scumdog]

The yanks had the same thing with seatbelts in cars and that's why they have 'child killing' strength airbags.

Civil Liberties my arse. In the USA, regardless of your age, you can't walk down the street into a bar without having ID in your pocket.

Yep, in 1956 Ford had fitted 'dished' steering wheels and gave the options of a padded dashboard and seatbelts.

People walked away from them because "Well, if it has to have those features it must be a dangerous type of car"

BTW: I cannot ever being asked for I.D. in any US bar...but you're right, I did have it in my pocket...

[Grubber]

Sounds typical Yank exercise. One step forward and 3 backwards into the dark ages. Dickheads!

[Zedder]

I read that one of the biggest supporters for repealing mandatory helmet wearing was the tourism industry in Michigan.

They maintained the law was keeping anti helmet tourists away and causing the state to lose millions of dollars in revenue!

[swbarnett]

OK. I have a question for you lot that are firmly behind the legal requirement to wear a helmet:

Why are you not also advocating the mandatory wearing of a full leather suit? Or maybe banning bikes all together? Most will agree that both of these would save heaps in medical costs.

[Madness]

It's the step backward that I don't get, in a world full of ever increasing regulation. It's like saying to car manufacturers & importers that they no longer need to supply seatbelts fitted to vehicles IMHO.

[swbarnett]

It's the step backward that I don't get, in a world full of ever increasing regulation.

In a world full of ever increasing regulation I welcome anything that gets the government out of our lives and returns to us some of what makes us human.

It's like saying to car manufacturers & importers that they no longer need to supply seatbelts fitted to vehicles IMHO.

Supplying seatbelts is not the same. Mandating the use of them is.