i live in michigan, just rode out to ohio bike week last weekend... ohio is a no helmet state, i rode with my helmet, so did my hubby, and my brother-in-law, and my 18 year old son, also rode with his... by no means am i trying to say someone should/ or shouldn't wear one... i'm saying i'm wearing one... i don't think that you should have to pay a bribe, not to wear one... i also had acustomer, at workwho was "excited" that he had heard that Mich. was thinking about being a no-helmet state, because he is on a donor waiting list, and the chances of him getting a "donor" increases drastically, in no helmet state's... it's just a fact.

 

It's also a fact that more people ride in helmetless states, but thanks for pointing that out

 

Either it's ok to ride without a helmet or it isn't. Money shouldn't have anything to do with this one. It's not like the riders are using up a resource of some kind.

 

Exactly!

 

WRONG!

In a lot of situations, helmets help prevent some injuries. So if people w/o helmets tend to get more seriously injured, then it does cost the government more money to have helmet-less riders on the road.

How?

People disabled invehicle accidentsoften cost the government money.
Some (not ALL) become dependent on gov't funding to pay for medical treatment and/or lost wages.

I know the gov't isn't using a rider's $100to cover the cost of riders' medical and wages. The gov't will use the money in some foolish way, I'm sure. However,my postis just a response to the notion that injured riders do not use gov't resources.

Again, I know not all riders would turn to gov't assistance to help them during their recovery/disability. BUT, a lot would....a lot already do.

Frankly, I think riders should have a choice and I think they shouldn't have to pay for the choice ($100 or otherwise). But, if I lived in MI and this law were passed in its present state. I'd rather use the $100 towards a half-helmet and NOT pay the gov't the fee. Hell, at least I'd have something to show for my $100 (the helmet).

 

WRONG!

In a lot of situations where a helmet saved a life and the person was disabled due to a spin injury and permanently disabled, that person would have probably died. Death = no medical treatment. You also can't pay dead person lost wages and the government is not in the business nor has it ever been in the business of compensating families for traffic deaths.

This offest in cost greatly outweighs the need for government funding you indicated.

 

I knowa numberof people from UpperMichigan who ride over to Wisconsin so they can take there helmets off. I would think local business would improve if Michigan had no law. Its not like there is a lack of scenic rides in the UP of Michigan. Some of it is breathtaking.

 

Good assessment dynamike. Some of what I'm saying is just opinion, of course.

Consider that a dead person's family (spouse and children left behind) MIGHT still turn to the government for financial aid (foodstamps, etc) even in your scenario where the rider died.

My point is, helmets reduce the chance of injury. They don't eliminate the risk, just reduce. Now, whether the rider lives or dies, the fact is that if helmets reduce risk, helmet-less riders have an increased risk. Increased risk = increased POSSIBILITY of a family/person needing government assistance.

IMO, there's just no denying the POTENTIALincrease ingovernment aid if more riders are helmet-less during accidents.


As a side note, I wonder if insurance premiums would eventually increase in MI because of "potential" risk.

 

Fod stamps and financial aid would be something that they would need if the person died falling off the roof of his/her house and has nothing to do with a motorcycle fatality. I fthe family is already in the financial position where they can not survive without the main revenue source or assistance, then all a motorcycle fatality is doing is changing the time at which they will request assistance. How much the added benefits will cost the government, no one can ever know. But eventually that person's death will result in financial aid for his/her family.

I agree in some situations, a helmet will reduce the risk of death and injury. However in others, I think it transfers the impact to other parts of our body that are just as fragile and no real impact on the risk of death or injury at all.

I'm not anti-helmet at all, just pro-choice. For every pro-helmet argument, I can find one that can dispute it. And since that's the case, why mandate them at all?

 

Pay to not wear a helmet!? LOL! Ya gotta hand it to politicians to come up with a hair-brained moneymaker like that. A "No-Hat" tax! How 'bout a "No Seat Belt" tax? Maybe a group discount?LOL!

You can't make $h!t like this up!