.

TGIF: Michigan Helmet Law Repeal, Yea or Nay?

A proposed state law would allow some motorcyclists to ride without helmets.

Do you enjoy talking about hot topics? Every Friday morning, we'll ask your opinion about local, regional or state news stories. You're welcome to chime in throughout the day – and to suggest other topics for future discussions. Here's this week's discussion starter:

According to WDIV-TV 4 in Detroit, a proposal that would allow some motorcyclists to ride without a helmet has been approved by a Michigan Senate committee.

The law would allow riders 21 and older who have had two years of riding experience and who have passed a safety examination to ride without a helmet, the report said.

According to the report, previous attempts to ease Michigan's helmet laws were vetoed in 2006 and 2008 by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

With in town, we've got plenty of cyclists in – and riding through – our community. So we're wondering what you think.

carol kramer June 10, 2011 at 01:19 AM
NO WAY , IT IS TI DANGEROUS NOW , WE HAVE ENOUGH PROBLEMS ON THE ROAD AS IT IS
Phyllis Bothwell June 10, 2011 at 11:01 AM
Then raise their health insurance costs so the rest of us don't have to pay to keep them in nursing homes for the rest of their lives.
Cindy Gray June 10, 2011 at 02:56 PM
I think Michigan's helmet law should remain UNchanged. The risks far outweigh whatever joy and freedom that may be experienced while riding without a helmet. My hubby and I ride, and have lived in states without the law. We've worked in emergency medical services: we've seen all sides. For a bike, a helmet replaces 'the roof' of a car; both are vital. Fellow bikers often call riders w/o a helmet 'future organ donors.' Tax payers would end up carrying the burden, and families would carry the pain. Leave the law alone.
Bryce June 10, 2011 at 04:58 PM
Does it make any sense to require occupants of an automobile to wear seat-belts yet let motorcyclists to ride without a helmet?
Mike Stager June 10, 2011 at 05:12 PM
No. It makes no sence. Both seat belts and helmets should be left to the person using them to decide. NOT people in Lansing or Washington.
GREG SEMACK June 10, 2011 at 07:09 PM
THE REPEAL SHOULD TAKE PLACE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. JUST BECAUSE NON- RIDERS THINK IT'S FINE TO RESTRICT THE FREEDOMS OF BIKERS IS NOT REASON ENOUGH TO INFRINGE ON OTHER PEOPLE. THE "PROJECTED" PROBLEMS ARE NOT SUPPORTED IN THE STATES WHERE HELMET LAWS DON'T EXIST. 30 STATES DON'T REQUIRE ALL RIDERS TO WEAR HELMETS. THERE DON'T SEEM TO BE ANY ATROCITIES HAPPENING THERE. AND THE BENEFIT TO THE STATE FROM TOURIST DOLLARS IS MUCH NEEDED. ALTHOUGH I LIVE IN MICHIGAN I DO 90% OF MY RIDING IN STATES WHERE I'M NOT FORCED TO WEAR A HELMET. IF FOLKS ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT PREVENTING HEAD INJURIES THEY SHOULD BE PUSHING FOR HELMET LAWS REQUIRING CAR OCCUPANTS TO WEAR HELMETS. THERE ARE EXPONENTIALLY MORE HEAD INJURIES TO PEOPLE RIDING IN CARS, EVEN WITH SEAT BELTS AND AIRBAGS, BECAUSE OF SO MANY MORE PEOPLE DRIVING CARS. IF YOU'RE SO CONCERNED ABOUT HEAD INJURIES, BUT DON'T THINK HELMETS FOR CAR PASSENGERS IS NECESSARY, YOU'RE SIMPLY A HYPOCRITE. REPEAL THE LAW. IT'S LONG OVERDUE.
Cindy Gray June 10, 2011 at 07:38 PM
Clearly there are many opinions regarding this subject. We're blessed to live in a country where differing viewpoints can be expressed. Check out this site for some info; granted, it is sponsored by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, but it appears to include some good points, including info on helmet laws in other countries. smarter-usa.org/PDF%20DOCUMENTS/IIHS_Helmet_Q&A.pdf
Joni Hubred-Golden (Editor) June 11, 2011 at 01:27 AM
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts - I agree with Cindy, we're fortunate to live where this kind of exchange can occur on any topic. Which reminds me, if you have something you'd like to talk over in the coming weeks, let me know: joni.hubred-golden@patch.com
Thomas Donovan June 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM
I just have to look at the dent in my old motorcycle helmet to know that only a fool would ride without one. Also, given the catastrophic health insurance that is built in to all Michigan insurance policies, all policyholders will be paying for the increased medical costs that ultimately would result.
William McComber June 14, 2011 at 01:40 AM
I think the helmet law argument is dumb, seeing the ones that would go without a helmet are all ready wearing novelty helmets and those wearing DOT helmets would continue to, the only change is less fake helmets and less tickets.
William McComber June 14, 2011 at 01:43 AM
they make convertibles so people have a choice to have a roof or not and nobody is purposing a law to ban them

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something