Michigan Helmet Law

[Robert]

Snyder signs repeal.

[XLFD]

Robert,

To answer your "Why?" question about bicyclists using the road over paved shoulders, let me start out by saying that I generally find shoulder riding more safe and enjoyable than riding on the road.  But there are a lot of reasons why bicyclists will choose the road over the shoulder.  One that is particularly likely at this time of year, due to the mothballing of the street sweepers, is the cluttered, unsafe conditions of the shoulders.  It is a lot more safe to keep to the road than to occasionally swerve into the road to dodge the stones, roadkill, and vehicle debris on the shoulder.

This is particularly true if the $&%#$ MDOT has decided to put rumble strips along the side of the road.  The safest place for a bicyclist to be is now unridable, and the shoulder is more cluttered than ever.  Motorists don't realize it, but about a yard or so from the road's edge on the shoulder all the sand, pebbles and road clutter that get in the road eventually find their way there, pushed by the vehicles movements down the road.  Rumble strips negate any benefits a shoulder gives to a cyclist, and actually makes them a lot more dangerous.

Lastly, Michigan law does not explicitly give any right for a bicyclist to use those shoulders any more than what they give motorists.  Take note, those that claim bicyclists have the same duties as motorists.  If you drove the shoulder exclusively with your volkswagen, you would likely get stopped by the gendarmes because law does not allow you to use the shoulders except for emergency or temporary stopping purposes. 

One could say the right for bicyclists to use the shoulder is understood by all, but then why can we then say that a 'stop sign', whose existence is there because of motorized traffic, should apply to bicyclists as well?

[Dave]

My 2 cents....

First let me say that to this point, I've never rode a motorcycle. With that said, I think letting people have the choice is a good thing. If I was to ever buy a bike, I would probably wear a helmet, at least at first anyway (actually, I think by law I would have to if I understood things correctly). In regards to a few of the comments here about accidents and such, I think that was part of the reason that they made having $20,000 in insurance mandatory, to help cut the cost of any potential accidents that the public might end up paying for.

[easymoney]

your correct dave, a newbie has to wear a helmet for the first year, at least here in ohio. As for helmets, I started riding in 1959 and hardly anyone wore a helmet, I still dislike them.

If you give some serious thought to it, at 60mph or so, I fail to see where a helmet is going to do you a bit of good in the event of a spill or collision. Also, withlout a helmet, you can at least hear aproaching vehicles that you can't always see.

I do have a skull cap for those states that require helmets. Used to really irk me to have to stop at the state line and dig out the helmet.

 

To each, his own , I guess?

What really bothers me is these young kids on the crotch rockets thinking they're at bonnevile salt flats. I've had them scare the sh t out of me as they shot past me with that high pitched whine.

They fail to realize that over a 100 their is very little of your bike holding the road and it drifts something terrible. I had very little sense when I was younger thats how i know what it is I speak of.

[Dave]

I think people that buy crotch rockets have some mental issues or something. Why would anyone in their right mind want to go fast on one of those things? I have seen my share of morons that think because they have one of these bikes think that they can just cruise by ya at god knows what speed. I'd hate to see anyone get hurt riding one of them things but if they get into an accident because they were speeding, I tend to have little sympathy for their stupidity.

[Willy]

I don't know how many times I have heard 2 or more of those crotch rockets start drag racing after a traffic light has changed. One can here them in the distance because they have a distinct sound with a high RPM count. Another thing that irritates me are the loud Harley's. There is no need for these things to sound like a truck without a muffler.

[Robert]

Music to my ears Willy, lol. If I was King I would make it mandatory that the exhaust system on the Jap V-twin wannabes be an intrigal part of the cylinder head. Punishment for tampering? Firing squad.

Seriously, I understand loud HD's irritate many but the same could be said about the diesel pickup owner that need a 5 inch pipe. Some Fords? Just loud stock.   

[XLFD]

I rode my bike, non-motorized, thank you very much, over twenty miles today and I seen three men out enjoying their motorcycles, and all were without helmets, though one had a lightweight skullcap.  It led me to a revelation about why this study here:  http://www.smarter-usa.org/PDF%20DOCUMENTS/Data_Trends_after_Helmet...

was flawed because it failed to take into account a meaningful variable.  Condensing the study quickly, it said that if helmet laws were repealed, helmet use in MI would drop from 99% to 53-63% and that the fatality rate would increase, as it has in five other states that repealed their laws recently. 

I can almost 100% guarantee that motorcycle fatalities will increase in Michigan this year.  Anyone know why?

[Robert]

Hey, I don’t want to argue, the law is the law. Statistics, seem trumped up to me? 111 motorcyclists lost their lives in Michigan in 2010 and 77 drowned in Lake Michigan. Incapacitating injuries all head related? Time will tell what this repeal will bring. Personally, I don’t see the wholesale carnage predicted and to be honest don’t plan on losing any sleep over it. Peddle or powered, be safe out there.          

[XLFD]

I'm not being argumentative, I'm just asking do you know the primary reason why motorcycle fatalities/injuries always go up in any state after the helmet laws get repealed?

[Lisa O'Brien]

Not a clue - but I'm going to guess that the study doesn't take into account new riders.

[masonco]

I think one reason they don't have statistics on fatalities, is because when I worked in the hospital in a place south of Grand Rapids, we would often get those who rode without helmets. Parts of their brains were smeared on the roadway, but they lived.

Quality of life? Who cared back in the 80s. The thing to do then was to keep them alive, transfer them to long term care. These people made money for the extended care facility because anything they needed is still paid. Your auto insurance premiums pay for the $50 an hour range of motion done by therapists.

These people never "woke up" but as long as the state can keep them breathing on a vent, the family collects "potential wages" that patient MIGHT have earned over that 20 plus years. Never knew there were so many electricians and Doc assistants who rode motorcycles...even those who's family members could not speak English. 

Obviously there is a difference if the brain matter splatters on the highway or inside the helmet. If inside the helmet there is a chance of putting the matter back in the brain and praying it will regenerate. Sometimes it does.

The other common cause of fatality is the neck snapping and instant paralysis. I saw family members demand those people be kept alive too...(see above)

[easymoney]

all the statistics you read  fail to mention who was at fault in those accidents. I would wager my pay check, excuse me, my SS check that better than 90% were caused by un-attentive auto drivers. I've had motorist at a cross road/stop sigb, look directly at me and still pull out. Most are programed to look for a car.

Same goes for 18 wheelers, statistics have prove that 87% are caused by auto's, but all you read is , motorist killed in auto/truck accident. And, if you read the full article, alot of times the truck is a pick up. Head line grabber to sell papers