Print

[SMASH]

I will appologize in advance for the length of this post.

______________________________________________________________
2011 House Bill 4936: Allow less than unlimited PIP insurance

•Introduced by Rep. Pete Lund (R) on September 13, 2011.

From the text of the Bill:
Section 3113, Paragraph D.

Sec. 3113. A person is not entitled to be paid personal protection insurance benefits for accidental bodily injury if at the time of the accident any of 1 the following circumstances
2 existed:
(D) THE PERSON WAS AN OPERATOR OF OR PASSENGER ON A MOTORCYCLE WHO WAS NOT WEARING ON HIS OR HER HEAD A CRASH HELMET THAT CONFORMED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 658(4) OF THE MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE, 1949 PA 300, MCL 257.658.

Nice ain't it!
If this passes Lordfly get's his wish!
From a REPUBLICAN no less!

______________________________________________________________
I have a few issues with this one Pete!

Michigan has a mandatory helmet law.
That law says if you ride you must wear a helmet.
It also says the Michigan State Police is in charge of promulgating the rules to apply the law.

So, they must let us know what is a compliant helmet for the law.
Yet they provide no such list or documents.
So instead of doing what the Michigan law requires, they adopt the Fed Standard.
FMVSS218.
However, FMVSS218 does not tell you what a helmet is, what is should be made of, what it should look like. All it does is tell you how to test a so called helmet on a head form with some mechanical devices.
And, most importantly it no where APPROVES ANYTHING! It is simply a pass or fail test, there is no implicit APPROVAL by the Feds or anyone else.

Judge Cynthia Hathaway, a Michigan Supreme Court Justice, said so in her ruling on this issue years ago while in the Appellate Court!!

Testing is voluntary and there is no mechanism to remove helmets from the market if they fail. There are literally HUNDREDS of different models of helmets on the market and only a fraction are voluntarally tested each year.
The results are readily available on line.

Shortly after the MSP adopted the Fed Standard they put out a memo to their Posts stating that the "presence or absence of a DOT sticker is not a means of determining if a helmet is compliant".
Well, if the MSP don't know what a compliant helmet is how are motorcyclists supposed to comply with the law??
Evidently that don't matter!

How do motorcyclists know the helmet in the box on the store shelf passed or failed, or was even tested?
Is the test accurate to real world applications?

And now comes Rep. Lund with his idea.
Let's change Michigans No Fault Law to exclude coverage, regardless if they paid or not, from those who may choose not to wear a potentially unsafe piece of riding equipment.
Way to go Pete! Thanks!

What is the leading cause of head injuries in Michigan?
Automobile Accidents.

Where are motorcycles on the list?
Last one I saw was #5.

What is the leading cause of death to motorcyclists in gerneral?
Blunt force trauma to the chest or abdomen.

All the States around Michigan have either no helmet law or an adult rider provision and they all have lower death rates than Michigan, WHY?

Helmet manufacturers generate more revenue selling helmets in "choice" States than "mandatory" States, WHY?

Not one State has raised it's insurance rates after getting rid of a helmet law. More importantly, not one State has lowered it's rates after applying one! WHY?

And some wonder why I fight against this BS!

[Greg Chamberlain]

What cost would that be?

Motorcyclists who do not wear helmets incur higher costs for accident-related medical care than those who wear helmets. A 2002 report by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) reviewed 25 studies into the costs of helmet use, and "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability."

The studies in the report also found that almost half of motorcycle crash victims lacked sufficient insurance to cover their injuries, resulting in substantial payments made by the government.

Cited:
Lawrence, B.A.; Max, W.; and Miller, T.R. 2002. Cost of injuries resulting from motorcycle crashes: a literature review. Report no. DOT HS-809-242. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/motorcycle_html/trd.html

[SMASH]

Motorcyclists who do not wear helmets incur higher costs for accident-related medical care than those who wear helmets. A 2002 report by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) reviewed 25 studies into the costs of helmet use, and "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability."

The studies in the report also found that almost half of motorcycle crash victims lacked sufficient insurance to cover their injuries, resulting in substantial payments made by the government.

Cited:
Lawrence, B.A.; Max, W.; and Miller, T.R. 2002. Cost of injuries resulting from motorcycle crashes: a literature review. Report no. DOT HS-809-242. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/motorcycle_html/trd.html

OK, let's just take a quick look at the background of their study in their overview of how they waste taxpayer dollars.

Quote:
Helmets are the best-evaluated way to reduce motorcycle deaths and injuries.

Next sentence.
Quote:
They are 29-35 percent effective at preventing motorcycling deaths and substantially more effective against deaths from brain injury.

Here they admit helmets are less than even 50% effective.
Would you bet those odds in Vegas?

Next paragraph.
Quote:
Perhaps because many motorcyclists prize their independence, government attempts to reduce motorcycling deaths, injuries, and costs have met active resistance.

Damn right!

Next sentence.
Quote:
Proven rider protection measures, notably helmets, are not required in many states.

Proven?
I'll ask again. Illinois has no helmet requirement what so ever and has a lower death rate than Michigan.
How could that possibly be?

Quote:
The federal government has twice enacted and then repealed laws designed to promote state helmet laws.

And just how do they "promote" state helmet laws?
Currently in two States they use federal dollars for "helmet check points". 
The old "withholding of federal road repair dollars" trick.

Next paragraph.
Quote:
In the debates over helmets and motorcycle safety, both rider groups and safety advocates are increasingly framing their arguments in terms of statistics from published studies. The complexity of the methods required to analyze data covering limited subsets of motorcycle crashes, however, often makes the results of the studies difficult to interpret. Moreover, sometimes the studies themselves are flawed by data limitations or inadequate methods. In this context, the present survey is intended to aid in evaluating extant studies and arguments based upon them.

So what do we really have here?
Nothing more than a review of existing studies. An admited regurgitation of previously issued data that is a decade or more old. Done for us at our expense.
Gotta love the federal government in action!

[Greg Chamberlain]

You asked me about the cost of allowing motorcyclists to ride helmet-less. I provided you some very good evidence showing those costs not only exist, but are substantial.

Here they admit helmets are less than even 50% effective.
Would you bet those odds in Vegas?

I would take 29-35% effectiveness over 0%. Did you know that body armor is even less effective against rifle fire? Yet I never met anyone who objected to wearing it in a forward area.

Nothing more than a review of existing studies. An admited regurgitation of previously issued data that is a decade or more old. Done for us at our expense.
Gotta love the federal government in action!

These are typically called meta-studies, and are very good ways of identifying trends. Just because a particular study's conclusion is difficult to understand does not mean they are wrong.

[SMASH]

You asked me about the cost of allowing motorcyclists to ride helmet-less. I provided you some very good evidence showing those costs not only exist, but are substantial.

OK for purely financial reasons let's go after the bigg fish, not the minnows.
Require helmets in cars. They cost the most, they should pay the most.

I would take 29-35% effectiveness over 0%.

There in lies the heart of the matter. If you want to, feel free. Leave everyone else alone.


 Did you know that body armor is even less effective against rifle fire?

It was never designed for that to begin with.


 Yet I never met anyone who objected to wearing it in a forward area.

Really, I did, several as a matter of fact.

These are typically called meta-studies, and are very good ways of identifying trends. Just because a particular study's conclusion is difficult to understand does not mean they are wrong.

Trends you say. I'll predict a trend right now. If HB 4936 passes those costs to government you mention will sky rocket!

[Greg Chamberlain]

OK for purely financial reasons let's go after the bigg fish, not the minnows.
Require helmets in cars. They cost the most, they should pay the most.

Cars have alternate safety equipment like seat belts and airbags. And cars do not cost more when compared on a per-mile basis. Motorcyclists face risks many times greater than automobile passengers on a per-mile basis.

There in lies the heart of the matter. If you want to, feel free. Leave everyone else alone.

And if you get into an accident and can't afford to pay for medical care. Do we continue to leave you alone? No way.

It was never designed for that to begin with.

Just like helmets were not designed for high speed impacts. The argument that neither were not designed for special circumstances does not counter their effectiveness in circumstances in which they were designed for.

Really, I did, several as a matter of fact.

When was that?

Trends you say. I'll predict a trend right now. If HB 4936 passes those costs to government you mention will sky rocket!

Agreed.

[Baby Hitler]

LANSING, Mich. (AP) - The latest attempt by Michigan lawmakers to repeal the state's law requiring use of helmets by motorcycle riders has passed the state House.

The measure approved by a 69-39 vote Wednesday returns to the Senate. If the Senate approves the House-backed changes, the legislation would be sent to Gov. Rick Snyder.

It's unclear what Snyder will do if the bill reaches his desk. The bill would allow riders 21 or older to go without helmets if they meet certain insurance and experience conditions.

The Legislature has passed bills to repeal the state's mandatory motorcycle helmet law before, but the bills were vetoed twice by then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/politics/Mich-House-OKs-motorcycle-helmet-repeal

[SMASH]

Things are very fluid right now.

In all reality, the Governor's desk might as well be a thousand miles away.

Not because of the helmet bill at all.

It's all about the MCCA, and AUTO insurance reform.

Here we go again.

Motorcyclist's rights and freedoms get hosed because car drivers insurance are the problem.

Because of Michigan's BS "No Fault" we (motorcyclists) are AGAIN held hostage
due to auto drivers issues.

If you people would just stop playing the "sympathetic jury" roulette and get rid of the "unlimited" amount of medical awards we all could join the rest of the country and have lower insurance rates.
Until you do we WILL have the MCCA and the highest insurance rates in the Nation.

I know for a FACT from personal experience the majority of people have no freaking clue what the MCCA is, what it does, why it exists, and who pays for it.
Not only that, they don't even know how much of their own personal auto insurance policy is the MCCA assessment much less where to find it on their own insurance bill.

Have you checked your own lately?

I have, and if I liscensed and insured all of my bikes I would have to pay it (the MCCA Assessment) 7 times in one year!

[jbs49238]

We came up with the perfect solution to this the other day at work. 

You don't want to wear a helmet that is just fine.... you don't have to but insurance companies will no longer be compelled to cover the full cost of your care should it be determined that a helmet would have prevented or lessened your injury, or in fact you can sign a waiver that states if you get schmucked while riding without a helmet that you assume ALL costs for your care regardless of who is at fault.

I think it should be the way seat belts used to be treated (and still should be IMHO but the libraries need the money).... you cannot be pulled over for just that reason.  However, much like the seatbelt law of old when you got caught you got your moving violation AND your seatbelt ticket, the helmet law should be the same.  You get pulled over for speeding while not wearing a helmet you pay twice.  You run a stop sign while not wearing a helmet you pay twice, in fact anytime you play Russian Roulette on the road without wearing a helmet, YOU PAY TWICE. 

We all can already hear the speech against this line of thinking... "This is America, I should have the right to ride without a helmet!" and that is great except when it is followed by "This is America, I should have the right to sue someone for my injuries from that accident even though that damn helmet would have made the difference between a bulged disc and a closed head injury".

You want no helmets, I agree it is your right.  You want the right to run roughshot over insurance companies when what might have been a concussion leads to 20 hours of surgery pulling tree bark out of your skull...... NO THANKS!  Waive your right to sue for excessive injuries and accept that you should pay for your risky behavior then I think no one will have a problem with a repeal of the helmet law.  I know I wouldn't.

[SMASH]

We came up with the perfect solution to this the other day at work.

I can hardly wait. This should be fun! 

You don't want to wear a helmet that is just fine.... you don't have to

Here it comes.

 but

Yep, there it is.

 insurance companies will no longer be compelled to cover the full cost of your care should it be determined

And, who will make this determination? The Chief Komissar at the Ministry of Auto Insurance?

that a helmet would have prevented or lessened your injury,

OK, I won't even buy insurance and you will pay!
How do you like that?


 or in fact you can sign a waiver that states if you get schmucked while riding without a helmet that you assume ALL costs for your care regardless of who is at fault.

Trial lawyers would love that case in court! Can't waive liability for something you caused. Ask any motorcross track owner.

I think it should be the way seat belts used to be treated (and still should be IMHO but the libraries need the money)

F'em if they need the money get a millage! Take it to the voters not pilfer the dough that should go to fixing roads!!!
BAM! Yep I said it!


.... you cannot be pulled over for just that reason.

Yes you can!

 However, much like the seatbelt law of old when you got caught you got your moving violation AND your seatbelt ticket,

So, you would support the mandatory installation of safty rails and helmets in your bathtub/shower in your home? All in the name of reducing the cost of head injuries due to slip and fall accidents in the home. Looked at how much those cost lately?

 the helmet law should be the same.  You get pulled over for speeding while not wearing a helmet you pay twice.  You run a stop sign while not wearing a helmet you pay twice,

Wow, you love taxes, and the force of the government don't you? If you run the stop sign and hit me how much should you pay?

 in fact anytime you play Russian Roulette on the road without wearing a helmet, YOU PAY TWICE.

I play rider roulette everytime I ride with the average motoring public!  

We all can already hear the speech against this line of thinking... "This is America, I should have the right to ride without a helmet!"

Yep, freedom baby!

and that is great

Really?
Here it comes!

 except

Yep, there it is!

 when it is followed by "This is America, I should have the right to sue someone for my injuries from that accident even though that damn helmet would have made the difference between a bulged disc and a closed head injury".

Prove it!
What is an "approved" helmet?

You want no helmets, I agree it is your right.

No you don't. You just said so.

  You want the right to run roughshot over insurance companies

No I don't! I pay more into Michigan's BS insurance system than you do. Unless of course you buy insurance for 4 or more vehicles a year.

 when what might have been a concussion leads to 20 hours of surgery pulling tree bark out of your skull...... NO THANKS!

Prove it.

  Waive your right to sue for excessive injuries

Do you mean the excessive injuries like a traumatic amputation of my legs or arms created by you making a left turn in front of me at an intersection?
Or, the aortic rupture caused by my heart slamming against my sternum created by you backing out of a driveway in front of me?
Just what excessive injuries are you talking about?
Are you going to determine what is excessive?
If not who will?


 and accept that you should pay for your risky behavior

Risky behavior?
Oh, shall we list the ways?
I addressed my payment already above.

 then I think no one will have a problem with a repeal of the helmet law.  I know I wouldn't.

I figgered that out when I seen who generated this post.

We came up with the perfect solution to this the other day at work. 

You don't want to wear a helmet that is just fine.... you don't have to but insurance companies will no longer be compelled to cover the full cost of your care should it be determined that a helmet would have prevented or lessened your injury, or in fact you can sign a waiver that states if you get schmucked while riding without a helmet that you assume ALL costs for your care regardless of who is at fault.

I think it should be the way seat belts used to be treated (and still should be IMHO but the libraries need the money).... you cannot be pulled over for just that reason.  However, much like the seatbelt law of old when you got caught you got your moving violation AND your seatbelt ticket, the helmet law should be the same.  You get pulled over for speeding while not wearing a helmet you pay twice.  You run a stop sign while not wearing a helmet you pay twice, in fact anytime you play Russian Roulette on the road without wearing a helmet, YOU PAY TWICE. 

We all can already hear the speech against this line of thinking... "This is America, I should have the right to ride without a helmet!" and that is great except when it is followed by "This is America, I should have the right to sue someone for my injuries from that accident even though that damn helmet would have made the difference between a bulged disc and a closed head injury".

You want no helmets, I agree it is your right.  You want the right to run roughshot over insurance companies when what might have been a concussion leads to 20 hours of surgery pulling tree bark out of your skull...... NO THANKS!  Waive your right to sue for excessive injuries and accept that you should pay for your risky behavior then I think no one will have a problem with a repeal of the helmet law.  I know I wouldn't.

[jbs49238]

SMASH,

All your concerns are what civil court was made for.

Telling someone they should be MORE guilty than another because they pulled in front of you at dusk when they might have though you were a more distant approaching vehicle with a single headlight, or possibly thought you were actually going the speed limit  when you were just a bit above and they thought they had time to safely make the turn.....

They call them accidents for a reason SMASH, and the world is not built in a vaccum.

You take additional risks when you ride a bike.  You are not as easily seen, you are not as equally protected, etc.  YOUR CHOICE!  YOUR RIGHT!  Don't demand excessively punative punishments for those who injure you in that accident.  And that is exactly what your group of "FREEDOM LOVING" ABATE folks already do, use the force of government to construct laws to protect just your little bit of freedoms, just like any onther bastard special interest group.

And me prove it?  How about you "prove it".  Where is your proof that the first jackhole biker without a helmet who is going 95 and has to dump it to avoid that left turning car won't up and hire Sam Bernstien and sue for millions because that little bump on the head turned into exposed brain matter.  We all know the poor schmo who made the left is getting the ticket, but you and ABATE say "NO!!! NOT ENOUGH!!! JAIL TIME, BAJILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT!!! HOMELESSNESS, DESTITUTION FOR THAT DRIVER!!!!!!"  You think my way is a feast for trial lawyers?  Wait until the unhelmeted start marching to court and the judgements start piling up.

Seems you want your freedom all while being mitigated from your risk.  Oh wait there are plenty of other folks who will assume that risk for you aren't there? 

See there is a BIG difference between you and I.  I wish freedom and equal opportunity for all.  You want freedom for you and if others have a price to pay so you can exercise your "rights" so be it.... we should all just think like you right?

See SMASH I speak from actual real world experience, I was rear ended by a biker about 3 years ago on the other side of the state.  Low speed crash but the fella had a "windshield" which cracked right down the center from top to bottom when his head (accompanied by his helmet) came forward and hit the 1/4" thcik top square on.  My point?.... take away the helmet and that guy goes to the hospital for a ton of stitches, add 15 mph and he would have been in the morgue sans the top half of his head.  Now turn it around.... say I had pulled in front of him without seeing him, say he would have broadsided my car at the previously mentioned +15 mph.  Who would have killed him?  ME, not him for neglecting to wear a helmet.... ME!  As a driver I accept that reality, and assume it every time I take my place behind the wheel.  We all share the road together, the fact that you can't comprehend that your CHOICE of vehicular travel puts you at GREATER RISK is on YOU, but it is shared by ME.

That helmet protects more than just the wearer SMASH, and if you want to remove it then fine.  Like I said I don't really want to stop you, but I also don't really want to assume YOUR risk.

[family man]

This is great news for all the people on the organ donor waiting list.

[PXaiver]

I'm not an organ donor and people who do donate their organs annoy me.

[jbs49238]

BTW SMASH,

I love how you broke up my post into sentence fragments so you could twist those segments into something that might almost help try to make a point.  Next time when trying to rebut a thought, rebut the entire thought not just the portion of a sentence that makes it easy for you to whimper "Small gummit yay!!"

At least I think that is what you did, or maybe we are back to the whole lack of grasp for the English language (SE Michigan dialect) thingy again. 

[family man]

I'm not an organ donor and people who do donate their organs annoy me.

Thankfully there are others who are and they have given the gift of life to someone else, like my son.