Posted on 03/16/2005 6:00:43 AM PST by wmichgrad
LANSING, Mich. (AP) — After decades of lobbying, Michigan motorcyclists could be roaring closer to being allowed to ride without a helmet.
A state Senate panel on Tuesday approved a bill to let bikers ride without helmets if they are older than 21 and either have been licensed to operate a motorcycle for at least two years or have taken a safety course.
The full Senate, which has proved a major hurdle to past efforts to repeal parts of the state's mandatory helmet law, is expected to vote on the bill Thursday.
Senate Majority Leader Ken Sikkema, R-Wyoming, opposes the bill but is allowing a vote because there appears to be support for passage, spokesman Ari Adler said. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm also opposes the legislation, spokeswoman Liz Boyd said.
The helmet law, first enacted in 1967, is defended by insurers, hospitals and law enforcement officials who say riders and the public should be protected from the physical and financial risks of going without a helmet. They say helmets reduce the severity of head injuries and argue that motorcyclists disproportionately account for health benefit claims to a catastrophic injury fund.
"Michigan residents understand the inherent and often fatal dangers of riding a motorcycle," said Michael Dabbs, president of the Brain Injury Association of Michigan. Wearing a helmet is common sense, he said.
But Vince Consiglio, president of the Michigan chapter of American Bikers Aiming Toward Education (ABATE), said the decision on whether to wear a helmet should be left up to motorcyclists.
"No helmet prevents an accident," he told lawmakers, arguing that safety and training classes better protect motorcyclists. "It's tough out there riding a motorcycle. But you accept a certain amount of risk."
Legislation repealing parts of Michigan's helmet law has been approved numerous times in the House, including last year, before dying in the Senate. ABATE says legislation to change the helmet law hasn't cleared the Senate since 1982 and never has made it to a governor's desk.
The group's leaders believe they have the votes in both the Senate and House this time around.
One supporter is Republican Sen. Bruce Patterson of Canton, who said personal freedom is every citizen's most important right.
When balancing freedom, safety and cost, Patterson said: "My trump card is freedom. Why can't they experience their freedom without becoming a law violator?"
The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 6-0 to send the bill to the full Senate.
Those voting "yes" were four Republicans: Patterson, Michael Bishop of Rochester, Alan Sanborn of Richmond and Alan Cropsey of DeWitt. Two Democrats also approved the measure: Virg Bernero of Lansing and Mark Schauer of Battle Creek.
Sen. Liz Brater, D-Ann Arbor, left the hearing before the vote but said she opposed the bill for safety reasons.
The helmet bill is Senate Bill 297.
On the Net:
Michigan Legislature: http://www.legislature.mi.gov
One guy I know got smaked up side the helmet with a wheel cover (hub cap) while driving down the highway. I'm sure in this instance, his hemet prevented him from losing control and causing an accident.
On the other hand, when my father used to ride, he got a wasp stuck in his helmet and was stubg several times. Luckily he was able to pull off to the side of the road without incident.
That said, when I can afford the bike, I'm getting a helmet anyway, even though I oppose the helmet law. It's a freedom issue to me.
ABATE OF Pennsylvania salutes you!
Now, will the governor sign?
Fingers crossed.
Some might consider this 'thinning the herd'. With Ohio drivers, helmetless cyclists deserve the Darwin award. (I was born in Michigan.)
As the surivor of a motorcycle vs. 1978 Chevy van accident, I would never ride a bike without my helmet. With that said I deeply resent a nanny state that tells me what to wear & or do all of the time. It is MY choice on whether or not I should wear something on MY head! Win one for us!
On a ride a couple of years ago a friend I was riding with had the lead and his bike slid out on a turn. It went into another lane where it slid under a two ton truck. When the truck rolled over it the gas tank came loose, took a couple of small skips along the ground before it took a big one and glanced off of the side of my helmet. It left a small gouge there that would have probably been a deep, to the bone gash if it had hit only flesh and bone.
I always wear my lid, even on short two block rides to the parts store.
I have no problem with riders going without helmets, as long as they waive their rights to taxpayer paid medical care and their right to sue state or local governments for any damages resulting from their accident. Freedom and responsibility go together.
We tried this in Louisiana for a few years. I think the no helmet required law was in force for about 5 or 6 years. And, to be honest, the statistics basically showed very little difference in the accident survival rate in motorcycle crashes when a helmet was worn and when it wasn't.
Last year they reversed the law and now helmets are required again. Our former Governor was an avid motorcycle enthusiast and led the charge when he was elected to get rid of the helmet requirement. But after he left office (term-limited) our new Governor immediately supported legislation to once again require helmets.
It's just never pretty to wreck a motorcycle.
But, It's not the governments business.
Helmet wear should be between the rider and their insurance companies.
I agree with you on that!
No. Aunt Jennie knows best, don'cha'know? (It was reported on WWJ-AM today that she's said she'll veto the bill.)
Major difference in the two.
Without getting real technical on you, the inside of a car is a controlled environment.
Motorcycles are diffenent. Each wreck is as unique as a snowflake. Sometimes the helmet helps, sometimes it cripples and kills. (ask Dale Eirnhart)
We KNOW that a helmets efficacy is proven up to and including 14 (that' not a typo) 14 MPH. After that, the stats get fuzzy because the incidents of traumatic spinal chord injury step up and skew the findings.
If it was only the head, fine. But the neck is included in the equation and that's not fine.
No way will she. She'll veto it in a heartbeat.
Ok, now we're into this stupid "social burden" theory.
Its a PROVEN fact that AIDs is a social burden.
You pass a law to force queers to wear their "helmets" when they engage in their lifestyle. Once you do that, then come talk to me about motorcycles.
This is a hypocritical argument and one that gets debunked first.
the inside of a car is a controlled environment........... (ask Dale Eirnhart)
Exactly why most states prohibit the wearing of helmets while driving!
I wear a helmet to church in case I'm standing near someone God wants to smite.
I doubt it. I can't see Granholm going against the insurance lobby.
In Texas we allow people to ride without a helmet as long as they carry additional insurance to cover any expenses in the event of an accident. This way the taxpayers aren't forced to pay for a guy who is in a coma for the rest of his life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.