Helmets: Senate, Engler should follow House's lead and back repeal

Lansing State Journal ^ | 5-31-02

[Dan from Michigan]

Helmets: Senate, Engler should follow House's lead and back repeal

Surprises are not uncommon at the State Capitol. Pleasant surprises, though, are rare.

So, Michigan residents who take personal responsibility and freedom seriously should cheer the House of Representatives' vote Wednesday to repeal the state's mandatory motorcycle helmet law.

Unfortunately, motorcycle riders won't soon be able to choose for themselves whether to use a helmet. The unusual coalition of Democrats and Republicans that passed House Bill 4823 is unlikely to be replicated in the Senate. And Gov. John Engler has stated his opposition to repeal.

These public officials remain entrenched in the mind-set that adults cannot make basic decisions for themselves; that the state must intercede for "their own good."

Last summer, we changed our long-standing position on this issue, endorsing HB 4823 and a repeal of the state's mandatory seat-belt law for automobiles. While supporters talk at length about the need for such laws to save lives, it became apparent to us that good intentions were creating an alarming intrusion of government into private lives.

Government's proper role is to let adults make decisions for themselves, while providing those protections that make other citizens threats. That's why we still support mandatory speed limits and other safety measures, which are designed to protect you from the actions of others.

Where government goes too far, though, is in trying to protect you from yourself; in substituting its judgment for yours.

HB 4823 strikes a blow against this intrusion by giving motorcycle users of a certain age (21 and up) and experience the choice to wear a helmet. It creates separate, artificial groups of motorcycle users, but it is a substantial step in the right direction.

Before letting HB 4823 fall back into the legislative woodwork, senators and Gov. John Engler should reconsider their opposition - and their fundamental assumptions. Then they can join the House in restoring a small measure of personal freedom and responsibility.

[Dan from Michigan]

This from the Lansing Statist Urinal?

[usual suspect]

Well Dan,I agree with you on the gun control stuff, but a closed head injury caused by wearing no helmet, and turning young men into broccoli and carrots, costs millions of dollars to medically take care of. Why should my premiums skyrocket because someone wants to "look good" while riding a motorcycle?

[Rodney King]

Well Dan,I agree with you on the gun control stuff, but a closed head injury caused by wearing no helmet, and turning young men into broccoli and carrots, costs millions of dollars to medically take care of. Why should my premiums skyrocket because someone wants to "look good" while riding a motorcycle?

Basically, your response is that because the government meddles in our freedom is some areas, it has a right to meddle in it in others.

[usual suspect]

Not necessarily. I happen to think some laws are good, like the returnable bottle. Our lakes and highways look pretty clean right now without the expense of salaried and pensioned state workers cleaning up broken glass and cans from the land. At 35 mph, your head is like an egg shell, it just doesn't make sense to be without a helmet. Who would put Humpty Dumpty back together again. I've had 6 Motorcycles, and ten snowmobiles (Wertz Warrior) and never thought twice about a helmet. Visit the part of a hospital where they take care of broken bones, all you'll seeis old farts who have fallen and broken something, and young men who have been hit while on a cycle.

[Rodney King]

I agree with you 100% about the sheer idiocy of not wearing a helmet. It just doesn't bother me if someone else chooses to be reckless with his/her life. Yes, it does ultimately cost me, but that is because health care and health insurance are not free markets.

[usual suspect]

Exactly, Health care is not a free market, but it becomes more socialistic in nature when some people must pay the burden for others recklessness. Maybe you could sign a disclaimer for the helmet and pay the appropriate premium for not wearing one.

[Rodney King]

Maybe you could sign a disclaimer for the helmet and pay the appropriate premium for not wearing one

Right, that would be fine with me.

[1FreeAmerican]

If they can pass seat-belt laws, why not a helmet law?

[Dan from Michigan]

I'm against seatbelt laws as well. It's turned into nothing more than revenue for the state.

[thmiley]

I have to agree with the helmet law. The state, which is charged with the responsibility of creating the laws which we follow on the roads, has a legitimate right and responsibility to make safety decisions.

You are free to roam around on your own private property without a helmet, drunk, and plow your motorcycle into a tree for all I care.

Once you get on our roads, however, expect to obey rules you may not agree with.

[JoeSixPack1]

Where government goes too far, though, is in trying to protect you from yourself; in substituting its judgment for yours.

:-)

[rockfish59]

Washington just passed the seat belt law.
The slogan is: 'Click it or ticket' ($86)
They're trying anything to recoup the $$$ 'lost' due to the $30 tabs for ALL cars passed by voters in '99!
The jackass nannies!

[RJL]

Well Dan, I agree with you on the gun control stuff, but a closed head injury caused by wearing no helmet, and turning young men into broccoli and carrots, costs millions of dollars to medically take care of. Why should my premiums skyrocket because someone wants to "look good" while riding a motorcycle?

Every year thousands more automobile drivers have similar wounds than do motorcycle drivers.

Are you willing to require all drivers of motorcycles and automobiles and their passengers to wear helmets?

[rockfish59]

They should be made to sign a waiver freeing any taxpayer responsibility.
Most bike accidents are the CAR drivers fault.
But selling a 150 horsepower crotch rocket to a punk kid is also the reason they're called 'donor bikes'!

[Dan from Michigan]

That's the slogan too. "Click it or Ticket - A law you can LIVE with"

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Lion Den Dan]

Kentucky repealed its helmet law 2 or 3 years ago. Kind of like concealed carry, the blood did not run in the streets and all the bikers have not died. Those that claim helmetless bikers raise insurance premiums are falling for the Insurance industry propaganda and excuse for raising premiums.

[usual suspect]

Seatbelt laws...another law I hate to love...especially when it comes to child safety seats. Pain in the Ass, but percentage wise,they save lives.

[FourPeas]

Wow, a logical, reasoned argument from an editorial piece. I'm shocked, stunned. Of course, it's correct. The government has no business dictating how (un)safe my head is while riding on a cycle.

[FourPeas]

Kind of like concealed carry, the blood did not run in the streets and all the bikers have not died.

Amaging, eh?

[Eagle Eye]

Inserting government intrusion (helmet laws) in order to stem government intrusion (state-sponsored medicine) is not the answer. That's the same line of reasoning the tobbacco, fast food, and drug warriors all use.