text:
UPDATE: Gov. Snyder Signs Law Making Motorcycle Helmets Optional in Michigan
Michigan Senate joins the House in voting to lift the safety requirement for riders older than 21.
Michigan will become the 31st state to give motorcyclists the option of wearing a helmet since Gov. Rick Snyder signed the legislation, his office announced today.
Motorcyclists who are 21 or older can ride without a helmet if they have at least an additional $20,000 in medical insurance and passed a motorcycle safety course or had their motorcycle endorsement for at least two years.
Opponents of state mandates feel use should be a personal choice. They say helmets can limit peripheral vision, muffle traffic awareness sounds and create additional injury risk because of their weight.
Arguments in favor of crash helmets cite safety studies, lower public medical costs, eye protection if face shields are used and reduced fatigue by improving aerodynamics.
What do you think? Vote in our poll below.
Tran Longmoore
1:58 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Cost of Care
The direct and indirect costs of traumatic brain injury in the U. S. have been estimated to be $48.3 billion annually. Survivor costs account for $31.7 billion and fatal brain injuries cost another $16.6 billion (1991 dollars).7
The lifetime costs for one person surviving a severe TBI can reach $4 million.27
An estimate of medical and non-medical (e.g., home modifications, vocational rehabilitation, health insurance) per TBI survivor averages $151,587.7
Average costs rise dramatically for those individuals who undergo rehabilitation. In one study, after a 4-year follow-up, average costs for medical and long-term care services averaged $196,460 for survivors receiving rehabilitation services compared to $17,893 for those receiving no rehabilitation.8
Acute rehabilitation costs for survivors of a severe TBI have been shown to average $110,891 per person, or about $1,000 per day. The average length of stay for these severely injured persons in acute rehab is about 55 days.9
Medical costs are the highest for those who do not survive—(an average of $454,717 per brain injury fatality).7
One study showed that supported employment for helping TBI survivors return to work costs an average of $10,198 for the first year of service.10
Nicholas Griswold
3:32 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
motorcylists are 9% of traffic accidents our gov't pays 45billion annually for fat peoples medical bills. Helmets present 20% less likely hood of an injury and 9% of death. You still have a choice to wear a helmet I will. In states (32 including Michigan now) with no law or optional 50% still wear a helmet. Their is only one way to find out what kind of economic boost this will have, look at the numbers for tourism this fall. Not one state neighboring Michigan has a mandatory law, most of those riders and many more would love to tour the U.P. Obesity and smoking are the leading killers in America and major players in the world but we all have a choice to keep eating and we already pay the bill for the both of them. Riders numbers are insignificant. Helmets may keep you alive in case a head injury even occurs, death would be cheaper-blunt but true. Riding is about the feeling and for many who do ride (still a minority) they don't want to ride with a helmet. Organ donation will go up, tourism may help boost the economy. In a study between 1997 thru 2007 6.7% of motorcyclists died in 11 years that's 38,566 people/ 1,500 people die each day from cancer due to smoking and being obese EACH DAY! Be practical and learn a little more you have no opinion because you know no facts.
10:41 am on Monday, April 2, 2012
Here in there is the problem. Do you think that insurance companies are going to cover these coat without passing them unto the policy holders? Think of our wonderful insurance scam that all motroist have to pay into to cover extreme medical cost insurance, that goes up continually. This wil go up as well.
If a person wants to ride with no helmet, let his insurace go up on all those who ride motorcycles. Car insurance in this state is already to high period. It's a rip off compaired to other states.
Your head is not made of steel. It like a melon! Hit it hard enough, and it splits open, resulting in brain damage or death. Don't blame me because you're that stupid to ride one without the correct safety head gear on Everyone has to eat the cost of your supidity, and I'm not willing to do that on bit. Thanks for the review of the cost here, as well a life might of have been saved it the rider was wearing a helmet.
4:29 pm on Thursday, April 5, 2012
If motorcyclists don't wear helmets, then we will all die when we crash and you won't have to worry about paying for head injuries....afterall, DOT helmets are only proven effective up to 13 mph (why do you think the Mich State Police haven't provided a list of approved helmets since the helmet law was implemented back in the late 60's). Let those who ride, decide!
Jeddy Tranquill
9:54 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
So you probably will want to wear a helmet in your car with the 67% head involvement in both fatal and injury accidents that I as a biker have to pay for. Also if I am an illegal Mexican alien and ride a motorcycle and suffer a head injury will you mind paying for that or is this taboo with the liberal biker haters on the thread. Not even to mention the millions of bastard babies that teenage sluts are having. I think that you may want a mandatory chastidy belt law instead of a helmet law if you are "really" concerned about saving money, so until that time as long as Michigan or any other non free state has a helmet law I will spend my vacation money in the 30 "FREE" states only!
Tony Ratagick
12:26 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
Your data appear to be accurate, however it also includes ALL brain injuries from all causes. If you would care to disclose the complete data, you would find that the largest percentage of these injuries come from a person simply falling down. Only 27% of TBI injuries occur from MOTOR VEHICLE accidents. Notice I didnt say motorcycle, because the data set you used doesnt specify it.
But lets go ahead and accept the argument you have given - that the general public shouldnt have to be liable for a motorcyclist who has suffered a head injury while riding without a helmet. By this logic, does the same apply to the driver of an automobile? I ask this question because, again according the the NHTSA data (Distribution of Injury Locations by Occupant Type (NASS 1995-2004, all crash modes), the MOST COMMON INJURY sufferred by automobile occupants is a head injury.
Ergo, it makes sense then that all of you supporting a mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists would support a mandatory helmet law for automobile operators as well.
Well? Speak up now. Let me hear why this argument doesnt make sense.
3:21 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
3.7% of ALL head injuries are motorcycle related. When will you campaign for helmets on the other 96.3%?
Jane Smith
3:05 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I am the ex-wife of a motorcyclist who got injured while on a track to get re-certified to teach rider safety courses. His was not a traumatic brain injury, but a broken neck which turned him into a quadraplegic. He had been recently laid off of work and we got on COBRA insurance which eventually priced us out of receiving insurance. (Over $800 a month to maintain COBRA insurance which you can be on for only up to 24 months, if I'm not mistaken. This was over a decade ago so it probably costs even more now.) I had to quit my job to care for him so than means now it's even harder to pay for the insurance. I can't afford care for him while I go to work and so on and so forth. So now he's on total disability and the state pays for the rest of his care.
So think long and hard about letting motorcyclists ride without helmets. Everyone thinks they're the best drivers in the world. NOT!
Alan Stamm
3:33 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
This vivid true-life story is posted under a MLive.com article about the bill:
"I just crashed a motorcycle 2-1/2 weeks ago, smashing my shoulder, I was wearing a helmet, i had surgery on the shoulder. Last week I was given my helmet back and I looked it over.
"The back of the helmet had deep scratches and gouges in it from something that hit it. It could have been the back of my head. I believe the helmet saved me.
"Riding without one is just plain dumb. This is in Indiana, where helmets are not mandatory. I see the fools all the time without them."
-- Free4All, 2:00 p.m., March 28, 2012
Jennifer Szarejko
3:18 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I agree with all that has been said above. I took a motorcycle class, my husband use to own a cycle... Maybe we should also change the seat belt law. These things are made for a reason and used for a reason, your safety. It drives me nuts when I see someone on a cycle with shorts and a tank top and I pray they don't have an accident.
3:31 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
True about the bare arms and legs. Was always more worried about the 65 mph cheesegrater beneath me than a head injury. The most common accidents, 15-35 mph 'lowersiders', go after your skin more than your head.
10:46 am on Monday, April 2, 2012
I've seen it first hand, and it's not a pretty sight at all. The skin is just rowed back, and torn, with a few broken bones thrown in. Thanks for your post!
Amy Rice
3:27 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
What about the seatbelt law... shouldn't each person decide wether or not they want to be safe and wear one????
Robert Marr
10:38 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
This is definitely a question of economics. If someone chooses to not wear a seatbelt and gets into a severe accident, the measly insurance you and I carry will likely not be sufficient to cover the cost of body repair and rehab. Why should you, or I, or anyone else have to cover that additional cost?
Michigan's vehicle insurance costs already out of control, and are among the highest in the nation, if not the very highest. You and I having to pay for someone else's lack-of-good-judgement will only drive the costs higher. Add to that the ridiculous $20,000 insurance coverage requirement for motorcycles, down from $100,000, and you'd have to leave our solar system to find the possibility of higher insurance rates.
As for motorcycle helmets, the 2nd or 3rd time I was on a bike, I crashed. I'm glad I was wearing a helmet because I don't think that tree moved one millimeter. I never got back on one. I can't relate to the freedom of riding au natural, but I can relate to paying someone else's medical costs. I want no part of it.
2:03 pm on Saturday, March 31, 2012
Why are you "sorry". Your point of view is strong and clear. Don't apologize for that!
2:10 pm on Saturday, March 31, 2012
What a strange question... But the fact that anyone would answer it by saying they prefer not to be safe so won't wear a helmet or a seat belt is even stranger. Driving any vehicle is not a right. The State has the right to set requirements that will protect all of its citizens, even those who prefer to not be protected. The cost alone of the injuries sustained by those who do not where helmets is enough to require the wearing of them. This is not a personal liberty issue, this is an issue about what is best for the welfare of the state.
Ed Lambert
3:48 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
What about this as a solution: Require the safety course. Require all cyclists to carry liability insurance protecting others and all property not belonging to the cyclist. Then permit insurers to set caps on coverage to be provided if they choose to do so. Then prohibit any and every sort of coverage that involves taxpayers footing the bill.
Since fair is fair, apply these conditions to all other licensed drivers as well. As for the seatbelt law: Permit discretion only for drivers and passengers above a certain age. Then allow insurers the same latitude as for cyclists and prohibit the use of any monies other than the driver's or the owner's to cover accident-related expenses.
The state (which means the taxpayers) and insurers should not be burdened by the foolish choices people make.
tom mcguire
9:29 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
you must not be a biker ;;;;;i have been cents i was 16 let us make up are own minds on the helment;;;;;;;;;;
1:06 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
uptil I saw the bank draft which had said $4886, I did not believe that my mom in-law realy taking home money in there spare time on their apple labtop.. there neighbour started doing this for less than seventeen months and by now repaid the debts on their place and purchased a great new Saab 99 Turbo. I went here, FLY38. ℂOM
Tom Neal
3:48 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I would recommend the same helmet be required when riding a bike! I fell last summer and broke my helmet but did not have a concussion or suffer any head injury thanks to my bike helmet!
Mark Itall
4:02 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
If a motorcycle rider wishes to ride without a helmet, fine. But any coverage for head injuries should be removed and placed at the rider's expense since it was their choice. Stupid choices can be expensive.
Joan Anderson
4:19 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I am sorry but anyone riding a motorcycle should wear a helmet. Are you afraid that it will mess up your hair. We driving by a motorcycle dont want to see your brains on the ground because you were too stupid to wear a helmet.
Racer Boy
4:19 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
You want to ride without a helmet? Fine...then YOU assume all costs associated with any closed head injury you incur. Forget the % numbers, I have no interest in paying a single cent to anyone who demonstrates this level of stupidity of riding without a helmet. I have crashed twice on my motorcycle and BOTH times my helmet prevented any serious head injuries. A 5 MPH fall can cause cataclysmic head trauma. Wearing a helmet is simply common sense.
3:19 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
the most common injury in an auto accident is head injury. should you be denied medical car if you crash your car without a helmet? After all, it is a safety device and you chose not to use it.
4:41 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
If 5mph is all it takes, better regulate and mandate helmets for joggers, skateboarders, bicyclists, scooters, rollerbladers.... and be sure to set limits and exclusions for their injuries, too.
Lianne Mathie
7:21 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
My brother died rollerblading, he fell and hit his head. He died instantly.I never believed something like that could happen, ever. He left my three nephews without a father.
I think about all the things we did as kids, dirt bikes, bikes, skateboards etc. It was the grace of God that we only broke a few bones here and there. Never again.
Alan Stamm
7:29 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I'm sorry for your family's loss, Lianne, and admire you for sharing such a heartbreaking example of why this topic is important.
There are valid viewpoints on each side, of course, and your poignant comment is a reminder that it can be a life-and-death issue, not something to be treated with callous glibness. Thank you for commenting.
Johnny Vega
5:47 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Increases in our premiums will fund trama caused by these fools. Nice job Snyder passing on more fees to the tax payers
An American and proud of it
7:40 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
$20,000 in medical coverage is a drop in the bucket (and $100,000 is not much better) when the brain trauma sustained from an accident lasts a lifetime. No question, insured motorists who operate any motorized vehicle will be paying substantially more in their insurance premiums. There is no logical reason to allow the reversal of this law when helmets are PROVEN to save lives.
tom mcguire
9:32 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
they are not proven to save all lifes ;;;;;;got friend that got hit by a car 10 years ago and stile in the intence care he can not do nothing so you tell me wich one is better dead or just laying there in a bed thank you
8:51 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
Well when you cannot even spell correctly, I would stop the arguing. You sound uneducated & selfish (Mr. McGuire). Nothing is 100% guaranteed, but the safety measures are put into place as they pevent 'most' head injuries/trauma-both helmet & seatbelt. If a rider is not smart enough to take the necessary procautions to protect themselves & others (how is the driver who hit you & you died due to not wearing a helmet going to deal with that for the rest of their lives? Not very well!), then they shouldn't be given a cycle endorsement. No matter how much you may hate the government for making you wear a seatbelt or helmet, some of you have to be saved from your own stupidity, no matter how old you are. If you don't want to be saved or be a vegetable, then have a 'DNR' order on yourself when riding.
9:43 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
Lonzil, I agree with your points, however, when ridiculing someone for spelling errors, (which is really lame to do) you should always make sure you are not making any yourself. I think pevent and procautions are incorrect. Oops !!
Ryan O.
8:50 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Just curious. In the bill, if the motorcyclist is killed from a head injury and is not wearing a helmet, is the driver of the other vehicle still charged with involuntary manslaughter, or is he only charged with the moving violation that may have resulted had a helmet been worn?
jeddy tranquill
10:19 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I am the guy who repealed the federal helmet law back in 1975 that "blackmaied" the states into passing the helmet law. No research was done just a report from the consulting firm of Peat Marwick & Mitchell that stated the helmets would reduce fatality and injury rates by 50%, this was a bold faced lie and still is. When the non-helmet states stats are measured against the mandatory ones it shows that the rates are higher for helmets. This is because and I quote from a Special NYS Report 1969-1 "THAT BECAUSE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF FORCES PRESENT WHEN A MOTORCYCLIST IS KILLED OR INJURED IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO EXPECT ANY DEGREE OF PROTECTION FROM A HELMET".
These comments here from the uninformed are based on what I call "HELMET HYSTERIA" based on emotions run wild but facts are facts and dead bikers are not here to tell you how and why their helmets FAILED them. I have 63 years of statistics that prove that government PAID researchers have lied over and over again. Just because the law is repealed does not stop those who still want to wear one.
9:23 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Special NYS Report 1969-1 "THAT BECAUSE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF FORCES PRESENT WHEN A MOTORCYCLIST IS KILLED OR INJURED IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO EXPECT ANY DEGREE OF PROTECTION FROM A HELMET".
My bet is this is being use totally out of context. Do you have the report? You can't talk about Magnitude of forces present without knowing something about the speed. Sure if you hit a bridge column at 70MPH a helmet won't do you any good. But getting launched of the hood of a car at 35MPH it can be the different between being sore and your spouse sentenced to feeding your baby food the rest of your helpless life.
"I have 63 years of statistics that prove that government PAID researchers have lied over and over again." Here we go again its all a big conspiracy...
10:30 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
In general, a person who doesn't wear a helmet for safety is either too egotistical and superficial or ignorant. It shouldn't be a choice, it should be a requirement, if you don't have your health... Then you don't have anything at all.
Michael Auger
10:59 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Free riding with the wind blowing in your hair sounds more like the dream. Just don't make a fuss when your insurance company doubles your rates. They can make you wear a helmet based on finances alone. I'm guessing they have your social security number, a credit check, know your race, and have your checking account number and routing number. If you gave them that information forget about putting on a helmet. They will give you a discount if you plug in a chip that will tell them how fast you won't go and when you will stop. Know who's lobbying.
11:08 pm on Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Seriously people... if it were simply economics, THIRTY states would not be allowing helmetless riding. Michigan is in the minority of states that do not allow it, has among the worst economies in the nation, and is losing tourist dollars every year. I believe, if you ride helmetless at most any speed and crash, you will likely die. A helmet may just sustain life enough to cost the millions medically that you all dread. Think about it.
Jeddy Tranquill
9:15 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
Nope, you will not likely die as the head was involved in 15% of crashes before the law and helmets reduces this by just 1% to 14% while neck involvement increases with the law in some cases by 750%. Data from USDOT used by me in the repeal of the federal helmet law requirement in 1975. Also stated was the fact that ruptured hearts and internal injuries caused 67% of ALL motorcycle victims and helmets do not prevent this and therefore were ineffective in lowering death and injury rates and made helmets responsible for the increases of the percentage rates by breaking necks. I have the autopsy reports for a period of 10 years.
Mr. Fugate
1:38 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
It seems that helmet laws interfere with natural selection.
Nancy McDaniel
9:06 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
I love it, why protect people who are to stupid to wear a helmet. The problem is that those of with health care insurance, will pick up the tab for the idiots who don't die in the crash. $20,000 coverage is nothing.
RW Schrank
7:03 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Motorcycle riders can ride nude if they want to. Just don't try to stick the "repair bill", if there is one, on the rest of us who pay enough insurance premiums now!
Jeddy Tranquill
9:18 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
RW Skank, and do not charge me for the repair of your "cage" as I have seen how you folks drive.
Mackey Chandler
7:55 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
If safety is really an issue helmets can't overcome the fact motorcycles will never be as safe as being enclosed in a car. Ban motorcycles.
Race drivers wear a helmet - how about requiring car drivers to wear one too? How many car crash injuries are head injuries?
If all else fails - require them for children. The suckers always fall for that one. Life should be risk free after all.
julie Hine
8:32 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
To Mackey and RW- Life should not be risk-free. But you should pay for your risky behavior yourself. The rates for those who drive motorcycles should be increased for those who ride without a helmet. If no helmet is found at the scene of an accident, the insurance company should be able to pass along consequences. Those of us who are doing the right things are increasingly weary of the illegals, the obese, the lazy, the cheats, and the rest who selfishly pursue whatever they want and expect the rest of us to pay for their indiscretions.
Keith Munro
7:56 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Review what is considered a legal helmet. A large percentage of cruiser riders wear them (They often have "Helmet Laws Suck" stickers). The minimal helmets are an ineffective joke. Therefore, the helmet law abides in an idealistic sense. It really does not serve a purpose.
I ride and I have no idea why anyone would want to be without the maximum coverage possible. The excuses are flimsy other than no wind in the hair. But to continue the law which is ineffective at best seems irrational.
julie Hine
8:37 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
The simplest thing is to completely separate motorcyclist insurance from car insurance at all levels. No bundling with homeowners policies. Then when it is only the cyclists paying for all of their own medical bills from accidents they can fight it out with each other and leave the rest of us with lower rates. The insurers will track claims rates and the standards for hemets can change INSIDE the policy- those who wear approved helmets can then take advantage of lower rates. If those who want to ride without are will to COMPLETELY subsidize their own costs, so be it. Ballpark guess- $300 month premiums. Let the free market work. Remove the rest of us from this issue.
Keith Munro
9:10 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Julie has a very good point. The only open issue, while we are looking at fairness: If a rider is injured because of an automobile driver's carelessness (often the case), should all cyclists be responsible via their premiums for a drivers carelessness?
julie Hine
9:29 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
60 % of motorcycle accidents NHTSB stats- are at night, with no other vehicles involved. Usually on curves. At this moment-- all of us seem to be responsible for everyone elses carelessness. Perhaps pressure from fellow cyclists specifically would lead to safer riding. The number of accidents is not large, yet when you consider that there are far fewer miles traveled on motorcycles (weather) in northern states, it is worth studying. And the best way to do that is to let the free market loose. Then we as taxpayers are not paying for more studies, the insurance companies are excellent at studying their own claims data.
7:33 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Sorry, Julie is wrong. It isn't the insurance costs that will drive up, its the Medicaid costs. Once people run out of insurance and personal assets they go on Medicaid until they qualify for Medicare. The millions in long-term costs will be bourne by the taxpayers, at least until those programs are demolished by the Republicans. This is the same thing that will happen to traumatic car crash victims if the Governor gets to destroy the Auto No-Fault law. Also, the Michigan car insurance are about middle of the pack nation-wide, but offers the best traumatic coverage in the country.
9:36 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
How is requiring a helmet different than a seat belt in a car? No BS, someone give me a real answer.
If you are going to let people choose, let their insurance company choose not to insure them for their own medical costs.
I would also make it mandatory for those who don't wear helmets sign up to be Organ Donors, that way it's not a complete waste of resources.
10:00 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
There isn't. But our political officials don't operate under logic and reason. They operate under self interest and self preservation. Hopefully the Governor hasn't been bought off to.
10:22 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Non-hothead answer, based on my own meditations while riding:
The outcome of an accident in a car with and without seatbelts looks very different (think back to the old slo-mo safety films). One version, you are retained in your 3 ton shell. The other version, you go sailing through glass, and probably onto or into another 3 ton shell.
The outcome of any serious motorcycle accident is the same with or without helmet - you go flying. On a racetrack, where much of our safety equipment is designed, you have a full leather suit, a helmet, cushioned berms, and are surrounded by professional riders. This militates against the physics of the crash.
In the real world, you have all manner of irregular shapes and sharp edges waiting for you once you leave your bike, not to mention a bunch of 3 ton shells that may or may not see you. If a car hits you, it's probably going to be in the torso or legs, not the helmet. An open-head injury is sometimes the last thing on your mind after a near-miss.
Motorcycling seems so inherently dangerous (especially in the texting era) that mandating one very specific piece of safety equipment is like requiring oven mitts to visit Chernobyl. The outcomes of a mishap are unthinkable either way. I'd tell anyone who'd listen to wear 'all the gear, all the time'.
9:40 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
I have no problem with people not wearing a helmet or wear a seat belt as long as.
A) Their Medical coverage is capped at $100,000. Which now days will probably only cover the air lift and emergency room treatment.
B) They forfeit their and their families right to sue for damages.
C) Be default they are and organ donor.
Dorothy Thompson
9:52 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Agree with DG. If you choose not to wear approved helmet, sign a waiver absolving the rest of us from paying your Catastrophic Insurance, medical bills, burial expenses, etc. DMT
9:53 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
The idea that we require motorists to wear seat belts when riding in an automobile (and spend a fair amount of time enforcing that requirement) and yet would allow cyclists of any kind ride without a helmet seems ludicrous to me.
10:20 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Do you think the enforcement is because police care about you, or is it merely another revenue generator? Really... that is easy money, and nothing more.
Jordan Genso
11:19 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Bryce- That's my thoughts as well.
Even if in the "real world", laws are not consistent in their logic, that doesn't mean we should take positions that support that inconsistency.
All I want is for the line to be drawn in regards to what safety level the government should enforce (decided democratically), and for consistent application of that safety level across the board.
8:44 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Actually Dennis it isn't really a police issue. The seatbelt law is a federal mandate. States are subjected to a form of extortion from the federal government in that if they (the state) don't achieve a certain level of compliance with seatbelt usage, they stand to loose out on federal tax dollars paid to the state.
Dave Brown
10:11 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
I find it interesting that so may comments relate to medical insurance issues. Why should motorcyclists be singled out? If you really feel this way shouldn't there be a policy rider or exception for any activity that is deemed dangerous? Then, who determines the danger? Or does this only count for activities done by others? As a motorcyclist, I have ridden without a helmet a couple times and felt dumb for doing it while at the same time it was enjoyable. As far as the tourism angle, I think we are fine without the helmetless crowd, which if I may stereotype, would be the loud pipes crowd which can be more disruptive than beneficial to a tourist area.
11:08 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Because if the state sanctions helmetless riding is no longer deemed a dangerous activity. Right now if you are injured while not wearing a seatbelt or helmet you are limiting how much you and/or your family can collect civilly because the argument can be made your injuries were more severe because you violated the law. If that law is removed you will be increasing the damages amount the state and the insurance companies have to pay out.
R. Karl Burnett
11:43 am on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Governor Granholm vetoed this legislation in the past,.. but, she DID sign Public Act 463 into law, taking effect on 01 November, 2010. PA-463 made changes to the Michigan Vehicle Code (MCL257.303) regarding offences committed by "at-fault" motor vehicle operators involved in "incidents" with pedestrians, joggers, bicyclists, and motorcyclists determined DISTRACTED, ENRAGED, or UNDER THE INFLUENCE. PA-463 now provides for serious consequences including severe fines, and jail time for the offenders. While helmets can (and have) probably reduced personal injury to motorcyclists over the years, until PA-463, the issue of ACCIDENT PREVENTION and serious consequences had really never been addressed. There is still much needed to be done in the way of accident prevention, includng sharing of the road, and just plain having consideration for others. I've been knocked down twice (red light runner in Novi 1986/enraged guy in Harrison in 1998) in my >30 years of riding, and have been fortunate enough to be one who has lived to tell about it. I decided to be the first one to propose what became PA-463 as a result. There is probably no way to reduce, or eliminate motorcyclists personal injury by requiring helmets,.. but, much we need to do about reducing accidents ("Incidents") and saving lives in all modes of transportation. The subjects addressed in PA-463 always lose when tangling with others enraged, distracted, or under the influence, and something has gone wrong!
Laura Radke Sommerstorfer
12:19 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Well, if passed, it would rid the world of some stupid people. So what happens if they are found without $200,000 in medical coverage (in the hospital)? Do they get a ticket? Come on, there are other motorists out there and they are most likely the cause of any accident involving a motorcycle. Let's just make seat belts optional too.
Chris Pitcher
12:57 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
It's not the motor cyclist that cause the accidents most of the time it's the careless drivers, the well Im in a hurry or I just looked at my cell phone for a second, the distracted drivers out there what about them they should be the ones carrying the insurance burden not the bikers. I was told once by a judge that drivings a privilege not a rite and most drivers don't seem to understand that there's no consequences if they pull out in front of anyone or cause an accident ... What a ticket! Boy that's a deterrent it's my decision not yours so get off your you know buyer than everyone else kick and worry about yourself and what your doing and stay out of my business
julie Hine
8:57 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
60% of motorcycle accidents- single vehicle. nightime. on a curve. w or w/o alcohol.
Sean Rosekrans
7:04 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Only Bikers should take part in this survey. I would wear a helmet even if he signs it. But Bikers should have the right to make the choice.
hartland eagle
8:47 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
Choosing to ride a motorcycle without a helmet is just about as stupid as choosing to not have health insurance....
The GOP seems to be catering to the stupid faction of the electorate lately...
Ed Lambert
10:40 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
7:51 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
"What an awesome society we'd have in Ed's world! Deny medical care to people that can't afford it? Wow, that'd be great, Ed. Happy Easter! Perhaps consider looking into the guy the holiday is about. Hint - it's not the Easter bunny." -hartland eagle
Hartland, did I not say that society should provide for the truly needy? Why should society be paying for those who refuse to prioritize their needs and wants and elect not to have insurance?
I also remind you about the message of the Gospel: Jesus commands INDIVIDUALS to render assistance, ala the good Samaritan. He does not speak of a direct government mandate or spread-the-cost insurance pools.
It is one thing if we as a society (on any level of government) decide to "help the poor" and define who qualifies as poor. It is quite another to say that the New Testament demands that societies do this. It doesn't. Jesus spoke to his followers and advised what they should do as individuals.
There is much dissatisfaction in society with various levels of government, and part of that dissatisfaction stems from what is perceived to be too generous a stretching of the definition of "needy." Some of that contention can be laid at the feet of those who think that personal Biblical enjoinings become the responsibility of the state.
This is also a back-door approach to expanding the power of government and conveniently using religious principles to accomplish it.
10:09 pm on Thursday, March 29, 2012
I love the potential for us to be able to not wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, but we WILL get a $50 fine for operating ANY wheeled device, such as roller blades or bicycle, at any metro park if a helmet is not worn. Simply crazy!
Business folks cite the loss of tourism dollars to MI from riders who will not enter the state of Michigan because they have to put on a helmet. However, it seems the state has no qualms in passing the "hidden" costs associated with health care onto the little man. Currently my Progressive policy is approximately $1000 a year for my bikes. Almost half of that is just for the catastrophic fund. That component will surely rise if the state allows helmetless riders. Don't forget that the catastrophic fund is a PER vehicle fee. One can only operate one vehicle at a time.
Hell! I'm safer at the racetrack on my track bike, which I cannot insure BTW. Who's going to Grattan raceway next weekend (I am ;oP)?? 130mph at the track is safer than 30 mph in traffic! Yes, I wear FULL gear; even on the hot days. Track or street.
Stay alert, and stop texting while driving your car.
Alan Stamm
9:31 am on Friday, March 30, 2012
Repeal backers will like today's news from Lansing:
"An insider privy to the governor's thinking indicates 'he has indirectly told me he will sign it,' " veteran capital correspondent Tim Skubic reports at MLive.com. [http://bit.ly/Hmxd28]
Alan Stamm
10:47 am on Monday, April 2, 2012
Repeal backers won't like today's editorial from The Detroit News, which says signing the bill "pretty much assures there will be an increase in serious crash-related head injuries whose treatment expenses will be spread among other drivers. . . .
"If Snyder OKs the helmet law repeal, cyclists finally will win their long-sought right to avoid a common-sense safety measure comparable to the seat belt requirement for automobile drivers.
"But riders without helmets are 40 percent more likely to suffer fatal head injuries, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A University of Michigan study found that helmet use decreases the costs of injury treatment by $6,000 per crash. A survey by AAA Michigan found that 80 percent of Michiganians favor the helmet law. There's no justification for getting rid of this requirement."
Jeddy Tranquill
9:25 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
Not nearly as stupid as you shooting your mouth off sans any facts. I don't think thaqt any helmet would help you because you are beyond it!
11:01 am on Monday, April 2, 2012
And there you have it... all of you spouting mega-million dollar costs... the U of M study says it is only $6,000 per crash. If they're forced to carry an additional $20,000, it's covered. SERIOUSLY, if you really think non-riders will bear huge costs, do you think the MAJORITY of states would allow it?? Makes no sense.
10:16 am on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
To have an average that low cannot sustain very many substaintial claims. Average would be for every $100k claim, you must have 100 $5k claims (which are covered), or less than 1%. Anyone have stats on what the 'public' paid out for non-covered head injuries in Florida? Ohio? Any of the other 30+ states?? Let's talk REAL numbers, not hypothetical.
11:04 am on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Terry, remember, we're talking about ONLY the diff between helmet and non helmet. Ambulance and ER admit are likely in either case if helmet is the only diff, so that doesn't count. Injuries to the body should be about the same in both situations, and death is more likely which would lessen medical costs. MUST see the WHOLE picture, and understand the REAL costs involved. Heck, if deaths DO go up substantially, the public cost COULD actually decrease.
5:19 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Aha, Terry, nice jab at people who don't agree with your opinion, which means even less as a non-participant. It's merely guesswork on who lives or dies, your assumption the body lives on no matter what is far fetched IMO.
Again, ASK THE STATES who currently have no helmet laws what their REAL costs are, instead of the wild guessing going on here. Then, and ONLY then, we can talk facts.
Jordan Genso
5:53 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Dennis- As a casual observer to this back-and-forth, I'm curious what your were referencing with the:
"nice jab at people who don't agree with your opinion"
I don't see the 'jab' made by Terry.
11:00 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The jab was the last sentence about brain functioning lower when deciding to ride without a helmet.
5:43 pm on Monday, April 2, 2012
Helmet=common sense. I don't ride and I don't want to pay for those that do and have an accident!
Jeddy Tranquill
9:41 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
Good! Then I want you to wear one in your car just like racecar drivers do because even with seatbelts and airbags the head is still involved in 67% of all fatal and injury accidents. Why should I as a biker have to pay for this! Better yet, ban ALL cars and then and only then the helmet law "might" work for bikers. I do not smoke, drink or overeat, so why should I have to pay for these "victims" either. Let's get real here, helmets do not work folks and a bunch of "hysterical fanatics" are not going to change the helmet FAIL!
3:39 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
Good for you Mr. Jeddy perfect. Yeah right, helmets don't save lives. Cars all have air bags now for the head. And really I could care less if you wear a helmet or not; when you smash your head then you'll wish you wore one.
12:53 pm on Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Riding a motorcycle is a risk period. Every time you mount a motorcycle you take all risk associated with riding. The problem no one is stating here is there is not a helmet made that will protect your head/brain in a crash over 20 miles an hour. You might as well be wearing a bicycle helmet! What helps all of this is training. The majority of motorcycle crashes and rider deaths in Michigan were UN-endorsed. In Southeast Michigan we are fortunate to have this training along with Advanced Rider Courses. These classes are only $25! Really! You can't buy a helmet for that price.
Chris Zimmel
8:30 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
As soon as a motorcyclist proves he has 5 million dollars in the bank to cover the catastropic medical costs, THEN he can ride without a helmet. As a former Neurosurgical Intensive Care nurse, I can give first hand testimony as to the amount of money it takes to rehab a head injury - if it is even possible. The majority of riders are young males with healthy bodies. They can live for many, many, many years in a vegetative state. And who will pay for it - we taxpaying citizens as they end up on Medicaid for the rest of their lives. In addition, we'll undoubtedly see an increase in our insurance rates so that they can "feel the wind in their hair" just before they get hit by a truck!
11:04 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Then you should make those same demands of every bicyclist, roller blader, jogger, et al. Give us your testimony then... how much DID it cost? And how many cases did you witness first hand, in relation to ALL other accidents? If he is hit by a truck, the truck driver better have the $5M in the bank and hand it over pronto.
Ed Lambert
9:49 pm on Wednesday, April 4, 2012
Never addressed: the untouchable law or laws that require every medical facility to accept a patient regardless of ability to pay. Medical ethics doesn't cover this problem because ethics relate to individual medical personnel and their relationship to the patient and do not relate to a business admitting people for service.
Take away that law, require everyone entering to prove ability to pay, and provide taxpayer-supported coverage only to those meeting stringent requirements. This would presuppose tightening up the welfare rolls as well. Many of the valid claims of healthcare providers and of insurers would go away in an instant.
That has no appeal, however, to those who out of the "goodness in their hearts"--whether they admit it or not--are actually championing government power.
hartland eagle
7:51 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
What an awesome society we'd have in Ed's world! Deny medical care to people that can't afford it? Wow, that'd be great, Ed. Happy Easter! Perhaps consider looking into the guy the holiday is about. Hint - it's not the Easter bunny.
Dan Connell
10:41 pm on Thursday, April 5, 2012
If you don't ride on 2 wheels then your opinion is.null & void. And I'm not sure who got the idea that they are paying for mc riders injuries! The only time you should be paying for my injuries is when you run me over with your car because you were on your cell phone or texting while driving. Are you paying for someone that falls off their skateboard? Get real, there are tons of recreational things that we do and the government need not dictate how we do them. Get the facts, non helmet stetes have no more head trauma accidents than helmet states , that's a fact.
hartland eagle
8:06 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
OK, I ride. You have no idea what you're talking about. The public pays dearly for riders too ignorant to wear a helmet.
From NHTSA:
Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare.17 In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds.27 In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83.28 Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured.29
You've cited what you say is a fact. "Non helmet states have no more head traumea accidents than helmet states." I call bull. Twice as many people DIE of head trauma in non-helmet states.
This is what the GOP in Michigan stands for. The rights of people to make stupid choices, like not having health insurance, or not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.
Is this really such an important issue? Your right to make an absolutely illogical choice?
8:58 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
I ride also...and when I ride through states without helmet laws, I still wear a helmet. If the bill is passed in MI, I will still wear a helmet. But, it's my choice. For me, the freedom to choose is the main issue here. All the NHTSA data confirms that helmets DECREASE injuries (see below), but let me excercise my freedom to choose. I don't smoke, but I'm sure I "pay" for those who do. I don't text while I drive, but I'm sure I "pay" for those who do and end up in accidents. In any society, people "pay" for other's people's stupid decisions or bad choices.
In 2006, 65% of fatally injured motorcycle riders were not wearing a helmet in states without all-rider helmet laws, compared with only 13% in states with all-rider helmet laws. (NHTSA, 2007)
Pennsylvania motorcyclists suffered large increases in head injury deaths and hospitalizations in the two years following the repeal of its motorcycle helmet law, according to a University of Pittsburgh study.
Helmets reduce the risk of death by 29% and are 67% effective in preventing brain injuries to motorcycle riders. (NHTSA, 2001)
Jeddy Tranquill
9:53 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
The stats that you cite are hand picked to cover the failure of the law when the real truth is that fatality and injury rates per 100 invovements are actully lower in the free states. These stats do not lie and cannot be changed and you will NEVER see them presented by the government. Congress repealed the federal helmet law in 1975 because of the USDOT lies and the 30 state repeal has not changed those facts. It would be like me saying that 100% of all bikers died witout helmets before the law was passed which would be true and then me saying that since the law all states with it have no injuries or fatalities which would be a lie because the truth is that "Because of the magnitude of forces present when a motorcyclist is killed or injured it IS NOT reasonable to expect any degree of protection from a helmet" as quoted from a special report on helmets by goverment sorces called 1969-1NYS.
9:24 am on Friday, April 6, 2012
"We only have to look at other states to know what would happen if Michigan's law is repealed. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that in the three years after Florida repealed its helmet law in 2000, 933 motorcyclists were killed, an 81% increase. Another study found that fatalities grew by more than 50% in Kentucky and 100% in Louisiana after those states struck down helmet laws." Taken from a recent letter to the Free Press Editor. Enough Said?
Jeddy Tranquill
9:33 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
You had better go and check that out before you ever shoot your mouth off! It is lies like yours that mislead people as florida has NEVER had 933 fatalities both before, during and after the law. You are a promoter of "helmet hysteria" and know nothing of the facts. Thirty states have repealed because guys like me take time to expose liars like you and the government controlled press that releases canned editorials of USDOT propaganda. Check out haw much they have spent fighting the TRUTH and won't you be suprised.
hartland eagle
10:22 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
Yes. It's a vast conspiracy to force you to wear a helmet.
3:11 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
motorcycle registrations tripled in Florida after the repeal.
In Country Cowboy
1:04 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
Safety riders courses and Driver share the road should be the focus not the helmet. Only 20% of motorcycle accidents involve a head injury. Smarter drivers and riders are the way to go.
3:16 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
Did you know that 87% of all statistics quoted are made up on the spot? Just sayin'...
Jeddy Tranquill
9:41 pm on Friday, April 6, 2012
You are wrong, as 100% of USDOT statistics are well conceived lies to cover up the helmet law failure. This was proven to Congress in 1975 by me and Governor Snyder has that testimony which was sent by me in June of 2011. After 30 states have repealed all of the lies about mayhem have never come to fruition because lies are lies and some want to "trust" our government.
3:15 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
Stats prove what the organization wants to prove. Some stats cleverly omit items to make their point more valid. For example.. Florida deaths increased 81%. Sounds terrible. In truth, bike registrations went up nearly 300% so effectively reducing the number of injuries per rider.
9:57 am on Saturday, April 7, 2012
All this worry about huge expenses is alot like when they started handing out CCWs 15+ years ago, and people were screaming "It will be like the Wild West, blood everywhere, murders every hour!!". Guess what? Didn't happen. Not only that, but homicides went DOWN. Go figure.
hartland eagle
6:39 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
So you figure motorcycle deaths will go down because people don't have to wear helmets? Really?
Your right to be stupid was just reaffirmed. Carry on.
7:57 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
Oh, sorry, did I say that? Please show me where, and I'll edit it out. And calling people names is the preferred tactic of those with nothing intelligent to say in a matter. Thanks for playing.
hartland eagle
8:27 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
You compared the two situations. What else would your point have been? Perhaps it was just a random opinion you wanted to interject into the conversation. If so, I'm sorry, Dennis. I assumed you were following along.
And I didn't call you a name. I said not wearing a motorcycle helmet is a stupid choice. Which IT IS !!! And anyone that doesn't ride, and most that do, think so.
3:42 pm on Saturday, April 14, 2012
The comparison is people FORECASTING disasterous outcomes (mass murders, sky high insurance bills, thousands of head injuries, et al) based on NOTHING. Mass murders didn't happen, in FACT, violent crime rates plummeted. Nobody's catastrophic insurance rates have changed due to this legislation at this time. Please feel free to squawk and complain AFTER it effects you. Thank you pro-helmet-law'ers for minding your own business until then.
And I see ALOT of stupid decisions (IN MY OPINION) that people do everyday. Personal pet peeve: people with Fido sitting at the driver's window on their laps, tooling down the road. Don't they realize that if they have an accident, Fido will be permanently tattooed on their face?!? IGNORANCE. Guess I should run around like people here and tell them all so, and push for laws... that don't affect me. -_-
9:12 am on Sunday, April 8, 2012
Helmet debates can go on forever - how about a mandatory, no "ifs", sentence for a motorist that impedes a motorcyclist's right-of-way? The motorist's job to look out for us too - helmet or not, we usually get injured.
Alan Stamm
10:25 am on Friday, April 13, 2012
--> U P D A T E : "Motorcyclists can let their hair blow in the wind in Michigan after Gov. Rick Snyder signed a bill into law repealing a helmet requirement for most riders." -- Detroit News, April 13 [ http://bit.ly/HFHCq9 ]
11:13 am on Friday, April 13, 2012
Done deal, effective immediately... on a sunny Friday the 13th. O,o
8:51 pm on Friday, April 13, 2012
You can bore me with all the statistics you want on either side of this issue. Here's the deal. I don't care how good of a driver you think you are. Im not worried so much about you making a mistake on your bike. But good luck to you when you get hit by a car that somehow didn't see you. Millions of dollars are spent on car safety with seatbelts, airbags, crash test dummies, etc. These are in place to save lives - plain and simple. I'd like to see how many crash tests are done with motorcycle drivers without helmets. We are about to find out in real life. If you want your hair to blow in the wind, have at it. However, it doesn't blow very well when it's covered in blood after dragging along the pavement.
3:17 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
Compare the number of traumatic brain injuries in autos compared to bikes and tell me again why car drivers aren't required to wear a helmet.
hartland eagle
8:28 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
Wow, you're right, Brian. We should just outlaw cars and have everyone ride motorcycles, since they're so much safer.
Patricia Kane
8:09 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
I really at this point don't care if they wear helmets or not--this has been debated for
some time--what I am tired of is the insurances and State keep thinking it is right and ethical to keep passing on increased costs to all of us-even those that don't own or ride motor cycles because "someone has to pay for them". We pay in this State if they wear a helmet or use a belt in a car and we pay if they don't. It don't make a difference. Maybe without helmets, some of the "dare devil bikers" will ride more responsible.
hartland eagle
8:35 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
This is what the GOP in Michigan stands for. The rights of people to make stupid choices, like not having health insurance, or not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.
Ed Lambert
12:06 pm on Saturday, April 14, 2012
"What an awesome society we'd have in Ed's world! Deny medical care to people that can't afford it? Wow, that'd be great, Ed. Happy Easter! Perhaps consider looking into the guy the holiday is about. Hint - it's not the Easter bunny." -hartland eagle
Hartland, did I not say that society should provide for the truly needy? Why should society be paying for those who refuse to prioritize their needs and wants and elect not to have insurance?
I also remind you about the message of the Gospel: Jesus commands INDIVIDUALS to render assistance, ala the good Samaritan. He does not speak of a direct government mandate or spread-the-cost insurance pools.
It is one thing if we as a society (on any level of government) decide to "help the poor" and define who qualifies as poor. It is quite another to say that the New Testament demands that societies do this. It doesn't. Jesus spoke to his followers and advised what they should do as individuals.
There is much dissatisfaction in society with various levels of government, and part of that dissatisfaction stems from what is perceived to be too generous a stretching of the definition of "needy." Some of that contention can be laid at the feet of those who think that personal Biblical enjoinings become the responsibility of the state.
This is also a back-door approach to expanding the power of government and conveniently using religious principles to accomplish it, principles not even believed in by the expanders.
Jeddy Tranquill
10:13 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
Kinda like the Demoncrats killing the unborn, excuse me, the "products of conception" like arms, heads, brains, hearts and legs. This is America, the land of the free and the brave except for you, find a cave, crawl in and pull in a big rock behind you.
hartland eagle
1:19 pm on Saturday, April 14, 2012
It's actually nothing like that at all. There's not one Democrat, anywhere, that promotes "killing the unborn". Radical, overblown rhetoric like this is why the political process is so out of control.
Jeddy Tranquill
10:15 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
Thank you Governor Rick Snyder and the Legislature, see ya at the "dunes" this summer!
11:25 am on Saturday, April 14, 2012
How did this become a debate on abortion, obesity, etc.? I can tell you from personal experience (from the stand point of a rider and a health care professional). We were hit many years ago by a car which was ininsured. Our injuries were catastrophic and both of our helmets crushed. At the time, head injuries were thought to occur only with a loss of consciousness. Today we know this is not true. It has been a nightmare fighting with insurance companies for 20+ years to evn get reimbursement for a prescription or a wheelchair cushion. The next step will be "no-fault" reform, which will be said is needed because of the repealed helmet law and subsequent costs. $20,000.00 is nothing in terms of the medical costs that will be needed.
hartland eagle
1:17 pm on Saturday, April 14, 2012
You're right. $20k won't even cover the medivac to the hospital.
These "free spirits" will quickly go bankrupt, go on Medicaid, and draw on assistance from the government for the rest of their lives.
Jeddy Tranquill
2:00 pm on Saturday, February 16, 2013
Helmet repeal and everything gets safer by 5% just like I told you now go back to your caves and pull the rock back in behind you!
Debra L. Van Buren
3:43 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
The arguments in favor of wearing motorcycle helments far outweigh the potential disadvantages. Although it may seem as a nice alternative to simply disregard wearing one's helmet on a nice day, common sense dictates otherwise. As Jody proclaimed, "This is not a personal liberty issue; this is an issue about what is best for the state." As a long time biker, I disagree with the Governor's decision, and have every intention of wearing my helmet whenever I ride, irrespective of what option the law affords and/or allows to motorcyclists. My last desire in life is to end up with a traumatic head injury, or associated catastrophic injury which renders me
incapacitated or in a vegetative state, due to a motorcycle accident. Besides, taxpayers and insurers are almost always stuck with the burden of providing medical care in such cases. I guess those who choose to ride without a helmet don't see the whole picture, or they just don't give a hoot. Their immediate sense of pleasure having the wind blow in their face blinds them to the realities that exist. Even the most experienced of motorcyclists are prone to unexpected and devastating accidents. Not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle is an indication that such an individual has lost reasonable judgment, or in my opinion, is not too bright. Or maybe I am just smarter than these riders. At any rate, the repeal of mandatory helmet laws ought to be reconsidered. Even the majority of bike riders would agree.
Jeddy Tranquill
8:39 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
DLVB call me at five 8 five 2 three 0 nine 3 0 three
Jeddy Tranquill
5:22 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
To Debbie L. Van Buren, You are one of the people that are suffering from what I call helmet hysteria. For your information in all your magnioquent granduer helmets ONLY work in very few isolated cases. I am the guy who got the federal helmet law repealed back in 1975 and worked with Governor Snyder on the repeal. You see the feds have lied AND ARE STILL LYINGabout helmet performance. In your state I guaranteed that there would be NO blood bath after the repeal and there hasn'r been! In fact injuries, fatalities and accidents went DOWN 5% while registrations went UP 5%. Please do not spew careless words out about something you obviously know nothing about but consult with riders like me who have the REAL data on the failure of the helmet laws. Testimony before Congress can be had by contacting library of Congress Helmet Testimony Surface Transportation Hearings 1975. On to the next repeal state Louisiana.
Debra L. Van Buren
7:19 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
To Jeddy Tranquill,
Maybe I am one of those people suffering from helmet hysteria. I am not denying that notion. Perhaps I am being too overly cautious about the entire matter. At any rate, after my own review of relevant fed statistics, I was certainly under the impression that fatalities and accidents would increase after repeal of the mandatory helmet law. Your claim to have the REAL data on the failure of the helmet laws spurs my interest. I did not mean to spew careless words; I was merely reflecting on the information I came to rely upon. Stastical data is often innaccurate and skewed to support a particular notion. I'm not sure what to believe now. Your reference to Congressional Helmet Testimony Surface Transportation Hearings 1975 may lend me to change my mind regarding helmet laws and/or safety. Your comments were well received by me. No hard feelings. Just the facts. Still, I do desire to be a survivor of one of those few isolated incidents where helmet safety pays off. I shall further investigate the matter as you suggested. Your input and reply to my comments were appreciated. Safe biking to you, with or without your helmet. Live to ride. Debbie
12:35 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Debra, you gave in too quickly. Jeddy is an I know best kind of guy and doesn't mind telling you so over and over again. Accident statistics are not the only relevant or "REAL" ones. All accidents are down. Perhaps due to less traffic perhaps due to less driving for lots of reasons, but perhaps due to price of gas and condition of roads. Who knows (Oh, I forgot, Jeddy knows, doesn't he? He's a rider and worked on this in 1975 and helped Snyder, so he knows EVERYTHING). Do we know how many of those in accidents continue to use helmets? I don't think many thought there would be a blood bath, but I do think that it is the injuries NOT the just the # of accidents that need to be considered. But then, of course, as Jeddy likes to say, " the Feds are...LYING". Wondering if anyone who thinks, feels, or uses stats that disagree with his (that is, looks at the issue from a different perspective than his) is actually LYING? Calm down, Jeddy. There is room for difference here.
Patricia Kane
7:01 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013
Our view point is-wear a helmet or don't wear a helmet-but don't pass on the cost to us that don't own a cycle, don't ride one, use our seat belts, don't smoke, aren't obese, don't use a cell phone or text while driving and don't drink and drive. Our car insurance just keeps going up because of everyone else-and without a helmet the risk factor just increased and the person not wearing the helmet will expect his/her insurance or the other persons to cover everything maybe forever--- and that means it comes out of our pockets----and our premiums after awhile, well, they go up again where a helmet may have lessened the cost to all of us....oh well..
12:39 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Thanks, Patricia. AND, "cyber troll ranting" is insulting. If it irrelevant to you, than move on. Don't think "valuable part of Patch" is affected. This service is one of the valuable parts of Patch!
Patricia Kane
1:19 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Oh Jody, my apologies, your comment got in under the wrong post--see below.
And yes, you are very correct to what we have seen in the comments-
Thank you
Laura Vogel
9:38 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
why is this screaming arguing thread resurrected? Honestly, it is overtaking the 'ticker feed' at every Patch around town and is preventing the local users from seeing if any local relevant topics are being discussed. Can we please close this from further comments so that the valuable part of Patch -- local relevant news items -- can be the feature in the ticker feed, as opposed to further cyber troll ranting?
Patricia Kane
9:41 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
"cyber troll ranting" ? That's kind of insulting to those that expressed opinions. There are many valid points in this thread.
Thank you
Jeddy Tranquill
10:55 am on Monday, February 18, 2013
never stir up a hornets nest and not be expected to be stung! for you laura
Mark Itall
12:52 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
More importantly, start reading new articles. Stop commenting on year old pieces.
7:31 am on Friday, February 22, 2013
to the no helmet advocates. go the a nursing home and view the motorcycle head injury patients who have to have poopy diapers changed 24/7. even minor accidents can cause severe head injuries. dexter


text:
We had a wonderful time at this little hotel located in an alleyway off the Grand Blvds. Rooms were small but very clean, staff was exceedingly helpful. We had rooms overlooking the alleyway and could hear the morning Paris cleanup. Two blocks from the Metro getting us where ever we wanted to go. Price was very reasonable especially for Paris.... More
- Also Known As:
- Des Arts Hotel

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Shun Ken Onion 5" Serrated Utility Knife
Utility Knife
Ken Onion designed this versatile serrated knife to feel like a natural extension of your hand, with a handle and bolster that naturally guide your fingers into the position that professional cooks prefer for maximum control and safety.
- VG-MAX "super steel" blade is clad on each side with 16 microthin layers of high-carbon steel, creating a variegated look reminiscent of a Damascus-style blade.
- Serrated blade cuts through delicate foods without tearing or squashing them.
- Specially shaped handle increases control while decreasing fatigue.
- Handle is made from resin-infused PakkaWood for lasting moisture resistance.
- Handcrafted in Japan by Kershaw, premier cutlery makers for more than 90 years.
- 5"-long blade.
- 4"-long handle.
- 3.8 oz.
- Made in Japan.
- Always use caution when handling sharp objects.
- Avoid cutting on hard surfaces such as stone, metal or glass.
- It is not advisable to use any knife but a meat cleaver to cut through bone, as other blades can be easily damaged.
- Hand-wash with warm water and a mild detergent. Rinse and dry immediately.
- Avoid cleaners containing bleach or citrus extracts.
- Sharpen your knife at home using a sharpener designed for a serrated blade, or have it sharpened by a professional.
- Store knife in a safe place to protect its edge and prevent injury.
Shipping Information
This item is shipped from our warehouse by UPS to arrive within five business days of our receiving your order.
Shipping Rates
The shipping rate varies depending on your order total and shipping destination.View Shipping Options and Charges.
Rush Delivery
For an additional charge of $15 per address, we can rush delivery to most destinations. This service is not available for some oversize items, items shipped directly from the supplier (including perishable and custom-manufactured items), out-of-stock items and items to be shipped outside the contiguous 48 states.
Return Policy
At Williams-Sonoma, we take great pride in the quality and craftsmanship of our products. If, within 90 days, you are not completely satisfied with your purchase for any reason, please return the item for an exchange or refund of the merchandise value. View Full Return Policy.


text:
Location is great near central rail station also near metro. The stuff are friendly and very helpful we liked them a lot. Hotel and rooms were little bit old and not in best conditions but it's not metter if you only spend a nights there like us.
- Also Known As:
- Aurelia Hotel Milan
- Reservation Options:
- TripAdvisor is proud to partner with Booking.com, HostelWorld, HostelBookers, Priceline and HotelsClick so you can book your Aurelia Hotel reservations with confidence. We help millions of travellers each month to find the perfect hotel for both holiday and business trips, always with the best discounts and special offers.


text:
Posted by AsX_Obliterate on May 13, 2012 5:32 AM
just saying i reckon it would be sick az if you could create your own custom camo
Like (2)
Posted by AsX_Obliterate on May 13, 2012 5:32 AM
just saying i reckon it would be sick az if you could create your own custom camo
That would be cool, but I do think there just be at least a few camos that can only be attained through challenges or rigorous use of a weapon- gold/chrome/etc.
I had an idea where you gain a cool new camo every three prestiges(chrome,gold,matte black, green tiger etc.) and at final prestige you unlock the camo creator.
i disagree. alot of people (such as myself) dont play as much as others, i think after prestige 5 the camo creator would be unlocked
That would be sick. but if there are 10 or 15 or 20 prestiges it should be unlocked last. Hard core no lifers like me need to get something sick at the end. They did it just right with Gold camo in Blops.
the 2 i liked were in mw2
1. behind enermy lines title was a black and white snake
2. chick magnet was a half naked women
i got the idea from a old war film when the bombers used to have stuff painted on the side
You could make a custom camo list similar to custom classes but separate and choose it before every round just like you would a custom class but you would choose both. That way you could have snow camo for snow maps, desert camo for desert maps, and black city camo for you get the idea!
I like it. Even more if we were able to create plain-coloured camo.
Kind of a cool idea if it's restricted to selecting available options like gun camo or face paint in BO (although that's even more textures to keep track of in a game that already has frame rate issues on occasion). I'd prefer to allow for customization of the look of the character without fundamentally altering the ability to easily differentiate the team that each player is on.
If you want people to actually create their own patterns, then sorry, it's a stupid idea. The game is chatty enough as it is. Last thing I would want is to add to that just so some 14-year old can run around with a picture of a penis on his chest, because you KNOW that's what it'll end up being.


text:
I just hosted a Mom-Daughter Retreat at Belle Meade, and got nothing but rave reviews from my participants (besides a few insect sightings from a couple of the young girls!). The location is absolutely gorgeous; and the farm makes an outstanding place for kids (and kids-at-heart). We all loved petting the pigs, gathering eggs from the chickens, seeing the cows,... More
- Official Description (provided by the hotel):
- Renovated turn-of-the-century Victorian B&B. ... more less


text:
Things to see and do
Organise your stay
Modify the search
Tourist attractions
Tourist attractions Provins
Results 1 to 10 on 10
Sort by :
- distance
- rating
1 Tour César
Architecture, castles and historic districts
place du Chatel F - 77160 Provins
A superb 12C keep that stands 44 metres high, flanked by four towers. It is the emblem of the town. The «shirt» that surrounds the base was added by the English during the Hundred Years War, which it is known as the «Pâté aux Anglais». From the galle..
2 Ramparts
Architecture, castles and historic districts
Allée des Remparts F - 77160 Provins
Built in the 12th and 13 C, the ramparts are a good example of medieval military architecture. Between Porte Saint-Jean and Porte de Jouy, you will see the most interesting part of the ramparts. The «Tour aux Engins» that links two courtyards is name..
3 Église St-Ayoul
Religious buildings
Place St-Ayoul F - 77160 Provins
The mutilated central portal was completed by sheened bronze sculptures by Georges Jeanclos . The combination of these contemporary works with medieval reliefs is a great success. Inside, there are gold-plated marble statues, the somewhat precious ..
4 Underground passages
Nature and gardens
Chemin de Villecran F - 77160 Provins
Provins has many underground passages (the ones you can see were dug out of a layer of tuff that show at the base of the spur supporting the upper town). Arriving here after a low room, vaulted with struts from the old Hôtel-Dieu, you will see graffi..
5 Grange aux Dîmes
Museums and art
Chemin de villecran F - 77160 Provins
A basic 13C construction with a military look. The Grange belonged to the canons of Saint-Quiriace, who rented it out to merchants during the Champagne fairs. It then served as a warehouse for tithes paid by peasants. An audio-guided tour, Provins au..
6 Collégiale St-Quiriace
Religious buildings
Place St-Quiriace F - 77160 Provins
Construction of this church began on the initiative of Henri le Libéral in the 12C. The transept and nave date from the 13C and the dome from the 17C. A cross on the square marks the spot where the royal gate once stood.
7 Musée du Provinois
Museums and art
7 chemin de Villecran F - 77160 Provins
This museum is housed in one of the oldest houses in Provins, the «Romanesque House». In it, you will find an interesting collection of sculptures and ceramics, giving a picture of Provins art. Ceramics were developed in Provins thanks to underground..
8 Place du Châtel
Architecture, castles and historic districts
Place du Châtel F - 77160 Provins
This vast rectangular esplanade is surrounded by charming old houses: the Maison aux Quatre-Pignons (15C), Maison des Petits-Plaids (13C) and Hôtel de la Coquille ; the remains of the 12C Saint-Thibault Church also stand here. In the middle of..
9 Rue de Jouy
Architecture, castles and historic districts
Rue de Jouy F - 77160 Provins
Extending the Porte de Jouy, this street islined with low houses with long tile roofs or protruding upper floors. The Caveau Saint-Esprit belongs to a former hospital that was devastated by fire in the 17C.
10 Porte St-Jean
Architecture, castles and historic districts
Rue St-Jean F - 77160 Provins
This squat 13C gate is flanked by two spur-shaped towers that are partly masked by fortifications built in the 14C to protect the drawbridge.


text:
To have a potential case reviewed by a nursing home neglect lawyer, complete the form below. Based on the information provided, if an attorney determines that you may have a case they can assist you with, you will be contacted by phone or email.
Please provide:
- Complete Contact Information
- Details About the Injury
- When and Where the Injury Occurred or was Discovered
There are no fees or expenses unless a recovery is obtained.
cforms contact form by delicious:days
Please note that by submitting this information, you have not retained an attorney or formed any attorney-client relationship. After reviewing the information submitted, you may be contacted to obtain additional details necessary to evaluate this potential case. If a lawyer determines this is a claim they can assist you with, you will make the decision about whether to move forward with a case. An attorney-client relationship is only formed after a Contingency Fee Retainer Agreement has been signed, and there are no fees or expenses charged unless a recovery is obtained.
Case evaluation service sponsored by Saiontz & Kirk, P.A.


text:
Here we present a new bioluminescent assay for determining the concentration of the reduced form of glutathione in cells or tissue lysates. The bioluminescent format reduces test compound interference and uses a protocol easily amenable to high-throughput screening applications.
Cell Notes 20, 15–17.
Nancy Murphy, John Schultz, Wenhui Zhou and Keith V. Wood
Download Article (269 KB)