http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat...gan_on_its.htmlJune 07, 2006
Michigan Lawmakers Want To Repeal Mandatory Motorcycle Helmet Law. Idiots Rejoice.
David Kiley
Just when confidence is falling in elected officials. Just when people think governing has become the shallowest enterprise since Amway, some Michigan legislators have drained a little more water out of the pool.
Michigan lawmakers today (June 7) repealed Michigan's 37-year-old mandatory motorcycle helmet law. Now, only a veto by Governor Jennifer Garnholm, who is running for re-election in a tough contest against former Amway president Dick DeVos, can stop this assinine piece of legislation.
According to AAA Michigan, the bill, sponsored by Sen. Alan L. Cropsey (R-DeWitt), would remove the mandatory helmet requirement for all riders and passengers 21 years of age or older, but does not require motorcycle riders to carry Personal Injury Protection (PIP) insurance coverage. In 2005, there were 3,605 motorcycle- involved crashes in Michigan in which 122 riders were killed and 2,721 injured.
Under the bill, sponsored by Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, a rider at least 21 years old, who's completed a motorcycle safety course and has been operating a bike for at least two years wouldn't have to wear a helmet.
Thankfully, we here in Michigan expect Granholm to do the right thing, and veto a dumb bill.
I guess what baffles me is the months and months of hard work these legislators have put into this bill. Is this really progress? Is there nothing better for these people to do?
I admit, I do not ride. But there is something about motorcycles I like. However. One thing I have never been able to figure out is this. If my car made as much noise as the typical motorcycle, people would say my car was broken. And in many states, it wouldn't pass inspection. Yet, motorcycles are given a pass on noise pollution.
Let's see here. A repeal of the helmet law will undoubtedly cause more serious injuries and deaths (I wonder how many motorcycle riders in Michigan who would avail themselves of the right not to wear a helmet even have comprehensive health insurance?)Who benefits from a repeal of this law? A bunch of people championing their right to be a wombat. A bill that would force a whole new generation of mufflers on motorcycles, on the other hand? Such a bill would benefit everyone. But we'll probably never see that. That's okay...there ARE more important things for lawmakers to worry about. At least I hope so.
04:26 PM
Transitions
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4036.1310814641Comments
I'm tired of people in suits, smoking cigars, have money in the stock market, or what ever bad habits you like to do. Think of it as a extreme sport you can't handle. If you want to be some want-to-be biker, than a dork, that's your choice. There is freedom of choice, freedom of so called speech, freedom of religion, and ect. Just don't say were idiots. I may think of a dozen ways to call you something far more worse than a idiot. I'm sure your more dangerous on a bar-b-que grill than most people, so we should ban idiots like you to have one??. Or idiots like polititions sending our young men and women to war because of cigar smoking Republicans like you?.
Posted by: Sam Prezzato at June 7, 2006 07:04 PM
Now that is really really dumb.
Posted by: Kelly Clarkson at June 8, 2006 03:56 AM
Well Mr. kiley like u said u do not ride so first of all u dont understand the thrill of riding a motor cycle. You ask why bikes are allowed to have loud pipes let me tell you.....how many people say the did not seee the car and they just pulled out. How visible do u think a 2 foot wide bike is......LOUD PIPES SAVE LIVES plain and simple. You really want an understanding on it ....get out in city traffic for a week on a bike and see how many times u get pulled out in front of. You seem to be speaking on an issue you have no first hand on knowledge about and that my friend is arragance. All you have is your statistics and check into them deeper if you want most of the deaths from car bike accidents are not helmet related. In other words a helmet didnt make a diference. Its the riders choice not the choice of people who dont ride. If that is the case then people without airbags in there cars should were helmets too seeings how they "have the chance " to bang there head.
Posted by: the jeepers at June 8, 2006 06:45 AM
I remember reading a study from California that showed the cost to the state of uninsured motorcyclists; I presume Michigan, too, is absorbing costs from uninsured motorcyclists that can't pay their way after an accident. People will spout off about "freedom" in the abstract, but we, as a society, are not free to check to see if motorcyclists have insurance once they've been in an accident. We take everyone to the hospital whether they can pay or not. Who pays for this? I do. You do. On a personal note, I have personal experience with a helmet saving my life, twice. The question for state legislators is: will increased revenue from tourism outweigh the costs to the state to care for injured, insurance-less out-of-state bikes.
How 'bout a no seatbelt law, or raising the BAC limit to .3? Just as dumb.
Posted by: Chris Terry at June 8, 2006 08:34 AM
That is asinine. Safety laws are designed to deal with an accident regardless of the driver's skill level AND when their skill wouldn't have saved them anyway. An accident is an accident is an accident. My spouse saw plenty of folks hospitalized permanently because they weren't wearing their helmets when they got hit or slammed due to careless driving.
Posted by: Joel A at June 8, 2006 11:31 AM
I've been riding for 18 years(I'm 34 now),completed an MSF course(when I was 18), and always wear a helmet. Some misconceptions in the article: motorcycles CAN be ticketed for too loud of an exhaust(at least in WI, where I live). WI also has an "eye protection only" requirement; I used to be upset by riders without helmets until I realized that those without helmets must not have anything to protect. (The usual anti-helmet stances are "choice"--b.s., since we have a nationwide seatbeltr law; and some say helmets limit field of vision, which has also been disproven many times.)
Posted by: Dwight at June 8, 2006 12:31 PM
WHAT IS THE BILL # ??
Posted by: N/A at June 8, 2006 03:01 PM
The most appropriate part of David Kiley's piece is his picture directly under the "idiot" quote. Leave it to this scholar to quote AAA in their rhetoric of crash, bang, boom, bleed that NEVER actually happens in the other 31 states where the helmet law has been reasonably modified. YES! Likely there will be more accidents in Michigan because the number of motorcycles will increase (ching for the State @ 6% sales tax)and because the number of miles ridden will increase (ching again for the state and tourism) with the influx of out of state visitors finally coming in unlidded. And the insurance rates in those 31 other states? Hmmmmm...didn't go up anymore than ours. And insurance rates in state that make the lid mandatory after a reprieve? Hmmmm...didn't go down any. Sounds like AAA realizes that their cost will go up if they can't get their car drivers to stop hitting the bikers, regardless of what's on their heads. Educate, don't legislate.
Posted by: Scott Tanner at June 8, 2006 03:52 PM
Talk about idiot.You dont even ride but you have this strong of an opinion.Lets talk about a waste of time in government,I heard there are people out there wasting time trying to change our state bird,rock,flower,ect.How about violent crime,we have all the police we need for seatbelt violators but none for real crime.How does my not wearing a helmet affect you if I have insurance.I think your wasting your own time worring about something that doesnt concern you.You are just as bad as the lawmakers you say have better things to worry about.
Posted by: jon hall at June 8, 2006 05:17 PM
David, how about cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling in the State of Michigan? How much do they collectively contribute to the public good? Does the State move to prohibit these? No, you say. In fact, the State is in the business of proliferating these behaviors, isn't it? I ride, and have a ton of medical insurance. I also am very experienced, and would like to have the right to choose. Further, I would rather have had the bill stipulate a minimum age (25), and proof of a certain level of medical insurance. Also, has anyone ever questionned other states, and surrounding states, pertaining to what drove them to repeal their helmet laws?
Posted by: Bob Heitjan at June 8, 2006 06:28 PM
i am a police officer for a detroit suburb and also a motorcycle enthusiast. i have been riding now for 12yrs. i have seen my share of motorcycle accidents and i am convinced that a helmet is only good for accidents under 35 mph. i feel (and talking from my experiences) that a helmet will not protect you in high speed accidents. take a look at the most common type of helmets that harley riders wear. it is a half helmet, barely covering the top of the head. yet it is still LEGAL !! i feel that the helmet law should be revised. there are times that i just don't want to wear a helmet and shouldn't have to. now back to your article. i found, what i believe to be, a flaw in it. i have heard that riders not wearing a helmet, WILL be required to carry a minimum of $10,000 personal insurance liability. correct me if im wrong??? if you go and look at the other states that don't require helmets, like ohio or indiana; i don't believe the death rate is any higher than michigan for motorcycle accidents. i just wish reporters would report facts and facts only in their stories.....and keep their opinions to themselves. especially if they have no real experiences of the issue at hand.. thanks for your time. signed, no helmet supporter (in blue)
Posted by: khris at June 8, 2006 07:14 PM
motorcycles are loud so drivers will hear us and hopefully not treat us as a transparent insignificant biker trash! Loud pips save life's you are worried about our safety make hands free phones a law and enforce it. I see people eating, smoking,shaving,putting on make up and even watching movies all of these attribute to accidents & deaths of many motorcycle riders. I think all licensed drivers should have to take the written motrocycle endorsement test & pass it this would educate all as to why we ride like we do.
Posted by: G at June 8, 2006 10:44 PM
Respectfully, you're not a rider so you can't be expected to understand.
I'm a young man who rides an extremely loud bike through the crowded streets of Chicago with reckless abandon. I'm also an MBA student with an interest in the insurance regulatory environment and well-developed understanding of the ethical issues at hand.
I never wear a helmet. They're useless (see below).
My bike is tuned-up loud so that you can hear me coming.
For sound research on the topic, including policy implications see:
"The Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use on the Probability of Fatality and the Severity of Head And Neck Injuries"
Jonathan P. Goldstein, Ph.D.
Department of Economics
Bowdoin College
Brunswick, Maine 04011
I QUOTE GOLDSTEIN'S STUDY:
"From our empirical results we conclude that helmet use has no statistically significant effect on the probability of a motorcycle fatality and that helmet users face a tradeoff between reductions in the severity of head injuries and increases in the severity of neck injuries."
Land of the Free.
Home of the Brave.
God Bless America.
Posted by: Anthony Vagnetti at June 8, 2006 11:27 PM
Idiots Rejoice? Assinine piece of legislation? Mr. Kileys' Comments are worthy of someone with a backround primarily in the automobile industry, who admits he has never ridden a motorcycle.
I have been riding motorcycles on the streets for 25 years. I have ridden in small groups and in very large police escorted groups. We are not idiots or hells angels. Times have changed. Yeah my motorcycle has after market exhaust. Do you know why? The sound of my motorcycle can't be heard over the noise made by some of the booming car stereos out there. Does this noise bother you?
No group of people are more aware of the risk of injury or death on the roads than motorcycle riders. Only 4 states are helmet free. But at least they have a choice. Freedom of choice is the benefit and the money, time, and energy spent to promote or protect it is VERY important. It's the difference between being asked to do something and being told to do it or else.
Unfortunately uninterested non-riders would think motorcyclists and those involved with repealing the mandatory helmet law are a waste of brains, time, and money. ie:'A bunch of people championing their right to be a wombat.'
Posted by: Randle at June 10, 2006 05:03 AM
you are ignorant. have you even studied the subject? im only 24 and know of of the facts than you.granted it has been a major part of my enviorment. please educate your self befor you make a stand agenst somthing
Posted by: john smith at June 11, 2006 12:04 AM
Mr. Kiley,
Just when I was beginning to think that BusinessWeek was a reasonable portal for good reporting they actually had the audacity to publish the kind of rubbish your obviously un-researched and uninformed article of June 7th about the Michigan helmet law. Idiots do rejoice. Count yourself among them.
You in the opposition media always fall back on the worst-case scenarios to demonstrate why the minority should rule the majority. You don’t have the courage to report on the millions upon millions of safely traveled miles of motorcycles just as you don’t have the courage to report on the billions upon billions of safely traveled auto miles. You have to sensationalize the worst to grab the headlines so your publication can make money. Responsible reporting is extinct. That is all to obvious.
Being a admitted non-rider, you have no clue as to the dangers and pressures of riding. You also don’t have a clue about the pleasures of being in the wind. Your ill-informed tact taken by your June 7th article illustrates that in spades.
While the numbers used are AAA numbers (AAA has never been motorcycle friendly), all they illustrate are numbers of accidents and deaths. That’s all they show. They don’t show all the miles traveled safely. They also don’t show numbers of accidents/deaths per registered motorcycle. Because the numbers of motorcycle registrations have been going up, the accidents per registered vehicle has remained fairly constant. The revision (NOT repeal) of the law would ONLY give adults the choice. You act as if nobody will wear a helmet after this is allowed to become law. That assumption (and what your predictions assert) is totally false. Many will continue to wear helmets by choice. Best estimates are 70 – 75% will still wear helmets by choice. Perhaps more. My Significant Other among them.
While your claim of legislators having other things more important than this bill may have some merit, they are responding to constituents concerns. Is that not the task of elected officials? Important by Who’s opinion? Bills of little importance in the grand scheme of things are debated and worked on at length in every legislative house in every state of the union including Washington DC on a daily basis. I consider that argument moot at best.
Your point about the noise some motorcycles make (you would classify mine among them) is a common misconception among non-riders. Over 75% of multi-vehicle accidents involving motorcycles are the fault of the auto driver NOT the motorcycle. These accidents are generally the auto impeding on the right-of-way of the motorcycle – merging or changing lanes into our road space, making left turns into oncoming motorcycles, not realizing a motorcycle is between them and the car in front of the motorcycle, etc., etc.. Loud pipes are another TOOL motorcyclists use to try to make auto drivers AWARE of us. While a small percentage make their bikes loud just to be loud, the purpose is awareness in traffic.
We on motorcycles are vulnerable on the roadways. We are exposed. Anything we can do to increase awareness so we can AVOID the accident – which saves all involved both injury and money. Granted, motorist awareness reduces the headlines and the “see, I told you so” articles, it increases safety and enjoyment for all.
One other thing you seem to not have any concept of is the potential increase in tourism dollars that passage of this bill will either KEEP in Michigan or DRAW INTO Michigan due to the change in this law. An independent research firm states that this change would generate $461 Million in direct new sales within Michigan, an additional $54 Million in direct tourism dollars, an estimated 1,500 directly related new jobs for the state and an astonishing $1.5 Billion (yep, with a

total revenue into Michigan coffers. Being a BusinessWeek columnist, while researching this article, it would seem to me researching BOTH SIDES would be a matter of course. Not so in this case it seems.
I know BusinessWeek won’t have the courage to publish this response to your lop-sided, ill-conceived rant, but I felt a response to your rubbish was absolutely necessary. I suggest you really try to get out more and balance your reporting by allowing both sides into your writing. I know that is a pipe dream, but I can still hold out hope that true journalism is out there somewhere.
Respectfully,
One of the Idiots you claim are rejoicing,
Jim Pierson
mystc@bikerheaven.org
Posted by: Jim Pierson at June 11, 2006 09:52 AM
{Please insert Roethlisberger comment/joke here.}
Posted by: Renegade at June 13, 2006 02:07 PM
I don't know why you would doubt that I'd run your comment Mr. Pierson. It's a good and thoughtful comment.
I happen to think that a few nanny laws are correct for our society---seatbelts, mandatory child seats for kids of a certain age and size and motorcycle helmets.
I have to say, though, that your assertion that very loud exhaust notes is a TOOL for motorcyclists to let cars know they are around sounds like a nutty reach. And even if it IS true, it is a terrible trade-off. Why should I, in my yard 500 yeards away from a street, be forced to hear a motorcycle exhaust as if it was in my own driveway. Ever hear of noise pollution?
And as far as accidents being caused by motorists...that's tough to take seriously when I have, over the course of my life, seen countless motorcycle riders weaving in and out of cars in a traffic jam or within slow moving traffic rather than taking their rightful place in line.
Truthfully, I would love to ride sometime. It is a romantic past-time, I imagine. Just ask Ben Rothlesberger.
Posted by: Kiley at June 13, 2006 02:41 PM
I find it comical that the same people who are so fearful of getting creamed by a car that they defend an after-market exhaust I can hear a half-mile away are also the people defending not wearing a helmet.
If you have nothing to fear without a helmet, why worry if a car creams you?
Why a helmet law? Because some people just need to be protected from their own stupidity. Just ask Ben Rothlesberger.
Posted by: kiley at June 13, 2006 02:47 PM
David, what were you thinking when you posted such an assinine commentary. Most motorcyclist ride motorcycles which are valued in excess of $20,000.00 and have more that enough insurance coverage. Small business owners would flourish in and around border towns, tourism would greatly improve, all would benifit from the repeal.
Every state which surrounds Michigan has repealed the helmet law. Of couse, the accident/injury/death rate has increased but the number of riders and vistors has also increased three fold. Have you looked at the price of gas lately? ALot more people are riding motorcycles as a primary mode of transportation.
As far as the Ben Rothlesberger comment...He broke his jaw not his head. A helmet would not have protected his jaw, but more than likely would have broken his neck.
Posted by: Mac McCracken at June 13, 2006 04:49 PM
It seems that the loud pipe exception applies only to Harley Davidson and other fat bikes. Riders of Japanese bikes i.e pocket rocket don't get this pass by the police.
BTW I used to ride until I ran over a small dog at 20mph. Fortunately I was wearing my full gear (helmet, jacket and gloves in 100 Phoenix, AZ weather) and came out almost unscathe after fish tailing and sliding a few feet. At any speed the asphalt will eat your skin and anything else griding on it. The helmet saved my face from a nasty, likely disfiguring wounds. It was uncomfortable wearing all that safety gear under the hot desert sun, but it was definitely worth it.
In short, just do the right thing so you don't have to say "I shoulda" later.
Posted by: lolite at June 13, 2006 07:26 PM
After reading some of the comments by people who support riding without a helmet, and realizing that their comments were rife with grammatical errors and misspellings, it seems that if they damage their brains, it won't be a great loss...
Posted by: Steve at June 13, 2006 08:15 PM
Open Letter To Michigan Governor Setting Forth Motorcyclist Safety Position of Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers In Support of Helmet Law Repeal.
Dear Governor Granholm,
I am writing on behalf of Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers which does not have as its mission the repeal of helmet laws. We are an organization the mission of which is solely to improve motorcyclist safety. Unfortunately, in our safety mission we find that politicians claiming to be concerned about motorcyclist safety seize upon helmet laws as a way to appear to be doing something for motorcyclists when in fact, any contribution to the reduction of motorcyclist injury and death is so minimal as to be essentially unproductive, indeed it is counterproductive as it deflects attention from the real motorcycle safety issues. The political tradition of pretending to solve what is certainly a very important public health issue, this obscene incidence motorcycle accidents and the consequent panoply of catastrophic motorcyclist injuries, by myopically and paternalistically focusing on what motorcyclists wear is nothing more than political contrivance. And what we are concerned about is that while politicians continue to so dishonestly focus on what is not the problem, the real solutions to the real problems are ignored, with the effect that motorcyclists continue to be maimed and killed on our streets and highways indeed in obscene numbers.
The first thing you need to understand is that this public health crisis faced by your state and every other state is much broader than very limited number of deaths which arguably might be avoided by the use of helmets. It is purely political that those who seek helmet laws or resist the repeal of helmet laws focus solely on death statistics. The fact is that motorcyclists suffer every kind of catastrophic injury in motorcycle accidents. They suffer catastrophic internal injuries, injuries which both result in death statistics and those which leave the motorcyclist's health impaired for the remainder of his life. They suffer quadriplegia and paraplegia and other spinal cord injuries which ruin their lives, often confined to convalescent centers, or requiring full time or part time professional nursing assistance. Motorcyclists suffer limb injuries often requiring limb amputation or catastrophic orthopedic injuries which render them unable to continue in their professions as productive members of our society. This broad landscape of catastrophic motorcyclist injury is what defines both your state's public health crisis and the state fiscal impact of caring for these men and women whose often substantial life long medical expense is almost universally uncompensated by the underinsured and usually impecunious auto drivers who by their inattention and negligence cause the majority of the accidents and consequent injuries.
These are the real public health and substantial fiscal issues faced by your state. The death statistics relied upon my those who urge helmet laws are misleading first of all because death can occur as the result of motorcycle accidents for many reasons other than head injury, including most obviously, internal injury, or delayed death or the shortening of one's life expectancy as with motorcyclists who are rendered quadriplegic. The death statistics are also often misrepresented. For example, often quoted are the statistics which focus on the number of motorcyclist deaths rising after the repeal of helmet legislation. But those statistics often fail to account for such variables as the recent steep rise in motorcycle registrations, particularly in the last several years, and the likelihood that this implies that there are a greater number of novice or less experienced motorcyclists who are getting into accidents, suffering the panoply of catastrophic injury, and contributing to the death statistics. In addition, those who report these death statistics, which are truly just unanalyzed compilations of selected raw data, apparently have no interest in discovering whether any of these deaths actually resulted from the motorcyclist's failure to wear a helmet. As noted, these deaths can occur from any of a dozen causes unrelated to head injury. Even with those deaths in which the motorcyclist suffered a head injury, none of those who have compiled these data have followed through to obtain the death and autopsy reports to determine, first of all, to what extent the brain damage could have been prevented by a helmet, and second, to determine whether the motorcyclist suffered internal or other catastrophic injury which likely would have resulted in his life long disability, death or foreshortened life expectancy regardless of his helmet use. Even with regard to deaths among motorcyclists who were not wearing helmets, you need to realize that helmets only serve to reduce the incidence of brain injury and death for impacts of less than 15 miles per hour. In almost every accident in which a death is reported, there is also serious or catastrophic injury quite apart from brain injury which are not accounted for by simply listing the selected raw data on deaths in helmeted riders and those who chose not to wear helmets. There are many more deficiencies in these studies which I would be pleased to discuss with you if you would permit me to speak with you or your staff. But suffice it to say that the death statistics which are so commonly cited are not compiled according to the scientific method, nor are they subjected to statistical analysis, and any legitimate scientist would tell you that as the result of their methodologically errors they unfortunately provide no meaningful information even on the narrow issue whether or to what extent helmets may reduce the incidence of motorcyclist death.
The only way to solve your true public health crisis, which can be accurately measure only by examining the full panoply of catastrophic motorcyclist injury, and motorcyclist death from all medical causes, is by reducing the incidence of motorcycle accidents. If we can reduce the incidence of motorcycle accidents then we can reduce the incidence of every category of catastrophic motorcyclist injury, and among helmeted riders and unhelmeted riders alike.
This is not an unattainable goal. Indeed, it is a goal that hasn't been achieved only because politicians have failed to seize the opportunity to provide the obvious solutions, choosing instead to mislead the public that dictating what motorcyclists wear is the solution.
The first thing you need to understand is that fully two-thirds of all multi-vehicle motorcycle accidents are the result of auto driver inattention and negligence, without any fault on the part of the motorcyclist. There is no controversy about this. Every study confirms this. (The remaining one-third are the result of motorcyclist negligence or the combination of motorcyclist and auto driver negligence.)
Most of that overwhelming percentage of motorcycle accidents caused by auto driver negligence, results from motorist inattention while entering intersections or turning left at intersections into the motorcyclist's right of way. Again there is no controversy about this.
These facts, unfortunately, are excluded from the motorcycle safety debate as politicians scream hysterically about the need to dictate what bikers wear. Most politicians are in our opinion shortsighted in concluding that there is no political advantage of actually doing something to reduce the incidence of this largest category of precipitant for motorcycle accidents. If confronted by their failures to address the broader safety issue, some, whose staff's prepare a political response, will say that these intersection accidents are the "unavoidable" consequence of the motorcycle's "lack of conspicuity." And they can find support for this false proposition in an unfortunate phrase culled from the first large motorcycle accident survey by Harry Hurt. But it is indeed unfortunate that this phrase has been so oft repeated without critical analysis by those who have political agendas other than to actually reduce the incidence of motorcyclist injury. An additional problem is that the phrase "lack of conspicuity" is actually a term of art which has been mistaken by policy makers and used to advantage by politicians to suggest that intersection motorcycle accidents are the result of the reduced "visibility" impugned to the motorcycle's smaller size. Putting aside the misunderstanding and misrepresentation, the fact is that motorcycles are just as "visible" as cars at the short distance at which a car entering an intersection or turning left at an intersection would pose a threat to the motorcyclist. Motorcycles can stop very quickly and take evasive action much more nimbly than cars so when a car entering an intersection or turning left in front of a motorcyclist causes an accident, the car must turn directly in front of the oncoming motorcycle. Furthermore, since the Harry Hurt study, motorcycle manufacturers uniformly equip their motorcycles with head lamps which turn on at ignition and remain on day and night, so it is likely that oncoming motorcycles are in truth more obvious in the visual field of an auto driver when he enters or turns left at an intersection.
The etiology of intersection motorcycle accidents does not derive from the motorcycle's smaller size; rather, the reason why auto drivers don't "see" motorcycles is a function of what is described in the scientific literature as "inattentional blindness." This is a body of literature which analyzes why people don't see what is readily apparent in their visual field. There are half a dozen factors which are identified in the literature, and again if you would permit me to speak to you or one of your staff I could explain my understanding of the relevant literature or provide references for you and your staff to consider. One of the factors which I have concluded is probably the most potent in leading auto drivers to fail to consciously attend to motorcyclists in their visual field is "relevance." One gross aspect of the lack of "relevance" many auto drivers attribute to motorcycles is derived fro the auto driver's perception that motorcycles don't pose a risk to them in the same way that an oncoming car, truck or bus would pose a risk to them when entering an intersection or turning left into the path of one of these larger vehicles. There are solutions specific to modifying that aspect of "relevance" including by specific conscious task oriented auto driver education, discussed below. In addition, the auto driver's perception of the "relevance" of motorcycles can be enhanced by penalty legislation, for example, by providing for drivers license suspensions or potential jail terms for reckless inattention which results in serious motorcyclist injury or death.
I've been told that many politicians might find such penalty legislation "politically unacceptable," as it calls for imposing upon the majority for the benefit of a vulnerable minority; but this public health crisis truly affects us all, including by the fiscal impact upon the state and all of the citizenry associated with this obscene incidence of the panoply of catastrophic motorcyclist injury caused by auto driver inattention.
But accepting that politicians must be sensitive to undermining their majority political base, a substantially less effective solution, although a good step in the right direction would be general penalty legislation for any serious injury resulting from reckless inattentive driving, if combined with a well funded public relations campaign specifically focusing upon the vulnerability of motorcyclists to serious injury, perhaps combined with photographs or film of a motorcyclist being carted off to an ambulance and the auto driver being carted off to jail.
I haven't yet touched upon what we consider to be the centerpiece of our proposal for effectively reducing the incidence of motorcycle accidents and hence for reducing all manner of motorcycle injury. Before I do that permit me to describe some the secondary contributory factors to the two-thirds of motorcycle accidents resulting from auto driver negligence.
As noted above, the majority result from auto driver inattention at intersections. Other factors include lane change accidents and rear end accidents. When an auto driver turns into a motorcyclist riding or passing in an adjoining lane it is commonly because the auto driver doesn't know that his rear view mirrors have holes in them large enough to obscure a motorcyclist in an adjoining lane of traffic. The auto driver doesn't appreciate that he needs to turn his head into his rear view blind spot to look for a motorcyclist riding or passing in the adjoining lane. Motorcycle rear-end accidents occur both as the result of inattentional blindness, including the sub-issue of "relevance" discussed above, and because auto drivers simply do not realize that motorcycles can stop much more quickly than cars so that they need to provide a greater distance when following a motorcycle.
Now, to the real solution to your public health crisis, because the real solution is one readily within the powers of the Governor. Lets first make plain the real problem. The problem is auto driver ignorance of motorcycle safety issues, and in particular, auto driver ignorance of the motorcycle accident avoidance strategies which they must employ for the protection of their vulnerable two-wheeled brethren.
The solution to ignorance is education. Specifically mandatory auto driver education on motorcycle safety issues and motorcycle accident avoidance strategies. First, modify your auto driver education booklets and written materials to include comprehensive information on motorcycle safety issues and motorcycle accident avoidance strategies. Second, include in the written tests which your auto drivers must take to obtain and renew their drivers licenses again a comprehensive list of motorcycle safety questions. Third, because of the singular importance of assuring that auto drivers fully appreciate their responsibilities to avoid endangering vulnerable motorcyclists, adopt a policy to deny driving privileges to any auto driver who fails to answer correctly even one motorcycle safety question.
This same type of information and testing process should be included in all other auto driver safety programs, including, for example, state auto driver education and instructional materials, the written materials provided in connection with driving schools, including those attended by drivers as an alternative to paying traffic violation fines, as well as every other curriculum for your state's auto drivers, such as those required of individuals convicted of DUI or other serious driving offenses.
I would be pleased to consult with your staff or Department of Motor Vehicles staff in developing appropriate motorcycle safety information materials and motorcycle test questions. Obviously, I would be pleased to do this without charge. I have some specific recommendations which might not be obvious to others, which are derived from my research in this subject matter. For example, since inattentional blindness is an "unconscious" phenomenon, it is necessary to provide auto drivers a specific conscious task to perform when engaging in the behaviors during which they pose a risk to motorcyclists. Just for the purpose of example, auto drivers might be informed that the speed of oncoming motorcycles is more difficult to gauge, and so they need to take the time specifically to assess the speed of an oncoming motorcycle before entering an intersection or turning left at an intersection when a motorcycle is within the visual field. It might appear "common sense" that the auto driver has to "see" the motorcycle before he can engage in a conscious task with respect to the motorcycle. But that is not accurate. When one has a conscious task to perform specific to a particular object in the visual field, in this case oncoming motorcycles, this actually has the effect to raise to conscious attention the object in the visual field upon which the task must be performed.
Bank robber Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks. Mr. Sutton responded, "Because that's where the money is."
Those who focus on helmet legislation are robbing convenience stores, or to put it more plainly "convenient stores." There is no real "money" in convenience stores. It is not the scientific evidence that meaningful reduction in the incidence of the panoply of accident related motorcyclist injury can be achieved by helmet legislation, as politically "convenient" as it may be for politicians to pretend, in speeches to the majority, that they are doing something for the protection of our vulnerable minority, by paternalistically dictating what the minority should wear.
Your state "bank" is bulging at the seams with the caskets of dead bikers and gurneys filled with those who have been rendered catastrophically paralyzed, amputated, orthopedically wrecked, and disabled as the result of motorcycle accidents caused by the inattention and negligence of auto drivers.
If you veto the helmet repeal bill, all you will do is guarantee that this issue remains the focus of our legislative efforts in perpetuity, because our good freedom fighters will never give up their good fight for our personal dignity and our right to chose. By failing to take this unproductive helmet law debate off the table, by vetoing your legislatures bill to strike your helmet law, you will also tragically make it impossible for those of us concerned about the broader and much more important motorcycle safety issues to bring about a debate on the real motorcycle safety issues, and obtain real solutions to your real public health and real state fiscal realities.
Please, for the sake of your state's motorcycling community, show us that you are not just a political Governor, but a governor who actually cares about this peculiarly vulnerable minority of your citizenry and refrain from perpetuating the helmet debate with a veto of your good legislature's helmet law repeal. And then, let us turn to your real public health issues and work together to achieve the true solutions.
Thank you for your consideration, and if I can be of any further assistance in the above regard, please do not hesitate to contact me.
"M-A-D-D Ray" Henke
Motorcyclists Against Dumb Drivers
http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.comPosted by: Ray Henke at June 14, 2006 05:48 AM
What a Whole lot of blah blah. I live in Michigan and have been riding for 18 years. I would like the choice of wearing a helmet or not; just like my fellow riders in 31 states across our great country. Why is it that some stuffed shirt, republican or democrat, (I am a republican), who does not even ride thinks that he can make an informed decision on this issue?? We have so many busy bodies out there that want to restrict what we can see on television, because they have the inability to make a logical decision to CHANGE THE CHANNEL. Now people want KFC to show people that they use bad oil. DON'T EAT THERE!!!! IT IS FAST FOOD!!!!! Go somewhere else. How about a restraunt that has a NO SCREAMING CHILD BECAUSE OF BAD PARENTING SECTION!!!!!
If you do not like that our elected reps have SPOKEN FOR THE PEOPLE, then don't ride. Just don't limit my ability to make a choice. My one regret is that I wasted 60 seconds of my life reading your comment about the law. It really hurts to know that I fought in the Military for RIGHT TO BE WRONG!!!!!!
Posted by: Joshua at June 14, 2006 02:11 PM
"Motorcycles beware, cars are EVERYWHERE!"
Posted by: Oblio at June 14, 2006 03:53 PM
I'm an avid biker - have been for over 35 years. However, I do not consider the selfish and illogical bikers who promote riding without a helmet as part of my group.
Pure and simple, every statistic ever published clearly shows a direct cause and effect between riding without a helmet, and increased fatalities and serious head injuries. Bluntly, there is absolutely no data whatsoever to support their position - other than their patently selfish proclamations of "Freedom".
As a retired Military Officer, I take great exception that individuals would improperly assume that what I served for was to defend their "right" to be stupid, and to inflict the ramifications of their selfish behavior on the rest of us.
For all of you out there who insist that helmets should be a "choice", GROW UP!
Posted by: WinPit at June 16, 2006 09:35 AM
I can't believe I'm taking the time to comment on this "idiot's" article. You just worry about shining your BMW, and ironing your shirts. Does the sound of thunder bother you? It should! I make myself heard, so idiots like you talking on your cell phone and weaving in and out of traffic will see me. Mr. Kiley, I think you should permanently wear a helmet considering the only thing occupying your skull is hot air. Protect that air! Watch out for the flying ball bearings after you cut off a biker, "expletive deleted"!
Whitie PREJUDGED MOTORCYCLE CLUB MICHIGAN
Posted by: WHITIE PREJUDGED M/C MICHIGAN at June 16, 2006 05:48 PM
It's about time Michigan and all states wake up. Motorcycles are dangerous, and requiring helmet usage does not change that fact.
ABATE of MI is a biker organization currently supporting free choice, however this choice is not for the benefit of law abiding citizentry. The majority of ABATE of MI board members are also members of the OUTLAWS M/C. The Outlaws are a gang whose members are drug trafficers, wanted for child molestation, illegal guns, some are wanted for child pornography and some are wanted as "killers for hire". These are DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. And they have infiltrated both state and local governments by becoming political party delegates and lobbing canidates for both parties.
These criminals have a greater adgenda than repealing the mandatory helmet law.
I think its time our lawmakers finally get their heads out of the sand and not only ignore any helmet repeals, but actually pass laws that would eliminate motorcycles altogether. Insurance companies could raise their rates to extreme levels, local comunities could ban cycles within the same distance parameters as with street drugs. Localities could start by banning cycles from residential areas as well as community parks. Banks could put up restrictions to prevent bikers from using drive-up ATM's. Cities like Royal Oak could ban Bike Nights. Local laws and fines enacted to reduce noise level and congestion, and reducing the exhaust pollution caused by these murdercycles could increase the police budgets.
The state needs to stop funding terrorist training. Michigan subsidizes education for cycle driver education. It does not use taxpayer dollars to fund auto driver education. Why are bikers above the law? This state has for years had "No Fault" insurance. Yet cycle riders have been exempt from this requirement. Why haven't the police ticketed bikers for noncompliance to seatbelt requirements? In this state two cars are prohibited from driving two abreast in one lane, yet bikers are never stopped from this dangerous behaviour. Why aren't bikers required to carry the same insurance liability coverage as automobile drivers? Studies have shown that at least 73% of bikers don't have their bikes legaley insured. Why do the taxpayers in MI need to pay for their medical coverage? Why aren't bikers pulled over in sobriety check lanes? Insurance studies have shown that there are at least three times as many bikers that have blood alchol levels higher than allowed compared to other motorists. No one seems to care about the dangerous levels of drugs in their bloodstream.
Why do we allow bikers to drive at unsafe speeds while the rest of the motoring public must obey the safe limits.
Michigan needs to get rid of terrorists, and not laws that protect the innocent.
Posted by: Joe Klemmer PHD at June 16, 2006 08:46 PM
Heh, why in the world someone has this guy, who doesn't even ride or know what he's talking about write a article about this subject is beyond me. Of course if you go by AAA's or any of the 'coalition for helmet law' stats, it will be a biased horror story showing the worst case scenario and theories. however there are states that do not have helemt laws, and guess what? what they're saying just isn't true. fatalities do not go up like they claim, costs do not go through the roof like they claim, and many people even in those states still choose to wear the helmet. Also a side note, refrain from calling us all idiots and greasers or asking if we have health insurance...come on...We're lawyers, we're movie stars, we're politicians, we make the full spectrum of wages and we live the full spectrums of lives, just like any cager. Some motorcycles have price tags of well over 100K, and we buy them up like candy. Don't make the mistake of thinking cagers are somehow higher society than us. If Gramholm, vetoes, we won't have to worry about her doing it again when we pass it next time, cause she won't be our governor, plain and simple.
Posted by: Foghog at June 17, 2006 03:49 PM
Freedom, freedom to choose....if I choose to ride without a helmet and get killed....well it was my stupid choice....now what if I get killed wearing a brain bucket....still my choice....keep the darn government out of my life Iam an adult living in the USA I don't need or want the government running my choices...
Posted by: Penny at June 18, 2006 03:48 PM
Maybe if Mr. Rothlisberger's bike had a nice set of LOUD thunder headers or something of the like, the driver of the car would have heard him and not made a left hand turn in front of an oncoming motorcycle. As well, the average motorcycle helmet does not protect the jaw-line nor nose areas.
Posted by: Missy at June 18, 2006 10:53 PM
yada yada yada
Posted by: kiley at June 20, 2006 01:43 PM
I cant believe it either. What you said is moronic.
Posted by: kiley at June 20, 2006 01:47 PM
Let those who ride decide, I have been riding for 42 years, I wear my helmet, but at least give us the choice.... Most bikers carry more insurance than they need on their machines..
Why don't school children have to wear seatbelts on their bus, talk about stupid....
Posted by: Jon Osborn at June 21, 2006 05:41 PM
OK, now I know I am not alone with the thoughts I have concerning the helmet repeal. All the talk about costs going up, brains being bashed on the pavement, insurance rates increasing, cagers being required to pull money out of their pockets for victims of bike crashes.
It's true folks, many riders will still wear a helmet. I know many of them. The opinions made by those who do not ride astound me. It's like me giving my opinion on baseball, football or golf.
I face it that I know nothing about certain things in life so I have nothing of any value to add to them.
Why would I want to look like a stupid ass anyway?
I've written many responses to this topic and I realize time is running short for the repeal to become any type of reality. I'm saddened by hearing so many down grading remarks about those who ride too. Doesn't any of those people notice how bad some people drive automobiles? Don't they hear of accidents every day? Who pays for those uninsured motorists? How about those who don't even have a drivers license or insurance?
Most motorcycles cost more than some of the cars on the roads, maybe even more than some people's homes. I know mine wasn't cheap and I take care of it and I insure it too.
We generally all have jobs and many of us also contribute much of our time and money to benefits for those who need some help in life.
Not only are there those who speak of bikes in general who know nothing about them but they also criticise the people who ride them. I've met more decent people on two wheels than I ever did who drive on four.
And this includes the M/C riders too. And guess what? They actually have love for one another and take their brotherhood seriously. Try hugging another cager and you'll probably get punched.
Stay out of my back yard people and I'll stay out of yours. This does not concern any of you but somehow you think you need to step to the front and pretend you know something about it.
As for those who do ride and still wish to pronounce that this issue is ignorant, you can remain wearing your helmets so you don't really have anything of value to add either. When all people on our roads realize that is their actions they take while driving or riding that matters most, maybe then we will no longer need to worry about injuries to ourselves and others. Hence, mandatory seatbelt usage and helmet useage will not have to be mandated any more.
One thing I do notice while riding helmetless in Ohio is that the people there are treated as adults. Their parks don't need railings over cross walks, they can use fire works and you can ride free. Why must Michigan residents be treated like children?
Posted by: Tuch at June 22, 2006 12:34 PM
Mr. Kiley, Talk only about what you know from experience. Hand wringing won't do any good. Only brings you stress..
Posted by: David Bradley at July 3, 2006 06:49 PM
I have been riding for four years. I wear a helmet sometimes and sometimes I don't. The real issue is choice. I made a decision 6 years ago to be right with God through His Son Jesus, who died for our sins.Made a choice to be right with God. Real simple, not religion but relationship. If I die on my motorcycle helmet or not, I know it is well with my soul that I made the best choice.
A FREE GIFT FROM GOD!!! HIS SON
JESUS!!!
Posted by: andrew runyard at July 10, 2006 06:59 PM
Unlike Mr. Kiley, I do ride. I am also a physician in Michigan and have written every member of the State House Transportation Committee and Gov. Granholm to veto SB 297 (that is I support the mandatory helmet laws). I am happy, both personally and professionally, that Gov Granholm vetoed this stupid bill.
The opponents of mandatory helmet laws frequently site the same, flawed studies claiming that helmets don't save lives, reduce injuries, or in fact increase them. The overwhelming body of evidence directly supports the efficacy of helmets. Many studies compare the fatality rates and injury rates before and after a change in a given state's helmet law (e.g. California, Kentucky, Louisana). Like the rest of the substantial mountain of evidence, death rates and injury rates drop in states when helmets are required and rise in states where helmets are made optional (adjusting for miles driven, number of registrations, etc).
To those who think that helmets don't increase saftey or even more dangerous than going without, think about this: ever notice that Jeff Gordon, Dale Jr., Mario Andretti, Michael Schumacher, Jeremy McGrath, etc. are all wearing helmets? Every professional race car drive and motorcycle driver wears a helmet. Don't you think that their governing bodies would eliminate the helmets if they didn't increase safety of were even more dangerous that going without?
Posted by: Jame Chang at August 12, 2006 05:07 PM
In response to one of the postings discussing the ABATE board and the Motorcycle Club "The Outlaws", to group all motorcycle clubs into the category of lawless and criminal is idiotic in itself. Would you say that the "Band of Brothers" Motorcycle club is made up of criminals? How about the multitude of Christian bike clubs? You state that we should ban motorcycles and bike nights among others. I am sure the US workers employed by the bike manufactures would love to support a bill like that. In addition the bike nights that occur all over the country generate a huge amount of revenue, which this state needs. There is another comment in your response which states that motorcyclists are not required to carry as much liability insurance as automobile drivers are, I'm not sure what insurance company you looked into but my insurance has both liability as well as a requirement for me to carry additional medical coverage if I did not have a comprehensive medical plan. As far as 73% of motorcyclists not having legal insurance, is asinine as well, finance companies require a motorcycle to be insured just as car companies do and with the cost of motorcycles I know very few people who pay cash for them when they cost anywhere from 5,000 to 40,000 dollars.
Motorcycling is a recreational sport that we have the freedom to participate in, just like backyard football and downhill skiing, both of which contribute to emergency room visits as well. Should we all just go to work daily, go home, and sit in our houses so that no one is injured?
I believe riders should have an option but knowing how much my insurance will increase without the helmet law, I would prefer we keep it.
Posted by: J Oswald at August 17, 2006 12:50 PM
I have seen many crashes. One I remember a cyclest was curled up like a rag doll or pretzel on a 3 lane highway. His helmet was smashed into a thousand piceses. I steped over the body asuming he was dead. Five moments later the paramedics had him strightened out and talking. I saw a amazed. If he had not had a helmet on. It would have been his head smashed on the pavement instead of his helmet. I was glad he lived because of his helmet.
Posted by: John McKimmy at August 18, 2006 10:45 AM
I disagree I believe people no matter what age should wear helmets because you never know when your gonna go and if your on a motorcycle maybe if your wearing a helmet you'll prevent death. And i know you'll regret when it happens to you or a loved one.
Posted by: Rachel at August 28, 2006 06:02 PM
Mr. Kiley,
As a person that would truley enjoy riding my motorcycle without a helmet, let me put this into perspective for you.
Judging from your picture, you sir are eating in a manner that is causing you to be over weight. It would also appear that you are not getting the propper amount of exercise. Statistically, over weight people that do not exercise are at a far greater risk of ailments and disease that will kill you. Not to mention that these ailments will drive up our collective cost of health insurance.
With your logic, you should support legislation mandating that people eat only healthy foods, in the appropriate portions and exercise daily.
Statistically, there are far more people dieing from disease and conditions related to these problems then there are people dieing from not wearing helmets on motorcycles. If you do not support this type of legislation, by your logic, you are an idiot. Really, look at all those lifes you could save, including your own. You know that you are eating recklessly - cant you see that?
The problem in this country is that everyone thinks we live in a democracy. Because most think this, we in effect do live in a democracy. Our fore fathers established a constitutionally limited republic, not a democracy. Would like to live in a democracy of 9 canibals and yourself? We should have individual rights, choice and yes responsibilities in this country.
If it costs the insurance company more because I do not wear a helmet - how about them charging me more. This plan eliminates your whining about me costing you money. I don't want to cost anyone a nickel. Just give me the freedom to do what I want and I will pay the bill.
It is unfortunate that this is no longer possible in this this republic that has truley turned into a democracy.
You can have no individual rights in a democracy. Be careful, when the masses decide to vote, there is no telling what they will save us from next.
Sir, please read the constitution and explain to me why it is illegal for me to drive my motorcycle without a helmet. The law is simply unconstitional - you just cant find judges and legislators with the guts to preserve our rights.
Posted by: Mike Davidge at August 29, 2006 11:54 AM