What do you think? Do you think motorcyclists should be required to wear a helmet?

Absolutely! A helmet can be the difference between a short hospital stay and life as a vegetable, or no life at all. However, it's impossible to enforce this anymore than the seat belt law. This comes down to motorcyclists using common sense. They may be good drivers, but those around them are NOT and that helmet is their lifeline.

The biggest distraction and cause of accidents today is texting and driving. a restriction on this type of activity whould go much further to improve the safety of motorcyclists than a helmet will. There are several states all around Mich. that dont requier helmets in one form or another and studies have shown that there's no diifferance in mortallity rates involving motorcyles in those states than ours! A helmet is not going to save my life, a good and aware driver will.

AAA of Michigan released a report yesterday saying the repeal would lead to more fatalities and costs: http://media.aaamichigan.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=295

It should be just like the seat belt law, mandatory, period. I see a motorcycle near me on the road, I get far away from it, I don't want anything to do with an accident involving a motorcycle, and even more so one with a driver not wearing a helmet.

another way for insurance to make more money and pay out less

I feel that it is the choice of the rider. Riders should be educated as to the risks. If they still choose to not wear a helmet, and they hurt themselves, then it is their fault alone. While we should have guidelines for things like this, I feel like it ultimately is the responsibility of the rider.

I have to say I agree with everyone who says it's rider's choice. But I still lean toward having a law. What's scarier, a ticket or a head injury?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? I guess 64% of you like being told what to do.

Law or no law, I wear a helmet! Stupid is as stupid does.

Personally, I would probably in most cases use the helmet, but it should be my choice if I choose not to wear the helmet. The only rates going up will be the person who has an accident and did not bother to buy the extra insurance. When will you people get over your nanny state...personal responsibility should rule what one does not some bureaucrat in some cubicle office!!

Let those who RIDE decide

I totally agree with Patrice. But then again, maybe we shouldn't have to wear seatbelts anymore... All of you who RIDE who have kids, do you feel comfortable in a car without a seatbelt? How about letting your kids ride in cars without seatbelts. And hey why don't we let them ride on the back of Dad or Moms bike without a helmet!!! No rules or laws, awesome! Go For it!!!

Although I believe in personal responsibility and choice, I cannot understand why we have car seat and seat belt laws and aren't willing to maintain a helmet law. I ride. I would never get on my bike without a full complement of protective gear, including a full face helmet that saved my melon once. I also think the requirement of 20K in insurance isn't NEARLY enough.

Here's the problem as I see it. Every time there's an vehicle accident, whether automobile, truck or motorcycle, there is a cost to society--that's all of us. It costs money for police to come to the scene, sometimes there's damage to the infrastructure, everyone's insurance rises incrementally, and it costs money when the fire department has to come to the scene of an accident to wash somebody's brains down the sewer. The issue is not about the individual motorcyclist but rather the cost to society. I've been a biker for about 40 years and I believe a helmet is a very minimal piece of safety gear that everyone must wear.

The problem is Michigan's unlimited personal injury. A $20,000 policy is nothing when it comes to medical care. If someone doesn't want to wear a helmet and gets injured the State (actually the people that buy insurance) is on the hook for his medical costs. No helmet, no unlimited medical coverage. Same goes for drivers who don't wear seat belts.

Kym I agree 100%, why should we have to pay for someone elses bad choices. I and my family wear our seat belts and I don't mind that it's not a choice, it's for our own protection.

Of course the helmet law should stay in effect, but... The Insurance lobby wants it because they can charge extra premiums for those bikers without helmets. So, there you have the latest example. safety and welfare trumped by BIG INSURANCE. Ask yourself - How BIG FINANCE, BIG INSURANCE, BIG CORPORATE and the BILLIONAIRE BRIDGE OWNER can exert such an influence to the exclusion of the common good? Our politicians should be public denounce. We should carry small amounts of rotten vegetables in ziplock bags to hurl at them if we see them in public.

I would not fight a reversal of the motorcycle helmet law if it included a provision that all non-helmet wearing motorcyclists who get into accidents are ineligible for MCCA (Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association) funds.Michigan is the only state in the nation that mandates unlimited lifetime benefits (after a set amount of claims have been met, currently about $480,000 - which is not much for some catastrophic accident claims) for those injured in auto accidents. MCCA is funded through fees assigned to each insured vehicles. When the MCCA was initiated in 1978 the fee assessed per insured vehicle was $3. The cost is now over $143 PER INSURED VEHICLE. High risk driving = higher risk of accidents = affects the costs for every driver with auto insurance.

I have three motorcycles and two autos that I pay Michigan Catastrophic Claims on each. If the law changes and I choose to ride without a helmet then why should I be ineligible? Thats like saying an adult riding in the back seat of a car not wearing a seat belt in an injury accident you would be ineligible as well. Why dont we make it an automatic $1,000 fine for all the IDIOTS that drive with no insurance and put that in the MCCA

I'm not sure I see the allure of driving a motorcycle without a helmet. Can someone tell me the difference? Why is it so great? It must be incredible if it's worth risking your life over. Personally, I think choosing not to wear a helmet because the driver doesn't want to be "told what to do by the government" is childish. This argument makes the driver sound like an eighth grader having a fight with his mother.

Michael - I do understand what you are saying. You pay the fee per vehicle for MCCA, then why shouldn't you benefit from the fund if something catastrophic happens? But wouldn't you agree that you are more likely to experience a greater head injury if you got into an accident on your motorcycle(s) if you are not wearing a helmet? In the same way that one of your kids has a likelier chance of greater injury if they fall headfirst over the handlebars of their bike with no bike helmet? The burden for paying for the aftereffects of the injury fall equally on the shoulders of the people not engaging in the higher-risk behavior – probably exempting them from benefitting at all is not feasible but why shouldn't the higher risk person pay more, like smokers should pay more for health insurance?
And the fact that drivers who drive without any auto insurance yet benefit from MCCA funds is another illustration that the program is - like a lot of programs - completely funded on the backs of people who are following the rules to help those who are not.
“Let those who ride decide” and “let personal responsibility rule” apply only up to the point of: Big accident, big injury, big need for long term care, exhaustion of medical benefits, kick-in of MCCA coverage, initiation of MCCA LIFETIME(!!) benefits, then subsequent higher per-vehicle costs to cover the existing beneficiaries and the new ones to follow. (24,500 claims since 1979 have conservatively cost $71 billion.)

If you are not a motorcyclist please do not comment because you are the problem. People that ride know to be on the lookout and take extra caution while driving around a motorcycle . I have ridden in 41 states and only wear my helmet when required. Michigan is by far the worst for a rider, people just don’t care about anyone's life and just change lanes without looking or pull out right in front of me. I hope this is a step closer to At-FUALT insurance because drivers would think twice about driving like an ass. It really sucks paying to fix your own car let alone the persons car you hit because you don't know basic drive laws. This is a small victory for citizens to get the Government out of our lives!!!

I believe in choice if those who ride dont want to wear them thats their life. I just wonder there have been good comments about not just the biker but the other driver. Why do they allow mopeds to be allowed to ride with on the roads without helmets? A head trama can happen at any speed. The head doesnt know what rpm it was driving when it hits the pavement. If the law is for safety then make all on the roads wear them if not the let the riders make up their minds whether they want to risk their life. To say they should have to because of higher insureance cost isnt if they dont isnt looking at the peoples rights. Our rights come at a cost, always have always will, just ask a Vet!!!! By the way Thank you servicemen for helping keep us free!!!

I will never leave my driveway without a helmet. That is your only real defense for your brain should you be hit or go down.
I think those that chose not to wear a helmet should be made to sign some type of waiver of subrogation so that they aren't eligible for large sums of insurance money or catastrophic funds when they become brain dead due to head injury. It's a real easy choice!