MICHIGAN - Helmet law hangs in balance

 OFF THE WIRE
http://www.nilesstar.com/2012/04/04/helmet-law-hangs-in-balance/
Helmet law hangs in balance

Published 5:20pm Wednesday, April 4, 2012 Email Print Comments Several southwest Michigan motorcycle riders are crossing their fingers and hoping Gov. Rick Snyder will sign a bill repealing the state’s mandatory motorcycle helmet law.
Last week, the Michigan Senate approved a House bill that would allow riders over the age of 21 to ride without a helmet. The bill is awaiting Snyder’s decision.
Riders believe Michigan would see an influx of out-of-state motorcyclists — and tourism dollars — if riders were allowed to choose whether or not to wear a helmet.
“If you want to wear it, great. If you don’t, you shouldn’t have to,” said 47-year-old Stacy Meek, owner of Meek’s Auto Body and Custom in Niles.
There are 20 states, including Michigan, with laws requiring all motorcyclists to wear a helmet. Twenty-seven states, including bordering states Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin, require only some riders to wear helmets.
Larry Gilson, 39, of Dowagiac, said he has talked to hundreds of riders from Indiana who refuse to ride in Michigan because of the helmet law.
“They don’t own a helmet and they aren’t buying one,” Gilson said.
Another rider, 50-year-old Mike Johns, of Buchanan, said Michigan’s helmet law drives participation down for charity rides in the state.
“South Bend might get 6,000 people, while Benton Harbor only gets 300. What does that prove?” he said.
Supporters of Michigan’s helmet law say it helps save lives and keep down insurance costs.
Lori Conarton, of the Insurance Institute of Michigan, said death rates from head injuries have been shown to be twice as high among motorcyclists in states with no helmet laws or laws that only apply to young riders. Citing a University of Michigan study, Conarton said riders who wrecked and were not wearing a helmet pay on average 20 percent more in hospital costs than those wearing helmets.
Meek said helmets are effective when accidents occur at less than 15 miles per hour. When wrecks occur at speeds greater than that, not so much.
“The helmet is just going to keep you pretty for the funeral,” Meek said. 

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/04/three_reasons_to_preserve_mich.html
Three reasons to preserve Michigan's motorcycle helmet law (editorial with poll) Published: Wednesday, April 04, 2012, 2:00 PM By The Grand Rapids Press Editorial Board The Grand Rapids Press Follow 5 Share close Digg Stumble Upon Fark Reddit Share Email Print File photoA repeal of Michigan's long-standing motorcycle helmet law would boost tourism, supporters say. Opponents cite safety concerns. It’s a cause that just won’t die: The movement to repeal Michigan’s motorcycle helmet law.
Propped up by a small but persistently vocal group of motorcyclists, the movement has more traction than ever; a bill to allow people to ride helmet-free has passed the Senate and House, and it awaits Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature.
RELATED: • Repeal of Michigan’s motorcycle helmet law now awaits Gov. Rick Snyder’s signature • Gov. Snyder expected to repeal Michigan’s motorcycle helmet law within 2 weeks (with poll, reader comments)
Snyder has not taken a public stance on the matter.
Repealing the state's motorcycle helmet law is: A distraction. Really, why is this even an issue?
A bad idea. The law saves lives and reduces medical costs.
Long overdue. It's all about personal freedoms.
VoteView Results
Share This
Three reasons we urge Snyder to preserve Michigan’s motorcycle-helmet requirement:
1. Helmets save lives. The Michigan Office of Highway Planning predicts 30 additional motorcycle fatalities and 127 additional incapacitating injuries each year if the law is repealed.
We can look to other states to see what might happen if the repeal is enacted. Motorcyclist fatalities jumped 81 percent in Florida, more than 50 percent in Kentucky and 100 percent in Louisiana after those states repealed their mandatory helmet laws, according to the Insurance Institute of Michigan.
2. Helmets save us money. Every driver’s insurance costs could climb if injuries to crashed, helmetless motorcyclists become more severe, as experts expect they will.
In Michigan, drivers and motorcycle riders receive unlimited medical coverage for injuries suffered in traffic accidents. Motorcyclists provide 2.3 percent of the fund, but they account for more than 5 percent of claims paid by the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association. That gap is likely to widen if the helmet law is repealed.
And a measly $20,000 in personal injury coverage, as required by the legislation, amounts to nothing more than a Band-Aid for the cost of treating traumatic brain injuries.
3. Roadways demand restrictions that best serve the public’s interest. And saving lives and money does that.
Laws and regulations — speed limits, seat belt and safety belt requirements, to name a few — are the price of entry onto our roadways. Drivers know this and expect this.
Preserving the state’s mandatory motorcycle helmet law is in every driver’s best interest

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120402/OPINION01/204020308/Editorial-Snyder-should-veto-costly-helmet-law-autism-insurance-legislation?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE%7Cp
Editorial: Snyder should veto costly helmet-law, autism insurance legislation

Autism insurance mandate and motorcycle helmet law repeal will drive up costs for state residents........

Lawmakers have sent Rick Snyder two mandate-related pieces of legislation that are likely to become expensive burdens for Michigan residents and state government if he signs them into law. It appears Snyder may do so, in spite of estimates that each would add millions of dollars in health care costs to the auto and health insurance industries here and push up the rates paid by policy holders.
On one hand, the Legislature has voted to get rid of the state's wise and long-standing helmet mandate for motorcycle riders, pretty much assuring there will be an increase in serious crash-related head injuries whose treatment expenses will be spread among other drivers. At the same time, it passed a package of bills requiring insurers to fund therapies for autism, a disorder of increasing magnitude that health experts just last week estimated now affects 1 in 88 children.
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 seatbelt 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.
The autism legislation would require insurers to provide coverage up to $50,000 for children younger than 7, $40,000 for children 7-13 and $30,000 for teens up to 18. Packed into the package of bills is another potential hit for taxpayers: an open-ended state fund — amount yet to be determined — that would reimburse insurers for their autism-related expenses.
While it's hard to gauge the full impact, the Senate Fiscal Agency estimated added costs to private insurers, the Medicaid and MIChild programs would go as high as $255 million a year. Advocates say autism coverage ultimately will save $14 billion by providing care that will move more autistic children to normal functioning, but that's clearly a speculative estimate.
It's ironic that the same lawmakers who are deeply opposed to the myriad mandates in the 2009 federal health care act see no problem in imposing this new mandate on individuals and business struggling to pay for the coverage they already have.
Granting that the disorder is a profound issue for thousands of families, this directive conflicts with the long-overdue fiscal restraints Snyder and lawmakers are trying to bring to all levels of government.
It also goes against Michigan's tendency to avoid rules that make the state less competitive by dictating that health insurance pay for coverage of specific disease treatments that drive up policy costs.
The better course would be to continue allowing individuals, companies and unions to decide among themselves what coverage they want.
Snyder has endorsed the idea of autism coverage and Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, whose daughter has autism, championed it during the legislative process.
The governor has said he'd consider a helmet law repeal in the context of comprehensive auto insurance reforms, which are moving very slowly and are nowhere near being ready for action at this point.
His signature on either of these initiatives is likely to bring higher costs for Michigan residents.

***********************************************************