I ride and it should be a choice. I would choose to wear a helmet in the city where there are way too may idiot drivers. Out in the countryside is a different story.

The state parks require bike helmets but for motorcycles it's optional . This makes no sense .

Zero sense!!! All insurane rates are going to go up for every driver in Michigan, it's a fact

hm

I'm hopeful that all helmetless riders will purchase lots of insurance so that if/when they are in a serious accident they will be able to get the care they will need and the general population will not have to foot the bill for their care. I also hope that they will write letters to their loved ones explaining their choice was to feel the wind on their face and in their hair, rather than safety.

Freedom of choice is a good thing !

I generally believe that government should stay out of these issues . They should educate the public and allow them to be wise or stupid as they wish . There is some exceptions and this is one . Even if the person gets killed there are often millions of dollars of tax payers money spent to attempt to save them . Even if the death occurs at the scene the tax payers often are required to give finanical help to the children and wife . If the rider survives it usuable means the state needs to support them for the rest of their life. Unless they provide for all of the above the state has a right to save the injury and cost to the tax payers . Our liberty is combined with responability and that is something that this bill ignores. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson " If the public fails to take responasibilty at the cost of the citizens it behoves the government to protect the larger population" . This a law fails to attempt to protect me from those costs

Individual Freedom with Personal Responsibility is a premise I subscribe to. Therefore, while helmet use may be optimum; I should in no way force my beliefs upon another. However, with decisions come consequences and therefore society shouldn't be encumbered with the liabilities that poor decisions can result in.

Hooray to Governor Snyder for signing this legislation. Kudos that it comes with the added liability requirement... a most necessary component.
Again, freedom but with responsibility. Awesome from a GOP guy or any Republicrat legislator for that matter.

Helmets were made optional in the 1960's, I think as a repeal of a law. I can remember the guys on their bikes with their hair blowing in the breeze. For some reason, it didn't last long.
I favor individual choice with personal responsibility, too. I wish everyone had the sense to use helmets as well as car seat belts without needing laws, but common sense is no longer common.

If I don't have to wear a seat belt, they shouldn't have to wear helmets. Oh, wait.

seat belts are so easy to put up with
and they have no comparison to a bulky helmet

as for "choice" we all are adults but know this - my father, a cop of 25yrs, said back in the 70's simple accidents turn ugly fast when occupants are tossed around inside a crashing vehicle

so ask any traffic cop what they think of in regards to scraping brains off the road
they ask you "who do you think cleans up these messes?"

you know what is smart
enforcing the "law" by actually dealing with the major issue of aggressive driving aka tail gating, cutting off, light running, dbl/trpl lane changing - you know all the garbage putting cyclist's, truckers, pedestrians, automobile drivers at risk more and more every day

less squatting (speed traps)
more enforcement

It's always just a matter of time before radical republican points of view are proven to have bad effects, or even be disasterous (as in the Great Bush Recession). It's unfortunate that in this case people will have to die to demonstrate what idiotic stupidity the GOP-think really is.

When they instituted the helmet law, the death rate from motorcycle accidents dropped. So it can only return to the rate it was pre-helmet. But I guess as long as no one's being inconvenienced by "government regulation" ... then who cares if a few people have to die, right?

Jon, I do realize a helmet is big and bulky. This is not a convenience issue. This is a safety issue. We're concerned with the safety of anyone inside a vehicle, but not those on a motorcycle because the helmet is bulky and hot? We are all being forced to pay higher MCCA fees for catastrophic injuries, and then we take away the helmet law causing more people to benefit from those fees. Yesterday while driving, I saw a guy on a motorcycle wearing a knit cap instead of a helmet. I also saw someone eating a salad while driving, texting while driving, and talking on a cell phone with a poodle on her lap while driving. The guy with the motorcycle is in serious danger. But the rest of us are wearing our seat belts.

I guess most of us just don't get it. Doctors and Police support helmet laws because they do have to deal with the mess that includes not just the human ofal and a bucket or two of sticky blood on the asphalt, but also have to deal with the family of the survivor, or the deceased..
Now to the part you must understand. Who makes money of the closed head injuries, paralyzed legs, and death by accidents. Who has the money to advertise and lobby to support your right to sue? Who really runs the economy of the justice system? Clue one: Its big and powerful and its not the insurance industry, Geoffrey.
Clue two: the more serious the injury the larger the settlement. I do believe you got it!