Thirty states have no laws regarding motorcycle helmets, and some Michigan riders think the state should become 31.
“We’re the minority,” said Chip Ashton, treasurer of American Bikers Aimed Toward Education of Michigan. “There are times that I would wear a helmet regardless, and there are times that I would not.”
“I should have the choice to decide that.”
A bill sponsored by Rep. Gene DeRossett, R-Manchester, would repeal the current law regarding motorcycle crash helmets and make helmet wearing optional for riders 21 and over.
Insurance and health official across the state agree the main concern of the current law is safety, not hindering freedom.
“We have mandatory seat belt laws because they save lives,” said Geralyn Lasher, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Community Health. “These are just not things that should be optional.”
Motorcycle fatality rates are lower in states without helmet laws, said the Michigan Biking Association’s President Russ Martin. He also said helmets are only approved for driving at 13.6 mph.
“I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I’ve ever driven that speed on a highway,” he said. “If they came out with a helmet approved for 75 miles an hour, I wouldn’t turn my head to that.”
The measure doesn’t require riders to carry personal injury protection insurance, AAA Michigan spokesman Jim Rink said.
“Under this bill, if someone crashes and isn’t covered, the rest of end us up picking up the tab,” he said. “Helmets offer the most protection to motorcycle drivers than any other safety device.”
Danger is just a fact of motorcycle riding, Ashton said.
“I’m sure the insurance companies say, ‘Oh, God, take ’em all off the road,’” he said. “If that’s the case, let’s do away with hockey or football. Some sports injure people, and athletes know that going in.”
The bill passed in the House 58-46 on May 29, and is currently in the state Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Sen. Harry Gast, R-St. Joseph.
The senator didn’t support the initial repeal attempt in 1998, and has no intention of bringing the bill up for discussion any time soon, Gast’s office said.
For Ashton, it all boils down to freedom of choice.
“We finally got it through the House, but we’ve got a long battle ahead of us,” he said. “If (the Senate) can give us an open mind to work with, we might have a chance.”
