Did Granholm Veto the Repeal of the helmet law?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Does anybody know if Granholm Vetoed the Repeal of the MI helmet law (as she was expected to do)?

[David S]

It was sent to her on the 16th. As far as I know she has not done anything with it yet.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It was sent to her on the 16th. As far as I know she has not done anything with it yet.

But she is expected to veto it, correct?

[Nym90]

I would support repeal of this law. As stupid and insane as it is to not wear a helmet, I think it should be up to the individual, as not wearing one does not hurt anyone directly except for yourself.

As has been mentioned, Engler was against this, too; it's not exactly a partisan issue. No one dares repeal it because it is an easy law to support even though it really makes no sense when you really think about it; it's just a revenue generator and I don't see any positive impact because people at some level have to take responsibilty for their own lives and safety and use some common sense rather than having the government legislate good behavior.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Every MI governor, Republican and Democrat has vetoed this bill.  Not wearing a helmet  has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with stupidity.  If one is so stupid as to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, than the government will have to step in a think for them.

I know somebody who was parked at a red light when a cycle colided with  a car in the middle of the intersection.  The helmetless rider flew into the air hitting their windshield weilding blood and brain matter into their car and all over him and his family.  He did not have to get a ticket for breaking the helmet law.

I have not heard if she vetoes the bill either.  She had better have in my opinion.

I agree--the helmet law is just common sense.  I like a cartoon from Mike Thompson, but I can't find it right now.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I would support repeal of this law. As stupid and insane as it is to not wear a helmet, I think it should be up to the individual, as not wearing one does not hurt anyone directly except for yourself.

As has been mentioned, Engler was against this, too; it's not exactly a partisan issue. No one dares repeal it because it is an easy law to support even though it really makes no sense when you really think about it; it's just a revenue generator and I don't see any positive impact because people at some level have to take responsibilty for their own lives and safety and use some common sense rather than having the government legislate good behavior.

So then, you think we should get rid of the seat belt law too?

[Nym90]

I would support repeal of this law. As stupid and insane as it is to not wear a helmet, I think it should be up to the individual, as not wearing one does not hurt anyone directly except for yourself.

As has been mentioned, Engler was against this, too; it's not exactly a partisan issue. No one dares repeal it because it is an easy law to support even though it really makes no sense when you really think about it; it's just a revenue generator and I don't see any positive impact because people at some level have to take responsibilty for their own lives and safety and use some common sense rather than having the government legislate good behavior.

So then, you think we should get rid of the seat belt law too?

I do; although I would prefer increasing education about the stupidity of not wearing a seat belt or not wearing a helmet as a substitute. Simply repealing them without doing this wouldn't be the best idea.

I just don't think it makes sense to fine people for not doing these things. Children should be required to wear belts of course but not adults, no.

"Click it or ticket" is far less effective then some sort of a positive campaign would be. I hate the fact that they are more or less trying to intimidate us into caring about our own safety.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I would support repeal of this law. As stupid and insane as it is to not wear a helmet, I think it should be up to the individual, as not wearing one does not hurt anyone directly except for yourself.

As has been mentioned, Engler was against this, too; it's not exactly a partisan issue. No one dares repeal it because it is an easy law to support even though it really makes no sense when you really think about it; it's just a revenue generator and I don't see any positive impact because people at some level have to take responsibilty for their own lives and safety and use some common sense rather than having the government legislate good behavior.

So then, you think we should get rid of the seat belt law too?

I do; although I would prefer increasing education about the stupidity of not wearing a seat belt or not wearing a helmet as a substitute. Simply repealing them without doing this wouldn't be the best idea.

I just don't think it makes sense to fine people for not doing these things. Children should be required to wear belts of course but not adults, no.

"Click it or ticket" is far less effective then some sort of a positive campaign would be. I hate the fact that they are more or less trying to intimidate us into caring about our own safety.

I'd tend to agree w/ you more on the seatbelt law--but for a different reason.  When it was 1st passed, it was passed as only to be written if it's a 2nd offense (or whatever it's called) (like Detroit's cell phone law)--so you could only get a ticket for not wearing a seat-belt if you had gotten pulled over for say...speeding.  The gov't promissed that it'd never become a primary offense (or whatever it's called), but then they passed the law.  Personally, I think we need all the $$ we can get, so I'd say, ticket the crap out of any idiot stupid enough to disobey these laws.

[Alcon]

Looks like Michigan is the new Pennsylvania.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Looks like Michigan is the new Pennsylvania.

What?

[Alcon]

Looks like Michigan is the new Pennsylvania.

What?

We used to have a ton of Pennsylvania members who talked about state issues.  It's subsided a bit, but it looks like Michigan has picked up the slack.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Looks like Michigan is the new Pennsylvania.

What?

We used to have a ton of Pennsylvania members who talked about state issues.  It's subsided a bit, but it looks like Michigan has picked up the slack.

Actually--now that you mentioned that.  I'm curious--what other states have helmet laws, and are they pursuing repealing them.  (I think the Michigan posting is due largely to me--I've started @ least 10 topics in the past week about MI. )

[Alcon]

Here's a map from a few years ago.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Here's a map from a few years ago.

Does anybody know of any changes to this map?:

[David S]

It was sent to her on the 16th. As far as I know she has not done anything with it yet.

But she is expected to veto it, correct?

According to an article in the Detroit News today she has until the end of next week to sign it or veto it. If she doesn't act by then it will automatically pass. She is expected to veto it.

In my opinion its a question of freedom vs the nanny state. There is little doubt that more people will die or be injured without the law. And Granholm will use the medical costs as a reason for vetoing the bill.

But you could use the same logic to justify government involvement in most aspects of our lives. Everything from smoking to eating a cheeseburger to owning a gun to participating in dangerous sports could be taxed, regulated or banned by government for the same reasons.  I prefer freedom.  People should wear helmets because its the smart thing to do not because government mandates it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It was sent to her on the 16th. As far as I know she has not done anything with it yet.

But she is expected to veto it, correct?

According to an article in the Detroit News today she has until the end of next week to sign it or veto it. If she doesn't act by then it will automatically pass. She is expected to veto it.

In my opinion its a question of freedom vs the nanny state. There is little doubt that more people will die or be injured without the law. And Granholm will use the medical costs as a reason for vetoing the bill.

But you could use the same logic to justify government involvement in most aspects of our lives. Everything from smoking to eating a cheeseburger to owning a gun to participating in dangerous sports could be taxed, regulated or banned by government for the same reasons.  I prefer freedom.  People should wear helmets because its the smart thing to do not because government mandates it.

Smoking can be a health hazard to others though, through 2nd-hand smoke, as well as guns.  I really see no harm in vetoing this bill.  I am curious though, this seems like a non-partisan issue, but does one side feel stronger than the other.  I would think just by the nature of it, that the Dems. would be more for it than the Reps., but some of the Dems. must have crossed the line for the repeal to pass, right?

[Flying Dog]

Granholm is not shy with vetoes. She will Veto it.

[Lunar]

Legilsating personal safety regulations like this is ridiculous.  There seem to be two arguments in favor of it.

First, proponents point out that safety is more important than minor elements of personal freedom.  I admit that my choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt or a helmet is an insignificant decision despite its potential benefits (not dying). 
Second, proponents argue that it is not "personal freedom" because it affects the common good through the common health care system. 

However, both of these arguments suffer from the basic question: "Where do you draw the line?"  The government can outlaw almost anything at the point where we give them this freedom.  Eating hamburgers and unhealthy food should be forbidden under both of the earlier arguments and similar arguments could be made for mandatory sunglasses-wearing laws and so on.  What this means is that seatbelt and helmet regulations are logically inconsistent and are defined by the personal habits of the legislators and/or the majority of voters.  If the majority of voters eats hamburgers or smoke cigarettes, then we maintain that legaility.  If the majority want to wear seatbelts, then the freedom of those of us who would rather be more comfortable in our seats is restricted. 

This map is just silly and should never be considered in any serious argument:

Notice how they don't show the increase of road deaths in the other states?  The makers of this map seem to be tricky people.  Population increases naturally cause an exponential increase in traffic accidents.   Even if it were accurate though, it wouldn't influence any of arguments against helmet laws.
 
Why should US laws be protecting the profit margins of private insurance companies anyway?  But, even assuming we have a moral obligation to help insurance companies, I think there are alternatives to mandatory safety laws such as this one.  Perhaps, if ever a police report notes a failure of an individual to wear a seatbelt or a helmet, even if it is completely unreleated to the subject of the police report, the driver and passengers would face severe hikes in their insurance rates.

Furthermore, laws like this increase police ineffeciency and waste judicial resources.  Police officers are searching for, and the papers need to be processed for, individuals who are not even increasing the risk of danger for those around them, let alone actively engaging in rights-infringement.

Basically, the law should not restrict freedom of choice when the only consequence of the choice would be leveled against the individual in question.  Sure, people choosing to do stupid things like running down stairs or not wearing helmets may be a burden upon hospitols and the health system, but that's the price we pay for not living in a totalitarian society, assuming it's even possible to enforce everything unhealthy we could do to ourselves!  I don't want to give the government the blank-check power to be able to 'protect us from ourselves.'

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This map is just silly and should never be considered in any serious argument:

Notice how they don't show the increase of road deaths in the other states?  The makers of this map seem to be tricky people.  Population increases naturally cause an exponential increase in traffic accidents.   Even if it were accurate though, it wouldn't influence any of arguments against helmet laws.

Dod you notice that they showed increase by percentage, not actual numbers?

[Flying Dog]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060623/NEWS99/606230462

She Vetoed it.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060623/NEWS99/606230462

She Vetoed it.

Alright--now I can post the poll in the Gubernatorial elections board.

[Lunar]

Dod you notice that they showed increase by percentage, not actual numbers?

Yes.  My point is that population growth results in an increase in traffic accidents.  If the map was serious about producing objective numbers it would at least use per-capita numbers.  If it was really serious, it would calculate the rough statistics for how population increases relate to increases in traffic fatality (I doubt it's 1:1; doubling the amount of cars on the road would do more than double accidents, I think).  The map seems to  be propaganda with its intentional number-twisting.

However, it's pretty obvious that accidents are going to be more dangerous without helmets.  My points generally acknowledge that as a fact.  Heart attacks would be less dangerous without fatty foods too, hah.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Dod you notice that they showed increase by percentage, not actual numbers?

Yes.  My point is that population growth results in an increase in traffic accidents.  If the map was serious about producing objective numbers it would at least use per-capita numbers.  If it was really serious, it would calculate the rough statistics for how population increases relate to increases in traffic fatality (I doubt it's 1:1; doubling the amount of cars on the road would do more than double accidents, I think).  The map seems to  be propaganda with its intentional number-twisting.

However, it's pretty obvious that accidents are going to be more dangerous without helmets.  My points generally acknowledge that as a fact.  Heart attacks would be less dangerous without fatty foods too, hah.

But how do you know it's not accounting for an increase of cars?

[Lunar]

Dod you notice that they showed increase by percentage, not actual numbers?

Yes.  My point is that population growth results in an increase in traffic accidents.  If the map was serious about producing objective numbers it would at least use per-capita numbers.  If it was really serious, it would calculate the rough statistics for how population increases relate to increases in traffic fatality (I doubt it's 1:1; doubling the amount of cars on the road would do more than double accidents, I think).  The map seems to  be propaganda with its intentional number-twisting.

However, it's pretty obvious that accidents are going to be more dangerous without helmets.  My points generally acknowledge that as a fact.  Heart attacks would be less dangerous without fatty foods too, hah.

But how do you know it's not accounting for an increase of cars?

Because it would mention "per-capita" or "adjusted" somewhere.  The graphic simply says "traffic fatality increases."  I don't think the makers of the graphic would exclude the opportunity to mention that they adjusted the numbers to make them lower (and more accurate), since it would add more power behind them.

Furthermore, if you look at the numbers, the highest percentage increases result from earlier dates.

From my perspective and from my arguments, I don't care if the graphic is right or if the actual numbers reach into the thousands of percentage points though.  I challenged the map because others might base their opinions on those numbers.  So, really, it's not that important.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Dod you notice that they showed increase by percentage, not actual numbers?

Yes.  My point is that population growth results in an increase in traffic accidents.  If the map was serious about producing objective numbers it would at least use per-capita numbers.  If it was really serious, it would calculate the rough statistics for how population increases relate to increases in traffic fatality (I doubt it's 1:1; doubling the amount of cars on the road would do more than double accidents, I think).  The map seems to  be propaganda with its intentional number-twisting.

However, it's pretty obvious that accidents are going to be more dangerous without helmets.  My points generally acknowledge that as a fact.  Heart attacks would be less dangerous without fatty foods too, hah.

But how do you know it's not accounting for an increase of cars?

Because it would mention "per-capita" or "adjusted" somewhere.  The graphic simply says "traffic fatality increases."  I don't think the makers of the graphic would exclude the opportunity to mention that they adjusted the numbers to make them lower (and more accurate), since it would add more power behind them.

From my perspective and from my arguments, I don't care if the graphic is right or if the actual numbers reach into the thousands of percentage points though.  I challenged the map because others might base their opinions on those numbers.  So, really, it's not that important.

OK--I do agree w/ you that they are (probably) using the #'s to their advantage (who doesn't).  I'll work on getting some accurate #'s (b/c I'm kinda curious now).