LANSING, Mich. (AP) — Gov. Jennifer Granholm on Friday vetoed a bill that would have allowed adult motorcyclists to ride without helmets.
Granholm said repealing the mandatory helmet law, which dates back to the 1960s, doesn't make sense.
"The social and economic costs of this legislation simply are too high," Granholm wrote in her veto letter to lawmakers.
The veto disappoints American Bikers Aiming Toward Education of Michigan. The group had successfully urged both the House and Senate to pass the bill, getting the mandatory helmet repeal as close to final approval as it has ever been.
ABATE said Granholm succumbed to false claims and insurance industry pressure.
"Her veto isn't about safety but about money," ABATE legislative director Jim Rhoades said in a statement.
Rhoades said the group would hold Granholm accountable for her veto in the November election and will continue to advance its freedom-of-choice and safety education efforts.
The insurance lobbies said "Jump", and Granholm said "How High!."
3 comments:
I'm a bit doubtful of your math but I do agree with the conclusion. Virtually no voters outside the motorcycle community care about this so it is unlikely to affect their votes. Inside the motorcycle community even helmet users tend to believe that helmets should be a choice, not a law. For many riders this will be THE issue that decides their vote, particularly with those riders that normally skip voting.
So this is bound to help DeVos. How much? Impossible to say since a lot of motorcyclists probably already vote Republican and many others probably won't vote regardless, as is the nature of many adult residents. But this could throw a few thousand extra votes into the DeVos column and in a close election this could be the difference between winning and losing.
Next up: the Castle Doctrine bill. She has been very quiet about her plans for this measure and could go either way. 2nd amendment supporters are very strong in Michigan and this will definitely be a voting issue for many. On the other hand, the anti-gun people are certainly putting a lot of heavy pressure on her to veto it. This is a tough call, but based on her past actions I'm betting that she decides to firm up her base by vetoing the bill.
Read this post and agreed with it:
I would be for removing the helmet law if taxes were raised to pay for the resulting carnage. Call it "responsible libertarianism". I believe that everyone has the right to do stupid things- as long as we figure out how to pay for it and spread the cost evenly.
I'm all for personal freedom, I'd just rather not pay the health costs for the uninsured person who bonks their melon too hard. Since we don't have health insurance that is either compulsory or universal, statistics say there will be uninsured cases. The 10K of additional insurance would probably pay for the FLOWERS you'd bring a brain trauma patient.
Plus Big Ben is on my Fantasy football team and I am opposed to anything that harms that.
Seems teh Governor could get some support from the Organ Donor lobby by signing the bill. I am having a hard time figuring out why we are so fast to promote this bill, yet leave the mandatory seatbelt bill alone. If we were a society that would leave them on the side of the road with their vegetative state, then no harm done. But we will not, hence in the end, the rest of us pay for this.
Post a Comment