|Posted on May 24, 2012 at 7:40 PM|
I've received quite a few questions and calls from people regarding a recent article I wrote "How does the Michigan Motorcycle Helmet law affect Motorcycle Insurance?". If you read through the requirements needed to ride without a helmet, you will probably think that the insurance aspects of the law make no sense. You would be right!
In order to legally go without a helmet, there are three basic requirements:
The first two requirements make sense, but the insurance aspect of it does not. For starters, $20,000 is very inadequate (opponents unsuccessfully tried to raise the requirement to 100K). But besides that, why the stipulation that it must be medical benefits coverage and not medical payments?
The only difference between medical benefits and medical payment is the time limit. There is no time limit with medical benefits but there is a three year time limit on medical payments. Even though that is such a minor difference, there is a big difference between the two as far as premium is concerned.
This is where the flaw in logic lies: If a motorcyclist were injured, how long would it normally take to exhaust that 20K worth of medical benefits? One day? One week? Certainly not three years! That's why it doesn't make sense to exclude medical payments coverage from satisfying the law. But the law is what it is whether it's logical or not.