The Mercatus Center, a conservative think-tank located at George Mason University, recently released its 2013 Freedom in the 50 States study.
Michigan ranked 35th overall.
The study took into account “over 200 policies encompassing fiscal policy, regulatory policy and
personal freedom.”
There was no improvement for the Wolverine State from the 2011 study to now, despite the fact that within that timeframe the state did expand on one freedom—the freedom to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. In 2012, at the behest of state Republicans and motorcycle enthusiasts, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder repealed a law which mandated helmet use for motorcyclists.
One year later, and a study of crash data from 2012 by Carol Flannigan of the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute shows that, had the helmet requirement not been repealed, 26 deaths and 49 injuries could have been prevented.
The medical community and insurance companies resisted the repeal of the helmet requirement and now, with the data from Flannigan’s study, they feel vindicated.
“The experiment is over in Michigan,” Heather Drake, a AAA representative, said in an article by The Detroit News. “Helmets save lives.”
What is our response as a citizenry?
Personal freedom entails the freedom to make poor choices, which can, in the most unfortunate of circumstances, result in death.
Often times these concerns over personal freedom deal with small liberties: whether or not the already unhealthy denizens of New York City can further drown their innards with supersized sodas or whether smokers in Connecticut have to pay an extra $3.40 in tax for cancer sticks.
Issues of habeas corpus, Internet privacy and private property rarely draw the kind of public ire those otherwise frivolous issues do. But these examples of small liberties are relevant to conversations about personal freedoms all the same.
The question is, if more freedom means more death in certain circumstances, is it the collective responsibility of the state to prevent those deaths?
Like Milton Friedman’s “Free to Choose,” should we as a citizenry be satisfied with the freedom to die as a result of making poor choices?
New Hampshire, a state with the motto “Live free or die,” is not only without a helmet requirement for motorcyclists, but drivers there are not required to wear a seatbelt or have auto insurance.
Curiously, according to data from Insure.com, an auto insurance comparison site, New Hampshire residents (most of whom do have auto insurance) have on average lower premiums than Michiganders. In fact, Michigan has the second highest insurance average in the nation.
The death rate from motor vehicle accidents is also lower in New Hampshire than it is in Michigan, according to the 2009 Fatality Facts by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
Had the outcome not been so positive for New Hampshire, the same arguments would remain. I subscribe to mostly liberal policies—the government should maintain roads, build schools and take care of the sick and poor, but I know it cannot force everyone to make good choices. That isn’t its role nor should it be.
So, who was stupid: Michigan policymakers who repealed the helmet law or the individuals who decided to take advantage of their new found freedom?