motorcylists are 9% of traffic accidents our gov't pays 45billion annually for fat peoples medical bills. Helmets present 20% less likely hood of an injury and 9% of death. You still have a choice to wear a helmet I will. In states (32 including Michigan now) with no law or optional 50% still wear a helmet. Their is only one way to find out what kind of economic boost this will have, look at the numbers for tourism this fall. Not one state neighboring Michigan has a mandatory law, most of those riders and many more would love to tour the U.P. Obesity and smoking are the leading killers in America and major players in the world but we all have a choice to keep eating and we already pay the bill for the both of them. Riders numbers are insignificant. Helmets may keep you alive in case a head injury even occurs, death would be cheaper-blunt but true. Riding is about the feeling and for many who do ride (still a minority) they don't want to ride with a helmet. Organ donation will go up, tourism may help boost the economy. In a study between 1997 thru 2007 6.7% of motorcyclists died in 11 years that's 38,566 people/ 1,500 people die each day from cancer due to smoking and being obese EACH DAY! Be practical and learn a little more you have no opinion because you know no facts.

Here in there is the problem. Do you think that insurance companies are going to cover these coat without passing them unto the policy holders? Think of our wonderful insurance scam that all motroist have to pay into to cover extreme medical cost insurance, that goes up continually. This wil go up as well.

If a person wants to ride with no helmet, let his insurace go up on all those who ride motorcycles. Car insurance in this state is already to high period. It's a rip off compaired to other states.

Your head is not made of steel. It like a melon! Hit it hard enough, and it splits open, resulting in brain damage or death. Don't blame me because you're that stupid to ride one without the correct safety head gear on Everyone has to eat the cost of your supidity, and I'm not willing to do that on bit. Thanks for the review of the cost here, as well a life might of have been saved it the rider was wearing a helmet.

If motorcyclists don't wear helmets, then we will all die when we crash and you won't have to worry about paying for head injuries....afterall, DOT helmets are only proven effective up to 13 mph (why do you think the Mich State Police haven't provided a list of approved helmets since the helmet law was implemented back in the late 60's). Let those who ride, decide!

So you probably will want to wear a helmet in your car with the 67% head involvement in both fatal and injury accidents that I as a biker have to pay for. Also if I am an illegal Mexican alien and ride a motorcycle and suffer a head injury will you mind paying for that or is this taboo with the liberal biker haters on the thread. Not even to mention the millions of bastard babies that teenage sluts are having. I think that you may want a mandatory chastidy belt law instead of a helmet law if you are "really" concerned about saving money, so until that time as long as Michigan or any other non free state has a helmet law I will spend my vacation money in the 30 "FREE" states only!

Your data appear to be accurate, however it also includes ALL brain injuries from all causes. If you would care to disclose the complete data, you would find that the largest percentage of these injuries come from a person simply falling down. Only 27% of TBI injuries occur from MOTOR VEHICLE accidents. Notice I didnt say motorcycle, because the data set you used doesnt specify it.
But lets go ahead and accept the argument you have given - that the general public shouldnt have to be liable for a motorcyclist who has suffered a head injury while riding without a helmet. By this logic, does the same apply to the driver of an automobile? I ask this question because, again according the the NHTSA data (Distribution of Injury Locations by Occupant Type (NASS 1995-2004, all crash modes), the MOST COMMON INJURY sufferred by automobile occupants is a head injury.
Ergo, it makes sense then that all of you supporting a mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists would support a mandatory helmet law for automobile operators as well.
Well? Speak up now. Let me hear why this argument doesnt make sense.

3.7% of ALL head injuries are motorcycle related. When will you campaign for helmets on the other 96.3%?

This vivid true-life story is posted under a MLive.com article about the bill:

"I just crashed a motorcycle 2-1/2 weeks ago, smashing my shoulder, I was wearing a helmet, i had surgery on the shoulder. Last week I was given my helmet back and I looked it over.
"The back of the helmet had deep scratches and gouges in it from something that hit it. It could have been the back of my head. I believe the helmet saved me.
"Riding without one is just plain dumb. This is in Indiana, where helmets are not mandatory. I see the fools all the time without them."
-- Free4All, 2:00 p.m., March 28, 2012

True about the bare arms and legs. Was always more worried about the 65 mph cheesegrater beneath me than a head injury. The most common accidents, 15-35 mph 'lowersiders', go after your skin more than your head.

I've seen it first hand, and it's not a pretty sight at all. The skin is just rowed back, and torn, with a few broken bones thrown in. Thanks for your post!

This is definitely a question of economics. If someone chooses to not wear a seatbelt and gets into a severe accident, the measly insurance you and I carry will likely not be sufficient to cover the cost of body repair and rehab. Why should you, or I, or anyone else have to cover that additional cost?

Michigan's vehicle insurance costs already out of control, and are among the highest in the nation, if not the very highest. You and I having to pay for someone else's lack-of-good-judgement will only drive the costs higher. Add to that the ridiculous $20,000 insurance coverage requirement for motorcycles, down from $100,000, and you'd have to leave our solar system to find the possibility of higher insurance rates.

As for motorcycle helmets, the 2nd or 3rd time I was on a bike, I crashed. I'm glad I was wearing a helmet because I don't think that tree moved one millimeter. I never got back on one. I can't relate to the freedom of riding au natural, but I can relate to paying someone else's medical costs. I want no part of it.

Why are you "sorry". Your point of view is strong and clear. Don't apologize for that!

What a strange question... But the fact that anyone would answer it by saying they prefer not to be safe so won't wear a helmet or a seat belt is even stranger. Driving any vehicle is not a right. The State has the right to set requirements that will protect all of its citizens, even those who prefer to not be protected. The cost alone of the injuries sustained by those who do not where helmets is enough to require the wearing of them. This is not a personal liberty issue, this is an issue about what is best for the welfare of the state.

I agree. Click it or $$$$$

you must not be a biker ;;;;;i have been cents i was 16 let us make up are own minds on the helment;;;;;;;;;;

uptil I saw the bank draft which had said $4886, I did not believe that my mom in-law realy taking home money in there spare time on their apple labtop.. there neighbour started doing this for less than seventeen months and by now repaid the debts on their place and purchased a great new Saab 99 Turbo. I went here, FLY38. ℂOM

the most common injury in an auto accident is head injury. should you be denied medical car if you crash your car without a helmet? After all, it is a safety device and you chose not to use it.

My brother died rollerblading, he fell and hit his head. He died instantly.I never believed something like that could happen, ever. He left my three nephews without a father.
I think about all the things we did as kids, dirt bikes, bikes, skateboards etc. It was the grace of God that we only broke a few bones here and there. Never again.

I'm sorry for your family's loss, Lianne, and admire you for sharing such a heartbreaking example of why this topic is important.

There are valid viewpoints on each side, of course, and your poignant comment is a reminder that it can be a life-and-death issue, not something to be treated with callous glibness. Thank you for commenting.

they are not proven to save all lifes ;;;;;;got friend that got hit by a car 10 years ago and stile in the intence care he can not do nothing so you tell me wich one is better dead or just laying there in a bed thank you

Well when you cannot even spell correctly, I would stop the arguing. You sound uneducated & selfish (Mr. McGuire). Nothing is 100% guaranteed, but the safety measures are put into place as they pevent 'most' head injuries/trauma-both helmet & seatbelt. If a rider is not smart enough to take the necessary procautions to protect themselves & others (how is the driver who hit you & you died due to not wearing a helmet going to deal with that for the rest of their lives? Not very well!), then they shouldn't be given a cycle endorsement. No matter how much you may hate the government for making you wear a seatbelt or helmet, some of you have to be saved from your own stupidity, no matter how old you are. If you don't want to be saved or be a vegetable, then have a 'DNR' order on yourself when riding.

Lonzil, I agree with your points, however, when ridiculing someone for spelling errors, (which is really lame to do) you should always make sure you are not making any yourself. I think pevent and procautions are incorrect. Oops !!

Special NYS Report 1969-1 "THAT BECAUSE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF FORCES PRESENT WHEN A MOTORCYCLIST IS KILLED OR INJURED IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO EXPECT ANY DEGREE OF PROTECTION FROM A HELMET".

My bet is this is being use totally out of context. Do you have the report? You can't talk about Magnitude of forces present without knowing something about the speed. Sure if you hit a bridge column at 70MPH a helmet won't do you any good. But getting launched of the hood of a car at 35MPH it can be the different between being sore and your spouse sentenced to feeding your baby food the rest of your helpless life.

"I have 63 years of statistics that prove that government PAID researchers have lied over and over again." Here we go again its all a big conspiracy...

Good. Wear one in your car and live!

Nope, you will not likely die as the head was involved in 15% of crashes before the law and helmets reduces this by just 1% to 14% while neck involvement increases with the law in some cases by 750%. Data from USDOT used by me in the repeal of the federal helmet law requirement in 1975. Also stated was the fact that ruptured hearts and internal injuries caused 67% of ALL motorcycle victims and helmets do not prevent this and therefore were ineffective in lowering death and injury rates and made helmets responsible for the increases of the percentage rates by breaking necks. I have the autopsy reports for a period of 10 years.

Nancy
I love it, why protect people who are to stupid to wear a helmet. The problem is that those of with health care insurance, will pick up the tab for the idiots who don't die in the crash. $20,000 coverage is nothing.

RW Skank, and do not charge me for the repair of your "cage" as I have seen how you folks drive.

To Mackey and RW- Life should not be risk-free. But you should pay for your risky behavior yourself. The rates for those who drive motorcycles should be increased for those who ride without a helmet. If no helmet is found at the scene of an accident, the insurance company should be able to pass along consequences. Those of us who are doing the right things are increasingly weary of the illegals, the obese, the lazy, the cheats, and the rest who selfishly pursue whatever they want and expect the rest of us to pay for their indiscretions.

The simplest thing is to completely separate motorcyclist insurance from car insurance at all levels. No bundling with homeowners policies. Then when it is only the cyclists paying for all of their own medical bills from accidents they can fight it out with each other and leave the rest of us with lower rates. The insurers will track claims rates and the standards for hemets can change INSIDE the policy- those who wear approved helmets can then take advantage of lower rates. If those who want to ride without are will to COMPLETELY subsidize their own costs, so be it. Ballpark guess- $300 month premiums. Let the free market work. Remove the rest of us from this issue.

60 % of motorcycle accidents NHTSB stats- are at night, with no other vehicles involved. Usually on curves. At this moment-- all of us seem to be responsible for everyone elses carelessness. Perhaps pressure from fellow cyclists specifically would lead to safer riding. The number of accidents is not large, yet when you consider that there are far fewer miles traveled on motorcycles (weather) in northern states, it is worth studying. And the best way to do that is to let the free market loose. Then we as taxpayers are not paying for more studies, the insurance companies are excellent at studying their own claims data.

Sorry, Julie is wrong. It isn't the insurance costs that will drive up, its the Medicaid costs. Once people run out of insurance and personal assets they go on Medicaid until they qualify for Medicare. The millions in long-term costs will be bourne by the taxpayers, at least until those programs are demolished by the Republicans. This is the same thing that will happen to traumatic car crash victims if the Governor gets to destroy the Auto No-Fault law. Also, the Michigan car insurance are about middle of the pack nation-wide, but offers the best traumatic coverage in the country.

There isn't. But our political officials don't operate under logic and reason. They operate under self interest and self preservation. Hopefully the Governor hasn't been bought off to.

Non-hothead answer, based on my own meditations while riding:

The outcome of an accident in a car with and without seatbelts looks very different (think back to the old slo-mo safety films). One version, you are retained in your 3 ton shell. The other version, you go sailing through glass, and probably onto or into another 3 ton shell.

The outcome of any serious motorcycle accident is the same with or without helmet - you go flying. On a racetrack, where much of our safety equipment is designed, you have a full leather suit, a helmet, cushioned berms, and are surrounded by professional riders. This militates against the physics of the crash.

In the real world, you have all manner of irregular shapes and sharp edges waiting for you once you leave your bike, not to mention a bunch of 3 ton shells that may or may not see you. If a car hits you, it's probably going to be in the torso or legs, not the helmet. An open-head injury is sometimes the last thing on your mind after a near-miss.

Motorcycling seems so inherently dangerous (especially in the texting era) that mandating one very specific piece of safety equipment is like requiring oven mitts to visit Chernobyl. The outcomes of a mishap are unthinkable either way. I'd tell anyone who'd listen to wear 'all the gear, all the time'.

Do you think the enforcement is because police care about you, or is it merely another revenue generator? Really... that is easy money, and nothing more.

Bryce- That's my thoughts as well.

Even if in the "real world", laws are not consistent in their logic, that doesn't mean we should take positions that support that inconsistency.

All I want is for the line to be drawn in regards to what safety level the government should enforce (decided democratically), and for consistent application of that safety level across the board.

Actually Dennis it isn't really a police issue. The seatbelt law is a federal mandate. States are subjected to a form of extortion from the federal government in that if they (the state) don't achieve a certain level of compliance with seatbelt usage, they stand to loose out on federal tax dollars paid to the state.

60% of motorcycle accidents- single vehicle. nightime. on a curve. w or w/o alcohol.

Thought you were pro choice?

7:51 am on Friday, April 6, 2012

"What an awesome society we'd have in Ed's world! Deny medical care to people that can't afford it? Wow, that'd be great, Ed. Happy Easter! Perhaps consider looking into the guy the holiday is about. Hint - it's not the Easter bunny." -hartland eagle

Hartland, did I not say that society should provide for the truly needy? Why should society be paying for those who refuse to prioritize their needs and wants and elect not to have insurance?

I also remind you about the message of the Gospel: Jesus commands INDIVIDUALS to render assistance, ala the good Samaritan. He does not speak of a direct government mandate or spread-the-cost insurance pools.

It is one thing if we as a society (on any level of government) decide to "help the poor" and define who qualifies as poor. It is quite another to say that the New Testament demands that societies do this. It doesn't. Jesus spoke to his followers and advised what they should do as individuals.

There is much dissatisfaction in society with various levels of government, and part of that dissatisfaction stems from what is perceived to be too generous a stretching of the definition of "needy." Some of that contention can be laid at the feet of those who think that personal Biblical enjoinings become the responsibility of the state.

This is also a back-door approach to expanding the power of government and conveniently using religious principles to accomplish it.

Repeal backers won't like today's editorial from The Detroit News, which says signing the bill "pretty much assures there will be an increase in serious crash-related head injuries whose treatment expenses will be spread among other drivers. . . .

"If Snyder OKs the helmet law repeal, cyclists finally will win their long-sought right to avoid a common-sense safety measure comparable to the seat belt requirement for automobile drivers.

"But riders without helmets are 40 percent more likely to suffer fatal head injuries, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A University of Michigan study found that helmet use decreases the costs of injury treatment by $6,000 per crash. A survey by AAA Michigan found that 80 percent of Michiganians favor the helmet law. There's no justification for getting rid of this requirement."
[http://bit.ly/HeSB6R]

Not nearly as stupid as you shooting your mouth off sans any facts. I don't think thaqt any helmet would help you because you are beyond it!

To have an average that low cannot sustain very many substaintial claims. Average would be for every $100k claim, you must have 100 $5k claims (which are covered), or less than 1%. Anyone have stats on what the 'public' paid out for non-covered head injuries in Florida? Ohio? Any of the other 30+ states?? Let's talk REAL numbers, not hypothetical.

Terry, remember, we're talking about ONLY the diff between helmet and non helmet. Ambulance and ER admit are likely in either case if helmet is the only diff, so that doesn't count. Injuries to the body should be about the same in both situations, and death is more likely which would lessen medical costs. MUST see the WHOLE picture, and understand the REAL costs involved. Heck, if deaths DO go up substantially, the public cost COULD actually decrease.

Aha, Terry, nice jab at people who don't agree with your opinion, which means even less as a non-participant. It's merely guesswork on who lives or dies, your assumption the body lives on no matter what is far fetched IMO.

Again, ASK THE STATES who currently have no helmet laws what their REAL costs are, instead of the wild guessing going on here. Then, and ONLY then, we can talk facts.

Dennis- As a casual observer to this back-and-forth, I'm curious what your were referencing with the:

"nice jab at people who don't agree with your opinion"

I don't see the 'jab' made by Terry.

The jab was the last sentence about brain functioning lower when deciding to ride without a helmet.

Good! Then I want you to wear one in your car just like racecar drivers do because even with seatbelts and airbags the head is still involved in 67% of all fatal and injury accidents. Why should I as a biker have to pay for this! Better yet, ban ALL cars and then and only then the helmet law "might" work for bikers. I do not smoke, drink or overeat, so why should I have to pay for these "victims" either. Let's get real here, helmets do not work folks and a bunch of "hysterical fanatics" are not going to change the helmet FAIL!

Good for you Mr. Jeddy perfect. Yeah right, helmets don't save lives. Cars all have air bags now for the head. And really I could care less if you wear a helmet or not; when you smash your head then you'll wish you wore one.

Then you should make those same demands of every bicyclist, roller blader, jogger, et al. Give us your testimony then... how much DID it cost? And how many cases did you witness first hand, in relation to ALL other accidents? If he is hit by a truck, the truck driver better have the $5M in the bank and hand it over pronto.

What an awesome society we'd have in Ed's world! Deny medical care to people that can't afford it? Wow, that'd be great, Ed. Happy Easter! Perhaps consider looking into the guy the holiday is about. Hint - it's not the Easter bunny.

OK, I ride. You have no idea what you're talking about. The public pays dearly for riders too ignorant to wear a helmet.

From NHTSA:
Studies conducted in Nebraska, Washington, California, and Massachusetts indicate how injured motorcyclists burden taxpayers. Forty-one percent of motorcyclists injured in Nebraska from January 1988 to January 1990 lacked health insurance or received Medicaid or Medicare.17 In Seattle, 63 percent of trauma care for injured motorcyclists in 1985 was paid by public funds.27 In Sacramento, public funds paid 82 percent of the costs to treat orthopedic injuries sustained by motorcyclists during 1980-83.28 Forty-six percent of motorcyclists treated at Massachusetts General Hospital during 1982-83 were uninsured.29

You've cited what you say is a fact. "Non helmet states have no more head traumea accidents than helmet states." I call bull. Twice as many people DIE of head trauma in non-helmet states.

This is what the GOP in Michigan stands for. The rights of people to make stupid choices, like not having health insurance, or not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.

Is this really such an important issue? Your right to make an absolutely illogical choice?

The stats that you cite are hand picked to cover the failure of the law when the real truth is that fatality and injury rates per 100 invovements are actully lower in the free states. These stats do not lie and cannot be changed and you will NEVER see them presented by the government. Congress repealed the federal helmet law in 1975 because of the USDOT lies and the 30 state repeal has not changed those facts. It would be like me saying that 100% of all bikers died witout helmets before the law was passed which would be true and then me saying that since the law all states with it have no injuries or fatalities which would be a lie because the truth is that "Because of the magnitude of forces present when a motorcyclist is killed or injured it IS NOT reasonable to expect any degree of protection from a helmet" as quoted from a special report on helmets by goverment sorces called 1969-1NYS.

You had better go and check that out before you ever shoot your mouth off! It is lies like yours that mislead people as florida has NEVER had 933 fatalities both before, during and after the law. You are a promoter of "helmet hysteria" and know nothing of the facts. Thirty states have repealed because guys like me take time to expose liars like you and the government controlled press that releases canned editorials of USDOT propaganda. Check out haw much they have spent fighting the TRUTH and won't you be suprised.

Yes. It's a vast conspiracy to force you to wear a helmet.

motorcycle registrations tripled in Florida after the repeal.

You are wrong, as 100% of USDOT statistics are well conceived lies to cover up the helmet law failure. This was proven to Congress in 1975 by me and Governor Snyder has that testimony which was sent by me in June of 2011. After 30 states have repealed all of the lies about mayhem have never come to fruition because lies are lies and some want to "trust" our government.

Stats prove what the organization wants to prove. Some stats cleverly omit items to make their point more valid. For example.. Florida deaths increased 81%. Sounds terrible. In truth, bike registrations went up nearly 300% so effectively reducing the number of injuries per rider.

So you figure motorcycle deaths will go down because people don't have to wear helmets? Really?

Your right to be stupid was just reaffirmed. Carry on.

Oh, sorry, did I say that? Please show me where, and I'll edit it out. And calling people names is the preferred tactic of those with nothing intelligent to say in a matter. Thanks for playing.

You compared the two situations. What else would your point have been? Perhaps it was just a random opinion you wanted to interject into the conversation. If so, I'm sorry, Dennis. I assumed you were following along.

And I didn't call you a name. I said not wearing a motorcycle helmet is a stupid choice. Which IT IS !!! And anyone that doesn't ride, and most that do, think so.

The comparison is people FORECASTING disasterous outcomes (mass murders, sky high insurance bills, thousands of head injuries, et al) based on NOTHING. Mass murders didn't happen, in FACT, violent crime rates plummeted. Nobody's catastrophic insurance rates have changed due to this legislation at this time. Please feel free to squawk and complain AFTER it effects you. Thank you pro-helmet-law'ers for minding your own business until then.

And I see ALOT of stupid decisions (IN MY OPINION) that people do everyday. Personal pet peeve: people with Fido sitting at the driver's window on their laps, tooling down the road. Don't they realize that if they have an accident, Fido will be permanently tattooed on their face?!? IGNORANCE. Guess I should run around like people here and tell them all so, and push for laws... that don't affect me. -_-

Wow, you're right, Brian. We should just outlaw cars and have everyone ride motorcycles, since they're so much safer.

"What an awesome society we'd have in Ed's world! Deny medical care to people that can't afford it? Wow, that'd be great, Ed. Happy Easter! Perhaps consider looking into the guy the holiday is about. Hint - it's not the Easter bunny." -hartland eagle

Hartland, did I not say that society should provide for the truly needy? Why should society be paying for those who refuse to prioritize their needs and wants and elect not to have insurance?

I also remind you about the message of the Gospel: Jesus commands INDIVIDUALS to render assistance, ala the good Samaritan. He does not speak of a direct government mandate or spread-the-cost insurance pools.

It is one thing if we as a society (on any level of government) decide to "help the poor" and define who qualifies as poor. It is quite another to say that the New Testament demands that societies do this. It doesn't. Jesus spoke to his followers and advised what they should do as individuals.

There is much dissatisfaction in society with various levels of government, and part of that dissatisfaction stems from what is perceived to be too generous a stretching of the definition of "needy." Some of that contention can be laid at the feet of those who think that personal Biblical enjoinings become the responsibility of the state.

This is also a back-door approach to expanding the power of government and conveniently using religious principles to accomplish it, principles not even believed in by the expanders.

It's actually nothing like that at all. There's not one Democrat, anywhere, that promotes "killing the unborn". Radical, overblown rhetoric like this is why the political process is so out of control.

You're right. $20k won't even cover the medivac to the hospital.

These "free spirits" will quickly go bankrupt, go on Medicaid, and draw on assistance from the government for the rest of their lives.

DLVB call me at five 8 five 2 three 0 nine 3 0 three

To Jeddy Tranquill,
Maybe I am one of those people suffering from helmet hysteria. I am not denying that notion. Perhaps I am being too overly cautious about the entire matter. At any rate, after my own review of relevant fed statistics, I was certainly under the impression that fatalities and accidents would increase after repeal of the mandatory helmet law. Your claim to have the REAL data on the failure of the helmet laws spurs my interest. I did not mean to spew careless words; I was merely reflecting on the information I came to rely upon. Stastical data is often innaccurate and skewed to support a particular notion. I'm not sure what to believe now. Your reference to Congressional Helmet Testimony Surface Transportation Hearings 1975 may lend me to change my mind regarding helmet laws and/or safety. Your comments were well received by me. No hard feelings. Just the facts. Still, I do desire to be a survivor of one of those few isolated incidents where helmet safety pays off. I shall further investigate the matter as you suggested. Your input and reply to my comments were appreciated. Safe biking to you, with or without your helmet. Live to ride. Debbie

Debra, you gave in too quickly. Jeddy is an I know best kind of guy and doesn't mind telling you so over and over again. Accident statistics are not the only relevant or "REAL" ones. All accidents are down. Perhaps due to less traffic perhaps due to less driving for lots of reasons, but perhaps due to price of gas and condition of roads. Who knows (Oh, I forgot, Jeddy knows, doesn't he? He's a rider and worked on this in 1975 and helped Snyder, so he knows EVERYTHING). Do we know how many of those in accidents continue to use helmets? I don't think many thought there would be a blood bath, but I do think that it is the injuries NOT the just the # of accidents that need to be considered. But then, of course, as Jeddy likes to say, " the Feds are...LYING". Wondering if anyone who thinks, feels, or uses stats that disagree with his (that is, looks at the issue from a different perspective than his) is actually LYING? Calm down, Jeddy. There is room for difference here.

Thanks, Patricia. AND, "cyber troll ranting" is insulting. If it irrelevant to you, than move on. Don't think "valuable part of Patch" is affected. This service is one of the valuable parts of Patch!

Oh Jody, my apologies, your comment got in under the wrong post--see below.
And yes, you are very correct to what we have seen in the comments-
Thank you

"cyber troll ranting" ? That's kind of insulting to those that expressed opinions. There are many valid points in this thread.
Thank you