• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

New Helmet Bill Introduced Today - HB 264

Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
2,644
Reaction score
2
Location
Texas
The new bill supported by TMRA2 was introduced today into the Texas Legislature by Rep. Norma Chavez of El Paso.

The bill does away with all the crazy insurance and sticker requirements. It only says you have to be 21 to go lid-less. It should have a Republican co-sponsor by next week.

Let the games begin. Expect the do-gooders to pile on when the news media gets wind of the bill. We should be ready beforehand to write letters-to-the-editor and call our local legislators when the time is right.

Here's a link to the bill...

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2...ILLSUFFIX=00264

  • Support Freedom of Choice.
  • Let those who ride decide.
 
I could care less if you wear a seatbelt or a helmet. Just as long as my tax money doesn't go to keep you alive when you're a vegetable.

John, what was so confusing about the stickers and insurance? The sticker simply showed you either had insurance or took the MSF course. Any health insurance usually covered the $$ amount in the law.
 
10-95 said:
John, what was so confusing about the stickers and insurance?

I don't know. It didn't confuse me. My bike had a sticker on it when I bought it.

What was confusing?
 
10-95 said:
I could care less if you wear a seatbelt or a helmet. Just as long as my tax money doesn't go to keep you alive when you're a vegetable
There's the rub. At some level you need to support a side without attaching restrictions. An insurance policy will keep injured riders out of public funds in minor to moderate accidents. Serious accidents (your veg. comment) would soak through the majority of policies in short order.

So either support these public health policies at their face or not. As John said, when restrictions are attached to a law the issues become mired and confusing. Not to mention difficult to enforce and prosecute. Austin had a bicycle helmet law for a while. Good idea wearing helmets but what a stupid law and a drain on law enforcement and judicial system. It was soon repealed.

I used to investigate accidents and have seen more than I cared to, so anybody in my vehicle wears a seatbelt, and I'll have a helmet when on the motorcycle or bicycle. Everyone else can decide for themselves but it sickens me to see a five year old kid standing up in the back seat of a car. Our society then has to be willing to pay the price for that freedom and it is a high cost in terms of loss of citizens and medical cost for those who cannot pay their bills.
 
On the other hand, if medical costs do justify restricting an adult's activities and choices, the logical (and, likely, inevitable) end result will be bans on automobiles, fast foods, cigarettes, and alcohol; any one of which costs far more in one year than a decade of motorcycle injuries!

That's the danger of buying into the "societal burden" argument: it's a lose-lose proposition for motorcyclists and small-L libertarians everywhere. As an unpopular minority, we're an easy target, and once the precedent is established - once we've agreed that any individual's freedom is not "cost efficient" - then no one's freedoms are safe.

IMHO, whether you choose to wear a helmet or not, it is in your best interest, as a motorcyclist, to support freedom of choice for all motorcyclists.
 
Bill J. from Austin said:
...once we've agreed that any individual's freedom is not "cost efficient" - then no one's freedoms are safe.

Very well stated Bill. I am often surprised at how willing people are to sacrifice their few remaining liberties. It's quite sad really.

I wear my Arai 99.99% of the time. That being said, I don't want to be in criminal violation of the law just because I wish to ride my bike to the showers at a campground without a helmet.

I wish to retain the right to decide for myself when the risks of going helmet-less outweigh the benefits.
 
In motorcycle riding, particularly sportbike riding, its not a question of if you will fall but when. Few people will ride a lifetime and not fall. When you do fall its your head that can cause you the most trauma and possibly death. Head injury can death, disabilty, and distinct personality changes. Your head is what needs protection most in a fall. I don't know why anyone would throw there leg over a motorcycle and not have a helmet.

I support helmet laws because I don't want my tax dollars to go to pay for health care for the stupid. if you want to pass meaningful legislation, pass a law that if you don't wear a helmet, the risk is all yours. You cannot sue another motorist for damages, no ticket or blame can be awarded to the other motorist and the health care is all yours and your insurance company.

In my 40 years of riding, I have seen Texas helmet laws come and go twice. Both times repealed by the cruiser crowd. These are the guys who typically ride without a helmet.

In industry, proper clothing and personnel protection is required. Whether it is hard hats, protective gloves, hearing protection, eye protection it is required to do the job. Typically you will lose your job if you don't wear safety protection. Helmet on a motorcycle is more important than a hard hat on a construction site.

The libertarian argument concerning free will is an effort to make a black and white issue gray. Ride on your own property as you want, but riding on public roads should require the minimum protection of a helmet. Helmets are much more important than seat belt in cars and that is required.
 
Well, if y'all are gonna make me choose, I would support a helmet law. That is, if there is no way to shield my tax money from keeping life support on some dufus that thought he looked cool with that bandana on his unprotected head.

Ride on public road = taking responsibility.

I wear my Arai 99.99% of the time. That being said, I don't want to be in criminal violation of the law just because I wish to ride my bike to the showers at a campground without a helmet

Not applicable. Private property, the Transportation Code is not enforceable.


Here's one that'll rile you up.............

Who says driving is a right? It's a priviledge. And that priviledge can be revoked.
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
 
John Bennett said:
What was confusing?

whoa said:
As John said, when restrictions are attached to a law the issues become mired and confusing

I guess I misunderstood. Doesn't loolk like I am the only one though.
 
10-95 said:
Here's one that'll rile you up.............

Who says driving is a right? It's a priviledge. And that priviledge can be revoked.
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Bwaa haaa, if I had a dime for everytime I got a letter in the mail that had that statement on it beacuse I kept getting so many tickets. :chug: In AR, when you hit 3 tickets in the space of 18 months you'd get one of these letters.
 
i think all bikers should have to wear a helmet. no exceptions.
but i dont agree with a law thats says i have to.
it should be my choice. same with the seat belts.
i am a collision repair tech and i have seen more wrecked cars than 90% of the public. airbags (front and side curtain) are the most effective means of safety in a crash. seatbelts are marginal in a crash better for rollovers but thats only 8% of accidents.
seatbelt laws are more of a tool for law enforcement to generate revenue.
if my vehicle has airbags i should not have to wear my seatbelt.
but i never ride without my lid.
riding a bike is a risk and if you dony wear a helmet its a bigger risk
but its your life and this is a free country.

as with a lot of things in this world a no helmet law and a seatbelt law is azzbackwards.
 
Tchuck said:
I support helmet laws because I don't want my tax dollars to go to pay for health care for the stupid.

In that case we should outlaw the riding of motorcycles completely. Motorcycle riders are 26 times! more likely to be killed than people in cars, per mile driven.

If you are really as concerned about rider safety as you profess, you should be working dilligently to outlaw motorcycles.

Think of the money we could save the taxpayers! ...money that is desperately needed to care for the millions of uninsured illegal immigrants in our country.
 
I don't care for helmet laws myself. And like a lot of others, I would never ride without one regardless of a law. As for my taxes being spent on a couple hundred idiots that are stupid enough to ride without a lid, hey I could care less considering how much of my tax money is TOTALLY wasted on so many other useless things. Those few vegtables are like a grain of sand on the beach.
 
John Bennett said:
Tchuck said:
I support helmet laws because I don't want my tax dollars to go to pay for health care for the stupid.

In that case we should outlaw the riding of motorcycles completely. Motorcycle riders are 26 times! more likely to be killed than people in cars, per mile driven.

If you are really as concerned about rider safety as you profess, you should be working dilligently to outlaw motorcycles.

Think of the money we could save the taxpayers! ...money that is desperately needed to care for the millions of uninsured illegal immigrants in our country.

Ahh, but if you get killed, it doesn't cost the Gubmint anything now does it? :-P
 
10-95 said:
Not applicable. Private property, the Transportation Code is not enforceable.

The last time I rode without a helmet was at Lady Bird Johnson City Park from my campsite to the showers.

With a helmet law, I guess the city police would have been responsible for imposing penalties on me, but I supposed any licensed peace officer could.
 
if we all wear helmets do we get a tax break, insurance discount, or lower licensing fees. NO so factoring in the cost to taxpayers in irrelavent.

like everything in government its who can lobby support for thier side most effectively gets their way.
 
John Bennett said:
Tchuck said:
I support helmet laws because I don't want my tax dollars to go to pay for health care for the stupid.

In that case we should outlaw the riding of motorcycles completely. Motorcycle riders are 26 times! more likely to be killed than people in cars, per mile driven.

If you are really as concerned about rider safety as you profess, you should be working dilligently to outlaw motorcycles.

Think of the money we could save the taxpayers! ...money that is desperately needed to care for the millions of uninsured illegal immigrants in our country.

John using your line of reasoning, why stop at outlawing motorcycles, outlaw cars. Vehicle fatailites are about 40,000 per year. Let's go a little farther falling off ladders kill. Maybe we should outlaw ladders. Its taking the argument too far. Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is obviouly dangerous to most everyone who rides. On public roads in a car loaded with safety gear you still must buckle your seat belt. On these same roads you don't have to wear the most basic safety gear, a helmet. These laws are inconsistent.

Regarding any saving, don't spend it on other programs like insuring the uninsured, give it back to me in lower taxes. Even if its only a nickle, its my nickle.
 
I'm liking Norma Chavez more and more. :-)

Too bad she's a Democrat. ;-)

from: http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=2750808

State rep gets first 'Texas official' motorcycle plate

EL PASO, Texas State Representative Norma Chavez loves her Harley. So the El Paso Democrat also loved getting the first-ever motorcycle license tag stamped "Texas State Official."

The plates have been issued to members of the Texas Legislature and other elected state officials since 1938 for their passenger cars and trucks. But Chavez had been haggling for the plate since she bought her 1994 midnight blue Harley Davidson Sportster in 2000.

She said she's the only female Texas legislator who rides a motorcycle and the first to request the plate.

An increasing demand for motorcycle specialty plates prompted the Texas Department of Transportation to make them available to the general public in May 2004.

dist76.gif
austin_pols_feature6-2.jpg

Norma Chavez
 
Come on. She got that plate because she thinks it will prevent her from being stopped by the po-po. :roll:


jimbo, if you are any kind of a mechanic you know how fast that airbag comes out and how much damage it will do to you if you aren't at a safe distance from it. Do you stick your head around it while working on the steering column???? Revenue for seatbelt tickets? Please!

[reality check]We have a seatbelt law because the Fed Govt wants it nationwide. NHTSA hands out grant money left and right to enforce the law and for public announcements. It's really simple. Conform with the rest of the states or wave goodbye to any federal money for roads. Go to Louisiana and see how that worked out for them.[/reality check]
 
IMHO
1) Everyone should wear a helmet regardless of age or ins coverage
2) Everyone should wear a seat belt regardless of age or ins coverage.

It only makes common sense. All the facts on the benifits far out weigh the cons. Its sad that legislation must be introduced to make us heed common sense.

With that said, Why is there not any laws for having unprotected sex? Do my tax dollars go to help pay for STDs/AIDS and illegitimate children?

Now that I have stirred the pot, let the flaming begin................
 
VERY truthfully and articulately stated, Bill! I didn't know anyone from Austin cared anything about freedom, other than the right to choose an abortion or a sex change or something. ;-) :lol:

I could care less if you wear a seatbelt or a helmet. Just as long as my tax money
doesn't go to keep you alive when you're a vegetable.

Has any UNBIASED organization done any UNBIASED studies of what causes more vegetables, riding with or without a helmet? I would think more would be killed outright without a helmet and that the number of broken necks and otherwised damaged, but not lethally so neurosystems would be created by wearing a helmet, though I'm sure the probablility I'd survive a crash with my helmet on is many times higher. If that's the case, if helmets caused more vegetables, you should support the repeal of the insurance provision! Logically, I'd suspect that hemlets cause more vegetables than not wearing one. Not wearing one pretty much signs your death warrant.

Of course, most of the time, I have a helmet on. There are times I run down the street to the store and don't mess with it, but rarely. I just have been wearing one on a bike so long, I feel naked without it. I DO NOT wish to be FORCED to wear it, though. I never wear a damned seatbelt, either. It's not TOO bad in my wife's car, but both my van and my truck seatbelts cut my neck to the point of bleeding if I wear them long enough. It's just the way they ride across me. So, I loop my arm through and leave it loose and if I see a cop, I take both hands off the wheel to attach the damned thing. That's save, ain't it? :roll: No laws against that broad I saw in north SA driving up I35 in rush hour traffic reading the paper in her suburban while driving! That's a bigger hazard, I'd think. I've seen helmet laws come and go, depending on the totalitarianism of the administration in power in Austin, in the 38 years I've been riding. I'm sure the next liberal, if there ever is one and I hope there isn't, that gets in power in Austin will bring it back.

Now, then, I submit one of two things. First of all, outlaw riding motorcycles on the street! That cures the problem. You outlaw riding those dangerous contraptions on the street you eliminate ALL motorcycle traffic accidents!

Two, if you allow street bikes, mandate helmet use, then mandate helmet use in ALL vehicles, not just motorcycles. It would save lives if each and every occupant of a car, truck, school bus, metro bus, whatever, had to wear a helmet. Might consider mandating nomex outer wear in vehicles, too. I'm getting tired of paying for all the indigents that get in wrecks and get severe burn injuries and have no medical insurance! Helmets in cars CAN and WILL save head injuries, even lives, even though it didn't do Dale Earnhart any good. You don't see a NASCAR driver or a F1 driver get in a car without helmet and nomex driving suit, why should we be any different!?
 
10-95 i will bet you $100 dollars i have changed more airbags than you have seen blown. believe me i know how they work. do you want my certification number. all the gen 2 airbags have been redesigned since 1997 they pop with 35% less velocity. thay also have a new cover that is less abrasive to human skin. they will chafe you but wont kill you. the only problem i see with them is the sensitivity of the crash sensors differ by brand and model of car. probably due to location of the sensor. they very are inconsistent.

but still its my life and my choice
that is what my grandfather die for---FREEDOM.
 
Jack Giesecke said:
VERY truthfully and articulately stated, Bill! I didn't know anyone from Austin cared anything about freedom, other than the right to choose an abortion or a sex change or something. ;-) :lol:
Well, after my last abortion, I had a sex change, and now... :angel:

Yeah, there are a few Austinites who still remember the old Texas, and the quaint notion of "freedom." :twisted:

The helmet law/societal burden issue is a tough call, and not one I make lightly. I believe we do have a responsibility to each other, as citizens of the Republic. That includes the responsibility to respect others' choices, and to make choices that, so far as is humanly possible, don't harm others, directly or indirectly.

A rider either believes helmets are effective, or he doesn't. However, opinions and anecdotal evidence aside, when you talk about helmet laws there is no black-and-white proof either way. Do helmets help as much as NHTSA and IIHS claim? Are they of questionable effectiveness in all but certain accidents, as MROs claim? Can they, in fact, interfere with vision, hearing, or response time, and can they cause certain injuries? Would mandating their use for all riders at all times actually reduce indigent-care costs, and would the savings justify the governmental intrusion?

Because the answers to these questions aren't clear and, as Jack notes, research to date is suspect, I feel strongly that the choice must be left up to the individual.
 
Because the answers to these questions aren't clear and, as Jack notes, research to date is suspect, I feel strongly that the choice must be left up to the individual.

Now that is just unAmerican! We pass restrictive laws despite a lack of clear and convincing evidence and then wait for things to sort themselves out later... or not, but at least we've passed another law and made the world a better safer place! :suicide:
 
Back
Top