• 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!

Texas Bill Would Close Helmet Law Loophole

Dao

Joined
Aug 9, 2012
Messages
491
Location
austin
Have you all heard about this?
According to Rideapart:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/motorcycles/texas-bill-would-close-helmet-law-loophole/ar-BBTHIg5?ocid=spartanntp

The proposed change would enable police to stop helmetless riders to ensure they comply with the legal conditions of helmetless riding.

Texas HB 748 barely changes the existing law, but the change it does make is significant. It empowers police to stop helmetless riders to ensure that they meet all of the qualifications necessary to legally leave the helmet at home.

While we should all agree that wearing a motorcycle helmet is a good idea, allowing police to any helmetless rider for nothing other than not wearing a helmet does seem to be a bit of government overreach. It adopts an attitude of guilty until proven innocent, since the rider who gets stopped must prove their age, their course completion, and their health insurance coverage. While these are all very reasonable stipulations, riders who comply with the law now stand to be stopped regularly, which is inconvenient if nothing else.

Some may argue that if riders don't want to be inconvenienced by frequent traffic stops they don't deserve, they should just put on a helmet. If Texas is going to make life so difficult for helmetless riders, why don't they just mandate helmets for all riders like several other states already do? The law would be cut and dry, and police would have good reason to stop helmetless riders since there would be no question that they would be violating the law. The proposed solution seems to just make more work for everybody for no discernable advantage for anyone.Texas HB 748 barely changes the existing law, but the change it does make is significant. It empowers police to stop helmetless riders to ensure that they meet all of the qualifications necessary to legally leave the helmet at home.

While we should all agree that wearing a motorcycle helmet is a good idea, allowing police to any helmetless rider for nothing other than not wearing a helmet does seem to be a bit of government overreach. It adopts an attitude of guilty until proven innocent, since the rider who gets stopped must prove their age, their course completion, and their health insurance coverage. While these are all very reasonable stipulations, riders who comply with the law now stand to be stopped regularly, which is inconvenient if nothing else.

Some may argue that if riders don't want to be inconvenienced by frequent traffic stops they don't deserve, they should just put on a helmet. If Texas is going to make life so difficult for helmetless riders, why don't they just mandate helmets for all riders like several other states already do? The law would be cut and dry, and police would have good reason to stop helmetless riders since there would be no question that they would be violating the law. The proposed solution seems to just make more work for everybody for no discernable advantage for anyone.
Overreach, or no ?
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
109
Location
Brenham
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

The author of that article completely missed the point of the introduced bill.

It's not about stopping motorcyclists to make sure they meet the necessary requirements to not wear a helmet, it's about making it mandatory to wear a helmet.

This is the proposed bill:

86R4719 JAM-D

By: Neave H.B. No. 748



A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT
relating to certain criminal offenses involving protective
headgear requirements for motorcycle operators and passengers.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Sections 661.003(c), (c-1), (c-2), and (i),
Transportation Code, are repealed.

SECTION 2. The change in law made by this Act applies only
to an offense committed on or after the effective date of this Act.
An offense committed before the effective date of this Act is
covered by the law in effect when the offense was committed, and the
former law is continued in effect for that purpose. For purposes of
this section, an offense was committed before the effective date of
this Act if any element of the offense occurred before that date.
SECTION 3. This Act takes effect September 1, 2019.
Emphasis mine.

Notice where it says repealed? It means if the bill passes as written, it would remove all the exceptions (complete MC safety course or insurance policy) that allow riders to go without a helmet. So, it would become illegal to ride without a helmet.
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
2,876
Location
Cypress Tx
First Name
David
Happens every time there’s a new fresh bunch of politicians in Austin , Sputnik used to take care of all this crap , don’t know who’s handling things now . I remember setting in front of a jr congresswoman and discussing this and her argument was when a helmetless rider gets crashed the state has to foot the bill , I asked her who foots the bill for an illeagl immigrant to have their baby , not only the hospital bill but for the rest of their life . Won’t effect me , I wear my helmets when I ride but theres a whole lot of issues that need delt with a whole lot worse than this .
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2017
Messages
243
Location
Katy, Republic of Texas
@Cagiva 549 , I totally agree.

I work in an ER and am a Paramedic, I have seen what not wearing a helmet does.
I wear a helmet 99% of the time, but on a rare occasion I have run a mile up to the store without one.
Truth is, wearing a helmet keeps your brain alive, but your body can destroyed, costing millions over a lifetime.
No helmet increased your chances of dying, so less of a bill.
So you would think if they want to save money, don't require helmets.

The cost (and problems) of illegals, welfare, crime, broken families etc are much greater than a small percentage of riders that don't wear helmets and crash and become a "burden" to the state.

One thing with this that is an issue for me if I choose to ride without a helmet is I took the MSF course 34 years ago, I have no proof of that, so technically I can't ride without a helmet since I have no proof of that.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 10, 2015
Messages
2,134
Location
Fm 1681, Stockdale.
I think the state government has bigger fish to fry, is this really a proper use of their time and my tax dollars?


I wear a helmet, and I think other folks should too, but is it the government's place to require that? I dont believe so. I also think it is unfair to have to pay for inspection and registration every year on a vehicle that I already paid sales tax on, just so I can operate it in roads that my tax dollars pay for.
 
Reactions: Vec
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
1,455
Location
Frisco, TX
I’ve long thought it is a logical inconsistency to require seat belts but not helmets. Of course, there is also the argument that seat belts keep the driver behind the wheel where they belong and possibly able to prevent secondary collisions. If you buy that argument then it would make sense for motorcycles to be completely illegal since the rider rarely has any control after a collision.

If you approach it from a different angle it makes no sense to require seat belts if people are allowed to ride motorcycles.

I’m not arguing one side or the other, but rather pointing out that trying to rationally figure out our legal system is an act of lunacy.
 

2WheelNut

Forum Supporter
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
728
Location
Arlington
First Name
Dave
Last Name
Loggins
As long as they are not in my insurance pool...

The biggest issue I've had with the state helmet law is that any health insurance counts. Anyone who rides without a helmet should be insured specifically for riding with no helmet.
I never understood this argument. Riders without helmets cost much less in insurance because they are dead. You don't need insurance for medical care for dead people.

The rare case where they get a TBI (tramatic brain injury) because they weren't wearing a helmet and would have been just fine if they had been wearing one is overshadowed quite a bit by the larger number of instances where the rider experiences major injuries up to and including TBI but were not killed because they were wearing a helmet. The medical costs for these people is much higher.

If you really want to charge people for higher medical cost due to risk, you'd have to assess a higher premium for ALL people riding motorcycles. (then again...you'd also need to charge more for obsese people that continue to eat cheesburgers and refuse to exercise)

PS...I almost always wear my helmet. But it's because I want to survive an accident, not because I think it will make my medical bills lower.
 

jqueen

Forum Supporter
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,224
Location
Denton, TX
First Name
Justin
The only reservation I have on helmet laws for myself is for rare exceptions. I ride to work quite often and have 2 kids in school. I do have a spare helmet in my office to take if I need to pick them up, but what if there was some kind of emergency and I didn't have access to my spare helmet? I don't want to ride without a helmet, but I ought to be able to pick up my son and put the helmet on him for the 5 mile ride to the house. Or if my helmet was stolen while I was in a store or at lunch.. should I have to get an Uber to the nearest place I can buy a helmet instead of riding over to the dealership?

I have only ridden helmetless once, in college, when I left my helmet in my girlfriend's (now wife) dorm room. It was after curfew and I didn't want to go to the office and have them call her room (no cell phone on me), so I rode 3 miles home with no helmet. That's 20 years ago now and haven't felt the need to go without a helmet on the street even once. But I would if for some reason my helmet wasn't with me/my bike and I wanted to go home.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Messages
5,463
Location
At the back of the pack and out of the dust
I never understood this argument. Riders without helmets cost much less in insurance because they are dead. You don't need insurance for medical care for dead people.
I've heard people say that over and over, especially in the cruiser crowd, but I don't know that it's true. My personal experience with a friend who had a brain injury from crashing without a helmet is enough to keep one on my head. (It was just a quick trip to the store, yada, yada.) Anyway, if somebody wants to reference some information from peer reviewed journals I'd be happy to see the numbers.

As for charging people more for dangerous activities or sport, I don't have a problem with that either, and truth be known most of the health or life insurance policies I've seen have limits for certain activities, sometimes as common as scuba diving. People who haven't checked their policy need to. Finally, I'm really okay with policies that reward healthy activities and penalize unhealthy ones like smoking.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: JMZ

WFO75080

Forum Supporter
Joined
Nov 26, 2009
Messages
135
Location
Greenville
First Name
David
Most people in the medical field will tell you that the only thing a helmet does is keep the scrambled eggs in a basket. I used to forgo the helmet. Now I won't ride without it.
 

JMZ

Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
6,142
Location
Gonzales , TX
First Name
MONGO
I've been around my share of surgeons and I never once heard them say that . In fact , I always heard the opposite.
396c9e17717d007b81989bb0f05e3e3c.jpg


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
1,248
Location
Waco
First Name
Rob
Can the police pull you over if they don't have probably cause or suspicion? I'm not really worried about it to be honest. I always wear a helmet. I think people that do not are just one day away from being an organ donor anyways so I say let the wheat be separated from the chaff.... I am sure the HD riding crowed with their DOT approved safety bandannas will look at me and my jap bikes disapprovingly for my stance on the matter.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
109
Location
Brenham
Can the police pull you over if they don't have probably cause or suspicion? I'm not really worried about it to be honest. I always wear a helmet. I think people that do not are just one day away from being an organ donor anyways so I say let the wheat be separated from the chaff.... I am sure the HD riding crowed with their DOT approved safety bandannas will look at me and my jap bikes disapprovingly for my stance on the matter.
The Transportation Codes allows for LEOs to stop you to verify you have your driver's license, or if you are on your motorcycle and wearing your helmet, you could be stopped to verify the helmet is DOT approved. There may be others, but those are the two I remember off the top of my head.
 
Top