Guilty until proven innocent

[SpencerPJ]

Kinda disappointed that of all places, Texas. They must want a chance to look deeper into other issues as well, not published. We can debate all day about if it's smart to ride with or without a helmet. Bottom line, helmets save lives. So does eating well, exercising well, not smoking, not drinking, and the list goes on and on.

 

Is this the direction America really is heading. What's next, Popo get to frisk each of us for guns and check for permits, at their will.

 

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

[Flyinfool]

In some places thay already can stop and frisk just because they want to.

[zagger]

I could not care less whether riders wear helmets or not. I always do, along with leather and kevlar liners for my pants. A guy I know never wore a helmet and crashed his harley a couple of years ago. Zero head injuries, but he did manage to grind off one of his legs. He now has a metal leg from the knee down and is done with riding. Ya never know.

zag

[cowpuc]

Kind of ironic, the push is on for mandated head protection for those who can think for themselves but millions of the varmints behind such nonsense are also in favor of stickin a surgical tool into the unprotected head of an infant:doh:.. Prayers Up for this great, last bastion of true freedom country of ours. As one by one, the States in this Union make the fight against the Socialist and Globalist attacks against our way of life, one can only hope and pray that God himself (even though there are those among us that would even like to remove "In God We Trust" from our way of life too) steps in and brings a needed revival of America and her majestic beauty.

[Kretz]

I think there is enough evidence that helmets DO save lives but it should be left to the individual to decide. But might peer pressure persuade someone who wants to wear a helmet not to do so? ('cause he/she would be seen as the softy?)

Introduced here last year. Police can now stop you anywhere & demand a breathe sample. They do NOT need any reason!

They can come to your home, state that a report has been received about your driving & can demand a breath sample! They can do this up to TWO hours AFTER you have been driving! They can also enter a pub, cafe etc & demand breath samples from people who have been driving (even though they may plan to take a taxi home).

Refusal to supply a breath sample will, we are told result in a criminal prosecution & a criminal record!

I do not condone drinking & driving but these draconian measures are seen as being quite acceptable by the snowflakes.

Don't even get me started on how we have to transport &/or use firearms for legal purposes; of course the gangs & criminals who cause all the problems & use firearms illegally obey all these ridiculous rules too! (NOT!)

In Canada it's getting that we ARE guilty until we prove we are not! But that doesn't of course apply to REAL criminals!

Edited February 18, 2019 by Kretz

[Du-Rron]

I could not care less whether riders wear helmets or not. I always do, along with leather and kevlar liners for my pants. A guy I know never wore a helmet and crashed his harley a couple of years ago. Zero head injuries, but he did manage to grind off one of his legs. He now has a metal leg from the knee down and is done with riding. Ya never know.

zag

 

That is not the point of the article. The point of the article is now the cops have "just cause" to conduct, what in a majority of cases, will be an unwarranted search based upon what they can plainly see. The majority of cases that result in an unwarranted search will be forgiven by the public because it is too hard, time consuming, and costly for the average Joe to win against. They might as well randomly stop drivers of vehicles and check for "liability insurance". They would give more tickets, make more money for the city-state, (cause there is more cars and more uninsured drivers of cars), and be just as legally viable as stopping helmet less riders.

 

Next "probable cause" for unwarranted search may be for "clean under-wear".

 

I am so sad about this law.

[BlueSky]

Having to take a safety course before going helmetless would tick me off for sure. NC didn't have motorcycle licenses until the late 80s or early 90s I think. Anyhow when it was required, I got grandfathered in and didn't have to take the test because I had enough riding experience. NC requires a helmet and that is okay with me. I'm thinking about getting a half shell though. It's almost like not having a helmet with a half shell.

[Du-Rron]

We will never win on this in Texas. Try getting your health insurer to write MOTORCYCLE INSURANCE on your health insurance card. Aetna won't do it. If the law is enforced, motorcycle sales will STOP in Texas. Not because of helmets, because we cant get the insurers to comply with providing coverage, and then for that coverage to be affordable, helmet or not. The insurer might charge you a dollar or two more for smoking, eating too much, drinking... but riding a motorcycle... you just do not make that much money to afford that kind of insurance.

 

If you are on Medicare/Medicade/VA insurance... forget about it. You will not be allowed near a motorcycle.

 

 

 

 

The Texas Helmet Law

 

https://www.dps.texas.gov/msb/helmet.htm

[DanielM]

Kind of ironic, the push is on for mandated head protection for those who can think for themselves but millions of the varmints behind such nonsense are also in favor of stickin a surgical tool into the unprotected head of an infant:doh:.. Prayers Up for this great, last bastion of true freedom country of ours. As one by one, the States in this Union make the fight against the Socialist and Globalist attacks against our way of life, one can only hope and pray that God himself (even though there are those among us that would even like to remove "In God We Trust" from our way of life too) steps in and brings a needed revival of America and her majestic beauty.

I'm having trouble seeing the connection between the thread topic and abortion, Socialists and Globalists....

 

I just read the bill.. I can see well reasoned valid points on both sides of helmet law debates (I fall on personal choice side), but don't think police should have the power to stop a rider without just cause. Much too close to "your papers please" or "stop and frisk" policies.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

[cowpuc]

I'm having trouble seeing the connection between the thread topic and abortion, Socialists and Globalists....

 

I just read the bill.. I can see well reasoned valid points on both sides of helmet law debates (I fall on personal choice side), but don't think police should have the power to stop a rider without just cause. Much too close to "your papers please" or "stop and frisk" policies.

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

 

Just pure opinion on my end,, that's all.. Sort of like I view the whole "your papers please" thought/agenda to be right out of the Socialist/Globalist play book too BUT, consider that as just another one of my opinions too ..

[djh3]

I have been stopped a couple times for a insurance check. Didnt bother me a whole lot. Once on the bike and once in the wifes car. I guess I am just use to it. 20 yr in USAF and they can stop you on base for anything they feel like. I aint done nothing wrong I got nothing to worry about. If they want to stop you they come up with some bogus crap like "you didnt stop for that stop sign back there". they run all the licence, insurance stuff anyways. I have no tickets showing for like 20 plus years, and this punk kid writes me a ticket. I'm like really "they guy on the bike is going to run a stop sign?"

I grew up wearing a helmet, so its natural to me. I remember back when Gordie Howe and them guys played hockey without helmets, today a fellow wouldnt think of it.

[ChiefGunner]

Kind of ironic, the push is on for mandated head protection for those who can think for themselves but millions of the varmints behind such nonsense are also in favor of stickin a surgical tool into the unprotected head of an infant:doh:.. Prayers Up for this great, last bastion of true freedom country of ours. As one by one, the States in this Union make the fight against the Socialist and Globalist attacks against our way of life, one can only hope and pray that God himself (even though there are those among us that would even like to remove "In God We Trust" from our way of life too) steps in and brings a needed revival of America and her majestic beauty.

Well said cowpuc... well said & amen!

[Red Ryder]

As I have said for 30 + Years:

"Every Law passed, is another Freedom Lost"!

[Du-Rron]

I have been stopped a couple times for a insurance check. Didnt bother me a whole lot. Once on the bike and once in the wifes car. I guess I am just use to it. 20 yr in USAF and they can stop you on base for anything they feel like. I aint done nothing wrong I got nothing to worry about. If they want to stop you they come up with some bogus crap like "you didnt stop for that stop sign back there". they run all the licence, insurance stuff anyways. I have no tickets showing for like 20 plus years, and this punk kid writes me a ticket. I'm like really "they guy on the bike is going to run a stop sign?"

I grew up wearing a helmet, so its natural to me. I remember back when Gordie Howe and them guys played hockey without helmets, today a fellow wouldnt think of it.

 

The new law is not about Helmets. The new law is not about the politics of Helmets lessening head injury or not. The new law is about the policy that can be triggered to add one more item to stop a person for unwarranted search. The likelyhood of unwarranted search against a group, that group being "bikers", will be 100 % since it is easy to spot a person wearing no helmet. (However, in an accident the person will always say they didn't see us... go figure)

It is not so easy to police, as a group "brain dead cell phone users driving cars". If this group were policed, the city/state would make more money (which is what they are after) and we ALL would be safer. Not wearing a helmet in not an offensive tactic to others. Yapping/texting on the cell phone is an offensive tactic to others.

 

Targeting "bikers" is just easy politics that the politicians pander to the public.

[BlueSky]

I got stopped one time for no valid reason. I was on my lunch break working in downtown Raleigh. I drove out to the Yamaha dealer to buy some parts. A few blocks from the office I saw these two women with short skirts walking with a thumb out. So, being the gentleman that I am, I stopped and gave them a ride. One of them asked me if I wanted a "date". I of course declined while explaining I was just on my way to the motorcycle dealer. Then the Raleigh police car behind me lit up his lights. He asked me to get out and come to the back of my vehicle. I asked him why did he stop me. No answer but he asked me if I knew what they were. I told him I was getting an idea. He followed me a few miles where I dropped them off at a motel. The guys at work got a good laugh out of it. I didn't care because I was divorced at the time. But I don't think the cop had a valid reason for stopping me.

[videoarizona]

The biggest issue I see with the helmet laws are the insurance companies and the lawyers. Some states (arizona is one of them) say if you are in an accident and you aren't wearing your noggin protection device, you are partly responsible for your injuries. The courts here have actually started making these decisions...actually the juries do.

 

I was on one case 6 years ago...guy on a sport bike cruising to work and a company vehicle pulled right in front of him and he hit him dead on. The guy survived because he was wearing all his gear. The bad company lawyer tried to get the court to find the rider was responsible because he wasn't wearing his gear. We brought in a well known surgeon doc who spoke of the kid's injuries and said he would have been squashed and deader than roadkill on a Texas afternoon if he hadn't been wearing gear. Then we went on to document how the EMT's cut off his gear, etc. Needless to say we won the case.

 

So yea, it's a personal choice...but know that it may cost you more than you might think as you end up paying a chunk of the medical bills too.

 

Insurance companies can and do make decisions we don't like....but that is their business model. We don't have to like it. States can do the same....

 

I'm waiting for some state to start billing the illegals for their medical care....because that is getting out of hand and hospitals are getting tired of losing money since they have to treat them by law....

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/parkland-memorial-hospital/

 

I don't have a problem for some of my tax dollars going to help out those in trouble. That includes people who get laid off from work or poor kids and moms who need help once in awhile....but this socialism thing is not for me....

[SpencerPJ]

The new law is not about Helmets. The new law is not about the politics of Helmets lessening head injury or not. The new law is about the policy that can be triggered to add one more item to stop a person for unwarranted search.

 

You are spot on Du-Rron

[leroy]

Helmets while using a motorcycle and seat belts when using a car, I do both. However, I must stick with, "it is my choice". It is a violation of my rights to restrict that choice.

 

Yep, just another excuse for a fishing expedition to see what they can find. As said by others, it has nothing to do with head injuries and all to do with another way to screw with us and write more tickets.

 

When I started riding in 1965 there was no license endorsement and when the "brains" at the state level decided to require one I was grandfathered in and there was no motorcycle safety course. I have taken 3 such courses over the last ten years because I wanted to. My choice to do so. They are beneficial. I did get a motorcycle endorsement when I changed states of residency.

 

I might piss some people off but if we must have a motorcycle endorsement to ride a motorcycle why is it that bicycle riders do not have to have any training at all? Yet they are using our highways? Furthermore, since they want bike lanes, where are their "tags" to show they paid road tax? I know the answers, actually just one for all, bicycles are green and libs like them. I am not against bicycles but they need to be treated fairly like we motorcyclist are...not.

[djh3]

@leroy heres another "how come" for ya. Being in the land of retires we see 100's of RV's. So pops retires and has never drove anything bigger than a mini van. Buy himself the big ole 40' diesel pusher on the greyhound chassis. Nerve drove anything half that size of with air brakes. No special endorsement required, but we have to have a special licence. But the RV industry can lobby for that.

So the whole more insurance for non-lid guys being a loop hole for cops to stop ya invasion privacy whatever. So what if they just slam everyone that rides with paying a minimum coverage to cover those that dont lid. Then they couldnt stop ya to check if insurance was enough because all of that ride would have to pay higher rates for their choice. Then those of us that do wear a helmet get screwed. I still can reason why here in Fl and other states a guy on a bike have a choice to wear a helmet. But yet I'm in a 5k truck and will get a ticket for no seat belt? Thats a dumb as a screen door on a submarine.

[Flyinfool]

Seat belts and helmets can not be compared. A helmet does nothing to help you maintain control of the bike and so it also does nothing to protect others on the road. Seat belts on the other hand if worn can and often do make the difference of you still being behind the wheel to at least try to control the vehicle. If you get hit and start into a spin that could launch you out of the drivers seat, you now have zero chance to regain control of the car, or apply the brakes or anything else that might be required to prevent further problems. If you are wearing a set belt you will at least still be there to try to save it. Granted most drivers do not have the skill level to correct a spin or other problem.

 

One of the arguments that I often hear about helmets is that because there are studies that show that with no helmet, you are more likely to have head injuries in addition to all of the other injuries that you sustained and that puts additional financial burden on the idiot that ran the red light and hit you. Of course my answer is that if you are worried about the increased medical cost to you from hitting lidless bikers, THEN STOP RUNNING RED LIGHTS AND STOP SIGNS.

 

Maybe we need to push for all occupants of any vehicle to be required to wear a helmet or show proof of additional insurance. After all even in a car you are safer with a helmet on. Why do ALL race car drivers wear helmets, and look at the strength of their roll cages compared to that of a family car. I mean safety is safety is it not?

[cowpuc]

Here in Michigan, after many years of suffering under Socialist rule, we patriots were finally able to elect (albeit, for to short of time) a freedom loving all American Governor who, during his time in office was able to put us one step closer to joining many other free States by making us a land of choice when it comes to the helmet laws.

Unfortunately, this resulted in the insurance industry coming up with laws of their own requiring those who choose to practice the freedom of not wearing a helmet to carry higher insurance. Funny thing about that was, they (the insurance companies) still did nothing in resolve to correct this infernal wrong that limits a biker from accessing our the catastrophic funds, that all Michigan drivers are required to pay into when they register a vehicle, unless the bike accident involved a car/truck. Kind of crazy because the dollar amount we bikers pay for that mandated coverage is exactly the same as we Michiganders pay for the catastrophic coverage on our cars.

What this all means is, if you get in a bike accident that involves another bike and/or is a bike/deer accident or you just miss a corner and hit a tree and suffer extreme injuries, your coverage ENDS at a very limited amount (think its under 300 grand, not sure) whether you cover your head with a piece of plastic or not. With the Catastrophic Fund that we ALL are required to pay into, the amount is bottomless.

[leroy]

djh3,

 

I am glad you mentioned the RV. How I forgot that I'll never know. That has been a bug of mine since I began pulling travel trailer. I had experience with trailers and large vehicles. But I see so many of the people you describe that just think they can point where they want to go without allowing for length. Then to add to the terror on the road they add something to tow behind them.

 

Many of these people should not be driving a Fiat 500.

 

Stay clear of RVs and travel trailers.

[uncledj]

Hey...when I'm driving the motorhome, or, as I like to call it..."Ridin' the Big Wheel"....I go where I want....my lug nuts are bigger so if you don't like it, get outta the way.

(Just kidding)

For those of you who haven't had the experience, when you first climb behind the wheel it's a bit intimidating, but if you've a normal understanding of common sense physics, you get into the groove pretty quick. After a bit, it's not much different than driving my work van.

What it comes down to is that those who are lousy drivers in cars, will be even worse drivers in larger vehicles. I've often thought there should be some sort of a driver test to pass before you can drive these things, but when you think about it, it's pretty rare to see a motorhome in a traffic accident. I can only remember maybe 2 that I've seen in all my years.

Anyhoo, I think most people willing to drive a behemoth are courteous and capable.

[cowpuc]

Hey...when I'm driving the motorhome, or, as I like to call it..."Ridin' the Big Wheel"....I go where I want....my lug nuts are bigger so if you don't like it, get outta the way.

(Just kidding)

For those of you who haven't had the experience, when you first climb behind the wheel it's a bit intimidating, but if you've a normal understanding of common sense physics, you get into the groove pretty quick. After a bit, it's not much different than driving my work van.

What it comes down to is that those who are lousy drivers in cars, will be even worse drivers in larger vehicles. I've often thought there should be some sort of a driver test to pass before you can drive these things, but when you think about it, it's pretty rare to see a motorhome in a traffic accident. I can only remember maybe 2 that I've seen in all my years.

Anyhoo, I think most people willing to drive a behemoth are courteous and capable.

 

Ahhhh yes,, that operative word in red surfaces once again... IMHO, if you are gonna survive long term riding of a street bike it will have more to do with your ability to read others God given dose of that word and how you respond to what your common sense sensor is telling you rather than whether or not you have a hat on.

 

This little tid bit vid may somehow say it better than I ever could: