i feel for anne and she has every right to try to pass laws but i do not want my right to choose lost.

please join the group in protest of want she wants to do please be respectful as she is doing it out of the grief,the loss of her husband.

http://www.meetup.com/Operation-Helmet-Law/

While I am not totally on board with this "It's my right to choose" thing, I see her goal as misguided. Perhaps she should have had this much passion for convincing her hubby to ride with a helmet.

I would be in favor of mandatory insurance coverage by state mandate.

I do feel that the state you live in should require you to maintain (at YOUR cost) sufficient insurance coverage to pay your medical costs when you go down. That way you aren't mooching off of me and I don't have to pay for your "right to choose". If you expect me to pay then you have to play by my rules. Otherwise I have no problem letting you enjoy the full effect of your right to choose by denying you payment for your medical bills.

However if you were a motorcyclist who purchased a policy from me I'd require you to wear a DOT/Snell/ECE or other bona fide certification standard helmet before the policy would pay. I'm sure there are those who would see that as some sort of discrimination and they would be right! Insurance is all about discrimination: Low risk vs. high risk. That's part of the economic reality of life.

-M7

I have to agree with M7. Texas already has a health insurance requirement in place if you choose to ride without a helmet and are at least 21. In addition the health insurance card has to contain the words "MOTORCYCLE HEALTH".

Anyway, here's a link to the Texas rule:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/msb/helmet.htm

I am not totally on board with your thinking either Mark. You are either for freedom of adult American citizens to live their lives or you aren't.
It can be argued that surviving a serious crash with your helmet can "cost" insurance companies and other citizens far more money than if you simply died in the same crash without a helmet. So the simple argument that freedom to choose to not wear a helmet should be taken away from adults simply based on how much money injuries or insurance claims might cost someone is limited logic at best.

What if: far more money is paid out from people who survive motorcycle crashes with helmets, than to those that died in motorcycle crashes without a helmet. So should insurance companies make you not wear a helmet? That way they save money, unless you have a life insurance policy with them also.

All of these problems have arisen, from the elected government officials feeling their job is to govern "over" the people instead of government, "representing the will of the people." People were elected to keep Government out of citizens lives. Now they feel they are elected to run peoples lives.

Are we for not allowing people to have children unless they have purchased health insurance? Why do we allow people to live in flood plains without insurance? Why do we let people build houses on volcano's? Why do we let them buy cars that travel faster than 65 mph? If a person is traveling 66 mph when they lose control and crash their car should they not be allowed medical coverage? Where does it end? It doesn't. That is why you have to be for freedom or not. Anywhere in the middle is simply a vote against freedom.

I feel sorry for Ann. Please Ann go do something eles and leave me the ALONE !

+1,-1,Mark7
I agree with you on the first part of your statement,but the latter half I have to disagree with,It should be up to the driver and riders(over 18)who should decide yes or no on wearing a helmet.
That's almost like saying insurance shouldn't pay for cagers because they didn't wear their seat belt,yet it is a fed.law to wear seat belts,but the state police can't just pull you over for not wearing it,It has to be for something else then include the no seat belt ticket.
I'm sorry for her lost...and I will say a prayer for him and her,but how long did he and maybe even her,ride before this happened.
Yes,I think that Insurance Minimums are not enough coverage even if you drop your bike in a Wallie World parking lot because of a teeny bopper not seeing you coming.
I apologize if I seem harsh in this matter and not trying to snap on Mark7,but this is my opinion.

First, I would like to have the option of wearing a riding without a helmet in NC.

Second, I would wear a helmet most of the time anyway, but it'd nice to have the choice.

Third, the state gets to make the rules because using the public highways is a "privilege" not a "right." So, it was never your right to choose not to wear a helmet, you do, however, have the right to move to a state that does allow you to ride without one. For instance, I could move 20 miles south and live in the Land of the Lidless.

Fourth, don't get me started on the rationale a state uses to allow riders without helmets but tickets drivers not wearing seatbelts ! ! !



I do have sympathy for this woman's loss. But I agree with Mark7, this is a little like shutting the barn doors after the horses are gone.

As far the Texas law, if they wanted to have an insurance requirement, why not simply require that motorcycle policies have a higher minimum personal injury coverage amount? Seems like that would more readily address their specific concerns about helmetless riders.





BD

Let me put it this way,
In Mark's picture above, he is at risk to personal injury. He has chosen far less protective gear than he can wear.
Should the government be allowed to tell him he has to wear a full face helmet? Why not?
Should the government be allowed to tell him he cannot wear short sleeves riding a bike? Why not?
Should they be able to tell him he has to wear gloves on his hands? Why not?
Should they be able to tell him he has to wear riding pants better than jeans? Why not?
All of these things can lessen the cost paid out to injury claims, so why should they not get involved for the greater good?

For that matter, why not just outlaw motorcycles on public roads and highways altogether? That would surely put less of a burden on injury claims paid by insurance and government wouldn't it?

Unfortunately she's not the only one who's lost a loved one to a MC accident and won't be the last. How each person chooses to deal with it is their choice. However when they decide that every cyclist must wear one due to their own personal loss it becomes a vendetta. Yes he lost his life due to traumatic head injuries but how? Another vehicle, bad road/conditions, etc.? Could a helmet have lessened his injuries or saved his life? Or resulted in paralysis. Too many questions and without knowing the circumstances I'm left questioning her motive for such an extreme course of action. Educate, don't legislate.

GP

slamllc wrote:
I am not totally on board with your thinking either Mark. You are either for freedom of adult American citizens to live their lives or you aren't.
It can be argued that surviving a serious crash with your helmet can "cost" insurance companies and other citizens far more money than if you simply died in the same crash without a helmet. So the simple argument that freedom to choose to not wear a helmet should be taken away from adults simply based on how much money injuries or insurance claims might cost someone is limited logic at best.

What if: far more money is paid out from people who survive motorcycle crashes with helmets, than to those that died in motorcycle crashes without a helmet. So should insurance companies make you not wear a helmet? That way they save money, unless you have a life insurance policy with them also.

All of these problems have arisen, from the elected government officials feeling their job is to govern "over" the people instead of government, "representing the will of the people." People were elected to keep Government out of citizens lives. Now they feel they are elected to run peoples lives.

Are we for not allowing people to have children unless they have purchased health insurance? Why do we allow people to live in flood plains without insurance? Why do we let people build houses on volcano's? Why do we let them buy cars that travel faster than 65 mph? If a person is traveling 66 mph when they lose control and crash their car should they not be allowed medical coverage? Where does it end? It doesn't. That is why you have to be for freedom or not. Anywhere in the middle is simply a vote against freedom.

+1