Texas Bill Would Close Helmet Law Loophole

[clearviewx]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/motorcyc...spartanntp

[Randy B]

To me that would be like allowing the police to stop every driver for no other reason except to check to see if they actually have a valid licence. That's not the right way to go about things. If they get pulled over and don't have the required items, then they should get hit for not having them. Otherwise there should be zero reason to pull them over.

[the Ferret]

Interesting. I have always been a fan of freedom of choice as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Here's a thought. In Ohio seat belts were made mandatory but were not ticket-able offenses unless stopped for another reason and discovered you weren't wearing one. This went on for a couple of years I think, before the legislature made it a primary offense and if you were seen not wearing one you could be ticketed. It got so bad as the OSHP standing on overpasses with binoculars watching for non seat belt wearers and then radioing ahead to pull people over and ticket them. I'm still amazed at the number of people, particularly young people killed in accidents not wearing a seat belt. I'm also amazed at the number of young people taking up smoking and drinking and doing illegal drugs knowing the health effects like we do.

Maybe this is a way for Texas to "encourage" riders to start wearing helmets rather than forcing a helmet law on them?

[GoldOxide_imp]

Yes interesting.

Ontario recently enacted a law earlier this year that police demand a alcohol breath test and refusal is an immediate charge and fine up to $10000. They don't need a reason anymore. In addition, they can come to your home within two hours of the alleged "whatever" and demand a breath test. So similarly, you can see liberty rights have reason for concern.

In the alcohol case, it kinda sucks to be a Designated Driver, come home after dropping everybody off, and enjoy a glass of wine (as a self-reward for serving the evening with friends).

[the Ferret]

doyou have to wait over two hours after coming home to enjoy your wine...just in case?

[Rocky_imp]

I was wearing seat belts long before the law made it mandatory.
I like the feel of being belted in and secure.
It probably goes back to my amateur drag racing days, but it only makes sense to me to use all the safety equipment available.

[LongRanger_imp]

Ferret, I completely agree with your viewpoints. +1

[baxtercat_imp]

I agree with Ferret too, about personal choice. But here's the thing: a rider who is in an accident and not wearing a helmet, or a driver not wearing seatbelts, gets brought into the emergency room, and doesn't have insurance, or not enough insurance to pay for the MRIs and hours of brain surgery and everything else they have helped bring upon themselves. Who pays for this, then? We do, those who have proper heath insurance, which is expensive in part because of uninsured or underinsured patients. So the "as long as it doesn't hurt others" part needs to be understood broadly. No one seems willing to tell the person arriving in the ambulance that they won't be treated because they don't have enough coverage--which would seem to be the logical extension of the "personal responsibility for your choices" philosophy. One argument for a single national program in the US, I guess.

Random stops and binoculars seem to be overreach, and invite abuse, however. People should be allowed to ride their motorcycle, speak Spanish, wear whatever garment they choose without fear of harassment by officials, as long as they are breaking no law. I'm a fan of freedom, too.

[GoldOxide_imp]

doyou have to wait over two hours after coming home to enjoy your wine...just in case?

That seems to be auxiliary discussions.

Some people fear being stalked by policing officials, but I would argue that has always been the case: Sit in an unmarked police vehicle near a pub and pull drivers over down the street.

[LongRanger_imp]

BC, all good points, but before we spiral headlong into a political discussion (frowned upon by the forum), I'd suggest the medical insurance issue is not unlike the U.S. income tax issue: not everyone is expected to pay their way. Costs are borne by certain groups for the benefit of all.

Out of respect for the rules of this forum, I won't perpetuate this topic further.