Texas Bill Would Close Helmet Law Loophole

[clearviewx]

MSN

 

[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.

 

[baxtercat_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.

laws and police behavior seem to have the potential to raise political issues. and I agree about taxes. But you are wise to steer clear of that, which I will do also.

 

[Jeeves_imp]

Seems ridiculously “conditional” and arbitrary to me. IMHO, laws and their enforcement should be black and white, and not discretionary based on whether the officer “liked” your last left turn or not... A no helmet law, should mean no helmet law.

Knowing Texas a little, I wonder if this mod isn’t to allow officers to pull over helmetless MC gang members whenever they want to...

 

[peterbaron]

IMO, and not to insult anybody or interfere with any law/regulation: if majority of the people around the globe were more wise, we would have very little regulations. Common sense would govern....
If it happens to me to travel through no helmet/no seat belt regions, I would still wear them = these save lives.

 

[rotor]

Helmets and public health cost

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.

I've heard this (or similar) argumetnt before, and I believe the sitution is exactly the opposite: from the public health cost perspective, motorcyclists should be encouraged not to wear a helmet!

If a motorcyclist is involved in a crash and is waering a helmet, odds are much better he will survive, likely with serious injuries, with high medical treatment and rehabilitation costs, which might, depending on his personal circumastances and the public health cost-sharing legal framework in his domicile jurisdiction, be borne by the community.

If, on the other hand, he is not wearing a helmet, it is much more likely he will be "dead on arrival", in which case the medical costs are non-existentet. The funeral cost are in most instances born by the family, and even if he is an orphan and single, most local administrations have "pauper's grave" programms, with the cost per motorcyclist negligable compared to even to a single limb amputation.

 

[baxtercat_imp]

Ha! I once heard that, from a public health perspective, people should be encouraged to smoke. The reasoning was, smokers got lung cancer and other diseases that killed them relatively quickly, which lowered medical costs. Non-smokers live long into old age and become long-term burdens on the system, with slow-killing conditions like heart disease that are relatively treatable.

Perhaps if we had statistics, we could determine just how many helmet-less riders arrive DOA and how many require treatment. As medical science advances, a lot of the previously terminal cases are now becoming viable. But that science is expensive.

 

[GoldOxide_imp]

What is easier to clean-up? A helmet rider with a broken neck (fairly common). Or a helmet-less whose pumpkin seeds are spread along the curb side?

 

[the Ferret]

Firehose and crows.

 

[Randy B]

Helmets and public health cost

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.

I've heard this (or similar) argumetnt before, and I believe the sitution is exactly the opposite: from the public health cost perspective, motorcyclists should be encouraged not to wear a helmet!

If a motorcyclist is involved in a crash and is waering a helmet, odds are much better he will survive, likely with serious injuries, with high medical treatment and rehabilitation costs, which might, depending on his personal circumastances and the public health cost-sharing legal framework in his domicile jurisdiction, be borne by the community.

If, on the other hand, he is not wearing a helmet, it is much more likely he will be "dead on arrival", in which case the medical costs are non-existentet. The funeral cost are in most instances born by the family, and even if he is an orphan and single, most local administrations have "pauper's grave" programms, with the cost per motorcyclist negligable compared to even to a single limb amputation.

When I was hit and run I think the total bill...for everything medically related to it...was over 100,000. I had 2 broken ribs, broken collarbone, and a large puncture wound on my ankle that also caused a hairline fracture at the bottom of my tibia and needed home care for about 2 months or so.
The two ambulance rides totaled over $3,000 and the ride home from the hospital was a tad over $100 for a 6 mile ride.
There was a few other things, but there was no treatment for those due to the nature of the injuries.
I was in the hospital for a total of 1 week.
I was traveling at 30 mph when I was knocked off the bike and there was a nice gouge in my helmet from when I tumbled on the pavement. There is a good chance that I would of had a nice head injury from that and who knows how that would have turned out.