It's official, SA has craziest drivers (not a rant) (San Antonio: gated, professionals)

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by TexasRedneck

With all due respect, that's part of the problem with our society today. We've come to expect that we somehow have the "right" or responsibility for the safety and well-being of others with the force of law. You REALLY don't want my views on the seatbelt laws.

I would agree with you except for one thing.... when they have a 1" crack on their head... who's going to pay for EMS?

EMTALA webpage (Ronald Reagan's 1986 anti-dumping law)

[majormadmax]

I also always wear a helmet, but unlike my friend TRN I don't agree with the law that allows people to ride without them. It is not an issue of personal freedom, it is one of operating a potentially dangerous vehicle (as all vehicles are) on public roads and in the presence of others.

Sorry, but we all have to sacrifice some individual liberties when we are out and about in society. Your First Amendment Rights don't allow you to yell 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater.

We have laws to protect us from each other, and that is why we have to wear seatbelts, have small kids in appropriate safety seats, travel at a safe speed and our vehicles have to meet certain safety standards to be on our roads. The same applies to helmets, it is a necessity for the safe operation of a motorcycle and should be required.

If you want to ride without a helmet, do it on your own property and on your own roads. On public roads, there are laws that we all have to abide by...and this state needs to re-enact its mandatory helmet law for everyone's safety.

Cheers! M2

[GlorifiedMalcontent]

not to derail the thread, but are there any penalties for insurance for riding without a helmet? i find seat belts in cars and helmets on bikers to be two different safety issues. i know people who have first hand accounts of unsecured passengers becoming essentially 150lb projectiles in car crashes. unsecured cargo in a car crash puts everyone at risk. cars really are just rolling death machines, and i agree with madmax, you need to consider the safety of others and the people you share the road with if you're going to operate it. with bikers, i can only see the use of a helmet to be effective for the biker himself. a can't see how a helmet would effect the safety of others, but i don't know much about bike safety in general. but i'm also going to have to agree with madmax again that personal vehicles are not a constitutional right, and i get really appalled that people treat them like toys on public roads, and the over all disrespect of others. in truth, i was surprised how many people i saw not wearing helmets on their bikes, but when i realized how terrible people drive and treat roadways and personal vehicles, i'm not at all shocked.

to get back on topic, i have never seen anyone do a stunt on a freeway and i hope i never do. going to put a few extra car lengths between me and other motorists now, oi!

[majormadmax]

There was until June of 2009, when Gov Perry signed Senate Bill 1967 which removed the requirement for riders who did not wear helmets to have a minimum of $10,000 in health insurance for injuries incurred in a motorcycle accident to be eligible for an exception for the offense of operating or riding a motorcycle without a helmet (source). That minimum amount no longer applies.

The law still requires the Texas Department of Insurance to prescribe a standard proof of health insurance for issuance to persons who are at least 21 years of age and covered by an applicable health insurance plan. "Health insurance plan" means an individual, group, blanket, or franchise insurance policy, insurance agreement, evidence of coverage, group hospital services contract, health maintenance organization membership, or employee benefit plan that provides benefits for health care services or for medical or surgical expenses incurred as a result of an accident.

The law now prohibits a peace officer from stopping or detaining a person who is the operator of or a passenger on a motorcycle for the sole purpose of determining whether the person has successfully completed a motorcycle operator training and safety course or is covered by a motorcycle health insurance plan and repeals provisions relating to a DPS-issued sticker required to be displayed on a motorcycle by a motorcycle owner.

But given the amount of uninsured drivers in this city, I would suspect that some of those riding without helmets don't have the required health insurance coverage either...

As how a helmet affects others, I would argue that it is the same as seatbelts. If you cause an accident where someone isn't wearing either, the injuries to that person (and your liability) is greatly increased due to their decision. There should be a clause in the law that states a liability limitation for those who fail to adequately protect themselves...

Cheers! M2

[TexasRedneck]

M2, no issue here w/limitations if you ain't wearin' a lid. IMO, if you aren't wearing a lid you assume ALL risks for injury/death, no matter who is at fault if there's an accident. Period. Hmmm...that WOULD be a good one to get w/my congresscritter on. Like I said earlier - it's personal choice, and along with that comes personal responsibility.

To say that seatbelts equate with helmets....sorry, no. In fact, studies have *indicated* that there's a higher risk of "surviving" w/severe cranial/spinal injuries if you're wearing a helmet - that usually being sans helmet just takes you out of the gene pool. And yes - personally speaking, I think that seat belts should be a personal choice as well. Sorry!

One caveat, however - neither of the above opinions count if the person involved is under the age of 18. At that age, they are not of the "age of consent", and should be belted/helmeted.

[niembre]

A couple of years ago, while driving north on I-35 between O'connor and Judson, I saw a biker riding a wheelie weaving in and out of traffic. It was the craziest thing I've seen. I was kind of hoping he would lose control and crash (as long as other drivers were not hurt of course) so that he could learn his lesson. Some people just do not care about theirs and others safety.

[GlorifiedMalcontent]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

As how a helmet affects others, I would argue that it is the same as seatbelts. If you cause an accident where someone isn't wearing either, the injuries to that person (and your liability) is greatly increased due to their decision. There should be a clause in the law that states a liability limitation for those who fail to adequately protect themselves...

that's a good point. i often wonder, when seeing bikers without helmets, what kind of concern for others safety they might have when they have an obvious lack of concern for their own well being on a vehicle.

[Dopo]

Originally Posted by majormadmax

There was until June of 2009, when Gov Perry signed Senate Bill 1967 which removed the requirement for riders who did not wear helmets to have a minimum of $10,000 in health insurance for injuries incurred in a motorcycle accident to be eligible for an exception for the offense of operating or riding a motorcycle without a helmet (source). That minimum amount no longer applies.

Way to go

[Soviet]

It's not "reckless". The guy's obviously got experience doing it, so that's why he did it. Pretty darn cool, IMHO.

It's only reckless if he crashes.

[L210]

That's kind of like saying that drunk driving shouldn't be a crime until someone crashes.