PDA

View Full Version : Support freedom of Choice!



BarnstormCycles
12-13-2011, 9:02 AM
If you are the type that likes to take action in life, read this and maybe take a few min to support the cause!


"Both the American Motorcycle Association (AMA) and the Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) have issued National Call to Actions for proposed amendments to the "Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2011. These proposed amendments would call for a National Mandatory Helmet Law for all riders regardless of age and greatly jeopardize the way in which federal funding for Motorcycle Safety programs is distributed to the states. The hearing on these amendments is scheduled for tomorrow December 14, 2011 by the US Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee.



The Massachusetts Motorcycle Association (MMA) strongly supports these calls to action and requests the immediate action of all riders in Massachusetts to contact Sen John Kerry who is a member of this committee. See below call to action issued by the AMA for contact information for Sen Kerry and talking points. Please take action today or any helmet choice bills we currently have in front of the Massachusetts State Legislature will become moot points.



Protect Motorcycle Safety Grants and Fight Helmet Mandates with One Call
Call Your Senator on the Committee Immediately

On Wednesday, December 14, the Senate Commerce, Science, &Transportation Committee will mark-up the “Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2011,” (S. 1449). The measure covers the safety aspects of the next national transportation program, including the acceptable activities of the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). S. 1449 contains three areas of critical concern to motorcyclists.



The first is Lautenberg Amendment #1 filed on the morning of Monday, December 12. Senator Frank Lautenberg’s (D-NJ) amendment would drastically alter the motorcyclist safety grant program, indirectly force states to pass mandatory universal helmet laws, and direct the use of federal tax dollars to only promote the use of helmets.



More specifically, the amendment alters the current motorcyclist safety grant program (a.k.a. Section 2010 funds) by loosening the requirements to receive funds for states with mandatory universal helmet laws in place. A mandatory universal helmet law requires any rider and passenger on a motorcycle to be wearing a helmet at all times, regardless of age. The AMA believes that adults should have the right to voluntarily decide when to wear a helmet.



States that currently do not have universal helmet laws would see their qualification criteria become stricter in order to receive safety grants.



Additionally, states without mandatory universal helmet laws would be required to spend 50% of their grant funds on the promotion of helmet use. The remaining 50% could be spent on rider training, helmet promotion, enforcement programs to reduce impaired riding, linking motorcycle data together electronically in states, implementation of graduating licensing systems for riders, and speeding and reckless riding enforcement programs.



The revised use of funds is contradictory to the spirit in which motorcyclists fought for the safety grant program during the last federal transportation initiative. In 2005, the motorcycling community came together to create the motorcyclist safety grant program to encourage states to fund motorcycle safety awareness, education, and training programs. The allowable uses of funds included public service announcements, motorist awareness campaigns, and the improved delivery of rider training.



Lautenberg Amendment #1 would provide zero funding for awareness and education programs.

The second threat to motorcyclists is a clause that would lift the ban on NHTSA being able to use federal tax dollars to lobby states to pass mandatory helmet laws. The provision was included in the national transportation program beginning in 1998 and was re-affirmed in 2005. The AMA believes that the decision on helmet laws is the right of each individual states and the federal government should not be allowed to apply unfair pressure to influence a state’s choice on that issue.



Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has introduced one amendment to strike the clause lifting the ban on NHTSA lobbying efforts. Additionally, DeMint has offered an amendment that would further address lobbying efforts by the federal government. Both DeMint Amendments #1 and #18 should pass in order to bar the federal government from using individual tax-payer dollars to control the state law-making process.



Thirdly, S. 1449 seeks to alter the definition of “motor vehicle equipment” to specifically call-out motorcycle helmets. This is a tactic used to quietly suggest states spend federal funding related to any type of motor vehicle equipment on motorcycle helmets. Senator DeMint has also offered DeMint Amendment #2 to strike the reference to motorcycle helmets in this definition.



If one of your Senators is on the Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee, then that Senator can help address these issues immediately. Due to the short amount of time available, the best way to contact your Senator is to call. Click on the “Call Now” option, enter your zip code and receive all the information you need, including pre-written talking points to deliver to your Senator on the Committee.



Call your Senator on the Committee now and tell them to: 1) Vote “No” on Lautenberg Amendment #1 to S. 1449 that would change the motorcyclist safety grant program; 2) Support the DeMint Amendments #1 & #18 to S. 1449 that would address lobbying by the federal government; 3) Strike “motorcycle helmet” from the definition of “motor vehicle equipment.”



Call now; there is no time to waste

Please call the following official(s):

1.
U.S. Senator John Kerry
(202) 224-2742
Washington, D.C. office

Talking Points:
1)
Please urge the Senator to vote “No” on Lautenberg Amendment #1 to S. 1449. The amendment violates the original intent of the motorcyclist safety grant program that was supported by the entire motorcycling community in 2005.

2)
Urge the Senator to vote “Yes” on the DeMint Amendments #1 & #18 to S. 1449. These amendments would remove language to lift the ban on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration lobbying States and further block the use of federal tax dollars to unfairly influence State law-making decisions.

3)
Urge the Senator to vote “Yes” on DeMint Amendment #2 to S. 1449 in order to strike “motorcycle helmet” from the modified definition of “motor vehicle equipment.”




After making a call, please go back to the online alert and tell us what happened on your call(s). The URL is:

http://capwiz.com/amacycle/callalert/index.tt?alertid=58411501

Thank you for getting involved!"

:cheersmate:

felon
12-13-2011, 9:36 AM
i wear a helmet no matter what the law says but i agree with peoples right to choose. i'd vote to strike it down





if i was allowed to vote

RowdyRigid
12-13-2011, 2:25 PM
I am so sick of the fucking government thinking they know what is best for me. the fucking liberals want a nanny state where they take control of everything so we have to do as they say.

and the goddamned conservatives think politics should reach in to our private lives.

We need to get rid of all those assholes in DC and every state capital and get back to the pure constitution.

bmjwright
12-13-2011, 2:38 PM
I agree with a rider's rights regarding helmet use, but only so long as they're charged more for insurance (I shouldn't pay higher insurance premiums because you don't wear a helmet). Also, I (or my insurance) shouldn't have to pay for a non-helmet wearing riders head injuries in the case of an accident.

The freedom of choice should come with the responsibility for those choices.

Deadweight
12-14-2011, 1:56 PM
Let those actually ride Decide for themselves. It's that simple. It's a personal choice. I think the money they spend on drafting and enforcing this bill should be spent on Motorcycle awareness and driver education. To me that's more important, but this is a great way to generate revenue for cities and counties, in these tumultuous economic times.

beanhead78
12-14-2011, 2:12 PM
i take it this shit is about helmets. my wife is has beend a trauma nurse for the past five years. 90% of bike injuries or deaths are from leg or side internal bleadings. not to many head injuries. mine saved my life once, yeah right. first time i wrecked i was t-boned and it whipped my face into the guys hood. breaking my nose and putting my teeth through my face. but i still always wear a helmet just to make me feel safe.

53rigid
12-14-2011, 2:37 PM
Also, I (or my insurance) shouldn't have to pay for a non-helmet wearing riders head injuries in the case of an accident.

I was tracking with ya there for a minute, but can you clarify this statement? Are you saying that if you hit me and I am not wearing a helmet, you should not have to pay for any of my head injuries if i have them? Or are you saying your rates should not go up.

If that is what you meant, then I am NOT tracking with ya.

bmjwright
12-14-2011, 3:07 PM
I was tracking with ya there for a minute, but can you clarify this statement? Are you saying that if you hit me and I am not wearing a helmet, you should not have to pay for any of my head injuries if i have them? Or are you saying your rates should not go up.

If that is what you meant, then I am NOT tracking with ya.

I should clarify....if I hit you and you're not wearing a helmet, I should not have to pay for the ADDITIONAL injuries proved to be sustained from the lack of helmet usage.

SeaChicken
12-16-2011, 10:35 PM
Anyone who has rode a bike on a street a more than a couple times and is still alive has been educated. I wear a helmet but I support the right to choose weather you want to, or what type to wear.

HFMC
12-17-2011, 12:39 AM
I agree with a rider's rights regarding helmet use, but only so long as they're charged more for insurance (I shouldn't pay higher insurance premiums because you don't wear a helmet). Also, I (or my insurance) shouldn't have to pay for a non-helmet wearing riders head injuries in the case of an accident.

The freedom of choice should come with the responsibility for those choices.

Are you aware of a study that says medical care for a non-helmeted rider costs more than medical care for a helmeted rider? I would be willing to bet there is not.

Even if there is, I think you should all be required to drive Volvo's, since they're the safest car. I don't think I should have to pay for YOUR injuries if you're driving a less safe car and you get hurt...

AND, insurance by it's very nature is a pooling of resources by a large group of people to cover the medical expenses of the few in that group who need it. If you smoke, drink, use drugs, jaywalk, eat too much salt, get fat, don't exercise, etc, etc, etc, you will likely need more health care than someone who doesn't do those things. You can always avoid paying anything by choosing to pay your own medical expenses and not participating in an insurance plan.

Your economic desires should not infringe on my rights to live how I choose. The governments job is to protect us from one another, not to protect me from myself!

53rigid
12-17-2011, 6:57 AM
I should clarify....if I hit you and you're not wearing a helmet, I should not have to pay for the ADDITIONAL injuries proved to be sustained from the lack of helmet usage.

That, my friend is where I think your thinking is flawed. If you hit me, you should pay for any and all damge to me and my bike. After all, before you hit me, I was riding along just fine without a helmet and either your lack of attention or car failure or whatever the cause hit me and injured me. If you don't wanna oay for any additional injuries because of the no helmet, how about I sue your ass to pay for the bills and make some dough on the side?

livingdeadmc
12-17-2011, 8:28 AM
I should clarify....if I hit you and you're not wearing a helmet, I should not have to pay for the ADDITIONAL injuries proved to be sustained from the lack of helmet usage.

How bout you don't hit anyone well driving and your insurance won't ever be an issue.....regardless wether I'm in a suit of armor or butt ass naked on my bike you hit me and it's your fault there's a good chance you're fucked either way.

RetroRob
12-17-2011, 9:01 AM
I am so sick of the fucking government thinking they know what is best for me. the fucking liberals want a nanny state where they take control of everything so we have to do as they say.

and the goddamned conservatives think politics should reach in to our private lives.

We need to get rid of all those assholes in DC and every state capital and get back to the pure constitution.
Couldn't agree more, I think they all suck.

mpz
12-18-2011, 1:04 AM
I agree with a rider's rights regarding helmet use, but only so long as they're charged more for insurance (I shouldn't pay higher insurance premiums because you don't wear a helmet). Also, I (or my insurance) shouldn't have to pay for a non-helmet wearing riders head injuries in the case of an accident.
The freedom of choice should come with the responsibility for those choices.

In other words, you're for freedom only if it costs those who take advantage of it a lot more money.
Guess what? You're not for freedom at all.
As far as the phony insurance cost issue, studies have shown that non-helmet law states have FEWER accidents per mile ridden as well as LOWER medical costs per injury. So it's YOU who should have the higher insurance rate.

sociallydistorted
12-18-2011, 8:57 AM
As far as the phony insurance cost issue, studies have shown that non-helmet law states have FEWER accidents per mile ridden as well as LOWER medical costs per injury. So it's YOU who should have the higher insurance rate.

Where did you find this study? Less expensive medical bill for helmet-less injuries than that of the helmeted injuries? That makes absolutely no sense, I'm calling BS on this one.

mpz
12-18-2011, 3:02 PM
Where did you find this study? Less expensive medical bill for helmet-less injuries than that of the helmeted injuries? That makes absolutely no sense, I'm calling BS on this one.
Not very clever, the way you misstated what I posted.
States like Iowa and Illinois which do not require helmet use (nor do they prohibit helmet use) have fewer accidents and lower medical costs relating to accidents than states that require helmet use. In other words, gestapo-like laws which inhibit freedom do not make us safer.