Honda Shadow Forums banner

Virginia Helmet Law Changes

8K views 76 replies 22 participants last post by  LynnH 
#1 ·
Not to start a helmet debate - I believe helmets are a good thing, but I don't believe the gov't should control all our personal freedoms - at least offer alternatives (proof of adequate health insurance etc.) to offset the problems the occur for the gov't of not wearing a helmet.

Changes to VA motorcycle law----at least this is leaning toward being fair.

Gotta love the last sentence too....well DUH!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local
Helmet exemption fails; lower fine advances
The Associated Press
Jan 30, 2007 5:29 PM (3 days ago)

RICHMOND, Va. - Motorcyclists won't be able to legally ride on Virginia's scenic highways without a helmet, but if they do so illegally they still have hope of paying a lower fine as a result of legislative action Tuesday.

The House of Delegates voted 59-39 to kill legislation sponsored by Del. William Janis, R-Richmond, exempting from the helmet law motorcyclists traveling on scenic highways or Virginia byways as designated by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.

Republican Del. Frank Hargrove of Hanover County, a longtime motorcyclist and helmet advocate, said the scenic highways are also some of Virginia's most dangerous.

On a voice vote, the House gave preliminary approval to legislation sponsored by Del. Watkins Abbitt, I-Appomattox, to drastically reduce the punishment for riding without a helmet.

Under the current law, a violation is a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of up to $250. Violators also can be assessed demerits on their driving record. Abbitt's bill would change it to a civil offense punishable by a $25 fine and no demerits.

But Del. Charles W. Carrico, R-Grayson and a former state trooper, worried the lighter punishment would tempt motorcyclists to ride without a helmet.

---

Abbitt's bill is HB3077
 
See less See more
#2 ·
cbjr0256 said:
Not to start a helmet debate - I believe helmets are a good thing, but I don't believe the gov't should control all our personal freedoms - at least offer alternatives (proof of adequate health insurance etc.) to offset the problems the occur for the gov't of not wearing a helmet.
cbjr0256,
Wow.....that's too bad! IMO, this is just another step forward for the insurance lobby to control our activity of riding motorcycles.

If it were really about the safety of motorcyclists, there would be a national effort to teach all motorists how to share our roads with bikers; as well as offering affordable, comprehensive motorcycle safety training to all bikers, instead of just forcing us to wear helmets and then slapping us with a fine if we don’t wear them. All this, while other drivers out there are cutting us down left and right!

I’m afraid this is only the beginning too! If we don’t stick together and stop the slow decomposition of our rights as bikers……in the very near future we will be paying a hefty price to enjoy what we love to do most “Ride Motorcycles.” Now it’s helmets, but next it’ll be pipes, and then we’ll be forced to wear certain types of clothing. And don’t frown when certain engine modifications will be outlawed altogether or we will be forced to pay exorbitant carriers on our insurance policies if we ride motorcycles over a pre-determined size!

We (bikers) are a large group now and we’re a huge target! And if anybody thinks differently; they’re just not thinking………
Get ready, the worst is yet to come!
Phil
 
#3 ·
But Phil, most engine mods are performance oriented and increase emissions. Decreasing emissions is a good thing. These same mods are already illegal on cars in most cases. There's no roadside engine equipment checks, usually, but when you attempt to circumvent the emissions controls or do mods that increase emissions, your vehicle fails emissions inspection. Open pipes are already illegal on cars and that whole argument is self explanatory.

Bikes are just more motor vehicles that have to follow the rules.

I continue to fail to understand why bikers think they should be above all this, while at the same time we gladly run our cars into the emissions inspection stations and pay our [insert your state's fee amount here].
 
#4 ·
chornbe said:
But Phil, most engine mods are performance oriented and increase emissions. Decreasing emissions is a good thing. These same mods are already illegal on cars in most cases. There's no roadside engine equipment checks, usually, but when you attempt to circumvent the emissions controls or do mods that increase emissions, your vehicle fails emissions inspection. Open pipes are already illegal on cars and that whole argument is self explanatory.

Bikes are just more motor vehicles that have to follow the rules.

I continue to fail to understand why bikers think they should be above all this, while at the same time we gladly run our cars into the emissions inspection stations and pay our [insert your state's fee amount here].
chornbe,
I'm not quite really sure what your point is!
I could list two pages of links for High Performance modification parts that are "50-state emissions legal" for a 1989 Fox Body 5.0 Liter Mustang. Now go back and re-read my post……I didn’t say “Open Pipes” I simply said pipes!

I can see you just want to argue for the sake or arguing or you’re not getting the gist of what my point is; so just pretend I wasn’t talking to you and move on…..okay?
Phil
 
#5 ·
I agree with Phil. This erosion of our rights is always subtle and starts with seemingly baby steps. As far as us bikers being above the Law, I don’t think of myself as being above the law. If every body in CA drove a bike to work instead of the huge escalades and range rovers with all but one seat empty, we would not have the traffic or pollution issue we do today. I must admit that I know of few driver who drive their car for pure pleasure, but there are a few, however the emissions put out by my bike on a pleasure cruise around the beach is far less then those of the range rover had I chosen to drive that instead. I for one would be happy to have a smog inspection on my bike each year and I am sure that if that was to happen ( and it will) then the pipe manufacturer will be quick to react to save their core business. We have different laws for bikes then we do for cars, and this is for reasons both good and bad, but different they are none the less. This tells me that in the eyes of the law, we are different. So as along as someone is following the law as it applies to their bike, I don’t think that they consider themselves “ABOVE THE LAW”.

Just my thoughts :D

Cheers
 
#6 ·
No, Phil... I'm not arguing for the sake of it. I'm pointing out that this has been coming for a long, long time. I used to be in the performance car business. I've been thru' it.
 
#7 ·
This erosion of our rights is always subtle and starts with seemingly baby steps.
As ever. But in our system of government, it's incumbent upon US to do something about it -- and something means more than just posting gripes on a message board!

Helmet laws an issue for you? Join ABATE and get active. http://www.abateofmichigan.org/links.htm This organization covers education, too -- including going into state-mandated driver ed courses and teaching motorcycle awareness to prospective young cagers. You can even become one of these instructors!

There's also AMA. http://www.ama-cycle.org/ I'm not up-to-speed on the legislative-action agenda but I'm sure there is one.

And the Motorcycle Riders Foundation. http://www.mrf.org/ Another one I don't know much about.

Besides joining an organization, you could take an active part in choosing your legislators -- not just voting for them but actually participating in the process that gets them in place for the voting public.
 
#8 ·
Dragoon said:
...however the emissions put out by my bike on a pleasure cruise around the beach is far less then those of the range rover had I chosen to drive that instead.
That would depend on what year "Ranger Rover" or any other vehicle
you are talking about AND the functionality of it's emission equipment.

I guarantee you that your bike puts out more Nitrates of Oxide and
Carbon Monoxide that most all vehicles, 1996 and newer, with properly functioning emissions equipment.

Carbureted engines simply cannot, no matter how well tuned,
beat emissions output of a properly tuned fuel injected engine that
has emissions equipment on it.

The air quality emissions systems our bikes have is filtered tank breathers, and not all of them have that.
Without 3-way catalytic converters, computer controlled fuel delivery,
EGR systems, and constant engine monitoring, your bike will NEVER be
equal or less than a fuel injected automobile with a properly functioning emissions system.

New motorcycles, that are fuel injected and have built in converters in
the pipes, yes, they will have lower emissions. Your Shadow... Not gonna happen.
 
#9 ·
I work in the local ER as a nurse, I love my cycles and ride every chance I get....I see what's left after an accident, whether it's kids on a 4-wheeler or a 16 yr old on a crotch-rocket, at least....WEAR A HELMET!....one of the issues with the state government requiring helmets is that they wind up picking up the tab for the non-insured punk that has a TBI, traumatic brain injury, that survives the crash, 70K bucks a year in some nursing home for the rest of their lives.....I live just north of Daytona and hit bike week....last years' toll was 20 killed....estimated that 7-9 died from head injuries.....I love riding but feel naked without a helmet.....my 2 cents and perhaps a different perspective.....great forum.....Mick :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
#10 ·
In Michigan a "no helmet" law was defeated. At that time my position was (and still is) that regardless of the out come I will not ride without a helmet……(a full face helmet). I was glad it was defeated because I felt that if it passed, the insurance companies would use that as an excuse (as if they actually needed an excuse) to increase rates.

And BTW, I don’t believe loud pipes save lives. I believe helmets and bright colored clothing saves lives, and loud pipes piss off the neighbors. That’s my opinion, and everyone is welcome to their own.
 
#11 ·
C'mon... this is so transparent it's not even funny.

A $250.00 fine is a deterrent for many people... $250.00 is a lot of scratch. Drop that fine to the price of night at the movies and, well... I'll be interested to know the difference between the annual number of $250.00 fines handed out before the change, and the number of $25.00 fines handed out after. I'll gamble that the dollar amount collected by the State will be more AFTER the change than before, especially factoring in lowered court costs associated with hearing small-time traffic lawyers fighting demerits.

Cash grab... not much different than the Canadian Gov'ts move to "decriminalize" Pot... instead of filling Courts with people busted for possession of less than 1/2 an ounce, the Gov't proposed a $400.00 fine, handed out in the form of a ticket, with no criminal record. Essentially a "pot tax". No payout in the form of court costs whatsoever, $400 revenue for the cost of a ticket.
 
G
#12 ·
This thread is agood example of why America needs CrazyDave as president in 2008.

Elect a president who will support Ape Hangers
drag pipes and will work vigirously each state to see helmet laws
across the nation repealled. A president who will labor to take on the money makers in the insurance industry who would attemt to unfairly raise your rates for choosing to be free. A president whose inaugral ball will be more resemble a bike rally then some monkey suit pompous affair.

Yes, yes I will still support your right to wear a helmet. Do not fret you will suffer no ills because you choose to wear a lid. It is not my way.
 
#13 ·
rat said:
C'mon... this is so transparent it's not even funny.

A $250.00 fine is a deterrent for many people... $250.00 is a lot of scratch. Drop that fine to the price of night at the movies and, well... I'll be interested to know the difference between the annual number of $250.00 fines handed out before the change, and the number of $25.00 fines handed out after. I'll gamble that the dollar amount collected by the State will be more AFTER the change than before, especially factoring in lowered court costs associated with hearing small-time traffic lawyers fighting demerits.

Cash grab... not much different than the Canadian Gov'ts move to "decriminalize" Pot... instead of filling Courts with people busted for possession of less than 1/2 an ounce, the Gov't proposed a $400.00 fine, handed out in the form of a ticket, with no criminal record. Essentially a "pot tax". No payout in the form of court costs whatsoever, $400 revenue for the cost of a ticket.
Actually the change is fine is not as important in the removal of the 3 points against your drivers license. That is where dollars start to build up in higher insurance costs, etc.

Hell $25 civil fine is nothing, if you really want to ride without a helmet you can factor it into the days cost to ride.
 
#16 ·
cbjr0256 said:
Actually the change is fine is not as important in the removal of the 3 points against your drivers license. That is where dollars start to build up in higher insurance costs, etc.
THAT was the deterrent, IMO. Changing that all but removes the law.

Hell $25 civil fine is nothing, if you really want to ride without a helmet you can factor it into the days cost to ride.
Well, unless you get ten of them :)
 
#17 ·
chornbe said:
cbjr0256 said:
Actually the change is fine is not as important in the removal of the 3 points against your drivers license. That is where dollars start to build up in higher insurance costs, etc.
THAT was the deterrent, IMO. Changing that all but removes the law.
Sure and that is a good thing, but now the fine is in line with not wearing a seat belt, why should the helmet law be so much tougher, why should there be a helmet law at all.

Hell if the govmint wanted to save lives they would/could outlaw motorcycling altogether. Arguing helmet laws is silly (we all have our level of risk tolerances), if you don't want to wear one, don't, the only person that gets physically hurt is you. If you believe in wearing a helmet (as I do) then wear one. Choice is a good thing.

Is there anyone that smoke cigarettes and believe in the goodness of helmet laws????

When is the govmint going to start taking body fat measurements and assessing fines for obesity? Why wouldn't that make as much sense as helmet laws?

Or a condom law??? Enforcement would be tough, protection is protection....... :lol: :lol:
 
G
#19 ·
cbjr0256 said:
Under the current law, a violation is a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of up to $250.
It's all about money and BIG government. They care more about revenue than protecting your head I can assure you. They must have received lots of complaints over that law.

Yes, they need to outlaw Big Macs and Krispy Kreme donuts SOON :lol:
 
#20 ·
DynoBobSlick said:
cbjr0256 said:
Under the current law, a violation is a traffic infraction punishable by a fine of up to $250.
It's all about money and BIG government. They care more about revenue than protecting your head I can assure you. They must have received lots of complaints over that law.

Yes, they need to outlaw Big Macs and Krispy Kreme donuts SOON :lol:
I don't believe it's all about the money or Virginia would not have changed the current law and reduced the fine to $25 and no points. If it was about the money they could have reduced the points only.
 
G
#21 ·
cbjr0256 said:
I don't believe it's all about the money or Virginia would not have changed the current law and reduced the fine to $25 and no points. If it was about the money they could have reduced the points only.
Why do you think they repealed the disproportionate fine Chuck? Because motorcyclists (with money) and BIG organizations (AMA, ABATE, HOG, etc., etc.) with BIG money were not happy with it.

It's not about whether you have the right to bounce your head off the pavement or not - it's money $$$ Chuck.
 
#22 ·
DynoBobSlick said:
cbjr0256 said:
I don't believe it's all about the money or Virginia would not have changed the current law and reduced the fine to $25 and no points. If it was about the money they could have reduced the points only.
Why do you think they repealed the disproportionate fine Chuck? Because motorcyclists (with money) and BIG organizations (AMA, ABATE, HOG, etc., etc.) with BIG money were not happy with it.

It's not about whether you have the right to bounce your head off the pavement or not - it's money $$$ Chuck.
Oh THAT money....gotcha, I am catching up now...... :wink:
 
#23 ·
DynoBobSlick said:
It's all about money and BIG government. They care more about revenue than protecting
Yes, they need to outlaw Big Macs and Krispy Kreme donuts SOON :lol:
DynoBob,
Most definitely it's about money........insurance companies don't want to have to pay for a limp piece of celery laying in a hospital bed that used to be a living, breathing being who used to ride a motorcycle. Think about it……that piece of celery laying in the hospital used to pay annual insurance premiums instead of now having to live off of insurance claims money!

I guess I can’t really blame the insurance lobby and I don’t really have a problem with wearing a helmet (I will always wear mine, law or no law) but if we don’t stand up for “US” they will begin to attack us from every angle. Do we want to pay big insurance because we ride a bike with a big displacement engine? Don’t laugh; it just might happen some day. And that’s just the beginning!
Phil
 
#24 ·
Phil said:
Most definitely it's about money........insurance companies don't want to have to pay for a limp piece of celery laying in a hospital bed that used to be a living, breathing being who used to ride a motorcycle. Think about it……that piece of celery laying in the hospital used to pay annual insurance premiums instead of now having to live off of insurance claims money!

I guess I can’t really blame the insurance lobby and I don’t really have a problem with wearing a helmet (I will always wear mine, law or no law) but if we don’t stand up for “US” they will begin to attack us from every angle. Do we want to pay big insurance because we ride a bike with a big displacement engine? Don’t laugh; it just might happen some day. And that’s just the beginning!
Phil
Ok, so let's say it's about insurance money/claims/etc.

Still doesn't make sense as to why we need legislation to make people
wear helmets.
I also, wear my helmet and would wear it, law or no law.

However, the insurance companies are the ones taking the risk of insuring us.
Why don't they put it in their policy that if you are involved in an accident and not wearing a helmet, the insurance would not cover your injuries.
The liability would still cover anyone else that you might have injured or
what-not.
We don't need the government to tell us that...
The insurance companies have every right to insure/cover you based
on prerequisite regulations.

That will never happen because some (Not all) of the people who choose
to ride without helmets or other protective gear will whine and moan
(most likely to the government) that the insurance companies aren't
playing "fair" and that they shouldn't have to pay more for insurance
than someone who rides with a helmet.
ride without
 
G
#25 ·
litnin said:
Phil said:
Most definitely it's about money........insurance companies don't want to have to pay for a limp piece of celery laying in a hospital bed that used to be a living, breathing being who used to ride a motorcycle. Think about it……that piece of celery laying in the hospital used to pay annual insurance premiums instead of now having to live off of insurance claims money!

I guess I can’t really blame the insurance lobby and I don’t really have a problem with wearing a helmet (I will always wear mine, law or no law) but if we don’t stand up for “US” they will begin to attack us from every angle. Do we want to pay big insurance because we ride a bike with a big displacement engine? Don’t laugh; it just might happen some day. And that’s just the beginning!
Phil
Ok, so let's say it's about insurance money/claims/etc.

Still doesn't make sense as to why we need legislation to make people
wear helmets.
I also, wear my helmet and would wear it, law or no law.

However, the insurance companies are the ones taking the risk of insuring us.
Why don't they put it in their policy that if you are involved in an accident and not wearing a helmet, the insurance would not cover your injuries.
The liability would still cover anyone else that you might have injured or
what-not.
We don't need the government to tell us that...
The insurance companies have every right to insure/cover you based
on prerequisite regulations.

That will never happen because some (Not all) of the people who choose
to ride without helmets or other protective gear will whine and moan
(most likely to the government) that the insurance companies aren't
playing "fair" and that they shouldn't have to pay more for insurance
than someone who rides with a helmet.
ride without
The problem I have with this kind of logic goes back to the original debate of helmet laws to begin with. They myth that head injuries are the prevalent injury suffered by the average motorcyclist. It is not the mots prevalent injury is midscection specifically the chest, followed by the mid and lower extremeties ( that is arms and legs ). Yet you would have the insurance companies free from paying for a lost limb simply becaus the rider was not wearing a helmet, despite the fact that the injury had nothing to do with the rider not wearing one? Well Heres a better one, the insurance company will be granted the right not to pay IF they can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that a helmet would have changed the outcome. So when they prove with 100% accuracy that that squid who pile droved his bike into a tree at 80 mph would have lived is he had worn a helmet they don't have to pay. There now , isn't that fair?
 
#26 ·
CrazyDave said:
The problem I have with this kind of logic goes back to the original debate of helmet laws to begin with. They myth that head injuries are the prevalent injury suffered by the average motorcyclist. It is not the mots prevalent injury is midscection specifically the chest, followed by the mid and lower extremeties ( that is arms and legs ). Yet you would have the insurance companies free from paying for a lost limb simply becaus the rider was not wearing a helmet, despite the fact that the injury had nothing to do with the rider not wearing one? Well Heres a better one, the insurance company will be granted the right not to pay IF they can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that a helmet would have changed the outcome. So when they prove with 100% accuracy that that squid who pile droved his bike into a tree at 80 mph would have lived is he had worn a helmet they don't have to pay. There now , isn't that fair?
Well, you actually expounded on what I was talking about.
I think we're on the same page... I just didn't take it far enough.

Yes, that is absolutely fair..
But then again, the insurance company could take that to the limit and say
you must wear complete protective gear (boots, kevlar or equivalent jacket, gloves, helmet, etc..). They could say "all or none".

If you were out riding and wrecked, broke your foot, with no other damage to you, then the insurance company should not be exempt from covering you because you weren't wearing a helmet.
A helmet would have no bearing on whether your foot would have
been broken or not.
However, the insurance companies would not write a policy like this.
They would want every way out so they wouldn't have to pay.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top