Honda Shadow Forums banner

1 - 20 of 77 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #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
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,504 Posts
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,110 Posts
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].
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,504 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,454 Posts
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
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,110 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
1999 VT1100C2 A. C. E.
Joined
·
9,219 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,761 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,303 Posts
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

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #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.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,504 Posts
CrazyDave said:
This thread is agood example of why America needs CrazyDave as president in 2008.
Yes,
Let's all say it together!

"CD in 08"

"CD in 08"

"CD in 08"

"CD in 08"
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,110 Posts
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 :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #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

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,689 Posts
Discussion Starter #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.
 
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
Top