0
Maybe this is more a case of education...
I mean they didn't wear body armor back in WWII. we sure do now.
"I'd rather ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow"
Bikes: Ducati: 748 (Track) Honda: RC31 (Race/street)/ CRF 110 Mini Moto/ Hawk Endurance Racer Kawasaki: ZXR1200R
BOMO Instructor
EX# X
"I'd rather ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow"
Bikes: Ducati: 748 (Track) Honda: RC31 (Race/street)/ CRF 110 Mini Moto/ Hawk Endurance Racer Kawasaki: ZXR1200R
BOMO Instructor
EX# X
Both bills were rejected. As soon as the House publishes the votes I'll post the links.
Last edited by The Architect; 02-18-10 at 02:01 PM.
woohoo! oh wait. i dont live there.
"fuckit!"
Here is the latest status on this bill. I found this on NH.gov HB1162
Session Year 2010
Bill Docket
Bill Status
Bill Text Title: relative to the wearing of motorcycle protective headgear. G-Status: HOUSE
House Status: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Senate Status:
Next/Last Comm: HOUSE TRANSPORTATION
Next/Last Hearing: 01/28/2010 at 10:30 AM Rep's Hall
THE BILL ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE OR SENATE
All bills may be acted upon the day after the committee report appears in the House Calendar. Any amendments proposed by the committee which make material changes in the original bill must be printed in the calendar.
Action on bills is taken on the second reading on the floor of the House or Senate. Debate, if any, is held and amendments are made at this time.
A bill is considered killed when the House or Senate votes to adopt the committee report of "Inexpedient to legislate," or when a motion from the floor to "Indefinitely postpone" is adopted.
After a bill has passed the body of the Legislature in which it originated, it is sent on to the other body where it goes through similar procedures, except for bills containing an appropriation
And it's back...
Hearing scheduled for February 4 at 1:00PM
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_sta...ssionyear=2020
I had aftermarket exhaust on a bike and a car.
Now that I bought a house, I fucking loathe people with aftermarket exhaust.
Couple Harley’s around here blip their throttle coming to the stop sign, then WOT up a 30mph road.
Couple that with a couple fast and furious Subaru’s and jacked up loud trucks, diesels that make so much noise you’d think they’re towing the space shuttle, but no, apparently just struggling to do 30.
Like what. The. Fuck.
Think of your neighbors.
Helmets should be mandatory. If you whack your noodle and end up dead, fine. If you whack your noodle end up a vegetable and a burden to the state because you wanted to feel the liberty blowing through your thinning hair, fuck off.
Also, fuck loud exhausts for reasons stated above.
I went to MMI I know what Im doing here chief
Why not make the bike have 4 wheels, operator enclosure, seatbelt and an airbag? Shouldn't be riding those dangerous 2-wheeled open-air vehicles just because you want to feel the air. Could end up severely injured and costing money.
I get that a lot of motorcyclists see wearing a helmet as a far more clear issue than the debate over riding motorcycles in general. But most of the voting public doesn't ride motorcycles for the same reason they think we should all wear helmets. They see motorcycles as unnecessary risk.
nedirtriders.com
Also.. what is a "helmet" per this law? And will it actually be enforced?
If guys can wear the snap on salad bowel "novelty" helmets like half the guys in MA seem to wear.. why bother?!
That said, I've grown to the point where I've stopped giving a shit about this. I'm wearing my helmet either way. Make it mandatory. Don't. I don't care.
Anyone have any insight as to what a helmet law would do to insurance rates? That is the strongest argument either way, in my view.
The bill specifies that the helmet must meet 49 C.F.R. section 571.218, which basically says a "DOT" approved helmet (or purchase an aftermarket sticker of equivalent effectiveness).
The bill also specifies that any rider or passenger of an electric bicycle wear a helmet. It might also require all bicycle riders to wear a helmet, but I'd have to look up a few more RSAs and I'm being lazy (and don't ride a bicycle enough to care (and wear a helmet when I do)).
It's unlikely to impact non-mandatory insurance rates in any significant way. Laws don't make people do things. People will still be able to ride without them, they just face a $50 fine.
There would be less head injuries / deaths in automobiles if we require helmets in them as well. If 1 death is too many (as the text messages on the side of the highway point out) then it's worth it.
Yeah, I get what you are saying. I've just lost the fight in me for this one. Whatever.
In many ways, that's the goal, but I get it.
I'm trying to validate my assumption about insurance, but my personal actuary isn't responding to my texts right now. It's a valid question.
The only other state where I've explored registering my bike also doesn't have a helmet law (but insurance was significantly expensiver, as they do have mandatory insurance).
While the novelty helmet is ineffective, it's got to add at least a 1% improvement right? If so, isn't it still accomplishing the goal? Some riders will be compelled to buy a proper helmet. Especially if they've got to put one on anyway. Those who try to skirt around it with a decoration are still forced to having something on there that's probably slightly better than nothing.
I think it's a great example to debate over due to it's simplicity. As for the actual law itself, I never felt too strongly about it. Of all the laws I could care about, it's really low on the list.
While having a road-side interaction with an officer while in RI (no helmet law), it was really interesting to learned he assumed the only reason I was wearing a helmet was due to being a MA resident/rider.
nedirtriders.com
That's logical, but Imma go with not necessarily...
They claim the shell is fiberglass.
They claim the "spike" is "metal".
Rivets, a couple of which appear to be right around the temples are claimed to be "steel".
Let's put a pointy bit of metal on the top of our head on the top of a completely untested bit of epoxy and fiber. That'll help fur shur.
Opinion from my actuary...
I highly doubt it would have any (noticeable) impact on rates. Everyone has their own proprietary rating system, and mandatory helmets could be a variable that's used, so there's that. More likely it'll be more so based on actual experience. So any impact would potentially come years in if and when losses improve from the change.
Further though, at least for cars, the liability portion of your premium (damage you cause to other people/property) is much more significant than the damage to you and your stuff side. So (aside from the motorcyclist hitting motorcyclist scenario) this doesn't impact that more significant piece of the premium.
Last edited by jasnmar; 01-18-20 at 11:00 AM.
That doesn't make sense to me. Hear me out..
If helmets are as effective at "saving" lives as we all think they are then deaths should go down. With deaths down I would expect insurance rates-on the whole-to go down as "losses" would be reduced. After-all 99.9% of us have both motorcycle AND auto insurance policies.
Savings is savings, yo.
"...i would seriously bite somebody right in the balls..." -bump909
Then I circle back to "why bother".
I agree. I'm a strong supporter of adults having the right to choose. I'd also be perfectly fine with insurance companies having separate rates for helmet and non-helmet wearers with penalties or denial of coverage if you pay for the safer category but are in an accident and found to not be wearing one.
"...i would seriously bite somebody right in the balls..." -bump909
Cool, let's start with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_insurance