motorcyclebloggers.com

A few weeks ago I was working at one of our testing contract companies in Corpus Christi, Texas.  While I was going to lunch with one of the local employees, we saw a biker riding without a helmet.  That sparked the helmet law conversation. 

Texas had a mandatory helmet law up until it was repealed on September 1, 1997.  The new law that is still current is not perfect, but its a step in the right direction.  Here is the text that matters:

2-14 HEADGEAR. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
2-15 (1) operates or rides as a passenger on a motorcycle
2-16 on a public street or highway; and
2-17 (2) is not wearing protective headgear that meets
2-18 safety standards adopted by the department.
2-19 (b) A person commits an offense if the person carries on a
2-20 motorcycle on a public street or highway a passenger who is not
2-21 wearing protective headgear that meets safety standards adopted by
2-22 the department.
2-23 (c) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)
2-24 or (b) [a defense to prosecution under this section] that at the
2-25 time the offense was committed, the person required to wear
3-1 protective headgear[:]
3-2 [(1)] was at least 21 [18] years old[;] and had
3-3 successfully completed a motorcycle operator training and safety
3-4 course under Chapter 662 or was covered by a health insurance plan
3-5 providing the person with at least $10,000 in medical benefits for
3-6 injuries incurred as a result of an accident while operating or
3-7 riding on a motorcycle “

I like the fact that all options are still left on the table as to your right to choose (pro-choice?).  The idea is similar to one I posted a while back but by a slightly different means - having some sort of fee-based permit to ride without one.  This is what I suggested:

AB’s Helmet Law:

Helmets would not be required for those over eighteen years of age
The option to not wear a helmet can be purchased via a permit - say $200/year.
The collective helmetless permit revenue goes into a pool to pay for those injured w/o helmet usage. (We currently have “high risk” auto insurance pools for those who can’t seem to be without tickets.
It would be a ticketable offense to be riding without a helmet without a permit.

The Texas idea is superior to mine, but gets to the root of the angst of the safety-nazi’s that demand helmet laws - that they pay for the idiots’ head wounds.  That’s been the main complaint I have read for years.  Having a minimum amount of injury coverage or a pool to pay for helmetless injuries addresses this complaint.

All that said, I think there are two flaws with the Texas law.  First, the little word “or” that is between the statements being 21/rider’s course and the minimum liability coverage.  It should be an “and”.  Period.  Twenty-one year olds that crash without a helmet will suffer just as much injury as the eighteen year old.  Second, $10,000?  Pulllease.  I would like to see it at a more rreasonable minimum of say $100,000 or more.  Health car is not cheap these days and $10k is a drop in the bucket.

Overall though, I think its a good start.  With the right numbers in place and a simple word change, all parties should be happy.