OT (?) It is Starting

Wheehoo.. The political campaigns are cranking up with a big bang, aren't
they ? Rick Perry is frantically flooding the state with his ads.. Carole
Keaton Strayhorn or whatever name she's using this week is changing her
stripes to run for governor.. hmmm.. She's claiming that she's running in
opposition to Rick Perry as an Independent (?) LMAO.. Just another political
strategy to hold onto a one party government in our state.. Kinky Friedman
is running for governor as an Independent.. Who knows who the candidates are
that are being fielded by the Democrats.. Chris Bell ?

All these people are screaming about "change", etc. etc.. Back up just a
bit, right here and now.. We've got a whole crew of nitwits in office, right
now.. Those are the ones who need to be turned out of those offices.. Lon
Burnham comes to mind.. The weaselling son of a bitch has been bought and
paid for, a long time ago..

Lon Burnham solicited support from TMRA 2.. For those who aren't familiar..
That's an organization that has advocated Bikers' rights in Texas for
fifteen years, more or less.. Lon Burnham promised all of us that he'd
support us in Legislature. And the membership of TMRA 2 helped him on
several occasions with their support .. Lon Burnham betrayed that group of
Bikers and lied to them when he declared that he'd support their legislation
to relieve the existing Helmet Law in Texas.. He is on the Committee that
would hear the testimony about the Bill ..

Lon Burnham became the spokesman for insurance companies and protested the
Bill .. There was no doubt that he was representing the insurance companies
when he formed his argument in that protest against the Bill.. He SAID so..
Lon Burnham betrayed the support of TMRA 2, lied to them and even betrayed
the constituents in his district by the comments he made, at that hearing..
Adding insult to injury, the gutless bastard bolted and left the chamber
without voting.. We don't need Legislators like Lon Burnham representing us
in OUR government..

There are other incumbents who need to be swept from office.. There are
candidates who are running in this election, that should not be considered
as representatives in our government.. We don't need to exchange dollar
bills.. we need to be fielding candidates who have the fire in their guts to
question, challenge and make a difference to represent their constituents in
our government.. Recruiting candidates with those qualities has been
extremely difficult.. Yep... but, Texas is a big state and qualified and
capable men and women are all over it.. Men and women of courage and
integrity.. They have that fire in their gut and we all need to find them
and recruit them for our representation..

Democrats and Republican incumbents, who have become comfortable and secure
in their elected office.. and have associated with scandal and corruption..
must be turned out of office .. Replaced by men/women of integrity and
courage..

Bills which affect our daily lives are and have been passed into law without
our representatives in Austin, even being aware of what the Bills consisted
of.. My own district State Representative admitted to me, in his office and
before two witnesses that he'd supported and voted for a Bill which
contained issues that affected all of his constituents, not only the
motorcyclists' community.. I'm referring to the Helmet Law and the
exemptions to it.. connected to the HIPPA Act.. Confused.. ? You should
be.. That is the way it was designed and intended.. Until I pointed it out
to him.. my State Representative responded by musing.. "hmmm.. I didn't know
that.. I'll need to look into it".. Nossir.. he didn't have to look into
anything.. I was armed with the Bills and the Connection was clearly
highlighted with a yellow marker.. I pushed them across his desk to read ..
When that man looked up at me, he was three shades paler.. The result of
that visit didn't pay much in dividends, except that he has resigned..
announced this morning, I understand.. The candidate who has challenged him
in this upcoming election is no better, and changing dollar bills is not
interesting to me..

We need to recruit the men and women to sincerely represent their
constituents in office.. Not the special interests of insurance, utility or
oil companies .. not the corporations that are trying so desparately to
become equals with us all, in identies.. Corporations do not have identities
nor do they have the individual rights that our Constitution and Bill of
Rights, guarantee us, as individuals.. No incumbent who'd recognize
Corporations as individuals with rights protected under our Constitution, is
going to represent those constituents who elected them..

This is an important election year and an opportunity for each of us, as
Bikers to determine our destiny.. This is the year for us to send the
message to our government, that our government is For the People, Of the
People and By the People.. We ARE the People which those great words were
referring to.. This is our government so long as we, as individuals have the
courage to fight for it.. If we do not demonstrate that courage in this
election year, we deserve the government that we have .. The powers that be,
will not voluntarily relinquish the power they enjoy.. It is our
responsibility to TAKE back our government, with our voices, our
participation and our votes.. Let's get to the job, brothers and sisters..
You will see me there, Lord Willing..

Bill Walker
Irving

 

Well, that was a good message.....

I have some small responses:

I'm sure you're aware that you don't need a helmet to ride
a motorcycle in Texas.

Regarding "integrity and courage", as the song says:

"I('ve) been Looking for love in all the wrong places".

People have had the same frustration as you describe
since even you were a pup. It's inherent in the beast, and
I wouldn't think it changing anytime soon. Regardless of
what the campaigner's claim on their TV spots. I don't
really know anything about Carol Keaton(sp?), but
anyone that believes that her party affiliation tactic is FBO
anyone other than her, is very naive. I'm not disagreeing
there, I think the message is the same.

That's enough from me.....

Gary

 

In fact, people *are* required to wear a helmet to ride a motorcycle in
Texas.
There are exemptions in place for some, tho. The aim of many groups is to
reduce or eliminate the need for these exemptions.

 

Thanks Gary... "preciate it"...

We do have a Helmet Law in Texas .. It is an imperfect law and it needs to
be cleaned up.. That was one of the issues which was addressed at the last
Legislative Session in Austin.. The Law was negotiated by TMRA 2 and went
into effect in 1998.. with the understanding that it was an imperfect law
and would be revisited.. As I pointed out.. the law is imperfect in the
"exemptions" .. It is also in conflict with another Federal Law called the
HIPPA Act..

Make no mistake, here.. I'm not "looking for love" in my government, just
conscienscious representation for constituents that elected those to
represent them.. I sure didn't elect my representative to represent the
insurance nor utility companies.. Nor.. any other Corporation..

hmmm.. Sorry if my own personal sentiments came through on the post.. I
didn't intend for that to be the case.. The ones that I named came to mind
because of the obvious.. to me.. Each one of us will decide who will
represent us in these primaries and the Statewide election in November..The
post was deliberately designed to be non-partisan and apply equally to all..
Even though I am a self described Yellow Dog Democrat, I've made it clear
that my priorities claim representations of the constituents (sp. voters) is
on top of the list..

I've personally gone after Democrat representatives with confrontations and
challenges when they've been associated with corruption and/or failures to
represent their constituents.. I've participated in the ousting/outing of
Democrats who've obviously been failures in their representation of the
constituents..

Your comments are well taken by me, Gary.. It is a little puzzling to me,
that you were not more aware of the existing Helmet Law in our fair State..
Don't construe that as criticizm, there are many motorcycle enthusiasts who
declare that Texas has no Helmet Law.. The existing Law has been on the
books since 1998.. Many do not believe we have a Helmet Law because they
don't wear helmets in Texas.. This existing Law was fiercely fought for, by
a group of dedicated men and women, for a long time..

John Cornyn was asked for an interpretation of the Helmet Law, when he was
AG.. He gave law enforcement the "probable cause" to stop anyone who rides a
motorcycle without a helmet.. When stopped under "probable cause" .. it is
incumbent on the rider, to prove that he is in compliance with the Law, or
he gets a citation for a moving violation.. Regards, Gary

Bill Walker
Irving

 

Some people are surprised to learn that Texas does in fact have a Helmet
Law, and has one for many years.. Prior to 1998, helmets were mandatory for
all motorcycle riders.. and had been for several years..

Many of the current day riders aren't even aware of how the Mandatory Helmet
Law was changed nor who fought to change it.. With the support of almost
every club in our state and the Confederation of Clubs.. we revisited that
law in the regular Legislative Session of 2005.. We got a hearing for our
Bill and it was successful in Committe with only one abstention in the
vote.. The Bill died at the calendar's desk without being debated on the
floor.. So .. the existing Helmet Law remains on the books, with the
exemptions which are in conflict with other federal and state laws..
Regards, Waco..

Bill Walker
Irving

 

That's why they call it an "exemption". All others are required to wear a
helmet, right? Got it? No spin. If you aren't exempted, you are required,
per the law.
And ipso facto, all are required if not exempted.

What don't you understand about that?

 

Aren't insurance requirements already in place for any vehicle on the road?
Isn't the test to get your license a demonstration that someone is skilled
in riding?

And before you jump and say that the licensing test is too easy, well so are
the MSF tests.

I could say much about any biker that disagrees with this.

 

Now, not being a Texan I would ask how that law applies to visitors to
your State. Of course I have insurance, up to two mil when I ride in
your country, but have not taken the MSF course.

Under your laws would I have to wear a helmet?

Are other State's helmet laws drafted with similar language? Not that
it really matters I wear mine 99.9% of the time anyway but I am
curious.


--


Don
RCOS# 7
No Riding Today

2000 - Yamaha Venture Millenium Edition

 

Because some cops are using this an excuse to randomly stop and harass
whatever helmetless riders happen pass them. Haven't you been reading the
posts?

 

In Alberta we pay a premium for Health Care. It's $88.00 per month per
family. Less for a single. When traveling in the States our regular
health care only covers us for whatever the medical service or
procedure we may need, would cost in Canada. Health care, especially
emergency care in the US costs a hell of a lot more than it does in
Canada so the two mil is added insurance to cover the difference
between what the service would cost in Canada compared to your
country. The two mil travel coverage costs me $42.00 a year and it has
conditions attached.

It is a bit of a misnomer to say we have social health care up here.
Might be better to refer to it as universal health care. As I said
earlier in Alberta we pay a monthly premium to cover part of the cost,
the balance is funded through the tax base. As with any insurance
there are limits to the coverage. I am not sure if many or any other
Provinces fund health care through a similar formula. Some fund it
entirely through the tax base. Ultimately health care is probably 60%
+/- funded through government channels. Additional insurance to expand
coverage is available through alternate sources.

At the end of the day, everyone in Canada has health care insurance,
which is a good thing. The downside is service levels are not where
they should be. They are improving but it is a slow process.
--


Don
RCOS# 7
No Riding Today

2000 - Yamaha Venture Millenium Edition

 

if you have proof of medical insurance with over $10K in coverage, you
do not have to wear a helmet in texas. the insurance document doesn't
even have to show the coverage amount, just that you are insured and
that is all you need. HIPPA doesn't affect it either, because having
the insurance document fulfills the statutory requirement.

Note that this is different from the liability insurance required of all
motorists. this is health insurance in addition to motorists liability
insurance. most anyone has the minimums in health insurance already, as
you can see below there are plenty of options that easily meet the
minimums.

from the Texas Department of Public Safety FAQ:

Does the insurance card have to state that the insurance affords
benefits of
at least $10,000 for injuries incurred as a result of a motorcycle
accident?

No. Major health insurance plans almost always provide at least
$10,000
coverage, generally more. Moreover, the Department's administrative
rules do
not require the insurance card to display the amount of policy coverage.
Therefore, an insurance card such as provided by an employer, group
health
insurance company (HMO/PPO), the Veterans Administration, Medicare or
Medicaid, is prima facie proof that the coverage meets statutory
requirements and is satisfactory proof of the required coverage.
Insurance
cards for life insurance policies, cancer only policies, or accidental
death
and dismemberment policies do not meet the health insurance plan
requirement
as they have a more narrow coverage than is required by the statute.

If a person is from out of state, can they ride in Texas without a
helmet?

Yes, as long as he or she is at least 21 years old and can show proof
of
course completion or adequate medical insurance.

the states are all different, some have no exemptions and are mandatory
helmet laws.

in simplest terms,if you carry proof of minimal health insurance, you
can ride without a helmet in Texas.

 

Sounds to me like the lawmakers crafted a very convoluted statute to
cater to one group without entirely selling out the other. Considering
they are politicians big surprise huh. <g>
--


Don
RCOS# 7
No Riding Today

2000 - Yamaha Venture Millenium Edition

 

Well from my view I think it is better, but, and there always is a
but, I know of people who have had to wait for almost a year for a hip
replacement. Just the other day I read in the paper the emergency care
personnel at one of our hospitals are warning the wait times for
emergency care are too long and someone is likely to die waiting for
care in the hospital.

So as I said it needs work, but folks will not be refused care because
they do not have insurance, nor will they be bankrupt by the cost of
that care, but they may have to wait for a long time to get it.
--


Don
RCOS# 7
No Riding Today

2000 - Yamaha Venture Millenium Edition

 

I doubt "the mainstream" knows or cares who tmra 1,2 or 3.14159 is, much
less have any organized response for or against them.

 

not really. the premise is to shift the prospective health care burden
of the lidless brain damaged biker to the biker and not have the state
pick up the tab. john q. public could care less what anyone does so
long as it's not going to cost him (via the state) any out of pocket
money. requiring proof of health insurance is the legal fig leaf that
accomplishes that goal. if you're insured, go knock yourself out. as to
whether insurance totally shifts the cost burden is another thing
entirely that is beyond the scope of the statute. the law simply
specifies the statutory requirements to be met. if you meet the
requirements and have the insurance card at the time you want to lose
the helmet, you are good to go. denial of coverage after the fact in
case of injury is not addressed in the code at all nor does it need to
be addressed. if your insurance plan decides not to cover you, that is
your problem and not the states. a poor choice of insurance carrier
would be a private issue after the fact as far as the state is concerned.

 

Also, when I took the MSF basic course, I was told that, in order to
legally ride without a helmet in Texas a rider is required to obtain a
sticker which is good for one motorcycle. The sticker is issued by the
state after sending proof of insurance or the MSF certificate.
Without the sticker, helmet is required - even if a rider meets the
qualifications.

Is this still the rule?

S.

 

The achilles heel of federalism...each state enacts its own laws without
much regard to the others. Heres a link that details each state:
http://usff.com/hldl/hlstatutes/mapolinks.html\

When I was in Manitoba, I learned of a helmet exemption there. Can you tell
us about Canadian laws regarding helmet requirements?

 

Oh, I wanted to note that I rode helmetless across Nevada last year (and
halfway back) not realizing that it had a helmet law. I recall passing LEOs
and they didn't even look twice at me for some reason. Our system can be
damned confusing at times.

 

It never was. All the sticker does is provide a readily visible means
for not having to show proof of the other applicable exemptions from the
requirement to wear a helmet.

Helmet Exemption Sticker. The Department of Public Safety issues Helmet
Exemption stickers to persons who:

a.. apply to the department on the form provided; and
b.. own the motorcycle listed on the application;
c.. provide adequate proof of successful completion of the Basic or
Advanced Motorcycle Operator Training Course, or health insurance
coverage,
and,
d.. pay a $5.00 non-refundable fee for each sticker applied for.
Persons operating, or riding upon, a motorcycle with a helmet exemption
sticker displayed on the license plate or license plate mounting bracket
are presumed to meet the training or insurance requirements for riding
without a helmet.

That's just to get the sticker. So what, it fulfills no requirements.
Again, here are the actual requirements:

Straight from Texas Department of Public Safety:
Effective September 1, 1997, persons at least 21 years old are exempt
from
wearing a motorcycle helmet if they:

a.. have successfully completed a motorcycle safety course, or
b.. are covered by a health insurance plan providing the person with
at
least $10,000 in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of
an
accident while operating or riding upon a motorcycle.
Motorcycle Safety Course. The Basic and Advanced Motorcycle Operator
Training Courses meet the helmet exemption requirement. The Advanced
Motorcycle Operator Training Course is recommended for experienced
licensed
motorcyclists.

Health Insurance Plan. Defined as " . . . an individual, group, blanket,
or
franchise insurance policy, insurance agreement, group hospital services
contract, health maintenance organization membership, or employee
benefit
plan that provides benefits for health care services or for medical or
surgical expenses incurred as a result of an accident."


No mention of the sticker in the exemptions code. You can have one for
convenience, but it's not required.
AFAIC, i'll keep the $5 since they will have to pull me over to see the
sticker anyway. I can just as quickly show them my health insurance
card. If they want to pull you over, you're going to get pulled over
no matter what sort of sticker you may have.