National Universal Helmet Law?

[Momz]

Senator Frank Lautenberg (C-NJ) is at it again! On Dec 12th he filed an amendment (Lautenberg Amendment #1) that would drastically alter the motorcyclist safety grant program, indirectly force states to pass mandatory universal helmet laws, by using federal dollars to only promote the use of helmets and not promote motorcycle safety, riders ed and driver awareness. More specifically, the amendment alters the current motorcycle safety grant program (a.k.a. Section 2010 funds) by loosening the requirements to receive funds for states with mandatory helmet laws. States that allow choice would see their qualification criteria become stricter in order to receive safety grants.

Additionally, free states would be required to spend 50% of their grant funds on the promotion of helmet usage. The revised use of these funds is contradictory to the spirit in which motorcyclists fought for the safety grant program during the last federal transportation initiative. This amendment would provide zero funding for awareness and education programs. The 2nd threat to motorcyclists is a clause that would lift the ban on NHTSA being able to use federal tax dollars to lobby states to pass mandatory helmet laws. This provision was in the national transportation program beginning in 1998 and was re-affirmed in 2005 after Lautenberg tried to pass a national helmet bill.

Fortunately Lautenberg is 87 and will hopefully die soon. Senaton Jim DeMint (R-SC) is working with the AMA and MRF to prevent this from happening. Since both of our U.S. Senators (Levin & Stabenow) are democrats I don't know that writing them would do any good. If you know anyone who is a member of AMA or MRF I suggest you get in touch with them to see what we can do to stop this!

[Coot]

Interesting.  I do not want the Nanny State to dictate what I say or do.  That being said; if you ride a motorcycle agressively without good head gear you are asking for a long stay in the hospital..............if you're lucky.  Even if you just want to cruise around at a leisurely pace, minding your own business, you can't control the freak accident that may be heading your way around the next bend.  Buy a good lid and wear it.

Coot 

[BF]

Interesting.  I do not want the Nanny State to dictate what I say or do.  That being said; if you ride a motorcycle agressively without good head gear you are asking for a long stay in the hospital..............if you're lucky.  Even if you just want to cruise around at a leisurely pace, minding your own business, you can't control the freak accident that may be heading your way around the next bend.  Buy a good lid and wear it.

Coot  

I don't want the nanny state dictating either, but I'm still not gonna ride without one on even if they don't dictate.  Maybe just a half helmet, but it's still gonna be on my head when riding.

[3fan4life]

If I am reading this correctly:

http://www.motorcycledaily.com/2011/12/american-motorcyclist-association-supports-senators-stand-on-helmets/

It would appear that the alarm is a moot point.

It seems that the fine Sen from NJ  was shot down.

[BIG COUNTRY 23321]

So even when I take my Magical Space Flight on my Valkyrie Past Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus ( Had to say that one    ) Some Jackass Senator from New Jersey Wants " Universal " Helmet Laws ? Cant wait till he rethinks it and says now he wants " Galactical " Helmet laws for all those Illegal   " Aliens " 

Big Country

[Momz]

3fan4life

Not a moot point, the bill continues to go on regardless if one of the supporters drops out.

And who needs to be regulated on whether to choose their riding gear?
I (and I suspect that most of us) can choose what is proper safety gear after assessing the risks of riding.

[3fan4life]

3fan4life

Not a moot point, the bill continues to go on regardless if one of the supporters drops out.

And who needs to be regulated on whether to choose their riding gear?
I (and I suspect that most of us) can choose what is proper safety gear after assessing the risks of riding.

The AMA supports the bill as it is written.

It was Lautenberg's proposed amendment that they objected to and rightfully so.

according to the AMA's press release under strong opposition from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Sen. Lautenberg did NOT propose the amendment. 

[Momz]

3fan4life

We just came home earlier today from the ABATE state seminar. It included both Reps from the AMA and the MRF as well as a MI Senatator Kovall that all warned of this new federal bill. Not our Senator Kovall, nor any AMA, MRF, or ABATE officials agree to or want this universal legeslation.
 
The AMA supports volantary helmet usage, but not mandatory regulation. This bill is a tool to blackmail states to enact mandatory helmet laws or lose federal Highway funding. That is governmental BLACKMAIL at it's finest.

[3fan4life]

American Motorcyclist Association supports senator’s stand on helmets


This is a press release MD received from the AMA:
 

PICKERINGTON, Ohio — The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) praised U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) for standing up against a proposal that would have indirectly forced states to pass mandatory helmet laws.
 
U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) was poised to introduce the proposal on Dec. 14 during a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing on S. 1449 — the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2011. His proposal was an amendment to S. 1449, but he decided against offering it in the committee.
 
In a statement for the record, Ayotte noted that the amendment would take away the right of the people in a state to decide whether to have a mandatory helmet law “by indirectly forcing all states to pass mandatory universal helmet laws in order to receive funding for motorcycle safety.
 
“States without mandatory universal helmet laws — such as New Hampshire — would be subject to stricter eligibility criteria, and would be forced to use 50 percent of their grant funds to promote helmet use,” she said.
 
“This amendment violates the original intent of the motorcyclist safety grant program, which has traditionally focused on encouraging states to fund motorcycle safety awareness, education and training,” she said. “This amendment would divert funds away from awareness and education and, instead, use them to place federal pressure on states to enact mandatory universal helmet laws.”
 
Wayne Allard, AMA vice president for government relations, thanked Ayotte for her statement, noting the AMA also opposed the Lautenberg amendment.
“Federal efforts should focus on preventing crashes rather than mandating what gear riders should wear,” Allard said.
 
Besides opposing the Lautenberg amendment, the AMA has been working on Capitol Hill to try to ensure that motorcycle-only checkpoints don’t proliferate around the nation, and working to ensure that motorcyclists’ concerns about possible engine damage are considered before federal officials approve the use of higher ethanol-gasoline blends for motorcycles.
 
“We need the help of all riders,” Allard said. “More AMA members means more political clout, from the statehouse to the White House. We urge motorcyclists to join the AMA to help protect motorcycling now and in the future.”

The way this reads, Sen. Lautenberg didn't propose his amendment.

It was only his amendment that presented the problem, not the entire bill.

Now if this AMA press release is wrong or if Sen Launtenberg does decide to introduce his amendment then it is a problem.

But the way I'm reading this the problem has benn averted at least for now.

[ptgb]

... Fortunately Lautenberg is 87 and will hopefully die soon...

You wish death on someone who disagrees with you?!?!?


Just...... WOW

[czuch]

Yea, thats a little harsh.
Howzabout he has an awakening and realizes we dont need more stupid laws.
.

[Jess from VA]

... Fortunately Lautenberg is 87 and will hopefully die soon...

You wish death on someone who disagrees with you?!?!?


Just...... WOW

Not usually, but can make an exception for this man; he has proposed and supported every ani-gun law out of congress for years and years.  He also sponsored the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban, more commonly known as the "Lautenberg Amendment". This piece of legislation prohibits individuals (including law enforcement officers and military service members), accused of a crime of domestic violence, from possessing a firearm. Critics point out that this legislation effectively circumvents the Second Amendment of the constitution by linking an individual's right to own or possess firearms to a matter of irrelevance, and without the need for a trial and conviction in a court of law.  Many long-serving LE lost their jobs over this. Rabidly anti-tobacco.  He is no friend of personal freedom.  His passing will not be mourned by many of us.    

[3fan4life]

He is no friend of personal freedom.  His passing will not be mourned by many of us.    

I'm not sure who we should "LOATHE' more, Him or the IDIOTS in NJ that keep re-electing him. 

[ptgb]

Choosing to not mourn someone's death and wishing death to someone are two VERY different things IMO.

[Momz]

Sensenbrenner Resolution

The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) reports that US Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) will be introducing a House Resolution supporting the law that prohibits the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from lobbying the States for legislation.  The resolution also urges NHTSA to make motorcycle crash prevention their number one priority when they address motorcycle safety. 

Sensenbrenner said, "Despite significant opposition from Congress, NHTSA continues its attempts to mandate universal one-size-fits-all motorcycle helmet laws.  NHTSA believes that the first step in saving a motorcyclist's life in the event of a crash is to mandate helmet use.  The fact is, that preventing a crash from occurring through rider education, training and proper licensing are the best methods to increase motorcyclists' safety.  I agree that wearing a helmet can protect a motorcycle rider, but helmets do not prevent crashes."

[Momz]

AMA supports senator's stand on helmets
December 05, 2011




The AMA praised U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) for standing up against a proposal that would have indirectly forced states to pass mandatory helmet laws.

U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) was poised to introduce the proposal on Dec. 14 during a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing on S. 1449 -- the Motor Vehicle and Highway Safety Improvement Act of 2011. His proposal was an amendment to S. 1449, but he decided against offering it in the committee.

In a statement for the record, Ayotte noted that the amendment would take away the right of the people in a state to decide whether to have a mandatory helmet law "by indirectly forcing all states to pass mandatory universal helmet laws in order to receive funding for motorcycle safety.

"States without mandatory universal helmet laws -- such as New Hampshire -- would be subject to stricter eligibility criteria, and would be forced to use 50 percent of their grant funds to promote helmet use," she said.

"This amendment violates the original intent of the motorcyclist safety grant program, which has traditionally focused on encouraging states to fund motorcycle safety awareness, education and training," she said. "This amendment would divert funds away from awareness and education and, instead, use them to place federal pressure on states to enact mandatory universal helmet laws."

Wayne Allard, AMA vice president for government relations, thanked Ayotte for her statement, noting the AMA also opposed the Lautenberg amendment.

"Federal efforts should focus on preventing crashes rather than mandating what gear riders should wear," Allard said.

Besides opposing the Lautenberg amendment, the AMA has been working on Capitol Hill to try to ensure that motorcycle-only checkpoints don't proliferate around the nation, and working to ensure that motorcyclists' concerns about possible engine damage are considered before federal officials approve the use of higher ethanol-gasoline blends for motorcycles.

"We need the help of all riders," Allard said. "More AMA members means more political clout, from the statehouse to the White House. We urge motorcyclists to join the AMA to help protect motorcycling now and in the future."

[BigAl]

Your wife accuses you with no proof, of hating her enough to hit her, or just spank your kid.

Domestic abuse is inferred.

No guns for you.

Helmets and Helmet Laws have been the work of many toilers in the legislative branch for about 4 decades.

Helmet makers love them.

SO here is just another example of us being the pawns in thier well meaning fight to keep us safe,,but less free all the time.

Somehow I don't believe they have our best interest at heart, just the control of us as the ultimate goal

[fudgie]

what i dont understand is how can some laws be changed for State Rights, such as the 2A and then some laws are made for every State? Even when its in the Bill of Rights, States can 'change' laws to suit them.

[Jess from VA]

Well Said Mr Al.  

"They" are the greatest risk to "our" freedom....... worldwide.

[Momz]

Lets face it,...it is winter and a lot of us are not riding.
Now is the ideal time to find a M/C rights group and get involved.

Check out a local ABATE region or get on the AMA or MRF website and become informed.
Many of you are NRA members, so why not get better informed about your motorcycle rights?

I am passionate about my M/Cs and the rights that are eroding due to being in a minority road user.
 
We are all aware of the benefits and risks of riding, so why should a non-riding legeslator try to make laws to restrict our right to ride?

[The Anvil]

what i dont understand is how can some laws be changed for State Rights, such as the 2A and then some laws are made for every State? Even when its in the Bill of Rights, States can 'change' laws to suit them.

Which is why state's rights are overrated.

[bscrive]

I think it was stated before that once you guys have universal healthcare like us up here, it will just be a matter of time until helmet laws will be enforced.

For me I would never ride without one.  Riding without one is overrated.  I did it as a youngster and I preferred the helmet.  
I had an accident when I was 16 that would have probably killed me if I didn't have one on.  Guy pulled out of a liquor store and drove into the front wheel.  I went over the car and my sister, who was behind me, went under the car.  She broke both her legs and I got a sprained ankle.  I can still remember the back of my helmet hitting the pavement.  I was only going 30mph.