Go Back   Two Wheel Fix > Around the World > Southwest Riders

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-20-2009, 06:53 PM   #11
pdog
Refugee
 
pdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Moto: Pimped 2005 SV650
Posts: 332
Default

Sounds fair to me. The helmet restrictions were rarely enforced so big deal if they are removed.

I do love how we stress safety in lobbying for the lane-splitting law yet still allow people to ride without helmet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by azoomm View Post
Their bill is going to the floor - SB1967 - it requires MSF for a class M license, no more $$ restriction for health insurance to go lidless, and can't get pulled over JUST to check for that.
pdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2009, 10:06 PM   #12
anthonyk
WERA White Plate
 
anthonyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Moto: '01 Aprilia Falco
Posts: 1,041
Default

Wow, I wonder if the TX training infrastructure can deal with a mandatory training requirement. That'd be... interesting.
anthonyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 12:09 PM   #13
Austinrider
Squid
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyk View Post
Wow, I wonder if the TX training infrastructure can deal with a mandatory training requirement. That'd be... interesting.
Dunno about that but it sure will bring in big bux to whomever has a training business!

AR
Austinrider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 06:49 PM   #14
ScorchedCarbon
Anti-squid
 
ScorchedCarbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Moto: Monster 696
Posts: 9
Default

Actually, SB1967 does not actually remove medical $$$ restrictions for going lidless, but instead you would have to have a special designation on your insurance card verifying that your insurance company will indeed cover you if you are in an accident and are lidless. I was told the reason this was written into the bill was because not all insurance companies will cover medical if you ride lidless. Some people found out the hard way.
__________________

"The only thing wrong with instant gratification is that it's not quick enough"
ScorchedCarbon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 08:12 PM   #15
azoomm
moderator chick

 
azoomm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Hill Country TX
Moto: Pasta Rockets
Posts: 8,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScorchedCarbon View Post
Actually, SB1967 does not actually remove medical $$$ restrictions for going lidless, but instead you would have to have a special designation on your insurance card verifying that your insurance company will indeed cover you if you are in an accident and are lidless. I was told the reason this was written into the bill was because not all insurance companies will cover medical if you ride lidless. Some people found out the hard way.
It does actually redact the requirement of a $10,000 minimum. It has always been a requirement to have "medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of an accident while operating or riding on a motorcycle."

The proposed changes are underlined and crossed out. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs...l/SB01967I.htm
__________________
We have enough youth. How about a fountain of "smart"?

Come Play at the Track!!

http://www.elitetrackdays.com
azoomm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2009, 11:01 AM   #16
ScorchedCarbon
Anti-squid
 
ScorchedCarbon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Moto: Monster 696
Posts: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by azoomm View Post
It does actually redact the requirement of a $10,000 minimum. It has always been a requirement to have "medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of an accident while operating or riding on a motorcycle."

The proposed changes are underlined and crossed out. http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs...l/SB01967I.htm
Section c-2 is what I was referring to. I spoke with one of the guys who helped write this, and he said the verbage is there so they will have to have specific verbage from the insurance company stating they are covered if they are lidless.
__________________

"The only thing wrong with instant gratification is that it's not quick enough"
ScorchedCarbon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2009, 12:45 PM   #17
pdog
Refugee
 
pdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Moto: Pimped 2005 SV650
Posts: 332
Default

It looks like SB506 is 99.9% dead. There's a small but unlikely chance it will be attached to another bill.
pdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2009, 06:45 PM   #18
anthonyk
WERA White Plate
 
anthonyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Moto: '01 Aprilia Falco
Posts: 1,041
Default

Wow, so the mandatory training (among other things) bill made it through?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLoo...1R&Bill=SB1967
anthonyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 10:54 AM   #19
pdog
Refugee
 
pdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: San Francisco, CA
Moto: Pimped 2005 SV650
Posts: 332
Default

Looks like it allows bikes to use HOV lanes also:

Quote:
USE OF PREFERENTIAL LANE BY MOTORCYCLE. A motorcycle, including a motorcycle described by Section 521.001(a)(6-a), may be operated in a preferential lane that is not closed to all vehicular traffic.
pdog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-25-2009, 11:44 AM   #20
RACER X
AMA Supersport
 
RACER X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Richmond, Tx
Moto: '10 Tuono Factory
Posts: 4,569
Default

thats a federal thing.........and we've been able to ride HOVs for as long as i can remember.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
2014 GROM! 181cc of FURY
2010 Aprilia Tuono Factory - SOLD
2009 SFV Gladius - SOLD
2008 Hayabusa - SOLD.
RACER X is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:08 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.