Tennessee Bill to Repeal Motorcycle Helmet Law Fails

The latest effort to get rid of Tennessee?s motorcycle helmet requirement has failed in a Senate committee.

The Senate Finance Committee voted 6-5 against the measure sponsored by Republican Sen. Mike Bell of Riceville.

Bell?s bill would have allowed motorcyclists at least 25 years old to ride without a helmet if they could prove they had at least $200,000 in medical insurance and $100,000 in liability coverage.

Hospitals providing head trauma care have long been opposed to the perennial bill. Tim Wright, the Tennessee regional president of the AAA auto club, also voiced opposition to the measure, arguing that states without helmet laws saw an increase in their injury rates.

I didn't even know this was making the rounds again. One of our border states, Kentucky, has a no helmet law. I've heard of instances where riders from there come down to Tennessee and get involved in crashes with resulting head injuries, get medical care and stiff the treating hospitals.

2bikemike said:

I didn't even know this was making the rounds again. One of our border states, Kentucky, has a no helmet law. I've heard of instances where riders from there come down to Tennessee and get involved in crashes with resulting head injuries, get medical care and stiff the treating hospitals.

Click to expand...

Let me see if I got that...so (if I'm from KY) and I know I might have an accident, I ride to a State (TN) that requires a helmet and have my accident there, so I can get medical attention and then don't pay the hospital bill? Seems one would also get a ticket for not wearing a helmet, if that's the point here. And, why not just stay in ones own State (KY), have an accident and not pay that hospital? That way one would avoid the ticket because one isn't required to wear a helmet (KY). Did I get that straight?

Let's see if I can get this right. A state government is attaching mandate making motorcycle riders buy certain insurance policies to the wearing of helmets? First one thing , then another. This is how regs and regulation works. Set a precedence, puff chest with public interest, let chips fall on whomever.

Considering there are about 310 million people in the US, very few own bikes of which even fewer are on the road at any given time. Some of which are ridden in said state, of which some are ridden without a helmet. Of these possibly someone may have an accident, in which incident severe enough injuries may cause extended medical care, which may not be covered by an already existing policy.

I would put the actuaries to work before passing anymore regulations. In Minnesota last year, in the local paper, there appeared news of every fatal motorcycle accident the next day. Never saw that in the past. I asked myself, why now? Is someone on a mission? Saving motorcyclists? Maybe those who have, "loud pipes" and ride with no "ATAGATT"? Or maybe eliminating such undesirable activity? And if these riders don't stop, can they be brought to heel? Insurance, who'd a thunk it. Two cents, FWIW.

Again, the thing to keep in mind if you live in a Helmet Law State: If you travel on a MC to a non-Helmet Law state and are involved in a collision while not wearing a helmet, your insurer is not obligated to provide ANY coverage to you. Home state rule applies to you.

Pretty sure Obamacare doesn't require the usage of a helmet or even a question regarding the use of a motorcycle. In fact, there are no pre-existing limitations therefore, you can have a brain injury from a prior motorcycle accident, while not wearing a helmet in any State and still qualify for coverage.

In MN last year 60 motorcyclist deaths. Can't find exact info on which were attributable to lack of helmet use. Up a little from 2012. Other vehicle deaths in MN hovers around four hundred each year, pedestrian coming in at 31, surprisingly. A regulator's job is never done, however. And when reading some of a long investigative report on stats, helmet use was reported as merely being or not being used, not whether responsible for death or injury.

I have known one individual who made a bad move on a bike and was wheel chair bound. I know and see huge numbers of citizens whose life styles have a much more negative collective effect on my health insurance rates. This too could be solved with regulations.

Please, not another helmet use thread.

Motodan said:

Let me see if I got that...so (if I'm from KY) and I know I might have an accident, I ride to a State (TN) that requires a helmet and have my accident there, so I can get medical attention and then don't pay the hospital bill? Seems one would also get a ticket for not wearing a helmet, if that's the point here. And, why not just stay in ones own State (KY), have an accident and not pay that hospital? That way one would avoid the ticket because one isn't required to wear a helmet (KY). Did I get that straight?

Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what your point is but, some motorcycle riders do in fact cross state lines when out riding.

Helmetless riders make great organ donors

arthurdent said:

Again, the thing to keep in mind if you live in a Helmet Law State: If you travel on a MC to a non-Helmet Law state and are involved in a collision while not wearing a helmet, your insurer is not obligated to provide ANY coverage to you. Home state rule applies to you.

Click to expand...

I love it when the FUD gets deep. Can you please show me where it says (or implies) that in your health insurance policy?

2bikemike said:

Not sure exactly what your point is but, some motorcycle riders do in fact cross state lines when out riding.

Click to expand...

Point? I had no point...this is just a Forum. Crossing State lines does not apply when it's between TN and KY. I read that on a Forum.

Not to change the subject but as an aside note, I have a neurosurgeon friend that said he would like to write instructions for people attempting suicide on how and where to aim a pistol so they don't become a vegetable and a burden on the Hospital. I am going to continue to wear a good helmet in case I wind up in his Hospital if I have a wreck.

arthurdent said:

Again, the thing to keep in mind if you live in a Helmet Law State: If you travel on a MC to a non-Helmet Law state and are involved in a collision while not wearing a helmet, your insurer is not obligated to provide ANY coverage to you. Home state rule applies to you.

Click to expand...

I worked in insurance claims for over 31 years and I never saw that in any policy. I dumb and stupid was excluded, the majority of claims would not be covered.

What the ACA will change is that all those helmetless types will now either have insurance or contribute to govt coffers (which are the major revenue source for hospitals) by paying fines for not having it- so some (but not all) of the economic argument around helmet use is removed.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that a bunch of the folks who choose to ride helmetless are the same ones griping about being forced to exercise some personal responsibility by being insured. We settled this issue eons ago when it comes to vehicle liability insurance- this is just a repeat forced by the insane costs of US style medicine which can bankrupt most easily, foisting the costs of their choice or outcomes onto others.

arthurdent said:

Again, the thing to keep in mind if you live in a Helmet Law State: If you travel on a MC to a non-Helmet Law state and are involved in a collision while not wearing a helmet, your insurer is not obligated to provide ANY coverage to you. Home state rule applies to you.

Click to expand...

If you're not wearing a helmet, would you be the type of person that would care?

t6pilot said:

Helmetless riders make great organ donors

Click to expand...

Yea, they should have polled the hospitals that do transplants.

arthurdent said:

Again, the thing to keep in mind if you live in a Helmet Law State: If you travel on a MC to a non-Helmet Law state and are involved in a collision while not wearing a helmet, your insurer is not obligated to provide ANY coverage to you. Home state rule applies to you.

Click to expand...

Please cite where you got this info from.

Motodan said:

Pretty sure Obamacare doesn't require the usage of a helmet or even a question regarding the use of a motorcycle. In fact, there are no pre-existing limitations therefore, you can have a brain injury from a prior motorcycle accident, while not wearing a helmet in any State and still qualify for coverage.

Click to expand...

Most living brain damaged folks I know are on SS disability

racer7 said:

What the ACA will change is that all those helmetless types will now either have insurance or contribute to govt coffers (which are the major revenue source for hospitals) by paying fines for not having it- so some (but not all) of the economic argument around helmet use is removed.

Click to expand...

I don't think the ACA will have much of an impact. The risk takers who don't want to wear helmets feel invincible and will not have insurance and pay the minimal penalty or have Bronze with hugh deductibles (as much as $12,000) an co-pays as high as 50%. If they do sustain severe head injuries, they will go on SS disability and be on Medicare and Medicaid (as they do now).

Also, the ACA will do nothing to keep head injuries from increasing liability rates. The at fault driver will still be responsible.