There is an article from Missouri in the news today that has me scratching my head.

There are only 19 states in the US that require helmets for riding, one of them is Missouri and they are proposing that for the month of August, motorcyclists be allowed to ride without their helmet.

Is that because they back freedom of choice? No, it's because riders from other states on their way to Sturgis SD for the Blackhills Rally avoid Missouri like the plague and some government representatives  say they are missing too much tourism revenue.

OK - so safety out the window, damn the cost of healthcare - we want the tourism dollars.

Freedom of choice it appears - doesn't enter the equation at all for Missourian's who ride.

Then there is Tennessee and North Carolina, both states have bills on the table to repeal helmet laws.
In North Carolina they are discussing the age of 21 as the point where helmets would not be required and special insurance would be to go without a hemet.

In Tennessee they are taking it a step further.

Begin Quote: Those include having minimum insurance coverage - $100,000 in liability insurance coverage and $200,000 in medical insurance, taking a safety course and buying a special $50 sticker permitting riding without a helmet. End Quote

There is a second proposal on the table - Begin Quote: That bill also would make helmets optional for riders 21 and older and would increase motorcycle license fees from $17.50 to $19.50 with the extra revenue going to TennCare. End Quote

Out of the three states - I like both of Tennessee's proposals.

I like the idea of a special sticker for your plate that says you have met the requirements and are legally riding without a helmet because there is no reason for a cop to jack you up.

And I like the idea that the fee will go up by $2 per year, with the extra funds going into the health care system...I wonder if they read my blog from about 4 years ago when I proposed both the special sticker and special insurance requirements.

The addition of $2 of the license fees going into state health care would make the proposal complete.
I hope they blend the two.

When riding in the US,  I choose to wear a helmet, but I am pro choice as long as there is no undue harm to other taxpayers.

In Saskatchewan, the government has ordered SGI to look at a rate cap for this year.
SGI claims that auto drivers subsidize motorcycle claims yet almost every motorcyclists also operates a motor vehicle.

R.A.G.E. says they will not back down but will keep the pressure on for riders to have a choice of what kind of insurance they carry. Right now they have mandatory medical coverage and many have that coverage through their employment  and do not need the SGI coverage.

Begin Quote: SGI CEO Andrew Cartmell said the corporation will look at safety initiatives and the injury benefit levels provided in the insurance coverage, which would require some legislative changes. End Quote

And the fight is still on in Sturgis SD over the name Sturgis as it applies to the Motorcycle Rally - Begin Quote: Sturgis Motorcycle Rally Inc. has sued Rushmore Photo & Gifts and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. over its Sturgis trademark. The group says the trademark is needed to protect the quality of products connected with the rally that draws hundreds of thousands of people every year.

The defendants say the term is geographically descriptive and shouldn’t be trademarked, and that non-licensed vendors have been selling goods bearing “Sturgis” for decades. End Quote

That's what's on my mind today - as always you are invited to jump in on these topics!
I love hearing your point of view - it always challenges me on mine!

There are other articles in the news feeds that might be of interest to you today, visit  where our work is keeping You informed.

I leave you with a few funnies, shared with me by friends on Facebook and via emails...laughter - vital to good health.

Have a fantastic weekend everyone!

Belt Drive Betty
Editor & Rider

Post a Comment

  1. The Tennessee proposal is more crass than the Missouri. I agree the Missouri idea is clearly an attempt to lure tourist dollars from Sturgis goers, but the Tennessee idea is also about leveraging freedom for monetary gain. What makes Tennessee more crass, is that it's using the concept of "freedom" to subsidize an aspect of socialism. At least the Missouri proposal allows riders to choose how to spend their money.

  2. You seriously feel the TN proposal is crass?

    I thought it was a pretty great balance - make sure you have minimum health care coverage, take a safety course and pay for a sticker so the cops have no reason to stop you - I personally like it better than 90
    % of the proposals as I feel others will have less ability to object to it and turn it over yet again.

    Riders in TN also have choice with the above proposal.

    May I ask what it is about the TN proposal that upsets you so?

  3. Anonymous3:57 PM

    I totally believe that a person should have the right to ride without a helmet so long as insurance coverage is in place to handle the care needed for someone who becomes paralyzed etc. due to an accident while not having a helmet. On the other hand, I'm confused about how a sticker would help. Man and wife have 1 bike; Man is insured and wife is not. Wife borrows bike. The sticker needs to follow the person, not the bike - putting it on a license plate doesn't make sense to me.

  4. The sticker goes on the plate to prevent to police from pulling you over needlessly so it goes with the bike.