Helmet Bill Amendment

hmmmm Better be extra careful in that cold climate, up there.. pard.. The
past coupla years now, I've experienced a slight shrinkage situation during
exposure to temps below about 40 degrees.. I'd sure not like to see that
complex of yours become a traumatic and permanent condition...

Yeah Bjay.. I'll miss my good friend when he takes off.. you bet'cha..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Well you've argued against every issue presented here. How about telling us
what you think the issues are that you believe in. We already know its not
insurance, equal access, or the helmet law.

You would think, but then that's not what's happening. Only recently again,
did we get the dps to agree that if a person has a sticker that they should
not be pulled over. Again TMRA2 intervention is needed to educate dps upper
levels that the law states that the sticker assumes compliance. It may not
be rocket science, but for some reason it winds up being that way. Each time
a new department head comes in at the state level for dps we have a whole
new batch of problems. Not only that but there is harrassment going on in
various cities (San Angelo) and it doesn't matter about the sticker or not.
So if it comes down to understanding, removing the law entirely should be a
lot easier for each new administration to understand.

 

With all due respect, Elmer..It would seem that Albert Nurick is dedicated
to the proposition of opposing anything that he might perceive as a
Democratic position or a Democratic personality.. He seems especially
disposed to creating opposition to any supportive position assumed by anyone
named Walker.. LOL.. regardless of the subject ..

Doubtful that Albert can respond to your question with clarity..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Damn Beemer .. you didn't "had" white hair.. you "still" got white hair..
sheesh.. And one other thing.. you just look like some kind of desperado and
that is "probable cause" for any cop to pull you over.. As if that gucci BMW
you ride, isn't enough..

He had no business

On a serious note.. I wasn't there and not involved with that ticket, in any
way, but.. I would have still been fighting them in all the jurisdictions in
Texas, over that one.. That was one ticket that would have been laying on
the AG's desk, before I turned it loose.. DPS command would have frowned on
the way that ticket was issued and handled..

I agree with Sputnik entirely.. The decision to pay that one was yours and
not mine or anyone else's, but that was a conclusive report on the
consistency of efficiency in the traffic enforcement justice system in
Texas...

I can also write my

Riders should be responsible.. no question..

At a minimum mandatory motorcycle training for new riders

Whups.. careful where you go with all the "mandating" business.. When all
the "mandating" is directed at the pocketbooks of anyone and mandates a
profit for anyone.. such as the insurance companies.. let's be very careful
that "mandating" isn't merely a tool against riders and consumers.. We've
been victims of that trap, before and it's been used effectively against
us..When I hear the word "mandate" my hackles commence to rise..

I believe in training for new riders

That is your belief and you are entitled to it.. I'm not sure that I totally
agree.. Depends on a lot of factors that deserve to be considered..

Perhaps.. he will.. We won't know that until we actually see what is written
in the Bill that he is considering..

but maybe that is a card he is holding to

With support behind him and enough of the dedicated motorcyclists attending,
Sputnik should present our case effectively.. I plan to participate without
question or reservation.. I'm also expecting you to be there with your
support, as well..

Clearly we cannot have

Yep.. but.. remember the AG is a product of a system that isn't geared to
favor consumer's interests.. He clearly favors and is supported by an
industry that has intentions to disadvantage consumers and enhance their own
bottom line profit margin.. The AG's ruling will lean toward the hand that
feeds him.. Just as his predecessor's ruling did..

There are going to be

IMO .. that is the reason the decision was made to address this issue, at
this time, by all who attended the DA's meeting in Elgin..

Dammit. Beemer.. If I could just influence you into voting for some good
democratic candidates for office, we'd be entirely on the same page.. hmmm..
except for that old gucci BMW, of course.. LOL

I do not represent anyone here in San Antonio and

Have a good one, pard.. See you soon..Lord's willing..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

I think Elmer expressed it as diplomatically as possible.. Albert Nurick is
opposed to most everything, especially if it originates from TMRA II, or the
Walkers... ROTFL.. There is an upside to Albert's opposition, though.. All
his opposition is mostly declarations that "feel good" to him and is
completely limited to usenet.. Wild horses couldn't drag Albert to any kind
of "real" contact confrontation with anyone, no matter how strong his
conviction would be..That being said.. we can all relax and not indulge in
any concerns that Albert Nurick will make a difference to any issue..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

Nurick+Ass believes strongly that a law on the books is good...no
matter what. He believes if our legislators made a law, then they must
know what they're doing and know what's best for Nurick+Ass...and all
of us. He believes that there's some sort of twist within the law
where he can see a benefit...no matter which law.

On the other hand, he knows nothing about the process which it takes
to make a law go from a concept into a law...or how that law might
change or be used after it's a law.

Asking someone like this what he thinks are issues to believe in might
be "risky".

Elmer, he doesn't understand. He believes the law doesn't affect him
and so it shouldn't matter.

One would hope that opinions like Nurick+Ass has would be in a
minority. Unfortunately, until the motorcyclists are hit in the face
with the problems in the law, this is what will be encountered. They
see the clause for the MSF course. They see the clause for insurance.
They see the clause for a small fee to receive a sticker. They see
these little things and think "ah, that's a good thing...it shows
we're responsible people...I want to show that...I want to be
responsible". What they don't see is the other side where the law is
being used in an irresponsible way against the "responsible" people.

Look how many bills we have up this January where "education and all
other purposes" is listed. Who wants to vote against "education"? Look
how many times that "no child left behind" has been thrown out? Yet,
then at re-election the opposition will say "he voted against
education". What the democrats need to do...and starting NOW...is to
start getting on television and radio and pointing out the problems in
the laws being proposed and show these people the reasons why they are
voting the way they are...BEFORE THEY VOTE! Don't wait until election
time to defend the position...get on an offensive stance and start
voicing what they're doing. Let the people see what the laws are doing
and how they're being used.

People like Nurick+Ass just don't get it. The mindset is "the liberals
are taking away from us". Look how many times you see and hear people
complaining about liberals taking guns. Look how many times you hear
people complaining about liberals taking "God" out of the pledge of
allegiance. Look how many times you hear people complaining about
liberals taking from children. They (people like Nurick+Ass) believe
they have to show they're responsible at any costs while defending
themselves against liberals who take away from them. If we're to get
through this session coming up and go beyond that to correct some of
these things, we have to understand how these people think and
understand how to get around them...even to get them turned around.

 

Of course fullstate'll be checking in on us, because he, no doubt, have
one of those $3,000 Lap Tops, all CEOs have em'..
Heehee....

<>haveAgoodDay-Bjay<>

 

Definetly we differ here, me not because of the law, but because its not
being properly handled by the dps.

Although not all, some do offer lower premiums and others require you to
sign an agreement that you are always wearing a helmet when riding.

Although I agree with rider training. I have a problem with graduated
licensing. Mainly at this point I would want to see where it actually works
or how to properly implement it. After all hitting a wall at 80+ mph has
little difference between a 250 or a 1340. Now something for those under 18
might be reasonable.

We oppose a lot of laws that put restrictions on riders. Some of those laws
restricted riders from HOV lanes, public parks, hospitals, and even
interstate travel. So we do primarily oppose laws that put restrictions on
riders and I believe we've really helped the entire industry. If most of
those restrictions we allowed to survive we wouldn't be able to ride in a
lot of places.

That's not true, I don't know where you've even come up with that idea. You
must be assuming because it wouldn't be from attending any meeting.
Go back and google if you wish, but you'll find that we've always stated to
take the safety course over going out and getting insurance. We're also the
ones that added the rider safety instead of insurance on the bill when we
had to compromise.

Unforunately it doesn't seem to end. Education doesn't seem to stick.

Bad behavior is not good for anyone. However if the behavior is observed on
the road then the officers should put a stop to it. However if these rallies
are on private property and are not harming anyone else then the behavior
doesn't matter. No laws are being violated and no one should be harrassed
for laws they didn't break.

 

Good job Elmer. Several years ago.. you and a couple other District Advisors
for TMRA II, asked me to commence representing TMRA II.. including Sputnik,
if I recall .. When I spoke in public, some of you guys encouraged me to
speak on behalf of TMRA II.. If you recall, I was hesitant to do so.. My
reasoning for that hesitancy was very simple as I explained it to you and
the others..

Bill Walker is controversial and I would not enjoy being the subject that
could be instrumental in any discredit to TMRA II..

During the re-districting public hearings, as you recall, I addressed many
groups in different forums.. I never spoke as a representative of TMRA II or
any other organization that could have been held accountable for my
viewpoints.. While we were in Houston, this year, I was finally persuaded to
actively advocate for TMRA II.. Even though I supported TMRA II and
recommended support for them by others.. I always voiced my opinions,
independently.. Since we went to Houston, I've commenced speaking for and
about TMRA II.. I have felt that I was doing so, with the endorsement of
many of the brothers of that organization..

Albert Nurick and a few others on this newsgroup forum, were very opposed to
my viewpoints, even before Houston.. Since that time, a few of these people
have used my association with TMRA II as a focus of discredit to both me and
the organization.. With all due respect.. the opposition from particularly
Albert Nurick is directed moreso at Bill Walker, than at TMRA II.. I've
noticed that just a handful of others.. not more than two or three of them
have assumed the same posture..

That being the case.. it should be known that I don't have to be a discredit
to anyone or any organization.. My personal viewpoints have not changed,
although some of my postings have become slightly mellowed and tempered with
a little less fire and brimstone.. Albert Nurick and the few that seem to be
obsessed in their opposition to Bill Walker, were exactly the ones that I
cautioned about the controversial posture of Bill Walker..

When TMRA II decides that Bill Walker is more of a liability than an asset,
please be certain that I will clearly understand and will no longer make any
representation to the organization.. I will continue to endorse and support
TMRA II in any capacity that is appropriate..

Your friend in Irving
Bill Walker

 

You have to be real careful with that one. It could easily turn into
a mandated safety gear law. And the stickers that everyone complains
about? Let's gear up the machine to have PACs lobbying for gear to
meet certain spec to get an approval and then require that the gear be
swapped out every three years to maintain that approval.

No thanks.... If the insurance companies offered it freely, that
might be another thing. But the terms "free" and "insurance" rarely
go together.

Now this I DO agree with. But I think it's a bit naive to think it
would eliminate folks killing themselves on sportbikes or even
cruisers. Morons will be morons after all. ;-)

I don't always agree with the TMRA2, but I am fairly opposed to
crating laws and having the Govt. putting restrictions on us.



--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

Leave it to me to debate this one with you. ;-)

I haven't read anywhere that ABS aides in normal riding conditions in
any way shape or form. I'll grant you that it is a lifesaver in
emergency conditions, but for the expense of it I can't see how it's
appropriate to tell someone to spend the extra cash on it.

I've been riding for years, and fortunately I have never been in a
situation where a "bigger bike" and ABS would have made a difference.

Riders are far more intimidated by a larger machine than they are a
smaller machine. The more calm and relaxed a rider is, the more
likely they are going to absorb and learn from the experience as
opposed to be terrified to the point where they can't concentrate.

I do not recommend modern 600cc sport bikes to any new rider just for
the reasons mentioned above. My favorite suggestion is the GS500E for
size, weight, and lack of HP. It will get up to highway speeds no
problem, but it won't get out from underneath you should you
accidentally grab too much throttle, either.

As for the bag thing, who is to say the hard bags wouldn't have thrown
him off balance anyway?

I can't count how many times I have seen some big cruiser rider on a
behemoth that was learning to ride and I thought "they are going to
kill themselves" because they can't control the weight and torque of
the bike and they don't have a CLUE how out of control they are.

I think I know where you are coming from so I won't say I outright
disagree, but many of the cruisers are more adaptive to lower seat
heights, not the sport bikes.

Exactly why I say not to have a bike like that on the first try. You
are going to drop it and you probably are going to realize what you
really want out of a bike after riding for a little while. So, buy
something used and cheap the first time around and if you ding it, who
cares? Once you ride for a while and get a feel for what you like and
don't like, then start looking at nicer bikes.

A beginner rider shouldn't even HAVE a passenger on the back. And how
much weight do you want to have this person trying to control? I bet
most people can control a small, lightweight bike far easier than an
800lbs bike with raked forks and fat tires on it.



--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

Yeah, actually my laptop was close to that price tag. ;-) But it
kicks ass.

I am NOT a CEO.... unfortunately.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

Well, that was why I said that it's unreasonable to expect people to
not be morons or not die with this system.

If you want a working example, though, I'd say look at Europe.


--Fullstate

Me and Mah 'Priller!

 

An entire point missed.

 

I believe Nurick+Ass just proved me right once again...

 

Someone might want to point out to Nurick+Ass that most of the
sportbikes these kids are being killed on are the 600cc type
sportbikes...not the 1100cc one's.

Of course, with him not knowing anything about the motorcycle
community he wouldn't know these little things. I guess that if it
were up to him, he'd have everyone on mopeds until they met his
guidelines to move up to something larger.

These are the type of laws that Nurick+Ass would like to see in place?
Insurance discounts for buying helmets? Restrictions on motor size
until they meet his guidelines? Gimme a BREAK!

 

The more Nurick+Ass says, the more he proves himself to be as stupid as he is.

 

once,years ago, 4 or 5 of us, going on an Arkansas ride.....and one of
the fellows had a father in law, that went and bought him a new
Sportster, and the next morning we rode off. Well sir, the old feller
learned the hard way.....ran off the road a few times, close calls, rode
a ways with his kickStand down, but never got hurt...never ran into any
of us.....he learned on a fair size bike, with fair size power....& was
his very first motorcycle.
<>actually<> I dont know why I mentioned this....has very little
significance to some of whats been said......but the guy did learn to
ride on a fairly large bike.....and as far as I remember, he kept it, &
didnt get killed on it......GOL (grin out loud)

<>haveAgoodDay-Bjay<>

 

Yup, that's how I learned too. No classes back then. It was sink or swim.

 

Anyone who has ever ridden a motorcycle for any time at all will
disagree with you. Then again, most people who rides motorcycles
disagrees with anything you say.

The best ideal ride to learn on, if you're not taking the MSF course
and cheat a bit, will be a low-center mid-size bike with moderate
power. Most will recommend a 500cc to a 800cc motorcycle for a first
time rider. Certainly this would be closer to a Goldwing than some
scooter that wouldn't even be comparable to a bicycle. I've known more
first time riders to be on a Goldwing type touring bike within six
months after sitting on their first motorcycle...and never have a
problem. Some have been on the Voyager 1300cc and/or the Ultra
Classic...which would hardly be as easy of a bike to handle as the
Goldwing.

It's not about "heavier"...and if you rode a motorcycle you'd know
that.

Your entire post should've read: "I've never ridden a motorcycle so I
don't have a comment on that". At least then, more people might agree
with you.