OT (?) It is Starting

The "mainstream" is fucking stupid. Herd instinct is right. Cows are
smarter.

 

Good point, Morgan. Thanks for the clarification.

 

FYI only for those using OE for newsreading, and
interested in crosspost handling/processing:

I just hijacked this thread for a moment to report a
Windows ME/OE(6.00.2800.1123(+) "all updates
applied") discovery. Newer win versions will prob-
ably have a higher OE service level.

Using this topic as example, because it's been xposted
to rec.moto & tx.moto, I've discovered that some latest
OE updates have purged the duplicates across groups.

Personally, I don't have any problem with xposts, but I
have seen others complain about it. My system, after
some recent update installation(s) just began this xpost
purging, and I just noticed it. So, if you're an xpost op-
ponent, you might look into some OE service upgrades.

PLEASE! don't flame me for this, I'm just trying to be
helpful.

Thanks,

Gary

 

Hold up just a moment, here.. John Moran and Albert Nurick have made an
erroneous impression on this thread.. Neither of these two would have any
idea whatever, about TMRA 2 .. Their contention that "Mainstream" is opposed
to TMRA 2 is completely false. The organization is independently funded,
mostly by the membership .. That membership is represented by many of
"Mainstream" people who've never ridden a motorcycle.. Many of the elected
officials in the State and Federal government, are member of TMRA 2..

Albert Nurick has repeatedly posted the he'd NOT support or belong to TMRA
2, because he don't like Bill Walker.. He's never attended a meeting nor
does he even know the issues that TMRA 2 endorses or opposes.. For example,
this thread was initiated by me without any expression of direct discussion
of the Helmet Law.. even though it was mentioned.. Nurick immediately
presumes, or so it seems that the Helmet Law is the only issue that is
addressed by TMRA 2 or me.. Another example of pure ignorance on his part
is his misconception of the insurance connection.. There is a vast
difference between medical and health insurance and the minimum required
liability requirements in the vehicular law.. The medical and health
insurance isn't a requirement to operate a car.. It is an additional
insurance requirement for the helmet exemption for motorcyclists..

John Moran indeed expressed his insurance requirement ignorance by his
erroneous claim that the HIPPA Act, doesn't have anything to do with the
helmet law.. Nothing could be furthur from the truth.. There are currently
cases of this HIPPA Act situation already being tried in court.. The
insurance companies have denied claims for injury and/or death, because the
insured was engaged in "Risky Behavior".. Not only in the state of Texas,
but in other states, as well.. There is definitely a conflict between the
two laws, as I've described before.. and argued to the State Representatives
and State Senators, in our legislators..

Again.. the conflict is that the State is exempting motorcyclists from the
helmet requirement by requiring them to puchase medical and health
insurance.. The HIPPA Act covers the insurance company, by amendment .. to
give them the "Reckless Behavior" option to deny a claim on a policy that is
imposed by the State..

The Helmet Law nor TMRA 2 is not the subject of my original post, at least
not in my intent when I posted it.. Subject matter of that post was intended
to comment on the political campaigning that is commencing in Texas.. LOL..
Several of the tentative candidates have been perpetually politicking for
years..

Efforts by John Moran and Albert Nurick to distort the post and misdirect
the discussion into some kind of TMRA 2 or Walker attack is nothing more
than juvenile behavior, by them.. Neither of these two are qualified nor
informed enough to make any reasonable argument for or about either TMRA 2
nor the insurance exemption for helmets..

Bill Walker
Irving

 

ROTFL... Now .. that is what I call a discreet post, Gary.. Thanks, pard..
I'll take responsibility for the x-post... I x-posted to rec.motorcycles
because there are quite a few Texans who participate in that newsgroup..
They just might be interested in our State happenings, don't you think ?
Regards

Bill Walker
Irving

 

"Imposed by the State" in this case means a law that was passed in
Texas as a reult of bikers rights groups lobbying for repeal of the
helmet laws once the Federal Highway bill's blackmail proivisions were
finally dropped in the 1998 renewal, and then "compromising" by
allowing the insurance provision to be tacked on, thus giving those who
wish to deny motorcylist's rights an arguing point that Texas bikers,
at least, recognize their own "burden on society" when they choose to
ride helmetless.

A Faustian bargain, to say the least.

The HIPPA act is a federal matter and no amount of arguments before any
state body is going to have an effect on its disposition; although
bikers (and other proponents of active lifestyles) may be successful in
affecting *HOW* the act is interpreted when in conflict with state
laws.

Whichever. The Texas debate surely illustrates the dangers of hastily
giving up a long cherished right for a "quick fix" on another,
long-denied right. Of course, the AMA pointed out this folly on the
national level while the bargain was being struck.

Vince

 

In 1997. AMA was invited to join TMRA 2 to work on the helmet issue in
Texas.. They declined to be a party to the effort.. TMRA 2 was a fledgling
motorcycle advocacy group at that time, and needed all the help it could
get..

During the negotiation period of the Bill, TMRA 2 realized that they'd have
to make concessions to relieve bkers of the helmets, in any appreciable
numbers.. Before they agreed to any of the concessions, the membership was
advised and informed, that the proposals for the Bill would make it an
imperfect legislation and they promised they'd re-visit the legislation to
clean it up.. AMA sat it out.. During the legislative session of 2005, TMRA
2 did re-visit the Bill and successfully won approval for their amendments
in Committee.. Again.. AMA sat it out and wasn't involved in the process..
Our Bill died in Calendars.. again.. AMA sat it out.. No involvement..
especially .. no support..

I don't have contentious criticism of any motorcycle advocacy group.. but,
AMA doesn't have a dog in this fight in Texas.. AMA or their membership
can't take credit nor can they criticize any of the efforts by TMRA 2, in
Texas.. TMRA 2 solicited support for those efforts in 1997 and earlier.. AMA
was the only group that declined to support those efforts.. ABATE was there
with us, thoughout the process.. Other clubs supported those efforts.. AMA
chose to sit it out..

It is my own impression that your post is critical of the Texas Helmet Law,
as it should be.. It is an imperfect law, at best and should be cleaned up..
I was in our State Capitol during the 2005 Legislative Session, along with
about 7,500 other Bikers.. who represented TMRA 2, ABATE, Confederation of
Clubs and the many motorcycle clubs from all over the State.. Noticeably,
AMA was not present nor active.. I again was in Austin when our Bill was
before the Committee.. Again.. AMA was not there..

As an obvious member of AMA and loyal to that organization, as you should
be, maybe you can explain why they refused to participate, yet.. criticize
the efforts of another motorcycle advocacy group for their efforts.. There
seems to be something wrong with this picture.. Regards

Bill Walker
Irving

 

Hmm. Odd. That behavior isn't seen on XP OE. Are you sure they are actualy
purged and not just hidden as being read?

 

an insurance company denying claims under HIPPA has nothing to do with
the statutory requirement by the state for the operator of a motorcycle
to provide documentation showing he/she is insured as an exemption from
the helmet requirement. the state law simply requires the document
showing proof of insurance. as noted elsewhere, HIPPA is federal and
the state has no control over it. the state merely wants proof that a
certain level of medical insurance is in place and it is incumbent upon
the operator to have that if they wish the exemption from the helmet
requirement.

whether benefits are denied later on has nothing to do with meeting the
state requirement for proof of insurance. the HIPPA suits are about
denied benefits, not the state helmet law. the statutory requirements
for the helmet law are met by having the card showing coverage. after
the fact denial of benefits does not negate the proof of coverage prior
to the denial of benefits.

if someone is concerned about being denied benefits then they should
make certain there is a rider to the policy stating they are
specifically covered for operating a motorcycle. given that specific
motorcycle coverage, the insurance company cannot say they didn't know
about risky behavior and deny the claim; it's clearly specified in the
policy. a good insurance agent can take care of this easily. those
seeking to get away on the cheap may not get the coverage they expected
and have problems with a claim later on. additionally, many
corporate/business policies for employees have risky behavior clauses
that may need to have additional coverage for the additional assumed
risk of motorcycles, if the policy and the employer will allow it. if
you want to have no denials of coverage, be specific in the policy
providing your coverage. caveat emptor.

 

motorcycles are also above average risk transportation. a corvette and
a volvo have different insurance costs for coverage for the same reason.
statistically, corvettes are more risky than volvos. motorcycles are
significantly more risky than 4 wheel vehicles.

very simply: the operator can go beyond the minimum level insurance
policies and get a good clarified risk policy that will not deny
benefits, meet state requirements and actually do you some good if bad
things happen. if you buy a crappy policy then expect crappy benefits,
if any.

 

(Gary wrote) FYI only for those using OE for newsreading, and
interested in crosspost handling/processing:
I just hijacked this thread for a moment to report a Windows
ME/OE(6.00.2800.1123(+) "all updates applied") discovery. Newer win
versions will prob- ably have a higher OE service level.
Using this topic as example, because it's been xposted to rec.moto &
tx.moto, I've discovered that some latest OE updates have purged the
duplicates across groups.
Personally, I don't have any problem with xposts, but I have seen others
complain about it. My system, after some recent update installation(s)
just began this xpost purging, and I just noticed it. So, if you're an
xpost op- ponent, you might look into some OE service upgrades.
PLEASE! don't flame me for this, I'm just trying to be helpful.
Thanks,
Gary
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ROTFL... Now .. that is what I call a discreet post, Gary.. Thanks,
pard.. I'll take responsibility for the x-post... I x-posted to
rec.motorcycles because there are quite a few Texans who participate in
that newsgroup.. They just might be interested in our State happenings,
don't you think ? Regards
Bill Walker
Irving

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary, Bill is exercising his right to post anything he wants, anyway he
wants to do it. Bill is an old hand at this, he doesnt need your advice.
(kidding, really)''
Gary I have no idea what you said above. I know I was chewed out royally
once, when I Xposted. I was called bad names over in Rec.motorcycles.
You want see me doing that kinda stuff. They threw me in their killfile
baskets. It was a task for me to climb out of those dirty baskets.
(LMAO) bjay)!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I wouldn't read too much into the meaning of my OE
update post, if I were you. It was exactly "say what
you do", "do what you say" motivation for information.

Like I said, I don't care about xposting, and like so
many other things, one will be free to do it, and I'll
be free to ignore it. I guess it's a lot like the underlying
helmet topic. <g>

Gary

 

No, I'm not real sure of the exact operation. But I can
give this brief explanation:

rec.moto & tx.moto, along with others are in my sub-
scribe list. When I pull down message headers, say
I get 10 r.m hdrs, and 5 t.m hdrs.

If the 5 t.m hdrs are really all just xposts from r.m, the
t.m message count will drop to 0. Now, I'm not real
sure exactly when this happens, but I did notice it
just prior to that OE post.

As example, there were probably 10 or more posts
in r.m on this "it is starting" thread. I assume they're
all xposted to t.m, but as I view my subscribe list,
the t.m count is null(no activity). And, since the list
is sequenced, I'm replying to r.m and haven't made
it down to t.m yet(even though the t.m # is 0).

I'd have to do a controlled xpost test to give you a
better explanation, which I can do if you'd like. But,
except for the xposting, I'd probably take the discu-
ssion to email contact. Unless someone else has interest.

Gary

 

Pi r not squared, Pi r round.
Cornbread r square.

 

Last question first.. our Legislature will not meet in regular Session
again, until 2007.. Legislature was in regular session, last.. in 2005.. The
Failure to Yield Bill was part of the legislation that TMRA 2 introduced,
appeared before the Committee and gave testimony in support of it.. Failure
to Yield is a very important issue that must be addressed, for the benefit
of all motorists, not just Bikers. I'm sure that it will be foremost on any
future agendas of TMRA 2.. I, as well as many others who are actively
working in our State, to advocate for bikers rights.. take the Failure to
Yield issues, very seriously.. Many of the members of TMRA 2 have been
impacted by the absence of those violations.. Many have died because someone
did not yield right of way, when it was clearly defined..

The first part of your questions about my opinion/theory of why AMA was not
on board with TMRA 2, during 1997, would strictly be my own .. Although I am
controversial and very outspoken concerning many issues, I have never been
critical of any motorcycle advocacy group.. <grin> It is my opinion, that
if they are riding two wheels, they can't be all bad.. When motorcycle
advocacy groups become adversaries, their effectiveness is finished.. That
is one of the main problems that we find in our motorcycling communities ..
My own affiliations with TMRA 2 developed after several years of associating
with some of their leaders and members.. We shared many of the same
sentiments to solicit for a better government, for all of us.. The decision
to join TMRA 2 and become a Warrior for their causes, was primarily made
because it is an organization that was inspired and initiated in Texas..
They work on the issues that primarily affect us in Texas and they work
within the bounds of Texas..

AMA is not local and their interests are well intended in parts of the
country that are not connected, similar and would be contradictory to what
we have on the ground, in Texas.. I've never criticized AMA and the only
bone of contention that I have with them is the resentment for their not
bringing their resources to Texas to support TMRA 2, when we fought long and
hard to remove the helmets from bikers.. At this late date, after the fact,
I also resent any member of AMA who'd criticize the efforts of TMRA 2 in
that legislative battle while AMA sat on the sidelines..

ABATE and TMRA 2 have fought many legislative battles, some successful and
others not so successful, by being shoulder to shoulder.. Even though there
is a slight difference in the agendas of each, there is also a bond between
them when it comes to bikers rights.. Even though ABATE is a nationwide
organization much like AMA, they've chosen to affiliate with TMRA 2 for the
common goals.. Bikers Rights..

In my opinion, AMA should make that same committment .. Right .. Wrong .. or
Indifferent.. A motorcycle advocacy group fights for the rights of each one
of us, who ride motorcycles.. None of them should be adversaries.. Regards

Bill Walker
Irving

 

As a short update here, regarding the OE xpost topic:

I was able to view the operation simply using other
xposted messages. It operates like this:

As I said, my subscribe list is sequenced, containing
entries for rec.moto & tx.moto, among others. When
I pulled down this most recent hdr count, I got 10
r.m msgs. I also received 9 t.m msgs.

However, while reading(and replying here) to r.m, my
t.m msg count has dropped to 3. So, it appears that
the hdr retrieval gets all hdrs, and the process of reading
xposted groups actually removes/marks the duplicates.

Thx - Gary

 

You are way off base here, Beemer.. TMRA 2 is and always has endorsed MSF
courses.. Even though TMRA 2 does not support the unconditional requirement
of a license applicant to be required to take the course before receiving
their license.. For example.. a biker from Arizona relocates to Texas, after
riding a motorcycle for a number of years.. He's tested on the laws and
their applications in Texas.. He's tested on the streets and demonstrates
his ability to handle a motorcycle .. After those years, and the
demonstration of practical ability, he should not be required to take a
course that perhaps he can't afford to pay for.. I'm not sure if that is the
official posture by TMRA 2.. I'm speaking for my own convictions.. It is my
impression that TMRA 2 has generally demonstrated a similar posture, by the
way they've opposed legislation that would impose a blanket MSF course on
all applicants..

If you recall, in one of my comments .. I pointed out my objection to the
exemption of helmets, incorporated into the MSF course requirement.. When
that concession was made during the negotiations of the Helmet Law.. the
agreement with the legislators was that the nominal fee of five dollars,
would be to defray the costs of education of motorcyclists.. That included
MSF courses.. The money wound up in the general fund, and therefore, all
motorcyclists were betrayed.. Nothing in this should be construed that I, or
anyone else connected with TMRA 2 is opposed to MSF courses.. Many of us
recommend the courses when we encounter new riders or reconstituted riders..
Neither is TMRA 2 opposed to anyone wearing a helmet.. They do support the
freedom of making that choice.. They do oppose any legislation that would
force helmets on anyone.. Regards.

Bill Walker
Irving

 

Well, many laws come with a variety of caveats, but it does sound like
your helmet law was ill conceived.

You do have some semblance of choice and although I wear my hat all
the time and my seat belt most of the time I believe neither of those
actions should be legislated.

That said I wouldn't object if an insurance company chose to charge
higher rates for those who do not wear helmets or use their seat
belts. I wouldn't support their weaseling out of a valid claim by
taking advantage of some convoluted language in the contract though.

On the health care topic, our system of subsidized care is not
sustainable. With the baby boomers (read me) getting older the
financial strain is going to crater our system within the next decade
if we do not find new and innovative ways to delivery the service.
Some of that is happening now and I am confident we'll find a way to
fund the increased demands without sacrificing the concept of
universal care. We have a Federal election tomorrow and the results of
that election will have a direct bearing on the direction our health
care program will go.
--


Don
RCOS# 7
No Riding Today

2000 - Yamaha Venture Millenium Edition

 

I am not aware of any exemptions to the requirement to wear the hat
anywhere in Canada. Bob Mann might chip in and speak to the Manitoba
law.

As in the States it is governed by Provincial legislation and I
believe Alberta was the last province the enact mandatory helmet laws
but we did and they are here forever now.

Canadians tend to be less forceful when it comes to governments or
laws. We accept whatever we are fed, often without protest. A reigning
government would have to rape your sister before you would change your
vote and get rid of them.

Our Charter of Rights (Constitution) was drafted to protect the
Government from the citizens where yours, as I understand it, was
crafted to protect the citizens from the Government.
--


Don
RCOS# 7
No Riding Today

2000 - Yamaha Venture Millenium Edition

 

i think it's more perception than anything.

perception - no helmet = unsafe; helmet = safe.

reality:

helmet + t-shirt + sandals + shorts = legal, but also = stoopid
no helmet + leathers(or equivilent) + boots + gloves = semi-legal, but
also = stoopid





AFAIC, ATGATT

how anyone else deals with their risk i could care less, it's no skin
off me.

if you're going to be doing something that potentially puts your ass on
the line, why would you have anything less than the maximum coverage you
can justify and afford ?