Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

N/A | National Interesting helmet laws in Florida, USA

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by ducm3, Dec 23, 2011.

  1. Taken from: http://motorcycles.hsmv.state.fl.us/helmet.cfm

    Motorcycle Helmet Exemption

    In an effort to answer questions our department has received regarding the motorcycle helmet exemption law, we provide the following information.
    Who is eligible?

    Only those individuals who are:

    * 21 years of age or older and
    * covered by an insurance policy providing at least $10,000 in medical benefits

    When did the law take effect?

    The law went into effect on July 1, 2000.
    What proof of insurance is required?

    The department is advising law enforcement to accept a health insurance card (or actual policy or declarations page) from a HMO or Blue Cross/Blue Shield or some other recognized health insurance provider as proof. The card must show current insurance.

    In addition, limited motorcycle medical coverage will also suffice. Contact your insurance carrier for more information. However, PIP coverage under a personal passenger vehicle policy would be insufficient for either the operator or passenger on the motorcycle.
    Can I get stopped by law enforcement just for not wearing a helmet?

    Like Florida's seat belt law, our department has determined that enforcement for this provision of law should be secondary. That is, an officer should not initiate a traffic stop only to determine if a person has insurance coverage. However, a trooper or other law enforcement officer may stop a motorcycle operator or passenger riding without a helmet based on reasonable suspicion the operator or rider is under 21. A law enforcement officer should not stop someone riding a motorcycle without a helmet only to check his or her age.
  2. 10 grand isn't going to go very far paying for disability services. That'll be gone in the first month and then they're relying on government or charities.
  3. More about proving you're fit to make the decision for yourself than meaningful coverage, perhaps?
  4. This I reckon.
  5. It should be 18, not 21, but that's pretty much how it should be.
  6. What's the legal boozing age in Florida though? Is it one of those states that doesn't consider people adults until 3 years after most of the rest of the western world?
  7. All US states gave up common sense in exchange for federal highway funds.
  8. There is significant evidence to suggest alcohol can be detrimental to development to consumers under 21. Maybe they're one of the few with common sense. :p never stopped me though.
  9. Nobody's MAKING 'em drink. If they're old enough to die for a politician, they're old enough to slowly kill themselves with grog :p
  10. I actually think letting kids drive a few years before they can drink as they do in the States is not a bad idea.
  11. The do the same in Oz. Assuming age restrictions actually stop some people.
  12. Not quite the same, most US states allow drinking at 21, not 18... as you say though many wouldn't let legal age stop them drinking.
  13. You see some amazing things in the US. I was driving on a motorway in Florida a couple of years ago, there was a lot of traffic in all three lanes but everything was moving along at or above the speed limit, which was 75mph. I could see a bike coming up fast in and out of the traffic, it was a sports tourer a FJR 1300 or a ST, the ride had no helmet on, but there seemed to be something flopping about in front of him. When he got next to me I saw not only didn’t he have a helmet on he was in a tshirt, shorts and flip fops and he had a child no more than 5 years old sitting in front of him also in a tshirt, shorts and flip fops, but with a adult motor cross helmet on, that he was holding on to with both hands as it was far too big for him. As I said before this was while lane splitting in heavy traffic at 75+ mph.
  14. Agree completely.
  15. To be honest, I would call this helmet flaws, not laws.

    I don't agree with the too strict laws in Oz, but to let people wear no helmet at all is stupid. I guess, like in other parts in th US, you're not covered for medical expenses like here. So if you injured yourself badly, you're not on everyone else's pocket.
  16. I still reckon the uninsured and helmetless riders shouldn't have TAC coverage for head injuries that would've been avoided by wearing a helmet.

    Why should I subsidise their stupidity when I've got my own to worry about :)
  17. Where does it end? Why does EVERYONE think that they are capable of deciding what level of risk they are willing to accept but anyone that takes on a little more risk is an idiot.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. It's their head, it's their choice. The government, the public, and everyone else needs to respect what someone chooses do with his own life/body, as long as he's not affecting the life, liberty or property of someone else.
  19. I don't drink or smoke, why should the money the government steals from me subsidize the effects of that?
  20. Grue, I know there are hundreds of situations where my tax dollars (or other involuntary subsidies) support spending that I will have no benefit of. That doesn't excuse adding new ones to the list at will.

    If you smoke, your private health insurance premiums for some insurance companies are higher, and your life insurance premiums are definitely higher. I'm not a supporter of strict rules and don't mind if it's up to anyone's own choice to wear a helmet (or other protective clothing - as is the case anyway), as long as there is some compensation for their choice through either higher insurance premiums, limited TAC cover, or something along those lines.