Similar legislation to require motorcyclists to purchase additional
insurance in exchange for modifying existing helmet laws has been
introduced in Florida and California.
end
Thanks for the article to:
Chris Kallfelz
American Motorcyclist Association |
Legal Affairs Editor
http://www.ama-cycle.org
| 614-891-2425, ext. 247
New Hampshire Says No
to PIP Insurance
Freedom of Choice States now facing discriminatory requirement
February 2, 1998 - Washington, DC ... On Thursday, January 29, 1998, the
New Hampshire House of Representatives voted to kill House Bill 1216. Had
this bill been passed, it would have required New Hampshire motorcyclists
to carry $1,000,000 (one million dollars) in liability insurance if they
chose to ride without a helmet. New Hampshire law does not require adults
to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. Meanwhile, other vehicle
operators would have been exempted from carrying similar coverage under the
bill. Supporters of the bill, including the New Hampshire Brain Injury
Foundation, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, and the NH Medical Society
claimed that motorcyclists as a group were likely to be uninsured or
underinsured and were therefore a burden to society.
HB1216 was originally heard in the House Transportation Committee on
January 20, 1998. Testifying against the bill at that time were
representatives of the New Hampshire Motorcyclists Rights Organization
(NHMRO), the Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) and the American
Motorcyclist Association (AMA). Prior to the hearing, NHMRO spearheaded a
statewide grassroots effort to kill HB1216. Working in conjunction with
NHMRO, MRF's Vice President of Government Relations Steve Zimmer and AMA's
Rob Dingman presented testimony refuting the claims being made by the
bill's sponsors. Further testimony indicated that this type of insurance
may not be available to everyone and is extremely expensive. Additionally,
the committee heard testimony from an attorney whose expertise is in
personal injury accident claims. He stated that this type of liability
insurance would not insure the policy holder, but rather the other party,
thereby asking the victim to bear the cost of the liability caused by the
driver of the other vehicle.
Following testimony, the House Transportation Committee voted 16-0 in favor
of a motion made by Rep. Letourneau (R-Derry), reporting the bill
"Inexpedient To Legislate" (ITL) sending the bill to the house floor on the
consent calendar. In the New Hampshire state legislature all bills must be
brought to the floor for a final vote, for consideration by the full body,
where in some cases a bill is heard as a standalone measure. Bills with a
unanimous committee report may be sent to the consent calendar, which is
comprised of a number of bills to be voted either Yea or Nay as a group.
HB1216 was voted down on the House floor in this manner. Transportation
Committee Chairman Sherman Packard (R-Londonderry) commented "this piece of
legislation was clearly discriminatory towards motorcyclists." Rep.
Letourneau added, "This bill was crafted as an insurance provision for
un-helmeted motorcyclists claiming that they were a burden to the
government for their care and subsistence and that motorcyclists were
disproportionately underinsured compared to the rest of society. The
committee heard no testimony, nor saw any data that supported that claim."
Remarking on the national implications of the bill, MRF's Steve Zimmer
said, "Motorcyclists in all states need to be aware that personal injury
insurance requirements are a very real threat to motorcycling.
Furthermore, politically active motorcyclists should be aware that these
bills are no longer being presented only in states where the repeal of an
adult helmet law is in question. Freedom of choice states are being
attacked as well. The Motorcycle Riders Foundation is unequivocally
opposed to all such measures." MRF President Mark Buckner commented as
well, saying "MRF applauds NHMRO and the New Hampshire state legislature
for taking a stand on this issue. This shows that if we dig in our heels on
these burdensome and unfair insurance requirements we can both maintain our
freedom of choice and repeal current helmet laws without compromising our
core values."
(end)
Thanks for the article to:
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation
(202) 546-0983 or e-mail to: Steve@mrf.org.
Editor's Note: There is a bit of a smirk on some of the faces around here. Reading these articles, could you tell that New Hampshire doesn't have a helmet law . . . at all? I know the subject of the articles is insurance, but "helmeted" and "unhelmeted" were part of the package, so we know what it was all about. But I find it interesting that neither the AMA, nor MRF or NHMRO for that matter, cared to point out that the last piece of the New Hampshire helmet law -- the requirement for persons under 18 to wear helmets -- was rendered void by ISTEA last year. With the Supreme Court of the State of Washington overturning the decision finding their law void for vagueness this month (January 1998), that only leaves four states, including New Hampshire, that are 100% helmet law free. I'd think there'd be some thanking goin' on about that too, don't you? --q
Last updated: February 1998
© Copyright 1998 HLDL. All Rights Reserved.
Webmaster: quig