Good more NANNY Laws! DOT send me a list of the helmets that will save my life! Everyone knows that helmets are just as effective as seat belts and air bags. I know that companies such as AAA wouldn\’t be backing such a proposal to reduce liabilities to their auto insureds who cause the accidents. No this is for MY safety.
There is a mention early in the article of increasing funding for traffic enforcement. Presumably with more funding, IA police could better inforce speed limits and DWI\’s, etc.
The funding or at least a major part of it is coming from long negotiations from various motorcycle rights organization such as MRF and AMA. The funds were to look at what is really causing motorcycle accidents, increase auto driver awareness and motorcycle riding education. What is really happening is an attack on civil rights by enforcing helmet laws and promoting helmets as life saving . This is happening in other states as well
Wow, another conspiracy. I thought my opinion favoring helmets was just because one saved my life. Silly me. Oops, the black helecopters are overhead and I have to run.
SOLUTION: No seatbelt or no helmet equals no insurance reimbursement for injuries incurred. Why should we have the privilege of paying for ignorant acts? The bottom line is accidents cost money – therefor everything possible should be done to protect all from injury, and reduce the total expense of each accident!
1- I think the 10% reducing fatalities goal is a \”low level goal\”
2- It my be a close relationship between the accident cause and the strategic plan.
3- looking about the reducing fatalities rate in France in the ten past years(for example), and taking into account the new safety tecnology developments (including vehicle safety devices and new road monitoring and signals equipment), I think that is possible to reduce road fatalities in 30% in 10 years.
4- To reach the 30% reducing fatalities goal is very important to implement the best strategy, including in the long term plan causes, effect and education.
I hope success for the Iowa safety plan
Sincerely
Mario Arce
The DOT says these things the genel pop. is going up so this means more drivers which means more peple and more chances of a acadents dot says more rules which just means more tickets and more revanew for the feds.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Good more NANNY Laws! DOT send me a list of the helmets that will save my life! Everyone knows that helmets are just as effective as seat belts and air bags. I know that companies such as AAA wouldn\’t be backing such a proposal to reduce liabilities to their auto insureds who cause the accidents. No this is for MY safety.
Notice there is nothing about getting bad drivers off the road and enforcing speed limits; dwi enforcement, etc.
There is a mention early in the article of increasing funding for traffic enforcement. Presumably with more funding, IA police could better inforce speed limits and DWI\’s, etc.
The funding or at least a major part of it is coming from long negotiations from various motorcycle rights organization such as MRF and AMA. The funds were to look at what is really causing motorcycle accidents, increase auto driver awareness and motorcycle riding education. What is really happening is an attack on civil rights by enforcing helmet laws and promoting helmets as life saving . This is happening in other states as well
Wow, another conspiracy. I thought my opinion favoring helmets was just because one saved my life. Silly me. Oops, the black helecopters are overhead and I have to run.
I guess MAc has a civil right to be stupid and die. so be it…
cull the herd of fools.
SOLUTION: No seatbelt or no helmet equals no insurance reimbursement for injuries incurred. Why should we have the privilege of paying for ignorant acts? The bottom line is accidents cost money – therefor everything possible should be done to protect all from injury, and reduce the total expense of each accident!
My coments:
1- I think the 10% reducing fatalities goal is a \”low level goal\”
2- It my be a close relationship between the accident cause and the strategic plan.
3- looking about the reducing fatalities rate in France in the ten past years(for example), and taking into account the new safety tecnology developments (including vehicle safety devices and new road monitoring and signals equipment), I think that is possible to reduce road fatalities in 30% in 10 years.
4- To reach the 30% reducing fatalities goal is very important to implement the best strategy, including in the long term plan causes, effect and education.
I hope success for the Iowa safety plan
Sincerely
Mario Arce
The DOT says these things the genel pop. is going up so this means more drivers which means more peple and more chances of a acadents dot says more rules which just means more tickets and more revanew for the feds.