Fort Worth Motorcycle Riders

Like I said though, the vehicle is only required to meet the requirements of a motorcycle. Since seatbelts are not required equipment on a motorcycle and they are not required on this thing and you can therefore not require that they be worn.

So you would find it acceptable to ride in a slingshot without gear? I would call that dumb.

DemonDuck wrote:So you would find it acceptable to ride in a slingshot without gear? I would call that dumb.

Yes, it's acceptable. It does come with seat belts so I would use them, but I wouldn't wear any motorcycle gear. It's basically a convertible car with 3 wheels. I don't see people wearing helmets in convertible cars.

But unless you have the required level of insurance you are legally required to wear a helmet.

I see lots of people on motorcycles not wearing a helmet. I honestly don't care if a person wears a helmet or seatbelt at all in or on any vehicle. Only time I care is if it's kids not belted in. Beyond that it's your life and if your an adult then you make the choice IMHO.

Helmet agree, you're not going to hurt anyone else by not wearing one. Seatbelt an argument could be made that the belt holds you in place so you could possibly maintain control of the vehicle and avoid the accident all together and not hurt someone else. It's a small argument, but it a valid one I think.

It may be basically a car, but it's not a car by legal definition and therefore legally follows different rules. If it were a car then there would be a seatbelt requirement and no helmet requirement...

DarcShadow wrote:Helmet agree, you're not going to hurt anyone else by not wearing one. Seatbelt an argument could be made that the belt holds you in place so you could possibly maintain control of the vehicle and avoid the accident all together and not hurt someone else. It's a small argument, but it a valid one I think.

I have heard this before and I could see where one time in a million (and that might be way closer to 1 ever) that someone might be able to make a difference by having the seatbelt on holding them in place. The biggest problem I have with this is that if the seatbelt is whats holding me in place then things are already at the point to almost everyone has forgotten about the wheel or anything else. When I rolled my truck back in the day the seatbelt held me in place just fine but I don't remember much about the roll at all just that I did roll and ended up on my side. No way I would have been able to offer the vehicle any input during that time to make any difference it just happened to quick.

Well, you're more likely to be killed getting ejected, which is where I find the value in a seat belt.

Remember, it isn't the speed that kills. It's the sudden stop at the end. Riding the crash down inside the vehicle dramatically decreases the suddenness of the stop.

Don't get me wrong I wear my seatbelt all the time. I believe it can save my life and so I do wear it. The thing I am saying is that I shouldn't get a ticket if I don't wear it. The idea that the government needs to tell me to wear my seatbelt or else is the idea I don't like. If an adult feels they don't want to wear a seatbelt then it has nothing to do with me or anyone else to include the government in my opinion..... that's all I am saying.

I'll trade you one seat belt law for an "enforced" texting law.

I would take it. However the laws we have being enforced would have eliminated the need for a texting law.

Seat belt laws have nothing to do with safety. They have everything to do with revenue. The only laws that are enforced are the ones that generate revenue for the city/county/state where the ticket is written. Seat belt, speeding and DUI all generate revenue. Talking on the phone, texting, cutting across traffic, driving slow, etc do not.

They haven't passed a law where there is a heavy fine for texting while driving, so it's not going to be enforced.

$500 for texting and driving in Austin...but that's only in the Austin city limits...

I'm afraid to ask how you know this...I hope you didn't spend COTA money on texting.

The law took effect on Jan. 1st, 2015. Covers all hand held devices...not just phones. I know about it because they advertised it heavily and had it on the news down here when it took effect. Still hasn't changed people's behavior. Probably because not a lot of people are actually charged with it.

http://www.austintexas.gov/handsfree" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Wonder why it isn't being enforced. I'm guessing the money doesn't go to the police department. Probably a general city fund.

Maybe they are trying to enforce it...

http://keyetv.com/news/local/austin-pol ... -on-phones" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

36 citations in 2 hours...

Cop talking:

"We're not sitting down hiding behind the seats, behind the bars. We're standing at the windows in full uniform," Martinka said. "But they're so engrossed in that phone or that electronic device they have no idea we're even right there looking at them."

Now that's sneaky.

Welcome back.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

You know Digi I don't think I said welcome back ...... Welcome back brother. Its been like 5 years huh?

nitzer wrote:36 citations in 2 hours...

Cop talking:

"We're not sitting down hiding behind the seats, behind the bars. We're standing at the windows in full uniform," Martinka said. "But they're so engrossed in that phone or that electronic device they have no idea we're even right there looking at them."

That's hilarious.