Helmets: Are We For or Against Them This Week?



Hey. If I have to wear a helmet when
I'm on my hog...so should they!

We’ve mentioned in the past that the Legislative Session can sometimes make for strange bedfellows. Here’s another head-scratcher of an example:

On February 14, a representative for ABATE of Maryland, a motorcyclist group that turns out in force each year to oppose mandatory helmet laws, showed up to argue FOR the required use of helmets.

This testimony came during the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee’s hearing of SB 309, which we talked about last week. In addition to titling, registering and insuring mopeds and scooters, this law would require all riders of these vehicles to wear helmets and protective eye wear. The representative from ABATE argued that while their organization doesn’t agree that an adult should be required to wear a helmet, if motorcyclists have to wear them, then those driving scooters and mopeds should have to as well.

Ah, yes. The classic, “why do they get to do it if I can’t?!” argument. The go-to debating tool of first-graders, everywhere.

But wait, the story doesn’t end there. Just one week later, members of ABATE showed up in the same chamber, to testify in front of the same committee against mandatory helmet laws. (SB 488) Scooters and mopeds were again referenced when one motorcyclist asked the committee why people on scooters could make the choice to ride without a helmet, but he couldn’t.

Are we all thoroughly confused yet? Par for the course in Annapolis.

This Week at the Circus



The 90-day General Assembly session has passed the halfway point. Potentially divisive issues including legislative redistricting and several bills on social issues dominated the first half, but are now resolved.

This week, the Scoop will be watching carefully as elected Delegates and Senators take on the budget and a host of insurance issues. But don't worry, they aren't working on the gas tax yet (insert your own joke here).

Here's what we're watching this week:

HB 569 / SB 624 - Motor Scooters: This is a bill by the Motor Scooter retailers to defeat efforts to require insurance on scooters.

HB 356 / SB 907 - Rental Vehicles: Making your own policy primary instead of the rental company's policy.

HB 87 / SB 152 - Budget Reconciliation and Financing Act:  Transfer of funds from IWIF to the General Fund/Income tax deduction/Teacher pension subsidy shifts from State to counties/Digital Product Tax Reform (music, books, movies)

HB 1017 / SB 745 - IWIF Reform: Proposing that the Injured Workers Insurance Fund convert from a quasi-State entity to a private insurance company called the Chesapeake Employers' Insurance Company.

In addition to those, MAIF's budget hearing will be held this week.

Then there's the Host of Insurance related Legislation we mentioned earlier, being heard in the the House Economic Matters Committee:
HB 861 - Unfair Claims Practices
HB 876 - Commercial Insurance
HB 1059 - Rescission of Policy or Binder (bad check)
HB 1095 - Discovery of Material Risk Factor (misrepresentation)
HB 1094 / HB 1097 - Fraud language
HB 1105 -Bundling Prohibition (homeowners and auto)

Definitely a busy week on tap down on State Circle.

Session Scoop: SB 596 - Distracted Driving & Animal Activity

"Don't drive angry."

How many times have we seen it? You pull up next to someone on the highway, and between the driver and the steering wheel is a little furry face starting back at you.

Sure, it’s cute. But what happens if that dog or cat (or groundhog) suddenly decides it doesn’t like the way you’re looking at it and freaks out, causing the driver to swerve...most likely into your car?

Senate Bill 596 aims to keep animal distractions out of the front seat by making “animal activity” that pulls the driver's attention away from the road, blocks their vision, or interferes with the ability to operate the vehicle illegal.

Of course the alternative is to just teach your dog to drive the car:

...just please make sure they wear their seatbelts.

Speaking of dogs wearing seatbelts, according to AAA, an unrestrained nine-pound dog involved in 50 mile per hour crash will exert 450 pounds of force. Imagine a sumo wrestler hitting the dashboard, or the back of your seat...that’s the equivalent amount of force a small dog would carry.

AAA encourages the use of a restraint system any time someone drives with a pet. Check out their video regarding restraint systems for animals.

Session Scoop: SB 309 Mopeds and Motor Scooters

Side-saddle! I knew we forgot
something in the law!

On February 14, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee heard testimony on SB 309, which requires all mopeds and motor scooters in Maryland to be properly titled, registered and insured. It also requires the operator to wear a helmet and protective eye wear.

Here are some highlights from the hearing on this bill:

• Maryland Law classifies a scooter or moped as any “vehicle” which has two wheels of 10 or more inches in diameter, and has an engine smaller than 50cc. Anything with an engine larger than 50cc is considered a motorcycle. In a follow up question, a member of the committee described something that sounded like a go-cart and asked what the classification of this vehicle would be. The MVA representative paused for a moment and answered, “…a toy, probably?”

• Drivers who’ve had their licenses suspended will often turn to scooters or mopeds as an alternate means to get around. However, this is illegal. Operators of scooters or mopeds are required to have a valid driver’s license. Unfortunately, this rule is not strictly enforced.

• Since Maryland does not classify motor scooters and mopeds as motor vehicles, victims of accidents caused by these motorized devices are not eligible for coverage by MAIF’s Uninsured Division.

• Our neighboring states of Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia, each have varying requirements for motor scooters and mopeds to be titled, registered, inspected, and/or insured. Maryland currently requires none of these.

• There seems to be confusion among those who make and those who administer the laws as to the penalty for driving without insurance. During this hearing, one Senator asked whether driving without insurance could result in the driver going to jail for up to a year. The response from the MVA representative was a pensive, “I don’t know if it’s arrestable.” To which several members of the committee answered, very confidently, “It’s arrestable.” According to the MVA’s website, driving without insurance may result in fines, loss of plates, and suspension of registration, but no jail time. It’s providing false evidence of insurance that carries the possibility of a fine up to $1,000 and/or one year imprisonment. One would hope that between the lawmakers and administrators in that room, they might be a little more clear on the penalties for driving without insurance…especially when we estimate that 1-in-4 Maryland drivers is doing just that. 

Session Scoop: Older Driver Testing




Our loved ones don't always
realize when it's time to
hang up the keys.

 

On February 1, 2012, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee heard Senate Bill 111, an administrative bill for the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA), which proposes that Maryland Drivers Licenses and Identification Cards move from a five-year renewal cycle to an eight-year renewal cycle.

This hearing quickly turned from a simple housekeeping matter for the MVA to a debate on the merits of testing elderly drivers for cognitive ability.

The family of Nathan Krasnopoler, a Johns Hopkins student who was killed by an 83-year old motorist last year while riding his bicycle, appeared at the hearing to share their story and to oppose the proposed eight-year renewal period. 

Nathan’s mother, Susan Cohen, requested an amendment to the bill requiring elderly drivers be tested by the MVA for cognitive function every other time their license is renewed. While sympathetic to Nathan’s story, members of the committee noted that SB 111 was not the perfect match for such an amendment. However, if it finds a sponsor, this issue of cognitive testing for older drivers may make its way back in front of the committee in its own bill.

Currently, Maryland requires all drivers above the age of 40 to submit verification of a current eye exam. In addition, those above the age of 70 who are receiving a drivers license for the first time must have a certification of health from a physician.

In response to follow-up questioning from the committee, the MVA confirmed that once a driver reaches age 70, they would revert to a five-year renewal cycle.



not exactly the older
drivers we were looking
for.



According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, many states, including our neighbors in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Delaware, do not require an accelerated renewal period or additional license renewal provisions for older drivers. Virginia only requires vision testing after age 80.

Maryland law is specific in listing the conditions that must exist in order for the MVA to require driver reexamination by a Medical Board. Age alone is not one of these criteria.

Often, an older driver may not realize their driving skills have diminished until it's too late. When you feel it may be time to address this difficult situation with someone you know, the MVA has a great resource for families and friends of elderly drivers.

It’s never easy to take freedom and mobility away from a loved one. But, sometimes it’s safest for them, and for those they might encounter on our roads.

Session Scoop 2012: Tick Tock

Three minutes.
Plenty of time to testify...

Politicians are universally acclaimed for their ability to talk more and more while saying less and less. For those who don't think that is a good attribute, a visit to the Senate Judicial Committee may, at first blush, warm your heart.



In this committee, which is equipped with high-tech multi-directional microphones and recording devices, and where every Senator has a laptop open in front of them, they have a very low-tech solution for regulating testimony...a seven-dollar kitchen timer.



...and make it back to the microwave
to stir your Mac & Cheese.



The timer is set for three minutes, and conspicuously activated the moment someone is called to testify. By the time that person gets to the podium and says their "thank you's," the time is down to 2:30.



150 seconds later, it beeps and the testimony is done.

One small flaw. The timer is not applied to the politicians. They are allowed to speak as long as they like on a bill which impacts you...you get three minutes to reply.

Imagine that.

Session Scoop 2012: We're Back, Baby



"they're baaaa-aack"



Session Scoop is back on line - a little late due to some personnel changes and an exceptionally busy start to the legislative session. But not to worry, there is plenty of session left, as Annapolis entertains the state legislators until midnight, April 9.

As always, Session Scoop will focus on insurance and driver safety issues. But we'll try to once again provide you with an unique view of the ways of "Inside Annapolis." We are aiming for at least two entries every week, sometimes more. So check back frequently.

This week, you will see posts on issues surrounding older drivers, as well as the state-of-the-art technology...ten-dollar digital kitchen timer...used by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee.

As always, we are interested in what you are interested in; so let us know.