Supporting efforts to retain the ban on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA's) ability to lobby State legislators using Federal tax dollars and urging NHTSA to focus on motorcycle crash prevention and rider education and training.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 2, 2011
Supports efforts to retain the ban on the ability of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to lobby state legislators using federal tax dollars.
Recognizes the importance of motorcycle crash prevention as the primary source of motorcycle safety.
Encourages NHTSA to: (1) focus on motorcycle crash prevention and rider education as the most significant priorities in motorcycle safety; and (2) provide Congress a statement why it believes it is less important to focus on motorcycle crash prevention, rider education and training, proper licensing, and reducing impaired riding than on mandating universal helmet use.
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that any law that supersedes state laws regarding the use of helmets as it applies to denial of health coverage and benefits resulting from an injury sustained while riding a motorcycle should not be implemented.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 7, 2024. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.Res.239 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.Res.239 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.Res.239 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.Res.239 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.