Passes & Canyons Blog

Stump is the lobbyist at the state capitol for ABATE of Colorado and he has been busy. It looks as though this whole issue with motorcycles being required to have transponders to use HOV lanes will be resolved soon. I’m just going to paste in Stump’s latest email on the topic.
___________________________________

This week was another busy week down at the Capitol. HB16-123 (HOV / Transponders) is more involved than I originally thought. The part of concern to us, motorcycles needing transponders, is the easy part. Everyone involved, CDOT, HPTE, Senators, and even opponents of the bill at the Senate Transportation Committee Hearing, understand that motorcycles are HOV per Federal Regulations. The discussion now is, “How do we go about giving motorcycles “free access” to the HOV lanes?”

The rest of the bill about switchable transponders is a lot more complicated. The bill was scheduled for 2nd reading on the Senate floor on Tuesday, 2/23. It got laid over to Thursday, 2/25. I talked to a few Senators on Wednesday, 2/24, to get a feel for the bill. I’ve heard in the past that a bill is sometimes laid over if the sponsor feels he doesn’t have enough votes to carry the bill. That morning there was also a meeting with CDOT, HPTE, and a few Senators. After much discussion, a compromise was offered by CDOT, but not accepted by the sponsor. (I wasn’t at the meeting so I don’t know the exact offer). Wednesday afternoon, I did have a meeting with Senator Todd, Scott Spendlove (lobbyist for HPTE & E-470), and Andy K. (lobbyist for CDOT). While a lot of the discussion was about the bill, all of us agreed that motorcycles shouldn’t need transponders. Scott said he would take the issue directly to the Director of HPTE and work on a solution. Sen. Todd emphatically stated she wants this done ASAP and if it isn’t handled soon and SB16-123 gets killed, she would sponsor a bill specifically about motorcycles not needing transponders.

So on Thursday, 2/25, the bill was read on the Senate floor. Senators Lundberg, Jones, and Neville gave some very strong arguments in support of the bill. (The bill wants to get rid of the switchable transponders and go back to how the HOV / HOT lanes operated before July 22, 2015). Senators Todd and Heath opposed the bill. After much discussion and confusion about the ramifications of the bill, it was voted to lay over the bill till Tuesday, 3/1. There’s a meeting on Monday, 2/29, with the same people that met Wednesday morning. Since the motorcycle’s issue seems to be separate and already agreed upon, I wasn’t invited to the meeting. I’m sure there will be more compromises offered. FYI, I talked to Andy on Thursday and he said he’d send me an e-mail to the effect that CDOT is working on a solution to the motorcycle / transponder issue. (I haven’t gotten it yet).

There’s other bills happening but I just wanted to bring you up to date on SB16-123. I’ll let you know what happens next week and if we need to contact our Representatives.

Stump

Biker Quote for Today

The only date I need has two wheels, can be full on under $10, always goes all the way, and definitely screams on top.

I mentioned before that I had sent comments to the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) protesting the apparent rightward political tilt the organization has been taking lately. Specifically, I’m unhappy with their ongoing characterization of President Obama’s creation of national monuments, via the Antiquities Act, as “side-stepping Congress.” Congress passed that act specifically to give all presidents exactly that power. How is it side-stepping Congress if you follow the guidelines of a law created by Congress?

Twice I went to the web page on the AMA’s site where you can send the organization a message. And I sent messages. That page has a check box titled “I would like a reply.” Both times I checked it and neither time did I get a reply. And I kept watching the magazine to see if they would continue using that term.

When the latest issue arrived earlier this week it was there again, so this time I sent an email directly to Rob Dingman, president and CEO of the organization. Here’s that email.

Rob, I have two big bones to pick with you and the AMA, and I’m coming to you because no one else even replies to me.

And that’s the first one. I have sent two letters to the organization (http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/contact) and in both cases I checked the box that says “I would like a reply.” I haven’t gotten any replies and neither of my letters made it into the magazine. If you’re going to have that checkbox there it seems to me at the very least that someone should reply to the member’s question. And I know for a fact that I’m not the only one who has not gotten replies.

The other issue is what I was writing about the other two times. I was writing in protest of your ongoing characterization in the pages of American Motorcyclist of President Obama’s use of the Congressionally created Antiquities Act as “sidestepping Congress.” I said then, and I say it now, that characterizing Obama’s actions, which are no different than that of many previous presidents, employing a law passed by Congress, as “sidestepping Congress,” smacks very strongly of right-wing partisanship, which has no place in a national organization whose membership spans the political spectrum.

In two consecutive issues that language was used three times. There was no such language in the February issue, but now the March issue has arrived and there you go again. On behalf of all of us in this organization who are not rabid right-wingers I implore you to STOP IT!

Now, I do see in the release sent out the other day that you are focusing more on the fact that establishing national monuments by executive fiat is legal based on the Antiquities Act, and you are now working to amend that legislation. So maybe our protests have been heard and at least sort of responded to. That’s a step forward. I want you to know right now that, as a member, I do not support this effort on the part of my organization. Just FYI. But I’m not going to quarrel over that. I do ask that you totally cease this ongoing use of the term “sidestepping Congress.” Let’s at least stick to the truth, OK?

And yes, I would like a reply to this email. Thank you.

Well, I got a reply this time. Not from Rob, but from Pete TerHorst, who does public relations work for the AMA, and who I’ve known for a number of years and have always been on very good terms with.

I won’t paste in Pete’s entire reply as it is quite long. But here are two pertinent remarks:
– The AMA strives to be non-partisan and apolitical in its advocacy on behalf of motorcyclists. Certainly it does not help the cause to divide the relatively small number of riders in the U.S. (compared to automobile/SUV drivers) into even smaller groups when we are trying to persuade our legislators and regulators that the AMA represents all motorcyclists.

– We do indeed believe that the current administration, and others before it, has exercised inappropriate authority — in effect, sidestepping Congress — when designating national monuments.

I’d like to believe that there is no such intent as there appears to be–not just to me but to other AMA members. But then there’s this, from a comment on that previous blog post:

Adding to this is the recent hiring of one person directly from the Heritage Foundation and one from the House Select Committee on Benghazi (a GOP witch-hunt) into their government relations staff. Adding Wayne Allard alone should have sent a clear signal, though.

I want my organization to be non-partisan. I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m an independent because I have a very low regard for both parties. But if nothing else, the AMA seems to be tone-deaf. This continual complaint about Obama’s “side-stepping Congress” is a pitch-perfect echo of what comes out of the Republicans on a daily basis. And those hires. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck . . .

I suggest the AMA pay a lot more attention to that first bullet I pulled from Pete’s reply, the one about not dividing riders into even smaller groups. Because right now that’s exactly what they’re doing.

Biker Quote for Today

Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles, Bubba — HST

Hearings will be held this week on legislation concerning motorcycle lane-splitting and the need for transponders when motorcycles use HOV lanes.

The hearing on House Bill 16-1205, to allow lane-splitting, will be at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 17, in room 0112 at the Capitol. Senate Bill 16-123, on HOV lanes, will be taken up on Thursday in Senate conference room 352 following the Senate’s adjournment, at around 10:30 to 11:30 a.m.

HB 16-1205, sponsored by Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt (R), from the Colorado Springs area, reads as follows:

Concerning An Exception To The Prohibitions Against Driving A Motorcycle Around Motor Vehicles Blocking The Lanes Of Traffic Moving In The Same Direction.

Currently, the driver of a motorcycle is prohibited from driving between rows of motor vehicles or overtaking on the right. The bill allows motorcycles to drive between rows of motor vehicles or overtake on the right when traffic is moving at less than 5 miles per hour if:

• The motor vehicles that the motorcycle is driving around are traveling in the same direction as the motorcycle and at no more than 5 miles per hour;
• The motorcycle is driven no faster than 15 miles per hour; and
• The motorcycle does not exceed by more than 10 miles per hour the speed of traffic the motorcycle is passing.

Overtaking on the right is not allowed when a vehicle is using the shoulder.

The Colorado department of transportation may notify the public of these changes.

FYI, this bill does not meet the criteria desired by ABATE of Colorado and because there was no time for the ABATE board to discuss it the group will not be taking a stand for or against it.

The Senate bill is quite brief:

Concerning Free Access For High Occupancy Vehicles To High Occupancy Vehicle And High Occupancy Toll Lanes On State Highways, And, In Connection Therewith, Prohibiting The Department Of Transportation And The High-Performance Transportation Enterprise From Requiring A Vehicle Owner To Use A Switchable Transponder Or Other Device In Order To Travel In A High Occupancy Vehicle On Such A Lane Without Paying A Toll.

The bill prohibits the department of transportation or the high-performance transportation enterprise from requiring a vehicle owner to use a switchable transponder or other device in order to travel in a high occupancy vehicle on either a high occupancy vehicle lane or a high occupancy toll lane on a toll-free basis.

Can’t get much clearer than that. If you’re on a motorcycle and use an HOV lane you don’t need a transponder to freely do what you are legally allowed to do. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Kevin Lundberg, from the Fort Collins area. ABATE will be supporting this one.

I’m planning to be there so I’ll report back on what happens. If you want your voice heard, come down and testify.

Biker Quote for Today

You’re a biker wannabe if you like to ride by stores with big picture windows so you can admire your reflection.

I went on Tuesday to the hearing on Colorado Senate Bill 16-122 expecting it to be in regard somehow to the Colorado Motorcycle Operator Safety Training (MOST) program. That’s what you get for assuming.

All I had to go on was an email from Bruce Downs, state coordinator for ABATE of Colorado, saying the hearing would be happening and he was going to be testifying. I downloaded a copy of the bill and did my best to interpret what it was about. I was completely wrong.

Just as the bill said, it was about conducting audits of the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) management of its contracts. So where does this tie in to motorcycles?

After his testimony Bruce explained it to me.

“I had a public forum and I could ding somebody so I did.”

The dinging in this case was in regard to both the MOST program and the requirement that motorcycles have transponders to use HOV lanes. From his statement:

Per the statute there was a limit put on how much could be spent on administration, yet CDOT’s actions indicate they do not feel they have to abide by the law and do not have to be accountable for their actions.

And:

Under federal law a motorcycle is considered an HOV under all conditions but CDOT didn’t seem to care. They wanted their $35 “deposit” for a transponder and if one was obtained three would be no “charge” for us to use the lane. If we did not have a transponder then there would be a fee and a fine. How does having a transponder make a difference if you are an HOV or not? What a double standard.

So while Sen. Randy Baumgardner was interested, with his bill, in greater transparency in CDOT, Bruce wanted to bring other issues to his attention, as well as to the attention of those on this committee. It’s a building block, not a whole building.

Did it do any good? Who knows. Maybe. After going through all the other formalities, rather than vote the bill up or down, Baumgardner asked that it be set aside, presumably for some revision. We’ll just have to wait and see what comes next.

Biker Quote for Today

Motorcycles are very useful and have almost annihilated distance and cheap clothes.

Nowhere in the bill is the Colorado Motorcycle Operator Safety Training (MOST) program mentioned specifically but Senate Bill 16-122 is all about MOST. It is scheduled to come up for first hearing on Tuesday at 2 p.m. in Senate Conference Room 352.

Let’s recap the issue.

Soon after Colorado eliminated its mandatory helmet law, quite a few years ago, the MOST program was created–with support of the motorcycling community–to lower the cost of getting riders trained. Better training = fewer crashes was, and still is, the thinking. And from the bikers’ perspective, the fewer crashes the less likelihood that the helmet law would be reinstated. The program is paid for by an extra fee all bikers pay when they get their plates each year and when they renew their drivers licenses.

Long story short, it worked for a good while but eventually it turned out that some rider training programs were decidedly below the acceptable level and the decision was made to institute oversight of the trainers. First the trainee reimbursement was decreased and then it was eliminated. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), which handles the MOST program announced that it would hire an outside agency to do the oversight, essentially using all the money we chip in to pay for that oversight.

There are a few issues here. Colorado motorcyclists agreed to pay these extra fees in order to lower the cost to trainees. Now their cost is not lowered one dime. The MOST legislation also states that no more than 15 percent of the money raised can be use for administration. Now effectively all of it is to be used for administration. So now motorcyclists will pay extra to ensure the quality of motorcycle rider training, while people driving cars do not pay anything extra to ensure the quality of driver training. The general consensus is that that is unfair to us and totally unacceptable.

So what would SB 16-122 do? I’m not a lawyer so I can only interpret this to the best of my ability but here goes. I’ll quote from the bill summary and offer my best understanding.

Section 1 requires the state auditor to conduct a risk-based performance audit of CDOT no later than June 30, 2018.

I really can’t explain this, other than to conjecture that it relates to what follows.

Section 2 limits CDOT’s existing authority to enter into a lease-purchase agreement that requires total payments exceeding $500,000 without specific prior authorization by a bill enacted by the general assembly to lease-purchase agreements for the lease and purchase of personal property only.

This appears directly aimed at the CDOT plan to bring in outside oversight. That contract would run about $800,000 so CDOT would not be able to move ahead on this front without legislative OK.

Section 3 requires CDOT:
! To close each transportation project and release any money budgeted for the project as quickly as feasible and within one year following the substantial completion of the project unless a pending legal claim related to the project or an unusual circumstance beyond the control of CDOT unavoidably requires a longer time to close the project;
! To report on its public website within 2 weeks of a competitively bid transportation contract award, the identity of the winning bidder, the amount of the winning bid, and whether or not the bid awarded was the low bid, and, if not, why CDOT chose the bid over a lower bid;
! To annually report to the transportation commission regarding the percentages and total amount of money budgeted and expended during the preceding fiscal year for payments to private sector contractors for work on transportation projects and total transportation project costs for projects completed by CDOT employees, including indirect cost recoveries and employee salaries; and
! On or after July 1, 2016, and on and after July 1 of each year thereafter, to report to the transportation legislation review committee regarding amendments made to the statewide transportation improvement plan that were adopted during the most recently ended fiscal year and that added or deleted a project from the plan or modified the funding priority of any project included in the plan. The report must include an explanation of the reasons for each reported policy amendment and administrative action amendment.

There seems to be a number of things going on here. In one case it appears to be making it clear that if a decision is ultimately made to eliminate the MOST program, the state will not be able to continue assessing us the fees we now pay to support it. The second items appears to speak to concerns that the proposed awarding of this contract to the Motorcycle Safety Foundation was not fairly handled. Third, it would require CDOT to tell the legislature what it is spending MOST money on so that if more than 15 percent is going for administration that will be very clear. And fourth, it would require CDOT to get legislative OK in the future if other sweeping changes are proposed.

If someone wants to offer a clearer explanation I urge you to do so in a comment to this post.

So anyway, this is what will be going on Tuesday down at the Capitol. Bruce Downs, ABATE state coordinator, told me he will be there to testify and I’m sure there will be others as well. I’ll be observing, and will have a follow-up report afterward.

Biker Quote for Today

When I drag my elbow it’s part of the crash.

Let’s rejoin the discussion of motorcycles needing transponders to use HOV lanes without paying a fee.

I heard at Sunday’s ABATE D-10 meeting that state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, from the broad Fort Collins area, is planning to introduce a bill that, while not directed specifically at motorcycles, would nevertheless address the issue. Apparently Lundberg’s broader concern is the idea of requiring anyone–in cars or motorcycles or whatever–to have a transponder to use HOV lanes. Let’s just go back, Lundberg is saying, to last year when all you needed to drive in an HOV lane was two people in your car. Of course, that system also including allowing any motorcycle to use the HOV lane with no other requirement. While as written the legislation apparently does not say anything about motorcycles, Lundberg has indicated that he would seek an amendment that does specifically include motorcycles. That’s why ABATE has Stump working as a (non-paid!) lobbyist down at the Capitol, to get that kind of motorcycle consideration included in these bills.

It makes total sense to me. The old system was working; why did it need to be fixed? The way it has been revised there is no way for an out-of-state rider passing through to know that they need a transponder–all they would know is that motorcycles are allowed in HOV lanes so let’s do it. Boom: you get a bill in the mail when you get home.

Also, why should anyone, in a car or on a bike, have to pay for the transponder (bikes excluded on this one) and sign up with their credit card and an initial $35 deposit taken (bikes not excluded here) just to–once again–use the HOV lanes that used to be wide open? You’re adding cost, bureaucracy, time spent, and all the rest. I mean, go ahead and require transponders for anyone interested in taking the toll lanes. We all have the choice to use those or not. But don’t inflict all this on people whose only interest is in using the HOV lanes that they are entitled to use per the laws that created them.

So this is another piece of legislation, along with the lane-splitting proposal I mentioned earlier, that I’ll be watching and keeping you informed on. Bruce Downs, ABATE’s state coordinator, made the point at the meeting that when this bill comes up in committee we’re going to want to blanket that hearing room in black leather.

“It has an effect. It really does,” he said.

Could be an interesting legislative session.

Biker Quote for Today

“The Bikers Code” — All men and women are created equal. Then some take a step up and become bikers.

I’m serious. There are way too many guys doing exactly that. Killing themselves on their bikes, I mean.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve launched my own small effort to persuade reporters and editors that if a motorcycle crashes into a car that has turned left in front of it that is NOT a “motorcycle crash,” it is a “car-motorcycle crash.” While many multi-vehicle crashes are referred to simply as motorcycle crashes, clicking on the links to read the stories I have found that very, very many so-labeled stories are indeed about motorcycle crashes. Here are the ones just from today’s Google alert.

KY Man Killed in Motorcycle Crash
Kentucky State Police say 60-year-old Robert Topp lost control westbound on Kentucky 132 near the Crittenden-Webster County line. He then slid across both lanes and down an embankment.

Man dies after crashing motorcycle in Saginaw Township
Police say Timothy Ducharme-Patton was driving west on Weiss near Churchill on Tuesday night when his motorcycle ran off the road along a curve.

Man killed in south Travis Co. motorcycle crash
Investigators with the Texas Department of Public Safety say the motorcycle was travelling westbound on FM 1626 when, for some unknown reason, it crossed the center line and slid on the roadway. One vehicle hit the motorcycle, and another vehicle struck the driver.

Cobb intersection reopens after fatal motorcycle crash
According to the Marietta Police Department, the motorcycle hit the bus Wednesday near a transfer station at South Marietta Parkway and Aviation Road. Witnesses say it appears the motorcyclist tried to hit the gas to beat the bus, and lost.

That’s one day. Here are a few more.

Man killed in a motorcycle crash in Northampton
The Northampton Police accident reconstruction team was investigating a motorcycle accident that left one rider dead and closed a section of Elm Street Monday night. “Only the motorcycle was involved,” Northampton Police Lt. David Callahan told 22News. “There were no other vehicles involved.”

Man arrested after crashing motorcycle into back of pickup on Broadwater
A man was arrested early Sunday after he allegedly drove a motorcycle into the back of a pickup truck, injuring himself and his passenger.

Man identified in Sunday Pasco motorcycle crash
Diaz-Cruz lost control of his motorcycle and hit the curb. He was thrown off the bike, and the motorcycle continued to travel into the southbound lanes of U.S. 41. Diaz-Cruz died at the scene, officials said.

Young Marine, Father Dies in East County Motorcycle Crash
Justin Dorson, 26, died Sunday after he overcorrected his 2012 Triumph motorcycle and ran into a large boulder on State Route 94, outside of Dulzura.

Coroner IDs victims in motorcycle crash on Lincoln Road
The preliminary assessment, he said, suggests both vehicles were headed westbound on Lincoln Road. The full-sized pickup was in front of the motorcycle and the wreck happened when the truck driver attempted to make a right-hand turn onto Painted Sky Drive.

OK, that’s just one day as well, from yesterday’s Google alert. It may feel good to be smug and complain about idiot drivers hitting and killing bikers, but these are all cases where there was only one person at fault–the rider. I watched a video recently of motorcycle (and sometimes car) crashes that were caught on video. It was crazy how many of them involved only the guy on the bike, nobody else.

So yeah, I’m serious. Do us all a favor: don’t kill yourself on your bike, OK?

Biker Quote for Today

Transitioning to dirt from squiding?

I mentioned how I have launched my own small campaign against headline writers who describe crashes that involve a motorcycle and another vehicle, even if the driver of the other vehicle was at fault, as a “motorcycle crash.” It seems pretty consistently that my Google Alert for “motorcycle” brings up about two of these offenders nearly every day. So I send about two of my emails every day. I also decided it made sense to send emails expressing approval when headlines are written accurately, in order to let people know someone cares and appreciates their efforts. I don’t often get responses but in some cases I do. I want to share some of those conversations with you here.

Initially I was sending this message: Hi. Just want to ask/raise the point: Why does your headline refer to a “motorcycle crash” when it was in fact a car/motorcycle crash and it was the car driver who was at fault? Aside from being simply inaccurate, this is totally common and gives the misleading impression that motorcycles are dangerous, when in fact the danger is with the car driver. The number one cause of injuries to motorcyclists is cars turning left in front of the bikes.

Predictably, I got some responses from the writer saying an editor wrote the headline, not them.

Dan Sokil, The Reporter: Hi Ken – thanks for the feedback! I actually did not write that headline, all I filed was the text from the scene and my editor entered it into our system, and there has been no official word from police yet about the cause or who was at fault. My editor who wrote that headline is in later this afternoon if you’d like to contact her, but my guess is that was meant to convey that the motorcycle riders were hurt and not the auto ones. Let me know if you’d like to talk to her, and as soon as we have more info we’ll update that story accordingly.

I told Dan I didn’t need to speak with his editor but would appreciate his passing my concerns along.

I also got this from Tara Becker at the Quad-City Times: Hi Ken…thank you for your email. I’m not sure who wrote the headline on the story, but I will pass along your concerns to my editor.

To a third similar response I replied: Perhaps you might make my point to your editor on the basis that it inaccurately presents the accurate story you wrote.

This reporter replied that he did speak with his editor and he thanked me for pointing it out.

Next was Brian Day, with a newspaper group in the Los Angeles area.

Brian: The description of “motorcycle crash” is not intended to assign fault or imply motorcycles are inherently dangerous, it it simply a description of how Mr. Gomez died. It is not an inaccurate description. To say the incident the rider died in a “car crash” or “SUV crash” would be inaccurate and only create confusion, as obviously, Mr. Gomez was riding a motorcycle at the time, he was not driving a car. Saying someone is in a motorcycle crash does not imply, in any way, that they are at fault. Merely that they were riding a motorcycle, which was involved in a crash.

As far as the cause of the crash, police are yet to determine which party is at fault. “The investigation is ongoing,” as my story states. It’s premature at this point to say the woman driving the SUV was at fault in the collision. While the involved SUV is believed to have made a left turn in front of the motorcycle, the cycle was also described by authorities as travelling at high speed.

I certainly understand your feelings, and I hope you find this explanation satisfactory. Take care.

Me: Thanks for responding Brian. I’m particularly interested in your comment about it being a motorcycle accident because he was on one. That’s a little different perspective than I had been using. Still, considering that it was a multi-vehicle accident I think to refer to it only in terms of what the dead guy was on still is less than fully accurate.

Also this from Stephen Frye at the Oakland Press: Thank you for the note. The use of motorcycle in the headline of this story was due to the fact that the driver of the motorcycle was injured and the story was about him being hurt.

Not at all satisfied by those answers, I replied to Stephen: Thanks for the reply but let me ask you this: If the car had hit a toddler on a tricycle would you have referred to it as a tricycle crash? Omitting mention of the car makes it look like the biker just crashed all by himself.

Stephen offered this follow-up response: In that case, I would have mentioned the toddler, which is key to the story. In this story, the key element is the motorcyclist, who was hurt, and the secondary element was that he was from our area, Milford. Rather than say Milford motorcyclist, I broke that up to say a former Milford man was hurt, making the motorcycle part of the crash a secondary part of the headline. Thanks for sharing your input. Many considerations go into the headlines and it is a challenge to convey key details of a story in as brief a way as possible.

I had a good bit of back and forth with DeAnn Smith, Digital Content Editor with KCTV5. First she had this to tell me: We initially were told that it was a single vehicle crash involving a motorcycle. I have no idea what occurs in most crashes but in this case the car driver wasn’t at fault. In this case, the danger was from a motorcycle that didn’t operate properly.

I replied: So you’re never glad to hear someone got hurt or killed but at least it was not the driver at fault. In the vast majority of cases it is.The number one cause of motorcycle fatalities is drivers turning left in front of a biker. The standard explanation: I didn’t see him. Well, maybe you didn’t look, or maybe you were fooling with your cellphone. My main point, however, was that in many, many instances the headline calls it a “motorcycle accident” even if it involved a car and even if the driver, not the rider, was at fault. I’ve initiated my own small campaign to bring this idea to the consciousness of the people writing the headlines–and I know it is not always the reporter who writes the headline. So hopefully I’ve brought it to your attention sufficiently that if you find yourself in that situation in the future you will think about what I’ve said. Thanks.

And she replied: My brother was in two motorcycle crashes. He nearly died in the second one. Both were his fault.

And of special interest was the response I got from Wayne Roustan, at the Sun-Sentinel, when I thanked him for a good headline: Thanks for the feedback. Ironically, later that day, on my way home, on the flyover ramp connecting westbound I-595 to southbound I-75, I was nearly run off the road and into the concrete barrier wall by two guys driving an estimated 80 mph (at least) on motorcycles speeding between the two lanes of traffic that was going about 55-60 mph. The first guy cleared my mirror by inches before I swerved to the right.
It’s about the 10th time this has happened to me. I’ve videotaped a couple on my dashcam, but not this latest one. Back in 2009, I was westbound on I-595 alone at 2 a.m. when a white ninja bike came up on me from behind doing about 100 mph before passing me. Scared the crap out of me. I remember it because the rider was wearing white leathers and a white helmet. The next night one of my videographers brought me videotape of a crash from the same stretch of I-595 going eastbound. A car was rear-ended and burst into flames. The driver survived but the biker didn’t. The video showed debris of a white ninja motorbike and an FHP trooper was carrying a white helmet and white jacket.
I don’t know if it was the same biker who buzzed me the night before but…
So, I’m thinking it goes both ways and there’s plenty of blame to go around.

That pretty well sums up the response I’ve had so far. I intend to continue my campaign. It may make a tiny difference. I’ll pass along anything particularly interesting that comes out of it.

Biker Quote for Today

Squids: Cleaning up the gene pool one wheelie at a time.