Passes & Canyons Blog

When “going for a scoot” really means scooting.

I spoke last week about the planned hearing on the latest dead red bill being on Tuesday, but due to weather(?) or whatever, it did not happen and was rescheduled for same time, same place this week. That is to say, 2 p.m. Tuesday in room 352. So if you have a chance to show up in support, that would be a good thing.

Beyond that, I’m just going to make it easy for myself by again pasting in Stump’s report.

Today is the 72nd day of the 72nd Colorado General Assembly and 197 Senate Bills and 250 House Bills have been introduced. SB-012 (Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving) has passed the 2nd and 3rd readings in the Senate. As soon as it’s assigned to a House committee
(and it might not be the H-T&LG) I’ll send out an action alert with contact information so we can contact the committee members and ask for their support on the bill. There have been a couple amendments passed, so the Engrossed version is different than the introduced version.

You can read the latest version at: http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019A/bills/2019a_012_eng.pdf

The title has been changed, so the entire engrossed version is double underlined indicating Senate Amendments. The big change is lowering of the fines and points, which basically had to be done to pass the bill. It’s still a good bill though and hopefully will make our roads safer.
SB-144 (Dead-Red Bill) is scheduled for S-T&E Committee hearing on Tuesday, 3/19, at 2:00 PM. There will be an amendment introduced to delete the “wait for 2 minutes” but add in “the signal doesn’t recognize a motorcycle” so it allows the rider discretion on when to proceed.

There are also a couple other bills I’m keeping a close eye on: SB-175 and HB-1221. SB-175 (Serious Bodily Injury Vulnerable Road User Penalties) is scheduled for a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Monday, 3/18. This bill would increase the penalty for causing serious
bodily injury to vulnerable road users and motorcycles are on the list. You can read it at: http://leg.colorado.gov/bill-search?field_sessions=57701&sort_bef_combine=field_bill_number%20ASC&search_api_views_fulltext=SB19-175&field_chamber=2&field_bill_type=75.

HB-1221 (Regulation of Electric Scooters) is also on my radar, which includes EPAMD. It’s scheduled for a H-T&LG Hearing on Tuesday, 3/19. More info later.

OK, so I’m interested in this regulation of electric scooters thing Stump noted. But it occurs to me, is the proposal related to those little stand-up things, like Lime, or in regard to the scooters that we’ve had forever, only powered by electricity? I suspect it is the former so that would not be of all that much interest to motorcyclists. We’ll see.

Biker Quote for Today

With cars’ air conditioning, kids, radio, mobile phone, etc. they just don’t hear you. The only ones that hear you are the ones you tick off.

Not a panacea.

Some motorcyclists who die in crashes do so while wearing helmets, while others do so without helmets. This led Bruce Downs to the question, how many of those fatally injured actually die of head wounds?

The heart of this question was exemplified by a photo that was making the rounds several years ago, of a motorcyclist in such an horrific crash that he was cut in two. Someone made the remark, “Good thing he was wearing a helmet.”

So Bruce was asking the question and he was in a good position to come up with an answer. Bruce is State Coordinator for ABATE of Colorado and he raised this question at a MOSAB meeting. MOSAB is the Motorcycle Operator Safety Advisory Board, which is made up of representatives from rider organizations, the Colorado State Patrol, and others. When Bruce asked this question, he tells us, the representative from the state patrol said that he, too, would like an answer to that question. “And you’re going to get it for us, aren’t you,” he said to Bruce.

Now, you or I might not be able to corral the assistance such an endeavor might need but with the weight of MOSAB and the state patrol on his side Bruce was able to do so. I’m not sure who he worked with on this but three simple questions were decided upon, which were put up on Survey Monkey, and they then contacted 11 county coroner offices around Colorado, asking that every time the office deals with a motorcycle fatality that someone answer the three survey questions.

One question was, was this a single vehicle crash or were there more vehicles involved? Second, was the deceased wearing a helmet? Third was, was a head injury the cause of death?

In one county the coroner declined to participate, saying that in every motorcycle fatality he sees the death is due to multiple blunt force trauma. That is to say, it’s impossible to say conclusively what the rider died of because there were so many different, severe injuries that you just can’t isolate one in particular. If he/she didn’t die of this then he/she still would have died of that.

Among those coroners who did agree to participate, however, results have been coming in. And guess what? In approximately 80 percent of the fatalities reported–evenly divided between helmeted and helmetless–the cause of death was given as multiple blunt force trauma. (Bruce didn’t specify what the other 20 percent were; I ought to ask him that.)

Where this leads him, Bruce told us, and what he was planning to tell MOSAB the following day, was that regardless of what some people might wish to be the case, helmets are not that big a factor in saving lives. What would be a big factor in saving lives would be to reduce the number of crashes. And what will make that happen is educating drivers and riders, getting drivers off their cellphones while they’re driving, and so many other factors that will add up. But to anyone who thinks a helmet law would be all the answer needed, he says get over it.

“If you want to continue with the rhetoric you’re not going to get where you want to go. It’s not a short fix, it’s a long fix but you’ve got to get started.”

The reason this all matters is that the Colorado State Patrol has been given explicit direction to reduce highway fatalities. The people running that effort want real answers and it’s this kind of data collection that will help provide those answers.

Biker Quote for Today

You know you’re a biker if you get hit by a car, break your leg, then tell the nice police officer, “I’m fine I can ride home.”

Sen. Lois Court’s bill to fight distracted driving moved ahead on Thursday.

Sen. Lois Court had done her work well. When the Colorado Senate transportation committee first took up her bill to make hand use of portable communication devices illegal there had been some doubts and reservations from committee members. At that time she asked that the bill be laid over so she could work with members to tweak it to satisfy their concerns.

On Thursday, February 14, the bill came back up. This time there were no major issues and first her amendment was passed and then the overall bill was also passed, unanimously. It now goes to the Senate appropriations committee, where it will be studied to determine whether it would be likely to have fiscal impacts for the state. That is not considered likely. Presuming passage out of the appropriations committee it will go to the full Senate for consideration. There is always the possibility of further amendments being made on the floor.

Opening her discussion of the amendment, Court described the subject of distracted driving as “an issue that has moved forward in the public eye.”

As revised, the bill would allow drivers to touch their device in order to activate or deactivate features. This would include changing radio stations, which was one issue that a senator had raised earlier. The offense–holding a cell phone in your hand while driving–now be a Class A traffic infraction, which is a lesser charge than previously defined. The first offense would carry a possible fine of $50 and two points on your license. Second offense would carry a $150 fine and loss of four points, with third offense carrying a $300 fine and loss of four points.

Texting while driving, already illegal in Colorado, would remain a more serious offense. However, a wording change would no longer make it necessary for law enforcement officers to allege reckless driving in addition to texting. That is, texting in and of itself would be the offense.

We will continue following this bill as it moves to the full Senate.

Update: I just got this note from Stump:
I looked at the Fiscal Note for SB19-012. It shows a cost of $20,000 the first year to reprogram the computers, but an income of over $50,000 the next 2 years for fines. I think it will pass through the Senate Appropriations Committee, but I’ll send out contact info shortly so we can ask for their support.

Biker Quote for Today

Something that sounded like ripping metal shredded the deadly quiet. The inaudible bass smoothed into a low, steady hum. Outside, a low, mechanical growl rumbled closer and closer. Darius caught his breath. He knew that sound, and it wasn’t magic. It was a motorcycle.” — Laura Oliva

Not related to the post; just a photo of stuff we love.

On Thursday this week SB-12 will be back up in committee for consideration after some changes have been made by its sponsor, Sen. Lois Court, to make it more palatable for several committee members. If you can make it down to the capitol to support this bill it would be a good thing. Rather than try to reword what Stump has already put together, I am just going to copy/paste his entire message here.

Tuesday, 2/5 – Info from Senator Court on where the Committee members are on this Bill:
• Winter, Priola, Scott should be convincible.
• I think we have Donovan, and Foote.
• Hisey and Pettersen are probably lost causes.

Still a good idea to contact all of them . . .maybe more convincing communications to Winter, Priola & Scott (and I’d still try to sway Hisey and Pettersen).

Wednesday, 2/6 – If we don’t get either Winter or Scott and Hisey and Pettersen are solid no’s then we only have Donovan, Foote, and Priola which won’t get us there. We need HUGE push on Winter and Scott.

Senator Court met with Senator Faith Winter (Chair of the Transportation Committee) and a few other stakeholders to negotiate these revisions. The plan is to present this revised language to the Senate Transportation Committee on Feb 14, upon adjournment, which is usually around 9:45 – 10:00 am. Conference Room 352.

A few comments about the revised language:
There are two different fines proposed:
• Texting will still incur a $300 fine/4 points. Will still be a Class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense. “Careless driving” phrase will be deleted.
• Just having the device in your hand may incur a $50/2 pt. fine first offense; second offense will incur a $150/4 pt. fine; third offense will incur a $300/4 pt. fine. Offense changed to Class A traffic Infraction (vs a Class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense).
• You must be legally parked or at rest in a shoulder lane to use the electronic mobile device lawfully. (Stopped at a stoplight or Stop sign is not legally parked or at rest).

Let me know if you have any questions/comments after reading thru the revisions. Another amendment that will be presented is that under 18, full ban of electronic mobile devices while driving.

When contacting the Committee members, Senator Court has recommended some thoughts below. Please feel free to put these in your own words . . . we just want to be sure the Committee knows that Senator Court, and us as stakeholders, have been willing to compromise and work with the Committee to get this Bill passed. Please ask your stakeholders to reach out to all Committee members again before Feb 14. It sounds like a few Committee members are still undecided, and we’ll need 4 Yes votes to keep this Bill alive.

Here’s some suggested wording:
To Senator Faith Winter: Thank you for considering the compromise we worked out with you and other stakeholders.

To Senators Kevin Priola and Ray Scott: Thank you for considering the compromise we worked out with Senator Winter and other stakeholders.

To the other Committee members: We believe that holding a phone while driving puts everyone on the road at risk, but especially motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians and people with disabilities. While we agree that texting is even more dangerous we hope you’ll help us in the Transportation Committee by moving SB 12 forward when you hear it again on Feb. 14. We know Sen. Court listened carefully to the suggestions your Committee members requested, and we feel that the strike below bill now in front of you will be extremely helpful in combating the danger of distracted driving on Colorado’s roads.

Thank you again for your consideration……(name and address)

S-T&E Committee Members:
Senator Faith Winter, Chair of the Committee
faith.winter.senate@state.co.us
303-866-4863

Senator Brittany Pettersen, Vice Chair of the Committee
brittany.pettersen.senate@state.co.us
303-866-4859

Senator Kerry Donovan
kerry.donovan.senate@state.co.us
303-866-4871

Senator Mike Foote
Mike.foote.senate@state.co.us
303-866-5291

Senator Dennis Hisey
Dennis.hisey.senate@state.co.us
302-866-4877

Senator Kevin Priola
kpriola@gmail.com
303-866-4855

Senator Ray Scott
ray.scott.senate@state.co.us
303-866-3077

Thanks to Susan Dane for her input and all the work she is doing on this bill.

Biker Quote for Today

Nothing shouts out “Celebrity!” as loudly as being a biker in desperate need of a shave, a haircut and clean clothes. — Foster Kinn

Sen. Lois Court (at right, in blue) is heading up SB-12, to fight distracted driving.

In my last post regarding the Senate hearing on SB-12, outlawing non-hands-free use of cellphones while driving, I laid out in generalities the arguments made by the three people who spoke in opposition, plus the issues raised by some of the senators. I also discussed some of the responses from those who support the bill.

Now I want to offer my own thoughts on those arguments, in a more particular manner. I could have spoken at the hearing but I’m not good at extemporaneous rebuttal. I need time to consider and compose my responses. I’d make a terrible trial lawyer.

Sen. Kevin Priola questioned whether this bill would open people up to penalties if they pick up their phone, through which they are listening to music, to switch to a different song. Sen. Lois Court, who is promoting this bill, replied that the whole point is for people not to use their phones while driving. I agree; that’s the whole point. If you have your phone in your hand and are looking at it while changing the music that is no different whatsoever than looking at it to dial a number. You’re distracted. Your eyes are not on the road. That’s the whole problem.

Sen. Faith Winter asked why current laws are not enough. Texting is already illegal while driving in Colorado. Sen. Court replied that her bill is backed by law enforcement agencies because currently it is extremely hard to tell whether someone is texting or entering a phone number. Both are distractions so why outlaw one and not the other?

Sen. Kerry Donovan said the bill would disproportionately impact those too poor or too technologically inept to have smart phones, which have hands-off capability. I say that if the call is that important, pull over and stop and then make the call. If it’s not important enough to do that, then it’s just not that important at all and can wait until you get to your destination. Driving in important.

Speaking against the measure, Tristan Gorman, of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, argued that the impact would be greater on the poor and would open up the possibility of use in racial/ethnic profiling. I say that if you’re poor that should be a pretty good incentive to obey the law and not get fined, both on this issue and every other issue. There’s a saying, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” I’d add, “or if you can’t pay the fine.”

As for profiling, others made the point that if a cop is intent of profiling, there are plenty of other “issues” they can already turn to. Meanwhile, the incidence of this type of abuse by police is found to be very low in Colorado.

Gorman also challenged the idea of heavy fines when there is no proof of harm. No, there is no harm in making a phone call. However, when making that call leads to injury or death, it is too late to say, OK, now it’s a crime. Again, the whole point of this and many other laws is to prevent tragedy. If a particular behavior is known to lead to tragedy in some instances, don’t behave in that manner. This is not rocket science.

Denise Maes of ACLU of Colorado argued that education was the better approach, such as sections in driver’s education programs, billboards urging people not to use their phones while driving, public service announcements, etc. I’m not the only one who thinks that relying solely on those methods is not effective. Yes, some people would say, “Oh gosh, this is illegal, I won’t do it,” but there are plenty of others who say “That’s bull, I can do this safely and they’re not going to tell me what to do.” For those who simply choose to obey the law, fine, they won’t be getting a fine. For the others, we need the stick because the carrot just isn’t ever going to work.

The one thing that the opponents kept coming back to was how difficult it would be for many people to bear the costs of the fines and, if they lost too many points on their licenses, the loss of their driving privilege. My reply is simple: Then don’t use your phone when you’re driving. And going beyond that, let’s show equal concern for these people’s victims. If someone is severely financially impacted by paying a $750 fine, that pales totally to the price paid by someone who dies or is permanently disabled due to that other person’s bad choice. If your bankruptcy prevents my death, I claim higher priority.

Wow, I’m just one hour into a three-hour hearing. I don’t see any need to beat this horse any further so I’ll wrap up here. This bill will be back for further consideration and I’ll continue following it. Stay tuned.

Biker Quote for Today

It was only a motorcycle but it felt like a mode of being. — Rachel Kushner

A bill fighting distracted driving appears to be moving forward in the Senate.

The gist of testimony Thursday on SB-12 was that nobody contests that the use of cellphones while driving is a problem, the only dispute is in how to deal with it.

SB-12 is a distracted driving bill introduced by Sen. Lois Court that would make it illegal to use a cellphone hands-on while driving. “Our cars are not mobile phone booths,” she said. Testifying in favor were a variety of motorcyclist groups and individuals, as well as a wide range of other organizations.

The primary objection of those speaking in opposition to the bill was in regard to the severity of the penalties and questioning the choice to punish violators rather than provide inducements for compliance. The carrot vs. the stick.

Opponents argued that the consequences would fall most heavily on those who can least afford the fines. It was also argued that a knee-jerk response to criminalize behavior is a) not effective, and b) amounts to “symbolism, not serious results.”

Additionally, one opponent questioned the severity of the penalties, saying they are greater than those for other offenses that are much worse.

A key issue was the idea that people would face these penalties even though they had not caused any harm. Two senators mentioned their own parents, who only have flip phones and do not have the ability to set them on voice activation. However, one senator shot down her own objection by stating that in reality, if her 80-year-old father tried to dial his phone while driving it would be a disaster.

Proponents of the bill, responding to these objections, pointed out that other laws were on the books that could be objected to in the same manner. For instance, the penalty for not having your car insured are greater than the penalties called for in SB-12, and nobody suffers immediate harm when you drive uninsured.

Of course, then if you are in a crash, the person you hit suffers financially from your lack of insurance. In the same manner, while nobody is harmed if you use your cellphone while driving as long as you don’t cause an accident, if you do cause an accident, the person you hit does suffer. And the whole point of the bill is to prevent the crash in the first place.

ABATE of Colorado‘s legislative liaison, Stump, made the point that, considering penalties vs. incentives, not having to pay a $750 fine and lose four points on your license should be considered by most people a pretty good incentive not to break the law.

Ultimately, using the phone while driving is a choice you make. If your doing so results in another person’s injury or death, that was not their choice, it was a circumstance thrust upon them by your choice. If you can’t afford to pay a $750 fine, make the choice not to use your phone while driving.

At the end of the hearing sen. Court asked that the bill be laid over so that it can be tweaked to satisfy some of the concerns addressed. Presumably once she feels she has revised it enough that it will be passed out of committee it will be back for another hearing.

Biker Quote for Today

You own a car. Not the whole damn road!

Getting up in the hills is even better when you can get off the pavement.

We were doing some dual sport riding on a rough dirt road above Boulder, Ron, Jacque, and me, when Ron got to thinking something was wrong. He was in the lead, I was second, and he hadn’t seen Jacque in his mirror for too long. We stopped to let her catch up.

This was Jacque’s first time on dirt, so it was natural that she should take it easy, even possibly take a tumble. Taking a tumble is usually no big deal when you’re dirt-biking; I probably dumped the bike three times the first time I ever did it.

Ron didn’t wait too long to head back to find her. I sat there for maybe five minutes more and then I headed back, too. Along the way I encountered a mountain biker who called out to me that Ron had asked him to tell me to come on back.

Jacque didn’t just take a tumble, she was hurt. Thanks to target fixation, she had gone right into a deep rut she wanted to avoid, and then the skid plate on the underside of her bike caught on a protruding rock. She lost it and her momentum threw her against a boulder, with her knee taking the main force of the impact. Jacque was in serious pain.

Fortunately, we were on this particular road because it’s close to where Ron lives, so he headed to his place to get help. I stayed with Jacque to do whatever I could for her. Now, I’ve never had any first aid training, so I wasn’t the best guy to have there, but Jacque is a nurse, so she called the shots. First she swung around so she could lie back on the ground and elevate her injured leg on the boulder. I pulled out my sweatshirt to give her something under her head.

Figuring that a distraction from her pain would be a good thing, I started jabbering. I’m normally a pretty quiet guy but I just started telling her stories, not apropos of anything. After a few minutes she interrupted me.

“Do you know first aid?”

“No, not really.”

“OK, well, I’m going into shock and I may pass out. If I do, here’s what you need to do.”

And she gave me instructions. I listened carefully. There’s something about “I’m going into shock and I may pass out” that really gets your attention.

Then I went back to jabbering and telling stories.

It all ended well. Ron got back and he got Jacque to the hospital. It had seemed likely that there were broken bones, but the X-rays said no. And then, talk about getting right back on the horse after falling off, Ron told me a couple weeks later that Jacque was doing fine and had gone out and bought herself a new dual sport bike. It turns out that she was having the absolute time of her life, right up until she met Mr. Boulder.

As for me, I’m thinking first aid training might be a good idea.

Biker Quote for Today

Here’s to the women who make other women wish they could ride, too.

You kind of have to wonder how you would profile this guy.

The U.S. Senate at least did one thing in a bipartisan fashion this week: they passed a resolution opposing motorcycle profiling.

Profiling, in case you somehow have never heard of it, is the situation where the law enforcement folks use the fact that you ride a bike as an excuse to check you out for unrelated possible illegalities. Or let’s take the wording from the resolution.

Whereas motorcycle profiling means the illegal use of the fact that a person rides a motorcycle or wears motorcycle related apparel as a factor in deciding to stop and question, take enforcement action, arrest, or search a person or vehicle with or without legal basis under the Constitution of the United States;

Often, in recent years, this has taken the form of stopping motorcyclists–and only motorcyclists–to do license and safety equipment checks. Go ahead and stop everyone for these checks and the rider community will not object. Single us out and we do object.

So the resolution does not bear the force of law, but it does make it clear where the U.S. Senate stands on the issue. And this resolution was passed not just on a bipartisan basis, but unanimously. That’s pretty unequivocal. Are you listening out there in law enforcement land?

Omitting all the “Whereas” statements that set the stage, the resolution was this:

Resolved, That the Senate—
(1) promotes increased public awareness on the issue of motorcycle profiling;
(2) encourages collaboration and communication with the motorcycle community and law enforcement to engage in efforts to end motorcycle profiling; and
(3) urges State law enforcement officials to include statements condemning motorcycle profiling in written policies and training materials.

Now we just have to keep pressing, probably forever, to get this idea across.

Biker Quote for Today

“I had a dream about a motorcycle,” said Harry, remembering suddenly. “It was flying.”
Uncle Vernon nearly crashed into the car in front. He turned right around in his seat and yelled at Harry, his face like a gigantic beet with a mustache: “MOTORCYCLES DON’T FLY!”
Dudley and Piers sniggered.
“I know they don’t,” said Harry. “It was only a dream.”
— J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone