Passes & Canyons Blog

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

Looking out over Cherry Creek Reservoir.

The thermometer on Sunday read 59 degrees, there wasn’t a cloud in the sky, and only the faintest breeze was blowing. To ride or not to ride was not an issue. The only choice I had was which bike to ride. I chose the Honda, mainly because getting it out was the least effort.

I started off, as I so often do, across the dam to pick up Parker Road. On such a great day there were a lot of bikes on the road.

As I neared and then crossed over Arapahoe Road there were two bikes coming up on the on-ramp. As the traffic flowed one of them merged ahead of me and the other behind me. We cruised like that for a while and I was a little puzzled when the guy behind me did not take advantage of opportunities to pull ahead of me and rejoin his buddy. When we came to a traffic light I made sure to leave him plenty of room to pull past.

But he didn’t. He stopped behind and it dawned on me this was not his buddy ahead of me, we were just three solo riders who all happened to be in the same place at the same time.

I have often had the fantasy of getting mingled with some bikers who had been up to something nefarious and having all of us get scooped up the police. How to convince the cops that I really didn’t know these guys and I was not involved in whatever they had been doing. The obvious line of persuasion would be that hey, just because you see two people in cars you don’t assume they’re together. Well, just because we’re on bikes doesn’t mean we’re together either.

Judy summed it up pretty well, though, when I mentioned this to her: People in multiple cars generally do not travel together; people on multiple bikes frequently do. And if you see a bunch together it’s normal to assume they are in fact together. See, even I made that assumption.

So I peeled off from my “buds” in Parker, heading west on Main Street. This is a developing area so even though I had been on this road not that long ago there was new stuff to see. The southern suburbs keep creeping. Just before reaching I-25 I turned north on Peoria and was surprised to see, at Lincoln Avenue, the University of Colorado South Denver Campus. What? Really? This growth just amazes me at times.

Continuing north I passed under C-470 and ran up into the south end of Arapahoe County Airport. That required a jog over onto Potomac and from there I meandered my way on home. Not a long ride but very nice of a terrific day.

Biker Quote for Today

There are two kinds of people . . . motorcycle owners and sad people.

ABATE of Colorado State Representative Bruce Downs testifies at the state capitol.

I was going to put up another Examiner Resurrection about efforts by a few Congress members to put a damper on the then-new practice of setting up motorcycle-only checkpoints.

I thought that post would be worth resurrecting (Examiner.com died a couple years ago) because this is an issue we are still dealing with today. The point here, in case you are new to the subject or need a memory prod, is that law enforcement agencies sometimes set up checkpoints to look for a variety of issues: seat belt use, valid driver’s license, whatever.

The problem with motorcycle-only checkpoints is that they single us out, and for no justifiable reason. You want to check for valid driver’s license? Fine, stop everyone and check everyone. But don’t stop only motorcyclists.

I decided instead to tie this in with last week’s post about the Demise of District 10. The point being, these kind of policies go unchallenged if you don’t have people active in groups such as ABATE and the American Motorcyclist Association fighting them.

Just a few days ago I read a piece about how the American commitment to democracy seems to be fading as fewer and fewer people find themselves personally involved in associations. Years ago, it said, this country was sometimes called a “nation of presidents.” The meaning is that if you were a farmer you belonged to a co-op, and the co-op had officers and members voted on issues of concern. If you worked in a factory you belonged to the union and the union had officers and the members voted on issues of concern.

Cooperative groups like this flourished throughout society, to the point that everyone lived and practiced democracy and many, many people served as the officers of these groups: a nation of presidents.

This sort of participatory democracy has diminished. And it affects us as motorcyclists. District 10 of ABATE of Colorado died because there were not enough people who felt it worth their time to get involved. But really, is it not worth your time? How do you feel about motorcycle-only checkpoints? How do you feel about future infrastructure projects not taking motorcyclists into consideration in their planning? How do you feel about HOV lanes–which federal law says must be free to motorcycles–slapping you with a fee and fine for using them without a transponder?

These issues and many more are addressed by a very small percentage of riders–those of us willing to take our time to stand up for those who ride.

So back to the Examiner post I was going to run. The gist is in the lead sentence, “Laying it on the line, 11 Congressmen today questioned a grant program that provides money for law enforcement agencies to set up motorcycle-only traffic checkpoints and called on U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to suspend it.”

While we have made progress on this issue, we’re still fighting it. How much more effective might our efforts be if more of our fellow riders stepped up and offered their support, contacting their elected representatives to voice their concerns.

At the very least, lend your support via numbers. The more members the AMA has the more impact they are able to have. Here are three groups you might want to consider joining.
American Motorcyclist Association
Motorcycle Riders Foundation
ABATE of Colorado

Biker Quote for Today

And God said “Let there be bikers” and the Devil ran like hell.

I’d guess the pipes on this custom bike are not quiet.

After I put up that latest Examiner Resurrection piece I got to wondering if these anti-noise groups have perhaps gotten their facts a bit more in line since that was published in 2010. So I’ve been perusing their websites to see.

First I visited the NoiseOFF site. Recall that back then this group was accusing the various motorcycle rights organizations (MROs) of lobbying “to defeat motorcycle noise legislation.”

So has NoiseOFF gotten their facts a bit more in line? Read this:

Some riders join motorcycle rights organizations (MROs) that lobby against motorcycle noise legislation. These organizations include the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, and American Motorcyclist Association (AMA). In many cities and states, there are groups that call itself ABATE.

Also:

The AMA compromises (compromises? I think they mean comprises>) over 300,000 members and more than 1,200 chartered clubs, with corporate representation from the motorcycle industry. Through sponsored events and organized campaigns, they mobilize their membership to lobby to defeat motorcycle noise legislation.

So no, NoiseOFF still has their FactsOFF.

Also of note, their web page also contained this:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) analyzes and reports on motorcycle accident data statistics and acts as a clearinghouse on motorcycle safety.

In their 2007 published report, ‘Fatal Two-Vehicle Motorcycle Crashes’ (DOT HS 810 834), motorcyclists were found to be overwhelmingly responsible for causing accidents with passenger vehicles. In nearly three-fourths of the two-vehicle motorcycle crashes involving passenger vehicles, the role of the motorcycle was recorded as the striking vehicle. Additionally, factors including alcohol impairment, invalid license, and speeding were more attributed to motorcycle riders.

Wow. I think they misread the stats. Other studies have shown that it is predominantly the car driver who is at fault. Yes, the bike may strike the car, but that is almost always because the car turned in front of the bike. I’m all in favor of keeping noise under control but these people need to get their facts straight.

What about Noise Free America? Back in 2010 they were saying that “In reality, the Sturgis event is probably the largest concentration ever of lawbreakers. And Mike Rounds, the governor of South Dakota, gave aid and comfort to this massive lawbreaking.”

Frankly, they’re probably right about that. While I don’t find this statement on their site anymore, they do present a much more factual look at the nature of motorcycle noise and enforcement efforts. They look at what the legislation is, how enforcement is generally ineffective, and at what might be done to address that ineffectiveness. Mostly they call for enforcement of existing laws.

I agree. That’s what I said in 2010. But don’t just focus on motorcycles. As I said then, “If noise of any kind is a problem, pass laws that limit the noise regardless of the source. And then enforce those laws.”

I guess nothing has changed in the interim.

Biker Quote for Today

Good girls go to heaven. Bad girls go to Sturgis.

Those scuff marks show you exactly where Friggs’s face would have been ripped open.

The best motorcycle protective gear does you no good at all if you don’t wear it. This is summed up in the term ATGATT: All The Gear, All The Time.

I’ve gotten better about this as the years have passed. I used to frequently ride without a helmet; I never do now. I didn’t always ride with a jacket; now it is seldom I ride without. And I almost never ride with my leather chaps on, even now. So I can hardly ever claim to ride with ALL the gear. But what I do wear I do wear almost all the time.

Friggs is another one who is about on a par with me. He always wears a helmet and almost always wears his jacket. I’m not sure he even owns chaps.

Friggs was not wearing his jacket when he crashed his bike in New Mexico. He was wearing his helmet. That made all the difference.

Take a look at his helmet. See all that scuffing above the visor, and how the top part of the visor is scraped up, too? That would have been his face. And you have to look a little harder but just below the visor, above the “Harley,” and also on the chin portion there is scuffing. That could have been a dislocated jaw, or worse.

This is why I always wear a helmet these days.

As for not wearing his jacket, Friggs got off lucky. His shirt was ripped up and his shoulder was bruised but he came out of it remarkably intact. But we all commented on how, gosh, Friggs almost always wears his jacket. What bad timing on his part to leave it off this particular day.

His pants were also torn up, which chaps would have limited, but hey, we don’t ride with that kind of gear most of the time. We’re just not true, to the core, ATGATT guys. But even more so than before, after seeing this, I will NEVER ride without my helmet.

Biker Quote for Today

A good friend knows all your best stories. A biker friend has lived them all with you.

What goes on under the gold dome affects us all.

An issue near and dear to the hearts of many motorcyclists is distracted driving. You know, those idiots in cars who are paying more attention to their cell phones than to the road and putting us, in particular, at risk.

Sen. Lois Court, Democrat of District 31 in Arapahoe County, had introduced a bill (SB18-049) this session to extend the current ban on all drivers under 18 from using their phones while driving to encompass all drivers. The bill would also have increased the penalty from $50 to $300 and would have extended the ban to cover all wireless devices, not just phones. Notice the use of the words “would have.” The bill died in committee.

Who can possibly believe it is OK to be using your cell phone while you’re driving. Oh, I don’t know, maybe a bunch of legislators who do this very thing themselves. “I can do this safely; it’s those other idiots who are a danger.”

Anyway, per Stump, the motorcyclist rights lobbyist representing ABATE of Colorado down at the legislature, Sen. Court and supporters of the measure are planning an open strategy meeting on how to work to get something like this passed. That meeting will be this Thursday at Racine’s, 650 Sherman, at 6:30 p.m. If you care about this issue you might attend. I may be there. If I am, I’ll report back to you on what transpires. (Later: Oops, no I won’t be going. That is the same time as my RMMRC meeting.)

Stump was telling us Sunday at the ABATE District 10 meeting that there are no bills in the legislature this session directly addressing motorcycles, although there are a number having to do with all users of the roads. It’s not for lack of trying. But to get a bill in front of the legislature requires a sponsor. Legislators are limited in the number of bills they can introduce so you have to find someone who is willing to address your issue.

Stump joked (half-joked) about trying to get Sen. Kevin Grantham, Republican of Senate District 2, south and west of Colorado Springs, to go big. Sen. Grantham is being term-limited after this session so Stump wants to suggest that he “go out with a bang.” How about an all-inclusive motorcycling bill addressing red lights that don’t recognize motorcycles, stopping profiling of motorcyclists for stops, and allowing lane-splitting.

Yeah, that would be great. Probably not going to happen but you never know. Stump can be pretty persuasive. Fun to think about but I’m not holding my breath.

On the other hand, this distracted driving bill has a dedicated sponsor. Maybe if enough people get behind it we can make something happen.

Biker Quote for Today

Don’t let my motorcycle ride interfere with the safety of your phone call.

Others in attendance.

As I noted on Monday, Bruce Downs, ABATE of Colorado’s state coordinator, had a series of suggestions for fine-tuning the Motorcycle Operator Safety Training (MOST) program. The fact is, Bruce had printed out the program rules and flagged every spot in the document where he had changes to offer.

One of the bigger issues Bruce raised was one that ABATE has raised for quite some time now. The legislation the MOST program is based on seems to state clearly that of the funds raised through licensing fees, no more than 15 percent can be used for administration. But ever since an outside contractor has been brought in to administer the program, those costs have eaten up about 65 to 70 percent of the funding, he said. Can we come up with a compromise that falls somewhere in the middle.

While other suggestions at this meeting were met with discussion and an openness on all sides to work something out, this item got completely shot down. Glenn Davis, representing the Colorado Department of Transportation, replied that this issue was studied and a state attorney issued an opinion that the use of the funds in this manner is acceptable.

What my wife, an attorney, tells me about this is that basically this is saying, you can sue us if you like, and maybe you’ll win, but unless you do that we are going to keep doing what we’re doing. End of discussion.

And it did end that discussion.

Another significant issue Bruce brought up was the limitation of the MOST program to beginner rider training. In the past, MOST funds could be used to defray the costs of other rider training courses beyond the Beginning Rider Course (BRC). His initial proposal was simply to add a definition of Advanced Rider Course (ARC) into the rules.

Bruce’s point, however, which was echoed by several in the room, was that a large percentage of riders being killed are not the newbies, but experienced riders with years under their belts.

“If we don’t do advanced rider training are we shortchanging riders who are paying in for the program?” he asked.

While no action was called for or expected at this time, the idea was that the stakeholders involved with MOST ought to be considering this issue in the days ahead.

The rest of Bruce’s issues were small ones affecting primarily the training vendors, and often specifically ABATE. These included definitions of mobile training operations, clarifying what background check findings should render possible Rider Coaches unqualified, and making travel expense reimbursements conform to the reality of costs.

A second stakeholder engagement meeting will be held in the same location (15055 S. Golden Road, Building 100) on Friday, January 26, from 9 a.m. to noon.

Biker Quote for Today

Who needs a time machine when one twist of my wrist will leave you in the past!

The CSP’s first stakeholder engagement meeting.

The Colorado State Patrol (CSP) held its first stakeholder engagement meeting Friday, with about 20 people present, as it takes over control of the Colorado Motorcycle Operator Safety Training program (MOST) from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Essentially the meeting presented an opportunity for the organizations that provide rider training to propose tweaks to the program to help bring regulatory concepts into line with on-the-ground reality.

The first–and most extensive–discussion was on allowing larger bikes to be used in the Beginning Rider Course (BRC). Current limitations say no more than 350cc but it was argued that the limit should be raised to 500cc. The gist of the argument was that if most riders are going to actually get out on the road on larger bikes, why shouldn’t they be trained on the bikes they’re actually going to ride? It was agreed that the training vendors need to continue to have smaller training bikes on hand for those trainees who need them, but for those capable of handling larger bikes, why not make that an option?

As I understand it, there is also the consideration that the Harley-Davidson training programs all use larger bikes and thus are currently excluded from participation with MOST due to the 350cc limitation.

Also raised was the requirement that Rider Coaches be 21 years of age. The point made was that while there may not be a lot of 18-year-olds who you would want to trust as a Rider Coach, in the few cases where you would, why not allow it? This is especially important because there is currently a shortage of Rider Coaches in the Colorado and opening it up a little more could help. It was also suggested that the requirement that a Rider Coach training in Colorado must hold a Colorado driver’s license be amended.

This opened up the issue that some of the specifics vendors deal with are written in law while others are only regulatory in nature. CSP personnel at the meeting made it clear they want to get a solid year under their belts running MOST before they start talking about proposing legislative changes. The consensus at the meeting was that that was reasonable but that these sorts of issues ought to be presented as a package when the time comes.

Another suggestion was to try to have the law rewritten so as to reference the curriculum in use. That way, it would not be necessary to change the law every time the curriculum changes. Apparently, however, there are some limitations on citing outside sources “by reference” because there is the possibility that those sources might call for something contrary to state law. There do appear to be workarounds in this regard, though.

That brings us to the point in the meeting where Bruce Downs, state coordinator for ABATE of Colorado, took the floor to present a series of tweaks and revisions that his organization (of which I am a member) would like to see made. I’ll go over all that in my next post.

Biker Quote for Today

You’re a biker wannabe if all your leathers match.