What Mary Peters started, others seek to continue. I’ve given considerable coverage to the proposal by U.S. Sec. of Transportation Mary Peters that funds earmarked for motorcycle rider training be diverted to lobby for mandatory helmet laws.

Pretty much all major motorcycling organizations have opposed that, and I reported in a report from the Meeting of the Minds that Peters has backed off on that proposal. Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) President Kirk “Hardtail” Willard cautioned me that despite her statements in that regard, he was still waiting to see her send the letters to that effect to the states.

Well, now the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports in the latest issue of American Motorcyclist that a group called the Governors Highway Safety Association has now taken up the issue. American Motorcyclist says:

Christopher Murphy, chairman of the Governors Highway Safety Association, which represents state highway safety agencies, made the request in testimony to the U.S. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Highways and Transit this summer.

The opposition to this misuse of funds stems from the conviction that the key to lowering fatality rates is not in having safer crashes, it is in avoiding more of those crashes in the first place. As Doc Ski noted at the Meeting of the Minds, you will die if you get in a bad enough accident, regardless of whether you’re wearing a helmet.

So Mary Peters may have heeded the outcry and reversed her stance, but now that the genie has been let out of the bottle it may not be that easy to put it back in. This is why we need to support organizations like the AMA and the MRF.

Biker Quote for Today

Thin leather looks good in the bar, but it won’t save your butt from road rash if you go down.

A big part of the Motorcycle Riders Foundation’s Meeting of the Minds, which took place here in Denver last weekend, is looking ahead to the issues we as motorcyclists are likely to face in the near future. Rather than simply react, the MRF wants to be proactive. Rather than scramble in a disorganized fashion for responses when new legislation is proposed, the MRF wants to have its position and its talking points already determined and disseminated to its membership.

So just what are the issues that appear to be on the horizon? Here are the ones I gleaned from my discussion with MRF President Kirk “Hardtail” Willard, from the various speakers, and from the audience during open discussion.

• Rider and motorist training
  The MRF and the state motorcyclist rights organizations (SMRO) that are its constituent groups strongly advocate for rider and motorist training. However, they are concerned about a move to make such training mandatory, because they fear that the capacity does not exist to offer that training to that many people. This looks like it could be a balancing act.
• Health insurance
  Not so much on the horizon as current, this issue has to do with efforts to pass the HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act, and end the legal ability of insurance companies to refuse to provide benefits when someone is injured while engaged in legal but so-called “risky” activities. I’ve written about this before.
• Protecting 2010 funds
  The so-called 2010 funds are the dollars earmarked by government for rider training programs. You’ll recall that I’ve written about U.S. Dept. of Transportation Sec. Mary Peters’ efforts to divert some of this money to promote mandatory helmet legislation. There are other threats to this money as well. When states run into budget difficulties these funds are attractive to politicians as a way to balance the budget, regardless of the fact that they are often paid solely by motorcyclists for motorcycle-related purposes.
• The Transportation Equity Act
  This pending bill will have major influence on highway spending in coming years. The MRF wants to ensure that motorcyclists are included in the planning and not just an afterthought.
• Graduated licensing
  From what I understand, graduated licensing is very common in Europe. This means that you start out on a small bike, learn to ride, and as you demonstrate competency you earn the right to ride bigger and bigger bikes. Frankly, I’m not clear on the issues here, or the concerns the MRF has about this. I’ll try to find out more and address this issue again.
• Right to repair
  This issue was raised during a panel discussion on Saturday, with two Harley-Davidson representatives on the panel being addressed. Speakers from the floor expressed their unhappiness with computer chips that shut down the bike when non-H-D mechanics work on them. The reps replied that the computer chips do allow some modification, whereas some governmental agencies are pressing for simply welding carburetors and exhaust pipes on permanently.

There’s more, but this gives you a bit of an idea about what’s going on. It is inevitable that you’ll be hearing more about these issues.

Biker Quote for Today

The biggest problem facing motorcyclists today is that we live in a nanny state, and if people think you can “save just one life” by banning motorcycles, they’d do it. — Jay Leno

Let’s start with two statements that I think we can all agree on:

1. Helmets would not be an issue if motorcycles did not get in crashes.

2. It is crashes, not the failure to wear a helmet, that kills motorcyclists.

Speaking Friday at the Motorcycle Riders Foundation’s Meeting of the Minds here in Denver, “Doc Ski” Wasileski, Ph.D., addressed the issue of rider safety in a talk titled “A Failed Safety Paradigm.” And the point Doc Ski made can be summed up as such: “If you get in a bad enough crash, you’re gonna die. Crashes kill bikers. Crash prevention saves lives.”

Doc Ski argued that ever since the Hurt Report, “Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures,” the government agencies involved in transportation safety have followed the approach of working for crash mitigation. That is, safer crashes. In cars that means seat belts and air bags and other clearly effective means. When it comes to motorcycles, however, the idea of safer crashes does not work as well. As Doc Ski said, you will die if you get in a bad enough accident, regardless of whether you’re wearing a helmet.

Thus the failed paradigm. Doc Ski, who serves as the MRF’s resident statistician, quoted his own studies that show no statistical difference in fatality rates between states with mandatory helmet laws and states with no helmet laws. And he echoed the MRF’s position that rider training, motorist share-the-road training, and impaired riding programs are what lower fatality rates, not stricter protective requirements and vehicle design modifications.

Nevertheless, as many speakers stated repeatedly over the course of the conference, stricter regulation is coming. The form that that regulation takes will be determined at least in part by how effectively the motorcycling community’s voice is heard. One purpose of the Meeting of the Minds is to ensure that that voice is heard, and effectively.

Issues the MRF is expecting to address in the near future include mandatory rider education, graduated licensing, and restricted access for motorcycles on some roadways.

Be grateful that someone is out there fighting for your rights. Consider joining them in the effort. You’ve got nothing to lose but your rights.

Biker Quote for Today

We want to be free to ride our machines without being hassled by the man. — Peter Fonda, The Wild Angels, 1966

I’ll cut straight to the chase. I still disagree with U.S. DOT Secretary Mary Peters in her effort to divert money earmarked for motorcycle rider training to promote helmet usage.

The Motorcycle Riders Foundation sums up the issue in this way:

The . . . funds were a direct result of years of intense lobbying by state motorcyclists’ rights organizations and individual motorcyclists from across this country, and were intended for two very specific aspects of motorcycle safety — motorcycle rider education and motorist awareness of motorcycles. These two aspects of motorcycle safety have been grossly under-funded at the state level for years, often solely at the direct expense of motorcyclists themselves through licensing and registration fees. . . . Should Peters get her way, that trickle becomes nothing but a drip.

A little background. I wrote about this first in this post after reading about it in American Motorcyclist, the monthly magazine of the American Motorcyclist Association. I was pretty down on her. Randy Bingner then replied that what Mary Peters is doing for the motorcycling community is substantial and overall, “It is very difficult to be critical when you look at the big picture.”

I told Randy I’d take another look and delve deeper into the issue. Well, I’ve done that. I wrote favorably about her efforts in general two days ago but I still have to disagree on this one point. And I’m not the only one.

Here are three quotes from three organizations that sum this matter up pretty succinctly:

The only true steps to motorcycle safety are proactive measures which prevent a collision from occurring at all rather than reactive steps that may offer some level of injury reduction only after a crash has already taken place. — Motorcycle Riders Foundation

The evidence is obvious: Crashes kill bikers. Conversely, Crash Prevention saves lives. — ABATE of North Carolina

We all know that “safer crashes” are no substitute for “crash prevention.” — ABATE of Arizona

This is what I’ve said right from the beginning. To quote myself, I said “That’s why I believe that diverting funds from motorcycle safety training to mandating helmets is wrong-headed. We all need to wear helmets at times; some of us wear them all the time. We should all also take an occasional refresher training course. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation and ABATE have expanded their offerings lately due to demand. What we don’t need is some bureaucrat, even one who rides, cutting training funds.”

I stand by that statement. The point I want to make however goes back to what Randy was saying. We are better off having a biker sitting in her chair than not. Mary Peters has done a lot of good things in her tenure in office. But nobody is perfect, and even family members can disagree. What we need to do now is not scream obscenities at her for her one mistake, we need to applaud her for the good things she is doing and work diligently and patiently with her in trying to help her see the error of her ways in this one area. And fight it hard in Congress if that becomes necessary.

Biker Quote for Today

Most vehicles have one person in them. So if you have one person riding a 400-pound vehicle, and another person riding a 4,400-pound vehicle, why are you putting the restrictions on the motorcyclist? You should really be putting the restriction on the person driving the SUV. — Jay Leno

At the urging of Randy Bingner I have been doing some research to learn more about U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters’ efforts in regard to motorcycles and motorcycling. Let me recap.

Mary Peters rides a Harley. She’s one of us. And as one of us she has used her authority to promote issues of concern to us. For the most part this is very good. You can read the DOT’s recommendations in its Action Plan to Reduce Motorcycle Fatalities. The proposals include:

• Conducting the Motorcycle Crash Causes and Outcomes Study, a comprehensive examination of the factors that causes crashes, which will help the Department develop stronger programs and strategies to combat the rising trends in motorcycle crashes.
• Developing National Standards for Entry Level Motorcycle Rider Training that will set the baseline for novice motorcycle rider training programs conducted in the United States.
• Amending Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 218, Motorcycle Helmets, to address the falsification of helmet certifications facilitated by the current labeling requirements of the motorcycle helmet standard.
• Distributing Roadway Safety for Motorcycles, a brochure containing official guidance on designing, constructing, and maintaining roadways for increased motorcycle safety, to road planners, designers, and engineers.
• Creating a training program designed to educate police on motorcycle safety and the specific enforcement efforts they can undertake to reduce motorcycle crashes.
• Marketing a “Share the Road” campaign kit for use by States, local communities, and motorcycle organizations.

There is no question that reducing motorcycle fatalities is of concern to us all. As reported in the Action Plan, “In 2005, the motorcycle fatality rate was 73 per 100,000 registered motorcycles. By comparison, the fatality rate in the same year for passenger vehicles per 100,000 registrations was 14.” Put a little differently, in 2006 motorcycle fatalities exceeded pedestrian fatalities for the first time ever since records have been kept.

Far too many of these deaths are at least associated with alcohol use and riders who are not licensed to ride a motorcycle. These deaths can be prevented. As Randy said in an article he wrote for his local HOG group, “far too often, we are killing ourselves.”

So what’s the issue? Well, as I reported in an earlier post, Sec. Peters has proposed that money earmarked for rider training programs be diverted to efforts to increase helmet usage. And while we may all be family, family members sometimes disagree. That would be the case here. A number of organizations that you know, and may even belong to, are not happy with this proposal. They include the American Motorcyclist Association, the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, and various ABATE chapters.

I’ll address their concerns in my next post.

Biker Quote for Today

There are drunk riders. There are old riders. There are NO old, drunk riders.

I wrote an unfavorable piece about U.S. Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters that you may recall, about her efforts to divert money earmarked for rider training to promote helmet use and state laws requiring helmet use. Randy Bingner replied to that and I’d like to share our discussion.

Randy’s initial response was this:

I suggest step back from your focus on helmet laws and look at everything Mary Peters is doing for the motorcycling community. It is very difficult to be critical when you look at the big picture.

I was interested and wanted to know more. I sent Randy this reply:

I appreciate your comment on my Mary Peters post. I’ll be completely honest with you and say I don’t know much at all about what she has done or tried to do except what I read in American Motorcyclist. I would be really pleased if you would write a guest post addressing that topic. Something to balance out my frankly more superficial take on the matter. Are you interested?

Here is Randy’s answer:

I have been at the Sturgis rally the past week and just got home. You could Google and find no end to information. Basically, in my opinion, the most telling quote from Mary Peters, and I will paraphrase, is that when highways are designed, constructed, and maintained, the motorcycle should not be an afterthought. I am attaching a recent article I wrote for the back page of another newsletter. The fact that this initiative exists is due in large part to the fact that we have a rider at the head of the USDOT. I am an AMA member, but I do not agree with all positions it takes. Motorcyclists are a comparatively small group when you look at all users of the transportation system. The more we get divided, the easier it will be to lose rights and privileges. I am for freedom of choice. I chose to wear a helmet and leather.

So that’s a starting point. I intend to follow Randy’s suggestion and do some research to learn more about what Mary Peters has done, and I’ll pass that along to you. And I want to thank Randy for offering his take on the matter.

I do want to make one other point, however. I stand by my original argument that taking money from rider training to push for helmet requirements is inappropriate. Helmet usage becomes moot if accidents are avoided in the first place. I think rider training is the most important of the two.

Biker Quote for Today

Ride as if your life depended on it!!

Did you know this? I didn’t. Heck, if you’d asked me I’d have had to admit I couldn’t even name the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. But I know it now. That’s her in the photo.

So Mary Peters has been making some news lately, and raising some hackles. In her efforts to promote motorcycle safety she is accused of ignoring the law that prohibits federal bureaucrats from lobbying for or against specific state laws. In the June 2008 issue of American Motorcyclist, the publication of the American Motorcyclist Association, they have this to say:

But that doesn’t appear to be stopping Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, who told U.S. senators and representatives she wanted to lobby states to divert federal money away from motorcycle safety training and awareness programs and instead push for mandated helmet use.

Here’s my take on this. She crashed on her Harley and escaped serious injury thanks in part to her helmet. Now she’s a helmet evangelist. I’ve seen this before. About 15 years ago there was a young woman who suffered a head injury when the guy she was riding with hit the median on Orchard Road while going about 70 miles an hour. This was the first time she had ever been on a motorcycle but she told reporters from her hospital bed that she intended to devote her life to making helmet usage mandatory for all motorcyclists all the time. The difference between that young woman and Mary Peters is that Mary Peters is in a position to do something about her convictions.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with advocating helmet usage. There is something wrong, however, with becoming focused so totally on helmets that you dismiss other, equally important safety factors. “Divert federal money away from motorcycle safety training and awareness programs”? I’ve made the point before that wearing a helmet is not a be-all and end-all in motorcycle safety. In the report I was discussing it said that “About 42 percent of riders killed were not wearing helmets.” And I responded that what that means then is that 58 percent were wearing helmets — and they were killed anyway.

That’s why I believe that diverting funds from motorcycle safety training to mandating helmets is wrong-headed. We all need to wear helmets at times; some of us wear them all the time. We should all also take an occasional refresher training course. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation and ABATE have expanded their offerings lately due to demand. What we don’t need is some bureaucrat, even one who rides, cutting training funds.

Oh, and by the way, if the law says bureaucrats can’t legally lobby for or against specific state laws, I suggest the Secretary of Transportation ought to obey the law.

Update
I’ve written three follow-up posts on this subject:
Revisiting Mary Peters, Biker and DOT Secretary
Follow-up on Mary Peters, Secretary of US DOT
DOT Sec. Mary Peters Good for Bikers, Wrong on One Priority

Biker Quote for Today

Everyone crashes. Some get back on. Some don’t. Some can’t.

I got the obligatory newspaper clipping from my mother the other day. You know, the one that talks about how motorcycle deaths are up at the same time that some states are relaxing their helmet laws.

Let’s face it, moms are just being moms when they send these things. They would rather you didn’t ride at all because “it’s too dangerous” but if you’re going to ride “you’d better wear your helmet every time.” They also tend to believe strongly that all states should mandate wearing helmets all the time.

I disagree. I do wear my helmets (I have several) a lot of the time. But there are times when I do not, and I would argue that I know more about the risk I am taking than someone who has never been on a motorcycle in their lives. I’m also a registered Libertarian, so obviously I believe the government has no business telling me I have to wear a helmet.

So let’s look at the information this particular article presents. It came from the Gannett News Service so presumably it appeared in a number of papers, maybe yours.

I’ll give them credit, it talks about deaths rising on the basis of per 1,000 riders. So many such articles say simply that deaths are up, but fail to mention that the number of riders is up as well. And if deaths per thousand riders are increasing then that is definitely of concern to us.

My issue is with the interpretations that people put on the statistics. They’re much too simplistic. Helmets are not some miracle cure for motorcycle fatalities. For example, the article states that “About 42 percent of riders killed were not wearing helmets.” What that means then is that 58 percent were wearing helmets — and they were killed anyway. It also implies that some percentage of those helmetless riders who were killed would have been killed even if they had been wearing a helmet. To me that says the cause of the accident should be more the focus than the gear the rider was wearing.

Another factor noted is the increase in the age of the average rider. Decreasing physical dexterity and slower reaction times are listed as the suspects.

Then it goes on to say that “Half of motorcyclists killed between 2002 and 2006 lost control and crashed without colliding with another vehicle.” This is what I’m talking about above. How did these accidents occur? Surely some involved other vehicles that may well have been the cause but were not involved in any contact. But in other cases, what we are talking about is rider error. This calls for better training but, again, has nothing to do with the gear the rider is wearing.

The article goes on to say that southern states have higher death rates, and they attribute that to the longer riding season. More time on the road equals more opportunity for accidents. That makes sense.

Then it talks about how the National Transportation Safety Board has taken the unprecedented action of unanimously recommending that all states mandate helmets at all times. Their justification for this is that “Medical and other costs for unhelmeted riders involved in crashes are staggering.” OK, then how about this: Let’s require all drivers and passengers in cars to wear helmets. There are a heck of a lot more of them getting into accidents and surely the costs are mega-staggering. Race car drivers wear helmets. Why shouldn’t mom and pop and the kiddies? Of course I’m sure they intend to imply that motorcyclists who do wear helmets and get in accidents cost the system nothing. That is what they’re saying, isn’t it?

And then finally, at the very bottom of this 51-inch article, they mention that, oh by the way, the two states with no helmet laws of any kind, Iowa and New Hampshire, have death rates of 3.5 and 3.0 per 1,000 respectively. Meanwhile, for example, Mississippi and Maryland, which require all riders to wear helmets all the time, have death rates of 20 and 12 per 1,000 respectively. Of course these numbers are discounted, and are explained away saying that in New Hampshire the riding season is short and in Iowa the ground is flat and visibility is good.

So thanks for caring Mom, I love you, too. But I’ll continue to make my own decisions and I’ll continue to belong to the American Motorcyclist Association and support their efforts to protect our right to decide.

Biker Quote for Today

Gray-haired riders don’t get that way from pure luck.

I mentioned before that I emailed Sen. Ken Gordon to ask about a news report where an ABATE rep said they expect to see a new helmet bill next legislative session. Now I have the response. Ken Gordon said:

The answer is no. I am not planning to do that and I have talked to the people that were involved with this year’s bill and they aren’t either. The rumor is probably the paranoid rumination of someone who imagines something that they don’t like and then assumes that it will happen.

That’s good. Thanks Ken for not getting carried away.

I sent an email to Ken Gordon, my state senator, today. I want to know if he really is planning to introduce a helmet law bill to require adults to wear them. He succeeded this past session in passing a law requiring minors to do so. Here’s the text of my message to him:

Ken–
Hello. I am one of your constituents and I ride motorcycles. I have a question for you.

In an article on July 5 in the Rocky Mountain News about the new helmet law for minors, they quoted Terry Howard of ABATE saying “It’s been rumored that they are going to try and introduce a helmet bill for adults next session. . . . (We fully expect our opponents) to introduce an adult helmet law.”

My question: Is this true? Are you planning to introduce a more comprehensive law? I would very much appreciate a direct answer. I don’t want to assume that Terry Howard is right, I would rather hear directly from you about it.

I’ll tell you right now that I would oppose any such law. I wear my helmet at times when I feel it is wise and at other times I do not. I prefer to be the judge of this.

To your argument that bikers hurt while not wearing helmets add to health costs for all I would simply respond, people who eat poorly and eat junk and become overweight incur health costs that drive up the costs for the rest of us. Do you plan to outlaw eating junk food? I mean, seriously: what is the difference? There are a lot more people eating that second donut and getting fat than there are bikers getting hurt not wearing helmets. The health costs are much higher.

I will really, truly appreciate hearing from you on this issue. Thanks.

So now let’s see how he responds. I’ll be sure to post it here. Stay tuned.