This is all set in place because some years ago the motorcycling community asked for it. The general idea is that it is a good thing for everybody to have the folks riding motorcycles actually get some training so they can do it competently. The accompanying concept was that such a program could help to forestall proposals that Colorado institute a mandatory helmet law. That is to say, education and better riding skills do more to prevent traffic fatalities than wearing helmets. Or, to put it differently, crash prevention is better than having safer crashes.

Regardless of how you might feel about helmet laws, I don’t see how anyone can argue that it is not better to avoid crashing than to crash and not get hurt so badly.

The vehicle for this funneling of fees to rider training is Colorado’s Motorcycle Operator Safety Training program or MOST. MOST is now under attack, in some cases from organizations that originally supported its creation.

I could go on at great length with the history and background of what is currently going on, as ABATE of Colorado’s State Coordinator Terry Howard did with me, but I’ll give you the short version.

ABATE, Riders for Justice, some of the motorcycle clubs, dealerships, and others pushed for the training approach. Over the years the program was not given sufficient oversight and some problems developed. The Colorado Legislature this past year conducted an audit of the program and identified a number of issues. Several of those issues were immediately addressed and rectified and the rest will soon have been fixed.

In the meantime, however, new people have replaced the old, and in organizations such as the Colorado Confederation of Clubs (COC) which came into existence later, there is no understanding of the history of and reasons for the fees. Some of the previous supporters are now saying, “Why should we have to pay to reduce the cost for other people to learn to ride?”

In a twist that gives fits to Terry Howard, a Republican, the legislative audit committee was divided on party lines–with the Republicans being the ones she finds herself in opposition to. In the current anti-tax atmosphere, the Republicans on the committee are in favor of eliminating MOST and letting us keep our $4 and $2 fees. It is the Democrats who are saying, “The motorcyclists asked for this program, and for these fees to be levied on them, so let’s keep the fees and keep the program they fund.”

One other thing to keep in mind: If MOST is killed there is no certainty that the fees will be eliminated. We could end up paying the fees without getting the benefit.

The committee deadlocked in this past session, but it seems likely that Republican Rep. Marsha Looper, of Colorado Springs, will introduce legislation in the next session to kill MOST. This would be a good topic for all Colorado motorcyclists to learn more about, and then do what you can to educate your legislators, whether you support MOST or oppose it. Most of them don’t know anything at all about it.

Recent from National Motorcycle Examiner
NHTSA proposes additional naturalistic motorcycle safety study

Biker Quote for Today

Statistics show that most solo motorcycle accidents are caused by a defective nut holding the handlebars.

Rather than paraphrase it all I’ll just quote from the release:

The government safety group continues to deny that the recent drop in motorcycle fatalities could have anything to do with education and awareness, instead maintaining that that the decrease was a result of people riding less. However, the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) reported that during the same time period, 2008-2009, vehicle miles traveled for motorcycles were up 6.8% or 27.6 billion miles in the U.S. The MIC also reported that tire sales, a unique measure of motorcycle use, were also up 9.6% in 2008-2009.

NHTSA also continued to defend their discriminatory practice of funding motorcycle-only roadside checkpoints, including their recent $40,000 award to Georgia’s Department of Public Safety. The idea is based on no science or research, but simply the notion that pulling every motorcycle off the road at the discretion of law enforcement will “save lives.”

Another interesting note in this broadly focused release is information on how the incoming Republican Congressional leadership relates to the motorcycling community. The MRF says that John Boehner (R-OH), who will be the next Speaker of the House, “has been a long-time friend of the MRF and ABATE of Ohio, and we look forward to continuing working with him in his new role.”

The MRF also notes that “The new chair of the powerful U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) will be John Mica (R-FL). Representative Mica has been a constant supporter of the MRF and all of our initiatives, as well as a very staunch advocate for ABATE of Florida.”

That bit about Boehner puts an interesting perspective on things. I know that for far-left Democrats, Boehner is seen as really evil. And yet if you’re a motorcyclist you have to think that maybe there’s more to him than just “evil.” It goes both ways, of course. Far-right Republicans also seem to see certain Democrats as pure evil. Gosh, maybe that’s not really true.

You’ll notice I used the terms “far-left” and “far-right” rather than just “Democrats” or “Republicans.” That’s to make the point that most Americans are much closer to the middle than to the extremes, regardless of which party they’re affiliated with.

Excuse the political interjection into what is normally a motorcycle-focused blog, but just this morning I’ve been watching online the launch of an organization called No Labels, website www.NoLabels.org. The group’s basis is in pushing elected officials of both parties to put aside partisan bickering and do what’s right for the country. Wow, what a concept.

I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll stop demonizing your guy if you’ll stop demonizing mine. And then let’s both push them to get things done to get this country moving again, even if it means compromising with each other.

Recent from National Motorcycle Examiner
Holiday gifts for motorcyclists

Biker Quote for Today

Dream as if you’ll live forever, live as if you’ll die today. –James Dean

We were coming down from the Black Hills and had been in Nebraska for about an hour when we stopped at a table along the road. There was another guy there, in a car, and we struck up a conversation with him. Along the way he mentioned, “This is a bucket state, by the way.”

Oh really? We hadn’t known that and we had been riding without helmets on. Oops. We had done the same thing a year or two earlier when we rode into Nevada for the first time. Somehow we got all the way to Las Vegas before we learned they required helmets.

Of course that was a long time ago, before the Internet, and we could be excused our ignorance. Back then it wasn’t easy to know what different state laws are. And if a state does require helmets, why the heck don’t they put up a sign at the border that says so?

There’s no excuse anymore for being ignorant of the laws in a state you’ll be riding to. The Internet does exist now, and one excellent place to check up on all states is a handy page on the American Motorcyclist Association’s website. You go there and there’s a map of the U.S. Click on the state you want to know about and it takes you to a listing of what they require and forbid.

The very first item on the list, presumably because this is the most common question, is the helmet requirements, if any. Other information includes the following:

• Safety Helmet
• State Funded Rider Ed
• Eye Protection
• Daytime Use of Headlight
• Passenger Seat
• Passenger Footrest
• Passenger Age Restriction
• Helmet Speakers
• Periodic Safety Inspection
• Mirror Left(L) Right(R)
• Radar Detector
• Turn Signals
• Muffler
• Maximum Sound Level
• State Insurance Requirements
• Handlebar Height
• Rider-Education
• Accept Motorcycle Endorsement From Other States
• Accept RiderEd Completion Card From Other States
• Motorcycles operating two abreast in same lane
• Lane Splitting
• Lemon Law Coverage

I’ll bet you didn’t even know that some states have requirements or prohibitions in some of these areas. Heck, you might even learn something about your own state laws.

Any by the way, the page also has separate legal requirements for off-road bikes. All in all it’s a lot of good information.

Recent from National Motorcycle Examiner
Fly and be groped or ride and have fun: Your choice

Biker Quote for Today

Remember when sex was safe and motorcycles were dangerous?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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!!

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.