Passes & Canyons Blog

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.

Contrary to what I said here before, it appears that the Colorado Legislature did indeed pass a helmet law this past session. If you are under 18 you are required to wear a helmet, either as a rider or passenger.

I have a bit of a beef with the Rocky Mountain News on this, because I read the newspaper every single day and they had stories about this as it was under consideration, but I never saw anything about it passing. So after awhile I assumed that like so many bills that get introduced, this one had just died a quiet death. Wrong.

Now, I’m not going to get all upset about this particular law. As ABATE’s Terry Howard said, because it was about kids, it was hard to oppose. The problem, as Howard also says, is what comes next. According to the story in the Rocky, Howard and ABATE fully expect Sen. Ken Gordon, this bill’s sponsor, to come back with a helmet bill for adults.

I’m sorry to say that Ken Gordon is my senator. I didn’t vote for him–and I did vote, for the Libertarian candidate–but Gordon is my senator. I’ve never had any real negative feelings toward Gordon but that could change if he tries this. I developed a strong animosity toward then-Rep. Bill Owens, back when the now-former Colorado governor was a state rep and introduced helmet bills in every session. But Owens finally gave up. What’s it going to take for Gordon to give up?

Of course, this may be a matter of jumping the gun. He may have no such intentions. Still, I intend to contact Ken Gordon and ask him flat out if that is his intent. And I will make it clear that if he tries it he will have a fight on his hands. It won’t be so easy next time.

Gordon says it’s all about the health of the people and lowering medical costs for us all. Stop right there Ken! Would it not be a safe statement that overweight people incur much higher health care costs–running costs up for us all–than non-overweight people? Overweight people such as, say, Sen. Ken Gordon? Let’s pass a law against eating junk food, or gaining too much weight, or some other measure to stop people from endangering themselves in this manner. It’s only fair!

Common sense prevailed in the Colorado Legislature this season. Attempts to pass a helmet law and allow police to stop and ticket you for not wearing a seat belt were both defeated.

Make no mistake, the two are connected. The nannies who think government has some right to poke its nose into private matters were behind these bills. I won’t argue with people who say not wearing a seat belt is stupidity. It’s just that stupidity is not illegal. The same with helmets. The job of government is to protect us from foreign invaders and polluters poisoning the common air we breathe or water we drink, those sorts of things. Helmets and seat belts don’t fall into that category.

Congratulations to the Colorado Legislature for showing some sense.

I keep saying this but it’s important for it to be clear up front: I am not and have never been a Republican. I used to be Democrat, but I’m not any more.

That said, I want to say a couple words on behalf of a couple Republican Colorado legislators, Don Marostica of Loveland and Greg Brophy of Wray.

Last week Marostica wore a helmet to the debate on requiring motorcycle riders under 18 to wear helmets. Asked to remove the helmet, he said, as quoted in the Rocky Mountain News:

That’s why I wore my helmet down here. I didn’t want to trip. I’m going to wear it on the way back to my desk.

His point was that people have a greater risk of dying or suffering a brain injury from tripping and falling than they do from motorcycle accidents.

As for Brophy, he is one of the leaders in the fight against allowing police to stop a driver solely for not wearing a seat belt. Right now, you can only be cited if the police stop you for another reason and you’re not wearing your belt.

Said Brophy, once again as quoted in the Rocky Mountain News:

I don’t believe you should be able to pull over someone in this country basically at will. It is another way government will be able to harass citizens.

Kudos, too, to Ron Tupa, Democratic senator from Boulder, who was the lone Democrat voting against the measure.