Passes & Canyons Blog

The CMT web page with the report.

Two recent reports suggest that Colorado’s law forbidding use of a cellphone while driving, except in hands-free mode, is having an effect.

The more significant of the two is from the Colorado State Patrol, which, according to an article in The Denver Post on April 1, said that distracted driving citations have increased in 2025 by 135% over the previous year.

As far as I can tell, it’s playing out exactly as I said it would. Driving with your phone in your hand is now illegal, but it is only a secondary offense, meaning you can’t be stopped just for that. So what will happen is that the cops will stop you for something else and then tack on the citation for using your phone, while perhaps being “nice” to you by not citing you for what they “actually” stopped you for. Or maybe they’ll cite you for that, too.

And the point, really, is that if they see you engaged in careless or reckless driving they could stop you for that before. It’s just that now, with the emphasis on getting people to be aware of and obey this new law they are apparently focusing more on stops for careless/reckless driving.

Either way, I’ll take it.

Meanwhile, a report from Cambridge Mobile Telematics (CMT) says that the data “reveal a 3.3% reduction in phone motion distraction statewide, an improvement that CMT estimates to have prevented 88 crashes, 49 injuries, and $3.5 million in economic damages since the law began.”

CMT uses data drawn from cellphone tracking. Just in case you wondered if your moves are being tracked, presumably anonymously, be assured that they are. According to the report, “CMT defines phone motion distraction as when a phone moves with its screen on while a vehicle is in motion. The study analyzed over 3.8 million trips in Colorado between December 1, 2024, and February 11, 2025, measuring changes in distraction before and after the law took effect.”

Mind you, the improvement is measured in seconds, but all it takes is about one or two seconds of inattentive driving for you to totally change your life or the life of someone else.

One question here that I wonder about is how they distinguish between phone use by a driver vs. by a passenger. I would guess they can’t, so the figures are overall. Still, considering how much of the time people are alone in their cars, sussing out how much of the phone use is passenger vs. driver is not of overriding consequence. If the amount of time is declining that’s a good thing.

Still, let’s not fool ourselves. Just in the last week I’ve been behind a car that repeatedly wandered over into the next lane and when I was able to shoot past the guy he was looking at his phone. In another instance I was behind a guy who had his phone on a mount on the dashboard. I watched as he repeatedly reached up and tapped it, scrolled it, and pretty much constantly interacted with it. That is not hands-free. We’ve got a long way to go to fix this problem but at least we’re making a start.

ABATE testimony at the most recent MOST hearing.

If you think the money you pay each year to enhance rider safety should be spent to defer costs for rider training the time to contact your legislative representatives is now. A hearing will be held Wednesday afternoon for the re-authorization of the Colorado MOST (Motorcycle Operator Safety Training) program. The hope is to have the simple re-authorization bill amended to mandate that the money–at least some of it–be used in that manner. I mean, come on, “Training” is in the name. Putting up road signs that say “Motorcyclists use extreme caution” does not constitute training in anybody’s book.

The word from Stump, ABATE of Colorado’s legislative liaison, is that there’s no good way to know when in the afternoon the bill will come up, but it would be good to have at least a few interested members of the public on hand to testify. ABATE members will presumably be there so that base is probably covered. The other thing that matters–what you can do, and should do if you care about this–is to immediately contact your reps to let them know what you want them to do.

This hearing is with the Senate Transportation and Energy committee. Here are the members who need to be contacted.
Faith Winter (Chair) — 303-866-4863 — faith.winter.senate@coleg.gov
Lisa Cutter — 303-866-4859 — lisa.cutter.senate@coleg.gov
Marc Catlin — 303-866-5292 — marc.catlin.senate@coleg.gov
Tony Exum — 303-866-6364 — tony.exum.senate@coleg.gov
Nick Hinrichsen — 303-866-4878 — nick.hinrichsen.senate@coleg.gov
Kyle Mullica — 303-866-4451 — kyle.mullica.senate@coleg.gov
Byron Pelton — 303-866-6360 — byron.pelton.senate@coleg.gov
Cleave Simpson — 303-866-4875 — cleave.simpson.senate@coleg.gov
Tom Sullivan — 303-866-4873 — tom.sullivan.senate@coleg.gov

Stump provided a little background on what’s going on. Here’s part of it:

Also related to our bill, Larry (Montgomery–ABATE’s state director) and I met with Chris Corbo (MOST Director) this week to express ABATE’s concerns with the program. He actually requested the meeting because he said he’s been getting inquiries from Legislators about the MOST Program. The hour and a half meeting was MOSTly good (excuse the pun) but a lot of his answers were, “You have to ask MSF about that.” He conceded that the 9 years till the next sunset review is too long and should be 5 years. He also gave reasons (excuses) why there shouldn’t be subsidies: too much paperwork, too much time to write checks, need another person to do the extra work, abuse by vendors, etc.

So it’s “too much trouble” to do what the program was set up to do. At least this shows that people have been contacting their reps and the reps are pursuing the matter. That’s good news.

Biker Quote for Today

Like dogs, motorcycles are social catalysts that attract a superior category of people.

CSP and ABATE testimony at the hearing. Thanks to Sen. Byron Pelton who came over to me and offered to get a shot from in front of the speakers. How nice!

Wow, did I ever get things wrong. I’m talking about this supposed bill to sunset Colorado’s MOST program and I just got home from the first hearing.

Just as the committee was getting going on another bill that preceded the MOST bill I was sitting with Larry, the state coordinator for ABATE of Colorado, and he handed me the text of the remarks he intended to make to the committee. I was struck by one sentence:

Per the Sunset Review for 2024 the MOST program has been recommended that this continues for 9 more years.

OK, there’s a little grammatical mix-up in there but you get the picture. I asked Larry if the recommendation was to continue MOST and he said yes.

Wow. Oh wow. That’s not what I’ve been telling you. Or anyone I talked to. What’s the deal?

I first got wind of this when I was talking with Stump on December 31 at the Last Brass Monkey Run. I would swear he told me the recommendation was to sunset MOST, but not altogether, just for nine years. And I asked him, for nine years? I thought when a program got sunset it was over, done with, fini. But he said no, it was usually for three years but in this case it’s for nine.

Clearly I misunderstood something Stump said and also as clearly he misheard something I said. My new understanding makes a whole heck of a lot more sense.

So the gist of it all is that they are recommending continuing MOST but ABATE is pushing to have changes made, to get it back more to its original configuration where the money we pay in on license renewals goes to reduce the cost of training for the students. And that issue was raised in the hearing. One senator asked if there was money stashed away for the program that could support this sort of subsidy and Larry told him absolutely yes, there’s more than $1 million sitting there in the account.

The bill was approved by the committee so now I believe it goes on to further development. As in, it does not appear there even is a bill yet, that remains to be written. And now the effort will be to make revisions in the program. That should be interesting.

Meanwhile, here’s another thing Larry told me that was news to me. I had told him that if the program can’t be redirected to subsidizing students taking riding courses then perhaps MOST should be killed. What he told me is that as of about five years ago, the Department of Motor Vehicles no longer administers driving tests when people come in for new licenses. Whether you want a license to drive a car or to ride a motorcycle, you have to go to a third organization to do the driving test. So if MOST went away there would be no system for those third-party trainers/testers to be certified to pass people on their driving tests.

Easy to see why the committee voted unanimously to continue MOST. Crazy that DMV no longer administers driving tests. Great for companies offering driver training.

So fine. Now we sit back and wait to see what in included in the bill when it gets written.

Biker Quote for Today

As addictive as cocaine and twice as expensive.

The legislature is back in session and it is time once again to protect what is ours. In this case it’s rider safety training money we pay in.

And the 2025 legislative session begins. The first order of business of interest to motorcyclists is the bill calling for the Colorado MOST (Motorcycle Operator Safety Training) program to be sunset.

This bill will be discussed on Wednesday at 1:30 p.m. in the Senate Transportation & Energy Committee. If you wish to contact any committee members here are their names and email addresses:
Sen. Winter (Chair)–faith.winter.senate@coleg.gov
Sen. Cutter (Vice Chair)–lisa.cutter.senate@coleg.gov
Sen. Catlin–marc.catlin.senate@coleg.gov
Sen. Exum–tony.exum.senate@coleg.gov
Sen. Hinrichsen–nick.hinrichsen.senate@coleg.gov
Sen. Mullica–kyle.mullica.senate@coleg.gov
Sen. B. Pelton–byron.pelton.senate@coleg.gov
Sen. Simpson–cleave.simpson.senate@coleg.gov
Sen. Sullivan–tom.sullivan.senate@coleg.gov

This bill would shut down the MOST program for nine years. Meanwhile, the money we–nobody but us motorcyclists–paid in would be dumped into the state’s general fund. No way, dude. That’s our money. I say go ahead and shut down MOST if you feel it out to be shut down, but before it goes spend that money as intended. And call a halt to the extra fees we pay each year with our motorcycle registrations and any time we renew our driver’s licenses.

Clearly the worst-case scenario would be that they take our money, end the program, but continue the fees. If you’re interested in seeing to it that that doesn’t happen maybe you ought to show up for this hearing. I’ll be there. And of course afterward I’ll let you know what happened, in case you’re not there.

Biker Quote for Today

No matter how slow you go you’re still lapping everyone on the couch.

The Colorado legislature is now in session and there will be a few bills of interest to motorcyclists this session.

Perhaps the one most directly of interest to bikers is a recommendation to sunset the MOST program. But in the meantime the legislature wants to take the money we have paid in for rider safety training and direct it to the general fund. A little background is in order here.

The Motorcycle Operator Safety Training program was created quite a few years ago in part to deflect the desire of some groups to mandate helmet use in Colorado. The argument was, and continues to be, that greater overall road safety and fewer crashes are better than safer crashes. Which is to say, you can still die in a crash even if you’re wearing a helmet but nobody ever died from having a safe ride.

So motorcyclists in the state supported imposition of an extra fee added to our vehicle registrations each year to fund a rider safety program. Now here’s something I did not know. I only learned this just now as I was reading the 2023 MOST annual report.

The CO MOST program is funded by a $2 surcharge for motorcycle endorsements on a driver’s license or provisional driver’s license, and a $4 surcharge on a motorcycle registration.

I thought we paid $2 each for every motorcycle registration we filed, and that was all. So while I thought with two bikes I would be paying $4 per year to MOST, in fact I must pay $8, and then an additional $2 whenever I renew my driver’s license. OK, not going to break the bank, but definitely worth being aware of.

In the earlier years the MOST program provided a subsidy to rider safety training programs to lower the cost the rider paid for the training. Over the years, however, things got twisted a bit so that now the money is spent only on things like highway signs and program administration and I’m not sure what else but money does not go to defray the cost of rider training. Funny. Car drivers don’t pay extra with their registrations for road signs.

It seems the only true benefit new riders (and only new riders) get is that if you take the Basic Rider Course and pass, the riding test that is part of the training counts toward getting your motorcycle accreditation so you only need to go to the DMV to pay the fee and pass the written test.

So now, from what I hear from Stump, the ABATE of Colorado legislative liaison, the legislative committee involved with such things has recommended that MOST be sunsetted for nine years. Colorado has a sunset law whereby programs are periodically reviewed and recommended for continuance or termination. What surprised me about what Stump said was that apparently this sunsetting is not necessarily permanent, it is only for three years. Really? But in the case of MOST the recommendation is to sunset it for nine years.

Clarification Feb. 5, 2025: Stump and I somehow miscommunicated. In fact, MOST has been recommended for continuation for nine years.

Which is to say the committee apparently has serious reservations. Stump told me in the program’s accounting approximately $100,000 is unaccounted for, although it was not clear to me if he meant the program has failed to account for that much of its funding or the committee failed to account for it in its review. Whichever it is, they say let’s sunset MOST.

Considering that MOST no longer does what seems like it’s most important job–lowering the cost of rider safety training–my opinion is that it should be allowed to sunset. And the fees we pay should be suspended. Can you imagine if the program continues and we continue to pay into it and then that money gets turned over to the state general fund? That money is ours. We paid it in for one specific reason. Car drivers do not pay extra for highway safety. If we’re not getting what we’re paying for there is no justification for continuing to collect those fees. And meanwhile, any remaining balance in program funds ought to be spent, I don’t know, how about reducing the cost of rider training?

But no, the nearly $2 million balance looks mighty attractive to a legislature looking to fill a budget shortfall. Let’s steal it from the bikers.

It’s going to be an interesting process. You can bet I’ll be spending some time at the Capitol, and I’ll be telling you all about it. Stay tuned.

Biker Quote for Today

Tourists and locals are watching from sidewalk cafés. Non-racers. The emptiness of those lives shocks me.

This highway alert says it all. Hang up your phone and drive!

Hands-free is now the law in Colorado. At last.

Using your phone–unless it is hands-free–is now prohibited, but the law could be better. It’s still only a secondary offense, meaning the cops can’t stop you just for using your phone but if they stop you for something else they can also fine you for the phone. And if they’re eager to make the point it’s usually not hard to find some primary offense to stop you for, then let you off on speeding (57 in a 55 zone) but give you the ticket for the phone. Be warned. Heck, just hang the damn thing up. Your call is not more important than my life.

Now, did I shoot those photos above while driving? Nope. I have a dash camera and I popped out the memory card when I got home and downloaded those images.

Biker Quote for Today

Riding a motorcycle is unique unto itself and unknowable to the outside world. — Jon Robertson

This illustration from the Colorado State Patrol website shows enough space between cars for a while other car. How often is that the actual case? Like never?

I was headed over to see some friends on the other side of town and the only sensible way to get there was to go up I-25 and then west on I-70. You do what you’ve got to do.

Traffic was heavy on northbound I-25, and going slowly, and what a surprise to see this guy on a motorcycle come blasting past me, lane-splitting. As I think everyone knows by now, Colorado recently legalized lane-filtering, where it is legal to pass between vehicles as long as they are at a dead stop. Lane-splitting, where you pass between moving vehicles, remains illegal. But by now it’s no secret that some riders see the legalization of filtering as giving them license to split.

One thing I noticed about this guy once he was past me was that he had only one side bag, which I wonder if was because that made him that much narrower and thus able to split lanes more safely. Whatever. I’m pretty sure he knew what he was doing was not what the law made legal.

Shortly after this guy blasted past I saw another bike come on the highway and while this guy was not as aggressive about it, mostly sticking to weaving from one lane to another and back opportunistically, I did see him do a little splitting as well.

And then, on my way home, now southbound on I-25 with heavy traffic moving slowly once again, here comes another guy splitting lanes. I guess this is just how things are these days, the proverbial give them an inch and they take a mile approach.

Let me hasten to note that I have no personal objection to lane-splitting. I just hope these guys doing this don’t screw things up for the rest of us by annoying the legislators enough that they decline to renew the filtering law when it comes up for review in three years.

On a side note, I recently saw a couple articles about how lane-splitting is now going to be legal in Minnesota. It appears that their bill is more permissive than ours, allowing bikes to split at up to 25 miles an hour while going no more than 15 miles an hour faster than the cars they are passing. But what also struck me as interesting was mention in these articles that the bill was signed by Gov. Tim Walz. I’m pretty sure a little more than a month ago most of us would have read that article and not had any idea who was governor of Minnesota. And now all of a sudden it’s, “Oh yeah, that guy.”

And another side note: I was actively studying the space between vehicles available for a bike to pass through and it just reconfirms my certainty that the idea of someone filtering while staying entirely within the lane of the vehicle they are passing is utterly absurd. Not once did I see enough room even for a scooter to get past. You have got to ride the lane divider. Those illustrations on the Colorado State Patrol website are ridiculous in that they show cars vastly smaller in proportion to the lane width than in fact is real.

Biker Quote for Today

“I have discovered biker paradise. It is called the Great Smoky Mountains.” — Foster Kinn

No, you really are not required to filter past a car in front of you only on the left.

I’ve written about how, in my opinion, the information being put out by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) about the newly legal (in Colorado) practice of lane-filtering is misleading and downright incorrect. So I went straight to the source.

I spoke with Sgt. Patrick Rice, who is the public information officer for CSP. Real nice guy and we had a good talk.

Right off the bat, Patrick acknowledged that the CSP statement that riders must pass the vehicles ahead of them on the left was off the mark. The legislation does not say that and if there is room for the rider to pass on the right it is perfectly legal. He explained that when CSP was considering how to get the information on this new practice out to the general public it was decided that it would be most easily understood if they put it in those terms. You or I may disagree with that decision but that’s what it’s all about.

OK, we got that cleared up.

Next I asked him about the CSP statement that the rider must pass the vehicle ahead while staying entirely within the lane they both share. I said that that is not how filtering takes place in the real world and I asked him to point out to me in the legislation where they said that came from. Patrick pointed me to Section 2 where it reads “NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTIONS (2) AND (3)(a) OF THIS SECTION, THE DRIVER OF A TWO-WHEELED MOTORCYCLE MAY OVERTAKE OR PASS ANOTHER MOTOR VEHICLE IN THE SAME LANE AS THE MOTORCYCLE IF:”

This is exactly the section I discussed previously saying that I believed they were misreading this bit of text. To quote myself, “Maybe whoever wrote this piece read it to mean you can pass another vehicle only if you stay in the same lane that it is in, when in fact it should be read that you can pass another vehicle THAT IS in the lane you are in but you don’t have to stay completely in that one lane in doing so. A significant difference of meaning. So the law could have been written a bit more clearly.”

I suggested this reading to Patrick and he agreed that it makes more sense but he said they spoke to the legislators who passed the bill and they agreed with the CSP interpretation. So that leaves them with implementing the law as it is written, not as it might have been better written or as common sense dictates.

That, of course, meant one thing to me: Time to contact the sponsors of the bill and ask them if that was truly their intent and interpretation or whether perhaps the folks at CSP misunderstood. I have reached out to but as yet have not heard back from Javier Mabrey, one of the sponsors.

In the meantime, Patrick tells me that of course patrol officers can and do exercise discretion in their enforcement practices, and he expects that if a rider is otherwise following protocol carefully but crosses over the lane divider while passing someone he does not expect that rider to be confronted. And he said this sort of issue is one of several that have already been raised and he expects that when the bill is being considered for sunsetting in three years–or sooner–it will be amended and these issues will be cleared up.

On a different note, Patrick did educate me on another aspect of the bill. There is a passage where it reads “SHALL NOT OVERTAKE OR PASS: (B) To THE RIGHT OF A VEHICLE IN THE FARTHEST RIGHT-HAND LANE IF THE HIGHWAY IS NOT LIMITED ACCESS.” What I had not understood about this is that it is saying that on city streets it is not permitted to filter on the right, even if you can stay entirely within the lane, because that could lead to a crash if the person you are passing is about to make a right turn on red. OK, that makes sense. Good to know.

Biker Quote for Today

“He loved talking to the mountains. He loved talking to the breeze. He loved to drift. And he loved to ride his motorcycle.” ? Avijeet Das