Passes & Canyons Blog

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering lower noise limits on motorcycles and that has the Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) concerned. Part of that concern has to with the fact that the change would only apply to motorcycles. An 83 decibel (db) limit is currently in effect for all vehicles.

In a release today the MRF stated that the EPA has only sent letters requesting data to nine companies. This fact is troubling, the MRF says, for a couple of reasons.

First, it is not representative of the much larger motorcycling community that will be affected by changing the regulation, rendering the survey results questionable at best. Second, any time a federal agency wants to spend taxpayer money to survey a group of 10 or more individuals or organizations, they must obtain approval from the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The approval process isn’t easy and can often be drawn out, giving American citizens the right to weigh in on the agency’s application for permission to survey. However, when an agency only contacts nine organizations, they don’t have to tell anyone or get permission from the OMB to move forward on the survey, making the process lack transparency.

The MRF says it finds the focus solely on motorcycles “discriminatory and simply unacceptable” and it is “working with Congress to get the EPA to explain their intentions and motivations. The MRF is also working to meet directly with the EPA to further determine exactly is going on with this issue.”

Recent from National Motorcycle Examiner
Tragedy at newest American motorcycle manufacturer

Biker Quote for Today

Let’s ban idiots, not the equipment they annoy us with.

It seems a no-brainer that motorcycles pollute less than cars because we get more miles per gallon. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. And tracking down the reality of the matter is not easy, either, as I have been finding.

I’m working on an article for RumBum.com, and a series of articles for Eaminer.com, on this topic and apparently the truth of the matter is no one really knows for sure which pollutes more. Or to put it a little differently, which has the greater ecological impact. (Note on January 10, 2018: Both of these publications are now extinct so I have deleted the links.)

Just to simplify the issue, two things are certain. Because motorcycles consume less fuel covering a specific distance than cars, motorcycles emit fewer of the pollutants that bear a one-to-one relationship to the amount of fuel used. At the same time, because most motorcycles do not have catalytic converters, the fuel is burned less completely and bikes therefore emit more of those pollutants. I read in one place that a motorcycle emits more of these pollutants in one mile than a Hummer emits in 100 miles. Wow. Even if that’s a huge exaggeration it’s still something to think about.

But there are other factors that have to be considered as well. Motorcycles use fewer resources to build (they’re smaller), they burn less fuel regardless of pollution levels, they do less damage to the roadway, and on and on. I know I’m not capable of balancing all these factors out to determine which vehicles are the greenest. And apparently no one else is, or at least no one who is capable of doing so has done so yet.

I checked with the American Motorcyclist Association to see if they had any authoritative information and they referred me to the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC). It turned out the MIC didn’t have any definitive info either. Cam Arnold, their VP for communication, told me that “Obviously it’s a big issue, and there are a million variables. When you start digging into it it’s a huge issue.”

So anyway, this blog is where I often give the back story on the pieces I write for other venues. Usually I do that after the fact, but this time I’ll telling the back story ahead of the rest. I don’t know where this will all lead but I’ll let you know once it’s done.

Biker Quote for Today

Sometimes it takes a whole tankful of fuel before you can think straight.

Would you like to be able to ride your motorcycle to work and find convenient, free parking by the curb? With a little luck we will have that here in Denver this summer. And you can probably make it happen in your town, too. Here’s what you can do.

Denver is fortunate in that we have a mayor who “gets it” and is willing to consider new ideas. He created an agency called Greenprint Denver that is charged with helping Denverites reduce pollution, congestion, and burning of motor fuel.

But you don’t need that degree of commitment; all you really need is a Public Works Department that is open to trying something new. In brief, here’s what needs to happen.

1. Identify unused or under-used spaces on city blocks
2. Have the traffic engineers and parking specialists select the ones they feel would be best suited to motorcycle parking
3. Get the program approved
4. Have crews stripe, sign, and otherwise prepare the spaces to be designated

Presto, you’re in business.

I’ll elaborate further. The spaces you’re looking for are called “end-caps” and they are generally spaces at the ends of blocks that are not long enough for cars. So they sit there empty but they could easily accommodate one or more motorcycles or scooters.

Because they’re sitting there empty, converting the end-caps to motorcycle parking would not cut city revenue as converting a metered space would do. So if your city wants to encourage motorcycle commuting, the only costs would be the time spent devising the program and then the striping and signing.

What more can you ask for? It’s green and it’s cheap. And it’s a way for your city to show that it has the concerns of its citizenry at heart. Your city councilperson might be interested in having themselves portrayed in that manner. Maybe if you sent them an email.

But really, I would start with the Public Works Department. They may already be thinking along these lines and your inquiry may be a helpful boost to get the idea in motion. I got involved in this because a reader of my Examiner.com site wrote urging me to lobby for dedicated parking. I started writing about it and several people stepped up to contribute to the effort and then I discovered that the city was already looking into it. So I don’t claim any influence in this at all, I just lucked into a great news story that no one else was covering.

What I have seen as I have delved into this story, however, is that it’s something that could easily be replicated just about anywhere. I really do think all you need to do is start talking to the right people and you can probably make it happen.

If you do, I’d love to hear from you about your efforts and problems and successes and whatever else. Get on it!

Biker Quote for Today

He who rides and keeps the beaten track studies the fences chiefly. — Henry David Thoreau

How is it that bureaucrats can get away with twisting a law to the exact opposite of its intent?

In this instance I’m talking about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which made it illegal for insurance companies to deny coverage for customers doing things like riding motorcycles or snowmobiling. At least that’s what Congress thought it was doing. By the time the bureaucrats got done with the regulations they had specifically made it legal for insurance companies to do just that. Huh?

I’ve reported previously on efforts to fix this absurdity by passing another law that would be so explicit that no bureaucrat could possibly twist in such a perverse fashion. That legislation, called the HIPAA Recreational Injury Technical Correction Act, was working its way through Congress last year.

Unfortunately, it appears to have been significantly weakened. The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) reported that the bill currently making it way through Congress does not prohibit non-coverage of motorcycle accident injuries, it only requires that if the company is going to deny these claims it must tell the policy holders well in advance that these injuries are not covered.

To summarize the legalese, your health insurance provider can limit payment for an injury sustained on a motorcycle so long as it is spelled out to you in simple terms well in advance of you joining the plan.

In closing, the MRF release states:

Closing the loophole entirely and mandating that insurance companies must cover all injuries sustained while operating a legal motorcycle is still the ultimate goal of the MRF. HR 1253 puts Congress on record that this issue needs attention and is willing to work on it. The MRF will continue to keep you updated on this important matter.

Clearly we all need to support the MRF and other motorcycle organizations in continuing to fight this fight. But how obscene is it that we won this battle back in ’96, only to have that victory snatched away by some nameless, faceless bureaucrats! Something is seriously wrong here.

Biker Quote for Today

If you don’t pursue your dream, you might as well be a vegetable.

Does your town or city make a point to make dedicated motorcycle parking available? So many people talk about going “green” and riding a bike is certainly greener than driving a car, so shouldn’t cities be promoting motorcycle usage?

Before I get into this discussion I want to make it clear here what my purpose is. If your city does actively promote motorcycle commuting by mandating dedicated parking I want to hear from you. I’m looking for examples we can use to promote the same thing here.

This is an issue that a reader posted on my Examiner.com site, and which I have chosen to pursue. He suggested that we try to start a grassroots movement to have the city designate dedicated motorcycle parking on every block. I posted his remarks and called for reader response.

Another reader immediately took the initiative and contacted his state representative about getting a bill introduced in the legislature. In Colorado, however, legislators are restricted to introducing no more than five bills per session and everyone had already committed themselves for this year. Time to think about next year, but too late this year.

I also contacted the staff of a city councilwoman I have known for a long time asking how you would go about working for an ordinance to be enacted. I got a reply directing me to an agency set up by the mayor with the express purpose of working for green initiatives. I contacted those folks and got some good information about what the city is already considering, which includes designating the “end-cap” areas at the end of the block that are too small for cars as motorcycle parking. So there’s hope.

My point here is that the readership of my Examiner.com page is more local, while the readership of this blog is more widespread. If any of you have ideas or experience you can offer to give us a hand we would all very much appreciate it. We’re not experienced activists, we’re just some folks who think we have a good idea that we want to try to promote. Thanks in advance for anything you can offer.

Biker Quote for Today

Bikes don’t leak oil, they mark their territory.

What do you do if you’ve lost a leg but still want to pilot a motorcycle trike? In most states, to operate one of these vehicles you need a motorcycle validation on your driver’s license. That can be hard to get if you’re disabled in any of a number of ways.

Well, Colorado has answered that question. This one slipped by me but Terry Howard, State Coordinator of ABATE of Colorado, brought it to my attention when we spoke recently.

As of this summer, Section 1. 42-2-103, of the Colorado Revised Statutes, says, in part:

The department shall also require an applicant for a limited three-wheel motorcycle endorsement to demonstrate the applicant’s ability to exercise ordinary and reasonable care and control in the operation of a three-wheel motorcycle.

The act further states:

A person with only a limited three-wheel motorcycle endorsement may operate a three-wheel motorcycle but shall not operate a two-wheel motorcycle on a roadway.

This provision also applies to bikes with sidecars.
So there you go. You no longer have to have a full motorcycle license to ride a trike in Colorado. Credit for this goes primarily to ABATE of Colorado and the efforts it put behind getting this measure passed. By the way, ABATE of Colorado also offers rider training courses for three-wheelers and sidecars.

Biker Quote for Today

It is not what you ride, it is the fact that you ride.

There has been quite a discussion going on over on my Denver Motorcycle Examiner webpage in regard to a post I made there about a possible British motorcycle ban.

I picked up a news article from www.motorcyclenews.com, a British website, that said the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) in England told a committee of Parliament that “Motorcycles are seen in the UK to be, in the majority of instances, vehicles of choice rather than necessity and one might consider if our congested roads are any longer fit for purpose for these motorised toys.”

Well, that’s a show stopper. The article also spoke about an ACPO claim that many street bikes have too much power, and an ACPO request for chips in license plates to help identify bikes even if the police can’t catch them.

The post drew a number of comments from British bikers, such as f0ul who said:

The police in the UK have been as totalitarian as they can get away with over the past few years.

They managed to get at least 7 national shows banned over 2008 – they have been pushing for the national parks to have a motorcycle ban for a few years although I don’t think they will be able to do it because almost all proper laws in the UK are worked out in the EU by today.

With a number of bike manufacturers still in Europe (BMW etc.) this sort of law will be seen as a detriment of trade and there is no way the Germans will allow that!

However, there was another post “on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers” that said:

ACPO does not advocate the prohibition of motorcycle use on public roads. It is nonsense to suggest that ACPO is seeking a ban on motorcycles, given that most police forces in the UK actively deploy and consider motorcycles to be a key part of their transport infrastructure.

So the following day I published this reply as a follow-up post, expressing some reservations but concluding that without actually reporting the document in question I had no way of knowing whose version was closer to the truth.

Then I got comments on that post. John Procter had this to say:

Perhaps you need to look at the rather lengthy report that contained the ACPO statement. It may not be as draconian as initial snapshot reporting suggested, but there could still be some concern. The truth of the matter might be that some police chiefs are VERY anti bike, e.g., North Wales’ infamous police boss. However, a major problem we have here in the UK is very poor policing of our roads with a high dependency on speed cameras. Lack of traffic police has led to poorer driving with consequent effects on vulnerable motorcyclists, leading to worrying casualties.

I thanked John for helping clarify some of the issues here. I didn’t promise to read the report. Then the latest comment was a copy of an updated news report from the (I believe London) Telegraph. The reporter, Kevin Ash, wrote:

In a press release responding to concerns about the ACPO submission, David Griffin, Deputy Chief Constable of Humberside, stated: “It is nonsense to suggest that ACPO is seeking a ban on motorcycles,” even though it is clear in the report that ACPO suggests prohibiting motorcycles from some roads. The press release also said that ACPO does not have a position on imposing specific power limits on motorcycles, yet they appear to have a position in the submission to the Transport Committee.

Another strange claim by ACPO to the committee is that motorcycling presents a problem of “Vehicle Excise Duty evasion on a massive scale.” This appears to be based on a DVLA report published at the beginning of this year suggesting that almost 40 per cent of motorcycles are untaxed, even though an apology was later issued by the Commons public accounts committee when it was discovered the figures were wrong, and the true number was only slightly greater for motorcycles than cars, at about six per cent. In its submission, ACPO used the 40 per cent figure to suggest that motorcycles should be fitted with electronic chips to allow automatic vehicle identification. ACPO did not respond to The Daily Telegraph’s query about this.

A further inaccuracy presented to the committee by ACPO is that, “Production machines are readily available for use on our roads with top speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour.” In fact there are no production bikes capable of more than 200mph, even without the motorcycle industry’s voluntary 186mph speed limitation.

So, he said, no I didn’t, yes you did. It’s looking pretty messy over there. What does that have to do with us in the U.S., or more specifically in Colorado? Nothing directly, but you know that if laws like that get passed over on that side of the pond, someone over here will surely make similar proposals. I know I say this a lot, and I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but this is exactly why I belong to the American Motorcyclist Association and why you should too, or else to the Motorcycle Riders Foundation or to your local ABATE. These are the guys fighting to protect our rights.

Biker Quote for Today

The great thing about riding through strange new places is that it invariably shows me just how wrong I am about them until I actually go there. Actual experience beats half-assed assumptions and prejudice.

This is great. I got the answers I was looking for on the issue of tiered licensing, which was raised several times at the Meeting of the Minds awhile back.

The person providing the information is Don Creamer, who is the state Legislative Affairs Specialist for ABATE of Colorado. Rather than paraphrase Don, I’ll just present his info directly.

First Don gave a better synopsis than I have of what tiered licensing can look like. Here’s what he said:

Tiered licensing consists of restricting riders to certain size engines on their bikes based upon their age. As an example, a 16 year old may only be able to ride a bike with 50cc’s or less, and this would be noted in some way on their operator’s license. In Europe the “unlimited” class (i.e., any engine larger than 650 cc) is limited to those 24 or older. For that reason many riders wait until they are 24 before they consider getting a bike.

This type of licensing relies upon the flawed assumption that age equals maturity and ability to handle a larger/more powerful machine.

When I asked Don what the issues were, as far as ABATE is concerned, this was his reply:

Fairness is also the driving issue (sorry for the pun) when it comes to tiered licensing. When you look at the numbers of fatalities involving automobiles as opposed to motorcycles, the “need” for tiered licenses for only motorcycles is not supported. It is surprisingly rare for a young person to be killed on a bike that has a large engine – kids can’t afford them! However, kids are regularly killed (usually in bunches of two or more) in cars that have large displacements when compared to bikes. So, who do the lawmakers go after? The motorcyclists of course. We are an easy, visible target. Down here in the Pikes Peak region, the kids who can afford to buy the hot crotch rockets (Ninjas, etc.) are the military troops who want additional excitement after spending 15 months in Iraq or Afghanistan getting shot at. Those 19 and 20 year olds can afford it because of their regular paychecks, sign-on bonuses, etc. College and high school students can’t.

Look at student parking lots at schools, and you won’t find many motorcycles. Most of these kids drive cars to schools and to their jobs. They can’t afford a bike for nice weather and a car for when it snows or rains. Their parents would explode if the legislature required those kids to drive small cars which provide less protection (but can still go pretty fast.)

If the legislature wants to get serious about doing something for kids they will require the wearing of helmets by children when they are riding in a car! The traumatic brain injury per capita rate is 14 times higher there than from motorcycle accidents. Now THAT requirement would cause some yelling!

I hope that this helps.

So that’s the scoop. Thanks Don, I really appreciate your help here.

Biker Quote for Today

It’s simple—Just Ride!