Passes & Canyons Blog

Lane-splitting in Colorado met with defeat on Wednesday, though in a way that possibly bodes well for future attempts.

Dying on a 5-8 vote in the Transportation and Energy Committee, House Bill 16-1205, which would have legalized lane-splitting, was noted to be a non-partisan bill but the vote was on party lines just the same. One Republican joined the Democrats in defeating it. But sponsor Gordon Klingenschmitt was please afterward that it had received as many votes as it did. We just have to keep working at it.

Reservations expressed by several of the representatives focused largely on a lack of comprehensive data to back up the existing data that seem to show that lane-splitting is safer than sitting in traffic because it reduces the likelihood of motorcyclists getting rear-ended.

Max Tyler, the committee chairman, argued that California experience with lane-splitting does not equate to Colorado because California has a mandatory helmet law. Another representative, Daneya Esgar, noted that she is “constantly worried” when her mother and the mother’s husband ride, not for what they might do but for what other drivers might do. Faith Winter expressed her concern that lane-splitting would be permitted on roads other than major highways. None of the opponents expressed any willingness to be the first state to officially legalize lane-splitting. Although it is not illegal in California, neither is it officially permitted and a bill to do that has been stalled for a long time.

Dave Hall, of the Colorado State Patrol (CSP), expressed that agency’s opposition to the bill. He, too, suggested CSP would be amenable to the possibility if further evidence could be developed that authoritatively supported the safety claim.

Rep. Klingenschmitt summed up his argument saying this is one of those rare times when liberty and safety are not in conflict. Allowing riders this freedom would also help make them safer, he said. However, this time at least, his argument was not enough.

Hearings will be held this week on legislation concerning motorcycle lane-splitting and the need for transponders when motorcycles use HOV lanes.

The hearing on House Bill 16-1205, to allow lane-splitting, will be at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 17, in room 0112 at the Capitol. Senate Bill 16-123, on HOV lanes, will be taken up on Thursday in Senate conference room 352 following the Senate’s adjournment, at around 10:30 to 11:30 a.m.

HB 16-1205, sponsored by Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt (R), from the Colorado Springs area, reads as follows:

Concerning An Exception To The Prohibitions Against Driving A Motorcycle Around Motor Vehicles Blocking The Lanes Of Traffic Moving In The Same Direction.

Currently, the driver of a motorcycle is prohibited from driving between rows of motor vehicles or overtaking on the right. The bill allows motorcycles to drive between rows of motor vehicles or overtake on the right when traffic is moving at less than 5 miles per hour if:

• The motor vehicles that the motorcycle is driving around are traveling in the same direction as the motorcycle and at no more than 5 miles per hour;
• The motorcycle is driven no faster than 15 miles per hour; and
• The motorcycle does not exceed by more than 10 miles per hour the speed of traffic the motorcycle is passing.

Overtaking on the right is not allowed when a vehicle is using the shoulder.

The Colorado department of transportation may notify the public of these changes.

FYI, this bill does not meet the criteria desired by ABATE of Colorado and because there was no time for the ABATE board to discuss it the group will not be taking a stand for or against it.

The Senate bill is quite brief:

Concerning Free Access For High Occupancy Vehicles To High Occupancy Vehicle And High Occupancy Toll Lanes On State Highways, And, In Connection Therewith, Prohibiting The Department Of Transportation And The High-Performance Transportation Enterprise From Requiring A Vehicle Owner To Use A Switchable Transponder Or Other Device In Order To Travel In A High Occupancy Vehicle On Such A Lane Without Paying A Toll.

The bill prohibits the department of transportation or the high-performance transportation enterprise from requiring a vehicle owner to use a switchable transponder or other device in order to travel in a high occupancy vehicle on either a high occupancy vehicle lane or a high occupancy toll lane on a toll-free basis.

Can’t get much clearer than that. If you’re on a motorcycle and use an HOV lane you don’t need a transponder to freely do what you are legally allowed to do. The bill is sponsored by Sen. Kevin Lundberg, from the Fort Collins area. ABATE will be supporting this one.

I’m planning to be there so I’ll report back on what happens. If you want your voice heard, come down and testify.

Biker Quote for Today

You’re a biker wannabe if you like to ride by stores with big picture windows so you can admire your reflection.

I went on Tuesday to the hearing on Colorado Senate Bill 16-122 expecting it to be in regard somehow to the Colorado Motorcycle Operator Safety Training (MOST) program. That’s what you get for assuming.

All I had to go on was an email from Bruce Downs, state coordinator for ABATE of Colorado, saying the hearing would be happening and he was going to be testifying. I downloaded a copy of the bill and did my best to interpret what it was about. I was completely wrong.

Just as the bill said, it was about conducting audits of the Colorado Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) management of its contracts. So where does this tie in to motorcycles?

After his testimony Bruce explained it to me.

“I had a public forum and I could ding somebody so I did.”

The dinging in this case was in regard to both the MOST program and the requirement that motorcycles have transponders to use HOV lanes. From his statement:

Per the statute there was a limit put on how much could be spent on administration, yet CDOT’s actions indicate they do not feel they have to abide by the law and do not have to be accountable for their actions.

And:

Under federal law a motorcycle is considered an HOV under all conditions but CDOT didn’t seem to care. They wanted their $35 “deposit” for a transponder and if one was obtained three would be no “charge” for us to use the lane. If we did not have a transponder then there would be a fee and a fine. How does having a transponder make a difference if you are an HOV or not? What a double standard.

So while Sen. Randy Baumgardner was interested, with his bill, in greater transparency in CDOT, Bruce wanted to bring other issues to his attention, as well as to the attention of those on this committee. It’s a building block, not a whole building.

Did it do any good? Who knows. Maybe. After going through all the other formalities, rather than vote the bill up or down, Baumgardner asked that it be set aside, presumably for some revision. We’ll just have to wait and see what comes next.

Biker Quote for Today

Motorcycles are very useful and have almost annihilated distance and cheap clothes.

Nowhere in the bill is the Colorado Motorcycle Operator Safety Training (MOST) program mentioned specifically but Senate Bill 16-122 is all about MOST. It is scheduled to come up for first hearing on Tuesday at 2 p.m. in Senate Conference Room 352.

Let’s recap the issue.

Soon after Colorado eliminated its mandatory helmet law, quite a few years ago, the MOST program was created–with support of the motorcycling community–to lower the cost of getting riders trained. Better training = fewer crashes was, and still is, the thinking. And from the bikers’ perspective, the fewer crashes the less likelihood that the helmet law would be reinstated. The program is paid for by an extra fee all bikers pay when they get their plates each year and when they renew their drivers licenses.

Long story short, it worked for a good while but eventually it turned out that some rider training programs were decidedly below the acceptable level and the decision was made to institute oversight of the trainers. First the trainee reimbursement was decreased and then it was eliminated. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), which handles the MOST program announced that it would hire an outside agency to do the oversight, essentially using all the money we chip in to pay for that oversight.

There are a few issues here. Colorado motorcyclists agreed to pay these extra fees in order to lower the cost to trainees. Now their cost is not lowered one dime. The MOST legislation also states that no more than 15 percent of the money raised can be use for administration. Now effectively all of it is to be used for administration. So now motorcyclists will pay extra to ensure the quality of motorcycle rider training, while people driving cars do not pay anything extra to ensure the quality of driver training. The general consensus is that that is unfair to us and totally unacceptable.

So what would SB 16-122 do? I’m not a lawyer so I can only interpret this to the best of my ability but here goes. I’ll quote from the bill summary and offer my best understanding.

Section 1 requires the state auditor to conduct a risk-based performance audit of CDOT no later than June 30, 2018.

I really can’t explain this, other than to conjecture that it relates to what follows.

Section 2 limits CDOT’s existing authority to enter into a lease-purchase agreement that requires total payments exceeding $500,000 without specific prior authorization by a bill enacted by the general assembly to lease-purchase agreements for the lease and purchase of personal property only.

This appears directly aimed at the CDOT plan to bring in outside oversight. That contract would run about $800,000 so CDOT would not be able to move ahead on this front without legislative OK.

Section 3 requires CDOT:
! To close each transportation project and release any money budgeted for the project as quickly as feasible and within one year following the substantial completion of the project unless a pending legal claim related to the project or an unusual circumstance beyond the control of CDOT unavoidably requires a longer time to close the project;
! To report on its public website within 2 weeks of a competitively bid transportation contract award, the identity of the winning bidder, the amount of the winning bid, and whether or not the bid awarded was the low bid, and, if not, why CDOT chose the bid over a lower bid;
! To annually report to the transportation commission regarding the percentages and total amount of money budgeted and expended during the preceding fiscal year for payments to private sector contractors for work on transportation projects and total transportation project costs for projects completed by CDOT employees, including indirect cost recoveries and employee salaries; and
! On or after July 1, 2016, and on and after July 1 of each year thereafter, to report to the transportation legislation review committee regarding amendments made to the statewide transportation improvement plan that were adopted during the most recently ended fiscal year and that added or deleted a project from the plan or modified the funding priority of any project included in the plan. The report must include an explanation of the reasons for each reported policy amendment and administrative action amendment.

There seems to be a number of things going on here. In one case it appears to be making it clear that if a decision is ultimately made to eliminate the MOST program, the state will not be able to continue assessing us the fees we now pay to support it. The second items appears to speak to concerns that the proposed awarding of this contract to the Motorcycle Safety Foundation was not fairly handled. Third, it would require CDOT to tell the legislature what it is spending MOST money on so that if more than 15 percent is going for administration that will be very clear. And fourth, it would require CDOT to get legislative OK in the future if other sweeping changes are proposed.

If someone wants to offer a clearer explanation I urge you to do so in a comment to this post.

So anyway, this is what will be going on Tuesday down at the Capitol. Bruce Downs, ABATE state coordinator, told me he will be there to testify and I’m sure there will be others as well. I’ll be observing, and will have a follow-up report afterward.

Biker Quote for Today

When I drag my elbow it’s part of the crash.

Let’s rejoin the discussion of motorcycles needing transponders to use HOV lanes without paying a fee.

I heard at Sunday’s ABATE D-10 meeting that state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, from the broad Fort Collins area, is planning to introduce a bill that, while not directed specifically at motorcycles, would nevertheless address the issue. Apparently Lundberg’s broader concern is the idea of requiring anyone–in cars or motorcycles or whatever–to have a transponder to use HOV lanes. Let’s just go back, Lundberg is saying, to last year when all you needed to drive in an HOV lane was two people in your car. Of course, that system also including allowing any motorcycle to use the HOV lane with no other requirement. While as written the legislation apparently does not say anything about motorcycles, Lundberg has indicated that he would seek an amendment that does specifically include motorcycles. That’s why ABATE has Stump working as a (non-paid!) lobbyist down at the Capitol, to get that kind of motorcycle consideration included in these bills.

It makes total sense to me. The old system was working; why did it need to be fixed? The way it has been revised there is no way for an out-of-state rider passing through to know that they need a transponder–all they would know is that motorcycles are allowed in HOV lanes so let’s do it. Boom: you get a bill in the mail when you get home.

Also, why should anyone, in a car or on a bike, have to pay for the transponder (bikes excluded on this one) and sign up with their credit card and an initial $35 deposit taken (bikes not excluded here) just to–once again–use the HOV lanes that used to be wide open? You’re adding cost, bureaucracy, time spent, and all the rest. I mean, go ahead and require transponders for anyone interested in taking the toll lanes. We all have the choice to use those or not. But don’t inflict all this on people whose only interest is in using the HOV lanes that they are entitled to use per the laws that created them.

So this is another piece of legislation, along with the lane-splitting proposal I mentioned earlier, that I’ll be watching and keeping you informed on. Bruce Downs, ABATE’s state coordinator, made the point at the meeting that when this bill comes up in committee we’re going to want to blanket that hearing room in black leather.

“It has an effect. It really does,” he said.

Could be an interesting legislative session.

Biker Quote for Today

“The Bikers Code” — All men and women are created equal. Then some take a step up and become bikers.

I was down at the Capitol building today and met Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt (R), from the Colorado Springs area, who is introducing a bill to allow lane-splitting by motorcyclists in Colorado. So far he has one Democratic co-sponsor in the House (Steve Lebsock) and a Republican co-sponsor in the Senate (John Cooke).

It is entitled, “A bill for an act concerning an exception to the prohibition against driving a motorcycle between rows of motor vehicles in the same lane.” Here is the bill summary.

Currently the driver of a motorcycle is prohibited from driving between rows of motor vehicles. The bill allows motorcycles to drive between rows of motor vehicles when traffic is moving at less than five miles per hour if:

• The motor vehicles that the motorcycle is driving between are traveling in the same direction as and slower than the motorcycle;
• The motorcycle is driven no faster than 15 miles per hour; and
• The motorcycle does not exceed by 10 miles per hour the speed of traffic the motorcycle is passing.

Rep. Klingenschmitt is taking an interesting tack in promoting this bill. He has put together information pointing out that in the California bill explicitly allowing lane-splitting the Democrats voted 90 percent in favor of it and 67 percent of the Republicans voted for it.

“So it’s really a Democrat bill,” he said. So Democrats in Colorado ought to support him on this. Will they? That’s a very good question. We’ll see. But if you favor lane-splitting you really ought to let your elected representatives know that.

The materials Klingenschmitt was passing around made the point that lane-splitting is supported by the American Motorcyclist Association and the Motorcycle Industry Council. Locally it also has the support of the Powersports Dealers Association of Colorado and the Colorado Confederation of Clubs. ABATE has not yet voiced its support but I know that group will also be backing this piece of legislation.

I realize that there are some motorcyclists who oppose lane-splitting because they consider it too dangerous. Nevermind that it is practiced safely in California and in much of the rest of the world. I would simply ask those who do oppose it to keep in mind that they are not required to do it; let’s just not oppose it for those who do wish to do it. I know I’ll only do it if I am convinced I can do so safely. Nobody values my skin more than I do.

The legislative session is just getting started. There could be some interesting things going on down there this year. I’ll be paying attention and will let you know what’s happening.

Biker Quote for Today

If and whenever you begin risking your life by assuming a driver will do the right thing, you should quit riding motorcycles. — Nick Ienatsch