Passes & Canyons Blog

If you want your voice to be heard now is the time to speak up. There are two bills coming up in the Colorado legislature that are of interest to motorcyclists.

On Wednesday, February 7, at 1:30 in room 352 at the Capitol, there will be a hearing on SB24-079 (Motorcycle Lane Filtering & Passing). Here’s the bill summary.

The bill authorizes a 2-wheeled motorcycle to overtake or pass another motor vehicle in the same lane if:

The other motor vehicle is stopped or moving in the same direction of travel as the motorcycle;
The road has lanes wide enough to pass safely;
The motorcycle is moving at 20 miles per hour or less; and
Conditions permit prudent operation of the motorcycle while overtaking or passing.

A motorcycle rider overtaking or passing under the bill must not overtake or pass:

On the right shoulder;
To the right of a vehicle in the farthest right-hand lane if the highway is not limited access; or
In a lane of traffic moving in the opposite direction.

If you want to promote–or oppose–this bill come on down and have your say.

Then, on Monday, February 12, at 1:30 in room 352, there will be a hearing for SB24-065 (Mobile Electronic Devices & Motor Vehicle Driving). Here’s the summary on that one.

Current law prohibits an individual who is under 18 years of age from using a mobile electronic device when driving. The bill applies the prohibition to an individual who is 18 years of age or older unless the individual is using a hands-free accessory. The following uses are exempted:

By an individual reporting an emergency to state or local authorities;
By an employee or contractor of a utility when responding to a utility emergency;
By a first responder; or
By an individual in a motor vehicle that is parked.

The penalties for a violation are:

For a first offense, $75 and 2 license suspension points;
For a second offense within 24 months, $150 and 3 license suspension points; and
For a third or subsequent offense within 24 months, $250 and 4 license suspension points.

A violation will be dismissed if the individual has not previously committed a violation, produces proof of purchase of a hands-free accessory, and affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the defendant has not previously claimed this option to dismiss.

Current law requires a peace officer who makes a traffic stop to record the demographic information of the violator, whether a citation has been issued, and the violation cited. The bill clarifies that the peace officer must record whether the bill has been violated.

The executive director of the department of transportation, in consultation with the chief of the Colorado state patrol, is required to create a campaign raising public awareness of the requirements of the bill and of the dangers of using mobile electronic devices when driving.

I don’t know about you but I could not endorse this bill more strongly, and I do plan to be there to testify. With my recent T-boning by some guy whose eyes were somewhere far from the road I have a really personal interest here. And while I was unhurt, viewing the dash cam video captured by the car behind the guy who hit me, it is clear that if that guy had been about five seconds sooner he would not have hit me but would have hit–and very possibly killed–a woman who crossed the street just before I got to the intersection. What is wrong with these people!!?

Now, if you can’t make it down to the legislature you should at least contact your senator and representative and tell them you support these measures. It’s that kind of personal contact that sways their votes. This is important.

Biker Quote for Today

I love motorcycles because you only ride forward, away from all the crap you’ve left behind.

Mark Buckner, a long-time motorcycling advocate in Colorado, recently emailed around a synopsis of his efforts to connect with members of Congress from Colorado in regard to their support of motorcycling connected legislation. I’m not going to just copy the whole thing here, but I will do the Reader’s Digest version. If the people representing you don’t support your positions you might want to contact them. Sometimes they just need to be educated as to why they ought to take a specific position.

Starting with the Senate:

Senator Michael Bennet: Stump (ABATE of Colorado legislative liaison) tried unsuccessfully to schedule a meeting. He left materials addressing issues and also a business card.

Senator John Hickenlooper: Ditto

Congresswoman Diana DeGette, 1st Congressional District: General Notes: Has not been supportive in the past. We had a meeting scheduled with Congresswoman DeGette’s aide Nicholas Anozis but were unable to attend due to travel complications in getting to the House Office buildings.

Congressman Joe Neguse, 2nd Congressional District: General Notes: Has been friendly and supportive in the past. Has signed on to prior Right-to-Repair legislation. Interested but non-committal on a number of other issues.

Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, 3rd Congressional District: General Notes: Friendly; supportive of motorcyclists’ issues. Congresswoman Boebert rides; so does her (ex-) husband. Generally supportive of most motorcycle-related issues.

Congressman Ken Buck, 4th Congressional District: General Notes: Friendly; As always, supportive of motorcyclists’ issues.

Congressman Doug Lamborn, 5th Congressional District: General Notes: Friendly; As always, supportive of motorcyclists’ issues. Congressman Lamborn rides, and some of his aides ride as well.

Congressman Jason Crow, 6th Congressional District: General Notes: Not particularly supportive of motorcyclists’ issues; mainly interested in veteran issues.

Congresswoman Brittany Pettersen, 7th Congressional District: General Notes: Possibly 60% favorable toward motorcyclists’ issues? On the fence on many of our issues but is approachable.

Congresswoman Yadira Caraveo, 8th Congressional District: General Notes: Newly elected; first term in Congress; not supportive of our issues when she served in the Colorado state legislature.

That’s the run-down. I wonder what it would take to get some of these Democrats to take an interest in motorcycling issues the way that the Republicans do. These people are missing a bet.

Biker Quote for Today

The road less traveled can cause inner peace.

I had a boss once whose favorite term for motorcycles was “murder cycles.” She hated them and believed that anyone who rode one would surely end up dead beside the road. Thirty-five years later, she is dead, of natural causes, and I’m still very much alive and very much still riding motorcycles.

Other people like to refer to motorcyclists who ride without helmets as “organ donors.” Both of these pejoratives are based primarily on ignorance but hey, we who ride are used to provoking ignorant people to dispel any doubt about who they are.

But sometimes we encounter someone who wants to take things a little too far. This is the case at the moment in Connecticut where a state senator, with the convenient name of Martin Looney, has proposed a bill mandating that anyone who dies in a motorcycle crash without a helmet is deemed to be offering their organs for transplant. Here’s the text of the bill:

AN ACT ESTABLISHING A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION THAT PERSONS KILLED IN A MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT WHILE RIDING WITHOUT A HELMET WISH TO DONATE THEIR ORGANS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
That the general statutes be amended to establish a rebuttable presumption that a person who is killed in a motorcycle accident while
riding the motorcycle without a helmet wishes to donate their organs.
Statement of Purpose:
To improve public health.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of people donating their organs once they have no further use for them, but seriously? Why single out motorcyclists not wearing helmets? Why not a bill saying that all people who die prematurely, unless previously stated, shall be deemed organ donors. Or at least accompanying the unhelmeted motorcyclists with car drivers and passengers who aren’t wearing seat belts?

The American Motorcyclist Association issued a protest, saying:

“The bill shows callous disregard for the motorcycling public,” said AMA Government Relations Director Mike Sayre. “Organ donation is a noble cause that regularly saves lives around the country, but the decision to become a donor is a deeply personal one — one that this legislation would take away from motorcyclists.”

“Not only is this bill insulting to motorcyclists,” Sayre added, “but it also violates the religious liberty of those whose faith prohibits posthumous organ donation, and is clearly an unconstitutional violation of bodily autonomy for any American.”

How likely is this bill to pass? Who knows. Probably it won’t. But when the AMA contacted the senator’s office to inquire about the bill and spoke to one of his staffers, this was the upshot:

The staffer stated that their position was that if motorcyclists put their lives at risk by riding helmetless, they assume those riders don’t care where their organs end up.

Ignorance.

Biker Quote for Today

If you party like you ride, make sure to wear a helmet.

While I don’t think anybody expects the lane splitting/filtering proposal currently in the Colorado legislature to pass, at least not this session, there continues to be discussion within the biker community of the issue. Here’s some of what is being said.

Not surprisingly, Stump, ABATE of Colorado’s legislative liaison, has been talking with legislators and others. This is from Stump:

One main concern is lane splitting with traffic moving at 40 mph. The sponsor’s main premise for lane splitting is that motorcyclists stuck in stop-and-go traffic when it’s 90+ degrees out, sitting on top of an engine making it a lot hotter, with an air cooled engine that isn’t getting any air, is both dangerous for the motorcyclist and bad for the motorcycle. But if traffic is moving at 40 mph, isn’t the rider and motorcycle getting air? I’m thinking it should be more like Utah and Arizona where traffic has to be stopped or at most traveling at 10 mph.

Another concern is that the bill specifies CSP and CDOT do the study. How about involving stakeholders such as motorcycle organizations, insurance companies, the trucking industry, and manufacturers. Virginia’s Lane filtering study invited 22 different organizations to participate and got a lot more pertinent data.

Also, the sponsor hasn’t explained the difference between lane splitting and filtering, which is something the legislators should know. Lane splitting is done primarily on freeways and filtering is done mainly on urban streets with speeds posted at less than 45 mph, filtering to the front of stopped traffic at traffic lights.

At my meeting with the bill sponsor this week, he informed me that these issues are going to be addressed. I don’t know if he plans to introduce an amendment about these concerns or just discuss them at 2nd reading. So, I’ve been addressing these concerns with 4 of my “friendly” legislators ensuring that these issues are addressed at 2nd reading, either with amendments or at least meaningful discussions.

Stump also sent around a photo with the the message, “Is this what Colorado is going to look like if lane splitting passes? (Note all the helmets too!)” That would be the photo above. And no, I seriously doubt this is what Colorado would look like. There are just a heck of a lot more motorcycle riders in Thailand than there will probably ever be here.

Deb had this to say:

Thanks for the update, Stump. Now I wonder if any/all of you saw the 9news report on this bill. The video shows a bike splitting between two cars on the highway while doing a wheelie.

Here’s the link to the video that showed yesterday. The part with the wheelie is about 1:57 in. Study may allow motorcycles to split lanes | 9news.com The reporter also made a short comment on the wheelie. The video this morning ran the part with the wheelie twice.

The segment really seems mostly pretty fair but the inclusion of that lane-splitter wheelying his way through traffic is very much over the top and does not strike me as a good journalistic thing to do. And guaranteed to make the general public strongly object to allowing this change.

So anyway, the thing is just hanging at this point. I’ll do an update when there is actual news.

Biker Quote for Today

Put vibrations in your life, marry a motorcycle rider.

So Rep. Ron Weinberg decided not to kill his bill calling for a study of lane-splitting in Colorado.

In a report on Local Today, Weinberg said “Motorcycling is a contentious issue . . . People are afraid there will be more fatalities. I certainly don’t want that, but all the more reason to study it.” He stated further that “There is no arrogance or selfishness here. If it really comes back and says it’s harming Coloradans’ lives, I’ll kill it myself.”

What exactly does the bill call for? Here’s the current text.

43-1-131. Motorcycle lane splitting study – report – repeal.
(1) THE DEPARTMENT, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE COLORADO STATE PATROL, SHALL STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF PERMITTING MOTORCYCLES TO PASS OR OVERTAKE A MOTOR VEHICLE BY DRIVING ALONGSIDE THE MOTOR VEHICLE IN THE SAME LANE OR DRIVING BETWEEN ROWS OF STOPPED OR MOVING MOTOR VEHICLES, REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION AS “LANE SPLITTING.” THE STUDY MUST, AT A MINIMUM:
(a) IDENTIFY AND ANALYZE THE BENEFITS AND DRAWBACKS OF PERMITTING MOTORCYCLE LANE SPLITTING; AND
(b) IDENTIFY POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUES RELATED TO PERMITTING MOTORCYCLE LANE SPLITTING.
(2) NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 2023, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT ON THE STUDY TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE TRANSPORTATION AND ENERGY COMMITTEE, OR THEIR SUCCESSOR COMMITTEES.
24-33.5-204. Departmental cooperation – repeal. (3) (a) THE COLORADO STATE PATROL SHALL COLLABORATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT HB23-1059-2-
OF TRANSPORTATION ON THE MOTORCYCLE LANE SPLITTING FEASIBILITY STUDY DESCRIBED IN SECTION 43-1-131.

A fiscal note has been produced, specifying how much the proposal would cost and where the funding would come from–a requirement for all bills. The study is expected to cost $75,000 and the money would come from the state highway fund. No special appropriation would be needed.

So that’s where it sits right now. Stay tuned for future twists and turns.

Biker Quote for Today

Riding a motorcycle is exactly like riding a bicycle except you have power between your legs.

OK, that didn’t go very far. The word from Stump, ABATE of Colorado‘s legislative liaison, is that Rep. Ron Weinberg is planning to kill his own bill that would have called for a study of lane filtering as a possibility for Colorado.

Here’s what Stump had to say:

HB23-1059 (Lane Splitting Study) is going to be PI’d or pulled by the sponsor of the bill. I met very briefly with Rep. Weinberg on Thursday. Prior to our meeting, he had been in contact with Tiffany Cipoletti, the On Highway Government Relations Manager for the AMA, who informed him that the AMA thinks HB1059 was “poorly written and wasn’t supported by CDOT and CSP.” She went on to say, “entering into a study with the DOT and CHP when you know they are opposed may be detrimental to any future efforts.” That seemed to be deciding point for Rep. Weinberg. He had also talked to Capt. Honn (CSP liaison to the Legislature) to confirm CSP’s stance on the bill. At our brief meeting (about 2 minutes), Rep. Weinberg said, “I heard from the AMA and I don’t want to do anything that would be detrimental to the relationship between the bikers and CSP, so I’m going to PI the bill. Meeting over.” But he also said maybe next year.

So OK, maybe next year. It’s taking time but this thing is slowly gaining momentum across the country, so maybe as more states try it, the ones that are reluctant will gain more confidence in the concept.

Biker Quote for Today

They say life is tough, but it’s a hell of a lot easier on a motorcycle.

A bill calling for the Colorado Department of Transportation, in collaboration with the Colorado State Patrol, to study the concept of allowing lane-splitting has been introduced in the Colorado House (HOUSE BILL 23-1059).

Rep. Ron Weinberg, of Fort Collins, is the bill’s sponsor. The summary of the bill reads as follows:

Under current law, the driver of a motorcycle is prohibited from overtaking or passing a motor vehicle by driving in the same lane as the motor vehicle or between rows of motor vehicles, a practice known as “lane splitting.”
The bill requires the Colorado department of transportation, in collaboration with the Colorado state patrol, to conduct a feasibility study
of permitting motorcycle lane splitting and report the results of the study to the transportation committees of the house of representatives and the senate by December 31, 2023.

As yet there are no co-sponsors in the House and no one in the Senate has signed on to back it. It may go absolutely nowhere.

I don’t know about other motorcyclists and other motorcyclist organizations, but the thinking within ABATE of Colorado is decidedly mixed. ABATE’s legislative liaison, Stump, sent an email alerting us all to this bill and asking for our thoughts. I immediately replied that I back it strongly.

Running through responses that were sent “Reply All” we first had Larry saying “I do not like at all.”

Next, from Jim, was “This is a huge step toward eventually getting a bill to allow some form of lane filtering/splitting on Interstate highways in Colorado. Big thanks should go to Rep. Weinberg!!!”

Then, kind of in the middle but leaning against, was Mike: “I see nothing but bad PR for motorcyclist with the general driving population, because of the motorcyclist who abuse the privilege by not following the guide lines that allow them to perform lane splitting or filtering in a safe way. All motorcyclist represent all of us that ride, that is what has created profiling, because the general public lump us all together by the way we dress, the colors and patches we wear and the way we ride? I would love the opportunity to use lane splitting and or filtering, I just would not like the negative attitude toward motorcyclist that would be created by the abuse of the privilege.”

Dave entered the conversation pointing out that, “it’s a Study – no more than that at this point in time. This was going to come up in Colorado eventually and has been mentioned often over some years now; several other states have adopted lane splitting/filtering and more are likely considering it – it’s the trend. I suggest that ABATE not offer a formal position – pro or con – except to agree in principle to the study, state this organization’s concern for rider safety in the traffic patterns (keeping with our mission statement), and review/input on the study upon its’ completion. The State Patrol is likely to solicit ABATE’s point-of-view on the matter along the way, and should.”

There was more but you get the picture. But, as Dave said, it’s a study. So I agree, let’s at least have the study conducted. Then, as far as I’m concerned, I would be in favor of allowing lane-splitting or filtering. Riders who consider it too dangerous just don’t have to do it. But let those of us who are more comfortable with it do it. In ABATE especially we talk a lot about freedom to choose, in relation to wearing or not wearing a helmet. Well, how is this any different?

I don’t know about you but I’ve been in several countries in Europe where lane-splitting is absolutely the norm and you know what? It’s not mass slaughter on the roads. People do it all the time and everyone gets along fine. Sure there would be a period of adjustment while everyone in cars and on bikes gets familiar with it but then, just like so many other places in the world, it would become normal.

Biker Quote for Today

You will never suffer a punctured tire on the road until you leave the repair kit at home.

I’ve come to appreciate the lame duck sessions of Congress because sometimes it seems like that is one of the only times when things get done. All sessions long the members work to sabotage efforts from the other party, who cares what would actually be good for the country. Finally, in the lame duck session, when members who are not returning finally feel free to vote their conscience rather than the party line, they do just that.

Now, I’m not sure this piece of legislation is one of those, but it did manage to squeak through before the end of the session. I’ll let the Motorcycle Riders Federation tell it:

Hello all motorcycle riders, I hope you all had an excellent Christmas. Bikers received an early Christmas present from our Congressional people. The motorcycle profiling bill that we have worked on hard since 2016, has scored a major victory. The Senate passed their version of the profiling bill back in 2018. We have not been able to get the House of Representatives to bring their version to the floor for a vote. BUTTTTT! Through the efforts of all of you who filled out the Motorcycle Profiling Project Survey and supported the hard dedicated work of the MRF, and our friendlies and supporters and co-signers in Congress, House Resolution 366 was brought to the House floor last Friday, Dec.23. In one of the last actions by the 117th Congress, H.R.366, the Motorcycle Profiling Resolution, was PASSED! We are awaiting President Biden’s signature. I hope this news puts a bit of icing on your Christmas cake. Keep supporting the MRF and the work we do– for all bikers. See ya on down the road, Bear CO MRF REP

Another thing I’m not totally clear on is whether this is even legislation. As a resolution, is it a law? Or just a suggestion that Congress is saying “We’d very much like you to do this, but we’re not going to give you an order.” I think maybe the latter. Here’s the text of the resolution; decide for yourself.

Whereas motorcycle ridership has continued to increase over time with registrations growing from 3,826,373 in 1997 to 13,158,100 in 2018;
Whereas, as of December 31, 2020, the ongoing National Motorcycle Profiling Survey (2015–2020), conducted by the Motorcycle Profiling Project, found that approximately 1/2 of the motorcyclists surveyed felt they had been profiled by law enforcement at least once, and approximately 90 percent of survey participants urge their State and Federal elected officials to legislatively address the issue of motorcyclist profiling;
Whereas motorcyclist profiling means the illegal use of the fact that a person rides a motorcycle or wears motorcycle-related apparel as a factor in deciding to stop and question, take enforcement action, arrest, or search a person or vehicle with or without legal basis under the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas complaints surrounding motorcyclist profiling have been cited in all 50 States;
Whereas nationwide demonstrations to raise awareness and combat motorcyclist profiling have been held in multiple States;
Whereas, in 2011, the State of Washington signed into law legislation stating that the criminal justice training commission shall ensure that issues related to motorcyclist profiling are addressed in basic law enforcement training and offered to in-service law enforcement officers in conjunction with existing training regarding profiling;
Whereas reported incidents of motorcyclist profiling have dropped approximately 90 percent in the State of Washington since the 2011 legislation was signed into law; and
Whereas, as of 2020, Maryland, Louisiana, and Idaho passed laws addressing the issue of motorcyclist profiling: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) promotes increased public awareness on the issue of motorcyclist profiling;
(2) encourages collaboration and communication with the motorcyclist community and law enforcement to engage in efforts to end motorcyclist profiling; and
(3) urges State law enforcement officials to include statements condemning motorcyclist profiling in written policies and training materials.

Either way, it’s good to see some success after all this time.

Biker Quote for Today

You are one ride away from a good mood.