Passes & Canyons Blog

Waiting for traffic to flow again coming down Vail Pass.

I find it interesting that we motorcyclists are sorely divided on one particular topic: lane-splitting. Most riders in California, the only state where it is legal, swear by it. Many in other states wish they had it but many also consider it insanity. My inclination is with those who are most familiar with it, the Californians, plus the fact that I have seen it in wide-scale operation in Europe. If it seems crazy to you, you don’t have to do it. For those who wish to do it, I believe we should have that option.

But how does all this shake out in regard to lane-filtering? Just to clarify, lane-splitting usually means passing down the middle while traffic is moving, even moving quickly. Lane-filtering generally means slowly slipping past cars that are either stopped or moving very slowly. Utah Okayed filtering a while ago and now Montana has done so as well.

Do riders who oppose lane-splitting feel differently about lane-filtering? I don’t know, and if anyone wants to offer their thoughts or knowledge, please do. But let’s look at it. As a comparison, think about right turn on red. Time was when that was unheard of. Now is there any state that does not allow it? But some people thought it was a crazy idea.

I was riding with a group out in California a number of years ago and while we never did any splitting, we did come to a point one day where it was obviously a filtering opportunity. We were in a city, in traffic, and we came up on a red light. The only car in front of us had stopped a little way back from the intersection, seemingly expecting motorcycles to pull past and in front of them. The three of us in the lead looked at each other, used some hand signals, and nodded in agreement. Then we pulled around in front. Easy as pie, and totally safe. We sped off quickly when the light changed, causing the driver no inconvenience or delay.

Why would that not be OK? Another time, I was headed out on I-70 and coming down Vail Pass traffic was stopped. I was not with anyone but there were a couple other riders right there, too. It was going to be a lengthy stop so we got off and were talking. Someone suggested we ought to pull out onto the shoulder and go past all these cars and see if there was some way we could escape this snarl. We noted that it was not legal but three of us decided to do it.

We pulled out, going past another rider who yelled to us that we were risking a $300 ticket. We went anyway.

Along the way we passed a number of other bikes and some of them joined us. When we finally got to where we clearly could not go any further (the highway was closed due to a vehicle on fire) we stopped. By this time there were about a dozen of us. So we waited until traffic finally was able to move again, slipped in ahead of about two miles of traffic from where we had been, and blasted off. Again, the inconvenience, if any, to the folks in cars was totally minimal. Why should we not have done that?

So I haven’t been to Utah since they legalized filtering, and I certainly haven’t been to Montana since they did, but it will be interesting the next time I am. Realistically speaking, I don’t expect there will be much need or opportunity for filtering but it will be nice to have that as an option if we end up in that sort of situation.

Hooray for common sense.

Biker Quote for Today

Accept no one’s definition of LIFE. Define and design it yourself!

Anyone who has paid attention will recognize this as a much older model of Zero electric motorcycle.

This is not motorcycle-specific but would affect anyone who rides an electric motorcycle.

Under HB21-1205, “Electric Vehicle Road Usage Equalization Fee,” proposed by Rep. Andres Pico, Colorado would charge a fee at time of registration that “is estimated to achieve parity between the aggregate amount of motor vehicle registration fees and motor fuel excise taxes paid per vehicle by owners of plug-in electric motor vehicles and vehicles fueled by gasoline, diesel, or other special fuels and is annually adjusted for inflation.”

This makes total sense because electrics don’t pay fuel taxes but they do use the roads, with all the related wear on those roads. Now, it might hurt if you’re doing the paying because what we now spread out in pennies each time we fill our tanks would presumably be paid all at once. And if this passes there are bound to be cries of unfairness because presumably everyone would pay the same amount when in fact we all pay different amounts on fuel taxes because our mileage differs.

You would also presume that motorcycles would pay less than cars simply because motorcycles use less gas than cars and do less damage to the roads. The bill requires the state departments of revenue and transportation to form a group to study how it would be implemented. That would be the time for us who ride to make sure our voices are heard so as to ensure that we are treated fairly.

Then there are these relevant details in the bill as well. Revenue generated by the fee must be credited to the highway users tax fund (HUTF) and distributed pursuant to the existing “second stream” HUTF allocation formula as follows:

• 60% to the state highway fund;
• 22% to counties; and
• 18% to municipalities; and
• Must be used only for maintenance of existing highways, streets, and roads.

So far, this bill has only been introduced. We have no way of knowing if it will ever be passed. But we’ll keep an eye on it.

Biker Quote for Today

Why motorcycles are better than women: Motorcycles don’t have parents.

The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) released its legislative agenda for the coming year and it looks much like last year’s agenda. That’s how these things work: You chip away year after year until you finally reach your objective. There are few easy fixes.

The MRF, just to recap, is the national motorcyclist rights organization that works in Washington, DC, with Congress on issues of importance nationally to riders. Meanwhile, all the local and state ABATEs provide the same function on the state levels.

Here’s the MRF agenda. I’ll add a few notes on some of them.

• Profiling: Continue pursuit of the House anti-profiling resolution mirroring the Senate version that passed unanimously. Build momentum for inclusion of anti-profiling language in other legislation. (This is to halt the practice of law enforcement agencies setting up checkpoints solely for motorcyclists; if you want to stop all motorists and check for valid licenses, etc., that’s fine, but not just motorcyclists.)
• Renewable Fuels: Advocate for targeted changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). (This is aimed at protecting motorcycle engines from the negative effects of too-high ethanol content in gas.)
• Autonomous Vehicles: Advocate and monitor any legislation or regulations related to motorcycles concerning connected and autonomous vehicles. (Make sure autonomous vehicles see and recognize motorcycles.)
• Emission Regulations: Engage the EPA & Congress on any activity related to motorcycle emission regulations.
• Definition of a Motorcycle: Educate policymakers and advocate for change to current definition, that better reflects the current two- and three-wheel motorcycle landscape. (Ensure that regulations affecting motorcycles are based on statistics truly related to motorcycles, i.e., two-wheeled vehicles primarily, and treat three- and four-wheel vehicles as a different class of vehicle.)
• Crash Avoidance: Continue to promote the theme of crash avoidance versus safer crashing urging NHTSA and the DOT to focus on crash prevention and rider education.
• Helmet Laws: Oppose any mandatory federal helmet, apparel or conspicuity standards.
• Black Box: Pursue legislative language that any collected or available vehicle data is the property of the consumer and in which the consumer has the choice to opt-out of having their personal data communicated to interested parties.
• Surface Transportation Reauthorization (Highway Bill): Advocate and pursue legislative efforts that impact motorcyclists in the Highway Bill, now set to expire in 2021.

Seriously, I wouldn’t expect many of these items to be checked off a done a year from now but if the MRF was not there doing its work it is easily imaginable that these situations could get worse. At the very least, preventing backsliding is itself a worthwhile objective.

Biker Quote for Today

So when push comes to shove, get the Harley revved up, the moon can eclipse even the sun. — Lou Reed

Bikes going up Pikes Peak.

As a casualty of the Covid-19 disruption the Colorado legislature was recessed and, now back in session, is killing bills wholesale so as to focus solely on those must-pass bills such as the state budget.

One casualty of this mass slaughter is SB-65, which would have made it illegal for drivers to operate cellphones or other electronic equipment while driving unless they were using a hands-free device. The bill had passed the Senate but did not make it through the House. Maybe next year.

Unfortunately, the bill to extend the MOST program is among those being pushed forward. The bad news and the bad news–there is no good news in this area.

But wait, there’s more. At the national level, the highway bill has had language proposed that would boost states that have mandatory helmet laws for riders under 18. Here is what the Motorcycle Riders Foundation has to say about this.

The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) was alerted by our contacts in the U.S. Senate regarding a proposed change to the dedicated 405 Motorcycle Safety funds in the National Priority Safety Programs that is authorized through the Highway Bill. The proposed change to this program would add another criteria for states to qualify for motorcycle safety funds. In order to qualify, states have to meet two of the six current criteria. In addition to the current criteria, the additional qualifying area would add a category for states that have a mandatory helmet law for anyone under the age of 18. While meeting the under 18 helmet law is not mandatory to receive these funds, we at the MRF oppose any such change. We cannot allow any amount of erosion of our rights on this issue. The MRF is adamantly opposed to any federal law that would require the use of a helmet, apparel or conspicuity standard.

I guess we’ll see what happens there.

Biker Quote for Today

Top 10 signs that a computer is owned by a Harley rider: 09. System sound effects now play a Harley kicking over when a program starts.

The header for the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus website.

Congress has any number of specific interest caucuses, groups from both parties who have common interests, and they presumably work together to further those interests. So yes, there is a Congressional Motorcycle Caucus, but I have to wonder how much they focus on these issues.

They have a website. It appears to be an adjunct to the website of one of the chairs, Rep. Michael Burgess, a Republican from Texas. The co-chair is Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, also a Republican. Here’s a list of the other members:

Don Bacon (R-NE)
Troy Balderson (R-OH)
G.K Butterfield (D-NC)
Michael Conaway (R-TX)
Rick Crawford (R-AR)
Val Demings (D-FL)
Paul Gosar (R-AZ)
Glenn Grothman (R-WI)
Andy Harris (R-MD)
Denny Heck (D-WA)
Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
Sean Patrick Maloney (D-NY)
Paul Mitchell (R-MI)
Rick Nolan (D-MN)
Donald Norcross (D-NJ)
Scott Perry (R-PA)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Chris Stewart (R-UT)
Steve Stivers (R-OH)
Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA)

You’ll notice that Colorado’s own Doug Lamborn is a member. Good to have someone from here in the group.

Beyond this, however, if the website is any indication, this group does not appear to be particularly active. You go to the Media Center and there is one press release, dated May 9, 2018. Under Resources/Reports and Documents there is one resolution dated May 21, 2008.

Other than that you get some information about each of the co-chairs, a message from Burgess, and the history of the caucus which reads, in full, “The Congressional Motorcycle Caucus was established in 2008 by Reps. Michael Burgess and Gabby Giffords.”

There’s not much else.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not claiming the group is meaningless. Fact is, I have no idea how active they might be, I’m only looking at what they present to the public. And it may well be that there is very little emphasis on keeping current on the website but they do a lot of work together. If anyone can provide me with further information I’d be happy to pass that along.

As for the Senate, that’s even harder to nail down. I found a release from April 4, 2017, that Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Gary Peters (D-MI) launched a Senate motorcycle caucus but beyond the announcement of the formation I find only an April 2018 notice on the AMA site about the group’s first meeting. Plus a few other similar pieces, with nothing even listing who the other members are. Or maybe Ernst and Peters are the only members.

Again, if anyone knows more than this I’d appreciate hearing from you.

Biker Quote for Today

Never ask a biker for directions if you’re in a hurry to get there.

Another useless bureaucracy defies death.

If you care about passing the hands-free bill that would prohibit a lot of this nonsense of cagers killing bikers because they’re on their cell phones the time is now to contact your state representatives. I’ll just insert what Stump sent out.

The important information this week is about SB20-065 (Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving). The Bill will be heard by the House Transportation & Local Government Committee on Wednesday, March 18, in the Legislative Services Building (200 E 14 Ave on the first floor, conference room on the left as you enter the building). The meeting starts @ 1:30 pm and right now it is scheduled 2nd on the agenda. Below is a list of the committee members. Please contact them asking for their support of the bill. ABATE’s official stance is to support the bill, as it will make our roads safer, but of course, you always have the option to represent yourself and oppose it.

Matt Gray, Chair matt@matthewgray.us 303-866-4667

Tony Exum tony.exum.house@state.co.us 303-866-3069

Terri Carver terri.carver.house@state.co.us 303-866-2191

Marc Catlin marc.catlin.house@state.co.us 303-866-2955

Meg Froelich meg.froelich.house@state.co.us 303-866-2921

Edie Hooton edie.hooton.house@state.co.us 303-866-2915

Stephen Humphrey rephumphrey48@yahoo.com 303-866-2943

Jovan Melton jovan.melton.house@state.co.us 303-866-2919

Alex Valdez alex.valdez.house@state.co.us 303-866-2925

Donald Valdez donald.valdez.house@state.co.us 303-866-2916

James Wilson representativewilson@gmail.com 303-866-2747

Last year this bill passed the Senate but died in the House. We need to make sure it passes this time.

Not surprisingly, the bill to renew the Motorcycle Operator Safety Training (MOST) was approved and passed along to the House Finance Committee. Why do we have the Sunset review law if bureaucracies are renewed without any real consideration of their ongoing merit? Why can’t we just let them die?

Once the Finance Committee rubber-stamps it the bill will go to the full House. Contact your legislators and tell them it needs to die.

Biker Quote for Today

You might be a Yuppie biker if you have doubled the weight of your bike with bolt-on chrome.

The current MOST site.

After I wrote that post on Monday about needing to get rid of the Colorado Motorcycle Operator Safety Training program (MOST) I decided the most logical thing to do would be to contact the legislator who was carrying the bill. That would be Rep. Tom Sullivan who represents District 37 in Arapahoe County. Here is what I wrote.

Hello Rep. Sullivan. I see that you are sponsoring the sunset renewal of the Motorcycle Operator Safety Training program and that is what I wish to address.

This program seems to be on autopilot for renewal and it really should not be. When MOST was created we motorcyclists supported it and we supported paying extra on our license and plate renewals to pay for it. It was intended to promote rider safety by subsidizing the cost of rider training, and for a long time that is what it did. Administration of the program was to take no more than 15% of the funds raised.

Now there is no trainee subsidy at all and while the state agency doing the administering presumably spends no more than 15%, an outside vendor has been brought in to actually run the program, at a considerably higher cost, in addition to what the state spends. And where does the rest of the money go? No one seems to be able to offer an adequate answer to that question.

We motorcyclists are not getting our money’s worth and I for one am no longer happy to pay that money if I’m not getting what I’m paying for.

But you will not hear the training organizations calling for elimination of MOST because without MOST they would not be able to certify their trainees as having passed the riding portion of the test. Thus, riders would have less incentive to get training and we would probably end up with more untrained and unlicensed riders on the road and the training organizations would suffer a loss of income.

What is really needed, and I’m calling on you for this, is to rewrite current legislation or write new legislation that would allow the elimination of MOST or else its significant revision so that the trainers can still certify but we eliminate all the bureaucracy. I would think simply one dollar on each motorcycle plate renewal would be plenty to pay the moderate costs of ensuring that all training vendors meet the standards and the rest of what we pay can be cut.

Or maybe you have a better idea. I’d be interested to hear it. What I am not interested in hearing is that this Frankenstein thing that MOST has turned into gets automatically renewed for five more years.

Thank you for your time.

Who knows, maybe if a lot of us wrote to him he would pay attention. Wouldn’t hurt to try.

Now it’s your turn.

Biker Quote for Today

Rocket bike is all her own, it’s called a Hurricane. — David Wilcox

Back in 2013 there was opposition to continuing the MOST program. Most supporters from those days now wish they had lost that battle.

Bureaucracies never die, you just wish they would. Take Colorado’s MOST program–please!

The Motorcycle Operator Safety Training (MOST) program is up for sunset review this year, as House Bill 20-1285, and although it is no longer doing anything close to what it was intended to do, it appears destined to continue to exist. HB20-1285 will be heard in the House Business Affairs & Labor Committee on March 3 if you want to go register your preferences.

It started out as a good thing. Colorado motorcyclists supported the creation of MOST, willingly agreeing to pay an extra $4 every time we renew our drivers licenses and an extra $2 for every motorcycle license plate renewal in order to fund the program. In return, money raised was used primarily to lower the cost for students taking motorcycle rider training courses. The legislation limited program administrators to using only up to 15% of the funds to cover the cost of administration.

Today the program brings in about $800,000 per year but not one penny goes to reducing the cost of training. And while the administrators say they keep their cost to under 15%, a good deal more than that is used to fund “contract administration,” which is to say, to pay for an outside vendor to run the program. Isn’t that what the state agency was supposed to do with the 15%? And just what exactly are they doing with the rest of the money? Putting up road signs warning drivers to watch out for motorcycles? That doesn’t seem a particularly good return on the investment of $800,000. Per year.

You might think there would now be a concerted effort to get rid of MOST but you would be wrong. I raised this question at my ABATE D-17 meeting last week and it seems the matter comes down to one consideration. All organizations and companies in Colorado that offer motorcycle rider training, if they operate under the MOST umbrella, can sign off a student on the riding portion of their motorcycle riders license presuming they pass the course successfully. Then all they need to do is take the written test and boom, they’re done.

The concern is that if MOST went away, so would this ability to certify the riders, and the impetus to take training would diminish. That would mean more untrained–and possibly unlicensed–riders out there and a lot less income for ABATE, T3RG, and other training organizations.

A number of years ago the MOST program was up for review and was facing harsh criticism. The Colorado Confederation of Clubs was actively campaigning to abolish it. ABATE of Colorado fought to keep it.

Now, from what I gather, everyone hates MOST but we have to keep it or else.

How about a different approach? How about we get rid of MOST but pass a bill allowing rider training vendors to certify trainees as long as they meet certain standards? We could cut the amount we riders contribute to maybe $1 on our plate renewals and that should completely cover the modest expense to monitor the training vendors.

Of course, passing the legislation is the sticker. That requires finding sympathetic legislators, crafting a bill, and building a constituency to get it passed. That’s not easy. It’s just so much easier to renew the program for another five years and move on to the next bill. Even if the program is not doing what it was created to do. This is why bureaucracies never die.

Biker Quote for Today

You know you’re a biker if you pile boxes and laundry on your car, but your bike must have 6 feet or clearance in the garage.