Passes & Canyons Blog

The gist of testimony Thursday on SB-12 was that nobody contests that the use of cellphones while driving is a problem, the only dispute is in how to deal with it.

SB-12 is a distracted driving bill introduced by Sen. Lois Court that would make it illegal to use a cellphone hands-on while driving. “Our cars are not mobile phone booths,” she said. Testifying in favor were a variety of motorcyclist groups and individuals, as well as a wide range of other organizations.

The primary objection of those speaking in opposition to the bill was in regard to the severity of the penalties and questioning the choice to punish violators rather than provide inducements for compliance. The carrot vs. the stick.

Opponents argued that the consequences would fall most heavily on those who can least afford the fines. It was also argued that a knee-jerk response to criminalize behavior is a) not effective, and b) amounts to “symbolism, not serious results.”

Additionally, one opponent questioned the severity of the penalties, saying they are greater than those for other offenses that are much worse.

A key issue was the idea that people would face these penalties even though they had not caused any harm. Two senators mentioned their own parents, who only have flip phones and do not have the ability to set them on voice activation. However, one senator shot down her own objection by stating that in reality, if her 80-year-old father tried to dial his phone while driving it would be a disaster.

Proponents of the bill, responding to these objections, pointed out that other laws were on the books that could be objected to in the same manner. For instance, the penalty for not having your car insured are greater than the penalties called for in SB-12, and nobody suffers immediate harm when you drive uninsured.

Of course, then if you are in a crash, the person you hit suffers financially from your lack of insurance. In the same manner, while nobody is harmed if you use your cellphone while driving as long as you don’t cause an accident, if you do cause an accident, the person you hit does suffer. And the whole point of the bill is to prevent the crash in the first place.

ABATE of Colorado‘s legislative liaison, Stump, made the point that, considering penalties vs. incentives, not having to pay a $750 fine and lose four points on your license should be considered by most people a pretty good incentive not to break the law.

Ultimately, using the phone while driving is a choice you make. If your doing so results in another person’s injury or death, that was not their choice, it was a circumstance thrust upon them by your choice. If you can’t afford to pay a $750 fine, make the choice not to use your phone while driving.

At the end of the hearing sen. Court asked that the bill be laid over so that it can be tweaked to satisfy some of the concerns addressed. Presumably once she feels she has revised it enough that it will be passed out of committee it will be back for another hearing.

Biker Quote for Today

You own a car. Not the whole damn road!

Distracted driving will be addressed at a hearing at the Colorado Legislature on Thursday this week, so if you want to let your elected representatives know how you feel about the folks on cellphones trying to kill us this is your chance. We’re talking about Senate Bill 12. It will be in room 352.

Stump, the ABATE of Colorado legislative liaison, brought us up to date last week at the District 17 meeting. He’s encouraging as many riders as possible to show up and make it clear we care about this. Representatives from the bicycling community as well as the walkers community (yes, there is such a thing) will be there in support as well. If you’re coming aim to get there around 9:30 a.m. I’ll be there.

A similar bill was introduced last session but because it was introduced by a Democrat the Senate Republicans killed it. This sort of thing goes on all the time, in both directions. Maybe you want to tell your representatives to vote on the basis of whether a bill is good for Colorado, not their party. Anyway, Democrats now control both houses of the legislature so there is some hope this will pass this year.

It is considered to be a better bill this year as well. In addition to a fine, using your cellphone would now also cost you points on your license. The bill does allow for you to use your phone hands-free, permitting you to tap it to activate the voice-activation function if necessary. You can’t cruise along at highway speed hitting the numbers dialing.

Now, lest anyone think this will immediately stop everyone from texting while driving, be aware that to be stopped for this violation you would have to be actually observed by a police officer doing the no-no. Still, I see people dialing and texting; surely police officers see the same thing from time to time. At least some people will have it made clear to them that this is not acceptable.

Stump spoke with all the members on the Senate transportation committee to see how they expect to vote. Only one said they would definitely vote for it, most said they will make up their minds based on what the bill says and what the testimony is, and one said he would definitely vote against it.

I asked if he gave a reason why and Stump said he told him that addressing cellphones only just hits on part of the problem. OK, so you’re not willing to at least start chipping away at the problem? Do you have an all-encompassing proposal?

Personally, I suspect any time people make those kind of weak excuses the real reason is that they themselves are guilty of this behavior and figure “I’m a safe driver, why should I be subject to penalty for something that’s perfectly safe?” Yeah, you can text and drive safely, right up until the point when you don’t, and have that collision. By then it’s too late for the motorcyclist or bicyclist or pedestrian you just hit.

So if you care about this issue, come on down on Thursday. See you there?

Biker Quote for Today

Half of them are out to get you, the other half don’t see you. — Bernie Peterson

The U.S. Senate at least did one thing in a bipartisan fashion this week: they passed a resolution opposing motorcycle profiling.

Profiling, in case you somehow have never heard of it, is the situation where the law enforcement folks use the fact that you ride a bike as an excuse to check you out for unrelated possible illegalities. Or let’s take the wording from the resolution.

Whereas motorcycle 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;

Often, in recent years, this has taken the form of stopping motorcyclists–and only motorcyclists–to do license and safety equipment checks. Go ahead and stop everyone for these checks and the rider community will not object. Single us out and we do object.

So the resolution does not bear the force of law, but it does make it clear where the U.S. Senate stands on the issue. And this resolution was passed not just on a bipartisan basis, but unanimously. That’s pretty unequivocal. Are you listening out there in law enforcement land?

Omitting all the “Whereas” statements that set the stage, the resolution was this:

Resolved, That the Senate—
(1) promotes increased public awareness on the issue of motorcycle profiling;
(2) encourages collaboration and communication with the motorcycle community and law enforcement to engage in efforts to end motorcycle profiling; and
(3) urges State law enforcement officials to include statements condemning motorcycle profiling in written policies and training materials.

Now we just have to keep pressing, probably forever, to get this idea across.

Biker Quote for Today

“I had a dream about a motorcycle,” said Harry, remembering suddenly. “It was flying.”
Uncle Vernon nearly crashed into the car in front. He turned right around in his seat and yelled at Harry, his face like a gigantic beet with a mustache: “MOTORCYCLES DON’T FLY!”
Dudley and Piers sniggered.
“I know they don’t,” said Harry. “It was only a dream.”
— J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

Stump was at the ABATE District 17 meeting and he updated us on the legislative scene vis a vis motorcycles. That’s his job, as you probably know–he’s ABATE’s state legislative representative.

Stump is hopeful in this upcoming session about a red light bill. Anyone who rides a motorcycle knows that there are user-triggered red lights that do not recognize motorcycles, which puts you in the position of either waiting until a car comes along–maybe for a long time–or ignoring the red and proceeding.

But there’s a funny twist here: Colorado already has a red light bill. Did people just forget? I don’t remember if this was something I knew at one point. If I did, I forgot.

Anyway, Stump is hoping for a small change to make the existing bill work better. Right now the verbiage is that you must wait “during several time cycles” before you can proceed. In most states that have red light bills they are more specific, usually stating a specific time span. In most cases it is two minutes. That’s what we’ll be pushing for, and Stump reports that he has found several legislators who favor making that change. And note that this would apply to all vehicles, so if you’re in your car and a light is broken you could run the red legally.

The issue, everyone agreed, is with the law enforcement folks. What happens when a cop shows up just as you pull through the red and he/she wasn’t there to see you sitting and waiting? If you have that sort of experience and you get ticketed, ABATE wants to know because if it is found to be a real issue then further measures may be needed.

Profiling
The present day issue with profiling is when law enforcement sets up checkpoints that only stop motorcyclists. That is perceived as unfair and therefore flat wrong. When the Motorcycle Riders Foundation had its Meeting of the Minds in Denver recently there was an event where Colorado U.S. Rep. Ken Buck was the keynote speaker. There have been efforts at the federal level to outlaw this practice but they have not gone far. Buck has not been a supporter, but following his interaction and exposure to the motorcycling community he has agreed to sign on to that effort in Washington. It’s a step forward.

Distracted Driving
The proposed distracted driving bill would increase penalties for someone injuring someone else due to their being distracted while driving. By that we primarily mean using their cell phone but it would apply to other distractions as well.

This bill has been supported in the legislature for several years by the Democrats but has repeatedly been blocked by the Republicans. Essentially, neither party has wanted to support the other’s legislative measures so if the Dems support this one the Reps oppose it, and they have. Plus, Stump says, some Republican legislators have told him they feel this would be an impingement on the driver’s liberty. (Never mind the liberty and well-being of the person they injure!) Now, however, the Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the governorship, so sponsor Sen. Lois Court hopes to finally see it move forward.

It’s a whole new ball game in Colorado now with the Dems firmly in control, and we’re likely to see a few things happening. We’ll be eager to see what those changes are, and whether we really think they’re for the best. Here’s hoping.

Biker Quote for Today

There is something about the sight of a passing motorcyclist that tempts many automobile drivers to commit murder. — Hunter S. Thompson

I was going to put up another Examiner Resurrection about efforts by a few Congress members to put a damper on the then-new practice of setting up motorcycle-only checkpoints.

I thought that post would be worth resurrecting (Examiner.com died a couple years ago) because this is an issue we are still dealing with today. The point here, in case you are new to the subject or need a memory prod, is that law enforcement agencies sometimes set up checkpoints to look for a variety of issues: seat belt use, valid driver’s license, whatever.

The problem with motorcycle-only checkpoints is that they single us out, and for no justifiable reason. You want to check for valid driver’s license? Fine, stop everyone and check everyone. But don’t stop only motorcyclists.

I decided instead to tie this in with last week’s post about the Demise of District 10. The point being, these kind of policies go unchallenged if you don’t have people active in groups such as ABATE and the American Motorcyclist Association fighting them.

Just a few days ago I read a piece about how the American commitment to democracy seems to be fading as fewer and fewer people find themselves personally involved in associations. Years ago, it said, this country was sometimes called a “nation of presidents.” The meaning is that if you were a farmer you belonged to a co-op, and the co-op had officers and members voted on issues of concern. If you worked in a factory you belonged to the union and the union had officers and the members voted on issues of concern.

Cooperative groups like this flourished throughout society, to the point that everyone lived and practiced democracy and many, many people served as the officers of these groups: a nation of presidents.

This sort of participatory democracy has diminished. And it affects us as motorcyclists. District 10 of ABATE of Colorado died because there were not enough people who felt it worth their time to get involved. But really, is it not worth your time? How do you feel about motorcycle-only checkpoints? How do you feel about future infrastructure projects not taking motorcyclists into consideration in their planning? How do you feel about HOV lanes–which federal law says must be free to motorcycles–slapping you with a fee and fine for using them without a transponder?

These issues and many more are addressed by a very small percentage of riders–those of us willing to take our time to stand up for those who ride.

So back to the Examiner post I was going to run. The gist is in the lead sentence, “Laying it on the line, 11 Congressmen today questioned a grant program that provides money for law enforcement agencies to set up motorcycle-only traffic checkpoints and called on U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to suspend it.”

While we have made progress on this issue, we’re still fighting it. How much more effective might our efforts be if more of our fellow riders stepped up and offered their support, contacting their elected representatives to voice their concerns.

At the very least, lend your support via numbers. The more members the AMA has the more impact they are able to have. Here are three groups you might want to consider joining.
American Motorcyclist Association
Motorcycle Riders Foundation
ABATE of Colorado

Biker Quote for Today

And God said “Let there be bikers” and the Devil ran like hell.

Will the Governator veto the California bill requiring EPA seals on motorcycle exhausts? (This Examiner post is from eight years ago, so there have been some changes.) That’s one of the biggest questions on many people’s minds at the moment. That it should be an issue at all is a demonstration of ignorance. Let’s start with a recap.

Truth
Some motorcycles make too much noise. Admit it, it’s a fact. Also, some cars and trucks and airplanes and trains and other vehicles make too much noise. This is true as well.

So the California legislature decided to copy what has been done in several other jurisdictions in recent years, notably Denver, and has passed legislation requiring all motorcycle mufflers to carry the Environmental Protection Agency stamp that certifies it does not exceed noise standards. Thus the waiting to see what Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is a motorcyclist himself, will do.

The ignorance comes in where the proponents of the bill think it will solve the problem. It won’t, and Denver again serves as a good example. In a recent CBS News article it was reported that “just 37 tickets were issued in 2007, the law’s first year. In 2008, just 4 tickets, and last year 5 tickets. So far this year, no tickets have been issued.”

It’s a matter of practicality. Generally the stamps on the mufflers are in obscure, out-of-the-way places where a police officer would have to get down on hands and knees, or perhaps lay on the his back on the ground, to spot. It’s just not very likely to happen. Plus, OEM mufflers carrying the EPA stamps are not always available for older bikes, and even if they are, why should a biker be subject to ticketing for not having a stamp if the noise the bike makes is not excessive?

In the meantime, laws like this are not needed. Laws already exist limiting noise. All that is really necessary is to enforce the laws already passed, and this is regardless of whether the source of the noise is a motorcycle, a truck, a lawn mower, or anything else. The problem with the California law and others is that they unfairly target motorcycles.

Ignorance
While controlling noise levels is a valid endeavor for cities and other jurisdictions, the people promoting this agenda have been going off the deep end of late, and they often don’t worry about getting facts straight.

For instance, on the site for NoiseOFF – The Coalition Against Noise Pollution, they offer this bit of misinformation:

Some riders join motorcycle rights organizations (MROs) that lobby against motorcycle noise legislation. These organizations include the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, and American Motorcyclist Association (AMA). . . . The AMA compromises (sic) over 300,000 members and more than 1,200 chartered clubs, with corporate representation from the motorcycle industry. Through sponsored events and organized campaigns, they mobilize their membership to lobby to defeat motorcycle noise legislation.

First off, the MRF is only involved in national lobbying and they don’t get involved in local issues. As for the AMA, all you need to do is check their site and you’ll learn that they routinely urge riders to be conscientious with noise, and that what the AMA does oppose is . . . drumroll . . . legislation that unfairly targets motorcycles.

Then of course there is Noise Free America, which recently had this to say about the Sturgis motorcycle rally and South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds:

In reality, the Sturgis event is probably the largest concentration ever of lawbreakers. And Mike Rounds, the governor of South Dakota, gave aid and comfort to this massive lawbreaking.

Is it really that hard to understand? If noise of any kind is a problem, pass laws that limit the noise regardless of the source. And then enforce those laws. Quit singling out motorcycles. The sleeper whose slumber is disturbed doesn’t care what caused the noise, they just want the noise stopped. And that includes sleeping motorcyclists.

Biker Quote for Today

The bike started up–better rev the engine a dozen times to make sure.

The Motorcycle Riders Foundation had its annual Meeting of the Minds this past weekend in Denver. As ABATE of Colorado was the host for the conference I went over to do whatever volunteer work I could but on being told that all was in hand I only sat in on a couple sessions and then left. After all, I had not paid to register, plus the opening session touched on most of the issues to be discussed.

The MRF, in case you are not familiar, is a national organization working for motorcyclist rights, or MRO. As such, they, along with the American Motorcyclist Association, are among the primary lobbyists in Washington, D.C. working on these issues.

In the Friday morning session, Megan Ekstrom, Vice President of Government Relations and Public Relations, touched briefly on six topics the MRF is primarily focused on for the coming year. The fact that these issues have been in the MRF focus for some time gives an idea of how this work requires slow, continued effort before success is achieved.

• Autonomous Vehicles: You’d have to be living in a cave not to know that self-driving cars are coming our way, and it is crucial that the programmers who determine how these things detect and avoid people and objects include motorcycles in their algorithms. That would seem obvious but it can only be good to have someone making sure that happens.

• Profiling: Is it legitimate for police or the state patrol to set up motorcycle-only stops to check registration, licensing, etc.? If you’re stopping all traffic to check for these things then fine, go ahead. But stopping only bikers? Most of us don’t think so. The MRF is working at the national level to have this outlawed, while local, state organizations carry the battle forward on the state level.

• RPM Act: The Recognizing the Protection of Motorsports Act clarifies that it is legal under federal law to modify the emissions system of a motor vehicle that is converted for race-use-only. This would seem obvious. If it is OK to build racing vehicles that do not meet emissions standards, how can it not be OK to take an existing vehicle and turn it into a racer? Megan said the MRF has hopes that this legislation will pass this year yet, and if not, next year appears hopeful.

• Motorcycle Advisory Council: According to Mark Gardiner on Revzilla, “The MAC’s a 10-person committee made up of traffic engineers and road-safety specialists — an advisory body brought together to provide information, advice, and recommendations to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on ‘matters related to motorcyclist safety… and the implementation of noteworthy practices of highway infrastructure related improvements that will result in positive impacts on motorcyclist safety.'”

The issue, said Megan, is that of the 10, only 1 represents motorcyclists, although many of the others are themselves motorcyclists. The greater issue here is not entirely clear to me.

• Ethanol: As the Environmental Protection Agency pushes for higher percentages of ethanol in gasoline, motorcycles are at risk. Older bikes, especially, can be harmed by too much ethanol in the gas. While you could suggest that any alert rider can be careful not to use high-ethanol gas, some folks argue that that possibility should be forestalled so as to protect those who are unaware. And while I’m pretty aware, I recognize that there are people out there who don’t pay as much attention as I do. So I’m supportive of these efforts.

• Infrastructure Modernization: Similar to the RPM Act, it would seem obvious that as roads and infrastructure are built and improved, motorcycles are taken into consideration in the planning. But just trusting that to happen would be foolish. We need to keep an eye on things and ensure that what is so obvious to us is also clear in the minds of those doing the planning. “Oh gosh, that never occurred to us,” is not something we want to hear.

So. You may not belong to the AMA, the MRF, ABATE, or any other of these organizations. But be aware that you benefit from their efforts.

Biker Quote for Today

Love is all you need . . . oh, and a motorcycle.

I mentioned recently that the legislative effort by Sen. Lois Court to curb driver distraction caused by texting and other use of electronic devices went down to defeat in the Republican-controlled Senate. Court is a Democrat.

Those of us who are motorcyclists and others who find texting drivers a personal danger don’t really care what the party affiliation is of someone proposing to fight this very real danger. Aren’t our elected representatives supposed to work for what is best for the public, not for what is best for their own party? And how does it work counter to either party’s interests to cooperatively combat a clear evil?

I’m not pointing fingers at the Republicans alone. I know it works in both directions and I don’t care who is doing it, it’s outrageous. You’re there to serve us, not yourselves.

Nevertheless, I was a little surprised at the latest communication I received from Stump, the ABATE of Colorado lobbyist working for all motorcyclists down at the capitol. He said he had been hanging out with legislators of both parties and learning even more than he already knew about getting a bill passed. And thinking specifically of this distracted driver bill of Sen. Court’s, he offered the thought that the way to get it passed may simply be to change the make-up of the Senate so the Democrats control that house.

He was very specific about how it could be done. Here is what he had to say:

ABATE is a non-partisan organization and has champion legislators on both sides of the aisle. The following scenario is merely factual information from a Democrats viewpoint. Below is a possible scenario of the upcoming elections to increase the Democratic presence in the Senate:

· Andy Kerr (D) is term-limited, so we need to elect Brittany Pettersen (D) to take his place (District 22 – Jefferson County – Edgewater, Lakewood, Littleton)
· Cheri Jahn (U) is also term-limited – we need to replace her with Jessie Danielson (D) (District 20 – Jefferson County — Wheatridge)
· Mike Merrifield (D) is term-limited – we need to replace him with Pete Lee (D) (District 11 – El Paso County, Colorado Springs area)
· Leroy Garcia (D) is an incumbent we need to re-elect (District 3 – Pueblo County, Pueblo area)
· Kerry Donovan (D) is an incumbent we need to re-elect (District 5 – Chaffee, Delta, Eagle, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Lake & Pitkin Counties – Avon, Basalt, Buena Vista, Crested Butte, Eagle, Minturn, Pitkin, Poncha Springs, Vail)

We need to defeat two Republicans:
· Tim Neville (R) needs to be defeated by Tammy Story (D) (District 16 – Boulder, Denver, Gilpin & Jefferson Counties)
· Beth Martinez-Humenik (R) needs to be defeated by Faith Winter (D) (District 24 – Adams County, Northglenn, Thornton, Westminster)

OK, back up a little and go to that first statement: “ABATE is a non-partisan organization and has champion legislators on both sides of the aisle.” I understand the disclaimer in the next sentence (“The following scenario is merely factual information from a Democrats viewpoint.”) but it sure feels like he’s playing with fire here. A lot of ABATE members, not to mention motorcyclists at large, who are Republicans.

Nevertheless, in regard to this particular issue there is truth in what he’s saying. If those people in office care more about their own partisan politics, and less about the public good, then they probably should be replaced. But what if the new people are just as partisan in the other direction? Aren’t there other issues of concern to motorcyclists where the Republicans are more sympathetic than the Democrats? Do we flip both houses of the legislature every other year and try to score legislatively with each side quickly?

How about this as an alternative: Each and every one of us should question our legislative candidates and vote only for those who reject this extreme partisanship. Elect the ones who promise to work across the aisle for the good of the people. And then hold them to it. If they win and prove themselves just as nakedly partisan as the last one, vote them out next time–regardless of whether they belong to your party or not.

Biker Quote for Today

We have to stop to text–so should you!!