Passes & Canyons Blog

ABATE of Colorado State Representative Bruce Downs testifies at the state capitol.

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.

Motorcycle noise is a legitimate issue, but let’s separate the fact from the ignorance.

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.

Between sessions at the Meeting of the Minds.

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.

A legislative hearing on motorcycle topics a few years ago.

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!!

What goes on under the gold dome affects us all.

An issue near and dear to the hearts of many motorcyclists is distracted driving. You know, those idiots in cars who are paying more attention to their cell phones than to the road and putting us, in particular, at risk.

Sen. Lois Court, Democrat of District 31 in Arapahoe County, had introduced a bill (SB18-049) this session to extend the current ban on all drivers under 18 from using their phones while driving to encompass all drivers. The bill would also have increased the penalty from $50 to $300 and would have extended the ban to cover all wireless devices, not just phones. Notice the use of the words “would have.” The bill died in committee.

Who can possibly believe it is OK to be using your cell phone while you’re driving. Oh, I don’t know, maybe a bunch of legislators who do this very thing themselves. “I can do this safely; it’s those other idiots who are a danger.”

Anyway, per Stump, the motorcyclist rights lobbyist representing ABATE of Colorado down at the legislature, Sen. Court and supporters of the measure are planning an open strategy meeting on how to work to get something like this passed. That meeting will be this Thursday at Racine’s, 650 Sherman, at 6:30 p.m. If you care about this issue you might attend. I may be there. If I am, I’ll report back to you on what transpires. (Later: Oops, no I won’t be going. That is the same time as my RMMRC meeting.)

Stump was telling us Sunday at the ABATE District 10 meeting that there are no bills in the legislature this session directly addressing motorcycles, although there are a number having to do with all users of the roads. It’s not for lack of trying. But to get a bill in front of the legislature requires a sponsor. Legislators are limited in the number of bills they can introduce so you have to find someone who is willing to address your issue.

Stump joked (half-joked) about trying to get Sen. Kevin Grantham, Republican of Senate District 2, south and west of Colorado Springs, to go big. Sen. Grantham is being term-limited after this session so Stump wants to suggest that he “go out with a bang.” How about an all-inclusive motorcycling bill addressing red lights that don’t recognize motorcycles, stopping profiling of motorcyclists for stops, and allowing lane-splitting.

Yeah, that would be great. Probably not going to happen but you never know. Stump can be pretty persuasive. Fun to think about but I’m not holding my breath.

On the other hand, this distracted driving bill has a dedicated sponsor. Maybe if enough people get behind it we can make something happen.

Biker Quote for Today

Don’t let my motorcycle ride interfere with the safety of your phone call.

The CSP’s first stakeholder engagement meeting.

The Colorado State Patrol (CSP) held its first stakeholder engagement meeting Friday, with about 20 people present, as it takes over control of the Colorado Motorcycle Operator Safety Training program (MOST) from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Essentially the meeting presented an opportunity for the organizations that provide rider training to propose tweaks to the program to help bring regulatory concepts into line with on-the-ground reality.

The first–and most extensive–discussion was on allowing larger bikes to be used in the Beginning Rider Course (BRC). Current limitations say no more than 350cc but it was argued that the limit should be raised to 500cc. The gist of the argument was that if most riders are going to actually get out on the road on larger bikes, why shouldn’t they be trained on the bikes they’re actually going to ride? It was agreed that the training vendors need to continue to have smaller training bikes on hand for those trainees who need them, but for those capable of handling larger bikes, why not make that an option?

As I understand it, there is also the consideration that the Harley-Davidson training programs all use larger bikes and thus are currently excluded from participation with MOST due to the 350cc limitation.

Also raised was the requirement that Rider Coaches be 21 years of age. The point made was that while there may not be a lot of 18-year-olds who you would want to trust as a Rider Coach, in the few cases where you would, why not allow it? This is especially important because there is currently a shortage of Rider Coaches in the Colorado and opening it up a little more could help. It was also suggested that the requirement that a Rider Coach training in Colorado must hold a Colorado driver’s license be amended.

This opened up the issue that some of the specifics vendors deal with are written in law while others are only regulatory in nature. CSP personnel at the meeting made it clear they want to get a solid year under their belts running MOST before they start talking about proposing legislative changes. The consensus at the meeting was that that was reasonable but that these sorts of issues ought to be presented as a package when the time comes.

Another suggestion was to try to have the law rewritten so as to reference the curriculum in use. That way, it would not be necessary to change the law every time the curriculum changes. Apparently, however, there are some limitations on citing outside sources “by reference” because there is the possibility that those sources might call for something contrary to state law. There do appear to be workarounds in this regard, though.

That brings us to the point in the meeting where Bruce Downs, state coordinator for ABATE of Colorado, took the floor to present a series of tweaks and revisions that his organization (of which I am a member) would like to see made. I’ll go over all that in my next post.

Biker Quote for Today

You’re a biker wannabe if all your leathers match.

Getting ready to ride.

ABATE of Colorado is a motorcycle rights organization, and one of the strongest voices on motorcycle-related issues that we have down at the state capitol.

Of course a lot of what ABATE deals with at the capitol is dictated by what bills are introduced each session. Nevertheless, it is useful to also set priorities as to which issues we want to push to have addressed. Stump is our legislative liaison down there and he has asked the group what we think the priorities should be for the next session, which will start in January. He offered six and would like to hear how we would rank them, plus I’m sure if someone offered another one that made everyone say, “Well, of course!”, then that would be welcome, too.

So I figured, why not throw this out there for anyone I can reach to offer their thoughts, too. I’m going to list the six, with a bit of explanation, and would love it if you would leave a comment with your thoughts. Thanks.

Lane-splitting: Although it has been allowed there for years, California just became the first state to officially make lane-splitting legal. This allows you to go up the middle between cars when traffic is either stopped or going extremely slow. I don’t really need to explain this further, do I?

The MOST program: The Motorcycle Operator Safety Training program was originally set up as a way to encourage riders, or especially prospective riders, to take training courses so they can become better, more competent, and presumably safer motorcyclist. The idea is that we all pay a couple bucks extra when we renew our plates and licenses each year and that money goes to reduce the cost for the trainee.

The Colorado Department of Transportation, which administers MOST, may argue differently among riders it is generally considered that MOST has strayed far from its mission and needs to either be revamped or eliminated. This is especially pertinent this year because it is up for sunset review. Is the riding community going to support keeping the program alive or will we push our elected representatives to kill it?

Autocycles: These are this proliferating group of three-wheeled vehicles that, because legislation does not keep up with society, are now classified as motorcycles. This classification creates a number of problems. When crashes occur, even though the factors involved may be completely unique to the three-wheelers, they get counted in motorcycling statistics. Plus, to ride one you might need a motorcycle rider designation on your driver’s license, which hardly seems appropriate if you’re riding one of those little Polaris Slingshot things.

There is movement all across the country to create a new classification of vehicle, the autocycle. Certainly this is something we should support here, but how much of a legislative priority is it considering that so far none of our legislators seems to be pushing it on their own.

Red light bill: Not all traffic signals that require triggering by vehicles to make the light turn are capable of detecting motorcycles. You can sit there for a long time waiting for it to turn. At some point you really ought to be able to go through the red without fear of being ticketed.

Right-of-way enhanced penalties: I posted on Monday about this Michigan legislator who was killed on his motorcycle when a car turned in front of him. He had the right-of-way and that driver violated his right-of-way. We all know this happens to us way too often, and it is often due to inattention or distraction. Should those people face extra harsh penalties for their negligence that led to a rider being killed? As it is, reports are all too common about these drivers getting fined $50 or some other such minor slap on the wrist.

Motorcycle-only checkpoints: Some states like to set up checkpoints where all they do is pull over motorcyclists to see if they have a valid motorcycle operator’s license and perhaps to do equipment safety checks on the bikes. They only pull over bikers. And they don’t always take motorcyclists’ special needs for stable footing and such when they select the places they’re going to do this. There is pressure to have these profiling events banned; some states have already done so.

That’s the list. What are your priorities?

Biker Quote for Today

It’s not a phase, it’s my life. It’s not a hobby, it’s my passion. It’s not for everyone, it is for me.

By law, motorcycles are allowed to use HOV lanes at no charge.

Stump is the lobbyist at the state capitol for ABATE of Colorado and he has been busy. It looks as though this whole issue with motorcycles being required to have transponders to use HOV lanes will be resolved soon. I’m just going to paste in Stump’s latest email on the topic.
___________________________________

This week was another busy week down at the Capitol. HB16-123 (HOV / Transponders) is more involved than I originally thought. The part of concern to us, motorcycles needing transponders, is the easy part. Everyone involved, CDOT, HPTE, Senators, and even opponents of the bill at the Senate Transportation Committee Hearing, understand that motorcycles are HOV per Federal Regulations. The discussion now is, “How do we go about giving motorcycles “free access” to the HOV lanes?”

The rest of the bill about switchable transponders is a lot more complicated. The bill was scheduled for 2nd reading on the Senate floor on Tuesday, 2/23. It got laid over to Thursday, 2/25. I talked to a few Senators on Wednesday, 2/24, to get a feel for the bill. I’ve heard in the past that a bill is sometimes laid over if the sponsor feels he doesn’t have enough votes to carry the bill. That morning there was also a meeting with CDOT, HPTE, and a few Senators. After much discussion, a compromise was offered by CDOT, but not accepted by the sponsor. (I wasn’t at the meeting so I don’t know the exact offer). Wednesday afternoon, I did have a meeting with Senator Todd, Scott Spendlove (lobbyist for HPTE & E-470), and Andy K. (lobbyist for CDOT). While a lot of the discussion was about the bill, all of us agreed that motorcycles shouldn’t need transponders. Scott said he would take the issue directly to the Director of HPTE and work on a solution. Sen. Todd emphatically stated she wants this done ASAP and if it isn’t handled soon and SB16-123 gets killed, she would sponsor a bill specifically about motorcycles not needing transponders.

So on Thursday, 2/25, the bill was read on the Senate floor. Senators Lundberg, Jones, and Neville gave some very strong arguments in support of the bill. (The bill wants to get rid of the switchable transponders and go back to how the HOV / HOT lanes operated before July 22, 2015). Senators Todd and Heath opposed the bill. After much discussion and confusion about the ramifications of the bill, it was voted to lay over the bill till Tuesday, 3/1. There’s a meeting on Monday, 2/29, with the same people that met Wednesday morning. Since the motorcycle’s issue seems to be separate and already agreed upon, I wasn’t invited to the meeting. I’m sure there will be more compromises offered. FYI, I talked to Andy on Thursday and he said he’d send me an e-mail to the effect that CDOT is working on a solution to the motorcycle / transponder issue. (I haven’t gotten it yet).

There’s other bills happening but I just wanted to bring you up to date on SB16-123. I’ll let you know what happens next week and if we need to contact our Representatives.

Stump

Biker Quote for Today

The only date I need has two wheels, can be full on under $10, always goes all the way, and definitely screams on top.