Passes & Canyons Blog

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 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.

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.

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.

A 4-1 favorable vote bodes well for an effort to resolve the issue of motorcyclists being assessed fees and fines for using high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes in Colorado. Federal law mandates that motorcycles are always considered HOV but current practice here requires that you have a transponder on your bike or else you will receive a bill in the mail.

Senate Bill 16-123 was passed out of the Senate Transportation Committee Thursday and will move to the Senate Committee of the Whole. The only no vote, from Sen. Nancy Todd, was cast with the statement that if the bill had only addressed the motorcycle issue it would also have been a yes. As it is, the bill, introduced by Sen. Kevin Lundberg, calls for any vehicle that is permitted in an HOV lane be permitted without being required to have a transponder.

Testimony opposing this bill was based primarily on the practical challenges of using a single lane for HOV, rapid transit (buses), and tolled traffic (HOT). Representatives from the Denver Regional Council of Governments, Boulder/Boulder County, and the High-Performance Transportation Enterprise, which operates the tolling system, expressed concern about loss of revenues to pay for the new lanes on US 36 and suggested if the bill passes the ultimate result will be the elimination of HOV lanes entirely.

Alone among them, Matthew Applebaum, representing the interests of Boulder, suggested that the issue might be resolved by not requiring people signing up for transponders who express no intention of using the toll lanes to make the current $35 deposit to cover any fees incurred. He said the $15 for the transponder would be saved in one trip on the Boulder Turnpike and so did not suggest offering the transponders for free.

Motorcycles already can get transponders for free but they still have to give a credit card or bank account and have the $35 deposit drawn.

Bruce Downs, state coordinator for ABATE of Colorado, argued that even free transponders for motorcycles is not sufficient because it does not eliminate the situation where, for instance, an out-of-state rider might use the HOV lane and find an unpleasant surprise in their mailbox afterward. He said Virginia has addressed this issue by installing cameras that are capable of distinguishing motorcycles and ignoring them.

Deb “Tiger” Chandler, who represents the US Defenders and the Coalition of Independent Riders, asked why the motorcycling community had not been included in discussions leading up to this new system long before it was put into place.

Sen. Lundberg acknowledged that as the bill continues its path through the legislature it is likely that amendments will be made and those amendments could resolve some of the valid concerns of those currently opposing the bill.

This bill is still a long way from becoming a law but the response in the Senate Transportation Committee suggests that motorcyclists can reasonably hope for resolution of the issue that concerns them, even if that resolution is not found in this particular bill.

Biker Quote for Today

Ride as though you are invisible, not invincible.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senate bill is quite brief:

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

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

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

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

Biker Quote for Today

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

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

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

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

After his testimony Bruce explained it to me.

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

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

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

And:

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

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

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

Biker Quote for Today

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