Passes & Canyons Blog

Nowhere in the bill is the Colorado Motorcycle Operator Safety Training (MOST) program mentioned specifically but Senate Bill 16-122 is all about MOST. It is scheduled to come up for first hearing on Tuesday at 2 p.m. in Senate Conference Room 352.

Colorado MOST program logo

Soon after Colorado eliminated its mandatory helmet law, quite a few years ago, the MOST program was created–with support of the motorcycling community–to lower the cost of getting riders trained. Better training = fewer crashes was, and still is, the thinking. And from the bikers’ perspective, the fewer crashes the less likelihood that the helmet law would be reinstated. The program is paid for by an extra fee all bikers pay when they get their plates each year and when they renew their drivers licenses.

Long story short, it worked for a good while but eventually it turned out that some rider training programs were decidedly below the acceptable level and the decision was made to institute oversight of the trainers. First the trainee reimbursement was decreased and then it was eliminated. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), which handles the MOST program announced that it would hire an outside agency to do the oversight, essentially using all the money we chip in to pay for that oversight.

There are a few issues here. Colorado motorcyclists agreed to pay these extra fees in order to lower the cost to trainees. Now their cost is not lowered one dime. The MOST legislation also states that no more than 15 percent of the money raised can be use for administration. Now effectively all of it is to be used for administration. So now motorcyclists will pay extra to ensure the quality of motorcycle rider training, while people driving cars do not pay anything extra to ensure the quality of driver training. The general consensus is that that is unfair to us and totally unacceptable.

So what would SB 16-122 do? I’m not a lawyer so I can only interpret this to the best of my ability but here goes. I’ll quote from the bill summary and offer my best understanding.

Section 1 requires the state auditor to conduct a risk-based performance audit of CDOT no later than June 30, 2018.

I really can’t explain this, other than to conjecture that it relates to what follows.

Section 2 limits CDOT’s existing authority to enter into a lease-purchase agreement that requires total payments exceeding $500,000 without specific prior authorization by a bill enacted by the general assembly to lease-purchase agreements for the lease and purchase of personal property only.

This appears directly aimed at the CDOT plan to bring in outside oversight. That contract would run about $800,000 so CDOT would not be able to move ahead on this front without legislative OK.

Section 3 requires CDOT:
! To close each transportation project and release any money budgeted for the project as quickly as feasible and within one year following the substantial completion of the project unless a pending legal claim related to the project or an unusual circumstance beyond the control of CDOT unavoidably requires a longer time to close the project;
! To report on its public website within 2 weeks of a competitively bid transportation contract award, the identity of the winning bidder, the amount of the winning bid, and whether or not the bid awarded was the low bid, and, if not, why CDOT chose the bid over a lower bid;
! To annually report to the transportation commission regarding the percentages and total amount of money budgeted and expended during the preceding fiscal year for payments to private sector contractors for work on transportation projects and total transportation project costs for projects completed by CDOT employees, including indirect cost recoveries and employee salaries; and
! On or after July 1, 2016, and on and after July 1 of each year thereafter, to report to the transportation legislation review committee regarding amendments made to the statewide transportation improvement plan that were adopted during the most recently ended fiscal year and that added or deleted a project from the plan or modified the funding priority of any project included in the plan. The report must include an explanation of the reasons for each reported policy amendment and administrative action amendment.

There seems to be a number of things going on here. In one case it appears to be making it clear that if a decision is ultimately made to eliminate the MOST program, the state will not be able to continue assessing us the fees we now pay to support it. The second items appears to speak to concerns that the proposed awarding of this contract to the Motorcycle Safety Foundation was not fairly handled. Third, it would require CDOT to tell the legislature what it is spending MOST money on so that if more than 15 percent is going for administration that will be very clear. And fourth, it would require CDOT to get legislative OK in the future if other sweeping changes are proposed.

If someone wants to offer a clearer explanation I urge you to do so in a comment to this post.

So anyway, this is what will be going on Tuesday down at the Capitol. Bruce Downs, ABATE state coordinator, told me he will be there to testify and I’m sure there will be others as well. I’ll be observing, and will have a follow-up report afterward.

Biker Quote for Today

When I drag my elbow it’s part of the crash.

Motorcycles are allowed in HOV lanes--why should we need a transponder?

Let’s rejoin the discussion of motorcycles needing transponders to use HOV lanes without paying a fee.

I heard at Sunday’s ABATE D-10 meeting that state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, from the broad Fort Collins area, is planning to introduce a bill that, while not directed specifically at motorcycles, would nevertheless address the issue. Apparently Lundberg’s broader concern is the idea of requiring anyone–in cars or motorcycles or whatever–to have a transponder to use HOV lanes. Let’s just go back, Lundberg is saying, to last year when all you needed to drive in an HOV lane was two people in your car. Of course, that system also including allowing any motorcycle to use the HOV lane with no other requirement. While as written the legislation apparently does not say anything about motorcycles, Lundberg has indicated that he would seek an amendment that does specifically include motorcycles. That’s why ABATE has Stump working as a (non-paid!) lobbyist down at the Capitol, to get that kind of motorcycle consideration included in these bills.

It makes total sense to me. The old system was working; why did it need to be fixed? The way it has been revised there is no way for an out-of-state rider passing through to know that they need a transponder–all they would know is that motorcycles are allowed in HOV lanes so let’s do it. Boom: you get a bill in the mail when you get home.

Also, why should anyone, in a car or on a bike, have to pay for the transponder (bikes excluded on this one) and sign up with their credit card and an initial $35 deposit taken (bikes not excluded here) just to–once again–use the HOV lanes that used to be wide open? You’re adding cost, bureaucracy, time spent, and all the rest. I mean, go ahead and require transponders for anyone interested in taking the toll lanes. We all have the choice to use those or not. But don’t inflict all this on people whose only interest is in using the HOV lanes that they are entitled to use per the laws that created them.

So this is another piece of legislation, along with the lane-splitting proposal I mentioned earlier, that I’ll be watching and keeping you informed on. Bruce Downs, ABATE’s state coordinator, made the point at the meeting that when this bill comes up in committee we’re going to want to blanket that hearing room in black leather.

“It has an effect. It really does,” he said.

Could be an interesting legislative session.

Biker Quote for Today

“The Bikers Code” — All men and women are created equal. Then some take a step up and become bikers.

Filtering, or lane-splitting, in Paris, where it goes on constantly.

I was down at the Capitol building today and met Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt (R), from the Colorado Springs area, who is introducing a bill to allow lane-splitting by motorcyclists in Colorado. So far he has one Democratic co-sponsor in the House (Steve Lebsock) and a Republican co-sponsor in the Senate (John Cooke).

It is entitled, “A bill for an act concerning an exception to the prohibition against driving a motorcycle between rows of motor vehicles in the same lane.” Here is the bill summary.

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

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

Rep. Klingenschmitt is taking an interesting tack in promoting this bill. He has put together information pointing out that in the California bill explicitly allowing lane-splitting the Democrats voted 90 percent in favor of it and 67 percent of the Republicans voted for it.

“So it’s really a Democrat bill,” he said. So Democrats in Colorado ought to support him on this. Will they? That’s a very good question. We’ll see. But if you favor lane-splitting you really ought to let your elected representatives know that.

The materials Klingenschmitt was passing around made the point that lane-splitting is supported by the American Motorcyclist Association and the Motorcycle Industry Council. Locally it also has the support of the Powersports Dealers Association of Colorado and the Colorado Confederation of Clubs. ABATE has not yet voiced its support but I know that group will also be backing this piece of legislation.

I realize that there are some motorcyclists who oppose lane-splitting because they consider it too dangerous. Nevermind that it is practiced safely in California and in much of the rest of the world. I would simply ask those who do oppose it to keep in mind that they are not required to do it; let’s just not oppose it for those who do wish to do it. I know I’ll only do it if I am convinced I can do so safely. Nobody values my skin more than I do.

The legislative session is just getting started. There could be some interesting things going on down there this year. I’ll be paying attention and will let you know what’s happening.

Biker Quote for Today

If and whenever you begin risking your life by assuming a driver will do the right thing, you should quit riding motorcycles. — Nick Ienatsch

The bill I got from ExpressToll.

Guess what I got in the mail yesterday: That ExpressToll bill in the photo above. The very thing I’ve been talking about here recently.

Funny thing is, though, as far as I knew I had not used any lanes that I should be charged for. So I called the number on the bill and asked WTF? Now it all comes even clearer.

You know that HOV lane going from downtown up north along I-25 and then onto the Boulder Turnpike? The one that you’ve used for many years if you had two or more people in your car or if you were on your motorcycle? It’s not free anymore.

Well, it is free, but only if you have a transponder. Otherwise you get billed through the mail, just as I did.

I don’t know if they have been putting information out about these changes but they sure need to. Maybe there are ads on TV; I wouldn’t know because I don’t watch TV. But I haven’t seen anything in the newspaper, and I haven’t received any information in the mail. Or maybe I did get something in the mail but reading it left me totally unclear on the whole thing–I’m not certain.

Actually, I think sending you the bill is intended to be their primary method of educating the public. When I called, the very helpful woman explained that they are authorized to waive the fee the first time–which she did–and she then explained it all to me in detail.

In the car you get the transponder, which is an electronic device (I guess), that you attach to your windshield at, around, or maybe to your rear view mirror. You have to manually set it to either toll or HOV. Then if it is set to toll and you use any of the HOV lanes or express lanes you get charged. That charge comes off the initial $35 fee you pay when you get the transponder, which is payment in advance. Once you’ve used up the $35 your credit card is automatically billed for the new payment in advance. You also actually pay $15 for the transponder, which is a non-refundable charge. You’re buying it.

If you have two or more in your car, you set the transponder to HOV and use the lanes and that’s that. No charge. Let’s be clear here: if you’re on a toll road, such as E-470, you still pay the tolls. But if you’re in an HOV lane there is no charge.

For motorcycles, the thing is still called a transponder but it’s a different object. It adheres to the top of your headlight. Will I have to buy one for each of my three bikes, I asked? No, for motorcycles they give you the transponder for no charge. And you could not get just one and switch it to the bike you’re on today because each is registered to a specific vehicle, and we absolutely know they have cameras to capture your license number. But if they’re free that doesn’t matter.

Bottom line, however, is that you MUST open an account, give them your credit card number to draw payments from, and attach the transponder to your vehicle. Otherwise you will be charged for using the HOV lane even if you’re on a motorcycle. Of course, this is one of the issues ABATE is trying to work out. Federal law says motorcycles can use HOV lanes at no charge. Does this violate that law? And what about out-of-state riders who use the HOV lane with no idea that they are supposed to have a transponder? Sure, they’ll get their fee waived the first time but what if you come to Colorado for a week and use the HOV lanes numerous times? Maybe there will be some update on this at my ABATE District 10 meeting this Sunday but I won’t be there to hear about it. I’ll have to follow up later.

Biker Quote for Today

Riding my motorcycle around L.A. is like my own video game. But unlike many folks at the wheel, I am occupied with getting where I’m going and keeping myself safe. Most people are applying makeup, texting, and checking out the beauty in the next car. — Hugh Laurie

A Beginning Rider course.

SB 15-286 to eliminate the Colorado Motorcycle Operator Safety Training (MOST) program has been killed.

The bill, introduced in the Senate by Jerry Sonnenberg (R), was passed on May 5 and was introduced in the House by Lori Saine (R) and Jovan Melton (D). Bipartisan sponsorship did not prevent it from being sent to the House Finance Committee where it was “postponed indefinitely,” legislative verbiage for “killed.”

While I’m trying to help interested readers be informed about this bill and what is happening, I’m really just doing my best to learn about it, too. Someone who is a lot more knowledgeable about it than me is Matt Wessels, which is one of the reasons I agreed to have him join me in posting on this blog. Matt is working on a deep, broad series on the whole business surrounding MOST but for the meantime he filled me in a bit on some of the background here.

Matt pointed out a number of things. For instance, while I reported a few days ago that this bill, if it had passed, would have created something of a monopoly in Colorado for the Lee Parks Total Control rider training curriculum, “The MOST program has only ever had the MSF (Motorcycle Safety Foundation) curriculum approved as a curriculum which results in an endorsement from DOR (the Colorado Department of Revenue). When the MOST program was created, there was another curriculum, offered by the State of Oregon, which MSF lobbied not to include the Oregon curriculum in the MOST bill, so they could have a monopoly in Colorado. It worked and there was an agreement struck between CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation)/MOST and MSF. There are many curricula out there, some better suited to Colorado riders than MSF. Lee Parks’ is one of them. Oregon and Idaho also have very good curricula.”

So it’s not as if the state has been exactly neutral in the past.

Matt continued: “Under the new bill, no curriculum would be “approved,” since SMSA doesn’t approve curricula, which means it would be interpreted that all curricula are OK as the standard isn’t defined. It would be a free-for-all. This means, any curriculum could be taught, and any vendor could teach, without any standards or quality assurance. The risk of the bill is in the lack of regulation, and the risk that provides to the new student who wouldn’t know which vendor is teaching the right thing or not. It’s also a direct attack on MSF, which has had the monopoly and foothold in Colorado for so long, in their push to become the national curriculum. They’ve done this in other states as well. They have board members on the MIC (Motorcycle Industry Council) board, and are working with motorcycle vendors and seller to become a monopoly and secure their curriculum, their product as the end all, be all. It WOULD hurt Harley, as they have their Rider’s Edge training program, which has special provision through MOST to be taught, and does not comply with NHTSA, as they teach on 500cc motos, not 250cc as required by NHTSA.”

So OK, it’s a pretty complicated situation. For now at least it’s on hold. The bill failed. But I think we can count on seeing this kind of thing in the next legislative session. We can only hope that the next bill will be better written.

Biker Quote for Today

Safety is a cheap and effective insurance policy.

A screen grab from the MOST program website.

I’ve been digging into this story of Senate Bill 15-286 and it’s getting curiouser and curiouser. I spoke today with Dave Tolbert, who runs the Motorcycle Training Academy. Dave has been very busy all day talking to legislators and other operators of training outfits, all of it focused on this bill.

The word on this bill, mentioned by Robert Frank in the notice from him I ran here, and reiterated by Dave, is that Sen. Jerry Sonnenberg introduced this bill on behalf of ABATE and T3RG. Very interesting if that’s the case considering I belong to ABATE and go to meetings and I sure hadn’t heard anything about this.

While the original bill didn’t say this, amendments late on Friday night added wording to this effect: The bill repeals the motorcycle operator safety training program and instead requires the department of revenue to issue a motorcycle endorsement to an applicant who:

* Provides proof of completion of a motorcycle training program; and
* Attests that the program used the curriculum established by the National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators.

Dave explained this to me. Many of you may be familiar with Lee Parks and his Total Control program. Parks is, in Dave’s term, a “curriculum vendor.” He offers a fully developed curriculum for rider training and markets or franchises it across the country.

So according to Dave, Lee Parks asked the State Motorcycle Safety Administrators (SMSA) organization, “Can you verify that my curriculum meets the NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) model standards?” These standards were only recently introduced.

“SMSA had never done that before,” said Dave, “they’re not an accrediting agency, but they said, OK, sure, we can evaluate that. And now Lee Parks is the only curriculum vendor who has sent his program to SMSA because the rest of the vendors say, ‘well they’re not an accrediting agency. Why would we send it to them?’ So he is the only vendor who has curriculum that SMSA says has met the national model standards.”

Look back at that second bullet in the amendment to this bill: Attests that the program used the curriculum established by the National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators.

In other words, if a student rider wants to take a course and get accreditation so he or she doesn’t have to pass the driving part of the licensing test, the only curriculum vendor whose program would meet that standard is Lee Parks. Currently, most rider training courses in the state use the curriculum offered by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, a competitor of Lee Parks. All the MSF training in Colorado would lose the ability to offer students automatic exemption when they went to get licensed.

Can you understand that Dave Tolbert and a lot of other outfits around the state are in a tizzy?

But what about ABATE? The ABATE training is MSF based. Why would that group support this?

As I say, curiouser and curiouser. I hope to have more information soon.

Another Biker Quote for Today

Accidents hurt — safety doesn’t.

Rider trainees on the course.

This seems to have come almost out of nowhere, though I suspect it is actually the result of some behind-the-scenes efforts, but all of a sudden there is a bill in the Colorado Legislature to defund the Colorado Motorcycle Operator Safety Training (MOST) program. The bill was introduced on Thursday and the session ends on Wednesday so anyone who wants to contact their representatives needs to do so right away. And due to the nature of the situation, I plan to put up several posts in quick order, unlike my standard Monday/Thursday schedule.

I first got wind of this via an email from ABATE District 10 rep Carol Downs forwarding an email from ABATE legislative affairs officer, Stump. Here’s what Stump had to say.

The 2nd bill on Thursday at the Senate Transportation Committee was more exciting, SB15-286 (MOST Bill). On Tuesday, Senate Sonnenberg introduced a bill to get rid of the MOST Program. We had talked about this issue last year a few times at our SBOD Meetings and agreed that if the subsidies were going away, we didn’t want our $4.00 and $2.00 going to administration of the program (which wasn’t doing its job in the first place). The bill passed 3-2. Thanks to Bruce, Tiger, and Colleen Boyle (T3RG) for testifying. There was quite a bit of opposition from other Rider Ed. Vendors, but the truth prevailed and the bill was sent to the Senate Finance Committee. I expect it to pass that committee today then on to the Senate floor and hopefully to the House by Tuesday. It wouldn’t hurt to send a quick e-mail to your legislators asking them to vote yes on SB15-286 (MOST Bill). I’ve sent an explanatory letter to all the Senators already and will follow up with a similar letter to all the Representatives this weekend, so all you’d have to say is, “As a constituent, I urge you to vote yes on SB15-286 (MOST Bill).” That’s all it would take.

So we’re clear on where ABATE stands on this. My next thought was what position this new group, Motorcyclists Advocacy of Colorado (MAC), was taking on it. Turns out my still developing understanding of MAC was a little off. Here is the explanation of the group’s intent, as given to me by Terry Howard, who is a co-founder of MAC.

MAC does not take positions on issues. The purpose of MAC is to inform the motorcycling public of issues that will affect us. We produce facts surrounding the issue and publish the information. It is then up to the individual members what position THEY choose to take. We provide guidance and coaching to address the issue, whichever side they are on.

Pursuant to its intent to provide information, I found on their Facebook page an ongoing update on the progress of the bill. It seems it is now to go to the Senate Appropriations Committee today, after receiving some amendments.

Not all groups wish to see MOST abolished. Alan sent me the following from Robert Frank:

URGENT – Final legislative vote will happen on or before Tuesday 5-5-15

The people that are doing their best to kill the MOST program in Colorado (ABATE & T3RG) have introduced a bill to do just that, SB 15-286.

As first introduced it had a lot of holes, was poorly written, it had major issues.

Well, it’s been amended with exclusionary wording, that if passed, will disallow all MSF Motorcycle Safety Foundation training in Colorado.

It will make Lee Parks, Total Control the only certified course in Colorado.

Currently in California Lee is charging $258 for the equivalent of the MSF BRC (Get your license course) The MSF course is available in Colorado @ $160.

Lee’s charging $475 for his ‘Premier’ course. The MSF equivalent is available for $260.

If Lee Parks is made the only authorized course you will pay more for your training, loose your manufacturer training rebate, you HOG rebate and quality MSF products.

Please call, write, e-mail your state senator / representative and let them know you do not support this bad bill.

How likely is it that this thing will pass? I have no real insight but considering the fate of numerous other bills in the last few days I would tend to expect it to fail. At this time. I would expect to see it return in the next session if it doesn’t pass now. We’ll see. In the meantime, I have calls in to some folks and will be posting more very soon.

Biker Quote for Today

Biker Heaven: The road, full tank, full throttle

A MOST legislative hearing in 2012.

Given a reprieve last year following years of poor oversight, the Colorado MOST program’s new rules have been agreed upon and should go into force in mid-March.

MOST, or Motorcycle Operator Safety Training, provides funding to reduce the cost of motorcycle safety training for riders. That funding comes from an extra fee motorcyclists pay each year when they renew their plates, and when they renew their drivers’ licenses.

After surviving the legislative inquest regarding the poor oversight, the program was once again threatened when legislators on the relevant committee concluded they wanted to keep the fees but eliminate the trainee benefit, using the fees only to pay for other motorcycle safety efforts. That would have totally negated the purpose of the MOST program and left motorcyclists paying extra for programs that people in cars and trucks pay nothing extra for. Talk about unfair!

That challenge was faced and overcome, and now the final rules have been laid out and, according to ABATE of Colorado State Coordinator Terry Howard, they are acceptable. Howard told members at yesterday’s ABATE District 10 meeting that now it is time for members to let their legislators know they support the rules.

The process now was spelled out in an email from Emiliano Barela, of the Colorado Department of Transportation:

This email is to let you know that the rules were adopted by the Executive Director with no changes on January 14th. We have submitted them for review to the attorney general’s office today. That office has 20 days to review them, so must send us an opinion prior to Feb. 3rd. Once they send us the opinion, we file them with the Secretary of State: http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/RegisterHome.do and they are published in the Colorado Register. We believe they will be published on Feb. 10th, and they become effective 5 weeks later, so by mid-March. Attached are the same rules you reviewed for the public rule making hearing (red-line and final draft). There are no changes (except maybe numbering corrections) since that draft. The clean version will be the official rules when they are published.

Recent from National Motorcycle Examiner
Only a biker knows . . .: Motorcycle wit and wisdom, #25

Biker Quote for Today

Practice makes perfect and is just an empty parking lot away.