Passes & Canyons Blog

It’s entirely different riding with a passenger.

I read somewhere recently that the best passenger a motorcyclist can have is a girlfriend who has never been on a bike before. (This was obviously a guy talking.) The point being that she’ll get on and do exactly what you tell her to do because she doesn’t know to do anything else.

The worst passenger, this writer went on, was your buddy whose bike is broken down and to whom you’re giving a ride back to town. That guy is going to want to do his own leaning and all the things he normally does to control his own bike, but that throws your control efforts way off and makes for a hazardous ride. Backseat driving takes on a whole new meaning on a motorcycle, and it is not for the better.

Riding a motorcycle with a passenger is a whole new ball game for a variety of reasons. First off, you are now responsible for the safety of another person besides yourself. I know that I ride carefully at all times, but when my wife is on behind me I ride even more carefully. If I was responsible for something happening to her I’d never forgive myself. So I do everything in my power to ensure that nothing happens.

Second, adding all that weight makes a huge difference in how the bike handles. It’s a big difference if your 110-pound wife or girlfriend gets on; imagine the difference if your 210-pound buddy gets on.

Novice riders simply should not carry passengers. Until they have some real experience and skills with the bike it’s just too dangerous. I told the story recently how my friend Terry told me not to take some girls riding on his bike and never let me ride the bike again after I did so anyway. He was right to do so. I wasn’t ready.

After I got my own bike I waited awhile before taking a passenger but even then I was ill at ease. What finally made a difference was when the OFMC took its first extended trip and I rode around for days on end with a bunch of gear bungee-strapped on the back. I grew accustomed to the weight and from that point on I was comfortable with a passenger.

Not comfortable with just any passenger, however. We had a friend, Al, who was a super nice guy but not always the most prudent person. Al didn’t ride. (This is all in the past tense; Al died a number of years ago.) One night John and I rode over to Al’s and at some point Al wanted to go for a ride. He climbed on behind me first and I was aghast. Al was not fat, but he was solid muscle, and muscle weighs more than fat. On my 750cc Honda it was just too much and I suggested he ride with John. So Al got on with John, whose 1100cc Shadow was bigger than my CB750, and we took off.

But Al was not content to just sit there quietly on the bike. He was moving around and doing all kinds of stuff that kept throwing John off balance, so before we went more than half a mile John stopped and said “No more, we’re going back. This is too dangerous.”

Another time, John and Bill and I had gone over to Grand Junction to see our friend Christopher. Like Al, Christopher is not known for prudence. He wanted to take us to see the 20-foot dragon he was building so we got on the bikes, with Christopher riding with Bill. Turning in the driveway to the place where the dragon was under construction, Christopher was flailing around in much the way Al had done and he threw Bill’s balance off so badly that they went down. Fortunately, it was at a slow speed and the dirt was soft, so nobody got hurt.

The bottom line here is that, for a capable rider, and a passenger who knows how to be a passenger, riding two-up can be a terrific shared experience. But tell your own Al or Christopher “No” when they ask for a ride.

Biker Quote for Today

There is a delicate ridge one must ride between fear and reason on a motorcycle—lean too far in either direction and there will be consequences. — Lily Brooks-Dalton

Not a panacea.

Some motorcyclists who die in crashes do so while wearing helmets, while others do so without helmets. This led Bruce Downs to the question, how many of those fatally injured actually die of head wounds?

The heart of this question was exemplified by a photo that was making the rounds several years ago, of a motorcyclist in such an horrific crash that he was cut in two. Someone made the remark, “Good thing he was wearing a helmet.”

So Bruce was asking the question and he was in a good position to come up with an answer. Bruce is State Coordinator for ABATE of Colorado and he raised this question at a MOSAB meeting. MOSAB is the Motorcycle Operator Safety Advisory Board, which is made up of representatives from rider organizations, the Colorado State Patrol, and others. When Bruce asked this question, he tells us, the representative from the state patrol said that he, too, would like an answer to that question. “And you’re going to get it for us, aren’t you,” he said to Bruce.

Now, you or I might not be able to corral the assistance such an endeavor might need but with the weight of MOSAB and the state patrol on his side Bruce was able to do so. I’m not sure who he worked with on this but three simple questions were decided upon, which were put up on Survey Monkey, and they then contacted 11 county coroner offices around Colorado, asking that every time the office deals with a motorcycle fatality that someone answer the three survey questions.

One question was, was this a single vehicle crash or were there more vehicles involved? Second, was the deceased wearing a helmet? Third was, was a head injury the cause of death?

In one county the coroner declined to participate, saying that in every motorcycle fatality he sees the death is due to multiple blunt force trauma. That is to say, it’s impossible to say conclusively what the rider died of because there were so many different, severe injuries that you just can’t isolate one in particular. If he/she didn’t die of this then he/she still would have died of that.

Among those coroners who did agree to participate, however, results have been coming in. And guess what? In approximately 80 percent of the fatalities reported–evenly divided between helmeted and helmetless–the cause of death was given as multiple blunt force trauma. (Bruce didn’t specify what the other 20 percent were; I ought to ask him that.)

Where this leads him, Bruce told us, and what he was planning to tell MOSAB the following day, was that regardless of what some people might wish to be the case, helmets are not that big a factor in saving lives. What would be a big factor in saving lives would be to reduce the number of crashes. And what will make that happen is educating drivers and riders, getting drivers off their cellphones while they’re driving, and so many other factors that will add up. But to anyone who thinks a helmet law would be all the answer needed, he says get over it.

“If you want to continue with the rhetoric you’re not going to get where you want to go. It’s not a short fix, it’s a long fix but you’ve got to get started.”

The reason this all matters is that the Colorado State Patrol has been given explicit direction to reduce highway fatalities. The people running that effort want real answers and it’s this kind of data collection that will help provide those answers.

Biker Quote for Today

You know you’re a biker if you get hit by a car, break your leg, then tell the nice police officer, “I’m fine I can ride home.”

Sen. Lois Court’s bill to fight distracted driving moved ahead on Thursday.

Sen. Lois Court had done her work well. When the Colorado Senate transportation committee first took up her bill to make hand use of portable communication devices illegal there had been some doubts and reservations from committee members. At that time she asked that the bill be laid over so she could work with members to tweak it to satisfy their concerns.

On Thursday, February 14, the bill came back up. This time there were no major issues and first her amendment was passed and then the overall bill was also passed, unanimously. It now goes to the Senate appropriations committee, where it will be studied to determine whether it would be likely to have fiscal impacts for the state. That is not considered likely. Presuming passage out of the appropriations committee it will go to the full Senate for consideration. There is always the possibility of further amendments being made on the floor.

Opening her discussion of the amendment, Court described the subject of distracted driving as “an issue that has moved forward in the public eye.”

As revised, the bill would allow drivers to touch their device in order to activate or deactivate features. This would include changing radio stations, which was one issue that a senator had raised earlier. The offense–holding a cell phone in your hand while driving–now be a Class A traffic infraction, which is a lesser charge than previously defined. The first offense would carry a possible fine of $50 and two points on your license. Second offense would carry a $150 fine and loss of four points, with third offense carrying a $300 fine and loss of four points.

Texting while driving, already illegal in Colorado, would remain a more serious offense. However, a wording change would no longer make it necessary for law enforcement officers to allege reckless driving in addition to texting. That is, texting in and of itself would be the offense.

We will continue following this bill as it moves to the full Senate.

Update: I just got this note from Stump:
I looked at the Fiscal Note for SB19-012. It shows a cost of $20,000 the first year to reprogram the computers, but an income of over $50,000 the next 2 years for fines. I think it will pass through the Senate Appropriations Committee, but I’ll send out contact info shortly so we can ask for their support.

Biker Quote for Today

Something that sounded like ripping metal shredded the deadly quiet. The inaudible bass smoothed into a low, steady hum. Outside, a low, mechanical growl rumbled closer and closer. Darius caught his breath. He knew that sound, and it wasn’t magic. It was a motorcycle.” — Laura Oliva

Not related to the post; just a photo of stuff we love.

On Thursday this week SB-12 will be back up in committee for consideration after some changes have been made by its sponsor, Sen. Lois Court, to make it more palatable for several committee members. If you can make it down to the capitol to support this bill it would be a good thing. Rather than try to reword what Stump has already put together, I am just going to copy/paste his entire message here.

Tuesday, 2/5 – Info from Senator Court on where the Committee members are on this Bill:
• Winter, Priola, Scott should be convincible.
• I think we have Donovan, and Foote.
• Hisey and Pettersen are probably lost causes.

Still a good idea to contact all of them . . .maybe more convincing communications to Winter, Priola & Scott (and I’d still try to sway Hisey and Pettersen).

Wednesday, 2/6 – If we don’t get either Winter or Scott and Hisey and Pettersen are solid no’s then we only have Donovan, Foote, and Priola which won’t get us there. We need HUGE push on Winter and Scott.

Senator Court met with Senator Faith Winter (Chair of the Transportation Committee) and a few other stakeholders to negotiate these revisions. The plan is to present this revised language to the Senate Transportation Committee on Feb 14, upon adjournment, which is usually around 9:45 – 10:00 am. Conference Room 352.

A few comments about the revised language:
There are two different fines proposed:
• Texting will still incur a $300 fine/4 points. Will still be a Class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense. “Careless driving” phrase will be deleted.
• Just having the device in your hand may incur a $50/2 pt. fine first offense; second offense will incur a $150/4 pt. fine; third offense will incur a $300/4 pt. fine. Offense changed to Class A traffic Infraction (vs a Class 2 misdemeanor traffic offense).
• You must be legally parked or at rest in a shoulder lane to use the electronic mobile device lawfully. (Stopped at a stoplight or Stop sign is not legally parked or at rest).

Let me know if you have any questions/comments after reading thru the revisions. Another amendment that will be presented is that under 18, full ban of electronic mobile devices while driving.

When contacting the Committee members, Senator Court has recommended some thoughts below. Please feel free to put these in your own words . . . we just want to be sure the Committee knows that Senator Court, and us as stakeholders, have been willing to compromise and work with the Committee to get this Bill passed. Please ask your stakeholders to reach out to all Committee members again before Feb 14. It sounds like a few Committee members are still undecided, and we’ll need 4 Yes votes to keep this Bill alive.

Here’s some suggested wording:
To Senator Faith Winter: Thank you for considering the compromise we worked out with you and other stakeholders.

To Senators Kevin Priola and Ray Scott: Thank you for considering the compromise we worked out with Senator Winter and other stakeholders.

To the other Committee members: We believe that holding a phone while driving puts everyone on the road at risk, but especially motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians and people with disabilities. While we agree that texting is even more dangerous we hope you’ll help us in the Transportation Committee by moving SB 12 forward when you hear it again on Feb. 14. We know Sen. Court listened carefully to the suggestions your Committee members requested, and we feel that the strike below bill now in front of you will be extremely helpful in combating the danger of distracted driving on Colorado’s roads.

Thank you again for your consideration……(name and address)

S-T&E Committee Members:
Senator Faith Winter, Chair of the Committee
faith.winter.senate@state.co.us
303-866-4863

Senator Brittany Pettersen, Vice Chair of the Committee
brittany.pettersen.senate@state.co.us
303-866-4859

Senator Kerry Donovan
kerry.donovan.senate@state.co.us
303-866-4871

Senator Mike Foote
Mike.foote.senate@state.co.us
303-866-5291

Senator Dennis Hisey
Dennis.hisey.senate@state.co.us
302-866-4877

Senator Kevin Priola
kpriola@gmail.com
303-866-4855

Senator Ray Scott
ray.scott.senate@state.co.us
303-866-3077

Thanks to Susan Dane for her input and all the work she is doing on this bill.

Biker Quote for Today

Nothing shouts out “Celebrity!” as loudly as being a biker in desperate need of a shave, a haircut and clean clothes. — Foster Kinn

Sen. Lois Court (at right, in blue) is heading up SB-12, to fight distracted driving.

In my last post regarding the Senate hearing on SB-12, outlawing non-hands-free use of cellphones while driving, I laid out in generalities the arguments made by the three people who spoke in opposition, plus the issues raised by some of the senators. I also discussed some of the responses from those who support the bill.

Now I want to offer my own thoughts on those arguments, in a more particular manner. I could have spoken at the hearing but I’m not good at extemporaneous rebuttal. I need time to consider and compose my responses. I’d make a terrible trial lawyer.

Sen. Kevin Priola questioned whether this bill would open people up to penalties if they pick up their phone, through which they are listening to music, to switch to a different song. Sen. Lois Court, who is promoting this bill, replied that the whole point is for people not to use their phones while driving. I agree; that’s the whole point. If you have your phone in your hand and are looking at it while changing the music that is no different whatsoever than looking at it to dial a number. You’re distracted. Your eyes are not on the road. That’s the whole problem.

Sen. Faith Winter asked why current laws are not enough. Texting is already illegal while driving in Colorado. Sen. Court replied that her bill is backed by law enforcement agencies because currently it is extremely hard to tell whether someone is texting or entering a phone number. Both are distractions so why outlaw one and not the other?

Sen. Kerry Donovan said the bill would disproportionately impact those too poor or too technologically inept to have smart phones, which have hands-off capability. I say that if the call is that important, pull over and stop and then make the call. If it’s not important enough to do that, then it’s just not that important at all and can wait until you get to your destination. Driving in important.

Speaking against the measure, Tristan Gorman, of the Colorado Criminal Defense Bar, argued that the impact would be greater on the poor and would open up the possibility of use in racial/ethnic profiling. I say that if you’re poor that should be a pretty good incentive to obey the law and not get fined, both on this issue and every other issue. There’s a saying, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time.” I’d add, “or if you can’t pay the fine.”

As for profiling, others made the point that if a cop is intent of profiling, there are plenty of other “issues” they can already turn to. Meanwhile, the incidence of this type of abuse by police is found to be very low in Colorado.

Gorman also challenged the idea of heavy fines when there is no proof of harm. No, there is no harm in making a phone call. However, when making that call leads to injury or death, it is too late to say, OK, now it’s a crime. Again, the whole point of this and many other laws is to prevent tragedy. If a particular behavior is known to lead to tragedy in some instances, don’t behave in that manner. This is not rocket science.

Denise Maes of ACLU of Colorado argued that education was the better approach, such as sections in driver’s education programs, billboards urging people not to use their phones while driving, public service announcements, etc. I’m not the only one who thinks that relying solely on those methods is not effective. Yes, some people would say, “Oh gosh, this is illegal, I won’t do it,” but there are plenty of others who say “That’s bull, I can do this safely and they’re not going to tell me what to do.” For those who simply choose to obey the law, fine, they won’t be getting a fine. For the others, we need the stick because the carrot just isn’t ever going to work.

The one thing that the opponents kept coming back to was how difficult it would be for many people to bear the costs of the fines and, if they lost too many points on their licenses, the loss of their driving privilege. My reply is simple: Then don’t use your phone when you’re driving. And going beyond that, let’s show equal concern for these people’s victims. If someone is severely financially impacted by paying a $750 fine, that pales totally to the price paid by someone who dies or is permanently disabled due to that other person’s bad choice. If your bankruptcy prevents my death, I claim higher priority.

Wow, I’m just one hour into a three-hour hearing. I don’t see any need to beat this horse any further so I’ll wrap up here. This bill will be back for further consideration and I’ll continue following it. Stay tuned.

Biker Quote for Today

It was only a motorcycle but it felt like a mode of being. — Rachel Kushner

A bill fighting distracted driving appears to be moving forward in the Senate.

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!

The State Capitol is the place to be on Thursday if you want to offer input on a bill to fight distracted driving.

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

Tires are pretty important, do ya think?

Have you ever watched the tread melt off your tire? I have. Not literally turning to liquid and dripping off, but being worn off in a matter of hours.

What you need to understand is that motorcycle tires are an entirely different critter than car tires. With car tires you have a broad, almost flat tread that the car rides on top off all the time. Motorcycle tires have a round profile because when you turn, you are leaning the bike. The round profile ensures that you always have tread in solid contact with the ground.

With only two tires, and those having very small contact areas, it is extremely important that you have good grip. Car tires have a hard rubber tread that will last 35,000 miles and more. In order to get a good grip, motorcycle tires use a very soft rubber. And guess what? That soft rubber wears away a whole lot quicker than hard rubber, generally not lasting much more than 10,000 miles.

Then there’s the effect of air pressure in the tires. It’s common knowledge that under-inflated tires wear out quicker, on cars as well as bikes. And while under-inflation can ruin a set of car tires in just a few thousand miles, that’s nothing compared to the soft rubber on motorcycle tires.

Which gets me back to my story.

In the early days of the OFMC, John and Bill and I went one year to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. While there I noticed that I was getting a bit thin on tread and mentioned it to the guys, who looked and agreed I would be needing new tires pretty soon after we got back home.

We only rode on to Page, AZ, the next day, which is about 100 miles. While unloading the bike I happened to glance at my rear tire and I was shocked. What little tread it had just a few hours ago was almost completely gone! I called Bill and John over and they gasped in amazement. Somebody had a tire gauge and when I checked my air pressure it was very, very low.

Of course I put air in, and it’s no surprise I was nervous the rest of the trip about the possibility of a blow-out. Realistically, I should have had a new tire put on right there in Page, but ever the optimist and a cheapskate to boot, I didn’t. And it did get me home safely.

But I tell you what, these days I have it on my calendar to check tire pressure on both my bikes and my car at the first of every month. And if I’m getting set to go on a trip I check the pressure before I leave.

This is really all just common sense, but it’s so easy sometimes to ignore common sense. It is far, far harder to ignore your own eyes when you see the tread vanish from a tire that quickly. We all learned a good lesson that day.

Biker Quote for Today

If you think it’s too dangerous, go home and cut your lawn, and leave us to it. — Guy Martin