Passes & Canyons Blog

Riding with strangers calls for discussion so you’ll each know what to expect.

I’d never spent significant time riding with people I didn’t know, until I took part on a media tour put on by EagleRider, a major motorcycle rental outfit that also offers tours. When you ride with the usual bunch of guys you pretty much know what to expect. With strangers, I found, it’s a whole new ball game.

The EagleRider tour leaders made it clear that we were to ride in double-file staggered formation, which builds in extra space for safety and visibility. When I ride with the OFMC we are not the model of safety because only some of us adhere to the staggered formation concept. Doing demo rides, on the other hand, the ride leaders make it absolutely clear that you will ride in formation and not change the line-up or you will not be allowed any more demo rides.

The 18 media members on this tour consisted primarily of a variety of Europeans, one Canadian, one Australian, and three Americans. Considering that nearly all the riders on this tour were professional motorcycle writers or photographers, who understand the safety issues, I expected strict adherence to the formation. I was in for a surprise.

The first situation that threw me was the two Dutch folks on the tour. An older fellow and a young woman, they work for the same outfit and he stayed on her tail the entire time. The ride leader would take the inside track, the young woman would follow to her right, and the guy would do whatever he wanted to do. Mostly he rode extremely close behind her, but on occasion he would move to the left where I would have expected him to be all the time.

So if you’re the person immediately behind him, what do you do? If you stay where you theoretically ought to be, you then have three bikes in a row in the right-hand track. If you stay to the left, what do you do at those times when he moves left? If you shift to the right, then everyone behind you has to shift as well to stay in formation and that alone can be hazardous.

I chose, those times I was immediately behind him, to stay left at all times. It just seemed to make the most sense. And I did eventually figure out that he had a video camera mounted on his bike and he was filming her. At least that helped to make some sense of his actions.

Squeezing From Behind
Then there was another of the Europeans who stayed in formation but was always close enough behind me that I could see him in my peripheral vision. I purposely kept a good distance between me and the bike ahead but he was always right there. Sometimes he would even pass me and soon after wave for me to repass him. I kept wondering why he didn’t back off and I figured he kept wondering why I didn’t close up.

I mentioned it at one point to another rider who told me that guy’s magazine is focused on speed and running in tight groups. OK, I get it. So I just did my best not to get right behind the Dutch or right in front of him. But sometimes it was unavoidable.

Another thing that threw me was the fellow who would on occasion just pass me and maybe one or two other riders. I finally asked him if there was something I was doing that troubled him, and should I be reading between the lines to recognize some mistake I was making. No, he responded, he just didn’t think it was smart for everyone to stay in the exact same formation all the time because that has a tendency to lull you into complacency. He liked to mix things up. And hey, thanks for asking rather than just getting angry or annoyed.

I can go with that reasoning, especially since it is focused on safety. As for the young woman being filmed, I don’t care, I don’t want anybody on my tail like that. I wouldn’t have wanted to be her. As for riding tight in general, I know the European countries have far more rigorous skill and training requirements for motorcyclists than we do. And they do ride close together, sometimes at amazingly high speeds.

Meanwhile, I guess I won’t be so hard on the OFMC. It’s not like they’re pros or anything.

Biker Quote for Today

You’re most likely to have an accident in the first year of riding because of inexperience, and after two years of riding because you think you know everything.

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