Passes & Canyons Blog

It’s not as good as it could have been but it’s better than nothing, I guess. On the final day of the latest legislative session the Colorado House and Senate worked out a compromise hands-free bill and passed it, sending it to the governor for his signature.

As passed in the Senate, SB 24-065, Mobile Electronic Devices & Motor Vehicle Driving, would have made holding your phone while driving a primary offense, meaning the police could stop you simply for violating that law. Instead, the House insisted that it be a secondary offense, meaning you can’t be stopped for it but if you are stopped for something else the officer can also charge you for this violation.

The reasoning, as I understand it, is that some legislators feared it could be used by the police to selectively profile drivers and choose to stop them or not based on things like ethnicity. Sadly, that sort of fear has had plenty of foundation in reality but honestly, if a cop wants to harass someone, if they can’t use this law they’ll just use a different one. Weakening this law will not have any effect on that at all. But it will make it harder to enforce this law.

Still, I can tell you what will happen, at least at times. Cops will see someone using their phone and they will dig as deep as they need to to come up with some other reason for stopping them, then “let them go this time” on the “offense” they stopped them for but cite them for the phone usage.

I know this will happen because it happened to me once in regard to driving without using a seat belt, which was and is still a secondary offense in Colorado. I was on I-225 going the same speed as the traffic around me but I did not have my seat belt fastened. The state patrol guy stopped me for “speeding.” But, being a nice guy (right!) he let me off on the speeding but did cite me for the seat belt.

Bottom line, though, what will happen as a result of this legislation? Will drivers finally start to realize they need to put their damn phones down and concentrate on the number one thing they are doing–driving! My guess is some will. Not all but some. And not as many as would have if it had been made a primary offense. We don’t want to reject what is good because it is not perfect. Any progress is still progress. But it could have been better.

Biker Quote for Today

Owning a motorcycle is like eating biscuits in church–many will judge you but secretly they all want to be you.

I may well be updating this post right up until it gets posted but as I write this now on Sunday afternoon it appears the Legislature is in session and at work on the bill this moment. This bill being SB 24-065: Mobile Electronic Devices & Motor Vehicle Driving.

This morning I got an email from Stump, legislative liaison for ABATE of Colorado, reporting that it had been approved on second reading in the House. When I checked a short while ago it had come up on third reading and then when I came back to it just now it had been amended.

So now what I’m unclear on is whether this means it will need to go back to the Senate to be re-approved with the amendments. I think so. Does it go to a conference committee of the two houses to be reconciled and then need to be passed again by both houses? Is there time to get that done at this late moment in the session? I’m unclear.

What I am clear on is that my initial sense that this year is different, that this year the opposition to this bill has fallen away, was correct. After easily passing the Senate the bill came up in committee in the House and passed out of the House committee by an 11-0 vote. Now I see that on the House floor there have been several votes and the most recent vote was 55-6 in favor. This baby is going to pass! And the governor darn well better be planning to sign it. I can’t imagine he won’t.

Do we dare to think that by the time I click “Publish” on this thing tomorrow that it will be on its way to the governor? It might.

Update
OK, it’s Monday afternoon and the Senate voted not to concur with the House amendments. Before that vote I heard from Stump who said, “With 3 days left in the session and a ton of work to get done, it’s hard to say if there’s enough time to get SB24-065 passed the way we want it. We don’t like the latest amendments that were added, so we hope the Senate will reject them since the bill has to be reviewed by them and then send the bill to a conference committee. That all could happen in time as I saw a bill last week pass through a committee hearing, then through 2nd and 3rd reading in one day.”

Biker Quote for Today

Great memories happen when you don’t know where you’re going.

As Senate Bill 24-065 (Mobile Electronic Devices & Motor Vehicle Driving) was coming up for its initial Colorado House hearing recently I was wondering–as I mentioned previously–if there would be opposition as there was two years ago claiming that it would be unfair to fine poor people who violated the law.

Thinking about that got me thinking about a different issues from what must have been 25 years ago. The connector here is well-intentioned people reaching conclusions that overlook extremely relevant factors. In the case of outlawing use of handheld electronics while driving (SB24) it is the idea of trying to help people who did not have to break the law while ignoring the very real impact on other people who did nothing wrong. If it’s not clear what I’m referring to please read the other piece linked to above.

The situation 25 or so years ago had to do with insurance and wearing helmets. Specifically, there were health insurance companies that were writing policies that said if you were injured in a motorcycle crash and you were not wearing a helmet they would deny your claim. Does that still happen or were laws passed forbidding that? I’m not sure but I suspect it is no longer an issue because it’s been a long time since I’ve heard it mentioned.

So anyway, my family was gathered at some point and this whole thing came up and my father offered his opinion that he saw nothing wrong with that policy. After all, people should wear helmets and why should the insurance companies pay if they refuse to protect themselves?

I nearly exploded. This is the gist of what I told him.

OK, let’s say I’m legally riding my motorcycle without a helmet. I’m obeying the speed limit and all the traffic laws and I have a motorcycle endorsement on my drivers license. Then I get hit but a guy who a) is speeding, b) runs a red light, c) does not have a license because he lost it due to DUIs, and d) is drunk. He veers off and hits a telephone pole and is also injured.

So everything I have done is 100 percent legal, while everything he has done is 100 percent illegal. Oh, and by the way, while I am badly injured, I have not sustained any head injuries, despite not wearing a helmet.

After all this, my insurance company says it will not cover my medical expenses because I was not wearing a helmet (legally!) but his insurance company will cover his medical expenses.

Are you telling me that is somehow fair and appropriate? Really?? Are you telling me this makes any sense at all??

OK, my Dad was a rational guy and he acknowledged the error of his thinking once I educated him on the matter. And that’s my whole point. There are plenty of people out there who favor or oppose policies we might know are respectively bad or good simply because they are not personally connected to the issue and have not given it more than cursory consideration. But once they are presented with more facts, a deeper understanding, they see the error of their thinking.

That’s what the motorcycling community has to do, continually. That’s what organization such as the American Motorcyclist Association, the various state ABATEs, the Motorcycle Riders Foundation, and others work to do constantly. And it’s what each of us needs to do when talking with non-riding friends and family members. We need to educate them. I mean this was my own father and he thought it made sense to deny his son coverage until I educated him.

Let’s all be educators.

Biker Quote for Today

Every ride is a tiny holiday.

On Tuesday this week the Colorado House committee considering it approved by 11-0 the bill to make it illegal to be holding a cellphone or other mobile electronic device while driving. After a pass through the House Appropriations Committee it will go to the floor for second and third readings. There may or may not be amendments made at that time.

As I stated previously, there seems to have been a huge shift in general thinking about the use of electronics while driving, and that shift is against the practice. When a similar bill was under consideration in the previous legislative session it passed the Senate but failed in the House after much opposition was offered. This time around, of about three dozen witnesses speaking at the House Committee on Transportation, Housing & Local Government hearing, only one person offered any opposition.

That person was someone who raised the issue of possible discriminatory enforcement where minority members might be singled out by police officers more frequently than whites. While that concern was not pooh-poohed, several speakers offered information to show that such has not been the case in other states where similar laws have passed.

One of those speakers was Jennifer Smith, CEO and co-founder of StopDistractions.org, who, in her introduction, stated that unlike others speaking, “I am an expert.” She said that her organization had worked closely with members of various state Black caucuses to develop model legislation language that would prevent such discriminatory enforcement. Colorado’s bill, she said, uses that model language.

Numerous other speakers told numerous sad tales of their personal experiences–and often injuries–inflicted by distracted drivers. While I had testified in the Senate committee hearing, I did not feel it was necessary that I add my voice to the many in this case. Besides, the argument I was prepared to make was made by Scott O’Sullivan of RiderJustice.com. In the hearings in the last session one of the big arguments was that poor people would be disproportionately affected by having to pay the fines for violating a law against using your phone while driving. I would have argued–and Scott did–that there is no comparison between a poor person having to pay a $75 fine for doing something they easily could have chosen not to do and some other poor person, who they hit, being faced with the cost of having their car smashed or even their own selves badly injured. But nobody made that argument this time around, there was only the discriminatory enforcement argument.

I figured that the way this vote went would either bear out or refute my previous reading that a large change in public feeling in this matter had taken place over the last two years. My take seems to have been borne out. Among those testifying one theme emerged strongly and that was that people are tired of the delay in getting this law on the books. “How many times do we have to come here and tell you our stories” was the question asked again and again. And this time it passed unanimously.

Now we just have to wait to see what happens on the House floor. Unlike with the filtering bill, I have no doubt Gov. Polis will sign this one if it reaches his desk. It really does look like we’re going to make it over the finish line this time.

Biker Quote for Today

You might be a Yuppie biker if you paid for your new FXSTC in 24 months or less.

Gov. Jared Polis signed Senate Bill 24-079 on April 4 and motorcycle lane filtering will now be legal in Colorado starting on August 7. Mind you, that doesn’t mean you can just go crazy with it the way I’ve seen many people do in cities in Europe. There are rules about what you can do and under what circumstances. Let’s go through the law.

As written, the bill first went through several examples of how filtering has been found safe and reasonable in other places. For instance:

A 2009 “Motorcycle Accidents In Depth Study” by the European Association of Motorcycle Manufacturers that was conducted in five European countries found that 0.45 percent of motorcycle crashes involved lane splitting and that motorcyclists were seven times more likely to be hit while stopped compared to crashing while lane splitting

This list ended saying:

Lane filtering is prohibited in Colorado and can result in various citations, including violations of motorcycle lane restrictions and careless driving laws. Therefore, the general assembly determines that the act of lane filtering by a driver of a motorcycle, when done at speeds at or below 15 miles per hour and when conditions permit, is in the best interests of motorist safety.

Aye, there’s the rub–below 15 miles per hour and when conditions permit. Here’s what the law says. I’ll clean up the sections and legalese a bit to make it read more smoothly.

The driver of a two-wheeled motorcycle may overtake or pass another motor vehicle in the same lane as the motorcycle if the overtaken or passed motor vehicle is stopped and if the motor vehicles in the adjacent lanes traveling in the same direction are stopped and the motorcycle is on a road with lanes wide enough to pass safely and if the passing motorcycle is driving at fifteen miles per hour or less and conditions permit prudent operation of the motorcycle while overtaking or passing.

OK, so traffic has to be stopped, you have to have room to pass safely, and you can’t be going more than 15 miles an hour. But there’s more. When traffic starts moving again you have got to get back in your lane and start moving with traffic again. Then:

A person overtaking or passing pursuant to this subsection shall not overtake or pass on the right shoulder or to the right of a vehicle in the farthest right-hand lane if the highway is not limited access or in a lane of traffic moving in the opposite direction.

OK this is the part that I’m not clear on. You can’t pass on the shoulder or to the right of the right-most lane of traffic. But: “if the highway is not limited access.” So does this mean that on a limited access highway, such as an interstate, you can legally pass on the shoulder? That sure seems to be what it says. So you are limited on city streets or most highways but not on the really big roads. Is that correct?

As for the city streets situation, it was my impression during the hearings that some of the legislators were thinking this behavior would not be allowed on city streets but I see nothing in the bill that rules that out. And let’s get real, it’s exactly that filtering that is so commonplace in other places. Heck, in California one time I did that myself at a traffic light on a city street along with a bunch of other riders. The lady in the front car was familiar enough with the practice that she stopped back from the intersection enough to provide room for us to pull in in front of her.

Another thing I’ll be watching for is that to my knowledge, this law does not apply to scooters. By that I mean those 50cc and smaller two-wheelers that are not counted as motorcycles. This was an issue brought up in the hearings. Small scooters like that are not allowed on big highways anyway but they are certainly allowed on city streets. And if you start seeing motorcycles filtering on city streets I’m betting the scooter folks will start doing it, too. Could get interesting.

Now, as is customary with something like this, the legalization of the practice is for now temporary. In four years the law will be nullified unless the legislature extends it. To that end, the Colorado Department of Transportation is mandated to keep records and produce a study of the effects and present that study to the legislature by January 1, 2027.

So happy riding out there. But remember, don’t do any filtering before August 7. Then for pete’s sake, do it safely. We don’t want the law repealed in four years.

Biker Quote for Today

You might be a Yuppie biker if you refer to your bike as your “toy.”

The Colorado House hearing on SB24-065 (Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving) was postponed from Wednesday of this week to Tuesday of next week. It will be held on Tuesday, April 9, in the Legislative Services Building located at 200 E. 14th Avenue, directly south of the Capitol. However, the time is now a bit uncertain because instead of 1:30 p.m. as initially announced, it will take place “upon adjournment,” meaning that right after the main House session adjourns for the day the committee will cross the street and hold the hearing. Upon adjournment could mean as early as 9:30 a.m. This could get tricky.

This is the big one. This bill needs to pass. The idiots out there who think their phone calls are more important than our lives–like the guy who T-boned me on January 18–need to be served notice that this will no longer be tolerated. It happened with drinking and driving. The Mothers Against Drunk Driving group raised a ruckus and this country finally came to the realization that drinking and driving was a deadly hazard to each and every one of us and public attitudes changed. It’s happening with cellphone use while driving and it’s happening here in Colorado next week.

I really don’t know if there will be opposition to this bill. There was none when it passed through the Senate but the last time it was up for consideration there were opponents arguing that it would unfairly affect poorer people who would be less likely to be able to afford the fines.

Will that argument be raised again this time? Because that is such a piece of BS that I will absolutely speak out to counter. First off, avoiding such fines is an extremely simple matter: just don’t use your damn phone while driving. You don’t even have to do anything to avoid a fine, you just do nothing. You just obey the law.

More than that, what about the poor people who are the victims of the distracted drivers? Don’t they count? When they get injured or their cars get totaled because some fool ran a red light and crashed into them they incur real expenses. Hospital bills. Time lost at work. Repairs or a new car. Heck, I had insurance but it paid me a pittance, so when I replaced my totaled car I bought a used one and had to put up an additional $10,000 on top of the insurance money to pay for it. All because some guy I never met and probably would never have known existed felt that his phone call was more important than safely operating the 3,500-pound vehicle he was supposed to be driving.

And I consider myself absolutely blessed because although my car was trashed I was completely uninjured. But how long does it take a car going 15-20 miles an hour (mine) to go two feet? What fraction of a second is that? Because that fraction of a second was the difference between this guy smashing into the back half of my car and not directly into where I was sitting in the driver’s seat. And he was speeding. He hit me hard. The collision tore open the rear end of my car so that although the trunk lid was still closed, tools from my trunk were strewn across the road.

I have supported this bill every time it has come up in recent years but now it’s personal. We have got to get this bill passed. I know people will still use their phones–some of them at least–but with the passage of this law they will know what they are doing is wrong and that will deter at least some of them. And for those it does not deter, they will pay a heavier price. Not heavy enough, but we can worry about raising the penalties later, once we get the general law enacted.

I urge as many of you as possible to show up on Tuesday to support this bill.

Biker Quote for Today

You know you’re a biker when you want to be buried with your bike because you’re not done riding yet.

A bill (SB24-079) to allow lane filtering by motorcycles when traffic stopped was passed out of House committee Tuesday and will now go to the floor. Let me back up, though, before I go forward.

I reported on this bill passing the Senate committee in February but I had been oblivious to later events. The situation is that apparently I depend too much on Stump, the ABATE of Colorado legislative liaison, to keep me up to date on these things. I assumed Stump would keep us advised on the progress of the bill but I guess maybe his main focus is on getting people to come in support of bills when they come up for hearings.

What that means in this case is that while I reported that the Senate committee OKed it on February 7, I did not know that on February 13 the entire Senate passed it, sending it over to the House. Oops. Big omission.

So it came to committee hearing in the House Tuesday, March 12, where it was passed on an 8-3 vote, sending it to the House as a whole. Its fate on the House floor is beyond my ken. I have no idea how the other members feel about this. But this time I’ll be watching and when it gets scheduled for floor debate I plan to be there to hear what is said.

In Tuesday’s hearing the list of witnesses wishing to speak pro or con was largely the same as in the Senate hearing. Several Colorado law enforcement agencies expressed their strong opposition, as did one fellow who is both a rider coach and an accident investigator. ABATE of Colorado maintained its neutrality, although State Rep Larry Montgomery, in his remarks, seemed to me to be leaning pro in that he said ABATE sees both sides but ABATE is a motorcyclist rights organization that strongly adheres to the philosophy that the rider should be able to choose. You can’t legally choose to filter if filtering is not legal.

Speaking in favor again were Nick Sands, representing the American Motorcyclist Association, and other individuals, including Tiger Chandler, representing the Coalition of Independent Riders and the Colorado Confederation of Clubs.

Several of the representatives expressed concern and two indicated they will seek to have amendments made on the House floor to address their concerns.

In the most forceful statements offered, the rider coach/accident investigator, Ed Shoenhite argued that Colorado motorcyclists are more privileged than they deserve or need to be and that they’re doing a “terrible job of keeping themselves alive.” He said that making helmets mandatory would do more than anything else to cut motorcycle fatalities in the state.

Countering such statements in their summation, one of the bill’s sponsors, Javier Mabrey, pointed out that no one in the opposition had pointed to any data from other states where filtering is allowed that show an increase in crashes or fatalities. In fact, most such data show a decrease in these incidents.

So now we’ll see what the House as a whole does, and then, if it passes, whether the governor will sign it. Neither is a certainty.

Biker Quote for Today

“It’s about the time I was riding my motorcycle, going down a mountain road at 150 miles an hour, playing my guitar.” — Arlo Guthrie

If you want your voice to be heard now is the time to speak up. There are two bills coming up in the Colorado legislature that are of interest to motorcyclists.

On Wednesday, February 7, at 1:30 in room 352 at the Capitol, there will be a hearing on SB24-079 (Motorcycle Lane Filtering & Passing). Here’s the bill summary.

The bill authorizes a 2-wheeled motorcycle to overtake or pass another motor vehicle in the same lane if:

The other motor vehicle is stopped or moving in the same direction of travel as the motorcycle;
The road has lanes wide enough to pass safely;
The motorcycle is moving at 20 miles per hour or less; and
Conditions permit prudent operation of the motorcycle while overtaking or passing.

A motorcycle rider overtaking or passing under the bill must not overtake or pass:

On the right shoulder;
To the right of a vehicle in the farthest right-hand lane if the highway is not limited access; or
In a lane of traffic moving in the opposite direction.

If you want to promote–or oppose–this bill come on down and have your say.

Then, on Monday, February 12, at 1:30 in room 352, there will be a hearing for SB24-065 (Mobile Electronic Devices & Motor Vehicle Driving). Here’s the summary on that one.

Current law prohibits an individual who is under 18 years of age from using a mobile electronic device when driving. The bill applies the prohibition to an individual who is 18 years of age or older unless the individual is using a hands-free accessory. The following uses are exempted:

By an individual reporting an emergency to state or local authorities;
By an employee or contractor of a utility when responding to a utility emergency;
By a first responder; or
By an individual in a motor vehicle that is parked.

The penalties for a violation are:

For a first offense, $75 and 2 license suspension points;
For a second offense within 24 months, $150 and 3 license suspension points; and
For a third or subsequent offense within 24 months, $250 and 4 license suspension points.

A violation will be dismissed if the individual has not previously committed a violation, produces proof of purchase of a hands-free accessory, and affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the defendant has not previously claimed this option to dismiss.

Current law requires a peace officer who makes a traffic stop to record the demographic information of the violator, whether a citation has been issued, and the violation cited. The bill clarifies that the peace officer must record whether the bill has been violated.

The executive director of the department of transportation, in consultation with the chief of the Colorado state patrol, is required to create a campaign raising public awareness of the requirements of the bill and of the dangers of using mobile electronic devices when driving.

I don’t know about you but I could not endorse this bill more strongly, and I do plan to be there to testify. With my recent T-boning by some guy whose eyes were somewhere far from the road I have a really personal interest here. And while I was unhurt, viewing the dash cam video captured by the car behind the guy who hit me, it is clear that if that guy had been about five seconds sooner he would not have hit me but would have hit–and very possibly killed–a woman who crossed the street just before I got to the intersection. What is wrong with these people!!?

Now, if you can’t make it down to the legislature you should at least contact your senator and representative and tell them you support these measures. It’s that kind of personal contact that sways their votes. This is important.

Biker Quote for Today

I love motorcycles because you only ride forward, away from all the crap you’ve left behind.