Passes & Canyons Blog

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.

A bill to permit lane filtering, after passing out of the Senate on March 13, went to the House and passed on third reading on March 18. Then it went back to the Senate for reconciliation and was repassed by the Senate as it had been amended. Unless I’m missing something I believe this means it is now headed to the governor. Holy smokes, is Colorado going to permit filtering? What’s the word Gov. Polis?

Meanwhile, a bill to prohibit use of electronic devices while driving (except for hands-free operation) was passed on third reading by the Colorado Senate on March 15 and sent to the House, where it has been scheduled for hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 3. This is the big one. If you can make it down to support this bill please do so. In the last session a preceding bill made it through the Senate but died in the House. Let’s get it through the House this time.

Here’s the note sent out by Stump, legislative liaison for ABATE of Colorado:

SB24-065 (Use of Mobile Electronic Devices While Driving) passed the 3rd reading in the Senate on Friday, 3/15 and has been assigned to the House Transportation, Housing, and Local Government (H-THL) Committee. Below are the names and contact information for the members of the H-THL Committee. It hasn’t been scheduled yet (it has now–Ken), but I’ll let you know when it is. Please take a few minutes to urge your support for the bill and contact your Representative. It can be as simple as “vote yes on SB24-065” or you can elaborate as to why they should support the bill. D-5, D-13, and D-17 have members who are constituents of some of these committee members, so don’t forget to mention that if you see your Representative on the list.

Froelich, Meg – 303-866-2921 – meg.froelich.house@coleg.gov
Lindsay, Mandy – 303-866-3911 – mandy.lindsay.house@coleg.gov
Boesenecker, Andrew – 303-866-2917 – andrew.boesenecker.house@coleg.gov
Catlin, Marc – 303-866-2955 – marc.catlin.house@coleg.gov
Frizell, Lisa – 303-866-2948 – lisa.frizell.house@coleg.gov
Jodeh, Iman – 303-866-2919 – Iman.Jodeh.house@coleg.gov
Mauro, Tisha – 303-866-2968 – tisha.mauro.house@coleg.gov
Parenti, Jennifer – 303-866-2924 – jennifer.parenti.house@coleg.gov
Valdez, Alex – 303-866-2925 – alex.valdez.house@coleg.gov
Vigil, Stephanie – 303-866-2937 – stephanie.vigil.house@coleg.gov
Wilson, Don – 303-866-2191 – don.wilson.house@coleg.gov

This is all pretty amazing. Are we going to get both of these bills passed this year, finally? I’m not counting any chickens before they hatch because eggs do get broken unexpectedly. But it actually looks possible. Keep those fingers crossed. And contact your rep telling them how you want them to vote. They really do pay attention when people take the trouble to contact them.

Biker Quote for Today

God didn’t create metal so that man could make paper clips!

Something has changed. I don’t know what, but a switch has been thrown.

I’ve been going down to the Capitol in support of bills to outlaw using cell phones while driving for years and they have never passed. This week at the Senate Transportation & Energy Committee hearing on SB24-065 (Mobile Electronic Devices & Motor Vehicle Driving) there was a palpable difference. There were 22 people who signed up to speak and all of them were in favor of the bill, with none opposed. And when it came to a vote the measure passed unanimously.

Not only that, the mood seemed to be one of “Well of course we need to pass this law. Why in the world would we not?”

Perhaps it is because–finally–everyone involved has seen all too many times the dangerous, sometimes deadly, aftermath of idiots driving with their attention on their cell phones rather than on the road. There is simply no denying any more that this is a scourge every bit as horrendous as drunk driving used to be. In fact, studies have shown that the driving ability of someone using their phone is almost indistinguishable from the driving ability of someone who is completely drunk. Who among us defends drunk driving? Who among us would defend using your phone while driving? Are you an idiot?

The battle is nowhere near won yet but it’s looking better than ever before. In the last session the bill was finally passed by the Senate but died in the House. This session it still needs to be passed by the Senate and then we’ll see what the House does.

In the past I have attributed the refusal of legislators to move forward on this because they themselves were guilty of exactly the behavior that would be outlawed. But as I said, a switch seems to have been thrown. The mood is very different. And that’s all the more reason why, when the bill comes up in the House, we all need to put extreme pressure on our representatives to get this bill passed. Finally!

You can bet I’ll be keeping you updated as this proceeds. Meanwhile, I’ll be sending a letter to the editor of The Denver Post recapping a lot of what I’m saying here, at a time appropriate to the issue. If you did, too, and we inundate them with them maybe we can get the newspaper to come out strongly behind this, too. Stay tuned.

Biker Quote for Today

Life may not be about your bike, but it sure helps you get through it.