Passes & Canyons Blog

The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) is to the national scene what the state-level ABATEs are to the state scenes. A motorcycle rights organization working to protect our rights and shape legislation in ways beneficial to, or at least not detrimental to, riding motorcycles.

I generally tend to support what the MRF works for but in the most recent case I personally feel the group has gone a bit off the deep end. Specifically, in a letter to Sean Duffy, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, it said:

The MRF strongly opposes the Biden Administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards finalized in June 2024, which require automakers’ new vehicle fleets to reach an average of 53.5 miles per gallon by model year 2032.

Now wait. The CAFE standards relate only to cars. What does this have to do with motorcycles?

OK, the letter continues and explains the concern:

The CAFE standards drive automakers to increase production of electric vehicles and phase out
internal combustion (ICE) engines. As these manufacturers pivot resources toward electric
vehicle (EV) compliance, we expect reduced investment and innovation in ICE technology, which
powers most motorcycles. This shift could lead to:
• Reduced availability of affordable support technologies and fuels for motorcycle riders
• Distorted market dynamics and limited consumer choice
• Decreased relevance and impact of the aftermarket parts industry
• Rural motorcyclists being disproportionately impacted due to insufficient infrastructure

Yeah, OK, so you’re saying let’s nullify technological advancements for cars in order to insure that motorcycles won’t be orphaned. Guys, that’s a really weak argument. First off, there are a gazillion cars pumping out megatons of air pollution while there are–to be generous–significantly fewer motorcycles. Gosh, I don’t know. I kind of like breathing clean air and while theoretically the technological advancement of motorcycles might be negatively impacted, I really don’t believe it will grind to a halt.

I also don’t understand what they’re saying about rural motorcyclists being disproportionately impacted. I guess the build-out of charging stations in rural areas will be slower than in metro areas but at the same time I suspect the phasing out of the gasoline supply industry will also be slower in rural areas, especially as long as farmers use gas- or diesel-powered farm implements.

Nope. This is a case where I definitely break with the MRF. You guys do good work but we all screw up some times.

Biker Quote for Today

Anything that gets your blood racing is probably worth doing. — Hunter S. Thompson

I discussed the recent Meeting of the Minds conference that was held recently here in Denver by the Motorcycle Riders Foundation. At the time there were a couple issues I was unfamiliar with that I wanted to learn more about. I now have more to report.

First off, I was apparently a little off in my description of the issue of mandatory rider training. I said that MRF members “are concerned about a move to make such training mandatory, because they fear that the capacity does not exist to offer that training to that many people.” That was what I thought I had heard, and maybe to some extent that concern exists.

However, I spoke last week with Terry Howard, State Coordinator for ABATE of Colorado, and she gave me a totally different take on the topic. Speaking strictly for ABATE of Colorado, Terry said the only issue she has with mandatory training is that it apply to motorcyclists AND to motorists. That was really a “Doh!” moment for me. Of course. It would be totally discriminatory to require motorcyclists to have rider training while not requiring drivers to have driver training. We’re both operating motorized vehicles on the same roads and highways. And lord knows we all know that those folks in their cars need better training on avoiding those of us not enclosed in steel cages.

But it occurs to me as well, that as much as we talk about how many motorcycle accidents are caused not by the biker but by the rider, the same is actually true of car on car accidents. Probably in most two-car accidents, only one of the drivers is significantly at fault. The other is probably just as much a victim of the other driver’s carelessness as we are when it’s a car on bike accident. So absolutely, if our legislators want to impose mandatory training on bikers, we have got to ensure that ALL motor vehicle operators have the same requirement. Of course, then we really get into the issue of training capacity, as I mentioned originally.

The other unclear issue from MotM is something Terry was not as able to clear up. That was the idea of tiered licensing. She said she doesn’t really know the issue because Colorado doesn’t have it. The only thing she could tell me is that she thinks it is possible Colorado could move in that direction because of the upswing in popularity of scooters. Anyone on a scooter bigger than 50cc has to have motorcycle validation on their license, but below 50cc there is no requirement. Terry told me that some ABATE members have raised the issue because they see these low-maximum-speed scooters as hazards slowing down traffic on busy arterials. But there is no such proposal currently and ABATE is not pushing for it. So I guess for now tiered licensing will remain an issue for other states, not Colorado.

Biker Quote for Today

Bikes parked out front mean good chicken-fried steak inside.