A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
Since posting my latest clarification of the proposals related to the NC motorcycle safety helmet statutes, I have received several responses asking me what a “clean” helmet-repeal bill would look like. The following bill proposal was submitted by a
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
AN ACT to make changes in motor vehicle law regarding the wearing of a safety helmet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 1. G.S. 20‑140.4 reads as rewritten:
"§ 20‑140.4. Special provisions for motorcycles and mopeds.
(a) No person shall operate a motorcycle or moped upon a highway or public vehicular area:
(1) When the number of persons upon such motorcycle or moped, including the operator, shall exceed the number of persons which it was designed to carry.
(2) Unless the operator and all passengers thereon wear on their head, with a retention strap properly secured, safety helmets of a type that complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 218.
(3) Operators with a valid motorcycle endorsement and passengers 21 years of age and older are excluded from section (a2)
(b) Violation of any provision of this section shall not be considered negligence per se or contributory negligence per se in any civil action.
(c) Any person convicted of violating this section shall have committed an infraction and shall be fined according to G.S. 20‑135.2A(e) and (f)."
In response to a recent request for further information regarding what CBA/ABATE of NC is doing regarding possible changes for
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your request for information regarding CBA/ABATE's activities regarding a "Freedom of Choice" bill. As is evidenced by your request, several others did not bother to seek additional information, rather they elected to disseminate incorrect information. I cannot speak to their motive.
Contrary to what you may have heard from other sources, neither of these proposals is "MY" favorite idea. Nor have these proposals been submitted as a facade to funding "MY" favorite project. On this personal note, "I" prefer a "clean" helmet-repeal with no restrictions, however, for the past five years we have been unable to find a legislator willing to sponsor such a bill. These proposals include fresh ideas that touch on possible compromises that could be considered if we need to convince a legislator to introduce a helmet-repeal bill for us. None of these ideas are written in stone. That's why we are asking for constructive comments and feedback.
CBA/ABATE is a democratic member-driven organization. As such, it is also process driven. Individual members meet in committee to develop ideas and consider possible activities. This process allows all ideas to be considered equally (regardless of their merit). The committee considers all ideas, then votes on the steps and/or direction that CBA/ABATE will take regarding topics of interest to bikers in
As you can see, decisions can take a great deal of time and go through several "checks and balance" steps before they are finalized or acted upon. The proposals you have asked about are in the initial "idea-generation" phase of the committee process. CBA's checks and balance procedures are in place to prevent unpopular ideas from becoming supported legislative proposals. At this time, CBA/ABATE is not supporting or suggesting the introduction of any of the details identified in the proposals.
Typically the committee accepts or rejects ideas on their merit, then presents the selected ideas to the Executive Council for decision making. Because "freedom of choice" is a hot-topic issue, the committee decided to seek comments from the general membership of CBA/ABATE, and from the NC biker population in general, prior to making a decision about any proposals/motions to the Executive Council. Your response is exactly what CBA/ABATE was seeking.
Because it was felt that the widest dissemination of these ideas was necessary. A message, requesting feedback and comments, was sent out to all CBA/ABATE chapters requesting that they discuss these issues at their next chapter meeting. To get feedback from the general biker population, the notice was posted to the CBA/ABATE legislative Blog. Please feel free to read this communication at: http://docskivnv.bravejournal.com/. Unfortunately, several reactionary individuals misread the intent of CBA and began spreading misinformed untruths.
Possibly due to a lack of understanding of CBA processes, misinformation has been disseminated and groundless responses have been generated. Several of these misguided responses have been vulgar and not suitable for public consumption. Thus, all comments were directed to be sent directly to me at my e-mail address: docskivnv@earthlink.net . All comments and responses are being recorded and catalogued, and will be discussed by committee.
I hope this answers your questions regarding the proposals. Please feel free to contact me at docskivnv@earthlink.net for any further clarification or additional concerns you may have.
Keep the Faith!
doc ski
During the 11 October CBA/ABATE Legislative Committee meeting two proposals for a "Freedom of Choice" bill were offered for consideration.
The first proposed bill is language similar to HB 1517 which was introduced by Representative John Sauls during the 2003/2004 session. This bill was sent to a committee and never placed on the agenda. Thus, it did not get to the floor of either chamber for consideration. It is painfully obvious that this bill was not acceptable to our legislators (at that time).
The second proposal is more comprehensive (and controversial) and establishes a 3-tiered licensing system based on rider skills (as opposed to engine size). It also authorizes a motorcycle-only license, provides law enforcement an easy method for identifying rider privileges, and establishes fees for endorsement levels.
Neither of these bills is the recommended “end-all” bill. We are looking for constructive feedback and alternative ideas. We are also looking for a legislator/sponsor to introduce the final proposal during the early months of the 2009-2010 session which begins on 28 January 2009. Please forward your ideas and comments to me no later than 30 November 2008 at docskivnv@earthlink.net.
Keep the Faith!
Doc Ski
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Freedom of Choice bill #1
Previously Submitted in 2003/2004
| Short Title: Amend Motorcycle Helmet Law. | (Public) |
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT to modify the requirement for the use of helmets by operators and passengers on motorcycles and to adjust the fee on private motorcycle registrations in order to provide additional funds for the motorcycle safety program, as recommended by the house select committee on motorcycle helmet laws.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 20-140.4 reads as rewritten:
"' 20-140.4. Special provisions for motorcycles and mopeds.
(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) and (d) of this section, a person may not operate or ride upon a motorcycle or moped unless the operator and all passengers thereon wear on their head, with a retention strap properly secured, safety helmets of a type that complies with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 218.
(c) Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this section, a person over 21 years of age may operate a motorcycle without wearing a safety helmet if the operator held a motorcycle license or a motorcycle endorsement prior to October 1, 2008, or if the following conditions are met:
(1) The operator has successfully completed the course of instruction offered by the Motorcycle Safety Instruction Program authorized in G.S. 115D-72, or its equivalent as determined by the Commissioner, and the operator has had a motorcycle license or a motorcycle endorsement for more than 12 months.
(2) The operator is covered by an insurance policy providing for at least ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of a crash while operating or riding on a motorcycle.
(d) Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this section, a person over 21 years of age may ride upon a motorcycle without wearing a safety helmet if the operator is allowed to operate a motorcycle without a helmet pursuant to subsection (c) of this section, and the person is covered by an insurance policy providing for at least ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of a crash while riding on a motorcycle.
(e) Violation of any provision of this section shall not be considered negligence per se or contributory negligence per se in any civil action.
(f) Any person convicted of violating this section shall have committed an infraction and shall be fined according to G.S. 20-135.2A(e) and (f). "
SECTION 2. G.S. 20-87(6) is repealed.
SECTION 3. G.S. 20-87 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:
"' 20-87. Passenger vehicle registration fees.
These shall be paid to the Division annually, as of the first day of January, for the registration and licensing of passenger vehicles, fees according to the following classifications and schedules:
(13) Private Motorcycles. The fee on private passenger motorcycles shall be fourteen dollars ($14.00). When a motorcycle is equipped with an additional form of device designed to transport persons or property, the fee shall be twenty-one dollars ($21.00). Five dollars ($5.00) of the fees collected pursuant to this subdivision shall be used, in addition to any other funds appropriated for this purpose, to fund the Motorcycle Safety Instruction Program established pursuant to G.S. 115D-72."
SECTION 4. This act becomes effective October 1, 2004, and applies to violations occurring on or after that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Freedom-of-Choice Bill #2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Short Title: Graduated Motorcycle Licensing | (Public) |
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT to amend the requirements for a motorcycle learner's permit, clarify the requirements for obtaining a motorcycle endorsement OR MOTORCYCLE-ONLY LICENSE, and to establish the standards and fees for graduated motorcycle licensing AND FEE DISTRIBUTION.
SECTION 1. G.S. 20-7(a1) reads as rewritten:
"(a1) Motorcycles and Mopeds. To drive a motorcycle, a person shall have: have one of the following:
(1) A full provisional license with a motorcycle learner's permit.
(2) A regular drivers license with a motorcycle learner's permit.
(3) A full provisional license, with a motorcycle endorsement.
(4) A regular drivers license, with a motorcycle endorsement.
(5) A motorcycle-only learners permit, or license.
To obtain a motorcycle endorsement, or motorcycle-only license, a person shall demonstrate competence to drive a motorcycle by:
(1) Passing a road test;
(2) Passing a written or oral test concerning motorcycles; and
(3) Paying the fee for a motorcycle endorsement or license.
To obtain a motorcycle endorsement, or motorcycle-only operators license, a person shall demonstrate competence to drive a motorcycle by passing a riding skills test administered by the Division, or by providing proof of successful completion of the North Carolina Motorcycle Safety Education Program Basic Rider Course or Experienced Rider Course. The person shall pay the fee set in subsection (i) of this section for a motorcycle endorsement. Subsection (a2) of this section sets forth the requirements for a motorcycle learner's permit. Neither a drivers license, motorcycle-only license, nor a motorcycle endorsement is required to drive a moped."
SECTION 2. G.S. 20-7(a2) reads as rewritten:
(a2) Motorcycle Learner's Permit. The following persons are eligible for a motorcycle learner's permit:
(1) A person who is at least 16 years old but less than 18 years old and has a full provisional license issued by the Division.
(2) A person who is at least 18 years old and has a license issued by the Division.
(3) A person who is at least 18 years old may apply for a motorcycle-only learners permit.
To obtain a motorcycle learner's permit, an applicant shall pass a vision test, a road sign test, and a written test specified by the Division. A motorcycle learner's permit expires 18 months after it is issued. issued and may be renewed for one additional eighteen-month period. The holder of a motorcycle learner's permit may not drive a motorcycle with a passenger. The fee for a motorcycle learner's permit is the amount set in G.S. 20-7(l) for a learner's permit."
SECTION 3. G.S. 20-7(a3) is added to read:
(a3) Graduated Motorcycle Licensing and Personal Protective Equipment Requirements. - Motorcycle licensing and protective equipment standards are established for three graduated levels of rider experience; learner, novice, and experienced riders. The following standards are enacted:
(1) Level I Learner: All individuals eligible for a MC Learner's Permits under Section (a2) will be required to utilize the following protective equipment:
a. FMVSS-218 compliant Safety Helmet
b. Eye protection (eye-glasses or goggles)
c. Full-finger gloves
d. Long-sleeve Shirt
e. Conspicuity Vest/Belt
f. Boots
(2) Level II Novice Rider Endorsement: All individuals with, a motorcycle endorsement or motorcycle-only operators license must utilize the following protective equipment
a. FMVSS 218 compliant Safety Helmet
b. Eye protection (glasses or goggles)
(3) Level III Experienced Rider Endorsement: All individuals, over 21 years of age may exercise individual personal judgment in the use of any and all personal protective equi pment when operating a motorcycle after having met the following conditions to qualify for Level III endorsement privileges:
(1) The operator has held a motorcycle license or a motorcycle endorsement for more than 24 months and has:
a. successfully completed the Experienced Rider course of instruction offered by the Motorcycle Safety Education Program authorized in G.S. 115D-72, or its equivalent as determined by the Commissioner, or;
b. the operator has successfully completed a
c. the operator has passed an on-road riding-skills evaluation conducted by a
(2) The operator is covered by an insurance policy providing for at least ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of a crash while operating or riding on a motorcycle.
(3) The operator is the registered owner of the motorcycle, and the license tag of the motorcycle has affixed to it a special endorsement stamp indicating that the rider is an experienced motorcyclist who has met all requirements for Level III Experienced Rider privileges.
(d) Violation of any provision of this section shall not be considered negligence per se or contributory negligence per se in any civil action.
(e) Any person convicted of violating this section shall have committed an infraction and shall be fined according to G.S. 20-135.2A(e) and (f). "
SECTION 4. G.S. 20-87 is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:
"' 20-87. Passenger vehicle registration fees.
There shall be paid to the Division annually, as of the first day of January, for the registration and licensing of passenger vehicles, fees according to the following classifications and schedules:
(13) Novice Rider Validation fee. There shall be instituted a special one-time motorcycle endorsement fee of $10. for each issuance of a motorcycle license plate. The qualified rider will be issued a validation tag to be placed on the license plate of the motorcycle indicating the rider has met the required qualification standards for Level II Novice Rider License.
(14) Experienced Rider Validation fee. There shall be instituted a special motorcycle endorsement fee of $75. to be paid annually for the receipt of a validation tag to be placed on the license plate of the motorcycle indicating the rider has met the required qualification standards for Level III Experienced Rider License.
(15) Endorsement fee distribution: Special fees collected for endorsement validation shall be disseminated in the following manner:
a. Five dollars ($5.00) of the fees collected pursuant to this subsection shall be designated for the DOT to cover the cost of materials and management of the program.
b. One half of the remaining endorsement fees appropriated under this section will be distributed to the Motorcycle Safety Education Program established pursuant to G.S. 115D-72 for the purpose of developing and operating the Level III mentoring and evaluation qualification programs identified in section (a3).
c. The remaining one-half of endorsement fees will be distributed to the
SECTION 4. This act becomes effective October 1, 2007, and applies to violations occurring on or after that date.
The House Transportation Committee met on Monday 30 June 2008 at 5:00 p.m., in a special session, to discuss several bills. Typically this committee meets on Wednesdays at 11:00, but the General Assembly is close to completing their tasks for this session, and there were many bills that needed to be considered by the Committee before the end of session. Among these bills was Senate Bill 375, a bill to shorten the duration and amend the requirements for a MC Learner’s permit.
SB 375, "The MC Learner’s Permit Bill" has been the topic of discussion on this blog several times in the past. In earlier iterations the bill would have reduced the time frame for validity of the permit to six months, been non-renewable, and/or the cost for renewal would have been $50. In one iteration it required all those under 18 years of age to attend the Motorcycle Safety Education Program offered by the NC Community College system.
The final bill language that was considered on 30 June 2008 was a “Proposed Committee Substitute” that removed the DMV riding skills examination, and required all new riders seeking motorcycle endorsement to complete the MSF approved Rider Ed course conducted by the Community College System. This PCS also removed the opportunity to renew the permit when it expired. The PCS appeared to discriminate against bikers in a number of ways.
We argued that the current MSEP program is funded by bikers (with an annual $3. tax on license plate renewals) which gives us license to voice our concerns about any changes. We suggested that although the MSEP is a high quality program, there are often long delays in gaining admission (sometimes as long as five months). Attendance in the MSEP is voluntary, and those who choose to, have an approved alternative method for obtaining their MC endorsement (DMV skills test). If this bill were to pass, the increase in attendance would overwhelm the existing infrastructure and possibly reduce the effectiveness of our quality program that is already struggling to meet the demands of volunteer attendees.
Several members of the GHSP, the NC DOT, and the NC Community College spoke in favor of the bill. The focus of their arguments was; in a large percentage of motorcycle involved crashes in
During committee deliberations my faith in our form of government was, once again, renewed. Members of the committee asked all the right questions and directed the discussion in the appropriate direction. Representative Ric Killian asked about the annual $3 fee, and stated that bikers had a right to question changes in a program they pay for. Representatives Nelson Dollar and Bonner Stiller asked important questions about the existing program and number of program attendees. Probably the most relevant question was posed by Representative Ron Sutton, “ What is the purpose of this bill... what does it do... why has it been brought before the legislature?”
Many other members of the committee had relevant questions and critical points, but I’m unable to remember all the events of the meeting. After extensive discussion a motion was made to give the bill a favorable report and send it back to the House for a vote. The vote on the motion was 11 to 8 against a favorable recommendation. So, for now, the bill has been retired. It is unlikely that it can be revived during this session, but I suspect we will see some form of this bill arise again in our near future.
Although we were there to testify on our issue, it was the ongoing communication with our legislators that turned the tide in our direction on this bill. The members of our community who diligently contacted their elected officials and informed them of our concerns about this bill, and the dedicated members who came to Lobby day and brought our issues before their elected officials. Thanks goes out to each of you for your part in this success.
Now would be a good time to contact members of the House transportation committee and thank them for their careful consideration of this bill. The list below provides contact information for the committee members:
House Transportation Committee:
Chair
Rep. Carney Beckyc@ncleg.net 919-733-5827
Vice Chairs
Rep. Coates Lorenec@ncleg.net 919-733-5784
Rep. Cole Nelsonc@ncleg.net 919-733-5779
Rep. Crawford Jimcr@ncleg.net 919-733-5824
Rep. Hilton Markh@ncleg.net 919-733-5988
Rep. McComas Dannym@ncleg.net 919-733-5786
Rep. Williams Arthurw@ncleg.net 919-733-5906
Members:
Rep. Allen, Lucya@ncleg.net 919-733-5860
Rep. Allred, Carya@ncleg.net 919-733-5905
Rep. Blackwood, Curtisb@ncleg.net 919-733-2406
Rep. Braxton, Vanb@ncleg.net 919-715-3017
Rep. Brisson, Williambr@ncleg.net 919-733-5772
Rep. Cleveland, Georgec@ncleg.net 919-715-6707
Rep. Daughtridge, Billd@ncleg.net 919-733-5802
Rep. Daughtry, Leod@ncleg.net 919-733-5605
Rep. Dollar, Nelsond@ncleg.net 919-715-0795
Rep. T. Harrell, Tyh@ncleg.net 919-733-5602
Rep. Hill, Deweyh@ncleg.net 919-733-5830
Rep. Killian, Rick@ncleg.net 919-733-5886
Rep. Moore, Timm@ncleg.net 919-733-4838
Rep. Rapp, Raymondr@ncleg.net 919-733-5732
Rep. Steen, Fredst@ncleg.net 919-733-5881
Rep. Stiller, Bonners@ncleg.net 919-301-1450
Rep. Sutton, Rons@ncleg.net 919-715-0875
Rep. Underhill, Aliceu@ncleg.net 919-733-5853
Rep. Wilkins, Winkiew@ncleg.net 919-715-0850
Rep. Wray, Michaelw@ncleg.net 919-733-5662
Rep. Wright Tomw@ncleg.net 919-733-5754
Keep the Faith!
doc ski
Ask Me – Please!
The national ABATE movement was organized to assist motorcyclists in sharing our ideas related to motorcycle issues with our government. NC Motorcyclists of CBA/ABATE have organized an opportunity for bikers to discuss our current concerns and possible solutions with our legislators on 28 May 2008. This visit is a part of our organizational heritage.
In the 1970’s when the original ABATE was formed, life was simpler. We rode our bikes mostly on two-lane roads. The speed limit was 55 mph. Congestion in
Even politics were simpler. It was easier for an elected official to fully understand each of the limited number of “big issues.” Today, issues are more complex, and vast demands are being made on limited government resources. Miniscule components of the “big issue” have become the focus of zealous “Special-Interest” groups. Elected officials, unable to follow every issue as closely as was possible in the 70’s, seek the advice of the current tax-payer funded professional-subject-experts (aka: bureaucrats).
CBA/ABATE of
We still ride, we still know... We believe that today, the “true” subject-experts on motorcycle safety are still motorcyclists, not desk-bound bureaucrats. Our thoughts and concerns about motorcycling issues are still the only valid perspective. Over the session break, I’ve continued communication with our elected officials about several issues of concern to their riding constituents. I have notified them that bikers will be coming to
Motorcyclist Licensing: Motorcycles are not just recreational vehicles. Motorcycles are an important and legal form of transportation. Motorcycles conserve fuel, leave a smaller environmental footprint than the typical enclosed vehicle, and reduce the growing problems associated with congestion. The rising costs of fuel suggest an increase in the number of motorcycles registered in NC. Any legislation that reduces rider opportunities for skill development, or mandates restrictive conditions on motorcyclists’ licensing is discriminatory and violates the equal rights provisions of the
Rider Education: The operation of a motorcycle requires a special skills-set. Because specialized training and experience may help some riders develop these skills, motorcyclists of NC pay an additional $3.00 annual tax to fund the Motorcycle Safety and Education Program conducted by the NC Community College system. Rider Education Program attendance is currently voluntary. Mandating attendance in these programs will overwhelm the limited resources, and disrupt the quality programs currently available. Any changes in the rider education program should consider the citizens who fund the program.
Right of Way Violations: In 2004, CBA/ABATE supported and lobbied for passage of a bill that penalized drivers for violating the right of way of motorcycles and pedestrians. During legislative deliberations the consequences for violating the right of way were removed from the bill and replaced with provisions that increase revenues for insurance companies. Victims of right of way violations, and/or their survivors, are left with no measures of compensation other than an expensive and lengthy civil suit. CBA/ABATE believes that drivers who are responsible for a crash involving death or serious injury to a motorcyclist should be held responsible for their irresponsible actions.
Crash Prevention Strategies: Crashes kill motorcyclists. Crash reduction, not mandating a certain type of helmet, will lead to reduced fatalities. For thirty-five years safety professionals have tried unsuccessfully to make motorcycles fit into the “survive-the-crash” approach to highway safety. The motorcycle’s design does not lend itself to “passive protection” measures such as seat-belts or air-bags (and helmets). Crashes kill motorcyclists. Crash reduction will lead to reduced fatalities. Motorcyclists are tired of pandering to a bureaucratically convenient approach to motorcycle safety. Motorcyclists are entitled to an appropriate “crash-prevention” model of safety that is scientifically valid for the characteristics of the motorcycle.
Safety-helmet Protection/Risks: Motorcycles are more vulnerable than the enclosed four-wheeled vehicles they share the road with. In a crash, the motorcyclist is more likely to suffer death or injury. The research on helmet protection versus helmet risks is controversial. Regardless, even the best helmets cannot guarantee protection in impacts greater than 13 mph. Although only 40% of the states have universal mandatory helmet laws, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) statistics indicate that more than one-half of all riders who died were wearing a helmet. Statistics from NHTSA indicate that rates of fatalities (when compared to motorcycle registrations) are higher in states that have universal mandatory helmet laws than in states with adult freedom of choice.
Motorist Awareness Programs: The growing number of “technological gizmos” available for motorists (i.e., cell-phone, GPS, DVD players, rear viewing cameras) help contribute to driver distractions. Accidents may happen, but crashes can be avoided. “I didn’t see the motorcycle,” is not an excuse... it is an admission of guilt.
There is strong evidence that driver and motorcyclist education and awareness programs are the most effective ways to reduce the incidence of crashes between motorcycles and other vehicles. The rising costs of fuel suggest an increase in the number of motorcycles registered in NC. More motorcycle use suggests higher fatality rates unless something can be done to reduce the number of crashes between motorcycles and enclosed vehicles.
Increased Motorcyclist Fatalities: The increase in fatalities from 1997 to 2006 is simply the result of more motorcycles being on the road. NC DOT reports increasing numbers of motorcycle registrations annually. More people are turning toward the fuel efficient motorcycle as a means of reducing the impact of increasing fuel costs. Without appropriate intervention, we can expect motorcycle fatalities to increase accordingly. CBA/ABATE believes those appropriate interventions include motorists awareness and rider education programs.
Young-Driver Education: There is strong evidence that Driver Education and Awareness programs can reduce motorcycle crashes. To that end, CBA/ABATE has been collaborating with the NC Governor’s Highway Safety Program to deliver Motorcycle Awareness classes to high school driver’s education programs across NC. CBA/ABATE believes that these classes should become mandatory in all drivers’ education programs in the state.
Street Gang Prevention: CBA/ABATE is concerned about the rising number of street gangs in North Carolina, however we are not willing to risk our fundamental rights to freely assemble in an effort to reduce the risks.
The definition of criminal street gang member is too broad and all encompassing. Many law-abiding members of motorcycle organizations could become subject to enhanced sentencing guidelines because of the actions of other members of the group with which they associate.
Under the existing definitions, individuals, including children and youth, may be identified as gang members if they: mimic or adopt gang signs and symbols for status reasons, join gangs for self-protection, are involved in minor drug offenses, wear similar clothing or insignia, or engage in serious delinquent behavior. The impact on the black and hispanic youth is unclear, but suggests an even higher rate of incarceration from within these populations.
The current bills are punitive, not preventative. Research on changing human behavior clearly suggests that punishment is the least effective method for changing behavior. These bills call for expending more than $10 Million on unproven prevention programs. The estimated cost for additional correctional confinement is approximately $45 million annually.
Take A Day Off of Work on 28 May 2008:
Join the dedicated freedom fighters of the Concerned Bikers Association/ABATE of
Information about locating your elected officials and important biker issues will be provided so that we can all share our experiences and ideas with the people who represent us in our legislature. CBA/ABATE of NC members will be stationed at the hotel to help you identify and prepare for visiting your elected officials. Additionally, CBA members will be stationed throughout the legislative pavilion to assist and direct you to the offices designated for your legislators. Informational portfolios containing materials supporting CBA/ABATE’s positions on the above listed issues will be prepared for you to deliver to your legislators.
Directions to the Days Inn Downtown
Take I-40 to the
Turn right off of the off-ramp onto S Saunders (US 401 N) toward downtown. Go approximately 0.8 mi
Take slight right turn onto
Turn left onto Lane Street.
The Days Inn is located on the right hand side of Lane Street between McDowell and Dawson Streets.
The address is
See you there.
Keep the Faith!
doc ski
Senate Bill 1121 – An Act to create the
During the 2007 session Representative Ronnie Sutton (D-Robeson) led the charge to make motorcycling safer by championing a bill that imposed FMVSS 218 helmet standards on us. Except for a few exceptions, the entire majority party voted to pass this bill in the face of our objections. Even after we presented evidence that convinced the Senate Judiciary committee to determine it was a bad law, the bill passed. The proclaimed justification: “... it’s for your own good”. That bill passed. Why not this one? It seems obvious that this bill should also be considered, “for our own good”.
In the 1970’s when the original ABATE was formed, life was simpler. We rode our bikes mostly on two-lane roads. The speed limit was 55 mph. Congestion in
Even politics were simpler then. It was easy for a politician to understand each of the “big issues.” Because we rode, we were considered the motorcycle experts. Bikers knew about biker issues, and elected officials could work with us without depleting the state’s resources. Today, issues are complex, and more demands are being made on limited government resources. Miniscule details of each “big issue” have become the focus of “Special-Interest” groups. Elected officials, unable to follow every issue as closely as they did in the 70’s, seek the advice of the current, tax-payer funded, professional subject-experts (aka: bureaucrats).
We often only see bureaucrats as the “managers of resources,” however they do more than spend our money and write oppressive regulations. Many hold advanced degrees, or specialized certifications, in their professional field. These tax-payer funded subject-experts are professionals in their field of endeavor, and are actually doing what they believe is the right thing.
Stuck in a Rut:
As employees within “the system” bureaucrats are required to regularly demonstrate their worth. Typically these professionals establish specific indicators of accomplishment (goals) which are then used to determine their success by the degree to which they meet these performance indicators. Consistently exceeding expectations can lead to promotions within the system. Failure to meet minimum standards can be “cause for release”.
Bureaucrats as professionals make decisions about their responsibilities, and performance indicators, according to the professional materials and methods available to them. Most professionals belong to a professional association (i.e., Teachers’
Safety Professionals who read the journal articles, and attend the conferences, are immersed in the dominant approach to safety. These professionals make decisions about program changes based on the current findings of research conducted in the dominant approach. They also invest our tax-dollars in projects that are aligned with the philosophy of the dominant approach. The end result is a self-perpetuating system that rewards those who conduct business within the structure of the dominant approach, and ignores or rejects the ideas of those who consider alternatives.
For more than thirty five years, the dominant approach to highway safety has been “crash-mitigation”. Simply put, the basic idea is to make a vehicle (or include vehicle features) to protect the driver during the crash. Seatbelts, airbags, collapsing frames, steel door-beams and pillars, are all innovations that are derived from this safety paradigm. The driver is a passive participant in the crash. The philosophy of this approach is... “Protect the driver when the inevitable crash occurs.”
The design of the motorcycle does not lend itself to the “passive-protective-measures” that mitigate crash consequences for passengers in an enclosed vehicle. In spite of the millions of tax dollars wasted on “helmet-use-promotion” campaigns; motorcycle crashes, injuries, and fatalities have not been reduced. It is painfully obvious - crash mitigation does not work for motorcycles. We must stop wasting tax-payer dollars on a failed approach to safety. Bikers must resist the continuation of a system that panders to a bureaucratically convenient “one-model-fits-all” safety paradigm. We must rise up against the influence of the dominant paradigm and demand a unique approach to safety that concentrates resources on “crash-prevention” measures.
What you can do:
Contact your Elected Officials Today:
Ask them to support the “
Take A Day Off From Work on 28 May 2008:
Heads butt on helmets
Highway safety chief out of job
By WILL SENTELL
Advocate Capitol News Bureau
Published: Apr 8, 2008 - Page: 1A - UPDATED: 12:05 a.m.
The former executive director of the
Jim Champagne, who held his post for 12 years, said he was abruptly terminated March 25 and left six days later.
He played a key role in the 2004 push to enact the law, which requires all motorcycle operators and riders to wear approved helmets or face fines.
Champagne said his dismissal followed an earlier meeting with Timmy Teepell, the governor’s chief of staff.
”I was given absolutely no reason for my termination although I firmly believe the fact I refused to compromise my views on the helmet issue doomed me,”
Champagne said that, while Jindal has the right to name his own state highway safety leader, the action seems to run counter to the governor’s often stated vow to move away from old-style politics.
”It sends a terrible message to long-term state employees who perform their jobs with devotion and passion and can lose their jobs because they are not yes men,” he said.
Teepell did not respond to a telephone call and an e-mail requesting comment Monday.
The
The executive director often testifies on key highway safety bills in the Legislature.
Champagne, 63, said he was paid about $83,000 per year in his former post.
At least two bills are pending in the Legislature that would repeal the helmet requirements for adults.
Jindal favors repeal of the mandatory helmet law as a freedom of choice issue.
The helmet requirement was enacted under former Gov. Kathleen Blanco, who pushed the measure in 2004.
That undid a 1999 law that required helmets only for those under 18.
Champagne said he got the news of his dismissal from State Police Superintendent Mike Edmonson, a former protégé when
Edmonson is also deputy secretary of public safety, which oversees the highway safety commission.
”He was highly disappointed that I was not allowed to stay,”
Edmonson on Monday called
”But a decision was made and I was in on that decision to move in another direction,” Edmonson said.
He said
Edmonson said that, if the Legislature repeals the helmet law, State Police will still encourage motorcycle riders to wear safety helmets.
Melissa Sellers, Jindal’s press secretary, referred a call on
He announced in 2006 that motorcycle fatalities dropped 7.5 percent after
Champagne noted he also served as executive director for former Gov. Mike Foster, who pushed for abolition of the state’s then-mandatory helmet law.
The new executive director is John LeBlanc, who worked for State Police for 26 years.
LeBlanc said Monday that will not take a position in the Legislature on the helmet issue but would wear one himself if he rode a motorcycle.
May is Motorcycle Awareness Month: So What?
All across the nation, motorcycle rights activists are contacting elected officials, requesting they issue an “official proclamation” declaring May as Motorcycle Awareness month in their jurisdiction. Several state Motorcycle Rights Organizations sponsor annual “safety-rallies” at their state-capitols to launch “Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month”. The AMA and the MSF have created awareness videos, public service announcements, and offer free awareness-information-packets for bikers to use in motorcycle awareness campaigns. The purpose of all these products and activities is to direct the attention of the motoring public onto the most vulnerable road users - motorcyclists. May has been selected because this is a time when many riders are returning to the streets after a long winter sabbatical.
Is the promotion of “Motorcycle Awareness Month” a valuable use of our energy and time? What about all of this safety and awareness stuff… is any of it worth our efforts? Shouldn’t we be fighting for our rights? What about that nasty helmet law that was passed during the 2007 legislative session. Why waste time on this namby-pamby safety and awareness stuff… Why aren’t we storming the legislature, demanding they repeal this abominable violation of our right to ride free?
The original (1970's) definition of the acronym “ABATE” is: A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments. We define Totalitarian Enactments as, laws established without the consent or consideration of the people. The Boston Tea Party was prompted by a totalitarian act perpetrated upon the colonists by King George. The Rally cry against King George, Taxation without representation, still serves as a shining example of the philosophical foundation of ABATE of the 21st century. To that end, CBA/ABATE remains actively involved in our government. An important part of being involved is having an established message, along with organized methods and activities to share that message with our lawmakers.
But times have changed since the initial formation of ABATE. In the early 70’s we were rebounding from the social activism of the 60’s. On any given weekend, large groups of enthusiastic zealots would rally on street corners in nearly every large city to demonstrate for their chosen cause. Activism was a social activity; Friends, even soul-mates, were found (or made) within each small group of activists. American’s had time on their hands and fire in their belly.
The audience of the social revolution was also more naïve. Lawmakers had time to devote to learning about and understanding the clear message of the few organized causes. The attending bureaucracy was smaller and less sophisticated. Fewer opposing political issues clouded the message of the activist.
In the 21st Century, life in general is much more complicated. Weekends are frequently spent at family events, participating in small group activities, or working part-time second jobs. Social activities occur in large clubs, or at events organized by social groups. Friends and lovers are found (or met) in a celebratory environment. Americans are overworked and exhausted. Many are so overwhelmed they require hand-held electronic planners to manage their time.
This condition is not unique to the average citizen; lawmakers are also frequently overwhelmed by the minutia-like messages sent from a multitude of special-interest activist groups. The sheer volume of infinitesimal messages is confusing. Add to that, the confusion created by overlapping (or conflicting) messages. Lawmakers have come to depend on the expertise of their taxpayer funded professional advisors - “the bureaucracy” to inform their decisions.
It is the nature of any bureaucracy to experience growth and expansion in developing solutions to problems in their area of expertise. Bureaucracies are created to manage resources. Control of the resource “purse-strings” provides power over the activities of the recipients of the resources. These factors create a different venue within which motorcycle activist must attempt to exert their influence on our lawmakers.
The Big Picture: A Brief Example
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was established as a separate organization within the Department of Transportation (DOT) in March 1970 to administer the Department's motor vehicle and highway safety programs. NHTSA’s stated mission goals are to: Save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes through education, research, safety standards, and enforcement activity.
Under the authority granted by congress, the Secretary is authorized to issue, amend, or revoke rules and regulations as deemed necessary. Using this authority, the agency has issued many federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). In 1974, the agency issued the initial FMVSS 218, Motorcycle Helmets. In 2007, the NC legislature elected to use FMVSS 218 compliance as the standard for motorcycle safety in our fair state.
As a subordinate unit of the US DOT, NHTSA commands a budget of $851 million (2009 budget request). Within that vast budget, nearly $621 million is set aside for funding and administration of State highway safety grants. Although, prohibited by congress from lobbying individual states the NHTSA is still able to influence the direction of safety programs by using subordinate agencies like the NC Governor’s Highway Safety Program, parallel agencies like the National Transportation Safety Board, or non-profit “professional” organizations like the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
Although they have no statutory authority over these entities, NHTSA controls these agencies/organizations by limiting the types and directions of the Federal grant programs they authorize and award to individual states. This creates a network of “political courtesans” all directing their efforts, and public resources, to the same agenda. The agenda of NHTSA becomes the agenda of their subordinate, parallel, and associated agencies; thus it becomes the agenda of the recipients of their advice… our lawmakers.
A Failed Approach to Motorcycle Safety:
For more than thirty-five years, bureaucrats and safety professionals have tried unsuccessfully to force motorcycles into an ill-fitting “one-policy-fits-all” approach to safety. USDOT trend statistics clearly illustrate that in spite of the millions of tax-payer dollars being wasted on poorly designed research studies, and campaigns promoting helmet-use, motorcycle crashes, injuries, and fatalities continue to increase annually. The evidence is clear: Crashes kill bikers. Conversely, Crash Prevention saves lives.
In spite of the overwhelming evidence of proven failure, the bureaucrats continue to throw good money after bad. Rather than suffer the “inconvenience” of developing and evaluating alternative approaches to motorcycle safety, these career government employees have chosen to ignore the needs of a minor group of road users. To add insult to injury, they use the continuing increase in fatalities (which is highly correlated with registration increases) to suggest a crisis in motorcycle safety, and then… blame the victims, thus, guaranteeing future funding for their ineffective approach to saving lives.
A Pro-Active Approach to Motorcycle Safety
Fueled by the personal and painful experiences of this failed approach to motorcycle safety, biker activists concentrated our efforts on working with members of Congress to provide funding for the development and evaluation of alternative “Crash-Prevention” approaches to motorcycle safety. In 2005, the US Congress determined that the “survive-the-crash” approach to motorcycle safety was broken. In response to that recognition, the Congress passed, and President Bush signed into Law, the SAFETEA-LU (PL 109-59).
Among other provisions, SAFETEA-LU provided special funding for eligible states to develop or improve motorcycle awareness and education programs. At home in individual states, motorcycling organizations like CBA/ABATE of NC have worked closely with state DOT offices to implement and evaluate Motorist Education & Awareness, and Rider Education programs using the SAFETEA-LU funds directed toward this purpose. The state of
The NC Governor’s Highway Safety Program has awarded several grants within the motorcycle community from these federal funds: one to CBA/ABATE of NC, to implement motorcycle awareness programs in high school Drivers’ Education programs, and one to the NC State Highway Patrol for the development of “NC Bike-Safe”, an on-road Motorcycle-Mentoring program led by Sergeant Mark Brown. This year continuation proposals have been submitted, and new proposals are being prepared for programs to reduce the frequency of riding under the influence, and fund rider training in accident scene management.
Since the passage of PL 109-59, motorcyclists nationwide have remained committed to reducing motorcycle crashes. Individual motorcyclists and motorcycling organizations have contributed their own money to raise the “matching funds” required by SAFETEA-LU to implement the Motorcycle Crash Causation Study at the
These things take time. Given sufficient time and resources, the evidence will clearly demonstrate that Crash-Prevention strategies save lives; However, finding fault with the existing system creates problems…
Ambushed by the Feds:
On February 14, 2008 US DOT Secretary Mary Peters submitted proposed legislation to the leadership of the US Congress to amend the language of SAFETEA-LU (PL109-59). Secretary Peters proposes to change the language of the statute to authorize individual States to use funds under Section 2010 to “…promote the use of motorcycle helmets.” Secretary Peters’ proposal is clearly an attempt to drag motorcycle safety back into the dark ages, and to hold motorcycle safety hostage to a failed safety paradigm.
For thirty five years, “professional-safety-experts” have wasted our tax dollars promoting safety helmet use, yet they have failed to reduce motorcycle fatalities. The funding from the SAFETEA-LU legislation has been available for less than two years; yet, the bureaucrats have already lost patience with the approach proposed by the real motorcycle experts (motorcycle riders), and have launched an attack to reinstate their failed and corrupt policy.
This pre-emptive attack on the resources needed to develop and evaluate an alternative approach to motorcycle safety appears suspiciously like an attempt to impede the investigation for a more effective approach. The success of any alternative approach would force bureaucrats to seek alternative justifications for future funding and could restrict the continued growth of their network.
If adopted, Secretary Peters’ proposed amendment will surely negate the progress being made in developing programs to reduce the frequency of motorcycle crashes. This amendment will return motorcycle safety policy to an antiquated, dangerous, and failed “crash-mitigation” mentality. The most obvious result of returning to this failed “bureaucratically-convenient” safety policy will be the continuation of the 35 year history of annual escalation of motorcyclist fatalities.
Response to Secretary Peters’ Proposal:
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation and the American Motorcyclist Association have both published Official Press Releases denouncing the actions of Mrs. Peters. Several states, including
This is not a call to action for motorcyclists - it is currently only a proposal for consideration by congress, and is simply an idea that has been introduced. The bill authorizing the raiding of SAFETEA-LU funds may never materialize, and if it does, we will be ready to intervene. However, this proposal does demonstrate the lengths to which these powerful political appointees, and their staff of career government employees, will go to in their efforts to deprive us of our freedoms… all in the name of our own safety.
A Brief Review & Summary:
I. For thirty five years, motorcycle safety has been chained to an ineffective safety paradigm designed around the characteristics of enclosed vehicles. The symbolic icon of this failed approach has been the motorcycle safety helmet.
II. Motorcycle rights activists, worked diligently to convince legislators of the need for developing an alternative approach to motorcycle safety, and have received funding for that purpose. Though still in the early stages of development, motorcyclists have effectively turned the direction of motorcycle safety toward a more promising alternative.
III. The new approach is already under attack by the “good-ole-boy” network. Rather than wait for effectiveness evidence, a powerful (well funded) bureaucratic network wants to cut off funding and resources for the study of an alternative approach, and return to the good-old-days of “throwing a helmet at the problem”.
IV. Motorcycle Rights Organizations are registering your concerns with lawmakers on the state and national level; but they need support from the community at-large. You can be a part of the solution.
So What?
The solution to the problem requires bikers to stand united against the advances of the misguided bureaucracy. The answer includes firming up our message and delivering it at every opportunity. The answer includes motorcycling experts sharing their knowledge with lawmakers and with the bureaucratic advisors. The answer is sharing our message, and any part of it, with anyone at every opportunity. That’s why it is important to participate in the “Motorcycle Awareness Month” campaign.
Your national and state motorcycle rights organizations have already registered concern, and are prepared to move forward with further measures as dictated by the situation. Now it is time for individual bikers to stand-up, and let-loose the fire in their belly. Although we may not be able to attend massive weekend protest rallies, each of us can contribute on an individual level in our own community. We can start by helping to disseminate the small part of our message related to motorcycle safety and the need for others to share the road with us.
What You Can Do
Talk to Your Community Leaders:
Contact your local elected officials (City Mayor and/or
If you’re not sure how to contact your elected officials, visit (or call) your local board of elections, or contact your local CBA/ABATE chapter. Find out what activities your local CBA chapter has planned for “Motorcycle Awareness Month.”
When your local officials act; be there with all your friends and participate in the proclamation activities in your community.
Take A Day Off From Work on 28 May 2008:
Join the dedicated freedom fighters of the Concerned Bikers Association/ABATE of
Senate Bill 375: Amending Licensing Requirements for Motorcyclists.
During the 2007 legislative session, Senator Tony Rand, (D-Bladen & Cumberland) introduced Senate Bill 375, a bill to shorten the duration of, and amend the requirements for, a motorcycle learner’s permit, and to clarify the requirements for obtaining motorcycle endorsement.
During discussions in committee, Senator Rand explained that a constituent (the Garrison Commander on Fort Bragg) was concerned that too many young soldiers were returning from overseas duty and dying (or seriously injuring themselves) on motorcycles. It was suggested that many of these young warriors were taking advantage of
Many of us might ask, “So, why is this bill important to me? I already have my license, and if it only affects ‘new riders’ it’s no skin off my nose.” The truth of the matter is - motorcycle licensing and education programs affect us all. The most obvious effect licensing and motorcyclist skills development has on all of us, is manifested in the recent changes to NC GS § 20‑140.4. requiring all NC riders and passengers to wear DOT FMVSS 218 compliant helmets.
Whether or not we like it… rider crash and fatality statistics affect our freedoms. The passage of “The New Helmet Law” during the 2007 session was heavily influenced by the NC motorcycle crash and fatality statistics reported (to our lawmakers) by safety professionals, and the pressures exerted by special interest groups and federal agencies working together with the expressed goal of improving our safety.
Even on the national level, licensing and rider training have been identified as critical considerations in the Implementation Guidelines of the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety. Changes will be made in
Whether or not we get involved, decisions about the future of motorcycling are being made. People who ride motorcycles need to share our experiences and thoughts with lawmakers… Here are my thoughts on Senate Bill 375.
What Senate Bill 375 Proposes:
1. Reduced Time Available to Learn to Ride: SB 375 proposes reducing the time a rider can ride on a learner's permit (from the current 18 months to only 6 months).
This bill’s lock-step timetable for skills development imposes an arbitrary learning curve for the beginning or novice rider, and makes it more likely a rider with limited skills will be forced to take the skills test before they are skilled riders. This may result in more test failures or in inexperienced riders demonstrating just enough skill to “barely-squeak-by” the DMV skills test. This "squeak-by" phenomenon may result in higher crash and fatality rates for licensed motorcyclists and passengers.
Although
In contrast, the current 18 month permit-period produces little “pressure” to become endorsed and, allows the beginning rider to develop confidence in his/her abilities over time, and in a wide variety of traffic conditions, without the pressure of an arbitrary time-table.
2. SB 375 is Discriminatory: Motorcycles are no longer “just recreational vehicles”. Motorcycles are an important element in today’s traffic environment and are the primary mode of transportation for many
SB 375 clearly discriminates against a minority segment of the legally registered motor vehicle driving population. If it is imperative to reduce the amount of time a learner’s permit is valid, then these restrictions should include learner permits for all drivers – not just motorcyclists. This bill singles out motorcyclists and imposes more restrictive standards than those required of our four-wheel operator peers.
3. Rider Skill Improvemetns: If the purpose of this bill is to reduce fatality and/or injury rates among motorcyclists, then this is not the solution. This legislation, as it is written, does nothing to improve rider skills. Forcing riders to qualify for motorcycle endorsments with less on-road experience, will only increase the number of fataltites of "licensed" riders. The overall number of motorcycle fatalities and injuries will not decrease; in fact the number of motorcycle passenger fataltities may increase, due to the passenger privilege granted with a full endorsement.
4. Mandatory Rider Education: SB 375 would require riders under 18 years old, or with less than 2 years driving experience to successfully complete the MSF approved Rider Education program offered by the NC Motorcycle Safety and Education Program offered at local community colleges. This particular aspect affects us in our pocket-book.
The current community college operated Motorcycle Safety Education Program student tuition fees are between $100 and $150 per class. The actual per-student cost of the program is supplemented by an annual “$3 tax” on every motorcycle registration renewal in NC. This “motorcycle-rider-only-tax” pays the operating costs for facilities, staffing, and management of the program. Additional funds for program expansion and improvements are secured through state and federal grants.
The existing Motorcycle Safety Education Program is already experiencing difficulties meeting the current demands of “volunteer” students. Adding an additional “forced-attendance” population will certainly result in more back-log and delays for training slots. Several MSEP Instructors and Rider coaches have voiced concern that forcing attendance will disrupt the positive atmosphere of the existing “volunteer-only” classes.
Safety considerations mandate that Rider Education class size is limited to twelve students per class. Available slots in courses are frequently only available during inclement weather seasons. In some areas, where slots are available, applicants must wait up to 6 months for enrollment in a scheduled course. The limited number of approved “commercially-available” rider education courses are nearly four times more expensive (+ $400) than the “motorcycle-tax-funded” course.
To reduce the impact on our rider education program, it may take years for an appropriate number of adequate ranges to be constructed ,and training seminars conducted, to meet the demand for rider-coaches and instructors. The immediate result will be more riders operating motorcycles without a license; thus, creating a sub-class of middle-aged, middle-to-upper-income, “criminals”. The long-term result could be decimation of the motorcyclist funded program.
The current Motorcycle Rider Education program belongs to the motorcyclists of
5. Alternative Approaches: There are reasonable and safe alternatives to resolving this issue. The state of
The current MSF approved Rider Education program in North Carolina requires attendance on Friday night and all day Saturday and Sunday. In some cases experienced “multiple-permit” riders may not be able to attend the current course because of work or other weekend responsibilities. It may be that many of the experienced “permit-riders” would be better able to attend a one day instruction /skills evaluation program that leads to endorsement, rather than expending an entire weekend attending the existing course, or taking time off of work to attend one of the sporadically scheduled skills tests conducted by the DMV.
This is not to say that this is the approach to use in
What You Can Do
Talk to Your lawmakers:
The North Carolina Legislature is not currently in session, but will re-open for business in May. All NC elected officials are in their home districts, and readily accessible to their constituents. Now is an ideal time to contact your local elected officials and let them know your feelings about this bill.
This bill will be heard in the House of Representatives Transportation Committee when session convenes in May 2008. Although SB 375 has been passed in the Senate, it will have to be re-considered for concurrence because of changes that have been made to the Senate’s language. So you should be contacting your members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. I suggest that you advise them that we do not support Senate Bill 375. Ask him/her to vote against this bill in committee and on the floor of their respective chamber.
If you’re not sure who your elected officials are, you can find out by going to the NC General Assembly web-site at: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/. On the right hand side of the page, near the bottom there is a link for finding your elected officials. If you don’t have internet access you can visit (or call) your local board of elections. Have your driver’s license handy, because you will need to know your 9 digit zip code.
Take A Day Off From Work on Wednesday 28 May 2008:
Join the dedicated freedom fighters of the Concerned Bikers Association/ABATE of
To launch their recently announced involvement in the motorcycle safety arena, the National transportation Safety Board conducted a two day meeting in September of 2006. The public forum included a wide array of motorcycle safety domains and promised to lead to positive resutls for motorcyclists. The motorcycle community was anxiously anticipating the release of the NTSB's recommendations.
One year later, in a public meeting held on September 11, 2007 The National Transportation Safety Board issued a series of disappointing motorcycle safety recommendations. The NTSB’s recommendations were focused on three areas of motorcycle safety: the November 2000
Although we do not always agree on every issue, the members of the motorcycle rights community have uniformly expressed adamant disappointment with the NTSB’s recommendations. Inspired by the multitude of voiced opposition, a constituent team from CBA/ABATE of NC was organized to decide on our response, and two members were dispatched to
The results of those meetings are still being reported by the offices of our legislators. To date, we have heard back from several offices and the responses are positive. A full report on the actions of each of our legislators will be forthcoming shortly. Today’s entry will focus on the published recommendations of the NTSB, and our arguments in response to the inadequacies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTSB issued the following seven recommendations:
National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety
To the
To the 50 states and the
Motorcycle Safety Data
To the
Motorcycle Helmets
To the three states without motorcycle helmet laws:
To the 27 states and 1 territory with partial helmet laws:
To the 8 states, the
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Response to The NTSB Recommendations:
1. The Motorcycle Community is disappointed with the recommendations of the NTSB. Motorcyclists believed that since the NTSB is the scientific arm of the safety community, their inclusion in the motorcycle safety community would bring valid facts and rigorous scientific investigation to the efforts of the motorcycle safety community.
Instead:
The weak and ineffective motorcycle safety recommendations issued by the NTSB suggest that they are just another layer of the bureaucratic self-preservation network.
2. The motorcycling community had high hopes for the NTSB’s involvement because:
The NTSB has a reputation for being meticulous in the pursuit of their investigations. When an airplane crashes and debris is scattered over a large area, the NTSB has been known to take several months to systematically explore the area, locate all the pieces, and even reconstruct the fallen aircraft, before making any decisions about the cause of the crash, and/or issuing specific recommendations to resolve the problem. The NTSB has investigated more than 130,000 air, rail, and commercial carrier crashes. We anticipated that the NTSB would be equally meticulous and comprehensive in pursuing recommendations related to motorcycle safety.
Instead;
The NTSB treated motorcycle safety like a “second-class-member” of the safety community. The NTSB held one public safety forum, and investigated 6 motorcycle accidents (in their forty year history) before issuing recommendations that; ignore many of the issues discussed in the forum, are founded on obsolete research studies conducted in a traffic environment that no longer exists, and support a “crash-mitigation” safety paradigm that has been killing motorcyclists for over 35 years.
3. Since the staff at the NTSB is filled with PhD scientists who understand the importance of, and can evaluate, scientific rigor and violations of the scientific process; Motorcyclists expected a comprehensive and rigorous scientific evaluation of the safety issues at hand.
Instead:
The NTSB apparently ignored the lack of scientific rigor, and violations of scientific process being used by government-agencies that sanction the obvious misuse of statistics (i.e., data mining), and violate numerous scientific principals (i.e., cause and effect conclusions drawn from descriptive data). The NTSB also failed to consider the obvious inadequacies of formulating safety policy on research studies conducted more than 35 years ago, in traffic conditions that are radically dissimilar to current highway conditions.
The NTSB’s recommendation to the FHWA for improving the scientific process is inadequate and embarrassing. Evaluating alternative methods for collecting VMT data is one small detail in a broad-based venue of glaring scientific inadequacies.
4. When the NTSB entered into the motorcycle safety arena we anticipated a new perspective on motorcycle safety. When Mr. Rosenker announced (at
Instead:
The NTSB recommended that the NHTSA “re-prioritize” the
The NTSB recommendations to the FHWA were irrelevant. There is no reason to believe that the FHWA would not implement the results of the 2007 Motorcycle Travel Symposium. The stated purpose of the symposioum was to develop guidelines for the states to use in gathering accurate motorcycle registrations and motorcycle vehicle miles traveled data.
The NTSB has focused all of their recommendations on continuing to pursue the inadequate passive-protection safety paradigm; a paradigm which they, themselves, recently declared obsolete and ineffective for all vehicles and, for which there is substantial evidence of, a 35 year history of being dangerous and ineffective for motorcyclists.
5. The motorcycle community anticipated that the inclusion of the NTSB in our safety community would serve as a deterrent to the spread of false propaganda by federal agencies, and; the spread of tax-payer funded lobbying of state legislators by the bureaucratic recipients of federal monies administered by the NHTSA.
Instead:
The NTSB joined in illegal federal-agency-lobbying of the states. The NTSB’s recommendation to individual states regarding the implementation of mandatory-universal-helmet-use laws is in direct violation of the powers guaranteed to individual states in the US Constitution. This “states-rights” issue has been a point of federal discussion several times.
The NHTSA has been told by the Congress of the
Will the US Congress have to reprimand or sanction the NTSB too?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." Patrick Henry
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog