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
This is not about motorcycle rights. There is some brief comment there, yes, but this is politically pertinent to those of us in NC, especially in the 3rd congressional district. The commentary is strictly my own and does not necessarily represent the thoughts or views of any organization(s) I belong to.
~ Fre
Someone You Can Be Proud Of
Earlier this week, Thomas “Doc Ski” Wasileski, Ph.D., Legislative Director for the Concerned Bikers Association/ABATE of NC and myself, Cindy “Fre” Hodges, life member/state MRF (Motorcycle Riders Foundation) Representative, with the same organization, visited Washington, DC to meet with the NC delegation of Representatives and Senators to discuss topics concerning to our organization, chiefly H.R. 1076 and S.B. 616 which are bills that close the loophole in the current HIPAA regulations that allow health care providers to opt out of paying subscribers health insurance benefits on a per-incident basis depending on how they were injured, and to request a letter from each office go to Mark Rosenker, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) requesting more in depth study of traffic safety issues as regards to motorcycles. The NTSB spent a year reviewing information and recently issued its recommendations and motorcyclists of the nation find the results lacking.
These meetings went well. The members who had already signed on the health care bills were thanked profusely and the members who had not, were urged again to sign on. I’m happy to report that most agreed to do so. We also had a most excellent result in regards to the NTSB letter request. In fact, Representative Butterfield’s office issued a letter and sent it to many of the other NC congressmen’s offices requesting they do the same.
We had very good meetings, feel very good about what we accomplished, and the membership of CBA/ABATE of NC will be hearing more about this as soon as we can get our notes together and distilled into a readable semblance.
But I had to say something now. And it is not motorcycle related. So if all you want to hear is motorcycle related news, you can stop reading here.
This morning I read an article in the Raleigh News and Observer about the rate of suicide amongst our nation’s military after they return from tour(s) of duty in
I could say many good things in specific about many of our legislators, but this moment in time, I’m devoting to Congressman Walter Jones of the 3rd NC district.
Rep. Jones is the first NC delegate to sign on the health care reform bill, back in March. He signed on the day we came to see him and ask him to consider it. I’ve been coming to DC to lobby our legislators, not every year but sometimes every year and sometimes more than once a year. Rep. Jones is one of two legislators there that always, without fail, agrees to meet with us in person. The legislators are fairly busy folks who often, when the appointment is set, need to be on the house floor voting or listening to a debate on an issue. Somehow Rep. Jones manages to find time to do it all.
Not only does he see us, but also when we walk into his office his staff seems relieved and it is not unusual to hear them say “Oh he has been out here looking for you guys!”. This time, we were ushered into his office as usual and I’m making note of my conversation with his scheduler that he really only has 15 minutes to give us. That is quite enough time but as usual, Rep. Jones has things on his mind and takes the time HE wants to.
We thank him once again for signing on to 1076, and that spurs a little chat about health care in general. From there he apologizes and tells us he feels like sharing some of what he has been dealing with in regards to health care issues for constituents of his. In his district, lies one of the strongest military bases of our nation,
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog