Posted 04/22/2007 Dragoni
Do you ride a motorcycle today? Do you want to
ride a motorcycle tomorrow?
If so, then please recognize that the time for ALL of us--including
YOU--to
start defending our Right-to-Ride is NOW!
For starters, we--including YOU--have got to stop letting
incompetent and
ill-intentioned journalists publishing erroneous media reports that
misguide
the masses on motorcycling issues! From now on, whenever YOU
see any media
source publishing articles that contain incorrect information,
half-truths
or outright lies about motorcycling issues, we need YOU to do
something
about it. And I don't mean just go post to a forum, preach to the
choir, or
bitch at the bar. I mean DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT: Get on your
bikes, and
line up in their lobbies... Get out pen and paper, and overwhelm
their
office staff... Get on the phone, and fill up their voicemail... Or
at
least, get on your keyboard and clog up their inboxes:
http://tinyurl.com/3cc7jn
PLEASE START NOW. Please start by following my lead in
demanding a
retraction of the absurd comments made in the article linked below.
This
email tells you WHO to contact and WHY. As for WHAT
to say, feel free to
repeat my words or use your own. THE ISSUE HERE IS *NOT* THE
UTILITY OF
HELMETS. AND THE ISSUE IS NOW *MORE* THAN JUST THE FUTILITY OF HELMET
LAWS:
http://tinyurl.com/3dsff2
If YOU let them take *your* RIGHT TO DECIDE today,
they'll be one step
closer to taking *your* RIGHT TO RIDE tomorrow!
FIGHT BACK! FIGHT NOW! MAKE THE MEDIA TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT
MOTORCYCLING ISSUES:
***
Please post comments or replies here (AFTER *YOU* HAVE DONE
SOMETHING ABOUT IT):
http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/fetch/806368/
Posted By Dragoni 04/17/07
Where we stand this session
2007 Legislative Wrap-up
For Governor’s Signature on April 18, 2007 9:30 A.M.:
SB 5134: Motorcycle Impound
Bill (Will be law Effective September 1, 2007 by the
time you read this!)
1
AN ACT Relating to authorizing police officers to impound vehicles
2 operated by
drivers without specially endorsed licenses; and amending
3 RCW 46.55.113…
…17 (g) Upon
determining that a person is operating a motor vehicle
18 without a valid
and, if required, a specially endorsed driver's license
19 ((in violation of
RCW 46.20.005))…
…3 (4) Nothing in this section may derogate from the powers
of police
4 officers under the
common law. For the purposes of this section, a
5 place of safety
may include the business location of a registered tow
6 truck operator.
SB 5273: Motorcycle Education Bill (Will be
law Effective September 1, 2007 by the time you read this!):
((The
initial and renewal endorsement)) Fees
17 collected under
this section shall be deposited in the motorcycle
18 safety education
account of the highway safety fund…
...7
(3) The director shall revise the Washington motorcycle safety
8 program to:
9 (a)
Institute separate novice and advanced motorcycle skills
10 education courses
for both two-wheeled and three-wheeled motorcycles
11 that are each a
minimum of eight hours and no more than sixteen hours
12 at a cost of (i) no more than fifty dollars
for Washington state
13 residents under
the age of eighteen, and (ii) no more than one hundred
14 twenty-five
dollars for Washington state residents who are eighteen
15 years of age or
older and military personnel of any age stationed in
16 Washington
state;…
…18 (c)
Motorcycle awareness, approved by the ((Motorcycle Safety
19 Foundation))
director,
to ensure new operators of motor vehicles have
20 been instructed
in the importance of safely sharing the road with
21 motorcyclists…
…32 The superintendent of public instruction shall
include information
33 on motorcycle
awareness, approved by the ((Motorcycle Safety
34 Foundation))
director of licensing, in instructional material
used in
35 traffic safety
education courses, to ensure new operators of motor
p. 3 SB 5273.PL
1 vehicles have been
instructed in the importance of safely sharing the
2 road with
motorcyclists.
(Note: I believe
bills not otherwise stated take effect immediately. gm)
-----------------
Then there’s
our bills and what
legislators
by request of
Department of Licensing, Washington Traffic Safety Commission and
Washington State Patrol chose to do to them:
SB 5797 -
Our
original bill:
…17 (b) Before
renewing registration for a motorcycle under this
18 chapter, the
department shall verify that the registered owner of the
p. 1 SB 5797
1 motorcycle has a
special endorsement to operate the motorcycle under
2 RCW 46.20.500.
S(ubstitute) SB 5797 (what the legislators did to it):
1 AN ACT Relating to
motorcycle endorsement verification; amending
2 RCW 46.16.010 and
46.20.505; and creating a new section.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY
THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:…
…17 (b) Before
renewing registration for a motorcycle under this
18 chapter, where no
change in ownership has occurred, the department
19 shall verify that
the registered owner of the motorcycle has a special
p. 1 ESSB 5797
1 endorsement to
operate the motorcycle under RCW 46.20.500 or 46.20.510.
***<2 The department
may adopt rules to establish conditions under which a
3 special
endorsement to operate the motorcycle under RCW 46.20.500 or
4 46.20.510 is not
required>***…
…***<28 (2) From
March 1, 2008, until March 1, 2010, every person applying
29 for a special
endorsement of a driver's license under this section
30 shall pay an
additional surcharge of ten dollars on initial
31 endorsements and
renewals to be distributed as follows: Five dollars
32 and ninety cents
to the motorcycle safety education account; three
33 dollars and ten
cents to the highway safety account; and one dollar to
34 the motor vehicle
account.
35 NEW SECTION. Sec.
3. Section 1 of this act applies only to
p. 5 ESSB 5797
1 vehicle
registrations that are due or become due on or after March 1,
2 2008.>***
Then added the
following Fiscal note:
Estimated Cash Receipts to:
FUND
FY
2008 FY 2009 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13
Motorcycle Safety
Education
202,232
697,281 899,513 703,910 270,650
Account-State 082-1
Highway Safety Account-State 106-1 128,889
398,704 527,593 272,908
Motor Vehicle Account-State
108-1 19,750
63,132 82,882 44,380
Total $
350,871
1,159,117 1,509,988 1,021,198 270,650
Estimated Expenditures from:
FY 2008 FY 2009 2007-09 2009-11 2011-13
FTE Staff Years
13.2
1.1 7.2 1.1 1.1
Fund
Motorcycle Safety Education
Account-State
082-1
1,518,345
0 1,518,345 0 0
Highway Safety Account-State
106-1
684,969
2,784 687,753 6,673 6,800
Motor Vehicle Account-State 108-1
141,338 90,266 231,604 184,910 183,493
Total $
2,344,652
93,050 2,437,702 191,583 190,293
This is telling me it will cost
us (that’s you and me, friends - the riding public) $2.3
million to implement.
Now we have to
decide if we are going to take this lying down or stand up and put a
stop to the B.S…Are we going to roll-over again or
stop them in their bids for re-election???
This is your
organization! This is your voice! Stand and be heard!!!
GINGER MAGURES
# 15789 Legislative Affairs Officer
ABATE of Washington
360/697-2659 home
360/271-3092 cell (page me)
legislative1@abate-wa.org
Posted By Dragoni 04/15/07
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORT & HIGHWAY AUTOMATION
In the grand scheme, is a place for motorcycles assured?
Copyright (c) 2007 Bruce Arnold
On 11 April 2007, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety
Board
(NTSB) Mark V. Rosenker gave a speech at the Northwestern University
Transportation Center that presented an intriguing glimpse into the
future
of American roadway transportation. I encourage you to take a
moment and
read the transcript:
http://www.ntsb.gov/Speeches/rosenker/mvr070411.htm
In it, he projects his vision of the roads of tomorrow . a virtual
railway
of computer-controlled conveyances (think cattle cars) enabled by a
mind-boggling array of intelligent transport systems (ITS), highway
automation, vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure
integration .
reinforced with telematics for vehicle navigation (and occupant
tracking) .
and prefaced by the following:
"In aviation, the average is 700 to 800 fatalities a year, almost
all
associated with private pilots in small general aviation aircraft.
By
comparison, about 43,000 people lose their lives on the nation's
highways
each year. For aviation fatalities to match those of highway, we
would have
to have a commercial airline hull loss accident every day. So,
while you
may know of the [NTSB] Safety Board based on our aviation work,
tonight I'd
like to focus on highway safety. [W]hile we accomplished much in
the past
decade to improve the crashworthiness of automobiles, we have
reached some
practical limits in combating the physical forces involved in
crashes. It
is time to move beyond crash mitigation and enter a new era where
technology
will help us prevent accidents. I recognize that this will be a
tough
battle to win. Less than 1% of accidents are fatal, so to save one
life, we
must prevent more than a hundred crashes. We can no longer be
satisfied
with trying to protect people who get into crashes. We must instead
use the
technology at our command to prevent crashes from happening."
Mr. Rosenker's acknowledgement that far more highway injuries and
deaths can
be prevented by targeting crash avoidance rather than crash survival
is
encouraging. But on the other hand, the fact that he failed to
include or
even mention motorcycles in his grand scheme of intelligent
transport and
highway automation systems forces me to ask this question:
IS there a place for motorcycles on the highways of tomorrow?
This is not a new question, and I am certainly not the first one to
ask it.
The debate goes back a decade or more, as is reflected by this 1998
article
originated by the Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations
(FEMA)
and the Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF).
http://www.mrf.org/pdf/WhitePapers/Volume5-1998/FromEuropetotheUnitedS.pdf
.in which FEMA's Simon Willard advised the following:
"[R]oad transport is undergoing some fundamental changes. It is the
responsibility of all riders to make efforts to ensure that
motorcycling
remains enjoyable for future generations by becoming active in their
own
national riders' rights organisation."
Mr. Willard's concerns were reiterated in this 2003 paper
transmitted by
FEMA, the MRF, the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and
allied
organizations.
http://www.unece.org/trans/doc/2003/wp29/TRANS-WP29-130-inf01e.pdf
.which contained this request:
"The recognition that certain types of vehicles will not be
compatible with
some ITS applications, requires that the rights of the owners and
users of
such vehicles be considered. It is also a general principle that
regulations applied to one vehicle category should not result in the
owner
or user of another category of vehicle being disadvantaged. The
parties to
this paper therefore request the relevant United Nations bodies
formally to
recognize the following principle: 'That where a vehicle or a
category of
vehicles are not compatible with an ITS application, it is accepted
that the
vehicles' incompatibility will not result in its being excluded from
any
part of the road system that the vehicle currently uses and that in
future
would utilize that ITS application.'"
Is that request being honored? Australia's Monash University
Accident
Research Centre attempted to answer that question, at least in part,
with
their research study entitled "Intelligent Transport Systems and
Motorcycle
Safety", published in July of 2006:
http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc260.pdf
Their research was comprehensive, but left them with more questions
than
conclusions. Two of their conclusions, however, seem as relevant
here in
the U.S. as they are down under:
. "Some motorcycling groups have expressed concern about the
potential
for ITS technologies to automate aspects of the riding task or to
compromise
motorcycle safety. It is critical that the views of the motorcycling
fraternity be properly researched and understood, and that this
knowledge be
used to inform the design and deployment of technologies which are
acceptable to them. There have been no formal studies of the
acceptance of
riders to ITS in motorcycles."
. "There is no known strategy for the design, development,
deployment
and evaluation of ITS in motorcycles."
But wait a moment. Does that second conclusion really apply to us?
Maybe
so, maybe no:
Mr. Rosenker did not include motorcycles in his vision of our road
transport
future. And, I was unable to find anything that resembled a
"strategy for
the design, development, deployment and evaluation of ITS in
motorcycles" on
the website of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) ITS
Joint
Program Office:
http://www.its.dot.gov/index.htm
BUT. intelligent transportation systems for motorcycles were
discussed
during the NTSB Public Forum on Motorcycle Safety on 12-13 September
2007,
and those comments are available in the searchable (but not copyable)
PDF
transcripts for both days downloadable from here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_motorcycle_safety/symp_motorcycle_safety.htm
AND. intelligent transportation systems are an explicit part of the
mission
and agenda for the newly-formed Federal Highway Administration
Motorcyclist
Advisory Council (MAC-FHWA).
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mac/index.htm
.whose members include the following:
. Mark Bloschock [mbloscho@dot.state.tx.us] -Texas Dept. of
Transportation
. Jeff Hennie [jeff@mrf.org] - Motorcycle Riders Foundation
. Darrell Killion [killiond1@yahoo.com] - ABATE of South Dakota
. Ken Kiphart [nvrider@dps.state.nv.us]- State Motorcycle Safety
Administrators
. Robert McClune [bob.mcclune@pottersbeads.com]- North American
Potters Industries
. Ed Moreland [edmoreland.ama@erols.com] - American Motorcyclist
Association
. Gerald Salontai [Gsalontai@kleinfelder.com] - Kleinfelder
Incorporated
. Kathy VanKleeck [kvankleeck@mic.org] - Motorcycle Industry Council
. Donald Vaughn [VaughnD@dot.state.al.us] - Alabama Dept. of
Transportation
. Steve Zimmer [Cambolt@aol.com] ABATE of Ohio Inc
In a transcript of their meeting on 24 October 2006.
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mac/fulltranscript102406.htm
.ABATE of Ohio's Steve Zimmer had this to say:
"Intelligent transportation is another issue we need to be concerned
about
because as intelligent transportation systems develop we need to
make sure
that motorcycles are considered in the development and are not
excluded at
the end."
I think Steve is right. And based on the research I just shared
with you, I
fear his statement may be prophetic. I fear that the answer to the
question.
"IS there a place for motorcycles on the highways of tomorrow?"
.just might be NO.
So. what are we as motorcyclists to do about that?
For many years now, visionary bikers' rights activists have been
warning us
that we should be "concerned" about being "excluded" from the
roadways of
tomorrow. A decade ago, we were advised that "[it] is the
responsibility of
all riders to make efforts to ensure that motorcycling remains
enjoyable for
future generations."
And have we met that responsibility? Apparently not. And why not?
BECAUSE
WE HAVE FAILED TO FOCUS ON WHAT'S IMPORTANT. As I wrote last
December:
"Political history teaches us that few things bring people together
like the
threat of a common and formidable foe. That's what United our States
... how
the Allies won World War II ... and why Dubya got re-elected. But
for some
perplexing reason, the motorcycling community seems exempt from that
axiom.
At a time when we should be banding together as brothers, instead we
squabble like Scottish Lords. Rather than broadening their political
base by
focusing on issues of interest and benefit to all motorcyclists,
some MROs
and their mouthpieces are leading the charge in the opposite
direction.
Platforms purported to champion bikers' rights are often subverted
soapboxes.
[
http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/fetch/801905/
]
.for agendas that serve no purpose other than to isolate and
alienate the
very riders we most desperately need to attract and enlist. MRO
leaders
bemoan increasing apathy and declines in membership. But rather than
narrow
their focus to timely and relevant issues with broad appeal, some
seek out
only the decreasing few who share their world view, chastising or
ignoring
all others."
This must end. We must narrow our focus to the issues of greatest
importance and broadest appeal if we are to succeed politically and
survive
socially. And I can think of no other issue that should unite all
motorcyclists more than.
OUR RIGHT TO RIDE OUR MOTORCYCLES!
Until Next Time . Ride Long, Ride Free!
Bruce Arnold
***
The HMTL version of this article is available here:
http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/motorcyclists_rights/bikersrights0705.ph
p
The PDF version of this article is available here:
http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/BruceOnBikersRights0705.pdf
Please post comments and replies here:
http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/fetch/803920/
Posted By
Dragoni 04/15/07
! Legislative alert - March 15th
2007!!!!!
04/02/07
Update on HB5544
This is the bill on noise that would effectively ban Off-road bikes
etc.
It is dead for this session, placed in X files of Rules Committee so
it will not come
out. With that said, it will be back next year.
Information Received From: Chris Dulas
ABATE OF WA
NCOM Ambassador
This evening I responded to an email from
Darla:
On Monday Darla emailed me with a big
question:
Ginger,
Please help me to understand why ABATE of WA is behind the eight
ball on it's own bill.
Thanks..Darla
Because she got an email:
From: "Ian King" <president@roadriders.org>
To: <roadriders@roadriders.org>
Subject: RE: Urgent Legislative Alert
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:38:42 -0700
UPDATE: Representative Jarrett has submitted the appropriate
amendment to remove the insurance and penalty language.
When you contact your representatives, you can tell them you support the
Jarrett amendment to the substitute bill - it's 1466
returned from the grave! :-) With the amendment, this is the language
approved by the House last year
(and driven nearly all the way by Leanne Horn). Let's see if we can
persuade them to approve it again this year. -- Ian
Which was his follow up to this email:
From:
Wrraleg@aol.com [mailto:Wrraleg@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 9:16 AM
To: roadriders@roadriders.org
Subject: Urgent Legislative Alert
Washington Road Riders
Association
Legislative Action Alert
3/12/2007
Substitute House Bill
1625 is eligible to go to the floor for a vote. It has been
amended to apply to only left turns, as the legislation was last
session. That bill (ESB 1466 of 05-06) had wide spread support
in both houses. This is the good news.
Now for the bad news:
Geoff Simpson had mandatory insurance language attached to the
bill while it was in committee. This is totally unacceptable.
There exists the possibility that the bill can have the
insurance language removed on the floor of the house. We have
until 5:00 PM on the 14th (Wednesday) to strip this
language in the house. If we fail there, Sen. Haugen has already
assured me that we can look at the issue in her committee. (As a
sidebar note, she will not even entertain language other than
limiting permission to people turning left.)
Every rider needs to
contact their representatives and ask that they support an
amendment to remove any reference to insurance and pass a clean
version of the bill. When you call or e-mail, here are some
talking points.
1.) This would set up
different rules of the road for riders based simply on the
purchase of a product that the industry itself does not wish to
universally provide. In effect, it creates a two tier caste
system within a segment of the motoring public. Such an act is
patently unfair, and most likely unconstitutional.
2.) This sort of
requirement would become an enforcement nightmare. Does failure
to have insurance while turning left become a primary offense,
opening the door for officer discretion to encounter and
investigate? While the vast majority of the law enforcement
community would not be chasing down riders because they turned
left, the opportunity for abuse does exist. Does anyone else out
there remember “Biker Basics 101”?
3.) It is a small point,
but one could argue that the addition of insurance language to a
traffic bill does not meet the criteria for scope and object.
Legislative rules in Washington dictates that any amendments
must be germane to the original subject matter of the bill.
While it may be technically within the rules, morally it is not.
4.) I have it on good authority that Rep. Simpson’s insertion of
this language is more punitive than policy. He is still smarting
that the motorcycling community killed his ill conceived
mandatory ATV training bill two years ago. I know this because
he told me this past Saturday, in definitely less than polite
language. Feel free to let your representatives know this little
tidbit.
"Texas" Larry Walker
Government Relations Specialist
Washington Road Riders Association
wrraleg@aol.com
Is this what you want?????
The Legislative Contact info for House Transportation Committee,
House Rules Committee, Senate Transportation Committee, and Senate
Rules Committee is attached and posted to the legislative page of
the ABATE of Washington website: http//www.abate-wa.org.
Please contact your legislators today. Just because your
districts' legislator is not on one or more of these
committees...remember these people are representing all
of us, but only
if we let them know what we need.
Ride Free!
Ginger "Mama Wolf" Magures
Member #15789
Legislative Affairs Officer
ABATE of Washington
I am a Registered Voter...are you???
Posted
By: Dragoni 03/15/07
2007-2008 Legislative Committee Member Contact Information:
Senate
Transportation Committee:
