Subscribe to the
Motorcyclist's Post!
THE VOICE OF AMERICAN MOTORCYCLE RIDERS
November 2009
In Memory of "64"
The Motorcyclist's Post is the longest-running motorcycle newspaper in the United States! |
|
|
THE VOICE OF AMERICAN MOTORCYCLE RIDERS |
|
|
November 2009 |
In Memory of "64" |
The Motorcyclist's Post Erik Buell returns with new companyBy PEDRO OLIVEIRA JR.Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2009EAST TROY — East Troy-based Buell will come back next year under a new brand focused on racing motorcycles. Company founder Erik Buell said Monday he will open a new company in January to support existing Buell racing motorcycles and build new racing models starting in 2010. The announcement comes a month after Buell’s parent company, Milwaukee-based Harley-Davidson, decided to shut down operations in East Troy to focus on its main brand. The new company, Erik Buell Racing, is an independent operation with a one-year license with Harley-Davidson, which has owned the Buell brand since 2003. Harley may choose to renew its license at the end of the year, Buell said. Buell said the license does not allow him to produce street bikes. Instead, he will focus on 1125R-based models, the motorcycle ridden by champions in this year’s AMA Pro racing and NHRA Pro Stock World championships. “It’s something I have a lot of passion for,” Buell said. “I was looking for what we could do out of respect for the workers and to help out the owners and dealers.” Closing Buell in East Troy was one of a series of decisions by Harley-Davidson officials who are struggling with recession-related difficulties. The Oct. 15 announcement came after news that Harley’s third-quarter profits slid 84 percent because of fewer shipments. Production at Buell Motorcycle Co. was scheduled for a partial shutdown between November 2009 and January 2010, leaving about 52 employees without work. Harley-Davidson officials also put in place temporary shutdowns at an engine and transmission plant in Milwaukee and at locations in York, Pa., and Kansas City, Mo. The Buell Motorcycle Co. shutdown will be effective Oct. 30. About 80 hourly positions and 100 salaried positions will end in early December, according to Harley-Davidson officials. Several officials in Walworth County put together a task force to gather investors to offer Harley-Davidson a financial package in exchange for keeping Buell alive. “Unfortunately, the choice had already been made to not keep street bikes,” Buell said. “The company was not for sale. They have chosen they would keep the brand name.” Erik Buell Racing will employ about five to 10 workers, Buell said. “We’re focusing on a very small team making a great product,” he added. Buell said he had conversations with Harley-Davidson officials about working for the company, but he realized “there wasn’t really a good fit.” “The thing I was focused on and was interested in weren’t things they were working on,” he said. Buell pitched the concept behind Erik Buell Racing, and Harley officials accepted the offer. “If it’ll grow or not, it’s hard to say,” he added. “But I think we’re hoping it’ll be a good, solid small business. Buell said Erik Buell Racing will be in East Troy and is likely to use parts of the facility previously used by Buell Motorcycle Co. Janesville Gazette - Janesville, WI On Sale Now! from Motorcyclist's Post Cartoonist Paul Jamiol
Get your copy in time for the Holidays! Available at www.bikersareanimals.com "Bikers are animals," a term that adults might use in the pejorative sense, has been turned by writer and artist Paul Jamiol into a book for children that brings joy and amusement while promoting safe riding... Jamiol's community of motorcycle-riding fauna will keep young readers enthralled. It answers some of the questions about motorcycles that their parents may not be able to answer. Ed Youngblood - Ed Youngblood's Motohistory BIKERS are ANIMALS - A Children’'s Book on Motorcycling by Paul Jamiol is a children's book on animals, motorcycling and motorcycle safety... Paul creates a dozen colorful, unique, lovable critter characters riding various kinds of very colorful, detailed bikes. Each character has a personality and little story, and are as diverse as the bikes. Delightful and entertaining! At the end of the book there are pages of his characters that kids can color. His love for biking and the open road really comes through. It's a perfect gift for your child or grandchild. Jen Grady - TheZoo Efforts to fight distracted driving move into high gearAmerican Motorcyclist Association President Obama's administration and federal lawmakers are making it clear that they are serious about reducing distracted driving on the nation's roads. In October alone, Obama signed an executive order banning federal workers from text-messaging on cell phones while driving government vehicles, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told federal lawmakers at hearings that he will work to "raise the awareness (of the dangers of distracted driving) and sharpen the consequences," and U.S. House and Senate committees held hearings on the issue. "One motorcyclist killed on our highways is one too many, so it's encouraging to see that decision-makers at the federal level are taking the dangers of distracted driving seriously," said Ed Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations. "The AMA has adopted a position statement that endorses enhanced penalties for those who injure or kill others while operating a motor vehicle when distracted or inattentive operation is involved. But the goal must be to prevent the crashes from occurring in the first place." To read the AMA's position statement on distracted and inattentive driving, please go to AmericanMotorcyclist.com/legisltn/positions/distracted.asp. LaHood hosted a distracted-driving summit involving transportation and other experts from around the nation Sept. 30-Oct. 1 to gain insights into how to battle the problem. The AMA was an invited guest to the summit and strongly urged that motorcyclists be considered in all future discussions about the impacts of distracted driving. The AMA also attended hearings held by federal lawmakers on the issue. The U.S. House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on Oct. 29, "Addressing the Problem of Distracted Driving." At the hearing, LaHood said education and awareness campaigns are essential for getting people to stop texting or engaging in other distracting activities while driving. "We are still researching the effectiveness of combining high-visibility (law) enforcement with outreach campaigns in the distracted-driving context," LaHood said. "But we are hopeful that such efforts may prove effective in the same way that we've been able to use them to reduce drunk driving and increase seatbelt use." He also said that while cell-phone texting gets a lot of attention, there are many distractions for drivers. "I think any distraction is a problem," he testified. "I think eating a hamburger, putting your makeup on, shaving, texting, talking on a cell phone, these are all distractions. But the epidemic is really with people texting. But all of these other things are distractions too." LaHood also mentioned Greg Zaffke II, who is taking steps to educate Americans about distracted driving after his mother, Anita Zaffke, was killed in May on her motorcycle. She was stopped at a stoplight in Lake Zurich, Ill., when a woman driver allegedly painting her fingernails while driving crashed into the back of Anita, killing her. "Now he has an organization called the Black Nail Brigade where he paints the fingernails on one hand and wears a T-shirt called the Black Nail Brigade and travels all over the country trying to persuade people not to text, not to paint your nails, not to shave, not to put on makeup, not to eat a McDonalds hamburger," LaHood said.
Bikers are Animals Calendar - Since my animals are indeed Bikers, they love this calendar, and we enjoy it immensely. It's a nice alternative to the mass produced, mostly printed in China calendars you find in stores, much heavier stock and won't curl in the summer heat and humidity. Nice product!...B. Thomas. ME
Harley profit drops 84%; Buell shut down Time to Lobby Helmet Repeal Bills Tuesday’s hearing before the Joint Committee on Transportation is over and it’s time for all riders wanting to make their own choice about helmet use to e-mail the Committee and ask them to SUPPORT choice for adult motorcyclists with their repeal of the helmet law. And to also OPPOSE the bill calling for higher fines and criminal penalties for wearing “unapproved” helmets and compulsory insurance coverage that may cost you an additional $400 more each year. I gave testimony before the Committee at Tuesday’s hearing and Paul Cote` sent his Testimony to the Committee supporting Senate No. 1943 and Senate No. 1944. We also testified in opposition to Senate No. 2017 that calls for a $125.00 fine and criminal penalties for wearing “unapproved” helmets and also $50,000 compulsory Medical Payments insurance coverage that may cost you an between $372 and $500 in higher premiums each year.
Anyone wishing to see copies of our testimonies, or the bills themselves, can e-mail me for same and I’ll send you a copy. Testimonies can be read below until the next web update.
Now it’s YOUR time to make a difference. Please don’t leave it up to “the other guy” to do it because I have learned over the years that there just isn’t enough other guys out there to get the job done. This effort requires every Riders input in order to be successful.
Please send an e-mail to every member of the Joint Committee on Transportation and state the following:
Honorable Members of Joint Committee on Transportation:
I am writing you to ask that you give a favorable report to Senate No. 1943 and 1944 and move these bills out to the full Senate for a fair debate. The Joint Committee on Transportation has supported this language in the past two sessions and I respectfully ask that this Committee continue your positive inclination for this language this session and favorably pass this bill out to the full Senate for their initial consideration.
I further ask that you gave an unfavorable report on Senate No. 2017 and NOT pass that bill. I am opposed to language calling for higher fines and criminal penalties I further oppose language in Senate No. 2017 that would trade-off choice for compulsory purchasing of $50,000 in Medical Payments Insurance Coverage. I believe that is blatant discrimination by only making that requirement for motorcyclists. The majority of multi-vehicle collisions involving motorcycle, the operator of the motorcycle is not at fault. It would be unfair to penalize motorcyclists with higher insurance premiums while the vehicle operators that are hitting us are not required to have that same amount of insurance coverage. Senate No. 2017 is bad legislation and ought not to pass your Committee.
Sincerely yours,
Name Address
(If you live outside of Massachusetts, you should also inform the Committee Members that Senate No. 2017 discriminates against motorcyclists entering Massachusetts and would open you up to “probable cause” stops from police officers to check for your proof of insurance coverage.)
Below are the e-mail addresses for the members of the Joint Committee on Transportation for you to copy and paste into your “TO:” address section of your e-mail:
Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us ; Rep.JosephWagner@hou.state.ma.us ; Jennifer.Flanagan@state.ma.us ; Rep.CarlSciortino@Hou.State.MA.US ; Anthony.Petruccelli@state.ma.us ; Thomas.McGee@state.ma.us ; Mark.Montigny@state.ma.us ; James.Timilty@state.ma.us ; Robert.Hedlund@state.ma.us ; Rep.RobertFennell@hou.state.ma.us ; Rep.JohnFresolo@hou.state.ma.us ; Rep.StephenCanessa@Hou.State.MA.US ; Rep.DeniseProvost@Hou.State.MA.US ; Rep.JohnFernandes@Hou.State.MA.US ; Rep.RosemarySandlin@Hou.State.MA.US ; Rep.CarloBasile@Hou.State.MA.US ; Rep.LoriEhrlich@Hou.State.MA.US ; Rep.BillBowles@hou.state.ma.us ; Rep.GeorgePeterson@hou.state.ma.us ; Rep.DonaldHumason@hou.state.ma.us
Please add your own legislators names in the “CC:” address section of your e-mail. Not sure who they are. Go to: http://www.mass.gov/legis/city_town.htm and you will be given that information.
We look forward to having your help with this lobbying effort. Remember it takes every one of us to make a difference. We finally have the legislators listening to us and taking us seriously about helmet law repeal. Let’s make good use of this opportunity.
Ride Safe, FREE and Proud, Bill Gannon
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM E. GANNON II, MASSACHUSETTS MOTORCYCLING ACTIVISTS BEFORE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION ON BILLS 1943, 2017 and 1944 OCTOBER 6, 2009
RE: SENATE NO. 1943
Good Day, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for accepting this testimony today. I am William E. Gannon II, a registered voter from the City of Quincy, an avid motorcycle enthusiast for Forty years, Member of the Massachusetts’ Riders For Justice Committee and Legislative Specialist for Massachusetts Motorcyclists’ Activists.
As well I was nationally certified as a Motorcycle Safety Instructor in 1986, have written a monthly editorial column for the New England Motorcyclist’s Post newspaper since 1986 and I have been an activist for motorcyclist’s civil rights and safety for more than thirty-one years. I am a member of the American Motorcyclist Association, the Motorcycle Riders Foundation and the Modified Motorcycle Association and I have held executive positions in the latter two organizations.
When called upon by Massachusetts’ Governors and Massachusetts’ Registrars of Motor Vehicles, I have recognized my civic duty and have accepted appointments to serve on varied committees related to Motorcycle Safety issues including committees administrated by the Registry of Motor Vehicles and the Governor’s Highway Safety Bureau. Massachusetts and National Motorcycling Communities have honored me with numerous awards over the years for my activism contributions to motorcyclist’s safety and civil rights.
I have come before this committee on many occasions to lobby for proposed legislation that is in the interest of motorcyclists while serving in various executive positions with the above mentioned organizations.
Today I come before you, respectfully, to ask your support for Senate No. 1943 that would establish much-needed enforcement criteria with respect to Massachusetts crash helmet law standards.
Simply put, we have a mandated crash helmet use statute in Massachusetts that was enacted in 1967 by well-meaning legislators. While we have yet to see any credible evidence with respect to reduced accidents and fatalities or any reduction in our insurance premiums.
However, law enforcement personnel use the helmet law standards as a conveyance to violate motorcyclists’ fourth amendment rights. Unfortunately these are not isolated incidents. In fact they continue to happen at an alarming rate.
This issue is not new. We have been discussing it for since 1987. The Joint Committee on Public Safety had bent over backwards in an effort solve this problem. Former Committee Chairman Representative Paul Caron worked very hard during his tenure on that Committee to gain some relief for us. Unfortunately the harassment subsides for a while until the attention moves elsewhere and then it rears its ugly head again.
In fact, at the commencement of the motorcycle-riding season during the last decade, if you rode a motorcycle on Massachusetts roads patrolled by State Police, it was like 1964 in Selma, Alabama. The horror stories that came into my office that first weekend in April were amazing.
In another example of this widespread abuse: on September 11, 1999, motorcyclists held a fundraiser to benefit Hull’s heroic firefighter John Clasby, paralyzed in the line of duty. State Police Supervisors actually staked out that fund-raiser and wrote more than 140 citations for alleged “improper headgear” showing no regard or respect for this hero.
The Massachusetts State Police learned that 67% of motorcycle helmets on the market have failed D.O.T. compliance testing. They know that most motorcyclists are not aware of this. Instead of recognizing consumer protections, they have found us an easy target for “revenue enhancement” and ticket us for the helmets we wear. They have a 67% chance of being right.
In some cases, riders have had their helmets “confiscated”, are ticketed, their motorcycles are towed, and they are unduly harassed when all they wanted to do is enjoy an afternoon ride. These riders wear a helmet because they know they have to comply with the law.
They purchased their helmet because they liked the way it fit or liked it’s style. Or perhaps because it is like the one many of their friends have. Perhaps they chose it for comfort. Whatever the reason, they did not choose it to be a victim of harassment. Yet now they find themselves in trouble and having to go to court. It is not a good feeling.
The troopers know that motorcyclists will contest the citations to avoid a surcharged on our insurance. They advise motorcyclists to contest the citations. They receive valuable court overtime when we do. In fact, in 1992, Associated Press Reporter Philip Michaelson analyzed the cost of one ticket, appealed and dismissed by a judge, and determined a cost to the taxpayer of $3,937.75. I imagine those costs have increased in the years since.
Obviously this behavior is not coming from all troopers and we have no problems with police officers that are fair, honest and hardworking individuals, like ourselves. We do have problems with the officers who abuse their authority in order to bully and harass us. These officers continue to purport the false stereotype that motorcyclists are a criminal element and that unfair treatment is a necessary tactic to keep us “under control.” They have even had success in convincing some judges, clerk-magistrates and even some of the Attorney General’s staff that their tactics are necessary evils.
In a world of mandated behavior and mandated apparel, it becomes easier for manufacturers to slack off on the quality of products. In the mandated world it’s even easier for the bureaucracies to slack off on requiring minimum quality standards. Thus we have a helmet standard compliance test failure rate of 67% of all helmets tested since 1994, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
These helmets that failed at such an alarming rate are all types and sizes. They were three-quarter helmets, full-face helmets, full helmets, and even police helmets.
It gets worse. Pursuant to sections 151-159 of the National Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1411-1419), if helmets are determined not to conform to all the requirements of the standard, the manufacturer is liable to notify owners of the noncompliance via a recall notice.
The manufacturer must remedy the noncompliance without charge to the consumer. In addition, the helmet manufacturer would be liable for a civil penalty of up to $1,000 for each non-complying helmet it manufactured, pursuant to section 109 of the Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1398). NHTSA is responsible for enforcing the “Recall Notice” provision and posting such recalls for consumer notification.
If we surf over to the area of NHTSA’s website entitled “Recall Notices” wanting to be informed and safe consumers, we begin looking for recall notices for 655 helmets that the site shows failed testing. There are NO Recalls listed for any helmets on that website!
Is it any wonder that, when the U.S. Congress passed Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century, (TEA 21), they included language that forbids NHTSA from using tax dollars to go into individual states and lobby for mandated crash helmet laws. The United States Congress has determined NHTSA’s credibilitywith respect to helmet laws to be disreputable.
So who protects the motorcycling consumer here? Helmet use is mandated for all motorcycle riders. The Governor’s Highway Safety Bureau does not inform the motorcycling community about the disgracefully high failure rate and the lack of consumer notification or recall enforcement. They don’t inform students which helmets have failed in the Rider Education Program they administer. Yet they do provide helmet enforcement information to the State Police who are having a field day harassing and ticketing riders.
In our efforts to assist the multitude of harassment victims with their court hearings, we decided to take a closer look at some of the helmets being used that have failed compliance. Indeed it was quite ironic to learn that the biggest offenders using non-compliant helmets in the Commonwealth are the Massachusetts State Police.
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (Highway Safety #633196), the Bell Pro-Police Helmet, Model SD-600V, worn by Massachusetts State Police Motorcycle Officers, FAILED to meet D.O.T. Standards at the S.R.I. Testing Lab for performance related reasons. Thus the Massachusetts State Police themselves are wearing “improper headgear.” If they do not know that their own helmets are not in compliance, how can they possibly determine that other helmets are not approved?
In 1991 I e-mailed Brook W. Chipman, Public Affairs Director for the Department of Public Safety’s Governor's Highway Safety Bureau, about motorcyclists using the Bell Pro-Police Helmet, Model SD-600V, he responded, “It can't be legally worn in Massachusetts. The Commonwealth's universal motorcycle helmet law is based on the current DOT standard for motorcycle helmets.”
State Police Public Affairs Officer Bob Bird tried to put a positive spin on our findings by stating that the helmet State Police were using had a similar model number, the “SD-600 Tactical Helmet.” That model is NOT a motorcycle helmet and should not be used by officers operating motorcycles. In the event of a collision this helmet would not be able to withstand the energy force and could result in a severe head injury or fatality. The chinstrap alone is not secure enough to remain intact during a severe collision. For motorcycling purposes this helmet can only be considered a “novelty helmet.”
The Massachusetts State Police continue to use that helmet today, even though they are aware, as is the Governor’s Highway Safety Bureau, that the helmet remains on the NHTSA helmet failure list.
The enforcement criteria contained in Senate No. 1943 is based on the criteria handed down in an Order Granting Summary Judgment, Case No.93-0807-J (CM) by the United States District Court of the Southern District of California on May 25, 1995. California was experiencing problems similar to ours, and the Federal court had to step in and stop the abuse.
The bottom line here is that a cruel hoax is being played on motorcycling consumers by Federal and State bureaucracies. Helmet compliance testing appears to be a joke, indeed a hoax. Law enforcement takes advantage of it and it is the motorcyclist who suffers. This abuse must stop. I urge you to give Senate no. 1943 a favorable report and end the harassment.
RE: SENATE NO. 2017
Good Day, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for accepting this testimony today. I am William E. Gannon II, a registered voter from the City of Quincy, an avid motorcycle enthusiast for Forty years, Member of the Massachusetts’ Riders For Justice Committee and Legislative Specialist for Massachusetts Motorcyclists’ Activists.
As well I was nationally certified as a Motorcycle Safety Instructor in 1986, have written a monthly editorial column for the New England Motorcyclist’s Post newspaper since 1986 and I have been an activist for motorcyclist’s civil rights and safety for more than thirty-one years. I am a member of the American Motorcyclist Association, the Motorcycle Riders Foundation and the Modified Motorcycle Association and I have held executive positions in the latter two organizations.
When called upon by Massachusetts’ Governors and Massachusetts’ Registrars of Motor Vehicles, I have recognized my civic duty and have accepted appointments to serve on varied committees related to Motorcycle Safety issues including committees administrated by the Registry of Motor Vehicles and the Governor’s Highway Safety Bureau. Massachusetts and National Motorcycling Communities have honored me with numerous awards over the years for my activism contributions to motorcyclist’s safety and civil rights.
I come before you today, respectfully, to oppose Senate No. 2017.
Senate No. 2017 will increase fines and add further penalties, including probation, for motorcyclists operating in Massachusetts wearing so-called “unapproved” or “novelty helmets,” or for not wearing a helmet at all. A portion of those fines being appropriated for deposit into the Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund. Said fines would also apply if the rider were not wearing “approved” eye protection.
This proposal also calls for motorcyclists to carry $50,00 in Medical Payments insurance.
Senate No. 2017, filed by Senator Stephen Brewer, states that any motorcyclist will be fined “not less than $125, placed on probation or granted a continuance without a finding for operating a motorcycle, or permitting another person to ride as a passenger, without a helmet” and that said helmet meet the American National Standards Institute's standards for protective headgear (i.e. D.O.T. approved).
Presently the penalty for not wearing a helmet, or wearing an “unapproved helmet” in Massachusetts is a Civil Violation with a $35 fine, insurance surcharge and suspension of your license and registration(s) if you don’t pay that fine in a timely manner.
Basically language in Section 1, Subsection (h) of Senate #2017 raises the fines by $90 for not wearing a helmet or not wearing one meeting “D.O.T. Specifications,” plus calls for it to become a Criminal Penalty, which includes “probation” or a “continuance without a finding” penalties.
Subsection (h) of goes on to authorize “that a person may be sentenced to a correctional facility in the commonwealth” regarding penalties outlined therein. I expect that language is aimed at riders from other states to make sure that they pay their fines.
Senate #2017 further states that “the Registrar (of Motor Vehicles) shall prescribe minimum safety standards and construction for protective headgear used by motorcyclists in the commonwealth” and that the “Registrar may adopt any part or all of the American National Standards Institute's standards and construction for protective headgear for vehicular users.”
Mind you that language, in Subsections (d) and (e), meagerly attempts to provide “exceptions” that would disqualify the above-mentioned penalties for riders and passengers “not wearing protective headgear that meets safety standards adopted by the Registrar.”
Why would you pass language calling for the Registrar to adopt “the American National Standards Institute's” and then “exempt” the Registrar’s adoption? That doesn’t make sense.
That language is so vague and ambiguous that most judges would still apply the penalties to those wearing so-called “unapproved” helmets. Based upon the confusion over what is an “unapproved” helmets, and the erroneous ticketing for same that prompted Senator Morrissey to file Senate No. 1943, this language is a potential for genuine crisis.
In this present economy, I can not endorse the language in bills that calls for raising fines. Few in the Massachusetts Motorcycling Community actually do.
Increasing fines has never been a deterrent! Increased speeding fines have not compelled operators to drive the speed limit. We all know that. Just set your cruise control on the speed limit and watch the majority of motor vehicles pass you.
These increased fines would not benefit Massachusetts’ Motorcycling Community. Fines in the hundreds of dollars in this poor economy will likely affect a family’s grocery bills, tuition bills and God knows what else. Thus, with Senate #2017’s proposed language a person convicted of not wearing a helmet or wearing helmets not meeting “D.O.T. Specifications,” would not only see that fine raised by $90.00. Apparently, they will also have a Criminal Record with the introduction of language authorizing that the violator be “placed on probation or granted a continuance without a finding.” Probation presents the prospect of potentially being jailed for a probation violation--- not to mention language in Subsection (h) that actually introduces authorization “that a person may be sentenced to a correctional facility.”
Initially we thought that this bill was authored by anti-motorcycling special interests that we have spent decades fighting. We were surprised to learn that Senate #2017 is filed, and strongly supported by, the Massachusetts Motorcycle Association (MMA). They have been actively lobbying this bill and thus far have gained several legislator co-sponsors for this bill.
However we believe that Senate #2017 is NOT in our best interest!
In Section 1, Subsection (f) borrows content from Senate #1944 that allows riders to make their own choice on helmet use if said riders are “at least 21 years old, had successfully completed a motorcycle safety course”
I can accept that. That’s good.
However, Senate #2017 goes on to state in Subsection (f) that, besides passing the motorcycle safety course, the rider and passenger must be “covered by a health insurance plan providing that person with at least $50,000 in medical benefits for injuries incurred as a result of an accident while operating a motorcycle”
A description of the above-mentioned “health insurance plan” is disclosed in Subsection (i) as: "health insurance plan" means an individual, group, blanket, or franchise insurance policy, insurance agreement, evidence of coverage, group hospital services contract, health maintenance organization membership, or employee benefit plan that provides benefits for health care services or for medical or surgical expenses incurred as a result of a motor cycle accident.
Subsection (i) goes on to state that: provisions of this section shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies only when an operator of a motorcycle has been stopped for a violation of the motor vehicle laws or some other offense--- in other words making this a secondary enforcement measure; like the seatbelt law.
The requirement that motorcyclists to carry $50,000 in medical insurance coverage for both rider and the passenger sets a dangerous precedent. Currently that is an option and, when purchasing that option, one must specify “passenger coverage” or passengers will not be included.
Medical Payments coverage is currently the only no-fault coverage left in Massachusetts.
A change effective January 1, 2009 saw that premium increase significantly and that $50,000 coverage will cost approximately $316.00up to $400.00 annually. Presently these limits will be shared with your passenger and not picked up by health insurance carriers under the 1996 HIPPA Act. If your health carrier does pay, one can expect to have a lien slapped against any proceeds one receives from their motorcycle insurance policy, as your health carrier expects to be reimbursed.
That brings up another issue. Senate #2017’s language is so ambiguous that we wonder if an additional 50,000 in coverage must be purchased to be in compliance for carrying passengers.
Most frightening is that we see this language as an admission that Massachusetts’ Motorcycling Community agrees with the anti-motorcycling advocates’ position that motorcyclists are a burden on society. This language sets a dangerous precedent by actually admitting that motorcyclists need higher coverage than other vehicle operators do because we must be “social burdens.”
I also see this particular language as blatant discrimination! $50,000 Medical Payments coverage is NOT being required for operators of other vehicles. Only motorcyclists! That is concrete discrimination, plain and simple
The description of “a health insurance plan” unveiled in Subsection (I) may delude some motorcyclists to believe that "health insurance plan" may mean coverage through your Blue Cross, HMO, etc. or any other health insurance that you buy or is provided by your employer.
Yet the key words is disclosed in, Subsection (i) are “ for medical expenses incurred as a result of a motor cycle accident”
In Massachusetts, a “Group Health Insurance Plan,” etc. will not cover motor vehicle accidents as the vehicle registration requires minimum insurance coverage with options to purchase higher limits. That must cover the patient.
Said “Group Health Insurance Plan,” etc. will deny coverage for patient’s injuries if they are sustained in a motor vehicle accident. If medical expenses are higher than the amount of coverage you have, additional payments will be taken from your automobile coverage and then from any other motor vehicle insurance in your household before the possibility of your “Group Health Insurance Plan,” etc. kicking in to help.
Your “Group Health Insurance Plan,” etc. is not required to pay when motor vehicle insurance coverage is present. If they do, by some chance pay something towards your injuries, one can expect a lien slapped against any proceeds they receive from their motorcycle insurance policy, your home and any other property. Your “Group Health Insurance Plan,” etc. expects to be reimbursed and has enough lien power to affect your credit record. Thus, you can not take out a new mortgage, loan, etc. until your “Group Health Insurance Plan,” etc. receives their reimbursement.
So basically under present Massachusetts law Section 1, Subsection (i) as of Senate No. 2017 is bunk!
And how would such proof of insurance be enforced by law enforcement to ensure compliance? Would we now have to carry “proof of insurance” documentation on our persons or motorcycles?
I fear increased police harassment through “probable cause” stops to check for proof of insurance even though Subsection (i) calls for it to be a secondary enforcement measure. I expect that section will certainly be removed should this bill move further than this committee.
Massachusetts seatbelt law is a secondary enforcement measure and some legislators work every year to modify the seatbelt law to a primary enforcement measure. I doubt they would allow for another “secondary enforcement measure.”
Subsection (h) calls for the $125 fines collected to be deposited by the court with the treasurer into the Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund--- even more inference that the author admits motorcyclists are “social burdens.”
Understand I am solidly opposed to raising any fines.
But I have to ask--- why would the author choose the Head Injury Trust Fund as beneficiary for their proposed higher fines?
Why wouldn’t the author want those fines to go into the Massachusetts Motorcycle Safety Fund collected by the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Or why not to genuine registered motorcyclists’ charities like the Massachusetts Motorcycle Survivors’ Fund? Why ignore programs benefiting motorcycling?
Motorcyclists living in surrounding states without helmet laws buy so-called “novelty helmets” for traveling through anti-choice states like Massachusetts on their way to New England rallies including Laconia.
Under Senate #2017, those out-of-state riders become fodder for revenue-chasing law enforcement officials while states and local municipalities are experiencing economic hard-times. An out-of-state license plate would automatically opens those riders up to probable cause for “proof of insurance” stops since their states presently do not require such compulsory insurance limits.
Senate #2017 makes it appear that Massachusetts Motorcycling Community is asking for these higher penalties and compulsory coverage. In fact we are very uncomfortable with this petition. We do not endorse language that calls for raising fines and compulsory insurance limits. Few in the Massachusetts Motorcycling Community actually do.
I understand that Senate #2017 is filed and strongly supported by the MMA. The authors of Senate #2017 represent a small, but vocal, minority of Massachusetts’ Motorcycling Community. In fact, the MMA represents less than one-percent of Massachusetts’ Motorcycling Community.
Concerns about Senate #2017 from varied National Motorcyclists’ Activists have been brought to my attention.
Those activists insist that Senate 2017 is an anti-freedom bill that has nothing to do with choice. The author’s assumption of a causal relationship between wearing a helmet and public dependency is total fabrication. Post ergo propter hoc is a fallacy that any legislator-lawyer is required to understand: i.e. because the river flowed after the virgin was thrown into it, it proves that the sacrifice caused the river to rise.
The bottom line here is that Senate #2017 is bad legislation! It sets a dangerous precedent by declaring motorcyclists to be “social burdens” and discriminates against motorcyclists by calling for higher insurance coverage limits for motorcyclists--- but not for operators of other motor vehicles even though statistics show that, in multi-vehicle collisions with motorcycles, the non-motorcyclist is deemed “at fault” in 87% of said collisions. Senate #2017 SHOULD NOT PASS!!!
Instead Massachusetts’ Motorcycling Community asks that you support Senate # 1944 filed by Senator Morrissey entitled, “ An Act Relative to The Modification Of The Helmet Law.” Senate # 1944 states that riders over the age of twenty can make their own choice on helmet use and riders over the age of seventeen can also make their own choice after passing the Motorcycle Safety Course. Simple language. Last session Senate # 1944’s language was the ONLY helmet modification language that stayed alive throughout the legislation session because of this Committee’s positive insight.
Thank you for your kind attention.
RE: SENATE NO. 1944
Good Day, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for accepting this testimony today. I am William E. Gannon II, a registered voter from the City of Quincy, an avid motorcycle enthusiast for Forty years, Member of the Massachusetts’ Riders For Justice Committee and Legislative Specialist for Massachusetts Motorcyclists’ Activists.
As well I was nationally certified as a Motorcycle Safety Instructor in 1986, have written a monthly editorial column for the New England Motorcyclist’s Post newspaper since 1986 and I have been an activist for motorcyclist’s civil rights and safety for more than thirty-one years. I am a member of the American Motorcyclist Association, the Motorcycle Riders Foundation and the Modified Motorcycle Association and I have held executive positions in the latter two organizations.
When called upon by Massachusetts’ Governors and Massachusetts’ Registrars of Motor Vehicles, I have recognized my civic duty and have accepted appointments to serve on varied committees related to Motorcycle Safety issues including committees administrated by the Registry of Motor Vehicles and the Governor’s Highway Safety Bureau. Massachusetts and National Motorcycling Communities have honored me with numerous awards over the years for my activism contributions to motorcyclist’s safety and civil rights.
I come before you today, respectfully, to ask your positive consideration of Senate No. 1944.
Senate #1944, filed by Senator Michael W. Morrissey, entitled “An Act Relative To The Modification Of The Helmet Law,” has been passed by the Joint Committee on Transportation in the past two sessions. Prior to the past two sessions this bill was repeatedly passed by the Joint Committee on Public Safety since 1991. I initially authored this legislation in 1996 and Senator Morrissey has been gracious enough to file it each session since. Last session this bill (then entitled Senate #2076) was referred to the Joint Committee on Transportation January 10th, 2007 and had a Public Hearing on June 26th. On March 26th, 2008 the bill was reported favorably from the Transportation Committee and referred to the committee on Senate Ethics and Rules.
I respectfully ask that this Committee continue your positive inclination for this language again this session and favorably pass this bill out to the full Senate for their initial consideration.
Senate #1944 allows motorcyclists over the age of twenty to make their own choice on helmet use. Senate #1944 also allows motorcyclists over the age of seventeen to make their own choice after passing the Motorcycle Safety Course.
It is time to bring Massachusetts into the 21st Century with respect to helmet use statutes. Thirty other states have voluntary helmet use statutes including our neighbors in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maine and Connecticut. In recent years, the states of Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana and Florida have amended their helmet laws to allow adult choice. Arkansas, Kentucky and Florida had mandated helmet use statutes for as long as Massachusetts--- but they have now progressed. This week, North Carolina has passed legislation to move voluntary helmet use through the approval process as well.
Massachusetts mandated helmet use law was passed in 1967 and signed by Republican Governor Francis Sargent. At that time we were informed that motorcycle fatalities would decrease significantly as would our insurance rated. Neither has happened. In fact the reverse is true.
However, we believe the two biggest issues that must be addressed are:
· The alarmingly high rate, 67%, of helmets on the market today failing to meet Federal safety standards; and
· Law enforcement personnel had been using the helmet law as a conveyance to violate helmeted motorcyclists’ Fourth Amendment rights.
My colleagues and I have spent a considerable amount of time over the years visiting your offices to discuss this issue. We have asked your offices to share your concerns about voluntary helmet use so that we might research the issue and adequately address those concerns.
The concerns that were brought up by your offices were: possible increased fatalities with a voluntary helmet use statute; and the economic impact voluntary helmet use may have on taxpayer supported head injury patients.
Statistical reports that examine the fatalities per ten-thousand registrations in the states that allow voluntary helmet use and those that mandate helmet use show that the pro-choice states have 1.03 fewer fatalities per ten-thousand registrations than the anti-choice states.
In human terms, the increased lives lost in the anti-choice states is of great concern to Massachusetts’ Motorcycling Community and further reason why we believe it important motorcyclists make their own choice with respect to helmet use.
We have attempted to find information that would address your concerns with respect to the economic burden of un-helmeted motorcyclists to the taxpayer. We have checked with government agencies and brain-injury foundations and have learned that no one keeps such data. Therefore we must conclude that such concerns are more based on theory rather than actual fact with respect to helmet use.
However we were able to find a report from the University of North Carolina’s Highway Safety Research Center which concludes that motorcyclists have lower injury severity than other vehicle operators. The report further concluded that motorcyclists are more likely to carry commercial or private insurance than other vehicle operators and are less likely to be dependent on Medicare or Medicaid.
We are also pleased to note a change in the policy of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). For many years NHTSA has taken a strong anti-choice posture with respect to helmet laws. However, in the year 2000, NHTSA worked with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation and developed a report entitled, “National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety.”
I understand you may have seen a copy of NHTSA Traffic Tech Report # 231 Re: Voluntary Motorcycle Helmet Use in Texas and Arkansas.
I’m sure you were confused, as we were, over why the NHTSA evaluation failed to use the statistical measurement of Fatalities per 10,000 Registrations that they normally use in their other reports.
We also immediately observed that their statistical information in the EMS Services portion of the report does not even control for whether the injured motorcyclists were wearing helmets or not.
It is also confusing that this particular NHTSA evaluation does not control for necessary variables including speed, alcohol use, licensing, weather conditions, road conditions, experience and seasonal use. All are important variables that must be controlled for to have an accurate study with respect to motorcycle accidents.
Motorcyclists must take those variables into consideration every time we choose what riding apparel to wear and what accident avoidance strategies to take when riding our motorcycles. It’s part of the “real world” experience of motorcycle riding.
Any first year economics student can tell you that probability does not equal causality, which the NHTSA report attempts to state. With such flawed statistical reporting as this, one understands why the U.S. Congress included language in the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) forbidding NHTSA from using tax dollars to lobby for helmet laws. The United States Congress has determined NHTSA’s credibility to be disreputable with respect to helmet laws.
When we consider the fatality data distributed by NHTSA and the amount of registrations in each state analyzed, and apply the fatalities per ten-thousand registrations measurement, this alters the conclusions contained in Traffic Tech Report # 231 allowing it to be much more credible.
We now see that Arkansas had 6.44 fewer fatalities per 10,000 registrations following the passage of the state’s voluntary helmet use legislation. Texas had 0.94 fewer fatalities per 10,000 registrations following the passage of the state’s voluntary helmet use legislation.
A report from Trial Lawyer Magazine entitled “Hazardous Headgear” details the serious problems with crash helmets on the market. These problems are a major concern to us. Certainly we must consider the Silent Victims of Helmet Use--- those using defective headgear which they bought in good faith and then became seriously injured, deformed or killed because of that “protective headgear.”
In my testimony on Senate No. 1943 I present evidence of regulation police helmets that have failed performance safety testing. Consider victims like Hawaii State Police Officer Burgess, who used that failed police helmet, and is now living with impairment like that of a stroke victim along with partial blindness and hearing loss as a result of that helmet. Or Colorado State Police Officer Winkler, who suffered permanent head injuries. He was also wearing that same police helmet.
Even worse, consider silent victim Laura Walter, once a lovely young lady from Chicago. Her face is now permanently disfigured and she is brain damaged because of the helmet she was wearing. I could go on and on. There are too many of these silent victims.
NHTSA doesn’t put out a brochure to the motorcycling community advising us of these failed helmets. They do not live up to their responsibility of issuing recalls for the high percentage of failures. Nor does the Governor’s Highway Safety Bureau or the Registry of Motor Vehicles provide us with this information.
Thus we have those forgotten Silent Victims of helmet-induced injuries, disfigurement, deformities and deaths. Shouldn’t the choice for the risks we face of possible injuries, disfigurement, deformities and deaths from wearing helmets be ours? Shouldn’t the motorcyclist who makes a decision every day on what footwear, jacket, rain suit, gloves pants and other apparel to use when operating a motorcycle also be considered capable enough to chose what headgear to use? You don’t ride motorcycles, we do. Don’t you believe we know what’s best when operating our vehicles? Armed with this information we are presenting to you today, I do hope you can understand why personal choice is imperative for the adult motorcyclists in taking responsibility for our own safety. Let’s us work together with you and pass a thoughtful piece of legislation that will address your valid concerns about voluntary helmet use while providing both protection and choice for adult motorcycle operators in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It is time to bring Massachusetts into the 21st Century with respect to helmet use statutes. Let us catch up with thirty other states that allow voluntary helmet use. I urge you to give Senate No. 1944 a favorable report.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Legislation Filed to Increase Fines, Penalties and Insurance Requirements for Massachusetts’ Motorcyclists
(October 2, 2009--- Boston, MA) Legislation filed this year will increase fines and add further penalties, including probation, for motorcyclists operating in Massachusetts wearing so-called “unapproved” or “novelty helmets,” or for not wearing a helmet at all, with a portion of those fines being appropriated for deposit into the Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund. Said fines would also apply if the rider was not wearing “approved” eye protection.
This proposal also calls for Massachusetts’ Motorcyclists to carry $50,000.00 in Medical Payments insurance coverage at an additional cost of between $316.00 up to $400.00 annually based on rate changes effective January 1, 2009.
A hearing will be held on this proposal at the Massachusetts State House before the Joint Committee on Transportation this Tuesday, October 6, 2009 in Hearing Room B1 commencing at 11:00 AM.
Senate No. 2017, filed by Senator Stephen Brewer (D-Worcester), states that any motorcyclist will be fined “not less than $125, placed on probation or granted a continuance without a finding for operating a motorcycle, or permitting another person to ride as a passenger, without a helmet” and that said helmet meet “the American National Standards Institute's standards for protective headgear” (i.e. D.O.T. approved).
Presently the penalty for not wearing a helmet, or wearing an “unapproved” helmet in Massachusetts is a Civil Violation with a $35 fine plus an insurance surcharge.
Section 1, Subsection (h) of Senate #2017 not only raises that fine by $90 but also calls for it to become a Criminal Penalty by including “probation” or “continuance without a finding” penalties for those convicted.
Subsection (h) goes on to authorize “that a person may be sentenced to a correctional facility in the commonwealth” regarding penalties outlined therein.
Senate #2017 was filed, and strongly supported by, the Massachusetts Motorcycle Association (MMA). They have been actively lobbying and thus far have gained 17 legislator co-sponsors for Senate #2017.
Senate #2017, entitled the “Helmet Choice Bill” would also modify Massachusetts Helmet Law to allow those riders that allows riders their choice on helmet use if rider is “at least 21 years old, had successfully completed a motorcycle safety course” provided that they carry the expensive $50,000 in Medical Payments coverage on their motorcycle policies.
While the MMA calls Senate #2017 the “Helmet Choice Bill”--- most motorcycle riders find little choice with increased penalties and compulsory $50,000 Medical Payments insurance coverage trade-off. Howard Segermark, long-time Washington D.C. Lobbyist and co-founder of the Motorcycle Rider’s Foundation states, “ as far as my reading is concerned, Senate 2017 is an anti-freedom bill which has nothing to do with choice. The author’s assumption of a causal relationship between wearing a helmet and public dependency is total fabrication and a fallacy that any legislator lawyer is required to understand.
The trade-off requirement that motorcyclists to carry $50,000 in medical insurance coverage sets a dangerous precedence as this language is an admission that the MMA agrees that motorcyclists are a burden on society.
Massachusetts Motorcycling Activist Bill Gannon said, “The MMA is actually admitting that motorcyclists need higher coverage than other vehicle operators because we must be “social burdens” by filing this language. Anti-choice advocates will have a field day with such a documented admission from the MMA.”
Motorcyclists also see this language as blatant discrimination. $50,000 Medical Payments coverage is not being required for operators of other vehicles and motorcyclists being singled out to carry such policies is concrete discrimination.
Currently Medical Payments coverage is an option and currently is the only no-fault coverage left in Massachusetts. A change effective January 1st, 2009 saw that option’s premiums increase significantly and will be approximately $316.00 up to $400.00 annually. When purchasing that option, one must specify “passenger coverage” or passengers will not be included.
Motorcyclists are also concerned that they would need to carry proof of insurance to show law enforcement that they are compliant. The riders fear increased police harassment through “probable cause” stops to check for proof of insurance.
Out-of-State Motorcyclists would automatically be opened up to probable cause for “proof of insurance” stops and ticketing since their states presently do not require such compulsory insurance.
Subsection (h) calls for the $125 fines collected to be deposited by the court with the treasurer into the Head Injury Treatment Services Trust Fund--- more inference that the MMA admits motorcyclists are “social burdens.”
The Head Injury Foundation consistently lobbies against motorcycling and promotes helmet laws in all 50 states.
Serious motorcycling activist consider Senate #2017 is a bad bill that sets a dangerous precedent as well as discriminates against all motorcyclists. All motorcycle riders are urged to attend Tuesday’s public hearing and ask the Committee to kill Senate #2017 and insist that the MMA DOES NOT SPEAK FOR YOU and that you are NOT a “Social Burden!” Insist that you are opposed to higher fines and higher insurance coverage limits! Insist that Senate #2017 discriminates against motorcyclists! Ask your legislator to contact Chairpersons of the Joint Committee on Transportation and say Senate #2017 SHOULD NOT PASS!!!
Instead, motorcyclists are urged to ask the Committee to support Senate # 1944 filed by Senator Morrissey entitled, “ An Act relative to the modification of the helmet law.”
Senate # 1944 states that riders over the age of twenty, and riders over the age of seventeen that pass the Motorcycle Safety Course can make their own choice on helmet use without any silly trade-offs. Last session Senate # 1944 was the ONLY helmet repeal language that stayed alive throughout the entire legislative session, unlike MMA’s repeal bills that died in committee early on. Our auction date is fast approaching! More info Motorcyclists
Slighted by USDOT Distracted Driving Summit Last week, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and the Department of Transportation staged a two-day Distracted Driving Summit in Washington DC: http://tinyurl.com/ncozgx Of all motorists, motorcyclists are the most vulnerable to injury or death as a result of accidents caused by distracted drivers. Yet for some reason, neither the American Motorcyclist Association ("AMA"), nor the Motorcycle Riders Foundation ("MRF"), nor any of the attorney-fronting faux MROs were invited to sit on any Summit panel, give a presentation, or even make a formal statement. In fact, neither "motorcycles" nor "motorcyclists" were even mentioned in the Summit agenda: http://tinyurl.com/yalgzex
Why motorcyclists were slighted is a mystery. Another mystery is how the
federal government managed to issue press release DOT 156-09 summarizing
the conclusions and recommendations coming from the Summit at 1:07pm ET,
when the Summit did not officially conclude until 23 minutes later:
http://tinyurl.com/yekqh2x One would hope that the editor of "Seventeen Magazine", along with all the other traffic safety experts on LaHood's blue-ribbon panels, would have at least recognized the existence of motorcycles as an accepted form of motorized transportation, and acknowledged the right of motorcyclists to safely share the road. To determine whether that was indeed the case, I invite you to watch the recorded two days of webcasts here: http://tinyurl.com/ndklek
If two days is more time than you can spare, you can alternatively read
the detailed notes taken by veteran bikers' rights activist Lynn Wesley,
who made that investment on your behalf:
http://tinyurl.com/y9p3cm8
and
Expect your conclusion to coincide with this observation made on Day 2 by
AMA representative and Summit attendee Imre Sautzer: "For many years,
individuals and groups in the motorcycling community have been working
with all levels of government (particularly state legislators) to insure
all vehicle operators are held accountable for their actions. With all
the recent interest to address distracted driving in our state
legislatures, we believe practical and enforceable laws that protect all
roadway users, particularly vulnerable users such as motorcyclists,
bicyclists and pedestrians, are essential. But I'm concerned that much of
the research and technology discussions that took place yesterday paid
little or no attention to our place in the transportation mix."
If passed, this bill will reduce the amount of Federal highway funding
available to States that do not enact a law prohibiting an individual from
sending or receiving text messages while operating a motor vehicle. Some
will call this a blackmail bill ... some will label it feel-good
legislation ... some will say it'll make no difference ... and some will
assert the reverse. I say it's a far, far cry from what I was hoping
for. As I proposed to Secretary LaHood a few weeks ago, "...motorists who
engage in discretionary distractions must be held accountable for the harm
they cause." And I am sure Summit attendee Greg Zaffke II and thousands
of others who have lost love ones to careless cagers will agree that bans
on texting will do nothing to mitigate a myriad of other discretionary
distractions (like painting fingernails) which are just as dangerous. I
likewise expect little argument to the assertion that distracted driving
(or FTY-ROWV) penalties that are either difficult to enforce, or not
sufficiently severe, will probably be ignored:
Co-Moderator, Bruce-n-RC's Biker Forum
Riders for Justice Testify in Favor of Right-of-Way Legislation at Massachusetts State House - (Boston, MA – September 29th) Gathering out front of Hearing Room B-1 are Paul Cote`, Mark Poynant, Betsy Lister, Bill Gannon and Tom Newhook following their testimonies before the Joint Committee on the Judiciary in favor of House Bill 1405 and in opposition to Senate Bill 1571 that would provide financial remedies for motorcyclists that are injured or killed because of violators impeding a motorcyclists right-of-way. All gathered are active members of the Massachusetts Riders for Justice Committee with the exception of Mark Poynant who is a strong supporter of the committee. (photo by State House Ranger)
Riders Testify In Support Of Right-Of-Way
Violation Legislation -
U.S. House subcommittee to consider banning riding on 9.4 million acres. Hearing on Oct. 1 to focus on a ban of off-highway riding on more than 9 million acres of Utah land PICKERINGTON, Ohio -- In a surprise move, the chairman of a U.S. House subcommittee has scheduled a hearing for next week on a proposal that would ban off-highway motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), and bicycles from more than 9 million acres of public land in Utah, the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports. The AMA is urging all riders to contact their U.S. representatives immediately to ask them to oppose the proposal, H.R. 1925, which is the America's Red Rock Wilderness Act of 2009. Concerned riders can contact their federal lawmakers by going to the Rights section of the AMA website at AmericanMotorcyclist.com and then clicking on the "Issues and Legislation" link. While U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, has yet to officially announce his intention to hold the hearing, the AMA has confirmed that H.R. 1925 will be considered on Thursday, Oct. 1. The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York, would ban motorized recreation on 9.4 million acres of public land in Utah by inappropriately designating it as Wilderness. The devastating proposal would impact the Moab, San Rafael Swell and Chimney Rock riding areas, among others. "The measure is totally unreasonable and completely unacceptable," said Ed Moreland, AMA vice president for government relations. "Continued responsible access to public lands is a vitally important right for current and future generations. "This is just the latest step
in a massive land grab being orchestrated nationwide by anti-access forces
who are seeking to eliminate responsible off-highway riding on public
lands by any means necessary," Moreland said. "They want to turn all
public land into their own exclusive playground. In 1964, Congress approved the
National Wilderness Act that essentially set the criteria for designating
land for Wilderness protection. That law was to preserve land that
"generally appears to have been affected primarily by the force of nature,
with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticed." "The AMA strongly supports properly designated Wilderness areas," Moreland said. "But anti-access opportunists who oppose off-highway riding are misapplying the intent of Wilderness as a means to push responsible riders off our nation's public lands. It is a disturbing trend that, if allowed to continue, may ultimately spell the demise of responsible motorized recreation on public lands. Indeed, as we speak, there are about a dozen Wilderness bills being considered on Capitol Hill that would close about 36 million acres to off-highway riding. It's patently unfair that so many appropriate off-highway riding areas are being taken away without additional new opportunities being introduced." Earlier this year, Congress fast-tracked a bill with little public input that President Obama then signed into law to designate as Wilderness some 2 million acres in several states nationwide. "So with the stroke of a pen,
off-highway riding was banned forever, and even more public land is
threatened now with closure," said Moreland.
City Council rejects proposal to regulate motorcycle noise.
Motorcyclists turn out to testify and persuade some of the
councilors to change their minds. AMA Expresses Concerns Over Health Care Debate Millions of on-highway and off-highway motorcyclists -- as well as all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riders -- may be adversely impacted by the various heath care bills currently under consideration in Congress. The AMA opposes any legislation that may restrict the freedoms of millions of riders enjoying an active lifestyle. Motorcyclists and ATV riders cherish personal freedom and responsibility when it comes to enjoying their passion for riding. As Congress continues to deliberate on health care reform, the AMA needs your help in urging your elected officials not to abdicate the rights of the insured to an unelected commission or board, which will render final decisions regarding appropriate medical coverage for individuals who ride as a mode of transportation or for recreation (e.g., denial of a procedure). We must remain vigilant, thereby helping to ensure that motorcyclists and ATV riders will continue to be able to pursue their chosen recreational pursuit without the addition of unneeded prohibitions, limitations or mandates stemming from the health care legislation under consideration. There is precedent for us to be concerned with regarding any health care legislation coming from Washington. For example in 1996, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) that was intended to ensure non-discrimination in health coverage in the group market. However, when it came to implementing the law, the Department of Labor, the Internal Revenue Service and the Health Care Financing Administration - now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - issued a rule allowing insurers to deny health benefits for an otherwise covered injury that results from certain types of recreational activities, such as skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling or motorcycling. Even though the AMA has fought this discriminatory rule with legislation, this indicates what could happen if a new health care bill is implemented by bureaucrats in Washington using biased data. To voice your concern regarding the various health care bills, it is imperative that you contact your elected officials. The fastest way to reach your members of Congress is to call them. You can find contact information for your elected officials on AmericanMotorcyclist.com, click on "Rights," then "Issues & Legislation," and enter your zip code in the "Find your Officials" box. Additionally, a prewritten e-mail is available for you to send to your officials by following the "Take Action" option and entering your information. All AMA members and anyone else who enjoys an active lifestyle is urged to contact their elected officials and to tell them to protect the freedoms that riders cherish from being dictated by Washington bureaucrats
Citizen Motorcyclists ROAR Their Disapproval of the Boston EPA Stamp Tax Bill Gannon - July 28, 2009
(Boston, MA) - Area motorcyclists gathered last night at Boston’s Hard Rock Café to "Make some meaningful NOISE" by "ROARING" with phone calls over the next two weeks to City Officials and the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.
The message of last night’s second Citizen-Biker Rally at the Hard Rock
Café was co-hosted by the Justice Riders who are Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
against the City of Boston. NOTE: Please go to www.BostonBiker.com or www.JusticeRider.com for reference documents. For Boston Officials contact sheet, see and go online and please print out http://www.cityofboston.gov/citycouncil/pdfs/Electedofficials.pdf
Be cool this ghostly shirt!...
Get your Scary Rider T-shirt at... Available in adult and kid sizes
IMPORTANT...MUST SEE! Malcolm Smith CPSC Protest Video click here
Looking of original content? The Brainrotting Channel: http://www.youtube.com/easyg1409
In May 2008 Graham styles left his home in
South East London and flew to California
where he bought himself a motorcycle. The aim?
To embark on a journey which will take him to every country in
North and South America, and fulfil a long
held dream.
Senate leadership has revived attack on motorized access to public lands PICKERINGTON, Ohio
-- The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 -- which would
prohibit motorized vehicle access by off-highway motorcycles and
all-terrain vehicles to more than 2 million acres of public lands --
has been revived in the Senate, the American Motorcyclist Association
(AMA) reports. OnTheThrottle.tv posts video of Cornerspeed Those who purchase new motorcycles and scooters will save in 2009 PICKERINGTON, Ohio
-- Vehicles eligible for the motorcycle tax deduction added to the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are likely to include on-road
and dual-sport motorcycles, as well as motorscooters and mopeds,
according to the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA). The tax
deduction -- first reported by the AMA on Feb. 14 -- was added at the
eleventh hour to the landmark $787 billion stimulus package that
President Barack Obama signed into law on Feb. 17. From the American Motorcyclist Association AMA Pro Racing Flat Track 2009 Rules Now Posted and Available Online Regulations Now Available For Download at AmaProracing.comDAYTONA BEACH, Fla. (December
23, 2008) - The rules and regulations for the 2009 AMA Pro Racing Flat
Track season were released earlier this week from AMA Pro Racing
headquarters in Daytona Beach. For more info click here
Wagner MotorSports Int'l
Sun & Mon: Closed
Leo's trusty sidekick Rumpy For more photos click here Support
Team Motorcyclist's Post New Transporter!
The new Team Motorcyclist's Post Transporter...for those of you that wish to provide sponsor graphics for the transporter, call MCP Publisher Leo Castell at 203-606-1515
VivaDUCATI's founder, John M. Rossi is a contributing writer to the Motorcyclists' Post
VivaDUCATI.com This Just In: Team Motorcyclist's Post and Logan Myers are very pleased to announce that Fuchs-Silkolene USA will be back on board as a product sponsor for 2008. Team Engineer Mark Bremer reports; "The Silkolene line of high performance lubricants is second to none.We've been running their products in all of our own engines and transmissions with great success. If you have an engine you really care about, it's worth running the best. Their ability to produce extremely high quality products specifically tailored for the severe demands of professional competition is why more Grand National level XR750's are running Silkolene's Castorene R40S than anything else. The XR750 only carries about a quart and a half of oil which reaches temperatures well over 250 degrees running mostly wide open during a 25 lap main event on the mile; there's not many more severe duties for an air-cooled engine than that. We've been running Silkolene's Comp 4 10w-40 in the Honda 450 based machines and engine builder Joe Maney reports he's found little wear characteristics. We also use Silkolene's Synthetic Gear oils, Synthetic Brake Fluid, Pro RSF fork oil, Brake Cleaner, and also their Pro Cool product for the liquid cooled single engines. In every case the Silkolene products perform consistently well despite tough racing conditions. For more information on the entire Fuchs-Silkolene product line, check out www.silkolene.com .
In addition, we are pleased to announce that long time Team Motorcyclist's Post sponsor Ontrack Systems will be providing the team a new XR750 racing chassis for the 2008 season. The new chassis will be the latest in design from J&M Racing Products, tailored to fit team rider LoganMyers. Team Rider Logan Myers reports; "I want to thank Ontrack Systems ( www.get-ontrack.com ) for stepping up to the plate with the new chassis this year; now we'll be able to have two completely competitive XR750's for the 2008 season. I'm working with Mike Owens at J&M to make the frame fit me in specific areas. It should really be a great base on which to build."
Team Motorcyclist's Post Racer Logan Myers gets it on at Monticello Raceway, Monticello, NY.
Tech Page Articles and Reviews Laminar Lip Review by the P. Jamiol Click Here for Mark Bremer's "At the Flicks"
Subscriptions are: Send your name and address along with check or money order to: The Motorcyclist's
Post |
|||
