Blog Feed

May 2006

There was quite a bit of hoopla in SMRO circles last year when the State of Florida passed HB1697 [CHAPTER 2005-164] a.k.a. the “Stiffer Penalties Act”. This legislation was supposed to be a deterrent to careless cagers, but this year’s record Daytona BikeWeek Death Toll of 21 proves otherwise.

Why? Most likely because under the law the price to maim a biker is only $500, and the price to kill one is only $500 more. And while a $1,000 fine may be a deterrent for some, for others it’s simply a bargain rate for a “License to Kill”.

“Madd Ray” Henke of Motorcyclists-Against-Dumb-Drivers.com and I (mostly Ray) came up with some suggestions on making the law more effective and coupling it with a public awareness campaign, which we posted here …

http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/fetch/677184/

… and I summarize here:

With respect to putting teeth into the “Stiffer Penalties” laws, I like your suggestions below regarding

(1) Making the laws specific to “biker” injuries and “biker” deaths;

(2) Increasing the mandatory minimum fines to at least $10,000 (for maiming) and $20,000 (for killing);

(3) Extending the drivers license suspension period to a mandatory minimum of 2 years; and

(4) Combining the laws with, in your words, “… a public relations [and/or awareness] campaign, which would alert the auto driver to a real and substantial penalty, and a penalty which can be most effectively avoided by paying special attention to the protection of the vulnerable motorcyclist.”

USE THESE … OR LOSE THESE

My first thought on a PR campaign would be TV ads, billboards, posters, and other visual media associating

(1) a pair of eyes to “Use These”, and

(2) a drivers license and set of car keys to “Lose These”.

The intended message would of course be that if cagers don’t watch for motorcycles, they stand to lose their driving privileges for 2 years.

We sent out a Request for Comments, and the first one we received was from Marc Livesey who wrote:

“Would it not be fair to all affected from a death that the law does not discriminate (think of a reverse prejudice). The laws should not be just for bikers in this instance.”

To this comment, respected motorcyclists’ rights advocate Susan ‘Miss Red’ Huttmann posted the following endorsement …

http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/fetch/677273

… and to that posting I take grave exception, as I detail here now:

Miss Red said:

Folks-I agree with Marc about the scope we must consider. While it is paramount that as bikers we pursue and promote our rights, it is just as important that we be realistic. As citizens of this state we must work toward the goal of equitable consideration for ALL citizens on our streets, roads and highways.

IronBoltBruce says:

Life is not about “fair”. Life is about kill or be killed, and survival of the fittest. Likewise, American politics is not about “equity”. Both Democrats and Republicans claim to represent the people, but don’t think for a moment that either party gives a tinker’s damn about being “equitable” with the other.

Miss Red said:

It is by reminding others that bikers are an integral segment of the community that cares about the safety of everyone NOT only riders, we all benefit.

IronBoltBruce says:

The mission of MROs, and the role of bikers’ rights activists, is NOT to worry about the “safety of everyone”. Our job is to protect the rights and promote the interests of bikers and bikers alone. We are a special interest group, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, the more we focus on those special interests, the more “all” will benefit.

Miss Red said:

Anyone that uses a vehicle of any type needs to be held accountable for unlawful action. No part of the population is immune from the danger of being injured or killed by someone else and no one is excused from their legal responsibility for inflicting harm on someone else. We need to be willing to recognize and accept our own role in our community’s social welfare.

IronBoltBruce says:

In the context of bikers’ rights activism, philanthropy has no place unless it can be leveraged or exchanged for political capital … and “Kumbaya” makes a pretty lame battle cry. Our role is to make cagers accountable for their actions, NOT to police the actions of our own. We wear patches, not badges.

Miss Red said:

There are ways to let your neighbors, local businesses and law enforcement understand you are fighting for the right of EVERY man, woman and child to be able to move place to place for school, work, personal business and recreation without the constant threat of an assault by a careless motorist OR motorcyclist.

IronBoltBruce says:

Yes, and there are ways to let “… your neighbors, local businesses and law enforcement” know that bikers are no longer going to donate to their charities, buy their products or make their lives easier unless they start respecting our civil rights in rulemaking as well as our right-of-way on the road.

Miss Red said:

It makes no more sense to exclude the majority of the population from any safety campaign as it does for the state of Florida to exclude motorcyclists from theirs.

IronBoltBruce says:

The point is not to exclude any group from safety considerations. The point is to focus attention on the safety of one group, i.e. bikers, i.e. the group bikers’ rights activists are supposed to champion. The point is to decrease the impact of inattentional blindess by increasing the expectation of risk, harm or loss associated with “not seeing” motorcycles and maiming or killing bikers. The safety of cagers should NOT be a major concern of ours, because I can assure you our safety is no major concern of theirs. Besides, enough will be lost in the give and take of political compromise. We don’t need to give it all away up front.

Miss Red said:

Like it or not, we are all in this together. I am NOT suggesting we abandon our passionate commitment to safety awareness related to motorcycles but remember, we are not isolated from the rest of our communities, we are members of them.

IronBoltBruce says:

Yes, we are all in “this” together. But we need to recognize that “this” is a WAR, with battles being fought in Washington, in every state capitol, and on every street and highway. And as it is with all wars, ” … to the victors go the spoils”.

Miss Red said:

We need to look beyond our organizations, clubs and colors and take in the entire view of the road safety landscape. Although, our SMRO leadership may not agree, the landscape also reaches across the border of the sunshine state and into every state in the union.

IronBoltBruce says:

In the current Floridian context, using “SMRO” and “leadership” in the same sentence is an oxymoron. Otherwise yes, it is important that we focus on the big picture, and that we share strategies, information and resources across and beyond state lines. That is a big, big part of what my website, forum and email communications effort is all about.

Miss Red said:

What we accomplish here … as well as what we fail to do defines us like it or not. It’s time to remind ourselves and others of just what we can do when we put our minds to it.

IronBoltBruce says:

I couldn’t agree more with what you say here, Miss Red.

But even if I didn’t, I would “… defend to the death your right to say it!”

Until Next Time … Ride Long, Ride Free!

April 2006

On Tuesday, March 14 2006, Miami-Herald columnist Fred Grimm (fgrimm@MiamiHerald.com) published a slanderous attack on bikers everywhere. I encourage every self-respecting American motorcyclist to read it and respond … not just by emailing Fred … but by emailing his editor as well (HeraldEd@herald.com):

http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/fetch/659996/

Here is my response, point by point:

Fred Grimm said:

This year’s edition of that raucous good time called Bike Week racked up 18 deaths.

Eighteen deaths would represent a particularly gruesome week for the U.S. military. Last week, as the fun was unfolding in Daytona Beach, a total of seven soldiers were killed in Iraq.

Eighteen deaths in another sort of festival might raise serious questions about the wisdom of promoting an annual outbreak of utter mayhem. Imagine the pall that 18 corpses might cast over the Fort Myers Beach Shrimp Festival, the Bonita Spring Art Festival, the Arcadia Rodeo or Jacksonville’s All-Florida Championship Cheerleading Challenge. All of these events managed to make it through this past weekend without a related death.

Thousands of revelers danced down Calle Ocho in Miami without inflicting fatal injuries on one another.

IronBoltBruce says:

The death toll for Bike Week is now 20, not 18. Updated statistics are available here:

http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/DaytonaDeaths2006.xls

And on average, Fred, EVERY week in Florida 68 people are slaughtered on our highways while another 16 are murdered, 130 are raped, 544 are robbed and 1,575 are assaulted. I’d say that–outside of Iraq, of course–the saddle of my Harley seems like a relatively safe place to be!

Click to access 2005SA_CIF.pdf

Fred Grimm said:

In Iraq, of course, well-armed insurgents are bent on killing American soldiers. In Daytona, attendees at America’s deadliest jamboree mostly do it to themselves.

IronBoltBruce says:

Not true, Fred. Ten of the riders who died during Bike Week were killed by careless cagers, many if not most of whom will literally get away with murder for the price of a traffic ticket.

Fred Grimm said:

In Florida, however, biker deaths are recorded on a different ledger. Since the Florida law requiring motorcycle riders to wear crash helmets was repealed in 2000, the official position has been that the 81 percent increase in biker deaths has been a meaningless statistical aberration which should have no bearing on public policy.

IronBoltBruce says:

I agree with your implication here, Fred. Bikers and cagers should NOT be on different ledgers when it comes to the additional safety afforded by helmets. As wearing a helmet purportedly increases the safety of ANY motor vehicle operator or passenger, perhaps our public policy should mandate that ALL motor vehicle operators and passengers wear them!

Which lid will you choose, Fred? Bell? Shoei? A beanie, full coverage, or something in between? And let me know if your wife or girlfriend wants a “Hairdo by Helmet” sticker for hers!

Fred Grimm said:

Anti-helmet law activists maintain that the numbers have been skewed anyway by a conspiracy of trauma docs and insurance companies and medical examiners and highway safety busybodies and hospital bean counters and know-it-all editorial writers — none of whom appreciate the joy of wind in the hair and asphalt in the frontal lobe. The initial reports out of Daytona Beach indicate that at least 12 of the 18 bikers killed during Bike Week were riding bareheaded when they crashed.

IronBoltBruce says:

Actually, Fred, 6 of the 10 bikers murdered by cagers during Daytona Bike Week WERE wearing helmets … and died anyway.

Fred Grimm said:

Yes, but weren’t they exercising their God-given American right to crack unprotected skulls into any roadside attraction of their choosing? Which ought to be fine, as long as bikers then have the good manners to succumb. It’s those who insist on lingering around hospital trauma centers whose personal freedoms intrude on the
commonweal[th].

By last week, midway through Bike Week, 34 bikers had been admitted to Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach. Halifax spokeswoman Kate Holcomb said 15 of those were housed in the trauma wards with severe injuries, running up prodigious medical bills. She said the hospital would need another day to total up biker admissions from Wednesday to Sunday.

Last year, 60 easy riders were admitted to Halifax with serious injuries during Bike Week. In 2004, the number was 78. The hospital has complained for years that few of the motorcyclists hauled into their trauma ward have bothered with a state requirement that anyone riding without a helmet purchase a $10,000 personal-injury policy. Although, as Holcomb noted Monday, “That would barely pay for their helicopter ride to the hospital.”

The costs of treating uninsured and underinsured bikers has risen from $20 million a year in 2000 to $50 million last year — a big chunk of that money going to treat head trauma victims.

IronBoltBruce says:

I believe you are bastardizing a couple of figures taken from this NHTSA report:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/FlaMCReport/pages/lawchange.htm

The numbers refer to two 30-month periods (1/98 to 6/00, and 7/00 to 12/02), Fred, not to the two years 2000 and 2005. That’s an easy mistake to make for someone who doesn’t read past the headlines, but as a “professional” journalist, YOU should be held to a higher standard.

Nevertheless, Americans spend about $2 trillion a year on healthcare, Fred, which makes the $50 million you refer to statistically insignificant (0.0025%). Over 46 million Americans have no health insurance, Fred, and with annual per capita healthcare expenditures averaging $6,000, that exposes the “commonwealth” to a potential burden of $276 billion. If you are seriously interested in reducing the public’s healthcare costs, Fred, why don’t you tackle THAT problem?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june06/healthcare_1-10.html

Fred Grimm said:

But no one expects the Florida Legislature to resurrect the mandatory helmet law. Polls indicate that 80 percent of the general public would support a helmet law. No matter. Lawmakers don’t dare stir up the biker lobby, which can summon 30,000 unmuffled hogs to come roaring into Tallahassee and stage a fearsome rolling demonstration of middle-aged pseudo outlaws on Harleys.

They disguise their paunches under black leather vests with bold inscriptions: LIVE FREE OR DIE (or maybe convalesce at the public expense). Besides, so many bareheaded riders would likely rack up another big death toll.

IronBoltBruce says:

Wrong again, Fred. The most recent Florida public opinion poll I’ve seen indicated that 68% of those surveyed were AGAINST a mandatory helmet law:

http://www.baynews9.com/Vote.cfm?EVENT=Vote&pollid=232&action=results

And if you have a problem with people hiding their paunches, Fred, then why don’t you go after the cosmetic surgeons and their portly patients? That way, you’ll be keeping it real and cutting healthcare costs at the same time!

And if you have a problem with “LIVE FREE OR DIE”, Fred, then I have a problem with YOU living in a nation that was founded on that principle.

Until Next Time … Ride Long, Ride Free!

March 2006

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently published their Amendments to Highway Safety Program Guidelines [Docket No. NHTSA-2005-23090], which issues a public request for comments (RFC) on six proposed amendments, including significant changes to Motorcycle Safety Guideline No. 3.

The open comment period is currently set to close on March 13, which gives motorcyclists’ rights advocates a narrow but crucial window of opportunity to voice their opinion on the proposed changes. With the hope this might encourage freedom fighters everywhere to stand up and speak your mind, here is some information to help you decide on WHAT to say and HOW to say it.

WHAT TO SAY

No matter whether you want to comment on helmet-related or other motorcycle-related issues … and regardless of whether your message is pro- or anti-helmet or pro- or anti-helmet law (which are not the same thing) … I suggest you keep your comments within the context of the specific guideline changes that NHTSA is proposing. To expedite your analysis of those changes, you can review the side-by-side comparison of the current versus proposed wording of Motorcycle Safety Guideline No. 3 presented below.

A word to the wise: If you are truly opposed to helmet wearing as well as helmet laws, you may be tempted to make the all too common and unfortunate assertions that helmets are unsafe, that they block peripheral vision, or that their weight can cause neck injuries. None of these claims are absolute truths, and you will gain no ground with NHTSA by attempting to use them to challenge their helmet guidelines. NexlSports.com, for example, offers a half-coverage “beanie” helmet that (a) does not impair peripheral vision, (b) weighs no more than 26 ounces, and (c) is fully compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218.

NHTSA HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAM
GUIDELINE No. 3
MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

(current NHTSA guidelines)
[Introduction]

Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions, should have a comprehensive program to promote motorcycle safety and prevent motorcycle-related injuries. To be effective in reducing the number of motorcycle crash deaths and injuries, State programs should address the use of helmets and other protective gear, proper licensing, impaired riding, rider training, conspicuity, and motorist awareness. This Motorcycle Safety Program Guideline will assist States and local communities in the development and implementation of effective motorcycle safety programs.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
[Introduction]

Each State, in cooperation with its political subdivisions and tribal governments, should develop and implement a comprehensive highway safety program, reflective of State demographics, to achieve a significant reduction in traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries on public roads. The highway safety program should include a comprehensive motorcycle safety program that aims to reduce motorcycle crashes and related deaths and injuries. Each comprehensive State motorcycle safety program should address the use of helmets (meeting Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218) and other protective gear, proper licensing, impaired riding, rider training, conspicuity and motorist awareness. This guideline describes the components that a State motorcycle safety program should include and the criteria that the program components should meet.

(current NHTSA guidelines)
I. Program Management

Each State should identify the nature and extent of its motorcycle safety problems, establish goals and objectives for the State’s motorcycle safety program, and implement projects to reach the goals and objectives. State motorcycle safety plans should:

A. Designate a lead agency for motorcycle safety;
B. Develop funding sources;
C. Collect and analyze data on motorcycle safety;
D. Identify the State’s motorcycle safety problem areas;
E. Develop programs (with specific projects) to address problems;
F. Coordinate motorcycle projects with those for the general motoring public;
G. Integrate motorcycle safety into community/corridor traffic safety and other injury control programs; and
H. Include passage and enforcement of mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
I. Program Management

Each State should have centralized program planning, implementation and coordination to identify the nature and extent of its motorcycle safety problems, to establish goals and objectives for the State’s motorcycle safety program and to implement projects to reach the goals and objectives. State motorcycle safety plans should:

· Designate a lead agency for motorcycle safety;
· Develop funding sources;
· Collect and analyze data on motorcycle crashes, injuries and fatalities;
· Identify and prioritize the State’s motorcycle safety problem areas;
· Encourage collaboration among agencies and organizations responsible for, or impacted by, motorcycle safety issues;
· Develop programs (with specific projects) to address problems;
· Coordinate motorcycle safety projects with those for the general motoring public;
· Integrate motorcycle safety into State strategic highway safety plans, and other related highway safety activities including impaired driving, occupant protection, speed management and driver licensing programs; and
· Routinely evaluate motorcycle safety programs and services.

(current NHTSA guidelines)
II. Motorcycle Personal Protective Equipment

Each State should encourage motorcycle operators and passengers to use the following protective equipment:

A. Motorcycle helmets that meet the Federal helmet standard (their use should be required by law);
B. Proper clothing, including gloves, boots, long pants, and a durable long-sleeved jacket; and
C. Eye (which should be required by law) and face protection.
Additionally, each passenger should be provided a seat and footrest.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
II. Motorcycle Personal Protective Equipment

Each State should support passage and enforcement of mandatory all-rider motorcycle helmet use laws. In addition, each State should encourage motorcycle operators and passengers to use the following protective equipment through an aggressive communication campaign:

· Motorcycle helmets that meet the Federal helmet standard;
· Proper clothing, including gloves, boots, long pants and a durable longsleeved jacket; and
· Eye and face protection.
Additionally, each passenger should have a seat and footrest.

(current NHTSA guidelines)
III. Motorcycle Operator Licensing

States should require every person who operates a motorcycle on public roadways to pass an examination designed especially for motorcycle operation and to hold a license endorsement specifically authorizing motorcycle operation. Each State should have a motorcycle licensing system that requires:

A. Motorcycle operator’s manual;
B. Motorcycle license examination, including knowledge and skill tests, and State licensing medical criteria;
C. License examiner training;
D. Motorcycle license endorsement;
E. Motorcycle license renewal requirements;
F. Learner’s permit issued for a period of 90 days and limits on the number or frequency of learner’s permits issued per applicant; and
G. Penalties for violation of motorcycle licensing requirements.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
III. Motorcycle Operator Licensing

States should require every person who operates a motorcycle on public roadways to pass an examination designed especially for motorcycle operation and to hold a license endorsement specifically authorizing motorcycle operation. Each State should have a motorcycle licensing system that requires:

· Motorcycle operator’s manual that contains essential safe riding information;
· Motorcycle license examination, including knowledge and skill tests, and State licensing medical criteria;
· License examiner training specific to testing of motorcyclists;
· Motorcycle license endorsement;
· Cross referencing of motorcycle registrations with motorcycle licenses to identify motorcycle owners who may not have the proper endorsement;
· Motorcycle license renewal requirements;
· Learner’s permits issued for a period of 90 days and the establishment of limits on the number and frequency of learner’s permits issued per applicant to encourage each motorcyclist to get full endorsement; and
· Penalties for violation of motorcycle licensing requirements.

(current NHTSA guidelines)
IV. Motorcycle Rider Education and Training

Safe motorcycle operation requires specialized training by qualified instructors. State should establish a State Motorcycle Rider Education Program that provides

A. Source of program funding;
B. State organization to administer the program;
C. Use of Motorcycle Safety Foundation curriculum or equivalent State-approved curriculum;
D. Reasonable availability of rider education courses for all interested residents legal riding age;
E. Instructor training and certification;
F. Incentives for successful course completion such as licensing skills test exemption;
G. Quality control of the program;
H. Ability to purchase insurance for the program;
I. State guidelines for conduct of the program; and
J. Program evaluation.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
IV. Motorcycle Rider Education and Training

Safe motorcycle operation requires specialized training by qualified instructors. Each State should establish a State Motorcycle Rider Education Program that has:

· A source of program funding;
· A state organization to administer the program;
· A mandate to use the Stateapproved curriculum;
· Reasonable availability of rider education courses for all interested residents of legal riding age;
· A documented policy for instructor training and certification;
· Incentives for successful course completion such as licensing test exemption;
· A plan to address the backlog of training, if applicable;
· State guidelines for conduct and quality control of the program; and
· A program evaluation plan.

(current NHTSA guidelines)
V. Motorcycle Operation While Impaired by Alcohol or Other Drugs

Each State should ensure that programs addressing impaired driving include a focus motorcycles.

The following programs should include an emphasis on impaired motorcyclists:
A. Community/corridor traffic safety and other injury control programs;
B. Public information and education campaigns;
C. Youth impaired driving programs;
D. Law enforcement programs;
E. Judge and prosecutor training programs;
F. Anti-impaired driving organizations; and
G. College and school programs.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
V. Motorcycle Operation Under the Influence of Alcohol or Other Drugs

Each State should ensure that programs addressing impaired driving include an impaired motorcyclist component. The following programs should be used to reach impaired motorcyclists:

· Community traffic safety and other injury control programs, including outreach to motorcyclist clubs and organizations;
· Youth anti-impaired driving programs and campaigns;
· High visibility law enforcement programs and communications campaigns;
· Judge and prosecutor training programs;
· Anti-impaired driving organizations’ programs;
· College and school programs;
· Workplace safety programs;
· Event-based programs such as motorcycle rallies, shows, etc.; and
· Server training programs.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
VI. Legislation and Regulations

Each State should enact and enforce motorcycle-related traffic laws and regulations, including laws that require all riders to use motorcycle helmets compliant with the Federal helmet standard. Specific policies should be developed to encourage coordination with appropriate public and private agencies in the development of regulations and laws to promote motorcycle safety.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
VII. Law Enforcement

Each State should ensure that State and community motorcycle safety programs include a law enforcement component. Each State should emphasize strongly the role played by law enforcement personnel in motorcycle safety. Essential components of that role include:

· Developing knowledge of motorcycle crash situations, investigating crashes, and maintaining a reporting system that documents crash activity and supports problem identification and evaluation activities;
· Providing communication and education support;
· Providing training to law enforcement personnel in motorcycle safety, including how to identify impaired motorcycle operators and helmets that do not meet FMVSS 218; and
· Establishing agency goals to support motorcycle safety.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
VIII. Highway Engineering

Traffic engineering is a critical element of any crash reduction program. This is true not only for the development of programs to reduce an existing crash problem, but also to design transportation facilities that provide for the safe movement of motorcyclists and all other motor vehicles.
Balancing the needs of motorcyclists must always be considered. Therefore, each State should ensure that State and community motorcycle safety programs include a traffic-engineering component that is coordinated with enforcement and educational efforts. This engineering component should improve the safety of motorcyclists through the design, construction, operation and maintenance of engineering measures. These measures may include, but should not be limited to:

· Considering motorcycle needs when selecting pavement skid factors; and
· Providing advance warning signs to alert motorcyclists to unusual or irregular roadway surfaces.

(current NHTSA guidelines)
VI. Motorcycle Rider Conspicuity and Motorist Awareness Programs

State motorcycle safety programs should emphasize the issues of rider conspicuity and motorist awareness of motorcycles. These programs should address:

A. Daytime use of motorcycle lights;
B. Brightly colored clothing and reflective materials for motorcycle riders and motorcycle helmets with high daytime and nighttime conspicuity;
C. Lane positioning of motorcycles to increase vehicle visibility;
D. Reasons why motorists do not see motorcycles; and
E. Ways that other motorists can increase their awareness of motorcyclists.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
IX. Motorcycle Rider Conspicuity and Motorist Awareness Programs

State motorcycle safety programs, communication campaigns and state motor vehicle operator manuals should emphasize the issues of rider conspicuity and motorist awareness of motorcycles. These programs should address:

· Daytime use of motorcycle headlights;
· Brightly colored clothing and reflective materials for motorcycle riders and motorcycle helmets with high daytime and nighttime conspicuity;
· Lane positioning of motorcycles to increase vehicle visibility;
· Reasons why motorists do not see motorcycles; and
· Ways that other motorists can increase their awareness of motorcyclists.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
X. Communication Program

States should develop and implement communications strategies directed at specific high-risk populations as identified by data. Communications should highlight and support specific policy and progress underway in the States and communities and should be culturally relevant and appropriate to the audience. States should:

· Focus their communication efforts to support the overall policy and program;
· Review data to identify populations at risk; and
· Use a mix of media strategies to draw attention to the problem.

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
[XI. Missing, Excluded or Omitted]

(proposed NHTSA guidelines)
XII. Program Evaluation and Data

Both problem identification and continual evaluation require effective record keeping by State and local government. The State should identify the frequency and types of motorcycle crashes. After problem identification is complete, the State should identify appropriate countermeasures.
The State should promote effective evaluation by:

· Supporting the analysis of police crash reports involving motorcyclists;
· Encouraging, supporting and training localities in process, impact and outcome evaluation of local programs;
· Conducting and publicizing statewide surveys of public knowledge and attitudes about motorcycle safety;
· Maintaining awareness of trends in motorcycle crashes at the national level and how trends might influence activities statewide;
· Evaluating the use of program resources and the effectiveness of existing countermeasures for the general public and high-risk population; and
· Ensuring that evaluation results are used to identify problems, plan new programs and improve existing programs.

HOW TO SAY IT

You can submit comments in writing to:

Docket Management, Room PL-401
400 Seventh Street, SW.
Washington, DC 20590
Alternatively, you can submit your comments electronically by logging onto the DOT Docket Management System website (assuming it is back online):

http://dms.dot.gov/submit/

Their electronic submissions help page is here:

>http://dms.dot.gov/help/es_help.cfm

Again, the current deadline for comments is March 13 2006, so please do your homework and file your comments as soon as possible.

Until Next Time … Ride Long, Ride Free!

February 2006

There is an SMRO in every state, and over 40 of them use “ABATE” in their name or as an acronym. Although no two of these groups are exactly alike, the organizational chart of every SMRO has members at its base, and state leaders at the top. In between, there may be zero, one or two layers of subdivisions referred to as regions, districts, counties, charters or chapters. Where these middle layers exist, the membership elects (or less preferably, the local leadership appoints) delegates to represent them at the state level. One SMRO summarizes the role like this:

“Chapter input discussed at chapter meetings is taken to the Board of Directors by State Board Reps to be communicated to the other chapters. Information concerning your freedom to ride is brought back to you from these meetings.”–ABATE of Illinois

For those of you who serve or aspire to serve as an SMRO State Delegate or State Rep, I offer the following Seven Rules of Representation:

Rule #1: Learn the Ropes

“Knowledge is power.”–Francis Bacon

How you perform your role as a state delegate literally determines whether the members you represent have an effective voice at the state level. So take your job seriously, and learn the ropes. Your constituents have rights to be protected and interests to be advocated, and it is your job to act on their agenda within the framework of the state meeting. Such meetings are usually governed by two primary sets of rules:

• Your SMRO’s Articles and By-Laws, and
• Robert’s Rules of Order

You may be able to download a copy of your Articles and By-Laws from your state website. If not, request a copy from your State Secretary. As for Robert’s Rules of Order, I recommend you get a copy of the Plain English version by Doris P. Zimmerman (ISBN 0062734768).

Read them. Learn them. Know them. Recognize when they are being applied incorrectly or to your detriment. Leverage them when they can be applied to your benefit.

Rule #2: Show Up

“90 percent of politics is showing up.”–Author Unknown

SMROs typically schedule their state meetings monthly, bi-monthly or quarterly. Find out when and where the meetings will be held, and be sure that you can expect to attend all or substantially all of them. If you cannot, it is probably in the best interests of your member constituency to let someone else serve instead.

If you commit to serve as a state delegate, then commit to attend every state meeting. If you must miss one due to illness or emergency, make it your job to see that a qualified alternate shows up in your place. Do everything you can to help them prepare for the meeting, and get with them afterwards to learn what transpired, and assure that all your bases are covered.

Rule #3: Show Up Alert

“Alertness must be bred into every soldier. I don’t give a fuck for a man who’s not always on his toes.”–George S. Patton

An SMRO is a political organization, and promoting any political agenda entails a certain amount of schmoozing. A gathering of bikers like your SMRO’s state meeting is also likely to entail a certain amount of … socializing. Remember that you are there to do a job, and your brothers and sisters back home are counting on you to do it well. That’s not likely to happen if you enter the meeting with bloodshot eyes, exhausted from the prior night’s camaraderie.

You owe it to your constituents to show up alert, so save the socializing for afterwards.

Rule #4: Show Up Early

“The early bird gets the worm.”–Author Unknown

One reason the South lost the Battle of Gettysburg, and consequently the war, is because Union General G.K. Warren took the strategic high ground of Little Round Top before the Confederates realized it was unmanned. Yes, showing up early offers advantages in many situations, including SMRO state meetings:

If your SMRO Board of Directors meets immediately prior to the general meeting, be sure to sit in on the their session. This may give you invaluable insight into the issues and agenda for the general meeting to follow, and time to prepare your related questions and responses. It will also double your exposure to the issues, and thereby decrease the chance that you might overlook something important when reporting back to your constituents.

Rule #5: Speak Up

“Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak.”–Winston Churchill

Once the SMRO state meeting convenes, doing your job as a state delegate requires a lot more listening than speaking. And, you need to keep in mind that waiting to speak is not the same thing as listening. Nevertheless, there will be times when advocating the interests of your constituents mandates that you speak up. And when those times arise, SPEAK UP!

When I say “speak up”, I don’t mean “blurt out”. SMRO meetings have a structure, and knowing when and how to say something is crucial. When your constituents give you questions, issues, motions or resolutions to present at the state meeting, review your By-Laws and Robert’s Rules of Order to make sure you know when to raise your hand, and what to say when you stand.

Rule #6: Take Notes

“The old forget, the young don’t know.”–German Proverb

Shaved heads and skull caps do not hide the fact that there’s a lot of gray hair at most SMRO state meetings. And the grayer the hair, the more likely that the head growing it is suffering from CRS (Can’t Remember Shit).

I have always been amazed at the number of delegates I see walking into state meetings without so much as a gum wrapper and dirty fingernail to take notes with! Maybe they’re all loaded with ginseng … or perhaps even gifted with total recall….

Unless you are one of these gifted few, I urge you to stick a pen and pad in your saddlebags, and take them out and USE THEM to jot down every important item covered at your state meeting. That way, the only thing you’ll need to remember after you ride home is where you put the pad.

Rule #7: No Excuses

“The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.”–Robert Burns

Let’s face it, folks. Sometimes, shit happens. If you forget to strap your saddlebag, and the state meeting minutes you painstakingly took are caught by a gust of night wind as you ride across the bay bridge … or, if you couldn’t take those notes because five minutes into the meeting you sprained two of your writing fingers trying frantically to change the battery in your hearing aid … or, if you missed the meeting altogether because faulty wiring for your new XM radio speakers caused your faithful GeezerGlide to lose fire five miles outside of East Jesus, and ten miles short of cell phone range … don’t give up, for all is not lost.

If disasters like these ever befall you, simply ask another state delegate who attended the meeting to share their notes with you. Notice that I said “notes”, not recollections. It has been my experience that notes taken by females tend to be more complete and easier to read than males (and I don’t mean to offend either gender by sharing that). You might also consider calling your State Secretary and ask for their notes as well. That way, there won’t be any surprises when the official minutes for the state meeting are published.

Until Next Time … Ride Long, Ride Free!

January 2006

As of this writing, there are at least 417,000 registered motorcycles in the state of Florida, about 7,000 (1.7%) of the riders of which are members of ABATE of Florida, Inc. There are also at least 150,000 registered motorcycles in the state of Indiana, about 27,000 (18.0%) of the riders of which are members of ABATE of Indiana, Inc. Stated another way, although Indiana has less than half as many motorcycles as Florida, their SMRO is almost 4 times as large, and their recruitment penetration percentage is over 10 times higher.

I was struck by this vast contrast in organizational impact, and decided it might be enlightening to do a little web research on the matter. I identified four factors that may explain a significant part of the difference:

• web presence,
• lobbying record,
• safety resources, and
• operating approach.

Web Presence

I began my research by logging on to the websites of the two SMROs under study:

• AbateFlorida.com
• AbateofIndiana.org

“Night and day” would be a fair capsule of the comparison. I found the home page of AbateFlorida.com, for example, to be amateurish, dull and rather depressing. Much of the content seemed stale, and the site offered limited user interaction. AbateofIndiana.org, on the other hand, was distinctively more professional, vibrant and alluring. The content included current newsfeeds, and transactions for everything from memberships to course registrations to merchandise were offered online.

If you go strictly by web presence, it is easy to see how AbateofIndiana.org might be ten times more effective at attracting new members than AbateFlorida.com.

Lobbying Record

ABATE of Florida has a full-time paid lobbyist. ABATE of Indiana does not. In Florida, helmets are not required if you are over 20 years of age with a minimum of $10,000 in medical insurance. In Indiana, except for instructional permit holders, helmets are not required if you are over 17. That means young riders can start to experience “freedom of the road” 3 years earlier in Indiana, which should make membership in an organization pledged to defending those rights more appealing to the younger riders there.

I have no statistics as to whether or how much ABATE of Indiana has capitalized on this particular advantage. The look, feel, content and imagery of their website, however, definitely reflects the influence of a younger, more web-literate demographic than their counterparts in Florida.

Safety Resources

ABATE of Florida unquestionably pays far more attention to motorcycle safety in the real world than they do to their motorcycle safety and awareness program (MSAP) web page … which as of this writing has not been updated since the spring of 2003. Yet even acknowledging their fledgling affiliation with the Florida Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), their safety resources pale in comparison to those of ABATE of Indiana:

ABATE of Indiana contracts with the state to provide the Indiana Motorcycle Operator Safety Education Program, and offers over 150 MSF-certified safety instructors available to teach the courses. This high-visibility state-SMRO partnership is not only a major source of revenue but also a significant opportunity for publicity and member recruiting that ABATE of Florida simply does not have.

Operating Approach

I am told that ABATE of Florida has only one or two paid state office employees, whereas ABATE of Indiana has seven or eight full-time employees staffing the state HQ. That should clearly give Indiana an edge, in that about four times as many people are being paid to champion the interests of less than half as many motorcyclists. ABATE of Florida necessarily enlists, elects and appoints volunteers to fill the breach, but a chronic drawback with that approach is that the criteria for filling key positions can easily end up being favoritism, popularity or expedience more so than proficiency, experience and expertise.

Volunteers are vital to any grassroots organization, but so is proficiency in key marketing (e.g. member recruiting and retention) and administrative (e.g. membership services and database management) functions. If ABATE of Indiana can justify a full-time professional office staff, ABATE of Florida should easily be able to do so with a market base almost three times as large.

Conclusion

The objective of this analysis has been neither to praise nor pan ABATE of Florida or ABATE of Indiana, as there are many noble and dedicated freedom fighters in the ranks of both. Rather, by comparing and contrasting these two SMROs, my hope is that ABATE leaders and members everywhere will gain fresh perspectives enabling greater successes for all those truly dedicated to protecting our freedom of the road.

Until Next Time … Ride Long, Ride Free!

December 2005

Part 1: Survey Preamble

Last month we noted that people frequently equate bikers’ rights with helmet law issues. Likewise, many consider the terms “SMRO” and “ABATE” to be synonymous. Actually…

SMRO is an acronym for “State Motorcyclists’ Rights Organization” or “State MRO.” MRO is often defined as “motorcycle rights organization” but that is incorrect. Motorcycles are property, not people. They don’t have rights … only their riders do.

There is at least one SMRO in each of the 50 states, and over 40 of them use “ABATE” in their name or as an acronym. In the original ABATE organization–founded in the early 1970s in California by Lou Kimzey of EasyRiders Magazine–the acronym stood for:

A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments

In recent years, that reference has been morphed into phrases like:

A Brotherhood Active Towards Education
A Brotherhood for Awareness, Training and Education
Alaska Bikers Advocating Training and Education
Alliance of Bikers Aimed Toward Equity
American Bikers Acting To Educate
American Bikers Aimed Towards Education
American Bikers Aiming Towards Education
American Brotherhood Aimed Toward Education

These changes in what ABATE the acronym stands for are reflective of changes that continue to take place in what ABATE the organization stands for. ABATE began as a bikers’ rights organization. Over time, as the new names above suggest, the focus has shifted increasingly to motorcycle safety … an oxymoron for some … and topic for another day for us. For now, our focus is strictly on ABATE as an SMRO.

The principal role of SMROs is to protect the rights and promote the interests of motorcycle riders at the state level. One of the primary means by which they accomplish this is lobbying, a term broadly defined as “… attempting to influence or sway a public official toward a desired action.” Like many things in life, lobbying has both positive and negative connotations:

On the plus side, lobbying helps keep legislators in touch with their constituents and informed about their issues. The right to lobby is even protected in the U.S. Constitution by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights which reads, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the right of the people … to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

On the minus side, historically lobbying has been associated with unscrupulous “influence peddling” activities such as bribery, blackmail, fraudulent misrepresentation and extortion. This is why every state has a Committee or Commission on Ethics, Integrity, Political Practices and/or Public Disclosure to register and regulate the activities of lobbyists–especially paid professional lobbyists. Many states also require lobbyists to wear badges identifying themselves as such whenever they are in the presence of legislators or government officials. Politicians often perceive lobbyists as being one of two types, grassroots or hired guns, and filter their messages accordingly:

• Grassroots lobbyists include common citizens stating their case and volunteers promoting their cause. Their advantages include credibility, conviction, and the fact that elected officials are particularly attentive to facts and viewpoints provided by their (voting) constituents.
• Hired guns are the paid professional lobbyists and political mercenaries that spin information and sell influence for a living. Their advantages include political sophistication, familiarity with the rules, and intimacy with the players.

Part 2: Survey Results

As lobbying is one of the principal means by which SMROs achieve their objectives, and defeating mandatory helmet laws has traditionally been their primary goal, I decided it might be enlightening to survey which methods of the former (lobbying) have been most effective with the latter (helmet laws). Here are the results of that survey:

STATE MOTORCYCLISTS’ RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS
November 2005 Survey Summary

Click here for the survey PDF

Lobbyist vs. No Lobbyist

Of the 50 SMROs surveyed, 21 (42%) were identified as employing (including using or contracting) lobbyists, while 29 (58%) did not.

Of the 21 states where SMROs employed lobbyists, 15 (71%) had either no mandatory helmet law or only partial helmet mandates for riders failing to meet age, insurance or similar requirements. The other 6 (29%) of these states had full mandatory helmet laws.

Of the 29 states where SMROs did not employ lobbyists, 19 (66%) had either no mandatory helmet law or only partial helmet mandates for riders failing to meet age, insurance or similar requirements. The other 10 (34%) of these states had full mandatory helmet laws.

Observation: If you view partial or no helmet mandates as success, and full mandatory helmet laws as failure, then the SMROs employing lobbyists showed only a slight (5%) advantage over those that did not. And among those, the assertion was often that lobbying was a team effort in which all members were encouraged to participate. As Bernie ‘Faceman’ Adams (President, Virginia Freedom Riders) proclaimed, “Our Freedom Fighters are our lobbyists.”

Paid vs. Unpaid Lobbyists

Of the 21 SMROs that employed lobbyists, 10 (48%) were identified as employing paid lobbyists, and 11 (52%) employed unpaid (volunteer) lobbyists.

Of the 10 states where SMROs employed paid lobbyists, 9 (90%) had either no mandatory helmet law or only partial helmet mandates for riders failing to meet age, insurance or similar requirements. The other 1 (10%) of these states had full mandatory helmet laws.

Of the 11 states where SMROs employed unpaid (volunteer) lobbyists, 6 (55%) had either no mandatory helmet law or only partial helmet mandates for riders failing to meet age, insurance or similar requirements. The other 5 (45%) of these states had full mandatory helmet laws.

Observation: If you view partial or no helmet mandates as success, and full mandatory helmet laws as failure, then the SMROs employing paid lobbyists showed a significant (35%) advantage. This is offset somewhat by the fact that some of the mixed results attributed to volunteers were actually brought about by hired guns who proved to be bad shots. Ken ‘Kenbo’ Moore (President, Kentucky Motorcycle Association) told us “… We do not employ any paid lobbyist. We tried one time and it produced nothing.” And as Donald ‘Duck’ Smith (State Communications Coordinator, ABATE of West Virginia) sagely quipped, “… Nop’ it ain’t easy. But it’s better than having a paid slug that don’t care.”

Full-Time vs. Part-Time Paid Lobbyists

Of the 10 SMROs that employed paid lobbyists, 3 (30%) were identified as employed full-time (32 hours or more per week), while 7 (70%) were employed part-time.

All 3 of the states where SMROs employed full-time paid lobbyists had either no mandatory helmet law or only partial helmet mandates for riders failing to meet age, insurance or similar requirements.

Of the 7 states where SMROs employed part-time paid lobbyists, 6 (86%) had either no mandatory helmet law or only partial helmet mandates for riders failing to meet age, insurance or similar requirements. The other 1 (14%) of these states had full mandatory helmet laws.

Observation: If you view partial or no helmet mandates as success, and full mandatory helmet laws as failure, then the SMROs employing full-time paid lobbyists showed a 14% advantage over those whose hired guns had more than one client. This may simply indicate the obvious, that the more focused you are the more effective you will be. It may also result from the fact that the 3 full-time paid lobbyists identified by the survey are themselves motorcyclists and therefore likely to share the conviction of their grassroots volunteer counterparts. Charles Umbenhauer, lobbyist for ABATE of Pennsylvania, is a good example.

Until Next Time … Ride Long, Ride Free!

November 2005

When you mention bikers’ rights, the first thing that comes to many people’s minds is the helmet issue, which I believe to be one of the most widely debated yet least understood items on the MRO agenda.

First of all, the real issue is NOT helmets … it is whether motorcycle riders should be required by law to wear them. This is a helmet law issue, and a question of individual liberties and freedom of choice. It is NOT a safety issue, but safety is the arena where the fight is taking place.

I believe we are fighting the wrong battle. We are fighting a battle that cannot be won, and doesn’t need to be. We are engaging the enemy on their grounds, and under their terms. And if you follow the teachings of Sun Tzu, you know that to be a strategic blunder.

Let’s say I tied you to a chair, stood in front of you with a hammer and a helmet, and asked if you wanted me to strap the helmet on you before I hit you on top of your head. Would your answer be “Yes?”

Of course you’d say “Yes!” Anybody with enough sense to get a driver’s license knows that wearing a helmet increases the safety of the head it covers. Despite that knowledge, we have one of the nation’s largest SMROs issuing a press release that claims:

What’s wrong with these statements? Among other things, the report referred to …

does NOT state that “‘Helmetless’ Riders are Less Likely to Die in Motorcycle Crashes on Florida Roads,”

does NOT state that “… motorcycle riders wearing helmets were more likely to sustain an injury or suffer a fatality than their non-helmeted counterparts,”

does NOT state that “…non-helmeted riders were 20% more likely to walk away from a crash without injuries than riders who were wearing helmets,”

… and, NONE of these assertions can be supported by application of scientifically valid statistical methods to the data reported.

Yes, it is true that according to the 2004 Florida Traffic Crash Statistics Report, 388 motorcyclists died in fatal crashes, 200 (51.55%) wearing helmets and 188 (48.45%) not. And yes, according to the report, 762 motorcycle riders and passengers were involved in crashes but not injured, 304 (40%) wearing helmets and 458 (60%) not. But this is only one year’s data, from which no statistically valid conclusions can be drawn to support the probabilities or likelihoods asserted in the SMRO press release.

What’s missing is not only trend or time series data, but also a provable correlation or cause-and-effect relationship. Let’s says that 100 riders headed for Sturgis and 30 broke down along the way, 20 of the 30 riding Harleys and the other 10 riding BMWs. Given only those facts, could you reasonably conclude that the chances of any rider making it to Sturgis are 7 in 10? Or, could you indisputably claim that Harleys are twice as likely to break down as BMWs?

Of course you couldn’t! You don’t have enough data to support such assertions. Likewise, the SMRO didn’t have enough data to support theirs. For example:

Over the 2004 period of the study, how many motorcycle riders were on the roads and exposed to crashes? How many of the riders wore helmets, and for what percentage of their total riding time did they wear them? With data like this, we might learn that 200,000 riders wore helmets 100% of the time, 100,000 wore helmets 50% of the time, and 300,000 riders never wore helmets. We might analyze this as being the statistical equivalent of a base of 600,000 riders, 250,000 wearing helmets and 350,000 not. If that were the case, then there might appear to be a statistically significant positive correlation between fatal crashes and helmet-wearing. But we don’t have that base data, so we can’t establish that correlation.

Let’s say we did have the data, and we were able to establish the correlation. Let’s say the numbers actually did support an assertion that “… motorcycle riders wearing helmets are more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.” Most people wouldn’t believe it, even given the “visual and physical limitations” argument put forth by the SMRO.

If the numbers supported it, I could believe that “… motorcycle riders wearing helmets are more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.” But that is NOT the same as saying that wearing a helmet increases the likelihood of a fatal crash. Instead, I believe that inexperienced riders are both more likely to wear helmets and more likely to crash than experienced riders. In other words, I suspect that experience might be the true base of the correlation, and helmets merely an indicator. Maybe someday, somebody will research that!

So, what drove the SMRO to issue such a press release? This did: In August, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released a report entitled “Evaluation of the Repeal of the All-Rider Motorcycle Helmet Law in Florida,” the abstract of which reads as follows:

In short, the NHTSA report blames the July 2000 change in Florida’s motorcycle helmet laws for a significant portion of the increases in motorcycle crash injuries and deaths that have occurred since that date. The SMRO apparently saw this as a challenge in the safety arena, and responded with the first statistics that seemed suitable for their purpose. What they missed is that NHTSA’s analysis, like their own analysis of the 2004 Florida Traffic Crash Statistics Report, failed to address the possibility that the increases in crash deaths and injuries not attributable to increased registrations may be attributable to a disproportionate increase in the number of inexperienced riders as opposed to any decrease in helmet usage. And as I said earlier, maybe someday somebody will research that!

So … is that my point then? That the political factions both for and against mandatory helmet laws are making safety arguments flawed by incomplete data, incorrect premises, ignored causal factors and unsubstantiated conclusions?

Nope. That is merely an observation. I conclude as I began:

• The helmet issue is NOT about safety. If motorcyclists’ rights activists continue to fight in that arena, they are likely to lose not only the battles but ultimately the war.
• The helmet law issue is about individual liberties and freedom of choice. These are the high grounds, and if we take them, we will win.

Until Next Time … Ride Long, Ride Free!

October 2005

Welcome to the first installment of Bruce on Bikers’ Rights™!

This exclusive online series is going to be about motorcyclists’ rights: the legislation, the issues, motorcycle rights organizations (MROs), and when, where and how you, the individual motorcyclist, can make a difference in Washington D.C., your state capitol, and wherever you may ride.

Let me begin by challenging you all to make a commitment to be freedom fighters and not welfare riders. By that I mean our rights, liberties and freedom come at a cost–a cost paid by those who are willing to step up to the challenge. If someone asks you what you are doing to preserve our freedom of choice regarding helmets … or to protect our right to build choppers with ape hangers … or to maintain our HOV lane privileges … or to assure that soccer moms with cell phones glued to their ears think twice (and look twice) before they force us off the road … I want you to have a better answer than “I don’t know…” And, I sure as hell hope you wouldn’t say “I don’t care!”

Don’t be a welfare rider, taking advantage of all the privileges, and leaving others to pay the price. Don’t be some REMF (rear echelon mother f***er), hiding in the rear with the gear. And don’t cruise around like some garrett trooper, all shine and no substance. Come on up to the front lines, folks! Take the point! Get involved! Make a difference, for Christ’s sake! Here is a great way to get started:

The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF.org) is the leading voice for bikers in Washington, D.C. The Motorcycle Riders Foundation is committed to less federal government involvement in your daily life. The MRF firmly supports the rights of the individual state governments to enact legislation without the threat of federal intervention. They stand for freedom of choice, freedom from unsafe highways, and freedom from unfair and overly restrictive federal and international regulations. The MRF’s nationwide membership email alert system, for example, was instrumental in the defeat of the Lautenberg Amendment this year, thereby saving us all from a universal helmet law.

Are you a member of the MRF? I am proud to say that I am, and I encourage all my brothers and sisters in the wind to sign up as well. For only $25.00 a year, you’ll get MRF reports, email alerts, a patch, a pin, and most importantly, the pride of knowing that you are a freedom fighter and not a welfare rider! Logon to this web page to join the MRF today (be sure and put “Bruce sent me” in the comments field):

https://mrf.org/join-the-mrf/

Show me your MRF patch at any of these events, and your next cup a’ joe is on me:

• Daytona Beach BikeWeek
• Hollister Independence Rally
• Laconia Motorcycle Week
• Myrtle Beach Bike Week
• Republic of Texas Rally
• Sturgis Motorcycle Rally

Until Next Time … Ride Long, Ride Free!