<link /> <description /> <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs> <generator>mojoPortal Forum module</generator> <item> <title>Motorcycle Lane Filtering Soon to be Legal in Utah
 
 
 

 
 

Utah Becomes the Second State to Allow Lane Filtering

 

March 25, 2019
 

Come May of this year, Utah will become the second state in the country to allow lane filtering.  While the practice will be much more restricted than it is in California, the passage of House Bill 149 is a significant event in American motorcycling. 

Utah’s new law will allow motorcycles to lane filter under the following circumstances:

  1. The motorcyclist is on a roadway with two lanes in the same direction of travel;
  2. The motorcyclist is on a roadway with a speed limit of 45 miles per hour or less;
  3. The vehicle being overtaken in the same lane is stopped;
  4. The motorcycle is traveling at a speed of 15 miles per hour or less; and
  5. The movement may be made safely.

Even though lane filtering is widely practiced throughout much of the world, many in the United States have looked at it as a crazy idea that would remain forever confined to California.  That has now proven not to be the case.  Each year the number of states that consider some form of lane filtering legislation increases.  With the passage of Utah’s law that trend is likely to continue at an accelerated rate. 

As usual, if you have any questions or comments concerning this or any other matters concerning laws affecting motorcycling, please feel free to reach out to me. 

Matt Danielson
McGrath, Danielson, Sorrell & Fuller
The Motorcycle Law Group
1-800-321-8968
Motorcyclelawgroup.com

Want to know more? Download our free Prepared Rider Kit, which has everything you and your family need to know about you and and your bike.

 

 
 

Copyright © 2019, McGrath, Danielson, Sorrell & Fuller, All rights reserved.


Our mailing addresses:

McGrath, Danielson, Sorrell & Fuller
PO Box 5424
Richmond, VA 23220

McGrath, Danielson, Sorrell & Fuller
8360 Six Forks Road, Suite 203
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615

 

McGrath, Danielson, Sorrell & Fuller
532 Knox Abbott Drive
Cayce, South Carolina 29033 


 

 
 
 
]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=621~-1#post634 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Tue, 26 Mar 2019 10:55:51 GMT Federal Bill to Prohibit Funding for Motorcycle Only Checkpoints  

As most know, North Carolina motorcyclists were successful in passing legislation to prohibit the use of motorcycle-only checkpoints within the State of North Carolina.  Targeting motorcyclists for random stops is a clearly discriminatory practice that serves no public safety purpose.  Every motorcyclist should oppose such practices.  All riders need to be concerned about motorcycle-only checkpoints.  Putting an end to them in a few states does not protect us as riders since most of us tend to ride inter-state. 

Motorcycle-only checkpoints are still alive and well in most of the country.  Georgia in particular is seeing quite a few.  The majority of the checkpoints are being funded with federal grant money. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) has introduced H.R. 904 which would prohibit the Secretary of Transportation from providing grants or any funds to states or local governments to be used for any program to create motorcycle-only checkpoints.  You can read more about this bill at the following link: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.904:

The problem is that out of 435 members of the House of Representatives only 55 members have signed on as a co-sponsor.  Out of North Carolina’s thirteen members only two, Howard Coble and Walter Jones, have signed on as co-sponsors.  Out of South Carolina’s six members, two, Jeff Duncan and Joe Wilson, have likewise signed on as co-sponsors.  I would ask every motorcyclist to write, call or email members of your state’s delegation of the House of Representatives and ask them to support H.R. 904 and to become a co-sponsor of this important piece of legislation. You will find a link to each of the members of the House of Representatives from North Carolina at the following link:  http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_nc   You will find a link to each of the members of the House of Representatives from South Carolina at the following link:  http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_sc

As always if you have any questions or comments about anything that I have written please feel free to contact me. 

 

Matt Danielson

McGrath & Danielson

Tom McGrath's Motorcycle Law Group

1-800-321-8968

Motorcyclelawgroup.com

]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=286~-1#post296 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:23:41 GMT
N.H. lawmakers may muffle motorcycle noise

 

 

http://www.eagletribune.com/latestnews/x670923075/N-H-lawmakers-may-muffle-motorcycle-noise

N.H. lawmakers may muffle motorcycle noise

 

 

August 9, 2011

By Doug Ireland direland@eagletribune.com The Eagle Tribune Tue Aug 09, 2011, 12:14 AM EDT

Motorcycles fans and detractors are revving up for a battle in the state Legislature.

A bill to be introduced by Rep. Michele Peckham, R-North Hampton, would require motorcycles to stay below the 80-decibel noise standard set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Current state law allows a maximum of 106 decibels.

The proposal has received the backing of New Hampshire Citizens Against Loud Motorcycles, or NHCALM. The statewide organization announced its support of the bill yesterday.

Bill Mitchell, the group's founder, said noise from loud motorcycles is infringing on the quality of life in the Granite State, especially in coastal communities.

The fact motorcyclists often ride in groups exacerbates the problem, Mitchell said.

"It's usually not just one of them, it's about 15 of them," he said.

If passed, the law would take effect in 2013.

Peckham, who could not be reached for comment yesterday, is proposing the tougher law because of a battle to restrict motorcycle noise in North Hampton. The town adopted its own ordinance, but it has been challenged in court, Mitchell said.

The proposal requires motorcycles to be equipped with exhaust system mufflers with the EPA's "Motorcycle Noise Emission Control Information" label.

Violators would be fined at least $350 for a first offense and up to $500 for any subsequent offenses. The law would only apply to street motorcycles manufactured after Jan. 1, 2013.

Mitchell is already gearing up for what he expects will be a tough fight in the Legislature. He doesn't think the bill will pass, especially after a similar proposal was defeated earlier this year.

"We want to get people writing to their reps," he said. "Eventually, it will prevail, but it's probably not going to happen this year and it's probably not going to happen next year."

Perhaps the biggest obstacle is the House Transportation Committee, where the previous legislation was defeated, Mitchell said.

"It never got out of committee," Mitchell said. "Unless you get it out of committee, it's not going anywhere."

Mitchell lays the blame on committee Chairman Sherman Packard, R-Londonderry.

Packard, a founding member of the New Hampshire Motorcyclists Rights Organization, said yesterday the proposal is too restrictive.

"It's ludicrous," Packard said. "These people, CALM, don't want motorcycles on the road."

Packard said the tougher law would be difficult to enforce and would subject motorcyclists to unnecessary harassment.

That's because police officers would have to stop them to check for the EPA sticker, which is difficult to see without looking underneath the motorcycle, he said.

Most current models do not have the EPA sticker, Packard said.

He said the current law, which banned straight exhaust pipes, does enough to keep noise levels in check. Violators of the 106-decibel law face a fine of $100 to $300, he said. Motorcyclists with straight pipes are fined $250 to $350.

Troy Cormier, owner of Evo Cycle in Londonderry, also said the proposed law is too restrictive.

Cormier said he has no problem with restricting noise levels at night, but sees no need to tighten the law.

"I think the current law is good," he said. "I don't think it should be any quieter."

Cormier said being able to hear a motorcycle on the highway can prevent a serious accident. He recalled a recent incident on Interstate 93 when a motorcycle suddenly came up behind him.

"The only reason I knew he was there was because I could hear him," he said."

• •

]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=124~-1#post129 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Thu, 11 Aug 2011 02:48:06 GMT
NTSB still calling for mandatory helmets  

Feds oppose change to Michigan helmet law

NTSB will lobby Gov. Snyder to not repeal requirement for motorcyclists 21 and older

David Shepardson/ Detroit News Washington Bureau

The National Transportation Safety Board urged the state of Michigan not to drop its mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists.

Board Vice Chairman Christopher Hart said in an interview Thursday that the state Legislature should not proceed with a proposal to repeal the state's helmet law. Hart noted that Louisiana reinstated its helmet law after it saw a spike in motorcycle deaths and injuries.

A bill to repeal Michigan's helmet law for riders 21 and older if they met certain conditions was approved by a Senate committee earlier this month and could be on the governor's desk later this summer. Riders would be eligible to ride bareheaded if they have been licensed to operate a motorcycle for at least two years or have passed a safety course.

NTSB spokesman Bill Gossard said board officials would meet with Gov. Rick Snyder's office today to discuss the issue. Snyder hasn't taken a position on the bill.

The Senate Fiscal Agency said in an analysis of the repeal bill that if it "led to more head injuries, Medicaid costs for the State could potentially increase."

And a widely quoted Office of Highway Safety Planning analysis concluded that a repeal of the law would result in at least 30 additional motorcycle fatalities each year, along with 127 more incapacitating injuries and $129 million in additional economic costs to citizens.

According to AAA, motorcycle crashes account for a disproportionate share of money paid out of the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association, a fund supported by a surcharge on every auto insurance policy in the state. While motorcyclists represent 2 percent of the assessment paid into the MCCA, they account for 5 percent of money paid.

Then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm twice vetoed efforts to overturn Michigan's helmet law — in 2006 and 2008.

This is the second year that the NTSB has made motorcycle safety one of its top 10 "Most Wanted" safety priorities.

From 1997-2009, annual motorcycle deaths doubled to 4,462. On average, 12 motorcyclists were killed daily.


From The Detroit News: http://detnews.com/article/20110624/AUTO01/106240345/Feds-oppose-change-to-Michigan-helmet-law#ixzz1QGLZ0heQ

]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=116~-1#post121 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:22:21 GMT
NHTSA Updates Motorcyclists' Helmet Rule  

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/15/nhtsa-updating-motorcycle-helmet-laws/

Report: NHTSA updating motorcycle helmet laws

 

 by Aaron Richardson (RSS feed) on May 15th 2011 at 2:35PM

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has updated the motorcycle helmet law in an attempt to stop people from wearing improperly certified helmets and novelty helmets. The law doesn't change the construction of helmets directly, but changes the way they're labeled, to make it more difficult to mimic DOT compliance certifications.

Now, helmets that conform to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218 will carry a sticker with the manufacturer's name, the helmet model and the words "DOT FMVSS No. 218 Certified." The move to make helmets safer comes after the number of riders sporting unsafe and novelty brain buckets increased dramatically in 2010 over 2009.

According to NHTSA statistics, in 2010, only 54 percent of motorcyclists wore a DOT-approved lid. Around 14 percent wore a novelty helmet, and 32 percent went without a helmet altogether. In 2009, those numbers were 67 percent, 9 percent and 24 percent. In 2010, 75 percent of riders who did elect to wear a helmet wore a DOT-compliant one. In 2009, that number was 86 percent. 

]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=103~-1#post108 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Mon, 16 May 2011 23:25:10 GMT
Nevada: Bill to repeal motorcycle helmet law sidetracked in Senate  

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/apr/26/bill-repeal-motorcycle-helmet-law-sidetracked/

Bill to repeal motorcycle helmet law sidetracked in Senate

 

 By Cy Ryan (contact)

Tuesday, April 26, 2011 | 6:49 p.m.

 CARSON CITY — A bill to repeal the law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets has been sidetracked in the Senate.

Instead of being up for final passage Tuesday, the bill, SB 177, was sent to the Senate Finance Committee on a 10-9 vote.

Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, said the bill impacts the state budget and must be weighed in the finance committee.

Sen. Don Gustavson, the sponsor the bill, cried foul. He said there were two unsolicited fiscal notes put on the bill and noted a “lot of bills go there (to the Finance Committee) to die.”

The helmet law has been on the books since the early 1970s. Gustafson, R-Sparks, has been trying for three sessions to get it repealed. He said Clark County officials were responsible for adding the fiscal note to the bill. The budget questions were not raised by the supporters.

Gustavson said the referral of the bill to the Finance Committee keeps it alive, because it will now be exempt from the requirement it must be passed by Tuesday’s Senate deadline. But, he said, he doesn’t know if Horsford, the committee chairman, will bring it up for discussion. And he doesn’t know if he has the votes to get the bill out of committee.

Before dispatching the bill to the Finance Committee, the Senate approved an amendment that individuals seeking a motorcycle license complete a rider safety course.

As the bill reads now, motorcyclists who are at least 21 years old and have held their license for one year could shed their helmets. The helmet requirement would also be removed for three-wheeled vehicles and mopeds. 

]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=91~-1#post102 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:26:23 GMT
NV: In Surprise Vote, Motorcycle Helmet Choice Bill Passes Committee  

http://www.nevadanewsbureau.com/2011/04/14/in-surprise-vote-motorcycle-helmet-choice-bill-passes-committee/

In Surprise Vote, Motorcycle Helmet Choice Bill Passes Committee By Andrew Doughman | 7:37 pm April 14th, 2011 CARSON CITY – Sen. Don Gustavson, R-Sparks, had written off his bill as dead when he learned this afternoon that Sen. Shirley Breeden, D-Las Vegas, was giving it a vote.

The senator was even more tickled when he realized his bill had the votes to pass out of committee.

The bill would let people ride motorcycles without helmets if they are 21 years of age or older, have had a motorcycle license for more than one year and have completed a safety course.

Gustavson has introduced the bill for the past five legislative sessions.

The bill passed out of committee on a 4 to 3 vote with three Democrats voting against, three Republicans voting for and Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, casting the tie-breaking “yes” vote.

Despite being against the bill, Breeden said she wanted to give the bill a chance.

“I believe we vetted all the bills and I thought it should have an opportunity for folks to vote on it,” she said. “…I know how it’s going to come out, but I still thought it was the right thing to do.”

The chair of the committee decides whether to bring up a bill for a vote. In Nevada’s case where the majority of legislators in the Senate and Assembly are Democrats, all committees have a Democratic chairperson.

Often, the bills brought forward to a vote reflect the political hue – red or blue – of the chairperson.

Republicans voiced their support for Gustavson’s bill.

Sen Elizabeth Halseth, R-Las Vegas, called the bill a “great liberty bill.” She also said the bill could be a way to bring jobs to Nevada, echoing Gustavson’s earlier arguments that motorcycle events and interest in riding will grow if the law is repealed.

Sen. Michael Schneider, D-Las Vegas, disagreed.

“This is a great jobs bill for the medical community,” he quipped. “There’s a huge, huge expense in this. I would dispute what Sen. Halseth is saying.”

He said that helmets provide protection from more serious injuries when motorcycle riders are involved in accidents. Removing a requirement to wear one could lead to gruesome injuries and more fatal crashes, he said.

Lee said wearing a helmet or not wearing a helmet was a “personal right.”

Schneider said that society ends up paying for that personal right.

“It costs society so much money that, you know, the cheap way out is that people die,” he said. “They hit their head on the curb and die. That’s cheap.”

Otherwise society pays the medical bills for people in assisted living homes, he said.

In the end, Nevada Sens. Mike McGinness, R-Fallon, and Dean Rhoads, R-Elko, joined Halseth and Lee to pass the bill out of committee.

The bill is now headed for the Senate floor. 

]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=91~-1#post95 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:55:45 GMT
VA - Red Light Bill becomes law  

http://manassaspark.patch.com/articles/law-lets-bikes-run-red-lights-2 Law Lets Bikes Run Red Lights (Video)

House Bill 1981 will let motorcyclists, moped riders and bicyclists pass through red lights, as long as there is no oncoming traffic, after waiting 120 seconds or two cycles of the light. The law will take effect July 1. March 27, 2011

RICHMOND – If you ride a motorcycle or bicycle, you probably know the frustration of getting stuck at a red light that just won’t change – because the sensors under the street can’t detect your two-wheeler. Two-wheel vehicles will be allowed to run those red lights, under certain situations, under a bill signed into law Thursday by Gov. Bob McDonnell. House Bill 1981 will let motorcyclists, moped riders and bicyclists pass through red lights, as long as there is no oncoming traffic, after waiting 120 seconds or two cycles of the light. The law will take effect July 1. Champe Burnley, president of the Virginia Bicycling Federation, said riders of two-wheel vehicles often end up trapped at red lights, with no safe, legal option about what to do, because motorcycles and bikes aren’t heavy enough or don’t have enough metal to trip the sensor. “Most of the traffic signals today have a wire in the road – so it’s an induction loop. And frequently there’s just not enough metallic mass for the induction loop to pick up a cycle that goes over there,” Burnley said. “If you’re on a bike and you get to a stoplight – and I stop for stoplights religiously – it puts me into a difficult position. Because if the light doesn’t change, I’ve either got to wait for a car to come up behind me to trip the stoplight, or I’ve got to break the law – and I don’t like to do that.” Delegate Thomas “Tag” Greason, who sponsored HB 1981, said the legislation will make things much safer for riders. “The bill is designed to increase the safety for those riders who ride motorcycles, mopeds or bicycles,” Greason said. “When they approach and are stranded at an intersection, and the weight of their vehicle is not great enough to trigger the light, and so they’re stranded at a red light, and they really don’t have any legal options available to them under today’s code.” Greason, a Republican from Potomac Falls, said some people raised questions about who would be at fault if a motorcycle runs a red light and causes an accident. But those questions have been addressed in the bill, he said. “Imagine that the red light is a stop sign: If the motorcyclist pulls out into oncoming traffic and causes an accident, he would have the same liability if he was at a red light or if he was at a stop sign,” Greason said. Under his measure, motorcycles and bicycles must come to a complete stop at a red light and wait for 120 seconds or two cycles of the light. “Then they proceed with caution, as if they were at a stop sign, and they must maintain all the liability, and give way to oncoming traffic, from either direction,” Greason said. “So there is no transfer of liability.” Delegate Bill Janis, R-Glen Allen, introduced a similar measure – HB 1991. His proposal was folded into Greason’s bill. HB 1981 passed the House on a 75-24 vote in January. The Senate then unanimously approved the bill – with an amendment emphasizing that bicyclists and motorcyclists who proceed through a red light must yield to oncoming traffic. The House then voted 87-11 in favor of the amended bill. ### 

]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=86~-1#post90 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:00:25 GMT
VA - Red Light Bill becomes law  

http://manassaspark.patch.com/articles/law-lets-bikes-run-red-lights-2 Law Lets Bikes Run Red Lights (Video)

House Bill 1981 will let motorcyclists, moped riders and bicyclists pass through red lights, as long as there is no oncoming traffic, after waiting 120 seconds or two cycles of the light. The law will take effect July 1. March 27, 2011

RICHMOND – If you ride a motorcycle or bicycle, you probably know the frustration of getting stuck at a red light that just won’t change – because the sensors under the street can’t detect your two-wheeler. Two-wheel vehicles will be allowed to run those red lights, under certain situations, under a bill signed into law Thursday by Gov. Bob McDonnell. House Bill 1981 will let motorcyclists, moped riders and bicyclists pass through red lights, as long as there is no oncoming traffic, after waiting 120 seconds or two cycles of the light. The law will take effect July 1. Champe Burnley, president of the Virginia Bicycling Federation, said riders of two-wheel vehicles often end up trapped at red lights, with no safe, legal option about what to do, because motorcycles and bikes aren’t heavy enough or don’t have enough metal to trip the sensor. “Most of the traffic signals today have a wire in the road – so it’s an induction loop. And frequently there’s just not enough metallic mass for the induction loop to pick up a cycle that goes over there,” Burnley said. “If you’re on a bike and you get to a stoplight – and I stop for stoplights religiously – it puts me into a difficult position. Because if the light doesn’t change, I’ve either got to wait for a car to come up behind me to trip the stoplight, or I’ve got to break the law – and I don’t like to do that.” Delegate Thomas “Tag” Greason, who sponsored HB 1981, said the legislation will make things much safer for riders. “The bill is designed to increase the safety for those riders who ride motorcycles, mopeds or bicycles,” Greason said. “When they approach and are stranded at an intersection, and the weight of their vehicle is not great enough to trigger the light, and so they’re stranded at a red light, and they really don’t have any legal options available to them under today’s code.” Greason, a Republican from Potomac Falls, said some people raised questions about who would be at fault if a motorcycle runs a red light and causes an accident. But those questions have been addressed in the bill, he said. “Imagine that the red light is a stop sign: If the motorcyclist pulls out into oncoming traffic and causes an accident, he would have the same liability if he was at a red light or if he was at a stop sign,” Greason said. Under his measure, motorcycles and bicycles must come to a complete stop at a red light and wait for 120 seconds or two cycles of the light. “Then they proceed with caution, as if they were at a stop sign, and they must maintain all the liability, and give way to oncoming traffic, from either direction,” Greason said. “So there is no transfer of liability.” Delegate Bill Janis, R-Glen Allen, introduced a similar measure – HB 1991. His proposal was folded into Greason’s bill. HB 1981 passed the House on a 75-24 vote in January. The Senate then unanimously approved the bill – with an amendment emphasizing that bicyclists and motorcyclists who proceed through a red light must yield to oncoming traffic. The House then voted 87-11 in favor of the amended bill. ### 

]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=85~-1#post89 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:00:02 GMT
Maine legislators take up bill to crack down on noisy motorcycles  

http://www.mpbn.net/News/MaineNewsArchive/tabid/181/ctl/ViewItem/mid/3475/ItemId/15742/Default.aspx

Maine Lawmakers Take up Bill to Crack Down on Noisy Motorcycles 03/24/2011 Reported By: A.J. Higgins Learn More....  The Legislature is once again taking up the issue of noise from motorcycles. Last year, lawmakers enacted a bill that imposed fines for all motor vehicles with exhaust systems that have been modified to make the vehicles louder. Today, members of the Legislature's Transportation Committee took up a number of bills that seek to curtail the decibels from bike exhausts though either beefed-up inspections or stiff fines.

State Rep. Diane Russell, of Portland, is almost on a first-name basis with a lot of the bikers who attended public hearings before the Legislature's Transportation Committee. But that's not because everyone appreciates her work.

Russell worked last year to usher in tougher motorcycle exhaust restrictions for cyclists and this year she's sponsoring a pair of bills that seek even stiffer fines than those currently set in the $140 range.

"This bill provides that a person who violates the requirement may be subject to a fine of at least $500 for the first offense, $750 for the second and $999 dollars for a third or subsequent offense," Russell said.

Russell's two bills deal specifically with motorcycle exhaust systems, requiring a $150 fine for bikes operating without a legal muffler, and giving police officers the authority to confiscate the illegal muffler. The second bill imposes the higher range of fines for motorcycles that are not equipped with exhaust systems bearing federal Environmental Protection Agency-required labeling applicable to the motorcycles' model year.

And Russell has plenty of supporters. Among them is Ernest Fields, of Hermon, who says the road near his home turns into a cycle strip each summer.

"The reason I got involved with this: I was having a family get together at my house and I had grandchildren there and great grandchildren there. Four motorcycles came by--boom, boom, boom," he told lawmakers. "All of us except one grabbed their ears. That's common sense and common knowledge--except the six-month-old in the stroller. For some reason he wasn't smart enough to do that. I'm asking you people here to protect us citizens of the state of Maine."

State Rep. Ed Mazurek, a Rockland Democrat, was visibly frustrated about dealing with motorcycle exhaust noise, which he says has been an issue almost for the entire seven years that he's been in office.

"If they want to drive a motorcycle and make a lot of noise and if they get zinged for it and have to pay $500 bucks, that's their problem and I don't feel sorry for them--if they're that stupid then they deserve to pay $500 bucks," he said. "But why should the rest of Maine suffer because some cowboy wants to put a great big thing and drive like anything? So I think, then, when we come to the work session, I would like to do something about this."

Representatives of some motorcycle interests, however, turned out to oppose the bills, including Eric Fuller of Jay, who chairs the Maine Motorcyclists Political Action Committee. "I come before this committee to ask you to strike down LD 477," he said. "We vehemently oppose this bill for many different factors."

Fuller said Maine laws already address illegal exhaust systems, and Russell's bills impose unreasonable penalties. "The amounts suggested are far in excess of many life-threatening offenses. While it may be nice to target certain actions or people we dislike, the judicial systems of this nation have held a system of equality for this country."

And Sony Bridges, one of the original founders of the United Bikers of Maine, also spoke up in opposition. "It is my sincere opinion that LD 477 profiles motorcycles and motorcyclists and is a form of harassment for the over 100,000 licensed motorcyclists and citizens of the state of Maine, and the many motorcycling tourists that come into our great state each summer, and I strongly urge this committee to kill this ludicrous bill."

Committee co-chair Rich Cebra, a Naples Republican, says it is clear the committee will be looking seriously at beefing up the the existing law. 

]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=84~-1#post88 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Sat, 26 Mar 2011 13:18:22 GMT
Nevada Legislator seeks to repeal helmet law  

 

http://www.lvrj.com/news/legislator-seeks-to-repeal-helmet-law-118320764.html

Legislator seeks to repeal helmet law

John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal

Wearing a helmet, Gary Osborn gets ready to ride outside the Las Vegas Harley-Davidson store in Las Vegas on Tuesday. 

CARSON CITY -- After failing for five straight sessions to repeal the state's 39-year-old motorcycle helmet law, Sen. Don Gustavson has developed a new, perhaps winnable, strategy:

Let them take off their helmets, and they will come.

He says they will show up for the Laughlin River Run, Reno Street Vibrations and every other biker rally, stay at the finest hotels and gamble away fortunes.

At the same time, a helmet-free state will spawn greater local interest in riding. More motorcycle dealerships will open.

The economy will begin to boom if Nevada repeals its helmet law, he predicts.

"Mine is the only bill that will create new jobs and revenue for Nevada without raising taxes," said Gustavson, R-Sparks, during a Senate Transportation Committee hearing last week.

The hearing attracted dozens of motorcycle riders who want the law thrown out and a large contingent of police who prefer the status quo.

Motorcycle dealers and the Laughlin River Run coordinator aren't as optimistic as Gustavson. Although they favor the proposal, they say changing the law would only bring slight increases in business.

And based on what happened in Florida after it repealed its helmet law, Nevada also could see an increase in motorcycle rider deaths.

THE BIKER EVIDENCE

Gustavson wants to amend his Senate Bill 177 to make it effective upon passage and approval. The Laughlin River Run is April 27 to May 1, and he hopes those riders won't have to wear helmets.

According to the Greater Johnstown Convention & Visitors Bureau, attendance at the Thunder in the Valley motorcycle rally in Pennsylvania increased by 30,000 following that state's repeal of its helmet law. The rally is held each June.

Based on the $2.8 billion increase in motorcycle sales reported by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles in the five years after its helmet law was repealed in 2000, Gustavson predicts a $56 million increase in the sales of motorcycles in Nevada following helmet law repeal.

"I think a 30 percent to 40 percent increase in the first year is realistic," Gustavson said. "Five percent a year after that."

Joe O'Day, coordinator of the Laughlin River Run, expects a slight, but not substantial, increase in attendance if riders don't have to wear helmets. Attendance at last year's event was 50,000, down from the peak of 70,000 before the recession hit Nevada.

"From a public relations standpoint, it would be a big boom," O'Day said. "From a safety standpoint, helmets are safer than riding without them. But riders strongly feel they should have the right to choose."

Nationally, the median age of a motorcycle rider in 2007 was 48, compared with 24 in 1980, according to Karen Juranski, vice president of the ABATE of Southern Nevada.

"I read an article that referred to us as 'rebels with disposable income,' " Juranski said. "We all know disposable income runs this state. The average motorcycle rider today is an older, educated person who has money. Shouldn't we make the decision whether to wear a helmet?"

ABATE is an organization for motorcycle enthusiasts in many states that has advocated for decades for the repeal of helmet laws. It now stands for A Brotherhood for Active Education, although initially it meant A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments.

But Fred Harold, director of purchasing for Las Vegas Harley Davidson, isn't as optimistic.

Like O'Day he predicts only slight increases in sales and attendance at rallies. As a rider himself, Harold favors passage of Gustavson's bill.

"Nevada is economically depressed," he said. "Anything that would pick up business is probably a good thing. I am old enough to dress myself, and I don't need the state to tell me to wear a helmet. But I wear a full-faced helmet out of choice."

THE BLOODY EVIDENCE

Assembly Speaker John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, said he would not support repealing the helmet law.

"I have seen horrific accidents involving motorcyclists," said Oceguera, assistant North Las Vegas fire chief and an EMT. "And I have seen motorcyclists who were wearing a helmet walk away unhurt."

During the helmet law hearing, Rusty McAllister, a lobbyist for the Professional Firefighters of Nevada, said he keeps the dinged-up helmet that saved his life in an accident when he suffered multiple injuries.

"We are the ones who pick them up after their accidents," McAllister said. "There is no doubt in my mind that helmets save lives."

In Florida, 164 motorcyclists were killed in 1999. After the helmet law was repealed in 2000, the number of fatalities increased to 241. Fatalities climbed to 532 in 2008, but dropped 24 percent to 402 in 2009.

Dr. John Filds, the trauma center director at University Medical Center, already has seen too many mangled bodies and brains of riders who rode with and without helmets. Repeal the law and he predicts more broken bodies, with the public footing most of the bills for their care. Treating the average rider's traumatic injuries already costs about $100,000, but there are far greater costs than medical care, he said.

"Who pays to take care of the wife and children if the rider suffers brain injuries, if they die?" Filds asked. "I once rode, but I stopped. It was too risky."

Between 40 and 57 riders die each year in Nevada, even with the helmet law. Nevada now has 121,000 licensed motorcyclists, of which only 540 are under 21.

GUSTAVSON HAS ALLIES

Gustavson, typically the lone rider on the issue in past sessions, has allies in his 2011 effort to repeal the helmet law.

Sen. Elizabeth Halseth, R-Las Vegas, repeatedly challenged witnesses who spoke out against helmet law repeal last week.

Committee members John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, and Mark Manendo, D-Las Vegas, are repeal bill co-sponsors.

"We have enough votes to get it out of the committee and get it out of the Senate," Gustavson said. "I haven't polled the other house yet. Maybe the time is right. Gas prices are going up and more people will be riding. This is good for the economy and will give us our freedom back."

But Chairwoman Shirley Breeden, D-Henderson, isn't so sure the bill will pass.

Breeden said she wants to hear from the insurance industry before scheduling a vote.

The Automobile Association of America sent a letter in opposition, but did not have a representative at the hearing. The high cost of medical care for uninsured riders injured in accidents has been a primary reason why the bill failed in previous sessions.

Filds said it would be a gross mistake to repeal the helmet law.

"These people want to exercise their rights," he said. "I want to exercise my right not to pay for their medical care. There is no such thing as unpaid medical care. You and I pay for their accidents."

Even with the helmet law in place, the public pays for motorcycle accidents. In 2008 and 2009, 784 motorcyclists were treated for traumatic injuries at UMC, according to a Nevada Office of Traffic Safety report.

Of that total, 696 were wearing helmets and the cost of treating their injuries averaged $96,700. The other 88 were not wearing helmets and the cost of their treatment averaged $112,500.

A large number of the riders lacked insurance or were underinsured. The county-operated hospital ate $45 million of the treatment costs, according to John Johansen of the Office of Traffic Safety.

Gustavson's bill would require all riders and passengers under age 21 to wear helmets. Motorcyclists over 21 could ride without helmets, as long as they have at least one year of experience and passed an approved motorcycle safety course.

Contact Capital Bureau Chief Ed Vogel at evogel@reviewjournal.com  or 775-687-3901

]]>
http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid=3&t=81~-1#post85 BillBrews http://scmra.org/Forums/Thread.aspx?pageid= Tue, 22 Mar 2011 11:04:08 GMT