redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted March 21, 2002 10:21 PM
 Edited By: redelk on 21 Mar 2002 22:23
Red Elk writes his State Representative (VERY, VERY LONG POST!)
This is a letter I sent to an Arkansas State Representative, after he had made comment in a newspaper article concerning helmet laws. The headline of the article read,
No helmet law costs state big, study reports
UAMS report also links death of cyclists to missing headgear
The article said that the six year University of Arkansas Medical Sciences study showed that motorcyclists, both wearing helmets and not, were often uninsured (helmet-37.9%/no helmet-45.4%) and was costing the state taxpayers in increased Medicaid expenses.
No number of those treated at UAMS was ever mentioned. Just percentages. Though I could not find any data that would tell me the exact number, I estimate that it was less then 100. That's for the WHOLE SIX YEARS of the study AND is counting both the insured and uninsured!
One other "little fact" was not mentioned. UAMS is the largest (if not the only) hospital in the state that specialized in treating those WITHOUT insurance.
These two aspects were not even brought up by UAMS or the Representative, in the article. I do have to admit, the author of the article did interview the owner of a Harley repair shop and his comments did question the study's findings.
The article also mention that the "study" included ALL vehicles that fall in NHTSA's categories 80 thru 90. That covers everything from street legal motorcycles, dirt bikes, scooter, mopeds, trikes, ATVs and dune buggies.
Sadly, both of these items were on page 6B, while all the damning comments and "data" were on the front page.
Representative Bradford is a former State Senator (term limited out) and owns one of the largest insurance companies in the state. He also a live long Democrat and a very close friend of Bill Clinton. He often traveled with Clinton during the '92 campaign.
He and I attended the same private boarding school (at different times) and he currently sits on the Alumni Associations Board of Directors. I also have served on that board for a 5 year term... and I was KICKED OUT ("asked to leave") of this fine school during my senior year (10 years eariler)!
We are not "good friend", but we do know each other on a first name basis. He did reply to my e-mail and it is included at the end of this letter. Here is my letter...
Representative and fellow Subiaco Alumni, Jay Bradford
First, I wish to say that I look forward to seeing you at our upcoming reunion at Subiaco. This will be my 25th. Yeah, I might be getting old, but then again, what year was it that you graduated?
The reason I am writing you is because of a recent statement you made. I read the article in Arkansas section of Monday's Arkansas Democrat Gazette concerning the No-helmet law. I could not agree with you more, when you said that the UAMS findings "just scratch the surface" of this issue.
There is only one slight problem. That's where our points of agreement concluded. For the remainder of the article, I am not quite sure which aspects I find more upsetting. I just can't decide if it's the fact that my tax dollars were spent on a six year study that not only distorts the facts and intentionally misleads, or that you further propagate these distorted facts with your reckless comments.
Your "scratched the surface" comment encouraged me to do a "study" on my own. Of course, I was not funded with taxpayer dollars and I did not spend six years doing my research. Actually, I spent less then six hours. I guess it'd be kinda hard to get federal or state funding with taxpayers' dollars for six hours of research, huh?
Sadly, in less then 15 minutes, I discovered the first inaccuracy on the 2000 fatality data. It was reported in the article, that there were 37 deaths in the state for the year 2000. This implied that there 37 "motorcycle" deaths, when in reality, that is not true. Not by any stretch of the imagination.
According to the NHTSA statistics for the state of Arkansas, 12 of those fatalities occurred while operating a "category 90" vehicle. Category 90 is defined as ATV (All Terrain Vehicle; including swamp/dune buggy and 3 or 4 wheeled vehicles).
So, how many of the 871 reported non-fatal accidents for the year 2000 were solely NHTSA category 80 (motorcycles)? Since approximately one third of those fatalities were on ATVs, how many of those 12 were wearing helmets?
Do you plan on informing the hunters in Stuttgart or the farmers at the Coon Supper in Gillette on how they are a burden to the taxpayers while riding the ATVs on the farm or at the deer camps? One would think that a Subiaco alumnus would be above playing "fast and loose" with the facts. Especially one who is also involved in the insurance industry AND an elected government official.
(NOTE: The Gillette Coon Supper is one of the state's biggest political "gatherings". It's held each year in South Arkansas. If your running for ANY state or federal office... you better be there.)
When the UAMS study is reviewed closer, it creates far more questions then it answers. Not just about helmets and insurance, but the general attitude towards motorcyclists in general. It paints with such a broad and inaccurate brush, one can only wonder how much of Arkansas taxpayers' money was spent on this study.
Here are some of the obvious questions that the study FAILS to answer:
1. What is the actual number individuals that were treated AND were actually operating a motorcycle as defined by the NHTSA's category 80?
2. Of the total number of motorcycle accidents that occurred in the ENTIRE state over this six year period, how many, NUMERICAL, NOT PERCENTAGE, were actually treated at UAMS? Again, category 80 vehicles ONLY!
3. There are many other trauma centers in the state of Arkansas. What is THEIR data on this?
4. Of the 871 accidents for 2000 mentioned in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette article, what is the number (NOT percentage) of actually category 80 motorcycles?
5. Of that number, how many these accidents did the operator of the motorcycle not have a valid motorcycle endorsement, proper VEHICLE insurance or was under the influence of alcohol or drugs?
6. How does this compare with the number of auto accidents involving DU Is, suspended or no driver's license, no VEHICLE insurance, no seat belts, no child safety seat and other common VIOLATIONS of our state's traffic laws?
7. Of these automobile accidents, what is the expense paid by the taxpayers?
8. How many of these uninsured motorcyclists were not violating any traffic law, but were hit by a car that either left the scene or had no liability insurance that would have covered at least part of the rider's injuries?
9. With over 250,000 youth sustaining a sports related HEAD injury in the U.S. last year ALONE (I can safely assume a few of them happened in Arkansas), what are costs incurred by the taxpayers of these injuries?
What about accidents that involved hunting or fishing? Water sports? Skateboarding? Mountain biking? I could go on, but I think that even you can see my point in all this. Is all this just another "spin" on the "facts" to attain a view more favorable towards motorcyclists?
Hardly. A study like this, conducted at a single institution and utilizing such a small sampling is neither scientific nor accurate. It also would not be accepted by anyone with the slightest bit of experience in statistical analysis. Hopefully, the company that does your political surveys is more competent then this.
The data available through federal, state and local government facilities, combined with data from research facilities and private organizations, proves that the UAMS study does not illustrate an accurate picture of motorcyclists. Instead, it distorts the facts in a manner that give a false impression to the citizens of Arkansas.
Still, facts are facts, right? During the short six hours of conducting my "study", I visited numerous government and private organization websites. The more I researched, the more the "facts" seemed to disagree with your conclusions. Allow me to present a few examples of the data from the American Motorcyclists Association.
Claim: Injured motorcyclists are uninsured and disproportionately rely upon the public to pay for their injuries.
Response: Motorcyclists are just as likely to be privately insured as any other road user.
A Harborview Medical Center study reported 63.4% of the injured motorcyclists in the trauma center relied on public funds to pay their hospital bills. According to testimony by David Gitch, director of the trauma center, 67% of the general patient population also relied on public dollars to pay their hospital bills in the same time period.
A study by the University of North Carolina's Highway Safety Research Center reported that 49.5% of injured motorcyclists had their medical costs covered by insurance, while 50.4% of the other road trauma victims were similarly insured.
Claim: The costs associated with unhelmeted motorcyclist injuries and fatalities compel the enactment of mandatory helmet laws to save taxpayer dollars.
Response: The costs associated with the treatment of motorcyclist injuries account for less than 0.001% of total US health care costs. Only a portion of these costs are attributable to unhelmeted motorcyclists, the majority of which are paid by privately-purchased insurance. The remainder, spread across the taxpayer base (which includes millions of motorcyclists), is insignificant.
Approximately 1.16% of total US health care costs are attributable to motor vehicle accidents.
Motorcycles represented only 0.53% of the accident-involved vehicles nationwide in 1999.
Claim: Mandatory helmet laws are the most effective way to reduce motorcyclist injuries and fatalities.
Response: The most effective way to reduce motorcyclist injuries and fatalities is to prevent crashes from occurring in the first place. Helmets and helmet laws do not prevent accidents.
Between 1990 and 1999, the fatality rate for motorcyclists per 100 million vehicle miles traveled declined nearly 23% even though total vehicle miles traveled has increased 11%. Of course, there remains room for improvement. Several less personally-intrusive measures can be taken to make motorcycling safer:
Creative motorcycle safety programs that promote licensing and testing can reduce accident and fatality statistics further. Nearly one out of seven motorcycle operators (15%) involved in fatal crashes in 2000 were operating with an invalid license.
Almost 40% of all fatal motorcycle crashes involve alcohol. Alcohol awareness programs and "Dial a Ride" campaigns can drastically reduce alcohol-related accidents and fatalities.
Two out of three motorcycle related multi-vehicle crashes are caused by the driver of another vehicle. The most common accident involves an automobile failing to yield the right of way to the motorcyclist. Motorist awareness campaigns and conspicuity programs can reduce the frequency of these types of accidents.
Motorcycling Facts
Motorcycles represent only .05 percent of the crash-involved vehicles nationwide.
Between 1990 and 1999, annual motorcycle crash fatalities per 100,000 registered vehicles declined 16% while crash injuries dropped more than 35%.
Between 1990 and 1999, annual motorcycle crash fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled fell over 22% while crash injuries plunged over more than 40%.
There are 5.7 million motorcycle owners nationwide. The average motorcyclist is 38 years old, married, college-educated and earns slightly more than $44,000 a year. The economic value of motorcycling in the U.S. was 14.3 billion dollars in 1999.
Nationwide, over 120,000 motorcyclists completed the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) Motorcycle Rider Course:Rider and Street Skills (MRC:RSS) rider education course and more than 9,100 riders completed the Experienced Rider Course (ERC) in 2000.
Forty-seven states have rider education programs designated through legislation (which Arkansas is NOT one of them).
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that unlicensed or improperly licensed motorcycle operators are over represented in fatality statistics. Over 40 percent of motorcycle operator fatalities nationwide involve riders with no motorcycle license or no license at all.
Riders who do not complete licensing requirements effectively avoid the only motorcycle skills evaluation provided by the traffic safety system. Mandating rider education for all riders provides a disincentive to this process and has the potential to exacerbate the problem of unlicensed riders.
With this information and it's obvious conclusions, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety makes the following statement:
There is no scientific evidence that motorcycle rider training reduces crash risk. "Numerous studies have shown that formal motorcycle education and training is not an effective loss reduction strategy," state authors of a 1989 Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada report.
Some support for motorcycle training was found in a California study in which training was associated with reduced motorcycle crash risk. However, later research contradicted the results of this study, finding an increased crash risk associated with training.
The most thorough analysis of motorcycle rider training was conducted in New York between 1981 and 1985 by the New York Department of Motor Vehicles. Motorcycle operator's license applicants were randomly assigned to one of three training programs or to New York's standard knowledge and driving test.
Despite the fact that more riders were licensed sooner under New York's standard procedures, these riders had fewer motorcycle crashes in the subsequent two years than riders in the three experimental groups.
They are kidding, right? The insurance industry makes such ridiculous conclusions by using studies that are based on such a limited amount of data and was gathered... TWENTY ONE YEARS AGO? They can't be serious?
So, I guess that one could just as easily conclude that any additional testing or training of truck drivers or law enforcement is equally pointless? Does the IIHS believe that there has been no further attempt to analyze the results of rider education or testing since that "most thorough analysis " in 1985?
It makes me wonder what other types of insurance rates and coverage embraces such outdated and statistically flawed data. Does the insurance industry use similar outdated data in the development of home owner, automobile or life insurance as well? This is not ignorance, it is reckless arrogance.
This total disregard for the facts is something not only the insurance industry should be ashamed of, but our elected government officials should be as well for blindly accepting this as having ANY shred of truth to it. Why? The more I researched, the more the "facts" seemed to disagree with your and the insurance industries conclusions.
Information from numerous government agencies and private organizations, easily available to the general public, have repeatedly and plainly proven this to be quite the opposite. How can any elected official or insurance company even consider such fallacies? This is not "shameful", it's criminal!
What is even more insulting is while some elected officials "grandstand" on issues that could have a negative impact on what's perceived to be a small segment of the voting population, They completely ignore both the real issues and fail to make any attempt to address them.
If you look closely at the accident data, you'll find that it is the these inexperienced riders that are the majority of the "victims". The reason I use quotation marks around "victims" is because it is not the lack of helmet use that cost Arkansas taxpayers. It's their lack of proper training for a vehicle that require over 300 human actions to operate. That is THREE TIMES more then required to operate an automobile.
Have you actually observed the "riding" test administered by the Arkansas State Police to motorcycle license applicants? If you have, do you seriously consider it to be an accurate test of that individual's ability to operate a motorcycle in a safe manner?
Do you not believe that to operate a vehicle that is three times more complex then an automobile, that the training and testing methods should also reflect this? Helmet laws and motorcycle regulations like 49 CFR 579.4 (b) and proposed §579.4 (c) of HR 5164 (TREAD Act) concerning motorcyclist apparel, do NOTHING to address the issue of why accidents happen.
The glaring facts of alcohol consumption and lack of proper licensing or training seem to be the cause of many of these single vehicle motorcycle accidents.
In the case of multi vehicle accidents it seems that it is irresponsible or illegal actions taken by the one operating the automobile is at fault. Are you saying that proper training and improved enforcement of the current laws would NOT be a better method to save the Arkansas taxpayers' money?
That it is NOT a better method in sparing one the pain and expense of a life long disability or saving the lives of the Arkansas motorcyclists?
It seems that our elected officials have found it rather convenient to both ignore the existing laws relating to motor vehicle accidents and also have failed to address the inequities in these laws. The American Motorcyclists Association also states,
Over two-thirds of car-motorcycle crashes, and nearly half of all motorcycle crashes are caused by drivers, not by motorcyclists. Of the 1,319 fatal car-motorcycle crashes in 1999, 38 percent involved another vehicle violating the motorcyclist's right-of-way by turning left while the motorcycle was going straight, passing, or overtaking the vehicle.
In general, right-of-way laws do not take into account the considerable vulnerability of road users such as motorcyclists, bicyclists and pedestrians. Consequently, the penalty for a right-of-way violator who dings a car, is generally the same as the penalty for a right-of-way violator that sends a more vulnerable road user, such as a motorcyclist, to the hospital or grave; a misdemeanor or summary offense with a small fine from $25 to $100.
If one bothered to examine the court cases that involved vehicular homicide and accidents that resulted in life long disabilities, they would discover how motorcyclists are often discriminated against, when they are the innocent victims of such tragic accidents.
Just as the IIHS STATUS REPORT used the example of Jeff Popovich's accident, allow me to present an example of motorcycle discrimination in our courts.
Driver sentenced to 90 days in jail for causing fatal motorcycle crash
Jan. 4 - A 36-year-old Michigan man who killed a motorcyclist and injured the motorcyclist's passenger in a traffic crash has been sentenced to 90 days in jail. On September 30, 2000, Norman Walton turned his pickup truck into the path of a motorcycle ridden by Stephan Shemanski, 43, in the Grand Rapids area. Shemanski was killed and his passenger, daughter Melissa Shemanski, 19, was injured.
Walton was found guilty of causing a fatality while driving with a suspended license and faced up to 15 years in prison. But when he was sentenced on January 3 of this year, he was given just 90 days in jail and two years probation.
In handing down that sentence, the judge in the case basically absolved car drivers of the responsibility of looking for motorcyclists. "The driving in this case was the kind almost anyone would have done," Judge H. David Soet said, according to the Grand Rapids Press. "Anyone who has practiced law in this city for over 30 years, as I have, knows that people don't see motorcycles. They somehow overlook them."
I must sadly admit, that for every one case that you present to me concerning the need for a mandatory helmet laws, I can give you 20 specific cases where the punishment handed down by our courts were substantially lighter solely because it involved a legally operated motorcycle as the victim when compared to like circumstance when the victim was operating a car.
Which issue do you believe carries more importance? Which issue do you believe creates a greater burden on Arkansas taxpayers?
By examining the state traffic laws that pertain to our state and city roads, it appears that motorcyclists, bicyclist and pedestrians are treated no different then if they were operating another automobile.
As the communities across our great state continue to build bicycle and jogging trails that run adjacent to public roads, how many people enjoying these additions must be killed or injured before our elected official find it politically favorable to take some form of action? Five? Ten? Thirty-seven (including ATV riders)? What is your reply to this data?
Shouldn't our concerns be focused on laws that promote accident PREVENTION and equal justice in our state's courts? After all, how can it be a burden on the taxpayers of Arkansas, if the accident does not happen it the first place? If an accident does occur should the truly responsible party be held acceptable for their actions?
My qualification for being able to address this issue is simply... I'm a motorcyclist.
Ah, but I am not just any motorcyclist. No, I don't ride a Harley (the first question asked by non riders). I am what is perceived by both the general public and the insurance industry as the "worst" kind of motorcyclist. I ride a sportbike and have for over a decade.
To make matters worse, my current sportbike is a 2000 Kawasaki ZX-12R. A sportbike that is capable of documented speeds in excess of 190 miles per hour and 0-60 times of less then 2.3 seconds. As far as the two above mentioned groups, when it comes to their perception of motorcyclists, it doesn't get any worse than rider like myself.
Other aspects that I feel may qualify me to speak on this topic is that I also have the following:
1. Motorcycle endorsement on my driver's license
2. A driving record without a single accident or traffic violation
3. Completed the Motorcycle Safety Foundation's Experienced Rider Course
4. Carry full coverage insurance on my motorcycle with double to four times the minimum required coverage
5. NEVER made a motorcycle related claim on my insurance
6. Full Blue Cross/Blue Shield health insurance
7. Two life insurance policies with one being specific to injuries or death sustained while riding
8. CMRA motorcycle racing license that requires extensive classroom and on-track training
9. Over 100,000 miles motorcycle riding experience on the back highways of Arkansas, in the past five years
10. Membership and leadership positions in several motorcycle organizations, dealing with both the recreational use and racing of motorcycles
Do I ride my motorcycle without a helmet? HELL NO! I personally think that anyone who operates a motorcycle, no matter if they are on or off road... is a DAMN IDIOT! I will not hit the starter button of my motorcycle until I have put on what I feel to be the proper riding attire. I have enclosed a photograph of what that is. Allow me to describe what I view as "appropriate attire".
1. Arai full face helmet that exceeds ANSI, SNELL and DOT standards, as well as meets the standards of all nation and international motorcycle racing sanctioning bodies.
2. AGV one piece racing leathers with kevlar and 1/4" soft or hard padding in the shoulders, back, elbows, hips, knees and shins.
These leathers also meet all racing standards and can offer protection against both impact and abrasion from sliding on road surfaces far exceeding any posted speed limit on any of the state's highways and interstates.
3. Teknics gloves with an extended gauntlet. Also meets racing standards.
4. Alpinestar racing boots. Again, meets racing standards.
5. Not shown is the Teknics spine protection device that is worn underneath my leathers.
This device is MANDATORY on any racetrack. It is a combination of hard flexible plastic shells and soft padding that covers my entire back from my tail bone to the base of my neck. It also extends to cover my kidney area.
I did not spend close to $3000 to dress up like a "fat Power Ranger" and look "cool" or impress anyone. I wear these items because I understand the dangers involved in riding a motorcycle on both the public roads and a race track.
It might be uncomfortable and extremely hot during the 100+° days of our Arkansas summers, but I can assure you that it is far more dangerous to ride at 55 miles per hour on AR365 through Whitehall then it is doing 150 miles per hour on a race track.
Though I choose to wear such apparel, I will also fight for the RIGHTS of others to make their OWN choice. Not a choice dictated by law makers that have no comprehension of motorcycling and ignorantly disregard the facts.
It doesn't matter if I view riding without a helmet as irresponsible or not. I believe that it should be an individual's choice AND responsibility. Does anyone at the Capitol even understand the words "Individual CHOICE" or "Individual RESPONSIBILITY"?
I also find drinking and driving as irresponsible, but I don't think that our government officials should ban alcohol sales in restaurants and bars. If you wish to attempt to justify these type of alcohol sales and the vehicle accidents related to it, I'm willing to listen. All I want to know is how it's an "acceptable" expense to Arkansas taxpayers?
Of course, if you think it is not, what are you doing to address it? I'll be interested to see what actions you take on drinking and driving, during our reunion at Subiaco.
Like any group of enthusiasts, be it Razorback fans or motorcyclists, there are always those that will conduct themselves in a manner that give the whole group a bad reputation.
It used to be the "1%'er" on the Harley. Back then, the illegal activities of a small number of the Harley riders almost made that reputation justifiable.
That has since passed and has been replaced with another type of motorcycle rider. Now, it's the sportbike rider that has become the "1%'er" of the 21st century.
It would be difficult to say that murder, rape, drug dealing and other "gang" activity is ANY part of the sportbike riding community. The fact that the most common violation of the law generally perpetrated by sportbike riders is that of a traffic violation doesn't seem to matter. That is, at least in the eyes of the non riding public.
In my personal experiences of over 27 years of riding a motorcycle, I have been involved in many motorcycle and racing organizations. I have had countless discussions with over ten thousand other motorcycle riders from around the world. Our safety on public roads is mainly a combination of the experience or training we have and the impression that the non riding motoring public has towards us.
I am sure that a review of the accident data in the UAMS study will indicate that the cruiser rider makes up the majority of this burden (after subtracting all other "non category 80" riders). Yes, I have no doubt that the sportbike riders have contributed to those accident numbers, but I'm sure they are a much smaller number.
The point is, this will not matter to the non riding general public. You see, this is where it directly affects me personally.
It's the public's fascination with the perceived "freedom" of Harleys and other cruisers, combined with the bad conduct of a small number of sportbike riders, that creates a DEADLY environment for myself and other sportbike riders.
You think I'm kidding? I can not tell you the number of times that someone in a car or truck has either drove in a dangerous manner or gone as far as to intentionally force me to take evasive action... solely because I ride a sportbike.
Your cavalier statements just fan the flames of misconceptions and contempt towards all motorcyclists. Now, thanks to your comments, when I ride on the back highways of Arkansas, I am not only seen as some sort of 21st century "outlaw", but also a burden to the taxpayers.
Next time, do me a favor. When you wish to use false and misleading data, pick some other group of enthusiasts that you have little concern for to do your grandstanding on the backs of... Okay?
Look forward to seeing you on "The Hill",
Sherman McCoy
Class of '77
Post Script - I asked my father, Gene McCoy (former UALR professor of advertising, international public relations and marketing, as well as founder of Ad Craft of Arkansas, Inc.) to review my "letter" before I sent it to you. His comments were simple. My "presentation" was good, but I was being a tad harsh on the "ole Representative" and I might "tone it down" if I wanted to "bring you over to my side".
I just had to chuckle. I sadly informed him that I had little hope in swaying your point of view on this issue. I also told him that I'd have better luck talking about Ken Lay's "sleep over" in the Lincoln bedroom, the various Enron executives that had "coffees" at the White House and the 19 federal loans totaling close to ONE BILLION DOLLARS (including that failed project in India that everyone was "touting") ... by the PREVIOUS administration!
You and I both know that neither one of us will be changing our views on EITHER one of these issues... don't we?
As a courtesy, I will also be mailing a copy of this to you and I DO actually thank you for your time to at least hear what I have to say about something that is VERY PERSONAL to me.
Reference material and data obtained from the following:
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(including documents DOT HS 809 326 & DOT HS 809 360)
NHTSA Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS query system)
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (including STATUS REPORT Jan. 12, 2002)
Centers for Disease Control
Consumer Products Safety Commission
American Medical Association
American Motorcycle Association
Motorcycle Safety Foundation
Several medical research hospitals and sports health organizations
This is his reply...
Sherman:
You are right. You didn't change my mind at all. Thank goodness you are convinced that it is nuts to ride without headgear! Thanks for taking the time to e-mail. Now delete that stuff before it falls into the wrong hands!!!
I'll buy you a beer at Reunion.
(I guess he does't know I DON'T DRINK... BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!)
Jay
Class of 58
I am not disappointed or surprised by his reply. He is an "educated" man, but he's also an "elected official" and owns an insurance company. The only things that did surprise me was that I DID get a reply and it rated a "tongue in cheek" comment about my facts. That was more then I had really hoped for.
The point of all this is that ALL OF US are responsible for defending the rights of ALL motorcyclists. No matter if it's helmet laws or bogus amendments to federal laws. If we all don't do SOMETHING (i.e. write a letter, join AMA, etc.), then we will soon have no rights AT ALL!
What the EPA has done with the new emissions laws should be reason enough. Thanks to the lobbying efforts of the AMA, it could have been a whole lot worse (i.e. NO aftermarket exhaust or fuel mapping systems).
Like my father has always said...
Your either part of the solution or... your part of the problem!
Which one are YOU?
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
   
|
frEEk
Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9660
|
posted March 21, 2002 11:28 PM
u never cease to amaze me redelk. excellent letter! i hope that despite the representative's very uninspiring responce, he took something away from reading it, and may think a little harder about what he's saying next time the topic of motorcyclists comes up. even if that means just adding a "not all bikers are bad" to his statement, it will be something of a victory.
from one biker to another i say...thank you.
|
Scooter
Zone Head
Posts: 899
|
posted March 21, 2002 11:59 PM
Good post Red. At least one person I know is standing up to the machine.
The sad thing is he most likely already knew all of it, but just doesn't care about anything but his own agenda, and was laughing at your frustration the whole time he read it. Typical pompus blowhard politician. We got sort of the same thing in Michigan with insurance reform (another state represenative in the insurance business).
How long has Arkansas been helmet free? When I moved away in '85 there were still helmet laws in effect.
____________
"Growing old is inevitable, growing up is optional."
|
pat830
Expert Class
Posts: 135
|
posted March 22, 2002 06:42 AM
Motorcyclists as social burdens, get real.
It is still safe to pick on motorcyclists. We are not a politically correct protected group.
How much does the state of Michigan think the dirtbags in the housing projects in Detroit and the other large Michigan cities cost the state. At least motorcyclists work and pay taxes.
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted March 22, 2002 06:52 AM
Not only are we not PC...
... but it seems were going BACKWARDS!
Arkansas no helmet law was inacted in '93 (I think). You have to be 18 (or maybe it's 21). Your right, he was probably laughing as he read the 9 pages (10 including the picture of me in full leathers). That's why I didn't "tone it down". I felt that the "facts" spoke for themselves. I also felt that it wasn't going to matter. I regretfully was correct on both.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
DaveInDaytona
Pro
Posts: 1696
|
posted March 22, 2002 08:48 AM
This is one of my favorite debates. For the record I think the rider should decide whether or not to wear a helmet. Let the flaming begin !
That being said you have to look a little deeper at what constitutes a helmet under the helmet laws. Wearing a novelty skull cap in a helmet law state would probably get you past any cop on any days ride without a problem. Crashing with that helmet and getting killed because your face was caved in still puts one kill in the "wearing helmet" column. The same person in the same crash with an approved full face helmet MAY walk away from that scene and then what does that do to your numbers ? That's the great thing about keeping statistics, they are virtually worthless because you can use the same numbers to plead any side of an issue if you spin them the right way.
Well there's has been one exception I have heard. The father of an old girlfriend once told me when I rode my bike to his house to pick up his daughter. He said that 100% of all motorcycle riders will eventually die. Can't argue with that one.
Florida repealed their helmet law a few years ago with a few restrictions. If you ride without a helmet you must be 21 and need to carry proof if medical insurance coverage. Riding without a helmet is not a valid reason for a stop, you have to be stopped for some other infraction and then they can ask. I have little issue with this since without this regulation no insurance of any kind at all is required to license and ride a bike in Florida.
Red, UAMS is one of my customers and I've been there a few times. That is an interesting place to visit.
Ride Safe,
Dave
____________
DaytonaSportbikes Forum
|
Bigju
Expert Class
Posts: 238
|
posted March 22, 2002 10:07 AM
I've beensaying it for 2 years now! You should be a writer for a Cylce Mag, at least then we could get an unbiased article. I'm glad you voiced your opinion. If nothing else it showes the politicians they cant just run us all over. If only they spent more time in Public Relations and less time in Interns. By the way can you write a letter to my Commander? I think they are trying to put me on the Maury Povich show. I have a 31 year old out of control cop. Can you help me? Great letter, but then thats what I have come to expect from you
|
kawachan
Pro
Posts: 1031
|
posted March 22, 2002 12:36 PM
Good one, Redelk!! Here in AR you have to be 21 to ride a motorcycle sans helmet. ALSO, you must be wearing eye protection to ride "sans helmet" Cops here can stop you to check any time they want. Helmet is "supposed" to meet DOT standards, but no one ever checks them. I do know that the local officers are checking all riders for motorcyle endorsements.
____________
RED NINJAS RULE!!
|
12RPilot
Pro
Posts: 1094
|
posted August 22, 2002 01:18 PM
Just a few facts to ponder fellers. The two leading drains on our health care system are tobacco and obesity. Motorcyclists are so far down the list it's damn near off the charts. If anyone tries to tell me I'm a drain on the system, I ask them when they last bitched out a fat smoker. And as for the AMA bailing us out; better check how many riders are actually AMA members. Less than 10% I've been told. So if you aren't an AMA member, don't bitch.
(Disclaimer: Yes I use Skoal and I have a "spare tire". But I don't pontificate about non-helmeted riders.) OK, flame on.
____________
If you aren't an AMA member, you're part of the problem.
NESBA #209
http://www.bikepics.com/members/12rpilot/04zx10r/
 
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted August 22, 2002 02:51 PM
Pilot, I couldn't agree more (as the elk lights up another one, picks his teeth with his 13th AMA "Extra Miler" card and slams down another Mt. Dew). As I said in my letter, there are so many other life aspects that deserve legitimate research (sports injuries, et. al.) that to waste our tax dollars on agenda driven investigative research is both insulting and arrogant.
To spend six years working with such a small sampling (actual number of accident victims), broadening the scope of NHTSB categories (to include dirt bikes, atvs, dune buggies, trikes, etc.) and utilizing just one medical facility that specializes in treating the indigent and uninsured... basically tells us nothing. Covering one's ineptness by using percentages instead of actual numbers is just a feeble attempt to give this government funded research some for of legitimacy.
Also, like the comments I made in the "Deal's Gap May Be History" thread, those that endorse a "nanny state" mentality have no idea of what the repercussions would be. If everyone quit smoking, drinking alcohol, maintain a proper diet (what ever that is) and rode bicycles to work, the lost tax revenues alone would bankrupt not just cities and states, but the whole damn country. So many pointless pork projects (like the UAMS study) are funded by these various "sin taxes".
It's kinda tragically funny that while our government claims to take care of the poor, the items either needed (gasoline) or consumed (cigarettes and alcohol) by the very same poor people, are taxed the most. This "helmet issue" is no different. It's nothing but political grandstanding. Plain and simple.
Though my letter might not have changed a thing, I do know that my financing organizations like the AMA and NRA does make a difference. I don't agree with everything either organization does or says, but until another organization comes along that both protects my rights and shares an opinion that's closer to my own, these two will be getting my checks every year.
Again, like my father has always said...
Your either part of the solution or... your part of the problem!
Pilot, you won't get any flames from me on this one.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
harryzx-12
Needs a job
Posts: 3643
|
posted August 22, 2002 05:32 PM
I agree that a rider should have the choice of wearing a helmet or not.I ocasionally ride without a helmet (very short distances at slow speeds only).I feel strange when I don't wear a helmet.
____________
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways- Body thoroughly used up, totally worn out...Screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride !!!"
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted August 22, 2002 07:00 PM
when i lived in a private apartment complex, after chainlube or adjust id ride in parking lot/driveway without helmet, but if tire hit road, helmet on.
as for the burdens...id say the rider wearing helmet would be most likely to cost more money, as more of them survive with maiming/disabling injurys, that, frankly, on helmetless rider would be moot due to the brain damage and death.
just a logical look at the figures.
(of course life insurance companies sorta take it in the shorts here...but i dont think the insurance companies are going begging if you know what i mean....)
|
BigJ12
Expert Class
Posts: 107
|
posted August 22, 2002 10:51 PM
Great Post Red!!!
Makes me feel good to have someone like you on our side!!!!
BigJ12
____________
"Blessed mother of acceleration, don't fail me now"
|
BigJ12
Expert Class
Posts: 107
|
posted August 22, 2002 10:52 PM
Great Post Red!!!
Makes me feel good to have someone like you on our side!!!!
BigJ12
____________
"Blessed mother of acceleration, don't fail me now"
|
jonwright
Needs a job
Posts: 2416
|
posted August 23, 2002 06:14 AM
Red, I would have expected nothing less from you. Go get 'em! Now, how 'bout me and you give a nice donation to his reelction campaign and see if he changes his mind...
OR
Give a butt load to whomever is running against him! 
j
|
pat830
Expert Class
Posts: 135
|
posted August 23, 2002 07:57 AM
We are just an easy target.
It is politically correct to pick on motorcyclists these days. I saw a bad news article on ABC world news tonight last Friday (the 16th) about bikers with no helmets and what their associated medical costs were. They bashed the hell out of motorcyclists. I sent them a few choice emails.
There is more drain put on society in one day by welfare and social security disability recipients than there is in 100 years by motorcyclists, but they vote in large numbers, it is not politically correct to point them out.
It is all about PC these days and not about what is right or correct.
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted August 23, 2002 05:23 PM
hey sherm: you mind if i post the text of your first post on the yzf forum in similar thread? with all credit of course.
(recent little scrap about helmets being required, nany state and all that other drivel.)
thanks again for a great letter though. you da man!
|
redelk
Moderator
Please... speak to the hand.
Posts: 3212
|
posted August 23, 2002 06:04 PM
PLEASE! PLEASE! I don't give a rat's ass if I'm credited on this one or not. At first, I was hesitant to allow you to include his reply, but after some thought, I realized that his reply just further illustrates how much of an uphill battle we face on this and other motorcycle related issues. This is information that I believe should be available to any motorcyclist.
I feel that my data is accurate, current and best represents the issue. That is why I named my sources of information and I challange anyone to provide creditable sources that would could come to any other conclusion.
Being in advertising, survey results, demographic data and other statistical information is both common place and critical to the function of the industry. The critical part is that the data accurately informs by reflecting a true perspective. Without a true perspective, the information is scientifically worthless. To use such data to come to any kind of conclusion is both reckless and misleading.
Just the fact that UAMS used percentages instead of actual numbers and how their numbers relate to other medical facilities in the state, shows that their study does more to cloud the issue instead of defining it. The other questionable aspects of their study just compounds the problem. To give this poor excuse for serious research any creditability would be insulting at best.
____________
There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games.
-Ernest Hemingway
|
slug
Pro
Out in search of my mind...
Posts: 1433
|
posted August 24, 2002 01:30 PM
cool deal, i willpost away
thanks for your eloquence!
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC