Freedom Isn't Free

I had planned to write up my rendition of the press conference that was held at the capitol Monday morning, in a dry blow-by-blow sort of way, but I walked away from that conference with something else, besides the distaste I had for our state's political blindness. RC had already blogged on this, but I felt the need to vent after seeing this new "dog and pony show". So this is what I saw of this conference, but more importantly, what I saw of RC in action.

The new campaign, "Ride Proud, Dress Loud", is at best a "feel good" move, and will contribute to future problems for motorcyclists everywhere. But RC made damn sure our concerns were heard. If they didn't know him before, they know him now. I knew we'd only get the chance for one or two questions, and I knew RC would hit them hard.

I have known RC for a little more than a year now. Each time I am with him somewhere, fighting the good fight, or supporting our troops, I see something new that smacks me right up the side of the head and says, see, there's another reason this man has more integrity than those lofty politicians sitting up there in their tidy little offices, or the "little Napoleon" who runs the [small] MRO called Abate in this state. Come to think of it, if any Abate members were at this conference, they did not make their presence known. Why am I not surprised at that?

The title to this blog is one of RC's favorite sayings. RC runs the Big Bend Bikers For Freedom blog, and if you haven't been there, you should go and check it out. And if you have been there, you know that RC is every biker's warrior. An "old school" biker in every sense of the word, RC is a bearded, long-haired biker who has been-there-done-that. His sense of fairness and compassion is evident in everything he does; quick to laugh and kind of heart, until you mess with freedom, or give yourself airs you don't deserve. Then you'd better run and hide until you've mapped out 100 ways to make it up. God love him.

So back to the press conference. Now I may be wrong in thinking that many of the 50 odd bikers that showed up for the press conference on Monday were there to hear the speakers, and maybe get on TV, but I know for sure that RC and I went there specifically to challenge the discriminatory flavor of this press conference. And a handful of others I know came for that reason as well. Some who showed up and made the "feel good" comments to reporters that were printed in the media, and may like wearing neon pink; the better to see them when they are riding home drunk after Hooters bike night. OK, I sometimes wear a white and red colored jacket. But that's because I want to. No one is going to dictate to me what I wear when I ride. No one. And I won't give lip service that contradicts that.

So while the majority are either standing around waiting for something to happen, or socializing, RC is documenting, networking, and cornering officials and reporters. I'm still hanging back and making myself available to him when needed. I don't recognize these people yet the way he does.

This press conference was nothing more than a publicity stunt designed to win public approval, in spite of what anyone else thinks. I knew that, RC knew that, but I don't think many others knew that. Some were indignant that anyone would protest such a "feel good" initiative the state had cooked up "for motorcyclists". Lord, help me look past their short-sightedness.

So let's examine why on God's green earth two of this state's freedom fighters would think our freedom is yet again up for grabs.

Fact: 2/3 of all motorcycle deaths are due to negilgent and/or distracted drivers of 4-wheeled automobiles.

Fact: Drivers convicted of right-of-way violations, and killing or injuring a motorcyclist, are fined for a traffic violation and allowed to go free.

Fact: The majority of guilty drivers who kill or injure a motorcyclist can get out of any restitution by stating, "I didn't see him/her".

Fact: Drivers who use cell phones while driving, hands-free or not, are equal to impairment of a driver under the influence of alcohol.

Fact: There are no valid studies that show bright colored clothing, or motorcycle color makes a motorcycle more visible to a driver, especially one who doesn't look.

Fact: Light colored helmets and headlights have proven to be helpful in making motorcycles visible to motorists, WHEN THEY ARE LOOKING.

Fact: The state of Florida now mandates that all new riders must take a state designated rider training course, for about $200.

Fact: There are 29 approved driver education schools for various fees.

Fact: A standard drivers license written test contains no information about motorcycle awareness or cautionary techniques.

Fact: A standard drivers license only requires a driving test and written test. Renewals only require a written test.

Fact: A motorcycle is bound by the same driving laws and is entitled to use the same roads as any other motor vehicle.

Fact: When a helmet-less motorcyclist dies at the hands of a negligent driver, the government and the public focuses on the absence of helmet, not on the guilt of the driver, regardless of the injury that caused the death.

This last fact is the most telling of them all. Tell me, dear readers, once this campaign is going strong, and "Ride Proud, Dress Loud" is plastered all over the state, how often will we now hear, "Well, she didn't see him because he was wearing black"? What this campaign will do is raise awareness for yet another excuse for NOT seeing motorcycles. Now it'll be, "he hit him because he was wearing black, and he died because he wasn't wearing a helmet". God help us all. Next thing you know, some uppity state rep with a hair up his ass, like Carlos-Cantera, will come up with a bill forcing all motorcyclists to wear neon orange vests, helmets, and plaster neon stickers all over our bikes.

There are 15.5 million drivers in Florida, and only 3.9% of them are endorsed. Why is the state trying to convince US to accept sole responsibility for those 2/3 motorcycle fatalities that are not the rider's fault? Does this not smack of the band-aid approach that helmets do? We know that helmets will only protect our heads up to 20mph, and that most fatalities occur at much higher speeds. We know that the head is only part of the body, which contains many other areas where we may be fatally injured, all of which is mangled in a crash between a motorcycle and an automobile. The physics will win every time.

Indeed, that morning I rode my bike down to the capitol, and while sitting at a red light, in the right lane, a pickup truck squeezed past me, IN MY LANE, to make a right hand turn. If I had leaned my body to the right even 6 inches, his mirror would have smacked me in the head. Somehow I doubt that wearing neon orange would have made any difference. My point being, drivers take full advantage of motorcyclists without any regard for their safety, and just don't care about looking for us, or are too distracted to. I've been told the risk of them hitting me is solely mine, because I choose to ride, which, in their mind, absolves them of any wrong-doing.

I would challenge you to an experiment, assuming the Director of FLHSMV has credibility in her statements about color of bike or clothes. While you are out driving your car next time, and you see a motorcyclist coming in the opposite direction from a distance, I'd like you to determine what color the bike is, and what color clothes the motorcyclist is wearing, first thing, the minute you spot them in the distance. Especially if you see a biker on a Harley, or cruiser type of bike. Can you see what he's wearing through the fairing? Can you tell what color the bike is on the small front fender?

Mark my words. Somewhere soon, a motorcyclist is going to die at the hands of a negligent driver, and the first thought that will come into their head as they look at him lying in the road is, "oh my, I didn't see him because he's wearing black, so it isn't my fault".

So yes, we went to that press conference to protest. What were they thinking??? The director of FLHSMV was adamant, in her words to us before the conference started, that this is about "everyone", including other motorists, but the official statements made by her, and by the Tallahassee Police Chief, and the FHP were all about motorcyclists taking the responsiblity and making ourselves even more visible so we don't have to die.

Both LEO's stated that enforcement of dangerous driving would be increased. My first thought was, "and they weren't enforcing all of it before?", then I thought, well that's nice, but what are you going to do about a deterent? What about stiffer penalties for killing someone in a ROWV? Enforcement will merely increase the number of citations paid.

There were other things that just fried my ass at this hearing. Most notably the eight, count 'em, eight motorcycle cops attending to lend a pretty picture with their bikes all lined up by the podium. Why does that piss me off? Because last Saturday the Patriot Guard escorted a fallen soldier through Tallahassee to his final resting place, and the county Sheriff and Police chief refused to give an escort. PG riders blocked roads for the procession, and risked being run over by angry Tallahassee citizens who couldn't wait five minutes for an honored soldier to pass. In the state capitol!

Another thing that came to my attention was the money paid to hire a marketing firm to advertise this campaign, which came out of state motorcycle safety funds. Yet, the state of Florida saw fit to pass an increase in endorsement fees to help pay for rider education, a portion of which is pocketed by the M$F, who will be delivering rider courses we are forced to pay $200 for! Gosh, do I "feel good" yet?

Now back to why 'when I grow up I want to be like RC'.

When the state officials were all done with their flowery speeches, one of the reporters asked if questions would be accepted. No sooner than they accepted this, RC stepped up to the plate. This may not be accurate word for word, as it is quoted from memory, but he asked very clearly, "What specific measures are you going to implement to assure that distracted drivers who kill us are punished?". And true to all politicians and most state officials, they danced around the question and merely repeated the "extra enforcement" comments. So, RC again repeated his question. And for a second round, they repeated their comments. The main thing is, everyone heard his questions. You could have heard a pin drop. And all the reporters were watching, and paying attention.

The officials then stepped down and disbanded, but every one of those reporters and cameramen clustered around RC like moths to a flame. He gave statements and answered questions. Sadly, the reporter that the Tallahassee Democrat sent to the press conference cared little for printing the truth. It most definitely didn't go down with "a roar of approval and motorcycle engines". See that story here.

I tell you here and now, the government will not tell me what to wear when I ride. I've stayed alive this long by treating every other driver as though they would run me down if they had the chance. If you can't see me or hear me coming, YOU DIDN'T LOOK!

And MY campaign will always be "Ride Proud, RIDE Loud". I'll leave the dressing loud for the FSU student body and the bike night drunks. My pipes are loud enough, thank you very much.

And RC? Well, when the chips are down, my vote stays with his. Watch out Florida politicians, he's got your number. Read RC's rendition of this press conference here.

Ride proud, ride loud, ride long, ride free. Freedom isn't free, especially if you're wearing neon pink.

(Note: As of this writing, the Tallahassee Police Chief and the Leon County Sheriff's department are [allegedly] negotiating a policy change to provide police escorts for fallen soldiers returning home to Florida. See the story here.)

Should the Mayor of Sorrento, Louisiana Be Exempt From the Law?

A family is left bereft and in mourning. A wife and mother is left without her husband, their children a father. The death of this motorcyclist has left an untold number of friends and relatives battling the pain and sadness, and asking the simple question, why?

On Monday, October 14, 2007, in Sorrento, Louisiana, the local Mayor, Brenda Melancon, hit and killed a motorcyclist and severely injured his wife. The Mayor said, "I didn't see them coming."

Well, no duh. That's why when you get behind the wheel of a car, you're supposed to follow the laws of driving - and that means stop and look both ways before proceeding. But Mayor Melancon didn't do that. She pulled out of a private drive without stopping or looking and mowed down Jim Pickholtz and his wife, Amy. Jim is dead. Amy has suffered devastating and permanently crippling injuries, and her family is left without income.

And if that isn't bad enough, Amy must live life, such as it is, without her husband now, the love of her life. Their children must now live without their father. Jim was 41 years old. I call that murder, even if the criminal justice system does not. The Pickholtz family are the victims here, as are their extended family and friends. The perpetrator, namely the Mayor, must pay for her failure to value life enough to obey traffic laws. She must pay for her failure to not bother looking. The buck stops here, Mayor Melancon.

Mayor Brenda Melancon was arrested for negligent homicide, negligent injuring, and failure to yield from a private drive, a felony booking in the state of Louisiana. Well that's something anyway. Most of the time, no arrest is made, and often only a traffic ticket is handed out. That's how much value society places on the death of a motorcyclist. So this arrest and charges are a step in the right direction, right?

Well, the Mayor posted bail shortly after being arrested and continued to hold office while going through the legal system, even though she was booked on a felony! Does that make you feel all warm and fuzzy about our justice system?

Now, you can bet your last dollar that had this been you or I, in our civilian jobs, we would be without a job, in a heart-beat. That she was arrested for these crimes, and crimes they are, should warrant suspension in the very least! But the plot thickens..... read on.

Recently, Prosecuting Attorney, Paul Knight, who was working on the criminal case against Mayor Brenda Melancon, has been removed from the case. Hmmmm, do you suppose maybe the Mayor has some behind-the-scenes influence going on here? Maybe the Mayor didn't like Mr. Knight calling a spade a spade.

The case is now being handled by Dana J. Cummings, who is the Director of the Criminal Justice Department in the Attorney General's office.

If you look at Louisiana's Office of the Attorney General home page, the tag line next to a smiling James D. "Buddy" Caldwell, Attorney General, reads:

"Deeply committed to preserving and protecting the health, safety, welfare, and legal interests of all of the citizens of Louisiana".

And if you drill in to the page that describes the Criminal Division, the first sentence there reads as follows:

"The Criminal Division seeks justice on behalf of the citizens of the state of Louisiana by assisting federal, state and local agencies in the investigation and prosecution of a wide range of criminal matters."

Given that Amy Pickholtz (the victim) felt that Attorney Paul Knight was making progress in the prosecution of Mayor Brenda Melancon (the accused), I find it very interesting that he has been removed, and the case reassigned to someone else. I could find no explanation for this.

Without minimizing this case in any way, let me just say that this type of case is common these days. Motorcyclists are killed every day in this country through negligent drivers, without so much as an apology to the victim's surviving family. Case after case recorded has the offender "grinning and dancing out of the court room" with a mere $45 traffic fine - for killing an innocent human being through negligence.

How many times have we heard of someone going to jail over negligent use of a gun? Is this not the same? We have driving laws to protect us from each other. When you kill someone out of negligence, you should pay the price. As Amy Pickholtz says, "there needs to be justice, not just law". If we have laws to deter criminals, then the laws that protect us from death by negligent driver should be driven home with a large sledge hammer and pounded in until it is understood that when you get behind the wheel of a car, you are driving a very big weapon that motorcyclists cannot protect themselves from. Kill a biker, go to jail.

I see no evidence of guilt or remorse here. All I see is her proclaiming that she "looked". So sorry, I looked, so I'm not to blame for killing you. Brenda Melancon continues to do her "duties" as Mayor, takes home a paycheck, and still has her foo-foo dog to sleep with at night. While Amy lives in pain, both mentally and physically, and her children wonder why their daddy will never come home again.

And what does this teach others? That it's OK to kill someone and the excuse of "I didn't see them" is acceptable, when the law clearly states that you must yield the right-of-way? And in order to do that, you must STOP and LOOK first. It's been 36 years since I took Drivers Ed. I still remember that little "rule". Does the Mayor's excuse exempt her from guilt? Certainly not! But I bet she thinks her position as Mayor does, for I have no doubt (no proof, but no doubt) that she used some sort of influence to have Attorney Paul Knight removed from the case and another more controllable person assigned. My research of Dana Cummings shows that he is a brilliant attorney in criminal cases, but will he jeopardize his job in protecting the rights of Amy Pickholtz? Do I really need anyone to answer that question?

And therein lies the corruptness of our public servants. For in their arrogance they feel above the law. I can see it coming. The Mayor will be found liable for a traffic violation, but not of negligent homicide, and Dana Cummings will orchestrate the whole thing. Brilliance only works if you have that brilliance on your side. Dana cummings will not be questioned when he lets the Mayor go free.

So I'll be writing letters in a big way, to the smiling James D. "Buddy" Caldwell, Attorney General, and to Dana Cummings, Director of the Criminal Justice Department, as well as others. I want them all to know that they are now "under the microscope". I don't live in Louisiana, but these "negligent murders" happen in all states, and has an affect on all motorcyclists everywhere.

Public servants should be held to the statement and purpose they are in office to uphold. A Mayor is like anyone else when you strip away the arrogance and title. And Jim and Amy Pickholtz are just as deserving of life, liberty and happiness. One cannot remove the other without consequences. That is, if there's any justice.

If you're any sort of human being, if you have any compassion at all, you'll write letters too. We are a brotherhood/sisterhood and we watch each others' backs. Jim and Amy, and all of their family and friends, have suffered greatly, at the hands of a negligent driver, and she must pay, Mayor or not.

Remind them all of "Buddy's" words on his welcome page, "As your lawyer, I have a tremendous responsibility to protect the public as well as to uphold the laws and the Constitution of Louisiana", and demand that they uphold those words in prosecuting Mayor Melancon of her crimes against Jim and Amy Pickholtz.

You can write to them at the addresses below:

The Honorable James D. "Buddy" Caldwell, Attorney General
Louisiana Attorney Generals Office
Physical: 1885 North 3rd St., Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Mailing: P.O. Box 94005, Baton Rouge, LA 70804
Phone: 225-326-6100
Email: caldwellj@ag.state.la.us

Dana J. Cummings
Director of Criminal Division, Louisiana Attorney Generals Office
Phone: 225-326-6200; fax: 225-326-6297
Email: cummingsd@ag.state.la.us, criminalInfo@ag.state.la.us

Ms. Linda Southhall, Assistant To The Attorney General
Fax: 225-326-6797
Email: southhalll@ag.state.la.us

Administrative Services Division:
Phone: 225-326-6705
Fax: 225-326-6793
Email: adminInfo@ag.state.la.us

Executive Division, John W. Sinquefield, First Assis. Attorney General:
Phone: 225-326-6705
Fax: 225-342-8703
Email: executive@ag.state.la.us

Investigation Division:
Phone: 225-326-6100, 800-488-2770
Fax: 225-326-6197; investigationInfo@ag.state.la.us

Litigation Division:
Phone: 225-326-6300, 225-326-6705
Fax: 225-326-6490
Email: litInfo@ag.state.la.us

Public Protection Division:
Phone: 225-326-6438
Fax: 225-326-6497
publicprotectionInfo@ag.state.la.us

You should also copy:

The Honorable Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 94004
Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9004
Phone: 225-342-7015
Fax: 225-342-7099
Possible emails for Governor Jindal: constituent@la.gov, info@bobbyjindal.com
Website: http://www.gov.state.la.us/

Email block for mass mailings:

caldwellj@ag.state.la.us, cummingsd@ag.state.la.us,
criminalInfo@ag.state.la.us, southhalll@ag.state.la.us,
adminInfo@ag.state.la.us, executive@ag.state.la.us,
investigationinfo@ag.state.la.us, litInfo@ag.state.la.us,
publicprotectioninfo@ag.state.la.us, constituent@la.gov,
info@bobbyjindal.com

*********************************************************************

Sample Letter:

Honorable Officials of Louisiana,

I have been watching the proceedings in the case of the death of Jim Pickholtz by negligent homicide, negligent injuring, and failure to yield from a private drive, in which Mayor Brenda Melancon was arrested and charged with a felony.

It is my understanding that Mayor Melancon has been allowed to continue her job as Mayor during these proceedings. I find that deplorable, while Amy Pickholtz is left without a husband and a family income, as well as permanently crippling injuries. Any other person would have lost their job or in the very least been suspended. One would think the Mayor is "special" and deserves better treatment than your average citizen.

Traffic rules are not guidelines. They are made into law to protect innocent citizens who abide by the law. Yielding the right-of-way requires a driver to stop and look for oncoming traffic before pulling out and making a left-hand turn. She stated that she looked both ways and then pulled out, but the crash was instantaneous; by her own words, she said she didn't even know what she hit. That's a good indication that Jim Pickholtz was much too close for her NOT to see him, IF she had looked. Everyone blames the small size of a motorcycle, but I always see them. Because I LOOK for them. And motorcycles have as much right to be on the road as any other legal vehicle. "I didn't see them", or "I looked" is an unsubstantiated excuse.

Failure to "see" another vehicle or motorcyclist, when a motorist does not look, makes it a willful act. Does her saying she looked make it so? No. Motorcyclists are always watching for those who would pull into their path, and would not willingly hit another vehicle if it can be helped. She was too close for him to do anything. She did NOT look.

The fact that Brenda Melancon is the Mayor should have no bearing on seeing justice done for Amy and her family. A public office does not exempt a person from paying the price of taking a life through negligence. A slap on the hand for Mayor Melancon is only assurance that others will also go unpunished for such negilgence. And let us not forget that such negligence took a life and severely damaged another.

I sincerely hope that removing Attorney Paul Knight from the case was done to strengthen the proceedings with a more knowledgeable Attorney, and not out of concern that Mr. Knight may prove the Mayor's guilt. As that would be criminal too.

As a motorcyclist, I am aware of the high number of deaths caused by a failure to yield, and/or negligence. In most cases the guilty party (proven so in court) is given a slap on the hand or a traffic fine for killing a motorcyclist/bicyclist/pedestrian. That "someone" could be me next time. And it is appalling that our court system cannot see fit to punish those who kill us needlessly. I am a motorcyclist, I am a law-abiding citizen. And never forget that I also vote.

Therefore, I am appealing to you, as a citizen of this country, who has a right to fair and thorough prosecution, regardless of the public office the alleged guilty party holds, to please see that justice is done for Amy Pickholtz. Her husband's death should not be passed off on the excuse of "I didn't see them". For had she truly LOOKED, Amy's husband might be alive today, and her injuries non-existent.

I would also remind you that on your website, the following quotes are displayed for all to see:

"Deeply committed to preserving and protecting the health, safety, welfare, and legal interests of all of the citizens of Louisiana".

and

"The Criminal Division seeks justice on behalf of the citizens of the state of Louisiana by assisting federal, state and local agencies in the investigation and prosecution of a wide range of criminal matters."

and

"As your lawyer, I have a tremendous responsibility to protect the public as well as to uphold the laws and the Constitution of Louisiana"

I urge you to prosecute to the full extent of the law, and to seek the maximum penalty for this death. Five years is nothing compared with what Amy Pickholtz must face the rest of her life. The American public must see that killing needlessly in this manner is not tolerated. Louisiana has the penalties for this crime, please show that your sworn oath to uphold the law applies to all citizens.

Respectfully,

Your Name
Your Address

*********************************************************************

"Drive it like a loaded 357, with a hair trigger."

Study Shows Cell Phones Distract Drivers

BY RITA RUBIN, USA Today

Simply listening to a cell phone distracts drivers, a new study concludes, raising questions about the effectiveness of laws that ban only the use of handheld devices while driving.

California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Washington, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands prohibit drivers from using handheld cell phones, but no jurisdiction bans hands-free phones, says Jonathan Adkins, spokesman for the Governors Highway Safety Association, representing state and territorial highway safety offices.

Allowing hands-free phones "really gives drivers a false sense of safety," says Adkins, adding that he has seen no evidence that bans on handheld phones have prevented accidents.

As a motorcyclist, I've seen this first hand.

Neuroscientist Marcel Just, director of the Center for Cognitive Brain Imaging at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, agrees. Just studied 29 volunteers who used a driving simulator while inside an MRI brain scanner. The volunteers steered a car along a virtual winding road undisturbed or while deciding whether a sentence they heard was true or false.

Listening while driving led to a "significant deterioration in driving accuracy," Just and his co-authors write in the latest issue of the journal Brain Research. The drivers hit the guardrail and veered out of the center of the lane more often while listening.

And we've seen this have a deathly affect on motorcyclists who have been hit head-on by a driver crossing the center line, and many other right-of-way violations caused by driver inattentiveness.

In the listening situation, MRI brain scans found a 37 percent decrease in parietal lobe activity. The parietal lobe is associated with spatial processing, so it is critical for navigation. Activity also decreased in the occipital lobe, which processes visual information.

"Certain activities in life are inherently multitasking, but driving and cell phone use isn't something Mother Nature thought about when she was designing our brains," Just says.

But banning cell phones outright is "too draconian," Just believes. "I could imagine banning them during rush hour, maybe during inclement weather."

Won't happen. How will anyone enforce this? It will take every person who drives to be aware and have consideration for others on the road. What a concept! Sadly, that ain't gonna happen either.

Besides, say Just and Joy Hendrick, who has found that college-age drivers don't brake as quickly when talking on either a handheld or a hands-free phone, it's unlikely that busy lawmakers would support a ban.

What??? Tell some lawmaker (or businessman) they can't do business over the phone while driving, all to save a life? Pffftttt!!! Get real.

For now, the researchers say, they would just like to raise awareness of the problem. Hendrick, a kinesiology professor at State University of New York-Cortland, says drivers need to ask themselves: "Do I need to make this call?" If the answer is yes, she says, then they should think about pulling over or at least keeping it as brief as possible.

Not "think" about it. PULL OVER! Again, what a concept! It all begins with the man/woman in the mirror. My life depends on it. More rider education won't help me (other than watching out for all you cell phone addicted drivers). My helmet won't save me from you either.

Here's a thought. How about all you self-righteous people who lobbied against smokers, put some effort into lobbying against cell phone drivers who are likely to kill your child, sibling or parent while yakking on their cell phone in their car. Either that, or put a mask on. Same thing as a motorcycle helmet, doncha think?

The Forest For The Trees

Wisdom comes with age, I always say, but then wisdom also comes with learning and life is just one big learning experience. Why is it the young who have not lived long are the ones who proclaim to "know everything"? Is it because they haven't lived long enough to understand that they don't?

Some of us prefer to learn the hard way, taking our bumps in the road with glee. Rather like riding your dirt bike through moguls, whooping and grinning through every foot of airspace we can get. We take our knocks when we get them because we've determined the trade-off is worth it. In these situations, we have the control, and the risk is carefully thought out (usually).

Far more boring, but with fewer knocks, some prefer to take the extra, and sometimes tedious, time researching for all the angles before making a decision. I do this sometimes, especially when I recognize that a subject cannot be inherently understood or learned without it. Those who don't are merely spouting groundless opinion.

In my opinion.

And still some sit in their armchairs waiting for others to "do something" about their problems for them. They cannot see the forrest for the trees. Apathy will be their downfall.

Often an opinion or belief comes from witnessing a horrific event and blinds us to other facts. We keep those blinders on so we don't have to feel guilty for believing otherwise, even when the facts sit right in front of our glazed over eyes.

I can fully understand why some bikers want to wear a helmet. I wear one. Do I think a helmet will prevent my death? No. I've said so before. It may prevent my head or face from being smeared all over the road, should some event cause me to go asphalt surfing. When my time comes, I'd like my daughters to be able to say good-bye to something other than hamburger meat. But if I didn't care about what my daughters would see? Well, I can also understand why some Bikers don't wear a helmet. Either way, when that Ford Explorer pulls out into your path, it is likely not going to make a difference.

When I was 18 years old, I saw a guy on a motorcycle T-bone a car late one night while I was pumping gas. He flew over the hood and landed on his head and left half his skull and brain on the road before he stopped sliding. A brick retaining wall stopped him, effectively breaking his neck.

I was first on the scene, and as I bent down to check for a pulse, I saw that he was still breathing, for his breath caused bubbles in the blood leaking from his mouth, and just a moment later, he was gone. I remember thinking that this was probably a good thing, for he would have been brain-dead after such an injury. The woman got out of her car, babbling about "not seeing him coming". I stayed with her until the Police came. He was not wearing a helmet. She was not charged.

What I didn't understand back then was that a helmet would not have saved him. Nor would a helmet have stopped the driver of the car from pulling out before looking to see if he was coming. Yep, I saw that too, but it didn't really register until many years later.

There I was, standing at a gas station filling my tank, and watching the intersection (there was nothing else to watch at 3:00 AM). I saw this woman screech to a halt at the stop sign, rolling through it as Californians do, then stand on the gas pedal to cross this busy street running through our medium sized town.

The man on the bike was not speeding, but he never had a chance. He struck the car (an El Camino I think) at the left front wheel, at about 45 mph. Besides me, they were the only two moving objects out at that time of night. Since he was not traveling on the wrong side of the road, it was clear he was within just feet of the car when it pulled out. I know, I saw it, yet she was not charged. With anything.

Now some of you may instantly say, "Well he might have survived if he'd had a helmet on." And you may be right, there might be a snowball's-chance-in-hell of that. Not. The fact that his neck was broken from hitting another solid object after being bulleted through the air (at probably 45 mph) makes me believe otherwise. For sure, only God knows the answer to that one. But his missing helmet is not the debate here. And if I were you, I would not make such a rash and ignorant statement.

One thing that is certain, unarguably, is that he would have lived another day had the driver of that vehicle stopped long enough to LOOK and see him coming. I saw him, from further away than she was, with the glaring overhead florescent lights, and other obstacles in my way. I heard him too. She never looked. As long as I live, I will never forget the senseless and gruesome sight of that man lying in the road.

We all expect other drivers to obey traffic laws, just as we all expect to live another day when we get on our scooters and ride. What is also glaringly apparent, every time I ride, is that these expectations are akin to expecting you'll win the lottery on Saturday when the winnings are the highest. And actually, the probability that you'll be killed or injured by another driver, through no fault of your own, is much more likely than winning any game of chance.

My mother always admonished me to see the bright side of things. The glass is half full, not half empty. Be positive. Expect the best and you'll get the best. So I try to use this philosophy in my life as much as possible. But when I ride my bike, I ride with just the opposite attitude. I ride like every vehicle is secretly scheming in hundreds of ways to make me crash. How could I not? After all the people I see on cell phones, weaving in and out of traffic. And the people who run stops signs in an effort to beat that truck coming so they won't have to drive behind it. Or the ones who ignore the solid white line that means, "stay in your lane". So they bump another car, have a fender-bender, so what? Bumping into me on my bike is almost certain death, and certainly catastrophic injury.

Recently the wife of a man I know rolled her car. She was changing a music CD and drifted to the shoulder and lost control. She could have just as easily drifted across the center line and hit head-on whoever was coming in the opposite direction. There have been countless motorcycle deaths for exactly this reason.

Am I more afraid of hitting my head, should I fall off my bike when navigating my driveway? Hell no! I'm afraid of all of the above, the majority of automobile drivers. Do they care? Some do, but most don't. After all, using a cell phone is more important to some than assuring the safety of others around them on the road, and there's no punishment beyond a traffic violation for killing someone on a motorcycle.

With all the knowledge I have of crashes and the things I see drivers do every day, whether it's in my auto or on my bike, I have to have a "half empty" attitude if I still want to enjoy my motorcycle. And live. Even then, it's still that "game of chance".

What I am still astonished to hear is when other bikers tell me, with conviction mind you, that helmets are the answer to reducing motorcycle deaths. Are they blind? Right-of-way violators account for 3/4 of motorcycle deaths every year. The other 1/4 are mostly alcohol related, and I have no sympathy for those who choose to drink and ride, and end up killing themselves. Sadness for their loved one's loss, yes, but it's no secret that alcohol impairs your riding and driving ability. You make a conscious decision to ride when you know your ability may be impaired. But I don't know anyone who makes a conscious decision to slam into some vehicle that shouldn't be in the way.

Yes, I was one of those, who for years held the opinion that a helmet would save my life in the event of an accident on my bike. So believed because of the accident I witnessed all those years ago. Then one day I had an accident on my horse and broke my back. I flew through the air after being ejected from the saddle while going over a 4 foot jump, and hit the sandy arena floor. I estimate that I reached about a 10 foot height, and was traveling about 10 miles per hour. I was wearing a helmet which had not a scratch on it. I was lucky that day. Two of my vertebra were broken, but I had no spinal cord damage.

What ran through my mind, however, was imagining if I had been on a motorcycle, traveling much faster, and hitting something much less forgiving than sand. Would I be paralyzed? Would I even be alive? Wasn't that helmet supposed to save me from injury? What a naive thought!

And yet, this is what our government and the media wants us to believe. Even when they know an automobile is a much bigger, heavier object controlled by a human being who ignores traffic laws? Surely they know and acknowledge that a motorcycle never wins in a contest with a 4000 lb vehicle?

Yet our government is shoving helmets down our proverbial throats as a solution to motorcycle deaths? Who are they trying to fool? Apparently they think you and I will buy it. I don't, but how long will YOU be fooled? Do you think that a mother somewhere is fooled by this, after having her son killed by a right-of-way violator and our government does not lift a finger to change our laws? Sadly, she and others had to learn this the hard way.

Apparently our own government is also fooled by this fallacy, for they are so focused on making sure our heads survive a crash that they refuse to acknowledge the CAUSE of why we might lose our heads in the first place. They can't see the forrest either.

Like any other Mother, I worried through the years of watching my children grow up, and came up with intelligent ways to prevent them from bodily harm. We teach them not to play in the street - we don't dress them in helmets. We teach them about animals and the danger of being bitten - we don't make them wear Kevlar gloves and turn them loose with the neighborhood stray. We analyze the cause and take steps for prevention. We don't buy bigger bandaids.

In 99% of the reported motorcycle deaths that occur in this country, the media harps on whether or not the rider was wearing a helmet. Even if the biker was run down by a motorist through no fault of the biker. In most cases, the driver of the auto is not charged or fined. And when they are, it's a traffic violation. For killing someone! One state charges a fine of $50 for killing someone because of a traffic violation. A very few states have jail time attached but it's rare for a judge to sentence it, since they have the option not to. It would seem all it takes is to produce a few crocodile tears and say, "I didn't see them". So, it had to be someone's fault, why not the biker? In spite of the driver violating his right-of-way, it's the biker's fault for not wearing a helmet? Am I missing something here?

Ask yourself how you would feel if your child was run down in the street by someone who violated a traffic law, and the media immediately states, "well, the child wasn't wearing a helmet", and law enforcement lets the driver go because they said, "I didn't see him". I can already hear you saying, "well, that's different!". But is it? If I'm riding my motorcycle down the road, and a driver pulls out in front of me, violating my right-of-way, distracted by something, such as a cell phone, and kills me, helmet or not. Should they not be punished for killing me? How is this my fault? Someone is allowed to pull a 4000 lb vehicle into my path, illegally, because I'm not wearing a helmet? Apparently so.

I've got news for you, this happens every day! There are web sites that spotlight accident victims of this type. Their injuries cover every bone in the body, not just heads. How can a helmet save your life when your injuries don't involve the head? Most of them die. Some that live have no quality of life, and NO head injuries. Some that wear a helmet die of head injuries anyway.

Our government claims to want to save more lives by forcing motorcyclists to wear helmets. Is it only a few of us who recognize the futility of this belief? Forcing this law won't change a thing, except spend more of our tax dollars on court cases for those who refuse to wear them. And they will win those court cases too. The government does not certify helmets, nor does it provide a list of qualified helmets, and the qualifying description of such helmets cannot be understood by the common man, making the entire law constitutionally vague.

Yes, a few people will survive a crash with head intact, and live out their lives in poverty and no quality of life. The percentage is VERY small. The rest will die anyway. While traffic violators continue on their merry way, picking us off one at a time.

Why is it that I can see with real clarity that the major cause of motorcycle deaths involves other vehicles, and our government can't? As with our own children, shouldn't we address the cause (other drivers), and not the effect (bodily injury)? Especially when the effect, when combined with another vehicle, is not minimized with any real success, no matter what you wear? How many of you really believe that your leather boots, chaps, jacket and helmet will prevent your death should you smack into an SUV at 45 mph and up?

You may have heard some of the "uprising" coming from bikers about the proposed federal mandatory helmet law. Have you merely scoffed at all this and made some snide comment like, "it's just a helmet, get over it!"? If this is so, then wouldn't you question why I am so passionate about getting this information out to you? After all, I wear a helmet. It won't make a bit of difference to me if they make it mandatory country-wide or not. My life will go on until some driver ends it because they can't remember what right-of-way means, or don't care to.

This issue is two-fold. 1) It's another "right to choose" that the government seems to eager to take away. Each time they succeed, they become bolder and take more rights away. And 2) the real cause of motorcycle deaths is not even being adressed: Traffic violators.

Sorry, the #1 cause is not alcohol, though it does cause many motorcycle deaths each year. It's also something I personally can prevent. I can choose not to drink and ride.

If you ride a motorcycle, you owe it to yourself to learn all you can on this issue. It's not just about our right to choose what we wear on our heads, it's about our right to live. And about our right to protection from those we elected to serve us. If you don't educate yourself on the issues, how can you arrive at an intelligent viewpoint about this issue that affects all bikers, whether you wear a helmet or not?

And if you don't care about any of this, don't care to learn the truth? Don't go wailing to anyone about the unjust death of someone you know or love at the hands of another driver. You're really no better than the person who sits in their armchair waiting for someone else to fix their problems, and then whines when they don't like things the way they are.

I'll be the first to say I'm a Patriot. I also donate my time and money to charity. I strongly believe it's part of what I should spend my life doing. I'm also an avid motorcyclist, and through that love I contribute to both Patriotism and charities. So I make part of my life about Bikers Rights also, MY personal rights. So don't go spouting off about how you are a "Biker" if you can't get out of your armchair long enough to stand up for the right to be one.

I've heard all the excuses; my job won't allow me to fight, I don't "do" politics, it doesn't concern me, I already wear a helmet, I don't have time, i just want to have fun riding. Well, lemme see, I know Bikers who fight in secret to protect their jobs, many who take a few minutes now and then to send out emails to legislators (certainly not as many as you send to friends), some who, like me, wear a helmet but want the same thing as anyone - to live and ride, and dammit, if you ride, it DOES concern you.

There are laws taking effect NOW that are a precursor to limiting how many and who can even ride. Georgia has made it impossible to register a custom bike. Insurance companies would like to not insure us at all. You see, it costs them way too much money when one of their auto-insured runs us over. With each right the government takes away, the closer we get to not having even the smallest ability to just "ride and have fun".

To our government, a dead biker is just a statistic of how many do or don't wear helmets. My life is worth more than that to me.


You've gotten this far in this long blog. Don't give a damn? Stop reading now, as I'm sure the image below won't inspire you to give a damn either.







I read recently that "if you don't take an interest in politics, sooner or later, politics will take an interest in you". How true.







(Click the image above if it isn't animated)

On the off-chance you think the driver should go to jail for what he did (rear-ending a motorcycle stopped at a RED light), read and learn:

http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/BruceOnBikersRights0801.pdf

http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/BruceOnBikersRights0711-2.pdf

http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com/

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

http://www.bacsuv.com/

http://www.usff.com/BOLT/articles/0198pan.html

http://www.usff.com/BOLT/articles/0398pan.html

Journalism: Where is the Consistency?

The news article below was posted here on November 27, 2007. I am saddened by the loss of life in this accident, and for those who were injured. Especially on Thanksgiving Day.

The atrocity of this accident is portrayed very effectively. When you read it, you might feel blind anger at illegal immigrants in general, and drunk drivers most certainly. Then you will feel anger that our law enforcement failed to keep this particular immigrant within his country's borders, only to return to the US illegally and kill innocent victims.

Nowhere in this article does it say if anyone was wearing a seatbelt, and surely not the young man who died of his injuries.

Illegal Immigrant Accused Of Driving Drunk, Causing Fatal Boone Crash

BOONE, N.C. -- An illegal immigrant is accused of driving drunk in Boone over the Thanksgiving holiday and plowing into a sport utility vehicle, killing a man inside.

Boone police said Juan Manuel Juarez Reyes slammed into the rear of a Lexus SUV that was about to turn from Highway 105 onto Poplar Hill Drive shortly before 11 p.m. Friday. The SUV was skidded 250 feet, hitting a Watauga County deputy’s patrol car. The occupants of the SUV were trapped inside their vehicle but the deputy was not hurt.

The driver, Sallie Ellis Newell, and passenger Jacqueline Elizabeth Newell were taken to the Watauga County Medical Center where they were treated in released. But Brian Alan Newell and Andrew Russell Newell, who was in the back passenger-side seat, were flown to Johnson City Regional Medical Center.

Andrew Newell, 22, died at the hospital. His father remains in critical condition.

Family members said the Newells were returning from a Thanksgiving trip to South Carolina and were only a quarter-mile from home.

Authorities said Monday that Juarez Reyes was caught in the country by Border Patrol agents in 2002 and was sent back to Mexico. They aren’t sure when he re-entered the United States.

Police say he was speeding and drunk when the crash happened.

Juarez Reyes was first charged with driving while impaired, driving without a license and three counts of felonious assault with a deadly weapon causing serious injury by vehicle. On Tuesday he was charged with second-degree murder and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury.

He is being held under $1 million bond and has asked for a court-appointed attorney. He’ll be back in court Jan. 14.

What is astounding about the outcome of this accident are the charges, and the bail.

At this point, you're probably asking why I would be astounded. After all, this man, an illegal immigrant, was drunk, speeding, and he killed an innocent American and injured others. Doesn't he deserve harsh punishment?

Why yes, I believe he deserves to go to jail the rest of his natural life. He broke the law - driving while alcohol impaired, and disobeying traffic laws, which resulted in one death and critical injuries to another.

I may be astounded at the severity of the charges and bail amount, but I am even further astounded that law enforcement sufficiently charged this man with his crimes in this case.

However, I'd bet a year's pay that it would not read this way had it been an innocent motorcyclist who had been plowed into and killed. I see it every day in the newspapers. Motorist runs down a motorcyclist, driver NOT charged, motorcyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. You could write a canned report, with [insert rider's name here], and [insert at-fault driver's name here] and they would look no different than the hundreds of articles written in newspapers about motorcycle accidents involving death or injury.

Even when the driver is drunk and kills a motorcyclist, the charges are never so severe as this report. So what is it this time around? Is this man being charged this way because he is an illegal Mexican? It can't be because he was drunk, as that hasn't produced charges like this for a dead motorcyclist. Is it because he caused the SUV to strike a deputy's patrol car? The officer wasn't hurt, so that can't be it. Why then?

When I read this report, and saw the injustice committed on those inside the SUV, I actually feel kindly toward the Journalist who wrote this, because it was written without placing any blame on the SUV driver who was merely making her way home with her family, after a Thanksgiving dinner.

So why is it when a motorcyclist dies at the hands of another at-fault driver, the Journalist must immediately discount the rider, and excuse the at-fault driver? He wasn't wearing a helmet, he was speeding slightly, the auto driver "didn't see him coming".

Would it matter if the motorcyclist was "just a quarter-mile" from home? Or returning from having dinner with his family? From what I've seen, the answer is no. All that matters is he was riding a motorcycle, taking a risk in competing with a 4000 lb automobile, and he lost. Too bad.

Even when the driver of the auto that kills him has been drinking and leaves the scene, when they turn themselves in, they get a pat on the back for being so "honest" and coming forth and confessing. "It's alright, we know you didn't see him".

I used to think Journalists were just stupid, and were blinded by the government about motorcycle accidents. I used to think that the pitiful laws we have are what allows people to walk away with a $45 fine and no jail time for killing a motorcyclist on the road.

From what I see above, in this news report, Journalists do know how to report an accident with facts in an unbiased way. Law enforcement does have the wherewithal to charge accordingly for killing someone in an at-fault accident.

Just not when it's a motorcyclist that dies.

I don't know whether to be angrier or sadder. Until now, I still held out hope that it really wasn't a predjudicial act upon bikers. I needed to be in that cocoon of naive trust, believing that I wasn't being profiled because I ride a motorcycle, that it was all just a coincidence.

But it isn't. My rights to due diligence won't be upheld if I am run down by a negligent motorist. Here's what it will read when my time comes:

"Early this morning, on her way to Starbucks just a mere quarter-mile from home, a woman riding her Harley Davidson motorcyle struck an SUV, who was attempting to make a left hand turn in front of her. She died on the scene. She may have been speeding, according to the driver of the SUV, I didn't see her coming. The driver of the SUV was not injured. She was wearing a helmet. The driver of the SUV was not charged."

Think that sounds farfetched? I challenge you to find me a newspaper report of a motorcyclist who is killed by an at-fault motorist, like the one in the report above, and show me where the driver was charged as that one is.

You won't find one. Your news report will read the same as mine, mark my words. But will it matter when we are already dead?

Journalists are just as bad as law enforcement. Both are responsible for the injustice done to dead American motorcyclists. Journalists are responsible for the attitude of the American public, who blame bikers for their own injuries and deaths at the hands of those same Americans.

And law enforcement could do something about it, but they don't. Not unless it's a scenario like above. They may be kind officers, they may shout 'rah rah' about Motorcycle Safety week (for that week only), but when the chips are down, the bottom line is, they don't care if we live or die. Better to target specific groups for being stupid and pulling wheelies; just another finger pointing game to say we kill ourselves. They might as well say I chose that SUV with the dumb driver behind the wheel as my suicide weapon of choice.

For the family in that SUV whose son is dead now at the hands of the drunk, speeding, illegal immigrant, I hope you see justice done. At least someone should have the right to it.

The Battle For Freedom: Must Reads

As each of us goes through our daily lives, today and every day, while rights and freedoms are being removed by our government and put into law, unless you join the fight to stop them.

In early November 2007, Dave Christy, Bikers' Rights Advocate, Colorado, began a narrative on the current (and alarming) state of affairs with regards to Biker's rights, and the escalating loss of freedoms directed at us, as bikers, in a way that is clearly discriminatory. It is published on LDRLongdistancerider.com and I've posted links below.

For example, in Florida legislature, now on the table:

Did you receive the notice not long ago from your vehicle insurance company about PIP? Do you know what that means to you as a rider? HB265 and companion SB984 relieves an at-fault auto driver's insurance company from the responsibility of paying for your injuries if that driver runs you over. You will not be able to purchase PIP on your motorcycle (the bill excludes motorcycles from the term motor vehicles), which means you personally can be sued for the medical bills of someone you hit. You will be required to purchase catastrophic personal medical insurance in order to ride your motorcycle and be covered. Uninsured motorists coverage will not apply to motorcyclists. Your only recourse will be to sue the driver who ran you over, at great cost to you, and that's assuming the driver has anything of value. And, of course, if you can still walk, talk, still have a place to live, and are independently wealthy.

And Federally, now on the table:

Unless the HIPAA law loophole is amended, your medical insurance underwriter can continue to refuse to cover you when you ride, or drop it if you have it.

Without PIP and affordable personal medical coverage when you ride your motorcycle, you you are not covered on all angles. If you own your bike outright, are you prepared to ride with no medical coverage whatsoever? And if your lien holder requires it, can you afford it?

And if you are run over? Well, your life will be, in a word, over. Even if you survive.

It's not just about helmets, handlebars, or after market pipes. There are bills in the works (Florida State and Federal) THIS YEAR that will take away your freedom to ride.

Want to know the real reason mandatory helmet laws are being shoved down our throats? Insurance companies. They believe if we all wear helmets we won't be injured or die. Ludicrous? Yes, we, as bikers, know that's pretty far-fetched. But insurance companies know that when one of their insured runs us over, they pay BIG. They want out of that responsibility. And they have the money to lobby for this. We just have our little letter-writing fingers.

And for all of you reading this who don't live in Florida? If this Florida bill goes through, how fast do you think YOUR state will follow suit?

So, if you ride, and you have thus far chosen not to involve yourself in the fight to ride free, these installments written by Dave Christy are a must read. Beware all - you are about to learn of very real and present dangers of losing your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in owning and riding a motorcycle.

If you don't ride, whether you have opinions about motorcyclists and the laws that govern them or not, PLEASE show that you are not narrow-minded and ignorant of the facts, and read these installments. They are fact based, and portray the real situation. Even though you don't ride, they do involve you in a very real way.

I will be posting the link to each installment as they become available, and I have taken the liberty of adding quotes from each installment, as a "hook".

Remember, opinions, to be taken seriously, should be based on fact.

BATTLE ESCALATES AGAINST RIDERS' FREEDOM OF CHOICE

Part 1 (click the link to open the installment)

"We're all in the traffic mix and rely, with an x-factor of trust, on each other to do the proper things. In spite of that reliance, vehicle operators commit 'fouls' on other roadway users, and/or themselves, to the tune of millions of collisions, crashes, and "accidents" every year in the U.S.A., resulting in 40,000-plus fatalities every year, to include an escalating percentage of motorcyclists in that figure. It's a sad fact. What must be understood is that 95% of all accidents are due to human causation factors!"

"The motorcycling community is relentlessly pounded upon by NHTSA, and more so in the last few years due to the increase of motorcyclist fatalities as a percentage of the yearly highway total. The news media are fed the stats, latch on and stoke the flames through inference among the general public, who view us riders as a careless liability, damn-near miscreants who ride "donor-cycles" and deserve what we get because motorcycles are 'dangerous.' And you have to wear a helmet. If you don't wear a helmet you brought it on yourself."

"Without helmets, we all pay" says NHTSA, as they create polarity in the public realm and influence opinion, deliberately against motorcyclists--attempting to establish motorcyclists as a disproportionate drain of injury and medical dollar consumption. This is called the Public, or Social Burden theory."

Part 2 (click the link to open the installment)

"By inference, the message is "You motorcycle riders - when you don't wear a helmet and you get hurt - are costing the public money. And when you get killed, it's because you weren't wearing a helmet!"

"Using my home state as an example, our Colorado government estimates (probably conservatively) we have almost 800,000 medically uninsured, or about 17% of the population. This figure would probably include some people who ride motorcycles. At any given time, any of these folks are dependent on publicly-funded medical care, for any reason under the sun. Shall we paint all these folks with the brush of 'Social Burden?' Using the logic, after all, what's the difference between "us" and "them?"

"It is also a known fact that over 100,000 people die annually due to "medical mistakes," more than 20 times the number of annual motorcycling fatalities. That's about 280 average everyday, folks."

---

"The battle for bikers' rights is not about patches, parties or poker runs. We fight to protect the freedom and promote the interests of American motorcyclists ... to defend our right to choose our own modes of transportation, attire and lifestyle ... to deter and defy discrimination against us ... and to vanquish those who violate our rights or right-of-way."--Bruce Arnold

Another Soldier Dies

We are all aware of the war in Iraq. Many of us have a favorite pastime, if you will, for supporting our soldiers. They do deserve it, after all.

As a biker, I discovered the Patriot Guard Riders, whose mission it is to honor our soldiers and their families. Others who do not ride lend themselves to celebrating Veterans Day, or visiting Veterans Hospitals.

But this post is not about our revered military soldiers. It concerns the very real and important war here at home, in all states. A war many fight daily for our rights.

Do these 'soldiers' die at the hands of opposing military soldiers? Carrying guns and grenades? No. They die at the hands of thoughtless, distracted drivers; the soccer mom carpooling the neighborhood kids, the young man across town who is late to work, or the business man passing through who can't put his cell phone down.

What do these soldiers fight for?

They fight to keep us all riding free and riding safe. Some of them break the law to set a precedence so you and I don't have to wear a helmet, or can ride down a boulevard with aftermarket pipes. Some spend countless hours daily writing letters to legislative bodies, so you and I can continue to enjoy our motorcycles whenever we wish, wherever we want. Some quit their jobs to serve on a board of directors and devote their lives to the 'cause', so we can ride free. And some even write blogs about the issues at hand, in hopes you and others will listen and add your voices to the army.

Some of these soldiers are "snipers", adding their contributions anonymously because of their employment status. Still they fight.

Mostly though, these soldiers have lives, families and jobs, same as you and I, and still they devote their lives to our freedom to ride uninhibited by government bureaucracy. They are ordinary men and women, doing extraordinary tasks. For you. And for me.

Do we have a holiday to remember them by? No, but we should. Do they get a 21 gun salute at their funerals? No, but they should.

A large majority of riders cruise (no pun intended) through life thinking, "It'll never happen to me." And if they worry about rights, or dying at the hands of those who violate our rights, they just might have to acknowledge that their voices and actions are needed. But no, that might cut into their Football time, or the Scrapbook class. It's much too convenient to simply look the other way.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way. By that I mean, if you don't love riding your scooter enough to contribute even a small portion of your time to fight for the very freedom that allows you to ride, sell the bike, it's not for you, and go back to your chosen life.

There are very few valid excuses for not contributing to something that you directly benefit from. But aside from that, there is no excuse whatsoever not to honor those who have fallen in the line of duty.

Look up the different H.O.G. websites around the country and be sure to view the pages listing those who have crossed over while riding their motorcycles. Check out the MRO's and ABATE websites. They are all listed there.

If you ride a motorcycle enough miles, enough years, sooner or later you will personally know someone who has lost their life while riding. It is a tragic event, certainly. What loss of life isn't. But when you see that one of your soldiers has died in the line of duty, take the time, even if privately, to honor that person.

And the next time you feel the need to contribute to something good, ask what you can do to join the fight for freedom. Every little bit helps. And who knows, maybe someday our Freedom Fighting soldiers won't have to die for your right to ride free.

Thank you, Dan Hoffman, for all that you did for me. I didn't know you personally, but I know who you are. You're one of those people who selflessly spent a great deal of your own time fighting for my right to ride free.

Rest in peace, brother.

http://delawarecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2007/11/call.html
http://miva.delawareonline.com/miva/cgi-bin/miva?obits.mv+72805

The Choices We make In Life

The choices we make in life are ultimately what shapes our future and makes us who we are. God gave us the ability to make choices, and each of us exercises that ability every day. We are responsible for what we do, as individuals, and the outcome of those actions.

It is truly a sad situation when the safety of others is threatened by those who would act irresponsible and then claim it is their right to act in that manner.

This, then, passes on the choice of placing oneself in the position of being unsafe, to the person whose well-being is threatened.

Take, for example, the alcoholic, whose actions are solely their own, to drink in excess and operate a motor vehicle. It is their choice to drink, or drink in excess, regardless of the law. No one forced them to do it.

It is not the choice of those who do not drink and drive to share the road with a drunk or alcohol impaired driver and be at risk. The safe choice may be not to drive at all, to avoid encountering a drunk or impaired driver. However, society has decreed that driving while alcohol impaired is against the law, to protect the lives of innocents.

No one sensibly denies that driving while drunk is wrong or unsafe, and indeed society provides strictly enforced laws to bring those who do drive inebriated to answer for their actions. Those who are not caught eventually cause harm to another, and by then the crime is already committed. The injustice is done. Someone is injured or dies. Families suffer.

As a motorcyclist, I know that reaction time could mean whether I live or die in the event an auto driver should violate my right of way. I practice all the safety skills learned by riding many years. I am continually on the lookout for those who don't see me. To ignore this ever present danger is to invite disaster, sooner than later.

I enjoy riding my motorcycle, and every moment that I do not have to spend looking out for 'the other guy' is a moment I can bask in the enjoyment of riding.

Just as there are those who drink and drive autos, there are many who drink and ride. Just watch the newspapers if you want to see the results of motorcyclists who drink and ride. They are the ones who ride too fast and lose control, misjudge a curve and leave the paved road, or cause injury to another rider or driver, and many times end their lives then and there.

Some of us know a few who have died. Many will shake their heads and say they never thought it could happen to him, he was such a good rider. Alcohol impairs the brain's normal functions and awareness. They don't mean to crash, but they do. It is always sad when someone dies, motorcycle or not. It is even sadder when it can be prevented.

Alcoholism is a disease. It wrecks lives, and the lives of family and friends. It is also a threat to strangers; all in the name of demanding the right to drink and drive. In the throes of this disease, the afflicted is blind to their own sickness. Denial is prevalent. Those close to them try to help and then finally realize it is futile and retreat to a safe distance. It is impossible to help those who will not help themselves.

I am continually amazed at the blatant disregard for the safety of others, when riding in a group, from those who exercise their selfish right to drink and ride and violate the law. Can we predict the sudden appearance of a dog in the road, or a deer? What about a rider in the middle of the pack whose reaction time is slow due to alcohol and fails to stop in time, or swerves into your 'safety zone'.

We've all heard the inebriated person state they are fine to drive, and off they go weaving all over the road. We often take keys away from such individuals to prevent them from injuring themselves or someone else.

Where does this perceived arrogance come from? Do I have the right to set fire to some one's home, were I a pyromaniac? Just because I choose to?

No, I don't, but this is the logic of the non-addicted person, not an addict. The alcoholic's need for the "fix" overwhelmingly overrides any logical right or wrong. They become irrational and paranoid. (Why are you trying to ruin my life?)

Almost always, the alcoholic has succumbed to their affliction out of the need to feel good about themselves when they otherwise do not. Does this excuse their behavior? No. Can we help them? We can try. More often they must seek help from professionals, which most of us are not.

We have all either heard stories or witnessed a collision caused by a rider who is impaired from alcohol. Some are killed, while others live to change their ways. At what cost? The unintentional death of a fellow brother or sister? The death of themselves?

I choose to ride safely, but that includes not riding and drinking, or riding with those who drink. And though it may appear that I am selective with who I ride with, it's not personal. It's a matter of wanting to live another day to ride.

You may choose to drink and ride. It is, after all, your right to make that choice. It is not, however, your right to endanger the well-being of others by doing so. If you can't drink responsibly, don't ride. If you don't want to ride without drinking, ride alone and allow others to be safe from you.

And if others decide they don't want to ride with you because you drink, take a long hard look in the mirror, preferably when you are sober. In the end, the choices you make in life determine whether you reach the light at the end of the tunnel, or run head on into an oncoming train.

Ride safe, and watch out for trains.

Reinhold Schlieper, Philosopher: My New Hero

Finally, a thoughtful analysis that hits home. Thank you Mr. Schleiper. (Who is this guy anyway? And where has he been hiding?) I think I might have a new hero. And a Philosopher at that. Whooda thunk?

Without solid crash data, helmet dispute is worthless

By REINHOLD SCHLIEPER
COMMUNITY VOICES

News-Journal editorials are just as unlikely to tighten motorcycle safety as the state Legislature is unlikely to improve education: The intentions are admirable, but the decisional brushstrokes are too coarse to be truly helpful.

Helmets may indeed save some lives; however, the increased inertia of head turning, the impaired auditory sensations and the decreased peripheral vision may also increase the likelihood of accidents. I have great sympathy for the view that automobile drivers cause most accidents involving motorcycles, my one and only accident having been caused by a young student-driver who thought that the red light required speeding up instead of stopping, and whose guiding Mom was too busy chatting with others in the car to admonish the driver otherwise. But such a determination of guilt is of little help when I have to live with my own injuries afterward. The goal here is accident avoidance, not guilt diminishment by slapping some helmets on other people's heads or some guilt on other people's conscience.

So, the question is how best to avoid accidents. And that question is not answered by intermittent cries of "Helmet!" and "No helmet!" We must evolve some greater sophistication here.

I could simply assert that helmetless riding is a victimless crime just as seatbelt-less driving would be a victimless crime. In other words, if I decide to ride helmetless, I am the only person affected by that decision because I am the only likely victim if the decision were to have been the wrong one. Traditionally, our society has no right to limit by law what is in my private domain. Victimless crime is decidedly in the private domain. I make decisions about my life, not everyone else.

Hospital cost, however, victimizes all others also by my exercise of faulty judgment, my opponents will be quick to argue. And yet, this reflection does generally not enter into what we think about what we eat, obesity claiming many lives; what we drink, alcohol claiming as many lives; what we smoke, tobacco having been established solidly as taking lives; and what we believe, religions and ideologies having caused many wrong-minded deaths. Also, those sundry ways may be erroneous, yet we respect the privacy of decision-making here. Besides, the high cost of emergency rooms, as recently stated by another letter to the editor of the News-Journal, derives from our society's shirking its responsibility of providing affordable health care to all, not from an onslaught of helmetlessly injured motorcyclists.

Given all of the uncertainties about the benefit of helmets, I would conclude that only the individual rider may be able to decide what works best for him or her. What risks individuals take in their lives are obviously not the decision of the society they live in. Surely we do not want to forbid parachuting, hang-gliding, Bungee jumping, etc. merely because to some of us these activities look awfully dangerous? Risk-taking behavior for pleasure has a firmly established tradition in our culture, else roller coasters would have gone the way of the dodo long ago. Were I to indulge myself here with a slippery slope, I might argue that ultimately that kind of thinking is likely to lead to safe couches with virtual-reality hook-ups, the safest kind of environment one is likely to find anywhere.

What we can do, however, as a society is to make sure that risk-takers are fully informed. Motorcycle-safety experts Risto Kaivola of Finland and H. Ecker of Austria suggest a close analysis of each accident to determine cause and circumstances. And we have a pattern to follow here. With every plane crash, the folks from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) get busy analyzing each detail that may have led to the crash. I suspect that aviation has such an excellent safety record precisely because of such exhaustive analyses. I submit that what is right for the wealthy with planes is also right for the middle class with other vehicles.

In fact, if we were to go general with such an analysis for each crash on our roads, we might have found out much earlier about the BIC-lighter condition of the Pinto, about the Bridgestone-Firestone tire splitting, and about the rollovers of the SUV trucks. If such thorough analyses determine that careless driving of automobiles is at fault with motorcycle accidents, then we should probably tighten the standards of vehicle licenses and of the examinations that lead to them. If such analyses point to a weakness in the design of vehicles or safety equipment, then those standards must be tweaked. But these shouting matches about helmets are silly in the extreme without such thorough analyses.

Schlieper, Ph.D., a philosophy professor, lives in Palm Coast.

Original editorial posted here.

Mark Rosenker (CREEP), Chairman of NTSB

Below is a letter I sent to Mark Rosenker, Chairman of the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB), a position he was appointed to by President Bush.

"CREEP" is in reference to Mr. Rosenker's involvement with Committee to RE-Elect the President (Nixon), and those who were involved with Watergate in 1972. The photo above is from that era. I find CREEP to be an acronym appropriate for Mr. Rosenker, given his actions and incompetency I have seen to date.

Mr. Rosenker has announced NTSB recommendations to all states to implement a mandatory motorcycle helmet law, siting inaccurate statistics as a basis for this mandate, and implying that motorcyclists are responsible for their own deaths by not wearing a helmet, even in the 80% of deaths caused solely by another motorist, and where head injuries were not involved.

• I urge you to write to your representatives and voice your concern over spending millions of tax payer dollars on this farce to remove the right of legislation by the states.


• I urge you to write to President Bush and ask for Mr. Rosenker's removal from his post.


• I urge you to speak out on behalf of yourself and of all Americans who appreciate life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as our country's forefathers envisioned.


• I urge you to take opposition to yet another move by government officials to exert authoritarian control over American citizens who pay their salaries.

And before you decide not to believe in this effort, please read my letter below and see the truth for what it is. Then check out the links below, which contain supporting data and statistics for those of you who are still on the fence. We need ALL Americans to oppose this mandate, and support change in the way our government views the overwhelming cause of highway fatalities.

What you see in the media is mostly slanted material (gee, are you surprised?). I have not heard one report of motorcycle fatality statistics quoted accurately to date. The media continues to blame rider deaths and injury on the presence/absence of a helmet, whether the rider died as a result of head injuries or not. And especially when the rider is not at fault.

I urge you to consider these points when you see or hear a report of a motorcycle death in the media:

• Was the rider's right-of-way violated?


• Was the rider at fault?


• If the answer is NO to either, then all other comments are irrelevant.

Please note: This is NOT about whether or not I want to ride with a helmet!

• It is about our government mandating laws based on false information to further a political agenda.


• It is about protecting all of us with sound safety laws.


• It is about the trend of controlling the few, to falsely satisfy the needs of the many.


• It is about our tax dollars being spent on futile efforts and ignoring the true issues.

Links to supporting information:

http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/fetch/860082/
http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/fetch/859099/
http://ntsb.gov/events/Boardmeeting.htm
http://www.checkyourfacts.org/latest-journalism-news-updates-54.php
http://pub42.bravenet.com/forum/3562429698/fetch/860126
http://ntsb.gov/Publictn/2007/AB07-Motorcycle_Safety_Rec-Ltr.htm
http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com/

---

Letter to Mr. Rosenker

To: Mark Rosenker (mark.rosenker@ntsb.gov)
Chairman
National Transportation Safety Board
429 L'Enfant Plaza
Washington, D.C. 20024
202-314-6000

CC: President Bush (President@WhiteHouse.gov)

Mr. Rosenker,

As a citizen of this country, I expect, no, I demand, that NTSB focus on the VIOLATORS instead of implementing laws intended to control the VIOLATED.

The majority of highway injuries and deaths are caused by the other drivers in some negligent form or another. Continuing on this path of "band-aiding" the individual "effects" merely chips away at the iceberg but never really makes a substantial difference. Until you take measures to address the root cause of collisions, fatalities will continue in spite of your ill conceived decisions. The NTSB MUST address the root cause in order to protect ALL Americans.

VIOLATION OF DRIVING LAWS is the ROOT CAUSE of HIGHWAY FATALITIES in this country, Mr. Rosenker. Please read this line over and over until you understand this concept. One does not need statistics to see this truth.

Driving violations are caused by many things; distractions, blatant disregard, lack of education, each with underlying sub-categories. The more driving violations there are, the more deaths there will be. There are states that have implemented laws controlling these aspects of driving and have lowered their fatality rate.

Drunk driving is indeed a distraction, but it is NOT THE ONLY distraction that drivers participate in. It is one of MANY. Addressing one without the others is criminal on your part.

Seat belts save lives by increasing the percentage of survival in a crash as an additive to other safety features of an automobile, not the least of which is a metal cage around the driver. Yet even seat belts only address the RESULT of crashes, not the CAUSE. Put a seat belt on a motorcyclist and it does nothing for them without a metal cage around them, in the event of a collision with an automobile.

Motorcycle helmet laws also only address the effect of the crash and not the cause, protecting the head to a small degree, but leaving the rest of the body still vulnerable to blunt force trauma. In most cases of motorcycle collision with an automobile, a helmet does not prevent death, and certainly not catastrophic injury to the body. Prevention of collision does.

The prevention of distracted driving should be the primary focus of NTSB, which provides safety for ALL; motorists, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and pedestrians. Everyone benefits. The fact that you continue to ignore this, only serves to show your incompetency in spending my tax dollars to control the very few when this effort could save a great majority of lives, including the very few you seek to sensationalize.

Over the years, the creation of laws to make man invincible inside automobiles, has perpetuated distracted, complacent, and deadly drivers; running over bicycles, motorcycles, and pedestrians, all with a punishment for killing most often resulting in less than the fine for littering! Because our safety laws target the victim, not the perpetrator. Adequate penalties are needed to deter traffic violations. An automobile is, after all, a deadly weapon.

In addition, you conveniently ignore the onslaught of electronic devices inside vehicles that further distract drivers. This can be controlled, while shaving, reading, putting on makeup, cannot. However, overall distractions can be controlled by stiffer penalties for violating traffic laws that maim or kill a victim.

Is it that you are afraid of becoming unpopular in the process of saving lives, Mr. Rosenker? I'm sure you and your "esteemed" colleagues are not too keen on giving up your own selfish distractions while driving. And you are most certainly unpopular with the small minority you are now targeting. How do you sleep at night, knowing you can stop the majority of highway fatalities through competent recommendations, but instead choose only to target a small minority in order to further your ambitions?

Or is that you feel imposing your authoritarian laws on motorcyclists, through the support of the uninformed public, is the easy path? For most certainly, much to your advantage, the public has only seen one side of this story. I think it's called propaganda - "The NTSB is responsible for saving millions of lives through seatbelts, airbags, blah, blah, blah". The public has not seen the accurate fatality statistics that I know are available, even to you, but you have seen fit to ignore they even exist. The public is unaware of the political intonations of the NTSB actions. The public is unaware of all sides of this issue.

The public in general [auto drivers] has no worries, because they will survive the crash (thanks to seat belts and other safety enhancements), with only a minor traffic violation in most cases, while the victims of negligence are severely injured or dies. And the public is led to believe that the victims are responsible for their own deaths. How pompous is that?

I, as one of the general public, am outraged that you consider protective gear and equipment in cars and on motorcycles to be the cure-all for deaths due to traffic violations, and that if I am injured or killed by another negligent driver, it is MY fault.

Over and over I see reports of motorcycle deaths in the newspaper where the motorcyclist was in no way at fault, and run down by a negligent driver, yet the "tag" line is always: "He was/wasn't wearing a helmet". Where does the media get this type of attitude? From our government, from NTSB, from YOU, Mr. Rosenker.

What does wearing a helmet have to do with an unsuspecting motorcycle rider being run over and killed through an auto driver's negligence? I ask you, how does a helmet prevent that driver from violating a rider's right-of-way? It isn't about helmets at all. It is about sharing the road with responsible drivers who avoid distractions and drive within the law. No amount of protective gear will promote that, Mr. Rosenker.

In fact, drivers may feel it is OK to drive within MY space if I am NOT wearing a helmet! After all, if I'm not wearing one, it will be deemed MY fault if I am killed by them, though I rode safely and within the laws of the road. You are, through your incompetent decisions, promoting loss of safety for motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrains by not addressing the root causes of traffic fatalities.

Auto drivers everywhere will tell you with a straight face and adamant conviction that they can handle all the extra distractions they participate in while driving (and I'm sure you're among them), until they kill someone. Why must people die before a driver realizes what distractions can cause? Each year, a new distraction manifests itself (i.e. in-vehicle electronics), and accumulates along with all the other distractions available to drivers. Is it any wonder that traffic fatalities rise? And, when drivers are allowed to walk away without penalty for taking a life, how can you expect them to even bother paying attention while driving?

Our government has created a monster by allowing our children to drive at younger ages, unsupervised, while using cell phones, texting, and all manner of distractions. Yes, laws are now surfacing to curb these habits (instigated by states), but these laws will be looked upon by our youth as just another age limited law to overcome, such as drinking, smoking, and now, using a cell phone while driving after 18 or 21 years of age. And, media reports show that young people adamanatly object to these laws, proving they are not even aware of the reasons behind them. Society has been led to believe over and over that injury and fatality in traffic accidents are the responsibility of the victim, not the violator.

What about the millions of children that have already come of age, who have already learned these bad habits? Too little, too late, wouldn't you say? We already have 10 years of our youth who will continue these deadly habits, but who are too old to be regulated by these laws. Who will protect me from them, Mr. Rosenker? You demand better child restraint, but do not protect our youth from themselves before they are old enough to know better. And again, perpetuate more driver caused accidents that maim and kill through your ignorance.

What I find most significant about your integrity (or lack of), Mr. Rosenker, is that you were involved in Watergate back in 1972. I am not surprised that you have managed to end up where you are, given the state of our government today. How many other "interesting" political scams were you involved in since then, that are not known? Your resume shows your involvement in many election campaigns since then, in spite of your involvement in Watergate.

I am further dismayed to learn that President Bush, a President I supported, placed you in this position. Did he not learn from history?

I am not impressed thus far, in your move to impose yet another series of laws to limit MY individual rights, when I am not the one doing the violating, and while you do absolutely nothing to address the root cause of the majority of traffic fatalities. All I see is your misguided attempts to control specific groups, and suppressing individual rights that will have no effect on the root cause, and very little effect on the results.

I already CHOOSE to drive without distractions. I already CHOOSE to ride with a motorcycle helmet. I AM educated in motorcycle awareness and safety. Yet I am still confronted daily by a majority who is not, and who attempt to take my life in spite of those precautions. And not threatened just from young people, Mr. Rosenker, but from people of all ages, gender and race. Crashes are not specific to any "groups", they apply to all.

If your helmet law had any merit, you would require ALL drivers to wear them, including auto drivers, for surely that would save a few more lives, based on your reasons for it's recommendation. Pedestrians should also be required to wear them, as it may save them from a head injury also, should they be run down by a distracted driver. If you're going to rob me of my right to choose, at least be fair about it.

But it isn't about being fair, is it Mr. Rosenker? It's all about your "image" as Chairman of the all-knowing, all-seeing NTSB. For I find it hard to believe that you are not intelligent enough to see the truth of my words. And that makes YOU the violator of my safety.

The choices I make will not save my life, Mr. Rosenker, should an auto driver run me down out of driver "inattention". My choices will not stop a driver from gabbing on a cell phone and miss seeing me coming. They will not stop a driver from being a repeat offender after being let go with a $45 traffic violation fine. They will not pay my bills or care for my children in the event my helmet saves my head, but not my body. And if that happens, I will be coming after you, Mr. Rosenker, for you were made aware, and did nothing to protect me.

It doesn't take extensive reports to figure this one out, Mr. Rosenker. What it requires is for you to look at all the facts, not just the ones that lend credence to your personal egotistical agenda. It requires you to see the whole picture. It requires you to think. All of which you are sadly failing at. So far, all I see is "lip service" and bombastic announcements.

Please do not send me one of your "form" letters, as I have already seen the ones you've sent to others repeating the same dribble you've already announced to the public.

Instead, please reply and SPECIFICALLY tell me what you and NTSB are going to do to reduce multi-vehicle crashes so that I might live, whether I wear a helmet or not. Get rid of the liberalistic view you have of the world. It has no place in the realm of safety FOR ALL. Your position requires accurate facts and logical thinking, neither of which I have seen to date.

If you cannot base your recommendations on accurate data, then I will consider you to be acting upon your own agenda and ignoring my rights as an American who pays your salary, and will have no choice but to join the effort to remove you from this position.

If President Bush continues to support you, I will have no choice but to withdraw my support of him as well.

I am speaking out solely as a citizen of the United States of America, and as a tax payer who contributes to your livelihood. In short, you work for me, not the other way around. I expect to be treated as such. Please choose your words carefully, as I will be posting your reply for all to see, unedited.

[My name and address]

Mother of two, educated, gainfully employed, group member of one.
http://rider-sam.blogspot.com/

Advocate for the truth:
http://www.motorcyclists-against-dumb-drivers.com/

Believer in the Constitution of the United States of america.