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

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.

Harley Davidson of NYC - You Suck!

This evening I was given the URL of a CNN segment that rankles the very fiber of my being. You can view it here.

If you ride, you will immediately see how one-sided this broadcast really is. And if you don't ride, know that this news report is so bogus it is worthy only of SNL (that's Saturday Night Live, for those of you who are not night owls).

What this news segment focuses on is that motorcycle deaths are outrageously high (gasp!) and that wearing a helmet will prevent those deaths (oh pa-leeeese!).

Watch closely in this report, as they show a motorcyclist hitting the front end of a car and flying over it. Note also that this car made a left turn and violated the right of way of this motorcyclist. Somebody please tell me how a helmet would have kept this car from hitting him???

Now, watch further and see how an utter ignoramus of a reporter wanders around Harley Davidson of NYC and expounds on how WE bikers look ridiculous wearing half helmets.

Notice also that an interview with an MSF representative (and whom they don't even identify!) is cut short. Apparently he wasn't saying the fluffy, I-agree-with-you statements.

The truth is, those who wear helmets very often have brain injuries, while those who don't and hit their head, simply die. The very small percentage they speak of that end up with brain injuries and have to be cared for, are much less in number than Americans with chronic obesity, heart disease through self-inflicted habits, drug abusers, etc.

But let us not drift off the subject here. As you saw in the broadcast, riders are hit by auto drivers who violate their right of way. This accounts for 2/3 of all motorcycle deaths. A helmet will not prevent this from happening. Isn't it smarter to prevent the occurrence rather than hope you won't die because you're wearing a helmet?

I wrote to CNN in protest of this broadcast segment. They, of course, sent me a canned response, and said they would not reply personally but would review my comments the next morning in their feedback pow-wow meeting. Ya, and pigs fly too.

But what really sticks in my craw is that Harley Davidson of NYC was willing to participate in this whole sham. Anything for free advertising. 'Buy our motorcycles, [who cares if a inattentive driver runs you over and kills you], we got our money'. I'd say this HD dealer needs to be put up on the "Wall of Shame".

I wonder if they were promised anything for supporting this new helmet fiasco that may force riders everywhere to put on a helmet or get a ticket, while cagers are allowed to run us over, murder us, and get away with a $45 fine?

CNN is just doing what they do best, report the sensational regardless of what the truth really is. But Harley Davidson of NYC? Well, you SUCK.

'Nuff said. Ride free as long as you can.

Beware the light at the end of the tunnel. It may be a large vehicle with one headlight, about to run you down.

A Declaration of War

The quoted excerpt below is from a post by MADD Ray Henke of Bruce-n-Ray's Biker Forum. Although Ray posted 6 days ago, I finally have time to post my own comments on this very noteworthy addition to the B&R forum.

MADD Ray's post is long, and in two parts. It is full of terminology born of Ray's profession as a lawyer. It is, however, a very good use of your time to read it in full and wade through Ray's wordy, but intelligent, narrative.

Many of us, as bikers, wish for the end to fatalities as a result of motorist "inattentiveness" and this forum has been hosting a current discussion on "cell phone impaired drivers" and how to get them to "Hang Up and Drive". This is one biker (me) who is grateful for the time and effort put forth by MADD Ray in using his professional knowledge to further this goal, and with a pretty damn good likelihood of success.

MADD Ray's proposed actions target the source of big business and big dollars, which we all know carries a considerable amount of weight in forcing legislative action to correct crimes against humanity that so far have been avoided by our lawmakers because of the human trait termed "selfishness". Participants of this forum have tossed about ideas in response to the "How Do We Get Cagers [drivers] to Hang Up and Drive?" thread.

Most of the posted ideas are born of frustration and [justifiable] anger in looking for an end to the "Killing Fields", as described by RC, where he has listed the most current senseless killings that go unpunished by this country's lack of adequate laws, and the selfishness of the majority of motorists. (Warning: Reading RC's Blog may instill righteous anger at the epidemic that threatens the lives of EVERYONE, every day!)

And though MADD Ray's future endeavors may provide justice to those who are maimed and/or killed senselessly, it is still a very sad fact that people must lose quality of life, livelihood, and even life itself, for our country to "Wake up, Hang up, and Drive".

So, if I've peaked your curiosity, please read the excerpt below, and then click on the links to the full narrative as written by MADD Ray.

But don't stop there. If you blog, add a link to it on your own blog page. Add this blog to your Technorati Favorites, email this blog to your biker and non-biker friends, or perhaps that person you know who is a "die-hard" cell phone user while driving. If you use your cell phone while driving, open your own mind to the information here. It's accurate, it's alarming, and it's a warning you need to pay attention to.... because The War Has Begun.

"Employers, take notice, if you encourage your employees to use the phone for business purposes while driving, and one of your employees injures or kills a motorcyclist, bicyclist, pedestrian or other motorist, while in cell phone business conversation, we will hold you liable. Indeed, if you fail to adopt and enforce written policies prohibiting employee cell phone use while driving in the course and scope of their employment, we will hold you liable. Beware: You may also be held liable for punitive damages if your conduct was malicious under state law, e.g., in reckless or conscious disregard of the lives or safety of others.

"Cell phone companies, take notice, if you engage in public relations campaigns to mislead the public that cell phone use or hands-free cell phone use while driving is safe, you will be held liable for resulting consumer and third party injury and death. If you fail to warn your consumers, or fail to do so by means calculated to bring to the attention of your consumers that handheld and hands-free cell phone use while driving results in DUI level driving impairment and a 4 fold increased likelihood that the driver will cause an accident, you will be held liable. And, beware: If your conduct is determined to be malicious, in reckless or conscious disregard of the lives and safety of others, then again you may be held liable for exemplary damages.

"Motorists, take notice, if you drive your vehicle while under the influence of a cell phone, and you maim or kill a motorcyclist, bicyclist, pedestrian or another auto driver, you will be held liable. If you received notice from your cell phone company of the dangers of driving under the influence of your cell phone, in the warnings accompanying your phone when you originally purchased it, or in warnings attached to bills or other communications from your cell company, then if you continue to driver impaired, in conscious disregard of the health or safety of others, you too may be liable for punitive damages.

This is a Declaration of War."

Original Posts by MADD Ray Henke, August 20, 2007
First Post: Part 1 - Preamble
Second Post: Part 2 - Strategy

If you want to contribute to this cause, you can. It does not require any action on your part. Actually it requires an "inaction". Are you willing to prevent the senseless loss of life?

STOP USING YOUR CELL PHONE WHILE OPERATING A MOTOR VEHICLE.

This message brought to you by "Corporal Sam", a soldier in the ranks of an army of freedom fighters everywhere - fighting for the freedom to ride, and the freedom to live.

"A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later.” GENERAL GEORGE S. PATTON, JR.

Educate Yourself

Whether you ride or not, you should be aware of the rumblings afoot (no, not the sweet rumble of a fine sounding motorcycle). Check out Bruce-n-Ray's Biker forum for a lively discussion on the use of cell phones while driving. If you see something that sparks your interest, post a reply to it.

Why Not? Everyone Else Does

Recently posted on Bruce-n-Ray's Biker Forum, the following article has once again prompted me to "anal-ize" people who still use cell phones while they drive, even when the law states you cannot use one without a headset (like that makes much of a difference - but hey, it's better than nothing, or is it?).

I've added my comments after the article.

This article was originally posted here.

Have you put down the cell phone? Neither have we

Chicago's ban on the use of handheld cell phones while driving hasn't deterred people from ditching the Bluetooth and going back to breaking the law. The problem? According to drivers, police aren't enforcing it enough

August 13, 2007
BY MONIFA THOMAS Staff Reporter

When the city banned the use of handheld cell phones while driving two years ago, Chicagoans rushed out to buy trendy Bluetooth phones and other hands-free devices.

I remember being one of them.

But some time between then and now, I lost the headset and never bothered to replace it.

There didn't seem to be a point, when almost every other driver on the road had gone back to gabbing on the phone without making the slightest attempt to hide it.

Aren't Chicago Police supposed to be handing out $50 tickets?

Apparently, they have been, but not too often.

Chicago Police say they've issued about 8,500 citations this year to drivers caught violating the cell phone ban. Last year, police wrote 13,400 tickets, or roughly 37 a day for phone violations.

By comparison, 2.8 million parking tickets were issued in 2006.

Chicago Police Sgt. Thomas West, of the traffic enforcement division, said, "We write our share of cell phone tickets."

But West Side resident Ernestine Funches disagrees.

"I've seen police who see you on the phone and don't do anything," she said. "People don't have any respect for [the ban] because police don't enforce it."

"I think they should," Funches added, "because I know how distracted I get when I'm on the phone."

George Summer, of Edgewater, would also like to see stricter enforcement of the ban but says police have bigger priorities.

"If they had nothing better to do, they could search for that. But I'd be disappointed if that was their single focus," Summer said.

An independent study on the effectiveness of New York's cell phone ban found that people changed their habits for a few months after the ordinance was passed in 2001 but then were back to their old ways three years later. Researchers at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said people weren't obeying the law because it wasn't well-publicized.

Here in Chicago, people seem to be perfectly aware of the rule against cell phones. They just don't think it applies to them.

"I don't have a problem concentrating," said Don Ambrose, who admits to flouting the ban on a near-daily basis. "And even with a headset, you're still having a conversation. It would still be a distraction."

Asked whether he thought the ban had made a difference, West said: "Drive around the city, take a look around and tell me what you think."


The first word that comes to mind here is "denial". That wonderful state of mind people conveniently use when something doesn't suit them. I do it all the time, like every time I buy a box of hair color to cover my gray (c'mon I'm 51 for pete's sake), or whenever I eat that chocolate I'm not supposed to, and do anyway, cuz it's only one.

However, breaking the law because you are in denial, is criminal. Like ignoring cell phone bans when it's someone's life you may be taking because of it.

"Sure, it's a distraction, but everyone else is doing it, so I will too."

"Sure it's a distraction, but I can handle it."

or, pure denial at it's best, as "Doc", President of ABATE of Florida implies, "I can handle it fine, I use a headset".

denial (noun)

a refusal to allow people to have something that they want or that they believe they have a right to

This definitive phrase goes both ways:

Cell phone users believe no one has the right to take away something they want [selfishness] or believe they have a right to [holier-than-thou attitude].

I, as a motorcyclist, believe I have a right to ride safely [share the road with non-distracted drivers] without being flattened by a distracted cell phone user [the right to live].

Is my right to life more important than someone else's right to gab on the phone? Apparently not.

psychology a state of mind marked by a refusal or an inability to recognize and deal with a serious personal problem

This phrase applies to those who will not even admit that cell phone use is a distraction (Yo, Doc, catch my drift?). I am far more afraid of this type of person than the one who knows it's a distraction, but does it anyway.

In the article above, the author states early on, "But some time between then and now, I lost the headset and never bothered to replace it. There didn't seem to be a point, when almost every other driver on the road had gone back to gabbing on the phone without making the slightest attempt to hide it."

Apparently she thinks it's OK, because "everyone else is doing it". My mother used to smack me when I would tell her I wanted to do something because "everyone else was doing it". She'd tell me, "You're not everyone else! And you're going to do the right thing." The difference is, I was 12 years old, and this author has to be at least an adult of some indeterminate age.

Ernestine Funches disagrees that Chicago police hand out enough cell phone user tickets. She says, "I've seen police who see you on the phone and don't do anything," she said. "People don't have any respect for [the ban] because police don't enforce it."

Wrong, Ernestine. People don't respect those of us who might be maimed or killed because they're using a cell phone while driving. They don't respect you either.

Chicagoans obviously feel that police don't have enough to do, or too much time on their hands. How would Ernestine feel if police were giving out cell phone tickets and her relative was killed because police were otherwise occupied? Here's a thought, how about complying with the law so the police don't have to be looking for YOU gabbing on a cell phone while driving, and can get down to the business of protecting and serving?

This is another another law that people blatantly ignore because, if they are caught, it's just a $50 fine, paid and done. (Just be sneakier next time when you use your cell phone.) Kind of like the failure to yield the ROW [while gabbing on a cell phone] and using the canned answer, "I didn't see him [because you were gabbing on the cell phone]", minor traffic violation, court fine, done, you can go now, while the victim you killed leaves behind a grieving family [because you were gabbing on a cell phone!].

How many people would risk using a cell phone while driving if the fine was $500 or $1000? Not near as many. Hit them in the pocketbook and you'll see a difference, I'd bet. Says a lot about our society doesn't it? Pay big bucks, OK, I won't do it. I might kill someone, well "that won't happen", so I'll do it anyway. I think my life is worth a lot more than $50, or even $500 or $1000.

Ernestine goes on to say, "I think they should [give out more tickets], because I know how distracted I get when I'm on the phone."

Am I reading this right? I know I'm old (grandma age, just not a grandma yet), and my brain gets that CRS stuff sometimes, but did she just say people don't respect the law [cell phone ban] and then admit she uses hers and is distracted while using it? So, in effect, Ernestine is saying, "I use my cell phone while driving, it makes me distracted, and I don't respect the law [or the lives of others] enough to obey the ban".

Now this comparison on cell phone tickets versus parking tickets, I'm confused here. An illegally parked car doesn't move, can't be disguised as anything other than a car parked in an illegal parking zone. And don't most cities have meter maids? Then again, a parked car can't kill you, but a driver on a cell phone is likely to. Shouldn't cell phone tickets take precedence over parking tickets? Or is it just easier money to give out the parking tickets? What? Ya, I know, I'm asking for the moon. So sue me.

The article goes on to say, "Researchers at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said people weren't obeying the law because it wasn't well-publicized."

Now that's a load of horse patooty. Give me a break here! Maybe 1% of drivers (and that's being kind) aren't aware of the cell phone ban. Maybe the ones passing through, or visiting, but 13,400, out of millions or billions using their cell phones while driving? C'mon folks, how many excuses do we have to have here? What are these guys researching, really? These guys probably belong to the "helmets save lives" club too. Oh wait, the "Insurance" Institute...? Now why does that make my skin crawl?

"Here in Chicago, people seem to be perfectly aware of the rule against cell phones. They just don't think it applies to them."

BINGO! That's the most intelligent and accurate sentence in the entire article.

Another citizen admits to the distraction, but apparently not for him. He's in full denial. (Sorry, this one's name is Don, not Doc.)

"I don't have a problem concentrating," said Don Ambrose, who admits to flouting the ban on a near-daily basis. "And even with a headset, you're still having a conversation. It would still be a distraction."

One thing I do get from this statement though, he is basically admitting that a cell phone IS a distraction with or without a headset. Wait, there may be a few more brain cells working in there than I thought.

I hope this person isn't a solid example of Chicago citizenry. He first says he doesn't have a problem concentrating. Is that when you take a leak, Don? Or maybe when you are trying to decide between a double latte or a mocha grande? What this really means is he feels slighted because he thinks he can use a phone either way, headset or not, without any impairment. Sorry Don, your brain is impaired even without the cell phone or headset.

Someone please explain to me how the Chicago Sun-Times editor in chief approved of this useless, amusing at best, article? But then, I guess this author was the best one to write this 5th grade article. After all, it's written about cell phone law avoidance, by a person who breaks the same law - because everyone else does. What fine upstanding citizens journalists are. I'm going to believe everything they say now.....NOT!

When will I see an intelligent and informative article about cell phone impairment, written by a journalist who understands the real repercussions of cell phone use while driving? Hopefully before I die at the hands (and wheels) of a cell phone impaired driver.

Now I'm gonna go out to eat, and steal me another ashtray. Why not? Everyone else does it.

Word of the Week - Incommode

Today I'm starting a new theme with this post. Oh, it'll still be about bikers and such, but being a person who adores fun words, I've decided to choose a word of the week and center a post around it's meaning.

Many words in the English language (as well as others) can be traced back to Latin. As a lover of interesting words, as well as Latin words, this weekly post is partially for my own enjoyment. I hope you enjoy it too.

This week's word is "incommode".

Now, when I saw this word, the first thing that came to mind was "in the toilet". And it's not far off the mark, especially if I use it to describe what politicians do (or don't do). However, it's not pronounced that way (no matter what your "hooked on Phonics" teacher said).

incommode (in-kuh-MOD) verb tr.

To inconvenience.

[From Latin incommodus (inconvenient), ultimately from the Indo-European root med- (to take appropriate measures) that is also the source of medicine, modern, modify, modest, and modulate.]

"Politicians and law makers (and some lobbyists) are unwilling to consider banning cell phone use while driving because this will seriously incommode their own selfish desires."

Now, I'll be the first to admit I'm human and human nature is inherently self-serving. We conjure up all sorts of reasons for the things we do, but ultimately most of the things we do are self-serving. Whether they are selfish or not depends on how those acts affect others, as in the violation of the human rights. The right to live is one of those rights, wouldn't you agree?

We obey traffic laws because they were created to allow others to travel safely together on the same roads. If we do not obey these laws because it's an inconvenience, we're distracted, or we simply don't want to, it's a selfish act that may cause another to lose his or her life. That disobedience or unlawfulness becomes a violation of human rights for which is punishable according to the law.

Just as driving under the influence of alcohol impairs our driving ability, driving under the influence of cell phones also impairs our driving ability. Notice I didn't say driving with a cell phone in hand, or driving with a cell phone in the car (and a hands free device in your ear).

Under the influence in this case means: something able to affect the course of events or somebody’s thinking or action, or more simply put, an intoxication.

Our society and form of government allows us to vote for law makers who will uphold our human rights. They work for us, and are paid by us, the common man. We expect them to protect our human rights. Where do lobbyists fit into this equation?

Consider the following snippet by RC of Big Bend Bikers for Freedom, posted on Bruce-n-Ray's biker Forum on a comment the current acting President of ABATE, and also a paid lobbyist, James D. "Doc" Reichenbach II, made:

"The President of the SMRO in this state (fl) has voiced his "need" to use a cell phone while driving. He qualified that statement by adding that of course he uses a hands free device."

What makes this quoted statement self-serving, as well as a selfish one, is he (the President of Florida's SMRO) is voicing his need to use a cell phone and implies that a hands-free device makes this OK to do. Given the studies and information so readily available, as reported by MADD, Mr. Reichenbach clearly contradicts what ABATE stands for.

A hands free device eliminates the use of hands, but in no way keeps the driver centered on driving only. During his or her conversation, when he or she is listening to another voice or composing and delivering a voiced reply, their thoughts are NOT centered on driving.

I consider myself to be a good driver. I certainly have a good driving record. However, I know that cell phone conversations distract me while driving and it would be a lie to say they don't. My bet is the majority of people would say the same, if they were honest. Sounds to me like Mr. Reichenbach is more worried about losing his right to use a cell phone while driving, than my right to live and ride safely.

The really sad part of the quoted statement above is he has a great influence on legislators, and law makers, and is supposed to stand for the human rights of Bikers in Florida. In one fell swoop, he is effectively proclaiming that every one of us, who have had to dodge a cell phone intoxicated driver, are suffering from an overactive imagination.

He even goes as far as warning others not to "antagonize the Transportation Committee", in his posted letter, S620 Cell Phone Bill Update 3/29/2007 on the ABATE of Florida website.

Consider if you will, the Mission Statement on the ABATE website:

• We will lobby and educate the government and general public to promote motorcycling in a safe and positive image.


• We will endeavor to enlist the cooperation and participation of all organizations and individuals who share a similar interest in preserving our American tradition of freedom.


• We will involve ourselves in fund raising to achieve our goals.

Now, this Mission Statement also claims that their paid lobbyist (Mr. Reichenbach) works closely with the Board of Directors to coordinate and formulate favorable bills. So one can assume from this that Mr. Reichenbach is not alone in his statement above. Therefore, ABATE of Florida is not working toward a common interest in preserving freedom, for to ride free one must still be alive to do so.

And if Mr. Reichenbach does not speak for ABATE in his apathetic comment, then why does the ABATE board of directors not rein him in? For he is clearly speaking from a selfish and self-serving point of view. It is an abomination that he be allowed to make such a comment, when all organizations who promote and work toward our freedom to ride safely, clearly must agree. A division of common goals is surely the path to failure.

Supporting ALL Biker's rights does not seem to be the trend here, and supporting a ban on cell phones while driving will obviously incommode Mr. Reichenbach's selfish right to use one, and endanger the lives of others while doing so. Apparently he believes that sticking a hands-free device in his ear makes it all OK. It would seem that Mr. Reichenbach is using his influence to advocate his needs, rather than ABATE's.

And by the way, don't tell me what I can and can't do Mr. Reichenbach, for I have the right to be safe from you and others using cell phones while driving.

And I won't be any safer, helmet or not, until cell phone conversations are banned while operating a deadly weapon, such as a motor-driven vehicle. It is appalling that hard earned money from donations to ABATE is used to pay for Mr. Reichenbach's services, for he clearly is not serving the greater good of Bikers everywhere, and certainly not in Florida.

Until more people "antagonize" the government to curtail this particular driver distraction, our lives and limbs are the payment, and I'll write to any legislator I choose to on any subject that is near and dear to me, if it means I might be heard.

So here's a message to Bikers everywhere: If you believe you are in danger of becoming a victim of a "cell phone intoxicated driver", I encourage you to "antagonize", albeit in a polite and respectful way, any legislator who may have influence over this issue.

And most certainly think very hard about donating your hard earned money to ABATE of Florida, at least while it supports Mr. Reichenbach.

This Latin phrase applies here: Justitia omnibus: "Justice for all"

My motorcycle license plate has the Latin word for "Heaven" on it. I'm not ready to go there just yet, but riding my bike is a little bit of Heaven every time I ride. I'd like to keep it that way.

We're Mad and We're Not Gonna Take it Anymore!

Recently, on Bruce-n-Ray's Biker Forum, as well as RC's blog, posts have appeared that accentuate the fact that the growing number of "inattentive" auto drivers is a clear and present danger. Bruce, who is on his way to Sturgis Biker Rally had no less than 3 near-misses with "inattentive" auto drivers, all talking on cell phones, in the 1st 36 hours of his trip.

So, what is "inattentive" exactly? This is a very broad term. I could list them all out for you, but you know what they are. Everyone is guilty of it at some point. Consciously paying attention to driving legally and obeying traffic laws is not enough. You must be aware of every everything and everyone around you. If you're not, you're an "inattentive" driver.

Makes me think of the comedian, Jeff Foxworthy....

You're an inattentive redneck driver if.....

Let's examine common driving practices. We all have our pet peeves, but let's just look at the ones that kill motorcyclists the most in particular; failure to yield the right of way, and merging errors.

My dad didn't teach me to drive, drivers ed did, but he taught me to drive safely. He was a Sales rep for a large automotive parts company back in the 70's and covered southern California, from the Mexico border up to Sacramento. He drove a lot of miles and never had an accident, a ticket, or even a near miss.

"Always know who's behind you and beside you," he told me, "Don't make exaggerated moves. Use your turn signals. Be considerate of others. Go with the flow. Never drive over your limitations. Know where your blind spots are, and always turn your head to look before changing lanes." Does anyone do this anymore? I do, but if I didn't my dad would kick my butt from here to next year.

Good advice? You bet! Do you ever see this in a written state driving test? Oh please. It's far more important to know how many feet exactly before that corner that you should turn your signal on.

Now, I'm not saying I've never had an accident. I remember it very well, about 15 years ago. I was distracted and didn't see a stopped vehicle ahead. What was I doing? And here's the ironic part, I was looking through my mail and saw a notice that my soon-to-be-ex-husband had cancelled my auto insurance. I looked up, hit the brakes, and bam!

I learned a lot from that accident, the least of which was, you never really know people, even when you're married to them for 19 years. No one was hurt. I had a truck, bent the bumper. He had a truck, bent his bumper. He was nice and didn't sue me, I was nice and paid for both bumpers. The thing I learned most is it never pays to do anything but drive when you're driving. Having never rear-ended anyone before, I also learned there is NO way out of that one. You pay.

Not so for a failure to yield the right of way. When I was a very young driver, I swooped around a corner in my screamin' Camaro, down-shifted into 2nd gear and roared into traffic at a high speed, and cut off a police car in the process. I didn't see him, obviously, but that's because I didn't look. I got a slap on the hand for that one. What it taught me was, failure to yield the ROW was a minor offense and if I had to do it once in a while, well that's OK. (My dad re-educated me on that one!)

A young person recently commented to me about a driving law; the one where you should stop completely, before the line, and then inch forward to see beyond any obstructions. She didn't know that one, and failed her driving test. To me that's a no-brainer. She also asked me how she should know when it's her turn to go at a 4-way stop intersection. I just looked at her like she was from another planet. But seriously, how many people know the answer to that one? Ask a few people. You'll be amazed at the answers you get.

Many long-time drivers, I swear, have no clue what the term "Yield" means, or the term "Merge". And if they do, how come they don't drive like they do? How many times have we seen a car coming onto the freeway and they just fade into your lane like they have blinders on? Merge does not mean keeping going, oncoming cars beware, it means merge into traffic at a safe speed and look for others when doing so. The same goes for oncoming traffic. Would it hurt to slow a little to let someone in? It's called common courtesy. American drivers don't know what that means anymore. Hurry up, don't let that car or bike in front of you. You might get there one minute later than him.

The dictionary defines yield: to slow down or stop in order to let another vehicle pass. It's a verb, an action. What part of THAT do people not understand? Do they think the DOT puts up those yellow signs to beautify the roadway? But hey, fail to yield and kill a biker, it's just a slap on the hand, right? "I didn't see him" means "I didn't LOOK".

In New England (and other backward parts of the country) there are traffic circles known as "roundabouts" or "rotaries". These are something I did not grow up with or even was aware of before moving to the Boston area in 1999. Some insane person or persons stayed up late one night on drugs and came up with this hair brained idea that traffic circles were a good thing for traffic flow, but never thought about the potential for accidents. What were they thinking???

Those who live in New England are very adept at cutting you off, and/or running you off the road in these traffic circles, oblivious to the yellow signs displaying the word "Yield". I came to learn through driving my car in these traffic circles that they should be renamed "suicide circles" for motorcycles. if you go into one, it's every man/woman for themselves. In one state, you have the ROW inside the traffic circle, in other states, those coming into it have the ROW. I doubt anyone really pays attention except getting in as fast as possible and getting out when you want to, everyone else be damned.

Another traffic law that results in many accidents (cars and bikes) is when it is legal to pass on the right (like in Massachusetts). OK, I can live with that, though it's illegal to pass on the right in most western states. But drivers make it an unspoken rule that if a single lane is wide enough for two vehicles, and there are no painted lines, it becomes a two-lane road instead of one. I'd be riding up some main road through some town outside of Boston and a car would pass me on the right at radical speeds. If there's enough room, and there's too much traffic slowing you down, simply create a new lane, voila!

There's a reason that Massachusetts was once rated the #1 worse drivers in the country, and has probably never been out of the top five. The auto insurance alone is enough to create road rage.

OK, so now you've got drivers (all over the country) who either do not understand traffic laws, don't know them, or don't care, and never have to be retested on them again. In addition, you can violate them, kill someone and get away with it. Gotta love American justice, eh? Add to that all the distractions people purposely add to their driving time and you've got dead bikers.

I once saw a woman pass me in the breakdown lane at high speed (another east coast thing designed to ease traffic conditions during rush hour, but it is so badly abused that the breakdown lane actually becomes the "fast lane"). It had snowed the night before, but was sunny that morning. The salt and sand trucks had already been out, so the road was wet and the snow was cleared. the breakdown lane had just enough room to drive in, if you paid attention to the snow and slush on the edge of the road. It was the high point of the morning rush hour. When she passed me doing close to 65 mph, my lane (the far right one) was creeping along at an average of 40 mph. She was putting on mascara while driving.

Another 20 minutes down the road, I saw a car off to the right, nose first into a tree, buried in knee deep snow, and the tire tracks leading to it had to be 100 feet long. She'd faded into the slush on the edge of the road and couldn't control her car. three other cars were involved, but fortunately no motorcycles. I pulled off the highway to speak to one of the officers on scene. The woman who had been driving the car was sitting in one of the patrol cars waiting for an ambulance. She had what looked like a small cut on her face, and was holding her arm, probably broken.

I mentioned to the officer that she had been putting on makeup when she passed me. He looked incredulous at me, and we walked over to the car to look inside. On the floor of the passenger side was her makeup bag spilled onto the floor. The mascara tube was still uncapped. Her cell phone was also on the floor. The officer picked up the phone and looked at the call history. She had been talking on her cell phone AND putting on makeup. She was 36 years old.

While young people are inexperienced drivers who still have the "I know everything" outlook on life, distracted driving has no age limit. Nor is it limited to gender, or even profession. I think the older the person is, and the longer they've been driving, the more they think they can multitask and operate a car with no problems. Just like the person who claims that they drive with a bluetooth headset, and therefore are not distracted while on the phone and driving at the same time. What a load of crap, and an arrogant comment too.

I once passed a man driving erratically in the fast lane and when I got up beside him and looked over, he was leaning on the center console with a cell phone to his ear, talking animatedly. I paced him and watched him for quite a while. His speed was anywhere between 50 mph and 80 mph. Cars behind him were pulling out in frustration and cutting people off, just so they could get around him. I had only been living in New England for a short time, and had not yet experienced road rage, and indeed thought road rage was when someone pulled a gun out and shot at you (I'd heard rumors of that), or when two people pulled off and duked it out over some argument over driving. Well, that is road rage all right, but wait till you hear what happened next.

Eventually he looked over at me, and being the big mouth that I am sometimes, I mouthed the words, "Hang up the phone and drive", and then sped up to the speed limit, intent on leaving him behind.

The man immediately pulled in behind me and turned on police lights hidden in the front grill, and pulled me over! He was a cop off duty, albeit out of his jurisdiction, but a cop nonetheless. About that time, I was cursing myself for meddling, but I just couldn't let it go without alerting him to his horrible driving. He stomped up to my window and proceeded to literally yell and scream at me about making comments to other drivers on the road. He accused me of road rage. I sat there dumbfounded and listened without a word, trying to appear calm, in the presence of a cop no less, who was displaying such anger. Though I didn't think he had the grounds to haul me off to jail, I didn't want to push it. Hey, he had a gun and I didn't. Finally he stomped back to his car and took off, nearly causing an accident as he pulled into traffic. He was probably arguing with his wife on the phone.

Both of these episodes happened while I was driving a 4-wheeled vehicle. I owned a 3/4 ton truck then. And I used it to my advantage. I could travel down a one-lane road wide enough for two cars, but if I drove in the center of it, other cars couldn't pass me (more of that audacity I'm famous for). People watched out for me because I had the size and they didn't. But remember, I also owned and rode a motorcycle. I was always aware of them. My eyes were always on my mirrors, watching for whoever is around me, as my dad taught me to be. Whenever I could, I used my large vehicle to shield or protect motorcycles from other cars, allowing them to pass me while holding others back.

Now, I won't say I don't use my cell phone while driving. I do. I usually limit my conversations, and in dangerous areas or very heavy traffic, I just don't answer it. Chances are it isn't my kid calling to tell me of an emergency. I know I need all my attention to be on my driving. If I really need to continue to talk, I pull off. It is not my God-given right to use my cell phone while driving. Nor is it anyone else's, if it endangers the lives of others sharing the road.

It goes without saying, and most would agree, that eating, putting on makeup, shaving, reading, and doing things with your hands other than driving, is a dangerous practice. Children need to learn manners in the car too. Mine did, or I pulled off and let them know in no uncertain terms what would happen to them if they didn't. As a parent, it was my responsibility to assure that I was not distracted by them. When you sign up to be a parent, you take on the responsibility for them. They learn by your example, so set a good one.

A huge portion of distracted driving is caused by conversations on cell phones, not the actually holding of one. Nearly every man woman and child over the age of ten owns a cell phone in this country. So OK, ten year olds don't drive. How many does that leave? Most or all of them who drive, use their cell phones while driving. Look up the census records yourself and do the math.

Society has gone from wired phones, with a stool by the wall. Then on to cordless phones which still had to remain in your house, and then cell phones that could go anywhere. I even have one of those cellular cards that plug into my laptop for internet connection. I use it in cities where I can't get good internet connections. I was astonished to hear of people who surf the net while driving! Can you say S-T-U-P-I-D? Whenever I see that commercial, "Can you hear me now?", I fill in with "Can you kill me now?"

Cell phone use while driving, however, is currently your choice. Can you consciously make the right choice? Can you leave your arrogance and selfishness behind and eliminate its use, or at least limit its use? Even with the awareness I have because I ride a motorcycle, I know of times when the miles went right by without knowing what I passed, because I was on the phone, and I've always used a hands free bluetooth device. Without cruise-control engaged, my speed is erratic, causing other drivers to become irritated and angry. Hellooooo. Can you say road rage? Human beings have the tendency for erratic behavior when angry, or distracted. Being on a cell phone while driving not only distracts you, but it has a ripple effect, distracting others. Distracted driving kills people.

What this all adds up to is motorcyclists are dying everyday because of auto drivers' failure to obey traffic laws, and driving distractions, primarily cell phones. And BTW, someone pa-leeeease explain to me how a helmet helps an auto driver drive better and not hit me? And why is it that the phrase, "I didn't see him" excuses these actions?

People who have families like you and me, and who have the right to share the road safely with other vehicles, are dying, and the guilty get a slap on the hand. Is this a violation of MY human rights? You bet it is! And it makes me mad!

Now let's examine some prejudices. We go out of our way to make room for bicycles on the road. How often do you see signs telling you to share the road with bicycles? While I can appreciate city DOT's putting those signs up, where is the same for motorcycles? Motorcyclists are just as vulnerable as bicyclists, so why aren't they given the same consideration?

And insurance companies aren't much better. Do they also discriminate against you if you own and ride a bicycle? Mine doesn't, but I pay more for life insurance because I ride a motorcycle. One goes faster and further, both riders die if hit by an auto. Why aren't bicyclists harassed about wearing protecting clothing, or full face helmets?

Politicians are oblivious to these facts, no matter how we print, speak or broadcast it. They are fixated on helmets, or the lack of. Journalists and bleeding heart liberals (redundancy at its best) fuel the fire by spouting off inaccurate and/or incomplete statistics. The general public looks down their noses at a motorcyclist who rides bareheaded, as they are yakking on a cell phone and swerving into your lane.

Speaking of helmets, let's talk about those for a minute. Most motorcyclists will not have a minor crash with an auto that let's them walk away unscathed or with minor injuries; crashes with autos are never minor. Motorcyclists die all the time, helmet or not, from blunt force trauma to the brain. When struck by an auto, we are separated from our much smaller vehicle and become faster than a speeding bullet fired into a brick wall, usually head first. Whether it's your helmet hitting the auto, or your head, it's still most always a fatal.

Our heads are but one part of the body. Is it preferable to live, if we don't know we're alive? Unless you put a metal cage with airbags around a bike, a crash will cause debilitating injury, helmet or not. Many tell me they don't want to wear a helmet so they don't survive a crash to become a vegetable. That's reasonable to me. And it's certainly my right to choose.

Perhaps in the distant future, some scientist will invent a force-field for motorcycles and we won't have to worry about being run over by autos anymore. Beam me up, Scotty!

I don't look at helmets the same way as seat belts in an auto. Seat belts save lives with a much larger percentage than helmets do, by virtue that, if you stay in your vehicle, in a protected position, you are less likely to be critically injured.

So let's be clear, helmets help prevent your head from splitting open and your brain from spilling out. It does not prevent brain injury or death. And frankly, if I am hit by some inconsiderate, self-absorbed, arrogant, anal retentive, cell-phone impaired auto driver, I don't want to live in a vegetable state the rest of my life, or wonder if I'm ever going to stop being in constant pain from the umpteen surgeries I have to have. Just put me 6 feet under, thank you very much, for the Lord loves me far more than the politians and journalists do.

Now, granted, if I was a speed demon on my bike, taking chances on curves, pulling wheelies, I'd think it was prudent to wear a helmet just to protect me from myself. And I could just kill myself anyway. But when will lawmakers accept the fact that helmets don't save the majority of lives, good auto drivers do?

Approximately 2/3 of motorcycle deaths can be attributed to auto driver error with no fault of the motorcyclist. The excuse is nearly always, "I didn't see them". (What? Did you expect to hear someone say, "sorry I was putting on my makeup and didn't see them"?) Drivers are expected to look for oncoming traffic, before pulling out, or changing lanes. Last time I looked, motorcycles were included in that term oncoming traffic. When an auto driver violates my rights by running me over, there should be hell to pay. Not only do prosecutors need to stand up for those rights, but - and here's a novel concept - how about owning up to your mistakes? And then work toward correcting their behavior?

Motorcycles are different than autos in many ways. They can accellerate up to the speed limit faster. They can stop faster. Use your brains, figure it out. A truck can't stop as fast as a car (I found that out the hard way). It's pure physics. Next time you're tailgating that motorcycle, think about how much that person appreciates the use of his legs and BACK OFF. Many a biker has lost life and limb when a tailgating car squashes them between the auto behind them and the next one. [Oh wait, he wasn't wearing a helmet, so that must be why he died.]

It all comes down to one thing; auto=big and heavy, motorcycle=small and light. It's simple, but then most people can't see the simplicity of anything, and try to make something more complicated than it really is.

Now let's examine the vehicles currently sharing the road with motorcycles. Next time you're sitting at a stoplight, count the number of minivans, SUV's and trucks. Now count the number of cars. If you do this enough times, you'll have your own statistics. So I'm not going to print them for you. The reality is, there are far more utility vehicles on the road now than ever before. The era of the family stationwagon is over.

What does this have to do with anything? It means that when a motorcycle broadsides one of these vehicles, the rider no longer is thrown over the roof of that vehicle, as with a sedan or low profile car. It's like hitting a BRICK wall. What part of brick wall is not understood here? You die, sometimes you die instantly if you're lucky, instead of being thrown over the vehicle and onto the ground, where you may have had a chance.

So, there are more light truck and SUV's on the road, than low profile cars. The number of automobiles has increased. The number of drivers has increased. The rate of awareness for motorcycles has NOT kept up with the first two points. The number of motorcycles and riders has increased. Well, Jeez, of course the number of motorcycle deaths have gone up. And that won't change until drivers learn to obey traffic laws and stop the "inattentive" driving habits.

And how do we get auto drivers to obey traffic laws? Make the punishment fit the crime. You kill a person with your vehicle, you go to jail. Simple. Don't most law abiding citizens refrain from breaking the law because of the consequences? I doubt, no I know, people will not stop using cell phones while driving unless a law is passed. human nature is way too selfish for that. Sad but true.

These facts are also ignored by our politicians and journalists. If you're one of them reading this, try being open-minded instead of indignant that I've pointed out your selective blindness. Drivers of light trucks and SUV's must be even more aware of motorcycles now. If they didn't "see" us when they drove a car, do you think they'll see us when driving the kids to soccer in the family minivan or SUV?

Here's another point to ponder. SUV's sit higher, and have more visibility of the surrounding traffic. Yet, motorcyclists are still being killed more than ever. Think they're looking? Not on your life.

Do we educate drivers on the safety factors involved for motorcyclists? Sadly, no. We don't even educate them sufficiently on driving autos and we don't require people to retake a written driving test again beyond their first one at 16 years old, outside of exceptions involving suspended or lapsed licenses, or moving to a state that requires it. Most don't.

There is a huge push to educate motorcyclists on riding safely, but the fact that auto drivers are responsible for most motorcycle deaths never even registers. Doesn't it stand to reason that educating auto drivers just might reduce the number of motorcycle deaths caused by failure to yield the right of way? My, my, my, wouldn't journalists everywhere eat some crow if the death rate dropped by that 2/3 caused by auto drivers. Hmmm, maybe that's why they refuse to see the writing on the wall. It's far easier to pin the blame on the dead biker who wasn't wearing a helmet.

I am delighted to hear that more and more people are riding motorcycles these days. At least I know that someone driving a car, who also rides a motorcycle, is not likely to be the one who runs me over on mine.

To quote a favorite quote from my younger days, "What we have here, is a failure to communicate." And on a big scale too. In my line of work, if something keeps failing, we evaluate the broken process and fix it. We don't "bandaid" things. The helmet law is a "bandaid" fix for a very broken process. Using your cell phone while driving an auto is a selfish act that can and does take lives, so why is it allowed? Failing to yield the right of way kills people, so why is a slap on the hand suitable punishment?

Let's fix the root cause. Let's educate auto drivers everywhere, not just on motorcycle awareness and safety, but on obeying traffic laws. Let's change the laws and make the punishment fit the crime. We all want to see that murderer get time. Failure to yield the right of way and killing someone in the process is vehicular homicide at the very least. ROW laws are there for a reason. "I didn't see them" is just another way of saying, "I didn't look, or look hard enough". The burden of proof of innocence should be on the auto driver when the dead biker is unable to speak for himself, doncha think?

Get MADD. Make a difference. Even if it's just you that changes the way you drive, or stops using your cell phone in your car, it will make a difference. But beware, bikers everywhere are watching, and there are changes in the wind, cuz we're mad, and we're not gonna take it anymore.

I know this post will most likely be read by other bikers, and I'm just "preaching to the choir", but perhaps someone who doesn't ride will read it and pursue the need for more information. Or maybe it'll be another biker like me, who has only just begun to fight.

Check out the websites in my links list, specifically MADD, and Big Bend Bikers for Freedom. Educate yourself on these issues, educate someone else. Stop the killing.

This "big bad motorcycle mama" will thank you for it.