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.)

Two-wheeled Conveyence Saves Fuel? What a Concept!

While motorcyclists everywhere are discriminated against, bullied, scoffed at, and treated basically like a pariah, the on-going energy crisis is pushing more and more Americans to buy scooters. Not of the Harley variety, mind you, but of the Vespa kind.

An online Missoula, MT newspaper implies new scooter converts to be energy-conscious citizens. I guess that doesn't apply to those of us who ride "energy efficient" motorcycles of the expensive kind. We just prefer to ride something more flashy or unique, but we are no different really.

One such convert proclaimed that buying a candy-apple red scooter would make him visible to other drivers. Another proudly stated she wore an orange helmet for visibility, and she said, "People respect us." This just about made me choke on my coffee.

Are you getting the theme here? What we are going to see is a sharp rise in deaths as those who learn the hard and irreversible way that cage drivers don't see us, in spite of an orange helmet or a candy-apple red scooter. Add to that all the people riding scooters that don't require a motorcycle endorsement, and thus no rider course.

Of course, one of them had to make the comment that they ALWAYS wore their helmet. I'm guessing they have no clue that their helmet protects their head at speeds UP to 20 mph only? And should a cage mow them down at speeds above that, well, they'll be "Moped Roadkill" anyway.

And Montana only requires those over 18 to wear a helmet. Do you really think all Moped riders are going to wear one?

And what I also see happening is the statistics from the deaths of all these Moped fools will add to the fuel that our government ignites in favor of universal helmet laws, and the growing number of discriminatory laws aimed at motorcyclists.

God help us all. Either the general public is going to learn sooner than later that America's drivers have no respect for two-wheeled vehicles, or our lifestyle is going to become so regulated we'll all have to fore-go the Harleys in favor of a Moped.

Not likely, and over my dead body.

I guess I'll have to stop calling my ride a "scooter" now.

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?

Quig et al vs. CHP - Sweet Victory

The most concise and legally accurate description of the helmet law problem in any state, as explained by Richard Quigley....


" ....the government cannot make any objective standards for helmets without taking on liability, and since they are expressly forbidden from taking on any liability, they can never make an objective standard for helmets. There it is.

Without an objective standard it all becomes ad hoc and arbitrary - Ad hoc and arbitrary is the foundation of vague law - Vague law is Unconstitutional." Quig (1943-2007)



Today, February 8, 2008 marked a hearing date in the contempt case of Quigley et al vs. CHP.

It seems a California Attorney General (AG) got a little too big for her "knickers", as you will see. Read on....

This hearing, titled "Summary Judgment Hearing", was for the AG to request dismissal of the case, based on her opinion that the Plaintiffs failed to prove they have a case.

At this same hearing, the Plaintiffs planned to seek a motion to compel compliance with discovery. Great move, and here's why.

And Don Blanscet, CA Abate Executive Director, comments:

"Ask any Attorney what his chances are for Summary Judgment when he is pissing off the Judge by refusing to comply with simple basic discovery rules, to the extent that we are faced to seek a motion to compel."

Here's some history on this case, from the keyboard of Tony "Pan" Sanfelipo himself, founding member of BOLT, when asked for the long and short of it. You'll find the outcome of this hearing below.

(Of course, if you are really into the detailed side of things, there are many informative articles you can read on the BOLT of CA website).

"As you know, the NTSB issued a recommendation that all states should adopt or amend helmet laws to meet compliance with the FMVSS 218 (helmet standard). That's exactly what North Carolina did in January [2008]. Anyway, the boys in California have been fighting tickets there for 17 years...and winning.

"Now comes the great Quig et al vs. CHP, set for trial in May, 2008. That calls for an injunction and declaratory relief, which in road language means, the CHP would be enjoined (stopped) from writing tickets for non compliance with the DOT standard. Quig beat a number, I think 9, of them tickets with his BOLT baseball cap and DOT embroidered on the back. That case had the judge rule to dismiss the tickets, but Quig didn't want a dismissal, because that would just go away for him and not do anyone else any good. So he asked for an injunction, which would stop them from writing everyone up. So be it.

"Meanwhile, the judge was pissed at the CHP for ignoring his earlier ruling that they stop writing helmet tickets unless they sign them off as correctable.

"In California, you can get a fix it ticket for an equipment violation (remember, helmets are listed by NHTSA as motor vehicle equipment, not safety equipment). So it should be a $10 fix it ticket. The problem is, the biker has the right to ask the cop, "officer, how do I fix this?" In other words, tell me what a helmet is or where I can buy one that complies with the law. Since there is no list, there is no law, or at least any way for a cop to tell you how to fix your problem. So we have them right where we want them.

"Then, along comes the Attorney General (AG) and takes this contempt case on in the 6th Appellate Court. The court rules that there is an exclusion in the evidence rule that says, even if it's an equipment violation, if the condition presents an immediate safety hazard to the biker, the cop doesn't have to sign off as correctable and can refuse to let you drive off until you put on a helmet he likes. Wow. The AG thought she had it in the bag at this point.

"The 6th Appellate also ruled that, although Quig's soft cap presented an immediate danger in their mind, as a matter of law if a helmet has a hard shell, it's correctable. That's what we wanted to hear, because the other plaintiffs in Quigs case, Blanscet, Barron, Bianco and Holmes, were ticketed with hard shell helmets. And so were hundreds of others, despite the injunction against this in the Easyriders F.I.G.H.T. Freedom case (an earlier injunction).

"Are you still with me? This ain't easy to explain. Anyway, the AG thought, hey, Quig is dead now, and the 6th [Appellate] ruled that the cops have discretion on whether the helmet is compliant, so let's motion for summary judgment. That means, the Quig et al vs. CHP is no longer relevant. It's a moot case according to the thinking of the AG.

[And the outcome? .... drum roll please....]

"So this motion for summary judgment came up today in court, and if the court granted this, it's all over now, baby blue. Of course, we were on pins and needles because you never know what a judge is going to do. You know what he's supposed to do, but it don't always work out like that. Anyway, low and behold, the judge dismisses the summary judgment and asks why he shouldn't issue the injunction right there and then. That must of blew the AG out of her knickers. I'm sure Quig is dancing in the clouds. So, we go to trial in May.

[After learning the outcome of today's hearing, Don Blanscet went out trolling for another helmet ticket, and I wondered if he could still get one, given the ruling today...]

"Don could still be cited for non compliant helmet, because this still has to be settled in court. He'll have to troll long hours though if the word is out about the summary judgment loss.

"We also want to ask the Supreme Court to retry the 6th Appellate ruling on Quig's soft helmet because, under Buhl vs. Hannigan, and Bianco vs. CHP, followed by the Easyrider case, it was determined that a cop cannot pull you over without probable cause that your helmet didn't comply. The probable cause was, according to the earlier cases, there was no DOT sticker (which later was found not to be necessary anyway) and that the cop knew the helmet didn't comply or he knew there was a recall of that particular helmet, and that the biker knew the helmet didn't comply.

"Whew! How is anyone going to know all that?

[I can hear Tony taking a big breath as he prepares to continue this narrative.]

"As for the baseball cap, it did have a DOT on the back, so there was rebuttable presumption of compliance, because the earlier cases ruled that fabrication isn't an issue. In fact, for a cop or consumer to consider fabrication of the helmet, is absurd (judges words).

"The FMVSS 218 is a performance standard. It tells you what a helmet has to do or prevent to be compliant. Nothing in the standard talks about fabrication. There is nothing in there about a hard shell, 1 inch thickness or any of that nonsense cops say a helmet has to have. They do mention a retention system (chin strap) and that's why Red and Quig and Don have some sort of lace or chin strap attached to their baseball cap, coconut shell or yamaka cap. These guys are characters...I love them."

Let me tell you folks, if you think this has been easy, think again.

And so, as described above, this is a huge victory.

The Judge dismissed the Summary Judgement. And he put the AG in her place by asking why he shouldn't issue an injunction right then and there.

How I wish I could have been a fly on the wall in that courtroom!

And as Don wrote to me today, before firing up the scooter to go "hunting" for another helmet ticket [Got Ticket?]:

Quigley vs. CHP won Big !!!!! I mean we won Big!!!! BIG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Judge says perhaps an injunction is in order for the plaintiffs (thats you !!!!!!!!)

He was very happy with the outcome (ya think?).

As Don says, "we" are the Plaintiffs, and he is right on that point. For this victory was not just for California Bikers, it was for ALL Bikers, as Quigley intended. "Brotherhood knows no boundaries", as is evident here. And this writer is grateful for the work they've put forth to achieve this victory.

What does this mean to you and me? Considerable ground was gained today, through perseverence, a refusal to back down, and a refusal to compromise. They have beat back law makers and law enforcement with the very laws they wrote and [try to] enforce.

But there's no relaxing, as the show is not over.

Trial is set for May 2008. CA Abate and BOLT must still pay their Attorney fees, and they must still keep vigilance. The way looks clearer, but it won't be over until the fat lady sings. They must still fill the Judiciary Fund coffers, to pave the path for the May trial.

Check out the information on the Judiciary Fund and make a much needed donation. Any amount helps. There are hundreds of thousands of bikers out there. Show them you appreciate what they are doing, what Quigley devoted his life to, and help them beat this down to the "whale dung" level (lowest place on earth) where it belongs.

Ya know? I'm hearing the theme for "Rocky" in my head right now... but I hate those musical tunes that play when I open a web page, so I'll let you remember that tune on your own.

And now for the quotes - and I so love good quotes.....

This quote by Napoleon Hill is for the Freedom Fighters in California, and for all those who had/have faith in them and contributed to this cause.

Victory is always possible for the person who refuses to stop fighting.

And this one by Theodore Roosevelt, is for everyone else. But it's not too late. Send your donation today!

Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat.


Great job guys!
Florida Freedom Fighters salute you.

Just the Facts Ma'am - Why Bikers Should Vote Ron Paul 2008

As biker, I am concerned with bikers rights, and if you ride, so should you also be. But as an American citizen, bikers rights are just a sub-set of what I believe in; my personal rights and freedoms.

In the video below, Ron Paul speaks of a "message":

Ron Paul is all about personal rights and freedoms. Yes, as with all candidates, Ron has some differing views, no doubt about it. But in comparison to his undying support of the the Constitution, those differences are minor. In the long haul, less government means less infringement on each of our personal rights. Less government means less money stolen from our earnings. Less government means I still only have ONE mother; the woman who gave birth to me.

I want to see less government, less regulation, less, less, less. Don't you? Only through that will everything else follow. Ron Paul has been called "radical". But this country needs sound and even radical changes if we (the people) are to turn things around and take control of our country again.

I'm tired of my tax money funding our legislators to create hundreds of new and restricting laws every day that infringe on my individual rights; from telling me how to raise my children, to legal confiscation of personal property, including the 15-20 (out of 40) hours I work per week to fund a government that cannot control it's spending and continuously invades my personal life.

Ron Paul has consistently voted no to any new taxes. He wants to phase out many unfair taxes that rightfully belong to each of us, such as capitol gains, inheritance, and death tax.

I'm tired of paying out so much of my earnings in taxes that are spent in other countries, when that money could help me pay my medical bills, and other expenses all Americans pay. When that money should go to our own poor, our own homeless, our own starving children. Ron Paul wants to bring all our troops home, end our world domination policies and give those funds back to Americans, where they should be.

Ron Paul wants to bring our soldiers home. All of them. No other candidate has come close to this statement. How long must we fund 130 military bases worldwide to the tune of 3 Trillion buckaroos each year? How long will the world tolerate our "occupation" on their lands before someone worse than Bin Laden comes along and finds a way to Nuke us? Learning the hard way, in this case, is not an option.

Only with Ron Paul do we have a chance at Freedom and Liberty again. Not to mention restoring worldwide respect for our country.

Hilary, OTOH has a long history of sucking us dry:

"In 2003 and 2004 [Hilary] Clinton grew even more generous with the taxpayers' dollars. She sponsored or co-sponsored 211 bills to increase spending and just three bills to reduce it, yielding a total net cost of $378 billion. This made Clinton the second most "expensive" senator during that time."

And Hilary's response? (drum roll):

While other candidates are addressing issues seriously, Hilary is cackling.

Old habits die hard, and I don't expect Hilary to change colors any more than Osama Bin Laden. In her interviews, Hilary never makes any mention of removing our military presence completely from other countries, only juggling them around some, as if that would make a difference in government spending. She has yet to provide any sound method of paying for all the health care she wants to "give" everyone, including non-citizens. In fact, I've never seen her give a straight or intelligent answer to anything. She plays with our livelihood like an eleven year old plays with Barbie dolls.

As a woman of 52, I've waited many years for a qualified woman candidate for President, and quite frankly, Hilary makes me want to shave my head and pass for a man so I don't have to admit to being a woman. The ignorant women of this country see only a "woman candidate". Oh goody, Women's Lib-ers unite. Where's my paper bag, it's time to puke yet again.

I know! Let's elect Hilary based on her cackling laugh. That's just as good of a reason as any other I can think of. After all, hubby Bill was elected based on his charm and good looks. (Not MY opinion, so don't go there.) Are we supposed to give her "brownie" points because she "stood by" a philandering cheating husband who got caught? All so she could run for President? Sorry Hilary, you lost any respect I might have had for just this reason.

Then we have Mitt Romney, who is, quite frankly, a joke. He can't decide what he is proponent for, or opponent of. He should be renamed "Flip-Flop Romney". (Though I value my summer shoes here in Florida, it will give me cause to chuckle the next time I wear them and accidently step in something nasty.)

Romney supports (for now) illegal wire-tapping and invasive spying on American citizens, including censoring the Internet. His views in nearly every category include discriminatory comments regarding race, gender and/or religion. And he LIES. In his stint as Governor of MA, he closed MA budget gap of $1.2B, not $3B as he claims. In high school, we called that "two-faced".

Can you say "Flip-Flop"?

While Ron Paul is calmly quoting the supreme law, the Constitution, discussing the end to war and the return of our sons and daughters, and lowering our taxes, Mitt Romney is stumbling over his position on issues and beating his chest. And let us not forget that Hilary is busy making her vapid, flowery speeches, that cloak the consequences of her proposed actions, to less than informed young women, who haven't lived long enough to understand the meaning of more taxes imposed on an already over-taxed population, more unnecessary spending in foreign countries, more government spending, more, more more. Which translates into dipping into mine, yours, and every other American's pocket.

Why do I pick on Hilary, a Democrat, AND Mitt Romney, who is a Republican? Because neither, in spite of their party, want to turn the government back over to the people. Neither has any concept of what Freedom and Liberty is. They are both selfish individuals. Hilary wants to be the "First Woman President", just because she's a woman (her only qualification). Mitt Romney just wants to add another notch to his, um, pole - I love me, so you love me, we all love me. [gag]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian running on the Republican ticket. And Ron has all the right agenda. His agenda is my agenda. Because that agenda includes my Liberty, my Freedom.

I am a Libertarian and the following says it all for me:

WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

Ron Paul intends to return control of government to the American people, not the other way around. Ron Paul wants states to be vastly more independent, and govern based on what the people of those states want. We are a nation of free individuals, not a nation of uniform servants.

So how does Ron Paul apply to bikers?

If you weren't convinced by the above, Ron's quote below makes it pretty clear how he views bikers rights - just like any other right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Paul said, "wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet "may well be good advice" but should not be mandatory."

In a Ron Paul Presidency, the efforts of bikers to defeat helmet laws would not be saddled with the federal mandate of the NTSB. Or a Federal government intent on absolute control.

And in relation to government controlled health care?

"Once the government gets control of paying the hospital bills, then they want to control our lives," he said.

If the current attempt to force a universal helmet law down our throats isn't enough to concern you, when Hilary hands over our health care to the government, how hard to do think it will be to fight it then? Even our country's no-helmet states.

Ron Paul is for less government, and I believe him. Past history and actions speak volumes.

Carl Fiser, of NewsLI.com said of Ron Paul:

"His voting record is one of the most consistent this writer has ever seen. No flip-flops are to be found [hellooooo, Mitt Romney]. As well, he is a courageous and wise man, and a heck of an economist. Just ask the Wall Streeters. However, he bears to his fellow countrymen (and countrywomen), an empty pot. He can’t claim to have brought you wars or higher taxes, which we now have [Yo, Ho, Hilary]. He never brought you an unbalanced budget, which is a perennial joke. He never voted himself a wage increase and, to this day, gives back part of his salary every year. He has always voted to preserve the Constitution, cut government spending, lower health care costs, end the war on drugs, secure our borders with immigration reform and protect our civil liberties. Sorrowfully, he was outvoted or shot down on all measures. The Constitution has been chiseled down, government spending is through the roof, health care costs are out of control, the war on drugs keeps getting less effective, immigration issues remain unresolved and our civil liberties have been crimped for our own safety. I’ll just throw in that Ron Paul opposes regulation of the Internet; [Flip-Flop, are you listening in on this?], which has been a revolution in the exchange of ideas, this article being a case in point.

The eye-popping reality of the situation is this. No longer can it be said that Ron Paul is running for President. Amazingly enough, his candidacy has been hijacked, and it appears now that the people are running for President. . . through Ron Paul!"

Do YOU want a President who will do what HE/SHE thinks is right? Or do you want a President who will do what we, THE PEOPLE, think is right.

I'm an American citizen, I'm a biker, and I want a President who will work FOR ME, not the other way around.

If you ride, vote Ron Paul.
If you value your right to choose, vote Ron Paul.
If you feel you are the best judge of raising your children, vote Ron Paul.
If you think you'd like to keep more of your paycheck, vote Ron Paul.
If you want our soldiers to come home, vote Ron Paul.

It's that simple. Vote Ron Paul.

Read the issues here.

Sam I am. Still riding free... this year anyway.

Calling All Bikers

All of the above are "approved" helmets, according to any state helmet law. Shouldn't you have the right to wear the helmet of your choice, or better yet, the choice being none at all?

New California ABATE State Director sends out a request for help. I would add to his addressed "To" ALL bikers, whether you belong to a group or not. Every little bit helps.

Download an image of this letter to print here. Please distribute at will.

To all State Motorcycle Rights Organizations and National Rights Groups:

As many of you now know, ABATE of California is closely monitoring an Appellate Court challenge to the validity of the enforcement of the mandatory helmet law here.

Our Board of Directors has voted in the majority to support this case fully. Furthermore, ABATE of California established the ABATE Judicial Fund in order to accept donations to assist in the legal costs of such litigation. ABATE made an initial contribution of $25,000.00 in establishing this fund. Our attorney is Wendy Lascher of Lascher & Lascher, Ventura, California. The administration of the funds is simple. Attorney submits an invoice for work done on the case, and we send payment.

This court case has four plaintiffs, Steve Barron, Steve Bianco, Pat Holmes and me, Don Blanscet.

No ownership of this case is claimed by any one organization or group, but instead belongs to the plaintiffs. Our opinion is the case belongs to every motorcyclist in California. Steve Barron and Pat Holmes are past presidents of their ABATE Locals, and I m the Executive Director of ABATE of California.

ABATE of California is officially asking that the various State Motorcycle Organizations help us win this important court case by donating to the ABATE Judicial Fund.

Furthermore, ABATE of California requests that the Motorcycle Riders Foundation and the American Motorcyclist Association support and encourage the SMRO's around the country to financially assist this court case by donating to the ABATE Judicial Fund.

Additional documentation and history of the litigation in California is available upon request.

Respectfully,

Don Blanscet
State Director, ABATE of California
donb51@earthlink.net

It is imperative that California succeed in this fight. The outcome will seriously affect the other 49 states, whether you live in one with a helmet law or not. Given the sad state of affairs with the Federally appointed NTSB, all American bikers cannot afford to do nothing with respect to California's fight against their helmet law.

If you value your rights as a motorcyclist, whether you wear a helmet or not, please contribute.





And if you need to ask why? Go here and find one reason among many.




Want to know more about California's helmet war? About true "civil disobedience"? About why those helmets above are all legal?

Read and learn:
BOLT of California
Reason: Online Article
Bruce on NTSB Position Paper

Ride long, ride free, let those who ride decide.

The Best Leaders Lead By Example

Video by Casto Sanchez
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sOWYVSkrk8

California ABATE's new Director, Don Blanscet knows all about 'civil disobedience'. It's one of the best ways to combat unconstitutional laws that rob us of our freedom.

The "King of Resistance", Henry David Thoreau wrote of "Civil Disobedience", in his essay of the same name, first published in 1849. This essay inspired other greats since Thoreau's time; Mohandas Ghandi, who said of Thoreau, "he taught nothing he was not prepared to practice in himself", and Martin Luther King Jr. who said, "As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest."

Paraphrasing the motto of a mid-19th century periodical, and the aphoristic views of Thomas Jefferson, "The best government is that which governs least", Thoreau left a legacy that endures today.

Richard "Quig" Quigley is another legend comparable to those mentioned above, God rest his soul (1943 - 2007). He epitomized Thoreau's teachings of civil disobedience in order to preserve the freedoms of the American Biker, and left behind hundreds of disciples who carry on his legacy. Quig was a leader among leaders.

The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men the conviction and will to carry on. Author: Walter J. Lippmann

I don't know Don personally, but I see three things in this video that makes him a potentially great leader.

1) The obvious, lead by example, is related in his story to the others around him about his 'CHP encounter'. Don has no problem with doing what is necessary to achieve the end result. (Quig? Are ya smiling?)

2) Charisma is apparent; Don conveys the spirit of the story and makes others feel a part of it.

3) Inspiration speaks loudly in this exchange among friends and comrades. Don inspires ME to wear my baseball cap, with the DOT label, and dare to be free. Imagine what Don could inspire other like-minds to do.

In going forward, my wish for you, Don:

May you have the hindsight to know where you've been
the foresight to know where you're going
and the insight to know when you're going too far.

Ride long, ride free, Brother.

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 Short List

I am tall for a woman, just shy of six feet. At the tender age of 13, I grew three inches in one year, and another inch the following year. As I recall, it was very painful. Literally! One leg grew slightly faster than the other, producing back and leg pain, and of course, I outgrew all of my clothes. Although, back then, mini-skirts were all the rage, and the bane of my mother's existence.

In the end, my legs grew to be the same length, and I stretched out to become a tall, slender high school girl, who was taller than most of the other kids.

I didn't want to be tall, I can tell you. I heard all the lines; how's the weather up there? are you an Amazon? are you a lesbian? was your dad a basketball player? And the worst part was, I was invariably taller than the boy I wanted to date, and who would not be seen with a girl who was taller than he.

I did, however, come to love being tall. It added to my self-confidence over the years. I could reach things that others could not. I also discovered I could do more of the sports that boys could do, and be taken seriously as well. It was my love for the extreme, and the "adrenaline rush" that came with it, that motivated me. And my dad, who "walked on water", was a car mechanic, so, of course, I had to be good at that too. Playing with machines, meant fixing them.

I was one of the "boys", and could hold my own. Oddly enough, even though I was tall and did all manner of things that were normal hobbies of the male persuasion, none of those guys thought I was anything but a woman through and through. Most of them respected me for my skills and my desire to participate in their sports.

When I started riding dirt bikes, I rode the same as any of the guys did, without any trouble, and kept up with them too! When it came time to buy a street bike, I had no trouble choosing, since I fit them all without a problem. I didn't even think about height, and made my decision based on looks and feel. I didn't know any other women who rode their own in the early days, so it never occurred to me that height should be a problem.

These days I ride my '02 Dyna Wide Glide with a lot of other women. Some of them are fairly short in height and I have heard all manner of stories about their experiences with buying their bikes. Why it never occurred to me that anyone would have a problem finding a bike short enough for them, I have no idea. Maybe it's because I'd never ridden with a lot of different women before. The few women I'd ridden with in the past were all tall enough to choose from a wide variety of bikes, and the short ones rode with their men.

So why have I written all this, if not for your amusement? Because last night I ran across a website for the "vertically challenged" woman rider!! How cool is that? Here's that link:

Short Women Riders

With all the women riders out there, and many of them shorter than the average man or woman nowadays, it stands to reason there would be a website somewhere that supported them (d'oh!), and the problems they face with finding a suitable bike for their height.

And what do they have on this website? A list of bikes available for short women! It's not obvious where this list is, so you can surf your way directly there at this URL:

Short Bike List

This list contains only metric bikes, and are categorized by rider height in inches. If you're 5'5" and over, and can sit a bike flatfooted (in boots of normal height in sole thickness), they say you're not short. If you're a short woman, and you ride a Harley, I'm sure they would love to hear how you've had it modified to fit you.

Note that they list heights for manage, and flatfooted. Manage means you can balance your bike at a stop while on your toes. My guess is, this list does not address wearing platform boots to lengthen your reach, which is employed by some women.

New and beginner riders should try a smaller bikes at first. They create the confidence needed before trying to master a larger, more powerful bike. I rode a smaller bike (physical size) for a while before moving up to a larger one. And from that one, it was a matter of simply moving up to a larger more powerful engine. Many women go for the huge bikes first, and then quit when they lose confidence.

Metric bikes in general are less expensive, and good used ones are easier to find. I would wait until you are ready for your final size and engine displacement before buying a brand new bike. Although resale values of metric bikes are improving, they still depreciate rapidly, and faster than a Harley Davidson motorcycle. The trade-off is Harley's cost more.

It occurred to me to question why motorcycle manufacturers are not offering more height variables for their bikes, since women make up a much larger percentage today than ever before. It almost seems like manufacturers believe a small woman is not strong enough to ride a larger displacement motorcycle, for it makes no sense to me why they would not address this issue.

Let's explore that theory for a sec.

Most of us who ride know where that thin red line is; when your bike is leaning too far off center for you to muscle it back upright. Your size and strength determines how far off center that line can be, and is the only strength parameter that applies (aside from hoisting it up off the kickstand and backing your bike up an incline). Yes, it's true, most of us women are weaker in strength than most men. What that means is we learn to deal with less "window" between the left and right point of no return. Strength plays no part in riding your bike with balance and finesse.

Any bike will continue to fall on it's side after crossing that magic red line, and the rider must get off (or get up) to pick it up. I don't know of anyone who can hoist their bike upright of the ground, from a straddling position. Oh, there may be a few "bruisers" out there who can, but I would bet the bike is not a 600 lb - 1000 lb cruiser. (Anyone who knows such a person can feel free to send me a video of this stunt, and I will post it here - we can all ooh and ahhhh over it.)

Check out this website for a great tutorial on picking up a fallen bike.

So, aside from the limitations of your balance zone while standing still, the height or strength of the rider has nothing to do with riding a motorcycle safely and efficiently. So why then the disregard for features that would enable more [women] to ride, particularly the vertically challenged women? It's anyone's guess, but it doesn't matter how tall you are or aren't, how strong or weak you are or aren't, you can adapt, and you can ride. Strength of character and determination is all you need. Manufacturers will catch up eventually, once they put down the big club and stop pounding their chests.

Short woman or tall woman, if you want to ride, here's some simple tips to remember:

1. Sign up for and attend a reputable Rider Safety Course. Before you buy.


2. Get your permit or endorsement. Riding without one is against the law.


3. Start small (physical bike size), no matter how confident you feel after taking the safety course. You can always trade-up at a speed you feel comfortable with. Some riders start out too big and drop their bikes too often, or have trouble learning to corner at low speeds. This can discourage you from getting the miles and time you need to become confident. There is a reason (the small bikes used) that you feel so confident after you complete the safety course.


4. Find a patient, experienced woman rider to accompany you on rides. If you have a husband or male friend who is patient enough, they will suit. (Sometimes those closest to you will feel anxious about you as a new rider, and may be too critical, and thereby eroding your newly found self-confidence.)


5. Wear suitable protective clothing, and a helmet. Once you've got some miles (and time!) under your belt, and you prefer to ride without a helmet, it's your choice. Read up on your state's helmet laws first. In Florida, you must carry at least $10,000 of medical insurance, either on your bike policy, or a personal medical policy, and be at least 21 years of age, to ride without a helmet. If you rely on your personal medical coverage, you must carry proof of this with you when you ride or risk getting a ticket for no helmet.


6. Read all you can on safety tips. There are scads of websites out there with excellent tips published. For example, most H.O.G. chapter websites list safety tips, as do Motorcycle organizations such as AMA, and state ABATE sites.


7. Learn to pick up your bike by yourself. This alone will build incredible confidence as you learn where that "red line" is. It can be very disheartening to have your bike fall over when you are out alone, and no one to help you. And no matter what anyone says, or how long they've been riding, male or female, we all drop our bikes at some point. It is nothing to be ashamed of (though it can be embarrassing). Restoring your bike into the upright position, all by yourself, can make a huge difference in how you feel about resuming the ride.


8. Never, never, never drink and ride. Even one beer (which may be under the legal limit for you) can impair your ability to react in time. Sitting behind the wheel of a car is far different than operating a motorcycle. I won't even go there on illegal drugs. Using them is against the law, and shows the most basic disregard for yourself, and for others you may be riding with.

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