Mandatory Roadside Motorcycle Stops

[Razel]

Who's asking for a quick fix? I've been M1 licensed since 1982 and that's my opinion of "John Q driving Public" current state of enforcement and PSA's.

Find another cage to rattle or maybe a beer and a shot. arty

Good for you. 1982, huh? Nice.
[/thread]

 

[fonseca]

Good for you. 1982, huh? Nice.
[/thread]

Ya I'm an old tank with a bunch of miles about half way through life.

 

[MikeyRocks]

Do they honestly thing pulling a biker over and lecturing them about safety is going to change the way they drive? An asshat is going to drive like an asshat regardless of what you tell them. What a waste of tax payers money.

 

[Thateguhate]

Do they honestly thing pulling a biker over and lecturing them about safety is going to change the way they drive? An asshat is going to drive like an asshat regardless of what you tell them. What a waste of tax payers money.

I was thinking the same thing...They have to shut down schools, layoff Officers and firefighters, close down Police Departments and Fire Departments and even take assistance away from the elderly...

But they can set shit like this up... Way to go CA

 

[silversvs]

Not much use posting in here, because most already have their minds made up about law enforcement and whether or not we do any good.

But just to point out, there is no movement to do this in California. Where they have done this in the past, New York, they were not pulling people over to lecture them.

It would be a cheap shot for me to point out that it doesn't appear that some posters here have read the thread, or comprehended what they have read, but it seems that the pertinent information is not getting through.

 

[silversvs]

Those are PSA's nothing more than a "suggestion to the public". . Many don't listen either. I believe that money is not being used in the public's best interest.....

I guess that means "some" are listening?

 

[Pooter]

Are they going to pull cars over and tell them to watch out for motorcycles?

+1 QFMFT

Seeing as how they keep saying how so many of accidents involving motorcycles are caused by car drivers failing to yield or turning into our right of way, I don't understand why we need to get inconvenienced.

 

[mookiera]

If I were on my way to an important appointment I would be very unhappy to be pulled over for any kind of inspection or lecture. Data Dan's graphs clearly show the fatality rate has been going down since 2005. It seems to me that what policy makers and LEOs should be focusing on is what is already going on to lower the fatality rate.
I agree with the LEOs posting here that the programs mentioned earlier do have an impact. The impact, however, is limited to those that are interested in, and attending, those programs. I also believe the signs on the freeways reminding motorists to share the road with bikers has saved accidents and lives. I'd still be pissed if I was unnecessarily delayed for a look/see fishing expedition.
Also, the VC quoted earlier stated that said 'any vehicle' could be pulled over for inspection, also mentioned the LEOs primary responsibility must be in the area of GTA. How many local/state LEOs have this as their primary responsibility and how much time do those particular LEOs have to dedicate to roadside stops?
Ride safely everyone.
Live to ride tomorrow.

 

[mlm]

Not much use posting in here, because most already have their minds made up about law enforcement and whether or not we do any good.

But just to point out, there is no movement to do this in California. Where they have done this in the past, New York, they were not pulling people over to lecture them.

It would be a cheap shot for me to point out that it doesn't appear that some posters here have read the thread, or comprehended what they have read, but it seems that the pertinent information is not getting through.

Genuinely appreciate and support you and other's efforts promoting safety.

If the state is concerned about vehicle safety then require periodic safety inspections on ALL vehicles. Checkpoints like this are too open to being abused.

 

[Traq]

Not much use posting in here, because most already have their minds made up about law enforcement and whether or not we do any good.

The 'woe is us poor LEOs' line is old and worn out. It's like a friend that gets dumped and wallows in self pity...no one wants to hang out with them so they wallow more about that. Self perpetuating cycle.

But just to point out, there is no movement to do this in California. Where they have done this in the past, New York, they were not pulling people over to lecture them.

It would be a cheap shot for me to point out that it doesn't appear that some posters here have read the thread, or comprehended what they have read, but it seems that the pertinent information is not getting through.

OR people just view all random no probable cause intrusions in their life by the police as equally disdainful no matter what the underlying technical/legal differences to the stops may be.

I view what happened in Livermore recently, what you described happens/ed in New York, what's described in the original post, or, for another random example, ICE stopping people to ask if they're citizens hundreds of miles from a border as all the same. Namely, corrupted government sanctioned abuse of the rights of citizens. Just because it is LEGAL, does not make it RIGHT. Nor does it mean I need to just roll over and accept it, and not dare have a contrary opinion.

 

[codger]

the pulling bikes over for a safety discussion Sounds like profiling to me! This mandated change to 15% ethanol sounds like bullshit. If we get worse milage its costing us more to operate our vehicles and some vehicles dont like running on ethanol two strokes come to mind. My understanding is the ethanol helps was the lubricating properties of the oil off the components the oil is supposed to lubricate. I've got to check my owners manuals but I'm thinking 15% might be too much ethanol for older bikes. Im not sur what the ramifications of too much ethanol might be the running hotter cant be good.

 

[DataDan]

This mandated change to 15% ethanol sounds like bullshit. If we get worse milage its costing us more to operate our vehicles and some vehicles dont like running on ethanol two strokes come to mind.

You're missing the point. A mandated increase from 10% to 15% ethanol would increase by 50% the revenues of ethanol producers, who donate generously to congresscritters. And enviro-wackos think it helps combat ManBearPig. So it's a win-win-win deal. Not counting consumers, of course.

 

[Var]

Really a great idea, however, in 2008 motorcycle fatalities in the US reached a milestone, they passed peds & bikes.

That shouldn't really be a reason to give up your rights. People will continue to die, and having a lower death rate shouldn't be a priority over civil liberties. Every time a big brother law gets passed, it's in the name of safety. Thats why people fall for it. Have you ever heard the term "boiling the frog?"

I don't think you can measure the success of a government by fatality statistics. People's happiness should be a priority. I'd rather live happy for 40 years than safe and miserable for 80, held down by the man and politicians never see the big picture. If people could envision the alternative to the way we are policed, I don't believe they would settle for the current status quo.

 

[theRatBiker]

I'm not against this if

a) they pull EVERYONE over
b) they have a COMPREHENSIVE and RELEVANT safety check

What I frequently have a problem with is an officer deciding that since my bike is visually un-appealing to them that it must have a safety violation. I don't buy that probable cause for a safety inspection can be determined from a driver's seat.

A few months ago I was stopped for a safety violation in the Richmond. I was asked to pull off while waiting ASIDE of the patrol car at a stop light. After a lengthy inspection,they resorted to ticketing me for my license plate not being "visible" enough. Arguments of whether my plate was legit or not aside (passed fix-it without any alteration), I have a problem with this because there was no way they saw this violation while ASIDE of me.

I think the only way they can do this fairly is to pull EVERYONE over, and do REAL safety checks (brakes, tire pressure, tread, chain tension, etc.).

Simply looking at lights, plates, perceived noise level isn't going to stop Johny Newbie from riding around on 5 psi bald tires, metallic brake pads, and a decomposing chain. Provided of course, he's doing it on shiny bike.

 

[russ69]

No. Just no. I'm an adult, I have an M1 license, my bike is registered and insured. I don't need or want a Mommy state law enforcer to check my papers or my machine without reasonable cause that I have broken some law. I don't care what the reasons are, I don't want to live in a state or country where my freedom to exist is being questioned by government authorities. Sorry silversys, I understand that you are doing what you are required to do and that the focus is on public safety but I've been down this path before with random stops in the past. The bottom line was, that if you rode a bike you got pulled over, that gets old real quick. This type of enforcement has impacts far beyond a simple traffic stop, it creates further hostility towards law enforcement and that is not the direction we should want to go. Thanx for listening.

Thanx, Russ

 

[MCSFTGUY]

+1 QFMFT

Seeing as how they keep saying how so many of accidents involving motorcycles are caused by car drivers failing to yield or turning into our right of way, I don't understand why we need to get inconvenienced.

As was posted, this is not a CA thing, it is a national thing that was started in New York.

But now that you mention crashes... Since 2000 MOTORCYCLES have been responsible or the cause of 70% of the fatal crashes in the state...

But don't take my work for it, just go to the CHP website, do a search for SWITRS go to the motorcycle crash section and read for yourself....

Sorry people... other drivers aren't killing riders.... riders are killing themselves.... at least in CA.....

 

[silversvs]

I'm not "required" to do anything relative to motorcycle safety (with exception of some grant mandated enforcement efforts).

I work hard to promote motorcycle safety because it's important to me. I've dragged my PD down this road because I believe it's a just cause and someone needs to start the effort to reduce all the RIP threads we see all too often on BARF.

If Traq thinks I'm whining so be it. I do what I do because I have a passion for our sport and our fellow riders. Whatever the reasons are, we lost far too many motorcyclists in fatal collisions in the last few years. There is no way the government can save everyone, and I am not advocating violating people's rights, but I do think it's important that we make/take every opportunity to make our roadways safer .

 

[MCSFTGUY]

DATA DAN, nice graphs, can you post or PM me with the source... the rate bar on the chart did not come out to well for me.....Please...

Not that I have asked nice.....

NHTSA, the feds... whom I have a lot of problems with, just so you know up front.... say that rate evaluations based on registrations are not a good indication of any possible problems due to accuracy. How many BARFers have more than one bike registered in their name???? I have 3 and a majority of the riders I know have more that one. That skews the numbers.

The same goes for use of the rate verse licensed drivers....

The only true apples to apples rate if "vehicle miles travelled" but the feds do not have an accurate way of looking at that one.

Also, in looking at Data Dan's graphs I have one more question, the second graph shows the number of license issues with fatalities has been going down. But, if you look at the number of fatal crashes, which has been rising, and the percentage of license issues is still the same, that means there are more license issues for motorcycles.

And... all of this aside....in CA riders have been responsible for the cause of fatal crashes in 70% of the crashes.... The increase in riders can't account for that.

And, on the federal level, motorcycle crashes have been on the rise for the last 11 years.

The feds say motorcycles account for about 3% of the total vehicles registered yet account for 11-14% of the total fatal crashes. Again, the increase in new ridership does not account for all of this.

 

[russ69]

I work hard to promote motorcycle safety because it's important to me.

I'll give you full credit for trying to help riders survive the dangers. My experience tells me that standard enforcement and ticketing was the most effective for me. I screwed up a couple of times and I got a good lesson (ticket). I think that really works. When I was pulled over for a bogus stop, that didn't help at all, it gave me a bad impression of law enforcement (yes it happens). There is nothing wrong with normal traffic enforcement and it is the most effective way to correct problems. Special enforcement, not so much.

Thanx, Russ

 

[DataDan]

DATA DAN, nice graphs, can you post or PM me with the source... the rate bar on the chart did not come out to well for me.....Please...

PM sent.

NHTSA, the feds... whom I have a lot of problems with, just so you know up front.... say that rate evaluations based on registrations are not a good indication of any possible problems due to accuracy. How many BARFers have more than one bike registered in their name???? I have 3 and a majority of the riders I know have more that one. That skews the numbers.

True. It wouldn't be correct to infer a rate per motorcycle owner from that data. But if the number of bikes per owner isn't changing, the rate trend over time accurately reflects the change in rider average risk. FYI, USDOT registrations for California agree with the SWITRS reports. And I haven't seen anything to warn me off using registrations as a measure of exposure, unlike the vehicle-mile estimates, which are thoroughly disbelieved.

The same goes for use of the rate verse licensed drivers....

Licensed riders as a measure of exposure is much worse. I think there are 50% more motorcycle licenses than motorcycles in California.

And... all of this aside....in CA riders have been responsible for the cause of fatal crashes in 70% of the crashes.... The increase in riders can't account for that.

To clarify this statement and the one in your previous post: Since 2000, the motorcyclist has been found at fault in 70% of motorcycle crashes in California. If we assume that the rider is at fault in all single-vehicle crashes (about 40% of the total), then the rider is at fault in half of multiple-vehicle crashes.