• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Motorcyclist profiling bill to CA Assembly 4-19

Do we have the motorcycle only checkpoints they refer too here in California?
 
Last edited:
norcalkid said:
Do we have the motorcycle only checkpoints they refer too here in California?
Click to expand...

Referencing the article:
Additionally, California adopted Assembly Bill 1047 in 2012, specifically outlawing motorcycle-only checkpoints.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting bill, and I'm surprised these legislators considered the issue important enough to try and pass a bill. They must have a strong moto lobby in their districts.

I'm not sure if this is more about moto "gangs," or simply cops stopping motorcyclists because "you look fast." I have been stopped a couple of times for the same reason (video shows I'm going same speed as traffic, at/under speed limit, still get stopped, cop says it's because of moto).
 
So law enforcement can’t stop a motorcyclist absent a lawful reason....which is already specified in the 4th Amendment as well as state law. This is what legislators are wasting their time on? Awesome!
 
So this bill passing will stop that CHP Dodge truck w/ Camper shell ticketing folks by camping out at the Saratoga 76 / STP / Alice's?
 
Imaginary problem.

Oh we got Trouble
Right here in California
With a capital T and that rhymes with P
And that stands for Profiling.​
No matter. The AMA needlessly scares the crap out of a few riders who join up and help pay the bills. Assembly members scare the crap out of a few voters who will remember them in November. And no one gets "profiled".

Of course, motorcycle-focused enforcement efforts funded by US DOT and allocated by California OTS will continue, since they pull over motorcyclists for, you know, breaking the law, not because of their leathers.

Regarding the checkpoint problem. Note that the state of New York does not appear in AMA's list of states where it is now prohibited. Yet New York was the ONLY place it ever occurred and was used by the AMA in a previous scare campaign.
 
Seems like fluffly useless and typical AMA shit. Pandering to wanna be outlaws, instead of pushing and supporting legistlation that will increase ridership, safety and generally support riders.
 
Last edited:
DataDan said:
Imaginary problem.
Click to expand...

Yep. This is less of an AMA-driven thing, though they're involved, than ABATE, MMA, COC, MCANSG, etc, rallying around MCANSG's title and slogan: "Motorcycle Clubs Are Not Street Gangs."

The MC crowd don't like being fucked with for their patches. It's not a motorcyclist problem, it's a club problem, if a problem at all.

We ran a "position statement" on the topic in CityBike in our September 2017 issue ("Motorcycle Clubs Are Not A Protected Class" - page 4) and have been intentionally ignoring this bill. There are other issues that are actually important to mobilize and make noise on.

An excerpt:
"Never mind that in an abstract sense, you cannot simultaneously dress up in the trappings of badassery and then cry foul when people focus on the bad part of your ass.

It’s disappointing to see supposed freedom fighters, those that used to employ slogans like “education not legislation,” some of whom pulled out that old “no new laws” standby as their sole reason for opposing a law codifying lane splitting, disingenuously pushing for new laws to prohibit the supposedly widespread problem of motorcyclist profiling.

Motorcyclists may occasionally encounter someone who doesn’t like motorcycles, or beards, or tattoos, or maybe just stupid-loud pipes, but they don’t experience systematic profiling. What motorcyclists experience is something that sociologists refer to as “people being dicks.”

Profiling happens to clubs, when it happens. But neither clubs, nor motorcyclists are a protected class under the rule of law, nor should they be.

We reject the notion of pursuing legislation on this matter; as they say, “existing laws are enough.” We also reject the notion that club profiling is an issue of concern to motorcyclists at large—it’s not. It’s an issue for organizations that identify themselves with patches and colors and insignia, whether those organizations are built around the motorcycling or scrapbooking lifestyle."
 
27612581298_ec3a4027b5_o.jpg
 
Anna Caballero was a councilmember then mayor here in Salinas. If her hand is in this bill there is some kind of angle. She does nothing unless there's something in it for her.

She was also a defense attorney, so any law that would hinder police and/or get evidence thrown out is wonderful in her book.
 
Some are living in the past. I get profiled because I dress like Ricky Racer, and ride a Ricky Racer bike. I swear CHP wants us to run so they can prove how badass they can ride. :laughing

It would be great to not always be the primary target for traffic enforcement. The same thing happens to sports cars. That's why they are usually the slowest damn thing on the road. :ride
 
You can not be "profiled" based on your overt actions, like riding a motorcycle. Profiling is a problem when based on inherent features like race. It is not a problem when it's based on your free choices. Examples:

Bad profiling: let's pull over that black guy, black guys are all assholes.

This is bad, because nobody can help being born black.

Good profiling: let's pull over that Dodge Charger; only an asshole would drive one.

This is OK because only an asshole drives a Charger.
 
clutchslip said:
Some are living in the past. I get profiled because I dress like Ricky Racer, and ride a Ricky Racer bike. I swear CHP wants us to run so they can prove how badass they can ride. :laughing

It would be great to not always be the primary target for traffic enforcement. The same thing happens to sports cars. That's why they are usually the slowest damn thing on the road. :ride
Click to expand...

And hot chicks.


No I'm not a hot chick
 
jwb said:
You can not be "profiled" based on your overt actions, like riding a motorcycle. Profiling is a problem when based on inherent features like race. It is not a problem when it's based on your free choices. Examples:

Bad profiling: let's pull over that black guy, black guys are all assholes.

This is bad, because nobody can help being born black.

Good profiling: let's pull over that Dodge Charger; only an asshole would drive one.

This is OK because only an asshole drives a Charger.
Click to expand...

Surely this is sarcasm?
 
295566 said:
Surely this is sarcasm?
Click to expand...

Do you drive a Charger or something? :laughing

JWB's post is a solid, simple breakdown of the matter at hand.
 
jwb said:
You can not be "profiled" based on your overt actions, like riding a motorcycle. Profiling is a problem when based on inherent features like race. It is not a problem when it's based on your free choices. Examples:

Bad profiling: let's pull over that black guy, black guys are all assholes.

This is bad, because nobody can help being born black.

Good profiling: let's pull over that Dodge Charger; only an asshole would drive one.

This is OK because only an asshole drives a Charger.
Click to expand...

Substitute Challenger or Camaro, and you have my vote.
 
norcalkid said:
Do we have the motorcycle only checkpoints they refer too here in California?
Click to expand...

I have seen the CHP setup "Pullover" sites alongside Highway 92, pull over Just Motos.

I suppose they must think they are within their rights.
 
moto-rama said:
I have seen the CHP setup "Pullover" sites alongside Highway 92, pull over Just Motos.

I suppose they must think they are within their rights.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't. If you look at the data from those operations, they pull over a lot of cars, too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top