As a motorcyclist, I take issue to the recent article attributing Fairwarning.org promoting mandatory helmet laws and motorcycle-only checkpoints. Please post my response to this biased article that describes motorcyclists with a derogatory term.
Fairwarning.org’s statement that it “strives to provide [this] coverage as a non-partisan, non-ideological public service” does not ring true in this story, which cherry picks fatality statistics and discredits rider education.
The federally funded motorcycle crash causation study, conducted by Professor Hugh “Harry” Hurt, Jr., documented the efficacy of rider education. The 1981 report said: “The basic Motorcycle Rider Course of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation is effective in training motorcycle riders and those trained riders are both less involved and less injured in motorcycle accidents.” The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration also cited rider education as effective in its 2005 report, “Promising Practices in Motorcycle Rider Education and Licensing.” The report states:
“Although evidence of the effectiveness of rider education on crash reduction is mixed, several studies have shown that trained riders tend to have fewer crashes, less severe crashes, and overall lower cost of damage resulting from crashes.”
Why were these facts left out of this article to provide objective balance?
Furthermore, the article selectively cites statistics to suggest that motorcycle fatalities are on the rise, yet failed to point out that motorcycle sales surged dramatically during the same period, or that motorcycle fatalities dropped 16 percent in 2009 and have stayed relatively flat in 2010 and 2011.
Highlighting Michael Dabbs statement that, “Perhaps they ought to be left there like roadkill,” displays crassness and editorial bias because there is no evidence that injured motorcyclists are any more likely to be a public burden than other roadway users. A Harborview Medical Center study published in 1988 reported that injured motorcyclists in the trauma center relied on public funds a lower percentage of the time than did automobile drivers to pay their hospital bills during the same time period. Also, a
1992 study by the University of North Carolina’s Highway Safety Research Center reported that automobile drivers and motorcyclists have their medical costs covered by insurance at a nearly identical rate.
I understand the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) provided this information to the reporter before it published its story. I can only assume that the Fairwarning.org editor selectively edited the copy to fit a preconceived agenda to influence uninformed readers and promote helmet mandates and motorcycle-only checkpoints.
Motorcycle crash prevention should be the overarching policy of our elected officials and the regulatory community. Programs such as rider training and motorist awareness are effective, yet history has taught us that when helmet mandates are enforced, scarce resource dollars are siphoned away from these programs.
I oppose motorcycle-only checkpoints because they target a select group of legal road users simply because we choose to ride on two- or three-wheeled vehicles.
I applaud the courage of legislators who have taken on the powerful anti-motorcycling interest groups that seem less concerned with promoting policies that prevent motorcycle crashes, and more concerned with reducing insurance payments after crashes occur.
Thank you for your time and consideration of my request.
Gary Mankus
Phoenix
Dale Whiting posted at 9:21 am on Sat, Aug 18, 2012.
Hang in there Gary.
Perhaps the most enjoyable part of a trip to Jerome is seeing all of the bikers crusing the streets, visiting the shops, hanging out and enjoying themselves while not bothering others.
Gary,
Have you been to Jerome on your bike? See ya there next time.
sockratties posted at 11:01 am on Sat, Aug 18, 2012.
Gary
I agree with you about helmet laws although I think bikers who don't wear helmets are potential organ donors. Helmets should be available to motorcycle passengers and should be mandated for drivers or passengers under age of 18. Once they are adults they should be allowed to risk head injury if they so choose. Personal and passenger injury insurance should be mandatory for drivers and passengers of all vehicles not just for injury to others.
I have owned and operated 5 motorcycles of one type or another including a rig with sidecar. I have a helmet with a deep gash that would have been in my scalp if I hadn't had it on.
I know bias and prejudice is rampant in both the public and law enforcement communities. Some of it is based on stereotypical fear and some on ignorance. A few show boaters on cafe racers and a small group related to gangs have poisoned the pond. Most bikers are weekend riders who ride as a hobby. They commute on their bikes when Arizona weather allows and otherwise are as likely to be commuting in a Prius or pick-up truck as anyone else. They should not be subjected to arbitrary traffic stops or unnecessary regulation to satisfy the agenda of political aspirants.
The helmet and traffic rules peculiar to motorcycles reside in state law but threats to reduce federal funding have resulted in most states buckling in to Washington D.C. where there are far fewer bikers and a lot more lawyers than here. The money influencing these decisions comes from insurance companies who would like to reverse the trend of lower price insurance and admittedly more vulnerable riders. Washington wants to dictate what we ride or drive. The health and welfare of bikers is a smokescreen intended to hide their real motives.
wdgnas posted at 7:19 am on Sun, Aug 19, 2012.
the biggest threat a motorcyclist has is from an automobile. i rode in the phoenix area for years. while i had other means of transportation, i chose to ride to work unless it was storming. not that i cared about getting wet, i was too lazy to detail my motorcycle. i have had quiet motorcycles and loud motorcycles. when i had a quiet motorcycle with a fairing matching the paint scheme, i had to take evasive action at least two times or more per week. when i had a loud and i mean loud motorcycle with a huge white fairing, i had to take evasive action one time per week.
by the way i rarely wore a helmet. my line of thinking was the only a difference a helmet made was the difference between an open and closed casket funeral.
the point i am trying to make here is that people in cars are hardly aware of other vehicles that are as big or bigger than what they are driving. let a lone a motorcycle.
Masterrogue666 posted at 4:57 pm on Sun, Aug 19, 2012.
I know that there are safe drivers whom ride motorcycles, and I know that there unsafe drivers that ride motorcycles. I don't know if absence of helmets drive up my insurance rate, but I think the driver has the right to not wear a helmet. I also think you are a moron if you don't....