Pennsylvania freedom of choice

According to press reports, the governor of Pennsylvania has signed into
law a bill, effective in September, that will allow most adult residents
to ride without helmets if they so choose. It does not apply to those
under 21, and there are other limitations.

I wonder when the groundswell will increase here in the Golden State to
the point where those in Sacramento realize that each of us ought to be
able to decide for ourselves.

I would certainly use the helmet while on high-speed highways, but would
enjoy leaving it at home while riding a few blocks to the grocery store
or post office.


Dave (and yes, my health insurance is paid up)

1996 FLHR-I Road King
1992 CB750 Nighthawk

BS#146, DOF # 181, NEWT#4, KOTOR#1

EK III page - - - - http://eddiekieger.com/
r.m.h FAQ - - - - - http://rmhfaq.com/
r.m.h parking lot - http://the.rmhparkinglot.com/

 

If we want to try to get motorcycle laws passed, there are some better
ones than repealing the helmet laws:


A: Signal fixes. All signals on sensors MUST cycle all directions
each time, for a minimum of 3 seconds green, so cars and bikes don't
get stuck at faulty signals.


B: LEGALIZE lanesplitting. Something akin to the CHP guidelines, or
what the europeans have. INclude on the DMV test (which is a joke,
but hey) going between lines 3 feet apart for 40-50 feet at ~15-25
MPH.

 

I'd like to know what those "other limitations" are. If
they include any sort of "special extra insurance"
requirement, then it's a step in the wrong direction.

S65~

 

And then added:

Hi Luigi,

This is where choice comes in. You have decided that where you live, it
would be unwise to ride on city streets without a helmet. I may or may
not make that same decision if I lived in your neighborhood.

In my neighborhood, we often go for hours at a time with no cars on the
street, and the grocery store is one right turn and two left turns from my
house, so I have decided that it would be safe for me to ride without.

I agree that if I was hit by an errant driver, I could be injured. I
could also be injured tripping down the stairs, but I have good health
coverage, have taken the MSF course, have years of riding experience, ride
defensively, and I am willing to take the (relatively insignificant) risk.

I don't know all the details surrounding Eddie Kieger's unscheduled
dismount, but I believe he was on the freeway, and under my theory, that
would be "helmet" territory.

The bottom line is that _I_ should decide, not the California legislature.


Dave

1996 FLHR-I Road King
1992 CB750 Nighthawk

BS#146, DOF # 181, NEWT#4, KOTOR#1

EK III page - - - - http://eddiekieger.com/
r.m.h FAQ - - - - - http://rmhfaq.com/
r.m.h parking lot - http://the.rmhparkinglot.com/

 

It's a hard choice, Michael, but I would have to say "sharing" lanes
(which is what I call it, and what I do), since we already have the
privilege.

(For those who still have a question about it, lane sharing is not
unlawful in California, therefore, we can do it. However, if you split
lanes [go back and forth across the white line between cars] you may be
cited for unsafe lane change/no signal. But 'Woof already knows that.)


Dave

1996 FLHR-I Road King
1992 CB750 Nighthawk

BS#146, DOF # 181, NEWT#4, KOTOR#1

EK III page - - - - http://eddiekieger.com/
r.m.h FAQ - - - - - http://rmhfaq.com/
r.m.h parking lot - http://the.rmhparkinglot.com/

 

Phat chance. This state is left wing. They tout "choice" when it comes to
killing babies.
When it comes to driving SUVs, riding without helmets, eating double quarter
pounders with cheese, smoking cigarettes, owning guns, home schooling, or
letting your young male children act like male children without being put on
ritalin, they are anything BUT choice.

The hypocrisy of the left wing is beyond belief.

Recall Davis.

 

Thanks for your comment, Lorenzo.

I understand the some insurance companies might have rules like that. I
would have to deal with the issue if it became a problem.

The bottom line is that _I_ should make the decision, not the California
legislature.


Dave

1996 FLHR-I Road King
1992 CB750 Nighthawk

BS#146, DOF # 181, NEWT#4, KOTOR#1

EK III page - - - - http://eddiekieger.com/
r.m.h FAQ - - - - - http://rmhfaq.com/
r.m.h parking lot - http://the.rmhparkinglot.com/

 

Good point, Nicholas, but hand-in-hand with that should be educational
classes for riders, so they'll know where to stop their bikes at traffic
signals. I was talking with someone just the other day who was unaware
that your bike's position with respect to the buried wire loop is
critical to getting a timely green signal.

It's hard to 'splain in text; pictures or real-life "showing" can be
quite helpful.

But yes, signals should be adjusted properly for motorcycles when first
installed, and should be maintained the same way. Just like pavement
should be properly put down and maintained without cracks, bumps and
uneven surfaces (example: I-580 in the Pleasanton/Livemore area).

We (the motorcycling community) will evidently never agree on
guidelines.


Dave

1996 FLHR-I Road King
1992 CB750 Nighthawk

BS#146, DOF # 181, NEWT#4, KOTOR#1

EK III page - - - - http://eddiekieger.com/
r.m.h FAQ - - - - - http://rmhfaq.com/
r.m.h parking lot - http://the.rmhparkinglot.com/

 

It's really hard when the loop is buried under solid asphault (no
cuts).

No. Signal sensors should be ASSUMED to fail on a nontrivial basis,
thus signal operation must assume that they occasionally fail and
therefore make sure all directions are cycled.

 

you can't have a 3 second green. takes longer than that to put many older
cars in gear, never mind actually rolling into the intersection.

 

Right! I am more afraid of taking a tumble in a parking lot than on PCH
...

Also, many years ago (when I was young and immmortal) I worked for a
researcher at UCLA... I used to bicycle commute sans helmet. My boss
who was a cool guy and knew how to manipulate me told me that at bicycle
speeds (and residential speed limits) there were few accidents which
would maime or kill a person by trauma to the body... however, slipping
at a stand still and hitting one's head could leave one a vegetable...
he added that since I did not document my work adequately he felt he had
a vested interested in keeping my brain alive and offered to BUY me a
bicycle helmet. WIthin a month of buying my own bike helmet I was hit
by a car. Asid from bruises and a broken helmet I was unhurt.

In other words: if I wear a ^E$%$! helmet when I ride a bicycle I'll
wear a helmet when I take the R1100GS to Safeway.

 

If you are willing to risk physical iunjury then why aren';t you willing
to risk a mere traffic ticket?

California has a state wide speed limit - does that mean you have no
choice of your maximum speed?

Admit it: no law can take away your freedom of choice -- laws only alter
the consequences of particular choices IF you get caught. You could
ride NAKED on a motorcycle if you didn't get caught.

(I'd ride my motorcycle naked but I'd look funny - sunburned from my
shoulders to my belly , stark white from my waist to mid thighs and then
sunburned again on legs

 

C'mon, if Radio Shack can sell metakl detectors which can find a half
dollar buried under a foot of sand, Cal-Trans should be able to buy a
system which can detect a hundred punds of ferro-magnetic material a
foot above ground.

If the sensors are set too senstive what is the worst that will happen?
The light will give a green and nobody will be there (as if the sensor
weren't there). No one will die if they make the sensors more sensitive.

If I understand you -- you are saying "When in doubt, give a green light
at the next cycle" ... which is what lights without sensors do. So -
why not dispense with the sensors? [I especially hate it when I pull
into a lane in a pickup truck just before the land is supposed to get a
green and it skips me -- evidently the Bay Area needs more cars sitting
idling so they optimize the lights for cars waiting ;]

 

Don't blame me, I voted with the majority.

 

[In my opinion,] the risk of injury by riding helmetless for a few
blocks, in my neighborhood, is miniscule.

I have ridden two different motorcycles to the grocery store and post
office _with_ helmet many times without injury. By extrapolation, I
could ride _without_ helmet many more times without injury.

You do bring up a good point: on approximately 99% of those rides (with
helmet) I never saw a patrol car, so in theory, I could ride without
helmet and take my chances at getting a ticket.

However, I don't regard a traffic ticket as a mere inconvenience; I've
read too many stories about day-long voyages to the courthouse to deal
with a citation, and the unpleasantness that goes with it. Then there
is the possibility of higher insurance rates.

Besides, I'm a [mostly] law-abiding type.

The difference is that while you can drive 60 or 65 or 70 or 75, any of
which may be legal or illegal; putting on the helmet is either/or. You
cannot, in theory, put it on or take it off while riding.

That is one way of looking at it.

And it's done annually in Santa Cruz. Not illegal unless done in a
suggestive or salacious manner.



Dave

1996 FLHR-I Road King
1992 CB750 Nighthawk

BS#146, DOF # 181, NEWT#4, KOTOR#1

EK III page - - - - http://eddiekieger.com/
r.m.h FAQ - - - - - http://rmhfaq.com/
r.m.h parking lot - http://the.rmhparkinglot.com/

 

And by extension, I should have to follow those same guidelines? Sorry,
we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.


Dave

1996 FLHR-I Road King
1992 CB750 Nighthawk

BS#146, DOF # 181, NEWT#4, KOTOR#1

EK III page - - - - http://eddiekieger.com/
r.m.h FAQ - - - - - http://rmhfaq.com/
r.m.h parking lot - http://the.rmhparkinglot.com/

 

Look at the competition. (sort of how Davis won reelection)

No, you didn't.

 

Regardless of cause (bipartisan), his handling of it, as well as his
current (lack of) management, is what marks him.

And there's no getting around the rapid increase in the state budget
in the 5 years he's been around.

He didn't start this war, and it ain't illegal. I'll agree with the latter
part - man doesn't seem to know quite when to cut and run.

 

Davis has enough responsibility that I will vote for recall:
a. Budgets that made vast increases in permanent ongoing programs
funded with revenue streams that were clearly temporary.
b. By insisting on negotiation long-term power contracts behind closed
doors, the Governor assumes responsibility for the results.
c. His deal with the Republican right to knock Riordan out of the
election is a perversion of the political process that for me rises to
the level of impeachability, though given the make-up of the
Legislature, that remedy is not available.

In case you haven't noticed, recall is a procedure in the California
Constitution. It is not available with respect to Federal
officeholders, though a plausible case could be made for removing him
from office. The voters are likely to do that next year, if the
economy doesn't improve, if the occupation of Iraq drags on at a
continuing cost of American lives (moreso if proof emerges that Bush
knowingly lied to Congress in seeking war powers), and if the
Democratic Party manages to find someone who doesn't scare off a
significant number of voters.

A motorcycle-friendly President would also be a plus; does anyone know
whether any of the potential candidates of either party rides?
R, UB