Call to Action - Veto Mass Senate Bill 2344
This Call to Action begins immediately and must be completed this evening, Sunday, August 8th.
Bill Gannon, Director of B.O.L.T. of MA, has issued a call to action, telling the Governor of Massachusetts to veto Senate Bill 2344. The CALL TO ACTION from Mr. Gannon is found after this brief analysis by jan.
The bill would force an additional requirement on some riders. Specifically, it would force young riders to take an expensive basic riders course. There are not enough seats available to take the courses. This would do nothing to improve safety. This only creates additional legal requirements on young motorcyclists, bolsters the MMA as a safety organization in bed with government, willing to sacrifice motorcyclists rights, and increases profits for motorcycle instructors by artificially creating demand for basic safety courses. It is toehold legislation which can get a foot in the door for FORCED instruction which is expensive, if you can find a course. It is contrary to biker rights.
Those new to this issue can find the text of SB 2344 here:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02pdf/st02344.pdf
That part of the existing laws which would be modified is here:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-8.htm
The B.O.L.T. position of opposing this bill is consistent with the goal and objectives of true motorcyclist rights organizations. B.O.L.T. opposes the creation of additional mandates.
The MMA position is in support of the bill; a position that is contrary to biker rights. You can see the position from the turncoat safety nanny organization here:
http://www.massmotorcycle.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=769540&mod...
Those are the pertinent facts.
===============================
Here is the Call to Action from Mr. Gannon:
===============================
Call To Action - VETO Senate No. 2344 – Let’s FAX the Governor
We need you to send a fax TODAY to Governor Patrick requesting his VETO on Senate No. 2344, known as Ryan’s Bill. This bill needs to be vetoed by midnight, Sunday August 8th.
A FAX is the best way to alert the Governor: e-mails are not effective and it’s too late for a letter. If you have already sent a FAX, please send another!
Remember, even your computer has fax capabilities so you can fax via your computer using a land line plugged into the back of your P.C.
Send your FAX to: (617) 727-9725. No need for a long letter just be sure to:
- ask that Senate No. 2344 be vetoed immediately
- mention it’s too expensive to supply the demand and only financially benefits private industry rider education schools
- note that the current such a MANDATE removes parental authority setting a poor precedent.
- and close with the message that the Governor’s VETO on this bill WILL actually SAVE LIVES
DO NOT LET A GROUP OF WEENIES REPRESENTING ONLY APPROXIMATELY 665 MASS. RIDERS TRY TO RUN YOUR LIFE!!!!
FAX today and ask that Senate No. 2344 BE VETOED!!! DO IT TODAY!!!!
Be sure to include your name, town, and state information or else it will be ignored. You may use my message below as a layout to design your own
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Massachusetts Motorcyclists' Activists
PO Box 690044
Quincy, MA 02269-0044
FAX TO: Office of the Governor
617.727.9725
RE: Senate No. 2344
Date: August 8, 2010
From: William E Gannon, Quincy, Massachusetts
You’re Excellency,
Please veto and/or otherwise delay Senate No. 2344.
As a Motorcycle Rider Education Instructor for many years, and an experienced motorcycle operator since 1969, I do not support this bill at all. I could certainly give my children and grandchildren much better one-on-one training than any rider training school in Massachusetts.
I believe this bill removes parental authority over their choice of their childrens’ pursuit of a quality Motorcycle Rider Education experience. I do not believe Mandating such an experience is a rational enactment.
I further believe passing Senate No. 2344 will be a big mistake as neither the Commonwealth nor private industry teaching the course has the resources to enforce this enactment. The private industry supports enactment because it will force more potential students into their classrooms. Yet, a simple look at the Senior High School Rosters will show are simply not enough resources to handle the demand.
Furthermore many minors do not have the financial resources to afford the tuition. Consequently it will lead more minors riding motorcycles without the proper licensing and training and it will lead to the reverse of the goals for enacting same. We are already aware of the hazards on our roadways created by unlicensed motorcycle operators. Passage of Senate No. 2344 will only increase those hazards and should require further study before enactment.
We are the experienced Motorcycle Operators in Massachusetts. We know what is best when it comes to a quality motorcycling experience. Senate No. 2344 is NOT a quality motorcycling experience.
Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.
Genuinely,
William E. Gannon II
617.378.1562
RE: Senate No. 2344
Presented by:
An Act requiring adequate education relative to the proper safety and operation of a motorcycle for minors
3/23/2010 S Reported from the committee on Senate Committee on Ways and Means
3/23/2010 S New draft of S1894
3/23/2010 S Rules suspended
3/23/2010 S Substituted for S1894
3/23/2010 S Ordered to a third reading
3/25/2010 S Read third
3/25/2010 S Passed to be engrossed - 35 YEAS to 0 NAYS (See Senate Roll Call, No. 201)
3/29/2010 H Read; and referred to the House Committee On Ways and Means
6/7/2010 H Committee recommended ought to pass with amendments, striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in place thereof the text contained in House document numbered 4727
6/7/2010 H Referred to the House Committee On Steering, Policy and Scheduling with the amendment pending
6/7/2010 H Committee reported that the matter be placed in the Orders of the Day for the next sitting for a second reading, with the amendments pending
6/9/2010 H Read second, amended (as recommended by the committee on Ways and Means) and ordered to a third reading
7/6/2010 H Read third and passed to be engrossed
7/28/2010 S Rules suspended
7/28/2010 S Senate concurred in the House amendment
Has the MMA become an instructors union?
OPINION OF MA SENATE BILL 2344 AND HOW THE MMA HAS SOLD OUT YOUR RIGHTS.
As always, this is my opinion, and my opinion alone.
This bill makes it difficult for impoverished young people to obtain a motorcycle license. This kind of safety nanny legislation may be fine for richer families who finance Biff and Muffy, but as a young person with a poor divorced mother who could not afford to assist me in any way, I had to fend for myself. I bought a used POS motorcycle and taught myself to ride in the woods of Massachusetts better than any course could. I would not have been able to afford an expensive course. This is just so instructors can make more money, and so that MMA can cement it's place as a safety nanny organization in bed with government. Screw the MMA. Massachusetts Senate Bill 2344 must be opposed.
This is a disturbing trend we are seeing across the country. To see how CBA/ABATE has betrayed bikers in North Carolina, go to http://nc.boltusa.org . MSO's are disguised as MRO's, selling out our rights. The former MRO's have been infiltrated by safety nannies and motorcycle safety instructors. Those who receive money for teaching these courses are, of course, in favor of this bill as it creates additional demand for motorcycle safety courses, relying on legislation, rather than marketing to those who actually desire these courses, to bolster artificial consumer demand, in the same way that mandatory helmet laws have boosted profits for helmet makers. Let them form a lobbying union of motorcycle safety instructors, and stop infiltrating rights organizations. Safety organizations which get in bed with the government are also eligible for federal funding through grants. There is no money in being a rights organization other than through membership dues. There is federal funding for safety organizations, so they ask for the money, while asking new members to join and pay dues to their rights organization, making it appear that they will be freedom fighters. Naive bikers trust these organizations are fending for their rights, when what they are doing is getting in bed with government. A true rights organization opposes all government mandates which target motorcyclists. NO COMPROMISE!
Don't join an organization that is determined to take away your rights AND your money.
Do you trust your rights to safety nanny lobbyists? Do you trust your rights and wallets to a union for motorcycle safety instructors? Do you trust your rights to federal grant seekers? Tell organizations like the MMA to stop calling themselves rights organizations as they take money from new members. Get in their faces and tell them to f* off. Tell them it is because of their support for safety nanny legislation. These whores have become too intent to get in bed with government, asking them to remove your rights.
DON'T TRUST YOUR RIGHTS TO THE MMA.
That's my opinion. It is what it is. jan
the other side's view why
From artical in newspaper
In Broward County, motorcycle deaths involving drivers and passengers declined 38 percent. In Palm Beach County, deaths went down 47 percent.
In 2009, motorcycle fatalities went down 10 percent nationally after 11 years on the rise. States other than Florida also had dramatic decreases: California went down 29 percent, New York 16 percent.
Florida began a major motorcycle initiative in 2008 as it became aware of this startling fact: Motorcycles make up about 6 percent of all Florida traffic, but those dying in motorcycle crashes made up 18 percent of all traffic deaths. Compare that with 1997, when deaths involving motorcycles were 5 percent of traffic fatalities.
Another factor in the decline in motorcycle deaths could be a 2008 requirement that anyone applying to add a motorcycle endorsement to a driver's license take a motorcycle training course.
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-14/news/fl-motorcycle-deaths-de...
Data sets which don't include other variables
Most data in the referenced report is not the result of a scientific study. It is anecdotal at best.
The data referenced shows that when many people use the roads frequently, more accidents happen. Uh, yeah, okay. It also shows that crashing a motorcycle is dangerous. Uh, again, okay. We don't need data sets to know that. The data doesn't prove any positive or negative effect of the mandatory basic rider courses in Florida.
I don't rely on, or put much credence in, statistics used for propaganda purposes since they exclude other variables. Unfortunately, politicians and safety nannies use them in order to get their programs passed, so to combat them, I have to know how they use data to ram their safety programs down our throats. The best arguments continue to be that the government should not take this additional authority upon itself, and the people should be up in arms when they force more mandates onto everyone.
The NHTSA and state safety bureaucrats are known for cherry-picking data to suit their objectives.
Where are the variables about how those who take a BRC fare as compared to those who do not? Where is the data for all other variables such as whether or not cell phone use by other vehicle drivers has increased? Where is the data about vehicle miles traveled or are they still happy to use contrived data? Where's the data for volume of traffic in those time?
There was a doubling of the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Many people reduced unnecessary driving. Around here, the streets seemed a lot safer when gas prices increased, due to fewer vehicles on the roads. It was so obvious we didn't need to see any data. Many people who never rode a motorcycle got on them when gas prices increased and went directly onto overcrowded asphalt rather than learn on dirt, but these variables are not included, so any results are just anecdotal. Extrapolating from these numbers without looking at all variables says absolutely nothing.
Regarding death rates on motorcycles, there are important variables missing from most studies, such as multiple injuries, how many people in good / bad physical shape ride motorcycles. Death is often as a result of multiple injuries, a persons physical condition before the crash, and the availability of emergency medical care.
I'm still looking for the NHTSA to publish a study of neck injuries resulting in death and paralysis since they began promoting heavy helmets. FARS data lumps head and neck injuries together.
The data in the article referenced isn't separated by those who have taken a BRC (basic rider course) and those who have not, and those who have taken drivers education and those who have not. I have seen similar sets of data which show people who take BRC are more likely to get in accidents compared to those who have not. Statistics can show whatever results a propaganda program wants them to show. None of these data sets include other variables such as traffic volume, and use of cell phones. It is missing variables such as how many motorcyclists were just sitting at a stop when they were run into. The data probably includes ATV and mopeds. It doesn't include whether or not during those time, there was an increase in the use of SUV's (the trend has been for more SUV's to be on the road) whose construction is higher so when motorcyclists run into them they smash directly into them rather than roll over the hood or trunk. In those years when we saw SUV's become popular, those vehicles are like mobile walls due to a higher overall profile than passenger cars - smashing into a wall that is at a 90 degree angle rather than roll on asphalt which is at 0 degrees, and there is a big difference. It's that sudden stop.
There was a little section of Phoenix Arizona that saw a 500% increase in motorcyclist deaths in an instant. A group of 8 motorcyclists was sitting at a light when a truck ran into them. If, in the same year, that little town stopped teaching a basic rider course, someone could use data to "prove" that since the BRC ended there was a 500% increase. In reality such stats are skewed and a waste of time, providing no proof whatsoever of the benefits of a BRC, because they did not account for the variable of a truck driver on amphetamines. Such data in a scientific study would be thrown out, but the data would likely be included in a report, depending upon the reporters desired results.