Moral Equality vs Forced Equality

There has been a somewhat terrifying push for a forced equality of result that seems to oppose and even vilify what I refer to as 'Moral Equality'.  This 'Equality of Result' as some describe it focusses on equality between groups in for example; career fields.  This view refuses to admit any differences between the groups.  As if admitting that differences exist equates to one group somehow being superior to another.  That is an undesirable position, however, those with the viewpoint that it is necessary for example that there should be a 50/50 split between the genders in fields such as computer programming are trying to force such results with total disregard for any other end result.  Forcing equality in this manner does nothing but dehumanizes those, in this case, who chose freely to work as programmers.  Attempting to enforce an equality of result in this manner also dehumanizes those who are being pushed into the field because of someone else desire for an equality of result.  In other words, the individual's personal choices are seen as less important than achieving the desired resultant 50.50 gender split.

"If you argue that no true equality can be achieved unless we are all the same, then we can't have equality."  This quote made by Claire Lehman. founding editor of Quillette, during a podcast of the Rubin Report.  Claire continued by saying; "However, if you argue that we are all morally equal and that we deserve equal opportunity to live a happy flourishing life, however, there are differences between us.  Then you can preserve that ethical principle."  It seems to be just this concept that proves so problematic for many people.  In today's polarized political and social environment, problematic is more and more often conflated with being bad, or even just evil.  So that in many cases, people remain focused on the equality of result rather than the equality of opportunity.

Arguing that there are no differences between men and women seems to be not only rather lazy thinking, but also brings about any number of possible scenario's.  Many of which would seem to be in total contradiction with the base premise being proposed.  Few people would rationally advance a claim that there is no physical difference between men and women.  Yet that is exactly what is being proposed by a vocal portion of the far left or the political spectrum.  If there are no differences, and we are all the same, how can there be anything but uniformity?  Admitting there are physical differences does not mean inferiority or superiority, only difference.  And, if there can be differences physically, can there also not be differences mentally?  

Can it not be possible that evolution has created different mental interests and abilities among the genders?  Attempting to force an equality of result between genders in any field of endeavor has at its heart a total disregard for the individual desires and interests of those who may be affected.  However, providing an equal opportunity for people to succeed in their chosen field has at its core a faith that all people are morally equal and how they choose to strive for success is totally up to the individual.

It may be that society is on the verge of a dramatic series of events that will change what we are as a people, and a Nation.  It is my hope that we do not succumb to the desire for equality of outcome and a desire for an equal outcome of the balance between genders or races.  This would seem to mean that society as a whole will have conformed to the concept that quantity is better than quality.  That to attain a balance, mediocre abilities can be accepted as long as it allows the balance to be attained.  Think about the meaning of that.  People who are highly suited and qualified being turned away and mediocrely qualified individuals with a lack of interest accepted.  Simply to attain that equality of outcome.  I hope I never live to see America drop to that level.

Catch you on the road sometime...

My World Has Changed

My life over the past few months has changed so drastically I can hardly even comprehend all the changes and all the changes that are yet to come.  What seems the most bizarre to me is the fact that only a month before my wife suddenly died, I was reading the fortunes of friends using a normal deck of playing cards.  When I was done, they wanted me to read my fortune just for fun.   Normally I wouldn't, but for some reason, I did my own reading.  From the first card, I saw massive changes coming to my life.  With virtually every card I laid down, I was reading nothing but change in my life.  I didn't understand, and because I was reading my own fortune, my personal biases didn't allow me to be truly open to what I saw.  What the cards were telling me.  Everything in my life was about to change.

While Robin and I knew she was sick, and that she wasn't going to get better in the long term without a liver transplant, the calm and slow pace the Drs. seemed to be taking gave no hint as to the extent of her illness.  Or, how short her time truly was.  In a month, she went from needing a step to get in and out of our Explorer, to laying dead in a hospital room in Vancouver.

Now I am living in a house I can afford to pay the mortgage on, but not; the water, the electricity, phone, garbage, or the internet. I don't know what I am going to do yet.  Then today, after trying to get my health insurance renewed for another year, I get a letter in the mail saying I have two days to fill out the paperwork and bring everything into Social Security in Tacoma.  I think I have enough money for one tank of gas, so I am definitely going to be forced to start selling things.  It is time I adapt and go into survival mode as my world changes around me.  

Few people have a clue as to the hole I suddenly find myself in.  All I can do is my best to fulfill my obligations, and do everything in my power to finish what I have started to do to help get some new laws passed, and to help my local community.  But I also have to focus on my ability to survive, in order to do these things.

I will survive this and come out wiser on the other side.  With no clue yet as to what is going to happen, I'm just moving forward day to day trying to get a handle on what has happened and what I am going to have to do next.  Things are about to get interesting, to say the least.  My world has changed, and my life is going to have to change with it.  What all those changes will turn out to be, I'll find out as I reach and experience them.  I'll try to keep you posted.

Catch you on the road sometime...

Federal Bullet Pre-Purchase Background Check Proposal, One More Cowardly "Feel Good" Proposition

The Democrats have once again stepped forward with an effort to circumvent the opposition to additional firearms background checks, or "Universal Background" checks by introducing in the US House and Senate bicameral bills (H.R. 5383, and S.2627) that would require Federal background checks to purchase ammunition.  This pre-purchase ammunition background check idea is just one more effort that does little or nothing to reduce the violence in this country.  Once again this shows the cowardice of the Democrats to really look at the root causes of violence in America.  instead of doing something to reduce the level of violence, the Democrats are again showing they are focused on restricting the ability of good law-abiding citizens to use a tool for personal defense while doing nothing at all to reduce the root causes of most of America's violence.  Since we already have background checks on firearms; which the Democrats keep saying we need more of because apparently, the current background checks through the NCIC for criminal and mental health violations aren't effective enough, now they want to use the same system prior to purchasing ammunition?  Will the system work better by overloading it with background checks for ammunition?  Drop the cowardice and say what you are really after.  Try using some of your "common sense" initiatives to; improve the socio-economic-educational conditions in our predominantly Democratically controlled inner-cities,  cracks in the mental health system that so many violent offenders seem to slip through, then maybe America will see a reduction in violence.  Also, how would this even be enforceable?  There is virtually no way to determine without possibly chemical analysis what bullet came from what box of ammunition.  Or, if the purchaser is even the end user of the ammunition.  These bills are simply an effort to restrict Americans from exercising their Second Amendment right by increasing the difficulty needlessly to purchase Ammunition.  But again, the Democrats are using the same tired tactics that they have used for decades of ignoring the base roots of violence in America, then using guns and gun owners as the scapegoats.


I can't think of any firearm owned by anyone I have ever known that ever became violent in all the years of my life.  Stop blaming the tools for how a small number of violent people use them.  If background checks are so effective at reducing violence and death, then why are there no background checks for baseball bats, knives, and hammers?  Each kills more people in America every year than semi-automatic rifles, but because people naturally understand that overall, such a small minority of those things are used in violent, murderous acts that a restriction on the purchase of such items would be ludicrous.  That is how the vast majority of gun owners feel about our firearms.   


All this sort of bill will do is to cause legal gun owners instead of buying one or two boxes of ammunition to buy ten or so at a time.  It may very well have the unintended effect of creating an increase in the number of people reloading their own ammunition.  Which already has a long history of documentation on purchases.  Again, all that documentation hasn't decreased America's violence.  Because the tools, the objects, aren't the cause of America's violence.  Why make it more difficult to purchase the tools needed to defend your life, while doing nothing to ease the problem of American violence's real core causes?






Let the flaming begin.

An Open Letter To The People

One of the more disturbing political trends to me over the past few years has become the attacks on Free Speech.  Not by the government, but by individuals, institutions, and organizations that have submitted to the concept that if someone is saying something that does not fit your personal beliefs, it is perfectly alright to; heckle, harass, shout down, or demonize that person simply because their views do not conform to your own.  This has resulted in an atmosphere not of government censorship as restricted by the First Amendment, but a form of self-censorship by citizens who simply have grown weary of being verbally assaulted and harangued by others simply because of their views.  I find it to be quite disingenuous of many who seek to silence those they do not agree with by using the very tactics so successfully used by authoritarians throughout the history of the last century and a half or more, as they loudly denounce speakers as “racist” or “fascist”.  Whether those epithets have any basis in fact seems to be irrelevant.  Or worse, such words are weaponized, knowing it is a quick and simple way to isolate a person they oppose in some way.

The tactics of this type of political movement seem bizarre and irrational at times.  Claiming to be the champions of diversity and equity; they seem to support the diversity of appearance, but not of thought.  The equity that seems to be so precious to them is not an equity of opportunity, giving every individual the same possibility of success as another person, but the equity of outcome where there is an equal representation of various groups in any specific segment of the population.  They decry the fact that women do not account for 50% of software programmers for example, and then demand efforts be made to enforce an increase in the participation of that career field explaining that the reason for the disparity is some misogynistic ‘patriarchy’ keeping women from attaining equality.  This same mindset is used to describe any segment of the population that does not have an equal share of whatever group the far left is attempting to be perceived as supporting.

We have seen the politically correct demands for change based on the feelings of some person or other being ‘offended’.  Demands that images, monuments, even books be banned or destroyed.  Many of those making these claims have only the words of others to explain to them why the things they are so loudly demanding be removed from the public consciousness.  Even if those words have no real historical or factual basis.  It is the perception that seems to be driving many of these claims of ‘offense’.  One of the greatest things that so many on; the far left, the regressive left,  the radical left, whatever you choose to call it, find so extremely offensive is the simple fact that you do not agree with them. 

While claiming to be the champions of tolerance for people who form some minority of our citizenry; these same champions seem to be completely intolerant of anyone who simply holds a different political position than they do.  What does their reaction to this person who does not agree totally with their position?  In many cases it seems to be to try to publicly humiliate the person, by loudly talking over the individual who does not share their views.  To proclaim in a loud and repetitive voice that this person is a racist, a misogynist, homophobe, xenophobe, etc.  The idea of actually sitting down and having a fact based discussion looking at an issue from different perspectives, and coming to their own conclusions, actually debating the issue, seems to be the furthest from the minds of those intolerant champions of tolerance.  All in an attempt to bully the person with the opposing viewpoint into submission, or make them seem to be some form of social pariah. 

It is sad to realize that many of these ideas and concepts that seem so antithetical to the American way of life are coming from America’s colleges and universities.  Once the exchange of ideas, and the concept of free and open discussion of those ideas was one of the purposes of a higher education.  Today, it seems that in many colleges and universities the once classically liberal concepts of; civil liberties, the rule of law, and economic freedom have been replaced with a form of indoctrination that places a political agenda above civil liberties, the rule of law, and economic freedom.  Part of that political agenda is to look at American history through the lens of today’s extreme leftist social values.  Condemning a person of another era because they do not live up to modern leftist social standards is a common occurrence.  As is leveraging the banning of classic American literature such as Laura Ingalls Wilder’s Little House on the Prairie because the female characters do not live by modern feminist standards, and thus offers a profoundly unhealthy role model for today’s young women. Banning books such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain because its perceived depictions of African Americans and women do not conform to the standards of today’s extreme left politically.  Placing such standards on historical figures and literature of another era is reprehensible.  Yet that is what is happening with the regressive left.  It is also quite hypocritical as well.  If it is alright to condemn someone from a century or more ago for not living in a manner conforming to the moral compass of today’s political left; how is it that Bill Clinton is not vociferously condemned as a misogynist, or anti-feminist for his sexual behavior with women during the 1980’s and 1990’s?  Why is his wife Hilary Clinton not loudly proclaimed as an anti-feminist, or a traitor to her fellow women because of her standing by her husband when his behavior came to light?  Could it be that to do so might require a little critical thinking?

How do we defend ourselves and our Nation against these attacks on not just our First Amendment, all of our civil rights?  By holding firm, thinking for ourselves, and doing the research needed to find the facts to bolster our positions on issues.  Freely discuss your ideas and thoughts with those who may make you work to prove your positions.  If you find yourself unable to convince that person that your position is correct; learn from that discussion and do more and better research.  You may even find that if your position is not strong enough that you may need to recalibrate your own thinking on the issue.  There are many flaws in our political system in the United States.  However, just take a moment and look at how many people are constantly attempting to immigrate to the US for a better life.  Then try to find another Nation on Earth that has as many Americans trying to immigrate to for a better life.  We aren’t perfect, but our Constitution, and the Bill of Rights makes America the best country on Earth in my opinion.

If you don’t agree, I won’t infringe on your First Amendment Right to counter my arguments.  Will you offer me that same courtesy and respect?

Catch you on the road sometime...

Is Inclusion of Motorcycle Crash Data Too Much of a "High Cost" to Save Motorcyclists Lives?

According to a 2010 Virginia Tech-Wake Forst University study; between 2003 and 2008 there were 1,604 motorcyclist fatalities from a collision with barriers in the United States, accounting for approximately 5.8% of all motorcycle fatalities.  While over this same period only approximately 1.6% of all automobile fatalities were barrier related.    Motorcycles make up about 3% of all registered vehicles in the US.  But, according to this study, motorcyclists account for nearly half of all guardrail fatalities, and 22% of the fatalities involving concrete barriers.  During this same time frame, there were 1,723 fatalities among automobile passengers involving barriers.  In other words, nearly half of all barrier related fatalities in the US were motorcyclists.

The video above demonstrates clearly why half of all guardrail related fatalities are motorcyclists.  It also demonstrates the mindset that highway safety features are in place to protect automobile and larger vehicle occupants.  Not motorcyclists.  The posts are not the only area that provides a high risk of injury to motorcyclists that are not likely to affect occupants of other vehicles.  The top of "W-Beam" guardrails also provide a serious hazard to motorcyclists.  The sharp edges can slice open the motorcyclist as they travel along the top of the metal rail.  All while the top of the posts deliver repeated blows to the rider traveling at highway speeds along the path of the rail.  Concrete "jersey barriers", signposts, cable barriers, and more all constitute dangerous and often fatal "fixed obstacles" to motorcyclists in a crash.

A 2004 study compiled for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) entitled; "Improving the Compatibility of Vehicles and Roadside Safety Hardware" would seem to be a possible step in the right direction.  In the first paragraph of chapter 2 of the report entitled "Analysis of Real Worl Crash Information" on page 7 reads as follows; "It was found that the different classes of vehicles had different compatibility issues with roadside hardware systems."  Even with that line in mind, which would seem to indicate the report would investigate the "different compatibility issues" of all vehicles, nowhere in the 262 pages of the report are motorcycles even mentioned.  However, vehicles are broken down into categories within the report.  The categories are; car, truck, SUV, and van.  Again it appears that even the NCHRP tends; whether consciously or not, to exclude motorcycles from highway transportation policy thinking.

In 2008, the NCHRP did release another report, part of the NCHRP Report 500.  This was volume 22 of the NCHRP 500 Report; "A Guidance for Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles".  Was this finally a transportation policy actually concerned about motorcycle safety?  Not really, if one takes the opportunity to read it.  Section IV is entitled; "Index of Strategies by Implementation Timeframe and Relative Cost".  It is this section of the report that shows how little motorcycle transportation safety means to policy planners.  The same failed strategies such as increasing awareness of impaired motorcyclists, the benefits of wearing high-visibility clothing, and increasing the use o FMVSS-218 compliant helmets are all listed as low cost to implement and operate.  Does it seem strange that these low-cost strategies are virtually the only ones the transportation bureaucrats tend to implement?  The report also lists such strategies as; considering motorcycles in the selection of roadside barriers, including motorcycle attributes into vehicle exposure data collection programs, and developing a set of analysis tools for motorcycle crashes.  However, each of these strategies, which seem like common sense to motorcyclists, is listed as being of "moderate to high cost" to maintain and operate.  This could well be some of the best and most effective strategy options, but because the NCHRP lists them as they have, it would seem to have the effect of these strategies being completely ignored.  Even the simple act of forming "strategic alliances with the motorcycle user community " to promote motorcycle safety is listed as a "moderate" cost.  These categorizations of strategies may well explain the virtually complete lack of motorcycle policy in transportation planning in Washington State.

This Washington State DOT's video provides a fine example of the total failure to consider motorcycles in transportation policy.  Watch the video closely and see how many motorcycles are used in testing and demonstrating safety benefits of cable barriers, or how first responders can extricate motorcyclists from cable barriers after a crash.  Also, notice that vehicles weighing many times greater than a motorcycle are used in testing, but motorcycles are not used to demonstrate cable deflection.  

As long as there is no legislative pressure to change, policies that place virtually all the focus of motorcycle safety on impairment awareness, Hi-Viz clothing, training, and helmet use, nothing will change.  If motorcycles are to be considered when designing roadways and roadside barriers, the owners of approximately one-quarter million motorcycles in Washington state need to demand their legislators pressure the WSDOT to begin seriously developing a set of analysis tools for motorcycle crashes, and including motorcycle attributes into vehicle exposure data collection programs.  Only by pressuring legislators across the state can motorcycles possibly even begin to be considered worthy of the "high cost" of implementing these strategies by the WSDOT.  

With Washington State repeatedly using the goal of "Target Zero" in transportation planning policy, shouldn't motorcycles actually be included in the data sets WSDOT, and other state agencies use concerning highway infrastructure and roadside safety barriers?  Or has the low cost of failed strategies kept them in place even though they have had little effect on reducing motorcycle fatalities in Washington State?  By not including motorcycles into vehicle exposure data, or creating analysis tools for motorcycle crashes, is WSDOT and other agencies saying that even working toward effectively analyzing motorcycle crash data too "high cost" to implement in order to reach 'Target Zero'?  Or is the cost in human lives each year through lack of actually including data from this mode of transportation not already enough of a "high cost"?

Catch you on the road sometime...

Centerline Rumble Strip Danger To Motorcyclists Disregarded By WSDOT

The following diagram and quoted text is an excerpt from page 38 of the Washington State DOT's 2011 study on Centerline Rumble Strips; comparing the results of motorcycle crashes before and after installation of the centerline rumble strips.

"Excluding Motorcycles

While the motorcycle findings (see Figure 5.15) are an interesting study on their own, it is clear that they are skewing portions of the CLRS analysis.  For that reason, these 35 motorcycle collisions were excluded from the dataset."

Except for the complete lack of mention of motorcycles in WSDOT publications and studies, it is hard to imagine a more blatant example of the total disregard for motorcyclists by the WSDOT.  Despite the percentage of "fatal & serious injury" motorcycle crashes after the installation of Centerline Rumble Strips (CLRS) nearly doubling, the researchers excluded the entire dataset because it was "skewing" their data.  Doesn't the fact that WSDOT researchers chose to completely ignore such a significant increase in serious and fatal motorcycle crashes because it was "skewing" the data bring into question the entire validity of the study?  Besides the fact that the existence of such a high percentage change should have begged to be answered as to why, but was ignored, the fact that researchers completely ignored the data because it was not in line with the desired result, and redefined the purposes of CLRS so that they were not "not an effective countermeasure for this class of vehicle" brings forward the question of how intent were the researchers to support the benefits of CLRS regardless of their safety findings.

"The primary contributing circumstances CLRS are expected to influence are those where an operator is asleep, fatigued, or distracted."  While that may be the intent, completely disregarding the safety deficiencies of CLRS in regards to motorcycles simply because the data was "skewing" the results away from CLRS being beneficial in influencing a vehicle operator who is "asleep, fatigued, or distracted" would seem to be placing a much lower value on the lives of motorcyclists than other motor vehicle operators.  The complete lack of any mention of motorcycles or their riders in the 2013 follow-up study would appear to support the hypothesis that the lives of motorcyclists were not of as great of a concern to WSDOT as ensuring that CLRS became a ubiquitous element of the highways in Washington State in order to influence the effects of "asleep, fatigued, or distracted" drivers.  

Beyond the fact that WSDOT has apparently "cherry-picked" data to support the added expense of grinding CLRS into the roadway,  even though this has the detrimental effect of increasing the rate of roadway degradation requiring repair more often.  It also would seem to show that WSDOT is open to ignoring both the safety of an entire mode of transportation in pursuit of a satisfactory data result, but also disregards the Governor's highway safety plan "Target Zero", and it's goal of no serious or fatal crashes on Washington's roadways by 2030.  It also brings the question of how many other studies have been "cherry picked" to provide the desired result for WSDOT, regardless of the risks created for users of the states highway system.  

Catch you on the road sometime...if the road doesn't kill you first.

Data-Mining License Plates To Track and Toll Vehicles?

Digital license plates that can use GPS to track your vehicles movements and report that, and much more information to the Washington Dept. of Licensing may be in the future for motorists.  The features this new digital platform could offer are only limited by connectivity.  The more the platform becomes integrated and connected to the system the more information can be displayed.  Which also means the more data that can be mined about your vehicles movements and driving behavior.  Some legislators are actually supporting this concept, while others are questioning its desirability.

These plates are the creation of a silicon valley start-up called Reviver is offering their "rPlate".  The features being promoted can seem quite beneficial in many respects.  But upon further, more in-depth thought it also opens up the opportunity for unwanted data-mining of the movements of a vehicle by the government.  Does this open the possibility for a license plate to allow constant connectivity with the DOL's system to be used to monitor a citizens movements by law enforcement covertly?  Or perhaps; to create a tolling system on virtually every roadway within the state, with tolls automatically being debited on the spot as a person drives down the roadway.  Even on rural two-lane roadways which do not have congestion issues, but with this tracking ability can become instant toll roads.

Using GPS to track a vehicle as the rPlate creators say that it does, could easily be used as a surveillance device against citizens.  As the database and tracking system are operated by the government, it would seem only reasonable that the data be shared among the different branches of the government as deemed necessary.  All without the operator of the vehicle's knowledge.  Would state law enforcement even require a warrant to access the state's own database?  

Add to this, the expense of purchasing these digital license plates, which are expected to be approximately $300, with a roughly $10 per month connectivity fee.  This also brings to mind the question of what happens if someone fails to pay their monthly fee, does the rPlate inform law enforcement that the plate owner is operating the vehicle without payment of their fee?  Would these plates signal that the registration has expired and provide to law enforcement the location of the vehicle as it is being driven with expired registration?

One really has to wonder about the possible privacy concerns of the vehicles owners.  Basically having a digitally connected tracking device foisted on the citizens by the state, brings about many concerns.  Especially with the knowledge that with the expansion of information mined by technology growing at such an alarming rate, do citizens truly trust the State of Washington to collect only data relating to vehicle registration?  Do these plates pose the risk of being used by some in state government for uses other than what was initially proposed?  Could these digital rPlates eventually be used to automatically record through their GPS the fact that you may have been speeding; where, and by how much you exceeded the speed limit?  Either causing a citation to be mailed to the vehicle owner or debiting the amount instantaneously and directly?  

Whether some members of the Legislature and the Dept. of Licensing should be allowed to force such devices on citizens should demand serious thought and consideration.  It may well have many more possible digital uses.  Even displaying advertisements according to the manufacturer Reviver.  One can only imagine the possible irritation or offense that could be created by an owners rPlate displaying an advertisement for something they oppose.  These are only a small handful of the reasons that the citizens should discuss their thoughts on the DOL's intent to use rPlates, with its inevitable privacy and other human rights issues, with their legislators.  

It is up to you, to decide whether you support such technological access to your private lives.

Catch you on the road sometime...

Motorcycle "Tonnage" Fee Unfair To Motorcyclists

As of July 1, 2016, when you register your motorcycle in Washington State you have to pay a weight or "tonnage" fee.  The issue for motorcyclists, whose motorcycles have a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of around a half ton or less, is having to pay the same fee as a two-ton car.  RCW46.17.365 lists the fee by weight beginning at 4,000 pounds.  In other words, the Dept. of Licensing is receiving the same $38.00 fee from each of the more than one quarter million motorcycles in the state, as from a Chrysler 300 Platinum. That is in the neighborhood of $10 million in tonnage fees for motorcycles each year.  

The heaviest Harley-Davidson touring bike has a GVW in the range of 1,500 pounds.  Most motorcycles are far lighter, with a significantly lower GVW.  Even at 1,500 pounds, the big Harleys, Hondas, and Indians are nowhere near the 4,000 pounds they are being charged for.  This is even more extreme for the smaller motorcycles which have a GVWR of far less than 1,000 pounds.  Yet they are paying out of pocket the same fee as a Mercedes Benz M Class SUV.

RCW46.17.350 set a fee by vehicle type.  One of the types included was motorcycles.  However, RCW46.17.355 has no distinction between vehicles at all except for by weight.  The DOL still charges the $30 for a vehicle registration license, but since July of 2016, there has been an additional fee by weight which completely ignores the GVWR of motorcycles.  Is this yet another example of the Washington Dept. of Licensing completely ignoring motorcycles as if we do not exist?  Or is this just an "end around" by DOL to get additional fees above the legislated $30 license fee?  The Dept. of Licensing requested this as a bill to the legislature.  Only by going through the legislature ourselves can motorcyclists hope to remove this fee or exempt motorcycles from the same GVWR related fee as on vehicles like the Lincoln Continental AWD Sedan.  Contact your legislators, and the candidates running for legislative office, and tell them the owners of over a quarter million motorcycles are unhappy with this "tonnage" fee on motorcycles, and we vote.

Catch you on the road sometime...

DOT Helmet Standard Is Flawed

I do not believe people should be forced to not wear motorcycle helmets.  However, I also do not believe motorcyclists should be forced into wearing a helmet that could also be a contributing factor to injury.  What I am saying is that I believe the basic individual American adult is intelligent enough to decide for themselves when and when and even whether to wear a motorcycle helmet.  Especially when a significant percentage of motorcycle helmets on US highways, constituting many thousands of helmets on the road today, do not even meet the minimum standards of the extremely outdated DOT helmet standard.

In American states with some form of motorcycle helmet requirement. that requirement tends to require motorcycle helmets to meet the US DOT standard.  This standard is one of the weakest in the world in terms of helmet safety and allows manufacturers to design helmets to pass the testing that they may (or may not as it is not required by the standard) before self-certifying that their product meets the standard for them to sell.  This self-certification is only one of the flaws of the DOT standard.  It allows manufacturers to build a helmet that meets a very minimal list of requirements, and then self-certify that the helmet complies with the standard.  Even if that helmet is no more than a hard-shelled yarmulke with a DOT emblem on it.  As long as that helmet has not been; randomly purchased and tested by the USDOT's independent labs, and then actually failed the testing protocols, that certification is valid by law.  So a manufacturer can sell thousands of helmets that would not meet the standard and it would be perfectly legal.  If by chance that model helmet was purchased and tested and failed these tests.  A recall may or may not be required.  Even this would result in only a small percentage of the affected motorcycle helmets to being returned due to recall.  Between 1980 and 2008, just over 1,500 motorcycle helmet models were tested by independent laboratories.  Of those, over 60% failed to meet the standards.  Each model failing represented tens of thousands of helmets sold.

The DOT standard was based on earlier 1971 ANSI research on head injuries in crashes.*  However, these weren't motorcycle crashes, but automobile crashes with unhelmeted occupants.  This is the second flaw in the DOT standard.  It was based on head injuries to unhelmeted automobile occupants, not motorcyclists.  Two completely different types of crashes with significantly different rates and types of injury involved.  Yet the NHTSA moved forward with inaccurate data to create this standard.  

The DOT standard allows 400g's at impact.  That is the equivalent of a pick-up truck on your head.  Even if only for a few milliseconds this stress can cause damage to soft tissue such as; blood vessels, ligaments, and muscle in the neck and shoulders, but NHTSA (who created the standard) does not even put any consideration of these effects into its research.  Other helmet standards, such as SNELL and ECE are recognized around the world, and use the much lower but still significant level of 290g for 2 milliseconds.  Even this level is still on the cusp of a skull fracture.  However, DOT is significantly higher, with a lower requirement for protection.  Does only half head forms with an accelerometer inside a helmet actually constitute a reasonable representation of a human head and neck?  Apparently, it does to DOT.

Flaw number three can be shown as the DOT's failure to even test "roll-off".  Or how much the helmet rolls around on the wearers head as the head moves from side-to-side.  DOT also does not test face shields on helmets for impact safety.  While other standards do DOT ignores the potential for debris to strike the motorcyclist in the face.  

Perhaps it can be said that the fourth major flaw in the DOT standard is that it is outdated.  The last major change to the standard took several years to complete, and it simply involved the labeling of the DOT emblem on the back of a helmet.  The DOT standard has "changed minimally since its introduction" in the words of a study by the Head Protection Research Laboratory in 2001.  Since that time the only change has been the previously mentioned labeling change.

However, possibly the worse flaw is the way that manufacturers are able to design strength into specific areas of their helmets in order to pass the minimal DOT standard while leaving other areas they know are not in the testing standard to be less well protected.  The manufacturers intent overall is not the safety of the rider, but being able to sell their product and receive a profit.  Thus helmets can be designed to pass any DOT testing they may receive, but still not provide adequate safety to the motorcyclists wearing them in a crash.  Strength in real life is measured at the weakest point.  A real-world motorcycle crash is very good at finding those weak points and exploiting them.

Of the impact speeds that a DOT helmet is supposed to attenuate, the highest is on average, 13.4 mph.  This incredible speed is attained by dropping the helmet in a free fall from 72 inches (6 feet).  Or, mechanically moving the helmet at an equivalent speed.  The lesser impact is attained by dropping a helmet from 54 inches.  That's four and a half feet.  This impact, by the way, destroys the helmets ability to effectively protect the motorcyclist during a crash.  It is for this reason that manufacturers place in the helmets users booklet an instruction to replace the helmet if it experiences an impact, even if there is no visible damage.  How many helmets on the road today have fallen off a shelf, or motorcycle accidentally?  While the manufacturer has said this may destroy the helmets ability to protect the rider, rarely are helmets returned or replaced for such an impact.  So this leaves a significant number of questionable helmets on the heads of motorcyclists.  Above and beyond the possibly hundreds of thousands of helmets self-certified by manufacturers that could not actually pass scrutiny if tested.

These flaws would seem to show that the DOT standard is virtually useless.  The standard has been considered obsolete by many in the motorcycle safety research field for decades.  Manufacturers are able to design helmets to withstand impacts on the places that the standard states are to be impacted.  Manufacturers are not even required to test their helmets before self-certifying that they meet the standard.  The highest impact velocities are so low, they can be nearly attained simply by falling off a motorcycles seat, or table.  Yet, every year, millions of motorcyclists are forced to wear helmets, and the vast majority wear the minimum they have to wear, a DOT helmet.  The DOT standard truly brings into question whether mandates and universal helmet laws are truly about safety or more about providing law enforcement with a pretext for possible traffic stops.  If being mandated to wear a DOT helmet is truly about motorcycle safety, then why have automobile fatalities been going down for many years, while motorcycle fatalities have remained relatively unchanged for over a decade?

I urge you to think about these many flaws in the DOT standard, and consider the question; do we really need to mandate that motorcyclists must wear helmets that meet such a flawed standard, or might they actually be able to choose for themselves if and when they would wear a helmet?

Catch you on the road sometime...



* ANSI standard Z90.1

Lane Splitting Survey Questions

This will be a bit of a departure from my normal blog posts.    These survey questions are from the 2012 California Lane Share Study by Emald & Wasserman Research Consultants LLC for the California Office of Traffic Safety and the University of California Berkeley's Safe Transportation Research and Education Center.  Perhaps the answer to these questions can be used to communicate to Washington State's lawmakers the benefits of lane sharing.

1.  What best describes how you use your motorcycle most of the time? You use it for:
    A. Pleasure riding on weekends
    B. Both commuting to work and pleasure riding on weekends
    C. Commuting to work
    D. Long‐distance touring rides
    E. Sport
    F.  Bar-hopping
    G. Other

2.  How many miles on average do you ride per day?

3.  Do you lane split on your motorcycle when riding on freeways?

4.  How frequently do you lane split on freeways?
    A. Always
    B. Often
    C. Sometimes
    D. Rarely 

5.  Have you ever hit a vehicle or has a vehicle hit you while you were lane splitting on a freeway?

6.  Did you ever nearly hit a vehicle?

7.  Would you say you lane split only
when…?
     A. Traffic is at a standstill
     B. Traffic is stop‐and‐go
     C. Traffic is moving less than 20 MPH
     D. Traffic is moving less than 30 MPH
     E. Traffic is moving less than 40 MPH
     F. Traffic is moving less than 50 MPH
     G. Traffic is moving less than 60 MPH
     H. Traffic is moving less than 70 MPH
      I. Other 
      J. At all times

8.  Do you lane split on your motorcycle when riding on multiple lane roads other than freeways?

9.  How much faster than the rest of the traffic do you go when lane splitting?
      A. About 5MPH faster than other traffic
      B. About 10MPH faster than other traffic
      C. About 15MPH faster than other traffic
      D. About 20MPH faster than other traffic
      E. About 30MPH faster than other traffic
      F. About 40MPH faster than other traffic
     G. About 50MPH faster than other traffic
     H. Other

Let me know your answers in the comments below.  The answers can be used to help in the fight to bring lane splitting to Washington State.

Catch you on the road sometime...

Reducing Motorcycle Fatalities In Washington State

Cover of 2016 Motorcycle Safety Program Report

One of the often repeated statements heard from officials involved in motorcycle safety within the Washington state government is that; while all other motor vehicle fatality rates have declined, the rate for motorcycle fatalities has remained virtually unchanged for over a decade.  The Washington State Department of Licensing's Motorcycle Safety Program's 2016 report actually states that there were "essentially no changes in fatalities in 12 years".  It would seem obvious that if despite the best efforts of the DOL to reduce the number of motorcycle fatalities on Washington State's highways the fatality rate is unchanged in over a decade, perhaps it is time to look more closely at what is really happening to cause the fatalities.  

Perhaps one of the reasons that the number of fatalities has seemed so static is that the number of riders has increased significantly, while the number of deaths per 100,000 registered motorcycles has dropped by nearly one-third over the last decade.  In 2005, according to the MSP's 2016 report, the number of motorcycle fatalities per 100,000 registered motorcycles was 45.3, by 2015 that number had dropped to 30.1.  This still leaves the unanswered question as to why so many motorcyclists are dying on Washington's roadways every year.

While studying the Motorcycle Safety Program's report, it becomes obvious that there is a departmental mindset at work.  The report breaks down the number of fatalities and traffic violations between endorsed and unendorsed riders.  It also compares trained and untrained riders.  However nowhere in the report does it discuss the types of collisions involved in the fatal crashes.  It does show that unendorsed and untrained riders are overrepresented in the number of fatalities.  This would seem to point towards a possible avenue of reduction of the fatalities by increasing the number of endorsed riders.  

However, that might only reduce the fatality rate statistically.  Simply reducing the number of unendorsed riders, while increasing the number of endorsed fatalities. Wouldn't it be more effective to look at what types of crashes caused these fatalities, and what caused the fatal injury?  Not in a broad and vague category such as; lane departure and struck a solid object.  That is a very vague description of the end result, not the cause of the crash.  What caused the loss of control that resulted in the crash?  Usually, it is more than one single factor, but if a rider loses control and crashes without being hit by someone else, the State considers that the riders fault.

An example could easily be that you are riding, perhaps 5 mph or so over the speed limit, into a flat right-hand turn.  As you lean into the turn you drift closer to the center line, and your front wheel hits something in the roadway, let's say the centerline rumble strip.  The sudden movement of the front wheel created by riding over the rumble strip while leaning the bike causes a "low-side" crash and you slide across the road, onto the shoulder, and into a guardrail post.  Sadly, you die from your injuries.  In the State's report, you experienced a fatal lane departure to the outside of the curve and struck a solid object.  Since you were traveling at 5 mph above the speed limit you are dropped into the classification of "speeding" as one of the causal factors.  Since no other vehicles were involved it is the riders fault for the crash.  The same goes if you are on the outside of a lane and drift onto the shoulder and crash into the guardrail.

This is how the State of Washington's Motorcycle Safety Program views fatal motorcycle crashes.  The fact that yes, you had drifted to the centerline is a technical failure on your part is what they look at.  The fact that the rapid steering inputs created by riding over the centerline rumble strip while already in a lean may have contributed to the crash is apparently not even considered.  As is the fact that had you not struck that guardrail post your injuries may well have been quite survivable don't even come into the minds of most of those compiling the data.  Why doesn't that sort of information even enter their minds?  Because many in the Motorcycle Safety Program are not motorcyclists and have no concept of the effect of such things as roadway surfaces can affect traction and control of a motorcycle.  

They seem to have no knowledge of the effects of grooved pavement, rumble strips, on the safe handling of a motorcycle.  Nor do they consider guardrails, cable barriers, etc. as anything but beneficial safety features.  Which they are to other motor vehicles.  However to a motorcyclist experiencing the centrifugal effects of crashing and sliding across the roadway, these same "safety features" can be fatal.  There have been studies done for over 30 years that show these dangers, and even show existing ways to mitigate the dangers.  Yet; even though they bemoan the "flat" level of motorcycle fatalities over the last decade, actually mitigating the additional risks these infrastructure "safety features" pose to motorcyclists is at a low priority.  If it is understood at all.  

The WSDOT has studied "Through, Over or Under Guardrail Penetration".  However, in the study, there is again the typical absence of any mention of motorcycles.  The effect differential between larger motor vehicle drivers and motorcycle riders may be quite enlightening.  Instead of viewing all fatalities in relation to guardrail height, type of vehicle involved may prove to be valuable to decision makers and legislators.

Educating motorcyclists how to ride endorsed, safely, and with confidence is a very good thing, and should be encouraged strongly.  Truly raising awareness of the other users of public roadways about motorcycles and their benefits and requirements is another excellent step to likely reducing motorcycle fatalities.  However, the State also could benefit by a reduction in real numbers of motorcycle fatalities if they actually took a serious look at the infrastructure on our roadways, the possible mitigation required to increase the safe travel of all the users of our roadways, including motorcycles, not just heavier motor vehicles.  The data is not difficult to find, and one of Washington's institutions of higher learning could easily verify the data by performing a study of their own.  


I am curious to see if they even care enough about the owners of over a quarter million motorcycles registered in Washington state.  Or just bury their head in the sand, and continue to argue that the data doesn't exist.  Well-intentioned efforts that do little to actually reduce the number of motorcyclists dying on Washington's roadways have not lowered the death rate.  Actually taking steps to mitigate at least the most egregious areas of infrastructure, could affect a noticeable and significant decrease in the number of lives lost in motorcycle accidents on Washington State's roadways.  If the State is truly serious about moving toward reaching the Governor's goal of "Target Zero" by 2030, all options should be seriously examined and mitigation put into action.

Catch you on the road sometime...

Infrastructure Dangerous To Motorcycles Needs To Be Studied For Mitigation

European, Australian and American studies have demonstrated the dangers of some of the common roadside safety barriers to motorcyclists involved in crashes.  Even Texas A&M University has studied the dangers that roadside safety features present to motorcyclists.  As early as 1982, Dr. J.V. Ouellet of the University of Southern California studied and reported the dangers of certain highway safety features that were meant to provide protection to automobiles in crashes, but presented additional dangers to motorcyclists.  The 2008 report by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), an arm of the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies stated; "Historically, roadside safety barriers have been installed to protect errant motor vehicles from encroaching on fixed objects located beyond the barrier. In most cases, the installation of safety barriers has only taken into consideration the needs and concerns of passenger cars, trucks, and other motor vehicles, while the needs of motorcyclists are typically overlooked."  

FHWA requires use of NCHRP Report 350 testing protocols for
all roadside safety hardware. As currently established, there are no protocols covering the performance of roadside barriers based on collisions with motorcycles.  Such testing protocols have remained in limbo for over two decades, with little real effort to research and create baseline protocols covering the performance of roadside barriers.  Currently, when the subject has been brought to the attention of WSDOT managers and others in meetings, it was dismissed with little consideration or concern.  Why is that the case?  Is it because there is no current priority to research the effects of impacts with these features by motorcyclists?  With no impetus to perform the research, there is no concern about examining existing data.  

Would it not be prudent to conduct a study here in Washington State on the effects of impacts with these various types of boundaries by motorcyclists?  This would put Washington State squarely at the forefront of highway safety in this field.  A leader in an effort to actually find ways to move toward reaching Target Zero.  Would it not be better for the WSDOT or one of Washington's universities to conduct such research in order to help save lives on our roadways?







1. Motorcycle Impacts Into Roadside Barriers - Real-World Accident Studies, Crash Tests and Simulations Carried out in Germany and Australia by Berg, Rucker, Gartner, Koenig of the  DEKRA Automobil GmbH Germany and Grzebieta and Zou of Monash University, Australia.  Paper Number 05-0095

2. Motorcycle Crash Testing  Chiara S. Dobrovolny, Ph.D., Roadside Safety & Physical Security Division, Texas A&M Transportation Institute, 2016

3. Environmental Hazards in Motorcycle Accidents, Dr. J.V. Ouellet, Traffic Safety Center
University of Southern California. 1982

4. NCHRP Report 500, Transportation Reseach Board, National Academies, 2008

Target Zero: Motorcycles Are Not Automobiles

It may be that there are still several members of the Washington State Legislature, Washington State DOT, and the Dept. of Licensing, who do not understand that motorcycles are significantly different from automobiles.  For unknown reasons all three of these groups; the Legislature, WSDOT, and the DOL have personnel in key positions who cannot grasp that motorcycles and automobiles are fundamentally different.  

Quite often we hear the statistic that motorcycles make-up only four percent of the registered vehicles in Washington state, yet account for fifteen percent of fatalities on the roadways.  This inability to understand why motorcyclists are over-represented in highway fatalities need only take a look at the above photo to comprehend if one should care to actually look and see for themselves.  

Motorcycles don't have 'crumple zones' or a metal passenger safety enclosure as automobiles do.  Only a very small percentage of motorcycles have airbags and those that do operate in a different manner and for a slightly different purpose than do those in automobiles.  Where automobiles may have approximately 360 square inches of surface contact with the roadway, most motorcycles tend to have less than 20 square inches of surface in contact with the pavement.  Motorcycles are also much more susceptible to loss of traction due to a road surface or debris issue that may have passed completely unnoticed by an automobile.

Infrastructure features that are meant to have been a safety feature for automobiles can be a danger to motorcyclists.  Some features can have a detrimental effect on the handling of a motorcycle, and loss of handling or traction is a contributing factor in many single-vehicle accidents.  Even something as seemingly insignificant as the painted lines on the road can contribute to significant loss of traction for a motorcycle with dangerous results.  Whereas an automobile driver would not even necessarily notice that they had crossed the line.  

In 2011 Washington State DOT published a study entitled "Performance Analysis of Centerline Rumble Strips in Washington State".  Within this report, the researchers show that there was a 76% increase in serious and fatal motorcycle crashes after installation of the Centerline Rumble Strips (CLRS); but because none of those accidents were related to the vehicle operator being "asleep, fatigued, or distracted" the researchers "exempted" all motorcycle data from the study because it was "skewing" the CLRS analysis data.  The study also showed that a vast majority of the crashes were "lane departures to the outside of the curve".  

If you are at all familiar with how motorcycles function, you should understand that the motorcycle is not steered effectively by turning the handlebars in the direction you wish to turn.  Instead, an operator 'counter-steers' by pushing the handlebar forward on the side of the bike they wish to turn (pushing forward on the right handlebar turns the front wheel to the left, but creates a right-leaning turn in the motorcycle at speeds above about 5 mph) and quickly or violently doing so can easily cause loss of control of the motorcycle.  In a flat curve, from the inside of the curve, this loss of control has a significantly higher risk of the motorcycle becoming involved in a 'low-side' crash and then experience "lane departures to the outside of the curve".  Those rapid or violent inputs to the steering are provided by the CLRS's themselves when a  motorcyclist strays just a little too close to the centerline.  In other words; the Centerline Rumble strips that are a safety feature to help reduce accidents caused by sleeping, fatigued or distracted drivers present a significant risk of a serious or fatal crash to a motorcyclist. 

Even many common safety barriers may well protect automobile operators and passengers from serious or fatal injury while creating dangerous hazards to motorcyclists.  The ubiquitous "W Beam" guardrail, 'jersey barrier' and cable barrier are just some of the safety barriers that fall into this category.  These risks can be mitigated by simple steps in most cases.  But WSDOT has repeatedly turned a deaf ear to any attempt to discuss such mitigation possibilities.  This seems to cast a cloud of doubt over WSDOT's commitment to attaining Target Zero.

Until the WSDOT, the DOL, and the Washington State Legislature realize that motorcycles and automobiles have very different requirements for safely traveling on our roadways we will continue to have reductions in automobile traffic fatalities, but little or no reduction in motorcycle fatalities.  Without understanding that what can be a safety benefit for one mode of transportation can seriously increase the hazard of a fatal crash to another mode of transportation, Washington State goal of zero fatalities or serious injuries by 2030 will remain an unattainable dream.

In WSDOT's 2016 reports on the safety performance on urban, suburban arterials, and rural two-lane highways, bicyclists and pedestrians were each mentioned several dozen times.  Motorcyclists were never mentioned once in over 750 pages of the two combined reports.  Until the Legislature, WSDOT and DOL actually open themselves up to listening to the stakeholders involved in the various modes of transportation, not just automobile operators, bicyclists and pedestrians, little improvement is likely to occur.  Without understanding a problem there can be no solution attained.

Catch you on the road sometime...

  

Hatred and Political Hypocrisy

David Duke                                       Louis Farakhan

The majority of us all agree that racial, gender. or religious hatred is wrong, am I right?  The majority of us all agree that bullying and publicly shaming a person who does not share your views is also wrong, am I right?  Then how is it that so many people on both sides of the political spectrum are hypocritical enough to denounce someone on the other side while overlooking the hatred espoused by those on their own political side of the spectrum?  Politicians who attack the openly Anti-Semitic view of those such as Louis Farakhan, had better not associate with or downplay the equally vocal Anti-Semitic actions of those such as David Duke.  

We have seen it again and again over the past decade or so especially.  Say or write the "wrong" thing and you may well become the victim of political bullying and brow-beating by those who openly condemn bullying and publicly shaming a person.  Yet when someone on their side of the political spectrum spouts racist, gender, or religious hatred it is either ignored or downplayed.  That is hypocritical.

Whether they are; a member of the political Left in the US who attacks a politician from the other side as "racist" because that person doesn't agree with them, all while having been openly photographed with Louis Farakhan, Al Sharpton, or some other person pushing a racist, religious, or gender agenda of inequality, or a member of the Right who does the same yet does not attack White Supremacists or Anti-Semitics in their own party are hypocrites.

When it is politically correct to say "Black Lives Matter" but racist to say "All Lives Matter", something is wrong.  And yet as Americans, we have seemingly lost our balls in this regard.  No longer do Americans seem to have the courage to stand-up for what is right and join together against the hatred from both sides.  What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.   We have begun to become a country that is so polarized we barely even listen to the other side, and ignore the actions of those on their own political side whose behavior is as repugnant to American ideals as the very person they have just publicly accused of racism, sexism, or of being a religious bigot.  All while proudly and loudly proclaiming they are holding American ideals high.  

Whether you call it; deceit, duplicity, or dissimulation, it is all hypocrisy.  Right or Left, it doesn't matter, hate speech is hate speech.  Saying; "The Jews don't like Farakhan, so they call me Hitler.  Well, that's a good name.  Hitler was a very great man" is no different than saying; "The Jews are trying to destroy all other cultures...as a survival mechanism...the only Nazi country in the world is Israel".  They are both as bad and both of the men who said those things stand seemingly on the polar opposites of the political spectrum.  Both are full of hate, and both should be excised from the support of politicians because of their openly hateful actions and words.  

No race is "better" than another, no religion is "better" than another, and no gender is "better" than another.  Until we as a Nation remember that again. Or, as a society we quit trying to micromanage the beliefs of its members while neglecting the broader needs of a healthy Nation, we will be lead down the garden path.  

One last thing to think about; it has been shown, to those who care to see, that by hypocritically attacking a political opponent for something while neglecting to do the same for a political ally, you have become the protector of that behavior.  By being silent about the behavior, you are condoning it.

Much like in the recent months Hollywood has been in an uproar about the sexual harassment of actors by men in power.  While more and more women and men begin to step forward and speak of how long they were aware of this behavior, none of them spoke out.  That is until it became politically correct to do so.  Up until then, they admit they "knew" but kept quiet.  By their silence, they consented to allow it to continue.  With all the "hashtag"s in Hollywood regarding this issue, there was a lot of silent consent for many years.

As John Kaas said in his column today in the Chicago Tribune; "What we are witnessing is the Balkanizing of the United States."  Allowing hate and hypocrisy to divide us and weaken us all.  We need to put this shit aside and stand united together as Americans.  Equal and unhyphenated.  Being united doesn't mean we agree on everything, but that we stand together as equals.  Regardless of race, creed, or gender.  Perhaps then we can be the Nation that Dr. Martin Luther King saw in his "Dream".  Perhaps then we will achieve the true American Dream, and be the Nation that we all deserve to live and die in.

Think about it.

Catch you on the road sometime...

Historic Vote Protest Ignored By Media

For what is believed to be the first time in the modern history of the State of Washington, and entire Caucus refused to even vote on a bill in protest.  After nearly two hours of impassioned debate on the bill SB6199, the Republican Caucus stood firmly together and in protest refused to vote in what was already a foregone conclusion of a defeat that would have made passage of SB6199 seem normal and not at all irregular or out of the ordinary.  The bill passed out of the House due to every Democrat voting yes.  Yet the story of the House Republicans refusing to even vote; something of historic significance, was completely ignored by the media here in Washington State.

During the debate, legislators who mentioned this were gavelled down by the Speaker, and not allowed to continue their comments.  As can be seen by following this URL to the TVW broadcast archive of the floor debate. https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2018031006  After a series of amendments by the Republicans were shouted down by voice vote in the House Chamber (beginning at the 14:00 point of the TVW video), it was soon obvious the Democrats were not going to allow anything to block the passing of this bill.  

Why was this bill so extraordinary that it resulted in such an unprecedented action by the Republican Caucus?  Several things in the bill seem rather odd.  Such as giving DSHS to "adopt any rules as it deems necessary to implement the provisions of this act."  Giving DSHS carte blanche to "adopt any rules" that it deems necessary would seem to give DSHS broad power to act independently of the legislature.  It would also set up a "directed employer program".  This program would allow DSHS to contract with an outside third-party entity to act as case managers for the independent providers.  This would be a one-time selection, and then this third-party entity would become the permanent case managing body for the independent providers in Washington.  That body would be a unionized organization requiring its employees, the independent providers, to pay union dues or fees equal to those union dues.  It was strongly held that the SEIU, which is a powerfully influential contributor to the Democratic Party, would be that union.  

The most egregious part of this bill is buried deep within it and would require the Individual Providers (caregivers) to pay union dues or fees equal to those union dues.  That amounts to over $900 per year.  Or roughly one and a half months pay for people, mainly family members caring for relatives, going to union dues with no ability to opt out.  But being forced to pay union dues or fees equal to those union dues.  This bill effectively forces unionization of people caring for their family members or friends.  With little benefit to them for the amount of money they would be having withheld from them.

As a result, the Republicans were left at the end of the debate with little option left except to protest the inevitable passing of this bill by boycotting the vote.  It is believed to be the first time in modern state history that an entire caucus stood together and did not vote on a bill.  Yet the only sort of news report on this was TVW's own Legislative Review program, which showed highly edited bits of the debate. As can be seen by at this URL:  https://www.tvw.org/watch/?eventID=2018031001 

It seems strange that the media can widely cover the legislatures gun control measures, or the failure of the Carbon Tax, or even the legislature's actions on Atlantic Salmon.  Yet not even a whisper about the passionate debate and political protest against forced unionization and an entire caucus boycotting a vote against a bill that would cost the state tens of millions of dollars annually in perpetuity.  With the majority caucus ignoring "hundreds" of emails and letters from individual independent providers opposing the bill, and only addressing "form letters" in support it brings to mind a question about the true intent of this bill.  One that brought the gavel quickly down on several legislators who attempted to ask the question, or made the remark; was this some form of payback to the SEIU for its support in Democrat campaigns?  A question that while best left to the media, appears to be one they are unwilling to ask.

Catch you on the road sometime...