What Is Lane Filtering?

"Lane Filtering" is the process of motorcycles riding between lanes of slow, or stationary traffic, and "filtering" forward.  It is not only legal, but expected in most of the world.  While not codified into law, it is  accepted in California.  Although it is up to the individual police officer to decide whether you are doing it 'safely' or not.

It has been shown in several studies done in Europe (where it is considered to be the only way to get around on a motorcycle in a city), that lane filtering not only lowers the travel time of motorcyclists in congested traffic, it also helps to ease that congestion.  When motorcycles aren't taking up space sitting statically in traffic that could be filled by a larger vehicle, traffic congestion has been shown to be less.  It has also been shown to be safer for the motorcyclist.  According to the MAIDS (Motorcycle Accident In-Depth Study) of 2009, lane filtering is six times safer for a motorcyclists than sitting  in traffic.  Also according to MAIDS, only 0.45% (that's right, less that one-half of one percent) of motorcycle accidents in Europe were related to lane filtering maneuvers.

A recent study for the US Dept. of Transportation compared; California, Texas, and Florida motorcycling accident rates.  With similar year 'round riding seasons, similar riding demographics, California still showed a 20% lower rate of fatalities due to rear end collisions.  California is the only state in the US to currently allow lane filtering.  With riders not having to sit stalled in traffic, and open to being rear ended by inattentive drivers, California's motorcycling community is allowed a significant safety margin by being able to filter through traffic.

Even a 2010 report by the Oregon D.O.T. had good things to say about lane filtering.  Although some of the conclusions were obviously made by someone who isn't very familiar with most modern motorcycles, it still shows the positive benefits of lane sharing.

Some of the benefits mentioned in the Oregon D.O.T. report include the following:
1. "In addition to contributing to congestion reduction by the capacity/size differential, motorcycles help to free additional space when lane-sharing. When motorcycles move from the travel lane to the center line space is created."
2. "One of the early benefits recognized for lane-sharing was to help keep air-cooled motorcycle engines from overheating.  When kept in motion, the engines are cooled by the air flowing over the fins, but when stopped there is no mechanism for cooling."
3. "Conversely to safety concerns with lane-sharing, a potential safety benefit is increased visibility for the motorcyclist. Splitting lanes allows the motorcyclist to see what the traffic is doing ahead and be able to proactively maneuver."

One of the main concerns about lane sharing, seems not to be about the motorcyclist being able to ease traffic by filtering through traffic, but to be about automobile drivers becoming startled by a motorcycle passing between lanes and then moving the car resulting in a possible sideswipe and turn-into-path accident.  So in other words, if a automobile driver isn't paying attention (like that EVER happens) and is startled by a motorcycle passing between lanes, they may suddenly turn their car to block the path the motorcycle just took.  This is my personal opinion here; and not backed up by any statistics or studies, just my many years of experience operating many different types of vehicles on the roadways.  But it has been my experience that if a driver is startled by a motorcycle moving between lanes at no more than 10 mph faster than traffic, that same driver would be "startled" any vehicle coming up alongside them.  It means they aren't checking their mirrors, or they aren't checking them often enough.  Or, they are pissed off because the motorcyclist is "cutting" past the line, and not "waiting his turn".  A little road rage rises up, and the driver moves to block any other motorcycles from passing him...or they pull the old open the door trick.  Which by itself is illegal here in Washington.  At the same time, if a bike is blasting between lanes at a high rate of speed, they aren't acting in a "safe and prudent manner" anyway and are asking for trouble.

Well now you know a little bit about lane filtering.  If you think the idea of; better commute times through congested traffic, lower possibility of being rear-ended, and actually easing traffic is a good idea, then you like the idea of lane filtering.  If that's the case, and you live in Washington state, let your legislator know how you feel.

Catch you on the road sometime...

The WSP...They Just Don't Get It

It seems that at every hearing regarding motorcycle issues in the Washington state legislature, and especially if it is dealing with amending the mandatory helmet law, there is one conspicuous opponent ready to testify against the bill involved.  That opponent is none other than the Washington State Patrol.  The same WSP whose flagrant profiling of motorcyclists not only cost the state over $90,000 in one case alone, but also actually lead to the nations first Motorcycle Anti-Profiling law.  The same WSP that attempts to get around that statute by using the states mandatory helmet law to instigate traffic stops that then become fishing expeditions for any information relating to criminal code violations.  Your DOT sticker isn't clearly visible, and you look like a possible Club member or supporter, then you're probably going to get pulled over, whether that DOT sticker is there or not.

They don't seem to want to understand that there is no Federal law preventing you from removing or covering over the DOT emblem after you have purchased the helmet.  This is the same WSP that requires the DOT emblem to be visible, though they won't admit it, because that is the only way they can tell if a helmet is DOT compliant or not.  Public Information requests have shown; they have no list of compliant or non-compliant helmets, they have no records or lists of recalled helmets either.  So, if that DOT emblem (many are painted on now, so I don't want to call them a "sticker") is on, and clearly visible, you're probably good to go.  But if it's not there, or not clearly visible, that trooper (as well as other law enforcement who follow the lead of the WSP) just may pull you over if he feels you may be able to give him brownie points for pulling over some "biker".

This same WSP that tries to get around the Motorcycle Anti-Profiling law instead of trying to enforce it, just doesn't "get" the whole helmet issue.  Because they don't want to.  They really couldn't seem to care less.  If they did, they might actually see just how lame they make themselves look when talking, as they do both in word and in print, about DOT "approved" helmets.  NHTSA, the same federal agency that created the DOT helmet standard (FMVSS-218) has for at least two decades if not longer, been stating that the DOT doesn't "approve or reject" helmets.  It is a self-certification made by the manufacturers (who don't even need to test the helmet before certifying it) that a helmet is "DOT Compliant".

The WSP doesn't get, or doesn't seem to care, that a significant portion of the motorcycling community feels it is their right to choose whether wearing a helmet is worth the possible risk of injury that may be caused by that helmet.  That helmet isn't a safety device, if it was, insurance companies would offer discounts to riders who wear helmets.  Or insurance rates would be much lower in the minority of states that still require the wearing of helmets.  Guess what; they don't, and they aren't.  The helmets are just a money making scheme for law enforcement, and to a far lesser extent to the state tax revenue ( you only buy the helmet once and pay sales tax on it), but if the state revenue was involved the WSP would be pushing to pull you over to make sure you had a three year old or less helmet.  Not just whether or not it has a DOT emblem on it.  What is really sad to me is the fact that on most other continents, you aren't allowed to wear a DOT helmet because they don't think it is safe enough.

The WSP just doesn't get it.  Whether in a discussion, or in their own pamphlet about "bogus helmets", the WSP still refers to helmets with the DOT emblem as "approved".  They even go as far as to describe what a helmet should have in order to be an "approved" helmet.  None of which has anything to do with the Federal standard.  Besides, if you're wearing a helmet matching the description of a helmet in the WSP pamphlet, and it doesn't have that DOT emblem in the proper spot, you're probably going to get a ticket sooner or later.

The WSP doesn't get that almost two-thirds of DOT compliant helmets that were tested between 1980 and 2008 ( I don't have any newer data at this point) FAILED to meet the minimum standards to deserve that DOT on them.  The WSP doesn't get that the same helmet (if it ever did meet the standard) no longer does after three to five years due to it being worn.  If you drop your helmet from waist height, or off the seat of your bike, it no longer is considered "safe" to use, and should be replaced.  None of that matters to the WSP.  All that matters is that sticker..Ooops, I mean emblem being on the helmet.  Unless they think they might be able to get some information that could lead to a future or ongoing investigation (without a getting a warrant like they are required to), then they are just as liable to still stop you saying they couldn't see the DOT emblem.  But it only takes a few seconds and they quite possibly will begin asking you about things unrelated to any traffic stop or infraction.  

So, maybe that is why the WSP is always right there in a hearing to amend or repeal the mandatory helmet law in opposition.  If they lose the ability to make traffic stops about DOT "approved" helmets, it will become that much more difficult for them to try to get around that pesky Motorcycle Anti-Profiling law.  That helmet law leads to a possible fount of information about groups and organizations the WSP and other law enforcement may decide they want to keep an eye on.

It certainly isn't to "protect and defend the Constitution" as so many of my fellow motorcyclists and other Americans have sworn to do.  It is a tool the WSP and other law enforcement agencies use to exercise control of power over the motorcycling community of Washington state.  The WSP doesn't get, or care, that we simply want to exercise our right to choose what we feel is truly safefor ourselves as individual American citizens.  The WSP doesn't get, that by always opposing an amendment to the mandatory helmet law in Washington state, they are opposing the rights of the citizens to be free to choose how best to protect themselves.

Personally, I have about four or five DOT compliant helmets, and one or two non-compliant helmets.  Not one of them has ever been of any use in protecting my head from an injury during a motorcycle accident.  If I don't crash and hit my head, that helmet on my head is irrelevant...except for the weight, and fatigue that comes from wearing that weight, on my head and neck.  Maybe the WSP should get behind crash avoidance training with the same gusto they go after a helmet without a clearly visible DOT emblem.  Preventing a crash is much better than surviving one you didn't have the skills to avoid.  But the WSP doesn't get, or care, about that either.

Catch you on the road sometime...

Discussing The Reasons For Universal Mandatory Helmet Requirements

I'd really like to talk to you for a few minutes, if you don't mind, about why you think I need to wear a motorcycle helmet when I think there are times I would rather not.  The last thing I want to do is to get into an emotional or passionate argument with you.  That doesn't get either of us anywhere, and the "We'll have to just agree to disagree" is fine when it doesn't involve peoples lives.  So please, hear me out.  After I'm through, let me know what you think about the subject.  Let's get a real conversation going.  A civil, courteous, and honest discussion about our Right to choose for ourselves, what we as individuals feel is the proper level of protection for ourselves.

You have told me it is for my own safety, and that helmets save lives.  While that tends to be the foundation for much of the discussion for motorcycle helmets, do they really?  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the division within the US Department of Transportation that is responsible for administering the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that a mind numbing amount of motor vehicle equipment must meet, "estimates" (their word, not mine) that motorcycle helmets are "37% effective" in saving lives.1 That is a pretty poor effectiveness rating.

There is also the misconception that many people, including the Washington State Patrol seem to be under, that the US Dept. of Transportation (DOT) "approves" motorcycle helmets.  The DOT will be the first to tell you that they do not approve, or disapprove motorcycle helmets.  They set the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS-218 in the case of motorcycle helmets) that gives the minimum testing standards that helmets must meet to be certified as being "DOT compliant".  Here is what most people either don't know, or don't realize; a motorcycle helmet doesn't need to be tested by its manufacturer before the manufacturer certifies it to be "DOT compliant".  They just have to make a good faith judgement that it would meet the tests.  That good faith judgement is good enough to be legal.  That is, until one of the independent laboratories contracted by NHTSA to test helmets randomly purchases a couple helmets of a particular make and model for testing.  If the helmet passes the tests, great.  If not, the manufacturer is notified their helmet didn't pass, and why it didn't.  But there is no public recall announcement made, and even law enforcement aren't notified of the helmets which are no longer compliant with FMVSS-218.  

According to NHTSA documents, between 1980 (when President Reagan was inaugurated) and 2008 (when President Obama was inaugurated) the independent labs tested a total of 1,540 previously certified DOT compliant helmets.  Of those helmets tested, 945 of them FAILED.  That is a 61.4% failure rate.  Over 61% of the certified DOT compliant helmets tested over that 28 year period failed.  Or put in other words, only 38.6% of the helmets tested met the minimum requirements the government set.2  These are not cheap helmets either.  Major brand names like Nolan, Pro Police, and other well known and respected helmet manufacturers.

There is no way to determine visually if a motorcycle helmet is DOT compliant or not.  That requires strict laboratory testing, which results in the destruction of the helmet.  Don't take my word for it, that comes from NHTSA, and they are the ones who wrote the standard.  

To prove my point, take a look at the two helmets above.  Both were manufactured by same company, both were until recently for sale by the same company.  One is still currently sold as a DOT compliant helmet, and the other was sold until recently as a "novelty" helmet.  Can you tell which one is DOT compliant?

OK, now that we've covered at least a large portion of the DOT related points about whether helmets need to be mandated or not, let's get down to more serious points.

The highest speed impact required for a helmet to withstand within required specifications is 13.4 mph.  That is the speed a helmet reaches falling from 72 inches (6 feet).  At speeds greater than 13.4 mph it has been statistically shown that there is an ever more significant trade-off between risk of head injury and neck injury to the motorcyclist.  Above the speed that DOT mandates testing done, the risk of severe neck injuries grows significantly.3  

Another point to be made against the mandating of motorcycle helmets was stated quite simply by Professor Harry Hurt (author of the Hurt Report on traffic safety) during a 1992 interview with KABC-TV in Los Angeles.  He stated during that interview; "Once impact speeds get up around 25-30 mph, no helmet in the world is going to save you."  That comes from the author of what is broadly considered the most authoritative study on the subject of traffic safety of the 20th Century.  A report that is still quite influential to this day.

That comment comes quite plainly into perspective in a couple of ways.  One is the Goldstein Study states that the risk of fatality increases from 7.1% at 40 mph vehicle speed to 36.3% at 60 mph.  So, at highway speeds, you have a 36.3% chance being killed just because of the speed of the crash.  The other point comes from a compilation of data from FARS (Fatal Accident Reporting System) and the Washington State Traffic Safety Commission.  Those figures showed that over 53% of fatalities between 2006 and 2010 in Washington State speed was a contributing factor.  So the helmets in those crashes, that were certified to withstand a 13.4 mph impact, were irrelevant.

Another government study from NHTSA showed that between 2000 & 2002, 81% of fatal motorcycle accident victims died from injuries other than head injuries.  Only 19% of motorcycle fatalities had fatal head injuries.  So in 80% of those crashes, helmets were irrelevant.

So let me try to wind this up, and I am still not covering many of the reasons people are demanding the right to choose whether we want to wear a helmet or not. 
1. NHTSAs own statistics show that helmets are only 37% effective (assuming all helmets are DOT compliant).  
2. Over a 28 year span, 61.4% of the certified DOT compliant helmets tested failed.  
3. At speeds over 13.4 mph being involved in a crash while wearing a helmet your risk of serious neck injury increases significantly.  
4. By a huge margin, the vast majority of motorcycle fatalities nationwide died from non-head related injuries.  
5. To paraphrase Professor Hurt, motorcycle helmets become ineffective by the time impact speeds reach 25-30 mph.

One last thing, in 2012, Michigan repealed their helmet law.  By 2014, the number of motorcycle accidents had dropped by approximately 20%.  The number of motorcycle fatalities also dropped by about the same rate.  As did the number of incapacitating injuries.  All of these statistics dropped by 20% or more AFTER Michigan repealed their helmet law.  Ironically, the number of motorcycles registered in the state, and the number of motorcycle endorsements rose by nearly the same percentage.  So let me make that clear; more riders, on more motorcycles. yet the accident rate, the fatality rate, and the incapacitating injury rate ALL dropped AFTER Michigan repealed their helmet law.  Now tell me, why are we here in Washington still mandated to wear them, and not given the CHOICE whether or not to do so as best fits our own experience and judgement?

Catch ya on the road sometime...


1  NHTSA 2012 Traffic Safety Facts 2012 Data

2 a compilation of NHTSA documents from 1980-2008

3The Goldstein Study  "The Effect of Motorcycle Helmet Use on the Probability of Fatality and the Severity of Head and Neck Injuries"



  

A Fresh Start

The Board of Directors of A.B.A.T.E. of Washington has met, and I now have two measures to try and get sponsored in the legislature, and then passed into law.  Sounds easy, but its not.  For too many reasons to go into here.  I am just going to tell you what we will be fighting for here in Washington State this coming biennium (we have a two year legislative period that bills can be passed or they "die" and the process has to start all over again) that starts in January.

The first bill would give everyone over the age of 18 the choice whether to wear a motorcycle helmet or not.  It is virtually the same bill that we got a hearing on last year.  The focus will be to push for this bill, and get it  passed.  In that way, everyone over 18 will have the right to choose whether to wear a helmet or not.  Some prefer to wear their helmet, others find the risks that accompany wearing a helmet offset its protective effectiveness.  Which NHTSA, by the way, only rates at 37% anyway.

It is the second bill A.B.A.T.E. of Washington is trying to get into the legislautre that is actually a little surprising to me.  When word first came out in September about this bill, I didn't really hear any support for it.  Most people simply said it wasn't necessary, that it wouldn't stand a chance so why bother, etc.  At the Board of Directors meeting; except for a brief discussion over trying to focus only on a helmet bill or working to get two bills passed, I was pleasantly surprised to see the Board vote to support a lane sharing, or "lane filtering" bill.  

I thought it might be a nice thing to have as an insurance policy to have another bill before the legislature.  On the Friday of the BOD weekend in Ellensburg, I was surprised to be informed that the G20 (the top economic nations on the planet) had announced their support of motorcycle lane filtering laws.  Then on Saturday morning, I was told about a study in California that showed lane filtering to be 6 times safer for motorcyclists than remaining static in stalled or slow moving traffic.  By Monday, I had begun to receive emails and messages containing links to videos about two studies on the subject.  As well as other videos demonstrating the effectiveness of lane filtering in easing traffic congestion, while also providing an effective way to lower the risk of motorcyclist being involved in serious and fatal accidents in high traffic situations.  

When I arrived in Ellensburg on Friday night, I knew that California was the only state in the US that allowed lane filtering.  By the middle of this past week, I have learned that several other states are now looking to pass lane filtering laws in their own states.  This means that what may have started out as something of an unwanted step-child of an issue, may now have a stronger chance, and more documentation to work with  over the next two years to bring it into law.  This has all given me some added ammunition with which to enter the fight that looms ahead on this bill.  The timing, and sudden rise in the amount of information and videos coming to light on lane filtering, is a good omen in my opinion.  But then, we all know what they say about opinions, don't we?

As I said before, the helmet issue is going to be my primary focus.  Even that was given a surprise boost this past week.  I received a message from a friend in Colorado on Facebook asking if I wanted several years of documents surrounding the helmet fight.  She came out of the blue with the offer, and I told her yes, to send them up.  Another good omen.  I can always use more data.  Even if it is "old data" it may help to fill in the gaps in information we already have accumulated, or it may even contain documents that simply add weight to our arguments here in Washington.

Now is the time to bring all this together, and create some momentum.  On the 22nd of November I have called together a meeting of the A.B.A.T.E. of Washington Legislative Committee, and a few other interested and involved parties, to try and plan out our strategy for this legislative session.  We will know the election results by then, and maybe even how the Transportation Committees in the House and Senate will be shaping up.  Working out the legislative packet for "Black Thursday", and how it will be presented.  Also, we will discuss any bills that we are aware of plans to be introduced that A.B.A.T.E. of Washington, as an organization supports or opposses, and what to do about them.  I have a feeling it is going to be an interesting meeting.  

The motorcycling community in Washington State is vibrant and strong.  I am looking forward to working to help keep it that way, and to make it as strong as possible.

Catch you on the road sometime...

The REBELS MC In Australia May Show Future For America

We need only to look at the situation in Australia today to see what could become of the motorcycle community in the US in the future.  It was originally only Queensland that was enforcing, and even escalating Australias anti-Club, anti biker laws, "anti-association" laws.  But now its neighbor to the south, New South Wales has begun to enforce the laws against the free association of individuals.  Even though they are touted as "anti biker" laws, they are laws against "associating" with anyone who has been charged with a serious criminal offense.  The way they are being enforced in Queensland makes it unlawful for family members to publicly spend time together if one has a criminal record.

This week, a news report states that the Rebels Motorcycle Club, an Australian branch of the American Club by the same name, is having their national run in Sydney.  The New South Wales (NSW) police have already put the word out that if the members from Western Australia (WA) cross the border into NSW, they risk being arrested under these "anti-association" laws.  The penalty is a three year jail term.  For being the member of a group the government doesnt't like, and freely associating wiht other members of the same association.  It's not guily BY association...it is guilt OF association.

The Australian government is already doing, to some extent, what the US government is trying to do in its case against the Mongols Nation in California.  I hope wholeheartedly that people in both countries see how heinous these laws are.  As well as the lengths some people will go to exploit the power the government tries to use against its people.  I support the efforts of the Mongols Nation here in the US in their fight against the ATF, and also wish to express my support for the Rebels MC in Australia as they no doubt will enjoy their national run.  Regardless of the hostile law enforcement arrayed against them.  During the Rebels last national run in Perth, nearly 1,000 Club members came to town.  With no major problems reported.  Misinformation, and exploited fear used by law enforcement can threaten the civil rights of peoples around the world.  In Australia today, and maybe in the US tomorrow.

To the Rebels MC members, where ever you ride.  Keep on riding, and fight for your rights.  You have my respect.

Catch you on the road sometime...

A Question Of Physics

It is a question of physics.  Of kinetic energies and Newtons 'Laws of Motion'.  The equivalent speed of the fastest impact a DOT compliant helmet has to survive is 13.4 MPH  That is the speed a helmet reaches in free fall from a height of six feet.  That is the speed only of the helmet dropping in a "guided" free fall, without any additional energy associated with the fall.  If you factor in even a relatively low horizontal speed, impact speeds can rise dramatically.  NHTSAs own independently contracted testing facilities have shown that from 1980 to 2008 over 61% of manufacturer certified DOT compliant helmets failed to passed testing.

Newton's First Law states; "An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."  This is what happens inside your head (whether you are wearing a helmet or not) when your head impacts an object.  Your skull will at the least, experience a rapid deceleration, or possibly a deflection to a different direction.  However like all else following Newtons First Law, everything inside your skull will continue moving in the same direction and speed it had been traveling.  Until it collides with the inside of your skull.  Where it will then be compressed under the inertial effect, until Newtons Third Law forces your brain and other soft tissues to recoil back.  This continues until the kinetic energy of the impact has been absorbed.  In even simple impacts some G Forces can exceed 600 units of Gravity (G's).  That is 600 times the force of gravity on a stationary object.  With such forces, soft tissue, blood vessels, and brain matter can easily tear and be destroyed .  Whether you are wearing a helmet or not.  Motorcycle helmets can help to dampen the effects.  But they cannot nullify the laws of physics.  It is true, that helmets have been shown to have a statistically significant effect on head injuries.  There are however, other effects of motorcycle helmets that should be considered.

The study by Dr.'s Cooter and David of the Australian Craniofacial Unit of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, "Motorcyclist Craniofacial Injury Patterns" found that "objects worn at impact on the craniofacial region (skull) may influence significantly the final fracture pattern, and this may be detrimental for some motorcyclists wearing full-face helmets."  It seems that motorcyclists wearing some of the popular full face helmets while involved in crashes have, as a result of their design, "sustained fatal skull base fracturing in the absence of significant facial trauma".  The helmets did their job, and protected the face and frontal lobes of the brain.  But they did so at the cost of causing fatal basal fractures of the skull, and traumatically severing the pons from the medulla.  Both conditions in and of themselves fatal.

These same helmets are DOT compliant, and meet the FMVSS-218 standard.  However, their use exposes the rider to a significantly higher risk of fatal injuries do to anterior impacts in a crash. These helmets, which are among those mandated by the legislature to be worn by motorcyclists in Washington State, have no warning about the possible fatal consequences that accompany the use of these helmets.  The States mandated use of these helmets could actually lead to fatalities in otherwise survivable crashes.  Without knowledge of the risk involved; how many motorcyclists purchased these helmets, then died because of the helmet they were forced to wear to protect them?  

Imagine the injuries to a person that has just been hanged, and had the knot of the noose positioned below the jawbone.  The injuries are almost identical to those suffered by a significant number of motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes wearing rigid full face helmets.  The real tragic irony as shown by the Cooter Study, is that those wearing more flexible full face helmets, and even open face helmets, while suffering severe facial fracturing, had a much higher rate of surviving, and a lower rate of fatal skull fractures and brain damage.

The Goldstein Study, many in the effort to eliminate the mandatory helmet law seem to take at least an initial dim view of because of its findings that helmets do afford a signifcant effect on the severity of head injury.  However, if one looks closer, the study goes further and acknowledges other risks that wearing helmets in a crash have an increased effect of.  One of which is; that above an average speed of 13 mph (the highest speed used in impact tests to meet FMVSS-218...coincidental?), "helmet use has a statistically significant effect which increases the severity of neck injuries."  So at impacts beyond 13 mph, helmets have been shown to "exacerbate neck injuries."

Since the impact speed of 13 mph is the speed the helmet reaches falling from six feet, it is obviously a low speed impact.  Roughly the same as a six foot tall man falling down and hitting his head as he walks down the sidewalk.  Yet the thought of mandating helmets be worn by pedestrians is ludicrous to even be suggested.  Yet to mandate the use by motorcyclists traveling at a much greater speed to wear a helmet that has only been certified by the manufacturer to be able to withstand an impact of 13.4 mph seems just as ridiculous.  Especially when one realizes that the two leading causes of fatality on motorcycles, are the riders speed (kinetic energy), and blood alcohol level.

Again from the Goldstein Study; "an increase in the crash speed from 40 to 60 mph increases the probability of death from 7.1% to 36.3%."  Even factoring in glancing blows to the head at those speeds, the impacts are still going to be greater than 13.4 mph, which is all the helmet is designed to withstand.

Even Professor Harry Hurt, author of the famous "Hurt Report" on traffic safety stated in an interview with KABC TV that; "As impact speeds reach 25-30 mph, no helmet in the world is going to save you."  It is simply a question of physics.  Given enough kinetic energy, a helmet isn't going to save your brain from being damaged due to the extreme inertial and gravimetric forces at play.  Man may be able to violate mans law, but we cannot violate the laws of physics.

As a final point a NHTSA study showed that between 2000 and 2002; of all fatal motorcycle accidents, only 19% suffered fatal injuries to the head, while 81% suffered no fatal head injuries.

Now, tell me why Washington State does not allow motorcyclists to take responsibility for our own safety choices.  If for example; some types of "DOT compliant" helmets put the motorcyclist at a higher risk of fatal skull and brain injuries, and if the leading cause of fatality on motorcycles is excess speed, with over 61% of "DOT compliant" helmets tested failing, then why are we even forced to wear a motorcycle helmet that is only suppose to protect us from the impact speed of a man falling to the ground from a standing position?

Catch ya on the road sometime...

The Biggest Threat To Our Community...And Our Liberty

There is a motorcycle club in California that is undergoing a legal attack by the federal government.  This isn't exactly newsworthy in and of itself, because the government has regularly tried to "crush" the clubs by using different statutes over the years.  Each time they fail, it is only a matter of time before there is another attempt, using the lessons learned from the previous failures.  This time however, the lesson was given by the presiding judge, and taken to heart by the government.  Now I am not a legal expert, an attorney, or anything like that.  I am merely stating what little I have been able to glean from this situation, and what it seems to mean to me.

Originally, the Feds indicted several members of the Mongols Nation, and the government began to seize items with the Clubs logo on it.  The idea behind this was to destroy the Clubs sense of unity by seizing all the common identifying markings that belonged to the Club.  Basically, anything that had the Clubs patch on it was open to seizure.  After a member had personal property that he had bought with his own money seized, he sued in court.  He had not been indicted, yet his property was being seized.  The judge agreed, and overturned the seizures.  But then, in its remarks as the Court rendered its decision, the Judge told the government how to be able to get around the problem that they had found themselves in.  Not to indict individual members, but the entire Club as a "criminal association".

Which is what the feds did.  They indicted not people, but the organization, the association.  Now it is irrelevent whether or not you were indicted.  The Club as a whole has been indicted. The federal government is trying to seize all items with the trademarks of the Club.  Trying to seize and destroy the Club by taking its identity.  Whether it is a members private property or property of the Club, no longer matters.  It it has the Clubs logo or other trademarks on it, there is a possibility it can be seized to hurt the Club.  Whether it is a vest with Club patch, a bike with the Clubs logo, or a car or truck.  If it has the Clubs insignia on it, then it appears to be liable and open to seizure.

Why is this such a big threat?  There are a few reasons.  I'll go over some of them as best I can.  Then think about it for yourselves, and put yourselves in the position of having to defend yourself from the government seizing your property because it has the trademark of an association that a government agency deems to be a problem to be eliminated.  This whole case is about the government trying to seize control of  all identifying trademarks of the group.  The symbols that the group uses to distinguish itself from all others.  The symbols that the association uses to identify its members from non-members.  So the government is trying to make it illegal to associate with others who wish to assemble together for a mutually satisfying purpose...or so it appears to me.  But wait a minute, doesn't the Bill of Rights provide for the Right to "peaceably assemble"?

If the government is going after the "association" as a criminal entity because of possible criminal activities of a group of members, and declaring all members criminals by association, does this not violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution?  If this standard was applied to law enforcement, how many police forces in the nation would be free from having all their members property with a police trademark seized?  Not many I am sure.

Also, by indicting the organization, the federal agencies are trying, it appears to me to circumvent the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution giving citizens "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."  The feds are trying to seize anything that bears the trademark of the organization in order to destroy the identity of the group.  Using as probable cause the fact you are a member of the group to issue warrants to seize your personal property because it has the organizations logo on a patch, or a sticker in the window, or painted onto the metalwork of your vehicle.  Seize enough property, and members may not wish to associate with the organization anymore...thus destroying the group.

Can you imagine the uproar in todays society if these tactics were used against say, Green Peace?  Seizing the property of those people showing the logo of Green Peace on their clothing, their cars, their homes.  Or for that matter, if another organization was deemed too dangerous for the taste of some government agency who indicted the organization because some of its members may be invovled in some form of "criminal activity".  Can you imagine the NRA becoming the target of such tasctics?  The NRA logo is a trademark, as is the logo of Green Peace, as is the Club patch.  If the government is allowed to; indict an organization for the activities of some of its members, and seize all property bearing the trademarked logo, then what is to stop the government from doing it again?  Having set the legal precendent of being able to violate the First Amendments right to "peaceably assemble", and  the Fourth Amendments Right against illegal search and seizures, what is to stop them from proceeding further and restricting or ignoring other cicil rights?

Have you ever really known the government to willingly give up power and control?  This fight isn't about one motorcycle club.  This fight is about the right to belong to any association, or organization, or fellowship you wish to.  Without fear of your property being seized by a overzealous police agency that doesn't approve of what your group stands for.  As I stated before, how many people from Green Peace would continue to support the organizations often law breaking activities and protests, if a government agency indicted the organization as a 'criminal entity' and put their own property were at risk of seizure simply because it bore the Green Peace logo?

No organization can be 100% good, or 100% bad.  Because people are not 100% good or bad.  As long as the government is allowed to continue with this sort of behavior, the future looks grim.  The only way we can fight this, and keep it from happening again, is by supporting the club in their court fight.  Writing to your Congressman, or steate Legislator won't do any good.  It is all in the hands of the Federal Courts.  Since it was a Federal Judge who instructed the agency on how best to create their case, it is going to be an uphill fight.  If you want to support this fight to help ensure our freedoms and liberties, go to the US Defenders website, and learn more about this problem.  You can also read more about this case, and the legal ramifications of this can of worms if it is allowed to be opened, by reading the information about this case involving "Intellectual Property Rights" and how the ATF is trying to destroy those rights.

It doesn't matter what patch is on your back, on your bike, your truck, or your home.  If the government wins this case, and a government agency is allowed to say that group is a criminal association, you could lose it all.  Think about it.  The old saying; "United, We Stand...Divided, We Fall" I don't think has ever been as appropriate as it is now.

Catch you on the road sometime...