Hey! There's my bike!! Stolen last year, you thought you'd never see it again, but your trouble's only starting...
The VIN on the bike is off by one digit, or the model letters on the VIN are reversed. You show the registration certificate to the law fully expecting your machine's return. Uh-uh. You are told to, "SHUT UP!", the bike is driven away by its new owner. Right now, take a look at your registration; do the numbers match your bike? Four out of the first sixty bikes I inspected had typographical errors on their certificates.
Coming back from Laconia you take a sweeping right hand exit and it starts again! The bike makes a wobble but THIS time the large inexperienced chick on the back panics. She squirms, wobbling the machine some more. You, she and your baggage end up strewn all over the tarmac. Even as you unravel yourself from your dental floss another bike goes down. The chick's fault? No, it's YOURS! When is the last time you checked your machine for scored steering head bearings that BIND right at center? FIVE of the aforesaid sixty made THAT team.
You and your buddys have no trouble seeing one another at night as you ride in close formation on your custom bikes. One night in a heavy rain storm a truck traveling 25 MPH faster than you doesn't see your BLUE DOT tail lamp lens as you mope along to avoid the stinging rain drops. At a meeting with the Registry the Mass. Motorcycle Business Association was told 30% of accidents they investigate were caused by faulty equipment!! Motorcycle accidents! The "gas station" inspections clearly were NOT doing their job. They felt bike shops WOULD!
I have always championed bikers rights, fighting to avoid "special treatment" such as the 1960 proposal to ban motorcycles. I still fight the helmet law, as these laws are "special" for bike riders only. But the "mess" your newsletter calls the inspection sticker program happens to govern ALL motor vehicles.
All vehicles need mufflers, lights, horns, etc. So why whine? I have NEVER seen any rules banning controls alterations to suit the rider, handicapped or otherwise. And, no, stock items are NOT required, just items as good as stock. And lamps without an "SAE" molded into the lens just don't make it. And who in his/her right mind rides without turn signals? Neither do straight pipes and bicycle "hooter" horns qualify. A certain Police Chief was rejected because of a leaky gas tank. He was amazed and couldn't believe it, but he soon saw for himself.
I've had a few whiners and scoffers, but they have mostly changed their minds after a little thought. It may interest your readers to know motorcycles are the forerunners of airplanes. Yes, all the early fliers were bike riders. You bikers need the same attention to detail an aircraft does because it is you who ends up looking like an air-crash victim because of seized brake calipers or bald tires.
West on the Mass Pike, flying right on the beam in the passing lane, the Buick to my right begins to move into my lane! I hit the thumb button clicking on the relay to my EMGO high power twin horns (universal high decibel 110 +/5 db, 12v, 8 amp), the bozo moves back, then looks to see what it was. At $28 a complete set, they make more sense than chrome BB's to trim the seat cover or a chromium louvered cover to hide the blue dot tail lamp.
It was this association that stopped the proposal to put the sticker on the front fork. I for one am sick and tired of seeing bikers buried. We must now lay to rest the sticker schtick and get back to basics, such as: Helmet Laws! Motorist Muggings! (didn't see `em, it's okay, I'm insured, what's he doing ridin' one of them anyway?).
You asked for sticker hassles? You got `em. Hope you print this. This is my 41st year on the road.
Ray Saquet
Cycle Mechanix
Stoughton
|
During my 30 some years as a Baystate rider, I've steered clear of the MMA because of its narrow focus and separatist posture. However, I joined last year because I sensed what I thought was a change toward a more balanced viewpoint within the MMA. All one has to do is attend a few MMA meetings or events to realize it is still so preoccupied with helmet laws that it saps the organizations' energy and diverts its resources away from doing more with rider issues like training, insurance, safety and funding. With MMA folks it's the helmet law first, and everything else second. As a result, its efforts on other rider programs and issues seem feeble, unorganized and poorly attended. Thinly disguised programs to legitimize the MMA in the eyes of the public and with politicians are not enough to hide their all consuming brain-bucket agenda. The helmet "Rights" issue may be noble and patriotic to some, but it's apparent that the issue is not at the top of the list of concerns of the public, state officials, politicians and, I suspect, most riders. You don't see a mass uprising to repeal helmet laws for kids on their "Huffys" or on the mandatory use of seat belts, for that matter. The "Right to Choose" is a moot point in this day and age, and MMA's failure to shift its priorities continues to keep it on the outside looking in. Just how much influence does the MMA have? How seriously is it taken? Its role in averting the state motorcycle inspection fiasco may be a good example. |
I, for one, can't believe that with all its members including member bike dealers and shops, that the new inspection rules were such a surprise to the MMA. The Registry and dealers (both MMA and Mass Motorcycle Dealers Association members) did a job on my rights. So where was the MMA when the Registry and some of its own dealer members stabbed its rider members in the back? Why didn't the Registry and dealers seek out MMA's help and input BEFORE the rules changed? Think about it. As to public opinion, both the public and their politicians may hold the keys to MMA and rider success on a number of fronts, including helmet law repeal. MMA's charity events are good and play well in the press as will its campaign on the hazards of drinking and driving. These good deeds can help people, save lives and also go a long way toward changing public opinion about riders in general. So tell me, please tell me, why does the July Update have an article on the hazards of drinking and driving on one page, and on the facing page show pictures of MMA members with beer in their hands? The MMA has to step back and look at itself and assess what it's doing. It has to change its priorities. Whether some of its members like it or not, the MMA has to move into the mainstream. The "Crusade" may have to wait. Repeal of helmet laws may or may not come, but if it does, it will be because the MMA or some other Massachusetts rider group has done a good job getting support from the public and politicians for other more pressing rider issues and programs first. With a more balanced approach, the MMA may find more members and members more willing to lend it a hand. I certainly would. |
Oh Boy! Where do I start?
I feel compelled to respond to letters from Ralph Hamel and Ray Saquet which were printed in last month's MMA Update. Ralph Hamel complains that the MMA is so preoccupied with the helmet law that we end up without the resources to address important motorcycling issues like training, insurance, safety, funding and especially the state's motorcycle inspection fiasco. Where as Ray Saquet feels that the new inspection regulations are part of a good safety program so we should lay to rest our concerns about flaws in the program and get back to the basics, such as; Helmet Laws! If you were on the board of directors, how would you respond to these two members? You are all members of the MMA. How do you feel about the points made by these two members?
Personally, I want to thank both of these guys for taking the time to write down how they feel about current motorcycling issues. It's input like this that helps the board of directors decide where to invest our precious time and energy. We try hard to represent the interests of all riders with all of their varied opinions, but of course no one can satisfy all of the people all of the time. Trust me when I tell you that the members of the board are not always in total agreement on what is important. Just like the general membership, we have differing priorities. I think that the variety of opinions among the board members helps us to represent the variety of opinions reflected by our membership. Now, if we can all respect each other's opinions and work together for the improvement of motorcycling, we would have one hell of an organization.
Now, to respond to a few points in Ray's letter... In your letter you mention a statistic that 30% of accidents were caused by faulty equipment. I'm sorry, but I don't believe that's true. I've been reading about motorcycle accidents for years from about every source of information available and I have never seen defective equipment mentioned anywhere as a cause of motorcycle accidents. I suspect that you (or someone) misunderstood the actual data. There are a couple of similar statistics that fall in the range of 30% that could easily be confused. For instance, about 30% of motorcycles that receive a proper inspection fail because of defective equipment. Also, about 30% of motorcycles involved in accidents in MA have not been inspected (i.e. they don't have a current inspection sticker). Which can result in the rider being cited for defective equipment even though that had nothing to do with the accident. Causes of motorcycle accidents are generally attributed to intoxication, lack of rider skill, being run into by another motorist or just plain excessive speed. The frequency of accidents caused by defective equipment is so low they get counted in the "all other causes" category.
In your letter you say you have never seen any rules banning controls alterations to suit the rider, handicapped or otherwise. Well, I'm looking at 540 CMR 4.06(3)(b)11, and 4.06(18)a which reject any motorcycle that has any portion of the brake (or clutch) lever missing. Now if I had relocated my controls for whatever reason, the hand levers would very likely be missing.
When I went looking for a replacement for my dead horn, I also wanted a nice loud one. I selected the loudest set available (133 db) from a mail order catalog and fabricated a bracket to mount them on my bike. Unfortunately though, you and I may both fail an inspection since 540 CMR 4.06(6) prohibits motorcycle horns from being unreasonably loud or harsh.
The problem with regulations that require items be "as good as" original manufacturers equipment is that inspectors will have no recourse but to reject anything nonstock. Since they won't have the original piece of equipment to compare it to, how can they possibly determine whether it's better or worse?
Last, but certainly not least, there's the scheduling problem. Most motorcyclists get their bikes out for the season in April. Consequently, most motorcycle shops are busiest in April and May. The new regulations require all motorcycles be inspected by April 30th. That means about 70,000 motorcycles will be descending upon the roughly 140 inspection stations probably during the 5 Saturday mornings in April. If an inspector can inspect a motorcycle in about 10 minutes (as I'm told) and assuming each station has one inspector, each of those inspectors will have to work 20 hours each Saturday in April to get them all done. Sounds like a long day to me. I rather suspect there are going to be a lot of angry bikers trying to figure how to comply with this new law next spring when they can't find a station that has the time to give them an inspection.
Of course the new regulations are designed to improve safety for motorcyclists. But, I think most would agree that they could stand a little improvement. So, the MMA, the MMBA and representatives from various organizations with motorcycling interests have formed a committee to draft a set of recommendations for changes to the Registry's regulations and if necessary to the state's laws to correct some of these problems. I hope that committee can come up with some good solutions. In the end, there will still be disgruntled people no matter how hard that committee tries to resolve the differences between the parties.
About four years ago, I first heard about the Registry's plans to draft new motorcycle inspection regulations. Most of what they were planning at that time sounded okay to me. But, there were a few concerns I had like those mentioned above. So I accepted their invitation to write to the guy drafting the proposed changes. I think his name was Peter Dominica or something like that. He never answered my letter. I followed up with a few calls to the Registry. They never answered my calls. The state's laws give the Registry the authority to establish inspection regulations and it became obvious to me that they planned on exercising that authority and didn't really want any advice from others. So, what was anybody, MMA board member or otherwise, to do?
The MMA is an all volunteer organization. We do what we can, when we can. My wife and I spend a fair amount of time each month putting together the best newsletter we're able to. Our policy for the newsletter is to publish submissions from the membership first. We encourage all members to submit whatever they want to see published. If an MMA member submits photos of an event where participants are drinking beer, then I feel obligated to put them in the newsletter. If I were to start censoring the submissions, how could I justify calling the MMA a rights organization? Maybe it was unfortunate that they ended up on the page facing the article on drinking and riding. I hope you don't think it was intentional. We have a tough rime already making sure that competing advertisers don't end up on facing pages and maybe having those photos there helps to emphasize the article's point that drinking and riding is a growing problem.
The helmet law tends to be an emotional issue for many and it's these strong feelings that motivate them to get involved. If you're more concerned with other topics Ralph, then pick one and come to a meeting to see how you can improve motorcycling in that area. If it's training, then Lou Petrucci would love to have some help with the training programs. If it's insurance, then come talk to John Galvin to see how he got the teamsters to reverse their discriminatory insurance policies. If it's safety, then come see how Kate Waters worked with the Governors Highway Safety Bureau to develop the drinking and riding program. If it's funding, then come talk to Denise Foley about helping out with our fund-raising plans. And, if it's charity events, then we're going to be forming next year's Lacey Packer Memorial Toy Run committee very soon. To accuse the MMA of being a one issue only organization is just a little unfair. You seem to be a reasonable and thoughtful person, Ralph. Come join the rest of us and help us provide the more balanced approach you suggest in your letter.
Sincerely,
Andy "Android" Warren
District I Rep. and Newsletter Editor