Archive for “Uncategorized” Category

The Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists and Tom McGrath’s Motorcycle Law group would like to invite all interested motorcyclists to attend this year’s Motorcycle Lobby Day.  This year it will be held on Monday January 20, 2014.  This is a holiday, so many people are off.  That morning, Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists lobbyists, as well as members of other state motorcycle rights organizations, independent motorcyclists and any other interested people will go to the Virginia General Assembly to speak to the Delegates and Senators about upcoming legislation that affects motorcyclists in Virginia. 

On Sunday January 19, from 12:00 p.m. until we get through, Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists lobbyists will lead an informational meeting at the Four Points by Sheraton at 4700 South Laburnum Avenue, Richmond, VA 23231 to discuss this year’s legislation affecting motorcyclists. We will also discuss how to talk to your legislators about these issues in case you have never done that.  Later that evening, attendees will enjoy a free homemade BBQ dinner.

On Monday the 20th, we leave the hotel at 8:00 a.m. sharp for our annual trip to the Capitol. After lobbying our legislators, we will head to Penny Lane Pub where Tom McGrath’s Motorcycle Law Group takes everyone to lunch as a thank you for coming to support Virginia Motorcyclists. 

This year we are expecting numerous bills of interest to Virginia motorcyclists.  We already know that there will be a bill to modify the definition of a motorcycle, and to create a new classification of motor vehicles called autocycles.   In recent years we have seen numerous three wheeled vehicles on the market which are, for all purposes, three wheeled cars.  They are controlled by a steering wheel as well as a foot controlled brake and throttle.  Yet under current Virginia law these vehicles are motorcycles.  There is legislation to make these vehicles autocycles and to further clarify the definition of a motorcycle. 

We are also still looking at a bill to increase the penalty for drivers who kill others as a result of violating their right of way.  Under current law the offender is usually convicted of failure to yield the right of way, which carries only a fine.  We are looking at legislation that would give the court the ability to impose larger fines, suspend the offender’s license, and/or impose jail if the facts and circumstances justified such action.  Under current law, the court usually does not have that option.    We had been unable to seriously speak with potential patrons until the elections concluded.  We are currently speaking with legislators about carrying this bill for us.  I will keep you informed as talks progress.

As always, there will be numerous bills submitted at the last minute which will negatively affect motorcycling.  As these bills are filed, we will be able to identify them and discuss them at lobby day so that we can convince the legislators why they are bad bills.  Those who have participated in Lobby Day in the past remember bills that we have killed such as the one that would have required proof of insurance before one person could sell another person a motorcycle, even if the person buying the motorcycle had no intention of putting the bike on the road.  We killed that one with the help of all of those who participated at Lobby Day.  A few years ago we also defeated a bill that would have prohibited children under eight from riding on a motorcycle as a passenger by pointing out that the law improperly infringed on the rights and responsibilities of parents.  Those at Lobby Day also pointed out the fact that in the prior ten years not a single child under eight was killed on a motorcycle.

I encourage everyone who can to join us.  It is a lot of fun, it is educational, and most importantly it shows the legislators that motorcyclists are a significant and active portion of the electorate. 

For more information you can call VCOM at (804) 353-3971. For Room Reservations, call (804) 226-4300.  As the hotel accommodations were just secured, room blocks may not be available until after December 15.  We hope to see you at lobby day.

The Virginia Motorcycle Legislative roundtable for 2013 was held yesterday in Richmond.  We had a great turn out from motorcyclists of varying age and experience.  Participants included members of ABATE of Virginia, the Virginia Biker’s Association, the U.S. Military Vets MC, American Legion Riders, Harley Owners Group, and Rider coaches with the Virginia Rider Training Program.  We also had independent riders who took advantage of the weather to ride in on an array of motorcycles from cruisers to sport bikes.

The group agreed that pursuing legislation to classify three wheeled automobiles as something other than a motorcycle was a priority.  We are seeing an increase in three wheeled automobiles.  The fact that they have less than four wheels is the only thing that they have in common with motorcycles.  Other than that, the operator sits in a seat rather than straddling one.  The operator controls the vehicle with a steering wheel and not a handlebar.  The throttle is controlled by a foot peddle rather than by hand.  These vehicles are automobiles yet are currently classified as motorcycles.  Some are currently being manufactured in Virginia.  The concern is that as more of these vehicles are operated on the roadways, the more they will be included in crash data, thus negatively impacting motorcycle accident statistics.  The Virginia DMV has worked hard over the past few years to improve its ability to collect accurate data.  When we have accurate data, we can better identify real issues that need to be addressed to improve motorcycle safety.  Including these vehicles in motorcycle crash data defeats that effort.

The group also agreed that we will wait until after the upcoming election to determine additional legislative initiatives.  Races from the Governor’s Mansion on down will impact our strategy.  The group identified two things to look at in November.  One is increased penalties for individuals who violate traffic laws, and as a result cause the death of another.  The idea is to make such an offense reckless driving.  This would allow the judge to impose jail and/or suspend someone’s driver’s license if the court found that to be appropriate.  Under current law a person is usually charged with a traffic infraction which carries a simple fine.

The other issue important to a majority of the group was amending Virginia’s motorcycle helmet law to allow adults age twenty-one and older to choose whether or not to wear a helmet.  This would bring Virginia in line with a majority of the United States.  Thirty-one states currently allow adult riders to make such a choice.

I want to thank the participants of the roundtable for giving up a beautiful riding day to come to Richmond to discuss issues important to Virginia motorcyclists.  Our next meeting will be in preparation for our lobby day.  On Sunday January 19, from 12:00 p.m. until we get through, Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists lobbyists will lead an informational meeting to discuss the year’s legislation affecting motorcyclists. We will also discuss how to talk to your legislators about these issues in case you have never done that.  Later that evening, attendees will enjoy a free homemade BBQ dinner.   On Monday January 20th, we will take our annual trip to the Capitol. After lobbying our legislators, we will go to Penny Lane Pub for lunch as a thank you for coming to support Virginia Motorcyclists.  I hope all can make it.

As we receive more information on issues that affect motorcycling in Virginia I will pass it along.  As usual, if anyone has any questions or comments concerning this material please do not hesitate to contact VCOM.

This year’s Virginia Motorcycle Legislative Roundtable will be held on Sunday, September 8, 2013 at the Richmond Marriott which is located at 500 East Broad St., Richmond, VA 23219.  This is where it has been held for the past few years.

The Legislative Roundtable is where Virginia Motorcyclists gather to discuss issues of importance to the motorcycling community, and to have input on the 2014 legislative agenda to be presented to the Virginia General Assembly by the Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists.

The Roundtable will start at 12:00 P.M. and usually lasts three to four hours.  If you can make it we would welcome your voice in deciding the issues that need to be addressed in 2014.  In past years the Roundtable was the starting point for legislation such as Virginia’s red light bill, our prohibition against motorcycle only checkpoints, the modification of the Virginia Code to allow two two-wheeled motorcycles to travel abreast in a single lane, and legislation improving Virginia’s Rider Education Program.

If you are interested in attending we would welcome you around the table.  If you are unable to attend but want to express your ideas, or if you have any questions concerning this year’s Virginia Motorcycle Legislative Roundtable, please do not hesitate to contact VCOM.

On a final note, Tom McGrath’s Motorcycle Law Group is accepting nominations for this year’s Tom McGrath’s Leading Wheel Award.  If you know of an individual who has made an outstanding effort to improve motorcycling or motorcycle safety, please send me their information and a description of their achievements.  Nominees can be someone who has made a significant achievement to improve motorcycling, or someone who’s body of work over time has significantly benefited motorcycling or motorcycle safety.  Remember that members of the Motorcycle Law Group are not eligible to receive the award.

As always, if you have any questions or comments concerning anything that I have written please do not hesitate to contact VCOM.

A very good and important friend needs our help.  As most of you know, Delegate Scott Lingamfelter is a strong supporter of Virginia Motorcyclists.  Delegate Lingamfelter is participating in the Dale City Fourth of July Parade.  The parade is held on July 4 from 9:00 a.m. to about 1:00 p.m.  He has asked for as many motorcycles as possible to ride in the parade.  In his words, “I want to look like Rolling Thunder”.  We have done this in the past and it is a lot of fun.  This is an opportunity to show support to an important and loyal friend.

Parade Details:

Meet at around 9:15AM at Beville Middle School to line up.  Beville Middle School is located at 4901 Dale Blvd, Woodbridge, VA.  The Parade will start out at 10:00 a.m.  If anything changes I will let you know.

Those who are traveling from or through the Richmond area are free to ride up with Rob Griffin.  He will be leaving the parking lot or the Cracker Barrel in Ashland Virginia at 8:00 a.m.  It is located at 106 South Carter Road, Ashland, VA 23005-2233

The Motorcycle Law Group has created an award will be given every year to someone who has made outstanding contributions to motorcyclists.  It can be a single great contribution or someone whose body of work over the years in and of itself is an outstanding contribution to motorcycling.

Each year the firm will ask for nominations from motorcyclists.  The only rule is that the recipient may not be a member of our law firm.  However we made an exception for the first year.  This year’s Tom McGrath Leading Wheel Award (Tom had no idea there was going to be such an award) went to the award’s namesake for his outstanding service to motorcyclists over the past twenty years.

Congratulations Tom!

Our bill has a house number. It is HB 2010. It is a very simple bill. It simply allows those 21 and older to choose whether or not to wear a helmet. You can read the bill at the following link: http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?131+ful+HB2010.

Now is a good time to get the emails rolling in the House. Normally I do not include a suggested email but this year it will be very important for us to stay on our talking points. We have refused to get sucked into an overall safety debate because that argument will lose with many non-riders regardless of the facts. I have attached an email that hits the points that we have hammered all summer and fall. I would highly encourage you to use it or a variation that makes these points. I have also pasted the email at the end of this message. What we don’t want is arguments that it is safer to ride without a helmet or that helmets can kill you. I am sure that many can make credible arguments but the minute you do your reader will simply hit delete.

Below is the contact information for every member of the House of Delegates. I would encourage you to email each of them. Remember to include your address in your email since an email from a constituent means more. Likewise I get the cold shoulder from the legislative assistants if you don’t because they have to look up each person to see if they are in their district. Please make my life easier. Here is the list of the House members. The sample email is attached and also copied below my signature line. Thanks for all that each of you do for Virginia motorcyclists.

Delegate Albo                         DelDAlbo@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Anderson               DelRAnderson@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Bacote                      DelMBaCote@house.virginia.gov

Delegate D. Bell                     DelDBell@house.virginia.gov

Delegate R. Bell                      DelRBell@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Brink                        DelRBrink@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Bulova                     DelDBulova@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Byron                       DelKByron@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Carr                          DelBCarr@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Cline                        DelBCline@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Cole                          DelMCole@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Comstock                DelBComstock@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Cosgrove                 DelJCosgrove@house.virginia.gov

Delegate J. Cox                      DelJCox@house.virginia.gov

Delegate K. Cox                      DelKCox@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Crockett-Stark       DelACrockett-Stark@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Dance                       DelRDance@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Dudenhefer              DelMDudenhefer@House.virginia.gov

Delegate Edmunds                 DelJEdmunds@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Farris                        DelMFariss@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Farrell                       DelPFarrell@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Filler-Corn               DelEFiller-Corn@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Garrett                     DelSGarrett@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Gilbert                      DelTGilbert@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Greason                    DelTGreason@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Habeeb                     DelGHabeeb@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Head                        DelCHead@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Helsel                       DelGHelsel@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Herring                     DelCHerring@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Hester                      DelDHester@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Hodges                    DelKHodges@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Hope                         DelPHope@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Howell                     DelAHowell@house.virginia.gov

Speaker Howell                       Delwhowell@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Hugo                        DelTHugo@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Iaquinto                   DelSIaquinto@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Ingram                     DelRIngram@house.virginia.gov

Delegate James                       DelMJames@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Joannou              No Email (804)-698-1079

Delegate Johnson                   DelJJohnson@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Jones                        DelCJones@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Keam                         DelMKeam@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Kilgore                     DelTKilgore@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Knight                      DelBKnight@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Kory                          DelKKory@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Krupicka                  DelRKrupicka@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Landes                     DelSLandes@house.virginia.gov

Delegate LeMunyon               DelJLeMunyon@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Lewis                       DelLLewis@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Lingamfelter          DelSLingamfelter@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Lopez                       DelALopez@House.virginia.gov

Delegate Loupassi                 DelMLoupassi@house.virginia.gov

Delegate D. Marshall           DelDMarshall@house.virginia.gov

Delegate B. Marshall              DelBMarshall@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Massie                      DelJMassie@house.virginia.gov

Delegate May                          DelJMay@house.virginia.gov

Delegate McClellan                DelJMcClellan@house.virginia.gov

Delegate McQuinn                  DelDMcQuinn@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Merricks                   DelDMerricks@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Miller                       DelJMiller@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Minchew                  DelRMinchew@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Morefield                 DelJMorefield@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Morris                      DelRMorris@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Morrissey                 DelJMorrissey@house.virginia.gov

Delegate O’Bannon                DelJOBannon@house.virginia.gov

Delegate O’Quinn                   delioquinn@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Orrock                      DelBOrrock@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Peace                        DelCPeace@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Plum                         DelKPlum@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Pogge                       DelBPogge@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Poindexter               DelCPoindexter@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Purkey                      DelBPurkey@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Putney                      DelLPutney@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Ramadan                  DelDRamadan@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Ransone                   DelMRansone@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Robinson                  DelRRobinson@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Rush                         DelNRush@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Rust                         DelTRust@house.virginia.gov

Delegate E. Scott                    DelEScott@house.virginia.gov

Delegate J. Scott                     DelJScott@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Sherwood                DelBSherwood@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Sickles                      DelMSickles@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Spruill                      DelLSpruill@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Stolle                        DelCStolle@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Surovell                    DelSSurovell@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Tata                          DelBTata@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Torian                       DelLTorian@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Toscano                    DelDToscano@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Tyler                         DelRTyler@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Villanueva                DelRVillanueva@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Ward                        DelJWard@house.virginia.gov

Delegate O. Ware                   DelOWare@house.virginia.gov

Delegate L. Ware                    DelLWare@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Watson                     DelMWatson@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Watts                       DelVWatts@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Webert                     DelMWebert@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Wilt                          DelTWilt@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Wright                      DelTWright@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Yancey                     DelDYancey@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Yost                         DelJYost@House.virginia.gov

— SUGGESTED SAMPLE EMAIL —

I am writing to ask you to support HB 2010.  This bill was introduced by Delegate Ben Cline and amends Virginia’s helmet law to allow adults age 21 and older to choose whether or not to wear a helmet.  Currently, 31 states allow adults to make that choice.  While you will no doubt hear many in opposition to this bill cite conclusions with no factual basis, I would ask you to consider the following facts concerning this bill.

1)      States that allow adults to choose whether to wear a motorcycle helmet do not see higher motor vehicle insurance rates.  Conversely, states that have mandatory motorcycle helmet laws do not experience lower motor vehicle insurance rates.  Insure.com studied motor vehicle insurance rates.  Of the top five most expensive states for motor vehicle insurance in 2012, four had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws.  Of the five least expensive states for motor vehicle insurance, only one had a mandatory motorcycle helmet law. To take it even further, only two of the ten cheapest states for motor vehicle insurance have mandatory helmet laws. The other eight states allow adults to choose for themselves or, as in the case of Iowa, simply have no law at all. (http://www.insure.com/car-insurance/car-insurance-rates.html)

2)      States that allow adults to choose whether to wear a motorcycle helmet do not experience increased health care related costs.  There is simply no proof of this.  In fact, in 2010, the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted a study of daily inpatient hospital expenses by state.  Of the twelve most expensive states for daily inpatient hospital expenses, seven had mandatory helmet laws.  Of the twelve least expensive for daily inpatient hospital expenses, only four had mandatory helmet laws.  The other eight states allow adults to choose for themselves. (http://statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=273&cat=5)

3)      States that have repealed their mandatory helmet laws have seen increased revenues in motorcycle sales, registrations and tourism.  Being that Virginia is surrounded by several large jurisdictions with mandatory helmet laws (North Carolina, West Virginia, Tennessee and Maryland) The Commonwealth would likely see increased tourism from riders in those states much in the same way that many riders in Virginia currently go to Kentucky, Pennsylvania and South Carolina due to the fact that they allow adults to make their own choice with regard to the issue of helmets.

4)      States that allow adults to make their own choice do not see higher motorcycle fatality rates.  According to data from both the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration, between 2008 & 2010, 20 states and the District of Columbia (roughly 40% of U.S. jurisdictions) accounted for 40% of total motorcycle registrations and 42 % of total motorcycle fatalities nationwide even though they had mandatory motorcycle helmet laws.  The other 30 states (60% of U.S. jurisdictions) which allowed adult riders to choose whether to wear a helmet accounted for 60% of total motorcycle registrations and 58% of motorcycle fatalities. (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/USA%20WEB%20REPORT.HTM &  http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1098.pdf)

5)      Of the 14,283 motorcycle fatalities which occurred nationwide between 2008 and 2010, 8,226, or 57.6%, were wearing helmets when they were killed even though 60% of jurisdictions allowed adults to make their own choice. (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/STSI/USA%20WEB%20REPORT.HTM)

I therefore respectfully ask that you support HB 2010. This issue is a matter of choice and personal freedom. If one has a governmental philosophy that individuals should make their own decisions absent a compelling governmental interest, then one would strongly support HB 2010.

It is that time of the year.  The Virginia General Assembly will convene next week.  This year is a short session.  It is 45 days long.  We have our first piece of legislation which impacts motorcycling in Virginia, and the training program in particular.  It is HB 1476 introduced by Delegate Ed Scott of Culpepper Virginia. DelEScott@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Scott is usually very friendly to motorcyclists but we do have a disagreement about this particular piece of legislation.  It has been introduced at the request of Harley Davidson and amends Virginia Code to relax the rules on the type of motorcycles which may be used in the Virginia Rider Training Program.  I can better explain this bill with a short history.

Nine years ago the Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclist actively worked a bill to allow for the training program to be taught at private sites.  The idea was to have more sites and therefore make training available to more people.  It is our belief that training and education is the bedrock foundation of motorcycle safety.  Part of this legislation defined the types of motorcycles which may be used in the program.  The current code requires that the motorcycles must meet the following three criteria: (i) an engine displacement of no more than 500 cubic centimeters, (ii) a weight of less than 400 pounds, and (iii) is equipped with a seat whose height will accommodate each novice rider course participant.

This year it was noticed that there was a grammatical error in the statute that provided that the site must have only one such bike.  We currently have a bill to fix that issue requiring one compliant bike per student.  We were then contacted by Harley Davidson.   They want to amend the code to require that the seat height must be 30 inches or less, and further require that the motorcycles need only meet two out of the three criteria.  Their explanation was that this was the MRF requirement followed by almost every other state.  The other explanation was that they have a training bike coming out in 2014 that does not meet Virginia’s current criteria.  When asked what it was about the new bike that does not meet Virginia’s current criteria they refused to tell us citing proprietary information.  We certainly found it difficult to work with Harley on this matter by agreeing to a change in Virginia code to accommodate a motorcycle about which we know nothing.

In an attempt to work with Harley we contacted numerous states which do in fact have the standard suggested by Harley.  We learned from various states that the standard was put into place nearly ten years ago with input from Harley Davidson in order to accommodate the Buell Blast as a training bike.  However, the majority of those states that use those criteria also have the administrative power to reject a motorcycle as being inappropriate for their rider training program even if it meets the MRF criteria.  Our program has no such power.

It is VCOM’s position that HB1476 should not be passed, but instead should be referred to the committee on unconventional motor vehicles.  (I know that motorcycles are not an unconventional motor vehicle but we did not invent nor name the committee).  This is a committee made of training program staff, VCOM, dealers, DMV and State Police.  Together we should be able to craft sensible criteria that protects the integrity of the training program and gives it more power to determine the types of motorcycles which are appropriate to safely train students.  As I stated before, it is VCOM’s position that crash avoidance is the key to motorcycle safety.  That begins and ends with sound, appropriate and safe training.

As this piece of legislation moves ahead and is assigned to a committee I will send updates to keep you abreast of its progress.

Additionally, remember that Lobby Day is Monday January 21. Full details can be found here.

The Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists and Tom McGrath’s Motorcycle Law group would like to invite all interested motorcyclists to attend this year’s Motorcycle Lobby Day. This year it will be held on Monday January 21, 2013. This is a holiday so many people are off. That morning Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists lobbyists, as well as members of other state motorcycle rights organizations, independent motorcyclists and any other interested people will go to the Virginia General assembly to discuss upcoming legislation that effects motorcyclists in Virginia with their Delegates and Senators.
On Sunday January 20, from 1:00 pm until we get through, Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists lobbyists will lead an informational meeting at the
Wyndham Richmond Hotel
4700 S Laburnum Ave,
Henrico, Virginia 23231
to discuss this year’s legislation effecting motorcyclists. We will also discuss how to talk to your legislators about these issues in case you have never done that. Later that evening attendees will enjoy a free homemade BBQ dinner made by Stewart Newton and provided by several Virginia motorcycle rights organizations including ABATE of Virginia and the Virginia Bikers Association.

On Monday the 21st we leave the Wyndham at 8:00 am sharp for our annual trip to the Capitol. After lobbying our legislators, we will attend the opening of the House of Delegates daily session and be recognized from the floor. Afterwards, Tom McGrath’s Motorcycle Law Group takes everyone to Penny Lane Pub for lunch as a thank you for coming to support Virginia Motorcyclists.

I encourage everyone who can to join us. It is a lot of fun, it is educational, and most importantly it shows the legislators that motorcyclists are a significant and active section of the electorate.

For more information you can call VCOM at (804) 353-3971. For Room Reservations call (804) 226-4300 and ask for the VCOM rate.

For the past several years, motorcyclists across the country have been hearing about motorcycle only checkpoints. Let me now go on record as being vehemently opposed to such checkpoints as I believe that they serve no purpose. Motorcycle only checkpoints are checkpoints where only motorcycles are stopped in order to check for operating licenses, safety equipment, etc. In New York, motorcyclists have challenged the legality of such checkpoints due to the method in which they are being conducted (we will come back to New York later in this article). Georgia has announced that they will begin conducting motorcycle only checkpoints in March to coincide with Daytona Bike week.

For the past year and a half I have been traveling throughout various states speaking about “Your Rights During a Traffic Stop.” The issue of motorcycle only checkpoints always comes up. Are these legal? Isn’t it discrimination? How can we fight these? The answer to those questions in order is probably but it depends, yes but discrimination is not illegal, and vigilance. Now that I have given you the short answers let’s dig a little deeper into the Fourth Amendment and discuss how the United States Constitution addresses traffic stops and more specifically checkpoints. That will give us a better understanding of these motorcycle only checkpoints.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, among other things, prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. When you are riding down the road and all of the sudden those blue lights come on behind you, you are being seized. The officer behind you is not extending to you an invitation to stop and chat. He is commanding you to cease your movement and submit to his authority under penalty of law. That is a seizure. As such, the officer must have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before he can stop a person in that manner. In the 1979 U.S. Supreme Court Case of Delaware v. Prouse, the Supreme Court held that a random stop of a motorist in order to verify that the motorist was licensed was unconstitutional. The court concluded that “except in those situations in which there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” However, interestingly the court went on as follows:

This holding does not preclude the State of Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative.

These roadblock-type stops (checkpoints) are an exception to the reasonable suspicion requirement of the Fourth Amendment. At a checkpoint, the officers stop everyone who comes through. Each stop lacks any suspicion of criminal activity, yet under certain circumstances the United States Supreme Court has said that the lack of reasonable suspicion does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the stop is still reasonable. When the program is designed to serve special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, checkpoints have been held to be valid provided that the detention is brief and the officers conducting the checkpoint do not have discretion over whom they stop. For instance, the checkpoint plan may call for stopping every vehicle or every third vehicle but it may not allow the officers to stop only those motorists that are deemed suspicious. Checkpoints which comply with these standards have been upheld when the purpose was to intercept illegal aliens near the border due to the unique problem and interest in securing our borders. Unites States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). Sobriety checkpoints have been allowed due to the immediate hazard posed by drunk drivers and the State’s interest in getting drunk drivers off of the roads. Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990). In Delaware v. Prouse The U.S. Supreme Court suggested that such checkpoints would be appropriate to spot check for motorist’s drivers license and vehicle registration due to the State’s interest in ensuring that only those qualified to do so are permitted to operate motor vehicles and that such motor vehicles are fit for safe operation. 440 U.S. 648 (1979). However, checkpoints have never been allowed in order to detect evidence of general criminal wrongdoing. In 2000 the United States Supreme Court struck down an Indianapolis Indiana program which used checkpoints to detect narcotics violations. City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000). In that case the court pointed out that in most of the cases which allowed checkpoints, the thread of highway safety was present. They stated that there was a difference in the significance of highway safety interests and the general interest in crime control.

This brings us to the motorcycle only checkpoints. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has offered law enforcement agencies grant money in order to set up checkpoints aimed solely at motorcyclists. NHTSA argues that such checkpoints are needed due to the problem of motorcycle fatalities and injuries. When I first started receiving calls about these checkpoints the argument I heard most often was that the checkpoints were a form of discrimination. They unfairly discriminated against motorcyclists. That may be true but discrimination is not illegal. WHAT?!? Danielson has lost his mind you say. No I have not. Discrimination is generally not illegal unless it is aimed at certain protected classes. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has never meant that all people must be treated the same. That is a myth that we as a society have come to believe. Justice Kennedy pointed this out in the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans. He stated as follows:

Yet, from the very beginning the meaning of “equal protection” has at times been confusing, perhaps because the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment left us no explanation of exactly what they meant. On the other hand, the phrase could be read to mean that any law, no matter what common sense suggests, will be applied rigidly to all people. Such an extreme notion that laws cannot in any way, shape or manner discriminate among individuals or groups, can become silly. Passing a vision test as a requirement for securing a driver’s license clearly discriminates against people who are blind or have sight impediments, yet this is an appropriate form of distinction.

The bottom line is that when it comes to discrimination, it is illegal to discriminate against a protected class. The government cannot discriminate based upon race, religion, etc. It is not illegal to discriminate due to the clothes a person is wearing or the vehicle that he or she operates. In short, motorcyclists are not a protected class for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause. (This is where I stress that you can hate the message but don’t hate the messenger).

So then how do we fight these checkpoints? I think we look to what New York has done. The New York State Police instituted a checkpoint system. It was done in the name of highway safety. However when the motorcycles were pulled over they were checked for more than licenses. They had members of the gang and auto theft units searching VIN numbers in order to detect stolen motorcycles. Some motorcyclists were detained for up to 45 minutes. In the end, the majority of tickets written were for equipment violations such as illegal exhausts and the so called non-approved helmet. A law suit has been filed challenging these stops and I believe that it will be successful. Not because the checkpoints are discriminatory but because they do not confirm to the ridged guidelines set out by the United States Supreme Court.

First and foremost, looking for stolen motorcycles is clearly not related to highway safety. That falls under the general interest in crime control. The same can be said for exhaust tickets. I am unaware of any exhaust system that caused an accident or injury. You cannot claim that checking motorcycle exhausts is a matter of highway safety. I would make the same argument for the helmet citations. No helmet has ever caused an accident. Additionally, for many reasons it is impossible to determine the safety of a helmet by merely visually inspecting it. One would have to conduct a test to determine how the helmet dissipates energy in a crash. Even if one could do that I would find it hard to believe that the statistics concerning people injured in crashes while wearing a so called non-approved helmet would justify this assault on the motorcyclists right to travel free of arbitrary governmental intrusion. For these reasons I believe that motorcyclists in New York will prevail. I further believe that all motorcyclists owe them a debt of gratitude for standing up for the rights of motorcyclists everywhere. We will all continue to monitor this law suit.

This brings us to Georgia and the other states who want to attempt to utilize motorcycle only checkpoints. Under past U.S. Supreme Court decisions, I do not believe that all motorcycle only checkpoints would be automatically illegal. If the detention were brief and the officers conducting the checkpoints were afforded no discretion in who they stopped then such checkpoints would be, in my opinion, legal so long as they were aimed solely at highway safety.

That last part is the Achilles heel of these programs. They are not aimed at highway safety. They are aimed at general crime control. They are aimed at equipment violations that have nothing to do with highway safety. They are aimed at curbing the problem associated with stolen motorcycles. This too has nothing to do with highway safety.

I believe that these programs are highly vulnerable to attack. If you or someone you know are involved in one of these checkpoints please contact my firm. We want to keep track of these checkpoints and challenge them whenever possible. This is not an advertisement for business as we do not charge a fee for this service. We as motorcyclists need to keep a close eye on these programs that threaten our right to travel the roads free from unwarranted governmental intrusion.

As always if you have any questions or comments concerning this article or any other matters of interest to motorcyclists, please do not hesitate to contact VCOM.

Last week The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) held meetings in DC with stakeholders in motorcycle safety. While many things were discussed there were a few items of particular interest to motorcyclists. I’m sure that by now everyone has heard about the motorcycle only checkpoints that were done in Georgia the week of Daytona Bike Week. According to attendees at the meeting it was reported that these weren’t actual traffic stops but rather rolling checkpoints. Which is to say that most people didn’t stop, only slowed down through a closed truck weigh station to be observed by officers and then stopped if the police felt they had reason to inspect more closely. Things being observed were lighting, exhaust systems, valid tags and of course “non-compliant” helmets. $70,000.00 in federal grant money was spent on these stops and normally these grants require matching state funds bringing the total to $140,000.00. All this money and manpower and to date we have not had confirmation of a single ticket being issued. We have confirmed numerous warnings but no tickets. We will keep looking.

Besides the monumental waste of money and the intrusion upon the citizens right to travel free from governmental interference, the manner in which these check points were operated raises some serious constitutional issues. As you know from the previous article that I wrote on this issue, one of the restrictions that the United States Supreme Court has placed upon checkpoints is that the officers operating the checkpoint must not have discretion as to who they stop. They must stop every vehicle or every third vehicle etc. They cannot have unfettered discretion as to who will be stopped. It appears that that particular rule was ignored in Georgia. We’ll keep you posted as we find out more about these and other similar stops around the country.

On another note, it appears that another issue being studied by NHTSA is license plate lighting and mounting. Apparently NHTSA is concerned about tags mounted on the side of bikes, tucked deep underneath luggage or surrounded by bright lights. I am not quite sure why this is an issue for NHTSA in that their focus is supposed to be highway safety. I have yet to hear of a motorcycle accident that was caused by the manner in which the license plate of the motorcycle was mounted. At the end of the day this is not a safety issue. However, automated enforcement equipment such as red-light cameras are becoming increasingly popular with state legislators. Tags mounted on the side of a bike, tucked deep underneath luggage or surrounded by bright lights can make it difficult to issue automated tickets as the cameras can have a hard time getting a good picture of the tag. Once again, this does not seem like a safety issue so I question why NHTSA is involved. We will continue to watch this issue.