Biker's Rights

Recently an email went out from the media rep for a major motorcycle manufacturer to a wide range of media personalities. This email was just a heads-up to let everyone know about the manufacturer loaning a bike to a rider. This rider was going to ride all 50 states and over 41,000 miles to represent the amount of people diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer every year.

This sounds like a good cause, right? Well, apparently to one editor that got the email it was a waste of money since only a very tiny minority of motorcyclists get Pancreatic Cancer. He also expressed that another large motorcycle manufacturer's involvement with a different charity is a waste of time, money, and resources as well. He is of the strong opinion that our motorcycle resources should only be spent on riders and the families of riders who crash, or are involved in a crash, and are left with medical bills, health issues, and sometimes death. He was unafraid to CC everyone on the list letting them know, in no uncertain terms, how he felt.

The words and tone of his "Bikers' Rights" emails are what started me down the path of this article - the basic premise of which I've felt strongly about for some time now.

First off I hate the term "Biker". What is the mental image in your head when you think about someone being a "biker"? I know that in my head it is a guy on a "loud pipes save lives" cruiser wearing jeans, engineer boots, a black t-shirt, fingerless or no gloves, and either no helmet or a "skid-lid". Obviously I'm stereotyping and generalizing here but that is what I, and I'll bet most of you, think of as a "biker".

So what "rights" does this crowd usually fight for? Well the "right" to not wear a helmet is a huge one. Another is the "right" that motorcycle training shouldn't be mandatory. The "right" to loud pipes also comes to mind. Furthermore, hidden in the subtext below all this is the desire to "stick-it to the man" and have stiffer laws for motorists who, unintentionally, hit a motorcycle rider. I'm sure there are other "rights" that they want but quite frankly I think we've seen enough to form an opinion.

First, you can't have the "right" to ride without a helmet as the base act of riding a motorcycle (or driving a car for that matter) isn't a "right" it is a privilege. This means that you can't have any "rights" when it comes to training or the pipe issue either.

A clear case where a "motorcycle rights group" clearly got their priorities all screwed-up was when Florida was looking to pass a "mandatory motorcycle training to get your motorcycle license" law. ABATE fought tooth and nail to stop the law from passing as it targeted motorcyclists. Now, while that sounds like a good thing to fight against, wouldn't their time and effort have been better spent in working WITH the lawmakers to see about getting tougher licensing requirements for ALL vehicle operators rather than working against a law that, more than likely, would save some motorcyclists' lives? Personally I wouldn't mind seeing ALL licensed vehicle operators have to take some recurrent training every X number of years as it would make our roads a safer place for everyone.

How about after a crash? Are motorcyclists being targeted by uncaring people in their 4000 pound killing machines? Should there be stiffer laws concerning the penalties levied against drivers who unintentionally hit a motorcyclist?

I have been riding for over 19 years and put about 12,000 miles a year on a variety of motorcycles. In all that time I can honestly say that I have run across only a few (less than a handful really) truly spiteful drivers that I felt really didn't care whether I lived or died. Having been involved in a car-on-bike accident, luckily a minor one, and seeing the fear and concern on that driver's face as they realized what they just did completely cured me of any anger towards that person I was feeling. Was I still angry at the situation? Yes. Would I have felt differently had I been laying there crippled? Most certainly. I understand the anger that motorcyclists, or their families, have when they are hit by an inattentive motorist but that does not mean that I want, or anyone should want, stiffer laws against drivers who hit a motorcycle compared to hitting another car or truck (does the bumper sticker "Kill a Biker, Go to Jail" ring a bell?).

What we should want, what we should strive for, is equal treatment under the same laws that govern all vehicle operators; if the circumstances of the crash warrant jail time under the law, then that is what should happen. If the circumstances of the crash don't mandate jail time under the law then we shouldn't want that to be the sentence handed-down merely because one of the vehicles involved was a motorcycle.

The best way to go about this is to bring attention to the disparities in the execution of the law in cases where a motorcyclist was hit and the system, for one reason or another, blew off the case; either by handing down a fine/sentence that was far below what case history would call for or by a failure to work the accident in a proper manner thereby contaminating (or not collecting/providing) evidence that would have been admissible.

Collecting hard evidence and being able to present that in a logical, rational way is how we as motorcyclists should be addressing the concerns of "rights". Are we doing that? In most cases we are not. Instead we let those that feel yelling, screaming, insulting and bullying are the preferred methods of getting things done do the speaking for us.

So what about an accusation the other editor made of manufactures using our finite motorcycle resources to promote and funnel money to charities that are, or become, our political enemies (his words not mine)? Should manufacturers instead funnel money and resources into riders and families of riders who have crashed? What obligations, beyond the "jar on the bar", do we as motorcyclists have to those of us who have been injured or killed in an accident?

First thing to understand is that there will never be a telethon or huge celebrity-driven charity drive for a motorcyclist that is killed or disabled in a crash. Why? Simple; they chose to ride. We as motorcyclists choose to put ourselves in harm's way for no other reason than because we enjoy it. We subject our families to the higher risk that they will be left without a husband, wife, mother, or father every time we throw a leg over our 2-wheeled obsession.

No one chooses to have cancer. No one chooses to have MS, Parkinson's, or any other debilitating disease. My father-in-law, before he passed away from emphysema, told my wife that there wasn't a lot of interest in finding a cure for emphysema because unlike lung cancer the only people who get it are smokers. They bring it on themselves. They chose to smoke and emphysema is the direct result of that choice. We choose to ride motorcycles and being killed or disabled can be a direct result of that choice.

The issue is compounded when we choose to ride without wearing all our safety gear merely because we don't want to. "Bikers" make a huge ruckus about how so-and-so's family has been left without a parent/son/etc.. because some evil-doer in a cage struck them down in the prime of their life. These are often the same people that refuse to practice their riding skills, drink alcohol while riding, and can't be bothered to wear any of the gear that MIGHT save their life in case of a crash and yet they are the ones that scream the loudest for someone else to take responsibility for the consequences.

So, if we don't want the screamers and yellers representing motorcyclists as a whole what do we do? How much of our time should be spent tilting at windmills and "fighting the man" compared to using that energy to improve our own riding skills?

It's time for motorcyclists to shed the "us against them" mentality and instead embrace a spirit of diplomacy. I believe most lawmakers would respect us and our views if we'd stop acting like a bunch of spoiled children and learn to play well with others. We are a very small minority who, unfortunately, scream very loudly bringing the wrong type of attention to ourselves.

The days of the outlaw biker should be over. If we are to be taken seriously by non-motorcyclists then we are going to have to take ourselves seriously first. This means that while we expect the law to stand-up and protect us when we need it, we also take the steps necessary to protect ourselves BEFORE we need it.

Wearing the proper gear, practicing our riding skills, choosing NOT to drink and ride, and working within our communities to help not just other riders but everyone; THOSE are our "rights" as motorcyclists.

Have you exercised your "rights" lately?