And the question I have is when a builder takes down all the trees and other stuff to make a mall or houses aren't they creating erosion and other land issues ? Ohh wait a minute they have to build the houses and malls for the people who don't want anything on the planet destroyed. Ohhh I forgot that's double standard isn't it ?
Update: We have not gained any ground in this matter and I'm not sure what ground we may gain if any. What is really pissing me off is why the AMA is not sinking it's teeth into this. They seem to be all in for other parts of the US, but the East Coast is not in their agenda. I am really going to make it a priority on my part to contact them and get on their case to help us out. If they can't get into the game then why belong ?
Good luck and I hear ya on ruining the dirt ... It's really comical, unintelligent, and ridiculous but the courts go with it ...
I thought that this law died? Is it still up for debate? IMO, the current trail use for enduros situation in NJ is as big (or bigger) deal than this. I (and many others) have written letters, signed petitions, and made phone calls, and yet we can't ride on a few miles of existing singletrack in thousands of acres for special events. It's absolutely insane.
The AMA isnt going to do anything, they are more worried about getting Hardly Ablesons legal for HOV lanes.
The AMA doesn't give a hoot about off road access. Look at what percentage of their funding is a direct advocate for Harley Davidson and HD's market, and you will see where you fit in. In the past 90 days, I have received 30+ emails on E-15 and 25+ on helmet laws. I don't give a hoot about E-15 and am a strong advocate for mandatory helmet usage. The AMA is all about turning screws where they can to extract the maximum amount possible. They just successfully lobied the USFS to no longer accept non-AMA insurance for competition events on USFS land. It remains a call if the Supervisor - but all three USFS here (MO and AR) now mandate only AMA insurance which means memberships for all participants. My only consolation is that the roadside assistance is fantastic. I convince myself that the fee I pay goes to nothing more than that benefit. On the main topic, if this hasnt died yet, there is no way this will pass the first legal challenge. There is no way the state can pick and choose which state funded roads you have access to. You need a distinguished vet with a BMW GS as his only form of transportation being denied entry to state parks. See how that publicity goes over for the state!
You guys can talk anti-AMA all you want, but the AMA provides insurance to EVERY offroad event that I ride (and it's a lot of them), as well as providing support for many national race series. Without them, I wouldn't be able to ride/race nearly to the extent that I do (and for a very small annual fee). I believe that they are over-doing this E15 thing because they over-committed to stopping it. I don't like E15 either, but I'm also not super upset about the whole situation, and I think it is a bad use of resources. I strongly disagree with mandatory helmet use. I don't want them spending a ton on money on that cause (in lieu of other causes, like offroad access), but I have trouble getting upset about it. If the public can tell us (as motorcyclists) what gear we need to wear to stay safe, why can't they also tell us what and where we can ride to stay safe? "2-strokes, fast singletrack, and desert racing are too dangerous..." Finally, I will note that quite a few of the current issues on the AMA's website relate to off-road and OHV vehicles use, so claims that they don't care about OHV might not be well founded: http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/Rights/IssuesLegislationOld.aspx
If you think the AMA does anything more than pay lip service to off road issues you dont know the real facts.
They provide insurance because they use their lobby monopoly to mandate use if ONLY the AMA insurance... Competitive insurance is a cash cow. Competing private firms are rougly half the price for similar protection. As for helmet use...no different than seatbelt use. They save lives period. Riding is not a right (nor is driving). Following some very insignificant requirements is a benefit to our society as a whole...its a slippery slope...I mean why do we need traffic lights? Speed limits? Driver training? Testing? I would actually be OK with choice of helmets if those riding helmet less were pulled from our insurance pool. That is common sense legislation that the vast majority of motorcyclists cash live with- yet the AMA fights this tooth and nail. Let those that choose to ride sans helmet pay triple their insurance. I live in a helmet less state and rates are ridiculous.
I deleted a long and rambling post; no reason to get into a debate here. Just keep in mind that if you are prepared to legislate helmets to reduce your insurance costs, be ready to have everyone who doesn't ride legislate riding (and many other "dangerous" hobbies like skiing, climbing, small aircraft, skydiving, etc) to reduce theirs using the exact same logic.
That was a very well written letter Jersey Woods. I'm not sure who has it worse, you in Jersey or us in NY!
Those are simply not valid comparisons and are the same tired arguments that the AMA has been using for decades. Personal hobbies have nothing to do with publuc transit on our public motor ways. We as a collective public own our road system and a number of public interest agencies oversee the engineering, design, and implementation that serves the public effectively. That's why we have seatbelts, airbags, ABS, safety glass, the list goes on. These are all common sense improvements that have saved countless lives. Helmets are no different. To equate a life saving device to be mandated on a public road machine with how one equips themselves in private recreation is at best intellectual dishonesty.
Another long post deleted... I don't understand your thought that, while it's sensible to prescribe exactly what type of safety equipment must be worn, it's not sensible to consider that, to many others who do not participate in our hobby, the entire hobby itself may seem to be an insensible risk, which certainly raises costs of things such as insurance and health care? I also disagree with your distinction. You've drawn an arbitrary line in the sand, and then decided that any other place someone else might draw the line is the wrong place.
I get your point - but the line I draw is quite sensical when it comes to public roadways...heck I will go so far as public property. How you choose to ride your bike on private property is your business. There is simply no logical argument that warrants a lack of helmet use - none. Every single study on states that implemented universal helmet laws immediately saw traumatic head injury and death rates go down dramatically. Likewise when states repealed universal laws, the same statistics skyrocketed. TBI is a major drain on our healthcare system and is absolutely preventable in the vast majority of non-kinetic impacts. I chuckle seeing guys riding down the road with a stocking cap, a set of goggles all held in place by a doorag. I wish I could scream, "Hey Einstein, a helmet comes with built in eye protection, warmth and keeps your doo looking smooth." Maybe that's what gets him the ladies...who knows. We are on polar opposite positions, I get that. What I do know that is numerous polls suggest that 80% of riders support helmet laws. With the AMA dedicating well over half of its resources on lobbying issues that represent a small minority of cyclists, I ask what value do they have?
Equal Protection clause of the Constitution to the registraion fees and all the way to the fuel excise tax we pay on our gas gives us the right. proven by sno mobilers to be valid justificaytion points in legal battles
What about "I prefer not to wear a helmet"? There is also no logical argument for jumping out of a perfectly good airplane, climbing a frozen waterfall, strapping a waxed piece of wood to your feet and riding down a snowy hill, standing on a piece of foam atop a breaking wave, or sitting astride a 100 horsepower piece of metal at 70 mph surrounded by 2-ton SUVs. Should that be our basis for legislating exactly how people do these things, or preventing them from doing them at all, because you, personally, can't "logically" justify doing them yourself? You might find people more willing to consider your point if view if you weren't so sanctimonious. "I chuckle when I see guys riding down the road in 20 pounds of equipment designed to help reduce the damage to their bodies in a crash, and to keep them from freezing while being outside at 70 mph in the cold. I wish I could scream, "Hey Einstein, a car comes with built in crash protection, warmth, and keeps your do looking smooth." This is a much more legitimate question. AMA ought to poll its members and spend lobbying money accordingly.
Kyle - I appreciate your replies - I always like debating this topic...if nothing else, I hope others gain from this thread. We just are not connecting on what I see as a clear separation between lifestyle recreation and the use of our public roadways for transportation. I still have not seen a valid argument for not wearing a helmet. I am sorry, but your example of "Because I don't want to wear one" doesn't qualify as a valid argument...its a position of opposition. There are tremendous ethics required in public service especially in paternalistic law and although we may individually disagree with bits and pieces, many policies and procedures protect our society as a whole. If nothing else, I can do no more than advocate for them. I find all of the AMA's scare tactics ridiculous and their stance on helmets is simply out of tune with the American motorcyclists - shocker. I do find it comical that when the AMA's finances are involved (via AMA competition support) they require helmet use. Odd...
