More regulation coming for motorcycles; MRF works to be proactive

  The parking lot at Meeting of the Minds

One theme sounded again and again last weekend at the Motorcycle Riders Foundation's Meeting of the Minds was that more regulation is on the way. The group is very concerned about getting out ahead of the curve and helping to shape the discussion, rather than constantly being reactive and responding to someone else's agenda.

The group is already working on programs to combat impaired riding. Motorcycle fatalities are probably the number one factor that leads to government feeling that "something must be done" to fix motorcycling. In many instances alcohol is a factor. But beyond that, as Duane Taylor of the Motorcycle Industry Council noted, "We're losing too many of our friends."

MRF President Kirk "Hardtail" Willard echoed that statement, saying "We've got to stop killing ourselves," but he added that at the same time, "It's time to stand up and say 'It's not my fault just because I ride a motorcycle.'" Put differently, he was saying that the choice to ride a motorcycle is not the relevant factor. Relevant factors do include a lack of rider training, impaired riding, and motorists who don't pay attention to the motorcycles sharing the road with them.

One speaker noted that many governmental approaches to improving motorcycle safety fail to take the basic step of first determining what causes motorcycle accidents in the first place. The most recent such study was done in 1981. After much effort on the part of the motorcycling community, a new study has been authorized and funded, but is slow getting off the ground. That study needs to move forward, say MRF members.

But even that is not without certain risks. Once the report is complete, there will be proposals put forth in response. This is an area where the MRF wants to be proactive, to help ensure that the responses are appropriate. An example of an inappropriate response was the overwhelming manner in which government decided after the 1981 report that the answer was to make sure all motorcyclists wear helmets. The fallacy of that simplistic approach is shown in the fact that some states with no helmet laws have lower fatality rates than some states that require all bikers to wear helmets. Additionally, 60 percent of all bikers killed last year were wearing helmets, so clearly helmets are no panacea. But passing helmet laws helped legislators feel good that they were doing something. No matter that what they were doing was ineffective.

There's no wrapping this all up into a neat, concluding summation. It's an open-ended discussion. The important thing is that the discussion is in progress.