New motorcycle fee intended to increase safety for Oklahoma riders

[noel]

link here

 

Don't you just love it?

 

 

noel

[beemerman2k]

I am all for motorcyclists taking rider training. My political side would love to see it implemented by the dealerships and manufacturers and not the government, but leaving those sentiments aside, many of these riders desparately need training.

 

As that one dealer said, kids full of cash come into the showroom to buy an R1, and although the kid never rode a motorcycle before, he can buy whatever he wants. That's a recipe for death and disaster. So training might just save lives like his, as well as the born again types to return to riding after 20-30 years away.

[tallman]

Should do more good than harm, what's the problem?

The fee?

3 dolla

no biggee

 

Upside, could make a positive impression on other drivers who hear that mc riders are willing to fund safety measure.

Could save a life or injury through training.

Seems OK (l-o-h-o-m-a) to me...

[AZKomet]

+1 in a big way. All for safety.

[bobbybob]

The issue is, how many bureaucrats will be needed to administer the "fund", how much will be left over after they are paid, and what will the few cents left over be spent on? Safety hand-outs like the MSF uses?

 

I just don't encourage any more incursion$ by government designed to make me "safer", regardless of what it costs. People need to get responsible and take training on their own (like I did and millions others have done) to save their collective asses on the roadways. If they don't....a $3 fee ain't gonna make it happen.

 

Noel, you live there--keep us posted on the barrage of training offers you will be receiving in the near future.

[Matts_12GS]

Sure $3 is no big deal.

 

This time.

 

Where does it end though? It will invariably become a larger fee over time.

[4wheeldog]

How about a $20 fee on cages, to be spent training them not to turn left in front of anyone? Why do we think it is proper to train motorcyclists, but 4 wheelers are assumed to have had all the training they need? This is assuming that the MC fee is to be used for continued training.......Not the weekend-in-the-parking-lot that we all tell everyone to do, at their own expense.

 

Personally, I would gladly pay a fee on all my vehicles to be used for periodic testing of existing drivers, and remedial training for those who fail. Raising the level of competence for the spectrum of vehicle drivers on the road would do more to lower my blood pressure than the stuff the doctor gives me. JMHO......YMMV.

[KDeline]

I agree, why just motorcycles?

[beemerman2k]

Sure $3 is no big deal.

 

This time.

 

Where does it end though? It will invariably become a larger fee over time.

 

Yes, this is what I think as well. Not only will the fee increase, but it will then be used to fund some politicians cause like library books or public parks. This is what routinely happens in Massachusetts.

[gottabmw]

Not only will the fee increase, but it will then be used to fund some politicians cause like library books or public parks. This is what routinely happens in Massachusetts.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic. At least I hope so.

[Francois_Dumas]

Shjeez.... one pays 3000 at the minimum here to get started.....

[tallman]

Because the rate for fatality among motorcycle operators, compared to car drivers, is much, much, much higher

[bobbybob]

Shjeez.... one pays 3000 at the minimum here to get started.....

 

Please don't post any of the specifics on this forum. Govt. bureaucrats may be watching.

[Kitsap]

Nope, I don't like it.

 

Just another fee to be mis-managed by our elected officials.

[Quinn]

Strictly a feel good effort. For $3, what are they going to do, give you a bumper sticker that say, "think safe"? If they want to get classy, they can make it reflective for the back of the bike.

 

---

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Not only will the fee increase, but it will then be used to fund some politicians cause like library books or public parks. This is what routinely happens in Massachusetts.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic. At least I hope so.

 

Oh no, I am very serious. Spend a couple of minutes googling the Massachusetts Turnpike, a highway that was supposed to have temporary tolls pay for it through, maybe, 1985. Not only are the tolls still there, they are used for all sorts of causes from libraries to schools to parks, and the governor wants to raise the tolls. So what was supposed to be a temporary cost to taxpayers for a highway now has a life of its own and is funding all manner of things not at all related to the highway.

[Francois_Dumas]

Shjeez.... one pays 3000 at the minimum here to get started.....

 

Please don't post any of the specifics on this forum. Govt. bureaucrats may be watching.

 

Sorry.

[Ken H.]

So is the fundamental core problem that you’re against motorcycle safety programs, or that you have no faith in your government? Seems like it is the later. Which will not be fixed by opposing the former. (Asked in general to those stating their opposition based on predictions of what the govenment will do to/with this program and its funds.)

[BVO]

I agree. However I would hope: 'the Oklahoma Advisory Committee for Motorcycle Safety and Education' gets 100% control of the new revenue, because;

Politicians are like diapers ... they need to be changed regularly and for the same reason.

[upflying]

Good news, nanny-government, California style "fees" (code word for tax) is spreading to other states. Your state is next.

You think $3 is chump change? Not when every facet of our bloated government is already taxing you with their "investments"..

[Matts_12GS]

So is the fundamental core problem that you’re against motorcycle safety programs, or that you have no faith in your government? Seems like it is the later. Which will not be fixed by opposing the former. (Asked in general to those stating their opposition based on predictions of what the govenment will do to/with this program and its funds.)

 

I have no faith in the government as I don't believe that this is the kind of thing they should be involved in.

[CarrotNC]

The MSF teaches in many locations in Oklahoma, offering both the beginner and experienced courses. Yet at the same time and prior to the passage of the bills, the state granted $150k USD to a police department for:

"...the Edmond Police Department has initiated and implemented a motorcycle safety course designed to teach the motorcycle operator how to survive in traffic..."

http://edmondok.com/safety/police/outreach/motorcycle-survival

 

Been trying to decipher who is on the newly established "Advisory Committee for Motorcycle Safety and Education" and what their salary will be, and from where that's funded too. With a stated bike population of 115k the new fee represent $346k per year that, as shown above, half of which can be eaten by a single grant.

 

The passage of these bills indicates to me that the state doesn't feel the current licensing requirements meets their intended purpose. If so, then in my opinion the licensing tests should be changed to incorporate the new training BEFORE issueing a license and not after the bike is registered.

 

Whole thing looks like "feel good" legislation that will be of very limited (if any) benefit to those who paid the fee. And from the original article I find it humorous that the same people who think it's okay to dip into the pockets of other riders are in support of not requiring a helmet. Economic liberty vs. personal liberty...

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

link here

 

Don't you just love it?

 

 

noel

 

Worth every penny so long as the money is spent where they say it will be.

[bobbybob]

So is the fundamental core problem that you’re against motorcycle safety programs, or that you have no faith in your government? Seems like it is the later. Which will not be fixed by opposing the former.

 

Of course we're not against safety programs--the MSF already has a great safety course. It is in place, it works, it is user funded, and the cost is very reasonable. Everyone should take it.

 

Ken, there IS no "fundamental core problem" that you refer to. As many have already stated, this is nothing but a "feel good" program sponsored by a politician who wants re-election. This is so obvious--I don't understand all the responses that its going to be the "answer". "Answer" to WHAT ? Somebody please define this "problem" it is the answer to.....

[chrisolson]

link here

 

Don't you just love it?

 

 

noel

 

Worth every penny so long as the money is spent where they say it will be.

 

The problem is they're not real specific on where the money goes (emphasis mine) ...

 

"Kevin Behrens, assistant director of highway safety, said some of the funds will be used for advertising, promoting safety and awareness. Other funds could be set aside for training, Behrens said. The Oklahoma Advisory Committee for Motorcycle Safety and Education will decide how the money is spent."

 

 

 

[upflying]

link here

 

Don't you just love it?

 

 

noel

 

Worth every penny so long as the money is spent where they say it will be.

 

The problem is they're not real specific on where the money goes (emphasis mine) ...

 

"Kevin Behrens, assistant director of highway safety, said some of the funds will be used for advertising, promoting safety and awareness. Other funds could be set aside for training, Behrens said. The Oklahoma Advisory Committee for Motorcycle Safety and Education will decide how the money is spent."

 

 

If this is like most grants, I predict 5% of the money collected will be used to set up an information booth at motorcycle specific events and shows. The staff at the booth will hand out safety pamphlets and brochures along with engraved pencils, notepaper and reflective 3M do-dads you can stick onto your helmet and bike to increase your safety.

The remaining 95% will go offices, rent, utilities, vehicles, staffing, salaries and benefits needed to support the public outreach and community organizing efforts.

 

[JayW]

Did anyone else notice this quote from the article?:

 

"A helmet isn't going to stop a car from pulling out in front of you, which is how most accidents happen," Seely said.

 

"Helmet laws are bogus. They don't prevent accidents, and they limit your vision. That's like telling someone who lives in a bad neighborhood to walk around in a bulletproof vest all the time."

 

I suppose he is also opposed to laws regarding seat belts, air bags, child restraints and crumple zone requirements because none of these prevent accidents either. I don't even understand what helmet laws have to do with the topic of the article, but this comment was shoehorned in there

 

Jay

 

 

[outpost22]

If this is like most grants, I predict 5% of the money collected will be used to set up an information booth at motorcycle specific events and shows. The staff at the booth will hand out safety pamphlets and brochures along with engraved pencils, notepaper and reflective 3M do-dads you can stick onto your helmet and bike to increase your safety.

The remaining 95% will go offices, rent, utilities, vehicles, staffing, salaries and benefits needed to support the public outreach and community organizing efforts.

 

Truth rings as true as a bell.

 

Bob, my guess is you're over 50 and have lived in California a LONG time.

[upflying]

Yep, Ca resident since 1956. Moved here when I was 2.

Ready to leave too. I hear Idaho has the highest per capita ratio of burnt out Ca cops living there.

[tallman]

Bob,

All grants I am familiar with would not allow that spending formula.

Perhaps your experience differs.

 

Jay,

I'm a big advocate of helmet use.

Don't agree with the quote.

But, in some states, after implementing helmet laws, mortality rates went up, and in some, after removing helmet requirement, rates went down.

Haven't looked at the past year's data, someone else can, I'm not crusading tonight.

 

Best wishes.

[AZKomet]

Yep, Ca resident since 1956. Moved here when I was 2.

Ready to leave too. I hear Idaho has the highest per capita ratio of burnt out Ca cops living there.

 

Yep...I know several there. Sandpoint area....beautiful!!!!

[rad]

Yep, Ca resident since 1956. Moved here when I was 2.

Ready to leave too. I hear Idaho has the highest per capita ratio of burnt out Ca cops living there.

 

You could then cheer for a team comprised mostly of players from California.

[tallman]

Strictly a feel good effort. For $3, what are they going to do, give you a bumper sticker that say, "think safe"? If they want to get classy, they can make it reflective for the back of the bike.

 

---

 

 

Yes, we would not want another safety program involving the government, those don't work.

No one has changed seat belt behavior in the past 20 years so no lives saved.

No one has responded to the joint effort about designated drivers so no lives have been saved.

No one has changed behavior due to the Second Hand Smoke campaign or the change in cigarette packaaging, so no lives have been saved.

No one notices the "look twice save a life, motorcycle are everywhere" campaign.

High mounted 3rd brake lights have not done anyone any good nor prevented any accidents.

Product labeling to include all ingredients have not helped those with allergies or specific dietary needs.

Banning smoking in most buildings and public transportation is another one of those failed government interventions.

Those darn govies just can't seem to ever get anything done when it comes to changing public perception or behavior.

 

Have there been problems, mismanaged programs, money spent poorly?

Of course.

I'm not ready to condemn with out evidence or throw the baby out with the bath water, just yet.

Quinn, not meant as a personal affront to you, just responding to the general responses that gov't can't accomplish anything in this area.

I know all of us hope it works and riders benefit, cages change perception and behavior, and someone's accident is prevented.

Best wishes.

[Quinn]

Okay Tim, would you rather I had called it a knee jerk effort by government to show that they were doing something? We have a problem, let's pass a law. Doesn't matter if it's a good law, if it's needed, if it will be effective. Just throw something out there to show that we're doing something.

 

Now, I'm not really against safety, but this is the same type of thing that passing laws "for the children" let get out of hand. The problem with just passing it and waiting to see if it's effective is that, once enacted, it becomes entrenched and won't be repealed if it's not and we end up with a hodge-podge of laws that don't work but aren't questioned.

 

How about we look on it as government discovering a new cash cow? We can separate motorcyclists from the herd and milk an extra $3.00 from them. If that works, we can try $4.00 or $5.00 next year. No telling how high we can go before there's a backlash. Heck, even if there's a backlash, they're a small enough minority that we can keep milking them. Kind of like "sin taxes" on smokers and drinkers. The majority thinks motorcyclists are extra dangerous and deserve the attention and the punishment.

 

---

 

 

[tallman]

In Florida motorcyclist pay a different amount for the vehicle license plate.

Should all vehicles pay the same?

In some places mc's don't pay tolls (not many) that cars pay.

In many places there are dedicated parking areas for mc's, so we already are singled out.

Plus, the licensing requirement for an additional test(s) is in place.

So, the singling ut mc's is something already entrenched.

My issue,isn't with you or anyone, it is with the attitude that all gov't initiatives are doomed or that money will not be spent wisely.

That may happen, and it does.

But, is something isn't done or tried wrt mc's and vehicle safety, how will we know if it could work?

People are much more aware of many safety issues than they wre XX years ago.

Over 500 children die each year from cords in the home.

So we get waring labels on them.

Does it work?

One measurement is no because so many still die.

If one family alters there behavior and a child isn't killed does that mean it is working?

Depends on how we define success.

In all areas of risk cost is passed on to varios levels, ussually including the consumer.

We are consumers of a risky activity and the perception in Society, rightly or not, is that the burden of cost realated to mc injuries shared by the general public in catastrophic cases.

I think that humanizing riders as "one of us" rather than some faceless individual helps promote mc safety.

I think that training usually helps.

So I'm willing to w/hold judgement and give them a chance.

Best wishes.

[gottabmw]

 

Well said, Tim.

[bootzilla]

But, in some states, after implementing helmet laws, mortality rates went up, and in some, after removing helmet requirement, rates went down.

 

Likely a matter of confusing correlation for causation. There are so many other factors that could affect those rates.

 

Don't get me wrong - if that guy in the article doesn't want to wear his helmet, that is cool with me - without his vision being restricted, he'll have a nice clear view of that person about to run him over...

[Ken H.]

Likely a matter of confusing correlation for causation.

That could be a motto for 90% of the news media today! (Or the general public for that matter.)

/hijack

 

[upflying]

According to this, traffic deaths are the lowest since 1950.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/08/ap/politics/main6847815.shtml

Maybe Oklahoma should reconsider their reflective sticker safety campaign.

[racer7]

Wouldn't think there are many on this list that think govt use of your $ and any aspect of trust belong in the same sentence.

Here in NC, there is a case in our state court re the governor taking $80 million out of the highway trust funds and using it for general purposes because the state constitution requires a balanced budget and she had no other politically palatable (to her and her supporters, the public employee groups) option open at the time. The legal challenge claims the governor has not been granted that authority by the NC legislature and has prevailed in first pass.

Yes $3 ain't much but you won't get much either except govt bs. As soon as you put any $ in the hands of gov't that can't be controlled by local voters. abuse and inefficiency is a guarantee.

 

The reality is that if you choose to ride, you choose risk that can be avoided by picking safer ways to spend your time. Training is good but no amount of training for riders will offset the underlying risk because a lot of it comes from non-riders. I'd love to see the data that shows a trained newbie with an R1 is less likely to get dead than an untrained newbie with one. Cars have gotten hugely faster in my lifetime but we seem content to accept driving while phoning......

[Tim Wilson]

Not only will the fee increase, but it will then be used to fund some politicians cause like library books or public parks. This is what routinely happens in Massachusetts.

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic. At least I hope so.

 

Oh no, I am very serious. Spend a couple of minutes googling the Massachusetts Turnpike, a highway that was supposed to have temporary tolls pay for it through, maybe, 1985. Not only are the tolls still there, they are used for all sorts of causes from libraries to schools to parks, and the governor wants to raise the tolls. So what was supposed to be a temporary cost to taxpayers for a highway now has a life of its own and is funding all manner of things not at all related to the highway.

 

...much like the federal income tax.

 

[Haynes]

For the past few years in the state of Victoria, Australia, we've had a $50 fee imposed on motorcycle owners to fund public education of motorcycle safety. Originally, it was $50 on the registration fee for each motorcycle but it has now been changed so each owner only pays once.

I don't think anyone claims that it is not a good idea but our question here is the same as yours: Why don't all road users pay?

I hope in Oklahoma you get value for your $3.