"An aroused assembly of the American character of rugged individualism will converge on the state capital once again. Tens of thousands of motorcyclists-and others from all walks of life will give living proof to the timeless encouragement of Thomas Jefferson:
'The spirit of 1776 is not dead. It has only been slumbering. The body of the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous feelings have been played on by some fact with more fiction; they have been the dupes of artful maneuvers, and made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves. But time and truth have dissipated the delusion and opened their eyes.'
IN MATTERS OF PRINCIPLE, DON'T BUCKLE UNDER PRESSURE
The organizers and participants of Liberty Ride '92 plan bold resistance to government interference in the form of mandatory helmet laws and prescriptions for personal clothing. Whether they ride a motorcycle or not, people are rising to be counted in opposition to any further tinkering with our liberties. These are not just bikers tending to their own issues. They rally for everyone's right to be let alone. In their efforts to forestall legislation expanding the usurped power of federal blackmail by which the seat belt law was foisted upon us, these patriots deserve the support of every citizen who understands the fundamental principals of our American Constitution. On Saturday the 27th, it should not be just bikers to shake their collective fists in defiance of the tired argument. "If it saves but one life. it will have been worthwhile."
No it would not! . . . Even if it saves many lives. Though it may come as a surprise to meddlesome do-gooders, our Constitution was not adopted for the purpose of saving lives. On the contrary, it was to secure the blessings of liberty, to which countless lives have been devoted in both war and peace these past 200 years.
ALL RIGHT RESERVED
The framers of our United States and Wisconsin Constitutions understood as self-evident truths the concept that rights are possessed inherently and are not to be doled out as privileges. July 4, 1992 marks the passing of 216 years since Americans first exercised their natural right to throw off the bonds of excessive government by declaring independence:
When one becomes a member of society, he necessarily parts with some rights ... which, as an individual not affected by his relations to others, he might retain . . . this does not confer power upon the whole people to control rights which are purely and exclusively, private . . . but it does offer the establishment of laws requiring a citizen to so conduct himself, and so use his own property, as not unnecessarily to injure another. (Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 1141 (1877).) Whether seat belts and helmets are good or bad is immaterial. We may be advised, urged to wear them; but when government presumes to compel private decisions concerning how one will attend to one's own personal safety it goes too far. It must be conceded that there are such rights in every free government beyond the control of the state. A government which recognized no such rights, which held the lives, the liberty, and the property of its citizens subject at times to the absolute disposition and unlimited control of even the most democratic depository of power, is after all but despotism. (Loan Association v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall) 655, 663 (1847).)
IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
Restrictive government controls effecting personal and private choices represent the same philosophical values that lay behind the worst dictatorships of the 20th century. It is characteristic of such regimes that they exhort their people to sacrifice individual autonomy and rights to the greater glory of society. It was the power of this idea, masquerading as an expression of moral virtue, that intellectually disarmed people and left them unable to question the authoritarian demands of governments that openly employed death camps in the service of society. Those who today have unwittingly come to worship the same authoritarian values have only slightly changed the focus of sacrifice to public safety. They demand that we trust the state to keep us safe: to determine what is best for us and what is optimal; to decide which rights we must compromise this week, and which the next.
Ideas have consequences. We all have our own pursuits which might next be deemed no longer politically correct. Every day decisions concerning the ordinary affairs of one's own life are threatened under a political structure where normal activities, if viewed as not useful to society as a whole, may be outlawed. It is no comfort that the current focus may be on motorcyclists. Car clubs, horseback riders, skiers, gun collectors, or other hobbyists engaged in Pursuits deemed risky, wasteful, or otherwise inappropriate, will face increasing government hostility. Nothing stands in the way of using this same scheme to regiment other groups within society known to be leading less than orthodox or cost effective lives. Smokers, the overweight, coffee drinkers, the unexercised, sunbather, non-vegetarians, or, for that matter, and groups exhibiting what a government panel might determine to be excessively poor health habits could very well be future targets for forced conformity -- mandatory diet regulation and tooth flossing follows next for those who would condemn us all to live in their Disney World.
THE AMERICAN SPIRIT
We are in a time of unprecedented public disillusionment with government. Politicians are complaining that the system has failed. Some are openly suggesting that the problem lies with an outdated Constitution which is no longer adequate to meet present-day needs. At a time when discontent with our current leaders and political structure is widespread, we must guard against those who promise shortcuts to change at the expense of our heritage, Abraham Lincoln foresaw this risk to what has long been the American personality:
What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? . . . Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has implanted in us . . . Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you.
At such a time as this, we thank the Liberty Riders for once again reminding us that our Constitution should be as enduring as the rights it secures; that the root of the problem lies not in the failure of the Constitution, but in a general failure to adhere to the principles for which it stands.
I do not know what course others may take, but as for me, I understand. You rob me of my liberty, and you have taken my life . . . "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." (John Adams)
Return to Table of Contents
AB-2331 -- ABATE's 1994 attempt to modify California's helmet law. (February 1994)
On January 24, 1994, the California Assembly Transportation Committee considered, for the second time, a bill proposed by Assemblyperson Jaunita McDonald concerning a modification of California's helmet law. McDonald's proposal, which was drafted with the help of ABATE of California, was originally touted as a repeal bill, but in actuality was, instead, designed to lower the age of compliance to under 21. In other words, McDonald and ABATE agreed that the helmet law was probably OK for people under 21, but should not be applied to adults 21 years and older.
HLDL did not support this bill at the time it was presented originally in 1993, nor this time in 1994 (with one exception that I'llcover next) because it did two things, both unacceptable: (1) McDonald's bill -- AB-2331 -- discriminated against adults between the ages of 18 to 20 and those 21 years old and older, and (2) the bill included the section which indicated that the Legislature's intent in making this helmet law was to provide a safety benefit to motorcycle riders. (We also did not like the idea that it was attached to AB-85, a bill which would require motorcyclists to take a safety training program. Although we agree with the value and need of a motorcycle training program, we do not support the concept of the government requiring anything for our own good.)
If introduction of McDonald's (and ABATE's) bill had been used to bring the issues of the helmet law, all of them, back before the Legislature, the defeat of AB-2331 would have been a major loss. As it was, the bill in now, as Assemblyman Katz put it, "toast" -- and in view of the fact that it was neither an actual repeal bill nor presented in such a way as to reopen the entire helmet law issue to the floor of the Legislature for discussion, it's probably just as well.
Now maybe somebody will take this opportunity to approach the need for a real repeal bill in a more straight-forward, and potentially effective, manner.
KATZ: Ms. McDonald, why don't you open on your bill, of course 2331. We will start as a subcommittee, dealing with this bill, five minutes on each side, and then we'll move on to the earthquake issues.
McDONALD: Thank you Mr. Chairman, and members. I would like to thank the Chairman for his indulgence in allowing us to come forth with new evidence pertaining to this particular issue. AB-2331 will require only those motorcycle riders under the age of 21 to wear a Department of Transportation approved helmet. I have introduced this bill in conjunction with AB-85 which will require all new motorcycle license applicants to complete the California Motorcycle Safety Program course. I have with me today two witnesses who will come and speak on the issue of my bill and to provide evidence to you today. Mr. Paul Lax is one, and Mr. John Paliwoda is the other one. Gentlemen.
LAX: There are a couple of things we can look at here, and I promised before, and the author has promised, that we are not going to go over old material.
Basically, what we have to look at here is whether or not this bill accomplished what it promised to do. The bill was promised to bring about an increase to safety of riders involved in accidents.
If we look at what happened in 1991 and 1992, one statistic changes dramatically. And that one statistic is the number of people riding motorcycles.
Taking California Highway Patrol data, we find the number of accidents was down by 25%. That is not a function of helmet use, that is a function of fewer people riding motorcycles.
The second thing we find as we take a look is that new sales dropped 20% in the first year of this bill.
And then finally, we see that motorcycle registrations, overall, have dropped 9%.
In a survey of motorcycle riders, we discovered that ridership was off at least 20% among those riders we surveyed.
Now the result is, if you take the trend downward in injury and fatality numbers that had begun in 1986 when the motorcycle safety program first began, and we first started training riders, if you continue that trend down through the year 1992, and you adjust it for the decrease in the number of people riding, what you have is a decrease which will actually take you to a point lower than the CHP.s reported number of fatalities in 1992.
You didn't alter the curve at all. All you did . . . you made it no safer to be in a motorcycle accident. You simply cut down the number of people on motorcycles on the road.
The second thing I think is significant here is what's happened in terms of revenue to the State of California. Very briefly, it's cost money.
Nothing is more revenue intensive for the State than if I spend a dollar of my money on buying a new vehicle. I pay a license fee every year. I pay gasoline tax. I pay sales tax. Those things are not being collected in fairly substantial numbers.
Now, one thing we did do as well -- because we found that the Highway Patrol numbers for the first quarter of 1992 identified a large drop in the number of fatalities and large drop in the number of injuries, and we analyzed those numbers and found that the fatality rate went up.
The CHP revised their numbers after the first quarter of '92, and they came back and said, "No, we found some additional accidents, and the fatality rate per rider didn't go up."
We thought it was appropriate to go take a look at the source data. Among the materials that I hope you received this morning is a summary of 20 counties in which we went to the coroners office and compared the numbers reported by the county coroner for fatalities to the numbers in that county reported by the California Highway Patrol. And what we found in the twenty counties that we looked at was the number of fatalities reported by the California Highway Patrol for '92 were substantially under reported.
In other words, even if, for whatever reason, there's an error in the data gathering mechanism . . . because when we go to the source data, we find that fatalities in '92 were in fact under reported. At least according to what the coroners have told us.
KATZ: Im gonna interrupt you to inform you that you've got two minutes left Ms. McDonald. The people in the audience are wondering . . . this is probably the fourth, fifth, sixth hearing we've had on the helmet bill over the last several years. Many of which have been extensive.
The reason this is short is that, in deference to Ms. McDonald, we agreed to a vote only hearing . . . and in further deference to her, one more time on the bill to make a brief presentation. You have two minutes left in that time.
First, we'll ask the secretary to call the committee members to establish a quorum. (role was called)
OK, Ms. McDonald.
McDONALD: Thank you. I'd like to introduce Mr. Paliwoda
PALIWODA: Thank you committee members, my name is John Paliwoda of ABATE of California.
I want to clear up a misconception which I think a lot of you have . . . a . . . been laboring under, or at least that are not aware of. California will not loose any federal funding, it will not loose a dollar of federal funds because of the passage of this bill.
Basically, one-and-a-half percent in the first year would be shifted from highway construction to 402 highway safety program uses. Uh . . . those safety program uses include reducing injuries and deaths resulting from excessive speed, drunken driving programs, and anti-druken driving programs, school bus accident prevention.
California, today, itself, between county, local, and State highway safety programs spends more money than would be shifted anyway. Most of this money is not reimbursed under 402 programs. California does also get 402 funds today.
Because of the same Federal legislation that enacted this penalty provision, it has made qualifying for 402 funding, by states, much easier to obtain. California could, basically, qualify . . . get reimbursed for the money that this state is spending itself on highway safety programs, and actually come out ahead even if this helmet law were passed into . . . into . . . became law.
There are 30 other states across the country that do not have qualifying helmet law and/or seat-belt laws. 30 other states are going to be subject to these penalties and bills are already in Congress to basically do away with the penalty provisions. But again, just make sure you understand, do not accept the justification for voting against this bill the fact that California is going to lose highway funds, because they are not.
Thank you very much.
McDONALD: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.
KATZ: Highway Patrol?
HANNAGAN: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members, I'm Maury Hannagan, Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol.
I've listened to the arguments relative to the motorcycle helmet law and the exemption they want to provide to people over 21. I will only tell you this.
In 1991, there were 509 motorcycle deaths in the State, and in 1992 there 327. That's 182 less deaths.
In 1993, our preliminary stats show there will probably be 272 motorcycle deaths. If I take '91 vs. '92 alone, the officers, in their opinion, have incurred 90 less deaths because of the motorcycle helmet law.
I urge you to leave the statute as it currently exists. Our compliance is approximately 98%. We only wrote somewhere between 4,500 citations and 5,000 for the entire State. That is miniscule compared to the four million or more contacts that we have. We have high compliance with this statute. In my opinion, it is saving hundreds of lives, and should not be fooled with. That's really all I have to say.
KATZ: Commissioner, thank you.
WEBBER: Mr. Chairman, members of the transportation committee, we are opposed to his bill. It will divert in the neighborhood of 12 to 15 million dollars from the construction program for highway safety . . . that is through 1996, and thereafter up to 30 million dollars.
KATZ: OK. Thank you Mr. Webber. Ms. McDonald, briefly close.
McDONALD: Yes Mr. Chairman, contrary to what the CHP just said, there is no hard data for obtaining numbers for the calendar year of 1993.
I would like to say that California has an over abundance of regulations, and this is one of them.
I do hope that this committee looks at the issues, looks at the new evidence that has been brought before you, and I do ask for a aye vote.
KATZ: Is there a motion? We're not going to have a full blown debate on this matter. It's a vote only. Ms. McDonald asked for some latitude. Is there a motion on the bill? A motion by Knight and a second by Weggeland? Call the role.
OK, the vote is ayes five and nos seven. I'm about to adjourn this part of the hearing and go on to . . .
McDONALD: Mr. Chairman, there is another member who's come in.
KATZ: You're still four votes short, unless he's got more votes than one person.
McDONALD: Mr. Chairman.
KATZ: Yes Ma'am.
McDONALD: I would like to ask that this really be put into a study because it's about time that we really get down to the crux of the data and the statistics of this particular issue. And, I'd like this to go into a study.
KATZ: Ms. McDonald. Let me first announce the vote. The vote is ayes five and nos seven. The bill is defeated. That's the second time so that bill is dead for this session. We would be more than happy to work with you in terms of how that is done, legislatively, or through the analysis office. I'd be glad to work with you on how you put that together.
McDONALD: A reconsideration cannot be done?
KATZ: No, it cannot. This bill's toast.
Return to Table of Contents
What Price Freedom?
I used to be like most everybody else. I went to work, paid the bills and rode my motorcycle to stay sane and enjoy life. I joined ABATE in 1989 when a helmet law made it all the way to the Governor's desk. I rarely went to the meetings though, as I had important things to do. Since, the Governor had always vetoed the helmet law anyway, I didn't get involved. Besides, what can one person do anyway?
On January 1st, 1992, I began to become an activist when our government said if I don't wear a helmet, I'm a criminal. When I put it on, it insulted my senses and pissed me off. I started asking myself, "What can I do to regain my freedom to choose?" I went to the ABATE meetings and started organizing helmet protests. I met Steve Bianco who gave me hope and taught me how fucked-up the helmet law is. I began to learn how to exercise some of the rights I never knew I had. I've learned how the CHP has ruined a sterling reputation by ignoring the law as it is written to allow them to become the nations first "fashion police." I've met some true Freedom Fighters that believe in our Constitutions, and will defend it from all enemies -- foreign and domestic. I've become obsessed with ending the helmet law. I know any obsession is not supposed to be healthy, but I accept the fact that I am obsessed and I ask myself, "What price Freedom?"
Benjamin Franklin stated, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Freedom Fighters gave birth to our great Nation and for countless million of Americans the price of defending freedom has been death.
Now citizen apathy and political corruption threaten to destroy our way of life. If you're not part of the solution, you are the problem. It's time for you to get involved, in any way you feel comfortable. Just ask yourself, what price is my freedom worth to me? Then pay it!
The helmet law has changed everyone's life, whether they ride or not. Our government has taken away your right to choose in the name of safety and public burden. Never mind the fact that wearing a helmet isn't safe and the public burden theory might be valid only in a Socialist country. The laws of physics state that a five pound weight (a helmet), at 60 miles per hour, becomes a 300 pound object at impact. The laws of physics cannot be superseded by the laws of a misguided government. And since eggs contain cholesterol that has been proven to increase the risk of a heart attack, should we outlaw eggs too? At what price freedom?
The helmet law has definitely changed my life. I lost my job (after 8 years) and began working for a very good law firm that believes in and promotes bikers rights. It's ruined my social and love life, but that's because I'm obsessed. I've met some great people and a lot of flakes. I helped to found the Helmet Law Defense League and spent my retirement money to keep the phones on line. I've become an ABATE & BOLT local President and have been elected to the State Board of ABATE of California. I've learned that one person can make a difference. Just keep asking yourself, "At what price freedom?" You know my answer now, what's yours?
Red
Return to Table of Contents
THE ROAD TO FREEDOM
by Mark Buckner
The road to freedom, like any other, has its twists and turns. It has it's ups and downs and detours that delay the traveler along the way. But unlike other roads, it requires a strength of character from those who would travel it's length, for it is arguably the most difficult route that any of us will ever follow. Throughout time, people have started down this road only to turn away when they found the going too difficult, or when an easier path appeared before them. The side roads are many, and travelers are easily lead astray as they choose the paths of ego, of deceit, of closed-mindedness, and of greed.
Egomaniacs are those who choose the path superior to their traveling companions, and attempt to coerce people into doing things "their way". Egomaniacs regularly withhold information from the people in the mistaken belief that knowledge that only they possess makes them more powerful. The egomaniac uses negativity like a club, constantly focusing on what someone else is doing wrong rather than tackle the more difficult job of working towards a solution.
The path of deceit is also well traveled, and many freely choose to follow it's course. The deceivers are masters of the half-truths and careful omissions that strengthen their own positions. They will occasionally out-and-out lie to people to further their own personal agendas, although this approach is more dangerous than simply telling people that part of the truth which they wish them to hear. Deceivers are masters of manipulation as well, and consider qualities such as trustworthiness and honesty to be weaknesses which should be exploited.
Close-minded individuals have already made up their minds how things will be, and take a fatalistic approach to most situations. They feel they already have all the answers, and don't need to consider options or alternatives. These people, are stagnant. They don't learn, they don't grow, and eventually they are overcome.
And those who choose, the path of greed freely trade their integrity and their ideals for money, or power, or both.
When we in biker's rights talk about freedom of choice, we're usually discussing specific issues such as mandatory helmet laws. However, we also exercise our freedom of choice when considering the paths we travel in life. Regardless of how convoluted or oppressive our government becomes, we still have the ability to choose how we will react to those circumstances and how we will work to affect change. Regardless of the amount of work involved in protecting our rights, we can still make decisions as to how much personal sacrifice we're willing to make to achieve our goals. The choices we make at these crossroads will ultimately determine the amount of freedom that we can expect to enjoy.
Many leaders, not only in biker's rights but throughout our society, start out on the road to freedom. But the power (supposed or real) that goes along with leadership inevitably attracts those people who are likely to lose their way. When people who tread the paths of ego, of deceit, of closed-mindedness, and of greed are allowed to lead, confusion is sure to follow. These people become the worst enemy of that which they are supposedly working to protect. They promote a feeling of powerlessness among their followers by degrading the importance of the individual. They knowingly employ the divide-and-conquer tactics that have been used by opponents of freedom for thousands of years, In the long run, these leaders do little or nothing to improve the lot of the people.
The leader who can truly represent his or her people and stay on course is rare. It's very unlikely that any of us will travel the road to freedom without being delayed, without at least temporarily taking the wrong turn, or without stumbling along the way. For the people and the leaders alike, what's important to realize is that when these things happen we do our best to get back on course.
In order to do this we must again exercise our freedom of choice. Many times the choices we make are clouded, and mistakes are unavoidable. Yet just as often these choices are as distinct as night and day. The power of the individual lies in our ability and willingness to trust our own judgement, and to make decisions which affect our lives without compromising our values.
As time goes by, it becomes increasingly clear that a number of paths run parallel to the road to freedom. Integrity, open communication, honesty, courage, and unity are among them. These paths are measured out not in miles but in time and effort, They are measured out in sacrifice and compassion, and in an undying belief in ourselves and our abilities, The end of the road, although obscured by the dust of heavy travel, becomes clearer as we come to recognize which paths to take and which ones to avoid. And it is there, at the end of the road, that true freedom awaits.
The author, Mark Buckner, is Vice President of the Motorcycle Riders' Foundation and State Coordinator for ABATE of Colorado.