A Problematic New Law to Control Excessive Sound in Motorcycles

In the most recent issue of the American Motorcyclist Journal, former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was dubbed the Motorcyclist of the Year. This title was given to Schwarzenegger because of the impact he has made on the future of motorcycling through the signing of Senate Bill No. 435, a bill intended to address excessive motorcycle sound via an eco-friendly agenda.

The First Step: Customizing Bikes with CARB-Approved Pipes

Almost 4 years ago, in 2007, Schwarzenegger signed a similar bill legalizing dealership installations of California Air Resources Board (CARB)-approved emissions-related parts on new motorcycles, making these customizations compatible with "anti-tampering" rules which only allow the sale of factory-condition motorcycles.

The AMA's Ed Moreland criticized the CARB law's blind spot, noting that "the law didn't mandate specific equipment. It didn't restrict design or tuning creativity. It set an achievable sound level, and left it to the motorcycling community to meet it." And because the community has not been responding to the government's subtle prod, they are now subject to their forceful push in the form of Senate Bill No. 435.

The Follow Through: Senate Bill No. 435

This bill-turned-law "requires all California-registered motorcycles and exhaust systems built in 2013 and later to display a federal Environmental Protection Agency label somewhere on the exhaust itself, certifying that the exhaust meets federal sound standards."

Though this law sounds potentially beneficial to the environment and people's ear drums everywhere, several criticisms and concerns about its overall efficacy have been brought up, which, according to the article, are agreed upon by a range of people involved in motorcycling, "from lawmakers to motorcyclists' rights organization leaders to business people." They are summarized as follows:

• Availability and Cost: Only a few aftermarket manufacturers currently offer the EPA-labeled pipes--pipes suited to a small class of specific motorcycles. And the cost to receive EPA certification will delay the availability of pipes for more bikes by more manufacturers. As a result, can we expect enough riders to buy quieter pipes?
• Enforcement: The EPA label can still be on a modified exhaust that exceeds sound regulations whereas a pipe without a label could still be quiet enough to meet the law's standards. And the location of these labels can be difficult for law enforcement to see, which might lead to an increase in unwarranted tickets--tickets that cost up to $100 on the first offense and up to $250 for subsequent ones. It is important to note that "a violation is considered a secondary offense, which means a police officer can't stop a motorcyclist solely because the officer believes the rider is breaking the sound emissions label law."

Reactions

AMA President Rob Dingman insists that the AMA has "been saying for years that if the motorcycling community didn't police itself on excessive sound, then the government would, and we wouldn't like the results." But Denis Manning of BUB Enterprises, a Northern Californian motorcycle exhaust systems company, believes that, despite their initial frustration, motorcyclists will eventually see the benefit of replacing their pipes to comply with the law.

In the end, the AMA's stance on this issue is that only properly trained personnel can determine whether or not a motorcycle complies with sound laws through sound level tests based on an agreed-upon testing procedure.

What is your stance?

To read the full article, visit: http://www.ama-cycle.org/magazine/2011/January/index.asp

San Francisco: One of the Most Dangerous Cities for Pedestrians

Over 800 people are hit by cars in San Francisco each year, according to an article in the SF Chronicle. An average of 2 people are hit everyday, and with the holiday season, this number is on the rise due to shortened daylight hours and "increased alcohol use and winter weather."

But it's not just during the holidays that we have to worry about being mowed down by speeding, inattentive drivers. San Francisco ranked higher than larger cities like New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and London for traffic fatalities per 100,000 residents. In a city like this, pedestrians might have to wonder how safe it is to walk out their front door on any normal day.

Pedestrian-Car Collision Hot Spots

"The top 10 most dangerous parts of San Francisco for walkers are concentrated in the Financial District and the Tenderloin, South of Market and Bayview neighborhoods" because of a larger than average number of people who "rely on walking and public transit."

But collisions were also found to be concentrated in residential areas like Glen Park, the Castro, the Mission, Excelsior and the Western Addition.

Among these collisions, the Chronicle singled out three from the past few months that occurred in a crosswalk:

On Nov. 17, 65-year-old Nu Ha Dam was struck and killed by a UCSF shuttle bus at lunchtime while crossing Geary Street at Leavenworth, two blocks from her home.

On Sept. 2, a hit-and-run driver who was later arrested, killed 70-year-old Joyce Lau as she was crossing Cole Street at waller shortly before 8 a.m.

Later that same day, around 5 p.m., a 79-year-old woman whose identity has not been released sustained life-threatening injuries while trying to cross Bayshore Boulevard at Bacon Street.

A Matter of Health

Considering pedestrian accidents account for at least a quarter of all injury crashes, street safety should not only be one of our highest transit priorities, but a public health one as well, according to Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, the director of occupational and environmental health for the city's Department of Public Health. Despite the high figures and news reports of accidents, pedestrian safety continues to be a problem and real change is slowly--too slowly--emerging from the offices of our elected officials.

Not helping the issue is the continued accolades boasted by the SFMTA. Just a few months ago, in October, the SFMTA released a report showing that the number of fatalities had, in fact, decreased over recent years. And yet, we are still ranked at a higher percentage than many other major cities.

Baby Steps Towards Improvement

San Francisco's transportation agency is implementing a pilot program aimed at decreasing the speed limit in targeted residential neighborhoods to 15 mph. Meanwhile, Board of Supervisors David Chau plans to fund a study researching how city agencies are addressing this pedestrian problem.

But are these steps too small and too slow of a start?

According to Michael Bianco, whose 32-year-old daughter sustained major brain trauma from a hit-and-run that rendered her incapable of living independently, "Whatever can be done to prevent something of this kind occurring again is time well spent." Bianco is currently suing the city for negligence. He "believes San Francisco is far more dangerous to walk in than the numbers suggest." And the numbers already suggest enough.

Click to read the article for more statistics and information.

2010's Rise in On-Highway Safety Issues

The American Motorcyclist Association recently published a chart of 2010's national on-highway safety issues. Out of a total of 1074 issues, 439 were for "Distracted/Inattentive Vehicle Operation" which includes:

• Cellphone usage: Restricting or prohibiting use
• Bans: Text messaging, internet use, drowsy driving
• Hands-free:Use of cellphone
• Distracted/Inattentive driving
• Restricting video displays
• After crash: Police reports to include distracted-driver info, enhanced penalties

This is an increase of 135 cases compared to last year's 304 (source). This jump shows a vast lack of knowledge on motorcycle laws.

If you are one of these motorcyclists who are unfamiliar with the laws, the AMA has a helpful database that could help you ride safely in every state: State-by-state motorcycle laws

Has DriveCam Improved Muni's Safety?

Last January, on the same day the 19-Polk collision hospitalized 9 people, the SFMTA released a self-congratulatory statement regarding their improved safety record.

A few months earlier, in November 2009, Muni spent $1.2 million installing the DriveCam onto all their buses and trolleys "to help improve safety on the transit system."

About DriveCam

The DriveCam is installed both inside and outside of the vehicle and kicks in seconds before and after incidents involving hard breaking or swerving. The company website advertises a "Seven Steps to Risk Reduction and Savings" plan wherein #5 and #6 are:

5. Driver review, coaching and training

• Supervisors and drivers review the video, company policy and procedures. The goal is for the driver to understand and improve his or her driving.

6. The driver returns to the field with new insights

• The employee returns to the field integrating new learning into his or her driving

Muni's Goals: Savings or Safety?

While the SFMTA claims to have adopted DriveCam's idealistic steps to improve safety. However, in their press release, the SFMTA said these cameras would "assess liability from collisions and reduce expenses incurred from such incidents that can include vehicle damage, worker's compensation, and personal injury."

After the 19-Polk accident, both the SF Appeal and The Examiner were quick to suggest that the installation of DriveCam seemed more like an attempt to improve Muni's safety record, and not its actual safety.

So now that one year has passed, what are your thoughts on this? Has Muni made your public transportation any safer?