BOLT and the California Compromise BIll.

OFF THE WIRE
from Ray
Whatever happened to "no compromise"?

Freedom only applies if you are 18 AND take a safety course or have had your M1 for two years, which for a kid returning from Iraq means that you don't qualify if you didn't get an M1 at 16 or are unwilling to suffer the indignity or cost of the course -- which for the vast majority 18 year olds means that you have to take the course, something that I believe that we've consistently objected to elsewhere.
And as Don pointed out, the qualified freedom offered by this bill doesn't apply to passengers, who may not be well represented here at BOLT, but whom I think we'd hope should be able to make their own safety choices. And, in addition to the back seaters who have contributed to the cause of freedom, I would add, hey, what about the foxiest biker groupie babe you've ever met who is allergic to helmet hair?
I also think that for BOLT to take an official position in favor of this law would put us in an awkward position as an organization given what would amount to support for a bill that incorporates FMVSS 218 with all its ambiguities.
Maybe -- as a "compromise" -- folks should take positions according to their conscience and do so personally rather than in the name of BOLT.
Ray

Mark
"...you don't qualify if you didn't get an M1 at 16 or are unwilling to suffer the indignity..."
As it is, all are equally suffering the indignity of wearing the plastic hat.
The bill, which I disagree with in principle, will have a better outcome for us in the area of pointing out those unequal applications of law.

The bill will allow almost everyone who wants to ride hatless to do so, while focusing on the new problem created by the bill. We will be able to show harm. We may get a new crop of tickets to show to the federal Judge, proving no matter how they enforce it, it is done unconstitutionally.
Mark

That is what I was saying. I personally would support it as an increase in freedom. I find the M1 endorsement for 2 years far less onerous than insurance requirements in other states.
Should BOLT support it? Probably not, we need to argue against the problems in the bill, and should continue to do so.
I seem to recall that Quig drew the compromise line at 18, if a compromise had to be made, but maybe my memory is faulty.
I think that the passenger issue would be fixed as the bill works through the legislature.

Kit
The bill will allow almost everyone who wants to ride hatless to do so, while focusing on the new problem created by the bill.


Hi Mark,
We already have that "almost freedom" compromise here in California. The vast majority of our residents here in California drive cars and are not required to wear helmets. Let's celebrate! "Almost" all Californians have the right to choose, so that's "almost" freedom, right?. It's only the motorcyclists who are deprived their freedom of choice, just as under this bill it would only be the young and those who have not had their M1 licenses for two years or are unwilling to take a safety course who are deprived their dignity and choice.
"Almost" is the antithesis of "no compromise," which I think we all have, at least until now, considered an essential statement of the BOLT "state of mind." It is the central value that led Quig to stand up in the face of the vast majority of ABATE and speak so strongly against the 21 and older compromise bill, leading to his angry excommunication from ABATE of California. Indeed, as Red has so aptly reminded us, and I agree completely from my perspective as one other of Quig's close friends, and specifically based on 100 conversations on this subject: "Quig would oppose any bill that was not a full repeal." And I challenge anyone who knew Quig to challenge that. Indeed, he'd be unbridled in his anger that anyone would consider this compromise.
When the Milwaukee Mayor or City Council came to Tony seeking a compromise on the "one bike per parking space" ordinance, did Tony compromise away some of our rights - like the right to park between cars. Fuck no. Tony's response was two words, "No compromise."
These are high points of BOLT's legislative pronouncements of the BOLT state of mind. And I don't think that we have ever before supported a compromise helmet bill. It is what separates BOLT from ABATE and all the "biker" groups who are willing to compromise the freedoms of others in order to gain some tainted freedom for the majority. Should our motto now be "Don't tred on me, tred on the others who are different from me"?
What true values can we claim if the freedom we are willing to accept is freedom borne of the burden of compromise laid on the backs of those to whom we would deny freedom?
Ray