Lane Splitting Legislation (California AB51) Update...5/31/16
The amendments to AB 51 will be in print on Thursday, June 2. I was
advised that the Senate Transportation Committee may ask Assemblymember
Quirk to make some technical changes to the bill to clean it up but not
change the substance of the bill - see link to the amended bill Quirk
submitted to committed today.
AB 51 is tentatively scheduled to be heard on June 14.
On Thursday, we will see if the committee changed anything.
As for what "educational" guidelines the CHP may develop, we will have
to wait and see. I'm not going to assume they will just reinstate their
previous guidelines.
(ANTIMEDIA)Philadelphia, PA —
A federal appeals court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has
ruled that filming the police without a specific challenge or criticism
is not constitutionally protected.
The cases of Fields v. City of Philadelphia, and Geraci v. City of Philadelphia
involve two different incidents where individuals were arrested for
filming the police. Richard Fields, a Temple University student, was
arrested after stopping to take a picture of a large group of police
outside a house party. Amanda Geraci, a legal observer with CopWatch
Berkeley, attended a large protest against fracking in September 2012
and was arrested while filming the arrest of another protester.
Both Fields and Geraci are seeking damages from the Philadelphia Police Department for violating their Constitutional right to videotape public officials. Previous rulings have found the public has a right to record police as form of “expressive conduct,” such as a protest or criticism, which is protected by the First Amendment.
The appeals court was specifically tasked with finding out whether or not the public has a First Amendment right to photograph and film police without a clear expression of criticism or challenge to police conduct.
The court wrote:
“Fields’ and Geraci’s alleged ‘constitutionally protected conduct’ consists of observing and photographing, or making a record of, police activity in a public forum. Neither uttered any words to the effect he or she sought to take pictures to oppose police activity. Their particular behavior is only afforded First Amendment protection if we construe it as expressive conduct.”
The court ultimately stated, “We find no basis to craft a new First Amendment right based solely on ‘observing and recording’ without expressive conduct.”
“Absent any authority from the Supreme Court or our Court of Appeals, we decline to create a new First Amendment right for citizens to photograph officers when they have no expressive purpose such as challenging police actions,” the decision concluded.
Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA, disagrees with the decision and says he believes it will eventually be overturned by the Third Circuit Court upon appeal.
“Whether one is physically speaking (to challenge or criticize the police or to praise them or to say something else) is relevant to whether one is engaged in expression,” Volokh wrote in the Washington Post. “But it’s not relevant to whether one is gathering information, and the First Amendment protects silent gathering of information (at least by recording in public) for possible future publication as much as it protects loud gathering of information.”
Whether or not the ruling is overturned, it should serve as a reminder to all free hearts and minds that the cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. We cannot become passive and allow the ruling class and despots in government to subvert our path towards liberation. Now more than ever we need communities to actively organize copwatching and politician-watching campaigns that encourage accountability and transparency. We must also remain strong in our sense of morality and principles, and not allow what is “legal” or “constitutional” to limit us in our fight for freedom.
This article (Federal Court Rules You Can Be Arrested Simply for Filming the Police) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Derrick Broze and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. Image credit: Peripitus. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article at edits@theantimedia.org.
OFF THE WIRE
NEW YORK (FOX5NY) - Police in New York may soon have a new weapon to catch people who text and drive. It called the "textalyzer".
Ben and Debbie Lieberman know the pain of losing a child. Their 19 year old son Evan was killed 5 years ago by someone who was texting and driving. The Lieberman's have worked closely with some state lawmakers who have proposed a bill allowing the police to use a device called the textalyzer. It's a play on the breathalyzer device used to find drunk drivers.
If you're in an accident police would be able to scan your phone with the device and it would tell them if you were texting at the time of the accident or moments before.
Brooklyn state assemblyman Felix Ortiz is co-sponsoring the bill.
Assemblyman
Ortiz says an Israeli company is currently developing the textalyzer.
He says the scanner will only be able to detect if a driver was
texting. He claims it will not be able to read the text or gain access
to your contacts and other information in your phone.
The New York Civil Liberties Union is not convinced
"I
think there is much that is needed to be done and that can be done both
to address the problem and respect the privacy rights of drivers,"
NYCLU Director Donna Lieberman says.
Under the proposed legislation if a driver refuses to allow police to scan their phone, they could lose their license.
Assemblyman Ortiz is hoping the bill passes before the legislature breaks for summer on June 20.
This event supports American Soldier Network a 501c3 nonprofit organization www.americansoldiernetwork.org & their #HealingHappens campaign Help our #veterans
be victorious and end veteran/military suicide! This is a huge cause
everyone come ride and enjoy the day! Invite your friends‼️ #WeDoThisTogether
Event Schedule: TENTATIVE 10:00 am -11:00 am ride registration 11:10 am -1:10 pm Ride 1:10 pm - 1:30 pm park 1:30 pm -2:10 pm Special Attraction! (for ride ticket holders only)
Show Times: 2:30 pm - 3:00 pm Over the Castle (2:30 pm) 3:00 pm - 3:25 pm Chang up 3: 25 pm - 4:05 pm Grains of Sand (3:25 pm) 4:05 pm - 4:30 pm Change up 4:30 pm - 5:30 pm Ryan Weaver (4:30 pm) 5:30 pm - 6:10 pm Change up 6:10 pm - 7:35 pm Warrant (6:10 pm) 7:35 pm - 8:15 pm Change up 8:15 pm - 9:45 pm Dokken (8:15 pm)
OFF THE WIRE Memorial Day was not imagined to honor
veterans, or patriotism, or politicians or the sorts of war heroes who
appear in television commercials for the United Services Automobile
Association or the Navy Federal Credit Union
To be alive on Memorial Day is an
obligation – especially for veterans. Memorial Day is the brief moment
before our golden summers when it is our sacred duty to consider how we
came to be so lucky as to be here now in this increasingly flawed but
still great and free country. Memorial Day is when we must remember the
bodies.
This annual obligation to remember
emerged spontaneously in both the North and the South in the spring of
1864 – about nine or ten months after Gettysburg, in the midst of the
war that resulted when we took our principles so seriously that we went
to war with ourselves. Women in both the States of America joined into
groups to decorate the graves of the war’s dead. As many as 850,000 men
died in the War Between the States. Four-hundred-seventy-six thousand
men were wounded. One in 13 soldiers returned home missing at least one
limb. All but four members of the student body of the University of
Mississippi died. Most of them died at the same place at the same time,
on the last day of Gettysburg, during a human wave attack called
Pickett’s Charge.
Four hundred thousand men disappeared –
into the earth – because there was no one to claim their rotting bodies.
A few tens of thousands of German and Irish immigrants died of malaria
against which they had no immunity. The immigrants died because other
young men paid to have them fight and die for them. Fifty-one thousand
men died at Gettysburg. One in five of the Yankees or Confederates
deployed in that war died. Everyone knew someone who died, so the
obligation to remember was hardly a duty at all.
Forty-five hundred Americans died in the
American Revolution; 2,300 in the War of 1812; about 13,500 died in
the Mexican War – the war that created the American Southwest; and
another 2,500 died in the Spanish American War in Cuba and the
Philippines. One-hundred-sixteen-thousand-five-hundred-sixteen died in
the First World War and another 405,399 in the following World War –
about one in every 40 deployments in both those wars.
Thirty-six-thousand-five-hundred-seventy-four died in Korea;.
Fifty-eight-thousand-two-hundred-nine died in Vietnam – about one in
every 58 deployed. Three-hundred-eighty-three died in the Gulf War and
6,845 Americans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The casualties
for the war George W. Bush started amount to about one death for every
380 deployments which means that the longest war in American History is
also a war in which our soldiers have been unlikely to know someone who
actually died. That may be a mixed blessing.
If you have been in a war you understand
that they are not at all as they are usually dramatized. They are much
bigger and louder. They are muddy and your rifle jams. The food is bad
and all the colonels are insane. And then some kid you know runs past
engulfed in flames. They are all about as glorious as a hurricane. There
is no wisdom to be gained from them.
The only wisdom to be gained is in
recollecting the bodies. Memorial Day is when we are morally obliged to
take a few moments to do that.
Enjoy your ride. Enjoy your barbecue. That is why they died. Try to remain handcuff free. That is also why they died.
On April 28, 2016, U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, respectively, announced the Veterans First Act (S.2981) to begin to change the culture at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs approved the Veterans First Act by unanimous vote. Read the text of the bill. The bill's supporters believe that the bill would help change the culture of corruption at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The bill includes accountability measures to give the VA the tools to fire bad actors, to prohibit bonuses for employees accused of wrongdoing and to institute protections for whistleblowers. Senator Isakson's Op-Ed opinion piece is available on the Military Advantage Blog.
A veteran's pension is a cash benefit paid to war-time veterans who have limited or no income. Veterans 65 and older automatically qualify to receive this benefit. Those younger than 65 must be permanently and totally disabled. Veterans who are more seriously disabled may qualify for Aid and Attendance or Household Benefits, paid in addition to their basic pension rates. The package may pay a monthly stipend of $1,788 to $2,120 to help with living expenses. A widow of a war-time veteran may also apply for the Widows Pension with Aid and Attendance benefit package, making them eligible to receive up to $1,149 a month. For more information, contact your county veterans' services officer and visit the VA website.
Last week, the House endorsed a proposal which would allow VA doctors to discuss the use of medical marijuana with patients. The measure by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) had been offered previously as an amendment to an annual spending bill for the VA and military construction projects without success, but this time it passed on a 233-189 vote. Currently 24 states, along with the District of Columbia, have passed laws allowing access to medical marijuana to treat conditions including anxiety and traumatic brain injury. Fourteen of those states authorize doctors to recommend medical marijuana to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. "I think it is the right thing to do for our veterans, to be able to treat them equitably, to enable them to have access to the doctor who knows them the best, giving them better treatment and saving them money," said Blumenauer.
Yesterday,
I along with other members of various CA based motorcycle rights and
motorcycle safety organizations that also attended meetings with me
received a notice from the office of Bill Quirk , District 20 Hayward,
author of the bill notifying us that a revision of the bill will be
submitted to the Senate Transportation Committee this Tuesday, May 31.
The notice included a mockup draft of the new language along with the
background reasons. Overall, I am pleased with the changes, but until it
officially gets submitted and entered. I am not going to post it and
get folks amped up.
Once I get notification of the update in the legislation database, I will share it or you can look it up as well.
Lane Splitting Legislation (California AB51) Update...continued..
Please post and forward to your contact list. We've exhasted the donations in our little town. We need outside donations. Please help us. Thank You, God Bless!
Memorial Day was not imagined to honor
veterans, or patriotism, or politicians or the sorts of war heroes who
appear in television commercials for the United Services Automobile
Association or the Navy Federal Credit Union
To be alive on Memorial Day is an
obligation – especially for veterans. Memorial Day is the brief moment
before our golden summers when it is our sacred duty to consider how we
came to be so lucky as to be here now in this increasingly flawed but
still great and free country. Memorial Day is when we must remember the
bodies.
This annual obligation to remember
emerged spontaneously in both the North and the South in the spring of
1864 – about nine or ten months after Gettysburg, in the midst of the
war that resulted when we took our principles so seriously that we went
to war with ourselves. Women in both the States of America joined into
groups to decorate the graves of the war’s dead. As many as 850,000 men
died in the War Between the States. Four-hundred-seventy-six thousand
men were wounded. One in 13 soldiers returned home missing at least one
limb. All but four members of the student body of the University of
Mississippi died. Most of them died at the same place at the same time,
on the last day of Gettysburg, during a human wave attack called
Pickett’s Charge.
Four hundred thousand men disappeared –
into the earth – because there was no one to claim their rotting bodies.
A few tens of thousands of German and Irish immigrants died of malaria
against which they had no immunity. The immigrants died because other
young men paid to have them fight and die for them. Fifty-one thousand
men died at Gettysburg. One in five of the Yankees or Confederates
deployed in that war died. Everyone knew someone who died, so the
obligation to remember was hardly a duty at all.
Forty-five hundred Americans died in the
American Revolution; 2,300 in the War of 1812; about 13,500 died in
the Mexican War – the war that created the American Southwest; and
another 2,500 died in the Spanish American War in Cuba and the
Philippines. One-hundred-sixteen-thousand-five-hundred-sixteen died in
the First World War and another 405,399 in the following World War –
about one in every 40 deployments in both those wars.
Thirty-six-thousand-five-hundred-seventy-four died in Korea;.
Fifty-eight-thousand-two-hundred-nine died in Vietnam – about one in
every 58 deployed. Three-hundred-eighty-three died in the Gulf War and
6,845 Americans have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The casualties
for the war George W. Bush started amount to about one death for every
380 deployments which means that the longest war in American History is
also a war in which our soldiers have been unlikely to know someone who
actually died. That may be a mixed blessing.
If you have been in a war you understand
that they are not at all as they are usually dramatized. They are much
bigger and louder. They are muddy and your rifle jams. The food is bad
and all the colonels are insane. And then some kid you know runs past
engulfed in flames. They are all about as glorious as a hurricane. There
is no wisdom to be gained from them.
The only wisdom to be gained is in
recollecting the bodies. Memorial Day is when we are morally obliged to
take a few moments to do that.
Enjoy your ride. Enjoy your barbecue. That is why they died. Try to remain handcuff free. That is also why they died.
OFF THE WIRE agingrebel.com
Get ready to have more Kurt Sutter style biker authenticity shoved down your throat.
Sutter and FX Networks announced last week that the writer and the soulless corporation will collaborate on a Sons of Anarchy spinoff to be titled Mayans MC. Throughout the run of the first show, viewers were encouraged to believe that Sons of Anarchy
was an expose of life in the Hells Angels. Viewers were also supposed
to understand that the Mayans was a stand-in for the Mongols MC. Now the
Mayans/Mongols are getting their own show.
“In the spirit of Sons of Anarchy, Mayans MC will
be a dark, visceral family drama that takes a new look at the most
American of icons, the 1% outlaw, this time reflected through a Latino
lens,” is how FX describes the new business venture.
Sutter told The Hollywood Reporter that the new show’s “tone, pace, storytelling will be unique.” Sons of Anarchy was set in Northern California. THR reports that Mayans MC will be set some place else.
Sutter’s collaborator on the show will be filmmaker, musician and reputed badass Elgin James.
Elgin James
As the web magazine Deadline Hollywood put it, “James’ bio
reads like the story of a SOA character.” According to various
biographies, James is of “mixed race” and was raised by pacifist, “civil
rights activists” on a farm. James was brutally beaten by those
pacifists who also smoked marijuana. He told The New Yorker,
“I’d grown up terrified of the world. Nights spent curled in a ball
trying to disappear in the crack between my bed and the wall while my
mother screamed for my father to stop. The worst thing about a
7-year-old being punched by a grown man is that you become emotionally
frozen at that age.”
James became a vegetarian when he was eleven and during his
adolescence he was inspired by civil rights attorneys William Kunstler
and Morris Dees. He attended Antioch College in Ohio when he was 17 but
was beaten there too in some sort of “gang fight.” He apparently dropped
out and began to read and identify with Malcolm X, Stokely Carmichael
and Huey P. Newton. Eventually, he drifted to Boston and founded a group
called “Fuck Shit Up” which has now been rechristened “Friends Stand
United.” FSU members shared an interest in punk music and developed a
reputation for rat packing random victims. “What we lacked in numbers we
made up for in viciousness,” James said. According to an article by
Debbie Catalano in Soundcheck Magazine, “The founding core of
FSU eventually splintered, with a large section moving on to motorcycle
gangs like the Outlaws and later the Mongols.”
James’ Career
James made a couple of films about FSU titled Boston Beatdown and Boston Beat Down II, then a short film titled Goodnight Moon and a feature titled Little Birds
in 2009, He entered the last film at the Sundance Film Festival in
2011. It won and Hollywood beat a path to his door. That year he was
arrested for the attempted extortion of a musician named Tony Lovato and
eventually did a year in prison. The conviction seemed to have enhanced
James charisma and tough guy credibility..
“I wanted to find a strong, unique Latino voice. Because I didn’t
think a white guy from Jersey should be writing about Latin culture and
traditions. Elgin is that voice,” said Sutter.
Both Sutter and James are represented by the William Morris Endeavor talent agency.
No casting decisions have yet been announced.
We
received a note from Assemblyman Quirk's office this afternoon that AB
51, Assemblyman Quirk's 2015 lane splitting bill, will be submitted in
amended form this coming Tuesday. We were already in support of the
bill, but the new form will be even better—basically leaving splitting
legal with no speed parameters written into the bill, but explicitly
allowing the CHP to create guidelines to educate riders and drivers
again, thus avoiding the "underground regulations" malarkey that forced
the CHP to take down the guidelines.
This is great news, and very
important. Please check out the full details at the link below, and
contact your legislator to ask them to support this very sensible bill.
I
wrote last May, almost one year ago to the day, that AB 51 in its
then-current form would codify lane splitting in a reasonable way, and
open things up for the CHP,…
OFF THE WIRE
I wrote last May, almost one year ago to the day, that AB 51 in its then-current form would codify lane splitting in a reasonable way, and open things up for the CHP, OTS, and other organizations to educate riders and drivers again, which would be a really good thing.
A quick refresher—the bill, as amended at that time
would basically codify splitting at up to 50 MPH, with a speed delta of
up to 15 MPH. These numbers were determined based on analysis by Dr. Tom
Rice of UC Berkeley / SafeTREC. You can read Dr. Rice’s lane splitting research here.
After that, the bill was tabled for the 2015 session, due to concerns
that it wouldn’t pass. I worried that it would just quietly die in
2016, like SB 350—after
all, Quirk promised us during our meetings in early 2015 that he’d kill
the bill rather than reduce the speed limit and delta to levels
inconsistent with Dr. Rice’s research.
I’ve been pestering Quirk’s office since the beginning of this year,
but haven’t gotten much more than vague statements like “discussions are
happening, the bill will probably be hard in June, amendments of
unknown nature are likely to happen before the bill can go forward.”
Until today.
I received a note from Assemblyman Quirk’s office this afternoon that
the bill would be further amended before continuing in the Senate.
Uh oh, right?
Not really. Not at all.
In nearly best case scenario, Quirk will amend the bill in such a way
that lane splitting is defined, and remains legal by virtue of not
being prohibited—remember, that which is not illegal is legal—with specific language stating that the CHP may develop guidelines about splitting to educate riders and drivers.
Put simply—lane splitting will remain legal, as it’s always been, and
the CHP and other organizations can go back to educating road users
about splitting without fear of retaliation via trumped-up “underground
regulations” accusations.
Here are the details of the amended bill. The stricken text is the
previous version of the bill, followed by the proposed new language:
SECTION 1.
Section 21658.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
21658.1. (a) A motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, that has two wheels in
contact with the ground may be driven between rows of stopped or moving
vehicles in the same lane, including both divided and undivided
streets, roads, or highways, if both of the following conditions are
present: (1) The motorcycle is not driven at a speed of more than 50 miles per hour. (2) The motorcycle is not driven more than 15 miles per hour faster than the speed of traffic moving in the same direction. (b) This section does not authorize a motorcycle to be driven in
contravention of other laws relating to the safe operation of a vehicle.
(a) For purposes of this section, “lane splitting” means driving a
motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, that has two wheels in contact
with the ground between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same
lane, including both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways.
(b) The California Department of Highway Patrol may develop
educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would
ensure the safety of the motorcyclist and the drivers and passengers of
the surrounding vehicles.
(c) In developing the guidelines pursuant to this section, the
department shall consult with agencies and organizations with an
interest in road safety and motorcycle behavior, including, but not
limited to, all of the following:
(1) The Department of Motor Vehicles
(2) The Department of Transportation
(3) The Office of Traffic Safety
(4) A motorcycle organization focused on motorcyclist safety.
The bill will be submitted to committee in this form this coming
Tuesday, May 31st. Of course, it remains to be seen whether this bill
will pass, but this is excellent news.
I urge you to contact your state senator and ask them to support this bill—you can find your legislator here. Stay tuned here or to the LaneSplittingIsLegal Facebook page—we’ll keep you informed as the bill makes its way forward.
Here’s the bill mockup from Quirk’s office:
If you’d like to support our mission here at LaneSplittingIsLegal, order some lane splitting stickers and put ‘em on every vehicle you own and maybe even some you don’t—but you didn’t hear that from us! Every
sticker we sell funds the distribution of free stickers around the
state, not to mention keeping this website live. Thanks for your
support!
OFF THE WIRE
Four bikers can move forward with a class action that claims Harley
Davidson manufactured defective motorcycles that burn drivers’ legs, a
federal judge ruled. the four bikers alleged that since 1999, Twin Cam
engines in Harley motorcycles were prone to overheating and caused burn
injuries to their legs. Transmissions on models manufactured since 2006
also came with defective transmissions, the bikers claimed. District
Judge John Mendez sided with the bikers on their claims for fraudulent
and unfair business practices, violations of Consumers Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA), and unjust enrichment.
“Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that the engine defect is material
because a reasonable consumer would change his behavior if he knew that
the engine heat can cause burns and that the transmission would require
numerous repairs or replacements,” Mendez wrote. “Plaintiffs claim that
defendant knew of the excessive engine heat defect as early as 1999 and
of the transmission defect as early as 2006,” the July 21 decision
states. “Plaintiffs discovered the excessive heat and transmission
defects after purchasing the motorcycles. Since defendant was in a
superior position to know of its defective engines, plaintiffs properly
allege that defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not
known to plaintiffs.”
OFF THE WIRE
From the MRF; universal helmet law...again: "For Immediate Release May 25, 2016 GHSA REPORT ADVOCATES FOR UNIVERSAL HELMET LAW…AGAIN
WASHINGTON, DC– Last week, the Governor’s Highway Safety Association
(GHSA) released its preliminary data and findings regarding motorcycle
fatalities in 2015. The GHSA represents the state and territorial
highway safety offices that implement programs to address highway
safety. Although GHSA’s primary mission is to improve traffic safety,
their latest report appears to be more focused on thinly veiled demands
for nationwide universal helmet laws despite their failure to provide
real data demonstrating the effectiveness of such laws.
While
the report highlights that the preliminary data suggests a 10% increase
in motorcycle fatalities in 2015, it fails to connect the presence or
lack of universal helmet laws to the projected increase. In fact, there
are a number of other factors that may explain the projected increase,
including the climate, education and experience of the motorists
involved, and the inclusion of faulty data in the making of this report.
Climate Affects In 2015 many parts of the country enjoyed a
longer riding season than in previous years. Warmer and dryer weather
leads to additional time and riding hours on the road. While the report
does address this possible explanation, it does not conclude that it has
the same influence as the absence of a universal helmet laws.
Education & Experience
Another issue that GHSA barley addresses is the consideration of
education and experience. For example, one of the most populace states
that experienced a decrease in motorcycle related fatalities was
California. While the state has not had any changes to their helmet law,
the state did engage in a motorcycle awareness campaign for motorists.
This suggests that perhaps other factors, such as motorist education and
awareness initiatives, impact fatalities. Further, the report
identifies a connection between riding experience and increases in
fatalities. It states that roughly 25% of all motorcycle fatalities are
the result of invalid motorcycle licensure. These statistics underscore
the belief long held by the Motorcycle Rider’s Foundation that training
and education is a crucial component to motorcycle safety.
Flawed Data
Perhaps one of the biggest questions raised from reading the report is
the data itself and specifically, what “counts” as a motorcycle.
According to federal statute, a motorcycle is defined as, “a motor
vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of the
rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact
with the ground.” With the rise of autocycles, a new class of vehicle
that has attributes of both a car and motorcycle, it raises the question
if this type of vehicle was included in the data supporting the
statistics in the GHSA report. As this type of vehicle continues to
emerge as a form of transportation, it will be critical that they are
addressed independently, and not unfairly categorized with motorcycles
or any other form as transportation so as not to skew the data. It is
not clear from the report that this consideration is given.
Failure to Connect the Projected Increase to the Lack of Universal Helmet Laws
Despite the report’s effort to relate the projected increase in
motorcycle fatalities to the lack of universal helmet laws, it fails to
provide any data suggesting a connection between those who were wearing
helmets versus those who were not wearing helmets when the fatality
occurred. Of the nineteen states that currently have a universal helmet
law in place; twelve experienced an increase in motorcycle fatalities
between 2014 and 2015. Of the sixteen states that saw a decrease in
motorcycle fatalities in 2015, only six have a universal helmet law.
The other ten either allow adults to make their own choice or have no
law at all.
The report also suggests that the increase in
motorcycle fatalities in Michigan is due to the state’s modification of
its helmet law in 2012, which allowed adult riders to choose whether to
wear a helmet. The report suggests that the 2015 increase in motorcycle
fatalities in Michigan is due to fewer riders wearing a motorcycle
helmet but have not provided any data to support this claim. However,
the report fails to explain the 18.8% decrease in motorcycle fatalities
between 2013 and 2014. According to the National Highway Transportation
& Safety Administration (NHTSA), Michigan motorcycle fatalities
dropped from 138 to 112 in 2014 despite the change to the state’s
motorcycle helmet law.
In conclusion, despite its best efforts,
the GHSA report fails to make any connection between the rise in
motorcycle fatalities in 2015 and the implementation of universal helmet
laws. It is unfortunate that entities such as the GHSA continue to hold
such a myopic view when it comes to motorcycle safety. The Motorcycle
Rider’s Foundation encourages the GHSA and other groups interested in a
meaningful campaign to enhance motorcycle safety to adopt a strategy
that focuses on avoiding motorcycle crashes and not merely surviving
them.
About Motorcycle Riders Foundation The Motorcycle
Riders Foundation (MRF) provides leadership at the federal level for
states’ motorcyclists’ rights organizations as well as motorcycle clubs
and individual riders. The MRF is chiefly concerned with issues at the
national and international levels that impact the freedom and safety of
American street motorcyclists. The MRF is committed to being a national
advocate for the advancement of motorcycling and its associated
lifestyle and works in conjunction with its partners to help educate
elected officials and policymakers in Washington and beyond.
If you live in
the US and have a computer, tablet or smartphone connected to the
internet, then this may be the most important news you read all year.
Earlier this month we saw thousands of people across the US get their
hands on the the latest Online ID protection from SaferWeb, after yet
another increase in identity theft and web-history monitoring.
We have however been advised that because of its unexpected popularity, availability is very limited and is now on a first come first serve basis.
Experts Are Now Calling SaferWeb, “A Game Changer For Internet Users”
As part of the special promotion due to end May 27, 2016, a
group of Microsoft Gold Engineers teamed up with innovative new software
provider SaferWeb, to provide the latest ID Protection thats just gone
viral.
If you have a desktop, laptop, tablet or smartphone connected to the
internet, your activities could be monitored and private information
collected when you’re Internet shopping or banking. Even just browsing
online is a risk in 2016.
SaferWeb had a primary objective to eliminate this by boosting
security and ensure eavesdroppers cannot make sense of your encrypted
communications.
Technical Lead John McBride, from SaferWeb explains; Our main
objective for creating the app was pretty simple. We wanted to help
users protect their Identity & Internet Connection to eliminate the
risk of any online, banking or personal information being stolen,
monitored or hacked”
The company SaferWebseemed
to deliver on this objective perfectly. Using their technology will
give a private tunnel between you and the internet that’s invisible to
hackers or any malware, letting you browse the Internet anonymously and securely. Literally anyone can use it and it only takes 5 minutes to set up.
So how can SaferWeb give this away? Apparently this promotional
tactic is common among big companies with large marketing budgets. For
instance, Burger King launched a similar campaign in 2013, giving away
20,000 free whoppers on Facebook.”
One user we spoke to said, “I came across SaferWeb and decided to
give it a go, it’s less than a cup of coffee anyways. I noticed
the difference right away and couldn’t be happier with results.
I’ve always been anxious about who watches the sites I use and how safe
my information really is and heard countless stories about people having
their banking information hacked. This is the perfect solution to
eliminate this.
So, how do you Protect Your Online Identity Today?
Here is the simple 3 click step recommended by SmarterWebLife to get yourself instant protection:
Step 1:Click Hereto go toSaferWeb, who are market leaders in securing your ID, and internet connection to make it private
Step 2: Click the “Get a Safer Web” button and enter your name, email and choose a password.
Step 3:Select a package: I recommend the “Pro” Plan. (Only
$5) and Not only will you be fully protected for life, but you’ll also
get discounts on thousands of online purchases,by, accessing local
currency rates when connecting your computer to the secure connection
Step 4: Your connection and Online ID are now protected for life One Account for all your devices.. It’s that simple.
SaferWeb Internet Security –Official Website
UPDATE: The promotion is due to end on May 27, 2016 so we urge you to act fast to avoid disappointment.
Using a SaferWeb VPN server also Unblocks Many Sports And
movie Channels. You can even book holidays and flights cheaper simply by
connecting in a different location to that of your ISP.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to vote on the Email Privacy Act
on Thursday. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Mike Lee (R-UT) plan to
introduce near-identical text of the House-passed bill, H.R. 699, as
substitute language for the existing Senate bill, S. 356. This manager’s amendment contains minor changes. In addition, up to eight different amendments may be offered.
The Email Privacy Act would amend the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act (ECPA) to require the government to get a probable cause
warrant from a judge before obtaining private content stored in the
“cloud” with companies such as Google, Facebook, and Dropbox. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 699 last month by a unanimous vote of 419-0. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing last September on
the need to reform ECPA and codify the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’
2010 ruling that the government violated the Fourth Amendment when it
obtained emails stored by third parties without a probable cause
warrant. EFF recommends senators vote "NO" on all amendments except the manager's amendment, and HEN16524 by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), which would loosen the gag requirements of ECPA that are contested in a recent lawsuit by Microsoft.
The committee must reject the other amendments, especially one by
Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Richard
Blumenthal (D-CT) that would "reform" the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (OLL16603);
and the electronic communication transactional records (ECTR) amendment
(OLL16601) by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that would expand the types of
information the FBI can obtain with a National Security Letter, without
prior judicial oversight.
The committee must also defeat amendments that would create a so-called mandatory emergency exception—a
requirement that service providers comply with government requests for
user data when the government claims emergency circumstances, again
without prior oversight by a court. The mandatory emergency exception is
found in two amendments by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL). EFF recommends senators vote "NO" on both amendments: HEN16527 and HEN16529. These
amendments are unnecessary because ECPA (18 U.S.C. § 2702) already
permits service providers to hand over content or other records in an “emergency involving danger of death or serious physical injury to any person.” And
it is beneficial for users that service providers may withhold data
when they believe that the government is fraudulently using the
emergency exception to bypass due process requirements. In 2010, for
example, the Department of Justice’s Inspector General
found that “exigent letters and informal requests were used in
circumstances that do not appear to qualify as emergencies under Section
2702” (p. 261). We urge the Senate Judiciary Committee to pass a “clean” bill without any further amendments that would weaken the privacy protections in the legislation. Please contact your senators
and urge them to pass a strong Email Privacy Act so that your emails
and private documents stored online have the same protection as those
stored in your home or office!
OFF THE WIRE
By Ernesto Falcon
Warning: Posting of CA State and CA local government publications,
videos, pictures on FB and the internet...could lead to copyright
infringement where you could get sued....by our government!
The
California Assembly Committee on Judiciary recently approved a bill (AB
2880) to grant local and state governments copyright authority along
with other intellectual property rights.
Therefore, if a citizen infringed on a state owned copyright by making a copy of a government publication,
or reading that publication out loud in a public setting, or uploading
it to the internet, they could be liable for statutory damages.
Imagine local officials having the power to issue a takedown notice of
YouTube videos of city council or legislative committee meetings simply
because they did not like them. Citizens concerned with litigation
threats will refrain from sharing or copying government works despite
the fact that their tax dollars created those works. Worse yet is the
perverse incentive for governments to litigate given the substantial
money that can obtained through statutory damages.
California's Legislature Wants to Copyright All Government Works
AB
2880 will give state and local governments dramatic powers to chill
speech, stifle open government, and harm the public domain.
The California Assembly Committee on Judiciary recently approved a bill (AB 2880)
to grant local and state governments copyright authority along with
other intellectual property rights. At its core, the bill grants state
and local government the authority to create, hold, and exert
copyrights, including in materials created by the government. For
background, the federal Copyright Act prohibits the federal government
from claiming copyright in the materials it creates, but is silent on
state governments. As a result, states have taken various approaches
to copyright law with some granting themselves vast powers and others
(such as California) forgoing virtually all copyright authority at least
until now. EFF strongly opposes the
bill. Such a broad grant of copyright authority to state and local
governments will chill speech, stifle open government, and harm the
public domain. It is our hope that the state legislature will scuttle
this approach and refrain from covering all taxpayer funded works under a
government copyright.
What Does the Bill Do?
AB 2880 sets out to "clarify" that all works created by public
entities are eligible for intellectual property restrictions. This
includes trademarks, patents, trade secrets, and copyrights. As things
stand today, works created by California state and local governments
(like reports, video, maps, and so on) aren't subject to copyright
except in a few special cases. That ensures that Californians who funded
the creation of those works through their tax dollars can use those
works freely.
The bill would change California from having one of the best policies
on copyright of any U.S. state to among the worst. It authorizes public
entities to register copyrights in their work. That means that state
and local governments will have the power to seek statutory damages that
can reach as high as $30,000 per infringement and potentially as life
altering as $150,000 for willful conduct against people who use
state-created materials. Therefore, if a citizen infringed on a state
owned copyright by making a copy of a government publication, or reading
that publication out loud in a public setting, or uploading it to the
internet, they could be liable for statutory damages. The harms felt by
this bill's approach are wide ranging because it would take very little
to claim that a work is protected by copyright law.
Imagine local officials having the power to issue a DMCA takedown
notice of YouTube videos of city council meetings simply because they
did not like them (sounds crazy? read on).
Chilling Effect on Free Speech
We've seen many copyright claims that are in reality attempts to
censor speech. California local and state governments are not exempt
from the temptation of suppressing disfavored speech under a copyright
claim as evidenced by the Teixeira case. In 2015, the city council of Inglewood had filed a lawsuit against a citizen
(Teixeira) for uploading video clips of city council meetings to
YouTube with his criticisms of the mayor. The lawsuit was dismissed by
the court outright because California cities don't have the power to
claim copyright. The court went even further to explain how Mr.
Teixeira's use of the videos to criticize the mayor was a fair use. So
while the litigation ended on the correct note (though it cost Inglewood taxpayers $110,000 in legal fees), it demonstrated how copyright law can be abused in the hands of government.
If all works produced by state and local government from city council
recordings to documents that embarrassed a local official become
subject to copyright law, the Teixeira case really represents a
harbinger of things to come. Citizens concerned with litigation threats
will refrain from sharing or copying government works despite the fact
that their tax dollars created those works. Worse yet is the perverse
incentive for governments to litigate given the substantial money that
can obtained through statutory damages.
Restrictions on Open Government
In an attempt to address this obvious potential for censoring the
public by exerting copyright controls on state owned works, the bill
provides an exemption for all works requested under the California
Public Records Act (CPRA) but explicitly reserves all of the
powers granted to a holder of a copyright (the holder in this instance
being the government). That means a state or local government cannot
resist a CPRA request for a document on the grounds of protecting
copyright. But by explicitly reserving all of the exclusive rights given
to a copyright holder, the state and local governments keeps
extraordinary powers to restrain the ability for a citizen to distribute
documents they obtain through a CPRA request. Those powers could be
used in many ways such as denying a citizen the right to make copies,
distribute copies, create derivative works of the original, or to
publicly perform or display the work. While fair use might apply, its
application can be uncertain and risky, and it's no substitute for
keeping copyright out of the mix altogether.
A Massive Loss to the Public Domain
Currently, California has one of the most citizen-friendly state
copyright regimes on the books where a vast majority of state created
works are free to the public with only five exceptions.
All other audio, visual, and written work of state and local govenment
employees is in the public domain upon creation and free for the public
to use however they see fit. For the most part, this follows the federal
model where works created by taxpayer money are by default owned by the
public.
The federal approach makes sense when we consider the goals of the
intellectual property clause in the Constitution. The purpose of
providing a limited government monopoly through copyright was to
incentivize creativity and provide a market mechanism to monetize that
creative expression. However, governments do not need an incentive
because their source of funding comes from taxes and the government
employees creating the works are already compensated by the public. The
general policy rationale against governments from exerting copyrights
over publicly funded works is founded on the premise that public funding
means public property and that it belongs to citizens by default.
EFF hopes that the state legislature will recognize the fundamental
problems with AB 2880's approach and forgo covering all state and local
government works under copyright law. As the LA Times Editorial Board correctly noted
at the conclusion of the Teixeira case, "there's something
fundamentally outrageous about using tax dollars to sue a taxpayer over
the use of a public record that taxpayers paid to create."
If you're a California resident, tell your legislators to reject this dangerous bill.
*REMEMBER TO TALK TO YOUR KIDS ABOUT POLICE INTERACTIONS*
My
son and his friends ( all minors ) were illegally stopped by SJCSO. My
son, who knows I follow CopBlock was smart enough to call me to help
them ( but dumb enough not to record the incident ). When I arrived I
immediately asked my son and his friends why they were being stopped and
they said they had not been told. I told them all to NOT answer any
questions without either a lawyer or parents present. I then asked the
officers the reason for the stop and asked if anyone was being
detained. I asked over and over. They refused to answer my questions at
first but finally let all of them go. They did cite the driver for not
having a license on them ( a $ 10 dollar fine which I encouraged the
driver to fight ) I truly believe the information you provide may have
saved several young people from what could have been a terrible outcome.
THANK YOU! Keep up the great work!
Denver, CO — A recently proposed bill in Colorado imposing legal penalties on police officers who interfere with citizens filming them could soon become law. The state’s House Of Representatives passed the bill this week, and it will now move on to vote in the Senate.
If it becomes law, the bill would reportedly require police officers to have someone’s consent or a warrant to physically take or destroy a persons camera or footage. If an officer violates this law, the victim would then be able to seek damages up to $15,000 plus attorney fees. This would also be the first law in the country that would guarantee civil damages to people who have their recording rights violated by police.
After passing in the House on Wednesday, Colorado House Bill 15-1290 will now make its way to the Senate for a final vote.
Police union officials are not happy about the bill, and they say that it treats officers unfairly and holds them to a standard that citizens are not held to, which is ironic because police typically behave as if they were above the law, and not subject to the same standards as everyone else.
“The CACP does not believe that the people who put their lives at risk every day should have different standards of liability than anyone else in government,” police union representative AnneMarie Jensen, said in a statement.
According to 7 News Denver, Rep. Joe Salazar, co-sponsor of the bill, said House Bill 15-1290 has support from both Democrats and Republicans and is not intended to penalize police.
“It takes a very special person to be a police officer,” Salazar said. “We want to honor them, but at the same time, we have a few bad apples who need to be aware that their conduct now has major, major consequences.”
One of the incidents that caught the
attention of Salazar was the case of Bobbie Ann Diaz. Diaz was trying to
film what happened after police shot and killed 17-year-old Jessica Hernandez.
As
Diaz was trying to film the incident, she says an officer stopped her
and threatened her with arrest if she continued to film.
“At that
time, (the officers) put Jessie down and they were on their knees
yelling at Brianna that she better not record. She better not,” Diaz
said. “She got scared. She got intimated. These are big officers and she
didn’t want to make things worse.”
Diaz didn’t know that she was protected by law to film the police as long as she wasn’t interfering with their investigation.
Only
through shining light into the darkness, i.e., filming police
encounters, will enough people finally see how corrupt and violent this
system is becoming. Your right to film the police must be protected. John Vibes is
an author, researcher and investigative journalist who takes a special
interest in the counter culture and the drug war. In addition to his
writing and activist work he organizes a number of large events
including the Free Your Mind Conference,
which features top caliber speakers and whistle-blowers from all over
the world. You can contact him and stay connected to his work at his Facebook page. You can find his 65 chapter Book entitled “Alchemy of the Timeless Renaissance” at bookpatch.com.
OFF THE WIRE
Press statement from the NCOC...
"The National Council of
Clubs is the largest unifying movement in the history of motorcycle
clubs. We represent the voice of thousands of motorcycle clubs across
America. These clubs are comprised of riders from all walks of life. The
movement consists of Christian clubs, Military Veterans clubs, Clean
and Sober clubs, Women only clubs, Child Abuse Assistance Clubs, 1%
clubs, riding clubs and many others, reflective of the rich culture and
history of our country and the multitude
of personal interests available to us all. We are dedicated to
defending the political, legislative and legal interests of millions of
motorcycle riders across America and of all of our clubs and club
members.
This press
conference marked a historical occasion. Representatives from motorcycle
clubs nationwide stood together to deliver a unified message to the
world. The movement is supported by a broad-based coalition. So, in
addition to the National Council of Clubs spokesperson and legal
counsel, others addressing the media will include victims of
discrimination in Waco, their families, and representatives of other
organizations interested in protecting civil liberties and the
Constitution.
Motorcycle clubs and motorcyclists represent one of
the largest constituencies in the United States. A unified movement
focused on utilizing the democratic process is the best opportunity
available to secure and advance the freedoms and civil liberties of all
motorcyclists."
OFF THE WIRE
By Nate Cardozo
Privacy is due for an upgrade. Today, the Electronic Frontier
Foundation joins a nationwide day of action calling for reform of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), the 1986 law used by the
government to access your online documents, messages, and emails stored
in the cloud without a warrant.
ECPA is sorely outdated. It was enacted before web-based email became
ubiquitous and “the cloud” meant only airborne water vapor. The law
purports to allow for any opened emails or unopened emails left on a
server for more than 180 days to be treated like abandoned property.
Although the courts disagree,
some agencies believe that ECPA allows law enforcement to access stored
content with a mere subpoena. That interpretation created a senseless
distinction—law enforcement was required to meet a much lower standard
to access your saved webmail than the warrant standard that would be
required if the same emails were printed and stored in your file
cabinet. ECPA should not be used to bypass 4th Amendment protections that cover our personal email accounts, our social media messages, or anything else using cloud storage.
In the midst of the global outrage sparked by the 2013 revelations of
warrantless NSA surveillance, we've also learned that the National
Security Agency actively collaborates with the FBI
and other government agencies to access private emails and Internet
data stored by U.S. companies. Even if we are successful in reining in
the NSA's overly broad and unconstitutional surveillance, without ECPA
reform other government agencies could still claim the legal authority
to continue the massive collection of millions of innocent people's
personal communications and data without due process.
Bills to reform ECPA have gained huge bipartisan support. Earlier in the year, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to update our outdated electronic privacy law.
And now, a similar bill is being debated in the House. The problem is
that government agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission are
asking for a special carve out
permitting the agency to access email and data stored by Internet
service providers without a warrant. This exception, if granted, would
completely undermine meaningful, and much needed, ECPA reform.
EFF is a member of the Digital Due Process
coalition, a collection of tech companies, start-ups, privacy
advocates, and think tanks working to update ECPA to ensure that laws
continue to protect the rights of users as technologies advance and
usage patterns evolve. Today, please join us in demanding for
long-overdue updates to our archaic electronic privacy laws. Speak out:
1. You can sign the White House Petition
calling on the Obama Administration to reject agency demands for
unjustified surveillance authority that would undermine critically
needed ECPA reform. Check out the privacy policy of the White House site
here.
(RT)
— The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) wants to prevent
information about its creepy biometric database, which contains
fingerprint, face, iris, and voice scans of millions of Americans, from
getting out to the public.
The Department of Justice has come up with a proposal to exempt the biometric database from public disclosure. It states that
the Next Generation Identification System (NGI) should not be subject
to the Privacy Act, which requires federal agencies to give people
access to records that have been collected concerning them, “allowing them to verify and correct them if needed.”
The FBI is scared sh*tless about the details of this database being made public.
The proposal states that allowing individuals to view their own records, or even an account of those records, could compromise criminal investigations or “national security efforts,” potentially reveal a “sensitive investigative technique,” or provide information that could help a subject “avoid detection or apprehension.”
The database contains biometric information on people who have provided fingerprints to employers, or for licenses and background checks, as well as on convicted criminals and those that have been suspected of wrongdoing even for a short period of time, according to Underground Reporter.
The proposal argues that the FBI should be able to retain the data it has collected on individuals even if they are later found to have done nothing illegal, as the information “may acquire new significance when new details are brought to light.”
The FBI claims the retained data could also be used for “establishing patterns of activity and providing criminal lead.”
In addition, the FBI’s proposal calls for an exemption to a clause which requires agencies to maintain records proving that their determinations regarding individuals in their data base are fair and legally justified, arguing that it is “impossible to know in advance what information is accurate, relevant, timely and complete.”
The proposal is open for comment until June 6.
Facial recognition is being used outside the realms of law enforcement as well. For example, a nightclub in Sydney uses the technology to identify clubbers previously deemed unruly to prevent them from getting in again.
Facebook has long used facial recognition
software to identify people in uploaded photographs and offers facial
recognition as a method of verifying a user’s identity.
There are now even facial recognition apps that can identify strangers on the street. While this may be great news for stalkers, it is less so for those not inclined to reveal their identity to random passersby.
Meanwhile, there are companies making
products that can confuse or fool facial recognition software. A
Japanese company has invented a “privacy visor” that will “scramble
digital facial recognition software,” Biometric Update reports.
Specially
made clothes and camouflage make up can turn a face “into a mess of
unremarkable pixels” in order to throw the technology off.
Inside the NGI, in the words of the FBI
The information stored on the FBI’s Next Generation Identification System, the biometrics database it is trying to keep under wraps, gives federal agents access to a number of identification systems.
Here’s a rundown on the tools on offer to law enforcement, as detailed on the FBI’s website:
• The Interstate Photo System contains 23 million front-facing photographs that can be used to identify suspects without human intervention.
• The Repository for Individuals of Special Concern (RISC) allows agents in the field to rapidly identify detainees and criminal suspects by searching a repository of Wanted Persons, Sex Offenders Registry Subjects, Known or appropriately Suspected Terrorists, and other persons of special interest.
• The Latents and National Palm Print System is an updated database of finger and palm prints that can be searched on a nationwide basis.
• The Rap Back Service notifies agencies of the activity of individuals after “the initial processing and retention of criminal or civil transactions.” The service can “notify agencies of subsequent activity for individuals enrolled in the service. Including a more timely process of confirming suitability of those individuals placed in positions of trust and notification to users of criminal activity for those individuals placed on probation or parole.”
• Iris Recognition is “poised to offer law enforcement a new tool to quickly and accurately determine identity.”
Every
sticker we sell funds the distribution of free stickers around the
state, not to mention keeping this website live. Thanks for your
support!
