Update on Discriminatory Motorcycle Seizure Legislation In Florida (HB 137)

[JamesK]

This is a quote of Bruce Arnold's email summary on the status of the House Bill 137 that some attention seeking politician tried (still trying) to get passed.

From: Bruce Arnold [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 5:29 AM

Subject: Update on Discriminatory Motorcycle Seizure Legislation In Florida (HB 137)

FIRST AMENDMENT NOTICE: This is a political communication to Bruce's Rights Riders List exercising our Freedom of Speech as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to convey information regarding motorcyclists' rights and motorcycle awareness issues. To insure that you continue to receive emails like this, please add "[email protected]" to your address book and safe senders list. To no longer receive our emails, please reply to this email with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

***

-----Original Message-----

From: Dara Mclain [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 9:41 PM

To: 'Bruce Arnold'

Subject: HB 137 Hearing - Janury 10, 2008

COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE - HEARING FOR HOUSE BILL 137 JANUARY 10, 2008 HOUSE BUILDING, RM 404 TALLAHASSEE, FL

https://tinyurl.com/37opzm

Here's a recap from this morning's hearing on HB 137. All quotes are as I remember them, as I did not have a tape recorder with me. All internet links and email addresses are listed at the bottom of this message.

I arrived at 8:30AM for the hearing, which was to begin at 9:00AM. The room was empty except for the committee secretary, who was more than happy to accept my request to speak. Out of perhaps 75 seats, only 25 were filled by the time the meeting started.

Representative Carlos Lopez-Cantera...

[

[email protected]

District Office:

Suite 111

2300 Coral Way

Miami, FL 33145-3511

Phone: (305) 442-6877

]

...the author of this bill, gave his intro to the bill and stated that he had issued a "strike-through", meaning he had changed the wording, and the initial submission was no longer valid.

However, all he changed was the speed limit offense to more than 50 miles per hour over the speed limit, up from 30mph. I was unaware of this change and therefore did not have a copy of this revised bill.

Mr. Lopez-Cantera then played a video created by a news team in Miami, on Sportbike riders pulling wheelies at high speed on public roadways. In the video, two tickets were given out. Riders were interviewed. Statements like, "it's like a drug to me, the need for speed," and, "I just pay the ticket, no big deal."

After the video, an officer from Miami spoke to the committee. Mostly he provided testimony on accident history. One in particular was about a woman who was killed in her SUV when a Sportbike rider slammed into her at a high rate of speed. His bike went through the driver's compartment. There was no mention of whether the woman violated his right-of-way. He spoke of how the woman's infant was not in the car seat, but underneath the passenger seat on the floor, gaining a considerable amount of sympathy from the committee.

Questions for him from the committee members presented the first indication of where this hearing would lead.

Representative Susan Bucher felt the drag racing laws already covered this issue and wanted to know if this current law excluded motorcycles. Mr.

Lopez-Cantera did not know the answer and stated he had not researched that law. She clearly thought the bill was redundant with respect to speeding.

She also wanted to know why they couldn't put a helmet law repeal into the whole package, as she feels helmets will save more lives, and is needed. She later stated that motorcyclists who did not wear helmets were just organ donors. Though she didn't like this bill, I didn't get any warm and fuzzies from her either.

Another Representative, Greg Evers, testified that he was dead set against this bill. He had received an email where the author described a scenario by which a motorcyclist could be arrested for erroneous reasons (by harassment or profiling). The author then stated at the end of the email, "I know all this, because I'm a cop". It struck a cord with him, Mr. Evers said. He seemed to grasp the entire concept of why this bill is so discriminating.

I was first up from the audience to speak in opposition to the bill. I presented my case from the standpoint that the bill was discriminatory, and that confiscation of private property was unconstitutional, and from a fairness standpoint as well (motorcyclists vs. all drivers). The bill, I said, should be written to include all drivers because, yes, I agreed, stiffer penalties are needed for reckless driving.

The first question I was asked was, do I think permanently confiscating a motorcycle is too harsh of a punishment. To which I said, yes, without a doubt, not when right-of-way violators, DUI offenders and other reckless driving, kills without equal punishment.

The second question asked was how would I propose stopping these stunt riders from violating speed laws. To which I replied, our tax money would be better spent finding a way to catch them. One suggestion made by Mr.

Lopez-Cantera was to make it a high fine punishment for not having your license plate permanently affixed, so Sportbike riders could not take them off. This is how they get away; they can't later be identified by video.

I also said, I don't like it when they do this either, but it happens much less often than reckless driving of auto drivers, and shouldn't we work on making stiffer punishment for all reckless drivers, instead of singling out motorcycles?

I was also asked if I thought more graduated punishment would be acceptable, and I said yes it would, but only if the bill is written to include all motor vehicles, not just motorcycles.

Next up to speak was a representative from ABATE, who basically repeated all of the same points.

Last to speak was Winn Peeples, who represents motorcycle dealers in Florida. He also said that most of what he wanted to say, had already been covered, but added that dealers are also 100% opposed to this bill. He sited the revenue netted in Florida by the sale of motorcycles. Financing institutions would not finance a motorcycle in Florida if this bill passes.

I believe that Greg Evers approached Mr. Lopez-Cantera privately and offered to defer the bill, rather than kill it, if Lopez-Cantera would agree. I could not hear what was said, so this is purely speculation, but shortly after that private conversation, Evers approached the Chairman on the side, and the motion to vote on a deferment was issued. The committee favorably voted to defer the bill to a later date.

Final note: At first I was discouraged that I saw no local support from area Bikers. But Winn Peeples and I agreed that those of us who were there, was enough to work constructively in the time alotted, and push HB 137 back to the drawing board. That and Representative Greg Evers. Winn was there on behalf of Florida's dealers. I was there for myself, and for all of Florida's freedom fighters who couldn't be there.

SO WHAT NOW? IT'S ALL GOOD RIGHT?

Sorry. Let's be clear. This bill is NOT dead. And it *could* come up on the agenda again, though it is less likely to now than before, not without a rewrite. Below is a summary of each Representative and my perceived

*opinion* of their position, based on what was heard today.

Representatives Richard Glorioso, Gary Aubuchon, Jimmy Patronis, Greg Evers and Nick Thomspon were all in favor of rewriting this bill to a broader degree; to include ALL motorists, and for stiffer penalties for reckless driving, but with graduated punishments employed. Nick Thompson initially wanted to kill the bill, as did Greg Evers. They all need to hear we support them and appreciate their proposed vision.

Representative Ed Hooper wants to see offending Sportbike riders punished severely but conceded that a graduated punishment was better than none. He could be pushed over to our side, maybe. He also had a personal "story" to tell about a death on a motorcycle.

Representative Scott Randolph was sympathetic to our position, but felt there was a need and agreed with a rewrite. He seems to be "on the fence".

He needs to hear from us also.

Representative Susan Bucher I believe would have voted no, as she seemed to feel this bill was redundant, though she is no biker advocate. And though she bears watching, I believe she will not be a contender.

Representative Steve Precourt would have voted in favor of the bill as it stands. He needs to be inundated with emails and letters of opposition. He needs to see just how many of us vote here in Florida, and how many supporters there for our cause in this country.

Representative Michael Scionti was not present due to a recall back to active military duty.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

First order of business - send a thank you letter or email to Representative Greg Evers. What he did today was show 100% support in our favor. Let him know you were watching and waiting, and you appreciate his position. He was against "motorcycles only" and against the confiscation of personal property.

Second order of business - email or call the rest.

The opportunity to rewrite this bill to be a huge benefit to all motorcyclists and include all drivers is an enormous boon to come out of this. I have been asked to help draft the bill in the right way, for all.

There is a lot of work left to be done here before anyone can breathe a sigh of relief.

There will be NO COMPROMISE on discriminatory wording, or confiscation. The bill will include all motorists or face strong opposition. Those on the committee who want to see this happen have stated their position clearly in favor of this. Still, don't let your guard down, don't fall back, hold the line.

COMMITTEE ON INFRASTRUCTURE - All relevant documents are listed here:

https://tinyurl.com/2aqomf

Representative Richard "Rich" Glorioso - Chair [email protected] District Office:

Suite 204

110 W. Reynolds Street

Plant City, FL 33563-3379

Phone: (813) 757-9110

Representative Gary Aubuchon

[email protected]

District Office:

Suite 305

3501 Del Prado Boulevard

Cape Coral, FL 33904-7223

Phone: (239) 344-4900

Representative Susan Bucher

[email protected]

District Office:

Suite 102

2240 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard

West Palm Beach, FL 33409-3403

Phone: (561) 682-0156

Representative Greg Evers

[email protected]

District Office:

5224 Willing Street

Milton, FL 32570-4971

Phone: (850) 983-5550

Representative Ed Hooper

[email protected]

District Office:

Suite 206

2963 Gulf to Bay Boulevard

Clearwater, FL 33759-4259

Phone: (727) 724-3000

Representative Jimmy Patronis

[email protected]

District Office:

Suite A

455 Harrison Avenue

Panama City, FL 32401-2775

Phone: (850) 914-6300

Representative Stephen L. Precourt

[email protected]

District Office:

310 South Dillard Street

Suite 400

Winter Garden, FL 34787-3515

Phone: (407) 814-6138

Representative Scott Randolph

[email protected]

District Office:

Suite 100

701 East South Street

Orlando, FL 32801-2953

Phone: (407) 893-3084

Representative Nicholas R. "Nick" Thompson [email protected] District Office:

Suite 208

2120 Main Street

Fort Myers, FL 33901-3010

Phone: (239) 533-2411

Representative Michael Scionti (not present at the hearing and will probably not be involved with this bill in the future) [email protected]

District Office:

Suite 102

4221 North Himes Avenue

Tampa, FL 33607-6228

Phone: (813) 673-4674

Updates to follow as they occur.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dara McLain

***

EXPRESS YOUR OPINION IN THIS ONLINE POLL:

https://www.wkyt.com/news/headlines/13570122.html

***

"The battle for bikers' rights is not about patches, parties or poker runs. We fight to protect the freedom and promote the interests of American motorcyclists ... to defend our right to choose our own modes of transportation, attire and lifestyle ... to deter and defy discrimination against us ... and to vanquish those who violate our rights or right-of-way."--Bruce Arnold

https://ldrlongdistancerider.com/bikers_rights.php

***

Please post your comments and replies here:

https://ldrlongdistancerider.com/forum.php

 

[Ignacio]

A fairly objective piece that illustrates how the bill making process actually works. Rarely black and white, lots of different perspectives, and open to those who put forthe the effort to show up and participate. The committee had some good questions and points and show they're being a deliberative body. Should be interesting to see what, if anything, comes out for full body consideration. Who knows, maybe they'll pick something actually aimed at the stuntas causing the problem.

 

[madmike2]

At the risk of this degenerating into a "I hate stuntas" or "I hate poiticians" thread....

The process is something most of us don't understand because we are used to making a decision and acting on that decision. Those who represent us and write laws have the responsibility to look at each action from variying perspectives. Those responsible to enforce those laws need principles clearly delineated. It sounds so simple and easy in High School during American Government classes!

I appreciate those who have the time and energy to act as watchdogs for the rest of us and participate in the process. I'm sure the FL representatives are being very careful as there will surely be constitutional challenges should the final law actually discriminate against only one type of vehicle.

That being said, I wonder if those who live in FL, and will write or call their representatives, might mention the alternative to write additions to existing laws, i.e., add "wheelstands" and "aggregious excessive speed" (by certain mph) to the vehicle code under "wreckless driving", or add graduated fines (and/or jail/community service) for second and third violations within a certain period (like 1 year)?

I'm almost certain that here in CA, this (stunting, wheelstands, excessive speeding) would be labelled "exhibition of speed" or "wreckless driving" by the CHP and most local Police Departments. Most of this is covered in this link about different state traffic laws. While it is highly unlikely, Florida might have an undue number of occurences of this activity or perhaps a more vociferate citizenry.

There are always options and it will be interesting to watch as this unfolds.

 

[colin]

Interesting read James, hopefully it all works out!

lettuce know when you come back here.

 

[JerseyEd]

Thank you for looking out for all bikers. If this is put into law, it could be copied by any state. I would not want to be the one bringing before a higher court because it should not have been passed in the first place.

 

[Flyguy]

While it is "politically incorrect" to single out any particular group, let's not fool ourselves that the behavior that is being targeted is attributable specifically at sport bike extremists. They are distinguishing themselves as much for attitude as for actions. Americans are funny. We can overlook a lot of behavioral quirks in the name of freedom even if we don't personnally endorse such things but serve up some attitude alongside and tolerance vanishes.

We need to take this stuff seriously - RIGHT NOW! As well aquainted as one fellow at the meeting seemed to be with current issues, we need more capable representation than a 60's throwback challenging the committee, in Charleton Heston style, to just try and take his ride after a bump induced wheelie on his HD. Oh yea, and don't try and bring up any helmet law repeal talk either. Now we're talking high tide at the gene pool! While not a good representative of modern biking or posessing any eloquence, he did show, was knowledgeable and touched on many worthwile points.

We, as part of the MC community, better get involved in this process up front or we will be bemoaning it from behind. We should be working toword stiff solutions that actually have impact on abhorrent behavior as opposed to just defending freedom turf. Things have gone too far for that.

Identifying offenders seems to be one major weakness in enforcement effectiveness. I would propose changing plate design to a large trapizoid shape with 5 LARGE letters total - two on top row at 3 on the second. Also, adopt strict 4 point mounting requirements that carry a $500 fine for failure to display properly. Would it ugly up the back end of an R6? A bit but it would also be visible at great distance and just think of the revenue that would be generated with a casual walk around preferred hangouts. Finally, the bottom of the plate would have a color controlled insurance sticker showing compliance. No sticker - big ticket. Retailers should be required to attach proof of coverage BEFORE releasing the bike. These last points alone would have significant impact on many youthful riders who previously chose their steeds on the affordability of monthly payments alone. Add in the extra $3,000 - 5,000 per year for forced ins. premiums and that new Busa starts to take on a whole new "affordability" look.

It may seem like a big hammer to some, but for the average responsible rider it has no impact because it represents no real change. To the immature, irresponsibe rider it would be a nightmare. That works!

 

[Ignacio]

I would propose ....

And that's the point your response goes off the rails.

This thread is about HB137 and only about HB137. It is "pending legislation" that is allowed under the guidelines whereas general politics is not. The rest of your rant is not.

Get a HB number for your pending legislation....or even show that you submitted the suggestion to your FL legislator for crissake! Or head to The Dungeon and knock yourself out.

Thread is closed.