Page Title
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Liability disclaimer: Every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the electronic documents and resources provided on this Web site. However, the New Hampshire Motorcyclists' Rights Organization (NHMRO) makes no warranties, express or implied, regarding errors or omissions and assumes no legal liability or responsibility for loss or damage resulting in the use of this information contained within. Copyright 1995-2009 The New Hampshire Motorcyclists' Rights Organization |
Our challenge to Myrtle Beach's anti-motorcycling ordinances has been ruled upon and the Supreme Court
of South Carolina has found that they are unlawful.
Thanks to all who have helped in this matter and who volunteered their time and energy to stand up for the
rights of motorcyclists everywhere.
If you would like to read a copy of the opinion the link is provided below:
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/26825.htm
Matt Danielson
Tom McGrath's Motorcycle Law Group
Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists
1-800-321-8968
South Carolina JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
26825 - Aakjer, et al v. City of Myrtle Beach
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
George Jensen Aakjer, III, Leight Andersen, Bobby Wayne Archer, Donald Lee Ard, Gary Philip Balcom,
Thurman Odell Barnes, Ralph Hillary Bell, Jr., Marvin Simon Beverly, Steven M. Brinsfield, Laurie Ann
Dzerwieniec, Jeffery Jay Galbrath, Ronald Dewayne Gause, Gwendolyn Marie Harvey, Jessica Jane Hayes,
Anthony Odell Hyman, Molly Infield, Mark Dale Infield, Bonnie Roberts Johnson, Emmett Earl Jones, Dawn
Michell Kelly, Richard Allen Lester, Rodney Alan Louhoff, Gary Edward Matson, Carla Williams Mercer, Richard
O'Neil Mercer, Edward Dee Mitchum, Kathy Mitchum, Carol Justice North, Carol O'Day, William O'Day, III, Paul
David Pinette, Steve Pinnell, Robert George Pinto, Debra A. Purcell, Rhonda Delette Robinson, Scott Allen
Robinson, Rebecca Ann Rowan, Scott Rowan, Joseph Fred Ruddock, Jr., David Francis Speck, Anita Lynn
Teachey, Robert Larry Thompson, Waddell H. Thompson, Michael James Timm, Debbie Timm, Rebel JM
Tyler, Janice Waites, Susan Wall, and Edward Lucas Williams, Petitioners,
v. City of Myrtle Beach, City of Myrtle Beach Municipal Court, Respondents.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Opinion No. 26825 Heard February 3, 2010 – Filed June 8, 2010
JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONERS
Desa Ballard, of West Columbia, and James Thomas McGrath, of Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioners.
Michael W. Battle, of Battle, Vaught & Howe, of Conway, for Respondents.
JUSTICE PLEICONES:
In response to various concerns stemming from motorcycle rallies, the City of Myrtle Beach enacted a
number of ordinances and amendments to ordinances (the Motorcycle Ordinances). Among the ordinances
was Ordinance 2008-64, which required that any person riding a motorcycle wear a protective helmet and
eyewear (the Helmet Ordinance). Petitioners were each cited for violating the Helmet Ordinance by failing to
wear the requisite helmet and eyewear. They brought this action in this Court’s original jurisdiction
challenging the Helmet Ordinance on three points: (1) the Helmet Ordinance is preempted by State law; (2)
the ordinance establishing the system for adjudicating infractions of the Helmet Ordinance, which has since
been repealed, was so intertwined with certain Motorcycle Ordinances that its repeal caused the ordinances
to fail[1]; and, (3) the current system for adjudicating alleged violations of the Helmet Ordinance in municipal
court is improper as the municipal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the charges.
Petitioners seek a declaratory judgment finding the Helmet Ordinance and Motorcycle Ordinances invalid
and a writ of prohibition barring the municipal court from exercising jurisdiction over the alleged violations of
the Helmet Ordinance. We find: (1) that the Helmet Ordinance is preempted under the doctrine of implied
field preemption; (2) that the Motorcycle Ordinances were impliedly repealed by the ordinance repealing the
administrative hearing system; and, (3) since we invalidate the Helmet Ordinance, we do not reach
Petitioners' argument seeking a writ of prohibition.
FACTS
For years, large motorcycle rallies were held in Myrtle Beach. A number of objections were had to the rallies
based on, among other things, loud noise and rowdy behavior. Additionally, there was evidence the rallies
placed a heavy burden on the local medical community, police, and other emergency responders.
In response, the City passed a number of ordinances and amendments dealing with rallies and
motorcycles. Included among them was the Helmet Ordinance, an ordinance requiring all persons riding on
motorcycles to wear approved helmets and eyewear. Under the language of the Helmet Ordinance, a
violation was deemed an "administrative infraction." The City passed an ordinance establishing an
administrative hearing system to conduct hearings on citations charging violations of certain municipal
ordinances, including certain Motorcycle Ordinances. The administrative hearing ordinance was
subsequently repealed.
Petitioners were each cited for failing to wear the requisite helmet and eyewear in the City. After the
administrative hearing system was repealed, the City issued a Uniform Ordinance Summons for each
person charged, requiring them to appear before a municipal court judge. This Court accepted Petitioners'
petition for certiorari in its original jurisdiction before any charges were adjudicated.
ISSUES
I. Is the Myrtle Beach Helmet Ordinance preempted by State law?
II. Are the Motorcycle Ordinances impliedly repealed?
DISCUSSION
I. Preemption A municipal ordinance is a legislative enactment and is presumed to be constitutional.
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. City of Spartanburg, 285 S.C. 495, 497, 331 S.E.2d 333, 334
(1985). The burden of proving the invalidity of a municipal ordinance is on the party attacking it. Id. This State’
s constitution provides that the powers of local governments should be liberally construed. See S.C. Const.
art. VIII, § 17. To determine the validity of a local ordinance, this Court’s inquiry is twofold: (1) did the local
government have the power to enact the local ordinance, and if so (2) is the ordinance consistent with the
constitution and general law of this State. See Beachfront Entertainment, Inc., v. Town of Sullivan’s Island,
379 S.C. 602, 605, 666 S.E.2d 912, 913 (2008). Petitioners advance a number of grounds for preemption of
the Helmet Ordinance. We hold that the Helmet Ordinance fails under the doctrine of implied field
preemption. An ordinance is preempted under implied field preemption when the state statutory scheme so
thoroughly and pervasively covers the subject as to occupy the field or when the subject mandates statewide
uniformity. See South Carolina State Ports Authority v. Jasper County, 368 S.C. 388, 397, 629 S.E.2d 624,
628 (2006). The General Assembly addressed motorcycle helmet and eyewear requirements in S.C. Code
Ann. §§ 56-5-3660 and 56-5-3670 (2009), respectively. The statutes generally require all riders under age
twenty-one to wear a protective helmet and utilize protective goggles or a face shield. The Helmet Ordinance,
in contrast, requires all riders, regardless of age, to wear a helmet and eyewear. In S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-
30 (2009) the General Assembly authorized local authorities to act in the field of traffic regulation if the
ordinance does not conflict with the provisions of the Uniform Traffic Act. Even assuming, as the City
contends, that the Helmet Ordinance does not conflict with the Uniform Traffic Act, we find that the ordinance
may not stand as the need for uniformity is plainly evident in the regulation of motorcycle helmets and
eyewear. Were local authorities allowed to enforce individual helmet ordinances, riders would need to
familiarize themselves with the various ordinances in advance of a trip, so as to ensure compliance. Riders
opting not to wear helmets or eyewear in other areas of the state would be obliged to carry the equipment
with them if they intended to pass through a city with a helmet ordinance. Moreover, local authorities might
enact ordinances imposing additional and even conflicting equipment requirements. Such burdens would
unduly limit a citizen's freedom of movement throughout the State. Consequently, the Helmet Ordinance
must fail under the doctrine of implied preemption.[2] II. Implied repeal As noted above, the City initially
sought to enforce the Motorcycle Ordinances, including the Helmet Ordinance, in an administrative hearing
tribunal, but later repealed the ordinance establishing the system. Petitioners contend the City's enactment
of the ordinance repealing the administrative hearing system caused the entire Motorcycle Ordinance
scheme to fail.[3] We agree. In general, repeal by implication is disfavored, and is found only when two
statutes are incapable of any reasonable reconcilement. See Capco of Summerville, Inc. v. J.H. Gayle Const.
Co., Inc., 368 S.C. 137, 141, 628 S.E.2d 38, 41 (2006). "The repugnancy must be plain, and if the two
provisions can be construed so that both can stand, a court shall so construe them." Spectre, LLC v. South
Carolina Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 386 S.C. 357, 372, 688 S.E.2d 844, 852 (2010). When two
statutes "are incapable of reasonable reconcilement, the last statute passed will prevail, so as to impliedly
repeal the earlier statute to the extent of the repugnancy." See Chris J. Yahnis Coastal, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery
Co., 295 S.C. 243, 247, 368 S.E.2d 64, 66 (1988).
As noted, the City of Myrtle Beach enacted a number of ordinances and amendments to ordinances in
response to the motorcycle rallies. Among the ordinances were ordinances 2008-61 through 67, which the
City passed with the designation that any violation constituted an "administrative infraction." The City also
enacted Ordinance 2008-71, establishing an administrative hearing system which, as the City explained on
its website, established a process "to handle infractions as specified in Ordinances 2008-61, 2008-62,
2008-63, 2008-64, 2008-65, 2008-66, and 2008-67." Ordinance 2008-71 set forth in detail the rules, powers,
and procedures of the administrative hearing system. We find that the above-cited ordinances were enacted
with the specific condition that they be enforced in the specially-crafted administrative hearing system. The
ordinances therefore cannot be reconciled with a later ordinance abolishing the system. Consequently, the
Motorcycle Ordinances continuing to reference "administrative infractions" were impliedly repealed. We note,
however, that in the same ordinance which repealed the administrative hearing system, the City amended
Ordinances 2008-61 (accommodations restrictions) and 2008-65 (parking of trailers on public streets or
unlicensed private lots) to designate those violations as "misdemeanors" rather than "administrative
infractions." Consequently, these ordinances are not impliedly repealed and remain in effect.
CONCLUSION
We find that the City Helmet Ordinance fails under implied field preemption due to the need for statewide
uniformity and therefore issue a declaratory judgment invalidating the ordinance. Moreover, we hold that
certain Motorcycle Ordinances were impliedly repealed by the ordinance repealing the administrative
hearing system.
JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONERS.
TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
[1] Petitioners contend the following ordinances were invalidated by repeal of the ordinance establishing the
administrative hearing system: 2008-61 (accommodations restrictions); 2008-62 (consumption and open
possession of alcohol in parking areas); 2008-63 (use of parking lots for non-parking activities); 2008-64
(helmet and eyewear requirements for cycles and mopeds); 2008-65 (parking of trailers on public streets or
unlicensed private lots); 2008-66 (convenience store and premises security); and 2008-67 (minor or juvenile
curfew).
[2]Because we find that the Helmet Ordinance fails under implied field preemption, we need not reach
Petitioners' remaining preemption issues. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598,
613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (appellate court need not discuss remaining issues when disposition of
prior issue is dispositive). Additionally, we need not address Petitioners' request for a writ of prohibition
barring the municipal court from exercising jurisdiction over the alleged ordinance violations. See Sangamo
Weston, Inc. v. National Surety Corp., 307 S.C. 143, 148, 414 S.E.2d 127, 130 (1992) ("This court will not
issue advisory opinions . . . .").
[3] Though Petitioners phrase their argument as whether the administrative hearing ordinance is "severable"
from the Motorcycle Ordinances, Petitioners actually argue implied repeal.
of South Carolina has found that they are unlawful.
Thanks to all who have helped in this matter and who volunteered their time and energy to stand up for the
rights of motorcyclists everywhere.
If you would like to read a copy of the opinion the link is provided below:
http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/HTMLFiles/SC/26825.htm
Matt Danielson
Tom McGrath's Motorcycle Law Group
Virginia Coalition of Motorcyclists
1-800-321-8968
South Carolina JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
26825 - Aakjer, et al v. City of Myrtle Beach
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court
George Jensen Aakjer, III, Leight Andersen, Bobby Wayne Archer, Donald Lee Ard, Gary Philip Balcom,
Thurman Odell Barnes, Ralph Hillary Bell, Jr., Marvin Simon Beverly, Steven M. Brinsfield, Laurie Ann
Dzerwieniec, Jeffery Jay Galbrath, Ronald Dewayne Gause, Gwendolyn Marie Harvey, Jessica Jane Hayes,
Anthony Odell Hyman, Molly Infield, Mark Dale Infield, Bonnie Roberts Johnson, Emmett Earl Jones, Dawn
Michell Kelly, Richard Allen Lester, Rodney Alan Louhoff, Gary Edward Matson, Carla Williams Mercer, Richard
O'Neil Mercer, Edward Dee Mitchum, Kathy Mitchum, Carol Justice North, Carol O'Day, William O'Day, III, Paul
David Pinette, Steve Pinnell, Robert George Pinto, Debra A. Purcell, Rhonda Delette Robinson, Scott Allen
Robinson, Rebecca Ann Rowan, Scott Rowan, Joseph Fred Ruddock, Jr., David Francis Speck, Anita Lynn
Teachey, Robert Larry Thompson, Waddell H. Thompson, Michael James Timm, Debbie Timm, Rebel JM
Tyler, Janice Waites, Susan Wall, and Edward Lucas Williams, Petitioners,
v. City of Myrtle Beach, City of Myrtle Beach Municipal Court, Respondents.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Opinion No. 26825 Heard February 3, 2010 – Filed June 8, 2010
JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONERS
Desa Ballard, of West Columbia, and James Thomas McGrath, of Richmond, Virginia, for Petitioners.
Michael W. Battle, of Battle, Vaught & Howe, of Conway, for Respondents.
JUSTICE PLEICONES:
In response to various concerns stemming from motorcycle rallies, the City of Myrtle Beach enacted a
number of ordinances and amendments to ordinances (the Motorcycle Ordinances). Among the ordinances
was Ordinance 2008-64, which required that any person riding a motorcycle wear a protective helmet and
eyewear (the Helmet Ordinance). Petitioners were each cited for violating the Helmet Ordinance by failing to
wear the requisite helmet and eyewear. They brought this action in this Court’s original jurisdiction
challenging the Helmet Ordinance on three points: (1) the Helmet Ordinance is preempted by State law; (2)
the ordinance establishing the system for adjudicating infractions of the Helmet Ordinance, which has since
been repealed, was so intertwined with certain Motorcycle Ordinances that its repeal caused the ordinances
to fail[1]; and, (3) the current system for adjudicating alleged violations of the Helmet Ordinance in municipal
court is improper as the municipal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the charges.
Petitioners seek a declaratory judgment finding the Helmet Ordinance and Motorcycle Ordinances invalid
and a writ of prohibition barring the municipal court from exercising jurisdiction over the alleged violations of
the Helmet Ordinance. We find: (1) that the Helmet Ordinance is preempted under the doctrine of implied
field preemption; (2) that the Motorcycle Ordinances were impliedly repealed by the ordinance repealing the
administrative hearing system; and, (3) since we invalidate the Helmet Ordinance, we do not reach
Petitioners' argument seeking a writ of prohibition.
FACTS
For years, large motorcycle rallies were held in Myrtle Beach. A number of objections were had to the rallies
based on, among other things, loud noise and rowdy behavior. Additionally, there was evidence the rallies
placed a heavy burden on the local medical community, police, and other emergency responders.
In response, the City passed a number of ordinances and amendments dealing with rallies and
motorcycles. Included among them was the Helmet Ordinance, an ordinance requiring all persons riding on
motorcycles to wear approved helmets and eyewear. Under the language of the Helmet Ordinance, a
violation was deemed an "administrative infraction." The City passed an ordinance establishing an
administrative hearing system to conduct hearings on citations charging violations of certain municipal
ordinances, including certain Motorcycle Ordinances. The administrative hearing ordinance was
subsequently repealed.
Petitioners were each cited for failing to wear the requisite helmet and eyewear in the City. After the
administrative hearing system was repealed, the City issued a Uniform Ordinance Summons for each
person charged, requiring them to appear before a municipal court judge. This Court accepted Petitioners'
petition for certiorari in its original jurisdiction before any charges were adjudicated.
ISSUES
I. Is the Myrtle Beach Helmet Ordinance preempted by State law?
II. Are the Motorcycle Ordinances impliedly repealed?
DISCUSSION
I. Preemption A municipal ordinance is a legislative enactment and is presumed to be constitutional.
Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. City of Spartanburg, 285 S.C. 495, 497, 331 S.E.2d 333, 334
(1985). The burden of proving the invalidity of a municipal ordinance is on the party attacking it. Id. This State’
s constitution provides that the powers of local governments should be liberally construed. See S.C. Const.
art. VIII, § 17. To determine the validity of a local ordinance, this Court’s inquiry is twofold: (1) did the local
government have the power to enact the local ordinance, and if so (2) is the ordinance consistent with the
constitution and general law of this State. See Beachfront Entertainment, Inc., v. Town of Sullivan’s Island,
379 S.C. 602, 605, 666 S.E.2d 912, 913 (2008). Petitioners advance a number of grounds for preemption of
the Helmet Ordinance. We hold that the Helmet Ordinance fails under the doctrine of implied field
preemption. An ordinance is preempted under implied field preemption when the state statutory scheme so
thoroughly and pervasively covers the subject as to occupy the field or when the subject mandates statewide
uniformity. See South Carolina State Ports Authority v. Jasper County, 368 S.C. 388, 397, 629 S.E.2d 624,
628 (2006). The General Assembly addressed motorcycle helmet and eyewear requirements in S.C. Code
Ann. §§ 56-5-3660 and 56-5-3670 (2009), respectively. The statutes generally require all riders under age
twenty-one to wear a protective helmet and utilize protective goggles or a face shield. The Helmet Ordinance,
in contrast, requires all riders, regardless of age, to wear a helmet and eyewear. In S.C. Code Ann. § 56-5-
30 (2009) the General Assembly authorized local authorities to act in the field of traffic regulation if the
ordinance does not conflict with the provisions of the Uniform Traffic Act. Even assuming, as the City
contends, that the Helmet Ordinance does not conflict with the Uniform Traffic Act, we find that the ordinance
may not stand as the need for uniformity is plainly evident in the regulation of motorcycle helmets and
eyewear. Were local authorities allowed to enforce individual helmet ordinances, riders would need to
familiarize themselves with the various ordinances in advance of a trip, so as to ensure compliance. Riders
opting not to wear helmets or eyewear in other areas of the state would be obliged to carry the equipment
with them if they intended to pass through a city with a helmet ordinance. Moreover, local authorities might
enact ordinances imposing additional and even conflicting equipment requirements. Such burdens would
unduly limit a citizen's freedom of movement throughout the State. Consequently, the Helmet Ordinance
must fail under the doctrine of implied preemption.[2] II. Implied repeal As noted above, the City initially
sought to enforce the Motorcycle Ordinances, including the Helmet Ordinance, in an administrative hearing
tribunal, but later repealed the ordinance establishing the system. Petitioners contend the City's enactment
of the ordinance repealing the administrative hearing system caused the entire Motorcycle Ordinance
scheme to fail.[3] We agree. In general, repeal by implication is disfavored, and is found only when two
statutes are incapable of any reasonable reconcilement. See Capco of Summerville, Inc. v. J.H. Gayle Const.
Co., Inc., 368 S.C. 137, 141, 628 S.E.2d 38, 41 (2006). "The repugnancy must be plain, and if the two
provisions can be construed so that both can stand, a court shall so construe them." Spectre, LLC v. South
Carolina Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 386 S.C. 357, 372, 688 S.E.2d 844, 852 (2010). When two
statutes "are incapable of reasonable reconcilement, the last statute passed will prevail, so as to impliedly
repeal the earlier statute to the extent of the repugnancy." See Chris J. Yahnis Coastal, Inc. v. Stroh Brewery
Co., 295 S.C. 243, 247, 368 S.E.2d 64, 66 (1988).
As noted, the City of Myrtle Beach enacted a number of ordinances and amendments to ordinances in
response to the motorcycle rallies. Among the ordinances were ordinances 2008-61 through 67, which the
City passed with the designation that any violation constituted an "administrative infraction." The City also
enacted Ordinance 2008-71, establishing an administrative hearing system which, as the City explained on
its website, established a process "to handle infractions as specified in Ordinances 2008-61, 2008-62,
2008-63, 2008-64, 2008-65, 2008-66, and 2008-67." Ordinance 2008-71 set forth in detail the rules, powers,
and procedures of the administrative hearing system. We find that the above-cited ordinances were enacted
with the specific condition that they be enforced in the specially-crafted administrative hearing system. The
ordinances therefore cannot be reconciled with a later ordinance abolishing the system. Consequently, the
Motorcycle Ordinances continuing to reference "administrative infractions" were impliedly repealed. We note,
however, that in the same ordinance which repealed the administrative hearing system, the City amended
Ordinances 2008-61 (accommodations restrictions) and 2008-65 (parking of trailers on public streets or
unlicensed private lots) to designate those violations as "misdemeanors" rather than "administrative
infractions." Consequently, these ordinances are not impliedly repealed and remain in effect.
CONCLUSION
We find that the City Helmet Ordinance fails under implied field preemption due to the need for statewide
uniformity and therefore issue a declaratory judgment invalidating the ordinance. Moreover, we hold that
certain Motorcycle Ordinances were impliedly repealed by the ordinance repealing the administrative
hearing system.
JUDGMENT FOR PETITIONERS.
TOAL, C.J., BEATTY, KITTREDGE and HEARN, JJ., concur.
[1] Petitioners contend the following ordinances were invalidated by repeal of the ordinance establishing the
administrative hearing system: 2008-61 (accommodations restrictions); 2008-62 (consumption and open
possession of alcohol in parking areas); 2008-63 (use of parking lots for non-parking activities); 2008-64
(helmet and eyewear requirements for cycles and mopeds); 2008-65 (parking of trailers on public streets or
unlicensed private lots); 2008-66 (convenience store and premises security); and 2008-67 (minor or juvenile
curfew).
[2]Because we find that the Helmet Ordinance fails under implied field preemption, we need not reach
Petitioners' remaining preemption issues. See Futch v. McAllister Towing of Georgetown, Inc., 335 S.C. 598,
613, 518 S.E.2d 591, 598 (1999) (appellate court need not discuss remaining issues when disposition of
prior issue is dispositive). Additionally, we need not address Petitioners' request for a writ of prohibition
barring the municipal court from exercising jurisdiction over the alleged ordinance violations. See Sangamo
Weston, Inc. v. National Surety Corp., 307 S.C. 143, 148, 414 S.E.2d 127, 130 (1992) ("This court will not
issue advisory opinions . . . .").
[3] Though Petitioners phrase their argument as whether the administrative hearing ordinance is "severable"
from the Motorcycle Ordinances, Petitioners actually argue implied repeal.
Myrtle Beach - Supreme Court Ruling!
June, 2010
June, 2010
June 2010 The Sturgis Motorcycle Museum & Hall of Fame is proud to announce the 2010
Freedom Fighters Hall of Fame Inductee, Gordon "Sonny" Bridges from Maine.
The Freedom Fighters Hall of Fame recognizes the commitment and sacrifices individuals
across the nation, and world, have made to protect the rights of motorcyclists. In their honor
the Sturgis Motorcycle Museum & Hall of Fame established the nation's first and only
Freedom Fighters Hall of Fame.
Click here for full story. Congratulations Sonny!
Freedom Fighters Hall of Fame Inductee, Gordon "Sonny" Bridges from Maine.
The Freedom Fighters Hall of Fame recognizes the commitment and sacrifices individuals
across the nation, and world, have made to protect the rights of motorcyclists. In their honor
the Sturgis Motorcycle Museum & Hall of Fame established the nation's first and only
Freedom Fighters Hall of Fame.
Click here for full story. Congratulations Sonny!
UBM (United Bikers of Maine) Founder Honored!
| NEWS FROM THE AMA AMA applauds federal lawmakers for introducing resolution to urge NHTSA to focus on crash prevention (Republished with Permission) |
July 14, 2010
Resolution introduced to urge NHTSA to focus on crash prevention and rider education and
training
Contact your Representative today!
U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) has introduced H. Res. 1498 urging the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to concentrate on motorcycle crash prevention
and rider education instead of lobbying state lawmakers to enact mandatory helmet laws, the
American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports.
On March 25, NHTSA Administrator David Strickland made comments about helmet use to U.S.
Representative John Olver (D-Mass.) at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies of the U.S. House Committee on
Appropriations regarding the fiscal year 2011 Budget Request for the NHTSA.
The AMA sent Strickland a letter, dated April 2, 2010, seeking clarification on his comments. It
is the AMA's understanding that Strickland stated the following: (1) Safety grants are
important and need to be continued; (2) The "core" of motorcycle safety programs is to instill
helmet use; (3) Helmet use has a direct correlation to motorcycle fatalities; and (4) Anything
congress can do to get riders to wear helmets is welcomed, including possible penalties.
In the AMA's letter, Senior Vice President for Government Relations Ed Moreland asked, "What
is meant by your reference to the "core" of a motorcycle safety program is to instill helmet
use? Additionally, you advocated the use of possible penalties if adult riders choose not to
wear protective gear. Does this mean administrative and/or legislative action towards states
and/or individual riders if adults choose not to wear protective equipment?"
In a response to the AMA letter, dated May 19, Strickland clarified his comments at the
hearing, stating "The core component of our program has not changed; it is to increase
helmet use. This means that NHTSA recognizes that no other single countermeasure offers a
comparable body of supporting scientific evidence confirming its potential for saving the lives
of motorcyclists. With finite resources and the severity of the motorcycle fatality problem, we
need to focus efforts on countermeasures that are known to be most effective." To view the
letter, click here.
The AMA applauds Rep. Sensenbrenner for introducing H. Res. 1498 and needs your help to
get other Representatives to cosponsor. This resolution will help answer what NHTSA is doing
to prevent crashes from occurring in the first place and to make crash prevention the core of
any motorcycle safety program. The best way to reach your Representative is to send him or
her a pre-written e-mail immediately by following the "Take Action" option below and entering
your information.
Reps. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Tom Petri
(R-Wis.) co-sponsored the measure.
To view AMA's press release on H. Res. 1498, click here.
For more information about how to protect your right to ride, please visit the "Get Involved"
section of the AMA web site. For direct access, click here.
We urge you to write your Representative today and ask them to cosponsor H. Res. 1498.
Please forward this alert to friends and family to help spread the message.
Resolution introduced to urge NHTSA to focus on crash prevention and rider education and
training
Contact your Representative today!
U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) has introduced H. Res. 1498 urging the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to concentrate on motorcycle crash prevention
and rider education instead of lobbying state lawmakers to enact mandatory helmet laws, the
American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports.
On March 25, NHTSA Administrator David Strickland made comments about helmet use to U.S.
Representative John Olver (D-Mass.) at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies of the U.S. House Committee on
Appropriations regarding the fiscal year 2011 Budget Request for the NHTSA.
The AMA sent Strickland a letter, dated April 2, 2010, seeking clarification on his comments. It
is the AMA's understanding that Strickland stated the following: (1) Safety grants are
important and need to be continued; (2) The "core" of motorcycle safety programs is to instill
helmet use; (3) Helmet use has a direct correlation to motorcycle fatalities; and (4) Anything
congress can do to get riders to wear helmets is welcomed, including possible penalties.
In the AMA's letter, Senior Vice President for Government Relations Ed Moreland asked, "What
is meant by your reference to the "core" of a motorcycle safety program is to instill helmet
use? Additionally, you advocated the use of possible penalties if adult riders choose not to
wear protective gear. Does this mean administrative and/or legislative action towards states
and/or individual riders if adults choose not to wear protective equipment?"
In a response to the AMA letter, dated May 19, Strickland clarified his comments at the
hearing, stating "The core component of our program has not changed; it is to increase
helmet use. This means that NHTSA recognizes that no other single countermeasure offers a
comparable body of supporting scientific evidence confirming its potential for saving the lives
of motorcyclists. With finite resources and the severity of the motorcycle fatality problem, we
need to focus efforts on countermeasures that are known to be most effective." To view the
letter, click here.
The AMA applauds Rep. Sensenbrenner for introducing H. Res. 1498 and needs your help to
get other Representatives to cosponsor. This resolution will help answer what NHTSA is doing
to prevent crashes from occurring in the first place and to make crash prevention the core of
any motorcycle safety program. The best way to reach your Representative is to send him or
her a pre-written e-mail immediately by following the "Take Action" option below and entering
your information.
Reps. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Tom Petri
(R-Wis.) co-sponsored the measure.
To view AMA's press release on H. Res. 1498, click here.
For more information about how to protect your right to ride, please visit the "Get Involved"
section of the AMA web site. For direct access, click here.
We urge you to write your Representative today and ask them to cosponsor H. Res. 1498.
Please forward this alert to friends and family to help spread the message.
| News from the MRF - Motorcycle Riders Foundation.... US EPA Considered Lowering Motorcycle Sound Emissions Levels! |
The Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF) has learned that the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun collecting data from the industry to
consider lowering the allowable decibel level for motorcycles. Currently the allowable
sound any vehicle can generate is capped at 83db.
The EPA has sent letters to nine companies that either import or build aftermarket
exhaust systems or complete motorcycles. This small sample size is troubling for a
couple of reasons. First, it is not representative of the much larger motorcycling
community that will be affected by changing the regulation, rendering the survey
results questionable at best. Second, any time a federal agency wants to spend
taxpayer money to survey a group of 10 or more individuals or organizations, they
must obtain approval from the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The
approval process isn't easy and can often be drawn out, giving American citizens the
right to weigh in on the agency's application for permission to survey. However, when
an agency only contacts nine organizations, they don't have to tell anyone or get
permission from the OMB to move forward on the survey, making the process lack
transparency.
Why just motorcycles? It appears that the EPA doesn't want to curb all noise, or even
all vehicle noise, just noise coming from two-wheeled vehicles. We at the MRF find that
distinction discriminatory and simply unacceptable, not to mention that it suggests a
more personal agenda and not an agency-wide push. What sort of impact will new
decibel levels have on retailers and ultimately motorcycle owners? Alarmingly, this does
not appear to have been addressed. After reviewing the survey questions, it appears
that the EPA is only concerned with the impact on manufacturers.
While public correspondence has not revealed the EPA's true intention to lower the
allowable decibel limit, the EPA indicated in a private phone call with the MRF that it
would certainly not be raising the standard or keeping it the same. That leaves one
option, lowering the decibel standard for motorcycles.
The MRF is working with Congress to get the EPA to explain their intentions and
motivations. The MRF is also working to meet directly with the EPA to further determine
exactly is going on with this issue.
You can view the actual EPA questionnaire on the MRF website at
http://www.mrf.org/pdf/EPA_questionnaire_June2010.pdf
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun collecting data from the industry to
consider lowering the allowable decibel level for motorcycles. Currently the allowable
sound any vehicle can generate is capped at 83db.
The EPA has sent letters to nine companies that either import or build aftermarket
exhaust systems or complete motorcycles. This small sample size is troubling for a
couple of reasons. First, it is not representative of the much larger motorcycling
community that will be affected by changing the regulation, rendering the survey
results questionable at best. Second, any time a federal agency wants to spend
taxpayer money to survey a group of 10 or more individuals or organizations, they
must obtain approval from the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The
approval process isn't easy and can often be drawn out, giving American citizens the
right to weigh in on the agency's application for permission to survey. However, when
an agency only contacts nine organizations, they don't have to tell anyone or get
permission from the OMB to move forward on the survey, making the process lack
transparency.
Why just motorcycles? It appears that the EPA doesn't want to curb all noise, or even
all vehicle noise, just noise coming from two-wheeled vehicles. We at the MRF find that
distinction discriminatory and simply unacceptable, not to mention that it suggests a
more personal agenda and not an agency-wide push. What sort of impact will new
decibel levels have on retailers and ultimately motorcycle owners? Alarmingly, this does
not appear to have been addressed. After reviewing the survey questions, it appears
that the EPA is only concerned with the impact on manufacturers.
While public correspondence has not revealed the EPA's true intention to lower the
allowable decibel limit, the EPA indicated in a private phone call with the MRF that it
would certainly not be raising the standard or keeping it the same. That leaves one
option, lowering the decibel standard for motorcycles.
The MRF is working with Congress to get the EPA to explain their intentions and
motivations. The MRF is also working to meet directly with the EPA to further determine
exactly is going on with this issue.
You can view the actual EPA questionnaire on the MRF website at
http://www.mrf.org/pdf/EPA_questionnaire_June2010.pdf
| NHMRO Sponsorship Program! |
NHMRO is excited to announce our
Sponsorship program! If you are interested;
in obtaining r the details of the program which
are located on our Sponsor page.
Sponsorship program! If you are interested;
in obtaining r the details of the program which
are located on our Sponsor page.
| Our Supporters |
Deerhead Sportsmen's Club
Hooksett, NH
Hooksett, NH
Atlantic Upholstery
Londonderry, NH
603-432-3391
Specializing in Antique, Classic & Hot Rod
Restorations. Auto & Truck Seats, Headliners,
Convertible Tops - Motorcycle & Snowmobile
Seats - Boat Covers & Interiors
Londonderry, NH
603-432-3391
Specializing in Antique, Classic & Hot Rod
Restorations. Auto & Truck Seats, Headliners,
Convertible Tops - Motorcycle & Snowmobile
Seats - Boat Covers & Interiors
Lafayette Press Inc.
455 Hayward St.
Manchester, NH 03103
603-622-8142
455 Hayward St.
Manchester, NH 03103
603-622-8142
| Our Sponsors |
| Imagine, your business advertised here! See Sponsor Page for details! |
NHMRO recognizes the businesses that support us through
various contributions of their services, products and
discounts. We are listing the businesses here area token
of our appreciation for a period of time. We ask that you
consider these businesses when looking for their type of
sales or service!
various contributions of their services, products and
discounts. We are listing the businesses here area token
of our appreciation for a period of time. We ask that you
consider these businesses when looking for their type of
sales or service!
Manchester Harley Davidson
115 John E Devine Drive
Manchester, NH
www.manchesterhd.com
603-622-2461
115 John E Devine Drive
Manchester, NH
www.manchesterhd.com
603-622-2461
| Our Platinum Sponsors |
| Our Gold Sponsors |
ST Alarm Systems
Burg - Fire - Access - CCTV
33 Floyd Ave
Manchester, NH
email: st_systems@comcast.net
603-860-2234
Burg - Fire - Access - CCTV
33 Floyd Ave
Manchester, NH
email: st_systems@comcast.net
603-860-2234
HK Powersports of Hooksett/
Hooksett Kawaski
1354 Hooksett Rd, Hooksett NH
603-668-4343
web: www.hkpowersports.com
Hooksett Kawaski
1354 Hooksett Rd, Hooksett NH
603-668-4343
web: www.hkpowersports.com
Senator Bob Letourneau
| ______________________ |
| ______________________ |
| ______________________ |
| ______________________ |
NHMRO recognizes the businesses that
sponsor us through contributions and
donations.
We ask that you consider these businesses
when looking for their type of sales or service!
sponsor us through contributions and
donations.
We ask that you consider these businesses
when looking for their type of sales or service!
Manchester Motorcycle Club
Celebrating 95 years of riding & fellowship
email: mmc1915@comcast.net
phone: 603-496-3309
web: www.mmc1915.org
Celebrating 95 years of riding & fellowship
email: mmc1915@comcast.net
phone: 603-496-3309
web: www.mmc1915.org
| ______________________ |
| ______________________ |
Huge antique center featuring scores of
dealer booths!
582 Main Street
Laconia, NH 03246-3450
WEB: www.laconiaantiquecenter.com
603-524-3450
dealer booths!
582 Main Street
Laconia, NH 03246-3450
WEB: www.laconiaantiquecenter.com
603-524-3450
Broken Spokes Riding Club
Celebrating 36 years of motorcycling
brotherhood & sisterhood
Rochester, NH
603-923-4407
web: www.brokenspokesrc.com
Celebrating 36 years of motorcycling
brotherhood & sisterhood
Rochester, NH
603-923-4407
web: www.brokenspokesrc.com
Mountain Men MC -
Rockingham County
Riding Free Since 1973
WEB:
www.moutainmenmc.net/RockinghamCounty.html
Rockingham County
Riding Free Since 1973
WEB:
www.moutainmenmc.net/RockinghamCounty.html
| ______________________ |
| ______________________ |