Biases exist - this is a simple fact.  We need not review all of the civil rights movement to appreciate the fact that a lot of people harbored biases and prejudices based on race.  But what about motorcyclists?

Let's define what we are talking about.  An excellent definition of "bias" is 'a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.'  An excellent definition of "prejudice" is ' injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of one's rights especially detrimental to one's legal rights or claims.'

So it appears that a bias is something that slants one's perspective from what it otherwise might be without the bias.  A person may or may not be aware that they are biased.  Biases are not necessarily bad.  For example I do not like oranges and prefer apples.  I am biased against oranges - so what - no harm no foul.

Prejudice, on the other, is the purposeful implementation of biases that casue some harm to another person.  I do not like ___________ fill in the blank characteristic - so far no harm - no foul.  But if you put that belief into action meaning to harm the person with that characteristic you are practicing prejudice.  Furthermore, if you engage in that prejudice to deprive some person of their legal rights you are practicing the worst kind of prejudice.

There is no doubt in my mind that biases and prejudices exist against motorcyclists in Utah.  For a quick glimpse into the minds of prejudiced people simply read the anonymous comments to a news article on the web discussing a motorcycle crash.

Not too long ago there was a crash on the freeway where a motorcyclist struck a recliner chair that had fallen off a truck.  The comments on my blog post are somewhat sympathetic to the motorcycle crash victim but the people making those comments are partial to motorcycle riders.  After all they are reading a post on a motorcycle lawyer's website.  The comments on the KSL article, although somewhat sympathetic, chastise the motorcycle rider for having a small child passenger, following a truck, being on the freeway at all etc. etc. If you keep reading the comments you would think the majority think it was the motorcyclist's fault for crashing at all.

There is also another bias and prejudice out there.  That against personal injury lawyers.  With all of the propaganda spewed by the insurance industry one might think that all personal injury lawyers are greedy callous people interested in nothing more than making themselves the most money they can.  I am a personal injury lawyer and I am damn proud of that.  People come to me having been injured by the negligent acts of others.  The doctor's job is to repair the person physically.  My job is to repair the person and their family financially.  We personal injury lawyers engage in battle with the best financed adversaries in the business - defense lawyers on insurance company payrolls.

Biases and prejudices can be overcome but it takes a tenacious lawyer and one willing to go to battle to fight the fights that must be fought.

Utah Bike Law is a law firm and its lawyers represent motorcycle riders and their families across Utah including the counties and cities of Beaver, Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Rich, Salt Lake, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Washington, Wayne, Weber, American Fork, Beaver, Bountiful, Brigham City, Cedar City, Delta, Draper, Duchesne, Fillmore, Heber, Kamas, Kanab, Kaysville, Layton, Lehi, Logan, Moab, Murray, Nephi, Ogden, Orem, Park City, Price, Provo, Richfield, Riverton, Roy, Salt Lake City, Sandy, South Jordan, St. George, Tooele, Vernal, West Jordan, and West Valley City. Utah Bike Law and its attorneys are licensed to practice law only in the State of Utah and maintain offices in Salt Lake City, Utah. No attorney client relationship is established by simply visiting this website.

We are seeing more and more motorcycle crashes that result when the motor vehicle driver is using their handheld wireless communication device.  I said 'handheld wireless communication device' because that is the term used in Utah Code Section 41-6a-1716 that makes texting while driving a criminal offense.

Utah Code Section 41-6a-1716 states:

Prohibition on using a handheld wireless communication device for text messaging communication while operating a moving motor vehicle -- Penalties.
(1)  As used in this section:
(a) (i)  "Handheld wireless communication device" means a handheld device used for the transfer of information without the use of electrical conductors or wires.
(ii)  "Handheld wireless communication device" includes a:
(A)  wireless telephone;
(B)  personal digital assistant;
(C)  pager; or
(D)  text messaging device.
(b)   "text messaging" has the same meaning as defined in Section 76-4-401.
(2)  Except as provided in Subsection (3), a person may not use a handheld wireless communication device for text messaging or electronic mail communication while operating a moving motor vehicle on a highway in this state.
(3)  Subsection (2) does not prohibit a person from using a handheld wireless communication device while operating a moving motor vehicle:
(a)  during a medical emergency;
(b)  when reporting a safety hazard or requesting assistance relating to a safety hazard;
(c)  when reporting criminal activity or requesting assistance relating to a criminal activity;
(d)  when providing roadside or medical assistance; or
(e)  when used by a law enforcement officer or emergency service personnel acting within the course and scope of the law enforcement officer's or emergency service personnel's employment.
(4)  A person convicted of a violation of this section is guilty of a:
(a)  class C misdemeanor; or
(b)  class B misdemeanor if the person:
(i)  has also inflicted serious bodily injury upon another as a proximate result of using a handheld wireless communication device for text messaging or electronic mail communication while operating a moving motor vehicle on a highway in this state; or
(ii)  has a prior conviction under this section, that is within three years of:
(A)  the current conviction under this section; or
(B)  the commission of the offense upon which the current conviction is based.

This specific code section makes only texting while driving a criminal act.  It makes no mention of speaking on a phone while causing a crash.  Almost every week in my practice we receive a call from a victim of a crash that was caused by a person while they were talking on their phone.  Maybe it is about time that we took distracted driving seriously in the state of Utah!

Utah Bike Law is a law firm and its lawyers represent motorcycle riders and their families across Utah including the counties and cities of Beaver, Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Rich, Salt Lake, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Washington, Wayne, Weber, American Fork, Beaver, Bountiful, Brigham City, Cedar City, Delta, Draper, Duchesne, Fillmore, Heber, Kamas, Kanab, Kaysville, Layton, Lehi, Logan, Moab, Murray, Nephi, Ogden, Orem, Park City, Price, Provo, Richfield, Riverton, Roy, Salt Lake City, Sandy, South Jordan, St. George, Tooele, Vernal, West Jordan, and West Valley City.

Some time ago I blogged about a piece of obscure Utah legislation proposed by Rhonda Menlove that intended to encourage motorcycle riders to wear helmets.  The bill seemed harmless at the time and a rather benign way to encourage helmet use.  The bill, in its original format proposed a $10 reduction of certain highway tickets if the offending motorcycle rider was wearing a helmet.

House Bill 93 was titled MOTORCYCLE AND OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE AMENDMENTS and was recently amended to add a vary important aspect.  The amendment adds to the language of the bill stating:

... provides that the failure to wear protective headgear:
does not constitute contributory or comparative negligence on the part of a person seeking recovery for injuries; and may not be introduced as evidence in any civil litigation on the issue of negligence, injuries, or the mitigation of damages; ...

This means that insurance companies can no longer claim in court that an injured motorcycle rider who is not wearing a helmet caused his own injury.  In Utah we have what is called contributory negligence where a judge must reduce the injured person's monetary recovery by the amount of negligence determined by the jury.  If the jury determines that the injured motorcycle rider was more that 50% negligent for not wearing a helmet the injured rider will receive nothing at trial.  If the jury determines that the injured rider is 30% negligent the judge will reduce the recovery by 30%.

This bill stops the insurance company lawyers from penalizing the injured rider for following the law - that is riding without a helmet.  In other words an injured motorcycle rider should not be penalized for following the law and choosing to ride without a helmet.

Utah Bike Law is a law firm and its lawyers represent motorcycle riders and their families across Utah including the counties and cities of Beaver, Box Elder, Cache, Carbon, Daggett, Davis, Duchesne, Emery, Garfield, Grand, Iron, Juab, Kane, Millard, Morgan, Piute, Rich, Salt Lake, San Juan, Sanpete, Sevier, Summit, Tooele, Uintah, Utah, Wasatch, Washington, Wayne, Weber, American Fork, Beaver, Bountiful, Brigham City, Cedar City, Delta, Draper, Duchesne, Fillmore, Heber, Kamas, Kanab, Kaysville, Layton, Lehi, Logan, Moab, Murray, Nephi, Ogden, Orem, Park City, Price, Provo, Richfield, Riverton, Roy, Salt Lake City, Sandy, South Jordan, St. George, Tooele, Vernal, West Jordan, and West Valley City.

Taxpayers who purchased a new car, motorcycle, light truck or mobile home on or after February 17, 2009, and before January 1, 2010, can deduct sales taxes for the first $49,500 of the purchase price. You don't need to itemize to claim this deduction.You can claim the sales-tax deduction even if you participated in the federal "cash-for-clunkers" program, says Amy McAnarney, executive director of H&R Block's Tax Institute.

The AMA (American Motorcyclist Association) has a good review of the law regarding this tax deduction.  In speaking with my accountant the deduction is legitimate and welcome.  If you are having your taxes done by someone else or you are doing them yourself do not forget this deduction!

Douglas Scholes of Hurricane Utah was killed in a motorcycle crash earlier this year.  St. George police have recently cited an Ivins Utah woman for an unsafe lane change in connection with the fatal motorcycle crash.  It appears that Scholes was attempting to pass the woman's vehicle when she made the improper lane change to her right and Scholes was unable to avoid the car and crashed into her right rear wheel.  There were apparently reports that Scholes' speed was excessive but that might be explained by his attempt to avoid the oncoming car.  Scholes was not wearing a helmet at teh time of teh motorcycle crash and was killed in the crash.

I am often infuriated by reports where the motorcycle is injured or killed and reported not to be wearing a helmet.  Reports like this appear to put the blame on the motorcycle rider becasue the article infers that had Scholes been wearing a helmet everything would have been fine.  First and foremost wearing a helmet in Utah while riding a motorcycle is only required for those riders less than 18 years of age.  In other words Scholes was following the law by not wearing a helmet!  In this case it appears that the woman caused the crash and she should be held responsible for not keeping a lookout to where she chose to guide her vehicle.

Utah Bike Law is not representing any of the parties mentioned in this article at the time the article was posted. Our information source is cited in the article. If you were involved in this incident or a similar incident and have questions about your rights and options, call us or another reputable law firm. Do not act solely upon the information provided herein. Get a consultation. The best law firms will provide a free consultation. We provide a free, confidential consultation to not at fault persons named in this article. The free consultation offer extends to family members as well.

Salt Lake City prosecutors filed negligent homicide charges against Angelica Lopez this past week.  On July 28, 2007 Jerry Layne was riding his motorcycle on 700 East when Lopez came through a red light on 800 South crashing into Layne.  Lopez claims that she had taken her vehicle in to have the brakes fixed but the mechanic had to order some parts.  Lopez drove the vehicle anyway apparently knowing that the brakes were in poor working order.  The Salt Lake Tribune reports that at the scene of the crash Lopez claims her brakes did not work.

Negligent homicide is a class A misdemeanor under Utah Code section 76-5-206. Lopez appears to have known that her brakes were not working properly and decided to drive her vehicle regardless.  This is the same principal that applies to persons who drive their vehicles with known medical issues.  If a diabetic does not properly care for himself and lapses into a diabetic coma while driving and kills someone he may be prosecuted for negligent homicide because he negligently cared for his knowing diabetic condition.  On the other side of the coin is a person driving a vehicle has a sudden heart attack while driving and kills someone they will probably not be charged with negligent homicide because they probably did not know they were going to have a heart attack.

The real questions is whether this charge of negligent homicide is enough.  I have written before about a case where a woman painting her nails while driving her car ploughed into the back of a motorcycle rider while at a stop sign killing the motorcycle rider.  For these cases a charge of negligent homicide just does not seem to be enough.  Granted, there was probably no intent to kill by either the nail-painting woman or Ms. Lopez in this case but is it enough just to have no intent.  Let's say you have a pistol, loaded, no safety on and leave it in a playground of children.  One of the children pick up the pistol, pulls the trigger...  Shouldn't the person who placed the pistol in the playground be found guilty of more than negligent homicide? A vehicle with faulty brakes is a dangerous weapon just like the loaded pistol - at least in my opinion!

Last Friday a jury in Monterey County California ordered the state to pay $8.6 million to a motorcycle rider who was severely injured when he crashed into a herd of wild boar on a state highway in 2003.  Adam Rogers will receive the money because his lawyer successfully argued that highway officials knew that wild pigs regularly crossed a stretch of highway 1 just south of the Carmel River.  Knowing that the pigs repeatedly crossed at this location and doing nothing to prevent their crossing or to provide for alternative safe crossing points the officials allowed a dangerous situation to continue.

Rogers, a 45-year-old former karate teacher and champion kick-boxer, suffered serious injuries and is now confined to a wheelchair. He and his wife sued the state Department of Transportation in Monterey County Superior Court. Most of the $8.6 million award will go toward Rogers' medical bills. Rogers requires around-the-clock care and won't walk again. He said he still suffers from gaps in memory as a result of massive head injuries he suffered when he was thrown from his motorcycle.  Rogers' wife, Kristin Finn, also was awarded $500,000 for "loss of consortium."

When someone knows or should know that they are allowing a dangerous condition to exist which will more likely than not place someone, through no fault of their own, to become the victim of a crash they should be held liable.  The seemingly staggering sum  is not all that staggering when one considers that the victim here is now crippled for life and will require care for the rest of his life.  All of htis simply becasue noone chose to take responsibility and make sure the wild pigs and motorcycle riders would both be safe.

The loss of consortium claim is a seperate claim made by Mr. Rogers' wife.  It is a seperate and independent claim against the state in negligence for causing her the loss of companionship and intimacy of her husband.  It is compensation for the loss of companionship and intimacy now and in the future.  Loss of consortium is recognized as a seperate claim in Utah as well.

On March 25, 2009 motorcycle enthusiasts filled legislative hearing rooms across Nevada in an effort to have the current motorcycle helmet law repealed.  The main battle is being fought in the Transportation Committee. One of the major arguments in favor of repealing the current helmet requirement focuses on preventing motorcycle accidents all together versus having safer crashes.  There was also explicit pleas from emergency room physicians and highway police to keep the helmet law in place.

Nevada bill AB 300 would repeal Nevada’s mandatory motorcycle helmet law for adults over the age of 21 who have completed a riding safety course and have at least one year’s worth of riding experience under their belts.  A lot of blogs are seeing this issue as a personal liberty issue.

Nevada has some of the most popular roads and byways for enjoying motorcycling.  Support for Nevada Bill AB300 is starting to experience a groundswell of support including West Coast Bikers and the issue is getting a lot of play in their forums.  What do you think - make a comment here and vote at my poll asking whether all motorcycle riders should be required by law to wear motorcycle helmets.

In the mean time the polititians continue to argue the pros and cons of repealing the motorcycle helmet requirement.

House Bill 158 received unanimous support in the transportation committee but was left on the table without being brought to the house for a full vote effectively leaving the current helmet laws unchanged.  The law would have required:

1. All motorcycle riders 21 years of age and younger to wear a full helmet. 
2. Defines a "full helmet"  as one that has a chin bar and eye protection. 
3. Passengers under 21, and drivers of any age if they have passengers under 21, to wear a helmet. 
4. Riders of any age operating on a learning permit to wear a helmet.
5. Helmet use for all riders in Utah's largest cities.

The legislative session in Utah is in full swing and it would not be complete without a representative wanting to bring forward a bill dealing with motorcycles.  House Bill 158 "Motorcycle Helmet Law Amendments", sponsored by Rep. Neil Hansen, D-Ogden is a bill, that if passed, would require:

1. All motorcycle riders 21 years of age and younger to wear a full helmet. 
2. Defines a "full helmet"  as one that has a chin bar and eye protection. 
3. Passengers under 21, and drivers of any age if they have passengers under 21, to wear a helmet. 
4. Riders of any age operating on a learning permit to wear a helmet.
5. Helmet use for all riders in Utah's largest cities.

It is reported by Standard.net/live that an Ogden businessman, Mr. Ray Kimber, brought the proposal to Hansen claiming that the bill targets locations and age groups in which motorcycle accidents happen most frequently.  Kimber cited statistics from 2006 that show nearly 73 percent of fatal motorcycle crashes in the state involved a vehicle turning left in front of the rider at an intersection. The same statistics show that the percentage of drivers in fatal crashes was highest among riders ages 15 to 24.

ABATE (American Bikers Aiming Toward Education) Utah is a group of motorcycle enthusiasts who states their goals as:

1. To assist in guarding the individual rights of all motorcyclists
2. Keep motorcyclists informed of laws that will help or hinder them
3. To promote safety, brotherhood and freedom for all motorcyclists, regardless of type, style or orgin of the motorcycle.

Ed Stein, education coordinator of ABATE Utah and a number of other bikers were in attendance at teh Friday committee meeting to voice their opposition to the bill.  ABATE said the focus of motorcycle safety should be on educating the public about watching for motorcyclists while driving.  "We believe in accident prevention, not safer crashes. Many sports and activities are more dangerous than motorcycle riding. We will never be able to legislate the risk out of living."  If 18-year-olds are mature enough to voluntarily sign up for war, they're old enough to choose what protective gear to wear during recreation, he said. 

The bill is currently in the House Transportation Committee where it was "tabled" and requires a two-thirds vote to bring it off the table and move forward.  Just before the bill was tabled Ronda Rudd Menlove, R-Garland proposed, and the committee unanimously passed, a proposal to reduce any fine by $10 to a motorcyclist that is wearing a helmet.

If you have any opinion on the pros and cons of these bills why not email the sponsors or committee members?