Hocking Hills Road Riders, Ohio Chapter...

GWRRA

May 2020

Hocking Hills Road Riders, Ohio Chapter X

INSIDE THIS

ISSUE:

Who’s who 1

From The CD 2

The Switzer Corner 3

Rider Ed 4-5

Safety Ar�cle 6-11

For Sale 12-14

Chapter Info 15

Who’s Who in GWRRA

Chapter X Chapter Directors: Doug & Kris Frecker [email protected]

Chapter X Assistant Chapter Directors: John & Jane Meese [email protected]

Chapter X Newsletter Editors: Doug & Kris Frecker [email protected]

GWRRA President: Anita & JR Alkire [email protected]

Ohio District Directors: Roy & Becky Jones [email protected]

Ohio Southeast Section Assistant District Director: Randy Young [email protected]

The Chapter Director’s Notes

I am sure you have all heard the old saying Same Old Stuff Different Day. Stay

at home Stay Safe is star�ng to get OLD, but if that is what it takes to get thru

this, I guess that is what we should do. There are a lot of us that do not eat out

much, so the closings have not hurt us much. Those that are s�ll working are

having trouble trying to find some where to get lunch, somewhere other than

fast food drive thru’s.

I have talked to some of our members that have been able to get out on some

short runs on their bikes. If you can catch a sunny day, and pack a sandwich or

hit a drive thru, be sure to take your mask and handy wipes, you might find a

picnic table. GWRRA has cancelled most everything for the next few months.

Wingding 42 in Springfield has been cancelled, the Tennessee weekend was

cancelled Several of the State’s spring events were cancelled

The Switzer Corner

With the stay at home order ,there’s not a whole lot to write about. By the �me

you receive this le7er the restric�ons will have been eased somewhat, and we

can just maybe do some fun things. I would cau�on everyone to be careful. The

most suscep�ble group is 65 and older. I think that is probably at least ½ of us.

Don’t be the person who says I am in good health, and I don’t catch things easily.

Macho people get it along with wimpy people, and the results can be devas-

ta�ng.

While we have this extra �me it’s fun to look back at our adventures over the

years. Our Pig Roasts, our trips to WING DING’s in different loca�ons, and our

camping trips were all great. We traveled to Texas, Wyoming, Montana, Arizona,

Nova Sco�a, New England States, and many more. We visited numerous State

and Na�onal Parks, places like Wall Drug, and Branson Missouri, and it was al-

ways with the best of friends and the best company. It would be hard to explain

to a non- GoldWing rider the fun we have had. Let’s hope there is a lot more to

come. I wish I had kept a journal of all of our adventures for our kids to read

someday.

Here’s a li7le brain teaser to keep you busy. In a field there are bees buzzing

around flowers. If one bee lands on each flower there is one bee who doesn’t get

a flower. If 2 bees land on each flower there is one flower with no bees. How

many bees and flowers are there. Ride Safe John&Shirley P.S. We have 3 new

great grandchildren since Feb. 2 boys, 1 girl makes 7.

Rider Educa on

Robert G & Angela Williams Hello Fellow Riders It is with much regret that I must aAer careful considera�on cancel the May Ohio Rider Course Classes.

May is Motorist Awareness Month, I hope we all can find safe ways to get out and enjoy our MC’s.

Below is an announcement from the Director of Rider Ed Susan Hu7man. She has extended the Grace Period for

the Levels Program. Please feel free to call me with ques�ons.

GWRRA RIDER EDUCATION PROGRAM EXTENDS THE LEVELS PROGRAM GRACE PE-

RIOD

Members participating in the Rider Education Levels Program who have expired or will expire

on or after January 1st, 2020 are granted a grace period that has been extended until Decem-

ber 31st, 2020 allowing time for the Member to take part in one or more of the following cours-

es or classes to bring their level up to date:

• GWRRA (or RE Program approved alternative) on-bike course

• The University’s Co-Rider seminar

• GWRRA MEDIC FIRST AID® (or MFA Program approved alternative) class.

The grace period will not be decreased and may be extended if deemed necessary.

PLEASE NOTE:

University Instructors and Trainers who may be affected during this or any grace period, please

contact GWRRA University Director, Clara Boldt: [email protected].

GWRRA Rider Course Instructors who may be affected during this or any grace period please

contact Chuck Geggie, REP Assistant-Rider Course Program directly.

MFA Instructors should contact the MFA Director Laurel Kuehl directly with any questions or

concerns about how this may impact them.

District Educators should continue to accept and process database updates. N.9 Master appli-

cations should be submitted to the Director, Rider Education Program using one of the follow-

ing methods:

Rider Educa on

• Scan and forward the N.9 Application and Letter of Recommendation to the Director, Rider Edu-

cation Program, [email protected] for review and approval by return email.

Submission of the approved Application and check to the Home Office will be the responsibility of

the District Educator.

• Mail the N.9 Application, Letter of Recommendation and check to the Director, Rider Course Pro-

gram for review and approval. Susan Huttman, P O Box 2466, Hildebran, NC 28637

Submission of the approved Application and check to the Home Office will be the responsibility of

the Director, Rider Education Program.

The GWRRA Rider Education Program Team will continue to provide all Members and Officers

with the assistance needed to keep us traveling in the right direction. We invite any District cur-

rently with or without the benefit of an Educator to contact their RE Program Team Assistant or the

Director, Rider Education Program for guidance related to the RE program and its administration

in your district.

Susan Huttman, Team GWRRA Rider Education Program Director

RE Program revised 04.16.20

Robert G. Williams

Robert G & Angela WILLIAMS

Interim OH District Educators Interim VA District Educators OH-T CSEA GWRRA REP Team Assistant GWRRA Rider Course Master Instructor GWU Instructor Trainer Former Ohio District Senior Educator 2014-2018 Former Ohio District Director 2010-2012

330/802-2429 [email protected]

OHIO, It's not the des�na�on, it's the ride.

Safety

2020 DOT CERTIFIED HELMET PERFORMANCE TEST DATA UPDATE: FAILURE RATE INCREASES :

About a year ago, we took a look at the federal government’s own result data on safety perfor-

mance tes�ng done on helmets labeled as mee�ng DOT (FMVSS 218) performance standards.

The data was not encouraging; about four out of ten (41.9 percent) helmets claimed by the manufac-

turer to meet DOT safety standards failed to do so when actually put the test by an independent test

lab (ACT Labs of California) under contract with the Na�onal Highway Traffic Safety Administra�on

(NHTSA).

That data looked back at the helmets tested from 2014 through 2017 and included what data (only two

test reports were posted at the �me the data was obtained from the NHTSA website) was available for

2018.

This data update includes all the data in that first ar�cle and adds everything on the NHTSA website for

2018 and 2019 as of 1/28/2020.

The data is summarized in the table below. And unfortunately, the results are no be7er. In fact, the

overall results are slightly worse.

The percentage of helmets tested that failed on actual performance (not on the administra�ve require-

ments on labeling) increased to 43.1 percent, up from the 41.9 percent before.

Summary of NHTSA Helmet Tes�ng Data 2014 to 2018 (As of 1/28/2020)

Year Total Tested (including all sizes tested) Total Failed Failed on Performance Failed labeling

only Inves�ga�ons Recalls

2019 25 19 9 (1 of those failed labeling also) 10 4 0






Totals: 167 105 72 (43.1% of those tested) 33 53 12

To explain why this informa�on is par�cularly troubling to motorcyclists in the U.S., take a look back at

the way things work for helmet safety cer�fica�on as described in the ar�cle last year:

For helmet purchasers in the United States, if the helmet is to be used on public roads, it must bear the

DOT compliance label. The label implies that the helmet has been self-cer�fied by the manufacturer or

by a third-party tester as mee�ng the U.S. Department of Transporta�on Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standard 218 (DOT FMVSS 218). Unfortunately, that is not what it actually means. The standard is en-

forced—if indirectly—by the Na�onal Highway Traffic Safety Administra�on (NHTSA).

Think Safety

Enforcement is carried out by post-marketing inspection. NHTSA sends a list of hel-mets to be checked out to a third-party testing lab (ACT Labs in California and in the past Southwest Research Institute in Texas), which then acquires off-the-shelf exam-ples and tests them against the DOT standards to verify compliance.

The rationale for this approach is that it is intended to prevent the manufacturer from selecting or producing a special sample of helmets designed specifically to pass the tests. This assumes that it would be economically feasible for the manufacturer to whip up a batch of custom-made helmets that would be superior to the helmets they mass produce in order to meet the DOT standards. That assumption seems both unrealistic and self-defeating for the manufacturer.

Helmets that fail to meet the standards based on the lab’s testing may result in the manufacturer facing fines and having to pull the product off the market by recall, which would have significant financial implications of its own.

Two problems with this type of after-the-fact system: first, the manufacturer doing its own performance testing may make an honest mistake in its interpretation of the test methods and/or results from data, leading to helmets later being found to be non-compliant. Second, by the time the post-marketing testing actually catches up with a non-compliant product, many of the helmets may already be out on the streets.

If the consumer doesn’t register the helmet purchase with the manufacturer for warran-ty coverage, or by some other mechanism, they may not receive a recall notice from the manufacturer, should a recall be initiated. In reality, compliance-enforced recalls are relatively rare; of the 72 helmets found to fail on actual performance, only 12 hel-met recalls (16.6 percent) resulted since 2014.

The simple fact is that the manufacturer may apply the DOT certification label whether the helmet has actually been tested and found to pass all the applicable tests or not. The federal safety standards do not require the manufacturer to provide NHTSA any documentation of test results proving the helmet meets the standards prior to the hel-met being labeled that it does meet the standards and being sold to consumers. The test failure rate on performance suggests this puts a lot of riders who may choose to wear a helmet at risk. Note that nothing in this article deals with mandatory helmet use—it is focused on the quality of helmets available to the buyer who chooses to use one. As a result of this system, the data shows that on any given day, motorcyclists and oth-er helmet purchasers in the U.S. have a greater than a four-in-ten chance of purchas-ing a helmet that does not meet the performance standards they were led to believe it does. What’s worse, the way the law is set up, helmets that have actually been proven to meet more rigorous standards (Snell Memorial Foundation, ECE 22.05 and others, for example) by pre-marketing testing with documented results as required under those standards are not available to consumers unless the manufacturer opts for dual certifi-cation to include DOT testing—or at least labeling, as well. That imparts additional cost.

Looking at the data, here are some other key findings:

• Since 2014, a total of 167 helmets from 74 manufacturers of various sizes have been tested.

• Of the 167 helmets tested, a total of 105 (62.8 percent) helmets failed on perfor-mance, labeling or both.

• Of the 105 helmets tested that failed, a total of 72 (68.5 percent) failed one or more of the required performance criteria. Actual performance criteria include: impact at-tenuation, penetration resistance, retention system, each tested at ambient temper-ature, low temperature, high temperature and with water immersion).

Of the 105 helmets tested that failed, a total of 33 (31.4 percent) failed on labeling alone (things like the label not meeting the label design and content specifications, not being permanently affixed, etc.). The labeling standards are more completely described in our standard’s story.

• Since 2014, NHTSA has stated that 53 investigations have taken place. The out-come of those investigations has not been reviewed for this article.

• Of 72 helmets that failed on performance, only 12 recalls (16.6 percent) were imple-mented.

If we slice-and-dice the data a little, there may be a small glimmer of good news. The trend line year-over-year may be showing a slight improvement in the most recent three-year period compared to the earliest three-year period.

That is, the three-year average percentage of failure on performance from 2014 to 2016 was 45.6 percent; for 2017 to 2019 it was 41.6 percent. The overall trend, howev-er is affected by the 2018 test results that saw a whopping 60 percent performance fail-ure rate among the helmets tested that year.

Regrettably, that means that a great many of the helmets sold in the past five years and likely to still be in use have a four-in-ten chance of being substandard; even by the comparatively weak standards in FMVSS 218.

In most product manufacturing areas where consumer safety is directly affected, de-fect/failure rates of 0.4 percent would be considered high; failure rates over forty per-cent would be considered absolutely unacceptable.

As dismal as the performance data is, there seems to be ample opportunity for im-provement in the regulatory system that could allow consumers to have more choices to get better helmets with resulting increased competition and with that, the potential for lower costs.

Here are some ideas:

Problem 1:

Since all helmets to be sold in the U.S. for road-going use must have the DOT label, but the data shows that those helmets do not actually meet the applicable performance standards nearly half the time, why not implement some simple steps to give consum-ers more choices that would include helmets certified under standards that require per-formance testing before the helmet is placed on the market?

Options for Motorcycle Helmet Safety Improvement:

1. Reform the language of FMVSS 218 to allow U.S. consumers to buy helmets that meet other, often more rigorous performance standards than those in FMVSS 218 and which require the helmet to be proven to meet the standards before being allowed on the market with compliance labeling (i.e. Snell Memorial Foundation, ECE 22.05, etc.). Here’s what that might look like:

Any helmet having been certified by recognized testing laboratories as defined by the certifying authority as meeting the applicable performance standards for motorcycle helmets intended for use on public roads shall be deemed as compliant with all provi-sions of this part. Helmets approved under this provision must display labeling indicat-ing the certification or approval the helmet has, but are not required to bear the DOT label. This provision shall apply to helmets compliant with the following stand-ards: UNECE 22.05, FIM FRHPhe-1, Snell M2020 D or R, JIS T8133 2015, NBR-7471:2001 (and/or others that substantially meet or exceed FMVSS 218).

This, in essence, is use of an approach that is already in use by the federal govern-ment for other purposes called “deeming.” It is an effective way to reduce regulatory costs and duplication by “deeming” a product which already meets or exceeds stand-ards substantially equivalent or higher than the DOT standards to have also met the DOT standards.

Simply stated, this revision would allow any helmet having already met Snell Memorial Foundation, ECE 22.05 or other standards as or more rigorous than FMVSS 218 to be sold in the U.S. with or without the DOT label or associated testing. The industry is al-ready ahead of the curve on this with a number of manufacturers already offering hel-mets with dual certification such as DOT and Snell Memorial Foundation or DOT and ECE 22.05.

Making other certifications that are substantially equivalent to or that exceed DOT standards sufficient by themselves for sale in the U.S. would simplify things for both manufacturers and consumers and create the potential for lower costs through less du-plication.

Problem 2:

The FMVSS 218 standard has requirements for the label content and how it is affixed to the helmet, but do not require that the helmet pass all the applicable tests prior to the label being applied and the product being put on the market.

Options for Motorcycle Helmet Safety improvement:

Simply add a pre-market testing requirement and that the results and description of the test method (which is already described in the standards) be submitted to NHTSA prior to the helmet being released to the market. Post-marketing testing as directed by NHTSA could still be used to verify continued compliance.

For manufacturers already doing their own testing or contracting it out, this would merely add the administrative step of submitting their results. For any manufacturers not verifying helmet performance at all, it would bring them up to par with those that are.

Those manufacturers already pursuing Snell Memorial Foundation certification, ECE 22.05 certification, FRHPhe-1 or other similar certifications could continue that, as well, but they would not have to do DOT if they achieve compliance on other deemed stand-ards. They would label their helmets as they currently do when they achieve compli-ance under those other systems, but would not have to display the DOT label on the certified helmet.

This step would bring DOT standards up to the level of Snell Memorial Foundation, ECE 22.05 and others that require proof of performance before approval and market-ing. Note that Snell certification is not mandatory in the U.S. or elsewhere, but it is a rigorous process that is voluntarily pursued by a number of manufacturers.

To have a look at the NHTSA helmet test reports that provide results for each helmet tested in detail, visit: http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/comply/

For Sale

For Sale

For Sale

Used Mega 230 23,000 BTU Kerosene Heater

$100 or OBO Help Chapter 3 Columbus DAV

740-503-2498

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2007 Honda Goldwing (Trike)

30,083 miles

Color– Blue, with trailer hitch

$17,000

Jiggs 740-591-7495 or 740-797-4190

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Chapter Info

GOLD WING GOLD WING GOLD WING GOLD WING

ROAD RIDERS ROAD RIDERS ROAD RIDERS ROAD RIDERS

AAAASSSSSSSSOOOOCCCCIIIIAAAATTTTIIIIOOOONNNN

Hocking Hills

Road Riders

Chapter X – Ohio

Mee�ngs are the Last

Sunday of each month

at Hocking College

1:30 pm

Anyone with ideas, input,

or news is encouraged to

submit articles to the chapter newsletter.

Share your knowledge with your fellow riders

and chapter members. Feel free to send

newsletter items to [email protected]

Hocking Hills Road Riders, Ohio Chapter...

Documents

Transcript of Hocking Hills Road Riders, Ohio Chapter...