Legislation Forum

LEGISLATION FORUM

I note with interest all of the editorials and legislation that has come up on motorcycles in various places, which is getting stronger each day. I agree that some legislation is needed. Some that has been proposed is okay in some respects, and some is rather drastic.

There are several classes of motorcyclists. This is the basis for most of the trouble that causes different points of legislation to be proposed.

I am of the class of older riders who grew up with motorcycles, enjoyed the fresh air and mud and pike roads, and was respected on the roads when fewer automobiles were around. We dressed as seemed fit and comfortable. As the roads became paved and more and more traffic appeared, it became necessary for us to be on the alert, to drive defensively, and to carry insurance as so many accidents began to happen.

But today, there are too many young boys who are riding who don’t realize the dangers of the roads with present speedy traffic. If these boys were properly trained in the beginning, or by the dealers before they sell a machine, many of these accidents wouldn’t happen, and the public wouldn’t be antagonized by the crazy antics some riders perform on the highways or streets.

I’ve ridden motorcycles for 53 years and have had one accident, not my fault. A rider made a left turn in front of me, and I still think he was a new rider, not knowing how to properly operate a motorcycle. It’s a good thing to require training for safe motorcycle operation.

I think the clubs which promote events could do a lot more to educate the younger riders and prevent many accidents and needless legislation.

I also think the law officers should discern between the decent riding clubs and their members and the outlaw elements that are creating all of the disturbances and causing the ill feeling of the motoring public against motorcycles. After all, many of our respected citizens are motorcyclists today. I know there are millions of motorcycle riders today who, if they get on the ball and write their respective officials, could prevent needless legislation. Freedom infringing laws need not be required, but left to the individual rider as to his own safety or riding apparel.

I do not, as yet, wear a helmet, as I feel that I can’t stand any weight on my head. Also, some of these required helmets rather cut off your hearing ability. They may protect your head, but what is to prevent them from breaking your neck, even though you wouldn't get a damaging injury otherwise.

I feel that it should be taken into consideration on proposed legislation that automobile drivers, as w'ell as passengers, should be required to wear helmets, as there is as much sense to this protection from the dash or windshield in a collision.

I have ridden the heavyweight motorcycles all my riding years, and, at the age of 70, still operate motorcycles today, Indian Four and Indian Chief. I ride with care and caution on the roads and never take the right of way before I have it,

making sure instead of dead sure. My machines are kept in top shape, so no road repairs are needed.

If you ride safe and sanely, I think

the motoring public notices it and respects you. So let’s all do our part. Ride safe and help eliminate all this nasty

taste in the public’s mouth in regard to motorcycles.

J. E. WICKHAM Pres, of Indian Four-Cylinder Club Findlay, Ohio

If CW is so averse to the passage of

A.B. 978, as indeed I am, you would render the motorcycling public a great service by supplying each state assemblyman and state senator with a copy of your very fine July 1967 issue. As for the man responsible for the ultimate execution of the bill. Governor Reagan should indeed also be mailed a copy, marked in the appropriate section. A letter from you, further stating “our” case, should be enclosed with each copy, certainly directing their attention to page 18.

Personally, I feel that some type of eye protection is imperative. We motorcyclists should consider that a blinded (even temporarily so) rider is a hazard, not only to himself, but to every other person sharing the road. If a law is needed in this area, then let it pass.

The law about wearing shoes is a good idea, too. If appeals to riders’ senses have no effect, then the law must step in to protect the public. As above, an injured rider may lose control of his bike and become a menace to auto and truck drivers who, we must remember, share the freeways and streets with us.

More than likely, the helmet requirement is considered by legislators to be an extension of the logic employed in the first two points. However, a motorcyclist’s vision and hearing capacities are severely impaired by wearing a helmet. Whether a spilled rider is safer while wearing one is debatable, but as a person (with artificially impaired peripheral vision and hearing) riding a motor vehicle on public roads, shared by other classes of vehicles, he could again become a potential menace to others on the road. What could develop from this? Double rear-view mirror requirements? Larger mirror requirements?

The battery idea is a good one; but all lamps must be battery operated. What happens to your mag-driven headlight when the motor slows down or quits?

We should be thankful that speed governors were not brought up, for then we’d not only really become dangerous to ourselves, but, again, to others.

We are living in a society, in a world sophisticated enough to produce a motorcycle. To attack unfair legislation, we must drop this stupid attitude on “loss of our individual freedoms and rights” and think about the “Common Social Good.” It could be to our advantage.

(Continued on page 40)

BILL MENDLEN Santa Monica, Calif.

This is the bulk of a letter written by stage and movie actor Jay Barney to Com. Henry Barnes, Traffic Commissioner of New York City. And it makes good sense! Angled parking for motorcycles is encouraged in Europe with just the results predicted by Mr. Barney — a saving on road space and consequent easy parking for car drivers. — Ed.

I don’t have long hair, am clean shaven, and haven't a black leather jacket to my name. After 28 years of driving I’ve no moving violations listed on my license.

My profession is acting (NY stage, Hollywood films, running roles on TV’s “Secret Storm” as Detective Capt. Ed Barton, and “As the World Turns” as lawyer Ed Lang) so I make many trips a week to various studios and locations, either working or auditioning for future jobs.

I’m also an investor/trader/speculator in the stock market, so I visit various brokerage offices regularly. I’m a Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army Signal Corps (Res.) and I attend meetings, teach and lecture at various installations.

In all my travels, I use a motorcycle — at the moment a Suzuki 200-cc X-5.

To be sure, out of the thousands of motorcyclists, there are a few who are dirty and foul-mouthed and drag race in packs by my bedroom window on the upper deck of FDR Drive at 2 a.m. with no mufflers. They give all of us a black eye. There are probably Traffic Commissioners who are dunderheads, too, but as a group I like to think of them as efficient, hardworking, and dedicated.

1 like to think of myself as efficient, too. That’s why I use a motorcycle. To do in a cab what I do on the motorcycle would cost me between $48 and $60 a week. Gas for the motorcycle costs about 55c a week.

Why don't I take the bus or subway? Simple: from FDR Drive and 20th to Times Square takes 32 to 45 minutes by two buses, or a bus and subway. On my Suzuki, up FDR Drive it takes 7 minutes (5 if I make the lights on 42nd St.). From my place to Broadway and Wall takes 40 to 55 minutes by two buses or a bus and subway. By motorcycle down FDR Drive to Broad takes 6 minutes. I figure the bike saves me about two and a half hours a day over buses and subways.

But from your point of view, the saving in traffic space occupied is far more important to the city. Each time I use a cab (or my car), 1 take up 100 sq. ft. of space (6.5 x 17 average car dimension). On my motorcycle I take up 12.5 sq. ft. (2.5 x 5), about 1/10 as much. If every car or cab passenger used a motorcycle, you’d save 85 to 90 percent of the space now' being used. In effect, every one of us who uses a motorcycle rather than a car or a cab eases your congestion problem.

All motorcyclists appreciate the special parking areas you’ve set aside for our use. But the real hangup is the prohibition on angle parking for motorcycles. When I park my bike parallel to the curb, the first driver who wants that space for his car simply swings my motorcycle to an angle and moves in.

“Illegal” you say? Sure. But I have yet to see any motorist get tagged for doing it. And they do it because it is sensible, logical, and efficient. There arc few enough places for cars to park without motorcycles lousing up 140 sq. ft. when they need only 1 2.5 sq. ft.

You know, I know, 99 percent of the police know and, fortunately, all of the judges before whom I’ve appeared know that an angle parked motorcycle is no violation of the spirit of the angle parking law. It was put on the books to prevent trucks from backing into the curb and blocking a lane of traffic. Since no motorcycle is longer than a car is wide, it does not in any w'ay, ever, stick out beyond the w'idth of a parallel parked car. Thus it cannot possibly impede traffic.

But still motorcyclists continue to be tagged for angle parking. I hate injustice, I don’t believe in pleading guilty to a phoney rap, so I always plead “Not Guilty,” and get a trial. The charge has been dismissed every time because each judge (and there have been many) realizes that the intention of the law has not been violated and that angle parking is the only intelligent way to park motorcycles. Did you ever see a police motorcycle parked any way but at an angle? I never have.

It’s bad enough to waste my time going down to get a court date, reappearing several months later for the trial, waiting up to three and a half hours for my case to be called, interrogating the ticketing officer, testifying under oath, and explaining my position to the judge.

But as a taxpayer it gripes my soul to see my tax dollar wasted so flagrantly. The officer wasting his time (and my money) in court should be out collaring criminals. The judge, the bailiffs, the clerks, the whole machinery of court should be involved in trying cases of merit, not wasting time on picayune charges pretending that a 5-ft. long motorcycle is a 17-ft. car or a 28-ft. truck.

And all this brouhaha, all this ticket writing, the court appearances, the fines paid by those who haven't the time or patience to plead “Not Guilty,” all of it could be done away with in a trice by your simply inserting the words “except motorcycles and scooters” in Article 8. Section 94.

Would you, on behalf of all motorists and motorcyclists, issue an amendment: By the authority vested in me by law, as Commissioner of Traffic of the City of New York, I hereby amend Article 8, Section 94 of the Traffic Regulations to read as follows: No person shall place a vehicle (except motorcycles and scooters) at an angle to the curb, etc.?

Such a simple action by you would surely be in keeping with the common sense changes you continue to make. It would permit more parking spaces for cars, put a stop to the hypocritical tagging (by that one percent of the police force) of angle parked bikes, relieve the courts of hearing cases that they will logically dismiss, and all at no cost to the city.

JAY BARNEY New York. N. Y.