Legislation Forum

LEGISLATION FORUM

Fellow cyclists and countrymen, lend me your ears. During the early stages of our nationhood, the British started levying laws upon the settlers. So what did we do? We retaliated and took immediate action before it was too late.

Right now, lawmakers, non-motorcyclists, are passing laws against us, not for us. Laws making us wear helmets, goggles, face shields, crash bars, and preventing us from riding after certain hours. They are considering seat belts, dual headlights and using them at all times, day and night, protective clothing and footwear, laws preventing you from riding your friends on the buddy seat of your motorcycle, speed governors to keep speeds down to a suicide level, etc. If we leave these matters unchecked, we'll be abolished completely.

Little by little, the worm is eating up our sport. They are destroying the good, wholesome enjoyment that is in it. Lawmakers and motorcycle haters are going to keep at us until our sport drops dead.

What are you doing about it? Nothing. Most of us just sit there, hearing the cry and reading the writing on the wall. A few brave souls are doing something about it, but a few will not suffice. We need the full support of every motorcyclist in this country who can pick up a weapon — a pencil and paper — and write to his state legislator. It won't take more than ten minutes to write your opinions on a piece of paper and mail it in. This is a free country and we have our rights against unfair legislation.

But then, if you don't give a damn, then just stay as you are, take the unfair harrassment that's coming, let our enemies pass their dangerous, idiotic laws. If we don't care what happens to motorcycling, then why should they?

JOEL E. GONZALEZ Ft. Riley, Kan.

I am writing this letter in reference to your article, "California Legislation," in the July issue.

I am a resident of California (Lake Tahoe), and am stationed in Hawthorne, Nev., in the Air Force. I have two bikes of my own (dirt, road), and am very concerned about what legislation is trying to do to the motorcyclists of California and other states.

Due to the very large circulation of your magazine, there are many people in California who will read that same article and say, "Hell, yes, I'll write my representative. They aren't going to do this to us!" But I know darn well that they will do the same as I did in the past — put it off until the damage has been done. I am writing my representative this week, hoping that Bill A. B. 978 hasn't been passed.

Here is my suggestion to make people aware of such bills and to let the legislators know how a lot of people feel about their "railroading" motorcyclists. Since you people find out about these bills early, I suggest that you drop District 37's Commissioner (I do not know his name) and Len Allen of District 36 a line, letting them know what the bill is about. They, in turn, could notify all the clubs in their districts. Each secretary of each club could type up a letter, and have every member in the club, as well as others, sign the letter, and forward it to the commissioner, who in turn, would send all the letters received to the capital.

BILL FUNK Babbitt, Nev.

Many months ago, long before the Ralph Nader safety furor began, I wrote a letter to CYCLE WORLD urging that a study be made of the motorcycle safety problem. The letter was dutifully published and then ignored. The attitude of CYCLE WORLD apparently was: "We're magazine publishers — safety isn't our problem." The same attitude seems to have been shared by everyone in the industry. The dealers are merchants; safety isn't their problem. The makers are manufacturers; safety isn't their problem. And so it went until Nader came along.

With the advent of Ralph Nader, someone finally decided that safety was their problem. Unfortunately, it still wasn't the people in the industry, but rather our well-meaning but sadly uninformed legislators. So now we are faced with illconsidered and obnoxious "safety" legislation right here in California. A bill is before legislative committees which would require compulsory crash bars and helmets, among other things. There is some talk of dropping the crash bar provision, but the very fact that such an absurdity would be proposed shows how ignorant the bill's sponsors are on the subject of motorcycle safety.

I urge CYCLE WORLD to get involved in this problem, even at this late date. You could publish the facts about misguided legislation and help to organize opposition. You could even help to publicize and promote good legislation. If you don't do it, I don't know who else can or will.

I am in favor of constructive legislation. I would support special licensing, I would support the requirement that a good helmet be included with every motorcycle purchase, and I wish the police would crack down on the muffler violators that stir up public antagonism toward motorcycles. But if we get compulsory crash bars and helmet-wearing rammed down our throats, and get banned from more and more roads, we have only our own inaction and buck-passing to blame.

Please — stop talking and do something.

EDWIN W. SENIOR Sunnyvale, Calif.

Enclosed please find a check moving me from newsstand reader to subscriber status. But as I join your ranks I feel compelled to comment on your editorial policy

(Continued on page 34)

of condemning out of hand coercive legislation in the area of motorcycle safety. Your right to question the wisdom of individual bills goes without saying; but when, from your rather high Honda, you plunge into questions of constitutional law (Round Up. July '67), I can't help feeling you are a bit out of your field.

Most communities have historically reserved the right to safeguard the welfare of their members. And, especially in the highly integrated modern nation, the health, education, and welfare of every citizen comes under the aegis of governmental concern. A strong, healthy, intelligent population ensures national viability in a highly competitive world. Regarding the constitutionality of state action in this regard. I refer you to the constitutions of the various United States. The police power enables government to foster and protect the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its citizens. Under the federal Constitution, it is a power reserved primarily to the state governments. And like it or not, the state exercises this clearly defined power when it prevents you from taking narcotics, buying a new automobile without seatbelts, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, engaging in a friendly game of Russian Roulette with the next door neighbor, or from the even riskier proposition of taking more than one wife. These activities harm only the individuals directly responsible and not the community, you say? Wisely, we do not permit the individual to decide for himself what actions will or will not be harmful to others. Rather, we subject every member of the community to a uniform code of statutes enacted by elective representative bodies in the (hopefully) public interest. What is or is not in the public interest you may well question. But so recklessly calling into question the police function of the state or the wholly unsupportable issue of its constitutionality strikes me as rather irresponsible editorial policy.

I am resisting the urge to cite court cases, the issue of motorcycling's image, and those ever-misleading statistics. But as a fellow California rider (BMW), I urge you to reconsider this policy which, in my opinion, does little credit to an otherwise fine publication.

PATRICK M. BUTLER

Redwood City, Calif.

We are a bit tired of letters to you starting out, "Yippee! You guys are great! fabulous!" etc., etc., as if the reader had just discovered the Lost Dutchman. Your followers will attest that it is nothing new for you people to consistently come up with better varieties of material, appealing to a wider range of enthusiasts.

For instance, we have been vowing to write a letter for some time suggesting a little more material for the touring/trailing enthusiast, whose primary interest in racing is as a spectator on Sunday afternoons. We were not surprised to see you beat us to it with "The Motorcycle Tourists Guide." As we say in the Navy, "Well done."

We are a cycling family, the wife and I,

(Continued on page 38)

having taken up the sport since coming overseas several years ago. I presently ride a Honda 450 and the spouse does quite well (with a couple of notable exceptions) on her Yamaha 305.

Here in the Philippines we have riding problems and hazards pretty much unique to the area. Imagine a road about as wide as most alleys, or a freeway lane. Stateside. Dig a lot of deep, random holes in it and scatter some sand over the few smooth spots. Build a lot of bamboo houses (Nipa huts) within a few yards of the road and have the inhabitants congregate alongside or in the road, with a lot of children running back and forth. Throw in the domestic animals; dogs, chickens, pigs, goats and the everpresent caribou. On this road, place a large number of highly competitive drivers of a commercial conveyance called a jeepney (built around the frame of a WW II jeep). Every two or three minutes, shoot a gravel truck or a decrepit old bus down this road at about 50 mph. Make sure no vehicles have taillights or brake lights. Add very little in the way of traffic laws and nothing at all in the line of enforcement, and there you have a typical Philippine highway. It makes for an interesting and colorful motorcycle ride, though the color wears a bit thin at times.

Other problems have to do with being attached to the military. The four main U. S. military bases on Luzon currently allow motorcycles on and off the base, subject to a confusing batch of restrictions.

There are the usual requirements for insurance, stickers (certifying registration) and plates, of course. All the bases enforce helmets and require riding with headlights on, day and night, (though there is scant enforcement of this outside a military reservation ).

The real controversial item is the requirement for crash bars. "All two-wheeled motor vehicles will be equipped with crash bars of a type to protect the lower extremities. Such crash bars will also be provided for passengers." (Scooters and such are exempt.) You cannot legally ride a passenger without rear crash bars! With few exceptions, the bikes available to us here are Japanese. Have you ever tried to put a useful rear bar on a Honda? You wouldn't believe some of the jury rigs. Perhaps a little common sense is prevailing, for, although this requirement is supposedly drawn from an instruction governing all U. S. forces in the Philippines, only one station of the four is actively enforcing crash bars.

One request: Can you or anyone you know provide an authoritative opinion on the value of crash bars, considering makes of bikes, types of riding, and so forth?

To further point out the haphazard way the military does things, the three Navy bases have some variation of an 1800 (6:00 p.m.) curfew to curtail off-base riding after dark. The Air Force base does not enforce crash bars, could care less what time you go in or out the gate, but is currently ticketing all cycles without "baffles." On the Navy bases, you can get by with straight pipes, so long as you cool

it and don't bother anyone.

We are, of course, subject to the usual hysteria of the non-riding public which seems prevalent everywhere. I have long been of the opinion that the problem should be attacked from the position of individual operator training and conscience.

The military here has made a start in the right direction by requiring special testing and licensing for two-wheeled vehicle operators. However, their problem falls apart in that it is usually administered by a non-riding Public Works employee. And the riding test is so ridiculously simple that I am on record as stating I can, in one day, teach the average citizen with no riding experience enough to pass the test.

TIM O. RUSSELL FPO San Francisco, Calif.

Crash hars were developed for large overweight motorcycles in the over fourhundred pound category; the main purpose of the things is to protect the motorcycle when it falls over. They are, however, aptly named, because the number of crashes caused by crashbars can probably never be counted. — Ed.

As a person just new to the scene I have read with interest your column. Legislation Forum, in August CW. Naturally, since the readers of your magazine are all thoroughly convinced of the essential position of the motorcycle in everyday American life (you know — same as Motherhood

(Continued on page 40)

and the Flag) their letters would reflect their concern over possible infringement of safety legislation upon motorcycle enjoyment. My own opinion is that maybe it does need infringement.

I go to school on the campus of Ohio University, and for three years I have watched motorcyclists race around with almost complete abandon of law and order. They are lawless because they fail to obey speed limits, noise ordinances, and traffic rules. They are disorderly because they lack courtesy, common sense, and responsibility. All this in spite of their being students with a future requiring adherence to the very law and order so flagrantly violated.

And yet, 1 am now one of them. It happened the usual way: a friend gives you a ride on his Honda S-90, you borrow it for a weekend all your own, and soon you plunk down $600 in Coin of the Realm for a candy-apple red, 200cc, X-5 Suzuki. Your wife gets the "bug" too and pesters you to death to let her ride it.

But how many of us are articulate enough to define our feelings about the pleasures of motorcycle ownership? The unparallelled sense of freedom, the responsiveness of the bike, the exhilaration of motion, and more contribute to the formation of a team between man and machine. Remember the first time you got caught in the rain? It probably wasn't as bad as you expected. How about your first spill? Your first trail ride? So you came out unhurt and not lost and now have a beautiful set of joyful experiences that enrich your life far beyond that of the average guy (or girl, even). Enjoyment. That's what you've had. That's what we both still have now. And it faces infringement. No.

I'll tell you what faces regulation and control. It's the joy-riding, thunder-making, rattle-trap throttle jockey who faces regulation. OK, my second paragraph is not indicative of the average motorcycle enthusiast. I know it isn't. I ride safely, my wife rides safely, so do most students, and so do most of you. But I realize that only now after acquiring the "bug." What I saw before was paragraph two of this letter. That's what most people, including legislators and lawmakers, see in us. They don't count all the quiet motorcyclists that coast by, they count only noisy ones. Who ever hears a radio report or sees a newspaper article about any motorcycle accidents not involving serious injury or even death? Most of us never have any accidents. And that is in spite of being taken advantage of by every thimble-brained, road-hog, Mr. Average-American-Motorist who happens to pass by (and he will, even if it kills).

The symptom is the usual one: a few bad guys and lurid accidents soil the reputation of the rest of us. But the cure might kill the patient. And it just might save some lives. Yes, it certainly does feel funny to wear a helmet to ride 5 blocks to a friend's house. But that's a small sacrifice for safety against the possibility that an accident might slam you head-first into a signpost or tree. When you get right down to it, most safety legislation proposals relating to motorcycling are sensible and well thought out. Some of them involve

minor inconvenience and expense to the rider, but I say that enjoyment will not suffer.

What really will suffer is our pride. It takes some outsiders whose only experience with motorcycling is third-hand hearsay to tell us how to be safe. That hurts. But maybe this outside inquiry will make us more aware of our responsibility to safety. Maybe the foolhardy and reckless rider will think twice the next time because he knows he's under scrutiny.

Maybe infringement is a good thing.

Thomas E. Bonham Nelsonville, Ohio

I have regularly read the "Legislation Forum" in CW for four months now, and I have finally boiled over. Recently, in Indiana, a new law has been passed that requires the following:

a. All cyclists must wear helmets (a reasonable idea, but it shouldn't be mandatory ).

b. Lights must be on at all times (a very good idea, no extra cost).

c. Any of the following are required: windshield, goggles, face shield, shatterproof glasses, or shatter-proof sunglasses.

d. Regular driver's license required to ride on streets.

You know, before long, somebody is going to pass a law requiring that you not go over 25 mph!

I think all of the ideas behind the present laws are good, but I do think that it is a shame that these requirements are forced upon motorcyclists. I just about gag when I hear and read about people feeling that their constitutional rights are being taken away! It is ideas like these that cause all the destruction and devastation in our riot-torn cities. Instead of complaining about the laws and all the additional equipment costs, why doesn't someone just say, "Okay, Mr. Hartke, we'll wear all the protective gear you want us to, and we'll put all the safety equipment on our machines that you want us to, providing, of course, that you pay for it." I'll bet that would cause a few political hairs to stand on end!

Another thing; now that we motorcyclists are taken care of, how about automobiles? When are auto drivers going to have to wear seat belts?

I have one more gripe. There is an old saying that autos are no safer than the nut behind the wheel. Some people are going to hate me because I feel this expression holds true for motorcycles, too. I have seen some idiots on cycles that think they are at the Greenhorn Enduro, local drag strip, TT scrambles, and a hillclimbing event all at one time. I counted one clown making 17 lane switches in two blocks, after which he unicycled for 50 to 75 feet! After all this, he just couldn't understand why that dirty old man in blue (more respectfully known as a police officer) gave him a cold greeting and a date with the traffic court judge.

There is always a bad example of something, so why don't we good examples try to make up for the bad guys?

DAN MITCHELL Ft. Wayne, Indiana ■