Legislation Forum

LEGISLATION FORUM

"FIGHTING MAN"

I am a fighting man in the Republic of Viet Nam. I often wonder what I am fighting for.

I started riding two wheels when I was 14. My first bike was a Vespa. Now, seven years later, I own a Triumph Bonnie, and the only reason I don’t have it with me now is because I couldn’t get it in my duffel bag.

I applaud the Metropolitan Cycle Association and the group’s letter to LBJ (CW, Oct. ’68). 1 hope it gets results.

1 am from Florida, and as yet I haven’t run into the MPA’s type of problem. My problem is shared by everyone who lives in a state with a helmet law.

I’m wondering when Mr. Do-Good Lawmaker will make it necessary for bicycle riders to wear helmets, goggles, leathers and boots. After all, they are just as easily involved in accidents as motorcycle riders. As a matter of fact, bicyclists don’t have to have a license to prove their ability to drive or ride in traffic.

I suppose by the time I get back to the world it will be necessary for me to add a roll bar, seatbelts, windshield, two horns (in case one doesn’t work), brush bars, fog lights, as well as an extra headlight, bumpers, and a host of other safety devices to my machine before I can go for that long-awaited ride.

I’m going to write my letters to do my part to return motorcycling to the cyclist and not the legislator. I urge all other members of this sport to do the same.

When the day comes that some nice man up there says I have to wear green leathers on Thursday, that’s the day I sell my bike.

SGT. GALE M. EVANS APO San Francisco, Calif.

"BANNING"

The apparent “banning” of motorcycles on limited access roads, highways, expressways, freeways, turnpikes, etc., is an area requiring, I feel, a concentrated effort before it gets out of hand. Your Legislation Forum has listed two such problems which I am currently working on (the Garden State Parkway and the Calumet Expressway).

1 have brought this whole matter to the attention of Congressman Bob Wilson of California. Through our congressmen we are able to express our views and ideas to the House Public Works Committee under whose cognizance these matters fall.

Are these “prohibitive regulations,” which are cropping up here and there, hints of a much larger problem, or are they just a few isolated cases? The case of the Calumet Expressway involves an interstate highway. The Interstate Highway System is being built with federal funds authorized by the House Public Works Committee. Did they intend in their original legislation to prohibit their use to all motorcycles? While the original drafters of the Highway Safety Bill were aiming at “across the board” improvements in safety and operation of our nation’s highways, did they intend to prohibit operation of all sizes of motorcycles?

Apparently we didn’t have enough foresight to make our views known during the drafting stages of these bills. Who, at the time, could have predicted how these matters would be handled? It is evident at this stage of time that action is required now, if our interests are to be protected. Federal matters must be brought to the attention of our congressmen, state matters to the attention of our assemblymen.

I would like to suggest that if any of your readers know of any highway, expressway, freeway, or other limited access roadway where all motorcycles are prohibited, would they please jot the information on the back of a postcard (no letters, please) and send to me for compilation and submission to Congressman Wilson and the House Public Works Committee for consideration by the first session of the 91st Congress. If you agree, the following format would expedite handling:

State County Name of Highway Highway No. Interstate No. Notes

J. BRADLEY FLIPPIN 3011 Fairmont St. Falls Church, VA 22042

"UNDER THE THUMB"

I haven’t been a consistent reader of your magazine, but I have read a few of your recent issues. In these I have picked up probably the tail end of a reasonably long battle between the motorcyclist and the Establishment. As I stated, I am not very conversant with the whole situation, but it seems odd to me that in a place like America, where everyone tells everybody else that it’s a great place and all are free and equal, that the motorcycling community allows government bodies to push them around. Your column Legislation Forum is often the scene for sitters and talkers to air their thoughts, so may I tell you of our most recent victory.

The state government of New South Wales tried to introduce higher premiums for third party insurance, which is compulsory and included in the vehicle registration. In the case of the motorcyclist, the increase would have increased the total yearly cost from $52 to $ 100, on machines above 250 cc, and $24 to $36 for under 250 cc. As you probably could imagine, all motorcyclists were shocked and angry. Within a fortnight, a formal meeting was organized and motorcyclists, regardless of race, religion, machine capacity or social position, were urged to attend to discuss a means of combating the government plan to up the premium.

I arrived about 20 min. after the scheduled start, on a Sunday afternoon in Sydney’s Trades Hall auditorium. The place was packed. When I left, about an hour later, there were people overflowing into the corridors. Out on the street there were two-wheelers of all sizes, shapes, and makes lining the curb for a considerable distance. Within a month of the meeting, result of the efforts of those who organized and attended it, plus the work of numerous people engaged in motorcycling, be it as a distributor or competitor, the government announced the new premiums would rise only $5, instead of the proposed $50.

I was most impressed, as well as pleased, to hear this. What you make of this I can’t say, but in my opinion if a group of motorcyclists, be they Hell’s Angels or John Does, become a combined group, then it’s pretty sure they’ll have some effect, if not success, when fighting legislation to their dislike-unless they are confronted by an individual as one-eyed as the gent in New York. When I read that article I realized how fortunate we must have been.

I was also quite amazed to learn that a special license isn’t necessary in all your states. In every state in Australia, such a license is mandatory. In some states, the period of time that a person must hold a license before he can carry a pillion is as high as two years. The wearing of helmets and other safety gear is compulsory in only two states that I know of; in these states the third party insurance premiums are appreciably lower than in other states. So, actually speaking, we over here are probably more under the thumb than you.

Guess that sort of defies my foregoing words, but these latter mentioned regulations have been in force for years and years. I don’t expect my words to be the answer to your problems, nor do I want them to be interpreted to mean,

(Continued on page 34)

Continued from page 29

“Hurrah Aussie!” and “What are you doing, Yank!” How I mean them to sound is as an encouraging word and to let you know that you are not alone when it comes to liking a bit of a go. DON GIBBS Sidney, Australia

"MUCH CONCERN"

I am a 14-year-old boy who is very much concerned with present-day motorcycle legislation. (I have a lot to say, but will try to limit it so as not to be boring to certain individuals who have their narrow minds made up as to what they think about motorcycles.)

First, nobody wants to be forced to wear a helmet, but if a helmet law is passed, nobody will do a damn thing about it. Facts prove that 72 percent of all auto injuries are a result of head injuries. Why single out motorcyclists to have to wear helmets? Why not auto drivers? At least a mandatory seatbelt law? No. It would be too big a hassle to wear a seatbelt in a car, much less a helmet. But after all, those nasty motorcyclists should be made to wear helmets, shouldn’t they? (Let’s find out who proposes these laws and eliminate them.)

However, we really need separate licensing, because more than 70 percent of all cycle accidents involve novice riders. Instead of preventing deaths with helmets, let’s eliminate as many as we can by getting to the root of the problem—untrained riders. Also, we need automobile driver education in the area of motorcycles. In 1966, the car driver was legally responsible in 70 percent of the accidents. You see, accidents and deaths can be reduced very considerably by training auto drivers and motorcycle riders. Too many auto drivers seem to not realize that we are entitled to as many rights on the road as they.

Getting back to mandatory helmets, I think that a helmet is basically a sound idea—but nobody has the right to tell you how to treat your own head. Also, (1) helmets restrict hearing; (2) they’re hot; and (3) they restrict vision.

As I’ve stated, there would be little need to wear helmets if motorcyclists and car drivers were properly trained. It would scare the hell out of me to get within 50 yards of some car drivers I’ve seen. People seem to be asleep as they cruise down the highway in their 4500-lb. cars.

I’ve spoken to many people, particularly the older folks, who picture motorcyclists as a bunch of filthy bums that ride around molesting decent people. Honestly now, when was the last time you saw a movie involving decent, lawabiding motorcyclists, who make up 99 percent of the bike riding population? When some people see these movies about the 1 percenters, they have just formed a permanent opinion about motorcyclists.

We will be responsible if we allow some of these laws to be passed. What is becoming of the utility of the motorcycle? If you have to dress up like Flash Gordon to go down to the corner for a loaf of bread, who needs motorcycles? You can bet your life that if any of this Mickey Mouse legislation comes to California, I’ll go to court instead of sitting around strapped to my 30-cc motorcycle, sweat running into my eyes from my mandatory helmet, four stabilizer wheels around my bike, sweating in my suit of fireproof material.

Next election day, let’s elect congressmen and senators who know what they’re doing. Let’s get some safety commercials for TV and radio. Don’t sit around, people, write letters! Write to your local newspapers. Write to radio stations. Write to your representatives and senators. I see few safety laws for cars, boats, and such being proposed or passed. Why don’t the legislators work on something of great concern-crime, drug abuse or, most of all, the war in Viet Nam.

I’ve said very little of what I’d like to say, and didn’t say it too well, but I’m sure thousands of people share my feelings.

I can’t sign my name, because most of my friends already think I’m crazy enough to be racing around the dirt on a motorcycle. Even if you don’t print this letter, I feel a lot better having aired my feelings. THE KAWASAKI KID La Habra, Calif.

"STRONG ARGUMENT"

Since [Wisconsin’s] mandatory helmet law went into effect on July 1, 1968, the motor vehicle department claims a 40-percent drop in cycle deaths, and this may be the start of a good thing.

The only bad thing about the law was its timing. July is just about the hottest time of year, and a lot of us had to forsake our riding caps for the hot and hotter helmets. And if one has to wear a helmet just because the law says so, and that after 44 years of motorcycling, you cannot blame a person for raising a gripe about the trend. Of course, when the weather is cooler, a helmet can become quite an asset. One actually is forced to wear a helmet for head comfort. Most of us have no kick on that point.

Here is a chance for some would-be inventor to design a helmet which gives one’s noggin some circulation, without getting too drafty, and at the same time, by manipulation of a small lever or knob, could be made absolutely watertight if Jupe Pluvius turns on the waterworks. Last but not least, it should be a neat and streamlined job.

(Continued on page 36)

Continued from page 34

There are a lot of riders in Wisconsin who would like the helmet law repealed, including Yours Truly, but after a law is once on the books, it is a heckuva job to have it repealed, especially when they claim a 40-percent reduction has been made in fatalities for motorcycle riders. About the only thing that can be done now is to swallow our pride, and force ourselves to wear them—come hot weather, hell or high water—and, if it ever happens on the road, the extra protection may come in very handy.

CARL R. GRIESBACHER West Allis, Wis.

WHAT'S THE SENSE?

I’ve read all the pros and cons of the so-called safety laws for motorcycles, and I agree that most have been enacted by people who have never ridden bikes. Like the proposed seat belt law in Tennessee. If something like that ever passes, motorcycle riders might as well hang it all up.

In my home state of Ohio, there is a mandatory helmet and eye protection law. But a pair of goggles propped up on the helmet top and not over the eyes is legal. What’s the sense of making a law like that if it’s not going to be enforced? Why doesn’t the state legislature forget about it in the first damned place? After all, it was proved unconstitutional in the Michigan Supreme Court.

I don’t get much chance to ride anymore, but when I do, I like to ride dressed the way I please—which means no helmet.

So far as I know, nothing has been done to try to get these laws repealed, but I, for one, am going to start as soon as I get back in the States. At least such laws should be subject to vote, but that wouldn’t do me any good personally because I’m old enough to kill, but not to vote.

BMSN J.C. HAMILTON FPO New York, N.Y.

"THE SPORT"

Many of your readers are, praiseworthily, anxious to demonstrate that this is, in fact as well as in theory, an open society, one that can be changed without resort to force. You are suggesting that they address themselves to their legislators and also to the Department of Transportation. Obviously, since you pay the salaries of Alan Boyd and his staff, you are entitled to write to them and even to receive an answer, but surely we should be aware that our complaint is not that they are wrong-so is every other human being (with the arguable exception of the Pope)—but that they are making decisions which logically, morally, and constitutionally are not theirs to make.

It is logically absurd to decide—demand rather—that citizens riding different kinds of machines on different kinds of streets for different purposes in a changing world equip themselves similarly: a girl with long hair riding a scooter in a skirt and no gloves, but wearing a helmet, has obviously been grossly misinformed as to the hazards to which she is exposed—skinned palms or scarred legs. It is logically sensible to leave these decisions to the working level, where mistakes will not be allowed to continue indefinitely and where new ideas can most readily be sold.

It is morally criminal to inflict damage or injury upon a fellow man by selling him something that is no use to him and which he does not want, or by imposing a maximum speed limit which dilutes his skill and degrades the level of attention he devotes to the road. It is morally defensible to treat your neighbor’s insight as your own, and reason with him rather than resort to force.

It is constitutionally offensive for the executive branch to be either making the laws or telling the courts how to enforce them—these are the functions of the legislature. When Alan Boyd can claim in front of the Press of the world that he has authority without responsibility, the doctrine of “rule by law and not by men” is reduced to rubbish, and you might as well be back in the British Empire.

The framers of the Constitution knew full well that any agency with power would stretch that power just as far as it could, and it is entirely unrealistic to expect the Department of Transportation to consider the welfare of the taxpayers. (Remember, these are the people who advocate power reduction during climb-out for commercial transports, and believe that fewer flights into New York are needed in the future!) The resort of the taxpayers must be, I submit, to the legislature, which can control the expenditure of the executive and investigate its actions (only by breaking the law can the judiciary be induced to take an interest—admittedly, it is sometimes necessary and desirable to break the law). Thus, the need is for educated and ethical individuals and associations to make representations, in writing and in testimony, to legislatures.

I take leave to remark that not just “the sport” but the last stronghold of liberty are at stake here; centralized decision-making has made such inroads that this society is now threatened simultaneously by inflation and unemployment!

B.W. FIRTH Reno, Nev. [Ö]