Letters
LETTERS
THOUGHTS ON INSURANCE
I think we might all agree at least to a certain extent that the insurance companies are robbing us blind for the so-called protection they provide in exchange for their exorbitant premiums. This is especially true in New York State (Rochester), where I presently attend graduate school. Indeed, in the large majority of motorcycle accidents involving cars or otherwise, due to the vulnerable nature of our sport, slight variations of the following occur:
1) If driving alone, the motorcycle driver if injured receives no compensation from his motorcycle insurer. Rather, he must normally turn to his health insurance, assuming he has that. In addition, most drivers that I know do not carry collision insurance for vehicle damage, as it is too expensive.
2) If carrying a passenger and the passenger is injured, a suit on the driver may occur. Here the motorcycle insurance has some value.
The above assumes, of course, that if the accident involves a car, the car occupants escape any harm. This is more often the case by far, than not. (I realize I do not support this statement with statistics, but even CW expounds this principle.) Of course, I am also ignoring the complications of who is at fault in the accident.
I estimate that perhaps 80 to 90 percent of the motorcycles I see have only one occupant. Though it may not be fair to assume so, it does not appear to be unreasonable then that a large majority of motorcycle accidents must involve single persons. In short, most of the time we are getting nothing for our yearly $100 to $400 insurance premium, even if an accident occurs.
Automobile drivers have apparently become aware of the legalized robbery they are being subjected to. The answer appears to be in “no-fault” insurance. The Massachusetts law is undeniably highly successful. Motorcycles are not included in this bill. In fact, according to my local motorcycle dealer (Hennen Honda-Triumph of Rochester), the only state where motorcycles have been included in no-fault legislation is Delaware. Unfortunately, the result there was to drive cycle insurance rates from a representative $150 up to $450 per year by Universal Underwriters, the only company which continues to write cycle insurance there.
This hike in rates runs counter to the whole idea of no-fault—to reduce rates. The excuse the insurance companies give is that with no-fault they now must cover the cycle driver for physical harm, which was not done previously. Presently in the New York State legislature is a bill which would do effectively the same thing that was done in Delaware. If the bill passes the rates will go up by a factor of two to four. Present rates for bikes in New York State are around $350/year. It would simply become economically impossible to drive a motorcycle.
The point I wish to raise above all this is that we are about to get used— again. If the bill were to pass, and one could conceivably pay for coverage, then the motorcycle driver would at last get the coverage he should have had all along. However, the price would be grotesquely unfair. There are a number of alternatives:
1) Keep us out of no-fault (as in Massachusetts).
2) Include us in no-fault, but exempt the driver from bodily harm coverage. Let the driver turn to universally available medical insurance which can be had at a much cheaper price. Conceivably then our rates could be reduced concurrent with the idea of no-fault.
3) Expose the insurance companies for what they are—legalized extortionists. Set fair rates for motorcycles and include them in no-fault. If we are included in the general pool of no-fault as “pseudo-automobile” drivers, then premiums charged drivers of any type of vehicle would still be low due to our relatively small number (200,000) in New York State.
Of course my first suggestion is simplest, my third most difficult. However, the third is unquestionably more desirable as it cures the system of its ills. I would greatly appreciate your suggestions and hope that you print at least part of this letter. Perhaps I have employed rather simplistic logic, but at least I am trying.
Kevin R. Bracken Rochester, N.Y.
Maybe you can help me. I am presently puzzled by the effect “no-fault” insurance may have on insurance rates for motorcycles.
All the articles I have read have only discussed “no-fault” and its effect on automobiles. Not one mentions motorcycles.
As an avid motorcyclist I am concerned with all legislation referring to motorcycles.
Franz Pomianowitz Ithaca, N.Y.
We have an article in the works on no-fault insurance, Franz. For now we can offer you some brief ideas. No-fault insurance is designed to reduce the amount of litigation involved in settling insurance claims.
(Continued on page 8)
If two cars crash, a blanket no-fault law makes it possible for the matter to be settled without having to point the legal blame..
The promised effect of no-fault insurance is to lower the cost of litigation to insurance companies; who, in turn, would lower the cost of premiums to the consumer.
Unfortunately, if no-fault became applicable for motorcycles as well as cars, bikers would have to pay outrageous premiums, because they are invariably losers in car/bike accidents. A biker’s insurer under no-fault cannot get a judgment for injuries from the automobile driver. The odds are changed (fault in car/bike accidents is laid to the auto driver in a 2:1 ratio) and the bike insurer’s costs go up. So do his premiums-perhaps three times what they are now.
This would be unfair, of course. The best solution seems to be to exempt motorcycles from the no-fault law. With a “motorcycles exempt” clause in a no-fault insurance law, an auto driver may not sue another auto driver. But a motorcyclist could sue an auto driver (and vice versa). This would help keep motorcycle insurance costs down.
In the long run, it seems to us more important that the no-fault law, complete with some sort of motorcycles exempt clause, be standardized between states. A motorcyclist who travels from an exempt state to a blanket no-fault state could play hell with the actuarial tables back home if he got hurt badly. It is doubtful, in fact, whether his policy would cover him in that blanket nofault state.
Fortunately, the Federal Government has a no-fault bill in the legislative works, which would preempt, or supersede, any existing state laws on the subject. Hopefully, that Federal law will include the motorcycles-exempt provision.
If it does so, we will favor its passage, for it may help to reduce premiums for accident insurance. It may also reduce courtroom caseloads and relieve some of the strain on our juridical system.
Since our taxes pay for courts, judges, juries, and paperwork bureaucracy, no-fault insurance laws may help slow the increase of taxes.— Ed.
THE NICEST PEOPLE
You revolutionized the motorcycle publishing field ten years by showing that a class mag could survive. Your competitors then were profits of gloom who were unaware of the impending revolution fostered by Honda et al. Their magazines reflected their smalltime thinking. Covers were strictly black-and-white; road tests were oncearound-the-block types accompanied by glowing paraphrases of factory literature; and photographs appeared to have been taken with Kodak Brownies.
(Continued on page 12)
Like many an innovator you are now “enjoying” the benefit of numerous rivals who have been encouraged by your success and influenced by your ideas. And while from your viewpoint this isn’t all good, we readers are enjoying a buyers’ market of many options. In short, what Honda did for motorcycles you’ve done for motorcycle magazines.
Jerry H. Hatfield President, American Motorcycle Bench Racers Association New York, N.Y.
AN ENTHUSIAST (?) WRITES:
For a long period of time I have faithfully purchased a copy of CYCLE WORLD from the newsstand every month.
The first time the article, “CYCLE WORLD Gets Busted” appeared, after having read it, I was disgusted, but did not bother to reply.
The second article has finally triggered a response.
Articles such as these might have a place in the local newspaper, or in a letter to the local court clerk, or the chief of police, but please not in your otherwise fine magazine. As far as I’m concerned, its nothing but dull, bleating trivia. I’m sure that you or your mailboy would not agree, but don’t use the magazine for your public “crying towel.” You can only present one side of such a story, and goodness knows, law enforcement doesn’t need any more adverse publicity than it already receives.
Scott W. Smith Tigard, Ore.
Traffic officers only present one side of the story. So why not we the other side? Someday, with the help of a good judge or lawyer we are going to publish a complete guide to self-defense. Anybody want to help?-Ed.
GOOD TO THE LAST DROP
There I was, in the middle of Joshua Tree National Monument, sprawled on my sleeping bag, opening a few cans of
food, and leafing through the latest issue of CYCLE WORLD. Suddenly, lo and behold, I came upon a series of articles dedicated to the very area I had chosen to ride to: the California-NevadJ desert. In a short while I had replanned my camping expedition to include many of the spots highlighted in those articles. By the end of the week I had come to know, respect and enjoy that desert more than I have ever had before.
I thank you from the bottom of my canteen for giving me a bit more pleasure and insight about what the desert has to offer.
Bruce G. Marcot Costa Mesa, Calif.
GOOD OL ’ GENE
What prompted me to write this are the pieces you have printed by Gene Bizallion. I have read each one (Good Old Days, Sidecars and Wintertime) many times with immense enjoyment and if you can publish any more pieces by this wizard of storytelling, I certainly will look forward to reading them. Thanks for sharing your reminisces, Mr. Bizallion.
James Oesch San Francisco, Calif.
See Spring Run” in this issue.— Ed.
MECHANIC TRAINING
I am doing a career paper on Motorcycle Mechanics. I need some information on the requirements for becoming a Motorcycle Mechanic and about schools and courses available in this field.
James Balarchin Dalton, Mass.
See our brief directory of courses offered in this issue. -Ed.
WHY LESS SOUND?
In your April 1972 issue you published a letter from Mr. William V. Cherry, of Weott, Calif. Mr. Cherry complained as to the new muffling and decible restrictions which have been imposed upon Sportsman TT and flat track events. At first glance, Mr. Cherry seems to have some valid arguments, but upon further thought, it is evident Mr. Cherry has missed the point of “less sound, more ground.”
He trys to make an analogy between loud unmuffled automobiles and motorcycles. This comparison is not valid, since automobiles are here to stay. There is too much money involved to ban automobiles. Thousands, possibly millions, of jobs would be lost if automobiles were summarily banned. This would include the employees of the manufacturers, the oil industry, automobile dealers, mechanics, accessory houses, and so forth.
Motorcycles are another matter, however. Relatively speaking, the motorcycle industry is insignificant when compared to the automobile industry. Please do not get me wrong, I am speaking from a monetary point of view as to the nation as a whole. There is nothing more important to the motorcyclist than the motorcycle industry. We should not, however, kid ourselves into thinking we are as important to the nation as is the automobile.
(Continued on page 14)
In any event, John Q. Public, who hears a loud automobile, does not clamor to Washington to ban automobiles. He may report the matter to the local police and attempt to have the offender arrested, or he may complain to his neighbors that the hot-rodders are keeping him awake at night, but that is about the extent of his action. Let him hear an unmuffled motorcycle, how-1 ever, and he immediately sends a petition to his congressman demanding that motorcycles be banned from the streets and the offenders summarily thrown in jail.
We motorcyclists must admit, and recognize, that the largest complaint registered by the public as to motorcycles is noise. The ecology, safety aspect, and other complaints are mere shadowboxing. If we get rid of the noise, the other problems unique to a motorcycle will be placed in their proper perspective, and we can handle these problems fairly easily.
No, Mr. Cherry, we are not competing with automobiles. We are competing with ourselves, and it is only we who can win or lose. If we lose, motorcycle riding as we know it will be gone forever.
We are not speaking about Sportsman TT and flat track events alone, or four-stroke vs. two-stroke, or dirt machines vs. street machines, or racers vs. touring bikes, but about motorcycle riding as a whole. We cannot sit back and say 4-wheel-drive vehicles also tear up the countryside, or 425 cu. in. Detroit monsters pollute the atmosphere more than a 125cc four-stroke, or that freight trucks make more noise than 10 motorcycles, because such arguments are irrelevant to the public. We are in a life and death struggle to keep motorcycles acceptable, and we may be losing the fight.
The solution is not free earplugs, nor picking on the other motorcyclist because he has no mufflers, but to demand quietness from all motorcycles. I am no longer asking that you make your motorcycle quiet, Mr. Cherry, I am demanding that you do so. You see, I love to ride my motorcycle, both in town and on the trail. There is a good possibility that I (and you) am going to lose the right to ride where I want. We must all demand quiet motorcycles, or live to regret our foolishness.
(Continued on page 18)
William L. Romine, Atty.
Helena, Mont.
QUICK VS. FAST
In your March issue of CYCLE WORLD you called the Kawasaki 750 Mach IV the “quickest road machine CYCLE WORLD has ever tested.” However, after comparing the top speed of the Honda 750 you tested (123.24) in 1969 and the Kawasaki Mach III (124.8) in 1971, I wonder what you meant by that statement.
Bob Green . Bethlehem, Penn.
Quickest is not fastest, Bob. Quickness is measured in seconds required to accelerate from a stop to the end of a measured distance. Fastness is expressed as top speed. Both are good, simple indicators of a machine’s performance. The variables affecting fastness are much more complex than those affecting quickness.
All this aside, the Kawasaki is quick through the quarter-mile, especially in the latter half of the quarter. Due to its delivered gear ratio, it is not setup properly to deliver the fastest speed possible. Nor do we feel that it is our job to regear for each facet of performance testing. We prefer to test a bike in the condition it will be sold to the rider: This does not include gear
changes, special tires, special exhaust systems, or other such items not offered on the showroom floor. — Ed.
OUR SNEAKY FRIEND
I have been reading your magazine for three years now and I think it’s great. The coverage on races is superb. I also like it because it takes me about an hour to get through one magazine. And it seems that I never get tired of a single issue. If I feel like reading a CYCLE WORLD, I just pick one up on my shelf and read it, even if I’ve read it a hundred times before.
Scott Fought La Habra, Calif. You really do know how to sneak your way into the Letters Column, Scott. — Ed.
THE MYSTERY TEST
After reading Richey’s analysis under “Yamaha Ads” in your April, 1972 issue, I put a pencil to the figures and found several interesting points from the incomplete information within the advertisement.
When the lap distance of the track is taken times the total laps mentioned of 1246 the total distance traveled by all three bikes would be 3,974.74 miles, not 3,974.84. A second conclusion is that the 250 completed the race a little more than halfway through a lap. Lap distance of 3.19 divided into 1326 miles traveled yields 415.64 laps. Although I am not enough of a racing buff to know for certain, I always thought in time races you always completed the race at the finish line on the first lap after time expired. Is there any good reason why the 250 would average only 55.25 miles per hour during the test?
Your comments please!
Seth Allcorn Columbia Mo.
Why do you keep asking us? Ask Yamaha International. They conducted the test, which was conceived for advertising purposes. We’re not sure, in light of their incomplete figures, what point they were trying to make.— Ed.
(Continued on page 20)
HE WROTE UTAH
A few issues ago, I believe your magazine had a suggestion that we riders write to the governor of Utah in regards to the saving of the Bonneville Salt Flats. Well, for once I did, and yesterday I received a form letter from the State of Utah Dept, of Parks and Recreation telling me of their efforts, investigation, survey, etc. They made it very clear they do not plan to lose the Flats. The Dept, is going to acquire the complete area as soon as funds are made available and, until that time, the lease will be perpetuated.
Brian L. Wilkening San Francisco, Calif.
SAVING THE SALT
The State of Utah has no intention of losing the Bonneville Salt Flats. The Salt Flats are a most unique facet of the Great Basin ecology and have an unparalleled record of use as a high-speed race track.
The area is presently under the administration of the Division of Parks and Recreation for the state of Utah and is designated as the Bonneville Salt Flats State Reserve. In 1970 the Division acquired 640 acres of the racetrack in an out-of-court settlement with private interest that was blocking the continuation of the high-speed record attempts. The Division has presently under lease 2480 acres of land from the State Division of Lands and has currently under lease 30,743 acres from the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. This 33,863 acres constitutes the State Reserve; and it is the committed intention of the Division of Parks and Recreation to protect and preserve the Salt Flats as an interpretive site and to continue, encourage, and enhance the racing activity that occurs there annually. As rapidly as funds are made available it is the intention of the Division to acquire the Bureau of Land Management property under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act of the Federal Government, and the current lease is to be perpetuated until that can be accomplished.
A great deal of concern was exhibited during the racing season of 1971 that mineral extraction activities were depleting the salt bed. Such a fear had been raised earlier in 1967. The Division turned to the Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey of the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and requested an immediate review of conditions as had previously been done at the Governor’s request in 1967 and 1968. Again, the report is that there appears to be no deterioration of the salt surface upon examination of the general area, and particularly the inspection of 16 “wells” that were installed in March of 1967; and I quote: “The wells appear entirely undisturbed. Excess grout from around the well casing was clearly seen on the salt surface. The casings themselves project a foot above the salt surface as originally installed. This is a case for stability of the salt crust thickness.” An unresolved feature was that patches of clay were found to exist in the salt crust and sporatically on the surface. We intend to determine the origin of these clay patches.
(Continued on page 22)
Two things appear to have precipitated the concern as to deterioration of the salt: (1) the softness of portions of the track, which has been attributed to an extremely wet precipitation situation last year and (2) the report of survey stakes being exposed above the crust as compared to being flush with the salt surface on previous examination. With regard to the latter, it is suspected that inasmuch as the Flats are under water for a good portion of the year, drying out only in the fall sufficient to permit racing activity, the wetting and drying action may have functioned in a manner that the survey stakes were “squeezed” out of the salt crust rather than the crust eroding away and exposing the stakes. In any event, the review of the salt crust thickness and a comparison of information available from a 1914 installation of poles by the Mountain States Telephone Company indicates the crust to be substantially as it was in 1914. Finally, two ditches border the race track area and previously served the chemical extraction activity. Pumping was discontinued in one ditch in 1966 and the other in 1970.
Governor Rampton has advised the Bonneville Nationals, Inc. that the Salt Flats are to be preserved. The Division of Parks and Recreation further wishes to assure you and other interested persons that we in Utah recognize the value of this unique phenomenon, and we have no intention of permitting its destruction. On the contrary, we have every intention of maximizing its racing recreation use and interpreting its role as a part of the Great Basin history.
Harold J. Tippetts
Director, Utah Div.
Parks & Recreation
