The Scene

THE SCENE

IVAN J. WAGAR

VERY LITTLE has been written in this column about my activities on the National Motor Vehicle Safety Advisory Council during my 2⅛ year tenure. Because this is the December issue and the termination of my 3-year appointment, it probably is time to make a few statements on the subject.

First you will notice a discrepancy of six months in the two time periods mentioned above. The reason is that my appointment was held up for that amount of time because there were people in government, and even on the Council, who did not want to see a motorcyclist associated with such a prestigeous group. It is no secret now that my name bounced in and out of the White House for over a year. Fortunately, I had some good people on my side; people who realized that the five million motorcyclists in this country should have a voice at the Federal rule making level.

To better understand the Council and its activities, I should explain that Congress, under the Traffic Safety Act of 1966, mandated that the Secretary (of transportation) establish such an advisory body, made up of people from industry and the general public, with which to consult on matters of motor vehicle safety. I serve as a public member. My first obligation is to see that the needs of the consumer are represented. As a past president of the motorcycle trade association, however, I also know what industry can and cannot do to the vehicle.

My first encounter with the other 21 members of the Advisory Council was not too unpleasant. I found that most of the members were very dedicated experts in the safety community. By the same token, they admitted surprise when I turned up in a business suit and showed my knowledge of Robert’s rules. To say that serving on the Council has been a rewarding experience would be an understatement. The Council members, the Department of Transportation support staff and the DOT engineers have turned out to be some of the finest people I’ve ever known.

When faced with reason on matters such as seat belts and roll cages (and many other equally absurd ideas) for motorcycles, they have supported me greatly. And it is ironic that in my short tenure the “unacceptable” member has

created a motorcycle safety subcommittee. The committee is made up of six people —Dr. Lawerence Patrick, of Wayne State University Bio Mechanics Lab; Trevor Jones, General Motors Engineering Staff; Marcy Taylor, investment analyst with Bank of America; Dale Hogue, formerly with the AAPA (several helmet manufacturers) and now in private law practice; Dr. John States, Rochester School of Medicine, and one of the country’s leading orthopedic surgeons. I serve as chairman.

Not all of these people are motorcyclists, but that makes our committee a good one. Dr. States, for instance, was late for a meeting a couple of months ago because he was trying to save the leg of a motorcyclist. I later learned that the car driver was at fault (which is the rule in about 70 percent of car/motorcycle conflicts), but that does not make Dr. States’ job any easier. We have a balanced committee.

The Advisory Council has been of tremendous help in finding (forcing?) ways for the Federal government to do something about a quality standard for motorcycle rider helmets. It is not my intention to make this a progress report, and outline every positive step that the council has achieved for motorcycling. The number of bad ideas killed in the thinking stages, and the number of good ideas fostered and pushed through the idea stages are too numerous to comprehend in a single report.

But the council’s biggest contribution to motorcycle safety and universal recognition is yet to come, and will take place in San Francisco in July 1973. It is necessary at this point to explain that the council, this past July, hosted its first International Congress for Automotive Safety.

The official name of the congress was chosen while I was out of the country and irritated me because “automotive” excluded motorcycles. But that’s not important at this time. The Congress was attended by more than 400 people. There were 22 technical papers from six countries. The theme was Automobile Diagnostics (See Yamaha’s Innovative 750, by Dan Hunt, page 38, Oct. ’72 CW). What is important is that the Advisory Council, for its first congress, picked the most timely subject available, and made a giant contribution to the art of diagnostics.

My annoyance over the name of the congress and my plea for a truly international conference on motorcycle safety have had some effect. The theme for the Second Annual Congress will include motorcycles. This will be the first time in the history of motorcycling that an international conference has ever been considered. The congress will bring together safety and engineering experts from Japan, Germany, Italy, England, Spain, Sweden and especially the U.S.

Hopefully, the findings of this meeting of the world experts will establish the guidelines for sensible motorcycle legislation. It just might, for instance, once and for all prove that seat belts and roll cages for motorcycles are not the ways to approach motorcycle safety. We might find that removing the drunken car driver from our highways would mean that we will save the lives of a thousand motorcycle riders next year. I’m sure that we will learn that the excuse “I didn’t see him” should not be a good enough excuse when a car driver kills a motorcycle rider and gets off with a simple ticket, or even Scot free. In most cases, if the operator had hit another car he would be faced with a manslaughter charge. But local police agencies coo often have a prejudice against motorcycles which clouds their judgment.

Almost certainly the congress will prove the need for better anti-theft devices for motorcycles. Stolen motorcycles account (according to a recent California study) for more than 3 percent of motorcycle fatalities. By the same token, almost one-third of all motorcycle fatalities (according to several accident studies) are on borrowed machines.

In front of me I have an unpublished study on fatal motorcycle crashes in Minnesota. The study proved that inexperienced riders accounted for almost all of the fatalities. The conclusions derived from the study were, and at the very top of the list, that motorcyclists should use their headlights 24 hours per day. The very fact that the study shows a lack of proper training as the main contributing factor in almost all fatal motorcycle crashes, and yet suggests “lights on” as a cure to the problem is, at best, a complete cop-out.

Motorcycling is here. It is a billion dollar industry. This year almost 10 percent of the population of this great country will ride on, or be connected with motorcycling. Our government has the obligation to take care of our needs. And it has to be better ideas than seat belts on motorcycles. Our government MUST help us develop the minimal levels of skill necessary for survival when we are faced with the careless, thoughtless or drunken car driver. Our government MUST develop quality standards for the “safety equipment” they force us by law to buy and wear (helmets, as an example).

Again, and I don’t mean to sound too optimistic, I hope the motorcycle manufacturers, motorcycle safety experts, and all concerned motorcyclists will support the “First International Congress on Motorcycle Safety,” whatever the name of the council’s second congress turns out to be. It is our chance to prove that 15 million Americans can’t be wrong.