Letters
LETTERS
IT'S HOW YOU DO IT
The emotional fever with which many have argued the helmet-requirement laws has left the subject with a "supercharged" aura. Although the hurricane of fate swept through Colorado a number of years ago, I still hear occasional heated discussions on the subject.
Admittedly, it is a better thing to be in a helmet when on a motorcycle. The percentages tell the story. There are more deaths per accident for motor cyclists than for auto drivers. Also, percentages show that the helmet is a definite aid in averting death when involved in an accident.
And, to make the matter more strongly against the "anti-head cans," it is the deaths, not the number of acci dents, which are foremost in the public mind. Thus, although there are huge numbers of injury-free accidents yearly, the "stop the accident" program is not nearly so well shouted as the "stop-the death" program. Maybe rightfully so.
The - entire aspect of the helmetrequirement law which irks me (and I feel is the root of the most vociferous objectors) is being told to do something "for my own good." The laws which are enacted in this vein are expanding, and each limits a little more the personal choice of individual freedom. It is much akin to a mother-legislature exhorting its citizen-child to brush his teeth, count his change, wash behind the ears, etc. etc. etc. (ad borem long list) all for his own good. And, adults have aversions to the "for your own good" concepts.
I started wearing a helmet long be fore they were required, but by choice, not by law. I find them convenient accessories for protection from the cold in winter, for eye protection, and handy devices for on-board radios. But telling me to have one, for my own good, when I was taking care of my own good long before it became fashionable to legislate it, is a sore spot indeed.
Also, although I read fully Mr. Chris topher A. Steele's article on insur'ance (CW, Oct. `72), and found it to be far and away the best such effort that I have ever observed (my plaudits to him) I still feel much in the vein that he is saying:
"Though I know you believe you understand what you thought I said, I'm uncertain you understand what you believe I meant."
(Continued on page 12)
Continued from page 8
Still, that’s the problem with dealing with insurance. And, an excellent article demands applause of the loudest order.
Robert C. Dupret Denver, Colo.
ON McKIBBEN
I very much appreciated Jon McKibben’s article “Viewpoint: Common Sense,” published in your October issue. Mr. McKibben writes in a highly intelligent, yet simple and direct manner. If not already on your staff, I suggest you put him on. America’s No. 1 motorcycle magazine needs him.
Neil van Dijk De Lier, Z.H., Netherlands
YOUR ADVICE NEEDED
Within the past year, California Assemblyman Chappie has introduced three separate bills to provide greater safety for road riders through the signing and eventual elimination of highway rain grooves. As a result of this legislation, the California Division of Highways has completed its initial studies and is ready to act upon this “highway menace” to motorcyclists.
Motorcyclists are encountering two separate, but similar, problems with highway surfaces. The first are those surfaces into which grooves were cut after the highway was completed. These are referred to as “rain grooves.” The second are those surfaces which were given a wavy brushed surface at such time that the concrete was setting. These are referred to as “brushed surfaces.”
Several solutions have been offered for overcoming the problem that these surfaces represent:
1. Leave a 2-ft. smooth-surfaced strip on the right-hand side of the outside lane, and,
2. Erect signs 1000 ft. in advance of the rain grooves/brushed surfaces to alert motorcyclists of the potential danger.
3. The Division of Highways has suggested painting wavy lines on the pavement surface 1000 ft. in advance of the rain grooves/brushed surfaces in lieu of erecting signs. Their reasoning is that the painted lines will be easier to see at night and will not require the motorcyclist to take his eyes off the road in front of him.
Your help is badly needed. To get this program under way, the Division of Highways needs your answers to the following questions:
BRUSHED SURFACES
1. Have you personally encountered brushed highway surfaces while riding^ motorcycle?
2. Did these surfaces cause you to lose control? Momentarily? Completely?
3. Did this situation result in an accident? If so, how serious?
4. Recognizing that some highway surfaces are worse than others, list by priority those highway sections you feel should be given immediate attention. Indicate precise areas, such as “1-80 between Arden Way and “E” Street in Sacramento.”
GROOVED SURFACES
5. Have you ever encountered grooved highway surfaces while riding a motorcycle?
6. Did these surfaces cause you to lose control? Momentarily? Completely?
7. Did this situation result in an accident? If so, how serious?
8. Recognizing that some highway surfaces are worse than others, list by priority those highway sections you feel should be given immediate attention. Indicate precise areas, such as, "1-80 between Arden Way and "E" Street in Sacramento."
(Continued on page 18)
Continued from page 12
SUGGESTIONS
9. What is your opinion with respect to leaving a 2-ft. strip of smoothsurfaced highway on the right-hand side of the outside lane for motorcyclists who experience difficulty with brushed or grooved surfaces?
10. Would you prefer warning signs?
1 1. Would you prefer wavy lines on the pavement surface?
Please send your answers to Russ Sanford, M.O.R.E., P.O. Box 26062, Sacramento, CA 95826. Russ will present your answers to the Division of Highways. But act now! Time is of the essence.
INFRINGEMENT
Although 1 am perhaps not as enlightened as my distinguished collegue, Robert C. DuPret (whose letter accompanies this), I feel that the helmet laws for bikers (CYCLE WORLD, Oct. ’72, Viewpoint) are a definite infringement on personal right of choice. Whether or not it is constitutional I have no idea.
When are the mojos who run this country going to realize that the concept of government belongs to the people (per the constitution), not the people belong to the government? The USA was liberated because of repression, and got along fairly well for about 100 years without resorting to it. Then, the personal welfare became so allimportant that we started a welfare state, with the high and mighty government looking over all the sheep.
We’re adults, at least in age, and some of the trials of life include realizing the risks involved, not only in biking down your favorite escape road, but just setting foot on the street. Why in hell can't the so-called leaders of our country get it on with cutting government costs, lowering taxes, quit voting themselves pay raises every whipstitch, letting free enterprise be free (have you ever seen the mountain of paperwork required to run a piddling $100,000 per year business?) and leave my personal life to me!
David Harness Denver, Cob.
