Reasoning With Reasoner And Other Such Critics

REASONING WITH REASONER AND OTHER SUCH CRITICS

UP FRONT

The following editorial was written by Bruce Cummings, Public Relations Manager for Kawasaki Motors Corporation, at my request. Since verbal attack by newscasters is an item that ultimately affects all motorcyclists, I urge you to carefully consider the information that follows.

—Bob Atkinson

(The following opinion and suggestions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Kawasaki Motors Corp.)

ABC Television news commentator Harry Reasoner recently said some very nasty things about motorcycles. He advocated banning motorcycles because they’re “unsafe” and because of the “strange, sexually-linked personality changes” motorcycles cause in their riders.

Before you jump for pen and paper to write a rebuttal, hold on. Plenty of motorcyclists already have written. . . and Harry Reasoner has since broadcast a follow-up report.

While the second broadcast didn’t exactly undo the original damage he did to motorcycling, it did reveal that plenty of people disagreed with Reasoner. Of course, television commentators, including Harry Reasoner, will never do a complete about face and admit that maybe they were extreme or, heaven forbid, wrongl

“The Reasoner Report”—and other editorial comments like it (such as a similar editorial in the National Observer that also attacked motorcycles on the safety issue)—do a lot of damage to motorcycling. Not that this is anything new—influential people have been knocking motorcycles for a long time. . .although recent reports have increased in vehemence.

What was different, this time around, was the tremendous volume of mail received by “The Reasoner Report” in response to Reasoner’s unfair comments on motorcycles. Motorcyclists all over the country really got off their tails and wrote lots of good, intelligent letters. According to sources close to ABC Television, the letters—almost all of which defended motorcycles—were the largest response ever to a Reasoner broadcast.

Which proves a point. When motorcyclists flex the muscles that large numbers (over 15 million people are estimated to be riding over 8 million motorcycles) give them, results happen.

This muscle-flexing letter writing should continue—to the Harry Reasoners, the National Observers, government officials at all levels. . .presenting the positive aspects of motorcycling, in a well-thought-out way. Not. . .yeah and your mother’s a &*++!! type letters that aggravate rather than convince.

But, making ourselves heard among those who would ban motorcycles because they’re (pick one): unsafe, noisy, polluting, environment wrecking, youth corrupting, etc., isn’t all that simple.

What do we sayl After all, and lets face facts, we motorcyclists do have a way to go to clean up our act. (And

don’t say its just that small minority that’s screwing it up for everybody. . .you and I enjoy motorcycles, so you and I are responsible for making sure nobody destroys our pleasure).

Take motorcycle safety. That’s probably the biggest area of upcoming criticism among the uninitiated, especially as more and more new riders turn to motorcycling in the iface of the energy crisis.

We don’t look good. Far too many people are being killed and maimed on motorcycles each yeai^-the statistics are pretty horrendous. And, it’s the new rider motorcycle who’s most likely to get nailed, usually wiflmi the first three or four months of ownership.

Which means, if action isn’t taken, accidents, fatalities and injuries are going to continue to rise. . .and more people will be proposing a “ban” on motorcycles. Unless we can tell our side of the story to those who might make life difficult for motorcyclists.

What is that story? Here’s what you can use in your letters. . .

The facts are that motorcyclists are better drivers than car drivers—more aware, more skillful in handling the machine. They have fewer accidents than car drivers.

However, when an accident occurs, a motorcyclist is more likely to be killed or injured because he is less protected. And, unless he’s been properly trained and has developed his own motorcycle sense and skills, a new rider is more likely to be involved in an accident.

The effect of this is accidents, death, injuries. . .and, influential people proposing bans on motorcycles.

To solve this problem, we must tackle the cause. . . through correct training of new riders by helping tl^^ develop skills, good attitudes, and awareness of the ad^rtages and limitations of motorcycles before they enter the traffic stream.

And, we’re doing it. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation, located in Washington D.C., is tackling this problem with millions of dollars provided by the motorcycle manufacturers. And, all the major manufacturers are engaged in safety training activities on their own. The object: to provide motorcycle training as a regular part of driver education.

Motorcycle dealers are also taking a strong interest in participating and helping to insure thàt the users of their product know how to do so safely.

What the motorcycle industry and individual companies are doing to increase the quantity and quality of motorcycle safety education has been matched by very few industries in this country.

And that’s good. . .worth talking about.

But just publicizing this activity won’t solve the problem. Most motorcycle accidents involve automobiles, and 63 percent of those accidents are the automobile driver’s fault. Automobile drivers just aren’t aware of motorcyclists.

And that’s another major objective of the Motorcyj^ Safety Foundation and the motorcycle companies.

(Continued on page 98)

Continued from page 4

If motorcycle safety can be made a part of all high school driver education curriculums, so that every automobile driver also learned about motorcycles, he’d become more aware and be in a better position to understand and interrelate with motorcycles as he heads out into traffic.

Now, critics will say, “Right. . .that’s a good way to get the kids into motorcycling.” But, that argument totally misses the point.

First of all, motorcycles just aren't going to be banned. At 40, 50, 100 miles per gallon, it just doesn’t make sense.

Second, there’s not a whole lot that legislation can do in the way of vehicle safety. Because, no matter what the law, mandatory helmets for motorcycles or seat belt laws for cars are, and will be, unpopular and unenforceable—there just aren’t enough cops. And none of these things—including air bags —prevent accidents.

A well-trained vehicle operator with good skills, perception, and attitude will reduce accidents. And that means education.

Third, let’s take a close look at the American automobile driver. Because that’s really our key argument against those who are anti-motorcycle. . .they can be anti, but they’d better learn to accept.

Accidents statistics for motorcycles—both in quantity and severity—are much less severe in Europe than in the United States.

The reason is quite simple. In postwar Europe, as citizens struggled to rebuild economies, bicycles, mopeds, small motorcycles, walking, buses and trains were the only affordable transportation. As living standards improved, people turned to larger motorcycles or small cars (they’ve been living with high gas prices longer than we have). Mass transit, non-automobile dependence. . .a good, varied transportation mix has continued.

Today, automobile drivers in Europe do interrelate well with other forms of transportation, including bicycles, pedestrians and motorcycles.

Not so in the good old USA.

Here, our post war boom gave rise to a massive dependence on the automobile. In fact, not just a dependence, but a feeling that the automobile was the only legitimate vehicle on the road. Bicycles were for the very young. Motorcycles? Oh, yeah, they appeared once in a while. Walking? Who walked!

Automobile drivers blithely ignored everything except other automobiles— and, as evidenced by the slaughter on our highways, didn’t do too good a job> at that.

The result, of course, particularly in the past few years, and especially now, was that motorcyclists, bicyclists, pedestrians increasingly fell victim to this “attitude”, this total unawareness on the part of automobile drivers. Sure, the motorcyclist, bicyclist, or pedestrian probably contributed by not getting out of the way of that roaddomineering automobile driver, but, in all cases, the vast majority of accidents were and are the automobile driver’s

fault.

For motorcycles. For bicycles. And, statistically, very few cars are run over by pedestrians. Which all leads up to this: motorcycles are here to stay. The move is on to alternate forms of transportation. . .to small cars, to bikes, to motorcycles, to walking again.

Car drivers must become aware of, and learn to live with other vehicles.

Those who hysterically voice intentions to try the improbable, impossible task of “banning” motorcycles, could better help reduce accidents by accepting a good transportation mix that saves energy, and concentrate on helping to build safety and awareness for both motorcyclists and automobile drivers. Let’s tell that story to the Harry Reasoners of the world.

Bruce Cummings