Roundup

It's Official

February 1 1981
Roundup
It's Official
February 1 1981

IT'S OFFICIAL

California's state government during the past year has been discovering the motorcycle. At first, traffic signs suggested that motorcycles were an efficient means of transportation. Then motorcycles were allowed to use some freeway lanes restricted to busses or carpools. And the latest note is the acceptance of motorcycles for use in state business.

Until now a state employee who used a motorcycle for transportation in state business wasn’t allowed any reimbursement for his costs. Yet employees who drove their cars or flew their own airplanes or even rode their bicycles would be paid mileage for using their vehicles for state business. Motorcyclists in the past have petitioned the state to change this. And they were refused.

Now they have succeeded.

The state Board of Control has granted temporary approval for state employees to receive 12.5 cents per mile for using their motorcycles on state business. The approval will allow a one year trial period and there are strict conditions attached limiting the riders to experienced motorcyclists following a number of normal safety precautions.

When asking for the permission, Ron Herbold and Joe Mariner of the state Transportation Department presented several noteworthy arguments. To convince the three member board, Herbold and Mariner commented about motorcyclists and their image, safety and energy conservation.

Herbold cited the state’s reluctance to adopt radial tires on cars, or even small cars as an example of the inertia in state government. “My point is that, in the long run, government does tend to reflect what’s going on in the country at large, but reluctantly so.” The people buying motorcycles, he said, are “middle America, average people, middle class people, families who can’t afford a second car ... In time, the bureaucracy will recognize motorcycles as a legitimate form of transportation as they have throughout the rest of the industrialized world. The question is, why must we wait another three, five, or 10 years?”

With that, the trial was approved on a 2-1 vote.