Legislation Forum

LEGISLATION FORUM

I am sorry for the civilians who write to this forum, discussing various ways that their freedoms to ride a bike will be taken away or restricted by legislation. At least they can and should fight back by contacting their elected representatives.

As a serviceman who has spent seven of the past nine years stationed overseas and owning a motorcycle at the same time, I can say that some of the laws proposed in the states are not bad at all, compared to what the G. I. has to go through to own a bike overseas and, to a certain degree, in the states. Currently, I am stationed in Japan and own two bikes. Because of regulations I cannot ride double (whoever wrote the regulations must feel this is dangerous, even though he probably never owned a bike himself), I must wear an approved helmet of white color only, eye protection must be worn (a shield or fairing is not good enough), gloves and leather, laced shoes are required and, to top it off, a stupid little decaí must be worn

on your helmet so you can be identified. In addition, I am not supposed to loan my bike or helmet. This little bit surely goes against the grain of Americans.

Recently, the regulations have changed so that people arriving here must wait 90 days before they can apply for a license to operate a bike. Once they get the license, by attending a "fear" course held by the base drivers' school and being tested by a member of the base motorcycle club, they can then ride a bike — but only on base for six months. At the end of this period, they are qualified to ride on the street. Needless to say, car owners do not have to go through this "Mickey Mouse" to drive. One does not have to be very smart to realize that these regulations are not designed as much for my safety as a human being, as they are designed to place a severe restraint on anybody who wants a bike. After all, bikes are fun, and I guess we are not supposed to have fun.

It seems rather strange that the government is so concerned about me when I wish to own and ride a motorcycle, yet nothing is said about servicemen who drink themselves to an early grave in the military clubs.

I sincerely hope that the motorcyclists of America can do something to prevent much of the legislation that is currently being proposed. However, I think that the motorcycle industry itself is the one to take most of the action against these things that often border on the ridiculous.

As for the servicemen who own and ride bikes, I do not think that there is much

that can be done for us. After all, our leaders are not elected. I have tried writing my congressman several times. The standard reply is that the regulations are set up to protect me, and they are for my good, even though our rights as citizens are often violated. In the past, I have asked the AMA to help. They have a nice reply that goes something like, "We don't care to mess with the government, but we are interested in your $2 a year."

I look forward to riding my bike in the States again, where things are not as bad as you think.

S/SGT. JOHN R. GRINSEL

APO San Francisco, Calif.

I erbert Spencer once said, "The ultimate effect of protecting fools from the results of their own folly is to populate the earth with fools." I agree that it is wise to wear a helmet anytime and everytime any rider mounts a motorcycle, but I think it is stupid to write a law compelling him to do so.

The law is an agreement between you and me and our neighbors. A helmet does not protect you and my neighbors from me, and my wearing one is of no concern to you or my neighbors. If you and my neighbors are going to regulate the manner in which I am to provide for my own safety, then you should be willing to be responsible for the support of my widow, should I scramble my brains while wearing your Snell-approved helmet.

I happen to know that the crush material of my Snell-approved helmet has a three-year shelf life and that the manufacturer will not refurbish a three-year-old helmet. Most legislators are ignorant of this helmet characteristic. Since you and my neighbors are assuming the responsibility for my personal safety, do you also intend to repeal the laws of physics that make my helmet unsafe after three years? If so, I'll be able to save about $50 every three years that my good sense used to dictate that I should spend when I was responsible for my own safety.

(Continued on page 38)

Now, if you and my neighbors want to write laws protecting them from automobiles, which are their greatest hazard, why not make a law which says that it is a felony offense to run over a motorcyclist in an automobile. Such a law would save more lives than compulsory helmet legislation and would be within the proper framework of law — to protect the individuals from the predatory acts of others, not from the results of their own folly.

SUMNER E. SARGENT

Bell, Calif.

am sending you a copy of a letter I sent to Senator George Miller, Jr., and to Senator Jack Schrade in Sacramento. This letter may serve as a model for others who wish to write to their representatives regarding this or any other matter. The letters are in reference to A. B. 978, and you may have exclusive rights to print the following if you see fit.

I am writing to express my grave concern about the pending bill, A. B. 978, and to say that I am unalterably opposed to its passage. Being a rider of thirteeen years' standing, let me say that I do not wish anyone dictating to me what I may wear, or how I must have my motorcycle equipped while riding on the highways. Mufflers, lights, horn, mirror and adequate brakes are what count. What a rider wants to wear should be strictly up to him, providing he is not indecently exposed.

Pressure is being exerted by the federal government to force the state of California to adopt legislation making mandatory the wearing of safety helmets and some form of eye protection for motorcycle riders or suffer the loss of federal highway funds. The federal government tried to use coercive tactics like these in the state of Alabama regarding HEW "guidelines" for the public schools. The legislators of Alabama refused to honor the guidelines laid down by the social engineers and would-be dictators in Washington, and they are still receiving the federal money, because the guidelines are illegal and unconstitutional.

We here in California can do the same thing, and at the same time, take a big step in the direction of preserving individual liberty by refusing to be dictated to by the federal bureaucrats, who do not even know how to run the city of Washington so as to keep it safe for people to walk the streets at night. There is no federal money. It all comes from the individual citizens of the separate states. It is then sent to Washington, where between 91 and 92 percent is raked off for operating expenses, and what is left is then returned to the states with strings attached. Let's do away with all federal projects and let the

states keep their own money and run their own affairs. Up with local self-government and down with tyranny and dictatorship.

Returning to bill A. B. 978; while it is true that 70 percent of all fatal motorcycle accidents are due to head injuries, it is also true that 70 percent of all fataI automobile accidents are due to head injuries. If motorcycle riders are to be forced to wear helmets, then, in the interest of justice, and in order to be consistent, impartial and non-discriminatory, automobile drivers will also have to be required to wear helmets if A. B. 978 becomes law. If this grossly unfair and ill-considered bill does become law, I for one will do all in my power to press for similar automobile legislation. Then, when the automobile drivers are subjected to the same sort of injustices proposed for the motorcycle riders, there will be such a hue and cry that the bill will be repealed forthwith. The federal government cannot refuse federal money to the states for their non-compliance with arbitrary federal mandates. Let's take a stand for freedom, and not allow ourselves to be black-jacked into submission by a federal government bent on destroying liberty and the freedom of choice of the individual.

The provision of A. B. 978 requiring that everyone first obtain an automobile driver's license before being allowed to operate a motorcycle is absurd. It would make more sense to require everyone to ride a motorcycle for two or three years before being allowed to drive an automobile. One's reflexes are improved by motorcycle riding, particularly trail riding or cow trailing, as it is known to the enthusiasts. This type of riding in particular sharpens up one's awareness of changing surface conditions, to which a rider must be ever alert. Many of the best auto race drivers are ex-motorcycle riders, among them Joe Leonard and Paul Goldsmith, to name only two who were internationally known as professional motorcycle racers. Motorcycle riding gives a person a backlog of valuable experience which can stand him in good stead the rest of his life. Besides improving the reflexes, riding tones up the muscles and gives the rider an opportunity to improve his mechanical skills through tuning up and overhauling his machine. In addition to all this, riding is just plain fun. Bill Stern, in a radio commentary several years ago, even gave statistics showing that motorcycling is safer than driving a car.

In view of all this, let's promote motorcycling instead of trying to discourage it. Let not the majority of the riders, who are law-abiding, responsible, and for the most part, family people, be blamed and persecuted for the actions of the irresponsible few.

Let's show a little gumption, the way the people of Alabama have done, and let's not allow ourselves to be intimidated by the federal government. A stand has to be taken sooner or later against the headlong rush toward the increasing centralized control of government, and this might be a good time to start the ball rolling in the direction of freedom. Refuse to go along with the feds and they will still continue to send the money, regardless.

(Continued on page 40)

Among some of the better known exmotorcyclists are Dwight Eisenhower, Eddie Rickenbacker, Glenn Anderson, Richard Powell, Bill Stern, John Glenn and many others, including Charles Lindbergh.

Defeat A. B. 978!

LAWRENCE E. JOHNSON San Diego, Calif.

fnlike many motorcyclists, I believe that all riders should wear helmets. I know

I do, and I always have a spare in the saddlebags for my passenger.

If my daughter and I hadn't worn helmets and protective clothing a couple of years ago, we wouldn't be here now. It was an unavoidable, unseen hazard that caused the spill in the same place another rider lost his life through a head injury (no helmet) and another friend was crippled for life. But both my daughter and I came out of it with only minor scratches.

I've had my share of spills and will likely have more, but you can bet I'll help the odds by wearing a helmet at all times. I expect this state (Maine) to soon pass a law requiring every rider to wear one, and I'm all for it. I also feel that most of the riders do need some instructions on handling a motorcycle. Now, the dealer sells a motorcycle, gets his money, and turns the buyer loose, hoping he gets out of the yard safely.

World Wide Cycle Club, a few years ago, had a lot of worthwhile booklets that would help the new rider. However, someone should instruct these new riders how to operate their machines and help them with their problems. I've started a halfdozen fellows on motorcycles, and I know they, in turn, have helped others.

Most of the bike accidents in this state have been scooters and small motorcycles, and most of them have involved a car. Others were due to the rider not having enough knowledge of his motorcycle or of riding conditions. Many of these riders don't wear helmets or protective clothing.

WALTER E. SYLVESTER Rumford, Maine

Everyone seems to have a solution to the problem of the growing number of motorcyclists who are killed every day, but they all seem to overlook the basic problem. Statistics show that cars kill more motorcycle riders than anything else. Why? Because the average driver does not see the motorcyclist; he is watching for cars, buses, trucks and other four-wheeled vehicles. This is the same reason many children are hit while riding bicycles, and many pedestrians are killed crossing the streets.

I recently had the opportunity to observe a motorcyclist riding ahead of me at night, for about fifteen minutes. He kept glancing behind, as though he was afraid I might run over him, as, indeed, someone might, because his taillight was barely visible.

Since motorcycles are small and hard to see, the lighting systems should be twice as large as they now are, and lighting, both front and rear, more adequate. Most

of the machines now seen on the road carry very small "firefly" taillights, which are impossible to see in bright daylight and indistinguishable from road signs, neon lights, etc., at night.

Manufacturers should install round taillights on either side of the rear fender, with a lighted license plate in between. These lights could then be used for turn signals, as well as stoplights. The lense should be reflective to give added protection at night and make the motorcycle more easily noticed. It is as important for small machines as it is for big, fast ones!

BILL OVERTON Hampton, Va.

I have been reading and enjoying your excellent magazine for some time. It covers the world motorcycle scene very well.

I've been following the controversy concerning impending motorbike legislation and would like to give you an idea of things in N.S.W.

About 11 years ago, the authorities here decided motorbikes were out of control, so they decided to wipe them out. They did so to a very large extent. Registration fees for bikes over 250cc were raised almost double, making it more expensive to register the larger bikes than to register a Cad. Secondarily, all riders had to hold a motorcycle license for one year before being allowed to carry a pillion passenger. Thirdly, the age limit for obtaining a license was raised from 16 to 17 years. In addition, through taxation and general price increases, bikes became far too expensive a proposition compared with car ownership. A sustained police blitz put the finishing touches.

From this it will be seen that motorbikes can be put off the road if the "guardians of society" so wish it. However, now, thanks to the Japanese high performance lightweights, bikes are booming again, the 250cc and under classes being small enough to escape most of the financial slugs. The motorcyclist image has now become respectable and they are pretty much left alone.

I feel your best chance for a fair go from legislators would be to draw up reasonable safety measures and push them as a united body. Better help yourself to a slice of safety now, than have a whole fistful shoved down your throat. The following ideas may be worth considering:

1. A separate license for motorcyclists.

2. Efficient silencing systems on all bikes.

3. No motorcyclist to carry a pillion passenger unless he has held a motorcycle license for six months or has attended a recognized training school.

I'm not in favor of compulsory safety helmets, but in New Zealand they are compulsory when traveling at over 50 mph. If helmet legislation is inevitable, then this sort of compromise may do.

Remember, if you don't control yourselves, there will be plenty of non-motorcyclists and motorbike haters ready to do it for you.

MALCOLM FINLOW

Punchbowl

N. S. W. Australia ■