Legislation Forum

LEGISLATION FORUM

I have enclosed a clipping of the very latest in motorcycle safety devices. Actually, it would probably be very effective as the few who did not give up cycling when these "sailing masts" became mandatory would probably be killed on the first windy day. This would very neatly end the motorcycle menace.

I am a typical irresponsible motorcycle rider! I have a responsible job as a designer with a large glass company. I am a parent, a home owner, and a registered voter. I would like to go on record as being in favor of mandatory helmets (J. C. Whitney offers Snell approved helmets for $19.95), lace on shoes as a minimum (no barefoot loafers), any form of eye protection (from glasses to shields), a special (but cheap) cycle license, and some form of daytime running light (but not on a 9 ft. pole).

Many years ago a "friend" took me for my first ride on the back of his Triumph and scared the daylights out of me, making me definitely anti-motorcycle until last summer, when a true friend talked me into riding his Honda S-90 and then couldn't coax me off of it. Many of the cycle haters I've talked to have had similar experiences. So those guys who take a beginner for a scare ride are hurting bikes more than all the accidents and deaths ever could.

Now, at 31, I am a relative beginner who has outgrown the desire to show everyone how tough I am. Therefore, I wear a helmet, light colored leather jacket, wellington style boots, glasses, and have a shield, and side reflectors on my bike and ride with the headlight on in the daytime when on paved roads. It's surprising how the number of times you are cut off by left turning cars, (mostly women) can be decreased when the light is on. The average auto driver is so asleep that he sees only car shapes, not motorcycle shapes.

I am no less comfortable than the fellow with squinted watering eyes, windhammered ears, straining arms and hands, and wind blown hair. What's more, I'm not likely to grow up and realize how fool hardy bike riding is and swear off of it forever like these foolish adolescents. They should try adult motorcycling sometime to see how much fun it can be; almost like the days of my first sports car - with seat belts.

BRUCE D. GUINEY Tarentum, Pa.

I am 18 and have been riding a motorcycle for two years. After reading that letter written by Sen. Hartke (April, 1967), I just have to write what I feel. I'm not going to use statistics. I'm just going to write what I know, through experience, to be true.

Sen. Hartke says that motorcycles are unstable and hard to control at low speeds. If this is true, how come I can creep up to a stop sign on my Honda 150, stop, and then take off without touching my feet to the ground? And why, also, can I get on my friend's 450 Honda or another's 650 Triumph and drive them at five mph with no trouble at all? I have hit big clumps of dirt on the highway and occasionally a rock or two at speeds of 60 to 70 mph. According to Sen. Hartke, I should have wrecked. How come I just felt a slight wobble?

I admit to having a few wrecks, but none of them was the bike's fault. They were either mine or someone else's. And you know, I never once hit my head. I have never wrecked with anyone on the back. This is mainly due to no harm to maneuverability. Sen. Hartke says a side car should be required for passengers. Now, wouldn't this lessen maneuverability?

The motorcycle educational programs and inspection programs that Sen. Hartke talks about are very practical and make much sense. I think most people will agree with him on these points. But the law on helmets (you've probably heard this many times before) I do not agree with. I can't see putting on a helmet and goggles to drive a half mile to a friend's house. Also, I cannot see as well with my goggles on. I ride all year round and wear my helmet most of the time. But I wouldn't like being made to wear it when I ride around my neighborhood on a nice summer day.

(Continued on page 36)

In the senator's letter it was said that 30 to 40 percent of the deaths on motorcycles would be stopped if helmets were worn. If there is a law to make helmets mandatory, why don't they pass a law to make it mandatory for people to use the seat belts in their cars? Police officers could be placed at traffic lights and they could give tickets to people at the red lights who don't have their seat belts on. If they did this, the courts would be swamped with violators. Why take advantage of us just because we're a minority?

Sen. Hartke says that motorcycles are also dangerous because the rider is thrown through the air in an accident. The accidents I've had were not very serious. This was due to being thrown clear of the motorcycle or by jumping clear. The last time I went down I was going about 15 mph and I stayed with the bike (the accident was not my fault, by the way). The result was a badly burnt leg. The worst wreck I had was in the woods. I was doing 40 mph up a trail and lost control when I stupidly locked the back wheel. I left the bike when it started to flip over and I didn't get a scratch. Things like this have happened to friends of mine who escaped injury because they left their bikes.

I have also been in situations where I was able to avoid a serious accident because of the superior maneuverability and braking of a cycle.

I could go on and on with this letter, now that I've finally gotten it out of my system. I only hope that many people will rise up for our cause and help show the public that we do have our rights, that we are American citizens, and that we deserve our freedom, too. Remember that our ancestors were also a minority group, fighting to gain and defend their freedom.

JIM CRABB Greenhills, Ohio

I am in the U. S. Army stationed in Germany. Articles in several publications and my love for motorcycling have prompted me to write this letter.

The motorcycle is used as a basic means of transportation throughout Europe. In the United States, motorcycles are used for recreation and sport. The motorcyclist in the States may be near to being deprived of his right to operate his vehicle on public roads. This would kill a great sport and a booming industry.

The fact motorcycle sales are increasing has brought about an air of complacency among motorcyclists and the motorcycle dealers. The industry is sitting back and getting fat on the profits. Instead, they should be studying their market with fear.

Motorcycling has developed growing pains. As the number of motorcycles in use on the highways increases, the accident and fatality rates are increasing at a growing rate. The mounting number of inexperienced and irresponsible riders account for the growing accident rate, a point that is getting much attention.

A recent article in the Stars and Stripes newspaper stated that the number of fatal accidents on motorcycles was increasing rapidly. The article predicted that in a few years fatalities would pass 5,000 annually. It also stated that a motorcyclist stands a 20 times greater chance of having a fatal accident per-mile-driven than an automobile driver.

If something isn't done by motorcyclists and the motorcycle industry, the Federal Government will take a hand. They may not be as strict as the proposed bill in Ohio that is intended to outlaw motorcycles in that state. Legislation could be imposed, however, that would make motorcycles impossible to operate on public roads.

The automobile industry has been placed under pressure to make automobiles safer. The motorcycle cannot conform to the safety standards set up by the Federal Government for automobiles. Padded dashes, seat belts and roll bars are out of the question for a motorcycle. The idea of these devices on a motorcycle may seem ridiculous, but the uninformed may claim them necessary for the safety and protection of the rider.

A motorcyclist is an open target. He stands virtually no chance of surviving a collision with a stationary object. The motorcyclist is traveling 88 feet per second at 60 mph. If he would collide with an oncoming vehicle or a stationary object, the impact would be approximately equal to an individual jumping from the ninth floor of a building.

Statistics can build up a strong case against motorcycling. If the sport is to continue, the motorcycle industry must study the problem involved in motorcycle accidents and their prevention. The problem of the inexperienced rider must also be placed under the microscope. Education and training programs must be organized if motorcycling is going to continue.

If the industry doesn't take steps to reduce accidents, the government will. If it does, the resulting legislation could spell doom for motorcycling.

Organizations like the AMA are not doing anything to help general cycling. It is up to the industry to unite and solve a common problem and fight the coming legislation.

PFC RONALD K. LAMSON APO New York, N.Y.

Recently, while riding a 1.7 hp Moped, I was ticketed for failing to have a windshield, visor, or goggles, under part of New York's helmet law. In court, I told the judge that I was not familiar with the letter of the law, and asked if he would read it to me.

"Nope, you've got to plead not guilty and come back for a hearing," was the reply, so wishing to be rid of the matter, I pleaded guilty and paid the $15.

Deciding to find out what the law actually said, I found that neither the police station nor the local registry of motor vehicles could supply the information, as the vehicle and traffic code had not been released for 1967. A newspaper clipping was the only source and worded the law as requiring "approved" protective goggles. Somehow, I feel that the prescription glasses I've worn during the 30,000 miles I've ridden various bikes, are quite adequate, seeing that I've been hit by gravel, sand, bees and even birds, which have done nothing more than nick the lenses.

(Continued on page 39)

My question to you is, do you think prescription glasses (perhaps only with safety lenses) should be "approved" . . . if so, why, and if not, why not? Also, what do you think of the law the way it stands, requiring head and eye protection (and I think even turning signals)?

As far as I'm concerned, all hope is not lost. One county declared the law unconstitutional, so that it may eventually be repealed. Somehow I feel that when bicyclists pass me going down hills (I can only do 33), and when sports cars have no mandatory head protection, that it is absurd for me to inch around with my 500-TX and visor.

SAM POWERS Ithaca, New York

As a motorcycle rider and enthusiast, I am interested in motorcycle safety. I therefore wish to propose a theory which will possibly save many lives.

From personal experience and logical deduction, I would say the majority of collisions and accidents which involve motorcycles and cars are caused by the driver of the car not seeing, or if so, not noticing the the motorcycle. I therefore propose a practical solution. Since the motorcycles are relatively small and hard to see, why not, for the sake of general safety, allow them to be heard? In other words, remove the restrictive legislation dealing with motorcycle mufflers.

I realize that this proposal may stir up a good deal of so-called righteous protest. This then is a matter of how serious we wish to be about traffic safety. If it works, it will save lives. I realize, too, that the majority of drivers today operate automobiles, and as such they constitute a voting majority which might be opposed to having a growing number of loud motorcycles rumbling along and constantly alerting everyone of their presence. However, since our society has learned to adapt itself to a considerable volume of noise already (from air hammers, to sonic booms, to the Beatles), I feel that people can learn to live with the ( personally) pleasing sound of the unleashed motorcycle.

I don't know how my proposal should be put into effect, but I think it deserves serious consideration.

KENNETH L. JAMES Indianapolis, Ind.

First, I would like to say that your magazine is by far superior to any other being published, especially in regard to road tests. It is an excellent representation of the sport. And now to business.

I have just finished reading an article in our local paper regarding the 13 highway safety standards submitted to all the states by the federal government.

According to the new federal law, which will take effect Dec. 31, 1968, each state must submit and have approved by the federal government implementing highway safety laws or face a possible loss of ten percent of its federal road construction money. These 13 standards are set forth as guidelines. I noted with great displeasure the following — "Crash helmets for motorcycle operators." First, let me state I am all for laws to protect the motorcycle rider and I think we should have more of them. However, within limits. This new proposed law is definitely harmful to the sport.

(Continued on page 40)

I agree that safety helmets should be worn at all times, and I do so myself with the exception of my daily trip to school. However, the federal or state governments have no right to pass a law requiring a helmet at all times. I suppose I should wear my helmet to school; however, I have enough problems carrying books. I do not dare leave the helmet on the motorcycle for fear that it might be stolen. (A $30 helmet is no small loss.)

I disagree with this part of the proposed law wholeheartedly. One can only assume from the states that passengers would be required to wear a helmet, too. Since most people do not own helmets, this would be an added expense to any motorcycle rider who desires to take passengers. Further elaborating on this subject, let us suppose that I met someone downtown. He would like a ride home and therefore would need a helmet to ride with me. Now, how am I going to carry another helmet around with me sans saddlebags? You can be sure that whoever submitted this part of the law knows little or nothing about motorcycling.

The Motorcycle, Scooter & Allied Trade Association had better get on the stick, as it certainly has its work cut out for it. Now, in addition to the state governments, this union has to fight the federal government. As for me, all I can say is: Motorcycle riders of America unite — it is time to fight!

I would be glad to help support any Organization formed to protect our rights.

GEORGE C. SARGENT Bangor, Maine

As founder and past president of the Hickam Motorcycle Club, it is with a feeling of sadness that I must leave the state of Hawaii with its wonderful motorcycling weather and endless mountain roads and trails, all well suited for the motorcyclist.

My wife and two teenage children are all enthusiasts. We own and operate three motorcycles among the family. We will be bringing both of our Honda 450s with us to Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, in July this year. Our son's Superhawk will be going with him when he enters the Air Force shortly after graduating from High School in June.

It is with a feeling of pride that I look back on the accomplishments of the Hickam Motorcycle club. It is dedicated to improving the image of the motorcyclist in the eyes of the general public. It has come a long way toward this goal by developing a comprehensive training and testing program for all Air Force riders here on the island of Oahu. Included in the program are instructions in highway riding, city riding, motor vehicle laws and inspection of machines and equipment. We require, by the way, full jet helmets that have been approved by AMA for class one racing, or they must bear the seal of approval of the Snell Memorial Foundation.

1 am proud to say that motorcyclists from other branches of the military service are voluntarily attending our courses. The entire program has met with the approval of the Honolulu Police department; in fact, our club examiners are all certified by the HPD.

With more than 850 motorcycles registered on Hickam Air Force base, the club has undertaken a tremendous job and is doing it very well. The base commander has given his whole hearted support to the program and has passed a base regulation requiring all Air Force motorcyclists to attend the final examination portion of the program.

In addition to the safety program, the club operates a 1/4 mile oval "nearly" flat track that is proving to be a tremendous success.

I would like to hear from any motorcycle clubs and enthusiasts in the San Antonio area. Both my wife and I are looking forward to making new friends and cruising the Texas highways and back country roads in the wonderful motorcycling weather that Texas has to offer.

CAPT. DUANE G. ADAMS 99433 Kekoa PI. Aiea, Oahu, Hawaii 96701

Having read your most interesting and

educational magazine for three years, I thought I knew your policy on safety pretty well. Now I'm not sure.

I was surprised and angered at an advertisement on page 94 of the April issue — a foot rest for riding side saddle. If someone had the price of ad space, would you also advertise a saddle that three people could sit and ride in comfort on? I hope not. It is not safe.

As far as helmets go, I, nor my wife, would ride without ours. But I think it will be a sad day when I am told I have to wear mine or be in violation of the law.

FREDDIE SHERMER Rio Linda, Calif.

In reading your Round up Column in the

March issue I ran across a slight error which I feel duty-bound to call to your attention.

I have been in the U. S. Navy for the past 14 years and have been stationed at many different bases, both inside the states and out, and I can think of only about four or five that do not allow motorcycles onboard. Of the bases that do allow bikes onboard, they all require helmets and goggles at all times on station and a large majority have mandatory safety inspections every six months to a year, or comply with state laws of that particular state.

My wife and I read every copy of your fine magazine from cover to cover several times.

G. w. MCKNIGHT, AEC FPO San Francisco, Calif.