Legislation Forum

LEGISLATION FORUM

For the fourth time I take pen (typewriter) in hand, hopefully to be printed this time, on a matter concerning motorcycling and the law. I am a 22-year-old college senior majoring in political science. Aside from my motorcycling I have a great hobbyist interest in the Constitution of the United States and the Supreme Court, but I am far from an expert. My purpose in writing is two-fold. First, I want to acquaint fellow readers with the new motorcycle laws in Tennessee and how they apply to out-of-state travelers passing through. Second, I would like to discuss civil rights as applied to motorcycling.

The state of Tennessee has recently succumbed to the present legislative trend as it applies to motorcycling. The 85th General Assembly has passed legislation including the following requirements:

A. Approved crashbars

B. Helmets for operator and passenger

C. Seats for each rider

D. A windshield or goggles

This legislation affects not only the 40,000 owners of two-wheeled motor vehicles in the state, but persons traveling through the state with out-of-state registration.

In view of the above statement, I will go further to explain. I contacted Mr. Lawrence Sperry, legal advisor to the Tennessee Highway Patrol. I had a long talk with Mr. Sperry, who was most friendly and understanding. My chief question for him was, "How will this legislation affect outof-state motorcyclists with out-of-state licenses?"

His response was immediate. He first apologized for the wording of the bill saying that he had nothing to do with its drafting. He then went on to read it to me verbatim. The law stated that, "all motorcycles, and motor driven cycles operated on Tennessee streets and highways would be required to comply . . .

Being a legal advisor for the state enforcing body he then deduced that out-ofstate motorcycles operated on Tennessee streets and highways which did not meet these requirements would be in violation of the state law. I then asked if he felt that such a law would be subject to a Supreme Court ruling. He gave no definite opinion, but replied that someone would have to be arrested and the case would have to progress through the legal red tape to that highest court.

I can't really blame him for giving no opinion, since the question was a loaded one. He said that he felt that the patrolman who stopped an out-of-state cyclist would not ticket the person. I also was given that opinion by a highway patrol lieutenant in a separate interview. But it was only opinion.

So now the warning is out. Anyone passing through the state will be required to comply with our laws. That portion of this law which applies to non residents is definitely unconstitutional. The fourteenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution guarantees a citizen of the United States the "rights of citizenship." Under this fall laws that restrict free movement from one state to another. However, it might be noteworthy to mention that a 16-year-old with a perfectly legal driver's license in his home state cannot drive in New York state which requires a minimum age of 18.

Now, people, the only way to have a law declared unconstitutional is to sponsor a test case, not by shouting loudly about encroachment on personal rights in magazines. I cannot but believe that somewhere there is a lawyer in the United States who rides a motorcycle and is interested in the sport. We need the type of support that the American Civil Liberties Union or like organizations can provide. Industry (motorcycle type) and the AMA have thus far let us down.

Now, for Mr. Parkhurst. I have always enjoyed your editorial style, expression and ideas, but of late I have been thoroughly disappointed with your attitude toward these laws; in particular, the helmet section of the California law. You claim that the helmet law violates your constitutional rights. I ask the question, "What constitutional right?" That is to say, I know of no section, article, paragraph or amendment which permits an American to kill himself. Suicide is against the law with consequences which affect one's survivors. Sports parachutists are required (by the FA A I believe) to wear reserve chute and helmet. I hate to be too dramatic, so I will tone my attack down. I have read several times in various magazines, CW included, that 75 percent of all motorcycle or scooter deaths are attributed to head injuries. I don't know how many accidents involve head injuries I will admit. However that's proof enough for me, how about you?

You think your constitutional rights have been violated! Brother, you ain't heard nothin' yet. In the January, 1967 issue of "the other mag" (I'm sure you read it, too) on pages 10 and 13 in a letter from Mr. Kenneth F. Mosier of Portage, Ind., is a set of the most flagrant violations of motorcyclists' civil rights I have ever seen. In Portage it is illegal to:

A. Ride on a street or highway within the town limits between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Necessary travel must be registered with the police department.

B. Ride in a residential area except riding to or from home, school or business. No riding to a friend's house.

C. Carry passengers after daylight hours.

D. Operate a cycle without wearing a helmet.

E. Ride a cycle without a full vehicular operator's license. No beginner's permit. (This may be contrary to Indiana state law.)

The author of the letter ends with an impassioned statement, "How about a few civil rights for motorcyclists?" The answer is "Yeah, how about some. ED." (I was told by a member of the Nashville American Civil Liberties Union that this is an undue exercise of police power.) The negro has been working his tail off in order to obtain his civil rights. Even though his problem is admittedly more acute than ours, we are sitting on our duffs doing absolutely nothing. In other words, if we are to survive legally, we must work very hard in order to create a favorable legislative feeling toward us. To get legislation passed, a group similar to the NAACP or the National Rifle Association must be created to lobby and sponsor test cases. The AMA can never really be affected, since all their events take place on private property and not public roads. I believe they know this and will continue to be apathetic to the average sport cyclist. One day the heads of motorcycle industry in the U. S. and those countries who export heavily to this country are going to wake up unemployed if this apathy persists.

(Continued on page 42)

In closing, I would like to commend the publishers of CYCLE WORLD on the job they are doing. I don't agree with all the ideas, but that is my, pardon the expression, constitutional right. I am a subscriber to your magazine, which I read from cover to cover when it arrives, and refer to back issues often. I hope to enter the industry some day, and looking about me, hope there will still be an industry.

JOHN HETTISH, JR.

Murfreesboro, Tenn.

I read the May issue (referring to "The Scene" — compulsory helmet legislation) and my blood is still boiling! Who do these people think they are? They have no right to recommend, much less pass such legislation. I am developing a complex about being discriminated against (and I'm not under 21, I'm not a Negro, and I was never a Communist). I am sure that my rights are being legislated right out from under my nose. I know that a helmet will protect me, and I own one, which I paid for with good old American loot (about $50). I do not always wear it, and I feel that it is my privilege — in fact, right — not to wear it, since it is my own head, and not the government's. The argument concerning the dollar value of my head is not only irrelevant, it is obscene. My head is mine, and my life should not be ruled by an economic conspiracy.

I also feel that if we are going to start forcing people to protect themselves against their wills, why not take everybody's rights away? How many of those legislators go hunting? Let's take their high-powered guns away. A bullet that travels that far could hit anything, and often hits another human being. Let them go moose hunting with slingshots or clubs, and make them wear helmets and possibly suits of armor (I'm sure a lightweight suit could be manufactured at reasonable cost) to protect their expensive brains and bodies. We all know how many hunters are killed every year because they weren't wearing protective clothing and hats. Let's protect them.

And I want to see every politician with his helmet on when he campaigns in an auto. A moving vehicle may cause him a head injury. The chances are very good for head injuries in cars, not to mention every limb and joint (just look at the statistics).

These are only two examples of how we can protect people. Let's really look into this thing and protect everyone. I see no reason why a motorcyclist should have preferential treatment. I know they love us; but after all, hunters, auto drivers, etc., are people, too.

Equality for all. Let's get going on it. What do you say?

PAUL J. LA FOND Milwaukee, Wise.

The following excerpt from the SAE Journal, March, 1967, page 88, may be of interest to motorcyclists.

"Seventy-two percent of all personal injury in automobile accidents occur to the head," indicates Automotive Crash Injury Research at Cornell University.

In view of this disturbing information, it seems clear that responsible public officials, charged with promoting the public's health, safety and welfare, have a grave obligation to enact suitable legislation. Motorcyclists everywhere, as, indeed, myself, who have enjoyed the protection of a well-made safety helmet, should be among the first to demand laws making the exercise of the driving privilege contingent upon wearing adequate protective headgear.

No public official can claim to favor motor vehicle safety who does not support the compulsory wearing of helmets by automobilists. This simple step could reduce by three-quarters the fearful carnages on our highways. All motorcyclists, as well as their organizations, should be leaders in demanding such badly needed laws.

T. G. KROL Bellflower, Calif.

Ihave been following with interest your articles and letters on motorcycle legislation, and have become disturbed with the recent turn of events. Massachusetts, as you probably know, went "compulsory helmet" on May 22. I believe this is the hardest blow to motorcycling in this state — at least to the transportation rider — since the insurance companies drove us off the roads in the 1930s with their skyhigh compulsory insurance rates.

It seems the legislators now have "one foot through the door." The next stunt they will pull will be to claim there are too many leg injuries, and pass a law forcing use of high leather boots. The motorcycle or scooter will no longer be a convenient utility transportation vehicle, if one has to dress like a space cadet for the short run to work, etc.

I sent a long letter on this subject of helmets to our local newspaper some time ago. It was never published and a few excerpts from this letter are shown below:

Helmets are essentially racing gear, are a must for competition and sport riding, and I recommend them for long-distance freeway riding. But when a law compels a rider to wear one, 1 consider it an invasion of one's freedom. I approve of laws calling for safety equipment on the machine; they protect others, as well as oneself. But I don't approve of a government telling me what to wear.

The older rider, the one who has been riding 20, 30 or 40 years (20 years myself), will be hardest hit by this unfair legislation. Most have never worn helmets before, are not interested in sporting riding, and use their bikes for convenient and economical transportation.

The new, young rider will probably go "great" for helmets, because it will probably make him feel like a road racer racing down the street, and possibly give him a fee ling of false security ... "I can race on the streets. I'm safe. I've got a helmet on."

I think that helmet wearing should be optional, like seat belt use in cars, with emphasis on their use for heavy traffic and freeway riding.

HOWARD E. CLAPP Easthampton, Mass.

Let me begin by saying that I was deeply touched by the reprint of the article written by Senator Vance Hartke included in a letter sent to you by Mr. Sanborn, (CYCLE WORLD April, '67). I feel, however, that any legislation in the area of motorcycling that directly concerns the motorcyclist's person, i.e., body, should wait until that time in the not-too-distant future when that venerable body of elected saints decides that individual men are no longer capable of thinking for themselves. I respectfully reserve the right to endanger my skull when and where I wish, if you please, and thanks but no thanks, Senator Hartke!

One wonders just how many articles are written with true validity of concern and how many for the publicity garnered.

DAVID IRWIN Gillette, New Jersey

I just got through reading Senator Hartke's little proposal in your letters section. I am unimpressed. When people such as he and other "Detroit Bomb" drivers want federal intervention on motorcycling, it is time to call a halt. It is getting so that the American automobile driver tolerates nobody but others like himself — no trucks, no sport cars, and, above all, no motorcycles. I've been a bike rider since 1950 and I still consider the automobile my worst hazard.

Senator Hartke's fourth proposal states a driver's education for cyclists. I don't suppose it would hurt, but I think that the automobile driver needs educating on other vehicles besides his own — what they can do, what they can't, etc.

The motion picture industry seems to make quite an impression on the American public. So far, they have done nothing but hurt the average motorcyclist. They have given us nothing but a bad image. Hollywood really could help us. A few movies portraying motorcyclists as a decent lot, with sporting events, etc., would help a great deal.

On the lighter side, or should I say brighter side, I enjoy your magazine very much. I find it very informative and enlightening. You people do a great deal for the sport.

HERB H ARRIMAN Union, Maine ■