Legislation Forum

LEGISLATION FORUM

"FROM ETHIOPIA"

I would like to say a few words about the helmet controversy. We here in Asmara, Ethiopia (Africa), are required to wear full coverage helmets whenever we operate a motorcycle. We are further required to wear boots and a shield or goggles, and to ride in pairs when we go off the mountain. To some this would seem extreme, but to us these requirements are merely considered minimum safety measures.

Our club, The Kagnew International Motorcycle Club, is dedicated to safety, service and to furthering relations with our Ethiopian hosts. A full schedule of events is planned, to include: touring, enduros, scrambles, motocross, trials and perhaps some flat track and drag racing in the future.

SSG JAMES M. TINSLEY, SR.

APO New York

"WHY OBJECT?"

Concerning the debate that rages over the clothing (and helmet) laws, I think that it's rather an academic discussion. We all agree we're safer with helmets, full coverage clothing and shoes, don't we? Then what is the difference, you may say, whether it's law or not?

There is a difference, a very big difference! The ones who don't wear the proper protection are the ones who need it-the inexperienced, new and often young riders.

So why do we object to a law that would compel riders to protect themselves, to a helmet law that could save lives?

JIM ROBERTS Minneapolis, Minn.

"CW-ANTIQUE?"

Would you believe copies of CYCLE WORLD in an antique shop"? It's coming, if this Mickey Mouse legislation isn't stopped. Can't people see the handwriting on the wall? Something must be done before it's too late.

I'm selling my machine and I haven't been on it since the helmet law went into effect. My own personal safety is my business. If I want to bash my brains out, it's my prerogative. I respect our country, its laws, the AMA, mom and apple pie, but no one is going to tell me what to wear on a motorcycle. I beg CYCLE WORLD to help us in our hour of need in any way possible. Maybe you could start a fund and hire some good lawyers. I will be the first to contribute, and I know the money would start pouring in.

By the way, who is responsible for passing all this legislation? I'm sure readers would like to know, so we would know who to vote for and who not to vote for.

R. B. MARTIN

Baytown, Tex.

Your legislators are responsible. Their actions are public record. Check your local library for copies of state legislative proceedings. -Ed.

"SUGGESTED OR REQUIRED?"

I question the letter from State Delegate C. Harrison Mann, Jr. (Virginia) to Mr. LeBosquet (CW, June '68). I believe that the federal safety standards, to which Delegate Mann referred, were only suggested by Congress as the basis for state legislation. In other words, it is not required that a state incorporate all the federal standards into state legislation to continue to qualify for the federal roadbuilding subsidy. All that is required is that they pass some form of safety legislation.

Could you please check into the accuracy of this point and report it to your readers. It is important because many state legislatures are unaware of the voluntary nature of the federal regulations.

MICHAEL ENSDORF Manhattan Beach, Calif

The federal highway act stands as written. The law states that money tnay be withheld from states that do not pass safety legislation. This type of hammer is employed in education and flood control and in use of public lands. The coercion is that the federal government will not disburse funds unless the state acts first. However, those federal funds are collected in taxes on the people in those states.Ed.

"BEST INTEREST"

I regard your Legislation Forum each month with great interest, but I feel that at times you and your readers are paranoid.

Looking objectively at legislation, I feel (Continued on page 32) that most of it has our best interests at heart. Helmet legislation? My wife and I each wear one all the time when riding. We'll be damned if we let some strange coroner pick up our brains with a blotter; we'd like to be around to enjoy some more riding.

Continued from page 28

Crash bars? They have their pros and cons. I'm for them. Like a fool I decided to have just one more ride (before putting my machine up for the winter) during a snowstorm. I'll spare the details, but have you ever slid across four sets of railroad tracks on a crash bar? I walked (limped) away, thankful that there were no chunks of meat with bones sticking out of the junctions between the tracks and pavement.

I also think that the best thing a government could do for motorcycle safety is to start a campaign to educate car drivers to think motorcyclist—look for one before pulling onto a street, and don't try to share a single lane with a motorcycle, to mention but two thoughts.

BOB SIRETT Coburg, Ont., Canada

"VERY WISE"

First I'd like to say that your mag is the greatest! Keep up the good work and I'll keep shelling out 50 cents a month.

Next, I'd like to voice my opinions on motorcycle safety laws. I think the compulsory helmet law is good. I think that all laws that protect an individual from possible injury or even death are desirable as long as they don't restrict the comfort and enjoyment of the rider. It's also my opinion that a person shouldn't be able to ride a motorcycle just because he has a license saying that he can drive a car safely. Educating riders is also very wise. If every rider and driver will do his part, people won't think that riding a motorcycle means certain death.

RICK CHAMBERLAIN Tulsa, Okla.

"IRATE CITIZEN"

Is the world coming to an end (the motorcycling world, that is)?

I think "Legislation Forum" is a very good idea, but I think that the people who write you should enclose a carbon copy together with your circulation figures, then forward them to the motor vehicle divisions of their states.

Popular opinion figures that there are only a "few" cycles around, and they can easily be phased out through legislation. As far as writing to state representatives and senators, it's useless. Get up some dough and bring it to the supreme courts of the respective states. Michigan is a fine example of what an irate citizen can do.

I've written so many damn letters that I forget who I write them to!

I don't believe you should be kind, nice, and genteel with officials on the state levels. You can call them any name in the book because you pay their salaries directly. You can use any road in your home state because you pay for them. I am banned from using three highways in my state, but I'm always trying for a ticket so's I can go to court over it, but the state police will only chase me off at the nearest exit.

Don't be silent, scream and holler like everybody else. Motorcyclists take too much guff from 90-year-old safety directors who can't even drop the accident rate 1 percent. I have never had an accident, but I figure it's only a matter of time before some 200-yearold lady "doesn't see me."

WALTER L. LEONETTI Atlantic City, N.J.

"A SORE THUMB"

Enclosed is a copy of the letter I sent to Senator Charles Percy of Illinois. I have sent similar letters to all my representatives. Frankly, I doubt they will do any good.

Although I presently do not own a motorcycle, I have ridden in the past, and I intend to buy a cycle this year. I have been somewhat hesitant about buying one now, because the "heat" is really on. It makes me wonder whether there is any future for road riding. It's sad, but funny, too, when I realize just what kind of thinking is involved here.

For example, I now own two cars. One is a 426 cu.-in. Dodge hardtop, complete with custom wheels, etc., the other, a rather beat-looking Rambler station wagon, with a new motor. In the Dodge, I have been stopped frequently while disobeying no law, and always elicit suspicious, unfriendly looks. In the Rambler, while doing 75 mph in a 60-mph zone, passing everything in sight and gaining on the rest, I have been passed by the state police, never got a passing glance, while the trooper pulled over a car that I was gaining on. Protective coloration maybe? With the type of thinking evidenced in such incidents, it is no wonder that the cyclist finds himself the object of much unwanted and undeserved attention. He stands out like a sore thumb among the wolf-packs of cars and trucks, and the cop, frustrated at having his latest criminal arrest get off scot-free, works out his frustration on the cyclist, confident that no do-gooder or bleeding heart will interfere.

After all, owning a motorcycle is not a crime-yet. Only murderers and Communists are worthy of their civil rights. Oh well, I will buy my motorcycle anyway, and when I end up in jail for riding on a highway my tax money helps maintain, I at least will know that I have the privilege of being jailed in "the land of the free, home of the brave."

Dear Senator Percy:

After seeing your heart-warming defense of Joan Baez' right of free speech on Kup's Show last Saturday night, I am curious as to how much interest you would show over the rights of another minority group. A minority group to which, just for the record, I do not belong.

I am speaking of motorcyclists, who, it seems, no longer enjoy the same rights as others, notably motorists. The morning after your appearance on television, I noticed new signs had been erected on all the entrance ramps of the Calumet Expressway, which is also Interstate 90, 94, and 294. These new signs prohibit all motorized cycles, farm vehicles, pedestrians, and non-motorized traffic from using this highway. I can understand the exclusion of farm vehicles and pedestrians from using a road with a minimum speed limit of 40 mph, but to ban a vehicle whose only crime is having two less wheels than an automobile, and maybe also not being built in Detroit, seems grossly unfair and un(Continued on page 38) American, as well as being illegal and unconstitutional. To attempt to justify this ruling under the guise of safety would be totally illogical, if not purposely deceptive. I know, and you probably know, that "open season" has been declared on motorcyclists not only by local authorities, but also, and perhaps primarily, by the federal government. In addition to being singled out by restrictive laws, cyclists are also subjected to daily abuse by local police. No, Senator Percy, I am not exaggerating the case, and even though I am not a cyclist, it disgusts me to see everyone all in a dither because Commies, fellow-travelers, and admitted criminals are not being given their civil rights down to every technical comma, while cyclists are not allowed free and un-harried travel on roads that they must help pay for. Not all cyclists are jobless bums and outlaws. In fact, the vast majority are respectable citizens, and they are not kids either!

Continued from page 32

So I ask you, Senator, how interested are you that the right of interstate travel of a minority is being withdrawn as rapidly as possible? Sadly I doubt that this letter will evoke much interest as it is not now fashionable to be concerned with the rights of cyclists, but I sure would like to know who banned cyclists from this and maybe other roads, and by what right or authority, real or assumed, this outrageous act was perpetrated. Incidentally, in all my years of daily travel on this road I have seen many accidents involving both cars and trucks, but not once did I see one involving a motorcycle, although up until now cyclists used this road quite a lot. It would be nice if the authorities would concern themselves with prosecuting criminals rather than persecuting citizens. I would be interested in learning your position on this matter.

JOHN SMREKAR Calumet City, 111.

"UTTERLY APPALLED"

Motorcycling faces a real crisis in America, and I am utterly appalled at the stupidity of the Florida Motorcycle Dealers Association, and a number of other persons, in promoting compulsory helmets. Can't they realize that helmets are only a beginning in the field of restrictive legislation? Let's face it! A great many legislators, traffic engineers, and highway engineers would like to rule us off the roads entirely. (The engineers have a vested interest in promoting the use of automobiles. More automobiles mean more traffic congestion, and this in turn increases the need for engineers.) Already here in Oregon we must burn our lights in the daytime as well as wear helmets, and I've heard rumors of such things as compulsory leather jackets, pants, and high boots, compulsory crash bars, roll bars (extending over the operator's head) multiple headlights and taillights, and even, so help me, seat belts. Can you imagine anything more stupid, but that is what we might get if we continue to take these restrictions without protest.

I have ridden motorcycles since I was 16 years old (I am now 74), and, except on the race track, I have never worn a helmet nor have I ever had a head injury. When I retired (in 1960) I had spent 21 years in traffic engineering work, much of it in accident (Continued on page 86) study and investigation, and I know for certain that head injuries killed far more automobile drivers and passengers, and pedestrians, too, than motorcyclists. (It was about a five to one ratio.)

Continued from page 38

R.B. CUNNINGHAM Portland, Ore.

"LITTLE OR NOTHING"

Your Legislation Forum column is very interesting. In your June issue, there are some letters claiming against regulations. I am riding motorcycles about 40 years, and I have owned a lot of machines of many kinds and brands.

I have a lot of accidents and fall downs (an average of three yearly), and never have had a broken bone. In accidents, the most breakable thing is a leg, and iñ a big crash, there is no helmet or anything that will save us. In city traffic the use of a helmet is absolutely unneccesary. People who use the bike, as service, for working, selling, or collecting are very uncomfortable with the helmet. Here we have regulations about helmets. I disagree with it. I think law, "must recommend" it, and make it mandatory on big and fast roads, but not in short city runs. As ever, regulations are issued by people who know nothing or a little about the matter.

J. FRANCISCO GUERRERO Lima, Peru

"HOW CRAZY"

Read your comments in "The Scene" about the This Week magazine article-glad you pointed it out.

Well, I just read this in the editorial section of the Staten Island Advance, and thought it would be of some interest to you—sort of ■how crazy can you get! That's the feeling the last sentence gives me.

NOBODY'S ALONE ON A MOTORCYCLE

"This past session, the state Legislature passed a law compelling motorcyclists to wear helmets. Objections by some of them have been loud. They claim the law is a violation of their constitutional rights.

'As a matter of fact, Michigan's Court of Appeals threw out that state's helmet law, accepting the argument of the American Civil Liberties Union that it violates a person's rights to force him to wear a crash helmet.

"Nobody's arguing that a motorcyclist has the right to risk his own life, any more than a mountain climber does. But there's a big difference. The mountain climber scales his cliffs and pinnacles away from the crowd, but the motorcyclist shares the road with everybody.

"A motorcyclist should wear a helmet for protection—not only of himself, but of any motorist who's involved in an accident with him-to save the motorist from feeling like a murderer. "

L.N. SHUSTAK Staten Island, N.Y.

"ONE MAN'S IDEAS"

One man's ideas may just be one man's, but this is the basic principle on which the American way of life was founded. As a motorcyclist, I am demonstrating many of the freedoms that one can only demonstrate in the United States.

Here are some of the more apparent facts.

By buying and reading books and magazines, you are proving freedom of speech and freedom of the press do indeed exist. When you buy a motorcycle, you prove that you are a strong American by virtue of the fact that the money you spend is helping to keep our capitalistic system moving. The helmet, goggles, gloves, boots, jacket, rain suit, tires, gasoline, and oil you keep buying is keeping America green.

And, if some of your purchases are imports, your decision to buy helps prove the Good Neighbor Policy for America. By now you should have my point. Just on the strength of the millions of dollars spent each year in America, in and around the motorcycle industry, each one of us helps make up a powerful force to be respected.

Respected, because we are taxed for the use of our vehicles; and this is the crux of the situation—I believe that we are suffering from the same impairment our forefathers didtaxation without representation. But the detail difference Hes in what type of representation.

We, as a group of people, are more often represented to our state and national legislators as unsound, unclean, and unAmerican trash. How are we represented? By many great movies from Hollywood each year which allude to all motorcyclists as unsound, unclean, and unAmerican trash.

By some indiscreet magazines' articles, glorifying in the eyes of impressional youth, the life of unAmerican types.

You see, being an American and being a free person does not mean being free to desecrate humanity, Americanism, and therefore, freedom itself. Remember, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but an act of indecency is beautiful to no one except the depraved. So therefore, why should we accept representation by the depraved, which is what we do when a movie, or magazine article, or television show depicts us as low-lifed.

I believe we are getting the cart before the horse when we write our congressmen or we demonstrate in front of city hall about helmets, or windshields, or crashbars. I think every person who is true to himself admits that a helmet will save his life and so will goggles, crashbars, etc. Especially in view of the fact that there are a great deal more wild auto drivers than wild motorcyclists by virtue of their numbers alone.

Why protest? Just to hear yourself protest, or to prove your right to protest? What happened to the little boy who yelled fire when there was no fire? Eventually people discounted his testimony!

Don't you agree more of our purpose would be served by suggesting to the motorcycle manufacturers, and to the AMA and to our Legislators that sore penalties should be imposed upon those who would corrupt the morals of our youth by sensationalism?

Don't you think a motorcycle company would agree that as a movie depicts his product as the toy of the indecent, the decent will not buy it? After all, how many motorcycles do Hell's Angels buy each year? On the other hand, how many motorcycles do Hell's Angels keep from being purchased each year? The answer is quite a few. If you don't believe me, why do you think a large manufacturer spent $4 million telling everyone who would look, listen, or read that you meet the nicest (Continued on page 88) people on Brand X.

Continued from page 86

Summing up, let me say that if you do not write your Congressmen or other potentially interested parties, you are not using the freedom our boys fight and die for the world over. If you do write to these people and choose an irrelevant subject, or protest in an indecent manner, you are misusing your freedom.

So check your premise before you criticize, because if you think a helmet will impair our vision, maybe you're overlooking the fact that bad elements are impairing your name.

Remember, being free and being an American requires that you think, learn, and act in a manner becoming a Free American.

RICHARD ROSANOVA Caldwell, Ida.

"DO THE JOB"

I find your magazine the most interesting of the field, and would like to inform you that the Legislation Forum is my favorite monthly feature. Letters to the editors of specialized publications, discussions in dealers' shops and between enthusiasts do nothing to prevent over-restrictive and/or prohibitive laws which we all don't want. Only intelligent discussion/debate and presentation of the proper facts to appropriate legislative representatives will do the job.

Letters to editors of newspapers help, but it must be remembered that their editorial policy is generally "appeal to the masses," thus the sensationalism and slanted reporting often seen in our nation's newspapers. (Facts don't sell newspapers!) Motorcyclists, by the way, are not, by any means, the only ones affected by this type of policy.

I would like to see your Legislation Forum expanded and even the inclusion of an occasional legislative-type article. A good one to start would be one that would give your readers the necessary background so that they can see why letters should go to legislators and not enforcement agencies, etc. "The 'Reason' " (CW, Aug. '68) is an example of why action must be directed to these people. A well planned, local campaign should be able to correct this situation, but not without a little intelligent literary effort on the part of the locals.

Who knows, one of your readers might even come up with the magic words that legislators could use to bring an end to the "1 percent."

J. BRADLEY FLIPPIN Fallschurch, Va.

"I AGREE"

I agree wholeheartedly with the article "Michigan Helmet Law Unconstitutional" (CW, July '68). I am an avid cycle enthusiast from Detroit, Mich., and will benefit from the invalidation of the law. However, I believe the law referred to in the article still stands in many other states.

Is there any possible way to enlighten the motorcycle enthusiasts and general public of these various states, with regard to the challenging of this law? As suggested in the article, I feel that this law is similar to telling someone to put a coat on so he won't catch a cold. The suggestion is fine, but to force him to put the coat on is a different matter. In addition, much of what a person sees is due to his hearing and the full helmet does have a tendency to distort one's hearing. A very small percentage of the riders wear the halfhelmet because it does not fit securely on the head, and perhaps because of its appearance.

I trust the American Motorcycle Association will continue to test the law's constitutionality in other states and make an effort national in scope.

The only thing we have to lose is our helmets!

MICHAEL LICHTENBERG APO San Francisco, Calif.

"CHICKEN OUT"

I feel something should be said about the letter from Mr. Turk (CW, Aug. '68) concerning his EXCUSES for giving up our sport. He sounds as though, rather than try to do something about these laws he dislikes so much, he would rather just chicken out and quit, and let the do-gooders take over.

While I myself do not agree with all of this new legislation such as crash bars, multiple head and taillights, and Tennessee's proposal for seatbelts, some of the laws are good and are needed. I refer to the mandatory wearing of helmets, shatterproof eye protection, and effective silencers for exhausts.

My helmet has been a very good friend on many occasions. Once it was gouged and split, instead of my skull, when I fell off coming down a steep mountainside and stopped headfirst against a boulder.

Eye protection is just good common sense.

Effective exhaust silencers are a good public relations factor. A quiet cycle on the street attracts less attention from the do-gooders (and the law) than straight pipes or any other ear-cracking system. Many of the public's complaints about cycles are based only on the loud, sharp noises they hear.

I am for special licensing of cyclists, if only to weed out the incompetents, but the test should be a complete one and not just a couple slow turns around a parking lot.

In lighting, I feel that presently most cycles, especially the popular imports, are very inadequately lighted. I do not propose going to dual headlamps or multiple taillamps, which would only serve to make our bikes look like Christmas trees, but I do believe all cycles should be equipped with at least 5-in. sealed beam headlamps, and larger, brighter taillamps. Many cycles cannot be seen at night from a car until the driver is almost on top of the rider, and then it may be too late to avoid him.

I feel it is a shame that we aren't allowed to ride our cycles on many of our Interstate highways and expressways. Most medium and large displacement cycles have the speed potential to reach and exceed the legal speed limits and not be a hindrance to auto traffic. I rode a 150 Honda for awhile a couple years back, until my wife took it over. Even with my 200-lb. carcass up, I could easily cruise at the legal speeds in Tennessee and Kentucky, where I did most of my riding.

While I feel that many of the present laws and the proposed ones are too restrictive or downright stupid, a few are beneficial to our sport. I for one plan to continue writing to the lawmakers in Washington and not only in my home state of Maine, but in Tennessee where my family resides and my wife is doing her riding, to let them know my personal feelings about these laws and proposals. SSG JOHN H. McCLUNE SR.

APO San Francisco