Legislation Forum
LEGISLATION FORUM
"FED UP"
I am completely fed up with all the praise that the Hell’s Angels are receiving concerning the killing of California Assembly Bill 978. Sure, they were there, but they are not solely responsible for getting the bill killed. If “Name Withheld on Request” in Legislation Forum (CW, Sept. '68) has ever read Cycle News he would know that the motorcyclists were represented by a very competent lobbyist.
I am referring to Barbara Adams Dahms, who is the organizer of the United Motorcycle Enthusiasts. She was there to represent all of us, and I believe it was she—not the Hell’s Angels—who got the bill killed. For she had brought helmets which she got the legislators to try on and proved that they were also hazardous to the hearing and side vision of the wearer.
“Name Withheld on Request” says that nobody but the HA were there lobbying, but I would like to ask, where was he? Probably the same place a lot of us were—working.
So, my hat is off to Miss Dahms and not to the Hell’s Angels, well, maybe a slight tip of the hat to them—they did help a little.
I would also like to add that Miss Dahms is still watching Big Brother for any other bills that come along which are of concern to the cyclist'. Also, the UME can use more members, and if anyone is interested, he may reach her through Cycle News.
GERALD DENT Salinas, Calif.
"RIDE DEFENSIVELY!"
With the notoriety of the gun law controls making headlines, I wonder if the motorcyclists are aware of more restrictions and laws being considered by legislative bodies, to preserve the riders’ heads. All of these recommendations are being considered safety features. There are always the statistics of the motorcyclist fatality, with head injuries as the major cause. I’ll grant you a helmet would help prevent some of these news headlines of fatalities. A sensible cycle rider will don a helmet, regardless of the distance being traveled. The drivers of the four-wheeled vehicles are aimed directly at you! You are the loser! According to an article written by David Innes, “Increase In Cycle Injuries Brings Plea For Helmets,” and published in the Modesto Bee, Sunday, July 14, 1968:
(Continued on page 20)
Continued from page 16
“The University of California at Los Angeles Student Health Service, following a study made of motorcycle accidents to students, made the following recommendations to reduce casualties:
1. A special operator's license should be required and frequently renewed. 2. The license should be given only to those thoroughly qualified to handle a motorcycle. 3. Periodic inspections of the vehicle should be required. 4. No more than one person at a time should ride on a motorcycle. 5. A safety helmet and goggles should be required. ”
My opinion is that No. 5 on the list should be No. 1. And where would the rest of the rules put you, as a cyclist? Who would determine who the thoroughly qualified handler is? Are you familiar enough with all the working parts, mechanic enough to repair your own machine? Are you a married couple who enjoys riding together and sharing a double seat?
Undoubtedly, a law would require a certified dealer to inspect your motorcycle and make all repairs.
Don’t jeopardize privileges as an operator of a motorcycle. Ride DEFENSIVELY! If there must be laws, how about laws making it a felony for any driver of a four-wheeled vehicle to become involved where a motorcyclist is concerned? This always fails to come to the attention of the public. Inevitably, where a cyclist is in an accident, somewhere along the line, there has been a four-wheeled vehicle involved—directly or indirectly.
Also, I have noticed trails in public land use are being jeopardized. Public land users are claiming ruination by motorcyclists. As an example, the Panoche Hills (Fresno and San Benito counties). Public land users, in this case, are ranchers.
The Farm Journal Magazine recently carried an elaborate story on the destructive motorcycle riders. In all fairness to the cyclist, I feel CYCLE WORLD might do the same favor for subscribers. Panoche Hills, I understand, is not isolated in this issue of motorcycles.
MRS. EMILY WARNER Los Banos, Calif.
"INSPECTION PROCEDURE"
Enclosed is a copy of the inspection procedure now used by New Mexico inspection stations. It does not require the inspector to test ride the bike as previously done.
1. Ask customer for his registration certificate. A. Check ID number on the motor-driven cycle.
2. Have customer turn motor on. Turn on A. Front lights. Check high beam, low beam-20 to 30 feet. B. Back lights. Check taillight, stop light. C. Check horn.
3. Check front brake lev er, for engaging and disengaging. (Found on right side of handlebars.)
4. Check front brake cable and clutch cable for fraying. (Found on left side of handlebar.)
5. Check rear brake pedal. It should have 1 to 1.5 in. of play before engaging.
6. Check rear brake adjuster to make sure it is not adjusted all the way. If brakes cannot be adjusted, further certificate should not be issued.
7. Check for baffle in exhaust system.
8. Check tires for adequate tread.
9. FOR ROAD TEST, spin front and rear wheels manually and check brakes for stopping.
10. Turn off motor. Sitting on seat, with weight off the front wheel, turn handlebars back and forth to check steering. Bars should turn freely without binding or jerkiness.
11. Write out Safety Certificate if cycle qualifies.
12. Charge $1 plus tax-no more no less.
ROBERT J. REED Albuquerque, N.M. ¡O]
