The Scene

THE SCENE

IVAN J. WAGAR

THE Federal Blackjack, a term frequently used these days, briefly describes the power behind compulsory helmet legislation for motorcyclists. The term evolved after the National Highway Safety Bureau presented a “safety package” to the federal government about three years ago, known as the Highway Safety Act of 1966. The package was a number of ideas to reduce the slaughter on our public roads.

So strong was the pressure from the NHSB and the Department of Transportation that eventually the package was unleashed on the public and state highway administrators with the threat that up to 10 percent of federal highway funds would be withheld from those states not adopting the complete program. Among the various ideas was one requiring all motorcyclists, operators and passengers, to wear helmets and eye protection devices of an approved type.

CYCLE WORLD has been very concerned about several aspects of this ruling. In the first place, what does up to 10 percent really mean: a half percent if the motorcycle helmet bill is left out, or what? Questions directed at several federal officials have produced all sorts of strange answers. But one point they all agree on is that the Feds, indeed, do have the power to withhold very large sums from states which do not comply with the wishes of these legislators.

Deadline for compliance with the Highway Safety Act is Dec. 31, 1969. We all know there are leader states and follower states, and California is a leader state. Five helmet bills have been defeated since the Blackjack became a fact. It is quite doubtful that a motorcyclist’s helmet bill will be passed before the deadline.

The other extreme of the situation could be New York, also a leader state, which yielded to the Blackjack almost before it was in printed form. New York, in fact, passed a compulsory helmet bill requiring helmets of an approved design before standards were established or agreed upon. It is unfortunate that some state legislators acted so quickly, because in a matter of weeks a whole bunch of Eastern follower states jumped right in behind New York and passed similar legislation.

It is very interesting that three of the follower states backed down and repealed their motorcycle helmet laws. These states now have put themselves in the same or worse jeopardy than the fearless 13 which have resisted the Blackjack. The helmet law, however, is not the only area of concern for the poor state highway officials; the Blackjack included a few more difficult-tocarry-out ideas, not the least of which is motor vehicle inspection.

According to an article by Art Glickman in The Wall Street Journal, dated June 16, 1969, the vehicle inspection issue accurately parallels our helmet situation. It seems that 19 states have not adopted a system of regular vehicle inspection. These states are not prepared, for one reason or another, to take on the program. A good example is California, where the Department of Motor Vehicles and the California Highway Patrol agree that the method of random checks proves effective, and less expensive, than a fixed frequency inspection. Certainly the CHP is in favor of continuing the spot check program, because it is the best bit of public relations ever carried out by the force. It is quite refreshing to have the man in the suit say, “Good morning, sir, we would like to do a safety inspection. It will take less than five minutes.” Now this what I call a civilized approach.

As much as we like the California situation, we must admit that Big Brother’s guns are aimed on all the nonconforming states. I do not feel any of the states are testing the power of the federal government but, after talking to some California state officials, I find they question the almighty wisdom of some pencil-pushers in Washington who try to justify their pay checks by creating laws without due consideration for the people who pay their salaries.

While discussing the motorcycle helmet problem with a leading CHP official, I learned that more than 50,000 people will be killed in motor vehicles this year. And that more than half of them will be killed because an operator is under the influence of alcohol, and that the Feds should be taking a close look at that problem first. It is a fact that in more than 70 percent of the motorcycle/auto accidents in California, according to my informant, the car driver is at fault. Further, he explained, it is reasonable to assume that liquor played a leading role in half of these accidents. He feels that the intoxicated driver looks on the the motorcyclist as a nuisance, and if no one is looking, he might just do something about it.

It does not take a mathematician to realize that if bad and alcoholic drivers could be eliminated, or minimized, motorcycling on the highways could be quite a safe proposition.

There are, however, two things happening here. First, probably the average Fed takes a drink, but does he ride a motorcycle, or really care about the motorcyclist. So the rule seems to be “Let’s not make rules to hang ourselves, but who cares about a couple of million motorcycle riders.” The other concerns the states that have enough guts to stand up to the Blackjack, and the people who have created the Blackjack. The Blackjack creators will readily admit that if they can force motorcyclists, policemen, firemen and various civil service agents to wear “head protection devices” they will, within 10 years, convert the total motoring public to safety headgear. With that in mind, we may be doing a pretty big favor for every motor vehicle operator when we oppose helmet laws.

IN column the December contained 1968 some issue, very my strong ideas about what I believed was wrong with our industry and the various industry associations. It appears that the column shook some people to the point that they decided I should put my effort where my mouth is, and do something about the problem. As a result, in February of this year, I was elected president of the Motorcycle, Scooter and Allied Trades Association.

My election was not mentioned in CYCLE WORLD before. I accepted the presidency in the hope that I could find a way to be a catalyst to bring together the major industry people, and to form a true, fully representative organization from the motorcycle industry with an annual budget in the region of a half million dollars.

Last week I met with Joe Hope, president of the Motorcycle Safety Council, of which all Japanese firms are members, to discuss the possibility of a merger of the MS&ATA with the MSC. (Japanese brands represent more than 80 percent of the motorcycles sold in this country.)

There do not appear to be any major obstacles. Both Mr. Hope and I realize there will be opposition from certain industry people. We also know the problems we face when we meet with legislators and government officials and try to convince them that the motorcycle industry is worthwhile, and that the motorcyclist is a citizen who has rights.

The Japanese firms now are discussing the prospects of supporting a new, completely united association. For all of our sakes, let’s hope nothing will stand in the way.

BILL racing IVY injuries, is dead. which He died is no from less sad, but he was a Racer. At Sachsenring he was racing in the rain. His Jawa broke and he came off. As he slid, his porridge bowl helmet came off. He later died of skull injuries. It was the first time in a year he hadn’t worn his American full-coverage type helmet. Enough said.