The Scene
THE SCENE
IVAN J. WAGAR
SEVERAL months ago the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, formerly National Highway Safety Bureau, issued a notice of proposed rule making in standardization of safety related motorcycle controls. At the time I did not make a big fuss over the issue, because during my presidency of the old Motor Scooter & Allied Trades Association I knew that that group had gone on record as being in favor of standard control location when questioned by NHSB in early 1967.
At that early date, almost five years ago, the members of MS&ATA consisted mainly of Harley-Davidson, BSA and Triumph, the firms most affected by a ruling that would require the gear shift on the left, and the rear brake on the right. But, realizing that more than 85 percent of all machines in use have this layout (due to the large population of Japanese and European small displacement machines), the old Association wisely decided to go with the majority. 1 say wisely because it is the layout most familiar to our newer riders, the very people we must protect if our industry is to survive complete strangulation because of restrictive legislation.
The original MS&ATA resolution was delivered by the newly appointed president of BSA Inc., distributors of BSA and Triumph, and Mr. Dennis McCormack, w'ho was very active in trade association affairs at that time. The resolution conceded that standardization, if it really is safety related, must be on the basis of what most of the people are accustomed to during their learning period. Driver education proves to us that most people prefer to buy personal cars that are very similar to the ones used for the training period, and many people purchase the same model.
Thus, outlining what 1 think are some pretty good reasons (theirs, not mine) for going along with the “left foot shift, right foot brake,” 1 should admit that I personally did not like the idea, originally, that is. Later, 1 came to my senses. Those people, Harley-Davidson, BSA and Triumph, felt that if one life could be saved the project would be worthwhile. So it was that these member firms agreed to design all new models (to whit, the new 35Ü BSA cammer Twins) with the gearshift on the left and the brake on the right. And, by 1972, all existing models in the line would be changed to the agreed upon design.
Unfortunately, the companies have since discovered that changing existing models will require more time, and that is the reason for government stepping into the picture with the proposed rule making.
Realizing that the Japanese and German manufacturers were not affected, and that our domestic plus BSA/Triumph had made a commitment several years ago, 1 didn’t see any great problem on the controls issue. The fly in the ointment was a lot of peripheral junk the feds had fed into the proposal that had little or nothing to do with safety and indeed, in many circumstances, could cause crashes.
But the next two months saw me bouncing from sport-to-industry-to-feds. The easiest part, now that I think back, was convincing the feds that most of the proposal was not safety related and should be eliminated. My efforts, along with good feedback from some of the manufacturers, resulted in the elimination of the nonsense in the proposed rule making, plus a grant of extra lead time for the manufacturers to comply with the federal standard. The rule making, along with a reasonable compliance date, will be issued soon and will satisfy all of the manufacturers concerned. That last word is not unintentional: any manufacturer that is concerned with your safety and the future of his product will be aware of what is happening if he is a member of our new trade association, the Motorcycle Industry Council, and therefore will be knowledgeable about what is going on.
At this point it would seem that all is going well. 1 have agreed, although 1 still have reservations (personal reasons and adaptabilities), that it is better to have the gearshift on the left, and the brake on the right. As a responsible motorcyclist 1 should make allowances and adjustments that may save a few lives, thus reducing the degree of bad legislation that might come along if 1 don’t.
That is not the case with some of the people near our industry. Some journalists and supposedly “enthusiasts” have taken this opportunity to unveil their thinking. One scribe, in a letter to Douglas Toms, questions the NHTSA administrator on what will happen to people importing vintage motorcycles into this country. Gawd, if it is manufactured before the compliance date, it can have the gear shift on the rear fender! Rear braking can be accomplished by sticking your toe in the rear wheel (hopefully in a way that does not produce too much blood) and you can register and ride along to your heart’s content. Some members of the press, under the guise of long time experience, have shown equal lack of brain voltage when they devote pages to the opposition of standardized controls, with the only reason being that they personally don’t like shifting on the left and braking on the right. But personal preferences just will not hack it, baby.
Let me make it clear: all specialty machines, such as trials bikes, motocross and road racing machines and minibikes will not be affected in this rule making. We are talking only about motorcycles that are classed as motor vehicles under the Traffic Safety Act: machines which can be registered for road use. A word of caution to the small specialty manufacturers is necessary at this time, though, and that is the use or abuse of exemption.
We are fortunate that non-registerable machines do not have to comply to any rule making. This privilege could, however, be rescinded if the manufacturer markets a motorcycle which is a non-compliance vehicle, and later sells a kit, which could then make the motorcycle liable under the Act.
Such deceit could only lead to the elimination of the exemption. And that would be bad, and could restrict design innovations.
UR problem is noise, as the fol lowing letter will indicate. It was written by a non-motorcyclist who was robbed of his peace and quiet, which he had sought by investing thou sands of dollars in a house far out in the desert. Apparently it wasn't far out enough. Our thanks to Francis Blake, who ran across the letter in the August 1 97 1 issue of Desert magazine. Alarmingly, the letter begins:
“Brrp brrp brrp pop pop popop burr glonk blat. I hope you can hear me above the noise of some nearby motorcycles.
In his letter in the July issue, Ward Crumbie states his belief that one rainstorm or one sandstorm will do more damage than a million bikes. I cannot follow his logic: Mother Nature has been spreading rain and dust storms over the desert for millions of yearsand they contribute to the beauty of the deserts. His logic would have had the lands self-destruct long, long ago.
He states further the tracks of wheeled v eh i des (moto rey des ) are quickly erased by nature. He should do a bit of flying. He will find unhealed wheel-track scars all the way from abandoned townships, WW II Army Camps, even back to Grey Mesa, Utah, near the junction of the San Juan and Colorado Rivers, wheel tracks of the Mormon pioneers’ wagons are still plain to see.
I too, have spent a long time afoot, in the western desert. Let me quote from my letter of May 31, 1971, to Mr. Harrison Loesch, Assistant Secretary for Public Land Management, Washington, D.C.:
(Continued on page 83)
Continued from page 27
7 suffered Christmas Eve at my house in the desert, and perhaps you can imagine a rendition oj the carol ‘Silent Night’ with an obligato by motorcycles ‘brrp brrp brrp pop pop pop ’ to well after 2 a.m. / tried again at Easter, so as to be able to go to the Sunrise Service, but when, at 2:20a.m., the roaring up and down -completely needless noise-had not quit, / did. / packed up and came back to hi Centro. This is Memorial Day, a day which means much to me-and lam home here in El Centro, wondering where to go to retire. ’
The desert house is for sale.
Those who pioneered the desert sought, amongst other things, quiet. And inasmuch as noise is a physical disturbance oj the air surrounding them, it is my contention that no one person has the right to disturb the surrounding of another to his distress. ” O
