"Sorry We Don't Servie Motorcycles

"Sorry We Don't Servie Motorcycles

JERRY W. MATTSON

I’M SORRY, but we can’t serve you.” “Why not?” “You rode here on a motorcycle and you have leather jackets and helmets with you.” “Well, I’ll be damned!” On the way out of the restaurant, Joe resisted the temptation of bowling the penny gum ball machine over, or slamming his helmet into the mirror of the cigarette machine.

He and Sherri strode back to his 750 Honda and retrieved their gloves and sunglasses from the saddle bags, it was then that the small black and white sign on the brick building caught his eye: “No Motorcycles Allowed.” Rather than do something he’d later regret, he decided they’d better hop on the bike and leave. Can they legally do this to me, Joe wondered, as they rode off. This has got to be some kind of discrimination, and that’s illegal. Isn’t it? And what about those street signs? Somebody ought to do something about this.

Gil Engels, lifetime member of the Detroit Red Wings motorcycle club and motorcycle dealer, shared the thoughts of our fictional “Joe.” He fussed and fumed over the signs, especially the street signs, nearly four years before deciding to look into it further. Checking the history of the “No Motorcycles Allowed” street signs, he found it had all started in 1966. At that time, some residents of the City of Detroit requested that the city erect signs outlawing motorcycles on streets in their neighborhoods. The process was a simpie one. Once a complaint was made, it had to be checked out for validity, then a petition had to be presented with the signatures of the majority of the residents on a block, and the signs went up. Before too long, there were signs on 237 city blocks, including many main streets.

In May of 1970, Gil Engels, with the support of several Detroit motorcycle dealers, went to court, bringing suit against the City of Detroit, the Detroit Police Commissioner, and the Director of Streets and Traffic, for denying them their civil rights. They like most bike riders felt the taxes paid by them through gasoline purchase, driver’s licenses and license plates entitled them to the same privileges afforded an auto owner paying the same taxes. To deny motorcycles access to public roads by arbitrarily posting signs seemed no different than having signs prohibiting green Cadillacs or yellow Mustangs from these roads, and it seemed equally ridiculous.

In court, testimony was heard from a motorcycle dealer whose customers could not drive their bikes to the service entrance because of signs on the adjacent residential street, from a man who could not ride to and from his home, and from a 74-year-old man, a bike rider since 1922, who could not visit his daughter on his 90cc motorcycle.

After all the testimony was heard, a ruling in the case was postponed. It took four more court appearances through the summer, and it wasn't until December that a decision was handed down, finding the City guilty of denying the bike riders their civil rights. The City then filed an appeal within 20 days, as required, and the case went to the Michigan Appeals Court. With this move, whatever ruling they made would now expand from the original Wayne County jurisdiction to include the entire state.

At this point, the City had been found guilty; the signs were illegal, and it would seem logical that no tickets could be written for disobeying the signs. This was not the case, however, as Gil and many other riders in the city continued to collect yellow slips from the Man. (Ironically, one of the tickets Gil received was issued by two patrolmen riding on the posted, only entrance street to a park on motorcycles he’d sold the City.) Gil made a point each time in court that the City was acting illegally in writing the tickets, and each time, usually after many postponements, the case was dismissed. For others who did not have the time to spend in court (often several hours, only to have the hearing postponed), it was $20 a ticket and 2 points. In Michigan, 12 points in a 2-year period can result in the revocation of a driver’s license. All this was taking place while the city had been found guilty at the circuit court level!

Meanwhile, the signs on the side street near one of Gil’s shops mysteriously disappeared. This aroused the ire of the homeowners group in the area, since they were instrumental in having the signs erected initially. Suddenly, after not receiving a ticket in the area during the 12 years he’d been in business, he and his customers came under the close scrutiny of the police. Six tickets were written in as many days for such things as parking on the sidewalk, blocking a gravel parking lot while the city was grading it for the first time in a year, and improper (angle) parking at the curb. The curb parking tickets were thrown out of court when Gil pointed out a section of the law excluding two-wheeled vehicles from that regulation “by nature of their construction.”

"That's Ok,My Motorcycle Isn't Thirsty,B'ut I'd Like A Root Beer"

Time dragged on. It wasn’t until February of 1972, 22 months after the start of the proceedings, that the ruling of the lower court was upheld by the Appeals Court.

Some of these signs are still up in different parts of the state, but no tickets can legally be written for a bike rider disobeying a “No Motorcycles Allowed” sign posted on any public street or highway in Michigan.

Unfortunately, no similar court ruling is on the books stating whether the treatment Joe got in the restaurant is clearly illegal or legal.

Since this activity has not been challenged in the courts, more and more signs are going up and more and more people are getting the same reception in restaurants and drive-ins that Joe did.

Understandably, owners of public places do not want people there who are unusually loud, drunk, using abusive language or fighting. Unfortunately, no element of society has been made to fit that stereotype more than the bike rider, in the eyes of Mr. Public. Much of this has been done compliments of the movie screen. After seeing “The Chrome Plated Rapist From L.A.,” or some such thing, it is not unusual that the welcome mat is not out for bikers.

One day early last spring, for example, two businessmen in their 40s took a ride in a rural part of the state to enjoy the sights and smells of the season. Along the way, they decided to stop at a remote cafe for a bite to eat. When they entered the place, only one man was working, presumably the owner. He showed them the greatest courtesy, with every question being answered with a “yes, sir” or “no, sir” and so on. Then the men got the picture—this man was terrified of them. In reality, the biker who stops in front of the Hamburger Drive-In could be the banker who holds the mortgage on the place, the minister from the church down the block, or an off-duty policeman. Nonetheless, the signs say “No Motorcycles.” That means every one of us.

This includes Loren Anderson, veteran bike rider and Representative to the Michigan House, from Pontiac, who relates an interesting incident. One day he was called by the owner of a drive-in who was having problems with one of the City’s utilities, and was asked if he would stop by so they could discuss it. Loren said, “Yes, I’ll be right over.” Since it was a nice day, he got his bike out of the garage and rode over.

Upon his arrival, one of the waitresses told him he’d have to leave, pointing to a “No Motorcycles” sign. He promptly rode home. About two hours later, the man called back and asked, “Where the hell are you?” When Mr. Anderson related the incident, the man’s reply was, “Oh, those signs weren’t meant for you.” Loren made it clear that he was no different than anyone else as far as the sign was concerned, and suggested the man remove them. The next day, the signs were gone. On his “suggestion,” a couple of other signs were taken down by owners of restaurants in the area. Mr. Anderson has strong feelings about the signs, motorcycling in general, and especially the image of the bike rider. (He was one of the “businessmen” in the rural cafe.)

Since most of us aren’t legislators and our words or suggestions don’t carry nearly as much weight, what can we do?

In a word—write. Now don’t put this magazine down, saying, “Jeeze, I’ve heard that a million times. That can’t do me any good.” Write the American Motorcycle Association, the Civil Rights Commission, the American Civil Liberties Union, Restaurant, Drive-In, or Retail Associations, and Legislators. No one person can do much, whether he is a biker, or a member of one of these organizations, but if he has a file of 150 letters, he can say, “Look at this, we’ve got a problem here.”

The American Motorcycle Association has a pretty thin file. It is only aware of two states having problems with signs, Michigan, ranking 2nd in the United States with motorcycle registra-> tions, and West Virginia, ranking 26th. Does this mean only people from two states have written the AMA about the problem? Without being made aware of sign locations, there isn’t much it can do.

con

"Sorry”

%W5ïï”

The Civil Rights Commission says it receives calls from time to time about the anti-motorcyclist problem, but maintains it is not authorized to take cases concerning this. Its main function is to take complaints when there is an alleged violation of civil rights because of religion, race, color or national origin, and in the case of employment, age or sex. As to whether it is legal for owners of eating places to put the signs up, they said they weren’t sure, and mentioned there had never been a court ruling on the question.

The Executive Division of the Michigan State Police stated, “...it appears to us that so long as these exclusions by owners or managers are not based upon the violations of the civil rights of the individual, then the owner or manager does appear to have the authority to permit or deny admittance as he chooses.” It was suggested, in order to be completely accurate, that a local attorney be contacted.

It appears differently to the American Civil Liberties Union. Since the Detroit office was getting between two and three calls a week during the summer months on anti-motorcycle signs, they decided to investigate. In conferring with attorneys, they also found that no judicial decision on the matter had ever been made. They decided the only way to properly challenge the problem was to initiate a private suit for damages. Since this would involve much court time and attorney fees for the benefit of only one person, it was shelved.

What they did, however, was have a member of their lawyers committee draft a letter on the subject that could help alleviate the problem, while eliminating all the expense connected with court action. The following letter is now being sent to all business places that have been reported to the Detroit office of the ACLU.

Dear Sir:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. has received a complaint concerning your restaurant. We have been advised that you are engaged in a practice of prohibiting all motorcyclists from access to your restaurant by ban ning them from your parking lot.

If this is indeed your policy, you should be advised that your conduct is in direct violation of the Michigan Public Accommodations Statute which provides:

“All persons within the jurisdiction of this state shall be entitled to full and and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of..restaurants ...eating houses and all other places of public accommodation..subject only to the conditions and limits established by law and applicable to all citizens and all citizens alike.” MCLA S/S 780.146.

The Michigan Supreme Court has held that there is a cause of action for civil damages for violation of the right to equal public accommodations created by the statute.

You are requested to cease your unlawful practice of excluding all motorcyclists from your establishment forthwith.

If we have been incorrectly informed with regard to the policy of your establishment, we would appreciate your response. Similarly, if the policy with respect to such discrimination practice is no longer in force, we would also like to know this.

From the letters the ACLU has sent out so far, they have had no response to

the questions in the last paragraph. This letter is based on the theory that the Equal Accommodations Statute covers the area with which we are most concerned.

The ironic part of this whole sign situation is that the bikers are being kept out of places because they are supposed to breed violence, either among themselves or with other “innocent people.” Yet, the biker takes all the discrimination he faces, and more often than not, just walks away like Joe did.

He has asked questions. He has called public agencies. He has written letters. He has not rounded up 50 friends and gone back to a place that had kicked him out, and torn the place apart. In fact, some face the problem with humor. After one biker was told, “We don’t serve motorcycles here,” he replied, “That’s OK, my motorcycle isn’t thirsty, but I’d like a root beer.” This man is an exception. Most people feel they are being unjustly persecuted because of what they are driving and/or wearing. They think something should be done, but simply don’t have the time, money, or knowhow to fight it.

Maybe it won’t be too long until there is a court decision on the subject. Then we will know once and for all who has what right. Recently, a man drove his full dress BMW to a drive-in hamburger place. He walked in wearing a light jacket, a cardigan sweater and a tie. He was refused service, escorted outside and had a “No Motorcycles” sign pointed out to him. This whole scene was being recorded on film by the man’s friend standing at the rear of the parking lot. All this was being done in preparation for a $50,000 suit for damages the man is planning to file against the drive-in chain. What will the chances be of this man succeeding? I’d give him pretty good odds. His name is Gil Engels.