Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1970's

,. On Tuesday July 13 the California State Assembly unanimously passed Assembly Bill 2342, the bill which we, the off-road vehicle enthusiasts, have worked for two years to establish. The passage of AB 2342 has come about through a tremendous amount of work on the part of a lot of concerned motorcyclists, plus a concentrated letter-wri ting campaign which produced supporting letters to legislators, by the thousands. 1 migh t add, that in two years there has never been an instance of a motorcyclists opposing AB 2342 or its intenL As soon as AB 2342 was passed by the Assembly, numerous press-releases were sent out and articles appeared in newspapers throughout the state. Suddenly, since publication of the newspaper article, I have received notice of oppostion by a few motorcyclists to AB 2342 on the basis of the fee structure and the method in which the funds will be spent, even though this has been highly (and repeatedly) publicized with nGt one single previous complaint or adverse reaction. Believe me, I can understand the reasons why motorcyclists are so suddenly concerned. But, at the same time, these same persons cannot for a moment realize the depth and magnitude of the 'total situation'. 1 will try to summarize the position which we are in: 1.) Granted, as an organized group (which we are not), motorcyclists represent more than 10% of the state population. This includes the kids on mini-bikes, the road·riders, those wh() don't recognize themselves as 'motorcyclists', and those who just don't give a "damn. Even if we, collectively, were organized and fighting the same battles as a 'common cause', there is still 90% of the state population which either dislikes us intensely, thinks something "ought to be done about those noisy motorcycles", or has no opinion. Unfortunately, this latter group is diminshing, because where they formerly never had an opinion, they also never went into the areas where motorcycles operated. Now, they have mini-bikes operating under their bedroom windows every Sunday m~o.r~.~ from the ciiiltol morning! Let me add rather quickly, that I also know about noise from lawn-mowers, diesel trucks, railroads, airplanes, etc. But, these are accepted as a "necessity of life", whereas mini-bikes are not, unless you happen to be a motorcycle enthusiast. 2.) Because the 90% (or majority) of the population does not feel that they have to accept us, there has been tremendous pressure upon our legislators to "get those motorcycles and mini-bikes under control". Granted, we know that by providing facilities for us, many of the problems would be overcome. But, the public sees us generally in an unfavorable light and they would rather legislate us from existence than to provide facilities (which cost tax dollars) for something, which to them is unnecessary, undesirable, and should -not be promoted.or encourage. 3.) With this being the year of ecology, environment, and conservation, it was, and is, inevitable that our legislature would react to public demand for control of the "motorcycle me,nace". Registration and identification was as certain -to be approved as death and taxes. Your atten tion is invited to AB 578 (Ryan) and AB 2985 (Z'berg). These .Bills would not only have required registration and identification, but would have imposed such severe restrictions that dirt-riding would have been virtually eliminated. 4.) Fortunately, we were ready with our own counter-offer in the form of AB 2342 which also acknowledged the incontrevertible need for registration and identification. But, AB 2342 differed from the others in that our revenues were to be spent for motorcycle and mini-bike parks, rather than for enforcement of the proposed laws against motorcycling. 5.) Through our letter-writing campaign,. and because we had an laternate pwn, our legislators got themselves 'off the hook' with the 90% and the motorcyclists alike. Now, let's discuss the soundness of the policy of self-financing a form of recreation which we feel should be financed from the taxes we already pay. 1.) I suppose the most basic and non-tactful argument is, "Do we want to make a stand upon principle, or do we want motorcycle and mini-bike parks, now?" 2.) As areas are taken away, there will be more instances of trespass, malicious mischief, etc. Without some form of provision (and consequent restraint) for motorcycles, we will never be able to improve the image and gain public acceptance. Without public acceptance, we will never receive the facilities which we need. 3.) Granted, there are many clubs and associations which are doing everything in their power to prove to the public that motorcyclists are responsible, respectable, respectful, and in some instances, a 'political force' to be reckoned with. But at the same time, for every 100 good deeds by motorcyclists (which go unmentioned), one knothead is out there tearing down everything we are trying to build. 4.) Twenty years ago, the horsemen were in the same situation we now find ourselves in. They were generally disOl:ganized, rode where they pleased, cut fences to get there, made np attempt to avoid trespass, and generally made nuisances of themselves. They wised-up much faster than we, and are now recognized as very much a part of the 'saga of the golden west'. As such, they have everything in the world going for them, all paid for with our collective tax dollars. In some areas, such as San Mateo County, they are very strongly entrenched both in terms of facilities and in civic leadership. It makes little difference that we outnumber the horsemen (or any other group) because we ar·e still a minority as. far as the general (total) public is concerned. 5.) In 1970, the horsemen sponsored AB 2245 which established a $10 annual pleasure-riding tax upon horses to be levied by the counties for purposes of financing equestrian trails and areas. When we point out to them that not one county has yet collected a dime, their answer is that the original legislation did not allow the county to use the funds for the administrative costs of collecting the funds. (Corrective legislation was introdu.ced this year and it will remain to be seen if ·the counties do anything about it.) In any event, it allows the horsemen to point to the motorcyclists and say, "We passed legislation to pay $10 per year for our trails and areas." Even though they have more trails and areas now than they can possibly use., they have the upper-hand unless we, too, indicate our willingness to pay our own way. The difference being, that we will pay our own way, and they will only give it lip service. 6.) AB 2342 places the administration of the funds and approval authority with - the California Department of Pararks and Recreation, a branch of government in which I have faith, but will watch very closely. The passage through the Assemb1y of AB 2342 is a matter of 57-plus, so because of my personal involvement, the motorcyclist's involvement, and the fact that we finally have some legislation working for us. However, if I though for a moment that AB 2342 would hurt us in any way 'or if I had any misgivings at all, I would do everything in my power to have it withdrawn. I would appreciate anything which you can do to relay this information to anyone who has doubts about the program. Naturally, I will welcome any commen ts or inquiries by motorcyclists. Please send all inquiries or comments to Russ Sanford, c/o M.O.R.E., P.O. Box 26062, Sacramento, CA 95826. 'EVEL ("EVEL' IEVIEW AN ENTERTAINING NON-BIOGRAPHY By David Swift As it so happens, "Evel Knievel" is one of those movies that the PT A has been hollering for. It's perfect for the upcoming summer nights. when you want to pile all the kids into the station wagon and haul them to the drive-in. Somehow, the film manages to keep even a six-year-old entertained, thanks to a heavy reliance of visuals, .yet the dialogue is intelligently written as to not offend anyone this side of Tom Wolfe. It is marvelously devoid of nookie. Evel Knievel, for those of you who tuned ir:> late, is a motorcyclist who has been justifiably tagged the last of the gladiators. the greatest modern daredevil, and one of the brilliant showmen of the century. It's little wonder some enterprising film company decided ,that a film of his life was in order, and perhaps one reason that it was so soon coming out, (Evel has-yet to jump the Snake River Canyon.) was because some execurive felt our hero was certainly going to blow it any moment. Well, the real Evel is alive and well somewhere in the Midwest preparing more jumps and he certainly likes the movie. It is pure entertainment. Sadly, a chance to probe deeply into the psyche of a fascinating athlete-promoter-daredevil has been lost for the time being. Fanfare's "Evel Knievel" concerns itself with the pumped-up myth of a do-good criminal from Butte, Montana, who has a knack for the eccentric. His. good-natured insanity, they want us to believe, causes him to submit to all sorts of agony the spectacular high-speed footage of Eve!'s disasttous Caesar's Palace crash is used - in order to nobly assert himself in history books. The movie gets off to a rocky start as George Hamilton, in perhaps his best role yet (the studios say "maturing" at times like this) reels off an already over-written. speech about why he jumps over things. He talks about pioneers and Neil Armstrong and stuff like that. Suddenly, in the first of a series of flashbacks, we see little Bobby Knievel wandering about his hometown, a bit of a loner. A couple of episodes later, we watch him grow up in a society bloodthirsty for stuntrnen, especially those who fail. "Knieve'I" convinces a sideshow promoter he can jump two pickups and finds himself having to make the jump while a new-found friend's body is being carted away. Brave Bob learns "the show must go on" and subsequent success leaves a sweet taste in his mouth. The flashbacks begin to get a bit disconcerting at times because they don't fall in cronological order. All the flash forwards, -however, take place at a penthouse overlooking Eve!'s Ontarjo jump site; the purpose is to build up suspense for the actual Ontario jump which we will see at the end of the movie, but all the interruptions sort of distract from it. Besides, the best part of the whole fare is the least expected. The protrayal Evel as an hell-raising 18-year-old spared no detail. Wait'll you see the·awesomely accurate 1956 DA-with-a·wimp haircut he sports. Anyone who ever thought about stealing hubcaps during the Sock Hop will laugh, once. It wasn't easy being a teenager· in love back then, and "Knievel" who· has fallen for his future wife, Linda (adequately portrayed by Sue Lyon, the girl who was once too young to see Lolita) is a classic case. One particular· scene tinds the couple alone in a high school gym; he forlornly shoots baskets while she glumly announces her decision to go to college. "I can't be a waitress all. my life," she cries, plaintively. Bob, tough . punk that he is, has a lump the size of the basketball in his throat, but keeps his manly pride. All reet, go ahead, kid. I t's a thoroughly enjoyable film if you are not in the habit of frequenting Antonioni flicks. The acting is on th e of most television shows, level understandable since director Marvin Chomsky spends most of his time there. ) "- ( --- ) \ 'WE DID lTI . • M go <{ ~ w Z W ...J U >- U

• Cover