Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1970's

'...GAMBIT ~ see them get busted, and I don't mind paying a bit for it, either. The guys that :;; destroy the land, the only land we have? - Let them vandalize ConCfC te walls. The guys that come over a blind hill all ~ crossed up and out of control? Two of ..., them did it last year and one of them lost his artn. Another one died in a ~ collision with a dune buggy. Maybe w Z some enlightened law enforcement w could stop this sort of carnage. The cops oJ U will have my support as long as they > don't do more harm than good, which I U admit is always a chancy proposition. While we'fC at it, I'd be all in favor of taking some kind of action to ground those Riverside choppers, but I don't think sinking this law is a good, or even effective, method of doing it. Moving to the positive, the Department of Parks and Recreation, according to CN of 4/25/72, is ,.purportedly planning a statewide ~erwork of motorcycle trails. This is such a great idea that I can hardly find words to express my enthusiasm for it. How about some trails through the cities and righ t up the length of the state? This registration fee won't begin to finance such an operation, but maybe with this money and some gas tax money and some help from us it could become a reality. It could be that just a few dollars of this money could open up all kinds of trails in the forests above Los Angeles, or maybe even some more trails in Griffith Park... There are endless possibilities, and I for one don't feel we should condemn the agencies involved before the fact. Recall that without fishing and hunting licenses there wouldn't be any fishing and hunting. One other matter needs consideration. That is the matter of practicality. Let's suppose we knew for a fact with the incredible future-vision of a Harry Whalen that all the money would be wasted or used against us. I hope I've cast some doubt on this by N te (C""I'd. fram pa,f(c' 4,7) now, but suppose you still believe it. Could we defeat this law? With even the minimum law that I know I'm sure we couldn't. All of the agencies involved can point to legitimate needs and if that isn't enough they can drag in the Environmental Protection Agency of the Federal Government. They can point to all kinds of precedents. We ride on Federal land? Fishennen fish on Federal land, but they buy their licenses from the State. Or try driving your car on the Federal forest without a state license. Discrimination? How can that be supported when you have three options? I'm sure for $5,000 the District can fmd a lawyer to study the case, but I'm equally sure that he won't get it through the first court round for ten times that amount. Is the District prepared to spend 50 to 100,000 bucks to beat this law? The preceden t that would be set if they somehow managed to do it would shake the State financial structure righ t to the ground, and you can bet they aren't going to let it happen without a stiff fight. As far as modifying the law, how can you do it to ensure that the money gets spent the way you would like it spen t? Noone has been able to do it yet with any other finance bill. If good people are in the agencies, we'll be lucky and get some trails. If not, the money will be wasted. Here's the really chilling thought. If you manage to get this law repealed, the next logical step will be to ban you from the desert entirely. Damage is being done; people are being hurt; there are conflicts of interest. If no money and no means exists to remedy these problems, exclusion is the only logical answer. You've been sold a package that stinks. Why not give it back to the Great White Whale before it messes in your hands? (EDITOR'S NOTE: See Writin' Around.) By Charles Clayton OFF·ROAD REGISTRATION Now that the registration of off-road vehicles in California is in effect, I cannot quite understand the sudden hullaballoo that has arisen over it. Where- were all the anti-registration critics when the law was being proposed and processed through the legislature? It was all documented thoroughly in the pages of Cycle News, at every stage over the past three years. What's more, the registration law, as written, has had the full support of the motorcycle enthusiast organization and the Motorcycle Industry Council. Our lobbyist Russ Sanford practically wrote the bill that is now law. He was very careful to ensure that all the predictable abuses are prevented' by the wording of the law. Apparently, some of those who now raise their voices to condell)n the concept of off-road vehicle registration are those who never bothered to read past ,the race reports in Cycle News. They needn't worry- as long as a bike is only used in organized events that don't cross public highways, they still don't need a registration sticker. The same goes for dual-purpose bikes that are licensed (at greater expense) for the road. However, if you want to obtain a title for your dirt motorcycle, or ride it on public land, or cross public highways to connect a couple of trails, you should buy an ORV registration sticker. The only ones who need to fear ORV registration are those who are riding stolen bikes, You do have to prove ownership to obtain registration, and the engine and frame numbers had better be legible and unaltered. When a similar law went into effect in Colorado last year, a large number of stolen bikes suddenly turned up in vacan t lots and alleys around Colorado Sprinp. I'll bet that those who got their stolen scooters back were glad to pay the registration fee! Although prescience is not !lne of my gifts, I would hazard to predict that ORV registration will proceed very slowly in California for the first year or two, until motorcycle enthusiasts begin to see some of the benefits of their fees working for them. The state Park and Recreation Department, which administers the money, plans to open many areas and trails to motorcycle . riding, starting in Southern California and the San F'rancisco Bay area, where the needs are greatest. Those who counsel refusal as the tactic to defeat ORV registration are not very wise. The registration fees are eannarked for recreation use, and enforcement)s way down the list of allowable priorities. However, I suspect that the flOes which are collected from those who protest by refusing to register their bike will go directly in to the treasuries of the police agencies to buy more cops, more guns, and more warrants. Better we should all pay our registration fees and proudly identify oursdves as motorcycle recreationists. Let the Park and Recreation Department gear up to our needs and, if after two years they haven't begun to satisfy those needs, THEN let us reconsider when renewal time comes around. Nothing moves faster to satisfy the public these days than a bureaucrat whose funds are suddenly curtailed. Next, I suppose that we should insist that the hikers register their boots with the state, in order to pay their fair share of recreation expenses. Perhaps a $5 sales' tax on hiking boots could be instituted for this purpose. Howzabout it, Sierra CI';,b? m.o.r.e • from file ca~ilol" By Russ Sanford HELMET LAW DIES Assembly Bill 744, the proposed compulsory helmet law for California motorcyclists, is dead.....at least for 1972. Not one of the nine members of the S,enate Transportation Committee voted in favor of the bill. We owe a special vote of confidence to Senators Carrell, Schrade, Holmdahl, Kennick, Marks, Mills, Roberti, Walsh, and Whetmore for their recognition and understanding of the true reasons why motorcyclists don't wan t a compulsory helmet law. HOW DID IT HAPPEN? ..) So that we can better understand how the bill was defeated, let's examine the sequence of events leading to that defeat. AB 744 was approved by the Assembly Transportation Committee on April 20th, primarily due to motorcycle accident and fatality statistics introduced by the California Highway Patrol and representatives of the au tomobile insurance companies. There was no opportunity to examine or offer a rebuttal to those statistics at that time. Of necessity, our opposition was based almost solely upon the questions of constitutionality, discrimination, and the disadvantages of wearing a helmet. The statistics, at face value, appeared to strongly support the proponents' contention that helmet laws reduced accidents and fatalities. The statistics indicated that motorcycle fatality and injury accidents were skyrocketing out of all proportion to automobile fatalities and injuries. After that hearing, we began to gather statistics from every' known -~source. We were aided by Mr. Chet Winter of the AMA, Mr. James Tranquill of the New York Motorcycle Righ ts Organization, Mr. Jack Zektzer of the Washington State Committee on Traffic Law Modernization, and Mr. Chuck -.or Clayton of Cycle News who personally 'dug out' motorcycle- statistics from the Department.of Public Safety in Georgia. These statistics, plus others which we were able to obtain, revealed these interesting facts: I. In the State of Georgia which has only a compulsory helmet law, the accident rate and the fatali y rate remain '-R' •di!-ect -pt'OportiOD" tb me number of motorcycles registered. 2.ln the states which have also adopted other safety laws (driver testing and licensing, eye-protection, passenger seats and foot-pegs, rear-view mirrors, etc.), motorcycle accident rates have been greatly decreased. This decrease in accidents has caused a corresponding decrease in fatalities and injuries when considered in direct proportion to the increased number of registrations. This is also statistically proven in California which does not have a compulsory helmet law. 3. In those states which have also enacted helmet laws, the fatality rate seems to indicate very sligh t increases. Upon further examination of data taken from the records of medical examiners and coroners, it would appear that while deaths from head injuries decrease, deaths from neck and spinal injuries are suffered at greater frequency. Enough so to account for the slight increase in fatali ty rates in th ose states having compulsory helmet laws. As soon as these statistics began to take shape, we brough t these -facts to the arten tion of the Senate Transportation Committee members. During this entire period, we were busily engaged in encouraging motorcyclists to voice their op~ion of AB 744 with their elected representatives at the State Capitol. We wrote news articles, sent. MORE Newsletters and attended motorcycle club meetinp throughout the st",te to bring the helmet law and necessary action to the motorcyclist's attention.. We were not alone, by a long shot. Various motorcycle organizations, several authors, the AMA, the CMIC, and a huge number of concerned motorcyclists got deeply involved. The result was another flood of letters to Sacramento from California's motorcycling fraternity. These letters helped considerably in "opening doors" for us at the S tate Capitol. On the day of the hearing, Monday, June 26th, the opposition to AB 744 appeared in large numbers. By prior arrangement those who' offered testimony addressed their commen ts to different subjects. I led off with an explanation of the reasons why the statistics offered by the proponen ts of AB 744 cquld not be taken at face value an~ presented t!t~ meaniv~uJ statistic~. d1scusseC! earYier in this artlc"!e. Chuck Clayton presented four helmets (supplied by Bell-Toptex which opposes mandatory helmet laws) to the committee members for their study. Several of the commi ttee members donned the helmets and learned first hand of the effect which helmets have on h caring, peripheral VISlon, eye-glasses, and head movement in general. Next up, was Ed Annstrong, the engineer from San Jose who wrote the helmet article which appeared in the December, 1971 issue of AMA News. Mr. Armstrong presented a detailed analysis of motorcycle injury and fatality statistics from the states of New York and Washington, both before and after the enactment of compulsory helmet laws. His presentation proved quite conclusively that the way to reduce motorcycle injuries and fatalities is to reduce acciden ts and the way to reduce accidents is to educate the drivers of automobiles to provide safe operating conditions for motorcyclists, Mr. Ezra Ehrhardt, who is a fonner CHP member, and who has for a long time been actively engaged in various safety activities, spoke next with regard to the motorcyclists' right to make his own decision of when and where he needs to wear a helmet. Mr. Ehrhardt's testimony as a long-time motorcyclist and presen t Mayor of Lodi, California, made a favorable impact upon the commi ttee members. Mr. Mike Hinshaw, West Coast AMA Representative, was next up with his offering of the AMA's position statement on helmets. His testimony was very impressive and carried a great deal of weigh t in view of the large number of AMA members who reside in California. Mr, Harry Whalen, representing the CMIC, then offered testimony on behalf of the motorcycle dealers and helmet manufacturers, the people who would profit from compulsory helmets. The committee members seemed quite surprised to discover that the dealers and manufacturers are unalterably opposed to compulsory helmet laws. Mrs. Barbara Dahms spoke next as a motorcyclist and motorcycling mother. She was very effective in explaining the difficulty that would be encountered in communicating with her young son, . Greg ,,:~en pe ri1'1s ~ehind her ,on !he,. passenger seat. Her testimony had a great deal of influence with the committee members, especially when she read an excerpt from the Senator who sponsored both the mandatory helmet law and the repeal of the law in Ilhnois. In that letter, he explained his reasons for repeal based upon constitutional right. Following Mrs. Dahms, several individual rider representatives offered the "grass roots" testimony which is so vital to these hearings. We weren't able to catch all of the names, but Mr. Ron Roloff very convincingly represented a large rider group, many of whom were in attendance. Mr. Pat Laughlin of Sacramento also spoke in behalf of his own interests. All in all, the presen tation by the oppostion to AB 744 was not only well·planned, but very effective. The members of the Senate Transportation Committee were quite vigorous in their questioning, their concern, and their quest for true insight in to this very con troversial subject. They are to be commended for their logical approach to the question and for their decision in behalf of the motorcychst's best interests. Senator Biddle, the sponsor of AB 744, won the honorable respect of every person present with his closing remarks that he had introduced and sponsored the bill only because he honestly felt that the wearing of helmets would be in the best interests of all motorcyclists. ANOTHER LESSON LEARNED. We, the motorcyclists, have learned another valuable and important lesson, Again, we have found that "The System" can work for us, as well as against our interests. We have ..received a re-affirmation that an orderly process far excels the always doubtful approach of disorderly demonstration in any of' its many forms. We have also learned the benefit derived from presen ring our elected representatives with our individual opinions. And we have also learned that if we can't beat the helmet law on the basis of constitutional rights, we have developed 'a good statistical defense which disclaims the mistaken notion that helmets, taken alone, save lives. NOTE: Please address all inquiries and co _TD~Qts \9__ 011,E,-1' Q. ~ !J!' ~O~ Sacramento, CA 95826.

• Cover