Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1970's

Emission's, helmets, &the Congressional connection By Lane Campbell O'l ,...., lll,) ..0 o ..... u ' o W h at should I say at this point - "Beware the Ides oj-' October?" We're sitting on the eve of decisions that will, for some of us , determine whether or not we go to war, and over what issues. Very soon, now, we'll know if the Environmental Protection Agen cy is going to allow California to set up its own special emission controls for motorcycles, and/or if the EPA is going to simultaneously come down with blanket regs of its own for all motorcycles sold in this country . The major motorcycle manufacturers have already written this offas a foregone conclusion; and are well on their way to me!ting the standards while their representatives fight a token rear-guard action with the bu reaucrats. They decided as early as 1974 that some sort of emission control was inevitable, and maybe even desirable, if they could get involved in the rule-making process. That they have done, working in their own best in terests, But what of you and me who ride motorcycles? What of the thousands of small firms which cater to motorcycle enthusiasm and stand mostly unrepresented? In this column, we 've tried to tell you that like a capsizing iceberg, the whole world is going to methodically turn itself upside down. It is going to affect off-road riders as well as on-road riders; and eventually it will affect racers, too. The combined realities of production technology and simple economics dictate it. What more could we have said? What more could we have done ? What can we still do, even now and tomorrow? There's a sizable body of opinion that being against emission controls is like being against Motherhood and The Flag. And that strokes my memory; for it seems not too long ago, in the early days of the helmet law controversy, that a similar opinion held sway. Do you remember? Responsible people in the sport and industry, including quite a few magazine editors, supported helmet laws. They asked us, "How can you be against safety? You gotta be crazy to take a stand like that; you won't have a leg to stand on. Rights, what rights? Anyway, if we go along with this one, maybe they'll ease up on worse laws yet to come; maybe by accommodating on this issue we'll get the worst of the anti-motorcycle crowd off our backs." Remember? And while bikers of all persuasions haggled over the pros and cons, the DOT went right ahead with its mandatory programs, undaunted by the resistance of a few motorcycle activists. Why should they worry? The law which set them up, the law which gave them their authority, did not require them to listen to us or anybody else. They didn't have to prove that helmets saved lives; in fact they didn't even start testing helmets or trying to arrive at a workable performance standard for helmets until they'd already jammed helmet laws down the throats of a majority of states with highway-fund blackmail. And there was nothing in the law that said they couldn't do it that way. Could there have been a more hopeless situation? Hey ~ the helmet law advocates even found aIeft-leaning judge in Massachusetts to give their welfare-state philosophy (the so-called "public burden" theory) the force of law; and when the Supreme Court didn't rise to challenge" they really thought they had us. , What they didn't realize was that they'd finally sailed into that grey area of politics where the law is so ill-defined that determination of what's "right" lies with whoever has the strongest reality. In this case the strongest reality meant how m an y people could be counted on to figh t for a principle. Without belaboring the hows and whys (m o st ly a fortuitous string of circu m st a nces) we emerged with the strongest reality by convincingthe Congress that the DOT had overstepped its bounds; that if it trod on our toes as citizens it could do the same to others wit ho u t legal recourse. And that 's when Congress finally acted. They not only gave us what we asked , but limited the DOT's power over a broad spectrum so that everybody benefitted. When it was over, we'd won far more than we'd originally set out to prove. We, a bunch of mo'sickle rowdies to the non-riding world, had given the nicely buttoned-do....m bureaucrats such a big black eye that even the Wall Street Journal could see it. Reading it in the Journal and elsewhere, people from all walks of life rejoiced while the bureaucrats stewed. And the key? The key was convincing a majority of Congress that a part of the Executive 8ranch was out of control; that neither the people nor the Congress could oversee what they do without a major re-write of Federal law. Begin to see the connection? I'll spell it out. In the case of waiver hearings, California's ' bureaucrats do not have to prove to anybody that emission controls for motorcycles are safe, or effective. They don't have to answer to anyone if emission controls cost jobs, cost the state revenue, cost the consumer extra money, or have an adverse impact on performance and fuel economy, They don't even have to prove that the improvement in air quality is worth the cost. Nor, really, do the Feds in writing national standards. All they have to do is state that "extraordinary and compelling" conditions exist (which is true, at leastIn Los Angeles); that controls are "required" to meet these conditions (whether they'll help or not, and the bureaucrats are the ones who get to say, without challenge, what's required); that "adequate technology" exists (and again, the bureaucrats get to say what's adequate); and that there's adequate lead time for the industry to produce it. If the industry says there's not enough time? You guessed it - the bureaucrats only need to say "We don't believe you" and that's that. They are not required to prove that the controls are cost-effective. The President's Council on Wage and Price Stability has told them pointedly that the controls are not, but the EPA is not required to listen. They may be required, under recent legislation, to prepare an "Inflation Impact Statement" on the proposed rules; we're still checking to find out if they have done so . Begin to see it? Like helmets, the issue of whether or not the controls are good for us is superficial. What is critical is that, under present law, they can do anything to anybody, good for us or not, and neither Congress nor the people can legally stopthem, Unless Congress rewrites the law. Will they? Should they~ _Hist ory has shown Congress t o be increasingly jealous of its power vis-a-vis the Executive Branch. If it can be shown that they have given a Federal bureau too much power. they can and will take it away. .: On the helmet issue, it took us ten years to come to that conclusion, Barring a miracle, we don't have ten years on emissions. And that's what's so damned urgent. At this point, what I need from you readers is feedback. It's on you r shoulders that the consequences of emission controls are going to fall ultimately, not the industry's. It's only you who can fight, who can create that "strongest reality." I need to k now from you if you feel it's worth figh ting abou L You don't have forever to decide. poIieiCal happe Getting in olv v ed pays .o ff! Yes, even in seemingly lost causes, like the Hope Ranch/Santa Monica Mountains Parks controversy, it pays to get involved and stay involved to the bitter end. Recall that, at an environmentalist-stacked hearing, SoCal trail riders lost what looked 30 like their last c h ance at public access to the co m p lex of new state lands in the San ta Monicas when the Parks Commission classified the last remaining parcel, Hope Ranch , as "Park " me aning no ORVs, I That should have been it, right? But several conscientious riders, armed with facts and supported by Dirt Bike Maga zine Editor Len Weed's parking lot demonstration of a super-quiet TLI25 , kept the pressure on the planners. Plannin meetin at which the posey-sniffers thought 't hey could safely gloat over their new possessions turned into lively exchanges of views, facts, passions and prejudices on both sides. When it was over, the planners took all the in pu Is and began to digest them. They held more meetings to discuss alternatives, and evidently (our editor was out of town) more concerned bikers showed up, armed with facts and sensible arguments. What emerged were a series of alternate plans. As yet, no "best" plan has been culled from all the possible choices. Three of these detailed plans for purely "park" (i.e., no ORVs) type recreation development. A fourth is a "Reclassification Alternative. " It's not so much a plan as a possibility. Under it, 't he planners will try to get the Park Commission to reclassify one or more parcels for recreational use. In other words, by hanging in there, our people have convinced them that what was done can be undone; and that we deserve consideration , That's not the end of it. There will be a series of public workshops, 10 a.rn. to 9 p.m. each day, October 18 through arc, J 21. So far, reclassification is still an open-ended "Gee, it might be nice if we thought about those poor bikers" token gesture. What's needed now are specific proposals from people who know the area. Parts of the Santa Monica Park complex where trailriding would be a low-impact, compatible use need to be spelled out. For our part, CN will propose a specially-authorized "environmental impact test ride" by a small group of trailriders over a designated trail to get a few more facts on record. We hope the planners will go for it. The meeting places and dates are : October 18 Dept. of Parks & Rec, , Planning Office 128 Plaza St. Los Angeles (downtown) October 19 Evergreen R ec, Center 2839 E. Fourth St. Los Angeles October 20 Will Roge rs Cnty . Park, Gymnasium Bldg. , 1335 E. 10 3rd SI. Watts October 21 L.A. County Admin. Ctr. 23533 Civic Ctr. Way . , . :\.Ialibu If you wish to respond by mail, write Senior Landscape Architect George O. Rackelrnann, Dept. of Parks & Re cr e a tion, P,O. Box 2390. Sacramento, CA 95811. (Ph : 916/445-3130). Or in Southern California. you can discuss the possibilities with ' Dick Felty, Ph: 213/620-3342. Realize that we're not talking abou\ full-on racing or WFO-rype ridi?l' but low-key family recreation. trials and trail riding - uses which are compatible with these largely unspoiled mountain areas. Let's face it; we riders have as much stake as the Sierra Clubbers in keeping these places from being overdeveloped or otherwise ruined. And we need to keep letting them know it . Involvement and caring on Snowy Tra il Here's a reader who decided to get involved. Steve Hollen of Garden Grove wrote the Los Padres N.F.: "My deep concern is the possibility of your closing Snowy Trail to O.R.V. use . I myself missed ou t years ago when the trail from Buck Creek was closed.

• Cover