Cycle News - Archive Issues - 1980's

Lates'tPoop (Conti /I Ul'd from page 5) Little known fact: The publisher and owner of Black Biker magazine,listed in the masthead as "Uncle Ernie," is actually white; to understand the significance of that fact, consider Don Parker's editorial in the December Black Biker, in which Parker says " ... until the introduction of Black Biker magazine none of the Black dollars spent on motorcycle products ever saw its (sic) way back into the Black community anywhere near an equal ratio to that of the white community." Uttle known fact: Dirt Bike magazine publisher Roland Hinz used to be the editor for a number of teen and gossip magazines, including Rona Barrett's Hollywood and Tiger Beat. • MQ'!:0RCYCLE INDUSTRYS CI1ANGE Named Chief designer of motarcycle tires for Dunlop Tire & Rubber, David L. Bock; formerly chief design engineer for motorcycle racing tires and road tires with Dunlop Limited in England. Named Credit manager for the motorcycle tire division of Dunlop Tire & Rubber, Robert R. Croft; previously regional division credit manager of Dunlop Sports Co. Lost Over 70 pounds, by Maxima Lubricants President Dick Lechien; father of Honda rider Ron Lechien; from approximately 258 to 180 pounds over 16 weeks, the result of atheraputically-controlled liquid protein diet. Moved Shoei Safety Helmet Corp., to 2228 Cotner Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90064; phone number r.emains 213/477-6051. Planned A sales oHice and warehouse in Chicago, by Spectro Oils of America, according to President Robert H. Wehman. Established "Who'sWhoin Speedway," a directory of people in speedway racing, by Kay Rutherford, American Raceways, Inc., Box 3072, Arcadia, CA 91006. Launched Free 2 Wheel, a monthly magazine-sized motorcycle newspaper distributed free in southern California, by Margaret Fowler, ho t of radio KPFK's Centerstand show. Leaving Kawasaki Motors Corp. USA after II years, Western Sales Manager Joe Ramos, to become co-owner of Concord Honda and Concord Kawasaki, two separate motorcycle dealersh ips in Concord, Ca Iifornia. Ron Crandall, f~rmer National SURercross Referee for Insport, to be National Supercross Refereef the Mt\~ __ J~'''J'''u, Named Motorcycle safety: Platitudes ys. solutions By Rex Reese On January first of next year, a milestone in public safety legislation will be accomplished. For the first time in California, by law, a safety helmet will be required for certain passengers riding on motorcycles and mopeds. This legislation, authored by Assemblywoman Doris A llen, requires that any motorcycle passengers under 15J>years-of-age must wear a state-approved safety helmet. The law is long overdue and we predict it will save lives, but it doesn't include the operators of these two-wheeled vehicles. You don't need a lot of intelligence to realize that a motorcycle helmet would be a major factor in preventing serious head injuries. Other states that require safety protection helmets have shown success in the reduction of serious head injury. California is far behind other states concerning this safety issue. Motorcycle organizations over the years have succeeded in lobbying against helmet safety legislation. It is now time we come to our senses and pass mandatory helmet laws. I assure you, it will save lives. This ediLOrial was broadcast in early OCLOber by Los Angele television station KHJ-TV by station vice president and general manager Charles S. Velona. It may represent a recent thought on behalf of Mr. Verona and the station's management, but it~s far from original. Instead of o£[eringconstructive suggestions on motorcycle safety, the KHJ editorial merely repeats platitudes. Angry? You should be. Surprised? Don't be. The demand for motorcyclists to wear helmets has been the traditional knee-jerk reaction by many people - such as the mainstream press, government bureaucrats. and politicians looking for an easy vote - when t.hey talk about "motorcycle safety." Now, if there was serious talk about seat belts and air bags being required for car drivers and their passengers -and there is a New York state law mandating seat belt use - there would undoubtedly be great arguments saying that seat belts wouldn't necessarily . reduce accidents, that it would deny people the freedom of choice, etc. These are, by the way, the kinds of arguments which are mounted against mandatory helmet laws. But what kind of yelling would go on if seat belts and only seat belts were the state's answer for auto safety? Forget driver education programs, instructional materials to show and tell people how to drive safely and properly - ju t let people hit the road and do the best they can. Tough if they hit each other; anybody driving a Buick has just got to be some kind of moron and social misfit to begin with. When it comes to the subject of "motor ycle safety," the number of accidents and victim are duly gathered and recorded, and the same olution is presented: Helmets. And yet, if the same kind of logic were applied to cars, drivers and passengers, it would be ridiculed for its narrow-mindednes and faulty pre-conceived notions. Still, there are people who think that making motorcyclists wear helHPVJ j~jJ.\ I jlJ)t;d)rQ\l~niqq,t,riliQ ••• ing would be too expensive and take too much time, but a helmet can do the job just as weI I and nobody has to do anything. Except pick up the pieces when there is an accident. The KHJ editorial states that wearing helmets would be a "major factor in preventing serious head injuries," which is a fact. But the truth is that this approach is a simplistic answer to a complex problem. Mandatory helmet laws do nothing to improve motorcycle safety. The truth is, mandatory 'helmet laws are wrong because they try to hide the symptoms (in this case, attempt to prevent serious and/or fatal head injuries to riders) which manifest themselves most prominently in motorcycle safety, but they are not preventative in nature (that is, helmet laws won't stop anybody from having an accident). In short, if anybody who authors a mandatory helmet law - such as Doris Allen did - thinks tbat they are actually making a genuine contribution to safety, it is wishful thinking. Which brings up the subject of education. California Governor George Deukmejian vetoed Assembly Bill 2489 in late September which would have established a self-funding motorcycle safety program. His veto, and reasoning for the veto, are wrong. Saying that the effectiveness of such a program is "questionable" makes as much sense as saying if, say, a driver's education program was questionable. The intelligence of Governor Deukmej ian's actions speak for themselves. The dim logic behind mandatory helmet laws, coupled with the equally dim logic which is against rider education programs in California and other parts of the country, does not oHer much hope to motorcyclists at the present time. What is really needed in terms of motorcycle safety is not legislation which imposes after-thefact antidotes, nor cynicism from government leaders, but a comprehensive and intelligent educational program which can offer new riders a fighting chance in the real world. • /19..tiill~t GOVERNMENT B.S. The wilderness dust settles By Matt Benson On October 12, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, after their usual last-minute flurry of legislating, put the wraps on the 98th session of Congress. For motorcyclists, the results of the past two years have been mixed, and the issue which stands out from the rest is that of wilderness. The 98th Congress did little affecting road riders. O£[-roaders, though, got caught up in tlie ongoing debate over wilderness designations for national forest lands - an issue that hits many dirt bikers right where they ride (about a fifth of the off-roading takes place on national forestlands). Without raving on about what's wrong with the wilderness-designation process as practiced by Congress today, let's take a look at the results and why they are what they are. ••• Jp,l!l&.1 i.lIQ1le. {gigr s approved 20 pieces of wilderness legislation covering specific states - more than in any other year since the wilderness system was established in 1964. The amount ofIand set aside in those twoscore bills totals 8,337,642 acres. When the President affixed his band to all, that made 32.3 million acres of wilderness, an area the size of Alabama, in the lower 48 tates. The only major states wbich weren't resolved in '84 were Idaho, Colorado and Montana. Before this year, just two pieces of wilderness legislation had crossed President Reagan's desk. Why, then, the big surge in 1984? The first reason is that preservationist organizations decided on an all-out push this year for wilderness, spending $100,000 to get the- grassroots lobby involved. Tbey realized that in an election year it was unlikely Reagan would do anything to harm his environmental image. On that count they were absolutely correft. They also knew that Congress gets in a big rusb as adjournment nears, and issues which have been delayed for months, suddenly sail through. This ten~ency is obvious when you consider thaI eighl of those 20 bills cleared Congress in the last two weeks of its session. The second reason why wilderness bills have been successful this year is that the major opposition - the timber, mining and petroleum interests - wanted to get the issue resolved as badly as the preservationists. Under the Forest Service's second Roadless Area Review and Evaluation (RARE II), the agency recommended nearly 10 million acres for congressional wilderness designation and identified 36 million more as either unsuitable or worthy of further study. In eHecl, however, all 46 million acres were managed as if they were wilderness until Congress could make a decision. The developers didn't like the acreage propoSed in the curren t round of legislating, but they were less ha ppy with not being able to get onto any of those 46 million acres. While it wouldn't be proper to say ,there was no vocal opposition from these key players, the yowling wasn't as loud as it could have been. . The two sides did butt heads in a big way over the issue of "release language," the portion of wilderness legislation that frees all non-designated lands to tbe normal array of uses permitted in national forests including ORV use. "Soft" release, as favored by preservationists, directs that the wilderness-review process take place again soon. On the gther side, "hard" release ensures that lands won't be considered agai n for decades. In the end, a compromise set tbe review period at 15 years and tied it to· the normal forest planning process. How all this will aHect trail riders in these 20 states may take a few months to sort out as the Fore t Service compares its maps with the boundaries established in the legislation, If you ride in a national forest in Arizona. Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin or Wyoming, you should contact the local forest supervisor to find out if you've lost any trails. California off-roaders in particular gave up some riding areas - perhaps 40 miles of trail just in Sequoia National Forest - thanks to the addition of 1.8 million acres of na .. tional forest wilderness in that state. Environmental groups demanded 2.4 million acres, and the Forest Service 37

• Cover