March 27, 2009
The Honorable Fran Pavley
State Senator 23rd District
The Capitol
Room Nº 4035
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Senator Pavley,
My letter pertains to SB 435 and what was characterized on your Web site as a loophole in California law, singling out motorcycles for further emission regulation and enforcement. If this bill passes, well, many motorcycles probably will not.
Is that necessary? Practically everyone who rides a motorcycle has an abiding respect for ecological issues. It’s as much a matter of self interest for riders as it is for everyone; perhaps more so because one of the joys of riding is to inhale the myriad scents in the air as they change continually with passing landscapes. There is no comparable experience for hermetically cocooned and air- conditioned automobile drivers. But I digress.
I challenge your figure of “5.2 tons of smog-forming pollutants” resulting from motorcycle use (in California daily). It’s a preposterous number, Djakarta, Bangkok, or Tehran notwithstanding. The California Air Resources Board says motorcycles generate six thousandths of one percent (0.006%) of the emissions generated by all road vehicles [in the state]. For example, there are more than seven million registered cars and trucks in your district; fewer than 125,000 motorcycles. Of the latter, the preponderance are ridden only once in a while or on weekends. And that number includes scooters: hardly motorcycles at all. Those who ride for sport exclusively will be affected disproportionately by your proposed legislation. That’s not only discriminatory, it’s bad fiscal policy.
California has already adopted the strictest emission standards in the country. No one has proven that motorcycles pose an increased threat to air quality under the status quo. It doesn’t make sense to expand a bureaucracy and its administrative costs because, even though you might fine every scofflaw biker in California, you won’t add more than chump change to the state budget.
On any given day the cookstoves in hundreds of McDonald’s and other fast-food franchises spew more carcinogens into the atmospheric miasma than all of the motorcycles in LA County combined by an order of magnitude. And I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts the smoke innocently spewed by your own backyard barbeque out-pollutes the grand total of all motorcycles on the road on any given day in your district. Now, add up your neighbors’ grills.
In all fairness, consider this hypothetical situation too. Would you legislate the length of, let’s say, snow skis so they become less than optimal for an exhilarating downhill run just to discourage enthusiasts of that sport from felling swaths of forested slopes and piling into their cars by their millions to head for the hills? Technically, they could still ski. But where would the fun be? What difference is there in principle?
Suppose you pass this legislation. Would you go after motorboats next? How about smog-checking sailboats with auxiliary engines? How about lawnmowers? I’m all for checking diesel trains or ocean-going ships docking in LA, Long Beach, and Oakland instead because it would make a difference. But if we took every single motorcycle off the road it would not contribute to a reduction in air pollution. When we achieve President Obama’s goal to ween ourselves from conventional, combustion engine propulsion for cars, as I trust we will, motorcycles should be exempt. They can be augmented by bikes employing newer, cleaner technology for those who wish to ride them: most likely riders who commute to work. Nor should fire-breathing, gas-guzzling, hydrocarbon- emitting sports cars be restricted (and probably will not) because they cause no significant adverse impact. Sports cars and bikes are as much a part of our American heritage and culture as a Boy Scout campfire — and less polluting. The motorcycle is a simple machine. Its internal organs and circulatory systems are exposed to view, supported by an exoskeleton of steel. There is nothing under the hood because there is no hood. And perhaps not everyone appreciates its transparent beauty. In other words, the allure of the motor itself is a great part of its appeal to riders, just as much as their prerogative to simulate the sensations of flight on two wheels. Already, the state defiles its allure by compelling it to bristle with oxygen sensors, cables, converters, computers, and other unattractive gewgaws which hardly improve air quality. Why, now, would you want to make them perform even more poorly for the few who really care about such things? Please don’t try to undermine the joy of riding a motorcycle as much as the joy of simply beholding its beauty has already been diminished by careless legislation.
There are many more reasons why you should not fight this battle, Senator Pavley, not the least of which is that for every driver who opts out of a car to sit astride a less-polluting motorcycle (smaller engine size, shorter transit times while engine running, better gas mileage, etc.) there will be one less driver clogging our streets and parking spaces, not to mention crashing into other drivers and running down bicycles and motorcycles.
I would hate to see common sense precluded by political polemics at the expense of a minority (still a lot of voters). So, finally, let me apprise you that, with respect to the complexities of a car, virtually anyone who rides a motorcycle has the wherewithal to remove a loophole-plugged exhaust system with little more than a screwdriver and a wrench. In less than an hour the offending pipes can be replaced with factory-stock equivalents — just in time for a smog check. So, please don’t make honest citizens take up civil disobedience just to indulge your own political fantasy. Riding is our passion and our obsession. If you persist in pushing SB 435, I will do my best to mobilize our community to oppose you with utmost vigor.
Sincerely yours,
–Tom Zimberoff
Author. Art of the Chopper (Volumes 1 and II; Bulfinch Press)
Curator, Art of the Chopper at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library
