In the 36th congressional district in Seattle, a heated race between two Democrats is underway for a seat on the Washington state legislature.

Why do you care? One of them is a rider.

Reuven Carlyle won the primary by small margin back in August against John Burbank. If you live in Washington, you may very well have a fellow motorcyclist shaping public policy next year.

I sat down with Reuven at his campaign headquarters, a den in his Queen Anne neighborhood home, to see where the candidate stands on a handful of important issues that concern the two-wheeled community.

IAN STACCONI: How did you get into riding?

RUEVEN CARLYLE: I had a tiny Kawasaki 100 as a kid and I worked really hard, really hard, at a paper route for years. Like three years to save up the money. And that’s what I wanted so I bought it. I used to just tool around in the dirt. I was never a street rider as a kid. But I just loved hard core playin’ around and then once I grew up, y’know I said, I’m getting’ back in.

IS: I sort of had a similar experience growing up on dirt bikes and stuff. Where were you that you could ride dirt bikes?

RC: Up in Bellingham. An area outside of town. Wasn’t too bad. There was some good places. Just good backcountry area. A ton of fun.

IS: Yeah I miss riding in the dirt. That was fun. So what kind of bike do you ride? That’s the question a lot of people are going to want to hear.

RC: Of course. I have a BMW F650 CS. And they’ve actually stopped making the 650. Now they make an 800. And the thing is about where bikes are going today is people have larger and larger rides. I felt I just didn’t need more juice than that. I just felt like that was enough. I was able to get wherever I wanted to go. I’m a hardcore weekend warrior. I love it. When I’ve got time, y’know just good weather and [going] on purpose in the rain and inclement weather. But I love doing couple day trips.

IS: So you definitely get out of the city.

RC: Totally, I head right out. Yeah, when I’m able that’s where I’m headed. Just straight out.

IS: There’s a lot of road hazards out there. What are you seeing when you’re riding?

RC: I think the department of transportation labeling is really important. Their signage. There’s so much construction and what I think I’ve noticed is that the DOT has cut short construction areas. Which is good and bad in the sense that they’re shorter, but you come across them faster. You used to get more leeway, more warning. And I just don’t notice as much warning now. That’s really stuck out in my mind a lot more than previously. And maybe it’s just that they’re cutting back. I don’t know.

IS: Related to that, during your term, some sort of roads and transit bill is likely to pass, I would think. Do you think you would want to push to make sure that that signage is better during the construction?

(Note: A controversial roads and transit construction initiative was shot down last year by voters in Washington State. Likely, another measure will pass in a revised form.)

RC: Absolutely. And it’s not just signage. Look, I guess at the end of the day we have to step and ask our selves, in this kind of new world we live in with gasoline prices up you’ve obviously got a massive migration toward scooters and motorcycles. I think on some level we really got to get the department of transportation to step back a little bit and really understand what it takes for that to be safe and [for M/C's] to be welcome on the roads. Much, much better signage statewide. And I’m not just talking about construction. I’m talking in terms of HOV lanes, and just clarity and a recognition that we want to encourage people in the city and outside the city toward multi-modal types of transportation. And the fact is that motorcycles shouldn’t just be tolerated. They should be encouraged.

IS: So you would want to bring motorcycles up out of this second class.

RC: Yeah exactly: Parity in every way. Absolutely, without a question.

IS: Maybe this question is already answered by the last one, but what is the government’s role in keeping rider’s safe? You know we have a pretty laissez-faire policy [structure.] It’s America. That’s kind of how we approach things.

RC: I think insuring the health and safety within the transportation world really has a lot of different aspects to it. Obviously motorcycles are a unique characteristic to that. But encouraging different types of transportation requires a strategy around that. So if you are doing everything you can from a tourism point of view to encourage motorcycle riding up on Route 2, right, you’ve got to address the safety issues associated with a really dangerous area in terms of a lack of signage for even automobiles. So the fact is, it has to be an important part of what the department of transportation cares about. And transportation safety is a right. In terms of not having motorcycle riders be disadvantaged. There needs to be equality in that sense. One could make the argument that you want to encourage motorcycles and scooters more with the whole cost of gas. I think that’s an important part of it- health and safety. I think the other side of it is recognizing that we need to encourage ridership that reduces commuters times, reduces pollution…all those other social benefits. So parking garages downtown, parking facilities… should be much more friendly to motorcycles. So that kind of welcoming the marketplace. The public wants motorcycles and scooters and the government ought to step up and make sure they have their needs met.

IS: There’s and issue that seems split down the middle, no pun intended, and that’s lane splitting. That it can help reduce congestion. What’s your take on that?

RC: I really don’t know. I’ve thought about it. I’ve had people ask me that question. I haven’t thought about the implications in a serious way. It’s not a cut and dried question and I do wonder about it. And I can absolutely see the argument on both sides.

IS: Over the last ten years motorcycle deaths have doubled. Keeping in mind that there has been a corresponding increase in ridership, at least double in the same period, what are your general thoughts on that?

RC: If you eliminate alcohol, speeding and driving at night you eliminate an overwhelming majority of the risk of a crash. And you and I both know that. I think a couple of things. As motorcycle riders have gotten older, they have enough money to buy these big hogs, with an enormous amount of power, just too much for a lot of people. So the factors that go into those death rates are pretty well known. And there’s just a lot of it that’s user error. And having said that; vehicle education programs, having questions on the license renewal, all that stuff- public education is really, really important. I also think that there ought to be additional incentives for lifelong learning stuff. Like if you take a refresher course.

IS: Insurance incentives…Registration prices….

RC: Everything. There ought to be incentives for people who are smart about that. And we have to be smart about alcohol. It’s just such a major factor in motorcycle crashes.

IS: You are probably familiar with how Japan and Brittan and European countries do their motorcycle licensing with the tiered system with a limited horsepower for like two years. And they also couple that with intensive education. Their testing is very strict. What are your thoughts on forward-moving policies that would “up the ante” in that way.

RC: I’m very enthusiastic about public education. I’m not enthusiastic about the heavy-handed government coming in and telling people what they can ride. I feel like there’s a certain western individualism that we have a right to, and I just get a little uncomfortable when the government starts coming in there. I mean you’re old enough to die for your country, old enough to go for a ride. To me, eighteen’s the age and that’s the choice we’ve made as a country. Somebody can get shipped off to war and they ought to have the right to make good decisions. So I would not be in favor of those kinds of things.

I can see the argument, right? But I also think that at some point you make a choice in terms of how the government is going to regulate some things like this. I can see aggressive public education. I can see mandatory additional safety courses at different ages. I can see some regulatory side like that.

IS: So how about…and this is a tough one. Helmet laws.

RC: I am strongly in favor of helmet laws. Even though I really, really would love to not be. Because you just want that individualism. The fact is that taxpayers pay millions and millions of dollars a year for crashes in terms of caring for people. And that’s taxpayer dollars. So from the fiduciary thing to do, from a public policy point of view, the thing to do is to take steps to reduce that cost. And so an individual’s rights on some really genuine level extend as far as not impinging on other people’s or society’s rights.

Society has a right to reduce its risk of really serious financial costs- of healthcare associated with lifelong crashes and associated with head trauma and other kinds of damage. And so it’s one of those social contracts that we make as a country. I think that public has a right to protect itself from, even though it impinges on our rights as riders… it’s… Even if we’re in a crash, we have insurance, you get to the point where the insurance runs out, the taxpayer takes over. And the taxpayers have a right to protect themselves.

IS: So they’ve already done this, right. They’ve opened car pool lanes. They’re calling them hot lanes.

RC: They’re in the process of experimenting with things like congestion pricing, experimenting with the utilization of HOV lanes, all that kind of stuff.

IS: And there is an effect on motorcyclists because that lane is generally pretty empty and the in-and-out traffic is minimal. So it’s sort of a safe haven in a dangerous environment. Does that factor into anything you’ve thought about?

RC: I support the creative use of HOV lanes. I do think though, that I would like to see if the DOT could look at entry and exit points of HOV lanes. Maybe it shouldn’t be as easy to get in and out anywhere. Not with a barrier or anything to isolate it. I am very sensitive to the issue because I use them all the time myself.

IS: You wake up in the morning, your bike is missing. You gotta get a new bike. Cost is no object. What do you get?

RC: Cost is no object?!

IS: Cost is no object.

RC: Aw man. That is not a fair question. I am just totally in love with my BMW. So I gotta stick with BMW. I just love my ride. Maybe I’d go up to the new 800. I’ve heard it’s just sweet.