IT IS UMBRELLA season in Cambridge once again. But while some may curse the rain and see these ubiquitous portable canopies as essential protection, they do not recognize that they are nothing less than a public menace of the highest order.

Umbrella abuse is just another example of the pernicious abuse of individual freedoms in our society. Like those who carry handguns or operate automobiles, umbrella users pose a serious danger to the general public. That they are allowed wantonly to menace unarmed rainy-weather walkers is a disgrace in a community such as Cambridge--one at once beset by wet weather and committed to protecting the welfare of its citizens.

Though those who carry umbrellas may not realize it, they are insuring their own comfort at great cost to their fellow strollers. While the ostensible purpose of these portable canopies is to keep people dry, they pose a constant threat to passersby who risk incidental spilloff, being forced into puddles and even injurious pokes in the face.

Sure, umbrellas help keep you dry, but so do raincoats. Of course, an umbrella eliminates the need to wear a hat or a hood to keep your head dry, but this marginal gain for the umbrella carrier leaves the unarmed streetwalker at constant risk of personal injury. Moreover, while umbrellas may keep some individuals dryer than they would otherwise be, their widespread use inevitably leads to a wetter sidewalk population as innocent bystanders are forced into puddles and drenched by diverted drips.

OF COURSE, umbrellas are not inherently evil. They are simply an example of a personally beneficial utility being used in an anti-social way. If umbrella users were more considerate they might peacefully coexist with those who use other means of staying dry. For example, the carriers could make efforts to keep their barbed canopies above eye level and, like cars, they could defer the right of way to less menacing pedestrians.

But can we really expect voluntary guidelines for umbrella carrying conduct to work? To think so would simply be native, Certainly education is important, for our sidewalks will never be safe until everyone who uses them understands the dangers of thoughtless umbrella carrying. However, voluntary measures would be inadequate and irresponsible in the face of what can only be termed a grave threat to public health.

In response to a similar threat last spring, the city banned the use of several dangerous chemicals and forced Draper Labs to remove them from Cambridge. Why has the city council been silent on the umbrella issue? Could our lawmakers be in the grip of the powerful umbrella lobby? Citizens should be on the lookout for parasol-wielding council members.

ONE POSSIBILITY for controlling the umbrella hazards is an outright ban, but this measure seems unnecessarily harsh. The problem is not umbrellas themselves, but the ways in which they are used.

A less draconian solution would be to designate narrow sidewalks in the city as umbrella-free zones, thereby limiting hand-held canopy use to broader walkways where they pose less of a threat. Zoning would have to be accompanied by strict pedestrian right of way laws to protect the rights of potential umbrella victims. Obviously, such laws would place an added burden on law enforcement authorities, but this cost would be more than justified by the benefit to the public safety.

Penalties for umbrella law violations need not be overly harsh; in fact, they present an opportunity for judicial creativity, Violaters could be rehabilitated through social service activities such as giving out soup or cocoa to pedestrians on rainy days.

Harvard clearly has a role to play as well in educating people about responsible wel-weather protection. The University has spent several thousand dollars in recent months safeguarding the right to freedom of movement in the community, yet there are few more serious threats to freedom of movement than unchecked umbrella abuse.

Moreover, narrow streets and dense pedestrian traffic in the Harvard square area make it one of the highest risk areas in Cambridge for rainy-weather walkers. By taking the lead in combatting umbrella abuse, Harvard could do a great service to the community and expedite efforts to control the problem.

There are those who will see umbrella-control as a threat to their constitutional rights, yet this is turning the issue on its head. Talk of an inalienable right to carry umbrellas is shameless sophistry and should be recognized as such. At issue is the right to use public throughoughfares without risk of personal injury or debilitating drenchings. Of course people should be able to chose how to protect themselves from the rain, but at what cost?