No license... an invitation to a :rose.

[wicked_900rr]

So then I'm assuming you've been to the California Superbike School to learn how to "ride", right? So you can really learn how to ride from people who actually know how to ride?
And those squids who crash a month after passing MSF are generally not using good judgement... they're on bikes they don't have the skills or experience to be able to effectively control... on roads they don't have the skills or experience to be riding... at speeds they don't have the skills or experience to handle.
I think it's both wrong and does a lot of harm to blame MSF instead of the riders for their crashes. Newbs or Squids riding over their heads should be held accountable for their bad judgment. And either they learn to ride, or they quit, or- sadly- they get dead. And most of the time, that's on THEM. Which is a real tragedy, because it didn't have to be that way.

I see your point on where u see me blaming msf for the crashes. Truth is it's the operators fault right? Cause he/she most the time could have prevented the accident with the right amour of practice and training. All I'm saying is that the msf class isn't really teaching enough. 12 hours of riding a lil put put around a parking lot isn't gonna set u up for riding on the streets especially when all these squids r hoppin on new 600cc sportbikes. I think the msf class should be a lot longer and a lot harder to pass. And no I have t taken that class u were talking about gsxrgirl. I don't really feel the need to. I seem to hold my own pretty good around town. I'm happy with that

 

[wicked_900rr]

So then I'm assuming you've been to the California Superbike School to learn how to "ride", right? So you can really learn how to ride from people who actually know how to ride?
And those squids who crash a month after passing MSF are generally not using good judgement... they're on bikes they don't have the skills or experience to be able to effectively control... on roads they don't have the skills or experience to be riding... at speeds they don't have the skills or experience to handle.
I think it's both wrong and does a lot of harm to blame MSF instead of the riders for their crashes. Newbs or Squids riding over their heads should be held accountable for their bad judgment. And either they learn to ride, or they quit, or- sadly- they get dead. And most of the time, that's on THEM. Which is a real tragedy, because it didn't have to be that way.

I call :bs

Every legal resident and citizen of California has a right to operate a motor vehicle, so long as they meet the legal requirements to do so and do not break the law (heh, heh). Your argument would have more traction if our governments provided viable public transportation for more than a few places. But as it stands, not allowing people to drive, in most places, puts a burden far beyond the revocation of other "privileges" like maybe drinking alcohol or gambling.

We as US citizens legally have a right to do what we please so long as there is no law against it: so we have a "right" to do anything, in theory, unless that right is restricted or revoked. A privilege according to Webster is a "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor ; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office."

There is nothing special about the right to drive a car. We can do it so long as we meet the legal requirements. If you are right, then gun ownership is a privilege as well, and you really don't want to say that on this forum...

+1:thumbup

 

[Gabe]

Gabe, for years I've looked for some kind of comparison that would shed light on the tiered motorcycle licensing question but haven't been able to find one. Even a UK/US fatality rate comparison--where licensing is just one of many uncontrolled variables--is ambiguous. At a point in the '90s our fatality rates were similar, but then motorcycling took off in popularity in the US and the influx of noobs pushed the US rate higher, whilst the UK rate stayed about the same.

There is actually a useful bit of evidence related to tiered driver's licenses for 16-17yos in the US. A few years ago the safety establishment trumpeted lower death rates in states that had adopted much stricter licensing requirements for the youngest drivers. But a close look at the data nerd) revealed a more nuanced story. Fewer 16-17s were dying in those states, and the rate per population had dropped too. But the rate per licensed driver stayed about the same. My interpretation is that by creating a licensing process that was more difficult to navigate, they had reduced the number of licensed drivers, but they had not preferentially excluded bad drivers. The basket was smaller, but the percentage of bad apples in it was unchanged. That's part of what I would expect if we were to adopt a tiered motorcycle licensing system: Some people would be discouraged from taking up motorcycling due to the process, but those who endured it wouldn't necessarily be safer.

One question underlying the tiered licensing issue is this: Can you train the stupid out of a prospective rider? I know you can overcome ignorance with training. But can classroom discussions and range drills turn those few reckless idiots into responsible riders who accept their own mortality and eschew potentially deadly risk while still enjoying occasional high-speed fun? My hunch is no. I have 3500 words on "The Potential and Limits of Training" here somewhere that I've never posted because it's such a controversial topic.

That said, I'm a huge fan of learning to ride on a small motorcycle. I started almost 30 years ago on a CB900F and a few years later got a Yamaha FZ750 (their Superbike entry at the time). But I didn't really learned to ride until I got my Hawk GT in the late '80s. There's just something about a small, light machine with an upright seating position that makes it easy to learn how to push the bike toward its limits.

DD, you are 20 gallons of Win in a 10-gallon hat. Great post.

I too, had a Superhawk back in the late-90s, and I didn't really learn how to ride well until I got an MZ Skorpion. 35 hp and I was ripping up the track on that bike.

But not everyone rolls like we enlightened beings. I think there are a lot of people who would just not get a motorcycle if they couldn't get the bike of their dreams. We'd have a smaller industry, with ill effects all around. Imagine a recession forever.

Would tired lisencing save that many lives? Who knows. I doubt it. I don't have the run down, but half the fatal crashes are alcohol-related, and half involve other vehicles, who are more often than not at fault. Of the remaining accidents, I'm going to guess only a small percentage are sportbikes. Of those cases, not all were "caused" by the rider having too much bike and not enough experience, and I would also wager that the majority of fatal sportbike crash victims are experienced riders. My guess is that the classic 19-year-old-kid-on-the-GSX-R1000-flying-off-a-cliff-type story is a tiny percentage of the 7000 or so annual fatalities.

That's just a guess. Can you back me up, Dan?

 

[boney]

I think there will be a legal challenge to the "owners" of motorcycles who are fined as non M1 class license holders. An owner can be a non operator.

No one said the owner was going to get cited for not having an M1. It's the operator who get's the ticket when an LEO discovers (s)he doesn't have the M1 license. Said operator runs the risk of having the motorcycle (regardless of who owns it) confiscated.

It is not like DUI in any way. It's like someone who drives a car without a license.

Car driver = must have proper license
Motorcycle rider = must have proper license

They are not interchangeable. You cannot use one to operate the other. The law is clear on that. Where is the breakdown in your understanding?

 

[Gabe]

If driving were a privilege, then why does the state subsidize insurance for under privileged?

It does?

 

[Ant]

Gabe,

pssst, over here,

barf =

:laughing

*when googling stroke pics of pam anderson were in the search :|

 

[boney]

Not to split hairs, but;

Every legal resident and citizen of California has a right to operate a motor vehicle, so long as they meet the legal requirements to do so and do not break the law (heh, heh).

Webster says a Privilege is "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit..." like say, maybe driving a car?

You can operate your private vehicles all day long on your property, and (almost) no one can stop you. That is your right.

To take it onto the street... you must have permission. That is a privilege.

 

[Gabe]

Not to split hairs, but;



Webster says a Privilege is "a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit..." like say, maybe driving a car?

You can operate your private vehicles all day long on your property, and (almost) no one can stop you. That is your right.

To take it onto the street... you must have permission. That is a privilege.

Right, but every legal resident and citizen has the right to apply for the license, which implies that driving itself is a right, so long as the legal conditions are met by the applicant. A privilege, in my mind, is some special favor you don't expect. The DMV cannot deny my application on a whim, and there must be legal adjudication and a right to appeal (the tickets, at least) before it revokes my license.

My mom and dad and high school driver's ed instructors all laid down that "it's a privilege, not a right" line. And maybe when you're under 18 it is, as you're not fully responsible for your actions in a legal sense. But grown-ups have a right to drive unless they do something to prove otherwise.

 

[JakesKTM]

No one said the owner was going to get cited for not having an M1. It's the operator who get's the ticket when an LEO discovers (s)he doesn't have the M1 license. Said operator runs the risk of having the motorcycle (regardless of who owns it) confiscated.

It is not like DUI in any way. It's like someone who drives a car without a license.

Car driver = must have proper license
Motorcycle rider = must have proper license

They are not interchangeable. You cannot use one to operate the other. The law is clear on that. Where is the breakdown in your understanding?

I think you confuse driving on a suspended license with driving without a license. Driving without a license is a "wobbler" and generally prosecuted as a correctable infraction which precludes vehicle impound as part of the procedure. You show up to Court and show correction of the offense.

The other is a suspended license violation and is a misdemeanor and will get your vehicle impounded.

What I am saying is: add a clause to 12500(a) VC that says, second or third violation will result in license suspension, bumping the violation into the suspended license realm where things get serious. From that point MSF should be mandated.

 

[acidjzaz]

For the tiered licensing system. I would want to compare stats on countries that have this Vs. ours.
it looks like data dan has some of this info

I am a fan of it.:thumbup

I have taken an overseas version of our MSF and its definitely a lot more detailed in depth and focuses a lot more on safety then our current MSF.

It was not exactly a superbike track day, but it did let riders know what they were really getting into.

 

[Gabe]

For the tiered licensing system. I would want to compare stats on countries that have this Vs. ours.
it looks like data dan has some of this info

I am a fan of it.:thumbup

I have taken an overseas version of our MSF and its definitely a lot more detailed in depth and focuses a lot more on safety then our current MSF.

It was not exactly a superbike track day, but it did let riders know what they were really getting into.

The stats are inconclusive. There are hundreds of factors and restricting licenses to some random horsepower or displacement level doesn't seem to have much effect, as much as that effect can be measured.

We are both in favor of better training, and mandatory training. I agree. But this is a separate issue from tiered licensing.

 

[Gabe]

From a 2006 EU motorcycle safety study. Some info that helps my argument (tiered licensing would have limited impact on fatality rates) and some, well, not so much:

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/pdf/powered_two_wheelers.pdf

"Engine performance

At first sight the engine power seems to be the most important of all PTW properties in relation to safety. There are several studies on this subject with mixed results. The idea is that a heavy and powerful PTW is difficult to control even at low speeds and may invite riders to test the potential acceleration and/or top speed, which brings them in situations which are difficult to control. This means that it is not necessarily the character of the PTW itself, but the experience and motivation of the rider which determine the safety of the rider-PTW combination. In addition, heavy or powerful PTW’s may be used more in conditions which differ from smaller PTW’s and these conditions themselves may be related to the safety of PTW use.

Cubic capacity

A study with accident data from 1984-1986 in Great Britain covers the whole range of engine (cubic) capacity. The kilometre data came from a travel survey of 372 riders [7]. Accident rates per million kilometres were found to be related to the age of the rider and traffic conditions as well as to engine capacity. Riders of 16-18 years had fatality rates which were about four times higher than for riders of 30 years and older, after correction for conditions (built-up or non built-up) and engine size. The age difference was even stronger for less severe injuries. The fatality rate for non built-up roads was about one third higher but the rate for less severe injury about half that for built-up roads. This is an indication of more accidents on built up roads (corrected for kilometres) but with much less severe injuries. After correction for age of the rider and traffic conditions, the fatality rate for the 50cc PTW was lowest and highest for PTW’s with engines of more than 250cc, with the fatality rate for 125cc in between. Including injuries resulting in hospital admission produced a rate which is a little higher for 125cc machines with little or no difference between the other engine capacities, i.e. both 50cc and over 125cc. It must be remembered that in this study most riders of 125cc PTW’s had a provisional license. Problems with the interpretation of these results are the small sample of the travel survey and the absence of information on the experience of thePTW riders. The study is rather dated and to day’s motorcycles in general have bigger and more powerful engines.

The “Handbook of road safety measures” [14] refers to a Norwegian study by Ingebrigtsen [28] which corrects for age, experience and other factors, including a measure to take risk. The study found no substantial increase in accident rate with increasing cubic capacity.
A more recent New Zealand study used 463 accident cases from 1993-1995 and 1233 controls in a case control design [33]. The relative accident rate was corrected for age and experience of the rider and other factors and was found to be somewhat lower for motorcycles under 250cc, with no clear relation between cubic capacity and relative accident rate for motorcycles over 250cc. The authors conclude that if cubic capacity is used as basis to restrict motorcycles of novice riders the limit should be substantially lower than 250cc and power to weight ratio or motorcycle type may be a better basis.

Power to weight ratio

The cubic capacity of the engine may not be the best indication of the potential acceleration and top speed. An Australian study used power to (laden) weight ratio for the motorcycle and focussed on novice riders [44]. There were 2247 novice riders involved in casualty accidents in 1987-1990 (learners: 1356 and first year license holders: 891). The age limit to obtain a license was 18 years. The sample of motorcycles was compared with registered motorcycles. The accident rate (corrected for estimated kilometres) shows a strong relation with power to weight ratio, with four times higher rates for the most powerful motorcycles compared to the least powerful. The study did not correct for age of the rider, but many of the novices must have been young. It has to be remembered that learner riders were restricted to motorcycles with engines up to 260cc."

 

[ZiXeR636]

wake up! This is America people! We want it and we want it NOW

why do you think someone can walk right into the dealership pick up a liter bike then go straight to the DMV and register it all without even having a license?

If people really wanted to slow down moto fatalities they would implement a tiered licensing system similar to what they have in Europe and make some type of MSF safety course a requirement.

But this is America, you can't tell me what I have to do:rolleyes I have the right to do as little or as much as I want.

 

[atypicalperson]

The system needs to be fixed!

 

[relayda]

...have you observed the current, I assume licensed car drivers on the road today? I don't think it will really matter if you add in a few hundred thousand idiots on motorcycles to the hundred million idiots in cars.

"Has anyone seen my slippers? I'm going to take a ride on my motorcycle."

 

[GixxerLover]

I can't understand why anyone want not want to get some sort of safety instruction. On top of that, risk getting your bike taken away because you don't have the endorsement.

Being out of the bike world for 7 years, even after 3 bikes, I fully intend to take the MSF course and most definitely some Doc Wong classes. Better to be safe than sorry...

 

[Joebar4000]

RE: Tiered licensing, stats aren't inconclusive, it's just a very small effect.

There seems to be a large misunderstanding of how tiered licensing works.

If you are an adult above a certain age, you can jump on any bike you want.

Clearly tiered licensing will have no effect on this age group - because there are no tiers to pass through.

These ages keep changing so I'm not going to give specific, but, for the sake of example, an under 18 historically could only ride a 125 limited to 12hp.

UNLESS they take the 'fast access' test (read: really fucking hard and expensive) and then they could ride a 500cc bike.

UNLESS they take an even harder test, or wait till they are older.

Also, the basic test outside of the scope of tiered licensing is MUCH harder than here - in the UK, and this is going back a few years, was being followed by an instructor for 30 mins with a 1-way radio. He tells you where to turn, and observes. That's part 2 of the test. The first part is like the MSF test on steroids. If you don't pass that, you can't even get a learners permit.

So, the bar is considerably higher to start with, forgetting about tiered licensing.

Tiered licensing stops 16-year olds from jumping on an R1. It doesn't stop the over-50's getting anything they want. At least, not as it's implemented in most places.

 

[Mr Pepsi]

All seasoned riders should treat this like drunk driving. You see anyone riding without an endorsement and we take the keys away. Friends don't let friends ride unlicensed.

 

[relayda]

All seasoned riders should treat this like drunk driving. You see anyone riding without an endorsement and we take the keys away. Friends don't let friends ride unlicensed.

...that could have a significant impact on some of my favorite YouTube videos...

 

[DigDoug]

I can't understand why anyone want not want to get some sort of safety instruction. On top of that, risk getting your bike taken away because you don't have the endorsement.

Being out of the bike world for 7 years, even after 3 bikes, I fully intend to take the MSF course and most definitely some Doc Wong classes. Better to be safe than sorry...

Some people give in to peer pressure. Some people don't have the money to make payments on their vehicles and pay for class.

I believe MTV and South Park are to blame too.