Should the Government Tell You What to Ride?

[Camfarm]

"It is possitively assinine that this country doesn't have a system like you folks have that you graduate to larger dislacement with time and experience. " Quote from another post.

My view is that the decision is the rider's, not the dealer, the state or the Feds.

[new2BMW]

I agree with you Cam.
The government can't handle the things they are supposed to worry about, much less this kind of stuff.

I like the idea of motorcycle endorsements on the license. I'll accept training requirements to get the license, but not control on which bike i can buy.

Here in japan, a 400cc inline four repliracer will go very fast. Cc limitations make no sense.

[Massive Attack]

I think there is a logical argument to graduate people to larger/faster bikes but there are problems. Firstly, how do you define it, for example a 1150R has a larger capacity than a 600 Fireblade but it is the latter that is the rocket. Secondly, in the UK there is a lot of concern over these measures being used to actually put people off motorcycling. That is making it so hard to get a bike license youngsters think ‘forget it’ and go buy a car instead. We need new riders remember. Some happy little chap in Sweden (who advises the government on transport) thinks motorcycles need to be banned to reduce road deaths. I think if these schemes are designed in cooperation with motorcycle groups and not simple a product of the ‘nanny’ state, telling us what is best, then they obviously have a role to play. I would not forget, however, there are people out there who stereotypes us as dangerous speed junkies who need to be taken off the road and would happily use government safety policy as a backdoor to doing just that.

[Bones]

You can't legislate common sense.

[malcolmm]

Nah... I'm with the Government on this one.

In NSW Australia the state uses a weight to power ratio formula to determine what motorcycle new riders must chose. I thinks it's a good idea. Some of the motorcycles available these days are posiitively ffaaaaassssttttttttttttttt.

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for the need for speed. I can't resist it, but then again I have the experience behind me to hear those bells ringing in my head when I might be being a tad impetuous or rash.

Like... I'm for the restrictions placed on under 18 year olds being able to buy liquor... and when they turn 18 it's a real worry. We should then have controls over what liquor they can buy.

I've had young bucks around my place sporting hard liquor. One night last year an 18 year polished off the best part of a bottle of hard liquor within half an hour... totally wrecked his night... spewed his heart up all over the street. Now, one of these young boys brought a bottle of Bacardi Rum around the other night to show me his poison. You know... just finished high school and celebrating his achievement with his peers. It was bloody scary. The drop was Bacardi 131 with an alcohol content of 75.5%. I was so surprised we allowed the sale of dangerous stuff like that. He gave me a nip or two and it was like what I imagine methylated spirits to taste like... I added it to the mix in my keg of port.

Now if he had been the boy who polished off almost a bottle of whiskey last Christmas Holidays... he would be cactus. They don't realise the power and danger lurking in the bottle... very similar to the issue of being able to get on whatever bike...

Nah... sometimes we need restrictions, particularly when we are young and/or lacking in experience.

My two bobs worth

[Acacia]

Interesting.

Just so happend to pick up an ethics book this morning and began to read it over breakfast. The discussion was on the "common good". Those laws that deal with restrictions where the common good needs to trancend individual rights - in the case being discussed - capital punishment. Arguments on both sides of the rather spiky fence.

There are times where some, and there are those persons in our societies (Of course none of us fit that catagory), need to be protected from themselves, as well as us the general public, need to be protected from them too.

If we believe in the rule of law, and democracy, we should defend and use those avenues that are best for all, not just our own hedonistic persuits.

I lived in a country where at one time it was illegal to protest wrong - jail without trial for 180 days at the whim of some official. I now live in a country where failing to protest a wrong alligns one with that wrong. I prefer the latter, thank you.

As a member of a community of riders, I need to defend others right to ride, if I want them to defend my right to ride. Somewhere in that process, 'common sense' and 'reasonableness' need to prevail - what ever that might be?

[boxermania]

I'm the one responsible for Camfarms quote and it was in response to an article by MCN questioning the merits of MSF training. Let's not go off on the quote before understanding how it came about.........

THe MCN article began with the tale of a young woman, age 23, that had just graduated from a MSF course, went and purchased a V-Rod and shortly thereafter negotiating a highway on-ramp at high speed she lost control, crashed and died as a result.

The author of the article appeared to sugest that the MSF training was inadequate, when in reality, like I so stated in the original post, in the US one can buy any bike one desires. I also stated that motorcyclinhg in the US is purely recreational and overseas is a way of life and consequently better organized. (BTW, I sent the MCN editor my comments refflcting such, unfortunately they weren't published this time around, I suspect due to the situation with the mail and communications in this area)

No, I don't want any further regulation by the goverment or the state but it seems to me that there should be a system of checks and balamces to eliminate dumb people getting over their heads and eventually costing them their lives.........on the other hand, it appears to be a perfectly logical argument.

[Guest]

I'm all for msf training and beyond, and i agree that we need more common sense when it comes to what first bike to buy. better money would be spend in legislation to make car drivers become more aware of motorcyclists during their (auto) training--that's where most of the danger lies, i think.

[dano]

oops, that was me above.

[NCRoaster]

The government and insurance companies have been trying to eliminate motorcycles from the roads for years in the US through increased legislation, bogus studies and insurance fees. They use every opportunity to remind people how dangerous motorcycles are. They need to be stopped at every turn and the only organzations doing that in Washington DC are the American Motorcycle Association (AMA) and the Motorcycle Riders Foundation (MRF). I would encourage you all to become members of both organizations if you are not already members.

I am completely against the government telling us how we can spend our money and what kind of motorcycle we can ride. In my opinion, the "life , Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" clause of the US Constitution provides everyone the right to ride whatever they want. In this case the will of the individual is as important as the will of the masses. This is necessary if we want to maintain a true democracy.

With that said, I must admit that I have seen many people riding bikes that were too big and too powerful for their skill levels. It seems that common sense lost in the battle against peer pressure and these people ended up on bikes that made the riding experience more work than fun and sometimes brought them to a fatal end. I don't want the government to try to legislate common sense but I sure wish people would use it more often.

NCRoaster

[rdsmith3]

You cannot legislate common sense. For example, in NJ there is a relatively new law that if it is raining hard enough for you to have your wipers on, then you should have your lights on. duh! Yet many people still drive their cars (usually silver or black) on dark rainy days without any lights on. They may even be talking on their cell phones, which is also against the law in NJ. The law cannot fix the lack of common sense.

Regarding motorcycles, I think that manufacturers and their dealers play a role in this. The industry should try to fix the problem before the government steps in to really mess it up. Unfortunately, I am cynical enough to think that there will always be some greedy dealers who will sell any bike to anyone.

[sjbmw]

Why just bikes? What about dirtbikes? Jet Skis?

How about the incredible number of bycycle deaths and injuries, mostly happening to minors?

[toner87]

Inexperienced riders do not need a VRod to kill themselves (a Honda Rebel will do nicely) and it's not Uncle Sam's job to protect them from their own bad judgment. If it is, then why are cigarettes legal? Alcohol? If we'd all take a little personal responsibility and teach the same to our kids... But I'm preaching to the choir here... Yadda, yadda!
T.

[rph802]

Nah... I'm with the Government on this one.

In NSW Australia the state uses a weight to power ratio formula to determine what motorcycle new riders must chose. I thinks it's a good idea. Some of the motorcycles available these days are posiitively ffaaaaassssttttttttttttttt.

Don't get me wrong... I'm all for the need for speed. I can't resist it, but then again I have the experience behind me to hear those bells ringing in my head when I might be being a tad impetuous or rash.

Like... I'm for the restrictions placed on under 18 year olds being able to buy liquor... and when they turn 18 it's a real worry. We should then have controls over what liquor they can buy.

I've had young bucks around my place sporting hard liquor. One night last year an 18 year polished off the best part of a bottle of hard liquor within half an hour... totally wrecked his night... spewed his heart up all over the street. Now, one of these young boys brought a bottle of Bacardi Rum around the other night to show me his poison. You know... just finished high school and celebrating his achievement with his peers. It was bloody scary. The drop was Bacardi 131 with an alcohol content of 75.5%. I was so surprised we allowed the sale of dangerous stuff like that. He gave me a nip or two and it was like what I imagine methylated spirits to taste like... I added it to the mix in my keg of port.

Now if he had been the boy who polished off almost a bottle of whiskey last Christmas Holidays... he would be cactus. They don't realise the power and danger lurking in the bottle... very similar to the issue of being able to get on whatever bike...

Nah... sometimes we need restrictions, particularly when we are young and/or lacking in experience.

My two bobs worth

FWIW, my experience has been the legality or illegality of alcohol sales has not impeded those determined to obtain them. Same can be said many other controlled substances....but I digress. From age 15ish on up, there were several avenues available to accquire what ever type of beer,wine or hard liquor was desired.

My only arguement in favor of mandatory training would be that on the whole it might raise the relative skill level of all bikers to at least a minimum level. This may in turn raise the level of awareness of non bikers, that if one is on a bike, like in a car, there has been at least a certain level of training. Will this downgrade the stigmata of a 17 yr old kid flying along on a 600cc Jap screaming along with the tach at the red line??? No, but then again nothing will.

I voluntarily and happily took the MSF course so I could be a safe rider (the insurance discount dont hurt none!!) for me not some gov't agency or the left turning cager on the cell phone. Next summer planning on taking the experienced rider course.

Craig

[Biff's R]

I generally have the opinion that the more the government gets involved the more screwed up things eventually get.

cc limit = 250 cc MotoGP bikes on the road.
HP to weight ratio = bolt on weights that can easily be removed.
etc, etc, etc...

I think some ways to let the market guide people to better bikes could be used, if the government did not have rules against them. Reduced rates for people who wear helmets, etc.(can usually be verified if there is a claim).

Bottom line, is that you have to be ultimately responsible for your own actions.

[Bones]

Boxermania clarified that it was a Vrod she was riding.

How about legislation that the manufacturer must produce a bike with a turning radius equal to or smaller than the radius of DOT on and off ramps? Of course she couldn't negotiate the on ramp. She was on a Vrod!

OK, I am being sarcastic, but not entirely.

Everyone on this board should immediately go to either the library or a book store and get a book called

"The Death of Common Sense" It is outstanding.

We are being legislated to death. How can you justify a law on displacement/years of riding experience when several states don't require that helmets be worn?

Then again, many legislators behave in ways that completely defy common sense, don't they?

[jonothan]

My own view is that the initial training and testing needs to be rigorous, and as complete as possible, and the training standards should be carefully monitored.

After that, you should be able to ride what you want.

Following my instruction and test, described in another thread, I felt as well prepared and trained as I could be to ride a bigger machine.

From there, of course, the learning really begins.

Jonothan

[darthrider]

Should the Government Tell You What to Ride?

Well...sure! And hell no!

When I was 14 and "the government" told me I could only ride a moped with less than 5 hp, that was good thing.

When I bought my 50R and Speed Triple they said nothing, and that was a good thing.

But I understand and agree with the fundamental objections to government "guidance" in motorcycles. Remember Joan Claybook's "backwards" motorcycle that cost the taxpayers millions and no one could ride it further than about 10 feet without flopping over?

I think we need a mandatory "stepped" training/licensing system where the newby is allowed to 'move up" only when they know what they are doing and have some experience as well. Government control is not always bad. I've lost friends along the way (very young ones) who died because they didn't know what the hell they were doing. I didn't either but I got real lucky while I was learning and figuring things out (with no training AT ALL until I'd been riding 35 years.)

"I'd rather be lucky than good"? Sure, but you can't count on it!

[tor1150r]

In Canada, our government does not actually dictate what you may ride.

They do, however, dictate where and when you are allowed to ride, when you may or may not carry passengers and how much alcohol you are allowed.

This is accomplished by using a graduated system. There are 3 levels. Without going into the details of each level, they basically dictate the above allowances to varying degrees throughout the levels.

But...even at level one you are permitted to ride whatever you can afford, or desire. I believe we have the right to choose our wheels. But with that right comes common sense and responsibility.

It is the reponsibility of the rider to know their competancies, not seccumb to peer pressure. Up here we call it. 'Ride your own ride'.

I think our graduated system works well. They have adopted it for auto lincensing as well.

The other side of the coin...
I'm in my 40's and have held a vehicle license for over 2 decades. Am I concerned when I see a 19 year old tearing up the road on a 500cc sport bike? Yes. Do I think I know a little better. Yes again.

Let them ride whatever they want and hope they care enough about life so not to jeopardize theirs or others lives.

We trust our governments to approve/endorse/enforce comprehensive, up-to-date training in vehicle operation. We expect this level of training to produce individuals who are ready to operate a moving vehicle, regardless of size within it's class.

[The Velvet Monkey]

We trust our governments to approve/endorse/enforce comprehensive, up-to-date training in vehicle operation.

I think it prudent not to be very trusting of any government, particularly one that wants to substitute its dictates for your common sense. Our citizenry's traditionally jaundiced view of government interference has made our country the economic and freedom-loving powerhouse it is today and I'm always disturbed when I see the insipid tentacles of bureaucracy creeping into every aspect of our lives--it never releases its grip.

Certainly beware of any government that wants to limit your right to a: big V-8, 10-inch lift, insane horsepower strapped to any two-wheel contrivance, Big Mac and super-sized fries, Jenna Jameson at work, hand gun, hand-rolled cigar, 100' TV, and the right to enjoy a moderate amount of select single-malt with any of the above. That world is called Europe and their standard of living sucks--I've been there.

Just my two cents.