| Author | Message | ||
     Ezblast |
We were talking about this pretty vigoriously in the thumper section and I thought it was time to ask the experts - lol 50hp for the first 3 years with a license. What do you all think? Pro's & Con's? http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/messages/20164/20164.html?1068232170 the thread gets interesting here. Got Thump?! Just Blasting on the Dark side! EZ  | ||
| Easyflier |
I disagree on principle. In Illinois you can't ride anything bigger than 125cc from age 16-18. It is blatantly unfair and doesn't take ability into account at all. The result, I broke the law for 2 years. Rode a 350cc for about a year, then my dad's Sportster. By the time I was 18 I owned the Sporty and stroked it and never had a problem due to "age". BTW, you want to adopt some of Europe's laws for drivers? In Germany you can't even get a driver's license until age 18 after completing a drivers training that is similar to getting a private pilot's license. While there are some advantages I don't think Americans would buy off on the idea. | ||
| Cj_xb |
50hp for the first 3 years with a license. What if your an older rider like me when you begin, not a kid !! I've only been riding two years and that's in Wisconsin so 1/2 the year it's in the garage, and I've got more hp than that now !! I wouldn't want to be held back, you your self should be able to determine what you can handle, or maybe your parents when your a kid, but NOT the governemnt, Lord !! CJ  | ||
| Ezblast |
True CJ, however, I'm talking about a pre-emptive strike - you see the most alarming two quickly growing statistics are the injury/death rates of people under 3 years riding experience, and people under 25 that are being injured/killed on Super Bikes. I hear on the news every day about another statistic, sometimes twice in one day! What I'm really worried about is some know nothing general public type decides enough is enough and tries to push through his solution. So if tiers are not acceptable - tell me what is that will work that will also please that outside looking in General Public guy. I'm all ears - lol I'm more interested in preserving the rights I have than legislation, however, In a land of lawyers I figure if we as riders don't get behind something soon as a minority leading a majority, then that uninformed majority may just do it for us in unpleasant ways - lol Got Thump?! Just Blasting on the Dark side! EZ  | ||
| Oconnor |
Like you can't go 90 mph and kill yourself with 50hp. Can the Hp limit and make track school a mandatory, government subsidized requirement. For cars too... | ||
| M1combat |
Hmm, keep the Government out of it. When it get's too bad we revolt. | ||
| Darthane |
You're definitely able to kill yourself with 50hp. However, Ez's got a point. It's the morons who go and buy GSXR750s for their first bikes and want to race around doing wheelies, stoppies, 120mph+ etc that cause all the problems. Now personally I'm against any kind of regulation on the government's part here - we've got too much interference in our personal lives as it is. However, were they going to do something like that, I think a cc/engine type cap would be more appropriate than a HP limit. That would basically limit you to like Blasts, Kaw500s and the like. And not three years...ye gods, everyone new to riding would be so fricking frustrated by that time they'd give it up for want of a more powerful bike! I rode my Blast for a year, of my own volition, before getting a bigger bike. Now, I still wasn't ready for it, since the two are so different, but the only way to learn something new is to do it! Bryan | ||
| Dynarider |
Tiered licensing is a good idea. Like has been pointed out too many folks are going & buying an R1 or Busa or even an XB as a first bike. And then they promptly wadd themselves & the bike into a nice big mess. When you begin school, you dont jump right into 6th grade. You have to start low & work your way up. If we dont police ourselves then others will step in with legislation & do it for us. The reasons insurance rates are so damn high..besides the industry being a racket..sorry Newfie...is becuase so many new riders wipe out bikes. Look how many just on this board with new XB12's & 9's have wiped out this year. Age has nothing to do with it either. Doesnt matter if your 20 or 40, a new rider is a new rider. Sure the 40yr old "may" be a little better able to control the testosterone level. But nothing can prepare a person better than experience. if they keep crashing all these nes bikes they will never get the experience. Sure as was pointed out you can kill yourself with 50hp, but at least you wont be so inclined to race any 600's because you already know you would lose. Most of these "accidents" that hit the papers are directly a result of "drag racing" another bike or a car. Its not the accident that happens to occur going around a corner & the rider fixates on the shoulder & goes off the road that gets media attention. Its the old "Drag racing motorcycle capable of 180mph t-bones Miata" that makes the headlines. but the only way to learn something new is to do it I dont need to do heroin to learn its not good for me. If you dont give folks a graduated learning curve with bikes & they go out & buy an R1 as their first bike...odds are they wont ever learn because they will probably end of crippled or dead. Not everyone is smart enough to start out small & slow. My first bike was 1962 Puch 250cc 2 stroke. I was lucky if it would maintain 50 mphs without draining the carb of gas for longer than 4 blocks. I always advocate a new rider starting out small, Honda 250 Rebel, 250 Ninja, etc. About the largest I would suggest for a new rider would be a suzuki GS500 or an EX500. | ||
| Darthane |
I dont need to do heroin to learn its not good for me. <~~Dyna I didn't mean, from my "only way to learn..." comment, that the only way to learn how to ride is to go buy a big bike as your first. I just meant that even if you were smart enough to start out small (Blast, Ninja 500R, something along those lines) and ride it for a year or two years even, it still won't prepare you for the differences inherent between that small 'beginners' bike and the larger, more powerful one. It WILL, however, make you a better rider in the sense that you will have experience in traffic, accident avoidence, awareness, etc. I wish everyone had the sense to start out with a small bike (and I'm not saying I'm the sharpest tool in the shed, either, and I'm definitely not as good a rider as the majority of the Buellers I've been priveliged to ride with). It would make my insurance rates much more manageable. It would make the cops leave us alone unless we really were doing something dangerous/illegal. It would, it would, it would. But it won't. There will always be spoiled rich brats who have to have the fastest, most powerful new toy that they haven't got a clue how to use properly and responsibly. A tiered licensing system would not even come close to stopping that, unless there was also severe legislation and penalties for selling an inappropriate motorcycle to someone without the proper licensing. Bryan - who misses his bikes horribly and also finds it funny as all hell that the half of the little 100cc moped scooters here in Hiroshima have slip-on mufflers! | ||
| Bigdaddy |
I'm a big advocate of less government (not quite a Libertarian, but probably will be by the time I turn 50) but have spent many years in Germany I can honestly say that their tiered system does work and it's based on HP. On the other hand, they've got their own gearheads and you should what they can wring out of a 125CC full fairing Ducati Look Alike -- can't remember the manufacturer right now? -- that's bottom of the rung for 16 year olds. You then attend Fahrschule to learn how to drive a car and not only is it expensive it's also extensive and time consuming -- you're final on the road driving test has a government engineer in vehicle with you and your teacher. After you're finished with Fahrschule(drivers school) you can opt for the Motorad (motorcycle) training. Your first legal ride can only have 34 HP -- not restricted by anything but HP. Here my memory leaves me and I can't remember how long you've got to ride the 34HP, but then you can move up. I also can't remember if there's testing as you move up in classes. All this is probably easily found on-line somewhere and if you need some translation help let me now. I've also got access to a well known driving school in the Gerolstein and Bitburg area and can get some definitive answers if anyone is that interested. On another note, I have no clue what differences this makes in wrecks/accidents of their new riders compared to ours? Would make a beautiful government pie chart/graph. We all know, based on our own learning experiences that less power is more forgiving and let's us live and learn by our newbie type mistakes -- and if you've learned to ride a motorcycle you've had your close calls that could've been much worse right? I've had my share and Dad taught me how to ride on an old ironhead Sporty. A rugged, hard to stop, underpowered, beast as compared to anything built in the past 25 years. Damn, I think in some roundabout way I just agreed with Dyna and by the way Dyna the driving school operators that I know personally do in fact use 500cc Suzuki's as their learning platforms. Later. Greg | ||
| Ezblast |
We can lead or be lead - the question becomes do we allow an uncaring General Public/GP to lay down laws on our behalf - lol - or do we start policing from the inside and pushing our own measures - I would prefer the later, but I'm afraid if some organization(s) don't start acting soon the former would be the case. Some of the crazy ideas I've heard will make you shudder - no motorcycles over 500cc on the streets, all sport bikes banned - only for track - hope you like cruisers, age limits, etc. - the list goes on - each one worse than the one before. If some respectable motorcycle group however were to start a co-illition recognizing the problems and offering a solution - the tier system/ advanced licensing - something that shows problem recognition and resolution would greatly help to protect our rights as riders. How many knew even 20 years ago that we would have 100+ hp road bikes as a common bike? I know one thing - I'm going to get in plenty of riding while I can - cause with all the deaths/injuries happening its only a matter of time before GP screws us/helps us with their idea of what is what - safety wise. Got Thump?! Just Blasting on the Dark side! EZ  | ||
| Blublak |
Just a thought or five on this one.. If I remember correctly Japan has a tiered system, based on displacement. That may have changed, but it used to be that each engine size category requires a progressively more difficult test regime. By the time a rider qualifies for their >750cc (the engine size limit to motorcycles built~available by law in Japan NOTE: Japanese law was changed a while back and if your Motor Company makes nothing smaller than 750cc you may sell them in Japan with appropriate taxes/tariffs etc. plus a special 'monster bike' license.) They are quite skilled. Granted Japanese police can pull you over at any time and inspect your license (but so can ours in the US, driving isn't a right, it's a privilege) If your on a bike you don't qualify for, they impound the bike and cart you off for some stiff fines etc. I wouldn't be opposed to a skill based tier system. It would require that you be competent to r}}ide that machine prior to being able to take it onto the street. Problems with that system are obvious, DMVs' all over the US would revolt at actually having to have a true standard of skills .. and take the time to test to that standard (they would even have to know what the hell they were doing!) If I remember, in VA right now, go to a DMV take the written and the 'riding skills' tests.(they wont ask how you got that 1300cc'Busa there) as one of their 'testers' stands off to the side you will be told to ride around in a circle in the parking lot, work the signals, the horn, make a figure eight, stop without dropping the bike and voila! Your a Motorcyclist! Now your 'qualified' to take 170+hp onto the street and ride. Heck, you can even take your test wearing almost nothing.. I'll bet you could wear a pair of shorts, sneakers and a helmet and they'd pass you.. (after all the law only says helmet) So, if there was a major overhaul of the system and say for large displacement bikes you had to go to a track and have actual qualified motorcyclists judge your ability to handle that bike, and wear appropriate clothing and know the rules of the road and how to handle all that bike and.. well.. you get the idea.. Would the insurance industry back such a plan? Would there be support from the manufactures? If the Jap makes don't support it, then it'll never fly.. Phew.. another long one from me.. So what do you guys think? Would a skill based license make sense to you? 1 year or 20 years riding, if you can't handle the ride, you can't have it.. Simple huh? Later | ||
| Easyflier |
What non-government entity is going to enforce this self imposed system? Insurance companies maybe? Are you going to run down 17 year olds on an R1 and force them to the curb and give them a stern talking to? Maybe make dealers include some kind of track day training with the sale of their bikes, or maybe just sportbikes. Now are we going to debate death/accident statistics for the different styles of motorcycles? I think a 1200cc Sportster has at least 50hp, is it as dangerous as a GSX? | ||
| Nevco1 |
Less Government intervention please. Even at my age, they are taking away my personal freedoms at an ever increasing rate due to the irresponsible acts of others. Place the responsibility where it belongs...On the rider. As eluded to in earlier posts and on other threads, the insurance companies focus in on high risk groups and bikes. I don't agree with it any more than I agree with tiered licensing as it does not take into account the individuals psychological and physical abilities. Just the bike you select, time in grade and your ability to not get caught is what lowers your insurance rates. Not the best, but it does work to some degree. | ||
| Ezblast |
No - You miss the point - it would have to be a government backed thing for standardization - this is not a debate but a logical call to consider options we as riders could get behind and sponsor before the GP tries to push something we don't like down our throats. Got Thump?! Just Blasting on the Dark side!EZ  | ||
| Easyflier |
How about some astronomical rate for the first 3-6 months of riding, after taking things like age, driving history and accident claims into account? My guess, since I don't have the stats, is that the majority of sportbike riders either improve, die, or give up in their first riding season. | ||
| Nevco1 |
EzBlast...You are correct in that I may be missing the point. My position is as follows. If I am off base, please elaborate on your concept so I can understand it better. I live in America and Our Government is already way over the line concerning Socialism. They are so enamored with trying to protect us from ourselves that we are selling our freedoms right down the drain. My family came here for the freedoms that they were not allowed in the old country. Now, America almost makes the old country look good. What next...Communism??? | ||
| Blublak |
Easy, I don't think that would work.. I mean, rates are pretty astronomical now.. and a lot of squidies are getting Mom and Pop to pony up $6000.00 for their insurance (after all, if Idiot one has an R1, Idiot two needs at least as much to be 'cool').. I still say that a realistic skills test would work. I know riders who have been (as someone else eloquently put it) NOT CAUGHT in the last year that aren't up to the type of riding I can accomplish.. just as I'm sure there those on this very board that can make me look like I'm standing still.. But do I have the skill level to ride an XB safely? I think so and I think I can pass a reasonable skills test that others (not ready for that level of machine) could not. Besides, if you know in advance that all you have to do is make 0 claims for the first 6 months.. well, your set, park it for a while.. or for 6 months ride like your 165yrs old. Then at 6 months +.5 seconds.. Hammer it and get all cool again! Now if you wreck, it's no big deal since you went the mandatory 6 without incident? You never really have to learn how to ride that super bike you have, since you only have to worry about not making a claim for 6 months? Nope doesn't play for me.. A few months without a wreck does not automatically grant you the knowledge and skills to handle some of todays machines. If you had flown second seat in a commercial airplane for 6 weeks without a wreck, would that make you qualified to take over the controls of an F-16s? Think about it.. Later, | ||
| Easyflier |
Damn Bill, I think our problem is that we remember what it was like to be free(er). Since the concern here is about insurance rates it doesn't take a law to setup a scale that would put the burden on the group of new riders that pose the greatest risk to themselves. I'm sure the insurance industry has the research to identify that group. This whole discussion has me pondering the idea of installing a bayonet lug on my XB9R just so I can call it an "assault bike". | ||
| Easyflier |
Blu, I don't know many death prone riders that are going to let their 'busa sit for 6 months so their rates drop. It's that trait that identifies and weeds them out. If they had that much self control they would already ride within their limits. I may not be able to ride as well as some people here, but I do know and respect my limits. To reiterate, this discussion is being driven by rising insurance rates and how it affects seasoned riders. Change the scale to place new riders in a premium group that essentially leaves us alone. Using your logic, how many cyclists could easily pass any testing that the government mandates and when they leave the lot turn into Johnny Roadracer on a flying deathcycle. I'd lay money that many would, and already do just that. | ||
| Nevco1 |
Easyflier...Yeah, it was good. Bicycles, Sandlot sports, even little league without all the BS. Never ceases to amaze me that humanity survived this long without government control. Then again, having lived 30 years of my adult life in the "Peoples Republik of Kalifornia" I can understand and appreciate EzBlast's position. I just don't have to agree with it. Other than the weather and some really great friends, I would not be considering moving back there. Is nice to rediscover your personal freedoms in a backward State like Wisconsin. For example, I can wear a helmet when I want to go sport riding on my X1 and I can putt on my Wide Glide without if I so choose. I am the one responsible for my actions as is everyone else on earth. There are already more than enough laws on the books. If the Government wants to really serve the people, they should sort through all the existing laws, toss out the useless and redundant ones and enforce what is left. Like Mel Brooks once said," I bring you the 15, er...10 Commandments." Have a great day! | ||
| Dynarider |
To reiterate, this discussion is being driven by rising insurance rates and how it affects seasoned riders. Change the scale to place new riders in a premium group that essentially leaves us alone. Would love to see that happen. Why should a person 40 yrs old who has been riding 20+ yrs get charged the same insurance rate as a 19yr old simply because they happen to own the same bike? | ||
| Nevco1 |
Why should a person 40 yrs old who has been riding 20+ yrs get charged the same insurance rate as a 19yr old simply because they happen to own the same bike? Well, with the insurance companies I have dealt with I did not experience that. Seems seniority has its privileges at least among the one's I investigated. The inverse is why should a 19 year old be charged more based on age and not personal record. At 19, Nickie Hayden was better than any of us will ever be skill wise so why should he be penalized without first given the opportunity to screw up on the streets? | ||
| Easyflier |
They shouldn't, that's the part that needs to get changed. We get a break for age, years driving, etc.. but we still get dumped into the same pool. I'm fairly certain that people with a record of DUI are placed in a high risk pool. I would have no problem with new riders that are in that high risk group having to pay a premium while they are essentially learning to ride. Should that be broken down by HP or model? I really don't know. What is the discount for successfully completing the MSF course and does that course turn off the testosterone once a rider gets on the street? I don't know if anything will get solved but this discussion has generated some thought on the subject. Looking at the sample of riders on these forums it seems that the majority of rider error accidents occur within the first few months of riding a new/different bike than what they are used to. I wouldn't have been serously offended had my insurance company charged me a high rate for the first few months. Not because of horsepower or bike style, simply because I am an unknown factor to them and are high risk as shown by statistical analysis. | ||
| Nevco1 |
Wonder if the rates are the same for young vs older, experienced vs unexperienced female riders? Can some of the women on the board or guys with wives or daughters that ride comment on this? | ||
| Nevco1 |
EasyFlier...You just had to mention high risk pools, didn't you. One of my sore spots. For whatever reason, Wisconsin instituted a State run risk pool for health insurance in hopes of keeping the rates down and making it available to those that do not qualify for independent programs. Nice thought, but it backfired. Not to mention three or four other States picked up on it and former Gov Tommy Thompson got his promotion to the Presidents Cabinet for it. Grrrrr... To summarize the farce, In CA, I have companies competing for my insurance business. In WI, the very same companies as well as all the others won't insure me as I have more than one daily maintenance medication for high blood pressure and the State Law says I am a risk. Now to top that off, the price I pay to be in the shared risk pool is significantly greater than the firms would charge me in CA and the coverage is significantly less. When queried, the companies simply say that the cost of the meds put me over the top per State Law. The meds cost less than $100 a month retail without insurance benefit/copay. I have offered to pay for them and have the condition listed as preexisting and excluded but none will bite. Interesting how Socialism in a Democratic Society ends up screwing the same folks it was intended to help. All or none would be better, but this halfway approach is ridiculous. This one of the reasons I made the comment earlier about in today's America, my grandparents would sincerely going back to where they came from. | ||
| Easyflier |
My choice of words might have been wrong. The point I was trying to make is that there is a period where honing riding skills on the street has a high accident/injury rate. My unscientific opinion is that the first 3-6 months have the highest incidence rate of accidents, of course I could be all wet.  Assuming that I am correct though, having new riders on a different rate scale during that period seems reasonable. They either quit, die or improve their skills and ride to be a ripe old age. When I was growing up most of my friends had at least one summer of bike ownership, it was a fad, part of sowing their oats but they didn't stick with it. Decided it wasn't for them, lost their nerve, had other interests that took priority. So, to summarize, having them ante up a bigger piece of change while they are in that peak zone doesn't seem that unfair to me, assuming that something has to be done. I disagree with a high risk category in your insurance situation though, we can't always control our health, but we can control how we act on the street while on 2 wheels. | ||
| Nevco1 |
Agree totally to the learning curve for a new rider or any activity that a person has not done before or gone beyond the basic interest level training. In fact, we never stop learning which is why we are having this discussion. However, with the courses and tests required to obtain a motorcycle license these days adequate in ascertaining that a new rider has the skills to ride on the streets? I contend that they are. Yet agree that additional training and experience are desirable. Yikes...Please don't misconstrue that as an endorsement for tiered licensing or discriminatory insurance rates. Of interest, CA does have just such a program. It is called "Traffic School." Granted it is mental and not skills oriented, but it has several benefits that help improve the quality of the riding/driving environment out there. The school provides a little humility, communicates changes in the law, gives folks a dose of reality, renewed respect for the law and provides them with a break from increasing insurance rates due to their indiscretion. I can't speak for other States, but WI sure could benefit from a program like this. Sure, we have one but they use it for juvenile offenders only. Most of the folks on the roads here either do not know the laws or do not care and the tickets are not cheap. Driving in LA was a walk in the park compared to WI. Heck so was Tijuana and the rest of Baja for that matter. To address the skills training side of the issue, I realize the board is comprised of a lot of wannabe racers and go fast enthusiasts (including myself), but for the sake of argument, perhaps street oriented programs either on course or on road should be utilized rather than Track Schools. Remember Drivers Ed??? Leave the race mentality where it belongs and educate street riders with the emphasis on real world skills. I realize a lot of the track skills transfer well to the street, but the mentality does not. MSF, Rider's Edge, Grodsky's Stayin' Alive, David Hough's book, etc., are all good examples of street smart programs. Some are better than others but still real world training. Ignorance of the law, one's own skill levels and the physical/financial consequences of one's actions should be enough to provide rational people with enough sense to govern their own behavior. Things don't kill or place anyone in harms way, people do. Is there such a thing as a beginners car, beginners boat, beginners gun, etc...Not really and all have the same inherent risks. Russian Roulette is a high stakes game with significant financial rewards and adrenalin rushes, but not the sort of thing that promotes living to see your grand kids. Same applies to walking, riding, driving, etc. It's your psyche that either saves or kills you. If that is what kills you, you weren't fit to do what you were doing and should have exercised better judgment. If it were someone else's psyche that gets you, well they weren't fit either. Just about anything else is an act of God. I simply believe in individual responsibility and fairness in examples like this. The more risk one takes, the more one had best know what they are doing and what the consequences are before committing an act that endangers their life and the lives of others. Big Brother can't protect anyone from themselves. All they can do is attempt to by taking away freedoms and attempting to educate with programs like CA's traffic school. Perhaps the parents and schools should teach and reinforce the concept of responsibility. Just isn't done anymore until you reach the college level. One of my wives was a Principal and the State and School District made it mandatory to pass those that historically would have been held back. Go figure. Yep, the system can improve almost everything we can argue as unfair or a loss of freedom, but the real answer lies in responsibility to raise the young as responsible citizens. In the interim, please don't pass any more laws or stiffen the requirements to participate in an activity. Simple hold people accountable for their actions by enforcing the existing laws. Ok, so now I have demonstrated I can pull a Clinton, use DoubleSpeak and to agree both ways. Although I tend to like Greenspan's quote much better, "If you understood what I said, then I misspoke." Is there any help for me??? Must be time for my meds. LMAO | ||
| Blublak |
Hey Nevco.. Just in case your wondering.. I teach the 'beginners gun' course.. as well some more advanced stuff.. But I get your point.. I also, upon reading the re-stating of Easys' position can see his point more clearly. I just wish there was a way to incorporate all our views. Yes, on occasion I go fast. But I've also taken road riding classes and (being older than I was before, like all of us) understand more about where I need to back off on certain things. I guess, part of my ideas were misread, after all, I never said that the 'training' for the higher level licenses were 'track' orientated, I took the best 'street' riding course I've ever attended on a track. It's just better control of the environment. I think dear friends our problem lies not in our rides, but in the bean counter types that must codify everything for their great machine. There can be no easy calculation of skill, age, machine, etc.. so they take the easy way out, the one most guaranteed to bring the highest profits over the shortest times. Insurance companies are of course, first and foremost there to turn a profit. They have little care, or want to act as public benefactors. So, we must live with their actions, since they have a better lobby than we do and in most places that I can think of, one must be insured to operate a vehicle. These companies of course, can and do arbitrarily set prices they feel will most benefit them. Not us. However, if one company was smart, and wanted to suck all the business from their competitors, I would bet they could. So it would take some work on their part, but they could do a mixture of our ideas here and create a tiered/age/skill based insurance group that took into account little things that most companies don't see as important.. like, I'm 38, ride an XB9R, have 20 years of riding under my belt, have several riding schools and a lot of information at my disposal.. So I'm not as likely to cost them as much as say the 18 year old, just bought their first bike, a super bike, and now are going to try to learn how to ride it. For some reason, fair understandable rates would probably draw most riders to them.. Far more than making up for the initial short fall in individual premiums. Of course, we then have to look at the individual laws in each state. But I'll bet it could be done. Ok.. Let me step back and think this some more.. maybe we'll try and petition a company to start doing just that.. Quality.. will bring quantity.. hehehehe.. Later. | ||
| M2me |
I don't know how much good a tiered licensing system would do. Some people will ride around on 50 hp bike for the required time and then go out and get a 150 hp bike and be dead within a week. You can't legislate common sense. I would be in favor of making an MSF course required to get a motorcycle endoresement. Insurance companies do take age into account. They also take location into account. What people pay for insurance varies widely depending on where they live. I don't know how they figure it but the bottom line is it's alway going to be unfair for some people. Insurance is a form of gambling though. You really never know if, and how much, you will need it. |
