| Author | Message | ||
     Nevco1 |
Blublak...My hat's off to you and all your fellow instructors. Your job may seem glamorous to many but it is a tough one with a lot of involvement. I may have included Track classes in error as a result of posts on other threads. I support both track and street classes for their respective purposes and realize there are carry over skills. However, I feel the racer mind set is best left on the track and a street oriented (read: different) mind set be employed on the street. The respective techniques included. Motorcycles in general and more specifically sport bikes bring out the devil in us and we tend to do things at a more hurried pace which can get us into trouble more assuredly on the street than on the track. Is the key difference between a controlled vs uncontrolled environment. We both know statistics can be manipulated to support conflicting views. However, I find quite often that the statistics would be significantly more meaningful if they went deeper into the investigation of the incident whether it be a ticket or an accident. For example, alcohol and drugs (legal or not) are listed as a major factor in motorcycle accidents, but the statistics stop there. They neither break down alcohol vs legal vs illegal drugs nor do they correlate each to a type bike or other rider demographics. Same concept applies to accidents, solo crashes, tickets, etc. Each has a different cause that was documented at least by the officer on the scene and perhaps either the doctor or coroner but never made it to the stats. In retrospect, I feel that more meaningful conclusions can be made with more detailed and accurate stats. Simply to make conclusions about who should and shouldn't qualify for a particular size bike based on age or over generalized stats is not a fair or accurate practice. Concerning less experienced riders, historically nobody really teaches them what to expect the first time they feel their first rush at WFO or how to bring down the front in an unanticipated wheelie. How to correct when your front end starts sliding and a lot of other things. These are all things we either learn on our own, from others, books, specialized classes or some other medium. The curriculum for new riders is how to do things right, not how to correct/survive a situation the rider will eventually created in a moment of indiscretion. Conventional classes can't teach this due to the liability and the devil in all of us virtually insures we will screw up at one time or another. If we added all the potential circumstances a rider faces, put them into levels of training and tiered licensing, I wonder how many would ever qualify for a liter sport bike? In turn what effect would that have on the industry as a whole? As you probably already surmised, I don't have a decent solution to the situation. Oh sure, I could go on about classroom, skill and psychological testing, but that isn't real in our society, at least not yet. About the only thing I do know is that Government has taken away more freedoms than we can count and that if we don't take care of and discipline ourselves, future generations will never know what the word freedom meant. edited by nevco1 on November 08, 2003 | ||
| Swampy |
ER, UM, in Michigan, our insurance companies run our lives. They are responsible for the silly no fault, uninsured motorist , underinsured motorist, property damage premiums, responsible for seat belt laws, speed limit laws, and every other ill in this great state. Then they have the nerve to build the largest buildings in the land and then send us premium increases when the stock market begins to go down. All this at the point of a gun, lobbing the legislature to bolster their position, then using their private bullies to write "Click it or Ticket" tickets. We have no choice in the matter as they will send their government paid insurance enforcement thugs to come get you if you choose not to comply with paying their premiums. Now answer me this, If they are so interested in public safety why don't we have to have no fault on bicycles, horses, lawn tractors, snow blowers and walking insurance? Maybe I had better stop here before they get any ideas. I had to pull the collision and comprehensive from my truck when my 17 year old got his license, plus the Blast insurance went up $85 just for the liability even after the 3 day safety school. I've had no claims or tickets for over 25 years and it still goes up?? So the point is No more government intervention or should I correctly say NO more Insurance company intervention Cull the herd, I've seen my share of big living folks putting cars, motorcycles, snowmobiles, and boats in the trees because they just don't know any better. I try to live carefully, act responsibly, and pass that on to my children, so they can do the same, but I am torn over if it is something that should be legislated. I think we give too much and get too little in return. Signed, Frustrated State Worker in Michigan(BLT, UPFD, PFD) edited by swampy on November 08, 2003 | ||
| Darthane |
I would be in favor of making an MSF course required to get a motorcycle endoresement. <~~M2Me The only type of government intervention related to motorcycling licensing that I would agree with. And it means that I'd have to go and take one, too! No ill can POSSIBLY come from forcing people to take an MSF course. Also, I just wanted to point this out. Somewhere up there I read something about motorcycles being limited to 750ccs in Japan. Bullshit. I saw an R1 and a Hayabusa on the street today walking around. There's another 'busa in the Suzuki shop on the corner, used. However, the VAST majority of motorcycles here are 125-250cc. A really 'sporty' one might be 400cc. As to their licensing system, I have no idea. I was told it costs nearly $2000 US to get a license to drive a car here (it wouldn't cost me that much, since I'm licensed in the States). That isn't graduated, but I don't know about the motorcycle endorsements. Bryan | ||
| Nevco1 |
Again, interesting how we all survived. The old bikes were hard pressed to make 50hp, the brakes and tires sucked, folks were always getting killed, yet we are still around today! | ||
| Nevco1 |
Whoops...Forgot that in those days, we weren't regulated by Big Brother into MC licenses, training, helmets, etc... Heck, there weren't even any street or track riding schools to attend. Oh my, we really are a hearty sort. | ||
| Blublak |
Hey Darthane.. Thanks for clearing that up about current rides in Japan.. As I said in my post.. "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." As you can see, the engine limits were in the past tense, back when they limited the size of their bikes. I was unsure if they had changed, since I haven't had to check their rules recently. You (so eloquently) have informed us that they have adjusted their laws even more. I would hazard a guess that after they modified it for Harley Davidson, the other makes gave them quite a ration of your 'Bullshit' and they opened it to all brands. The discussion was about their licenses, which were (as stated) based on engine size ranges. Each progressively larger motor size required a more skilled rider to qualify. I'll bet the reason you don't see as many liter bikes out there has to do with the more difficult and expensive licensing requirements. Just a thought, no definite proof, but a good supposition, don't you agree? Later | ||
| Sportsman |
Guys, I think you are under a misconception. The average age for fatal motorcycle accidents is 40 something. Big Harleys kill more people than sportbikes. There was a big thread on another board. Reality is midlifers are higher risk than kids, but kids turn in insuranse claims on their sportbikes where 40 year olds know not to put in a claim. That's why ins rates are stupid for a sportbike. But numbers of dead men don't lie. | ||
| Dynarider |
Couple points here on that topic . #1. The accidents that do involve the older Harley rider also generally involve alcohol. Avoid drinking & riding & the accident rate plummets. #2. The % of sportbike crashes vs harley crashes. I dont have the numbers in front of me, but the percentage of sportbikes sold & those that are crashed is much much higher than for Harleys. The big Harleys may kill more people due to 2 things. #1. drinking & #2. there are simply more of them on the road. | ||
| Bomber |
I think skills-based tiered licensing is a great idea, based on a pilot's-license model . . .age doesn't enter into it, only the precense of provable skill living near milwaukee during the 100th convinced me that some sort of control is necesary (although I shudder to write that) . . .since the sport won't regulate itself . . . . . | ||
| Nevco1 |
Lack of self control and responsibility is what creates the kind of accidents being discussed in this thread...not things. | ||
| Bomber |
amen, nother reason for testing | ||
| Nevco1 |
Bomber...In all sincerity, how can you test for lack of self control and responsibility. Psychological testing like that would be akin to Profiling and that in itself would be highly illegal and quite a few National Organizations would scream foul. Then again, if you can do it for bikes, I strongly urge the world to do it for all forms of motor vehicles and mechanical items like machinery, lawn mowers, guns, fishing rods, etc. | ||
| Bomber |
although you're right, Nev, you CAN test for demonstratable skills . . . . I know of no state that presently does so (please don't tell me that your state had a MC endorsement program . . . the tests are likely condusted in parking lots, and NOT a b'trax parking lot, either) | ||
| Nevco1 |
Ahhhh...Lemme guess, that would be like the skills test in CA that most folks borrow or rent a smaller bike to take. Not to mention, the individual DMV offices do not uniformly test to the States criteria. Both teasing and serious with that remark. I personally do not believe that the actions that cause accidents can be tested for either physically or psychologically. We both could go on with examples but I think that if we just agree that things that induce the "pucker phactor" are, from a liability perspective, even above and beyond the Governments willingness to test for. Tis like the infiltration course and use of blanks in training exercises in the Army. Can't have everyone getting killed before they get to go to war. Hell, that would even take the fun (sic) out of it for the survivors. | ||
| Nevco1 |
Never mind. Y'all want to give up your freedoms and those of future generations just because some folks just can't control themselves and get killed fucking up, fine. At least, I am over the hill, have my license and don't have any kids to carry on (probably a good thing). Ergo, whatever you decide on won't effect me one iota. | ||
| Bomber |
Brer Bill since this has degenerated into the Nevco and Bomber show, what say we spare the rest of the troops and sit with some old scotch with a name we can't pronouice and debate some more? | ||
| Nevco1 |
The scotch sounds great and I graciously accept your offer but I already conceded. Would rather plan future outings than try to figure out how to prevent some jerk from committing "suicide by bike". I simply believe in being a responsible citizen and living within my abilities. Why should I or anyone else be punished for the (often intentional) irresponsible behavior of others? Additionally, in as much as I love scotch and good friends, I believe your offer would be politically incorrect as I would have to over stay my welcome until my blood alcohol level is within Big Brothers criteria regardless of my skill levels (or lack thereof) at the time. You realize, I am already a marked man and target of most law enforcement agencies as I not only ride a Harley which is the bike of choice by drunk riders but I also ride a Buell which (much to my dismay as I am discovering after buying one) is reputed to be the bike that appeals to hooligans and the protect-me-from-myself types. LOL | ||
| Ezblast |
Thats my sentiment, however, it still leaves us as we were before - with a problem that we as motorcyclists as a whole still face - that is: If we do not select and lead some kind of movement to improve the situation, GP will do it for us and we will probably - most deffinately - not like their idea of what is good for us. So maybe a skills test for the level of motorcycle one is riding? Don't know - Glen Livets? - good ole college days! Still ignoring the trend will not make it go away! I better get some more riding in while its still legal - lol Got Thump?! Just Blasting on the Dark side! EZ  | ||
| Bomber |
Brer Bill there's always a soft place for friends to crash at festung rosberg . .. . besides, you KNOW we'd leave this topic behind in no time! EZ . . . .Glenlivits is good . . .Oban better, imo, but there's much more to try! | ||
| Nevco1 |
EZBlast...You mention skill tests for the level motorcycle one is riding. With all due respect, that sounds good but I would like to hear more about how you envision this being accomplished. Without sarcasm, I find most riders (dead or alive) can pass just about any real world test thrown their way and that it is that moment of irresponsible behavior that puts them into jeopardy. The reason I say this is, as you may have already read, I have seen more than my fair share of fully competent motorcyclists get killed while violating the law. Same goes for almost all risk activities including driving cars, and all the other activities I mentioned earlier. This is why I contend that the existing entry level tests are adequate. Ahhh...let me rephrase that as I also eluded to the cheating in CA. I feel the existing entry level tests that are a product of graduating from an approved MSF type class is adequate. I can even be persuaded to agree to some form of continuing education program for all licensed operators of all types of motor vehicles. Which is the reason I like the Traffic School concept as employed in CA. Ok, armed with that information, tell me what you envision and sell me on it. | ||
| Nevco1 |
Bomber...What topic??? LOL | ||
| Crusty |
"Hoot,mon! Hoot, hoot! 'Tis a wee mite of the Breath of Heather that would male a proper drink!" -Pardon My Scotch, Starring the Three Stooges It doesn't matter what motorcyclists come up with. The Bureaucratic Buffoons that write and pass laws concerning things they have no experience with, will ignore any sane or rational ideas in favor of their own misconceptions. | ||
| Nevco1 |
Crusty...I'll buy the Scotch. See ya at Bomber's asap!!! FYI, your copy of Fuell is in the mail! edited by nevco1 on November 10, 2003 | ||
| Swampy |
Crusty said it the best!!! Here, Here Well put!!! | ||
| Nevco1 |
Swampy...You like Scotch...In Chi-Town? | ||
| Ezblast |
I really don't know for sure - a educational system that displays levels of skill your being tested for on bikes of a certain power level and above on an agreed upon minimum would be a start. As for selling it - not a sales man - Ideas - yes! Thats the problem though - we all see that there is a real problem that won't disapear, and with bikes getting more powerful and track worthy its much more likely to get worse. If I had a finished plan I wouldn't ask - I'd submit it to the AMA and let them run with it from there - lol - but as you can see, and also the reason I'm asking you the experts - the problem is that we can't get anyone to agree on anything because they are afraid their rights will be infringed upon - thats not what I'm looking to have done - what I'd like done is for that owner to prove they can actually operate with skill the vehicle they own. How will this happen - we have it in place for the operation of other vehicles - different levels of license for the different level of vehicle. Sorry I haven't said more on this topic - away moving a grandfather clock. Got Thump?! Just Blasting on the Dark side! EZ  | ||
| M2me |
I feel the existing entry level tests that are a product of graduating from an approved MSF type class is adequate. I'm not sure what you are saying Nevco. Taking an MSF type class (let alone graduating from one) is NOT REQUIRED in Minnesota if you are over 18. I don't know the rules in other states. I've always thought that everyone should be required to take and graduate from an MSF type course before they can get a motorcycle endorsement. But, in Minnesota at least, no motorcycle training of any kind is required if you are over 18. | ||
| Dynarider |
Same here, not msf required. Go take the written test & then pass the minimal riding skills test. If you do take an msf course to get your license they waive the riding portion so no need to see the DMV. I dont think an MSF is enough to say.."here's a 175 mph bike, have fun". I have ridden with folks who had just "passed" an msf course & its scary. Not all are scary but a fair portion of them are. Footdraggers, ham fisted throttle operators, late brakers, etc etc. A portion of the responsibilty towards policing our sport should or maybe I should say could be done directly at the dealership level. A salesmen is obviously only interested in 1 thing & thats his profit. I have actually heard salesmen tell newbie riders that "sure this R6 would make a great beginners bike", or "the CBR600RR is a good bike for a reentry rider". Whata crock of shit. These dealerships are letting folks with no experience basically sign their own death sentence simply because they have the credit to get the bike. A responsible dealer would at least try to steer a new rider towards a bike more fitting their skill level. | ||
| Nevco1 |
First thing is we are not the experts as EZ implied. We all have our sensitivities, fears, etc. Second thing is that in most if not all States, a basic MSF type course is an alternative to taking some type of written and skills test. Personally, I would like to see a MSF type course be mandatory in lieu of a State skills test. If I were to go further with that, I would like to see an advanced course be required within (a subjective) two years of receiving a motorcycle endorsement. Standardization of this sort in all States is not a Big Brother thing as much as it is a uniform education and skills training function. As a result, if someone exercises a major indiscretion and pulls the trigger on a bullet bike at an inopportune moment, we can rule out lack of training and place the blame where it belongs...An irresponsible act performed by an individual, not a stereotypical group of riders. I personally do not feel that horsepower or torque limitations are in order. Of more importance is the basic training and realization of what the consequences of an indiscretion may be. Continued education would just be frosting on the cake. Most of us feel we are bulletproof until one day we mature. Like they say different strokes for different folks. Some never will mature and others will never be bulletproof. Yet, we can all pass the skills tests. That gentlemen is my point. Most motorcycle accidents are caused by the rider and can be prevented with rider discretion and relative adherence to the law. The rest, we can and have been trained to avoid via existing educational media. There is one last point I would like to make and that simply is when I received my auto licenses in WI, IA, CA and back in WI none of the publications or tests warned me about motorcyclists or their specific rights. In most cases, a few paragraphs and questions concerning common car/motorcycle accidents would suffice. Unless things have changed since I left, CA, the only State in the Union that allows Lane Splitting does not even tell the Auto Drivers in those little pamphlets (available in a myriad of languages) that it is legal and that they should be aware of it when changing lanes. Now, there is a case of Big Brother allowing a freedom but failing to tell the others that have to share the same environment that you have a legal right. Come to think about it, they didn't address it very well in the little pamphlet they issued motorcyclists either. Ergo, it was up to local publications/columns like Free2Wheel/Ask Sarge to clarify it and many other laws that pertain to motorcyclists. FYI, don't get me going on lane splitting as I agree with it whole heartedly and practiced it for well over 25 years. Yep, it has its risks but if done properly will save you time, an overheated engine and your life. | ||
| M2me |
If you do take an msf course to get your license they waive the riding portion so no need to see the DMV. That's different than Minnesota. It doesn't matter whether you take an MSF course or not. Everybody over 18 has to pass the written and riding DMV test. That's what scares me. I took the MSF course even though I was over 18. I just thought it was a good idea. Anyway, I passed their test. Then I took the DMV test and passed. But the MSF test is actually harder and more involved than the DMV test! I know there are a lot of people out there with a motorcycle endorsement who have never had any formal motorcyle training. They skip the MSF course because they "know how to ride"  and just pass the easier DMV test. |
