Teird license

I am writing a research paper for my English 101 class and was looking for some input. My topic is about if a teird licensing system should be adopted by the U.S. I have found plenty of facts and articles stating how many people are dying and a common cause is lack of skill. This leads me to believe that a new system would be needed, but I am needing insight from normal riders. So do you think we should adopt a teird license system or not and why you believe that?

 

a tiered License system? you mean like anyone under 18 can't drive at night, or have anyone under 18 in the car with them unless there is an adult with them. Needing endorsements to drive different vehicles? I think we are already there Bubba........ I guess its a different use of wording...

 

correct tink like the euro boys have.

I think they need to do that for the cagers as well.
most people have no clue on how to drive here in the states, we think we own the road and drive like a bunch of arseholes.

like parking in the left lane of the highway, not looking when turning right at red light or turning left for that matter. :doh:

 

i would'a killed for a 70-MPH jetski when i was 13, spending every weekend on the lake...

but most likely would not be here today enjoying my VFR if i had access to one then.

 

you can use any size bike you want but have to put restrictor on it to limit HP

 

I don't like the idea of restricting a bike or car. Anyone with a little knowledge about mechanics can remove a mechanical restrictor. An electronic restrictor would only be more expense to have a dealer charge you way too much to have it removed. the black market on moving them would be ridiculous! Having better rules about limiting what can be driven until you are a certain age is better. If you don't have the skills then you should be allowed to ride/drive it.

 

I don't think that setting it at a certain age is fair. It should be setted according to years of driving, not age.

A 20 years old with 4 years of motorcycle driving is a lot better than a 55 years old that is starting out and that has never driven a bike before.

 

I agree with you about the age thing but how can you tell how many years someone has been driving/riding? I had my motorcycle license for 8 years before I bought my first bike. One paper it looked like I had a ton of experience but in actuality I had only ridden a motorcycle a handful of times.

I think you should have to have to get an endorsement for the size cc engine you want to ride. Now the real question is should you have to spend a certain amount of time on a smaller cc bike before moving up or should there be no time limit and you can take the test for the larger cc bikes whenever you want?

 

I totally agree. My dad had never ridden a bike but had his license since he got his car license... so he had it for something like 37 years... he started this summer, with a 1500cc suzuki boulevard.

He is doing great and didn't have any accident.

I do know we cannot really tell how many years the driver has been driving... that is why it will probably never be implemented. The sad thing is that the governors will probably want to stop the problem by putting a law concerning the age, which is wrong. Even the CCs doesn't change much... with a 250 kawasaki ninja you can still reach 105mph and do 0-60mph in less than 6 seconds... which is faster than most cars. (for the acceleration I mean) Still, 170 is pretty fast!

What's the most dangerous... a 1500cc suzuki boulevard that does 0-100 in about 4.5 seconds but reaches a maximum speed of 100mph or the ninja 250? Both have similar top speeds, acceleration is fast for both... but the ninja 250 is a feather weight and will probably move a lot more with the wind... which is more dangerous... and it's 1/6 of the power of the boulevard...

There's not much of a difference...

 

I thought the OP was referring to different class licenses for drivers with better skills. If you show that you possess sound judgment and excellent vehicle handling abilities, you get the higher tiered license. Essentially what it would mean is that you can go fast and not pay a penalty. If you have little ability to handle a vehicle, a short attention span and no desire to improve yourself so that you aren't a burden to those around you, you get no license. A few categories in between would probably make sense, too... :smile:

What do you mean by "tiered", 2010?

 

As usual Tink is right, especially for English 101. Different states have different rules. Tiered licensing has been tried off and on here in the 36 years I've been licensed. Currently there are no tiers but obtainment requires MSF training if under 18 and I believe there are unique rules for 18-21 Y.O.s too.
Age discrimination in my opinion as my boys had 11 and 13 years experience respectively when they were licensed at 16. Dirt may not be road but is valid and worthy in my opinion, especially when a "learners permit" does not even require the bearer to be in the presence of a licensed/experienced rider. I might suggest researching accident statistics for those without an endorsement, under the influence, evading arrest or even just having a Harley registered in their name (believe it or not).

 

Age is still a very important factor. It has to do with maturity more than experience. In the majority of cases (not always) an older rider will be more responsible about riding over a 16 year old (young, dumb and full of c*m). Just because someone has been riding for 10 years doesn't mean they won't do something stupid to impress someone and end up wrapped around a telephone pole.

A combination of age and time on a smaller cc bike would be the best combination IMHO. A smaller cc bike is no where near as heavy and less likely to get away from a young and weaker person.

I didn't start riding until I was 25 years old and even then I was on a 400cc machine. Over the years i went from that bike to an old 750 and now an 800. The horsepower should also be taken into account as well...

It doesn't matter the govt will ban motorcycles well before any new licensing system is put in place...:suspicious:

 

You might get a higher grade in your English 101 class if you learn how to spell properly.

It's tiered not teired.

Tiered | Define Tiered at Dictionary.com

 

Different states, different learners permit laws. In MD you do need to be in the presence of a licensed motorcyclist of two years experience. Allthough, said experienced rider does not have to be on a bike, they can be driving a cage, yeah, cause that makes sense. I do agree with some previous posters that Americans in general have very little training and requirements to meet to obtain a license. I belive there should be much more strict ACTUAL DRIVING TESTS required here to get a license, parallel parking and making sure you stop your 3sec @ the sign and look both ways is :bs: for testing IMO.

As for there being different levels of license, yes, I belive there shoud be some sort of system, but it should be less about limiting what you are able to operate and more about how fast/where/when you are allowed to operate it. I was raised in the school of more power learning. Let me explain. If all you've ever driven is a little two door speck automatic with less than 2 liters under the hood, you'll be a great driver. No HP and touque to sneak up on you, little tiny car, easy to park, easy to manuver on the road, not much too it really. Take the guy that's been driving that two door speck for ten years and sit him down in a 400HP street legal full size car, he'll shit his pants and have NO clue of how to handle that car, even though he's got 10 years driving experience. Just my opinion on the matter. No, I don't think everybody should start out driving racecars/racebikes, but limiting one's ability to feel a real vehicle with real HP seems like a violation of freedom to own and operate whatever you choose and I think it really streaches out the learning curve much more than necessary.

 

A tiered licensing system won't do much of anything. Neither will reducing speed limits, restricting age of licensee or any of the other band aids the states are trying. This is a big sore spot for me. I've been watching,studying and common sense analyzing accidents and driving techniques of the average operator on the road for over 30 years. Here's my rant:

No state teaches driving in the USA. What they do teach is OPERATING a vehicle. They teach you what all the signs means. What the lights mean. What the traffic laws are. How to use your turn signal. What the big round thing sticking out of the dash does. What the vertical and horizontal pedals do and the stick thing called a shifter does. PERIOD no more, no avoidance maneuvers, how to recover from a skid or what it feels like, what it feels like going off hard pavement and how to recover. People don't even know what action to take to avoid a head on collision. They only teach you to drive errr operate SAFE at the speed limit and OBEY the law. That is the criteria to get a drivers err I mean an operators license in any state.

An old acquaintance of mine has started a drivers school after his two boys,17 and 15 were killed in the same car accident together about four years ago. Their fault sadly to say. It's a start of what should be and how kids are taught how to drive. you can read about it here: BRAKES with Doug Herbert

You can watch cops on tv and see someone driving down the wrong side of a highway. I've seen people run head on in those shows. Flat straight road, perfect conditions at least 1/2 mile visibility and they drive in to each other head on. WHY? Nobody takes avoidance action because they don't know what to do in those situations. Look at the highway patrolman in the run-a-way Toyota that he and his two or three passengers got killed in a crash. He was driving for over a mile at a high rate of speed and couldn't stop. Nobody in the car thought to shut it off or just put it in neutral. I could go on for hours about the accidents I've witnessed, saw on tv or afterwards and no body took evasive action. Look at the Ford Explorer-Firestone tire debacle. People were flipping vehicles because of a blow out!! Car& Driver did testing with a roll caged Explorer. The end results show a blow out at 70mph, hands off the wheel and the Ford went straight!! So how did they flip those others. Operator input. The wrong kind of input.

We don't need tiered licensing as much as we need real DRIVING course's!! Kids need to be taught how to drive not how to just operate. They need to know how to take corners at speed, how to regain control of a vehicle when it goes off road. Also to use the gas and not the brakes all the time. The accelerator will get you out of trouble more than the brakes will in a lot of instances.

It doesn't matter if it's for a car or motorcycle license. They need better DRIVING training and not just what they are teaching today. The pit fall is the politicians and law makers don't know how to drive, they just know how to operate so they are just ignorant about the cause of accidents. It's blamed on speed, road conditions, site conditions the grass was wet and anything else you can think of except HOW TO DRIVE! The police add to that by blaming speed, or conditions over operator error. You want to help? Then write a paper on how tiered licensing will not help and teaching people how to DRIVE will.

Really though check out the site: BRAKES with Doug Herbert That may give you some ideas or pm me and I'll define what is really needed and how to try and go about doing it. Good luck with your paper.

 

Yes I mean a system that limits new riders to smaller machines for a certain amount of time before they move up to a bigger more powerful machine. I also realize that there are systems that limit rider age,but I'm focusing on cc size. This is the kind of insight I was looking for, the views and thoughts of normal people. I have done research and it always concludes that proper training is the solution and by proper training they mean the MSF course, which IMO needs to undergo restructuring. When I took the course I was the youngest at 16 and the oldest was around 50. During the course I exhibited skills the others didn't have. I'm not trying to say I was the best one there. A few others could of showed me up but with less than 5 months of any kind of training I passed the course. So did the 45 year old woman who could barley balance the little 150, then at the end guess what. She said she was going out the next day to buy herself a brand new "big" Harley