Teird license

Tiered licensing was in effect in Washington State for years based on engine displacement. Yep, it cost ya for each bike. The State in it's finite wisdom had a moneymaker going. The premise was that the larger the displacement the more "powerful" the bike. That one went bye-bye.

 

The thing to study is what causes the accidents. Nobody ever does that.
i.e. If most accidents are caused by cars turning in front of you then what difference does the size/power of the bike make? Going off the road on a turn at 40 mph? same thing. Locking up the front wheel- ditto. Checking out a girl with a nice rack and hitting a tree? Did that on a bicycle fer chrissakes!!
Check out if a country with a tiered system has a better record than the USA.

 

The problem with statements like that is that with just a little homework it proves to be not even close to being factual. The secondary effect is that there are those who believe statements like that to be factual.


Check this out: Motorcycle Safety Information and Resources

Try the link to the Hurt Report too.


Tierd overkill? Try Japan..

 

I like "Well" when accompanied by lip smacking. Usually, by do gooders and politicians.


I wonder how far Little Richard would have gotten if his song was, "Well Golly Miss Molly" instead of "Good Golly Miss Molly"?


Took some time off and went exploring and visiting.

 

If you really want a tiered licensing system, how will you do it and differentiate between the riders so police can tell before stopping? Yes you can do it by mc size like Japan does. How do you tell the first year rider from a 10 year rider?
In my state the first year riders (any age) and passengers under 18 must wear helmets. This does not really make a first year rider wear one though. Only those being conscientious of getting ticketed or injured wear them.

I would think that if those with power are serious then this is what I would do. Make ALL new riders take a mandatory MSF basic coarse or the like to get a license. When they get their plates, the plates would be a certain color to indicate novice rider. Which would have restrictions on things like mc size bike, limit engine cc to no more than 4 or 500cc. No passengers, required helmets and possibly protective clothing of some type. ie long pants and jacket.

Then in order to buy a larger mc they would have to take an advanced course simular to the MSF or better. They would then recieve a different color plate to indicate experienced/expert rider. This would allow them to by any size mc. As far as helmets and clothing would not be mandatory by law for rider. Helmets and clothing would mandatory riders/passengers under 18 yrs of age or something like that.

Without the different color plates the police would not be able to tell the difference between riders. Neither would any of us when riding in a group so we could tell who's a novice or not. One could still ride a 400cc bike and be an advanced rider.

I don't think states could go beyond that. Like getting track type training,super bike school, and then being allowed to legally go fast on the public streets. May be have a designation on license for track training that the police would take in to consideration if one got stopped for speed away from city streets. I know wishful thinking. Our constitution limits what can be done with our freedoms. Like helmet laws. Some states have them some don't. May be hard to regulate. I for one would like to see helmets mandatory in all states. Those from ABATE would like to see otherwise. Where is the line drawn? Possibly raise fines or consequences for cagers who hit mc. Don't let them get away with this "I didn't see them" excuse. They may take more time to look if they end up doing/costing more time/fines. A deterrent type thing.

Just thought of something else. There are dirt bike riders that don't need a license to ride off road. If they are going to get a mc endorsement for thew street they could take both MSF classes or just the advance class to get a street endorsement the first time. Seeing they have some experience riding they would be able to buy what ever bike they wanted for the street right away.

 

While not wanting to ....well (good?)..........rain on anything that GreyV750F has posted, since he has obviously spent a lot of time thinking about the subject, I'll just call out the elephant in middle of the room. This subject, like the helmet law subject, goes directly to the old argument of personal freedoms versus greater good, which then runs at WFO throttle into laws designed to protect us from ourselves.

Anyone that wants to spend the time looking into the things I say on this forum ( although I cant imagine a greater waste of one's time, and I have a good (well?) imagination) knows I'm not a raving libertarian nor a crazed anarchist ,or necessarily against all do-gooder regulation, so I'll refrain from advocating any position.

But since you're doing a research paper, that is the direction and the destination where you will eventually wind up, if your goal is to present all sides. If you're looking to just get opinions, then I humbly suggest that all you're really doing is a survey, designed to prove a position you've already taken.

After you have done your statistical research, and have looked into the crash numbers and the way other countries do their licensing, look also into the the culture of those countries, and how that may have some bearing on how they make decisions about what is allowed and what is not. I suggest that far more than hard numbers and stats, these systems are products of cultures that view all risky activities through a different filter than the US. Whether you find those factors and their end results right or wrong.....is up to you.

 

Vfour your absolutely right about personal rights/freedoms . The various helmet laws show that. Now take into consideration the seat belt laws. They are a national law. Not sure if it's a federal law or not. Never looked into it. The law was pushed through and not many people really complained about it. Most I believe accepted it as a good(not well) thing for safety. Which it is. What other counties do and their attitudes about safety in driving is what should be looked at.

As far as a national tiered mc law, I would think there would be all kinds of rejection thrown at it. From the same groups that fought the helmet laws. One thing they ignore is the novice riders and their injury/life expectancy. Just like novice cagers accident rates. I believe though there should be a better national licensing system. No matter what your driving/riding. The people need to be educated and trained how to ride/drive properly and realistically.

Driving/riding is NOT A RIGHT! It's a PRIVILEGE that we all have to earn. Yes you have a right to personal freedoms. But when those freedoms hurt or kill others because of ignorance or stupidity of not knowing what your doing with a vehicle from the start becomes common place, like they are now. That endangers my life and yours! That is not a freedom I would like to see or a right!

If everybody riding or driving had to go through a real drivers course to get a license I firmly believe the accident rate would fall greatly. Can you imagine having flying cars like they predicted in the 50's. There would be dead people and debris all other the freakin place. You'd have to wear a helmet and suite of armor just to go out side!!ainkiller:

 

I just saw this thread and was gonna reply until I saw GreyVF750F's thorough and excellent post. I agree with him in that the issue is not restricting vehicles but rather the TRAINING.

And yes the flying cars, in my opinion would ONLY be feasible if they were all computer controlled so you just tell it where to go. Can you imagine some guy getting out of a bar and stumbling into his jet?

 

Will the teired system be run by the state or the government? If its the government you better open your wallet. Having had the opportunity to travel fairly extensively and having friends across the pond, I can tell you that the cost of motorycling is expensive. Besides having a CC limit during the first six months they are required to dress the part when on two wheels. We are talking GB, so yesterday I could of been cited for riding in a full face helmet and a leather vest. My choice really, wearing a lid is my choice just as the many people who do not.

The point is; as much as the humanitarian in you wants to kick in and save every dumb ass without a spoke nipple of self preservation; you cant. It would be nice to have access to some of the smaller machines they have in europe, but I wouldnt wana invite the big bad wolf (government) to tell us what to do. Remember during the Carter administration they had someone named Joan Claybrook, well she was a total Cun* and screwed with us, I recall bikes having an 85 mph speedo. Anyway enough :soapbox:

People die its a fact of life. Ride like ur invisible and everyone in a cage is out to get yah. Worked for me. Cheer, TGIF,,,

 

I'm all for it if it brings the 400's here to the states.
but training classes would be better suited, I can't tell you how many folks I run into that ride a bike but have no clue what they are doing

 

riding a motorcycle proficiently is a skill set. If you learn the wrong skills, well then Bubba, you could be in for some trouble when the shi* hits the fan. That being said, I took the MSF course two decades ago and have hundreds of thousands of miles under my arse. It dont make me bullet proof but I like to think I made it over the main hurdle that bites new riders. My neighbor is older than me and has had a MC licence for longer than me. His current cruiser is being sold with only 6000 miles on it, its an 97 model. If you dont ride your not gona be that sharp. You gota practice. End of story.

 

Most people can't even drive a freaking car...let's start there and work up...oh wait, this is the home of "driving is a privilege, not a right"


....

 

That's right it's a privilege. If one does something that's really against the driving laws and have their license taken away by the police. Then the police will tell them they have a right to remain silent, they have a right to an attorney, they have a right to a jury trial. So the privilege does come with certain rights.ound:

 

Billy you are correct.
According to the Hurt report car drivers cause most of the accidents.
Problem is that this was done in 1979 in the LA Area only.
Where I'm from they don't do studies they just assume smaller bikes will be safer. I learnt on a 250cc a few years later it was 125cc. The gov. assumes that speed/power is the factor.
I correct my statement to: Nobody outside the LA area in 1979.
Maybe it's still the same now and the same all over the country/world.
Maybe other states have better drivers than most of the blind morons in CA. Although the UK has a bunch of blind morons too.
I don't know.
30 years ago we did not have cell phones and cup holders.
It's definately time for a new study.

 

Couldn't have said that any better myself, well put Grey!!

 

I'm form Germany and live now in CA. And I have to say its way to easy to get a license here. In CA $28 a multiple choice test and driving test and you have a motorcycle license come on. (Ok I did the MSF course ;o) )

In Germany to get your license you need to spend 10+ hours in classroom for theoretical drivers education and then you have 20+ hours of riding on the street with a teacher in a car or on a bike behind you. He give you directions and yells at you when you do things wrong. The 20+ hours include different
scenarios - urban riding, out of town riding, autobahn riding, a few night rides and of course the handling portion in a test area (like a big parking lot used only by the driving schools.). And after that you have a 45min driving test. Including the standard test in the parking lot (slalom, swerving w/ and w/o braking) And riding in town and outside and depending on the tester maybe autobahn.
And I think they should include a safety training on a racetrack as well. That would include riding on slippery surfaces, counter action training. But all that comes at a steep price in Germany you have to plan EURO1200 ($1500) to get your motorcycle license and about the same for car. But that trains both sides better car drivers and bike riders. I think the tiered system does a bit. But the whole drives ed systems helps to prevent more accidents then the tiered system because as someone already stated the restrictors are easily removed ...

 

I think a teired system is a good idea, if done right. It's not a matter of saving anybody as the truly dedicated idiot with find a way to self-terminate. If getting that new CBR600 meant at least a year's experience on a 250 along with classes and testing, maybe accident and insurance rates will go down...

 

The real problem lies with the fact that states do licensing. Its kind of like the flat tax idea, maybe not a bad idea, but unrealistic; too many people are vested in the current system of using the tax code to engineer behavior. Right or wrong, it just wont happen. The only way seatbelts happened was through withholding Fed money until the states bought in. There arent enough per capita motorcycles in the US for this to happen, and since there arent, ABATE type groups can hammer anything that looks like Fed coercion in the ground.

I doubt this is a problem with other countries that have tiered licences.

So your entire paper could look like this:

A. States do licensing
B. Feds cant force a change
C. Status quo continues.

 

I oppose tiered licensing based on HP or displacement. Let riders make their own decisions about what bikes to ride. I think some riders have no business riding 600 supersports, much less GSX 1000s, but Geez, let's leave government out of that decision!