Pillion Passengers, Their Safety and Texas.

[DucDave]

Nor does it test for proficiency on 2 wheels since 3 wheeled vehicles (like the Can-Am Spyder) are classified the same as a real motorcycle.

huh? So, you believe that there is a dangerous trend of people borrowing a CanAm so they can pass theyr proficiency test and then they go out and ride 2 wheeled motorocycles? Huh...never saw that coming.

Now, whether the proficiency test actually tests proficiency...that's a horse of a different color!

[ZX-12R]

huh? So, you believe that there is a dangerous trend of people borrowing a CanAm so they can pass theyr proficiency test and then they go out and ride 2 wheeled motorocycles? Huh...never saw that coming.

Now, whether the proficiency test actually tests proficiency...that's a horse of a different color!

I'm not saying there is a dangerous trend yet due to the very low numbers of Can-Ams out there but it's an oversight in the rules that is ripe for being abused in the future. There is clearly different skill sets involved in operating 2 vs. 3 wheeled vehicles. When the laws were made there wasn't an off the shelf 3 wheeler available, only custom trikes. It doesn't help that Can-Am actively advertises this fact in their commercials either.

Squid borrows daddy's spyder and passes the road test. The next day the squid buys a turbo-busa and throws his girlfriend on the back. Squid goes screaming down the road and tries to turn right but magically the bike goes left into oncoming traffic. Next thing you know we are facing even more rules and regulations.

I also agree that the proficiency test doesn't test proficiency. Mine was a joke. Registry cop: "Do a lap around the parking lot. When you get back, do a circle and a figure 8. When you are done, go park out front and meet me inside."

[Twheat18]

Yes, 1 day licensed or 40 years licensed should be allowed to carry passengers.

You passed a state license exam that says you're competent to operate a motorcycle. Who says that having a license endorsement for x amount of time will actually make you a better rider? I understand that experience comes with miles, but is it the government's job to step in and say you can't do something? In my opinion, it is not. It is the responsibility of the rider to know he or she is taking another's life in his or her hands by carrying a passenger. With that said, the passenger must also understand the risks involved. We're supposedly a country that believes whole-heartedly in freedom, yet laws keep getting passed to infringe upon those freedoms.

dude, couldn't agree more

[BSR6]

To me riding ability is not just about passing a safety course. It's a combination of education and experience.

Normally I am a big fan of personal responsibility but in this case things are different. Lets face it, a lot of new riders are clueless to their true abilities, and likely not qualified to make the decision of whether not they should take on a passenger. Its a decision that only experience can teach someone how to appropriately make.

Of course the idea of applying that to only sportbikes is insane but that pretty much goes without saying.

[wesvailco]

-I saw some joker yesterday in Warwick with his girl on the back. she wasn't wearing much save for the helmet. ole' dude, no helmet but wearing Timbo's. no eye protection. just sharing. RI is funny, might go ride naked one day for shits' and giggles.


-I've removed rear pegs as an excuse.

[Pittenger5]

Compared to the fact teenage operators in cars cant have someone in the car with them (Dont know the exact rules) dont see how this could be construed as any different.

[xrocket21]

Yes, 1 day licensed or 40 years licensed should be allowed to carry passengers.

You passed a state license exam that says you're competent to operate a motorcycle. Who says that having a license endorsement for x amount of time will actually make you a better rider? I understand that experience comes with miles, but is it the government's job to step in and say you can't do something? In my opinion, it is not. It is the responsibility of the rider to know he or she is taking another's life in his or her hands by carrying a passenger. With that said, the passenger must also understand the risks involved. We're supposedly a country that believes whole-heartedly in freedom, yet laws keep getting passed to infringe upon those freedoms.

Now here's a man with some common sense

/John Madden

[xrocket21]

To me riding ability is not just about passing a safety course. It's a combination of education and experience.

Normally I am a big fan of personal responsibility but in this case things are different. Lets face it, a lot of new riders are clueless to their true abilities, and likely not qualified to make the decision of whether not they should take on a passenger. Its a decision that only experience can teach someone how to appropriately make.

Of course the idea of applying that to only sportbikes is insane but that pretty much goes without saying.

But you are qualified to decide what is best for someone else?

[Jaynnus]

I have not read every word of this thread....

Do I think it is a good *idea*....yes. But that does not mean I support having another law.

If they did pass a law based on time or distance of experience would that mean that the PO could stop all bikes with a passenger to check credentials?

I do take the time to focus on the effects of added weight of cargo and passenger and stress that it is important to get some street experience before taking a passenger, especially one who has not been a rider or passenger before in my class. But, I can't tell you how many people in their morning intro say...."I'm here because I am taking a trip in 2 months to *insert foreign country* and my girl said she won't ride on the back unless I take this course"....YIKES!

[ranette]

Yes, 1 day licensed or 40 years licensed should be allowed to carry passengers.

You passed a state license exam that says you're competent to operate a motorcycle. Who says that having a license endorsement for x amount of time will actually make you a better rider? I understand that experience comes with miles, but is it the government's job to step in and say you can't do something? In my opinion, it is not. It is the responsibility of the rider to know he or she is taking another's life in his or her hands by carrying a passenger. With that said, the passenger must also understand the risks involved. We're supposedly a country that believes whole-heartedly in freedom, yet laws keep getting passed to infringe upon those freedoms.

Why not take it a step further? Why should the government be involved in judging whether or not I am competent to ride a two wheeled, or for that matter a four wheeled, vehicle at all?

PLEASE, we are a free country, that is in no more danger now than at any time in our past. However, we are, and always have been a society of laws. Laws that are passed and upheld for the greater good of society. This is not some 21st century liberal dogma as many today seem to believe, it is one of the principles on which our nation was founded upon. Should we abolish the drinking age? All speed limits? Laws against dumping of toxic waste? How about safety regulations for the nuclear industry? Shouldn't parents and CEO's simply be governed by their own common sense?

By the way, your two statements, "Who says that having a license endorsement for x amount of time will actually make you a better rider? I understand that experience comes with miles" are so incongruous that it makes anything else you write worthless to me. Yes, no matter how you put it, no matter what the task, skills improve with experience. You want to argue that the government shouldn't be able to tell you or I what to do-go ahead, that's your right, we're free to agree or disagree with you. However, don't argue that the average rider with 20 years experience isn't better equipped to handle any emergency that arises better than the average rider with a year under their belt, that's ridiculous.

[ilikenapalm]

Two examples.

1. Rider X gets a used ex500 and immediately hits the track. Reads all kinds of books on the topic of riding, talks to everyone he/she can about improving his riding skills, and is even very aware of other drivers on the road.

2. Rider Y buys a brand new cruiser. It usually sits in the back of his/her garage unless its time for the monthly Starbucks run. The rest of the time its back there just being all shiny. This continues for 10 years.

Who's the better rider?

The problem is 30 years of "riding experience" is sometimes not equivalent to 1 or 2 years. Yes, you may be exposed to more ludicrous driving, but what if you live in a very rural area, where the only bad drivers to worry about are farmers who let their cows cross the road? It is not the government's job to step in and tell you when you're able to carry a passenger. The passenger also has something called free will, meaning they could make a conscious decision to not get on a motorcycle.

[xrocket21]

Why not take it a step further? Why should the government be involved in judging whether or not I am competent to ride a two wheeled, or for that matter a four wheeled, vehicle at all?

PLEASE, we are a free country, that is in no more danger now than at any time in our past. However, we are, and always have been a society of laws. Laws that are passed and upheld for the greater good of society. This is not some 21st century liberal dogma as many today seem to believe, it is one of the principles on which our nation was founded upon. Should we abolish the drinking age? All speed limits? Laws against dumping of toxic waste? How about safety regulations for the nuclear industry? Shouldn't parents and CEO's simply be governed by their own common sense?

By the way, your two statements, "Who says that having a license endorsement for x amount of time will actually make you a better rider? I understand that experience comes with miles" are so incongruous that it makes anything else you write worthless to me. Yes, no matter how you put it, no matter what the task, skills improve with experience. You want to argue that the government shouldn't be able to tell you or I what to do-go ahead, that's your right, we're free to agree or disagree with you. However, don't argue that the average rider with 20 years experience isn't better equipped to handle any emergency that arises better than the average rider with a year under their belt, that's ridiculous.

MA has a helmet law, and an eyewear law. Should we have a full gear law? Hi-viz law? footwear law?

[Kurlon]

Compared to the fact teenage operators in cars cant have someone in the car with them (Dont know the exact rules) dont see how this could be construed as any different.

The big issue with this law is it makes a horrible attempt at targeting just 'crotch rockets' which is where I draw the line. If you're going to do it, do it across the board for all bike types.

[ranette]

Ilikenapalm, first of all thanks for replying with reasonable scenarios. When I read back over my response I really don't think I should have labelled any of your response "worthless" bad choice of word and I apologize.

However, I used the word "average" to describe the riders, and that is the only way using our current system that it can be looked at. Many competitive racers have been on two wheels since they could walk and have built skills by the age of 18 that most of us could never dream of. However, that is not the norm and any licensing authority can't recognize it as the norm. Would you be in favor of a more stringent licensing procedure, incorporating real life skills such as stopping from 60mph to try to rectify situations like that? That would be another step of government involvement. The bottom line is there has to be some sort of authority that deems whether certain people are deemed competent to perform certain tasks that in someway endanger themselves, and especially others. The thing is, we don't necessarily disagree on this law; I don't think I would favor it. However, I do see some logic in it, it's just a matter of where the licensing authority is going to draw that line. You seem to think that any sort of line, any sort of enforcement beyond the idea of personal responsibility is an impingement of your rights, while I feel that government, while avoiding becoming our nanny, has a responsibility to look out for the greater good of society.

[rbrais]

Right - I agree the step of limiting this kind of thing to certain types of motorcycles is nuts, but the limitation on passengers, I feel, may have merit.

Like not having under-age passengers in a car for the first 6 months or so. CT does this. It may even be a year, not sure.

[rbrais]

Ilikenapalm, first of all thanks for replying with reasonable scenarios. When I read back over my response I really don't think I should have labelled any of your response "worthless" bad choice of word and I apologize.

However, I used the word "average" to describe the riders, and that is the only way using our current system that it can be looked at. Many competitive racers have been on two wheels since they could walk and have built skills by the age of 18 that most of us could never dream of. However, that is not the norm and any licensing authority can't recognize it as the norm. Would you be in favor of a more stringent licensing procedure, incorporating real life skills such as stopping from 60mph to try to rectify situations like that? That would be another step of government involvement. The bottom line is there has to be some sort of authority that deems whether certain people are deemed competent to perform certain tasks that in someway endanger themselves, and especially others. The thing is, we don't necessarily disagree on this law; I don't think I would favor it. However, I do see some logic in it, it's just a matter of where the licensing authority is going to draw that line. You seem to think that any sort of line, any sort of enforcement beyond the idea of personal responsibility is an impingement of your rights, while I feel that government, while avoiding becoming our nanny, has a responsibility to look out for the greater good of society.

By the time I got my MC endorsement, I had been riding for 15 years and racing for 5. But yes, that's not the norm. Most people taking their test can barely take off without dropping or stalling.

I always thought the most stupid rule was that you get your permit to go practice (on the road) before taking your test, especially after seeing half my class fail. I think you now need the training course.

[BSR6]

But you are qualified to decide what is best for someone else?

Trust me if you knew me you would have fallen out of your chair when you read my reply. ilikenapalm's post is more along the lines of how I usually think, but I do believe there are rules for a reason, so sometimes they are appropriate. To me this seems like one of those times.

[ilikenapalm]

The bottom line is there has to be some sort of authority that deems whether certain people are deemed competent to perform certain tasks that in someway endanger themselves, and especially others. The thing is, we don't necessarily disagree on this law; I don't think I would favor it. However, I do see some logic in it, it's just a matter of where the licensing authority is going to draw that line. You seem to think that any sort of line, any sort of enforcement beyond the idea of personal responsibility is an impingement of your rights, while I feel that government, while avoiding becoming our nanny, has a responsibility to look out for the greater good of society.

I'm not saying there isn't logic in the law. Squids on sportbikes wreck a lot, and sometimes there's a passenger involved that gets pretty banged up. I've lost count of how many news articles I've read in the past few years about a passenger dying because of a motorcycle crash.

But allowing the government and law enforcement to step in and tell us what we can and can't do is not something I support. I worry about laws like this possibly being passed (that I agree with) because I'd hate to be on the other side of a different law, that others support, but would make me change something I do.

[xrocket21]

where to we get in line to receive our "walking down the sidewalk" helmets?

[Pittenger5]

If you need any reason why this law should not be passed, go look at the facebook group formed for this law. Utterly terrifying. They openly admit that the girls helmet came off, and when Giles tries to chime in and offer ways for motorcyclists and passengers to be safer, he gets flamed and basically is accused of pissing on the girls grave.
So they want all motorcyclsts to be safer, but ONLY from their law, if you suggest other ways, you're trying to sell gear and offending the memory of the poor girl.

[ranette]

where to we get in line to receive our "walking down the sidewalk" helmets?

And when can I use my neighbor's mailbox for target practice?

[ranette]

But allowing the government and law enforcement to step in and tell us what we can and can't do is not something I support.

Murder, battery, embezzlement, grand theft, petty theft? I'm not equating this law with any of those, but the government and it's law enforcement agencies at some point have to be able to tell us what we can and cannot do. Empty out the prisons because law enforcement shouldn't have the authority to step in and tell us what we can and cannot do? We may disagree where that line is, but are you seriously advocating anarchy? That's the only philosophy that could describe your above quote.

[ilikenapalm]

Fair enough.

To put it simply, I support police officers protecting and serving the public. I don't support the government trying to protect us from ourselves.

[Kurlon]

If you need any reason why this law should not be passed, go look at the facebook group formed for this law. Utterly terrifying. They openly admit that the girls helmet came off, and when Giles tries to chime in and offer ways for motorcyclists and passengers to be safer, he gets flamed and basically is accused of pissing on the girls grave.
So they want all motorcyclsts to be safer, but ONLY from their law, if you suggest other ways, you're trying to sell gear and offending the memory of the poor girl.

So want to comment on that page...

Ok, commenting on the paged, time to feed the trolls.

Edit: Or not, how the heck do you post to something's wall?

[ilikenapalm]

I think you have to "like" the page... but judging by the complete lack of posts, whoever is running it must have it on some kind of "approval only" setting.