0
OK, things are getting a bit murky here. I'll try to explain my point.
Firstly, my opinion or your opinion on what the govt should or shouldn't do is the only point that is moot. We are talking about check points for motorcycles. People can argue all they want about it and it will get them exactly nowhere. The law has this very firmly wrapped up. It is not unconstitutional as it does not interfere with any rights. The fact that you are traveling on a public (state, town or federally administered roadway) road using a license granted by the state allows them to stop you at any time for a check. If they stopped only a protected group (discriminate by age, sec, religion, color, race, mental ability etc) that is a different matter. Motorcyclists are not a protected group and profiling by vehicle type is absolutely legal. If they wanted to stop only Hondas that would be legal also. Same is true if they wanted to stop only red bikes, people with half helmets, only bikes with passengers etc.
My second point is about accident rates and fatalities amongst motorcyclists.
1. The govt (fed and state) do care about this. Motor vehicle accident and mortality rates are reported every year to the feds and bad numbers are not a good thing whether it be for cars or motorcycles. I can get the guy who compiles this stuff for Massachusetts to come on here and verify that if you like.
2. If the numbers do not improve, govt will get involved and put pressure to fix the problem using obvious (to them) measures. This would inevitably restrict motorcyclists (tiered licensing, more stringent training, mandatory training, less powerful vehicles, more protective gear mandatory and who knows what else).
3. What we CAN do is proactively 'head the feds off at the pass' by accepting SOME restrictions that make sense to us (even if we don't like them) like SENSIBLE tiered licensing (govt could easily mandate that anyone under 21 cannot ride anything over 500cc)
4. There probably is no data to support the 'bigger bike- more likely to crash, and more likely to get really badly hurt or killed' theory, but I would put my house on it based on experience and common sense. Just accept that as truth please. Yes, you can be killed on a 250 but based on what causes deaths (car turning left and cornering skills) bigger, faster bikes are going to lead to more deaths than small displacement ones for reasons stated earlier (smaller bikes are much more likely to be going slower and can stop quicker and be corrected in corners easier).
If you really analyze my suggestion for proactive tiered licensing it is not very restrictive at all. In fact, it opens up some classes earlier than current in the 16-17 age group.
And bear in mind, some of you guys are the exception. Unfortunately, we do have to cater for the lowest common denominator. That's why we have stupidly low speed limits. Most of us here would be fine with 90MPH limits on the highways. Unfortunately, there are a large majority of people on the roads in cars and on bikes that are morons and NEED to be restricted with more training, lower speed limits etc. It IS the government's duty to protect them and to protect us FROM them. Like it or not, that's how it is once again.
I leave you with this thought. Harley Davidson are a MAJOR contributor to motorcycle safety groups in the US. MAJOR (like tens of millions a year I believe). This gives them extraordinary lobbying power against such things as tiered licensing. Harley's smallest displacement bike is the traditional 'starter' bike for Harley riders, the Sportster at 883cc so no offering from them to the new rider if tiered licensing comes into effect. I teach the Rider's Edge Ridercourse for Harley Davidson and the unverified 'word on the street' is that Harley are scrambling to develop and introduce a new sub-500cc 'starter bike' for their range. I can see only one reason that they would want to do that. Food for thought?
Tiered licensing work very well in Europe where rider's rights groups are extremely powerful (there are euro-MPs who ride in 500,000-strong demonstration rides against such things as emissions law changes and anti-tamper laws and MAG has someone with a seat in the European court). The difference is they know which battles to fight and which to drive in a way that is not too restrictive. Anyone here who has been to Europe will tell you that the standard of riding is much higher there and the amount of riders wearing proper safety gear is almost 100%. It has become a way of life for riders to be like that and new riders are educated by experienced riders that training is important, gear is important. Not only for your own safety, but to keep it so motorcycles aren't legislated out of existence as we know it.
Ironically, the people riding around talking about how their rights are being violated are EXACTLY the ones who are causing rider's rights to be violated.
If you want to stick your head up out of the bunker, make sure it has a full-face helmet on it. That way you aren't a sitting target for the people (govt) shooting at you.
Right now, if a politician has a hard-on for loud pipes, helmet laws, slower bikes etc it's like shooting fish in a barrel because, as a group, motorcyclists are a bunch or idiots. Sorry to say it, but again, that's just how it is.
The AMA helps somewhat, as do excellent groups like the MMA but it's hard to defend 30 guys wheelieing down rt24. It's hard to defend the 110 S and S motor with straight pipes. Its hard to defend the police officer's son who dies from blood loss because he crashed in a t-shirt. It's hard to defend the 1st year rider who borrows his brother's CBR900 and dies at 120MPH in Brockton because he doesn't know how to brake effectively.
Rant over. Sorry.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by SRTie4k
