Survey: Tiered Licensing or Self Control

[FlynGSXR1k]

A few weeks ago, we had a well-debated thread going about imposing a 'tiered-licensing' or step-licensng process to keep (young) and/or inexperienced riders off the hyper-sport/liter bike lines until they are ready for it. The debate was in one of the RIP threads, and probably wasn't the best place for it.

I'm been doing some lurking among different networks on the issue, and would like to get some good feedback from the NESR community. I do plan on using the survey results in a future article that I'm preparing so your honesty and feedback is appreciated. I realize the survey offers limited options, please feel free to elaborate in the thread.


The poll does allow mutliple choices

Should inexperienced riders be limited to what kind of motorcycle they can ride?

1 . It is the responsibility of the parents and/or adult rider to educate, and respect the sport. (Dealers have a ride to sell anyone any bike, and the state has no right to step in and cotrol)

2. Dealers should use their best judgement and make suspecting inexperienced riders (and parents of minors) sign a waiver stating they have been advised against the purchase of a liter bike

3. The state needs to tier Motorcycle licenses and force inexperienced riders to ride smaller bikes first, and increase slowly (based on hours/miles)

4. The state needs to tier Motorcycle licenses based on number and level of safety courses the rider has taken, not more than one course per season.

[KillBill]

Where the fuck is the survey?

[FlynGSXR1k]

Where the fuck is the survey?

Patience killah.... it takes a minute to type the shit lo

[Jaynnus]

This is supposed to be a free country. Please stop trying to take away more freedom of choice. That is all.



PSA: This in no way eliminates my personal opinion about retards on litre bikes.

[FlynGSXR1k]

I still hold true to my conservative values in keeping the state out of it.

While firmly believing in personal responsibilty, if some meathead kid decides to go out a buy a busa, 1) the dealership should not be BANNED from selling it to him, but perhaps a waiver explaining he was advised against it, therefore forcing the responsibility back on the consumer!

[KillBill]

"Live Free or Die"

[mdgray]

I voted 4, from my perpective as a medical proffesional I would never trust a 19 year old to make a smart decision and I've known/treated plenty whose parents had no say in the kids bike purchase or were to dumb to intercede until its too late. While I know that a saftey course not going to prevent all dumb choices it sounds like the best of the above, plus lots of people in my MSF class who did not already have a bike went to the instructor for advice...my 2 cents

[kb1]

It's a personal responsibility problem for me, and not enough people have it. I started out on my Z1k and about 20k miles in I am still going strong. However I rode with mature riders who taught me to respect my bike and what it's capable of doing.

I signed up and did Tony's Track Days because I wanted to go fast and see what my bike could do, in a safe environment. It wound up raining all day and I learned even more how to control my bike in a wet environment and still managed to hit 115 on the front straight and feel the speed. I went home with myself and my bike in one piece, it's about using your head.

That's why I have his advertisement here, and stickers on my car, and I always tell anybody I run into who rides sportbikes to hit the track. It's all about using personal judgement and understanding that the street is not the place to try new things.

I don't think it should be the government's job to protect us from our own stupidity, the government should focus on more important issues. But I do think a dealership should use some sense down to the sales/managerial level if they see a 16 year old trying to buy a Busa or 1000rr as a first bike to step up and do the right thing. Offer the kid discounts on better bikes and things of that nature, don't sign the papers and just show him the door.

[FlynGSXR1k]

I struggled with the verbiage on this one and I think its the way I want it. I appreciate your adding 'best OF the above'.

As one who did take the MSF course, I personally feel the state should refer all riders to the course to be licensed and not even offer the state road course at the DMV (which any clown can pass).

My concern with this one is someon can take one class per year for (say) 3 years and be promoted to a 'liter bike license' and who's to say how much experience he/she has on the road.

The fact of the matter is, our license is a privlege, if abused we lose it (or our life) - so simply don't abuse it!

I voted 4, from my perpective as a medical proffesional I would never trust a 19 year old to make a smart decision and I've known/treated plenty whose parents had no say in the kids bike purchase or were to dumb to intercede until its too late. While I know that a saftey course not going to prevent all dumb choices it sounds like the best of the above, plus lots of people in my MSF class who did not already have a bike went to the instructor for advice...my 2 cents

[joeswamp]

Correct answer is #3. Riding/driving on public roads is a privilege not a right and the state should be able to regulate it however they want. On the other hand they should not be able to regulate riding on private roads that you built yourself on your own property.

Sooo many single bike accidents are the 16 year old on the new liter bike, giving these things to a first time rider is like teaching a first time pilot to fly on an F-16.

[Jaynnus]

As one who did take the MSF course, I personally feel the state should refer all riders to the course to be licensed and not even offer the state road course at the DMV (which any clown can pass).

My concern with this one is someon can take one class per year for (say) 3 years and be promoted to a 'liter bike license' and who's to say how much experience he/she has on the road.

And the concern from an instructors point of view....

Is that you no longer have a class full of people who want to take the class and who come with an open mind ready to learn. Instead you get the macho attitude filled guy (yes typically a guy!) that is required to do this course but will not really absorb the program and possibly hamper the learning for the others in the same class.

[FlynGSXR1k]

Awesome points!!!! I also have a few friends that have started out on liter bikes and had no issues at all. It was their choice and they respected it.

I share the belief that the state has no business tell me or a dealer what they can or cant buy or sell.

I was a bit taken back recently, however when a certain dealership in Windham NH told my 18 year old friend on a MA permit that this 'left over' ZX-14 would be a great bike for him. To me, thats just dealer irresponsibility.

It's a personal responsibility problem for me, and not enough people have it. I started out on my Z1k and about 20k miles in I am still going strong. However I rode with mature riders who taught me to respect my bike and what it's capable of doing.

I signed up and did Tony's Track Days because I wanted to go fast and see what my bike could do, in a safe environment. It wound up raining all day and I learned even more how to control my bike in a wet environment and still managed to hit 115 on the front straight and feel the speed. I went home with myself and my bike in one piece, it's about using your head.

That's why I have his advertisement here, and stickers on my car, and I always tell anybody I run into who rides sportbikes to hit the track. It's all about using personal judgement and understanding that the street is not the place to try new things.

I don't think it should be the government's job to protect us from our own stupidity, the government should focus on more important issues. But I do think a dealership should use some sense down to the sales/managerial level if they see a 16 year old trying to buy a Busa or 1000rr as a first bike to step up and do the right thing. Offer the kid discounts on better bikes and things of that nature, don't sign the papers and just show him the door.

[FlynGSXR1k]

the big concern with this....

Look at the social intellects who employ the *majority* of the dmv/rmv - seriously... I'm going to trust THEM to determine what my skill level is? They can't even take my picture properly when using a stationary camera!!

Education and responsibility are key, not some unexperienced drone who's never sat on a motorcycle making guidelines about whats good and bad!

(no personal offense if anyone works for the RMV/DMV as Im sure there are some exceptions!

Correct answer is #3. Riding/driving on public roads is a privilege not a right and the state should be able to regulate it however they want. On the other hand they should not be able to regulate riding on private roads that you built yourself on your own property.

Sooo many single bike accidents are the 16 year old on the new liter bike, giving these things to a first time rider is like teaching a first time pilot to fly on an F-16.

[FlynGSXR1k]

great point i had not even thought of...... back to forcing them to be responsible for themselves LOL

And the concern from an instructors point of view....

Is that you no longer have a class full of people who want to take the class and who come with an open mind ready to learn. Instead you get the macho attitude filled guy (yes typically a guy!) that is required to do this course but will not really absorb the program and possibly hamper the learning for the others in the same class.

[R1]

[schleppy]

I normally don't chime in on these, but I definitely don't agree with any of the blame/responibility being put on dealers. Yes it's not cool that some salespeople would knowingly sell a hyperbike to a beginner, but where would we draw the line?

If we subscribed to this mentality, should people have to sign a health waiver when they eat McDonalds because they are knowingly eating crap that can hurt their bodies? Should people have to sign a waiver when they buy a fast car?

It comes down to people needing to be responsible for their own actions. This society is obsessed with placing blame on everyone but themselves.

[kb1]

I was a bit taken back recently, however when a certain dealership in Windham NH told my 18 year old friend on a MA permit that this 'left over' ZX-14 would be a great bike for him. To me, thats just dealer irresponsibility.

And that's what gets me, they know he's a kid with some cash to spend on a bike or can probably get approved for a cheap loan. The ZX-14 is probably a tough move for them late model, they aren't widely popular. So they pawn it off on some kid who has no idea what twisting his wrist a few centimeters is going to put him in situation wise.

Sport bikes area different breed because they can take a person to 100mph in a matter of seconds with ultimately no protection around them. Nowadays even a modern 250 can do close to a 100mph with a lighter person on it. It's about responsiblity and learning the proper way.

[kb1]

I normally don't chime in on these, but I definitely don't agree with any of the blame/responibility being put on dealers. Yes it's not cool that some salespeople would knowingly sell a hyperbike to a beginner, but where would we draw the line?

If we subscribed to this mentality, should people have to sign a health waiver when they eat McDonalds because they are knowingly eating crap that can hurt their bodies? Should people have to sign a waiver when they buy a fast car?

It comes down to people needing to be responsible for their own actions. This society is obsessed with placing blame on everyone but themselves.

I'm not saying the dealer should say NO we won't sell that to you. What I'm saying is if a kid comes in saying "What should I start with I kind of like the CBR 1000RR?" The dealer should come back and say honestly that's not a bike for beginners, here have a look at these bikes which are still very stylish and quick but will be much better suited to your learning curve.

[noxin]

I'm not saying the dealer should say NO we won't sell that to you. What I'm saying is if a kid comes in saying "What should I start with I kind of like the CBR 1000RR?" The dealer should come back and say honestly that's not a bike for beginners, here have a look at these bikes which are still very stylish and quick but will be much better suited to your learning curve.

A better salesperson will do that, however, most salespeople are more about commission and couldn't care less about the person buying the bike.

Granted, I can't think of anyone on this forum I would put in that "most sales people" grouping, but obviously it's happened because we've all heard the stories.


I'm very torn on this issue because in a few years my daughter is likely to be getting a bike, and hopefully she'll listen to my advice and start on the right bike.

[JettaJayGLS]

Eh, survival of the fittest.

It would be nice to have someone come in and say something, but different strokes for different folks.

If a 6'3" guy came in and they tried to start him off on an ex500 (which is PERFECTLY LEGIT) is it going to be the same for a 5'2" 115lb guy? Or a 4'5" girl? What if the 6'3" guy has never ridden anything, but teh 5'2" guy is a professional motocross race? To many variables to draw a line.

I think wearing full gear for you and your passenger should be made into a law. I don't wear leather pants everyday, but if it was law, I would do it. That would keep a lot of the squids off bikes that do it to look cool, and keep girl passengers off bikes dressed in barely anything, despite how great it is to look at them. That is a VERY plausible idea, and think it could be run with. Plus, you can't hide not wearing a jacket.

Now, I don't think the law has to say it needs to be leather jacket, leather pants, track boots, and gauntlet gloves.

But some re-inforced jackets, weather it be mesh, textile, or leather. The same for pants whether it be Denim, the firemans hose pants, or leather. Some sort of gloves that at least cover your hand, and boots over your ankle.

I think this will send a lot of people away from bikes, but it is a perfectly legitimate law. I have friends that laugh at me for always putting my jacket on even when its super hot out. They don't own a jacket, and don't even use my spare if i offer it to them.

There are plenty of people that wouldn't ride a bike if they found out that they needed to spend an additional 500 bucks on gear to ride a bike, and they are the people that shouldn't be on bikes.

[Just_Jeff]

I do believe in responsibility. Personal or other wise.
Personally believe a Motorcycle dealership has a responsibility to not sell any motorcycle to an unlic owner.
I believe the state should not allow you to register a motorcycle without having a lic. If your on a temp lic (permit) then you get same as a plate temporary
I believe that a dealership should take into account the buyer, not the profit margin and whats in stock when recommending a bike to a customer.
I believe in personal responsibility of picking your first bike out. But you need to be informed on that. And the availability of said information is hard to find, What is easy to find is your friends saying don't be a pussy get a real bike, your salesman saying don't be a pussy get a real bike, Your parents saying be a pussy and don't get any bike.
I don't want the state saying you cant get a bike, I just want them to help you get informed on bikes. Regardless of age you should be on a "learners" bike (RWHP wise) when you are still a ...."learner". Tiered Lic all the way baby.

[FlynGSXR1k]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 6.12) T-Mobile Dash)

Eh, survival of the fittest.

It would be nice to have someone come in and say something, but different strokes for different folks.

If a 6'3" guy came in and they tried to start him off on an ex500 (which is PERFECTLY LEGIT) is it going to be the same for a 5'2" 115lb guy? Or a 4'5" girl? What if the 6'3" guy has never ridden anything, but teh 5'2" guy is a professional motocross race? To many variables to draw a line.

I think wearing full gear for you and your passenger should be made into a law. I don't wear leather pants everyday, but if it was law, I would do it. That would keep a lot of the squids off bikes that do it to look cool, and keep girl passengers off bikes dressed in barely anything, despite how great it is to look at them. That is a VERY plausible idea, and think it could be run with. Plus, you can't hide not wearing a jacket.

Now, I don't think the law has to say it needs to be leather jacket, leather pants, track boots, and gauntlet gloves.

But some re-inforced jackets, weather it be mesh, textile, or leather. The same for pants whether it be Denim, the firemans hose pants, or leather. Some sort of gloves that at least cover your hand, and boots over your ankle.

I think this will send a lot of people away from bikes, but it is a perfectly legitimate law. I have friends that laugh at me for always putting my jacket on even when its super hot out. They don't own a jacket, and don't even use my spare if i offer it to them.

There are plenty of people that wouldn't ride a bike if they found out that they needed to spend an additional 500 bucks on gear to ride a bike, and they are the people that shouldn't be on bikes.

a bit off the beaten path with the gear stuff...but ill only say im hurting no one but myself amd i DO exercise my right to wear what i want when i want while riding.

id love to start a 'gear law' survey but i have a feeling it would be a


thanks for the feedback on licensing tho!!!!!

[noxin]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 6.12) T-Mobile Dash)



a bit off the beaten path with the gear stuff...but ill only say im hurting no one but myself amd i DO exercise my right to wear what i want when i want while riding.

id love to start a 'gear law' survey but i have a feeling it would be a


thanks for the feedback on licensing tho!!!!!

Physically hurting only yourself, probably.

Emotionally hurting those around you?
Financially hurting society, who, if you get injured to a point where you can't take care of yourself, pays for your care (either through your health insurance or social security/state health care system)?

I'm very much pro-choice in terms of gear, but please don't disillusion yourself to think you are the only one affected if you get hurt riding without gear.

[schleppy]

I'm not saying the dealer should say NO we won't sell that to you. What I'm saying is if a kid comes in saying "What should I start with I kind of like the CBR 1000RR?" The dealer should come back and say honestly that's not a bike for beginners, here have a look at these bikes which are still very stylish and quick but will be much better suited to your learning curve.

I too hope this is what most dealers do. But at the end of the day we know they all don't.

[FlynGSXR1k]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows CE; IEMobile 6.12) T-Mobile Dash)

I do believe in responsibility. Personal or other wise.
Personally believe a Motorcycle dealership has a responsibility to not sell any motorcycle to an unlic owner.
I believe the state should not allow you to register a motorcycle without having a lic. If your on a temp lic (permit) then you get same as a plate temporary
I believe that a dealership should take into account the buyer, not the profit margin and whats in stock when recommending a bike to a customer.
I believe in personal responsibility of picking your first bike out. But you need to be informed on that. And the availability of said information is hard to find, What is easy to find is your friends saying don't be a pussy get a real bike, your salesman saying don't be a pussy get a real bike, Your parents saying be a pussy and don't get any bike.
I don't want the state saying you cant get a bike, I just want them to help you get informed on bikes. Regardless of age you should be on a "learners" bike (RWHP wise) when you are still a ...."learner". Tiered Lic all the way baby.

jeff... i like that train of thought..but i still remain dreadfuly concerned at the fact we are trusting/puttin in the hands of the state a development of standards they dont have a clue about. im a BIG proponent of individual orgs (like the mro) to put these standards together and would be quite content with the state putting the standards and certification control in the hands of a group of professionals that has a clue. that would accomplish a higher and more realistic level of safety and not birden taxpayers with unaccounted for bullshit services 'the man' has no means or expertise to provide