Bandit Alley
GENERAL MOTORCYCLE FORUMS => GENERAL MOTORCYCLE => Topic started by: solman on December 16, 2007, 09:15:32 PM
-
In a lot of other countries, they have it so you have to start small and work your way up. Basically it prevents squids from going to liter bikes right off the bat with little or no experience. I have heard of some dealerships who will refuse selling a liter bike to squids with no experience. Back in the day, I would say no, but considering how fast bikes are nowadays and how easy they are to go fast, it makes me wonder.
-
I voted "no". As a new rider a few years ago, I was following all the textbooks that said look in the 600 cc range. But my buddy kept telling me I'd be tired of that within a few months. Economically, it didn't make sense to buy a bike with the idea of reselling it within a year.
Overall, I think the books are giving good avice, but I don't think the government's job is to protect us from ourselves. Protect us from others, sure, but as adults, we should have the right to make our own bad decisions. (And yes, I am still a G-man!)
-
I was working on this idea along with hundreds of others back in the 1980's. We were instructors at the Canadian motorcycle safety Course, instructing new ridrers the same as you're MSF does, we got nowhere with it. The gist of what we wanted was to basically limit new riders to 600 cc's or less for a period of one year that turned out to be impossible, to many people thought it was an infringement on their "rights" to buy whatever they wanted. Too bad I guess it would have worked and possibly saved a lot of lives and injuries.
Now we have graduated licencing for our youth to get their car licence and although I feel it's to long a period, it apparantly does save lives and injuries. This came about because of the amount of streetracers in the lower mainland who were out in their BMW's Porches or whateverelse daddy bought them, they killed a lot of innocent people racing on the streets of Vancouver.
If graduated licencing were to come about like they have in Europe for motorcycles but with the modifications neccessary for North America because of our much larger distances I would consider supporting it. But if it were too draconian I would reverse my opinion, so just limit them to 600cc and I'll be satisfied.
-
I understand what you are saying, but how many people are out there use the same common sense. I guess that the cc thing would apply more to the younger crowds who don't have fear and can't restrain themselves. On one of our safety day rides not too long a go, there was a rider on a new ZX14 who did the panic thing and went off the rode. I don't think he had a lot of experience on bikes and obviously not big bikes since he just bought it not too long before the accident.
-
My 18 year old son wanted to buy a bike pretty badly this year, after "many" discussions about what bike to buy( he already has a RM 125) I convinced him that he should look at a "standard" type of bike, after him looking and looking he picked one I then took him to a local bike show, they had all the Jap bikes and Harleys.
So after getting him to sit on every concievable bike their he decided that he liked the Yamaha FZ-6 so we went and HE bought it. Now after 1 season he wants a bigger bike but he thinks that he will do 1 more year on the FZ, after I explained to him the reality that this year he was just learning and next year he will probably start putting it all together and really fly and that is when he will be most at risk of going down.
I am pretty sure that in 09 he'll be buying a GSXR or the Aprillia that he likes and by then DAD won't be worried so I'll help him get whatever he wants.
In case you're curious his FZ-6 with PC-3, K&N, slip on Cat removal is just as fast as my stock 1250, I took him to our local dragstrip and he was pulling 11.9 consistantly and on the last run of the evening he beat me
not bad for a 600.
Now he knows what a bike can do and if I can convince him to do a track day I will. Ya he,s gona kick my ass but what he will learn will be priceless. Man am I going to feel old :grin:
-
Why aren't y'all adding to the poll?
-
I did first
-
So Sven is the guilty one, GUILT TRIP!!!!
-
So Sven is the guilty one, GUILT TRIP!!!!
No, I voted "no" before I posted why.
-
Not important, just messing around. :stickpoke:
-
:duh: sorry i forgot to hit the submit button :lol:
-
:duh: sorry i forgot to hit the submit button :lol:
This is a hotly-contested race!
-
A ha! Found the culprit, lol
-
NO! Its the land of the free and home of the brave!
-
Yea, I'm your typical Canadian...we try to protect everyone, even from themselves, so with graduated licensing and cc or horsepower limits, we would have typical Canadian can or worms... :lol:
As a comment, I read an article written by Bruce Reeve back in 2002, editor of Cycle Canada at the time. It was based on the new Honda Rune being released, and that someone somewhere would buy one as their first bike. The gist of the article was that one of the benefits of motorcycling is the ability to "move up" in capability, power, etc. IE. we normally tend to start small (many of us on small dirt bikes) and get significant joy about getting the next "better" bike.
One of the reasons I picked the little 600 when I chose to return was that I knew it would be better than anything I rode/owned in the late 70's, still giving me room to "upgrade" and get a fresh dose of excitement each time.
A little off topic, but starting out on a smaller bike is not necessarily a bad thing...you end up with a lifetime of upgrade possibilities.
-
A little off topic, but starting out on a smaller bike is not necessarily a bad thing...you end up with a lifetime of upgrade possibilities.
So true, I started out riding a Nighthawk 450 and 250 dirtbike. I personally am really glad I did. I probably would've killed myself if I had started out with something with some real power. I am one of those that learned by getting on and just going. Looking back, probably wasn't the best way to learn. Especially when I first rode in traffic and on the freeway. Think about it, is it really a bad thing to make someone start out with something smaller? I ain't talking about going to extremes like some does with 125cc/25 hp bikes. I am talking about something like starting off with a 400-500cc bike. Something fast enough to go out and have fun, but nothing with full out power.
-
Ya know, I really think it would be a good idea,but I just don't like the giving the goverment the controll to tell me what I can and can not do. Just like the gun controll thing (but lets not go there,thats another topic) Putting a newb on a top of the line sport bike is a resipe for disaster. I don't think its the cc limit as much as the hp limit. You could have a886 or 1200 HD,doesn't mean its high performance.
I have a dealer friend of mine, a potential customer came in with his dad. Young kid with no experience and Dad had a fat wallet. They tried steering him to bikes like the Kaw 650r,a good light,well handling motorcycle that would be a blast to ride on. But he was set that he had to have the fastest prduction bike out,and there was no telling him what he should start with. He knew in his mind that he had to have the fastest,baddest thing out there. The salesman involved my buddy that runs/owns the store. They told him that they would not sell him that motorcycle,they'd be happy to deal w/ a more appropreate bike. They snot nosed kid started hollering and carrying on so he made sure everyone in the store could here him. Yelling how he was going to tell everone not to come to Cycle City this and that.
When (Gary) told me of this, I shook his hand. I thought he did the right thing,saying you would have read about him in the paper befor too long.
I do believe you should start smaller and work your way up. But I voted NO,because I don't want Big Brother to have more power over me. " Let freedoom reign", Dan
-
Well here in the UK we have a similar setup already in place
For new starters at the age of 16 you are limited to a capacity of 50cc-100cc. Over here that effectively means a machine that will not exceed 35mph due to further restrictions.
Once you turn 17 you are then entitled to ride a 125cc machine up to 14BHP. In order to ride any bike we have to complete a CBT (Compulsory Basic Training) which entails riding off-road (tarmac though) and then on road with a RosPA /DSA qualified instructor.
At 17 you are also entitled to take a test to become a fully fledged rider rather than riding with L plates avoiding Motorways and pillion passengers. This test is a slight step down from our Direct Access.
Basically you pass the test however if you happen to be under 21 you are then restricted to a 33BHP machine. However this can be any cc you so wish providing it can be restricted.
If you happen to be over 21 you are able to take the Direct Access course which allows the rider to pass the test and much like the states buy what ever you want.
Sadly im still buzzing around at 33BHP, the extra grunt would be lovely but in all honesty its not the end of the world without it, im still loving the ride and motorway (highway) jaunts are still reasonable enough. (especially for a 600)
-
Damn,At the age of 16,I was runningTT and flattrack on a Bultaco Astro. On a 1/2 mile oval,I was going into the turns @ probably 80-90 mph. If I had to drop to 35 top speed on the street,I'd just stay off of it.(started at the age of 5)
On the road,my first bike was a 400 Suz.ST,or I'd take out my Dad's Triumph. Both around 50 hp I quess. Dan
-
The UK thing doesn't sound that unfair to an extent. I ain't the biggest on adding more laws, but sometimes you have to ask yourself what would be the best. We have basic laws to protect us from ourselves as from others. Another way to look at it would to have the person applying to ride the size bike for the test. All too often I have heard of people riding a small bike for the test and then jumping on a liter bike for riding. Personally I would like to see mainly people under 21 be forced to start off with a smaller bike.
-
I think we should limit everyone, reguardless of age, to under 100 HP, and 100 mph top speed, on a streetbike :bomb:
-
I grew up in the U.K. and back then there were no displacement restrictions at all except from my old man. :lol: I remember wanting a 400/4 and he wouldn't co sign for the financing. Probably saved my butt, though. :grin:
-
I think we should limit everyone, reguardless of age, to under 100 HP, and 100 mph top speed, on a streetbike :bomb:
Do I hear a can of worms opening up? :stickpoke: I personally am trying to be realistic. That would be like dearming the U.S. Ain't going to happen...
-
I voted to not limit cc's because the B12 is my first street bike. However, I started riding when I was 8 on a 90cc dirt bike and it when up from there. I even took the MSF class (at 25) before making the purchase so if there was a limit I might not be enjoying this sweet forum and the witty banter that is associated with it. Oh yeah, and the awesome power that 1157cc's brings.
Matt
-
I find myself ambivalent about this. On one hand, I think new riders should definitely start out on smaller, less powerful machines. I myself learned to ride on a 1976 Kawasaki KZ400 (yes, I'm dating myself :grin:.) Smaller displacement bikes have gotten so fast and so powerful since then, and I've seen too many first-time buyers wad up their 600cc sport bikes because those bikes were way over their head.
On the other hand, I'm not in favor of the government protecting the stupid from themselves. My standard for this type of regulation: does the behavior affect other people negatively? In this case I don't see how it does in any significant way. I do like the idea of dealers voluntarily restricting sales to inexperienced riders.
-
Well here in the UK we have a similar setup already in place
For new starters at the age of 16 you are limited to a capacity of 50cc-100cc.
Being originally from the UK myself, I have, when this subject has arisen, given my opinion on this subject. Once even writing my premier about it during a particulary "brutal" summer of motorcycle related injuries and deaths a couple of years ago( under 20's). I addressed the merits of something akin to what speedwaymaniac had previously described as it makes alot of sense. Those who are mature and responsible enough should know the merits of earning the privilege of power, and, by the time afforded them by "restrictive riding", they'll have a TON of elementary skills and abilities procured through "real life" riding on something that wont totally leave them paralyzed if they hit the ground one day. The benefit of a mere sprained ankle or a little road rash can with a restricted bike far outweigh the perils of a "wheelchair accessible only" eventuality that is more likely to happen with an inexperienced and immature " I'm invunerable" type of rider who gets "coaxed" into a litre sportbike by his "buds".
However, in North America, unfortunately with the distances and "attitudes" intrenched in society of "bigger is better", from the land of the "muscle car", having riders go down to a 125cc bike or there abouts is a trifle impractical and unrealistic to have the majority embrace, yet still allow for growth in motorcycle society. I suggest a 500cc limit for all new riders for ONE year of insured, registered riding, IF they've taken the safety course, if not, then that 1 year becomes 2. I cant see some 18 kid thinking hes gonna drag race his buddys R1 if hes on a 500CC ninja; hed be too "cool" to try, as humiliation would be the unavoidable outcome. Even if this "kid" did try and do stupid stuff, he probably is less likely to actually kill himself on the 500cc ninja, and if he does hurt himself, he'll live to tell about it and perhaps, LEARN from it..along with the skills required to avoid what got him into that situation to begin with, hello folks..school of hard knocks here!
Yes, there'll be some naysayers, who claim "big brother" is in the room, I can appreciate that perspective. Not unlike the "anti-smoking" thing in public places we are being pushed to embrace, but being an ex-smoker, as much as I wouldnt like the restrictions placed upon me(when I was smoking), sooner or later, one of those restrictions will just make me "wake up" and stop defending what is going to kill me eventually, and be the "proverbial straw" that "broke the camels back" in getting me to quit for my own health!. y'know, "If i knew then what I know now" type of thing?. Besides, in the "Big Picture" some form of restriction like this is not only inevitable as the amount of casualities continue, but simply better for everyone involved, even if "everyone" doesnt know it yet or cant see the merit today. Its not saying you cant ride what you want to, it, just like the "testing" and "age" restriction a getting a "car licence" or "age of legality" when it comes to drinking alcohol, or age of consent; these all come about from a definate need for such arising, i.e considerations of abuse, immaturity, impressionable young minds being suckered into advertising etc. etc.. blah, blah, blah!
SO yes , I voted to limit newbies. and as for those 50 year olds who have been riding for 30 years but never got their licence to begin with, well, a little "humble pie" for 30 years of "defiancy" of the laws that we all have to live with will do them good. :stickpoke:
As for the stupid people?.. well, I think in a civilized society, there ought to be some legislative power that provides opportunity to "get somewhat smarter" and arise from the ignorance of "a chimpanzee intellect", especially if it not only helps the "moron in question", but the other people that otherwise, that "moron" might kill one day doing something hes not prepared to handle i.e 275km/h on a hayabusa down main street trying to evade a police helicopter! :stickpoke:!.
-
Interesting, the yes poll started out weak, but has gained ground.
-
Do I hear a can of worms opening up? :stickpoke: I personally am trying to be realistic. That would be like dearming the U.S. Ain't going to happen...
I think that it is the parent’s responsibility to restrict what their children do, that could be dangerous to them. I would not oppose a mandatory riding school for all new motorcycle riders, but be careful of government restrictions; they could be expanded to affect us all. I do not believe in restrictions of motorcycles, but I do believe in enforcement of speed laws.
-
I agree with the previous comment on the possiblity of a MANDATORY school for new riders.
I also agree on REALISTIC speed Limits, unlike what we have at present, due to global BS, and our leftest friends.
Just my 2c worth.
-
There are two dueling realities here.
On one side, you've got the complacency of the average citizen combined with a lack of common sense.
On the other, you've got the libertarian who fails to imagine how horrid the world would be if pay-as-you-go personal responsibility was the rule. (Can you say toll roads everywhere? No survivors, no bodies, no crime?)
Because of that, I think the govt should limit HP to new riders, especially when you consider how cheaply anyone can acquire top of the line performance. Just check the forums (maybe not this one) where people waiting for an MSF class are trying to figure out their Gixxer by riding in traffic in a state without helmet laws. The marketplace sure as hell isn't going to stop selling lethal bikes to squids, so it's up to the government to act on behalf of its citizens to do the job.
Politicians are the only people most of us get to hire, eh?
-
OK, I agree, they should limit the CCs, in Canada and the UK.
My son started riding dirt bikes when he was 10 years old, got his first street bike when he was 15 1/2, in Southern Calif., I, the father, limited the size of his bike to a 450 cc Honda NightHawk.
If the goverment gets involved, we could see 250s for everyone not riding a Harley. If you are old enough to remember, we use to have a special tax on all imported mortorcycles over 700 cc.
Be carefull of all rights, or control, that we give over to the goverment, they do not give it back
very easily.
I do hate to see young people get hurt on these things though.
-
Simple really. Under 50 years of age, limit to 500cc and 30 HP. That ought to do it. :lol:
-
i dont think its practicable to restrict cc, but i do think it is good to restrict power like we have here in the uk.
it allows you to gain skills and work your way up, bikes do take a good bit of skill to ride and if someone who has just come off a 125 after doing their test just goes and jumps on a fireblade 999cc or a zx 14 or a busa or even a heavy torque monster like a sv1000 they are pretty much doomed to injure themselves and god forbid others.
its also good to restrict power and not cc cos then you dont have to sell the bike after your restricted period is up you can just take the restrictor out
Also, it was mentioned earlier that it is the governments job to protect us from others but not ourselves and we should be allowed to make our own bad decisions.
well to an extent thats true it isnt their job to protect us from ourselves, but by restricting power on new bikers they are protecting us FROM OTHERS as well because some inexperienced squid on a fireblade could easily take me our you out and leave us dead or maimed.
i agree with the restriction of power, i think its a fully good idea and i dont think theres anyone who should just jump on a huge power road bike straightaway without any experience, with the possible exception of someone who has raced bikes a lot before they got their road bike licence but then they do have experience so my first statement still stands lol.
-
I didn't even know they sold restrictors until today when i saw a link to suzuki uk. what a concept. I restricted my son's choices of bike mainly cause I like the kid. It'll work out fine, in another year he'll be riding a 1000000 cc racer replica squid loving extraterrestial rocket and have the biggest grin I ever saw it'll be worth it.
-
My first bike was an '89 ZX-10 Ninja, flirted with 170mph easily. I'm still here, and had enough sense for when to use the power and when not.
James
-
I think we should limit everyone, reguardless of age, to under 100 HP, and 100 mph top speed, on a streetbike :bomb:
Do I hear a can of worms opening up? :stickpoke: I personally am trying to be realistic. That would be like dearming the U.S. Ain't going to happen...
And shouldn't. Can people be permitted to take some responsibility for something? Please?
-
In Oz every state is slightly different. Although all states put some sort of restriction on Learners and Probationary riders.
In NSW a learner/probationary rider is allowed to ride any bike up to 660cc with a power to weight ratio of less than 150kw/tonne.
Effectively this discounts the 250cc 2 stroke rockets like the RS250, RGV250 etc.
NSW also restricts the maximum speed a learner and probationary rider/drive can do. For Learners it's 80km. For first year Probationary Riders/Drivers its 90, then 100. Once you are on your Full Licence you are permitted to follow the sign posted speed limit, which on Freeways is generally 110.
In Vic you are restricted to 250cc, but RS250's and the like are permitted.
-
That would be an idea, limit the people with learner's permit have them keep it for 6 months to a year.
-
I for one agree totally with restrictions, but what these restriction, should be, I haven't the foggyest. Because to put it very simply as soon as a government makes a law the big 4 and a few of the euro types, produces something that complies, yet goes like shyte off a shovel.
Way back when the Vic government come up with the 250cc limit for learners and probationary riders, Yamaha introduced the LC series. 250 rice rockets that in the right hands could blow away bikes 3 times their size.( I had 2 off them, loved them)
Just maybe, the NSW LAMS laws might just work, but I'm sure some clever dick will F*#* that up right royally.
Lets face it motorcyclists do tend to take things to the limits and then add 10% if they think they can get away with it. Sure as shyte I've lived by that for all of my 30 odd years of motorcycling love affair.
-
It is often that a good honest idea gets taken in, add some @#$4, and then @$@$@$@$. After all that, you have to please other people to get them to vote for it and the new bill ends up as something that resembles nothing. It is a shame that they can't take a good idea and make it work. I think that is why people don't like big brother stepping in.
-
It is easy to be for restrictions placed on someone else, so you should always turn it around as if those restrictions are going to be on "me", and then see how you like them. :taz:
-
Actually, I found a source that says large displacement bikes are UNDER represented in accidents, but have a higher rate of severity of injury when they are involved in an accident.
Another statistic claimed was, 92% of motorcyclists involved in accidents had no training. They were self taught, or taught by friends.
3/4 of accidents were with another vehicle, and in 2/3 of those, the other vehicle violated the motorcyclists right of way.
Alcohol was involved in almost half of all fatal accidents.
Despite the fact that motorcycles are required to have their headlight on, the vehicle driver did not see the motorcycle.
Seems to me, that getting a license should require training, not just a quickie exam.
Secondly, and no less important, is motorcycle visibility. I think the headlight on requirement has been diminished quite a bit by the daylight running lamps now installed on newer cars. I think it makes us invisible again. I strongly suspect headlight modulators ought to be standard equipment.
I'd rather see efforts be made to improve the skills of riders, and equipment installed to make bikes more conspicuous. I believe these 2 areas would make motorcycle accident and death rates to go down more than any other area.
I don't think it's a fellow motorcyclists duty to argue for engine size/horsepower limitations on ANOTHER motorcyclist. Frankly, motorcycles pose less a risk to OTHERS on the road. A motorcycle hitting a car is likely to kill the biker, but unlikely to injur the other guy. When gov't gets involved in saving us from ourselves, well, they might as well look at bicycling, parachuting, hang gliding, mountain climbing, skateboarding, skiing, boating, swimming, jogging, and other mundane things like what we had to EAT today.
Having said that, should motorcyclists lobby for licensing requirements, motorcycle visibility? Absolutely. For motorcyclist to be curteous to other motorists and especially our riding habits in residential areas, including noise levels? Sure, we should all be ambassadors to our sport in order to keep the nanny-crats at bay.
-
:idea: You want a visible m/c?
Buy a white BMW RT, put driving lights on it and put a red cover on one side and a blue one on the other. (NOT lenses, but protective covers), don't need to even have the lights functional. Put a little black trim tape on it to give it a little flavor... maybe even a gold star on the bags or side of the fairing. (Better yet, buy a used RT-P.) *
Wear gear similar to local motor officers.
I'll bet you have no problem getting noticed now!
You'll probably have to deal with cagers driving at or below the speed limit everywhere you go though. :roll:
* Check local laws. Some places it's illegal to look like a police bike.
-
I don't think it's a fellow motorcyclists duty to argue for engine size/horsepower limitations on ANOTHER motorcyclist. Frankly, motorcycles pose less a risk to OTHERS on the road. A motorcycle hitting a car is likely to kill the biker, but unlikely to injur the other guy. When gov't gets involved in saving us from ourselves, well, they might as well look at bicycling, parachuting, hang gliding, mountain climbing, skateboarding, skiing, boating, swimming, jogging, and other mundane things like what we had to EAT today.
Exactly, and that's the point I was trying to make earlier. Unless the behavior or activity affects other people in a significant way, we are starting down a slippery slope of the government regulating what it deems "risky" activities.
I am not suggesting this as a blanket argument against any regulation. By the same standard, I am in favor of strong restrictions on gun ownership for example. I just don't like these feel good laws (mandatory helmets is another) that are designed to legislate personal risk.
-
:idea: You want a visible m/c?
Buy a white BMW RT, put driving lights on it and put a red cover on one side and a blue one on the other. (NOT lenses, but protective covers), don't need to even have the lights functional. Put a little black trim tape on it to give it a little flavor... maybe even a gold star on the bags or side of the fairing. (Better yet, buy a used RT-P.) *
Wear gear similar to local motor officers.
I'll bet you have no problem getting noticed now!
You'll probably have to deal with cagers driving at or below the speed limit everywhere you go though. :roll:
* Check local laws. Some places it's illegal to look like a police bike.
I think you're kidding, but seriously, we're NOT seen by those left turning cars and you know it. I'm advocating a headlight modulator built into the bikes at the factory. They're quite aware of this issue as well.
-
I vote yes. This country is so power-obsessed, people start geeking out anyone tries to do something like this. Not only should the bike size be restricted to under 250cc, but training should mandatory. Unfortunately we have a watered down MSF training system (thanks to the motorcycle manufacturers) , but even that is better than nothing.
One thing nobody is realizing here is that you're not just protecting someone from themselves, you're also protecting others from said bikers. A significant number of bystanders have been injured by untrained/irresponsible motorcyclist, typically doing stupid stunts like wheelies and stoppies, which are stock-in-trade for new squids with their Gixxers and what-not.
Passengers too get hurt when inexperienced riders react in a less-than-desirable fashion in any given situation. They rarely take the riders safety into consideration, much less their own. While we may love to see something like this:
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i312/vidrazor/bare-it.jpg)
what happens if he drops that bike? A waste of a beautiful girl, that's what. She'll be scarred for life. But both are clueless there, right?
So I vote for size restriction AND proper training.
-
Damn,At the age of 16,I was runningTT and flattrack on a Bultaco Astro. On a 1/2 mile oval,I was going into the turns @ probably 80-90 mph. If I had to drop to 35 top speed on the street,I'd just stay off of it.(started at the age of 5)
On the road,my first bike was a 400 Suz.ST,or I'd take out my Dad's Triumph. Both around 50 hp I quess. Dan
would have never known :shock:
-
Ugh - not to turn this political but this is the mentality that is going to get Hillary "it takes a village" Clinton elected. We're so screwed! Vid - did that guy hold a gun to the hottie's head to get her on there like that or does she bear some (most? all?) responsibility? Will she loose any less skin when he dumps a 250? (Freakin' great pic, though!)
-
This country is so power-obsessed, people start geeking out anyone tries to do something like this. Not only should the bike size be restricted to under 250cc
Then crush your bike, and get a 250.
One thing nobody is realizing here is that you're not just protecting someone from themselves, you're also protecting others from said bikers. A significant number of bystanders have been injured by untrained/irresponsible motorcyclist, typically doing stupid stunts like wheelies and stoppies, which are stock-in-trade for new squids with their Gixxers and what-not.
Motorcycle vs pedestrian/bystander is rare. At the same time, what are those people thinking when they inch closer and closer to bike doing wheelies and stoppies.
Passengers too get hurt when inexperienced riders react in a less-than-desirable fashion in any given situation. They rarely take the riders safety into consideration, much less their own. While we may love to see something like this:
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i312/vidrazor/bare-it.jpg)
what happens if he drops that bike? A waste of a beautiful girl, that's what. She'll be scarred for life. But both are clueless there, right?
I say new riders should need experience before taking a passenger, I saw no solution to that situation in your post, but if it is SIZE limitation as Pitter said "would she loose any less skin on a 250"
-
>>Will she loose any less skin when he dumps a 250?<<
The point there wasn't about bike size, it was related to my comments on rider training and taking passenger safety into consideration.
-
and that picture is taken from some european country(plate) where they have restricted licences so I guess in all reality should we be protecting others from their own stupidity or should it be survival of the fittest(luckiest)
-
There are more people killed or injured while talking on a cell phone and driving than will ever be hurt on a motorcycle, so if we are really concerned about saving lives, then we should be talking about banning cell phone use while driving. :bomb:
-
And right after cell phones, there are radios, tape and cd players in cars, and they contribute to more accidents than new motorcycle riders, and we just want to protect people.
And besides, when someone wrecks because they were ajusting the radio, they are a lot more likely to injure or kill someone else.
-
DEMAND BICYCLE LICENSING!
>1000 people die every year in the US from bicycle accidents!
BAN SWIMMING POOLS!
More people die from accidental drownings in swimming pools than gun accidents.
While I think it is smart to start out small and work your way up, I am against the government always trying to save us from ourselves.
I started out small - on a 80cc trail bike, but then my next one was my first street bike, a 650 (back when a 650 was a big bike).
-
I am kind of torn between big brother telling us what to do and doing what I feel is the right thing. I would like to see some sort of restriction on riders who are new to motorcycling. I think the UK has the right idea, but they have taken it too far. I believe that training is our best resource. One of our stats prove that people need the training. 40% of all single vehicle accidents on motorcycles is running off the road in a curve. If you give people the right information, most will make the correct decision.
I started on a 80cc dirt bike and then when I started on the street, I went to a Suz. GT550. All the bikes I owned up until four years ago were 600CC and less. I never felt like the 600s were too small for me.
I also teach the MSF Basic Rider Course, so I see a lot of new riders. There are people out there who have no business on a one litre sport bike. It take time to hone your skills. The R-1 doesn't handle any better than the R-6 does, it just has much more power. How fast do you need to go on the street?
-
So long as newbies CAN bite off more than they can chew...THEY WILL!.
Let me play Devils advocate a moment:
"Hey Kid!.. Do you want a beer?, Yes?"... Hmmm, Didn't see that one coming! :annoy: Why don't we give them booze? Oh yeah, They're not MATURE enough, yet along capable of handling the stuff at that age. Oh, yeah, there ARE laws that prevent under-age drinking, wonder why?...go figure!
"Hey Kid, On your FOURTEENTH birthday, heres your FULL license and the keys to a Mustang GT!", and BTW, I just put 3rd party coverage on your insurance, cause, well, ...Your trustworthy right? and its OPTIONAL to wear a seat belt!, so I'll let YOU decide!". hmmm, ...:annoy: Oh Yeah, there ARE laws provided for some mandatory training AND laws for Seatbelt usage too!..I wonder why, Go figure!
There are many instances and hypothetical scenarios we can run with here to give or take away the benefit of doubt to Newbies. However, when it comes down to it, we have two choices...
1, Maintain status quo and leave it to chance and random "evolutionary if you want to call it" selection to dictate how many unnecessary, avoidable deaths occur, whether those deaths are a result of plain idiocy on the road or just weak defensive riding skills.
2. Implement some sort of graduated licensing system (CC's, HP, time, mandatory safety courses, IQ tests maybe LOL!?.. whatever!) for Newbies on Bikes, not just cars and inconvenience a few (those who don't see the value of some legislation), albeit for a short time, but save a few lives?. :roll:
JustMyTwoBits :)
-
I don't think anyone is advocating that requiring better training for a license is bad. The area of disagreement is more the gov't controlling who gets to ride what bike, at what time. Certainly a kid could be an expert motorcyclist by 16 years old, if he has seat time off road.
I don't care for the alcohol analogy. Here's a different one, hey kid, you can't buy beer here. You're not 21 yet, but by the way good luck in Iraq/Afghanistan next week.
Another point not really addressed. I recall, without looking at the source at the moment, older riders are not fairing any better than the 16-21 group in accidents or fatalities. So there goes the teenager without training argument!
-
HoustonChronicle.com - Motorcycle deaths on rise for 40-plus age groupAcross the country, the annual number of motorcycle fatalities among 40-plus riders tripled over the past decade to 1674 in 2003, while deaths among riders ...
Gramp’s & Gram’s Big Adventure! Motorcycle Death & Injuries in ...File Format: Microsoft Powerpoint - View as HTML
Motorcycle Death & Injuries in Iowa—An Age Old Problem? ...
Daily Chronicle Online | News | Combatting the Trend: Motorcycle ...Combatting the Trend: Motorcycle deaths are up among older riders ... people in the oldest age group make up a greater number of those who die while riding ...
Rising motorcyclists' deaths spur safety pushThe over-40 age group is showing the fastest increase in motorcycle fatalities. ... study that showed the number of motorcycle deaths rose 58 percent during ...
Motorcycle Death Rates Rising, Safety Chief WarnsMotorcycle Death Rates Rising, Safety Chief Warns. ... Even worse, the crash rate among motorcyclists in the 50-plus age group has increased by over 400 ...
FHP - Motorcycle deaths continue to edge upDeath by the numbers. More than 4500 motorcycle riders died in crashes in the United ... Fatalities among motorcycle riders increased in every age group, ...
Over-30s vulnerable in motorcycle death toll - theage.com.auThe latest concerns come after more than 1000 motorcycle protesters ... "That affects everyone in the age group 18 to 33, and the deaths in that group have ...
wcco.com - More Motorcycle Deaths As Boomers Hit The RoadMore Motorcycle Deaths As Boomers Hit The Road. by James Schugel ... There problem is many in his age-group aren't taking these classes. ...
They should limit us over 30 crowd, and let the teenagers ride :bomb:
-
LMAO yeah....250cc limit for over 40!
-
LMAO yeah....250cc limit for over 40!
Good point but,
Many riders of an age of 40 plus, ( We shall Call them born again riders for the point I'm making ) have not ridden since the 70's. Let thier licence slip. Hold a full car licence. Sit their learners permit, don't by a bike. ( to shyte scared to be seen by their so called mates on a wee 250cc) get their licence and sit on it till their off their restrictions. Yeh smart stuff, buy a 140hp plus rocket and legally ride it.
These riders and Newbies DO do count here as the greatest riders at risk. plain and simple fact.... So do we continue to let those who are to shyte scared to be seen on a LAM's bike or a 250 because their efen ego efen big. Or do we just sit back let Darwin's theory take its course. then jack up after governments have banned motorcycling altogether.
-
No one is questioning the intellegence of starting out on an R1. The question is, does the government have any right whatsoever to regulate our intellegence (or lack thereof). In my very strong, not-so-humble opinion, they DO NOT.
-
I fully agree that starting out on a large machine is for the majority a stupid idea! But there are always people that will easily be able to and be able to control a large machine from the get-go.
As has already been mentioned i think it should be compulsory to have training of some sort that much is certain. Especially bike oriented training for a car driver, there's two many incidents of sorry didn't see you!
Due to the fact that i have to have my B6 restricted i know how irritating it is to have to go through finding, fitting and sticking to a legal restriction. (Especially with the probationery period we now have here in the UK limiting us to 6 Penatly Points (endorsements) before our licence is revoked in a 2 year period, and not having the restriction will if caught count as driving a vehicle with no insurance and licence being at least 6 points and a big fine.) So i definitely agree its annoying to have the government butt there noses in to my safety etc.
-
You know after reading a lot of these posts maybe for young people it should be the responsability of the parent to convince a young rider to start out slow, and maybe it's fellow riders/friends that should make the effort to convince new riders of what the intelligent choice would be for a starter bike. I was and still am a believer in some type of controls on brand new riders,I would be happy with mandatory training, but as has been pointed out governments always go to far with it, so is their an answer for this question that can sastisfy the masses I say "no".
If even in places where they have these controls riders are getting into trouble, then the obvious answer is "you are eventually responsible for you're own actions" and too many people today do not accept this, it is somebody else's mistake. The governments of the world cannot legislate stupidity out of the masses.
So even though I voted "yes" I would like to change my vote to "no" as the question is put here. I am however in favour of mandatory rider training always will be. I have taken various rider training courses over the years and I have been down on the pavement 5 times in my life all of them my fault and every one of those bikes was under 750 cc.
On a side note my best friends fiance was killed when she ran wide on a city street on her 250cc honda size didn't matter there but if she had to take a rider course of some kind it would have made the difference
as she did not know how to counter steer.
-
LMAO yeah....250cc limit for over 40!
Good point but,
Many riders of an age of 40 plus, ( We shall Call them born again riders for the point I'm making ) have not ridden since the 70's. Let thier licence slip. Hold a full car licence. Sit their learners permit, don't by a bike. ( to shyte scared to be seen by their so called mates on a wee 250cc) get their licence and sit on it till their off their restrictions. Yeh smart stuff, buy a 140hp plus rocket and legally ride it.
These riders and Newbies DO do count here as the greatest riders at risk. plain and simple fact.... So do we continue to let those who are to shyte scared to be seen on a LAM's bike or a 250 because their efen ego efen big. Or do we just sit back let Darwin's theory take its course. then jack up after governments have banned motorcycling altogether.
It's likely that many of these older riders are either new to motorcycles, or rusty. The thing is, they're buying cruiser tho, not 140 HP sportbikes. They've bought a physically large bike, but with a whopping 50 HP or so. They aren't trying to roadrace them, they ride up and down their favorite cruising street on the weekend, here's where that alcohol statistic comes in, then when the car takes a left turn they lock the rear brake, if they come to a corner they're probably surprised the bike scrapes chrome parts very early.
Maybe another proposal could be, bikes should be capable of leaning 45 degrees (or some number), and brakes should be linked and ABS. I bet those 2 would save quite a few lives.
-
Well the figures I have seen would suggest, that is what is happening, born again riders are the problem every bit as the newbie rider. Whether they are boulevard cruisers or open road riders, they need to work up time in the saddle before being cut loose. The Vic government Learners permit now requires 120 + hours with a % being after dark before a license test can be sat for. And a log book must be kept, maybe something along these lines is required. I really don’t see a difference between a 40 year old and an 18 year old.
Both are just as capable of being a total f*#*wits whilst in control of two wheels, just one is supposed to know better. Yeh I know better, and yes I to can be what others would see as being a total f*#*wit, but at least I’ve got 30 plus years of being a total f*#*wit to have some idea of where my limits and my bikes limits are.
Here is a proposal, you have no choice but to own either a LAM's or 250cc motorcycle, for a set period of time before being allowed to purchase a bigger motorcycle. At least learn some real time, real life, road craft on a light weight controllable motorcycle before getting on a 200kg 100hp+ bike.
It's likely that many of these older riders are either new to motorcycles, or rusty. The thing is, they're buying cruiser tho, not 140 HP sportbikes. They've bought a physically large bike, but with a whopping 50 HP or so. They aren't trying to roadrace them, they ride up and down their favorite cruising street on the weekend, here's where that alcohol statistic comes in, then when the car takes a left turn they lock the rear brake, if they come to a corner they're probably surprised the bike scrapes chrome parts very early.
Now down here yes this would account for some of the born agains, but a lot are going for the 70's retro bikes, XJR1300's GSX1400's CB1300's and the list goes on. not one of these bikes, should be let into the hands of a greenhorn, with sweetbugger all, will spit you down the road, at the very first sign of contempt. In years gone by when motorcycling was a very small minority letting Darwins theory do its thing was not such a problem, at the end of the day the numbers where small, but now the penny counters, are looking at the overall costs, and with governments set on penny pinching, we as motorcyclists are in the crosshairs.
But if we ignore the rising motorcycle death and injury rates, as motorcycling and scooter riding become more and more popular, we will find, that the costs motorcycling puts upon the community, will force governments to outlaw motorcycling on the roads altogether. No I'm not daydreaming, one minister of parliament here in OZ (I forget who it was, as it was quite a few years ago) has already made such a comment. So do we buckle to government regulations for the good of us all, or do we just sit on our collective butts, and let the numbers and the costs, rise out of control till we and our lifestyle is banished to an outlaw existence, or to track days?
No I don’t have the answers to this growing problem, yes I hate being told by governments to do this and do that. But at the risk of one thing I most passionately love besides my family, something does need to be done. I have no time for 40 year olds with ego problems, build a efen bridge and get over it, get your 250cc or LAM’s bike and ride it, serve ya time, if ya mates don’t like it, stiff shyte, that just proves they ain’t ya mates anyway. Newbies and born agains are of the same, they share the same amount of skills, sweet bugger all, they need to be regulated, end of story. I don’t give a toss about how many years of dirt riding anyone has done, In fact I don’t give a shyte if ya the ex AMA champ, serve ya time like everybody else. Off road riding counts for sweet F A when it comes to road riding.
Heres one that should sort a few out, become a motorcycle courier for a month, ride for a living, you'll learn more in a month than your'll learn in a life time of riding. Its not just about your ablity to control a bike, its about controling the enviroment around you. and sorry its only way you learn, that is time with ya butt in the saddle.
-
Mick, I was only referring to USA riders. The older ones are buying the cruisers 10 to 1 or more over any sporting bike or standard.
At the same time, gov't costs isn't really an issue here, we're privately insured. Not that the insurance companies don't try messing with motorcyclists here and there.
YOU might not give dirt riding any consideration BUT the US accident and fatality statistics bear out that riders with dirt bike experience are UNDER represented in the accident and fatality rate!!
-
hey bholland, cell phone use is banned in the uk while driving. Incidentally, the guy who crashed his car into my bike and nearly killed me on a perfect day for visibility on a perfectly straight road was on his cell phone at the time.
and to all the people who keep saying "the government dont have a right to protect us from our own stupidity" , i believe power should be regulated to new riders to protect other people from the stupidity of those riders who are a liability on the road and could easily injure or kill someone, and have done so.
-
The problem with not having "the government" restrict engine size for a newbie, or a returning rider for that matter, is that nobody is going "govern" themselves and buy a small bike, or get themselves proper training for that matter. They're out to satisfy their egos, and all their friends are riding big bikes, so they need one too, right? That's the typical modus operandi.
Even if an "old timer" is buying a 50hp cruiser, it happens to be an EIGHT HUNDRED POUND SLUG. If they don't have their riding skills up to snuff (which of course they won't), they're going to (for instance) take a turn the same way they did on their old CB750 in '70s. So what do you think happens next? 50 hp is also going to be plenty of power to get that slug up to, say, 70mph. What's that old timer going to do when all of a sudden he has to quickly stop that slug for whatever reason on his first day out with the wind in his hair?
So yes, nobody likes the idea of the government telling us what bikes we need to ride when starting out, or re-starting, but who's going to govern themselves and approach it intelligently? VERY few people.
-
hey bholland, cell phone use is banned in the uk while driving. Incidentally, the guy who crashed his car into my bike and nearly killed me on a perfect day for visibility on a perfectly straight road was on his cell phone at the time.
and to all the people who keep saying "the government dont have a right to protect us from our own stupidity" , i believe power should be regulated to new riders to protect other people from the stupidity of those riders who are a liability on the road and could easily injure or kill someone, and have done so.
I am one of the few people I know who can use a cell phone while driving and not go off into some sort of fugue. But I would be willing to give up my right to do so if it would protect me from all those dazed and confused drivers who seem to be visualizing their conversation instead of paying attention to traffic.
I agree that anyone who things "the government doesn't have the right to..." is pissing up the wrong tree. (Or is that barking?) But I would prefer a government that protects us from others than from ourselves. Yes, there are riders who buy an overpowered bike and hurt someone else. Yes there are drivers who fail to wear a seat belt and rack up huge taxpayer-funded medical bills. But I believe that the larger numbers are those who kill themselves by riding a bike they can't control, or going headlong through a windshield. I want a government that understands the value of personal freedom through social responsibility.
-
The problem with not having "the government" restrict engine size for a newbie, or a returning rider for that matter, is that nobody is going "govern" themselves and buy a small bike, or get themselves proper training for that matter. They're out to satisfy their egos, and all their friends are riding big bikes, so they need one too, right?
Uh.... for one, I did (B4).
99.9% of these biking newbies that actually hurt someone, only hurt themselves, right? I'm sorry but tough shit for them. The cell phone thing isn't a good analogy becuase they are atificially distracted and piloting a multi-ton car and will likely hurt someone else (although I'm against cell phone restrictions, too). The government has absolutely no business regulating "social responsibility."
-
The problem with not having "the government" restrict engine size for a newbie, or a returning rider for that matter, is that nobody is going "govern" themselves and buy a small bike, or get themselves proper training for that matter. They're out to satisfy their egos, and all their friends are riding big bikes, so they need one too, right? That's the typical modus operandi.
Even if an "old timer" is buying a 50hp cruiser, it happens to be an EIGHT HUNDRED POUND SLUG. If they don't have their riding skills up to snuff (which of course they won't), they're going to (for instance) take a turn the same way they did on their old CB750 in '70s. So what do you think happens next? 50 hp is also going to be plenty of power to get that slug up to, say, 70mph. What's that old timer going to do when all of a sudden he has to quickly stop that slug for whatever reason on his first day out with the wind in his hair?
Probably the same thing he'll do on a 250 which also goes say, 70mph
So yes, nobody likes the idea of the government telling us what bikes we need to ride when starting out, or re-starting, but who's going to govern themselves and approach it intelligently? VERY few people.
Well, I'd say most people do start off intelligently, and with the knowlege they are new to this motorcycle thing, and ride as such. The relatively few that don't are the ones making the news.
If you really believe that, then you must believe that gov't had get better control over new drivers, types of cars they drive, alcohol interlocks on all ignitions, hell....the highest speed limit in the USA is 70mph, I guess it would be prudent that all vehicles be made unable to exceed that.
I think the point is, with 4,300 deaths, we're a minority community, ripe for mandates. On the other hand, not a word about the 42,000 automobile deaths per year. Be carefull of what you wish for.
-
The government has absolutely no business regulating "social responsibility."
Social responsibility no longer exists in North America.
Bring back duelling and the govt won't need to legislate self responsibility.
-
...the highest speed limit in the USA is 70mph, I guess it would be prudent that all vehicles be made unable to exceed that.
The highest speed limit in the USA is 75mph.
Sorry - I pick fly dung from the pepper for a living :wink:
-
So yes, nobody likes the idea of the government telling us what bikes we need to ride when starting out, or re-starting, but who's going to govern themselves and approach it intelligently? VERY few people.
While this may be true, its not an argument for government intervention. Look, I have been investigating traffic crashes for almost ten years, including numerous motorcycle fatalities. In all that time I've seen exactly ONE case where a person other than the rider was killed by a bike (although he was also killed,) and that was a very unusual case involving illegal street racing.
Fact is stupidity kills, but on a bike it almost without exception kills only the rider. I look to the law to protect me from other people's stupidity, not my own.
-
...the highest speed limit in the USA is 70mph, I guess it would be prudent that all vehicles be made unable to exceed that.
The highest speed limit in the USA is 75mph.
Sorry - I pick fly dung from the pepper for a living :wink:
On I 20 and I 10, in West Texas the speed limit is 80 mph, I drive it twice a year.
-
On I 20 and I 10, in West Texas the speed limit is 80 mph, I drive it twice a year.
I stand corrected! :bigok:
I wasn't aware of W. Texas being different than the rest of the state, but knew several states in the midwest have 75 on their freeways, statewaide.
Wikipedia's US Speed Limits (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_United_States)
-
If they are to regulate, it shouldn't be based on cc's. A 600cc sport bike like a R6 shouldn't be in the hands of a noob-squid. A cruiser of the same cc's makes 100hp LESS and weighs more to boot! My wife's bike is a 650cc cruiser but only weighs 470lbs dry and makes over 70hp. Its faster than most any harley or any other v-twin "power cruiser" on the road yet might be available to a noob-squid if a law was passed mandating less than 700 cc's. Motorcycle manufacturers do not like to post hp figures but a hp to weight ratio would be a better option if something besides COMMON SENSE is needed.
-
If they are to regulate, it shouldn't be based on cc's. A 600cc sport bike like a R6 shouldn't be in the hands of a noob-squid. A cruiser of the same cc's makes 100hp LESS and weighs more to boot! My wife's bike is a 650cc cruiser but only weighs 470lbs dry and makes over 70hp. Its faster than most any harley or any other v-twin "power cruiser" on the road yet might be available to a noob-squid if a law was passed mandating less than 700 cc's. Motorcycle manufacturers do not like to post hp figures but a hp to weight ratio would be a better option if something besides COMMON SENSE is needed.
I agree basing the restriction purely on cc's is silly, as is basing it purely on power to weight ratio.
Very early in the peice the ACT (Australian Capital Territory) had a learner approved scheme based on power to wieght only. This meant that a learner could effectively ride a HD Electra Glide as the power to weight ratio was quite low.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, NSW and some other Aussie states have adopted the ACT scheme but changed it to have a maximum cc as well.
The basic premis for this is that a learner or probationary rider can ride any motorcycle up to 660cc providing the power to weight ratio is less than 150kw/tonne.
Some bikes that fall into this are the Suzuki GS500, Yamaha XV650, Kawasaki KLR650, Ducati M620 Lite and the Hyosung 650L.
Some notable exceptions are the RGV250, RS250 and a few other 250 2 stroke road/race bikes.
-
Today's 250 is faster than yesterday's 500. Also handles better. To what cc you gonna limit newbies?
-
I think throughout the course of this thread it has been decided that limiting to any form of 'cc is pointless for the exact reason you just stated egads1.
The most effective way is to limit horsepower but even that can be pointless, its all down to training in my opinion if you've been told how to ride a bike well you'll do a good job if you got on and thought you were the dogs nuts, your blatently going to crash and burn.
Though as many others have also mentioned why is it any of the governments business whether we crash and die or not, the only thing i can come up with is statistics. They dont want there county/state/country looking bad. E.g. here in the UK were constantly rated against European countries safety statistics.
-
I think throughout the course of this thread it has been decided that limiting to any form of 'cc is pointless for the exact reason you just stated egads1.
The most effective way is to limit horsepower but even that can be pointless, its all down to training in my opinion if you've been told how to ride a bike well you'll do a good job if you got on and thought you were the dogs nuts, your blatently going to crash and burn.
See my post above "..........that a learner or probationary rider can ride any motorcycle up to 660cc providing the power to weight ratio is less than 150kw/tonne....."
-
which sounds very similar to what we have here in the UK already (bar the engine cc restriction). All i can say is that its not much of a difference, i have ridden my B6 without my restriction kit and with. With its a little more user friendly and your less likely to wheelie away from lights etc, but with 33bhp on the 600 theres still more than enough grunt to make serious damage. i mean 60-70 is ridiculously easy and 100 is well possible 100+ more difficult but will still happen.
Training and track days however will give all riders whether experienced or new on probationery etc the chance to learn from others and learn what their bike is capable of and how to handle it. Whatever the power that it produces be that in engine size or horsepower.
-
I totally agree that training is the key, however, in this big brown land called Australia, good training facilities, i.e. race tracks are limited to the major cities, those of us who live in the country have limited access to these facilities. From Wagga (supposedly the largest in land city in NSW) it is a 2 to 3 hour drive/ride to the nearest race track, and with petrol costing upwards of $1.41/lt that alone makes the cost prohibative, even without factoring in the cost of the 'training'. There are major towns in NSW that would be 6-8 hours from a race track - what are potential riders supposed to do.
I assume it's not a lot different in the USA - albeit your petrol is some what cheaper.
In NSW it is compulsory for the majority of people to attend a 2 day training course to get their learners and another 1 day course to get their probationary licence. Here in sunny downtown Wagga the training is done on small car park and only really runs through the absolute basics, but I suppose it's better than nothing.