cycles are so darwinian with the natural selection--the idiot that must squeeze by at 70 will get eliminated sooner than later. motorcycles are 3x the cost of cars by weight, all for the illusion of flying while forfeighting your most precious crumple zones, not to mention getting caught in the rain or staying too late somewhere because you were having a good time and dreading the icey ride home-- and they eat fuel criminally --leave the licensing alone--the stupid will be eliminated--
It's okay, not everyone has to enjoy motorcycling. For some of us, it's worth the risk. And believe me, we are reminded of the risks every day, either by our experiences or by our loved ones. Thankfully we don't have too many icy rides here in Florida, and a little rain won't kill me (well, I suppose compounding variables including rain could very well).
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "eat fuel criminally" though--I get 45 to 55 mpg. Maybe you mean fuel consumed per pound or person moved? One of the pleasures of remaining a single adult is mostly hauling around me, myself, and I. And it's true that motorcycles are more per pound; perhaps that makes vans the ground beef, and bikes the steaks.
"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. "
Thomas Jefferson
In reply to thummmper:
You clearly think motorcycles are a bad idea. If I may, the best option may be to ignore the Sprockets forum. It's here for people who wish to discuss motorcycling.
Moreover, half of what you've said strikes me as either irrelevant or inaccurate.
The cost per pound of a bike vs a car matters how? How about the cost per pound of an Exige and an Expedition?
Fuel consumption on bikes tends to be relatively low (EDIT: high. i.e. bikes have relatively poor fuel usage per engine capacity) relative to engine capacity, but vehicles are for moving people; given how frequently cars have only one person in them, bikes tend to come out way ahead on that point.
Motorcycles as flight surrogate? I've done both, and they're totally different sensations. Motorcycling is only motorcycling. It's not like flying, and not even that much like bicycling very fast. The physics of single-track vehicles are fascinating.
So please, if what you have to offer to discussions of motorcycling is the assertion that those of us who enjoy it deserve to invoke Darwin's wrath, kindly refrain.
Rusnak_322 wrote:wearymicrobe wrote: I am pretty sure you can hustle a roadglide down the road with just 33hp if you really wanted to.As opposed to the 58 hp stock and probably 48 hp when they put open headers on and lose all back pressure and run really lean.
Bwahh. Sorry I always get a major chuckle out pipes like that. At least someone else sees the humor.
Also if it helps bring more fun 250cc-500cc sport bikes to the states I would also say go for it as well. I would really love like a knob on the bike to limit power though.
Something like the Ducati ST bikes have. You can dial them back to 80hp for terrain work and up to who knows what once you get back on the road but on say a 600RR. Heck just having non linear throttle controls with stops could do it.
When taking my MSF course with a friend, she was really liking the Nighthawk 250 the school provided, and was considering getting one of her own. One of our instructors, overhearing our conversation, advised her not to. Why? A 250 is a nice, tossable bike. But after about 6 months of riding, most people outgrow it. They want something bigger, and/or with more power. He suggested it was better to start with a 500-650, ride conservatively, and ease your way into the usable power. Just because have that much power doesn't mean you have to use it. But once you're ready for it, you'll have no problem keeping up with 70mph traffic down the interstate on a 500. Trust me - I just did 70 down the interstate on my 82 Honda Silverwing GL500i yesterday. 
Personally, I don't like the government telling me what to do. I'll always wear a seat belt in a car. I'll always wear a helmet (and boots, gloves, jacket, etc.) on a motorcycle. But that's my choice. I don't want the government telling me I have to. Similarly, I don't want the government telling me I can't have that liter bike during my first year of riding, just... well, because.
White_and_Nerdy wrote: When taking my MSF course with a friend, she was really liking the Nighthawk 250 the school provided, and was considering getting one of her own. One of our instructors, overhearing our conversation, advised her not to. Why? A 250 is a nice, tossable bike. But after about 6 months of riding, most people outgrow it. They want something bigger, and/or with more power. He suggested it was better to start with a 500-650, ride conservatively, and ease your way into the usable power. Just because have that much power doesn't mean you have to use it. But once you're ready for it, you'll have no problem keeping up with 70mph traffic down the interstate on a 500. Trust me - I just did 70 down the interstate on my 82 Honda Silverwing GL500i yesterday.
Somehow, I have a feeling the instructor was thinking of something more along the lines of a used Kawasaki EX-500 or Honda Hawk 650GT (Both about 400lbs with about 50hp) and not a newer race replica 600 (about 400lbs with about 100hp), yet nowadays, it seems many consider the latter a "beginner" bike.
I am firmly in the "NO!" camp. I am fully supportive of a real, actual education program for all riders to gain a license but arbitrarily choosing limits only leads to an opportunity to increase cost to the rider at the benefit of the tax system or the insurance company. Nothing good will come of it.
In reply to Giant Purple Snorklewacker:
That's a good point. I'm halfway okay with a graduated system, but I'd much rather see a "for-reals" education and proficiency testing setup.
A well educated rider on too much bike isn't as bad as someone just hopping on a 250 with no clue and no place to get one...
I still think our entire system is flawed in lack of training...
for cars I took a class at school... we drove around on "the range" basically a small track with stop signs, lights, parking spots and such... a great place to learn very basic driver skills... as I understand it it's an insurance issue as I know other states have kids driving on the streets... anyway when you finish that class... you wait 6 months and can go get your license... no additional tests or anything... unless your mom or dad let you drive on the streets with the learners permit you could have a innocence with absolutely NO real world experience...
I say this tongue in cheek but I think our drivers education system would be so much better if for the first year of driving the only option you had was a sub 250cc motorcycle/scooter... it would make much safer drivers long term... but i'm sure the fatality count of kids would make this something that could never happen lol..
MitchellC wrote:Mental wrote: Why just bikes? How many young peaple die on a large displacement bike vs how many die in cars by distracted driving, too much car, street racing etc etc etc. It's an instrusive law into avery small segment of the population. It won't save the lives you think it will. Becuase they still won;t wear helmets, boot long pants, gloves or a proper jacket. If you are going to instill laws to protect motorcyclist, the instill mandatroy riders education, like the MSF course. That will save lives.According to the second source that I posted above, motorcycles are 27.5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident per mile traveled. Fast bikes are typically less expensive than fast cars. When someone crashes a car, the likelihood of bodily harm is less than that on a motorcycle. And I completely agree that the MSF course should be mandatory. In Florida, it is required for riders under 21 getting their motorcycle endorsement.
Ah-ha!
and now we fall into the lie of statistics.
This is not personal, please don't take it as such. I belive this is a lively and smart debate.
But - as you mentioned According to the second source that I posted above, motorcycles are 27.5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident per mile traveled.
Your second aurgument - about the likelyhood of harm. Again, a small dispacement bike at 55 mph without a helmet = very very bad. In the event of a let down, IT's the gear, not the bike. Now your logic is that the displacement restriction will limit the speed hence limiting the potential for injury. I counter with it's still the gear. Watch any superbike race, heck, get on youtube and watch the amatuer local races. Watch those dudes go off at triple digits, and simply walk away. I have personally seen a close friend, 3 months after hip replacement slide in front of me at well over 100 and he was up before I could get my bike hauled to a stop. Nothing being sore muscles.
Now I counter with this; For the sake of this, I adopt your model. I am an idiot 17 year old on an a Yamaha R1. I launch down mainstreet, ride one wheel through first and slam into a car full a family in their Tarus coming back from Pizza and ice cream. Yes, I am probably dead, certainly injured and there is probably a Dr's visit ahead for eveyone on the impact side of the Taurus.
Now, let's counter that with a similar scenario, except I am in a 97 Camaro Z-28 with an LT-1 and 285 HP. I spin the wheels leaving the local Sonic, and hit the Taurus full as I wind out 2nd gear.
Now luckily, my airbag has saved me, in fact I am probably gonna be released after a once over from the paramedics.
What about the family in the Taurus? I have just put a 3,300+lb missle into the side of that car.
Are you sure the likelyhood of bodily harm is less in a car?
How many 17 year olds do you see in 4th gen Z-28s? Becuase I see a lot, and a lot more than I see on superbikes. A modified Z-28 can be had for $6,500. How much for a Fox body Mustang? 1st Gen WRX? Yes, all of those can be finianced. Easy terms, no money down. Buy Here Pay Here
How much harm can those car do in the hand of an idiot? To themselves and to others?
A new R6 is over $10K, a Honda CBR 600 just under. Liter bikes get into the $13-15K range.
Your third piont shows us in agreement.
I stand by my statement. It's an unnessary and intrusive law that will do very little to protect riders or those who share the road with them.
I back that up with this number (despite what I said about statistics); In 2008 5,290 people died in motorcycle accidents in the US, this is the highest number ever recorded. Thats everyone, not just young folks.
By contrast each year over 6,000 teens die in auto accidents.
So what you are proposing, is a law, that will address a percentage of less than 6,000 folks, nationwide. The percentage of those folks who are young and ride sportbikes while ignoring a situation that will kill 6,000 young peaple this year and thats not including those outside of the teen range that they will injure or take with them.
Hell no. Keep govt out of it. They can only screw it up.
If a rider can't understand and respect the power that his right hand controls then he has no business on a bike.
I think drivers' licenses should require a little more proof of your abilities to safely operate a motorcycle or a car. I don't see how we can get there if we keep the government out of it.
I support the idea of additional training and experience required to get vehicle licenses of any kind. I think in effect that end up being the same thing as a graduated license.
I do think it's a bad idea for people to start out on big bikes, because of their speed and power as well as their physical size and weight. I've seen a lot of new riders struggling with their bikes, even just to get on them and ride off without tipping over. When I was a kid, people started out on a 90 or maybe a 175, a 350cc bike was considered mid-size, and outside of Harleys the biggest bike you could get was a 650 or 750.
I'm on the fence about it.
The part of me that has seen people make idiots of themselves and get squashed like a bug by trying to show their ass on something they had no business riding at their level of development says yes, restrict them.
But the part of me that started on minibikes at age 5 and had me racing MX by age 12 along with my libertarian leanings says no way.
I was definitely in favor of it, until I came to my senses. Although I don't think it's a terrible idea, I think adding more rules to cover the inadequacies of the system is a bandaid approach, and won't solve the problem.
The problems are two.
It is far too easy to get your license. Although 50% of the people failed when I went for my test (they tested 24 people at the same time), people rode out of there that day that shouldn't have.
Motorcycle training courses. These things are brutal. I can sign up as a newbie, never having ridden before. I ride a TTR 125 around a parking lot over a weekend. I do learn some riding, and safety, and I do have to pass, but I walk away with my license having never ridden a real bike, in areal situation. They're money makers, IMO.
I think the tests need to be tougher, and I think it should be mandatory that you take your test on a bike in the same class that you're going to ride. Maybe licensing you to the kind of bike took your test on for a period of a few years would help. That's my 2 cents.
In reply to Zomby woof:
I like that idea.
How about requiring a CDL for anybody who wants to drive a vehicle with gross weight of over 6K lbs?
I'm sure that the RV lobbying group will have something to say about that!
MitchellC wrote: I'm sure that the RV lobbying group will have something to say about that!
How big could they be? I picture four people in a room with a torn two dollar bill.
Zomby woof wrote: Motorcycle training courses. These things are brutal. I can sign up as a newbie, never having ridden before. I ride a TTR 125 around a parking lot over a weekend. I do learn riding, and safety, and I do have to pass, but I walk away with my license having never ridden a real bike, in areal situation. They're money makes, IMO.
Luckily in PA, the MSC is included in the 10 dollars you pay to get your permit. The MSC is your test, but you actually never need to test, the permit grants you solo day riding privileges with any valid regular driver's license. When my dad was a late teen/20 something, he never had a license, he just dropped 10 bucks for the permit, took a 15 question quiz, and rode whenever he wanted.
In Ontario, you take a written test, and that's your beginners license. There are restrictions, but I think it's good for 30 days, and you can get as many as you want.
Zomby woof wrote: In Ontario, you take a written test, and that's your beginners license. There are restrictions, but I think it's good for 30 days, and you can get as many as you want.
I think the beginner license in PA lasts for a year once you take the written test.
That reminds me of one of the wackier aspects of motorcycle licensing in Oregon when I got mine at first in ~1992: The MSF course has them waive the written part of the test, but not the riding part. The screwy bit is that the "learner's permit" only allows you to ride with a licensed motorcyclist on another bike.
Only I didn't know any. And I suspect that's not unusual.
So I rode around by myself hoping that if I got pulled over they'd let me off since I was at least attempting to become properly licensed. Never had to find out. I wonder whether it's still that way...
It's pretty simple hear in Florida. Go to the DMV, show them the proof of taking the MSF course, and trade money for a new license.
I asked somebody today. They told me it was 90 days for a beginners.
You'll need to log in to post.
