LA Times Editorial

[sagerat]

At the risk of getting completely flamed, it wouldn't bother me particularly if motorcycle riders s faced a 50 hp cap at the first tier.  And that's all you get until you've ridden either three years or 10,000 miles without either a reckless speeding ticket or an at-fault accident citation and they'd passed another riding exam.
 
Think of it, we'd all be riding the equivalent of older airheads.  We could put to the test the adage about it's more fun to ride a slow bike fast...
 
I mean we don't let 16-year-olds buy handguns, why let them buy 1000 Gixxers?  

[Black Ice]

Sorry, but I can't agree with that at all.

Another law or restriction is not going to make any significant difference in this type of behavior. If it did the world would be a much better place due to all the laws we have against this kind of thing already.

Oh, but you don't understand!  We just need more laws.  Eventually, anything not compulsory will be illegal, and on the first offense of any kind, you'll be locked up for life.  Then it'll all be perfect, and no one will ever get hurt, inconvenienced or frightened ever again.  Really.

[M.Brane]

At the risk of getting completely flamed, it wouldn't bother me particularly if motorcycle riders s faced a 50 hp cap at the first tier.  And that's all you get until you've ridden either three years or 10,000 miles without either a reckless speeding ticket or an at-fault accident citation and they'd passed another riding exam.
 
Think of it, we'd all be riding the equivalent of older airheads.  We could put to the test the adage about it's more fun to ride a slow bike fast...
 
I mean we don't let 16-year-olds buy handguns, why let them buy 1000 Gixxers?  

 OK so we get a tiered license program for bikes. Why not cages too then? If you're 16 you can only drive a vehicle that weighs less than 2500lbs, and a maximum of 75HP.

 I'd also like to see the standard driver's test be a lot more difficult. Make it so you have to prove you actually undertsand how to control your vehicle in an emergency situation. No automatic transmissions allowed unless you are physically unable to drive a stick. You will be graded on proper gear choice for speed/conditions, braking technique, and your abilty to manage space around your vehicle. A lot more like the test I took to get my class A license.

 Probably never happen, but it sure would be nice though to share the road with people who actually know how to properly operate their vehicle not just make it go down the road as fast as possible.

[Black Ice]

OK so we get a tiered license program for bikes. Why not cages too then? If you're 16 you can only drive a vehicle that weighs less than 2500lbs, and a maximum of 75HP.

 I'd also like to see the standard driver's test be a lot more difficult. Make it so you have to prove you actually undertsand how to control your vehicle in an emergency situation. No automatic transmissions allowed unless you are physically unable to drive a stick. You will be graded on proper gear choice for speed/conditions, braking technique, and your abilty to manage space around your vehicle. A lot more like the test I took to get my class A license.

 Probably never happen, but it sure would be nice though to share the road with people who actually know how to properly operate their vehicle not just make it go down the road as fast as possible.

I can get with this.  Hell, if you absolutely insist that people have a license, then make it mean something or just do away with the damn thing altogether!!  When they start teaching the cagers how to drive, then they can start bitching about those dangerous motorcycles and evil 18-wheelers.

M...are you a fellow gearjammer?  

[M.Brane]

I'm not a full-time trucker anymore (into heavy equipment now), but I'm licensed to drive pretty much anything with wheels.

 I actually found it humorous that the DMV thought I was OK to drive an 18-wheeled 80,000lbs combination vehicle, but I still had to prove I was OK with a 2-wheeler that weighs 500lbs.

[forester]

The writer is labeling all riders based on one asshat, and the most insane bike you can own.
 
The thing is...the kid killed that woman, not the bike. Rational performance in the hands of the irrational is still dangerous.
 
Generalization and stereotyping is a biatch.
--
Neal

+1.  

[Bounce]

OK so we get a tiered license program for bikes. Why not cages too then?

for years i've suggested that no one get a cage d/l until after 2 years riding a motorcycle (tier 1 m/l in your example). it would accomplish several things.

1. the tstl[1] types would never make it through the 2 years, so would:
  a. reduce the congestion on the roads
  b. reduce the total number of tstl's out there

2. those who survived their 2 years would be more aware of motorcycles after surviving around those who ignore them; also reducing the number of tstl people who finally end up driving.

3. never ride (for whatever reason: lack of skill, fear, etc.) thus never qualify for their tier 1 basic d/l. this would also contribute to less congestion and fewer tstl drivers on the road while increasing the demand for public transit.


[1] Too Stupid To Live

[sagerat]

OK so we get a tiered license program for bikes. Why not cages too then? If you're 16 you can only drive a vehicle that weighs less than 2500lbs, and a maximum of 75HP.
 
I'd also like to see the standard driver's test be a lot more difficult. Make it so you have to prove you actually undertsand how to control your vehicle in an emergency situation. No automatic transmissions allowed unless you are physically unable to drive a stick. You will be graded on proper gear choice for speed/conditions, braking technique, and your abilty to manage space around your vehicle. A lot more like the test I took to get my class A license.
 
Probably never happen, but it sure would be nice though to share the road with people who actually know how to properly operate their vehicle not just make it go down the road as fast as possible.

+1, I wouldn't have any problem with getting, and maintaining, a driver's license.  Not to mention vehicle ownership.  The rough rule of thumb I've heard from LEO's is that 20% of the driver's cause 80% of the problems.  Drivers still driving with no license or suspended license, for instance.

[cbsnbiker]

I've had professional truckers, bus drivers, livery, etc. fail my courses.
 
 

I actually found it humorous that the DMV thought I was OK to drive an 18-wheeled 80,000lbs combination vehicle, but I still had to prove I was OK with a 2-wheeler that weighs 500lbs.

[M.Brane]

I've had professional truckers, bus drivers, livery, etc. fail my courses.

 Yup. Just goes to show that you can get the license, and still not know what the hell you are really doing.

[Bill Zabub]

nope. As with all speeding standards, its too vague. Doing 50 over in a school zone, especially on a high ped area, high traffic area, is obviously a very dumb, dangerous, moronic thing and should be punished severely. You will not get an argument out of me for that.
 
Saying thats the same as doing 50 over on a deserted highway, its not comparable, and shouldn't be compared. These two scenarios would require the same penalty though, which I think is skewed. (not that the current penalties aren't equally skewed)
 
I could make the same argument about many laws.

You won't EVER get pulled over on a deserted highway. If it's truly deserted with no possible chance of hitting anyone at all, there's no one around to give you a ticket. If you get pulled over, it wasn't deserted, you just didn't see them.

[Uncle Bob]

You won't EVER get pulled over on a deserted highway. If it's truly deserted with no possible chance of hitting anyone at all, there's no one around to give you a ticket. If you get pulled over, it wasn't deserted, you just didn't see them.

Since you are quoting me, I assume you are arguing that those two scenario's I painted are equal and deserve the same ticket?

[Bill Zabub]

Since you are quoting me, I assume you are arguing that those two scenario's I painted are equal and deserve the same ticket?

The biggest similarity between the two are that both are speeding with other people around who could be injured if you lose control. Otherwise, no, the two aren't equal for a variety of reasons. While the first scenario puts more people in harm's way, the second would likely injure a fewer number of people more severely. Why should either scenario get a ticket if no one is hurt? If you blast down a freeway full of traffic doing wheelies at 130mph weaving in and out of traffic, but don't wreck or cause anyone else to wreck, what's the harm? On the other hand, if you pull out in front of someone and cause them to get hurt, you should get the full wrath of the court and the victim's family.

[Uncle Bob]

The biggest similarity between the two are that both are speeding with other people around who could be injured if you lose control. Otherwise, no, the two aren't equal for a variety of reasons. While the first scenario puts more people in harm's way, the second would likely injure a fewer number of people more severely. Why should either scenario get a ticket if no one is hurt? If you blast down a freeway full of traffic doing wheelies at 130mph weaving in and out of traffic, but don't wreck or cause anyone else to wreck, what's the harm? On the other hand, if you pull out in front of someone and cause them to get hurt, you should get the full wrath of the court and the victim's family.

I think you're reading more into my question, and at the same time, avoiding the question.  I'm not suggesting that one deserves a ticket, and the other does not.  Nor do I suggest that by not being caught, you are not breaking the law.  I'm talking about level of punishment for the severity of the risk you created to others.

The desert scenario has a higher rate of speed, and could cause more damage to a car/object that is stationary or coming towards you.  But the discription is "empty".  That word suggests that there are no side roads, no blind spots, no traffic.  IE, no one is there.  Of course, there could be a cop in a plane, or a cop hiding behind a bush or whatever.  I don't think the fact that a cop who was going out of his way to hide, hid without detection, changes the state of the road as being "empty".  

And that can not be compared to a pedestrian infested school zone with a LOT of side roads, drive ways, parking lots and what have you in a busy metro area.  Or at least, I personally don't see how you can remotely compare the two.

[spyder]

You won't EVER get pulled over on a deserted highway. If it's truly deserted with no possible chance of hitting anyone at all, there's no one around to give you a ticket. If you get pulled over, it wasn't deserted, you just didn't see them.

hmmm...   cop with a radar trap 15 feet off the highway parked in some bushes.    Highway is deserted, landscape is not...  

on the other hand, if you're riding on it, its not deserted...

[Snowbird]

OK so we get a tiered license program for bikes. Why not cages too then? If you're 16 you can only drive a vehicle that weighs less than 2500lbs, and a maximum of 75HP.

Agreeing with you here....

If the 50 hp mc were to be legislated... at what weight for the motorcycle? Set a minumum weight so performance is hindered? Trying to legislate intelligence is a poor idea.

Another point (more like yours I quoted) is that for both pedestrians and auto drivers, the most common deadly injury is a head injury. Why not require them to wear helmets as well? And what about bicyclists?

[cbsnbiker]

True, and that one set of skills (in this case, driving an 18-wheeler) doesn't necessarily translate well to a new skill (in this case, riding a motorcycle).
 

Yup. Just goes to show that you can get the license, and still not know what the hell you are really doing.

[crispiegee1]

Many motorcyclists are of the opinion that if you don't kill someone, no harm is done. Our community really needs to grow out of this attitude, lest we get no respect in any quarter.
 
There are plenty of careless and insane riders, such as those who wheelie through traffic at 130 mph, who manage to avoid killing someone by dumb luck. It is still a ridiculous risk to take and should be met with severe punishment. A buck-thirty on an open, deserted highway with both wheels on the ground is not nearly as serious to me.
 
I also feel that a rider bears responsibility if his swerving and weaving causes someone to panic and crash. Despite the fact that we're small and agile, passing someone and missing their bumper by inches to spare with no use of turn signal is rude and dangerous.
 
Guys, we make ourselves look bad by defending stupidity. Saying that the kid would be just as dangerous on a Ninja 250 is simply not true. A Ninja 250 can only attain 100 mph top speed compared to the GSXR1000, which can hit 100 in about 6 seconds or less. So let’s say the woman saw a motorcycle way down the street, then she looked to make sure it was clear in the other direction, then pulled out. That’s probably enough time for him to go from 30 to 80 and plow into her.
 
So what’s the answer? I don’t know, but we can start by being honest with ourselves and pointing the finger of blame where it belongs in the situations where the finger of blame is on the motorcyclist. Saying that he’s just one asshat is ignoring the fact that there are a hell of a lot of 21 year old asshats on Gixxers that are beyond their capabilities.
 
I hate the idea of more legislation. Hate it, hate it, hate it. There will still be jerks crashing into innocents no matter what, as well as middle-aged guys buying bikes they don’t know how to ride. But maybe a tiered license wouldn’t be a bad thing. My point in posting this is to say that we should acknowledge our responsibility for safety and not blame a media feeding frenzy. Yes, there should be other laws to make cagers safer drivers, but a lot of people on this board sound like the kid who gets caught by his parents making faces at his sister and says, “Well she was bothering me first!”
 
I didn’t think the LA Times editorial was that bad. It’s basically what I would expect after such a shocking, gruesome and avoidable accident.

[cbsnbiker]

Well put, crispiegee1. I pretty much agree with almost all of your message.
 
I disagree with one word you used:
 

accident

People routinely refer to crashes as "accidents," but most of the time they aren't.
 
There was nothing accidental about that crash. It wasn't purposive--unless the rider was intentionally committing suicide or murder, which is doubtful--but it was the logical result of reckless behavior.

[matthew77]

I like the article on the first page of this thread. It clearly indicates that a MAJOR reason for the increase is the"easy rider" mentality of a lot of baby boomers.

As an ex-realestate appraiser I can tell you that the majority of the people I did re-fi appraisals for were buying some sort of new toy. Either a boat, car, motorcycle. And the majority of these people were baby boomers with NO kids in the house...

I  also think a study needs to be done on how much more efficient a bike stops when it has DUAL sided front disc brakes, unlike a lot of Harley's and metric cruisers.

Finally...how many times do people leave a little intoxicated on their bikes? I have seen it at many many biker bars.