Total Motorcycle Community Forums

As far as Fl. laws go, you are required to take the BRC course in order to get the endorsement on your licence. As far as I know, and this could just be urban myth, but from what I've heard from other riders in the area, there is mandatory impoundment of the bike for any rider who is caught without a motorcycle endorcement.

mercurydreams wrote:As far as Fl. laws go, you are required to take the BRC course in order to get the endorsement on your licence. As far as I know, and this could just be urban myth, but from what I've heard from other riders in the area, there is mandatory impoundment of the bike for any rider who is caught without a motorcycle endorcement.

Florida requires the Motorcycle Safety Foundation course to get an endorsement as of July 1, 2008.
http://www.cyrilhuzeblog.com/2008/07/01 ... mandatory/
That makes it simpler to study the influence of the course on crash involvement.

7 months have passed since July 1st. The state can say with precision how many motorcycle endorsements have been issued since then. It's likely in the thousands. When there is a crash investigated by law enforcment the motorcycle operator is always identified and matched to the drivers license. Anyone with a post July 1st Florida endorsement is presumed to have taken the class so that group will be easy to study.

mercurydreams wrote:As far as Fl. laws go, you are required to take the BRC course in order to get the endorsement on your licence. As far as I know, and this could just be urban myth, but from what I've heard from other riders in the area, there is mandatory impoundment of the bike for any rider who is caught without a motorcycle endorcement.

Seems a little heavy handed, but then again - if you own a bike, you are on public streets and you don't have your endorsement - if the state doesn't take you bike away - it would be presumed that you are simple continue to break the law with your bike.

Or course impounded is a lot different that confiscated - which would be worse. If they impound it until you get your endorsement - maybe that wouldn't be so bad. Of course if you have to pay monthly impound fees that would rapidly get to the point where it would be cheaper just to get another bike...

RhadamYgg

It is true, that once enacted and if it is being followed - that it will be statistically easier to determine the nature and effect of training in the MSF on crash statistics - as long as there is a requirement for the police to record the date on M endorsement.

However, when I got my NJ endorsement, the date I got the endorsement wasn't recorded. The date my new license was issued is in fact on there; however, if I had to renew my license in the intervening time - it would reflect the renewal date.

So, the licenses would have to have the date of M endorsement and this would need to be required to be recorded by police officers for any good statistics to be generated.

Let's hope they have the appropriate controls in place to be able to track the data effectively.

RhadamYgg

If I understand what you are getting at, Brackstone I might be able to come up with something.

So, you're saying that the Over-Educators put a lot of thought in to everything they do, which translates well for early learning, but may not translate well to certain real-world conditions.

So, in terms of safety alone and no other factors these people are pretty safe in comparison to other groups, but then in real-world reaction conditions this group might need to relax and make immediate decisions.

So, how do you encourage rider real-world training in this group to ensure that this group that starts out initially safer - continues to be safer?

Training is costly, constrictive in time and poorly simulates real-world conditions (with exceptions - there are some on-road training programs).

Riding in groups with gaining experience as the orientation would be a good answer. It costs no more than it does to ride. It is more difficult (in my opinion) to ride in a group than solo. So, getting more experience in more difficult than normal riding will help make it easier in riding solo.

If you can find other riders that are interested in safety and a good leader to plot the rides in advance - with a mix of different road types - it could be a very good thing.

More advanced groups would have several riders equipped with cameras. Some time after the observations in the video can be compiled in to good and bad behaviors and published on the net for everyone to review.

Of course, riding in groups is no panacea. It can be more dangerous. There are difficulties in determining the optimum size for groups.

Gas mileage for different bikes can be vastly different - so timing distances for fill-ups can be interesting.

Also, getting everyone to behave to specific etiquette can be difficult (such as filling up before starting the ride). And, as always there could be personality conflicts.

It would also be nice to see a system developed with front and rear cameras recording to a computer - and wide angle lenses on them so that very little would be missed.

Such a system could be used to help riders understand just how often people ride up their "O Ring" (very frequent here in NJ) and watching it in 4 or 8x speed after every commute can show when and how many close calls you had.

Also, it would be great to get the plate number of "Donut Holes" and go to the DMV and send them a nasty letter with a DVD of proof. Or maybe just a bunch of Youtube videos showing just how well people drive.

Exercises are great and you do need to know how to handle your bike. But I've found that thrusting myself in to highway riding and city riding was the best way to develop the experience to understanding the roads when riding a motorcycles.

Of course, proposing this group riding is great, but I've yet to ride with another motorcyclist on purpose. Once is a great while I'll follow or be followed by another biker on the way home from work. But that doesn't count.

RhadamYgg

RhadamYgg wrote:It is true, that once enacted and if it is being followed - that it will be statistically easier to determine the nature and effect of training in the MSF on crash statistics - as long as there is a requirement for the police to record the date on M endorsement.

The police don't have to record whether there is an endorsement on the license. That information will already be recorded by the state. They keep a record of valid licenses and if they add an endorsement to the physical card they will also record that in their database of valid licenses. Otherwise there could be forgeries and no way to detect that. When the state studies their accident statistics they will match police reports to the drivers license database because they'll also get information about traffic citations, which are also attached to drivers licenses in their database.[/quote]

RhadamYgg wrote:So, how do you encourage rider real-world training in this group to ensure that this group that starts out initially safer - continues to be safer?

How about encouraging lots of PLP, which costs nothing more than the normal cost of operating the motorcycle and is safer than dodging traffic?

beginner wrote:

RhadamYgg wrote:So, how do you encourage rider real-world training in this group to ensure that this group that starts out initially safer - continues to be safer?

How about encouraging lots of PLP, which costs nothing more than the normal cost of operating the motorcycle and is safer than dodging traffic?

cept as pointed out to you MANY times already PLP ISNT REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE. I am not saying dont encourage PLP but you must realize its not real world experience.

Encouraging PLP will not help in these situations. Because the people that are over-cautious are looking out at a line that goes infinitely into their horizon when they are asked about their goals.

What we need to do is encourage people in a group environment or an instructor/student environment so they feel that they are armed with the knowledge to successfully conquer any situation.

ofblong wrote:

beginner wrote:

RhadamYgg wrote:So, how do you encourage rider real-world training in this group to ensure that this group that starts out initially safer - continues to be safer?

How about encouraging lots of PLP, which costs nothing more than the normal cost of operating the motorcycle and is safer than dodging traffic?

cept as pointed out to you MANY times already PLP ISNT REAL WORLD EXPERIENCE. I am not saying dont encourage PLP but you must realize its not real world experience.

If there was no substitute for real world experience there would be no benefit from formal training. If formal training is beneficial then PLP is beneficial. The bottom line, you don't like to do PLP, you don't do PLP, so you come up with reasons for why it's not so important.

Brackstone wrote:Encouraging PLP will not help in these situations. Because the people that are over-cautious are looking out at a line that goes infinitely into their horizon when they are asked about their goals. What we need to do is encourage people in a group environment

I thought group riding on roads is more hazardous than riding alone.

or an instructor/student environment so they feel that they are armed with the knowledge to successfully conquer any situation.

Knowledge alone is not enough on a motorcycle. The knowledge has to be applied. That requires skills. The skills require practice.

beginner wrote:

RhadamYgg wrote:It is true, that once enacted and if it is being followed - that it will be statistically easier to determine the nature and effect of training in the MSF on crash statistics - as long as there is a requirement for the police to record the date on M endorsement.

The police don't have to record whether there is an endorsement on the license. That information will already be recorded by the state. They keep a record of valid licenses and if they add an endorsement to the physical card they will also record that in their database of valid licenses. Otherwise there could be forgeries and no way to detect that. When the state studies their accident statistics they will match police reports to the drivers license database because they'll also get information about traffic citations, which are also attached to drivers licenses in their database.

[/quote]

I work in a hospital system... And there are many things that one part of the institution knows that other parts do not. The flow of information - even known - is not guaranteed.

As far as I know - the do absolutely no cross-referencing between what is on the police report and reported statistically and DMV records.

I know - it sounds like it should be easy to do - and I'm an IT professional and I know what it would take to do it... But I also know that it will not happen and is not part of the FARS process.

They can check your license, etc at the time in the police car - they are connected wirelessly to systems. But the report itself - isn't cross-referenced - or sometimes crosswalked to anything else. If there is a descrepancy or in the normal process they need to contact parties in a report - they do it manually.

Its ridiculous, I know. But in terms of systems it seems like institutions - like the police, hospitals even the military to an extent - are at least 10 to 20 years out of date.

A good example, my hospital - which employs over 15,000 people and has 1500+ hospital beds... Still have windows 2000 on a majority of their computers.

RhadamYgg