Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Some Americans lose all their sense when it comes to 'freedom'. Like it must be absolute. It's an illusion. But that's a different topic, and one that's not going to change any minds.

Having trained in the UK system, it makes perfect sense to restrict first time riders to 125's, then to 33.3hp for two years. I'll add that at 28 I did Direct Access, cost about 600 pounds, and can ride any bike I want. Of course insurance would be an issue, but I could manage the payments on an SV650 up to a VFR800 easily, and from quotes I've seen, a Fireblade is not out of reach. The training is excellent, but I went with a reputable company, cost a little more, but they guarantee their results.

In the States, without socialised medicine, helmet laws must seem kinda silly. In the UK and Canada, we don't want to pay for your brain injury. We'd rather force a lid on your shout-hole, so your squidgy bits stay inside. As far as I'm concerned, unwitty, you can do what you want. But riders in the UK wear more non-mandatory gear that anywhere I've seen (UK, Italy, Middle east, Canada, Thailand) that has a noticeable motorcycle population.

Granted, nanny state mentality can be noticed, but the UK has more social problems than that right now. A police system with guns would be a start, and a judiciary/legislature with some balls to stand up to Europe's BS Human Rights doctrine.

unwitty, you're so right wing you're actually sitting all the way around to the left beside Cherie Blair! Where's my Human Rights! Wah!

Kibagari wrote:Even lumping all AMERICANS together is a load of bull. It varies from state to state and from neighborhood to neighborhood. Just because you see a bunch of Americans doing something, does not necessarily mean that all of us do.

This goes double so for North America, which includes MORE than one country (Unless you're forgetting that Nova Scotia, Canada, and Mexico exist).

So before you go lumping all Americans into one big pot as speed-addicted morons, look at the demographics.


Same goes for the UK, you can't make a valid assumption based on the UK as a whole. You have to take it apart piece by piece and examine it all.

You and other posters are correct. generalizations are usless and stupid. I got a little testy when I read x0054's first post.
My Apoligies I'm not on here just to irritate people .

I do reserve the right to irritate people though.
I did a little survey last night with some riding friends and all of them said they would be OK with more stringent restrictions on new riders. That suprised me as i expected them to want less restrictions. Of course my friends have all been riding for some time and restrictions would not apply so It's easy to say more restrictions are Ok.

Freedom is: What the government tells us it is

Freedom should be:You are Free to do whatever you want as long as you are not hurting someone else.

x0054 wrote:
Are there any restriction in Canada on top HP, or any top HP limits? For some reason something is nagging in the back of my mind about that.

- Bogdan

The only restriction is money and common sense. An absolute beginner could go and buy a Hayabusa.....but no self respecting sale person would sell one to a beginner.
There in lies the real problem.
My first bike has 42 hp. Some people start with 60hp. Unforunately in the last few years there have been young people who get themselves a learner permit, don't take lessons, go buy a sport bikes and then get killed.
It's for those kind of reasons that some restrictions should be put into place.
Now go and pack your lunch and get to school.

shane-o wrote:hmmmmm, let me see......You ignoramus how the puck is the government going to make me vote? huh what!!!!! you think they line us all up then throw a ballot card in front of you, then apply nipple cramps and some water torture, then start flicking ya balls with a wet towel all at gun point until you either fill the card out or die wake up

95% participation due to fines if you do not vote. Simple, it works. Voting is a right, not voting is a right too. Oh, and I love how personal you get about this

blues2cruise wrote:The only restriction is money and common sense. An absolute beginner could go and buy a Hayabusa.....but no self respecting sale person would sell one to a beginner.
There in lies the real problem.
My first bike has 42 hp. Some people start with 60hp. Unforunately in the last few years there have been young people who get themselves a learner permit, don't take lessons, go buy a sport bikes and then get killed.
It's for those kind of reasons that some restrictions should be put into place.
Now go and pack your lunch and get to school.

That's an understood concern, however, are there any statistics that suggest that people who kill them selves on high HP bikes do more damage to the outside world then those who crash on restricted bikes? I don't know of any, not to say that there aren't any. I remember reading a study about helmet design that suggested that most crashes happen between 15 and 45 MPH (or so). If that's true, does it really matter what bike you are riding.

So, to sum up, if there is distinct increase in danger to the outside world then some restrictions may be necessary. However, if the dangers to the nonriders are about the same, then we should not stop the 16 year old from killing him/her self. It's their life and their right to do what ever the "fudge" they please with it.

I would love if some one here could actually site any statistics instead of arguing like little children in a playground lot. It's an interesting question, and it does not have only one side. I happen to think that my side is correct, but I could equally well argue the opposite side. Can you do the same?

- Bogdan

x0054 wrote:

blues2cruise wrote:The only restriction is money and common sense. An absolute beginner could go and buy a Hayabusa.....but no self respecting sale person would sell one to a beginner.
There in lies the real problem.
My first bike has 42 hp. Some people start with 60hp. Unforunately in the last few years there have been young people who get themselves a learner permit, don't take lessons, go buy a sport bikes and then get killed.
It's for those kind of reasons that some restrictions should be put into place.
Now go and pack your lunch and get to school.

That's an understood concern, however, are there any statistics that suggest that people who kill them selves on high HP bikes do more damage to the outside world then those who crash on restricted bikes? I don't know of any, not to say that there aren't any. I remember reading a study about helmet design that suggested that most crashes happen between 15 and 45 MPH (or so). If that's true, does it really matter what bike you are riding.

So, to sum up, if there is distinct increase in danger to the outside world then some restrictions may be necessary. However, if the dangers to the nonriders are about the same, then we should not stop the 16 year old from killing him/her self. It's their life and their right to do what ever the "fudge" they please with it.

I would love if some one here could actually site any statistics instead of arguing like little children in a playground lot. It's an interesting question, and it does not have only one side. I happen to think that my side is correct, but I could equally well argue the opposite side. Can you do the same?

- Bogdan

No responsible adult would take your position. Responsible adults do try to protect sixteen year olds from killing themselves. Once you turn 21 then you have rights but suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions so that isn't one of them.

Johnj wrote:No responsible adult would take your position. Responsible adults do try to protect sixteen year olds from killing themselves. Once you turn 21 then you have rights but suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions so that isn't one of them.

The fact that suicide is illegal in US is a travesty all in its self. So, John, we can send a 17 year old to IRAQ and have him drive a tank, but by God, don't let him ride a literbike?

x0054 wrote:

Johnj wrote:No responsible adult would take your position. Responsible adults do try to protect sixteen year olds from killing themselves. Once you turn 21 then you have rights but suicide is illegal in most jurisdictions so that isn't one of them.

The fact that suicide is illegal in US is a travesty all in its self. So, John, we can send a 17 year old to IRAQ and have him drive a tank, but by God, don't let him ride a literbike?

I agree Suicide should not be illegal. It doesn't hurt anyone else.

x0054 wrote:The fact that suicide is illegal in US is a travesty all in its self. So, John, we can send a 17 year old to IRAQ and have him drive a tank, but by God, don't let him ride a literbike?

You know, suicide isn't illegal in the US.

The federal government has generally no laws concerning murder or suicide. Those laws are left up to the states, which each have their own statutes covering murder.

Six states have criminalize *attempted* suicide, but the punishments are not severe.


But I wouldn't expect you to be up on your even comprehend such delicate subtleties.