Total Motorcycle Community Forums

I hate to be "that guy", but the way I see it is that if the US government were to tell us how we should start out on motorcycles, then it's just another encroachment onto our rights. It sounds ridiculous, but it's true. The government just says "hey, you get the education and we don't care what you ride or drive." They do this with cars, too, and I think I like it that way.

I like knowing that I can make the right (or wrong) choices FOR MYSELF, end of discussion. When a government starts defining what my choices are, I will NOT be a happy camper (and neither will the rest of America that enjoys screwing up on their own terms).

Personally, I like my rights, and I dislike large nanny governments. As it stands, MSF is regarded as a "good idea", not required. I believe it SHOULD be. Make it required, extend it. Kind of like driver's ed. After that, let people do what they're going to do and buy a bike.

Most of the people will buy bikes close to their skill level. Some still won't listen and will probably kill themselves anyway.

These people that make a choice with full information as to the danger of said path deserve what they get. You start out on a big bike, you don't wear a helmet, I honestly would rather you remove yourself from the gene pool.


Someone should nominate this guy for a Darwin Award.

At least, to a small degree, Natural Selection still works.

Kibagari wrote:I hate to be "that guy", but the way I see it is that if the US government were to tell us how we should start out on motorcycles, then it's just another encroachment onto our rights.

I hear what you're saying, but keep in mind that operating a motor vehicle on public roads is not a fundamental right. It is a privilege - it is granted by the government, regulated by the government, and can be removed by the government.

Laissez-faire is fine and dandy but when someone becomes a burden to society, the Gov't needs to step in. That being said, I would like to see stricter licensing tests for cars as well as annual re-tests for people over certain age as well as ones that have caused abnormal amounts of accidents or moving violation(other than speeding).

HYPERR wrote:Laissez-faire is fine and dandy but when someone becomes a burden to society, the Gov't needs to step in. That being said, I would like to see stricter licensing tests for cars as well as annual re-tests for people over certain age as well as ones that have caused abnormal amounts of accidents or moving violation(other than speeding).

A-f'ing-men they should make stricter licensing tests for cars

They give away car licenses to people who should never operate a vehicle

HYPERR wrote:Laissez-faire is fine and dandy but when someone becomes a burden to society, the Gov't needs to step in.

That sounds fair. Tackling those "burdens" in order of importance should be a priority. So, after the government has regulated what you eat, whether you can drink or smoke, how much you should exercise, your employment and your sexual habits, then they might get around to the burden of motorcyclists on society. All of the above have impacts on society that are orders of magnitude greater than squidly bikers.

flynrider wrote:

HYPERR wrote:Laissez-faire is fine and dandy but when someone becomes a burden to society, the Gov't needs to step in.

That sounds fair. Tackling those "burdens" in order of importance should be a priority. So, after the government has regulated what you eat, whether you can drink or smoke, how much you should exercise, your employment and your sexual habits, then they might get around to the burden of motorcyclists on society. All of the above have impacts on society that are orders of magnitude greater than squidly bikers.

I totally agree that a Teenage Testosterone Boy buying a GSX-R1000 for his first bike or a Midlife Crisis Viagara Man buying an Ultra-Glide for his first bike are not actually on the top of the totem pole in terms of burden on society. Testosterone boy and Viagara man proably has very little burden on society other than raising everybody's insurance premiums after they promptly total their bikes.

To add to my previous post, the huge increase in motorcycle fatalities in recent years are not due to Testosterone Boy, but from Viagara Man. The huge spike in the increase is from the 40+ age group. In the years past, it would have been fair to say that a person in his 40s were probably the safest rider. The ideal combination of experience(most likely 2 decades plus) with not yet diminished physical skill and ability. Now this age group are the most dangerous. They are going out to get their first bikes and doing exactly what the mods on this forum advises not to do. They go out and get humongous cruisers as their first bike and on many occasions, total the bike and unfortunately themselves too.

I first read about this trend in Motorcycle Consumer News.

HYPERR wrote:To add to my previous post, the huge increase in motorcycle fatalities in recent years are not due to Testosterone Boy, but from Viagara Man. The huge spike in the increase is from the 40+ age group. In the years past, it would have been fair to say that a person in his 40s were probably the safest rider. The ideal combination of experience(most likely 2 decades plus) with not yet diminished physical skill and ability. Now this age group are the most dangerous. They are going out to get their first bikes and doing exactly what the mods on this forum advises not to do. They go out and get humongous cruisers as their first bike and on many occasions, total the bike and unfortunately themselves too.

I first read about this trend in Motorcycle Consumer News.

Actually, while the number of fatalities has risen dramatically in the over 40's age group, the number of riders has risen in this age group even faster. When you correct for number of motorcyclists per age group, it was found (indicated by Hough of MCN in his current Proficient Motorcycling book) that the rate of fatalities per 100 riders is higher for the younger group - there are just that many more riders in the older age group.

Not saying that what you are talking about doesn't happen. Just that it isn't quite as prevalent given the number of riders as reported in media.

RhadamYgg

I agree somewhat with Kibagari...

I also believe that the rider has to take responsibility...

When I bought my very first bike weeks ago (I am 45), I went after a Honda CM450A. I wanted an automatic to learn on so I could graduate to shifting later (enough to learn in the beginning as it is). I liked the CM450A also because it is approx. 44hp...Enough 'go' to get where I need to go without fire flying from my helmet.

I had MANY friends who told me then, and still tell me 'you will outgrow that bike real quick...you SHOULD have got (fill in the blank, starting with the Honda Vulcan, etc....)'. I stayed my ground because I knew what I could handle, and what intimidated me. I've only rode 50 miles so far, but I know I made the right choice. I may NEVER outgrow my CM450A. It is enough for my 5'1", 140lb frame.

I also ride 1100lb horses....now THAT has more risk...you can only control a horse when he/she allows it.....

RhadamYgg wrote:
Actually, while the number of fatalities has risen dramatically in the over 40's age group, the number of riders has risen in this age group even faster.

That's 100% true and actually one of the points I was making.

Traditonally a person entered motorcycling at a much younger age and by the time he was 40+ was a seasoned rider. People that were 40+ did enter motorcyling for the fist time on occasion but was quite rare.

However with the advent of the Cruiser boom and the tremendously succcessful advertising campaign of Harley Davidson, many 40+ riders are being attracted to the hobby for the first time. In total contrast to what you see being advised on this forum, many of these guys go out an buy mega cruisers and promptly add to the statistic.