Total Motorcycle Community Forums

If everyone wants to ride without helmets? Fine, who cares? Why are you concerned with protecting other people?

We don't care if you die from a brain that could end up like porridge or a head injury that leaves you drooling and sitting in a wheelchair waiting for someone to push you to the dining room for your pureed meal.....We care about the fact that we have to pay for your care. It's also another reason that helmet laws may come into existence for ski hills.

I understand you're reasoning here but I just don't believe if there were less injuries that required hospitalization that our state would tax us less. But then again I guess I'm a "Government is out to rip us off" kind of guy.

If some 16 y/o kids PARENTS let him buy a 1000cc death machine then thats not my problem. Parents need to be more involved in EVERYTHING their kids do, video games, movies, internet usage, etc.

That is the very reason why restrictions would be a good idea. If someone doesn't think it is cool, then they don't have to take up riding a motorcycle.

So your saying that by forcing people to start out on a 250cc bike you'll discourage all the people that would normally only buy a 1000cc cause it would be un-cool to have anything else. And also assuming that these people are better off not riding at all since they'd probably just do something stupid?

If an Adult wants to buy a 1000cc motorcycle as their first and be stupid then that should be fine as well.

There are plenty of adults who have yet to develop any common sense. Again...the ramifications of a beginner on a 1000cc bike are not just about himself. If he rides off the road or into a post or heaven forbid another person....the emergency crews need to clean up his mess and then one of 2 things will more than likely happen. Either his family will be planning a funeral or the state will be paying for his care. (The state being all of us)

Again I just don't agree that there we would be spending less money if xyz would happen. Nobody notices when the state is overcharging us and nobody in todays world cares when the government just bends em over.

It's like the Garden State Parkway here in Jersey. They put tolls up to pay for the road so we could have it. They said as soon as the road was done and pay for the tolls would go down. The tolls are still there and the roads been paid off for years now.

When you find a stream of revenue you don't let go and that's what taxes are.

If some law makers wants to make Propostion "Keep Dumbasses off bikes and make them wear helmets if they DO ride" and in part of that propostion it clearly states "we will cut taxes by X Amount" I'll sign if it's it a good amount.

But otherwise I just don't believe it would happen.

As far as the helmet laws, also, remember, that if you are not wearing one and you crash, you are going to die. It's that simple. So, the state actually saves a lot of money by NOT having people wear a helmet when they crash. People without helmets save me and you money, because any one stupid enough to ride without a helmet will crash, and when they do, we are all better off if they are not wearing a helmet.

But that's a side topic.

- Bogdan

Brackstone wrote: I understand you're reasoning here but I just don't believe if there were less injuries that required hospitalization that our state would tax us less. But then again I guess I'm a "Government is out to rip us off" kind of guy.

They wouldn't be taxing us less....but the premiums we pay for health care will go up.


So your saying that by forcing people to start out on a 250cc bike you'll discourage all the people that would normally only buy a 1000cc cause it would be un-cool to have anything else. And also assuming that these people are better off not riding at all since they'd probably just do something stupid?
In a manner of speaking, yes. I don't know what the demographics are like where you live, but around here, big powerful sport bikes are very popular. The majority of the riders of those bikes are young men new to riding. In the last few years, there have been quite a few of those very riders who within days of getting their learner's permit and purchasing their new bike have been killed. They did not have the skills or the experience to handle a powerful sport bike. This is why a graduated system would be good. In that way...if the kids who only get a bike because they think it is cool might think twice if they have to start out on a small bike. If they truly have a desire to learn to ride, then they should have lessons and gain a decent skill set before moving up.
There is enough carnage on the roads without those yahoos adding to it.


Again I just don't agree that there we would be spending less money if xyz would happen. See above

It's like the Garden State Parkway here in Jersey. They put tolls up to pay for the road so we could have it. They said as soon as the road was done and pay for the tolls would go down. The tolls are still there and the roads been paid off for years now.
The road may have been paid off but the revenue from the tolls help to pay for maintenance. Similar to our Coquihalla Hwy. The tolls pay for the snow plows and road repair.

When you find a stream of revenue you don't let go and that's what taxes are.
As much as we don't like paying taxes, they are necessary. Do you think we get clean water to drink, street lighting, fire departments, police departments, hospitals, prisons for the criminals, parks, etc., for free? We all need to pay a share for them.
What we don't want to do is pay for a share of the upkeep for someone who negligently caused his own head injury. (NOTE....negligently)

ps.....would you expect any less from someone who is a driver trainer and professional driver? (Me)

x0054 wrote:Oh, that was awesome experience BTW in the way the system worked. In the end that ticket was only $80 and I literally talked my way into a license while utterly failing the actual written test (passed the driving test with no problem, got skills, refuse to read the CA Rider book though). So, yeah, just goes to show you, that people like me, given some experience and advice from friends, will manipulate the system, while people like you will be riding 150cc bikes for years.

Oh, and guess what, I was right on the law on that one too, but that's a minor point to most people on this form. All the same, sorry to disappoint you, but the only lesson I learned is how to efficiently manipulate the California traffic courts, that's all.

I ride legally now, because it's cheep, but I would not hesitate for a second to do that again. And again, that's the problem. Responsible people do not buy liter bikes, talk them selves into M1 licenses, or slide on $3,000 tickets. Irresponsible people do, and the law is nothing but a speed bump.

You are from Canada, right. I heard that you guys have a 33hp restriction, is that right? And that you can literally buy an R6 with a restriction plate and tip the dealer a 50$ to have it removed. Yeah, that law really works!

- Bogdan

Disclaimer:
My apologies in advance to my southern cousin's, my following comments do not in any way apply to the vast majority of the American members here.

Look up Ignorant Yankee or Ugly American in any dictionary, you are likely to find Bogdan's picture.

Junior, I've been reading your post and refraining from replying, but by god, it's Americans such as yourself that give other American's a bad rep for being ignorant, intolerant, and out and out stupid.

The level of ignorance and callousness you have displayed thus far is astounding. If I was a fellow American, I would be cringing in shame. I strongly suggest you engage your brain in future prior to opening your mouth or typing your inane and foolish comments.

x0054 wrote:As far as the helmet laws, also, remember, that if you are not wearing one and you crash, you are going to die. It's that simple. So, the state actually saves a lot of money by NOT having people wear a helmet when they crash. People without helmets save me and you money, because any one stupid enough to ride without a helmet will crash, and when they do, we are all better off if they are not wearing a helmet.

But that's a side topic.

- Bogdan

Once again your lack of knowledge is amazing. I know plenty of people who have been in accidents without a helmet, myself included, that didn't die. Also you claim that the state would save a lot of money if they died, but the ET crew still has to roll, the police and fire department would still have to show up, the body would have to be transported to the ME's office for the autopsy, and the wrecker company would have to pick up what's left of the bike.

...and riding without a helmet WILL NOT cause you to crash. Most likely the cause of your crash is a general lack of riding skill compounded by riding more bike than you can handle.

A side topic would be why were you skipping school to play on the internet.

Johnj wrote:
A side topic would be why were you skipping school to play on the internet.

Troll.

storysunfolding wrote:I like the idea. I think it should be rated by hp and not cc. Given the nature of america's bike availability and roads I think the bottom hp limit should be higher, but I think it would be advantageous to all parties involved.

The restricted licence gives a 33bhp restriction, often ignored by the riders as it isn't practical to randokmly drag them all off the road for testing

I'm such a selfish bastrd.

I've skimmed over this whole topic and noticed some heated arguement going on. Did I read it? Did I pay attention? Did I bother to follow the details of the discussion?

No.

I just looked for someone to quote me and thought, "Man, no one quoted me and said anything about my initial response. Bummer."

x0054 wrote:And how about a 16 year old plowing his Ninja 250 into the same mini? Or his 1980s camaro?

I don't understand your logic in saying that kids who die in bike crashes are just as likely to die in car crashes. Cars provide much more protection (seatbelts, airbags, rollbars, crumple zones etc) than a motorcycle (gear). Many of the cars safety features are inherent in the vehicle unlike m/c gear which is a rational choice. Furthermore, you HAVE to take a road test in a car to get a license. Many states take that further and require you to pass an on road driving school before being allowed to take that test.

In comparision, the standards for getting a m/c license lack the challenge and vigor for becoming a fully licensed driver. In the ALTMOST you don't need to show the most important skill of motorcycling which is cornering. That test lacks any component with true countersteering. You can do the swerve slow enough to steer and still pass. Even in the BRC which many states use for issuing a license there is no need to go over 20mph. Both of these methods lack a street exam as well.

So, let's restate the issues again:

1. People hurting them selves and ONLY them selves on a bike that is way out of their skill range is a good thing because:
a. It removes the stupid people from the gene pool.
b. It provides cheep used parts for me, and the rest of the riders.
c. It makes roads less crowded.
d. It promotes freedom of choice.

2. The kind of person who would buy a literbike as a lerner is equally dangerous on that bike to others as he/she would be on or in any other type of vehicle, or for that matter, in any other aspect of that persons life.

3. The kind of person who would buy a literbike as a learner would easily bypass any laws or find some one, me for instance, to help him do so. And I would, gladly. See points 1 and 2.

4. Finally, the only reason people like restrictive laws is because it makes them feel safe. We should NEVER trade freedom for safety. That's why I am disappointed with the direction this country is going, as well as others.

Issue 1: People don't only hurt themselves. Although most m/c fatalities occur in curves or in the presence of alcohol, this doesn't exclude the many cases where a m/c takes out another m/c, forces a car from the road, hits pedestrians, goes into a car (litterally) etc.
a.) Motorcycle accidents don't only happen to stupid people. I will withdraw this if you can prove your assertion with the empirical evidence that you demand from others.
b.) Salvage yards are charging almost full price for used parts nowadays. There are parts available on craigslist or ebay but it's certainly not a surfeit to choose from at your will. Oh yeah, and you're an asshat for using this as a reason.
c.) How to accidents make the road less crowded? If anything they cause more congestion which often leads to fender benders that amplify the effect. Or can you truly notice the lack of a few motorcycles? If they don't die, they are most likely going to be in cars for awhile until their injuries heal which will take up more space on the road.
d.) How does people hurting themselves promote freedom of choice? After the impacts on society laws will be enacting to limit legal choices. While the choice to do something illegally will still exist, why would it be worth the hassle?

2.) As mentioned earlier, the bar for obtaining a drivers license is much higher than that of a motorcycles. You have to demonstrate a greater ability at driving any other licensed vehicle on the road than a motorcycle and all cars perform relatively the same. The difference between a ninja 250 and a liter bike is astronomical. Another factor is the price of a car that reacts anywhere close to the relative performance of a liter bike which is another limiting factor.

3.) That would depend on the wording of the law. If it stated that a first year rider could only ride a motorcycle designed to have no more than X horsepower in any stock configuration from the factory then how would you get around it? Especially given your assertion that people that do so are stupid and thus need to be removed from the gene pool (thanks by the way for grouping yourself in that catagory).

4.) How does this restrict your freedom? Maybe your also arguing against he validity of a learners permit where you need a licensed driver in the car with you to drive? Or how you aren't able to drive a semi without proper training and time behind the wheel? Maybe you are planning on starting a lobby to fight against he panoply of vehicle law injustice such as Speed limits, requiring insurance, vehicle inspections, traffic laws, right of way, handicap parking and so on and so forth.

This isn't a question of personal freedom. A real lawyer would know that. You should have stayed for the other 2 and 11/12 years.