Beginner bikes 2007 ??

[allan4169]

You can go to just about any motorcycle BB and there is always questions from newbies about which bike is the best one to start on. This problem could be easily solved if there was legislation covering learner riders and bikes that they can ride. When I learnt to ride in Queensland, Australia in 1981, the law at that time was, If you do your test on a bike under 400cc, then you are only licensed to ride a bike under 400cc. If you did your test 400cc or over then you are licensed to ride any sized bike. Remember that back then we had some weird bikes. RD400 2 strokes. 6000rpm and the front wheel automatically comes up. One of the big four had a rotary powered bike. There was also a turbo powered bike as well. Kawasaki had a 900 with a frame that would twist around the neck as you go around freeway corners at a high speed. Back in those days we would mount steering dampers just to stop that high speed slow wobble. Honda had the 900 Boldor, Suzuki had a 750 and a 1000cc GSX model. Yamaha had a FJ1000 and then the 11100 and 1200 afterwards. They were big bikes but they weren't snappish like the crutch rockets are now. Anyway in Australia and many other countries now, beginners are restricted to a horsepower limit for their first year or so. Hyosong have a bike that has a restrictor in the inlet that limits the engine to about 45kW of power. About 58 HP or so. After you have completed your period of restricted riding you would take the bike with your paperwork to the dealer and they would remove the restrictor. In those countries that have licensing such as this, the manufacturers supply bikes that will work with the laws. When I was back in Australia last year I went to a bike shop and the models available were different to the US as the US models would not sell because of the horsepower laws. It is very annoying to see new riders out there on the roads getting hurt because they are not mature enough to restrain that right wrist. They need to be on a low horsepower bike where a quick twist is not going to send then highsiding. It's the same reason you don't put a kid who learnt to drive in a Toyota Tercel in a Mustang GT. First corner in the wet they are going to kill themselves. So as America has followed other countries by legislating graduated driving laws, maybe they should have laws that restrict horsepower for the first year as well for riders under a certain age. I know that this will outrage the younger riders, but it's obvious that they can't keep themselves alive. I would prefer to have laws that restrict the younger riders, as they seem to be the ones who are being killed, rather than laws that would affect everybody. So, let the comments come forth. I think that something has to be done.

[Clint]

Wow. Paragraphs, please.

I agree that this is a serious concern, but the line between government protection and personal responsibility is wide and gray. If we're going to band together and fight for something worthy, maybe it should be for periodic skills assessment and relicensing of all motorists. 41,000 people die in car crashes every year, yet the utter lack of proficiency in drivers is astounding.

I submit the recent incident where two parked motorcyclists were killed by a driver who lost control of his pickup in the rain. I don't think it was posted here, but it's among the worst of the recent motorcyclist tragedies, in my opinion, mostly because they were almost completely devoid of risk, having been standing next to their motorcycles and not riding them.

[allan4169]

Yeah, Sorry about the lack of paragraphs and structure. Writing is not my best skill. I like where you are coming from but I believe that any sort of periodic testing would not go well with the old timers. I would hope that as the younger riders spend more time on their bikes they would be gaining maturity and realizing the errors of their possible dangerous riding. I wonder if members from other countries could detail how their licensing works.

[frostbitevinnie]

The only issue I have with laws limiting newbies is that you have legislators creating these laws. The individual, parents, dealers should take responsibility for the potential danger of a certain bike. If there were such a law it would probably have blanket coverage extended to autos, firearms, TV's, stereos, etc. Big Daddy would then be in power to determine what is, or is not safe for us.

My dealer knew me well enough to realize that I could handle a big bike. I am certain that he would not recommend a monster to a newbie but he is unique in that manner.

[jwromick]

I don't know about everyone else here but I believe we allow government to intrude way too much into what should personal decisions already. I'm not ready to endorse a plan that ASKS the government to limit my freedoms.

[jgreth]

Wall of Text crits you for 1000 damage.

( sorry, old MUD'ing days there )

I don't agree with old riders thinking they shouldn't be tested like everyone else. Who's to say that older riders are qualified anymore? If an 18 year old is going to be re-tested, so should seniors. Just my $.02.

[Clint]

JW sounds like a conservative. The other side of that coin is protection for my right to be somewhat safe on the roadway. I'd gladly give up what some call "freedom" (I don't - I'd call the cost of recurrent testing "hassle" or "expense", but not limitation on freedom) for the expectation that everyone else can show some proficiency in vehicle control. I'd feel much safer with my family on the road.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by allan4169

If you do your test on a bike under 400cc, then you are only licensed to ride a bike under 400cc. If you did your test 400cc or over then you are licensed to ride any sized bike.

That's how it is in Quebec, but any bike 400cc to pass your test is easily rented. That didn't prevent the two squids passing me at about 170 KM/H (do your own damn conversion ) on the highway. And the 2nd bike had a passenger on the back seat...

[BowDown]

Originally Posted by Louis

That's how it is in Quebec, but any bike 400cc to pass your test is easily rented. That didn't prevent the two squids passing me at about 170 KM/H (do your own damn conversion ) on the highway. And the 2nd bike had a passenger on the back seat...

Seems like you were going pretty slow then. I can do 105mph in my sleep.

[jwromick]

Originally Posted by RowdyRed94

JW sounds like a conservative. The other side of that coin is protection for my right to be somewhat safe on the roadway. I'd gladly give up what some call "freedom" (I don't - I'd call the cost of recurrent testing "hassle" or "expense", but not limitation on freedom) for the expectation that everyone else can show some proficiency in vehicle control. I'd feel much safer with my family on the road.

I don't know that I'm a conservative...and I didn't mean I was against re-testing on a regular basis, just on the limiting of the size of bike you can ride based on how long you've been riding. You can do as much damage with a smaller displacement bike as a larger one regardless of how long you've been riding. My point was asking for more regulation is something I'm not ready to do. Maybe I am a tad conservative then.

[Easy Rider]

Originally Posted by jwromick

You can do as much damage with a smaller displacement bike as a larger one regardless of how long you've been riding.

As stated, this is just not true.

My bike's top speed is about 65 mph. It weighs 300 lbs.

It has a LOT less damage potential than a bike that weighs 500 lbs and will go 140 mph.

[Ext1jdh]

Untrue.

Let's not get into the physics here, but at speed the difference in the kinetic energy of a 300 lb bike with 160 lbs of rider and a 600 lb bike with 160 lbs of rider have absolutely nothing to do with the capabilities of that rider to ride safely and avoid a crash

The damage potential has less to do with the bike and more to do with the rider.
Plenty of evidence here to show that it doesn't matter what size or style of bike.

I'm waiting for Inspiron to show up and tell us all about the graduated licensing in certain European countries.

[kay]

Well my first bike was 750 and prior to that I hadn't even touched a moped.

BUT.....
I agree that riding skills have NOTHING to do with how long you've been riding. You can be riding a long time but with very little challenges/practices or you can be riding for a short period of time but with lots of practice.

I know I posted this before, but we have 3 license levels; up to 125cc, up to 400cc and anything above with no limit. You can ride bigger bikes even as a newbie but you have to pass the no limit test. On the flip side, even you have been riding all your life, if you only have taken and/or passed the 400cc test, you can't go any bigger until you pass.

That, to me, sounds very fair because if you want to ride bigger bikes with more HP, you can go take the test anytime you want but have to be good enough to pass it. There is also an age limit though. 16 and up can take up to the 400cc test and to go higher you have to be 18. Now that, I don't think is gov't interfering at all. It makes perfect sense to me to have that rule to protect younger people from getting killed.

So in my case, I was a perfect newbie but I took and passed the 125cc test, then the 400cc and finally the no limit test. That's why my first bike was a 750cc bike which was way too big for me in size also, but I had passed the test and was able to ride it with absolutely no experience riding smaller bikes on the streets.

So where do we learn to ride prior to taking these tests? In riding schools. Here you can rent bikes (125, 400 and 750cc bikes are available) with huge engine guards and lots of colored lights fixed to it so the instructor can see whether you are hitting your rear brakes and front brakes and in what gear you are in (shown by the different lights).

I really think this is a very good system and don't consider it as government interferance at all.

[jgreth]

Good idea!!

[Easy Rider]

Originally Posted by Ext1jdh

Untrue.

What is untrue? Who's message are you replying to? A short quote would be helpful.

If you think that 600 pounds traveling at 120 mph will not do more damage than 300 pounds traveling at 60 mph, then you are just foolish.

The message I replied to said "do more damage".

Now for the different subject you brought up, that, to paraphrase, a 600 lb bike is no harder to handle than a 300 lb bike, that's just silly. Apparently you haven't had a chance to do both.

Now I WILL agree that a competent, trained and experienced rider who is reasonably matched with a big bike is NOT more likely to wreck it than an experienced rider on a light one, assuming they both ride like they have half a brain.

I think this thread originally referred to a newbie, inexperienced rider.
Are you claiming that a totally green rider is no more likely to crash a large powerful bike than a small agile one ??? and/or is not likely to do more damage in a crash with the bigger bike ???

[Ext1jdh]

I've ridden both a 300 lb bike and a 600 lb bike. I find the lightweight bike easier to control at lower speeds and the heavier bike easier to control at high speeds.

Physically speaking, greater mass at higher velocity will have a greater load of kinetic energy. My point is that a safe rider will be less likely to be in a situation where that will become apparent.

What I'm claiming is that a properly trained rider is more likely to follow proven safety techniques which lead toward a safer riding experience. I'm also suggesting that the MSF BRC produces a much better rider than someone who just hops on a bike from the dealer and later gets a license from the DMV.

It doesnt seem to make sense that you have to go through a certain number of hours of training to get a regular drivers license, but you can just hop on a motorcycle and go without ever riding previously. I believe that the MSF course should be standard training for anyone who wants an M class license.

[jwromick]

Originally Posted by Easy Rider

What is untrue? Who's message are you replying to? A short quote would be helpful.

If you think that 600 pounds traveling at 120 mph will not do more damage than 300 pounds traveling at 60 mph, then you are just foolish.

The message I replied to said "do more damage".

Now for the different subject you brought up, that, to paraphrase, a 600 lb bike is no harder to handle than a 300 lb bike, that's just silly. Apparently you haven't had a chance to do both.

Now I WILL agree that a competent, trained and experienced rider who is reasonably matched with a big bike is NOT more likely to wreck it than an experienced rider on a light one, assuming they both ride like they have half a brain.

I think this thread originally referred to a newbie, inexperienced rider.
Are you claiming that a totally green rider is no more likely to crash a large powerful bike than a small agile one ??? and/or is not likely to do more damage in a crash with the bigger bike ???

Actually the post said "just as much damage". Dead is dead, regardless of the displacement of the bike you die on.

[Ext1jdh]

Spot on JW.

It's not the fall that kills you, its the sudden stop at the end.

[allan4169]

Well a lot of replys to my thread and a lot of interesting views. I believe that it will be up to the government to eventually pass laws limiting horsepower and new riders. As I said in my thread, some countries limit new riders by horsepower, as the mid size sport bikes are very powerfull these days. The industry ( Manufacturers ) will never be responsible as they are looking at profits and kids under 26 (26 and under have highest fatality rate) seem to love buying sports bikes. The new laws that allow teenagers to have more freedoms as they gain car time works, so I believe that people need to stop with the government taking my freedom away cry's and lot at the bigger picture. Do YOU want to see more kids becoming older bike riders? Then lets have some laws that will do that. It's a fact that it takes more money and time to get a car license than a bike license, but riding a bike takes more skill than driving a car. So anyway, thank you for your replys and lets do our best to make it a safer place for us out there.

[Tab B.]

I'm not going to get into the legal end of the discussion. As an enthusiast, and a former instructor, my desires are to find ways to make learning more about riding, the "cool" thing to do. I have no idea. When I have overheard some young folks talking, I hear the age old talk of wanting to do their own thing, or safety is for pussies. I'm sure you folks can add in a few more sayings too. When I was young, and indeed stupid, I wanted to emulate the racers of the day. I must have been a little different though. Even then, I had a ton of respect for a racers knowledge, and more importantly, how he, or she got it. Maybe it was because I had fallen off my bicycle, and later on, my dad's snowmobile, enough times, that I had some kind of respect for skills earned and learned. When young kids latch onto something they like, it is amazing how intense they can be in their enjoyment of it. How can you make rider education like that. One of the ironies when I was instructing was that the MSF was never preachy about safety. It was focused on skills. Skills work, any way you look at it. One year, I had the good fortune of talking to Kevin Cameron up in the stands of T6 at NHIS. I was lamenting the lack of youngsters taking the course because of the wussie safety image. I even pointed out as various racers sped by, the skills they were using that were directly related to exercises in the class. He agreed completely, and wondered out loud how the image could be improved. How can you make it cool?? Of course the goal of the safety class isn't that lofty, image wise or application wise, but a skill learned is,,, a skill learned, period. Certainly nobody is stopping an individual from learning more, from that point onward. Oh well, aside from approaching the issues from a legal standpoint, it is still up to the enthusiasts to be the good stewards of our passions. I still don't have the answers.