Tiered licensing for Moto's..

[budman]

As most of you know I am involved in several areas of Moto Safety and as such I get to see things that may be coming.

This one is per the thread title.

The subject has been bounced around for a while. It has proven to be a solid winner for Moto Safety in Europe. Most OG's like me sort of did it out of need. Meaning $$ and motorcycles available.

I started street riding at 15-1/2 on an RD 350. As a young punk of course I knew its top speed was about 95-100mph. I believe that did help keep the crazy young guy in check. I think that did have an effect on me staying in one piece.

I was quite a bit older when I stepped up to a 600 (went dirt bike racing in my early 20's). I also chose the race track vs street as my main avenue for riding. Only CA Superbike School offered track time so AFM was the way to go.

Heck I did not really jump on a real 1000cc bike until I was in my mid 30's.
We should all know that experience/situational awareness on the street is a key to staying in one piece.

Access evolved and we started seeing amazing moto's in the 600 class and of course if you had the $$ and your parents were clueless you could go bigger.

I wonder how many teens were able to talk their parents into a 600?
"I am not buying the 1000 Pop. It is only a 600". I have to believe that is a true story somewhere out there.

Anyway. I see that train a coming. Might take a while in the freedom loving but safety is taking new courses and there is a push to make motorcycling safer at the upper levels.

I was not a fan 10 years ago, but now that I am seeing a push towards it and with Vision Zero and other State Safety Administrators looking for way to cut motorcycle deaths and we are running into the natural physical limitations.

Electronics have added to the safety for sure and with air bag vest, new helmet tech etc. I am not sure how many more physical adaptations of the machine can be accomplished.

Training is proven for sure, but also has limitations on access and people getting more. PSA: Hit the track or get some!

Most of us here are sort of mature so I thought I would collect some of your thoughts on this subject.

 

[Maddevill]

The main problem I can see if they restrict new riders to small bikes like 250-300 is, because we have a huge country and lots of traffic, some of the smaller bikes have trouble traveling long distances or speeds the cars are going.

Mad

 

[cg_ops]

1000% for it. Yeah, it's good for the rider but it's great for the people/property around them as well. I've seen too many noobs get a big (engine or physical bike) and get totally overwhelmed in the first days/months of their new hobby. I mean, come on, letting a noob jump on some monster after barely passing MSF/CMSP is just asking for trouble.

It takes time (for most) to develop throttle control, understand how the bike responds to inputs, learning how to read traffic and conditions, etc. Adding crazy performance and/or monstrous bike weight to the mix adds a multiplier to the difficulty in learning those skills. Then there's the core skills that get skipped - relying on handling to handle a given situation instead of having power to zip ahead.

I'd also wager that EVERYONE'S (moto) insurance would drop if the risk and cost of accidents were reduced among the greenies.

The only downside is a bit of added cost for those that will want to upgrade asap....

 

[dravnx]

I would rather see the effort put into better training and funding for increased motorcycle awareness on our highways.. You can kill yourself on a 600cc bike just as easily as a 1000cc bike.
I'ld rather see more mandatory training. The CMSP is too basic. OTOH, more mandatory training might dissuade people from getting their M endorsement.
Spit balling here. Maybe a tiered license program. MA for day, up to 600cc, no passengers, max speed XX mph or on a highway with max XX mph. MB, passengers, night, max speed XX mph, 1000cc.
Once again, make it too restrictive and people will avoid the endorsements.

 

[augustiron]

I've always felt safer on a highway going with speed of traffic (not lanesplitting mind you) than in urban or many suburban areas where roads are mixed speeds, hazards are varied, drivers more distracted and intersections numerous and varied.
Ymmv

 

[GAJ]

My first bike was under tiered licensing in Belgium (age 16, 1970) and as there was no training at that time it's a damned good thing I was restricted to a 50cc moto which everyone, including myself, unrestricted to be able to go almost 45mph vs 32 IIRC.

Even the next step up which ws125cc at age 18 would have been a very bad idea for me personally.

Had I had any required training whatsoever where the simple idea of counter steering have been discussed/practiced I would have been fine with 125cc.

 

[vizcarmb]

Hell nah

Muh feedumbs

And let Darwin Sort them out

 

[budman]

I would rather see the effort put into better training and funding for increased motorcycle awareness on our highways.. You can kill yourself on a 600cc bike just as easily as a 1000cc bike.

True.. but a tiering has not been discussed. If I had my way it would be
450cc for first bike as a teen and 650cc as an adult with a HP limit. None of this has been discussed so I am spit balling.

I'ld rather see more mandatory training. The CMSP is too basic. OTOH, more mandatory training might dissuade people from getting their M endorsement.
This is true, but I think a bunch of pushback on that would make it difficult to get approved.

Once again, make it too restrictive and people will avoid the endorsements.

There is more training available, but it would take a legistlative action to change that. So

This is a chance for me to hear some voices SO IF I get the chance in the future to provide input I have a better well rounded platform on information to use. Hell I might be long gone by the time this ever happens, but I think it will at some point.

Hell nah

Muh feedumbs

And let Darwin Sort them out

I can understand that given your name.

 

[ctwo]

I would need more info to digest. Not sure what the tiers would be. By the OP, are young riders on modern 600cc+ motorcycles the primary safety issue?

A quick and lazy Google search

In 2022, there were a total of 10,597 motorcycle accidents in California. These accidents resulted in 8,632 injuries and 532 fatalities. Male motorcyclists account for a majority of accident victims. The age group of 25-34 has the highest number of fatalities in motorcycle accidents.

Almost 70% of motorcycle accidents occur at intersections because drivers do not see the motorcycle. Since motorcycles are smaller, other motorists often misjudge how fast a motorcyclist is traveling and turn into their path of travel causing an accident.

Those are from a couple lawyer sites.

And "looking at crash reports, the most accident-prone motorbike models are the cruisers. They prioritize styling over security, making them more prone to accidents than other bikes."
https://motorcycleaccidentlawyerus.com/what-type-of-motorcycle-has-the-most-accidents/

That article is really all over the place and mostly useless.

At least this one has some links to credible data:
https://www.ddlawtampa.com/tampa-pe...s-more-likely-to-be-in-accidents-than-others/

 

[fuldog]

I think Japan had/has a tiered system. Anyone have any experience with how that works there?

 

[dravnx]

Australia has a tiered license program..
As in the US, motorcycle licensing is done by the state and not federal.

 

[budman]

I would need more info to digest. Not sure what the tiers would be. By the OP, are young riders on modern 600cc+ motorcycles the primary safety issue?

There is no proposal on the table... rumblings only.

Young riders do make up a good percentage followed by middle aged riders. It is often the middle aged riders where alcohol shows up.

Most accidents from what I have seen are not intersections. They are solo crashes. So training would go a long way to help that.

 

[Mario]

Against because it will raise the barrier to entry for future riders.

Motorcycling is already difficult to get into. You have more difficult licensing than cars (riding DMV test is hard and many times not possible on your own ride) and the alternative is expensive: $400+ for training to get your license.

Tiered means a higher financial burden for the rider: buy a bike now but not the one you want, then take a loss selling it and buy the one you want.

I understand the safety aspects of it, but I also have friends that are not street riders because they don't know they will pass the DMV test and can't afford $400+ in a class. Forcing them to get a ride they don't want will make this much worse.

Let me emphasize again that I understand the safety value of it. I am merely questioning the extra financial burden to future riders.

 

[musiclucho]

I totally agree with it. You can see people renting a small bike to pass the test and then go and get the biggest they can afford.

I think is common sense. Problem is that is going to be unfair compared with C license because as far as I know, you can even tow a semi-truck trailer size (or close to) with just a C license.

 

[sanjuro]

As a teen I was a bicycle racer, and I made lots of handling mistakes which did not result in serious injury.

It's hard to imagine what would have happened if I was on a 600cc sport bike.

On the other hand, I thought this poll was about riders of any age. When I was 35, I got my first motorcycle, a SV600S. I had the experience to handle well and possess good judgment.

In some countries, I would be limited to a 250cc then a 500cc in my first 2 years. Frankly, I think I could bought any size motorcycle and been fine.

 

[greenmonster]

I agree that a person needs to work their way up from small bikes to larger ones, not just hop on a used S1000RR or similar machine at 16 and kill themselves.

 

[berth]

This will be heresy, but I don't think "more training" is the answer.

The fundamentals are exactly that, "fundamental", and they're readily introduced in the safety courses.

What's required is "more practice". And "more training" can't solve that, unless there's LOTS of it and it's dirt cheap.

I mean, I've been to training, I was just at training, and taught all sorts of techniques and what not. What I NEED is 20-30 hours of seat time. The school I went to offers a discounted rate for returning students, precisely so they can get some more structured seat time. But, for me, I think I just need some raw seat time, less structured on form and such, simply because that's not my current issue.

Bike prices and insurance rates are already making a "naturally" tiered system for most people. Are tiered systems based solely on riding experience, or are they based on age?

For example, I don't think there's a safety school requirement to get a permit or a license for older riders in CA, just for 18 year olds? 21?? If a 40 something wants a Harley, the State won't stand in their way. Can we mandate training for all new riders?

That "70%" statistic presented earlier, we don't know how much training could have lowered that statistic, but I think we know how much practice can lower it.

"Counter steer" and "front brake" are the 90 percentile "skills" a rider needs to know (outside of basic throttle/clutch/shift operation). That is, if you don't "know" those, if you're out there just winging it, when trouble comes, not knowing those two things can get you in more trouble.

All the rest is "nice to have".

Most any bike out there can get you "too fast for conditions". Easily. My 180cc scooter would do 70-75 on the freeway, and it spit me off in a left turn lane at 15-20MPH when I hit something slick and washed out the rear. Grace of God I wasn't run over by the car behind me.

Speed kills. All sorts of speeds kill, not just the high ones.

I'm not saying a tiered system would not save some riders, it very well may. But, as mentioned earlier, our roads do not favor underpowered vehicles. The street near me, two lanes, is 40MPH...and it passes two elementary schools (and if you think folks are driving 40, I have a robust river crossing business, we can discuss properties I have available). And the freeways, whoo boy. It truly was different back when we had the 55 speed limit.

I talked to a lady who's full time on a CRF300 Rally. And, she mentioned how she's cautious on the freeway.

Smaller bikes ostensibly mean potentially safer practice. Safer experience. I just don't know how much impact it will really have against the drunks, "under the influence", and phone watchers.

 

[budman]

Agree 100% that seat time / practice is the key, but getting training to learn how to practice effectively helps plenty for those who have not ridden before or want to improve their skillset.

I had ridden for 20 years when I got professional race 1 on 1 training from Keith Code. I made huge strides from that experience.

Just an example of training + practice doing it right can make a big improvement in your riding.

 

[GAJ]

Against because it will raise the barrier to entry for future riders.

Motorcycling is already difficult to get into. You have more difficult licensing than cars (riding DMV test is hard and many times not possible on your own ride) and the alternative is expensive: $400+ for training to get your license.

Tiered means a higher financial burden for the rider: buy a bike now but not the one you want, then take a loss selling it and buy the one you want.

I understand the safety aspects of it, but I also have friends that are not street riders because they don't know they will pass the DMV test and can't afford $400+ in a class. Forcing them to get a ride they don't want will make this much worse.

Let me emphasize again that I understand the safety value of it. I am merely questioning the extra financial burden to future riders.

Actually it is a cheap way to get into motorcycling as the used bike market for 50cc bikes in Belgium for 16-17 year olds was a healthy one as was the used market for 125cc bikes for 18-19 year olds.

By the time they were 20 they could get a 47hp moto or a restricted larger moto which would be unrestricted once they reached 24 or 2 years at that level.

So many would stop at the 125cc level for commuting or the 47hp level.

In the long run safer and cheaper as going out and getting a $10,000 first moto for young folks was not in the cards.

 

[budman]

I doubt that any tiered proposal would be as restrictive as Belgium, but that is a good point.