Tiered licensing for Moto's..

[easy wind]

14 US states have tiered moto license based on size of engine. Varied rules depending on age, training for larger displacement or even on the size of moto the test was passed on. I'd like to see more training for auto licenses regarding motorcycle awareness, lane splitting and safety tips for sharing the road with two wheelers.

 

[bobl]

I would go with more and better training. The thought of putting more regs at the hands of the California Department of Vehicles puts me off completely. They are already more fun than a day at the dentist. I would prefer a good skill set taught by independent, but accredited schools.

 

[kneedraggeroldy]

Mmm...perhaps a measured approach but generally speaking once things get regulated it tends to go to shit. For my pennies for thought i can use my own experience. Been riding since I was 5 with all in our family doing so from Dad training us...lots of low speed dumps etc. So when I was around 20 (out of house as was banned till then for street bike) I got a non sport 600cc. Road that for a year so and then went to liter bike. How would the experience in dirt being young apply....or would it not? I think some form of tier is reasonable......newbie has no business on a liter bike... Or even mid....IMHO

 

[Enchanter]

I don't think that a tiered licensing system will work in the US. We are the land of bigger, better, faster. HD would toss all their $ to fight it to the bitter end.

Additional training is generally rejected by most people because "I already know how to ride". I haven't gotten a ticket or been in an accident.

It has been my experience that most riders still think that other vehicles are the biggest threat to motorcycle safety. They generally reject the notion that they play a part in the (potential) crash.

The primary benefit of additional training is not that participants may learn a new technique, the benefit is that participants are observed by a neutral party and coached to improve the skills they already have and think they are doing correctly already but are not.

Most riders that I've encountered think that their skills are good enough. I don't think that many riders ever consider or think about 'safety' on their ride.

I recently did a ride with a group of friends and safety or improving skill was THE LAST thing they wanted to discuss.

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

I lived in Japan for over a year in the late 80's. At that time the tiers were 125cc, 250cc, 400cc, and 750cc and above. Each step was expensive and their skills test are very, very difficult.

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

Motorcycle crashes are generally split into 2 categories: single vehicle and multi vehicle. The ratio of one to the other varies year to year but never moves more the 40/60. In the real world I think it's best to just say 50/50. The real deal is that in the multi-vehicle crashes, the motorcycle is the striking vehicle over 75% (90%?) of the time.

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.

CMSP classes in CA are $350 for 21 and older, $295 for 20 and under.

 

[HadesOmega]

Well we kind of have a tiered system in CA. There is the M1 and M2. They could just split it into more catagories like M1A or M1B based on discplacement.

But now that I think of it electric bikes have no displacement so that's an exception to that rule. Some electric bikes are way faster than others. That's how I'm able to get away with racing my electric bike in pretty much whatever class I want because there are no regulations yet.

In Japan they have tiered license it's that's why you see a lot of smaller displacement bikes in Japan and I think you have to pay more taxes for larger bikes. A man asked me in Japan what size bike I was riding and told him kyuhyaku and he was impressed by the size. With my international permit I could ride any bike I wanted in Japan also =P

 

[Holeshot]

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.

I'm sure closed course won't be affected. The big decision is how a step in skill is determined. Age, time on bike, miles ridden, are all poor requirements. Skills testing on closed courses at speed will be the best for competence. Given track experiences are insured and classified as "educational", some sort of inroads into a closed course skills practice every set number of years seems to be the easiest and measurable option, IMO. Certainly if you're licensed in one of the race clubs and have X period of time and results, that should satisfy as well. I'm Biased as well, of course.

 

[NoobCorpse]

I'm not opposed to tiered licensing, but it'd be interesting to see it be like how today's CMSP stuff works, and incorporate that as incentive for training & education. Like how it works today - you can take the written test and DMV circle riding test and be licensed, full stop. If you're brand new, the riding test is waived if you attend CMSP training.

So for tiered licensing, do the same, but maybe the DMV riding test is waived if you take the "beginner" CMSP to get practice / range time. Want to go straight to high license tier? Wait 30 days, take advanced CMSP, get higher tier license. Repeat for as many tiers as needed.
For those with money to burn and want to go straight to GXR1000, you should be able to take all tiered DMV tests at once but you fail any of the tier tests and have to wait 30 days to retake them, but you qualify for the last tier you passed.


Also 10000% agree that more money should be spent on driver education about motorcycle riders, lanesharing (and how to hold one area in your lane while driving on the freeway), watching for motorcyclists, and some empathy education (motorcycles can't stop on a dime, give room, etc).


Also, for the love of god, somebody needs to actually rewrite / rearchitect the DMV written driving tests to test actual knowledge, not be written for people who are good at taking tests. People come out of the DMV with licenses and have no f*cking idea how to DRIVE in CA, it's just mind-boggling.

 

[budman]

14 US states have tiered moto license based on size of engine. Varied rules depending on age, training for larger displacement or even on the size of moto the test was passed on.

As noted 14 States have something now. If you want to see what and where here is the AMA Link. I will look at some point to see what they have. Utah for example is odd, but the page on the AMA link is 404. This will take a little digging.

I don't think that a tiered licensing system will work in the US. We are the land of bigger, better, faster. HD would toss all their $ to fight it to the bitter end.
Well.. if 14 already have something then CA could end up with something too.

Additional training is generally rejected by most people because "I already know how to ride". I haven't gotten a ticket or been in an accident.
I fall into that category, but I did have a LOT in the past, but all racing based (roadrace and dirt).

It has been my experience that most riders still think that other vehicles are the biggest threat to motorcycle safety. They generally reject the notion that they play a part in the (potential) crash.
Agreed. Simple fact is we often are the masters of our own destiny.

The primary benefit of additional training is not that participants may learn a new technique, the benefit is that participants are observed by a neutral party and coached to improve the skills they already have and think they are doing correctly already but are not.
Solid points

Most riders that I've encountered think that their skills are good enough. I don't think that many riders ever consider or think about 'safety' on their ride.

I recently did a ride with a group of friends and safety or improving skill was THE LAST thing they wanted to discuss.

I asked... tailgate and wonder in my lane were your observations as I recall.

I lived in Japan for over a year in the late 80's. At that time the tiers were 125cc, 250cc, 400cc, and 750cc and above. Each step was expensive and their skills test are very, very difficult.

I generally think that CA powers want people to have access. Several of the CMSP Advisory Board members are in the industry. I would hope that if CA decides to look at it they come back to the Advisory Board (as they did with the Lanesplitting Tips) for input. Who knows if and when it will actually happen.

Motorcycle crashes are generally split into 2 categories: single vehicle and multi vehicle. The ratio of one to the other varies year to year but never moves more the 40/60. In the real world I think it's best to just say 50/50. The real deal is that in the multi-vehicle crashes, the motorcycle is the striking vehicle over 75% (90%?) of the time.

CMSP classes in CA are $350 for 21 and older, $295 for 20 and under.

Given where I got the information I think there will be a push. I don't feel right saying where, but it was not the AMA and it is a National Group that is well entrenched.

Certainly if you're licensed in one of the race clubs and have X period of time and results, that should satisfy as well. I'm Biased as well, of course.

I am too, but I agree. The physical skills of a racer are going to be really good, but the situational awareness skills for street riding are not being learned on the track.

Every year WE (moto safety people) who are involved in this push for more awareness being funded as part of the CMSP and NTSA (NTSA $ go to State agencies or Non Profits).

I once again pushed for the online situational awareness testing (for fun).
I did a beta with Enchanter a while back and thought it was great. You can do them with the MSF and Total Control is working on one, but those are pay to play so if you WANT to learn you can, but again...$$$.

My push is to get on for free or and very basic cost so more people will do them. Anyone here done one??

ON Harley push back they do have new smaller sleds so maybe not an all out assault and perhaps they are seeing the writing on the wall?

A lot of good thoughts here. Thank you all.

 

[GAJ]

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

Agreed but the first tier should not be freeway capable.

But, have to agree, will never happen in the US though it saved my life in a "no training" era.

Now there is training in Belgium of course.

 

[berth]

Skills testing on closed courses at speed will be the best for competence.

What kind of tests would you propose?

I find that there's two kind of street riding skills, in broad categories.

Slow speed and high speed.

Slow speed are basically things like tight turns and precision.

High speed is things like trail braking, body position, corner entry position, braking dynamics, etc.

Neither of those, IMHO, are primarily safety oriented. Low speed maneuvering is absolutely a nice skill to have, but your inability to make a tight U-turn is likely not be what gets you killed on the street.

Similarly, its generally well known that bikes can brake, and more safely, than people think. They can lean farther than people think, and those are good to know if you find yourself getting into a corner too fast. But there's that key phrase "too fast".

Every bike on the tier list can easily get you into trouble on a canyon road. Bigger bikes can get into trouble faster, a handful of throttle can be a dangerous thing. But a 250 will spit you out of a corner just as hard as a 750. And left turners know no CC limits.

Simply, don't underestimate the dangers of a small bike.

Maneuvering, braking, target fixation, street awareness. Those are the core safety skills, and those are necessary on any bike.

None of those can fix stupid, the drinkers, the buzzed riders, the ego chasers. That's an attitude and personality issue.

The point being that there's a difference between a skilled rider and a safe rider. Many a skilled rider has fallen, and there is no way to make riding completely safe. But not all riding skills are necessarily there to promote safety, rather they affect something else. They just get you more comfortable working in more dangerous conditions, but that doesn't make the conditions necessarily less dangerous.

 

[budman]

Great post Berth

 

[cal scott]

I believe a fundamental problem glossed over here is just how low the bar is for getting a motorcycle license.

A youth working to get a car license will have spent many hours across many weeks to months practicing before taking the test. During that time, they will have driven with an experienced driver at their side in amongst traffic and on a wide variety of roads. During the car test they will have to demonstrate proficiency in the environment they will be facing once licensed. There testing will often be in the family car which they will be driving post licensing - hence they already have familiarity with the vehicle once licensed and heading out on their own.

Contrast this to motorcycle licensing. My experience was the MSF course route where I spent 2 days in a mix of classroom and hands-on sessions. The hands-on sessions may have amounted to a couple of hours of actual practice at most (accounting for the waiting around for other participants to complete the exercises). Practice is limited to a parking lot and thus, at best, simulates road conditions. However, it was highly controlled; roads are not. I did not experience on a motorcycle anything close to true traffic conditions until after I was licensed. The course provide me with a Honda Grom - one of the most approachable bikes out there but completely inadequate for what I was pursuing my license for - to commute including long sections of freeway. After being licensed, I bought a midsized bike, a Weestrom, due to wanting something that was well suited to the commute and not wanting the hassle of buying something smaller only to resell within 6 mos. While I believe it was the right choice in my instance, it was nothing close to the Grom.

Things that I had going for me... I had had my car license for many, many years so was able to lean heavily on that experience. I had also many, many hours spent on a road bike which I believe helped immensely with the developing that "sixth sense" on the road and the feel of being on two wheels. I believe I was more prepared than most which made up for the lack of time spent on a bike before being let loose.

However, for that same youth choosing to pursue a motorcycle rather than a car license, once licensed, this may be the first instance they navigate the complexity of our roads, traffic, the freeway etc. The bikes provided by MSF are are a long way from what is typically purchased as a first bike, even a so called small bike. The first time they hit the road, they are new to traffic, new to the bike, new to the freedom of the roads. It is not surprising that we see so many accidents with the newly licensed .

 

[budman]

The UK makes you earn it!!

DR SLO did the UK thing years ago and he said that an instructor had to follow you with helmet to helmet communication to pass the big bike (I think) test.

 

[cg_ops]

I would've argued for MUCH stricter license testing, thus more training requirements (for motos AND cars) but I'm 100% certain that the general population wouldn't have it. Too many associate driving/riding with basic rights/freedoms, not a privilege and deserving of rigorous training in order to operate a vehicle. Hell, look at during covid - many states were handing out licenses WITHOUT A DRIVING TEST,. It's insane.

A parallel would be gun ownership. Buying a tool that's intended to cause mortal harm requires almost no training/certification of basic knowledge. Why? "Because my freedom!"

The people around the brand new owners are at the mercy of that person's self control and ability to act with rational decision making. The two items aren't that different - anyone that can fog a mirror can kill a lot of people with both/either through sheer ignorance of reasonable training or skills. But hey, at least we're equally free to ignorantly own them as we are to be struck by them in the hands of said ignoramuses

/morning rant

 

[CDONA]

How are the car driver taught now? I learned from a civics teacher, with the gory movies, "Blood on the Highway"

We were rotated thru the class into cars with an extra brake pedal, two or three students and instructor.

From there I went to DMV for my moto/car permit.

Over the years, I have been grandfathered, I have never taken a moto operators practical test, ever.

One thing I believe should be taught, skid pad time for everything you operate.

If you go tiered, you have to do it across the spectrum of vehicles, HP be damned.

 

[budman]

Mr. Hurley the Football Coach / PE teacher did me.

He was a 68 or so awesome dude!

 

[Enchanter]

My push is to get on for free or and very basic cost so more people will do them. Anyone here done one??

Not sure I understand what you're saying here. If you are saying that you want motorcycle safety classes to be free, I strongly disagree.

If has been my experience that students that do not pay for the course are not mentally invested in the course. They do not pay attention or try as hard as students that pay. They generally think that they'll pass just because they are physically there. The same goes for students that are forced to take the course (under 21, and those mandated by the courts due to a traffic violation).

 

[Enchanter]

I find that there's two kind of street riding skills, in broad categories.

Slow speed and high speed.

I agree that there are two kinds of skills, but I think they are:
1) Physical (how to operate the controls)
2) Mental (when to operate the controls, street strategies / how to interact with other vehicles)

How are the car driver taught now?

Formal behind the wheel training is not required. In practice this means is that new drivers are taught by family and friends. They simply pick up the habits and techniques of their 'teacher'. Good and bad habits.

 

[Enchanter]

I believe a fundamental problem glossed over here is just how low the bar is for getting a motorcycle license.

The bar is equally low for a basic automobile license

A youth working to get a car license will have spent many hours across many weeks to months practicing before taking the test. During that time, they will have driven with an experienced driver at their side in amongst traffic and on a wide variety of roads. During the car test they will have to demonstrate proficiency in the environment they will be facing once licensed.

I think that you are overestimating the time behind the wheel before taking the test. Parents generally want their kid to quickly show them that they know how to drive (operate the controls), then push them to get their license. My neighbors, coworkers, and my wife's coworkers know that I'm a safety instructor and have asked me to teach their kid, partners, and themselves. They are all motivated by time. How quickly can you teach me, not how well can you teach me.

As for the behind the wheel DMV license test. Demonstrated proficiency has nothing to do with it. Do the correct thing once, and they move onto the next 'thing' to score. Proficiency cannot be effectively demonstrated in a test that takes less than an hour.

 

[cal scott]

I have taken the driving test for a car in both the UK and California. There is no comparison; the bar in the UK is much, much higher. I can imagine the same being true to a motorcycle.