• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Would tierd licensing change attitudes? Would motos be considred a "legit"

Karbon

Karbon

Hyper hoñorary
Joined
Sep 27, 2006
Location
Santa Cruizin'
Moto(s)
superchicken, BRP SM, GSXR750
form of transport and less of a "status" symbol or a weekend toy?

???

edit: let me rephrase. How would tiered licensing change the public's perception of motorcycle culture? How would we as riders see ourselves?
 
Last edited:
Why would tiered licensing alone make that change in attitudes?
 
I think so. It'd be a start at the very least.
 
I'm curious how you envision this working. It might be cool, and I've always wished we had more rigorous licencing, but I've come up with no practical way to divide it up.
 
Japan bases their system on <250, 250-400, unlimited. Not a ton of usage in the middle range. Most kids stuck with <250 due to not having to deal with the pain in the ass inspection. Anybody above that tends to have a liter bike or bigger. Biggest (oogata) license is a pain to get, and most riders who get it just tend to have huge bikes. The 600 supersport market is actually fairly shitty over there. 400 market isn't huge as it was in the 90s. The bikes were nearly as expensive (and sporty) as the bigger models, but didn't cost as much for insurance purposes and were much more popular with the general rider population.

I believe Britain / Euroland is a little different. I want to say that they've got a 125cc step, or bigger bikes with plates to restrict the power and so on.

The systems work - I think it is just a matter of getting over the mental hurdle that most Americans have. I'd be inclined to believe that dealers would hate it, as they no doubt would probably rather sell a shitload of marked up 600cc+ bikes instead due to higher margins. Then again, I believe the Ninja 250 is still Kawasaki's most popular bike, and perhaps the most sold bike in the USA period still, so who knows.
 
Don't think it would make a difference. The public-at-large knows little about motorcycling, and I suspect they would be unaware that requirments changed.

Now if we had tiered licensing with meaningful standards of training for all vehicles on the road, maybe that would make a difference.
 
Will it lower motorcycle crashes, injuries, and deaths? Yes.

Will it make riding a more "legit" mode of transportation in the eyes of everyone else? No.

From my personal experience, I'd say a good half the of non-riding public even knows that you need a different kind of license in order to ride a bike. If that's the case, even less of them will notice a new tiered licensing system.
 
HD would fight it tooth and nail - their lobbyist-foo is strong
 
Kestrel said:
Then again, I believe the Ninja 250 is still Kawasaki's most popular bike, and perhaps the most sold bike in the USA period still, so who knows.
Click to expand...

And on that note, I would really like to know why none of the other manufacturers have a real competitor for it. :mad I'd buy a Yamaha R25 (or whatever) in a freakin heartbeat. Doesn't even have to be all tricked out, just make it as well sorted as the current ninja.
 
Although I started out on little bikes I'm not in favor of any increase in requirements or a tiered system. Riding bikes well is a combination of learned skill and natural talent, the tiered system would do nothing but make riders jump through some unnecessary hoops. The big killers are drinking, excess speed and left hand turners, all those are possible on any size bike. I don't think you can legislate a poor rider into a good rider no matter how well intentioned the law might be.

Thanx, Russ
 
}Dragon{ said:
Here is a better idea. How about requiring a motorcycle license to buy a streetbike?
Click to expand...

:thumbup

It's mind numbing to know that a 16 year old can get his DL and then take and pass the written permit test and legally ride any size CC bike during the day.....but not from dusk to dawn, on the freeway and with a passenger. :x ...because we all know there is a way to check if the rider has a permit or M1 without pulling them over. :wow

I agree motos need M1's to be purchased.
 
cycle61 said:
And on that note, I would really like to know why none of the other manufacturers have a real competitor for it. :mad I'd buy a Yamaha R25 (or whatever) in a freakin heartbeat. Doesn't even have to be all tricked out, just make it as well sorted as the current ninja.
Click to expand...

Huge part of the ninja is the $3,999 MSRP. I would guess Yamaha would sell theirs for 5.5+ and that would screw it all up. I'd love it if they made one to compete with the ninja for $4k, but it's Yamaha. They are never cheap.
 
}Dragon{ said:
Here is a better idea. How about requiring a motorcycle license to buy a streetbike?
Click to expand...

ALSO

How about impounding EVERY motorcycle for 30 days when the rider is caught without a motorcycle license? NO EXCEPTIONS.
 
Karbon said:
form of transport and less of a "status" symbol or a weekend toy?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with status symbols and weekend toys? I'd bet that makes up 80% of the bay area moto community.


}Dragon{ said:
Here is a better idea. How about requiring a motorcycle license to buy a streetbike?
Click to expand...

Owning and operating aren't the same thing. A better idea would be to just enforce the laws we have rather than create redundant ones.
 
I don't think motorcycles are considered toys in San Francisco, because we have a critical mass of people who own just a motorcycle and use to commute every day. That's the essential attitude change.
 
dumb people will be dumb, no matter what rules you throw at them.
 
radvas said:
Owning and operating aren't the same thing. A better idea would be to just enforce the laws we have rather than create redundant ones.
Click to expand...

How would it be redundant? As a matter of fact, the same law should be applied to cars. Why do you need a car or a streetbike if you don't have a license? It should also be against the law to provide (sell/loan/give) someone a vehicle who doesn't have a d/l. :2cents
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top