[slowride]

that was exactly my situation( except the dying part of course)! my first bike was a kaw 250. rode it for two years, got married and than sold it. didnt have a bike for 4 years, than bought my 900rr just this last April. i think it is all in how you ride it and how stupid you are. the bike is only going to go as fast as want it to. just because the speedometer says it will do 180, doesnt mean i have to see if it works at 180. the only reason i bought such a big bile out of the bag was because i liked the way it sounded compared to a 600. no disrespect to the 600 riders out there, just my personal preference. if i was going to spend that much money on a toy, i didnt want to settle, or become bored of it 6 months down the road!

[bettingpython]

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Joe.


With freedom comes responsibility. If some moron refuses to exercise responsibility it should not be used as a reason to steal our freedom (though frequently is). That said I respect a dealer that attempts to warn a rider or recommend safety classes/gear, but in the end they should sell what the customer want. A bike dealer is not your momma and should not act like they are.

Originally Posted by .orgowner

I think the crash data would show that younger riders are the ones having the most crashes, even the ones with experience.

I wish I could find the study but it was found the highest incidence of crashes was among the mid 30's motorcycle group. I can't remember the specifics sorry.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by 06CBR1KMFNRR

I would also like to address the statistic regarding accidents and course graduates. I believe that it is misleading based on the idea that a person who signs up voluntarily for a safety class is probably more inclined to drive defensively than those who do not chose to take the class. .

Originally Posted by slickwill

I think you have an excellent point. Almost the exact same point came up in one of my classes last week.

To both of you I must say:

The taking of the course can remove the requirement for a DMV road test.

Most licensed riders who received their motorcycle-endorsed license (in NY, CT, NJ, and MA -the only states I researched) in the last 12 years took the MSF course as a waiver for the road test (please see the above rough statistics for road test failure at the dmv).

That accepted, the "voluntariness" of the course is minimalized. MOST newly-licensed riders take it anyway.

And, I must go back to the ethical/moral dimension:

Just knowing the rules/safe-riding skills doesn't mean they will be employed. Even without any training at all, someone "could" ride slowly on certain roads, staying within his or her lane, and not ride too unsafely, if they were inclined to be safe. Thay might seek out a class as soon as possible, but the realities are such that a class might not always be available.

I understand the idea of a "voluntary" course, and the correlation (not proven, but anecdotally interesting, anyway) about a "safe" person seeking out a course to make themselves even safer fairly well, but ultimately two things must come into play if the idea of safety is to be more than a emotionally-charged political watchword:
Willingness to be safe, and the skills to realize that willingness. The will to do so can manifest itself by taking the course, which only helps or seeking out friends...But who can say those friends are really safe? I wouldn't wager my kids' lives on the experiential knowledge or claimed expertise of a peer...The skills come in time, but the basics can come in the approved, recognized, supported, accredited, and well-attended course, the attendance of which can reduce an insurance premium by 10 or more percent...That reduction alone should inspire some presumption of usefulness. As a gov't, the authorities can't sit back and "hope" that people get the skills, they need some measure award the license; so, I agree with mfnrr that the test (and the concomitantly, the course) should be more difficult. I just like the idea of private parties/industry/enthusiasts coming in to self-regulate the pursuit/sport before the gov't does its heavy-handed thing, and then encouraging the gov't to adopt what the private sector has already done.

[slickwill]

Don't get me wrong Abear, I'm all for expansion of the MSF courses or any courses and I think they should be mandatory. Remember, I'm for mandatory helmets too.

His analysis of the data is exactly correct though. You can't come to specific conclusions from data like that. It doesn't mean that the MSF course isn't the reason for less accidents, you just can't say for sure that it is. It's the same reason that many medical studies aren't valid, i.e., that most people who take large doses of Vitamin C to keep from getting sick are the same people who wash their hands more and eat healthy. So why do they get sick less?

[skorpia]

here is kinda a crazy idea....


lets say Joe takes an MSF course that costs 150 bucks, he reports that to his insurance and he in turn is giving a 10% discount off his insurance. for every year he has no moving violations, the insurance company will take an additional 1% off his insurance - maxing out a 5 years for a total discount of 15%. BUT if Joe gets a moving violation he loses that discount for a period of 12 months.

while I'm sure a good drivers discount is in place for some insurance company's, i think the idea of earning a bigger discount for each year you don't receive any tickets would be good motivation for riders regardless of your age or what you ride. something like this would appeal more toward riders under the age of 25 cuz thats when insurance is the highest for riders. might help make these newbie riders think twice about pulling that wheelie down the local freeway cuz they will end up paying for more then just a ticket - will shell out more for insurance over the next year.

[analogbear]

I had to take several statistics-based courses in school, and I hear you all about the "causation" problem, which is why I steered way clear of it. I am not saying any one thing can promote safety beyond a "will to be safe." You could know everything their is to know about safe riding and ignore it because you are an a-hole, or you could have learned nothing from anyone but still ride safely within your meager limits because you want to.

I don't mind the inconveniences of liberty, but c'mon: do we want to stop ALL training for every license? Do we want to stop screening bags that go on planes? Do we want to stop all immigration limitations -for legal and illegal aliens? Do we want to allow a known terrorist sypathizer to purchase heavy water? We sacrifice "liberty" all the time in the name of safety, and nothing said yet here convinces me that a mandatory course, the overwhelming majority of us have already taken, is in any way a substantial infringement on our liberty. The mere fact that there is a test for something promotes the idea of a class or program of study; and frankly, I would rather we were all on the same sheet of music (stick right except to pass, yellow means come to a stop carefully NOT speed up, ride to (preferably the left but at least) ONE side of a lane to not kick-up sand or become unstable from road grime or oil, etc.
Making a reasonably priced course in basic safety mandatory for sale of these inherently dangerous objects will, by sheer numbers based on the law of averages, give more riders the same toolbox of basic skills. There is no way, without a true paradigm shift away from personal greed/egoism into a more utilitarian moral perspective on an international scale, that we are going to influence the hard part: nurturing the will to be safe. Face it: we are all risk takers by virtue of riding these things.

Oh, and if you are riding defensively, you have already lost the battle. You must ride offensively -while not being offensive, of course- to be truly safe on the road in a congested area. Riding anything in NYC is a competitive sport, and the loser often gets injured or dead.
and orgowner, if one is "young" it is impossible to have a great deal of experience. I have been riding since 1985, and I feel I still have tons to learn on a bike...That is 22 years, with years -years!- spent riding in Western Europe, the American Southwest, the Rocky Mountains, Georgia, Connecticut, and NYC.
I would never presume my experience qualifies me to "teach" any of my buddies (if I had any with the hunger-most are scared of city riding) even the basics of safety. We all adapt what we are taught into our own style, but not everyone is a "teacher." The best seem to present the basic principles of MC safety without bias or their own experience polluting the teacher-student relationship and information.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by skorpia

here is kinda a crazy idea....


lets say Joe takes an MSF course that costs 150 bucks, he reports that to his insurance and he in turn is giving a 10% discount off his insurance. for every year he has no moving violations, the insurance company will take an additional 1% off his insurance - maxing out a 5 years for a total discount of 15%. BUT if Joe gets a moving violation he loses that discount for a period of 12 months.

while I'm sure a good drivers discount is in place for some insurance company's, i think the idea of earning a bigger discount for each year you don't receive any tickets would be good motivation for riders regardless of your age or what you ride. something like this would appeal more toward riders under the age of 25 cuz thats when insurance is the highest for riders. might help make these newbie riders think twice about pulling that wheelie down the local freeway cuz they will end up paying for more then just a ticket - will shell out more for insurance over the next year.

I love the idea of a tangible reward for safe driving/riding. Plus, I think the insurance industry ought to insure the rider/driver, not necessarily the vehicle, so good behavior on the bike -no tickets- would translate to a reduction in total premium, including the portion dedicated to the car.

[badhonda]

I believe responsibility lies with the individual and that the government at all levels already has its nose burried way deeper than it belongs into our personal lives. Drive with your brain not your ego!

[skorpia]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I love the idea of a tangible reward for safe driving/riding. Plus, I think the insurance industry ought to insure the rider/driver, not necessarily the vehicle, so good behavior on the bike -no tickets- would translate to a reduction in total premium, including the portion dedicated to the car.

that would be nice! then it really wouldent matter what you ride, a cb350 or a cbr1000....if your a good rider then you should get kick ass rates regardless of the bike your riding. the classifcation "superbike" would lose its meaning to insurence companys