Do you have a motorcycle license? There seem to be a lot of riders who have never gone to the trouble of getting one. It’s not surprising in one sense, many will do whatever they can get away with and if they can buy a bike and ride without a license, that’s what they do. In the U.S., motorcycle licensing doesn’t seem to be as strictly enforced as elsewhere, once you have a driver’s license you’re good to go even though the necessary knowledge of how to operate a motorcycle is no part of learning to drive a car. If you get stopped for a traffic violation you will probably get charged for not having the motorcycle classification but that’s the only time it will be a problem. This may vary from state to state but getting that certification really shouldn’t be optional.
In other countries, not only is there a strict licensing requirement to begin with, the license works under a tiered system where new riders can only ride lower displacement bikes until they have had a certain amount of experience. I have to admit, that isn’t a bad idea. Here, once you get a license, you have nothing to stop you from laying out the cash and riding off on a brand new Hayabusa, even if it’s your very first bike.
Another side to this argument, though, is that riding time doesn’t equal skill. Some young riders with high interest and lots of practice can quickly master the most powerful bikes, the limit in these cases is the maturity and individual responsibility to keep it under control on the street. Some riders with years under their belts should never progress beyond a 250cc beginner bike because they have no self control or just never quite get the hang of it.
Are motorcycles any different in this sense than cars? A new driver with sufficient cash can buy a Viper or Vette, too. The same laws of physics apply and a heavy right foot without sufficient maturity can launch that car into a tree quite easily and injure and kill a lot of other people along the way. Motorcycles can certainly be dangerous to the inexperienced rider but cars can be dangerous to a lot of others as well.
Tighter licensing requirements, tiered licensing and all sorts of extra controls on riders and drivers is a subject that periodically comes up for debate. Periodic re-examination might be a good idea for drivers of all tyes of vehicles but I’m not sure we need to get too strict to begin. There are many arguments in favor of tightening up but I think good enforcement of traffic laws on the roads can get the really troublesome riders and drivers off the street. After all, some people up front may look like a bad risk and yet turn out to be excellent riders while the perfect candidate for a bike may end up in multiple accidents or get repeated violations. Licenses and certifications can’t see into the future.
Here at The Kneeslider, we strongly endorse the Motorcycle Safety Foundation and their rider training courses held throughout the country. Usually, successful completion of the course will result in a motorcycle certification for your license. In the very least, we need to do that. But do we need a lot more? That’s open to debate. Thoughts?
Kevin White says
I have a license. I took a course at the local junior/community college when I was 16 and then several years later just walked into the DPS with the little affidavit, took a silly 30 question computer test, and had an M on my new license a few weeks later.
I’ve thought tiered licensing was a good idea for a while. The hobby/industry/sport isn’t properly self-regulating. I consider myself a practical libertarian, but I’m not David Friedman. Motorcycles are viewed as pure recreational vehicles at best or as a nuisance or danger at worst in this country by the majority, and having untrained/irresponsible riders jumping on 160 HP (or 110 HP) bikes to start out isn’t doing us any good.
Unfortunately, if tiered licensing were ever instituted here, it might be a double-edged sword: the party would be over for the big four, who sell 600s or 1000s to new riders who might decide it’s too much of a hassle to get through the lower tier or tiers on a 250 or 400. We already get far fewer models than Europe and Asia, and if you take away all those kids buying 600s and all those adults buying 1500s for instant gratification, what do you have left?
Harley may be THE reason we’ll never see tiered licensing here. It’s every American male’s right to buy into the Harley lifestyle by purchasing a hog during his mid-life crisis, and tiered licensing would probably be vigorously fought by the Motor Company.
Smart starters use “tiers” to learn anyway, but unfortunately those who don’t may be slowly ruining it for the rest of us.
sigint says
“…if you take away all those kids buying 600s and all those adults buying 1500s for instant gratification, what do you have left?”
I think you still have a large customer base. The way you’re saying it is that an overwhelming portion of the buyers of motorcycles buy it because it’s a “phase” they’ll grow out of. Those customers aren’t repeat buyers. Repeat customers are what the Big 4 like.
People who are truely going to like Motorcycles aren’t going to say to themselves “Well, if I have to start on a 250, then forget it! I’d rather ride my bicycle.” They might bitch and moan but at the end of the day, they’ll get a 250 because they want a motorcycle.
Just look at how many times people walk into a car dealership with a specific model with ONLY certain options installed. I’ll bet you most of them leave with either a different model, different color, or more options. All they have to do is tell you how cool you look in it and let you sit in it for an hour and you’ll be sold.
“Harley may be THE reason we’ll never see tiered licensing here. It’s every American male’s right to buy into the Harley lifestyle by purchasing a hog during his mid-life crisis, and tiered licensing would probably be vigorously fought by the Motor Company.”
Fine. Then make it a multi-tier tier system. Sportbikes are obviously different than Harleys which are different than scooters. By setting different restrictions on the type of vehicle, Harley can be happy with a compromise.
Besides. What possible lobbying could Harley make to our government? The public already sees ANY motorcycle as dangerous. It’s clear the insurance companies prefer a safer approach from their discounts on insurance by taking an MSF course. THEY could lobby and make the tier system a reality.
Oli says
In the UK we have had tighter and tighter regulations on bikers for a number of years. The interesting spin off has been that it is the forced training (CBT) that has made the accident rates drop, not the age of the biker.
There is still a quick way to big bikes where if you are over 21, and take a week long training course on a 500 cc bike, you are then allowed out on any size bike – otherwise you are stuck on a 33 bhp or less for 2 years.
However, if you don’t learn to ride properly, you just enforce the bad habits that you pick up – ready for that accident!
Oli
http://www.businessandit.co.uk
todd says
I think tiered licensing is great. Not only could it help to keep more riders off the gravel but it would also open up a large market for a variety of new motorcycles. The argument that dealers will lose sales is rediculous. People buy the bike that Cycle World tells them to. If all you have to choose from is 600, 750 or 1000cc bikes then that’s all you would buy and, of course, that’s what cycle World tells you to buy. Not many people buy 250’s because they are very outdated. Your choice is a ninja 250 or a nighthawk 250. If you are into the latest and the best technology you’re out of luck.
One problem I see is control. How will the government stop a new rider from buying his friend’s R1? I can imagine they could stop you at registration time but then that same person would be left with a bike he cannot register and cannot sell until it is registered. There’s a lot to figure out.