Motorcycles vs The Government

Remove all ads!

Motorcycle sales are up. In fact they are better now than ever. Recent studies have shown that the majority of motorcyclist is over 40 years old, claiming that youngsters today are no longer interested in riding a motorcycle. I don't think the interest to ride a motorcycle has faded away among youngsters; the European Union just makes it less and less appealing to get your license.

In the current situation (at least here in the Netherlands, but as I understood it, more or less the same rules apply all over Europe or they at least plan to make the rules the same everywhere) to get your motorcycle license you need to pass three exams: theory (all the rules), motor-control (cornering, braking, zig-zagging etc) and one on the road (in actual traffic). They dare to ask nearly 100 euros (around 135 USD) for the motor-control exam and over 150 euros (!) for the road exam. And if you are under the age of 21, you get what they call a "light" license allowing you to only ride motorcycles up to 34hp for the first two years. Now let's compare that to the current situation for cars: two exams (theory and road) and you are allowed to step into a Ferrari five minutes after passing your exam, while with motorcycles, you have to ride something with the power of a blender for two years! Now that doesn't seem very fair; why should a 18-year old new car driver with the same amount of experience as a 18-year old new motorcycle rider, be allowed to ride a car with 500hp, while a motorcycle with more than 34hp is deemed too dangerous? People over the age of 21 get what they call an "unlimited" license, meaning they can ride everything.

But the bozos in the European Union (who probably never touched a bike) aren't done yet. The Ministries of Traffic in various EU countries have come up with some new ways to discourage people from getting on a bike:
(1) They want to start everyone of an a "light" bike (34 horse power max) for the first two years after getting your license, independent of age.
(2) They want to give you another exam after your two year "trial period" (we don't give them enough money yet?)
(3) They want to make another category of limitations with limitations on age and motorcycle power, possibly with another exam (that makes it five exams)
(4) They want to tighten the clothing rules. They have adopted a rule since this year that you must wear "clothes designed to protect you". In a few years this probably will have changed to "clothes deemed safe by the EU", just like with helmets.
(5) Vehicle inspection for motorcycles. Periodical inspections on the technical state of the vehicle; if it fails you can't ride it.
(6) They want to limit all motorcycles with: speed limiters, ref limiters, cc limitations, sound limitation and my favorite yet: since most of the power of a motorcycle is unused, they want to forbid all motorcycles except specially designed 1-cylinder 600cc motorcycles which produce 1 decibel of sound and fart flowers.

Youngsters are probably still interested in getting a motorcycle, but can't cough up enough cash to actually get their license or simply do not want to ride on a moped for the first few years. But the EU is trying very hard to make it uninteresting for everybody.

So, since the majority around SP are probably not motorcyclists, what do you think of the measures they are taking around here; are they just being a pain in the ass, or should bikers be protected against themselves (now where is the puking smiley when you need it)? I do feel the need to wear a proper helmet, but shouldn't somebody who rather feels the wind through his/her hair be allowed to take that decision for themselves?

All I can say to the EU is: leave us alone. I want to ride what I want, the way I want. Shouldn't the EU be promoting motorcycles instead: less traffic jams and in my opinion less motorcycle related accidents?

 

Well, since they already have that for cars, it would be about fair to have it more motorcycles as well.

But in general, most of those 'idea's are bogus - I agree with you about the ferrari/motorcycle comparison (in regards to the 34hp requirement), and the extra tests are crap... it is just another way to bleed money from the cyclist (err, biker).
Plus, in Europe, aren't you allowed to ride mopeds at the age of 16 (which have about the same horsepower as the 34hp requirement)? Which defeats the purpose of even getting your license if you are going to be riding around on something someone 5 years younger than you can ride on.

I don't ride a motorcycle yet, but I really want to get one (I live in the US).

 

What it seems to me is that this sort of thing must boil down to statistics -- I would hazard an uninformed guess that the fatality rate (as so eloquently illustrated by Tal) must be rising. Therefore, they are trying to drop that rate. Perhaps their methods are "bogus", but if their stats are showing them that the majority of motorcycle fatalities are happening due to youth and/or inexperience, then their approach has some merit.

 

The problem is that the legislation seems to be more about taking money from fines rather than saving lives. For example here the fine for not wearing helmet is 700 euros, therefore they make clear that hemlet is necessary. However they class helmets into luxury products, which means that the VAT is 19% and not 9% as it should be if they realy wanted to save lives. Another example is the safety belts of cars. The fine for not wearing the safety belt (which put in danger only yourself) is 700 euros, while the fine for using a mobile phone (which put in danger everybody near you) is 150 euros. To me it seems that this is the absolute hypocricy.

And something else about helmets. While they indeed protect the biker when an accident is taking place, on the other hand they can easily be the cause of the accident because they limit biker's visibility and hearing ability. Also just try to wear a helmet when the temperature is 30+ degrees.

 

Anything to discourage people, especially young people, from riding motorcycles is for the best. The death toll is way way too high.

 

the rules for a car license in Denmark carries 3 exams too, motor control, theory and actual road. the theory and actual road cost about what you listed for the motorbike.

the motorbike exams probably cost the same.

some of thier surgestions for new rules i like, like the mandatory safty cloth, its hardly different to mandatory use of a safety belt and vehicle inspection sounds good too, they do it on cars you know.

 

Yes, mopeds at the age of 16, but that must be one hell of a moped. Mopeds are classified as anything with less than 50cc around here. Anything with more than 50cc is a motorcycle according to law. Mopeds around here don't produce 34hp

I haven't seen something like that, and if you don't want to ride a motorcycle because of that, that is a respectable decision. However, that doesn't mean the government should tell other people not to get their license. Well, they don't tell you you can't (yet), but they do really try to make it as hard and boring as possible.

Well, most motorcycle related accidents are actually caused by cars because they are often:
a) Blind; "I didn't see you" I can life with this one, but unfortunately most people fall into this category. People are just not used to motorcycles in traffic. That doesn't mean they shouldn't look out better.
b) Stupid; "I didn't know motorcycles also had right of way"
c) Jackasses; "If you want to ride a motorcycle, you do so at your own risk, 'cause I'm not giving you right of way"

Now if your neighbors passed away while driving responsibly (which I doubt by your story), that is really sad, but a risk you take when transporting yourself in any way. If they rode irrespsonsibly, like going 200+ km/h and they died of their own stupid fault... well, let's just call that natural selection.

There should be measurements for the safety of motorcyclists, but their solutions are (as LKD said) bogus. For example, is allowing less horse powers really the way solve this problem? A buddy of mine had a tuned down Kawasaki zx6r (racing bike), which while only had 34hp, still was able to ride much faster than any speed limit. Did that made him a better motorcyclist? If he wanted to ride recklessly and break all speed limits he still could.

What they should do is have a look at what they place next to the road. In the Netherlands they placed some kind of guard rail, which was called the "potatoe cutter" by a lot of motorcyclists. If you came in contact with that, you ran the risk of being decapitated or at least losing a few limbs. Now an accident can happen, not due to anyones fault, but for example a bit of oil on the road, those barriers would be really unforgiving and a very serious danger to any motorcyclist.

I never thought of it like that. I will have to look into that some time

Open faced helmets allow you to see more, and hear more, but you really won't hear more of your surroundings while riding. Most of the sounds around you are completely taken away by the noise of the wind. And with 30+ degrees it might be more comfortable not to wear a helmet and it is good as long as everything goes well, but in case things don't go well, I really prefer a helmet, even if it is 30 degrees.

Oh yes, forbid cars and motorcycle accident will plummet! Most ride responsibly, y'know, there are only a few rotten apples.

While I can see something good in mandatory safe clothes, why shouldn't I be allowed to ride in my jeans? I know it is less safe than leather should something bad happen, but on a hot summer day, you're also putting on the airco in your car.

And vehicle inspections would just be a way to get more money, since most people use their motorcycle as a recreational activity and treat it better than anything else in the world. And if it isn't safe, most wouldn't even ride it since that only leads to accidents.

 

just quick on the motorbike vs. moped hp note.

some of the most finely tuned and most illegal mopeds produce a max of under 20 hb, and it is virtually impossible to do so privately.

i think the legal one produce around 3-7

 

Motorcycles are stupid. They are death machines just waiting. I am against governments making rules that prohibit the freedoms of adults. However, I would make one rule. If you get a motorcycle license you automatically sign up to be an organ donor.

 

And sorry to continue the apparent insensitivity to the misfortune and hardship of a subgrouping you appear to belong to, but further:

Motorcyclists are an insurance company's worst nightmare: a customer that almost certainly WILL file a claim. As such, the required insurance for a motorcycle in Newfoundland, for example, is essentially EQUAL in cost to that of an automobile. Heaven help you if you're under 25 - an actuarial age determined to be the point where incidence of accidents (and thus claims) drops sharply - annual premiums can often exceed the price of the motorcycle!

Not to mention a higher incidence of motorcycle accidents put a strain not only on the insurance industry (which then raises everyone's premiums to offset this outflow of money from the companies) but the healthcare system, from paramedics who have to get out the spatulas, to the emergency room staff who have to work their miracles to keep those cyclists who make it to them alive, to the critical care ward (or similar) staff who have to take the extended period to nurse the patient back to some semblance of life.

I'll never know my eldest brother-in-law because someone didn't notice him and turned off in front of his bike on a country highway; apparently his body was fairly undamaged apart from the broken neck, but then I'm told he always wore leathers and a helmet, even in the height of summer...pity it still wasn't enough.

One may argue that "they may be taking risking their lives, but it's only them they're doing it to"...unless they have friends and family...or there happens to be a pedestrian downrange from the point they leave their motorcycle...or the motorist loses control of their vehicle...

Do what you want, but if you want to travel in a manner that is inherently more risky than most, don't expect the government to not be concerned about you doing so on THEIR roads and highways, and or to not hold you to a higher standard of ability.

 

Why not protect them from both? "Stop harassing ME when you're not doing anything about HIM!" doesn't sound very convincing, especially when motorcycles are cheaper and easier to obtain than cars. (but then, that's probably what the government is trying to remedy)


EDIT:

What young person has a life insurance policy? And they'd BETTER obey a law, that the POINT of laws.

Better that than letting these careless young people become killers, even unintentionally.

(And remember, hothead, I'm probably the only person here on BoM that has brought about the death of a loved one due to 'failing to maintain due caution', so DON'T tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.)

"If you outlaw motorcycles, only outlaws will have motorcycles."

And take a few deep breaths before getting worked up even more than you did to refer to 'prisons' - NOTHING Mesmero cited for these new regulations has ANYTHING more than fines involved...unless you're actually referring to the punishment of a motorcyclist who causes an accident that results in someone's grievous bodily injury or even death? (and heck; *I* only got a year's suspension of my license, and court-appointed (and -provided, thankfully) therapy)

[ June 28, 2007, 16:01: Message edited by: jaded empath ]

 

Nobody likes regulations, especially when those regulations hamper our ability to do something that we really like. So when new regulations come down we naturally criticize them and say they are useless and just a tax grab (that's what they said in my hometown of Edmonton when they brought in photo radar.)

There may even be merit in that argument.

But the fact is, the government has a responsibility to keep the roads safe. I would like to think that the education required to pass a road test (not to mention the financial cost involved in said test to make young people take the test seriously) helps prevent accidents and save lives.

 

It's another example of bad governmentship and I don't like of it one bit. I fully intend to buy a motorcycle within the next five years, so this does not only quadruble the expenses, but also move it another step away from becoming reality.

I can understand if everyone is required to have a driving card for most vehicles, but to limit it only to the reach of rich people? 1.600 euros is already a hard sum to slap on he table, not to mention the lost time. If I had to buy a moped first and put-put with it for two years, I would quite certainly just break the law.

 

Wow, here in Massachusetts it's 25 bucks.

You know how they have carpool lanes that are sometimes separate from the highway? Why don't they put motorcycle lanes in on the major ones that have a barrier between them and the car? Then the motorcycles have less contact with the cars and less likely a chance of accidents with cars.

 

Being a motorcycle driver myself - a 1999 Kawasaki Katana 600, to be precise - allow me to chime in.

Yes, I am fully aware of the risks of driving a motorcycle, and I'm perfectly fine with it. If I die in a motorcycle accident, too bad. I was fully conscious of the risks and took them anyway.

I have a bike with which I COULD drive like a maniac, but I don't - well, I sometimes do, but only in times where I'm basically alone on the road.

As for those advocating the death toll - death is a part of life, deal with it - yes, death sucks, but this isn't a perfect world where everybody dies in their sleep dreaming of Heaven or some stupid notion like that.

Exactly.

That would be assuming one is doomed to kill itself in an accident sooner or later, which is a pretty stupid assumption, if you ask me.

Hell, I know a guy who's been a road hog for 33 years, and he NEVER had a single accident! Not every motocyclist is bound to die in a motorcycle accident, you know.

Mandatory organ donor with a motorcycle license? Sorry, but I'll not be forced to do something I do not want to do just to be able to enjoy one of my favorite activities.

I agree. We're already getting gutted bad enough with license fees and insurance fees, leave us the hell alone.