Yeah, but there's something to be said about the wind in your face--ever drive a convertible? It's the same thing. I've only ridden a bike without a helmet around the block, but I can see the attraction.

Even with a helmet, you can still have the wind in your face! And, yes, I can also see the attraction. It's just that way to realistic visual that gets going in my head... brain matter on the road.

Jim said " Forgetting about safety, the ride is so much quieter and more enjoyable [with a full-faced helmet]. Not for me it's not. I like the feeling in an open-faced helmet. It's lighter, and easier to see and hear. Besides, I bought a bike to have my face in the wind. If I wanted to be isolated from my surroundings, I'd be inside my car. Jim said "it's like the safety belt issue. It's the law and you gotta do it. If people don't have sense enough to wear a helmet, then they should be required to. It's against the law to jump off tall buildings, a form of guaranteed suicide." What's the punishment for that??? hehehehe. Perhaps we should let more of them jump!!! With respect to helmets, the facts on helmet safety are far from one-sided. Sometimes they help you, sometimes they hurt you (like breaking your neck). Riding a motorcycle is inherently risky. IMHO, helmet laws are a politically correct cop out. The best injury protection has always been, and will always be, rider skill training. The rest is called personal responsibilty for your own actions--something too many of us, IMHO, are willing to abdicate. Responsibility? Isn't that why we pay taxes? hehe

One last time--it's called Freedom. Something we take for granted here in the US, but which is being whittled away. Since when is it "the land of the free (if they choose not to hurt themselves) and the home of the brave"? Freedom isn't about doing things that are safe, necessarily. If only those things which are safe are allowed, how is that any different from the worst tyranny? And besides, if you follow that reasoning, the next logical step is to ban motorcycles--even with a helmet they're more dangerous than almost any car. Please tell me the difference between this argument and yours?

Jon Ive stayed out of this one so far, but thats a very valid point

I agree with Jon *and* Brad. There's freedom of choice, and the feeling of freedom by itself. Old me, I remember when there were no full-facers, and I wore 'em. The full face seemed a logical (to me) progression. There are definitley times I like the open face helmet, as in NYC riding, there *is* a definite peripheral vision advantage and increased awareness. Before hitting the thruway I switch to full face, a precaution that takes an easy 3 minutes easily made up once I roll. First "Choice" is always the full facer for me.

Oh, I agree. Unless I'm just putting around town at 2000 rpm, I want the full facer. And on the crotch rockets, they are actually designed to be used with a full face helmet, so I always wear one on the Ninja.

I wasn't trying to be deragatory about wearing full-faced helmets. My point was to simply illustrate that two people can easily see the world in very different ways, and neither way is the "only" way. I have a full-facer too, for the coldest of days. Not a big fan of chapped cheeks--either set. hehe Are you going to jump of this tall building? Here, borrow my helmet! hehe

Isn't it great we can have an intelligent discussion without getting upset. Begrudgingly I must admit that there is more than one point of view. I don't think this is a major issue for bikers. There is a great need for attention to a lot of our needs and I think too much energy goes into the helmet issue.

So true, Jim. Some say it's cuz of me that XRoaders are (for the most part) so civil and we haven't degraded to what's happened at Motorcycle Online, but that's not the case--XRoaders are (luckily) a good bunch of folks.

I don't think it's luck. XRoads attracted a good bunch of folks; it also attracted a psycopath, but fortunately Jon got rid of him. I actually wanted an open-face helmet, but there wasn't one available when I went to the dealer; that's why the "Anti-Tiger Device" is full face. I was thinking about buying another helmet in Mexico to keep on the bike incase I had to carry a pillion rider, but they started at a 300 pesos that I wasn't sure I could afford at the time, and I was carrying a lot of other stuff home as well. Jamaican riders don't give much thought to safety. At least half of the riders I've seen don't wear helmets, almost no-one wears gloves, no-one wears a leather jacket. Part of it is lack of knowledge, part lack of funds, and, as for the jacket, nobody likes being baked very much. (Jamaica is HOT!!!)

Sam, what will be your solution for the jacket?

I have no idea. There aren't any out here, and the ones I saw in Mexico were all over 1,200 pesos. I should have bought the gloves, though, but I was never sure of my financial situation. I'll look for some here, or ask someone in Miami to find some there, and I'll repay them.

Sam, the new perforated leather jackets are a great option for hot weather riding. Would it be worth checking with Tony Scatton to see what he can do for ya? Tony and the Tiger? hehe

Damn, I missed all the fun! Jon, as we've discussed before, you make valid points and ones that I agree with. My stance is and, always has been, you SHOULD wear a helmet. My methods have only been those of encouragement (sometimes through derision !) and I have never pushed for more stringent legislation then already exists. For the individuals I care about, Idemand bicycle helmets. Cars are big and fast and trail rocks and trees are unforgiving. For those who I don't know, and who don't care enough about themselves -- all I ask is that you don't muss up my windshield. Helmets are a bright idea and, when worn properly (not way back on the head and w/o a firm strap hold) are MUCH safer than riding with no helmet. Jackets and boots and the rest of the motorcycle garb... I don't know enough about to have an opinion on. Road rash is a fright on a bicycle (or skates!) but crusing at 60+ mph... all I can say is OUCH! So all you springers... just use your brain. (I think) you're all adults and perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions. I've heard the arguement from one or two that when they wear a helmet, they feel less in control of the bike (for visual and balance reasons). You are supposed to know yourself best and your skill level. Just (as the conference topic implies) stay safe!

Really we don't want to lose *anyone*.

Yeah, I like to wear my leathers. Even with my leathers on in my last little 30 or so MPH get off I had road rash (from my leathers and my jeans abraiding my knees). I can't imagine what even a 30 mph get off would do to you if you were wearing shorts.

Stacey said "Helmets are a bright idea and, when worn properly (not way back on the head and w/o a firm strap hold) are MUCH safer than riding with no helmet." That position is certainly the popular opinion, but not scientific fact. It really depends on the situation. A more accurate statement would be that helmets can provide good head protection in low speed impacts, and provide a barrier to skin abrasion under sliding conditions. The only thing that can make you MUCH safer is good riding technique to avoid accidents in the first place. So all you springers... just use your brain. (I think) you're all adults and perfectly capable of making intelligent decisions. In this case Stacey, I totally agree with you. How about mentioning that to your State Representative? Just (as the conference topic implies) stay safe! That's always the goal. That's why I will be attending another MSF Experienced Riders Course in the spring. Hope many of you will choose to do the same. A good offense is the best defense!

I have a helmet, but no organized riding course and no other safety gear. And, as I said before, I do not have a bicycle helmet, and if it has no brim or visor, I do not want one. If it is a choice between better crash protection and decreased risk of a crash, give me decreased risk any day. That is why, with bicycles at least, give me a cap or hat with a good, wide brim over a shadeless helmet any day. Dark glasses are not an option, I've yet to see an effective pair of clip-overs, or one that lasts more than a week (I'm just about blind without my glasses).

I have clip-overs. So I never forget my clear glasses for night riding, I have them on the nose...

What brand? How much did they cost? Where are they available? Most of all, how long do they last? I have never had a durable pair of clip-overs!

Neither have I, I used to buy 2 at a time and try for the metal-framed ones. Now with contact lenses for 25 years or so I see advantages and disadvantages for both.

I bought contacts for one reason and one reason only (I'm about the least vain person you'll ever meet). I got sick of having to take the glasses off, set them on the seat (where they invariably fell off), put the full facer on, pick the scratched glasses up off the ground and put them on. Contacts are much, much easier if you're putting 1000 city miles on the bike a month and taking your helmet on and off.

Yes but you still have to be careful. You see better w/contacts, just by the pure physics involved. But I have to watch how I turn my head, especially with an open face helmet, so either dirt doesn't blind me or I don't lose the lense, which happened once. And yes, you look *so* much better without eyeglasses!

I have an open face helmet(except for spring and automn driving).I could drive without glasses but for me it's also a safety gear(against durst, bugs,,,). I bought the clip-overs where I bought my glasses so they are (optical and physical wise) of good quality. They cost me $30.00 Cnd. And I well understand for the full face It's really a "bug".

I should have got prescription safety glasses; maybe I will when I get tested again and have my prescription changed! If I wasn't so miserly (or so broke!) I'd get some prescription sunglasses! Maybe those would be the safety glasses!

My only statement on the Helmet deal is this: YOU have a right to YOUR opinion and to decide how safe you want to be, I have a right to mine, If YOU wish to wear a helmet, put the damn thing on and lets go riding... just DON'T push YOUR opinions on me... I have plenty of my own.... :o) Shane

Now if we could all get our State legislators to agree to that sound principle, we would really have something. Bunch of hard heads! hehe

It isn't just the Legislatures... It's private interest groups that get funded by the Government... NHTSB, to name one or the IHTSA for another... Whenever you put special interests like insurance companies in bed with the government there is bound to be trouble.. It isn't about what is right or wrong for an individual, that is the smoke screen, it's all about spending the MONEY they take from us all year long, in order for them to make MORE MONEY..... And thanks for the compliment Brad...... Shane

You bet Shane. Influence (and shaping public opinion) is the name of the game. Unfortunately, it's something MCers have too little of, although we're gaining ground. You gotta fight for your right--not just party! Beastie Toys...hehe

Man I love 2 cents time! Let those who ride decide, that statement goes "BOTH" ways my friends. I am a ABATE an AMA member so YOU can have the right to ride "WITHOUT" a helmet if you so choose. On the other hand, will you all quit giving me so me HELL for weaing a helmet! I wear a lid because I "percive it will help me in a situation", it helps protect my eyes and gives me a quiter ride. I am not a communist because I prefer to wear a helmet, but you'd think so the few times I have botherd going to a ABATE chapter meeting! If you want wind in your hair and BUGS in you teeth, fine by me but I DON'T. This crap that you can't be a "real biker" with a helmet is "Easy Rider Viedo's" BS, as the shirt says $15,000 dollars and 15 miles (ie: to the local bar and back) don't make you a biker and just becuase to "WEAR A HELMET" don't mean that Iam any less a biker than you are! Thank you for the u e of the soapbox, I feel much better!! Tailwinds, BJ

Hey, I don't give you HELL for wearing a helmet, BJ. ;-) I agree! You should decide before you ride. Hey, if you don't wanna wear one, great! If you do wanna wear one, more power to you. I won't go around the block without one, but that's my choice. Just wanted to make sure you knew that I (and I don't think anyone else here, but you're right--some do) is accusing you of being a commie for wearing a helmet. I just think it should be up to you to decide.

Hee, don't sugarcoat it BJ--tell us how you really feel! Just remember BJ, some people in ABATE don't wear helmets because their heads are already too hard! Freedom of choice, not freedom to chastise!

Whoa, BJ!!! Rein in there dude!!! hehehe, I believe the statement I made earlier was 'If you want to wear a helmet, put the damn thing on a let's go for a ride'... I understand your sentiment though. I try to coorect those that I meet who criticize those who excersize their right TO wear a helmet. The whole thing is about CHOICE... I personally think as long as you have the right to make the choice, mission accomplished. And Brad's statement is true, some MRO's get so into the fight, that they lose sight of what the fight is actually all about. ABATE is ALWAYS looking for a few hard heads..... hehehe Shane

Sorry guys, didn't mean to make it sound like it was "directed at YOU"!! It's just that man I am sick of getting crud and being deemed less a biker or less and freedom loving American just because I want to wear a helmet. Infact Iam going back to a full face this year and whoever doesn't like it can bite me!! It get's me really hot under the collar but I know you guys and gals are all cool so if I offended anyone here's my sincere apology. Tailwinds, BJ

No apology needed BJ, Throw on the Lid and Let's go Ridin'..... Even though I prefer not to wear them, I have several of my own.... Shane

Part of the "biker" deal is that you stand up real big for your beliefs no? Anyone who wastes time telling me what to wear & when sees my back real quick.

What's a biker? One that rides a bike, no? Wimps aren't allowed to ride bikes? Seriously, I don't understand the biker "attitude" or the biker "mystique". A biker, as far as I know, is someone who, for whatever reason, chooses to ride a bike. The investment hunters and status seekers see riding the bike as a secondary thing, or even an annoyance or a hazard in some cases. Some ride because they want to ride. When I start riding, I will be riding because it will be more affordable, less wasteful, and more fun than driving. My standing up for my beliefs has much more to do with m y upbringing than any "biker deal"!

To me the definition of a "Biker" was someone who only rode a bike. But now that I own a car, my definitions are changing....

I think that the various attitudes and lifestyles demonstrated in this room would be a good definition of a Biker.... Jon said I was the real thing (biker) the other day... I think he was trying to say I needed a shower... Heee Shane

Well I was brought up to beleive that a "biker" was a outlaw rider, hardcore chopper rider than rode in "gangs". A bike rider who rode many miles and great distances was a "motorcycle enthuist" or high miler or iron butt. All the rest where just a "motorcycle rider". But now it's all jumbled up, when a Electra-Glide riding lawyer who rides 1,000 miles a year is called a "BIKER", then the whole defination thing goes out the window!! Oh and don't forget the "SQUIDS" for the sportbike crowd and "crotch rocket riders" and Lead Slead riders and the Touring Barage riders, see what I mean. Someday, we will all grow up and realiaze we are all just plain old "motorcycle riders" as long as we are on two wheels and that's all that should matter. Ride to live, Live to ride is what we all really want, who cares about the rest! Tailwinds,BJ

AGREED BJ!

Whew! I missed all the fun stuff! BJ, my definition of a biker (as I perceived it) was also someone a little left of the center line. And it holds true in the non-motorized circles. Hard core riders are actually called cyclists -- and the term is not used lightly.

Stacy, well most motorcycle riders call bicycle riders "bikies" but cyclists sounds much better. In the 80's I was really into bicycle touring but it went from "enjoying the ride" to "how much exersize can it get"! It quit being FUN and became work and heavy competition in nature and I bailed! I had 2 multi-state tours, a century and double century ride to my credit and then did some novice Mountain bike racing, it was at least FUN but I never took it seriously! Wouldn't mind finding a good road bicycle again but I doubt they have 3XXX lycra bicycle shorts, ha ha! Enjoy yourself but I will stick to the "motor propelled version's) Tailwinds, Bj

Stacey last week the NY Times had a "business" article about how Cannondale in particular is starting to design & market a new breed of XCountry bikes to appeal to (natch) the "older, more affluent bicyclist desiring a well-made rugged bike with more comfort than the pure mountain machines". Soon the RUBs can have a TrailKing parked next to the Hog!

Ya Frank, but it's really hard to get a trailer through the woods on those narrow little dirt paths! hehe Introducing the Cannondale Soft-tail Cycle!

And they called it SoftRide...

Left of center? I don't know--I'm a right wing biker myself... ;-)

All the bikers in England are Left Of Center... Right Shebee??

Jamaica, too! Caution: Left Hand Drive! heeheehee

Thats me : left of center on the roads, way off center in life! :)

Not trying to freak anyone out. I think these statistics are actually positive. Deaths are still going down! Almost half of the deaths involved single-vehicle accidents (many alcohol-related), and one third involved unlicensed riders! To me, that means there is a lot of potential to dramatically lower the death rate in the future. Let's stop talking helmets and start getting to the root of the problem! �In the United States, 2,075 motorcyclists died in crashes in 1996, down 3 percent from 1995 and 33 percent fewer than in 1975. �There were 52 deaths per 100,000 registered motorcycles in 1996 compared with 18 deaths per 100,000 in cars. �Thirty-one percent of all fatally injured motorcycle drivers in 1996 didn't have valid licenses to operate their motorcycles. �Forty-two percent of motorcycle deaths in 1996 occurred in single-vehicle crashes, and 58 percent occurred in multiple-vehicle crashes. �Forty-five percent of deaths in single-vehicle motorcycle crashes in 1996 involved drivers with blood alcohol concentrations at or above 0.10 percent. An unlicensed/uneducated/untrained/drunken rider = dead rider!

I admit; when I was a kid & found out that you could buy without a license, I went and did, for about a year. Then several friends got popped and I figured "hey I can do this" and got the license, etc. Trouble is many smalltown police look the other way and don't check. "Rider Ed." ought to be mandatory as soon as you're a permit holder IMO. This would contribute all around; state coffer, the MSF school, and the riders themselves. What'cha think? And yes, alcohol + riding = death

In the United States, 2,075 motorcyclists died in crashes in 1996, down 3 percent from 1995 and 33 percent fewer than in 1975. True, but only about as third as many people ride now. But I agree--stay safe and stay sober and you'll probably be o.k.

Frank, I like the idea of "mandantory" MSF training to get a Lic. to me it just makes sense. Iam tougher than you, though I'd like to see a "mandantory" Superbike school required for riders to purchase and ride a "sportbike",(600cc and up). The kids in my area are always on the ground cause the dealers will sell them ZX-7's without a lic. I don't feel the "average motorcycle rider" has any where near the skills to ride a serious sportbike well. MSF will help but a Superbike School would make them reliaze just how powerful machine they ride, maybe they would respect it more. Just because you rode some old "beater standard" for 10 years doesn't mean you can "truely handle a serious sportbike". Required training is the best answer! BJ

Absolutely Frank and BJ--need the skills before you use the tool. BTW Jon, I believe the rate of deaths per 100,000 riders has also decreased, which would factor out any changes in the absolute number of riders. Education is a rider's best friend!

BJ you'd like it over here then recently they have introduced stepped lisencing in addition to the compulsory basic training. it works like this (ish - because i have a full unlimited lisence from years back so I dont know the specifics) 1) you have to do compulsory basic training before you are allowed on the road at all 2) you can then ride a bike up to a low powerlimit, i dont know what is but the bikes are generally 125cc. If you dont take a test within 2 years you lose your lisence for a year and then have to start again with the CBT 3) you can take a test that will allow you to ride a bike up to a higher powerlimit again I dont know exactly what power but the bikes are around 400cc 4) you can then take a 2nd test (class A) for a bike of unlimited cc/power (I think you have to wait 2 years and the test has to be taken on a bike arround 400cc) BUT if you are over 25 you can go from the CBT to the 400cc test immediately. This is the basics of the system here. I belive all of the tests require proper training, just riding around for a couple of years learing bad habits wont get you through! but again if you are over 25 it is possible to take an intensive course that will train you from CBT to class A test in a week! This is what a lot of the 30+ beginers are doing and may be at least partially responsible for the fact that our worst accident statistics are no longer the 17-19 year olds but are 30-35 year olds with less t an 6months experience riding bikes of over 750cc. Training can teach you to pass your test, but there is no substitute for experience in keeping you alive, I dont know of a way to teach the 6th sense that develops over the years, the sense that puts you on immediate alert and warns that warns you : "that driver hasent seen me" or "I can smell diesel, lets not brake hard just at this instant!" An aquaintence fresh out of his test on his 1200 Sporty was nearly wiped out recently when a car in front suddenly changed lanes without indicating at 70mph+ on the motorway, luckily my insticts cut in and I threw my pillion weight to one side and we avoided the impact. His reations just werent up to the unexpected, I was ready for it because I had learnt to read the road ahead and was half expecting the driver to do something silly I agree that training is important, but it should not instill false confidence that you know everything, if I had'nt been on his pillion he would have been splatted! I am still learning after 20 years on the road, but the main thing I have learnt is treat all other road users as complete idiots, expect the unexpected, and occasionally you will be pleasantly surprised. Oh and I dont ride pillion with him any more!, well not for a couple of years anyway :)

Of course you are right Shebee--there is NO substitute for experience. Training is designed to give you the knowledge to make better decisions, but not to substitute for experience. However, the lack of training is surely a receipe for disaster. The English system sounds interesting. I guess I would not think of the cc class of the bike as being a key ingrediant, since the lower cc bikes can actually be MORE dangerous--lighter, quicker, etc...But I like the idea of a graduated approach. I think a different option might be to restrict licenses in to certain conditions. To begin with, no license, no bike! Other limitations might be things like day riding only, or restricting the right to carry a passenger until you can demonstrate the necessary skills. But Americans don't take that kind of regulation lightly or very well, so it probably has zippo chance of being implemented. Remember, this is the same country where you can walk into a store and buy a submachine gun! I think in reality, if we could just get all states in the US to adopt the MSF courses as the baseline requirement for a license and bike purchase, we would see a dramatic improvement. The only change I would make, is that in order to get a license, you would have to pass the test on your own bike! Hey, look mom, no hands!

Shebee, oops You got me wrong there, Yes I do believe in mandantory training but I do humbley agree with you that "experiance" is the only way one learn's to ride well! Personally your lic. system would not work well here as a 125cc bike would get you killed on our interstates but I have no problems with say starting on a 400 to 500cc machine for 2 years. It's stated in our MSF riders courses that the most "dangerous time for a new rider is the first 2 years"!!!! That's why if someone takes the Beginner MSF course, they are incouraged to "take one or two full riding seasons's, then come back and complete the "Advanced Riders Course". My problem is that at current status in the Coloines at the moment, a 16 year old kid can buy and ride a CBR900RR (Fireblade) with no "TRAINING AT ALL", I have been riding for over 20 years and I can't handle that bike anywhere near it's potentail so how can a hormon charged 16 year old do it, he/she is just a fatality waiting to happen, IMHO!! Let's face it a slow moving cruiser or standard would surfice to train new riders on better than a CBR1100XX or YZF-R1 but that's not what the "kids" (the future generation of motorcyclist's) want to ride but it would be better for them. Nothing can replace experiance but I'd sure like to give them a real "fighting chance" to be around long enough to "GAIN THAT EXPERIANCE". Tailwinds,BJ

I agree with everyone, but the key IMO is that the dealer shouldn't sell any bike first without "proofing" for a license. Once that's established perhaps the riding novice can be encouraged towards a formal Rider Ed. course. the biggest problem by far is the unlicensed or "permit" holder riding out of the dealer on whatever his parents co-signed for, be it dirt or streetbike. Horrible. Also, don't we all know some person who has actually been riding for Xm number of years, but not well? I do. Riding with these (guys) is almost more distracting than cages. Like spending "shooting time" with a rowdy, y'know? The hated word "Education", it's got to happen.

BTW at least on dealer demos you've gotta show the license/endorsement. I missed one demo this fall because though I could ride the sidecovers off the bike (a Buell) I forgot my damn wallet when I shot out of my house! But if I just went in and said "I'll take this bike", with money etc., can you imagine the possibilities if I was a disco-squidder?

Well, I can tell you that every HD dealer I have been to requires a license with an endorsement for motorcycles prior to sales. Some even require it to get on the list! Maybe for HD it's a way to eliminate the wannabees and keep the list a bit more managable. They're just not as desperate for buyers I guess. You want some ID? Will my high school yearbook picture suffice? hehe

I don't believe in mandatory anything. A, it would reduce the number of riders and scare some away from getting into riding. But more importantly (and I'm a radical lunatic in most people's eyes these days for believing this) is freedom. We live in a society that's so used to being pushed around that government mandates on how we live our lives, how we take care of ourselves, etc. is completely accepted and even desired. It's a shame that it's gotten to this point that we've forgotten what freedom was like.

Hey, Jon; can ya (legally) drive a car without a licence? In Jamaica you can ride a bike with a learner's permit and "L" plates. You're not supposed to carry a pillion, but I have almost never ridden without one (the owner of the bike!) You can also register a bike on a learner's! I intend to take my test once I've mastered the bike (if I ever get around to fixing it!)

Jon, ok I understand were your coming from, maybe government control in any sort is bad. So we just return to the "strongest survive" and let the squids rot in the sunlight and feed the buzzards! Humm, there is "no way" to have absolute freedom my friend as some sort of social control has to be enforced or you could just "shoot your neighbor" cause his music is to loud. We'd all be wearing 6-guns, yeah ha! Welcome to the Thunderdome! BJ

Hey, I can see not selling a bike unless you have a license. Also, if the dealer decides (and this may not be at all bad, as Brad pointed out with the Harley dealers) that he doesn't want to sell a bike to a guy without a license, or if he wants to somehow encourage the new rider into taking a course, great. And no, I have NEVER proposed that murder is o.k. That's the same argument you hear all the time "yeah, you can't have freedom because then you could shoot your neighbor". Bullshit. Freedom is not about no laws (even in the old 6 gun days you didn't get away with it--people came looking for you, causing you to have to live a miserable life moving from town to town ala Billy the Kid, et al), but a reasonable amount of laws. I'd like a show of hands. How many of those here started out a little wet behind the ears, maybe bought an old bike from a neighbor and took off riding, perhaps saved your money and bought a bike from a dealer, but all in all didn't take the "safe" prescribed root to becoming a motorcycle rider? Was it about doing something because it was safe? Was it about doing something because it made sense? No, it was about riding. The other thing is that this argument about "mandatory safety classes" is identical to the helmet law--it's an arbitrary definition of what's considered an acceptable level of safety. As I've said before, some believe you shouldn't leave the house without full leathers, others think that a T-shirt and no helmet are fine, and some are afraid to leave the house because even that is too dangerous. Should you leave the house without MSF training? See, personal safety should be a personal decision, n t some arbitrarily mandated rule passed to make someone's life safer. The other thing is that we live in a world where we honestly think that we've got some kind of scientific solution to everything. People die in car wrecks? Mandate air bags--it's a magic hand that will save you. People getting pregnant? Classes about the birds and bees. People losing their teeth? New chemicals to keep 'em healthy. People dying on motorcycles? New laws about protective gear and more classes, that'll fix it! The fact of the matter is that you've got to avoid wrecks to be sure to walk away from them, almost everyone knows the birds and the bees and they act on their own morals, everyone knows you need to brush your teeth, and everyone knows that riding motorcycles is dangerous. And, most importantly, everyone has a right to decide at what level of "safety" they want to lead their lives (or whether or not they brush their teeth, etc.). And that's how it should be.

So we just return to the "strongest survive" and let the squids rot in the sunlight and feed the buzzards! I'm going to be crucified for saying this, but why not? Where's the problem with this? We somehow believe that we can have freedom to a certain point, but hand over freedom elsewhere. "The government can't tell me how to live my life, except...." Where do you draw the line? Why is it not o.k. to have the government tell us how to vote, but it is o.k. for them to mandate that we have to give up motorcycling if we chose not to sit in a certain class. See, "The Line" is completely mandatory and is set partially by society and is constantly pushed further and further by politicians trying to get ahead. "I'll pass this law to reduce motorcycle injuries, saving millions of dollars". "I'll pass this law to reduce gun deaths, saving millions". Do these laws work? Who cares? They results or success are never examined, but one thing is for sure--our freedoms are whittled away bit by bit. I'm not some conspiracy theorist who believes that there is some group of individuals plotting to take our rights from us piece by piece. Rather it's complacency. "We're comfortable where we're at, what's a few less freedoms gonna hurt?" Over time, more than you think.

Well Jon, you have stated things well. I understand your fear of the political or bureaucratic "Line". My approach is a little narrower, perhaps; we, as experienced, live motorcyclists, *can* be responsible, without being complacent, to the sport by advocating structured rider training and licensing *before* purchase. My angle is "if you want to really know what it's about, get instruction/do it right" and your enjoyment will increase exponentially. I'm not for giving the "governors" free rein at all. But simple example, by experience: you are not a Squid, you run your favorite route, let's say 3 years, ev ry week. Takes you 30 minutes. You take a Penguin course or whatever. Now you're running that route in 20, smoother, more aware, *enjoying more*, and staying alive.

..I think this sort of encouragement *should* be part of every dealership. I think bikes should *not* be sold used without a copy of a license from the buyer. Yeh, this would make it more elitist in a certain respect, but I think it should be. If you can fly a sailplane, and have 1.2 million dollars, should you be allowed to buy that old fighter-trainer in Robb Report? IMO, NO. I think the HD dealer procedures mentioned make tremendous sense, I respect it. The government didn't have anything going on there, but it helps eliminate a certain group in a way. This has to do with "Staying safe", not "restricting lives", in the long run.

I ask again, if you need a licence to drive a car, why shouldn't you need a licence to ride a bike? I don't know what a driving test is like in the U.S. (it probably varies from state to state), but here in Jamaica, if the system is followed (which is probably rare) one has to first take a written test to prove knowledge of the Road Code, then one has to prove that one can successfully reverse, park & hill-start the vehicle, and finally one must drive the vehicle on the road with one's instructor beside you and the examiner in the back, giving directions. That's for a private car licence, a commercial icence includes a written test with mechanical questions and a test vehicle within the weight limit of the licence to be assigned (I'm probably one of the last people to have an 8000 lb licence, they've gonne metric now!) There's a similar test for motorcyclists, but I don't know the details. I intend to find out, though, and TAKE IT (once I'm competent, that is; I WILL be riding on a learner's permit!) If you have to prove your competence to the authorities in order to drive a car, why shouldn't you have to do the same in order to ride a motorcycle? Hell, if the Government of Jamaica (which is an old draws!) required bicycles to be licenced, I'd gladly pay up IF it is linked to instructions in the Road Code! THere are a lot of dangerous bicycle riders out there!

I agree about the class. I took the first MSF class I could take when I bought my first bike, and didn't get my license until the week after I took the class. As a result the bike sat mostly idle (I did practice some on this little deserted street near my grandparent's house) for a month until I finished the course. I've taken the ERC course twice since then. That means I've taken MSF courses 3 times in the last three years of riding. I think the classes are good. But I think helmets are good and I don't propose forcing someone to wear them. I like to vote for a certain party, but I don't propose forcing others to do the same. But you're right, I don't mind encouraging people to follow my ideas--if I didn't think that they were good ideas I wouldn't have them in the first place. So encouraging the MSF is a great idea. Lots of posters at bike shops, bike shop proprietors pushing the courses, maybe even a new angle especially oriented toward sport bike riders. Not "learn how to ride like a maniac", but something more along the lines of the superbike schools--to make the sport riders feel like they're only doing it halfway if t ey haven't taken the classes.

I never said it was (or should be) o.k. to ride a bike without a license. (I believe in freedom but anarchy doesn't work.) If you get caught, you get in trouble, your bike is towed, etc. I'd say it was a bad idea. If I ever said that riding without a license is O.K., please point out where.

You're right--with a car if you pass a certain level of competency, you're given a license. You don't HAVE to take a class (although many do). Why should it be different for a bike? Because riding a bike is harder? Hell, make the test harder if you must, but don't make it even harder to ride. Besides, I know people who had ridden dirt and street bikes on their farms for years who could out ride me even after I took the class. Why should they be forced to pay $120 for the class and waste three days? Sure, they'd be a bit more safe, but why should *I* have the authority to force that on them?

If your not safe it dos'nt bother anyone. But if your not safe for others, there is a problem.

You can be a threat to others on the road, no doubt, but on a motorcycle you're less of a threat to others than in a car. And let's face it--we've got some real idiots out there driving. I know because I used to be one. I didn't become a "good" driver until I started riding. Nothing like the fear of immenent death to keep you honest! Besides, I think that overall most bike riders are more aware, pay better attention, drive/ride more defensively (the skills learned on a bike translate to a car as well) and generally are safer on the roads. Therefore we should encourage as many people as possible to ride. The second you require an MSF course, you're going to see participation drop off drastically. My dad (only halfway jokingly) proposed that everyone be required to learn to drive on a bike. I think you'd see the general safety level on the roads increase dramatically. Of course, I don't propose this, but I do think that bikers are generally better motorists all the way around.

But doesn't getting a licence require taking a test? Proving that one can competently operate the machine on the road? Or are these courses at a higher level than the riders' road test for the licence?

Sam, in Colorado if you take the MSF beginner's course and pass you don't have to take the "driving portion" of the motorcycle test. As you stated, the motorcycle driving test here is a "JOKE" and the MSF course teaches much more than slaming on the brakes and not dumping the bike and going thru a row or two of traffic cones. Jon, I still don't agree with you but I see your point, I still feel strongly that the "Beginners MSF course" should be MANDANTORY to get a lics. If a new rider is not willing to take the course and chooses not to ride, that's ok with me, who needs more untrained squids on the road!! Now the "Advanced MSF course (ERC)" should be on a "volunteer" basis for riders of "non-sportbikes" but I still firmly feel that anybody who is serious about riding a sportbike should be required to take "Superbike/Class/etc. training". You should have to get a special lics. to drive a "high performance car too" (ie: sport car) IMHO there's a lot of difference between a 911 Targa and a Suzuki Swift! Ok, so am a Tryrant but that's the way I'd like to see it! BJ

All of BJ's statements in the first class apply to Texas too. Take the MSF class and you get an insurance break, don't have to take the riding portion of the test, etc. Even after I took the MSF I wasn't much of a rider, but still passed the test with flying colors. The only demerit I got was for not putting my foot down properly--even though I was doing it exactly as the class taught. The class said slow down and put your left foot down right before you come to a stop. The testing officer said hang oth feet out about 20 feet before you stop. So even the MSF and the DMV aren't in sync! It's o.k. if you believe this, BJ, but if this was implemented it would seriously hurt the sport. You'd see alot fewer riders. Heck, what if you work an important job from Wednesday through Sunday? Tough luck, can't take the class. What if you already don't have a license and were thinking about getting one? I think you'll see a lot fewer licensed motorcyclists. I like you alot BJ, I just don't understand how you can sit here and say "they should be required". You're not the type who likes to push others around. I know plenty who are and want to enforce every control over other people that they can. I guess I just don't follow your train of thought. Besides, you've learned first hand about government interference. Why aren't you getting the Harley you wanted? Because Uncle Sam took half of the money that Jo earned fair and square. Highway robbery.

First of all: I see motorcycling less as a sport and more as a means of transport. I've got a bit of an aversion to thinking about sports on a public road... Secondly, what's wrong with upgrading the test to include what's taught in the MSF course? If the test is a joke then it should be made serious! These are people who will be riding on highways with cars and trucks! Where exactly does individual freedom end and public safety begin? I'm sorry, Jon; I've seen too much madness on the road to agree with you on this one.

I don't disagree about the test. The problem is that the test *does* include everything in the class, but it only takes about an hour. The MSF course takes 16 hours. The problem is that they've got these stupid multiple choice questions. "When coming into a turn you see some sand in the road. You should A-Slam on the rear brake, causing you to slide out and wreck, B-slam on the front brake causing you to go over the top and smack a tree, C-ease off the throttle and maintain a steady rate of travel an lean through the turn." I agree, it should be harder. But I guess we're going to diasagree, Sam (although you SHOULD have a license when you ride--just wanted to make srue my philosophy there was clear). See, I don't think it's my right, as a voter or as a motorcyclist, to tell you how to lead your life, and I don't justify any attempt to control others' lives by saying "it's for your own good". That's a common cry of tyrants (although I *know* that none of you are fascists! ;-)

Your own good, or (as Stacey would say) the good of the driver you fall in front of? Yes, the written test was multiple choice here, too. And I don't know what the motorcycle road test is like here (in the driving test the instructor tried to trick me, but it didn't work!), but I had to take lessons from a private instructor in order to learn to drive for the test, and I took the test no less than six times! Why would riding lessons be a deterrent to people who want to ride? I'm not suggesting anything like the German driving test (God forbid!), but something that will show up the competence (or lack thereof) of the rider!

Jon, ya your point is taken, I guess I just feel like "most people who want to learn to ride, will take the "easy way out" and "not bother" to gain training just becuase it takes a little time and money! The basics are "so important" that unless it's mandantory, many riders may not make it to the "volunteer advanced phase" of motorcycling. Damn, I sure wish they had that kinda training when I learned to ride in the 70's, I almost got myself killed a few times with "minor mistakes" that in real traffic could become fatail errors!! See I learned on a 250cc street bike, went to a 650cc bike then up to the 1000cc+ machines and I "feel" that really helped me become a "surviver", now into my 21st. year of riding a motorcycle and with the ERC course at least every 2-3 years I hope my chances are good to ride till Iam 80! Just can't imagine how a "16-19" year old kid on a new ZX-7 has any real chance of being a "long-term" or life long rider "WITH OUT TRAINING". Your'e gona tell me the "normal" squid kid is gona "VOLUNTEER" for rider training, he/she think they are "indestructable" and are "too young to die"! I guess it's because I love this stuff and hope the future riders will be 'LIFE LONG RIDERS" so the sport can grow but without proper training on how to ride street machines that would have been considered "Superbike Raceworthy" less than 20 years ago, that any 16 year old kid can purchase, the future doesn't look promising, IMHO. BJ

Well, at least they'll be in motorcycling their whole life long, it's just that their whole life won't be long!

Once again, BJ, how many here started with some old bike they bought from a neighbor, riding around little back roads, doing everything "wrong"? I'm sure alot, especially the older riders. Some of that is illegal (as it should be), but again, I think that discouraging others riding because I feel it's not safe is a bad idea. Besides, it's against the law to ride a bike when you're 16 unless you take the class, so that's no argument.

How did you get your start, BJ? I got my start (as noted previously) in the proper "BJ Prescribed Way", with a class, on a slower bike, etc. Most of the older riders I know (and many of the writers of moto mags) got started in a less than "safe" way. One of the best riders I knew was a woman in our class who had been riding for years on the dirt roads around her house out in the country. Again, no license, and it should be illegal to ride without one, but even though she didn't fit the arbitrary defin tion of "safe" (no classes, no license, etc.) she was a better rider than I was.

I'm in the *older* gang, and had my riding licence 'free' with my driving licence, 29 years ago.At that time the only big bike were owned by eeeh *kind of angels...). The "normal" people bikes where under 250cc, and traffic was by very far lighter. I learned (3 years ago)on a 200cc trail bike. But when I took the road, a very important thing I didn't had to deal with was the traffic reading. My 16 years old kid is now driving the car (he took a driving course before), he's riding his dirt bike better than I do, but he'll never hit the road without a riding course, even if it is not request to have his licence. P.S. Each spring I have a refreshing course provide by or local riding club.

Very interesting debate gentlefolks! Jon, I don't think the MSF has to be mandatory--but a legitimate license test should be. You take a class or not, but the test will require you to perform in realistic situations and demonstrate your ability to handle the machine within the legal limits. Many states do this for both bikes and cars. In this respect, training is totally different than helmet laws. Helmets are designed to protect YOU--licenses are designed to keep you from hurting ME or interfering with MY rights to use the road safely! If you can't operate a motorcycle safely within the law, then you don't deserve to be on a PUBLIC roadway--that simple. If you run someone off the road because you can't control your bike, or injure an unsuspecting passenger than you have adversely interfered with another person's rights. No law is perfect--they all require tradeoffs. But turning loose a person on a public roadway without a minimum set of skills is a risk to all of us and the freedom we expect and share on OUR roads. Don't tread on me!

Brad I totaly agree with you.I was unable to write it down clearly you resume exactly what I think.

but a legitimate license test should be. You take a class or not, but the test will require you to perform in realistic situations and demonstrate your ability to handle the machine within the legal limits. Many states do this for both bikes and cars. Hey, I *never* said that you shouldn't have to have a license to ride. I agree, I agree! I also agree that the test is too easy most places.

Jon, I know you didn't say that. But you did say that gov'ts should not require training. What we do agree on then, is that a rider should be qualified to ride to receive a license, by meeting minimum standards. Rider training can be accomplished by whatever means the rider chooses. In DC the "riding test" is literally a figure 8, and one lap around a parking lot! A total joke! The irony is that DC also doesn't accept the MSF certification as proof of rider skills. How about that for encouraging training and responsible driving! In Virginia, successful completion of the MSF course is accepted in lieu of the State road test--a very good idea, IMHO. Yes, I'd like a license and a large fries to go please!

Wow, what a long topic to catch up on. California likewise dispenses with the road test in lieu of taking the MSF course. Brad, you just plain blew me away with the DC law..sounds ass backwards and highly inadaquate. Over 20 years ago I just went out and bought a used Suzuki TS250 enduro. Passed a written test and had six months to go take the riding portion of the test. I think I did alright overall, but wish there had been an MSF course back then. I think everyone who gets an mc license should take the SF beginners course, but agree with Jon that it shouldn't be mandatory. Just make it worth the riders effort to do so. Being able to skip the DMV riding test and a discount on insurance should be a big enough incentive I'd think to take the course. Some are just too damn lazy to do anything about it. Maybe there should be some more incentives to take the course..falling just a bit short of making it manadatory.

Hey ho! Me again! Everyone wearing helmets???? You know it's the law! *cackle* *eagerly anticipating the same cyclical arguement* *evil laugh*

massive groan... Stacey, why did you waste your time (and ours) by writing that? "All the good songs have been sung, What's to be said has been said; You live your life until one day You're dead." The only Sam Blob poetry on the 'Net. (I was trying to make up a song around this, but it didn't work!)

Stacey, not if you live in Colorado, no helmet law here! I wear a helmet"because I damn well want too, end of arguement!!! Jon, yes I learned the "bad way", the MSF courses didn't exist in Colorado in 1976. I bought a used 74 GT250 street bike and walked it "12 blocks" to my apartment. For 3 weeks I practiced at a dirt lot where they were building a Safeway, I took my "test" at the Aurora, CO. police course, we had to do many figure 8's, ride over a 4X4 wood beam, do several low/high speed turns and stopping drills and a tight circle from large to small! I passed it the "first" time, many failed. I still would like to see t e "beginner MSF course "mandantory" for a cycle lics. Your example of a lady is good but VERY RARE, most are kids on new sportbikes that "pass" the local drivers test, because it's a JOKE and when they hit the road, the way they ride shows it! Grumpy old bastard, BJ Ondo

Sounds like Texas is somewhere between what you describe and what Brad describes (I agree with you 100%, Brad). We actually had to ride on the street. A friend showed up with you in a car, and if he didn't have a license you get a ticket for riding without a license, and the officer rides with your friend behind you. They honk once for right, twice for left, and take you on a short course through the town (about 3 miles overall). Pretty easy, but it doesn't have to be. With this kind of test you could get a good idea of the experience/skill of the rider. How he pays attention, how he responsds to other traffic, etc. Instead they pretty much let everyone pass.

The Texas Riders Test is a JOKE!!! My wife was the person piloting the car the testor rode in and when all was said and done she said they were talking so much about fishing he even forgot to send me my "Honk Prompts". I also asked him at the end of the test what kind of bike he rode and his comment was 'You'll never see me on one of them things". Heeeyyyy That's a guy that gives a $#*&, about our "Safety". I also have to comment on MSF courses. There will be a 1980 Honda CR80R under our Christmas Tree this year for my 10 and 8 year olds. They will also receive all the appropriate saftey gear (see credit card invoice hehehe). If they become as addicted as I did at that age, there should be a never ending river of Motorcycles in the Garage... Will I require a MSF course from them?? It will depend on several things like Attitude, Skills, etc when they transition to the street. The thing that bothers me is w at certification does an MSF instructor go through?? I know 2 people who are "Certified" and one can hardly keep the bike upright... NOT where I want to send anyone for lessons. The key to a safe driver is to make damn sure the person walking through the door knows their stuff... The act of waiving a riding test based on an MSF course is absurd!! How many folks here slept through Math, or Reading, or whatever and still passed?? Me says NO to Mandatory MSF.... And I hope no one here wants to say I am not qualified to teach my kids to ride..... I'd compare riding records with anyone....

Ah hah! Perhaps it all comes back to the fact that you have to be responsible for your own safety and there's no "magical combination of words" you can hear to make you into a good rider.

But Shane, you, unlike many others, will see to it that the youngsters follow the legal paperwork at the right time. My gripe is against the chronic outlaws, not the ones "raised right".

I think I have to put in my $.02. Here in B.C. Canada, there are some restrictions on licensing. I got my first bike in 1958 (kind of gives my age away, doesn't it) and there wasn't such a thing as a motorcycle operators license then. Now, when you get your learner's permit you are restricted to riding not over 60 kilometers/hour (40 mph), no night riding, no passengers, no riding on the freeways and to riding with a qualified rider over 18 until you take your "pre-test". This involves demonstrating some iding skills such as a figure 8, rapid acceleration and deceleration, shifting gears up and down etc. When you complete that, you can ride by yourself but all the other restrictions still apply until your final driving test. If you take the test on a bike that is smaller than 250 cc, you have to re-take the driving test to be qualified to ride a bigger bike. the problem is that in the spring a lot of people go out and get a learner's permit and ride all summer for 6 months, then put their bike up for the inter. In the spring the local police will have road checks along the freeways for bikes to make sure you are properly licensed. I usually get stopped 4 to 6 times in the spring. If you don't know a rider, it pretty well means that you have to take instruction from a riding school. The are certified to test you and then all you need to do is go to the DMV to get your licence. I taught both of my sons to ride and they passed first time out ( took their test on a Ninja 600) and neither has had an accident y t in about 7 years. LeRoy Pattison Non Carborundum Illegitimii! (Don't Let The Bastards Grind You Down!) '92 Goldwing SE (210,000+ on the odometer Cacade Classics Bun Burner 1500

Frank, you just hit the nail on the head.... Stricter testing of knowledge and ability is the key here. People who really want to ride rack experience up rather quickly and should not be affected. Do away with situations where MSF courses take the place of the driving tests. Or how about something really novel, like making sure the Tester is someone who has actually straddled a bike a time or two and not someone who was "Ceritfied" via a textbook, and just happens to be the examiner. The very thing yo just praised me for should be the same standard that we hold ALL testors/instructors too. They should all be motorcyclists that have stood the test of time.......