BRC's, permit tests, new bikes and a death.... :(

[pmdave]

Graduated licensing works in countries such as England and Germany, because they have a system for gaining skill and graduating to the next levels. In the USA, in states where graduated licensing was tried, the concept was simply of engine displacement, and the levels were very low. For instance, 149cc and under, 150-499cc, and 500cc and up. But of course we know that there are vastly different levels of performance from different engine displacement categories. States that tried this "displacement determined" graduated licensing found that it made no difference in the stats, and I don't believe there are any states in the USA currently requiring this.

My thought is that there should be different motorcycle licenses, but based on statistical results rather than arbitrary engine displacement. If a specific machine or category of machine shows up disporportionately in the state crash/fatality statistics, the state could mandate a special category of license--at the rider's expense. If you look at the crash/fatality stats for all motorcycles, you will discover that sports and "super sports" machines are much more involved in crashes than cruisers or tourers. So, based on my concept of increased risk, I'd suggest requiring a more serious license to operate a sport or supersport machine.

And, how would the state make this work? More severe license checking, and confiscation of the vehicle of anyone found to be not in compliance. That would also weed out those scofflaw riders who have never felt the need for a license. Yes, I know this would lead to increased harrassment of motorcyclists. But other countries--where licensing and enforcement of motorcycle laws--have managed to reduce the death toll. Here in the US of A, we have given a very high priority to "freedom" without much concern for the freedoms of those most affected by an individual's choice. Cry "socialism" if you want, but I find the more restrictive legal atmosphere of countries such as Germany to provide a better balance of freedom vs responsibility.

And yes, part of the resistance to vehicle confiscation are arguments that the rider might not be the bike owner, so why penalize the owner? My response is that if an owner is naive enough to loan his/her machine to some scofflaw, that owner should bear the brunt of the enforcement. And that includes parents who allow their names to be put on titles for the benefit of kids who otherwise couldn't be out riding.

pmdave

 

[Firenailer]

Once again, I understand the concept of graduated licenses, and I might even agree to a point. But the same newbies that can go out and buy a 180 MPH motorcycle, can also go to the Dealer and pick up a 400HP Corvette the day they recieve their drivers licence, or drink themselves into a coma on their 21st B-Day, or go out and pick up an AR-15 as soon as they pass a hunter safety class, and to be honest I don't even know if they need THAT!

In this case she was riding an 05 honda shadow, a 750cc cruiser, not a rice rocket by any means and as far as I can tell only one bike above a 250cc rebel, in the product line.

In the end, how can you regulate or legislate any given persons behavior, regardless of how long they've been riding or driving?

I do agree that it would be a much nicer place if we all lived up to our responsibilities as citizens, to ourselves and each other, as enthusiastically as we defend infringements on our rights. But after 25 years as an emergency responder the only thing I know for sure is, people just don't consider the consequences of their actions, and pretty much do whatever.

Bob

 

[rad]

Graduated licensing works in countries such as England and Germany,..........snip..................

Forget graduated, as much as I would support it, we can't even get riders licensed. The AMA reports 26% of motorcycle fatalities involve unlicensed riders!

 

[pmdave]

IMHO the concept of "approaching motorcycling gradually" needs a little carification. Humans simply don't possess the mental skills to translate walking speeds and face-to-face interaction into surviving traffic. So, we just don't have any good mental strategies for "being safe."

The BRC (taught as the beginning course in almost all states) gets a new rider to his/her license endorsement ASAP. But that's really just a ticket proving you can get a bike around a parking lot devoid of cars and trucks. The new rider--even with completion card in hand--has a very steep learning curve ahead.

Yes, if you just get on that new-to-you bike and start riding, you will eventually get a series of lessons and become smarter. But if fate isn't benevolent, any of the "suddenlies" that happen could be your last thought.

So, I suggest that a newish rider needs some ongoing mentoring, based on some critical learning points, rather than just the potluck of fate. If the new rider is someone you really care about, I suggest you put together a list of things to learn about, and take that someone out to learn them. I'm not aware of any comprehensive do-it-yourself mentoring curriculum, but there are a number of books that could serve as a "course." I suggest you take several books, and go through each subject in detail, first discussing the concepts, then going out for a ride to find the same situations in real life.

I am constantly surprised at riders who are out riding the roads and streets, but are still confused at basic motorcycle control skills such as countersteering or slow speed balancing. Somehow riders seem to expect that the required knowledge will drop out of the sky and penetrate their brains. But learning isn't automatic. It requires some conscious thought and practice of the right techniques to make them "automatic."

For openers, you might use the book Motorcycling Excellence, written by MSF staff and published by Whitehorse Press. It's written in an easy-to-read style just right for the BRC course graduate. The contents include most of the things a new rider needs to know to get riding, but not so deep or scary that a new rider would be turned off.

Next, (and at the risk of being seen as a commercial shill) I suggest going through Proficient Motorcycling the same way. Studying each chapter and then going out to find those situations might take an entire riding season, but the payoff would be a much better understanding of motorcycle control and situational awareness. And, when you're out riding and see a potential hazard, don't just keep riding by, hoping your "student" saw this; pull over and point it out. Talk about the hazard, why it was difficult to see, and ask for possible ways to avoid getting caught.

At somewhat higher plateaus, I would suggest Stayin' Safe, a book assembled from the writings of the late Larry Grodsky by Pete Tamblyn, and Riding in the Zone by Ken Condon. (all the above books available from Whitehorse Press, 800-531-1133) These are books that would serve nicely as discussion stimulators and offer samples of skills practice. To help open a new rider's eyes aboaut the hazards lurking out there, consider Street Strategies.

One of the biggies of a motorcyclists education is learning to predict what is going to happen ahead of time. This isn't just a "new rider" phenomena, it's something that affects all motorcyclists. But when we're trying to mentor a newer rider, we need to stress what the view ahead means. We also need to make it very clear that forward energy increases dramatically with small increases in speed. Based on how our brains function at walking speeds, we have a tough time equating motorcycle speed with response times, crash forces or stopping distances. But developing a street sense is dependent upon gaining a better grasp of such things.

Or, to put this another way to a newbie, motorcycling is potentially very dangerous--somewhere between five and twenty times the risk of driving a car. Your actual danger depends on how serious you are about developing your skills. If you treat motorcycling as just a fun thing to do, your risks will be higher. If you treat motorcycling as a serious activity demanding considerable knowledge and skill, your risks will be lower. The more open you are to learning--studying books, taking courses, and discussing the risks with experienced riders--the quicker you will develop your knowledge and skill.

So, yes, it's good to ride slowly around a quiet neighborhood while the new rider is still learning to control the throttle, brakes, clutch, steering the grips, and shifting the transmission. But the ride must soon start to include traffic if the learner is to develop the needed street skills. If you're close to the Pittsburgh area, consider taking the Stayin' Safe course, preferably within a year of getting your license. The MSF's ERC isn't really a course for "experienced" riders, it's a course for riders who were too self-confident to take the BRC. Still, it won't hurt you to take the ERC, and I'd advise taking it along with your protege. You might also consider one of the "ride like a cop" courses. Or, you can just take some exercises from the books, set them up, and ride them with your protege.

There has been a bit of discussion in the MOA Foundation about developing a mentoring program that would help experienced riders accomplish the above. To date we're not there, but it's a possibility for the future. The Foundation is procuring a "sit down" trainer that can help a rider learn to predict the situation, and it should be at the National in Redmond. Likewise, there are some online "courses" under development, but nothing significant available at the moment.

pmdave

 

[stkmkt1]

I have been riding since 1968. not saying I know everything, but this is the fact. Took the beginner MSF class last summer. Thought it would be a good idea to see how they teach people to ride since both my wife and 16 yr. old son want to ride.

Great first course, and as the instructor of my class told the class after the final, "congratulations, I believe you all now have the basic skills to ride a small bike in an empty parking lot." I am not going to say that I learned a lot, but I did learn a bit. And it was fun.

Wife takes course and now so has my son. They are both "allowed" to ride the Honda Rebel I bought for them to share. And only when they ride with me. I am now trying to teach them about riding on the road, as opposed to the parking lot. They both seem to be doing fine, but it will be a while before I will even allow them to ride on their own. And they certainly will not be riding larger bikes for quite some time.

So far they are both fine with this arrangement. I did not learn to ride overnight, but rather gradually as I grew up both physically an mentally. Neither one of them will have that advantage as they are 1) both older than I was when I first started, and both have the desire to move up the ranks to larger machines sooner rather than later.

I have no way to know whether my plan is the best, it is just what I plan to do to hopefully help them learn how to ride.

 

[xp8103]

vfroger provided some interesting perspective on the MSF courses. It is good to see that they have perhaps finally caught up with the times with the "Essential CORE" course which includes a Street Rider Course.

Now, to get states to adopt it as a requirement for permit rather than a simple 8 hours of classroom.....

 

[157990]

I'd have to agree that some sort of graduated licensing would be desirable. I heard an MSF instructor tell a class of basic graduates "congratulations, you are now qualified to operated a 125cc machine at low speed on a closed course under ADULT supervision!" and I think that's a pretty sound assessment. When I see young (make that "inexperienced Regardless of Age) riders climbing on 100 horsepower plus (or even, shudder, 65 horse "beginner" bikes I cringe. I started riding back in the 60's, when a BIG hot bike was an 883 sportster or a 650 Triumph/BSA. In 1972 I bought a new H2 750 Kawasaki triple (74 horsepower) 'cause it was the "Fastest Production Motorcycle in the World". Today "beginner" bikes typically pack more power than any of these except possibly the H2. Let's face it, motorcycles have moved up expotentially in power, but the human animal is still the same model as then. Turning new riders with little or no experience lose on a machine that could have WON Daytona 25 years ago makes no sense to this old boy...

 

[xp8103]

Suzuki Hayabusa. < $13k. 186 mph (limited) or in excess of 200 mph with some bypass. 10 second quarter mile runs.

Any any newbie rider can hop on one the minute he leaves a BRC and go. Sure you can argue that the same newbie can hop into a Vette or something else as well. But economics come into play here MUCH MUCH more. A new 'Busa at $13k or a new Vette (or even a late model) is still in the $30k's and up.

 

[mika]

I have long thought the real question we face with improved MC license programs is not a question of if but how. A couple of questions I wonder about:

50+ Problem ÔÇô Not a question of age - How do you over come this and address the loopholes?
- Licensing drivers/riders is a state responsibility and power. This results in different licensing requirements in each state commonwealth and protectorate in the nation.
- States that I did a quick check of will grant a MC endorsement to a rider coming into their state and applying for a license if they have a valid MC endorsement from there previous state regardless of that endorsement being based on a testing system that meets or exceeds their system or not.

What do you regulate in a tiered system?
- CCs are often thrown out as the starting point graduating a rider in some way through a 50cc, 51-125cc, 126-250cc and finally 251 cc and above. Some systems have another point at 500cc. These systems force a rider to matriculate through a series of classes to arrive at the license and bike size most of us achieved at our will.
- Experience: There are tiered systems that combine some form of CC rules with time in the saddle. In some the rider with enough time in the saddle can leapfrog a class or classes with enough time in the saddle.

Funding?
There is a willingness to look at tiered licensing systems on the part of both citizens and state governments but this willingness often falls prey to the question of funding. A change at any state level or federal mandate will create expense for the DMV asked to run it in conversion costs and on going expense. Where does the money come from in this, or any, economic climate?

MIC ÔÇô hero villain or just the business arm of the industry.
The Motorcycle Industry Council often is tagged as a villain in all of this. Manufacturers are heartless willing to sell any fool with the money any machine. They lobby against changes to licensing systems and again are tagged as villains. But is this reality?

Hybusas and S1000RRs are dragged out as examples of machines potentially lethal to new riders with the cash to buy one; in doing so we ignore two things.
- CCs are an indicator but not the be all and end all. A Ninja 250R can be ridden by new or relatively new riders in several tiered systems. It is a bike that is capable of lap times that match or exceed SBK bikes capabilities when I started riding. On the street instead of the track I would argue the nimble nature of this bike and its power to weight ratio makes it dang fun for me and a more real and present danger to a new rider and society in general than a Hybusa or S1000RR.
- The injury gods donÔÇÖt differentiate on cc or cost from what I have observed. Gear a pair of riders up. Put one on a Honda Cub and the other on CBR1000RR and have them both crash in the same way and speed and you will see relatively the same injuries and death rate. The bike definitely is/can be a factor but not the primary cause. That title resides with the rider.

The MIC gets tagged as villain for opposing changes. They get cast as a greedy blood thirsty group. There are enough documented cases of corporations ignoring consumer safety to maximize profit that I will not argue saint hood for any of them. Yet is the tag of villain realistic.

MC companies approach selling bikes to the US as a nation. There are national campaigns. California created all sorts of problems when their individual state laws created a 49 state bike and CA bike world. Until some way is found to address the 50+ issue they will be opposed to licensing changes in general. An incremental approach to licensing changes makes it difficult for dealers and manufacturers to make a living providing any rider with the bike they want.

 

[Firenailer]

XP.

I'm sure that's true in many areas of the country. Here in Westchester you can walk through any High School parking lot and see for yourself, these kids are driving high end performance cars of every type and they ain't buyin' used.

I thought of Larry Brodski and his Staying Safe articles and book during the course of this conversation as a writer mentioned earlier, and ironically, as safety minded as he was, he died in a bike accident after hitting a deer.

Sometimes things just happen. Going back to the beginning of this post, an '05 Honda Shadow 750 maxes out at something like 35HP. A Hyabusa it isn't.
OK that's it, I'M OUT!

 

[Rpbump]

Just 2 weeks ago a Sailor leaving an MSF course at NAS Jacksonville was killed when a driver pulled out in front of him from a side road. The excuse was the familiar "I didn't see him". A recent requirement for Navy personnel is that they wear a vest or jacket of a bright color when riding a mc. I have a black jacket with a bright red stripe 4" wide with Phosolite along the red/black seam. This jacket is not acceptable under the new regs. The jacket/vest must be of one monolithic highly visible color. Relective white inserts are permissable. We as mc riders must always drive our bikes knowing that we are invisable to many motorists. MSF teaches us to be aware of our surroundings but gaining the needed experience to deal with the unexpected can lead to deadly consequences.
Ride Safe

 

[pmdave]

The Motorcycle Industry Council is what it is: a promotional arm of the industry. The MIC gathers statistics and lobbies for laws that will enhance it's view of motorcycling. Of course, if you want to see the statistics, you have to be a member of the MIC--for big bucks.

However, in the same offices in the same building in Irvine, CA are the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) and the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF)

SVIA focuses on offroad motorcycling. The MSF focuses on training for street riders. Legally, the MSF is not allowed to lobby for changes in state laws, while the MIC can. The MIC hires a number of high paid lobbyists and lawyers to promote it's concepts of motorcycling. Just about everyone of consequence in motorcycling in the USA belong to the MIC, including the major motorcycle magazines. If you haven't heard anything about the MIC, MSF, etc. in the mainstream motorcycle magazines (Cycle World, Rider, etc.) you must consider magazines with membership in the MIC have an unwritten rule to never rat on the industry.

As it happens, the President of the MIC, SVIA, and MSF occupy the same desk. Same phone, same hat, same drawers, etc. So, you can see how it's possible for the MIC lawyers and lobbyists to take action that might (coincidentally, you understand) assist the MSF in something a 501C3 corporation would otherwise be prohibited from doing. It's a handy arrangement, and I have to take my hat off to their cleverness in setting up the system this way. It promotes bike sales and creates a monopoly for training. (well, almost a monopoly)

If this same system were applied to the airline industry, the Boeing president would (just happen to) be the administrator of the FAA and perhaps even the chairman of the Transportation Safety Board. Want a pilot's license? Go take the Boeing training course and get your waiver for your license, provided by the FAA. If this were trucking, the Kenworth President would also be an administrator in the DOT.

While this is all very clever and pro-industry, the results have been less than good for motorcyclists--measured in terms of crashes and fatalities. The USA is among the most dangerous in the world for motorcycling, although not as dangerous as some (third-world) countries such as Zimbabwe, Yemen, Chad, Tanzania, Cook Islands, or Afghanistan. We're not nearly as "safe" as Australia, Denmark, Canada, Ireland, Germany, or Japan.

I would much prefer to see the MSF. MIC. and SVIA separated from any control over state rider training programs. If you're looking for a model of how this might be, consider TEAM Oregon, Oregon's state rider training program, administered by Oregon State Universtiy, in cooperation with Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) TEAM Oregon uses their own curricula, which gets revised to reflect the crash statistics in Oregon.

The only other state not using MSF curricula is Idaho. And, let's note that the two states determined by NHTSA to have top level motorcycle safety programs are: (are you ready for this?) Oregon and Idaho.

pmdave

 

[pmdave]

firenailer, just to correct a couple of typos:

Larry Grodsky was the author of the Stayin' Safe column in Rider magazine, and the originator of the on-road training program, "Stayin' Safe" that's being continued by Larry's former instructors. Eric Trow manages the program, and also contributes the "Riding Well" column to Rider.

Larry's death as a result of a deer strike in Texas was a shock to many of us, but he allowed himself to get caught riding at night in deer country. He knew better, but was apparently under some time constraints he refused to ignore. The lesson is there for the rest of us to internalize or ignore as we choose.

pmdave

 

[pmdave]

I'd love to see a drastic reduction in fatalities. However, I wonder about the statistics of the "Governors Highway Safety Association" and the organization preparing the report, "Highway Safety North."

When looking at vehicle crash and fatality statistics, it is normal to use a rate of fatalites per xxx vehicle miles traveled. VMT are fairly well established for cars and trucks, but VMT for motorcycles is apparently generated from estimates, which are therefore not reliable enough for me. Furthermore, different states will have different VMT for motorcycles, even if we could gather the numbers.

I prefer to use motorcycle registrations. That's not absolutely reliable either, since one rider might own several bikes, and someone who crashes might not own anything. All the same, registrations are acceptably reliable.

Using a fatality rate--say fatalities per 100,000 registered motorcycles--gives us a clearer picture of what's happening, since that factors in an approximation of the number of motorcycles on the road. So, I'd like to see the fatality rate dropping.

And we may see that. Fatalities seem to decrease whenever motorcycling hits a slump, and we've seen a relative slump over the past couple of years. So, I would expect to see a reduction.

Still, our fatalities and fatality rate is much higher in the USA than in other "civilized" countries. And that really bothers me.

pmdave

 

[jstrube]

I tell you what... Fresno, CA has had a rash of fatal MC accidents in the last 2-3 weeks. One was killed by a Drunk Driver, one was drunk, one hit a tree on his own, one was today hit a car, and another I think... Oh yeah, one very high rate of speed...

 

[xp8103]

Bob,

There ARE exceptions to every rule for sure!

 

[ANDYVH]

I join this discussion WAY late, pages wise. But, to read the report as tragic as it is I can guess too what ocurred, like many others here.

I have 38+ years of riding under me, and 17 years as a MSF instructor and thousands of students to those years. I have had a sizeable number of students over the years to whom I spoke after class, after they completed, and passed the measures of the skills test, by the numbers so to speak, to these students I have said, "you passed this course, but you are NOT ready in any way to mix it up in traffic." Unfortunately, it is possible to pass the MSF BRC and still not be adequately profficient at the riding basics.

My take on this tragic report, is this rider also had marginal enough skills to pass the class by the numbers. Yet, I doubt she had any real grasp of the critical techniques of riding, a BIG one being countersteering. My guess is she "steered" her bike for whatever reason, right into the path of that truck. At highway speed, depending on how hard and quick she "steered" the bike would move over far faster than a newbie rider would have the mental/muscle memory to properly react and correct. But there are numerous other reasons here too, a brand new rider, riding in a group, riding on the highway, probably side-by-side group ride, keeping up, so MANY distractions, so MANY inputs. Simply tragic.

Years ago, my orthopedic surgeon took my BRC with his daughter and son. Doc was a good friend of my mom. Doc was in his late 50's, obviously a very smart man. I failed him in my class. as he would NOT accept the concept of countersteering to swerve the bike. He failed the swerve EVERY time, and just missed me a few times. He would "steer" the bike everytime and by the time he reacted, it was way too late to correct his path. His daughter and son passed easily. I worked with Doc one on one later and with mentoring he got it.

Next time you are out on a two lane road, no traffic, steady speed 45 mph, on the centerline, purposely but not agressively, "steer" your bike to the left to avoid an imaginary hazard. It will scare the crap out of you how quick and how far the bike will move. Now, imagine doing that if you don't know how the bike will react. There was a similar story of a Canadian pro-hockey player who similarly rode headon into an approaching truck on a two lane curve. He had no experience on a bike, and his wife was foillowing him. It was reported he drove right into the path of the truck. My bet is the curve caught him by surprise and he "steered" the bike, which reacted opposite his intent, quickly.

 

[pmdave]

I suggest that countersteering is basically how we steer our bikes. It's not an option. The question is whether or not you understand what you are doing.

Of course, any bike that is reasonably aligned and loaded will balance itself in a more-or-less straight line. And an optimistic rider can steer hands-off, too. But accurate steering control depends on countersteering. It's not an option.

I take issue with those who suggest that countersteering is only an emergency swerving technique. Yes, you must countersteer aggressively to make the two quick back-to-back corners, but you also countersteer when making a gentle turn.

If you're not too sure about this countersteering business, I suggest you get it into your subconscious before you get the big test out on the road. Find a nice open parking lot of a little used highway. Get the bike up to 30 or 40 mph. Now, nudge the left grip gently, and the bike will steer to the left. Nudge the right grip gently, and the bike will steer to the right.

IMHO anyone who can't do this little exercise should sell the bike before you get killed on it.

pmdave

 

[jstrube]

Doesn't the Hough book say that the only way a bike steers at speed is through countersteering, that any peg weight, knee action, etc, is simply part of it? I think one of the bike schools has a bike set up to test it too...

 

[xp8103]

pmdave,

You are 100% correct and I have to wonder if that was the culprit in the case of the OP? While it MAY have been a skill she was shown and perhaps taught in her BRC, it most CERTAINLY was not an automatic reaction by any stretch. After years and decades of driving a car where you pull the steering wheel to the left when you want to turn left, and right for right, it is completely understandable if, in a situation where a quick reaction was either warranted or thought to be warranted, she did the wrong thing, putting her right in the path of the truck.

Hell, even riding 3 and 4-wheel ATVs, it's still left is left and right is right. Snowmobiles, boats, you name it.