Advantages and disadvantages of graduated licensing?

Forum Sponsor
Maybe the better thing to do is to give a conditional suspensions. Let people choose what the hell they want but they can easily get suspensed. Want a litre and get caught speeding or crashing, guess what?


Your suspensed based on the categories. 1L = 2 months, 600cc = 1weeks, 250cc = 3 days. Cruisers < SS bikes.


You guys get the idea. If you can handle any bike then keep it safe. Just penalize people who go for bigger bikes. At that point you should already be a mature rider, so who really cares.
 
What is the goal of making rules about who can drive what bike? When you go through the logic, it seems stupid to say that fewer cc's is going to make anyone safer and that only an irrational person would get a bike over 600cc.

We ride motorcycles; I'd say we're already _way_ past rational.

It's the layers of justification and hair splitting that seem truly insane. Graduated licensing was a sop to insurers who complained about mandatory no-fault insurance from Bob Rae's reign. The reason it will not go away is because mandatory insurance is an indirect tax on drivers. State controls ratchet up, and they never loosen unless they all come apart at once.

We had a fine drivers licensing system before graduated licensing. Yes, some people died in cars, but who cares? Now they all live long enough to die of cancer instead. Thanks government!
 
The discussion about capping new riders in some way is important I think with reference to a few of the posts we've seen lately. That's why I thought it would be good to bring it up again.

Are there any of the instructors here that have ideas as to what should potentially change for the test(s)?
 
less new riders mean less business for Tim Hortons, meaning prices will go up, we can't have that
 
I'm so glad I did my M Class licensing in NL where there is no graduated BS. All done in 7 weeks. I wrote my Learner's Permit, did the riding course in early August, and then passed my full M by the end of September. Woot!
 
The "graduated licensing BS" works very well in Europe and seems to ensure people have enough experience before they move up to more powerful machines and makes sure that ego and image aren't major factors in choosing a particular motorcycle etc.
 
jc100 said:
The "graduated licensing BS" works very well in Europe and seems to ensure people have enough experience before they move up to more powerful machines and makes sure that ego and image aren't major factors in choosing a particular motorcycle etc.
Click to expand...

I started out on a Ninja 500. While I am a vocal advocate of starting out on a reasonable beginner bike (I didn't get my SS bike until I rode beginner bikes for 2 years first), I will say that one can just as easily kill themselves on a beginner bike. I think what's most important is rider training. The course should be mandatory.
 
I new and no I didn't read all the posts and I'm not going to....sorry....
I am strongly in favor of very strict graduated liciencing.....cc wise and also time wise.
Yes we all don't like it or condone it but think about it for a second or two......
Little johnny gets his allowance and can buy and pay for a 1000cc bike, on a learners permit so to speak. OK, Johnny can ride in a straight line and go around a corner ok but that isn't riding at the level of his bike's capabilities now is it? If for one second little Johnny twists the grip and gets a bit too much throttle from lack of experience at any time...what happens? He either costs himself some skin at best, pain and discomfort maybe some $$$ in repairs, then comes a hospital stay to repair little Johnny's body, also the insurance claim he puts in to get his money back from the incident...OR he is now lying in a bed for the rest of his days looking blankly up at the ceiling for the rest of his life.....worst case ...OR...he takes out a pedestrian or another motorist, does the same to them...? Who pays for this? Is it little Johnny? His family? No...it'll be the rest of us in the increases to all our agencies put in place to help us or insure us to either drive or ride or just survive day to day.
Yes it would be a huge inconvienience to have to buy lets say a 250cc first, then a 600cc then a 1000cc and if you want one of them huge cc'd machines up you go again.....and for every jump there is another test or exam to pass before being allowed to do so. For the people who say....I'll just sit on the first level and then jump to the last because of time, this system would allow that to happen. What it would do is force everyone to learn all that is required of each level of riding in each class before moving up in cc's. It's no different than sports, racing, whatever...everything has levels we need to pass or graduate from before being allowed to get to the next level.
I'm sure you didn't go from kindegarden straight to highschool now did you....why?....you wanted to, why waste all that time in grade school when all we want is that peice of paper so we can get a job or go to the next levels.

So, why should riding, driving be any different? It's not a right to be allowed to ride/drive, as the conciquences are so great if you mess up not just for yourself but for the rest of us.

Think about it....really think.....do you want the bill for little Johnny's mistakes?

I don't!!!
 
I'm not against graduated licensing, although I'm glad I didn't have to go through it. I regulated myself, I bought my first litre bike after 15 years of riding. I think if I had one in my first few years, I would have been in real trouble... I know for a fact that 90% of people can't ride a 600 to it's full potential, myself included. If you think you can, think again.

As for this comment...

Willys said:
OK, Johnny can ride in a straight line and go around a corner ok but that isn't riding at the level of his bike's capabilities now is it?
Click to expand...

The bikes will all respond the same at a presumed testing speed of 50 kph, maneuverability aside... What kind of test can they give to make sure you're competent to ride a litre bike to it's full capabilities?

Yes, it's a rhetorical question...
 
stormcat said:
I started out on a Ninja 500. While I am a vocal advocate of starting out on a reasonable beginner bike (I didn't get my SS bike until I rode beginner bikes for 2 years first), I will say that one can just as easily kill themselves on a beginner bike. I think what's most important is rider training. The course should be mandatory.
Click to expand...

I started on a 50cc 2-stroke machine and had to have rider training for that in the UK. Having that little bike for a few years taught me tons and not having to worry too much about rapid acceleration or twitchy manners was invaluable. I learned about brake usage under all sorts of conditions as I rode the thing during the winter and had two get offs on ice at low speed. Not had any problems starting from that all the way to my 750cc now.

Being forced to get used to what you have available is invaluable in my eyes and makes using bigger bikes that more enjoyable when you get there. I cringe when I see brand new young riders on higher power machines because the urge to twist that throttle is in every one of us...only not everyone reacts to what happens next in the same way.

Rider training is only one part of the equation...time in the saddle is probably more valuable and this is what graduated licensing ensures....time in the saddle of more forgiveable machines.
 
I don't support graduated licensing, because it's not a true barometer for the skill of the rider. The amount if time licensed has little to do with the amount of saddle time, when the average rider doesn't seem to do more than 5K Kms a year. Even the amount of mileage done isn't an indicator of skill. The biggest mile munchers tend to do a lot of that mileage on superslab. Straight up and down doesn't teach a lot.

I support education. An educated rider has a better chance of making good choices.
 
I don't support it. It's ineffective and oppressive. I got my M1 & M2 in September of 2003 - no bike, no practice until August 2007. In April of 2008, I got my full M. So technically, I got my full M with very little riding and less than a years worth of experience. Fortunately, I did take the M1 and M2 exit courses, which gave me an awareness of the risks lack of experience can have and how to manage those risks. In addition, any new or different bike you ride can present some short term uncertainty, unfamiliarity and corresponding risk.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
I don't support graduated licensing, because it's not a true barometer for the skill of the rider. The amount if time licensed has little to do with the amount of saddle time, when the average rider doesn't seem to do more than 5K Kms a year. Even the amount of mileage done isn't an indicator of skill. The biggest mile munchers tend to do a lot of that mileage on superslab. Straight up and down doesn't teach a lot.

I support education. An educated rider has a better chance of making good choices.
Click to expand...

One course with a few hours of riding does not an educated rider make but it's a start.
 
Rob MacLennan said:
Who said one course? Who said a few hours?
Click to expand...

A suggestion of something no other country does currently then? I don't have a problem with more intensive training but I think that might actually be called graduated licensing if there's a requirement to pass these intensive longer courses no?
 
jc100 said:
A suggestion of something no other country does currently then? I don't have a problem with more intensive training but I think that might actually be called graduated licensing if there's a requirement to pass these intensive longer courses no?
Click to expand...

We already have a rather anemic graduated licensing system, that doesn't really limit anything but alcohol consumption. Given that young operators aren't permitted to drink anyway, that's a pretty pointless limitation. Requiring significant initial training would make more sense.

I tend to prefer freedom of choice, though, so effectively mandating additional training with substantial insurance breaks would be my ideal solution.
 
You can have freedom of choice too...any bike you like under 250cc...any bike you like under 500cc etc :)
 
jc100 said:
You can have freedom of choice too...any bike you like under 250cc...any bike you like under 500cc etc :)
Click to expand...

In the years that I've been riding, I've seen that horsepower tends to be the least of the worries for new riders. They're far more likely to suffer from "failure to turn" than they are to run into the back of a semi, at 200 Kmh. Skills are more important. Don't nanny; mentor.

A 750cc cruiser is a fine starting bike. Why limit people, by not permitting that choice?
 
Willys said:
I new and no I didn't read all the posts and I'm not going to....sorry....
I am strongly in favor of very strict graduated liciencing.....cc wise and also time wise.
Yes we all don't like it or condone it but think about it for a second or two......
Little johnny gets his allowance and can buy and pay for a 1000cc bike, on a learners permit so to speak. OK, Johnny can ride in a straight line and go around a corner ok but that isn't riding at the level of his bike's capabilities now is it? If for one second little Johnny twists the grip and gets a bit too much throttle from lack of experience at any time...what happens? He either costs himself some skin at best, pain and discomfort maybe some $$$ in repairs, then comes a hospital stay to repair little Johnny's body, also the insurance claim he puts in to get his money back from the incident...OR he is now lying in a bed for the rest of his days looking blankly up at the ceiling for the rest of his life.....worst case ...OR...he takes out a pedestrian or another motorist, does the same to them...? Who pays for this? Is it little Johnny? His family? No...it'll be the rest of us in the increases to all our agencies put in place to help us or insure us to either drive or ride or just survive day to day.
Yes it would be a huge inconvienience to have to buy lets say a 250cc first, then a 600cc then a 1000cc and if you want one of them huge cc'd machines up you go again.....and for every jump there is another test or exam to pass before being allowed to do so. For the people who say....I'll just sit on the first level and then jump to the last because of time, this system would allow that to happen. What it would do is force everyone to learn all that is required of each level of riding in each class before moving up in cc's. It's no different than sports, racing, whatever...everything has levels we need to pass or graduate from before being allowed to get to the next level.
I'm sure you didn't go from kindegarden straight to highschool now did you....why?....you wanted to, why waste all that time in grade school when all we want is that peice of paper so we can get a job or go to the next levels.

So, why should riding, driving be any different? It's not a right to be allowed to ride/drive, as the conciquences are so great if you mess up not just for yourself but for the rest of us.

Think about it....really think.....do you want the bill for little Johnny's mistakes?

I don't!!!
Click to expand...
should you first learn how to ride a bicycle, then a motorcycle and then finally get a license to drive a car? Then of course you must start on a small car like a fiat, then be retested if you want to buy a civic, and if you have a couple of kids you are **** out of luck because you must go through the civic and a mid size sedan before you move to the SUV.

the government must dictate every step I make because I have no common sense right?

pleaaassseee
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom