administrator
01-28-2008, 12:38 PM
http://www.motorcycle.com/specs/sites/mot/images/data/normal/2008_Honda_CBR_1000RR.jpg
I recently read Gabe Ets-Hokin's editorial rant against tiered licensing, and I have to say I enjoyed it immensely. I could have almost written it myself, but the devil is in the "almost." While I wouldn't characterize myself as being a strong proponent of tiered licensing, and I believe most of Gabe's reasoning is valid, if given a choice between a tiered licensing system (like that in Great Britain) and our current state of affairs here in the US, I would probably have to vote against Gabe.
First of all, I agree with Gabe's contentions that, "...nobody cites any evidence to prove that there are more crashes because of the extra power..." and that, "...the best protection for a motorcyclist is to avoid crashing in the first place." So far, so good. But then he goes on to say, "But how does tiered licensing make new riders get proper training?"
Well, this is the way I see it, from studying several different European systems:
First of all, I think it is only common sense that a new rider should start out on a smaller, lightweight machine. If nothing else, simple parking lot fall-overs from an unsteady foot or improper braking or clutching are reduced, because the bike is easier to hold up. Watch any BRC course, and I think you'd have to agree. And yet, here in the USA, one of the most popular bikes purchased by first-time buyers is the 800-lb. Honda Gold Wing. Can you really make any argument that this is an intelligent move? Don't you think it is pretty obvious that a rookie is considerably more likely to get himself/herself into trouble on that Wing than on, say, a 250 Rebel?
More: Tiered Licensing - A Counterpoint (http://www.motorcycle.com/how-to/tiered-licensing-a-counterpoint-30001.html) on Motorcycle.com
I recently read Gabe Ets-Hokin's editorial rant against tiered licensing, and I have to say I enjoyed it immensely. I could have almost written it myself, but the devil is in the "almost." While I wouldn't characterize myself as being a strong proponent of tiered licensing, and I believe most of Gabe's reasoning is valid, if given a choice between a tiered licensing system (like that in Great Britain) and our current state of affairs here in the US, I would probably have to vote against Gabe.
First of all, I agree with Gabe's contentions that, "...nobody cites any evidence to prove that there are more crashes because of the extra power..." and that, "...the best protection for a motorcyclist is to avoid crashing in the first place." So far, so good. But then he goes on to say, "But how does tiered licensing make new riders get proper training?"
Well, this is the way I see it, from studying several different European systems:
First of all, I think it is only common sense that a new rider should start out on a smaller, lightweight machine. If nothing else, simple parking lot fall-overs from an unsteady foot or improper braking or clutching are reduced, because the bike is easier to hold up. Watch any BRC course, and I think you'd have to agree. And yet, here in the USA, one of the most popular bikes purchased by first-time buyers is the 800-lb. Honda Gold Wing. Can you really make any argument that this is an intelligent move? Don't you think it is pretty obvious that a rookie is considerably more likely to get himself/herself into trouble on that Wing than on, say, a 250 Rebel?
More: Tiered Licensing - A Counterpoint (http://www.motorcycle.com/how-to/tiered-licensing-a-counterpoint-30001.html) on Motorcycle.com