TexasCHLforum.com

E.Marquez wrote: So a few things.. I never stated I was in favor of a hand hold requirement...or that i think they are effective.... Did I???? If that was a take away from one of my posts, I misspoke . So your not disagreeing with anything I said or implied ( I think)

That was in response to this line - "we asked that the standard be simple.. If the motorcycle had a passenger it required all three features.. seat surface, hand hold of any type that mirrored an OEM installed feature, and foot rests for the passenger."

E.Marquez wrote: Second, graduated licensing system has never been proved effective... in any place it's used..far as my research and a hole bunch of guys with PHD for titles can figure. If you know of a study that has peer review which shows a graduated licensee system results in fewer crashes, fewer deaths then a non graduated system please post the link.
Motorcycle safety foundation, National Highway safety institute, California Highway patrol, Texas Department of public safety, nor any other place I deal with has no such data or links to such reports.

I think such a study would next to impossible to quantify, as a graduated system such as I described would take 5 years for the first "full graduates", and then a few years to see the results. In the mean time, many other factors would be affecting those results - if you did a study today and then another study in say, 7 years, you might see a big difference in statistics with nothing done. However, I'm in favor because it does do two things - it provides some level of experience before an operator goes on to bigger bikes, and it keeps impulse buyers from (legally) hopping on a big bike. It's much harder for a 19 year old to try to impress his girl friend on a Honda Rebel (250cc) than on high end crotch rocket.

E.Marquez wrote: Inexperienced riders As of 2007, a new Texas rider can not get a motorcycle license in Texas without having taken and passed the MSF Basic Rider Safety course. That speaks directly to your concern for in trained riders..and I agree to a point. Training is vital, but my suggested training likely includes training in ways and ideas you may not be considering.

I have to be honest, I never took the MSF Basic Rider Safety course, but I observed my wife and daughter part of the time as they were taking theirs. I think it's a good start, but one weekend of parking lot training on a 250cc bike doesn't really give a rider the "experience" they need to jump on a crotch rocket.

E.Marquez wrote: The much larger issue, the one considered THE issue by leading folks on motorcycle safety is rider behavior, risk awareness and risk management. The training is useless if rider behavior though risk awareness and good risk management are not taken as or more seriously than how to balance the bike, negotiate corners and seeing intersections as prime locations to have an accident.

And experience is the best teacher on that.

You know, as crazy as it sounds (especially after I 'fessed that I have never taken an MSF course), I wouldn't be opposed to an annual "continuing ed" requirement. Say one Saturday in such a "reminder" course.

I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that stupid laws that do nothing but make lawmakers feel good aren't the answer. At the very least, a graduated system wouldn't be something some one could look at and see the holes immediately, like this law.

E.Marquez wrote:Let me preface with.. I do not intended to sound condescending or lecturing. Reading the responses it appears many if not all that have posted do not understand the background of this law...

Mr Marquez. I appreciate the explanation. I disagree with one part (the need for a handhold); because in my experience, they're all of for show. I don't recall ever seeing a passenger using one at anything above about 30 mph. I don't think they would really be effective even at that speed.

I'll tell you honestly, I think those that wish to "do something" real about motorcycle safety would do far better to attack (what I believe to be) the real problem, rather than it's symptoms. That problem (in my view) is inexperienced riders.

I think Texas needs to pass a (and enforce) "graduated" motorcycle licenses. I got my license almost 45 years ago, when a 14 year old could get a license for a bike under 4 brake HP. I didn't even know what that really was, but you can bet I knew which ones were and weren't (including my own). Today we have a similar restriction on CC size, but no real system such as that in England.

If we gave an initial license for operators for less than 100cc, then after a year of no moving violations on the bike, graduated it to say 250cc. After that, no violations on the bike, and proof of ownership of a > 100cc < 250cc bike, both for two years, you get a 250cc-900cc licnese. Similar restrictions (ownership of a > 250 < 900 and no violations for two years) then would get you a license for any size.

That would give new owners a chance to get some experience before hopping on a bike that it far more than they're ready to handle.

I didn't know the history of the law; but a quick look, along with almost 45 years experience, and my guess is that 19 year old operator was on a bike he wasn't ready to handle.

My motorcycle has hand grips on the side. I use them when I put the bike on the center stand. I don't think my wife (who rides a lot) has ever used them. I don't think any of the couple of dozen passengers I've carried have used them. If a person were to fall off absent a grip, that person shouldn't have been on the bike. If there were an accident, the g-forces involved would make holding on impossible. Even if that weren't the case, holding on to the bike would not prevent injuries, there are are no protective structures on the bike, like on a car, to prevent injuries.

Yes, it's a stupid "feel good" law.