California DMV Motorcycle Driving Test (bribery or idiocy)?

You don't live in the Bay Area or LA, do you?

In any case, beginners wouldn't be able to ride in that sort of
traffic. The CA M/C learner's
permit doesn't allow freeway riding at all ... why not limit the
beginners to bikes which can only
travel on the freeway at the legal maximum speed to discourage them from
speeding on it?

Note: a M/C doesn't need 100HP to go 85mph - a buddy rode a Ninjito
(250cc - 25HP)
all over the place (he toured to SLO from LA). He rode it > 85mph ..
sure he couldn't
pass traffic on an upgrade carrying a passenger but that bike made him
ride better (and smarter).

That is oneof the reasons to limit beginners to lower HP's - you have to
ride better to get everything
out of that bike AND you have to ride smarter to stay out of harm's way
(oh, and there's the thing
about not having too much HP for a beginner to control).

 

Yes that's true! My bike only gets about twice the MPG of my car
which weighs 5x as much. (Well the ratio is less if you count MY
weight, which is considerable). But bike engines could be made more
efficient. And they will! 8^)

And there's no reason they couldn't get ~100 mpg. And they'll be
safer because there won't be as many Hummers and Ford Excursions. 8^)

 

Hmmm. I don't know. The reason I don't have a Vespa is that there
aren't many places I go that I don't have to take a freeway. The
grocery store, a few neighborhood restaurants, that's about it. I
think we Californians spend more time on the freeway than anyone else.

I wasn't thinking that beginning riders should have to stay off the
freeway. I think freeway riding is safer than secondary roads, but a
little 200 lb bike, its engine beating its little heart out at 8000
RPM probably wouldn't be as safe, or as comfortable. Maybe we could
raise the starting limit to 450cc.

Or maybe, when the price of gas goes up and 1/3 to 1/2 of Californians
are commuting by bike on a nice Summer day, we could lower the speed
limit in the slow lane to, say, 55.

Dunno about that. But at least you don't use a surge of power to get
out of every situation.

 

Speed limits and actual speeds in the UK are higher than in California.
The advantage of riding a low-powered bike (or any vehichle for that
matter) is that you learn to anticipate. Keep your distance, know that
you need some to get up to speed when overtaking and learning how that
handle that. It is a valuable experience.

Mike

 

The Dutch system is similar. Anyone under 21 has to pass the roadtest on
a bike that is limited to 25kW (approx. 35hp) and may only ride limited
bikes until they are 21. Anyone older has a choice to go for the light
or the heavy license.

And almost any of those limited bikes have no problem to reach the
speedlimit on the freeways, which is 75mph with averages up to 90mph on
some stretches. Most of these bikes have no problems to reach speeds of
100mph.

Of course, a small dirt bike will not reach that speed. But for instance
a limited Yamaha Diversion 600 has no problems reaching 90mph.

And the unlimited version doesn't even go that much faster, 110mph tops.

Mike

 

That looks like a rhetorical question, implying that I'm full of shit.
I live in the South Bay area of Los Angeles. On surface streets such
as Prairie or Crenshaw in the 19000 block area traffic regularly runs
in excess of 55 with many drivers exceeding 60. This would be
encountered on a simple trip to the local Mall over surface streets.
The Harbor freeway does 85 regularly -- which is where I found out
that (1) my Savage does 85mph quite easily and (2) it is not fun at 85
as the stupid helmet gets extremely uncomfortable.

I was addressing "Californians spend most of their time on roads with
speed limits < 45mph." It is common to exceed speed limits by 15 mph.
It is unsafe to ride below the prevailing speed of traffic.

"learner's permit" and "beginners" are not the same group. You remain
a beginner for months after getting your M1 license. Older beginners
never bother with a "learner's permit." The "learner's permit"
would only exist for a month or so and it is stupid to mandate that a
person purchases a vehicle just for the first month of riding.

It is also unsafe to ride 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed of
traffic; which means that even a learner or beginner needs a vehicle
that can reach prevailing speed of traffic reasonably quick. For L.A.
local streets that means something that can do at least 65 mph so that
it can accelerate to 50 mph before being run over by everybody else.

Overseas they have a 125cc beginner/learner class of motorcycle and
license. I will not allow anyone in my family to ride less than a 150
on our surface streets as it is unsafe.

No, my 30hp Savage does that just fine. But that is not what is being
discussed.

I was addressing the implication that Californians can reasonably use
a vehicle that is not capable of keeping up with prevailing traffic --
such as a 125cc maximum motorcycle. Yes, we probably do "spend most
of their time on roads with speed limits < 45mph." But those 40 -45
mph speed limit streets often see 55-60 mph. And, while *most* of the
time is spent on surface streets, we *do* occasionally use the
freeways which often have a prevailing speed of 80-85 mph.

There was a reason that the MoPed fad of the '70's was just a fad --
they caused excessive injuries due to lack of performance.

 

OTOH: I have seen those Honda Silver Wings cruising along traffic on 101
around Salinas (where
everyone is doing 70-75 mph) ... so raw HP is not the deciding factor.

In another post I mentioned a friend who had a Ninja 250 who could
cruise at 85 mph... I have
another friend who has a Nighthawk 250 who takes it over the hill to
Santa Cruz without much
trouble - she can ride it on flat freeways and keep up with traffic
(going over HWY 17, is a bit
iffy, though). These bikes perform about as well as my ol' SOB450 (a
beat up NIghthawk) -
except mine has a bit more acceleration - but they all top out above
80mph which means any of
these bikes can get you a speeding ticket on any road in CA - that is
speed enough in my book.

I am with you. I'm a big guy and on a 250cc I can't keep up with
traffic going up those hills on
HWY 17 - on my 450cc I just just do it. BTW: I have never heard
anyone complain that their
Ninjito can't keep up with Freeway traffic. Ergo: 250cc engines (25hp)
*can* provide adequate
power for beginners to travel on any CA roads. But in any case, I agree
450cc - for a beginner

That is part of the point. If you know you cannot throttle your way
out of a tight spot you tend to
look extra carefully to stay out of those tight spots (if you are meant
to survive that is). Also, when
enjoying a recreational ride in the mountains, if your bike has limited
power, you learn not to roll
back so much going into the turns - which requires better cornering
skills - which teaches better riding.
[NOTE: I am saying this within the context of beginner riders - after
you have logged 100K miles
and won a few motoGP races you may not have anything left to learn from
a 250cc bike]

There is also another factor - it is more fun to ride a bike you can
out-ride than a bike which is way
above your abilities. For the beginner, one whose abilities are
surpassed by ANY bike, this can lead
to safer riding in the long run. Getting the thrill of being able to
push your bike to the limit can often
satisfy the urges which lead many future pavement stains to pull stunts
on El Camino.

In any case, it is a sad thing that beginners hardly have any choice of
bikes < 600 cc! Even a SV650
is more bike than many beginners should have. I am not sure that we
need the state to mandate every
rider start with a small bike (my son's been riding dirt since he was 6
yo - he can out-ride me on
street any day) ... but the manufacturers do not offer many choices for
beginner bikes - so testosterone
infected kids hop on bikes with more HP than some cars and drive up the
statistics (and BTW: lose
future sales for the manufacturers - not only won't THAT kid ever buy a
bike again, neither will many
members of his family - and the high statistics will deter many others
from riding, too).

 

Hear, hear!

 

No. That was a joke about the dismall traffic in the Bay Area and LA.
I grew up in LA (and lived
in Venice and in Torrance) and I saw bumper-to-bumper traffic many times
- especially on the 405.
In fact, I cannot recall seeing traffic doing over 65 on the 405.

Well, I used to commute from Torrance to UCLA, and I figured out that I
spent 2/3 of my commute TIME
getting to/from the freeway (at very low speeds, eg. < 25mph) the
freeway, being a higher speed went much
more quickly. Note: I said Californians spend most of their TIME on
roads with speed limits < 45 mph.
WHat is the limit on Sepulveda, Rosecrans, etc, etc?


BTW: The 200 & 250 cc bikes I have ridden (or ridden with) have had not
trouble getting up to 80 mph
on flat and level terrain - on surface streets they out-accelerate most
cars. These bikes should be plenty
for commutinga orund LA (in fact, I have a couple of buddies in LA who
bought Ninjitos just to commute
around So Cal - and neither has complained that his bike was
under-powered or unsafe in traffic)

You remain a beginner for a year or two after starting riding - at
least. (And another point you
could make is how about kids who grew up riding dirt? My son has ridden
on the dirt for years
and can out-ride many of my buddies on the street. He's also 240lb of
muscle and it is comical
to see him squeezed onto a 250cc bike). However, 400-500 cc would
still be a decent place to
start.

I agree that we shouldn't ham string beginners to keep them at the level
of learner's permit holders -
OTOH: we can introduce them to motorcycling incrementally. This helps
them learn and master
motorcycles, this helps the other drivers who don't have to deal with
people who cannot handle
their bikes and this helps us brother bikers who won't have to hear
about little Jimmy launching
himself off a turn on Mulholland.

Absolutely. But as I have repeatedly said - even those Honda
Silverwings can keep up with 80mph
traffic - I am not advocating pulling a spark-plug wire off of a bike,.
Just saying that > 50HP is
probably too much for most people the first few years they ride.

Well, that was what *I* was discussing - perhaps the reason we seem to
be at odds is we're discussing
two different things. I advocate having more SELECTION of beginner's
bikes (< 500cc). Things
which would be servicable and comfortable for most teenage boys and
girls. (But boys being bigger
are often not suited for today's < 500 cc bikes). I think that the
state could also have incremental
licenses (eg. if you're under 21 yo you are limited in the size bike you
can ride, etc, etc).

Ah. Well, then - you were having an argument with yourself. I don't
think ANYONE was advocating
that low of cutoff. I was think about 4x bigger. That is why I wasn't
swayed by the speeds you posted.
I think 20-40HP is a decent amount for a beginner rider ... anything
less than that would cause all of the
problems you cited (and would probably turn off the beginner from riding
since it would be fruitless)

Yahbut - look at the Silverwings...

 

.....

That's because it is a squeeze. My Savage is a great little city
bike. But it *IS* little. Anyone over six feet tall is cramped for
space. What would be nice is for the MC manufactures to offer the
various models with different size frames (like the bicycle people
do.) Put a six inch stretch between the saddle and the controls and
the Savage would become a great city bike for tall people.

 

I don't know if it's just my bike (82 Virago 750) or the case with bikes
in general, but my mileage is ~35 city and ~45 freeway (drops to 30 mpg
riding 2-up), compared with my car which does about 16/28. Bottom line
is that I'm inclined to use the bike around town, but for longer trips
the increased comfort and carrying capacity of the car win out. Some
cars get better mileage than my bike, and since they mostly use hybrid
technology, my question to the engineering types is whether that
technology has fixed costs (battery size?) that make it impractical for
use in motorcycles.

 

I have an old BMW airhead that gets >40mpg. It could do better but I
ride it hard. My newer bike is a big heavy Honda ST1100 which gets
45-50 on long trips at freeway speeds. The ST is MUCH more powerful,
also quite a bit heavier, but is designed partly for good mileage. If
mileage became a bigger issue, bikes could be built that got much
higher mileage. My point is that it's never been that much of a
consideration for bikers.

But you're right, my sweetie's car, a Prius, gets better mileage than
either of them. And is very comfortable for 4 to boot.

My bikes (one or the other) are my primary form of transportation
these days. 95% of the time it's just me, no heavy packages or
passengers. I still have a car for when it rains. 8^)

 

MoPeds were motorized bicycles and had about the same limitations of
bicycles. I would have killed for one when I was 15-16 and relied on
a bicycle for transportation around the neighborhood. Apparently
today that role is filled by go-peds.

But mopeds taught kids the same thing that bicycles did--to look out
for traffic and stay the hell out of the way. 8^) Today we call that
'share the road', but it's just a PC term for self-preservation.

I think what killed Mopeds is that you could buy a 150cc for the same
price. A real -motorcycle- that you could take on the freeway. It
wasn't very safe on the freeway, but you couldn't take a moped on the
freeway at all!

 

LOL! I was thinking, when 1/3 of the vehicles on the freeway are
low-powered bikes, they will dominate the rightmost lane. You'll
merge onto the freeway at ~55mph and then change lanes to speed up.

I'm not sure of that. I know that was the justification, but I think
the actual cause was more political.

I'd think wind resistance would be a much bigger factor in bikes.

 

I've never ridden one of these bikes but they do seem surprisingly
comfortable and stable at 75 mph. I don't see them lagging in the
right lane, I see them out there fighting for position! 8^)
Obviously their handling and comfort are very confidence-inspiring.

I used to go over Hwy 17 ever weekend on a 200cc Lambretta. But these
bikes are not -optimal- for long freeway cruises.

That was my point. After a year or so you just have better instincts.
You've got the controls sorted out. You have a natural tendancy to
stay out of trouble, e.g. you wait for a nice big opening before
merging with traffic and you know better than to lane-split at 70 mph.

In a world where bikes were used for transportation and not
necessarily as fashion accessories, I think MOST bikers would be happy
with a 250 or 350 indefinitely.

Exactly! There's a reason why 150hp bikes are no longer called
'superbikes'. Today they're called 'hooligan bikes'.

 

Right. Anecdotal evidence is highly suspect.

However, if there is emprical evidence suggesting that inexperienced
riders have more accidents
with powerful bikes it would support mandating that they not ride them.

Empirical evidence suggests that inexperienced drivers are
disproportionately higher accidents
late at night - now, many states have provisional licenses which
restrict their driving at night.
It is not as if restricting M/C licenses for inexperienced riders would
be unprecedented...

 

Yah. Heh heh heh. I let him ride my SOB450 (I was riding my R1100GS)
and I kept laughing
as I watched him flog that bike all the way from Santa Cruz. Of
course, I would never admit to letting
my son ride a motorcycle on Highway 9 before he had a drivers; license
because that would be reckless
(and child endangerment, and damn fun).

I can see your point about allowing people to buy their own poison - if
some brash kid thinks he can
handle a CBR -whathever-the-****-theyr'e-calling-it-nowadays-999RRR ...
and his parents don't
mind a closed caskte funeral - why should the state interfere? OTOH:
the people who wind up with
that kid's face embossed into the front grill of their SUV might have
wished that there were checks and
balances in place. The fact is bikers who kill themselves cause ripples
which profoundly affect others.

Maybe, if there were some appealing choices in the 500cc range, we
wouldn't be discussing having
the state mandate it?

 

Damn. My hat's off to you Laser. I wouldn't have the guts to take a
200cc over Hwy 17!! I was
pretty nervous with the ol' SOB.

Yah.. or for us fatties... 450-500. I suspect that a 500cc could
get > 50mph and keep its
own on the freeway. But right now the market forces tell M/C
manufacturers to build bigger,
more powerful bikes. I hope the pendulum swings back...

Ain't that the truth. Sigh.

 

Only if they're hurting others. The empirical evidence is relatiely
straightforward: any person who can pass the written test for an M1
ought to be able to understand it. Humans aren't so scarce that there
is any real public interest in preventing self-destructive behavior.

 

What if half of these inexperienced riders harm others by colliding with
their cars - not causing personal
injury, just property damage to their vehicles, delaying them (plus many
others who have to wait for the meat
wagon, etc)?

Although this is true - tying up a freeway for one hour cost the public
a significant amount of money. Even if the
biker augers in without causing property damage, s/he can cost a lot of
money to other users of the road.