Just failed the CA DMV motorcycle popsicle test (and I thought Ihad passed)

tomorrow wrote on Sat, 02 Mar 2013 20:05:20 +0000:

OK. Let's work together, as a team, on the facts.
Note: Facts don't have a mission, so they only need to be relevant.

Here are the facts I know (and for others to doublecheck, if I err).
At the bottom are the facts that we, as a team, still need to obtain.

FACTS KNOWN TO DATE:
There are only 2 riding tests that will earn a CA M1 license:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/checklists/mc.htm

These tests are the DMV "keyhole" & the "DL 389" (CMSP BRC):
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/dl655/mcycle_htm/requirements.htm

To obtain the DL 389, you must pay for a class:
http://www.ca-msp.org

Class costs are no more than $150 under 21 & $250 over 21:
http://www.ca-msp.org/FAQ.aspx
Note: I paid $250 and all the schools I called were $250.

Number of registered motorcycles in California = 818,650
http://dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/official.pdf
Note: This is the total for the 2011 calendar year.

Motorcycle "safety fee" collected per year = $1,637,300
(see official.pdf above, only paid by cyclists).

Number of Class C licenses issued in California = 809,983
Calendar year 2012 via communication with Brock Wells
Forecasting Unit, Department of Motor Vehicles
ASD » Budget and Fiscal Analysis Branch, 916.657.8008

Number of M1's adjuncts (to existing CA licenses) = 208,951
Source = Brock Wells, as shown above.

Number of M1-only licenses issued = 346
Source = Brock Wells, as shown above.
Note: These users do not have any other CA license.

Total number of existing M1-only licenses = 1,203
As of 12/31/2012, source = Brock Wells

There were 20,342 CA M{1,2} drive tests given by the DMV:
For calendar year 2012, source = Brock Wells

That's it for the facts that we have in this thread,
not all are strictly relevant.

However, what's MISSING, are the following facts that I will
try to get (any help from you guys would be appreciated).

KEY MISSING FACTS:
* Engine sizes & pass/fail stats for the 20,342 DMV tests.
* Pass/fail stats for the 188,609 CMSP BRC issued DL 389's.

Note: Without pass/fail statistics, the numbers below
can only be rough because we have no visibility (yet)
into multiple attempts.

Given that, we can only say that the 20,342 known
DMV tests represent roughly about 10% of the roughly
200,000 CMSP BRC classes taken (the number of BRC
classes has to be greater than 188,609 because not every
rider passes on the first attempt - but we don't know
how much larger so the figures are roughed out).

Note: 208,951 M licenses - 20,342 DMV tests = 188,609

QUESTION:
How can we obtain the key missing facts?
* Engine sizes & pass/fail stats for the 20,342 DMV tests.
* Pass/fail stats for the 188,609 CMSP BRC issued DL 389's.

 

Al, why would anyone want to work with you on *anything*?

So far as I can tell you're nothing but a paranoid fruitcake.

 

Roadworshiper wrote on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 12:25:37 -0800:

It's the shape of the California DMV motorcycle test pattern.

Some call it a popsicle; others a keyhole.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/526/dmvkeyholedu8.gif/

 

Twibil wrote on Sun, 03 Mar 2013 14:03:42 -0800:

It seems you have digressed to the level of name calling
But I will not stoop to that level. Sorry.

 

Oh... this is all about that retarded conspiracy theory infesting even
more groups than those x-posted here- "that the system is
purposefully skewed to pass tiny bikes and fail larger bikes":

From: "Billy B." <>
Subject: Is there a legal way to REQUIRE the California DMV to provide
specific data?
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech
Date: 28 Feb 2013 04:14:29 GMT

"The test is an unrealistic circus act, called the "lollipop" or
"keyhole"
based on what it looks like:
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/440/dmvkeyholesantaclaracasgk6.jpg

Specifically, we want to know the answer to the question:
Q: What size motorcycles take the test & whether they pass or fail.

The reason we want to know is that it is our hypothesis that the
system is purposefully skewed to pass tiny bikes and fail larger
bikes..."
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.tech/msg/f5084e1f4183a6ed?hl=en&dmode=source

 

If you have nothing to add, why do you post garbage?

 

I was guessing it was a course so easy a person could run it with one hand
holding the bar and the other a popsicle. Probably a bad guess.

 

Oh, it's not a digression.

It's an accurate -if non-technical- decription of a poster
who seems to have developed a paranoid fixation on
California's MSF program. A program that was deemed
to be a good idea for riders who couldn't pass a relatively
simple and straightforward low-speed riding test.

Those of us who had no problem passing that test will likely
all agree that the popsicle is far from ideal, but we all pretty
much understand that *some* sort of simple test was needed
to sort out those who needed some basic riding instruction from
those who might not. We also understand that being human in
origin *all* motorcycle- liscensing systems are flawed in one way
or another, and that the system used in California is no better
-and no worse- than many others.

Lastly, we understand that every one of the people who have come
on Usenet to whine about how the riding tests are unfair in one way
or another (and there have literally been dozens of 'em) have had
personal agendas in one way or another, and that no matter how
much (or how long) they whined, not one of them has ever been to
suggest a better system than the one that's now in place.

So you can cut to the chase and forget the paranoid ravings about
how much the present system costs new riders and/or how unfair
it is to riders of larger bikes......*Unless You have A Better Plan
Up
Your Sleeve*, that is. One that costs less, and is fair to all
riders.

If you actually have one, then good on you: let's hear it.

If you don't -and my money's on "don't"- then anything else you post
is just an effort to avoid the fact that you don't like what we've
got
but can't suggest anything better.

As the old saying goes, Al: put up or shut up.

 

Did you calculate (or even consider) how much money was being spent,
by whom, and to whom, and where, on motorcycle safety training in
California prior to 1994?

 

You still haven't done your homework or thought critically about this,
have you?

Fact: There was a rider training program in California before 1994.

Fact: Revenue of $200 million over 20 years of motorcycle training is
$10 million dollars per year. You have not demonstrated that this is
an increase over the money that was being spent by California
motorcycle riders for safety training and licensing certification
prior to 1994.

Please keep the snide asides to yourself.

Over 20 years. Per year, it's in the neighborhood of $10 million,
which in the great scheme of things is not much. California has 38
million residents, so it's about 26 cents per California resident per
year, or about $13.17 for each of the registered motorcycles in
California (per the 2012 Census abstract, in 2009, the latest year for
which numbers are available.)

Fact: no one besides you has made any reference as to whether the
CMSP is not for profit (or not). The not for profit discussion was
destroying your earlier wild claims about the Motorcycle Safety
Foundation, back when you were trying to convince people that it was
ripping off California motorcyclists - a claim which was
comprehensively debunked.

 

tomorrow wrote on Mon, 04 Mar 2013 05:08:35 -0800:

Point well taken. I'm sorry. Some people here (e.g., Twibil)
have proven themselves unworthy of discussion - but you have
been civil and intelligent all along.

I forget whom I speak with sometimes.

I publicly apologize for that snide remark.

My point was that "businesses" often manipulate the
California government system (often by "propositions") for
their own benefit (in the "guise" of benefiting the populace).

For example, the CA CO detector law garnered over a billion
dollars of total revenue in 2012 and 2013 alone, simply due
to a single law which Home Depot pushed hard for (SB 183).
Math: 12 million homes * $20/detector * $4/home = BIG MONEY

Given those shenanigans, the two hundred million in revenue
earned by the CA CMSP is downright paltry, by way of comparison.

 

Thomas wrote on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:25:18 -0800:

Just to clarify the math ... there were 818,650 CA registered
motorcycles on 12/31/2011.

They pay an average $100 for registration (I don't know if that includes
the VLF and other "fees" but probably not - so it's MUUUUCH higher if it
doesn't) - so it's more like hundreds of dollars, on average to register
your bike (mine certainly is).

In addition, bikers are charged eighty-two-million dollars a year for
safety programs in their additional registration fees.
http://dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/official.pdf

 

No argument about the retarded conspiracy theory, but some of us find
the statistics themselves informative. For example, if we find an
order of magnitude more people taking the class than taking the test,
that might lead to further interesting insights. Sometimes you don't
know until you look. As Asimov said, "The most exciting phrase to
hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka!
(I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'"

Personally, I don't think the problem is a skew towards tiny, but
rather the keyhole test is over-generalized and biased against certain
bikes in a manner that doesn't reflect either the skill of the rider
or any real-world capability of the bikes. When I failed 30 years
ago, it was definitely the bike. The guy who failed me said "CHP
officers have no problem with their Harley's," but let me go and get
my other bike as long as I re-took the test on the same day. I took
that as him saying "I know I'm full of shit, but I won't admit it, but
here is a face-saving way for both of us to get out of this situation
in case you are right." I mean, I had been riding that DP bike for 10
years on and off road, I could do plenty of show-off riding maneuvers
I wouldn't even attempt on a road bike, including a lot more circles
than the test required. Not to mention 10 years of bicycling before
that.

The test appears to be supposed to be testing the ability to
understand and apply the concept of keeping a constant throttle to
maintain a constant radius turn. This implies certain throttle
settings at certain speeds, which may have been appropriate when the
test was first implemented, but certainly by the time sport bikes came
about it was out of bounds. The skill of slipping the clutch to
maintain a speed repetitively around an circle may be appropriate for
circus environments, but hardly something necessary for a beginning
road rider. I think that was recognized at the time, that's why the
class has different tests.

Hypothesis needs more specificity.

jg

 

tomorrow wrote on Mon, 04 Mar 2013 05:08:35 -0800:

Sorting by date, and then searching for "non-profit" or "non profit",
the very first time these words were spoken in this thread were:

Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:35:57, tomorrow:

 

Of course, you're in the less than 1 out of 10 in
California who passed that test, right?

And, I presume you did it on a Gold Wing, which is
probably less than 1/10 of 1%.

The only other thing from you we need to know is
whether you did it with your eyes blindfolded and
one arm tied behind your back.

 

You're still having a great deal of difficulty in differentiating
between the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (a national, not-for-profit,
public safety organization that creates motorcycle rider training
program curriculums and promotes motorcycle safety, works in all 50
states, and has 40 employees, and was founded in 1973) and the
California Motorcycle Safety Program (which is a state of California-
only rider training program administered in California only, by the
Clifornia Highway Patrol, and which was founded in 1987, and started
receiving permanent funding in 1994), aren't you?

 

At that time, Al, we both (including YOU) were talking about the MSF,
not the CMSP:

You: " I think the profit motive of the MSF is noble in that they DO
serve a purpose."

Me: The MSF is a non-profit organization.

 

Robert Bolton wrote on Mon, 04 Mar 2013 02:21:56 -0600:

It's actually a rigorous test of very low speed handling
of a motorcycle, with absolutely no quarter given (stray
one inch out of the tight lines, and you fail).

To give you an idea of the test, 20,342 tests were given
by the CA DMV last year (where we can assume that a sizable
percentage failed and where Moped licenses are lumped in
with the DMV test figures).

On the other hand, 209,297 California M1 licenses were
handed out in 2012.

So, since you can only get an M1 license one of two ways,
that means that far fewer than 10% of California bikers
are taking the free test (more likely around 5% given
the numbers we have at the moment).

The rest are paying $150 (under 21) to $250 (over 21)
for the privilege of NOT taking the popsicle test and
to learn what they can from a class of coaches & peers.

In summary, around 1 out of 20 bikers in California managed
to pass the California DMV popsicle test in 2012. Roughly
19 out of 20 took the BRC to obtain their M1 license.

 

Al Schmidt wrote on Mon, 04 Mar 2013 17:51:02 +0000:

I just called the CMSP today, again, to ask what percentage
passes their class, since they apparently are handing
the DL 389 certificate to something like 95% of all
the bikers who received a license in California in 2012.

I'll let you know what they say. If anyone WORKS AT the
CMSP, it would be helpful if you can find the numbers
for us.

Like "jgar" said, the numbers 'seem funny' ... but we need
a few more facts to see the overall picture.

 

"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first
things to be bought and sold are legislators." -- P.J. O'Rourke