Where can we get statistics of which BIKES pass the California DMVriding test?

The national average is $100 but in California, which should have
economies of scale (they license 10,000 riders a year), it's $250.

You know why?

Because there is no other game in town.

The system is rigged, as my buddies all clearly told me from the start,
so that you have to take the MSF class instead of the DMV test.

If the MSF isn't being enriched by the forced clientele and the 2.5x
price increase ... who is?

 

So I'm curious, Joe. What would you consider a
reasonable demonstration of competency which
would prove that someone was qualified to hold a
motorcycle license ?

God knows, there are enough bad riders out there
already. What can we do to improve this situation ?

I sure don't think the figure eight you described taking
back east is much of a test.

Let's hear your thoughts on how you think you should
have been tested.

 

This is America. In America, driving is a right, not a privilege. Just
because a person has no ability to operate a vehicle safely is no longer
a reason not to give him a driver's license.

In America, everybody has to drive everywhere, even across the street, so
issuing drivers' licenses to everyone is critical.

So complaining about the test is futile; the test isn't designed to
eliminate incompetent drivers. If it were, there wouldn't be so many
incompetent drivers on the road.
--scott

 

Would you like to point out where any words I've said about how the
CMSP or MSF operate indicate in any way that I don't know what I'm
talking about?

How about you backing up your own words that say that the MSF collects
$200 or more for every rider who takes a CMSP rider course?

Sheesh. Your obsession has blinded you to the simple facts.

 

Six years of obsession for $200 or $250. Seems like you've certainly
gotten your money's worth.

 

I am SO glad that I got my MC license when they started up. "Ride to
the fence using as many gears as possible, and ride back."

Life was better then.

 

Oh bullshit.

Your many many many words posted over a very very very long time say
you're obsessed with trying to get back at someone -nay, *anyone*-
because you failed that "impossible" DMV keyhole test that various
others here breezed right through.

You've lied repeatedly about the test's dificulty, you've lied
repeatedly about the test's provisions being a "secret", you've lied
repeatedly about how it's illegal to practise the keyhole test in
advance, you've lied repeatedly about how it's "impossible" to pass
the test on a large bike, and you even lied about how you can't see
the painted white lines on the ground -which is hysterically funny
since all anyone has to do is look *downwards* a bit to see them.
Lastly, you've claimed that anyone in this forum who says they passed
the test in the first couple of tries is lying about it.
Taken in toto, these are the signs of a mind that simply can't deal
with reality.

And then you think that anyone is going to agree that Tim doesn't know
what he's talking about and that you -the liar- *do*?

Good one, fruit-loop!

 

I guess the facts don't mean anything to someone suffering from an
obsession such as yours. Enjoy the next six years of useless rants,
screeds, nymshifts, and fruitless net postings about something that
you have obviously allowed to get under your skin and remain there.

Toodaloo!

 

Very simple.

The exact test that the MSF provides (starting, stopping, cornering,
braking, shifting, swerving, u-turn box, etc.).

But with grading of ZERO errors (just like the DMV test).

I'd also allow THREE tries (no more than one per day) ... again ... just
like the DMV test.

The only thing else I'd change is I'd limit the price the MSF charges to
only 150% the national average for a MSF class. The current 250% price
increase in California is gouging that can only sustain itself because
there is no other viable alternative.

What do you think of my simple logical fair solution?

 

There are better performers here on the buck-per-moment of obsession
ratio.

 

Sure! But this fruitcake is obsessed with something that's at least
distantly motorcycle-related.

Unless I've missed it on the news, nobody ever rammed a motorcycle
into the World Trade Center.

 

Well, no.

 

Except the MSF isn't charging California student riders to take the
course, the California Motorcyclist Safety Program, administered by
the California Highway Patrol, charges California student riders to
take the course. The money goes to the state of California to cover
the costs of administering the classes.

That's a simple, logical, fact that your obsession apparently prevents
you from comprehending.

If you want this changed, take it up with the California state
representative(s).

 

Twibil timidly chirped:

And of course, if someone had ridden a bike through WTC7's
massive steel frame, according to Tim, twitbull, and the clown,
it would have felt no different than riding through air. <g>
This is where Tim, twitbull, and the clown get even sillier,
or very, very quiet - they've been challenged to read, think,
and defend their blind faith and ignorance based 9-11 fairy
tale. ;-)

Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
if so, what and why.
Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder
of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/75

TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Dear Dr. Sunder,

Here are our talking points:

1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
fatal flaws:

a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
(Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
converted to motion.)

Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.

The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
anywhere. It's physically impossible.

http://tinyurl.com/c8c3q4

Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
*extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that
hot.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI-3-6.jpg

Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.






Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

Will you stop with the WTC7 crap already?
Sure it's all true, but we can't handle the truth!

 

It's the anniversary - and of course, it's truth, not crap.

The U.S. government's endless campaign of death, destruction,
terrorism, and war crimes is "justified" by the government's
9-11 myth. This murderous campaign is destroying not only the
lives of the People and countries at which it's directed, but
the U.S. as well. It's the government's 9-11 lie that comes with
a very heavy price, not the truth....



--



"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org

 

(Elwood Blues mode ON)

"That's a lot of entertainment...for just $250..."

(Elwood Blues mode OFF)


Bob M.

 

You missed it. Elbonian terrorists, who attempted to ram Tower 2 in
1993 on Vespas with a roll of black-powder caps in their pockets.

According to Henry, they were working for the Bush I administration,
but had not received the memo informing them that Clinton was
now in office.

Two quick-thinking security guards averted certain disaster by simply
opening doors on either side of the lobby and just letting them
buzz on through...

Bob M.

 

Elbonians = Mossad, you know.

 

Ya... sure


http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of
one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple
members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent
members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the
loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing
fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that
the weak points -the limiting factors on design allowables- were the _angle
clips_ that held the _floor joists_ between the columns on the perimeter
wall and the core structure. With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each
floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its
own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and
the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also
fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support
the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these
angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to
collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200
km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse
would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.
It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over
onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that
should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air
and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load,
even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the
center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within
the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall
collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant
lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure
has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight
down.

The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the
WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail
on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support
themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to
operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The
WTC towers lasted for one to two hours less than the design life, but only
because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill
4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire
developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so
uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very
large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high
temperature).