The basis for regulation is exactly the same as the basis for licensing all drivers and making sure they're competent.

You havent a clue..

Charon wrote on 09/09/09 at 20:24:35:

I can't think of how to phrase a query to find such a stat... If you can, post it.
But, other countries have graduated licenses,... I would guess they have a reason for it.
And insurance rates are higher for both younger riders, and more powerful bikes... They use stats to determine these things...
You do the math... 2 + 2 =?...  

Heck,.. don't even bother!... try common sense...

http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/pubs/bulletin9/b9p3.htmlhttp://health.state.ga.us/pdfs/prevention/MotorycycleFactSheet-Professionals.pdf

But the really nice paper I can't read right now:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/3882939/Moped-Moto-Riders-Swov

I'll have to peruse that one.

On a strictly rational basis, I could see proposing:

1.  50cc and below for those less than 18 years old.
2.  250 cc and below for those with less than 1 year experience
3.  Abrasion resistant clothing required
4.  High top abrasion resistant boots required
5.  Training course required
6.  Refresher course required every 5 years
7.  Eye test required every 5 years
8.  Retest required every 5 years
9.  Full face helmet required
10.  Neck brace required


So I don't think we're saddled with much compared to what we could be stuck with!

Someone read and summarize that European article.

jabman wrote on 09/09/09 at 15:58:58:



There you go, you have the correct perspective.  It is torque that moves you down the road and allows the really fun acceleration.  Focus on those tweaks & mod's that enhance torque and you will have a great ride.

Tell me, Justin, do YOU have a driver's license? If, as you say, the Supreme Court (of the United States, of of one State?) holds a driver's license to be unnecessary, are YOU willing to be the test case?

This isn't meant as an attack, by the way. I have seen and read some of the stuff about various court cases holding that a driver's license is unconstitutional, and I suppose I can agree. But, if I were the State govenment, I would simply change the name of the required document to something like "Certificate of Demonstrated Proficiency" and continue to require it. For other stuff such as fishing licenses, I would go in either of two directions. I would declare all fish in State waters to be State property and then sell a license to take those fish, or I would find a way to call the license fee a "user fee" instead.

I was stationed in England many years ago, and knew the then requirements for a Learner Permit for a motorcycle. One was restricted to 250 cc, could not carry a passenger, and had to display "L" plates (learner plates). In those days the fast 250s were yet to come. Nowadays, I don't think a 250 Ninja meets the spirit of the limitations. Nor would the Suzuki X-6 Hustler of the '70s. I did notice that there were no displacement requirements for autos for learners, so one could learn in a Ferarri if one had the money.

No, Charon, I KNOW the way things are, & In spite of my knowledge of & understanding of the licensing issue( It is required for a commercial application, note, stagecoaches had Drivers, Trucks Have Drivers, the word is a commercial word) I also know that those who tell me "Ignorance of the law, yadda yadda yadda" are ignorant of the true law & will ticket me & Ill lose in court, unless I have the time & $$$ to press it, & I dont, so I have a license.
Yep, call me a wuss. I feel like a shop owner, paying protection $$$ to the mob, so my store doesnt get robbed, or burned down or vandalized..


Again, a license is permission to do that which would otherwise be illegal,.
Gotta go back to when marriage licenses came into effect, They are not required for all marriages, according to the base law that created them, they are applied evenly, to hide the real purpose.

You dont really believe people had to have a license to be a plumber back in the early days, do you? What changed? When? It wasnt about protecting the public, it was because the peoples legal standing changed in the eyes of the govt.

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 09/09/09 at 19:48:31:


You're welcome to believe so.

You're also welcome to actually cite the Supreme Court decision(s) that you claim supports your position.


As for the statistics, the Hurt Study, though old, bears it out very clearly, as do subsequent DOT/NHTSA reports.  Searching on either term should find you multiple copies of each.  If you can't find them, I can try to provide links.

Finally, as for my specific claim, I didn't make a claim as to the "actual" basis for licensing (i.e., whatever shadowy reason you've left unstated, but are sure exists), but said that there is a perfectly legitimate legal basis in the explicit text of the Constitution (which I mentioned).

Now, if you want to argue that the government isn't using that basis, but instead have a (sinister?) ulterior motive in their regulation, you're welcome (heck, I've no problem believing the government is using the facade of legitimacy to collect revenues)...However, that won't change the fact that the Constitution provides more than enough legitimate basis for the regulation (which is the only thing I said).