Ducati Monster Forum

There's a thread on the MOB local board that alludes to motorcycle- or bicycle-only streets and it got me thinking - What aspect of your motorcycle freedom would you be willing to sacrifice to have a society/municipality more welcoming to motorcycles?  Would you be willing to wear a helmet while riding (probably not a huge obstacle here, but you get my drift), or be limited to 400cc engines? 

And the flip to this question is what would you demand in return for making these sacrifices? 

I think a wise man (reputed to be Ben Franklin) once said, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Market forces should decide these things. Not the govt. So my answer is none.

While ideal, I think that's too simplistic.  Governments have generally been much more welcoming when a group or organization can regulate itself and punishing when it can't.  There's an opportunity cost involved and I'm just trying to start a discussion.

Personally, I'd acquiesce to an engine size limit for:

• Reduced fuel price by eliminating state and city taxes for riders.
• Free tolls.

My logic here is that lighter motorcycle do less road and highway damage and shouldn't pay the taxes used to repair roads. 

Ben Franklin also said, "Three can keep a secret, if two are dead"

Not really relevant but I think it's a badass quote that I had no idea Franklin said.

</threadjack>

Living in NJ where I'm not a big fan of riding in the cold weather it's really hard for me to comment on motorcycle only roads.  I don't think that the loss of infrastructure would be really cost effective so to speak.

Ben Franklin also wrote a famous book called "Fart Proudly" and another "How to Select a Mistress."  Look it up.

Dude loves his farts and his women.

Wasn't he big into French wh0res too?

all of them BUT the french ones. 

I find this thread interesting because it is the same type of philosophical-legal discussion that gun owners have.

I would accept a helmet mandate if they allowed lane splitting, similar to CA rules.

he was client #5

Actually I find the whole thing kinda self defeating. Why should we moto riders be the ones policing ourselfs as long as its still legal to purchase and drive a Hummer or equally wastefull full size truck/SUV for any use other than construction work or hauling a trailer. We're not the problem, so we shouldnt be acting like we are. I got rid of my gas guzzlers 'cause it was too expensive to run them. That market forces in action. Give it tiime, you'll be seeing alot more bikes and small cars. Europes economy isnt suffering for 6 buck a gallon gas, and once we adjust behaviors ours will be just fine too.

I could deal with that. but then, we don't have toll roads and most of the asphalt is in rubbish condition anyway. OTOH, how would they make sure you're using your tax-free gas only on your little bike?


I would definitely trade our helmet/PPE law (no gear at all is required if you're licensed and over 18) for lane splitting  [thumbsup] [thumbsup]

i'm ok with helmets. I'm not ok with helmet laws. LET ME DECIDE.

I would give up nothing for gov't incentives or benefits. They should be helping motorcyclists more as it is for manyfold reasons including:

- Traffic congestion easing
- Friendly biker-community
- Less Parking Footprint
- Less Gas Consumption (though, they'd argue this means less tax revenue... Legislators: make the beast with two backs 'em)

Lane splitting while half way fun and way quicker than the alternative is just dangerous no matter how you slice it... However if a law were passed in Oregon to make it legal I would not fight it.

It's not anymore dangerous then motorcycle riding in general if you do it safely. I'd argue it's more safe to lane split then to sit in line waiting to get rearended.

lane spliting is perfectly safe if you do it right, aka not zoom 20mph by someone  when traffic moves at 5mph (thats when pople like to swithc lanes quicly without really checking.
 
if traffic is at a stand still, and you lane split at 5-10mph, its almost impossible to get hurt if you keep an eye out.

And from what I have seen about 2% of the people that are lane sharing actually abide by those rules...  Done correctly a lot of things can be safe.

I'm really not disagreeing with you.  I just think it's more interesting to play devil's advocate.  Self-regulation shows maturity - at least that's what I've been told by a bunch of chicken-neck dickweeds.  ;)  People aren't going to 'get' motorcycle riders or riding and that's not my point.  My point is how can we make concessions - as a community - to make it more acceptable to the people we have to live with?

Maybe the trade-off is Hummer, or "excessive SUV", drivers have to pay more for registration and license plates?  And since I also drive a Dodge Durango, maybe we could put a mileage limit on it too?  :)

I'm with you on helmet laws, but refusing flat-out isn't progress.  Two follow-up questions for you:

• What would it take, financially or otherwise, for you to accept helmet laws?  For example: free full-coverage motorcycle insurance?
• Assuming helmet laws happen in your area, what penalty would you be willing to absorb to avoid wearing one?

Honestly, I'm not trying to piss anybody off here.  I just thought it might be an interesting discussion especially with the number of accidents that have been reported lately and the number of drinks I've had this afternoon. 

I would be willing to sacrifice Clinton.

But seriously it's the law in Wisconsin that we have to wear a seatbelt in any car, but we don't need to wear a helmet.

Helmets are required in TN. We are a 'helmet-law' state.

I absolutely wear one, a full face Shoei. I do not believe in the gov't telling me what to do. I also don't believe in Seatbelt laws, though I wear one.  I am not willing to submit to extraneous laws for a benefit like insurance coverage.

I make enough to provide for that, and so I am financially equipped to purchase, own, and operate a motorcycle.

I'm not disputing that.  Suppose there were some advantage you could get in your locale by riding your motorcycle and let's make it absurd like half-price gas or a cop guarding your bike while you went in for booze run at 2am - what would it be worth to you in trade-offs?  It's not all about financial benefit.  I used that because it's the easiest to quantify. 

Okay, I'll play your game...

I'd be willing to wear a helmet, in exchange for a law that says that anyone who is involved in an accident while on a cellphone (even a hands-free model) is automatically at-fault and liable, and further, anyone who flees (or even attempts to flee) after hitting a motorcyclist or bicyclist is automatically charged with attempted homicide.

...I mean, if we're going to talk about changes that can make a real difference, that's what I'm throwing out just for starters.

That's excellent and exactly what I was getting at.  Interesting that you're considering punitive actions.

Not that I have a problem with that.  Probably the best way to protect riders. 

I still think compromising my freedom away is a bad idea.

If talking on cell phones is bad, then one could attempt to justify legislation. On its own merits. It should need no icing on the cake, like motorcyclists will wear neon yellow vests, and be deprived of engine designs making more than 60 hp.

Burning squat for gas, being able to lane split (thus never stuck in Cali traffic), parking just about anywhere and showing up with a grin on my face.....is every day here, and the advantage I get on my bike.


You're asking what more I want? Are you on crack?

I'd give up the diamond lane if I could use the shoulder, instead -- and women could go topless.

Women can go topless. It's been disputed in NYC, more specifically. The ones who want to go topless, are not the ones you want to go topless. This is not a surprise  :P