Ducati Monster Forum

Just saw this new proposal when browsing Youtube stuff.  Could be an interesting discussion.  Personally I decided 20+ years ago to not ride passengers on my bike.  Don't mind my girl riding with me on her own bike, just don't want anyone on the back.  We all have our thoughts and opinions and I thought this would be an interesting discussion.

Proposal Would Restrict Motorcycle Passengers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpAiLCNFQgs#)

some guy is saying 'safety first' while his girl gets on the back with short shorts...  [bang]

Agreed.


On the proposal, I'm ambivalent.  I guess I do, in a way, support it.  I advocate for much stricter driver training all the time (to no avail).  However, that is in large part because drivers are commanding vehicles with much greater kinetic energy, while the surrounding structure and safety devices provide a feeling of invincibility... and hence cars are more dangerous to bystanders than motorbikes.

I dunno... with people becoming dumber all the time, I am torn between the Darwinian "let them remove themselves from the gene pool" and the safety-requirements-nazi perspective.  I generally advocate for less "make it idiot-proof" engineering, and more user training.  So maybe that is my answer: if we're gonna mandate something, make it more user training.

Disclaimer: I've already completed a rider safety course and have been riding for longer than 2 years, so even if WA enacted this tomorrow it's still just an academic discussion for me.

man this is so close to politics.........but what the hell.  They should mind their own f'in business. 

This is a political thread...nothing good coming from this one. Unless someone wants a suspension :)  [popcorn]

+ 1

Only if people choose to make it be.  There can still be a discussion of the merits of the proposal without getting into the politics of it.

Freedom of Choice (plus Darwinism) - VS - Safety Nazi's.... There shouldn't even be a discussion.

I think there is 1 factor here worthy of considering..."the passenger"...too often...someone gets a bike and ( I am going to massively stereotype for example here ) the young buck fueled with testosterone that just got a sport bike ( who may or may not be riding with a valid motorcycle endorsement) decides to think with his loins when picking up a cute girl who asks for a ride on the back...his marginal riding skills then put him at more of a handling handicap when it comes to how the bike handles with a passenger differently ( not including his lack of direction on informing the passenger of how to be a passenger) and how he his able to handle the reactions of the machine and passenger...as a result, said passenger is then put in the role of not being in control ( regardless of anything they might or might not do on the bike to affect things) and subject to being potentially badly hurt because of this...this is just one of many potential examples why something like this may not be a bad thing IMHO....

+11 billion

I wouldn't have a problem with additional training and/or seat time required to carry a passenger.

I usually follow the Darwin/freedom of choice route, and still do...for the rider who is in control of the motorcycle.

However, the passenger, who may know zero about motos, could think that riding a moto isn't any harder than driving a car. Therefore, they may think that hopping on the back of that R1 with the 16 y/o kid, or the back of Dad's new HD, isn't a bad life decision, when in fact it may be if the riders don't know how to ride these machines. This isn't a Darwin issue for the passenger...it's an uninformed decision issue. People that aren't around motos don't know that they'll spit you off for f'ing up...something a car generally doesn't do.

Of course there is always the reality that making a new rule does not guarantee the rider will follow it.  Look at how many ride with no motorcycle license.........

I am all about choice.  I won't ride passengers simply because the bike is that much more difficult to handle when "It" hits the fan.  Taking out a loved one and living through it myself would be quite difficult.  I have taken the passenger pegs off every bike I have owned for 20+years......

No politics were intended with this thread I was kinda hoping to hear about how many other riders are like myself in that they don't want to ride a passenger. 

I carry no passengers nor have I ever on any Duc I've owned, the cruisers are another story entirely.  My Wife would kill me if I left her behind.

this is my thought on it.

I believe in helmet laws, I mean if you're going to have seatbelt laws, why not helmet laws.
I also believe in graduated licensing, ie no 16 yr kid should be driving a Mustang 5.0 nor riding a 600cc supersport
And I believe in taking care of your passengers. No one rides in my cars nor on my bikes without proper safety gear buckled or on.

BUT what I don't believe in is dictating who can ride when either in a car or a bike.
If a passenger is stupid enough to get on the back of a rider's bike with little or no experience, to each their own.

Why do I differentiate the two?

Safety gear/equipment is there for a reason, to keep you safe. And if there needs to be a law to remind people why, so be it.
Graduating licensing is designed to give drivers/riders the needed experience at more manageable power levels.
Who is in you car or on your bike, is a freedom of association. That's a basic right.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that being said, with a law in place like this, a passenger that gets hurt by a negligent rider/moto operator would then be more liable for the responsibility they didn't exercise should something happen....

if ( for a seriously nasty scenario example-not that it is likely to really happen) my stepdaughter gets on the back of some guys moto behind my back and he can't handle the bike with a passenger and wrecks it and she sustains serious bodily injury...I wouldn't want to hear " oh dude, sorry 'bout your daughter man "....especially if he is underinsured and then his insurance says that they aren't liable because of  a loophole ( like say no "M" endorsement ) and I am then on the hook with no recourse and all of the collateral damage to deal with.....to me, that crap doesn't fly very far.

Where do you draw the line as far as who your step-daughter can ride with or in what?
Friend in a car? Boyfriend in a boat? Father in a plane? Brother on a roller coaster?
You cannot depend on laws to keep her safe, it's all about teaching her well and then she'll develop good common sense.

I'm not even for making seat belts mandatory.

well, she currently wouldn't get on a bike at all, not with her mother or with me, so I am not really worried about it.... the point I am making goes towards the the line of protection I would hope for...just to help give some responsibility in regards to liability issues to the person that gives rides....to indemnify them as a matter of point.

Doesn't the MSF offer a course that covers or can be done 2up?  I'd take that with my wife, despite our 2up time.  We've done Deals Gap several times and have done several group rides at a rather spirited pace but I'm sure there is more to learn.

JM

we had a guy do the msf advanced course with his wife.

we thought he was going to bin it in the panic stop in a corner, but he did great.

she was a rider too, so she was a great passenger.

Ooh... I should convince wifey to do this with me.  That'd be an excellent learning experience.

We don't have a lot of miles 2-up, but the Cagiva works ergonomically (which helps keep the attention on the road, where it belongs), and I give myself huge margins for error.  I'd really like to have some formal training, though.

I told my wife if she wants to ride she can get her own damn wheels. These are mine. Besides, being a passenger sucks compared to being an operator. And you don't have to wear a chrome German replica helmet.

years ago....I would have said the same thing....then I did a 2 up ride on the back of a GSXR1K with Scott Harwell at the helm around VIR's North Course.....he asked me beforehand if I wanted an instructional pace or a thrill seeker pace...I got both...and both were quite eye opening and far from sucking.

Not your typical two up scenario...but that's really cool you got to experience that.
I'd say that was more of an on board education.

I saw a gal on th back during a track day at Sears point.  She was ummm looking pretty good on the back all up in a tuck.  I just saw a product that adds a second set of handlebars to the gas tank ring so that the passenger can hold on proper.  Sadly it will probably kill the rider in a crash.........

there are some pretty good ones that add a smaller ring type handles (no pointy ends)

I believe that other people especially venal morally  corrupt politicians and airheaded  lefty thinking  facist do gooders   should mind their own business .Let common sense and darwinism prevail.

"Lefty thinking facist (sic)" = oxymoron. But I agree with the rest.

There's always fault in everything we do, IMO we are too litigious today.  Responsibility is a personal choice and in the absence of negligence (stunting or the like) we should accept our own choices. 

In my opinion we already have too much legislation and regulation.  The less government accomplishes the better.

US needs to revamp its vehicle licensing system to tier levels similar to Europe.

I am, for one reason, it keeps the Operator behind the wheel where they belong, instead of bouncing around all over the car.
If the vehicle gets hit from the side for instance and the Diver is knocked over to the passer side of the car, there is no one on the brakes or using the wheel and the car will go where it may after that.

Even if the going just gets rough a belt will keep your butt planted in the seat.

So... the govt. should make it mandatory because it's safer? Where do we draw the line as far as the govt. protecting us from ourselves? Shouldn't people take most of the responsibility for their own safety? Wouldn't a smart person do just that? Did you know some politicians wanted mandatory seat belts on motorcycles? Do we want to people like this these making laws to protect us?
    I realize I have stepped over the "no political posts" line and will now be over in the Ban Yourself area.  :P

Since Ducatamount himself knows this crosses the political line I would strongly suggest no one answer his question.

After reading some of the posts previous to his some other people should report to 'The Ban yourself thread' as well.

This one won't last much longer.

In my state in Oz, you start with a learners permit wearing an L plate for a period and no passenger, then a P plate for 2 years iirc which is a probationary licence and no passenger, before you receive your full licence which allows for a passenger (and more powerful bike). Others from Victoria, Oz may elaobrate as I'm not up with latest.

That seems a reasonable minimum requirement. It's a graduated licencing system in that regard and far from perfect.  I normally complain about our rules down here, but these laws discourage noobs taking a passenger.I am not aware of any training re passengers in our licencing system, but I'm out of touch.
 We also have restrictions regarding numbers of passengers for probationary car licence drivers (and horsepower restrictions like no turbos, no V8s, etc) until you get your full licence.

No Turbos would really be a bummer If you happened to drive a diesel.

(Queing-up Arlo Guthrie)...

"I don't want a pickle....... I just wanna ride my motorcicle...
And I don't wanna die...... I just wanna ride my motorceye-cle."


I believe in sticking to the basics.  [Dolph]

Not according to Danzig. http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/08/18/glenn-danzig-democrats-are-fascists-disguised-as-liberals/ (http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/08/18/glenn-danzig-democrats-are-fascists-disguised-as-liberals/)

The last thing anyone needs is more regulation. Put me down on the extreme libertarian side of this one.







IBTL

What would be the point of a government if people were self regulating?

Not falling for that one. I haven't seen the ban hammer in a long time......

Democrats aren't leftists. (not talking politics Ducpainter...just semantics)

Are you talking to me or Glenn Danzig? I didn't make that connection.....

Actually they can be. Democrat and Republican are just labels that have drifted across the political spectrum and have even flip-flopped across time. Right now, I would argue that both parties are simply centrist with a penchant for statism and cronyism.

My thoughts on this issue are that I would never correct Glenn Danzig.

A couple of suspensions were handed out.

Don't talk politics and tell me you're not.

K?