Proposal Would Restrict Motorcycle Passengers - Missouri

[Skybarney]

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.

[Raux]

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

[duc_fan]

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

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.

[muskrat]

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

[Rudemouthsky]

This is a political thread...nothing good coming from this one. Unless someone wants a suspension  

[Rudemouthsky]

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

+ 1

[Ddan]

man this is so close to politics........ 

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.

[Ducatamount]

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

[zooom]

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....

[muskrat]

Freedom of Choice (plus Darwinism)

+11 billion

[Triple J]

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.

[Skybarney]

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. 

[muskrat]

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.

[Raux]

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.

[zooom]

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.