Hypothetical question

[Fabri-Tech_Designs]

I don't think the dealership is "at-fault", or even remotely liable for anything, but I do believe they should have at least recommended "Bob" start out on a different bike.  

Plain and simple - Bob (R.I.P.) is a.....was...an idiot.

Parents?  Well, a little common sense passed along from mom and dad may have saved Bob, but ultimately, Bob is the one who decided to buy a bike, decided which bike to buy, and decided to pull the trigger on said bike without having a clue what the consequenses might be.

No one is at fault except Bob.

My $.02 1/2

[chris_chops]

I've thought about that.  I am all for it until I start to think about it in this light:

Who is the government, to tell ME what I am capable, or NOT capable, of doing.  

As a motorcyclist of several years, I can TOTALLY see the benefits of going to a system like Europe.  The current test (I'm speaking of IL since that's where I'm from) is WAY too easy.  Anybody can roll up and take their test on a Nighthawk250 (like I did), get their license, and go out and buy a GSX-R1000.  As any one of us will agree, it takes a bit more skill to handle a GSX-R1000 over a tiny-arse 250 4-stroke.  

Going to a graduated licensing system MAY lower the number of unqualified people from buying bikes that exceed their capabilities or experience level.  It may also just increase the # of "improperly licensed" riders.

However, going to a graduated system, we're sorta-kinda giving up the right to decide for ourselves what we're capable of riding.   :-/

Just an additional thought, not an argument:  The government tells me I am not capable of driving a semi.  I don't like too much gov. control, but it's ok with me that I'm not allowed to drive one without training.  

Matt

[OmniGLH]

Just an additional thought, not an argument:  The government tells me I am not capable of driving a semi.  I don't like too much gov. control, but it's ok with me that I'm not allowed to drive one without training.  

Matt

A clever loophole...  maybe ;)

Restricting a motorcyclist from riding a bigger bike, protects him from himself.  Restricting a person from driving a 50,000-lb+ semi truck without proper training, protects other people from him.

I don't want the government protecting me from myself.  They can protect me from other people tho.  I can be just as dangerous to others riding a FZR400 as I can riding a ZX-11.  But the local Billy-Bob can be 10x more dangerous to others driving a loaded-down semi truck, as he would be driving his '78 Chevy Luv truck...

[grim_racer]

i don't know about anyone else, but i can't afford a salvage bike to race, much less buy a small bike just for it to lose resale value, so I can sell it for a bigger bike ,and so on.  unless the government wants to pay for my upgrade, what i ride is no concern of theirs. our system is just fine. it gives us bikes to fix up.

[bweber]

You let the government start telling you what you can and can't buy and you are opening a can of worms!  It is bad enough already.

I hope everyone realizes that there may be people out there who purchased a Hyabusa or GSXR1000 as their first bike and never had an accident or close call and enjoyed the hell out of their purchase for years.  There are also people out there who chose a Ninja 250 as their first bike and got killed doing something stupid.

Yes, potentially, the salesman might have some personal moral responsibility in this case.  

Super Dave, I bet you have sold trailers to people who planned to tow it (at least initially) with a vehicle that was way too small to safely pull it.  What would your boss, or the buyer, say if you told a person, "I'm not comfortable selling you this. Come back when you get a dually!"

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

I hope everyone realizes that there may be people out there who purchased a Hyabusa or GSXR1000 as their first bike and never had an accident or close call and enjoyed the hell out of their purchase for years.  There are also people out there who chose a Ninja 250 as their first bike and got killed doing something stupid.

     My first bike was in 1990 and was a 1986 Ninja 900. My 2nd bike was in 1991 and was a 1991 Ninja ZX11. These were the only motorcycles I had ever ridden in my life up to that point and I had great respect for their capability. I've never had an accident on the street riding a motorcycle or driving any vehicle for that matter. I've had my share of possible bad situations, but I am always looking ahead and trying to predict what others are going to do, before they do it, so I can be prepared to avoid them if needed.
     I think common sense is somewhat difficult to accurately judge a person for ahead of time during the minimal time spent purchasing a motorcycle. Most people that don't know me well think I am Mr. Conservative and don't do anything wild, I believe this would be the image I would project to a salesman and would ultimately be mis-guiding that person as to my future actions. I believe that unless they actually knew me they would never figure that I was ever going to be racing at top speed on that very bike. I think this is a good example as to why the dealer being a judge as to who to sell to would be a mistake.
     I don't think that requiring a new rider to take a safety course before being allowed to get their license is a bad idea at all. Being that they would get classroom and on bike training it certainly couldn't hurt, and may ultimately get them to see what can happen if abusing this privilege of motorcycle riding (thru showing the results of past motorcycle accidents to the students). In this envirionment over the course of several weeknights an instructor would have a much better idea of who may need a little extra common sense instruction and do it on a one on one basis. At least the people that took the course wouldn't have an excuse of saying they didn't know about some general aspect of motorcycle riding.