Years ago, when I spent more time at a local, friendy (and good) Kawasaki dealer; one day he said to me in an off-hand sort'a way: "Well, that makes it 100% -- every Ninja I sold this season has been totalled."That's the kind of stats that really add fuel to IIHS's fire......
"...every Ninja I sold this season has been totalled..."
That looks like support for the tiered licensing program, doesn't it? Who bought those Ninjas that the dealer sold? Were they experienced riders with proper training and gear? Or were they young testosterone factories (and most of us were there, one time) with more bravado than judgement? Should a young rider be allowed to purchase a full-on sportbike? Or is it time to require real driver and rider training in this country and once and for all explode the myth of driving or riding as a right and not a privilege?
I hate government interference as much as anyone, but the abysmal level of driver skill AS A WHOLE in this country has reached a point where we need to rethink who is allowed to operate vehicles on public roads. I'm sorry, but sixteen-year-olds are not emotionally mature enough for that responsiblilty. Neither are brain-dead nitwits who multi-task doing all kinds of unsafe behavior while driving. And my Grandmother, may she rest in peace, drove until she was 91. At least 4 or 5 years beyond her ability to safely drive on public roads.
We all know where the 16-years age limit for driving came from. And those days are long past. It was a result of expansion of the country, when kids actually worked to support the larger family. Cell phones, texting, and Ipods were not even dreamed of back then. The traffic density was orders of magnitude smaller then.
Nothing will be done, of course, but I'd like to see real, meaningful driver training (read: expensive) so that driving is a privilege again, not a right. Go to Germany, or many other EU countries. Most of them require substantial and comprehensive driver training. Sure it costs money, like $2,000 or $3,000. And you have no guarantee of receiving an operator's license. You still have to pass a test. A real test, with real driving and everything, not the one-page farce most states use here.
No tolerance for DUI. First one, and lose your driving privileges for a year. Second one, three years. Third strike, you're out. And that's just for DUI. For injuring someone, get ready for real jail time.
So, rather than let a bunch of accountants with actuarial tables decide for us what motorcyles should be, we should instead go back to using common sense about who is allowed to operate what on public roads.
We almost across the board give the same advice to new riders: start with something small, light, not too much power. Ride it for a while, then, if you still like this whole two-wheeler thing, sell it and move up. Instead, we see dealers selling 130 rear-wheel HP (or more) machines to some 18-year old kid buying his first bike, whose ******* insurance payment is higher than the ******* bike payment (no offense, dealers) and then wonder why we, as experienced older riders pay out the ass to insure the FJR. I know, some of you are thinking Darwinism at work, but dammint, I don't need the bad publicity when some dipshit kid makes the front page by splattering his brains all over the highway. And none of us need the scrutiny that groups like the IIHS bring.
Real training and tiered licensing. That's the answer. Ain't gonna happen, but it needs to. OK, rant off. But the next time some guy in the sedan sliiiiides into your lane because he's trying to dial the cell phone, or some chatting soccer mom in a 2-ton SUV places her rear bumper into the same space your front wheel is occupying, don't get mad at them. They are idiots that WE allow on the roads. Same for the carload of teenagers, and same for the little blue-hairs barely peeking over the steering wheel. We have plenty of laws. We just need to hold accountable the people breaking them.
