• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

New licensing law

Rydah

Who's ready to ride some dirt?!
Forum Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
4,497
Reaction score
2,516
Location
La Porte, TX
As of September 1st, it is now required that anyone requesting a motorcycle license must first take an approved motorcycle safety course, before taking the written test. I'd like to know people's opinions on this.

Personally, I think it's a bunch of BS!! Why should I have to blow an entire weekend, spend almost $200 for the course, and still have to spend another day (and cost) to take the written part, in order to operate my vehicle? It seems very discriminatory to me, and is certainly going to discourage many new riders from becoming licensed, or even motorcyclists at all.
 
1. I think the the price is small compared to the knowledge gained and the bike's upkeep.
2. Should I care if a little effort is going to "discourage" people from riding?
3. If everyone is eligible, is it really discriminatory?

I appreciate that there is a small requirement for proficiency for the privilege of motorbiking and driving.
 
Hi, I started riding in the mid 60's. I recently took the MSF safety class. Yes I paid the $190 buck and spent 2 days in 100 heat in a parking lot. It was not fun, but I did learn a few things and I thought it was worth the money because I didn't have to schedule a road test etc. through the state dmv office. I was hoping more defensive techniques would be taught, but the class was adequate. I think the class was worth it if you practice the techniques. If you go just to get a license and don't practice, well you gained little or nothing. The instructor had a lot of tips for folks just learning, especially those who had bought large cruisers. There were a few folks who dropped by who had taken the class before and asked the instructor to evaluate them now and make suggestions for improvement. That impressed me. You will get out what you put into the class. Just my two cents.
 
I started riding in the 70's , off road , bought a street legal bike in the late 80's , an old KLR spent most of its time off road but I did ride it on the street some . I bought a real street bike in 1999 and decided it was time to get legal . In my case the rider course was well worth the effort just to not have to deal with a DPS road test . Get the bike to the DPS office leagaly , provide a vehicle and driver to schauffer the DPS officer around both of which must pass inspection and not make any mistake or you fail . They are about equal time wise by the time you go thru all the hassel to arrange the road test then take it . Cost wise its probly close since you have to take off work to do it since the DPS didn't offer the test on weekends . Seems to me the class is an advantage and a savings . And you might actually learn some thing , but some riders know it all so they are going to have problums . I dont remember the lessons on when to layerdown in the class I took . SEYA
 
Absolutly wonderful - My son is going to take it in a month or 2

However since it is state mandatory there should be a good social program for poor or disadvantage people to have the course at reduced or no cost
 
I see where you guys are coming from on the safety knowledge aspect of it, and have no problem there, but why should it be mandatory? My point about the descrimination, is that I don't see them doing this for automobiles. Would you feel the same if you had to do a $200, two day course for every vehicle you operated? Certainly one could argue the merits of doing this for just about any activity. Motorcyclists know the risk they are taking when wanting to ride on the street, and I don't think it should be up to the government to make it mandatory for you to learn the risks. If you don't feel comfortable, then by all means take the course if you wish, but it should be your choice. As for the "privelage" of the govenrment allowing me to ride a motorcycle, I don't consider it any more special than anything else they "allow" me to do :brainsnap:
 
I appreciate that there is a small requirement for proficiency for the privilege of motorbiking and driving.

OK, I know that this may be starting yet another political rant, but it just gets my hackles up every time I hear somebody say this. Then again maybe it's just semantics. Maybe it's just the word "privilege" that sets me off, but to my mind, driving is NOT a privilege.

Number one: our government is (supposedly) not in the business of granting privileges to its citizens. Our government is supposed to be a guarantor of our rights and protector of our liberty. Our founding documents make it very clear that we have natural rights and liberties. Our rights are natural, or if you prefer, God-given, but they do NOT come from the government. The government protects our rights and liberties, it doesn't grant them. It can regulate, and in some instances, limit our rights and liberties when necessary to protect others, but in no case is the government the source of rights, liberties, or privileges.

Secondly, I have a problem with the whole idea of government taking OUR money through taxation, using OUR money to build and maintain roads on OUR (public) property, and then treating those roads as private property and doling out the "privilege" of using them.

To illustrate what I mean, let's try taking it to a more personal level. Suppose your house was half a mile from any road. For the sake of argument, we'll ignore the fact that you could drive to the nearest road without some formal "road", or that you could just build your own. We'll also ignore the fact that in the real world the government couldn't care less if you have a house without a road going to it. So..., the government comes in, takes YOUR money and builds a road on YOUR property that links your house to the nearest existing road. How would you feel if they then told you that you weren't allowed to use that road? How would you feel if they told you that you had to petition them for the privilege of using the road that was built on your land using your money? The principle doesn't change just because there are more people and more money involved; they are still using our money to build and maintain roads on our property and then telling us that it's a privilege to use them. I don't buy it.

I will agree, however, that the government can and should require some kind of demonstration of driving ability before allowing someone to drive on the public roads. But that's a limitation of liberty, not the granting of a privilege. It's a case of limiting individual liberty in the interest of public safety. I believe that users of public roads have a vested interest in assuring that other users actually know how to drive. I consider that protecting my life and property - a legitimate function of government.

There are limitations on who can drive on public roads and limits what they can drive and how they can drive. But just because there are limitations doesn't mean that driving is a privilege.
 

X2...

You can't complain about squids, then also complain about training to reduce the number (notice I didn't say eliminate).

And I do believe it should be done for other vehicles as well, not only motorcycles, along with some sort of evaluation every X number of years. If you can't prove you can drive/ride safely, you shouldn't be on the road in ANY vehicle.
 
I see where you guys are coming from on the safety knowledge aspect of it, and have no problem there, but why should it be mandatory? My point about the descrimination, is that I don't see them doing this for automobiles. Would you feel the same if you had to do a $200, two day course for every vehicle you operated? Certainly one could argue the merits of doing this for just about any activity. Motorcyclists know the risk they are taking when wanting to ride on the street, and I don't think it should be up to the government to make it mandatory for you to learn the risks. If you don't feel comfortable, then by all means take the course if you wish, but it should be your choice. As for the "privelage" of the govenrment allowing me to ride a motorcycle, I don't consider it any more special than anything else they "allow" me to do :brainsnap:

Rob, as of 9/1/09 I believe that "new" Drivers as well have to take a "behind the wheel course" to get a drivers license and it costs a lot more the $200. I have three kids that went through drivers training in the past 5 years. I am not certain they gained a lot from the training, it seemed the instructors had so many kids, they just kinda went through the routine.
 
X2...

You can't complain about squids, then also complain about training to reduce the number (notice I didn't say eliminate).

And I do believe it should be done for other vehicles as well, not only motorcycles, along with some sort of evaluation every X number of years. If you can't prove you can drive/ride safely, you shouldn't be on the road in ANY vehicle.

How about a written test? This at a minimum would inform people that left lane is for passing only, slower traffic keep right, how to negotiate a yield sign, stop sign and what to do when the traffic light fails. Round abouts and how to use them? Like that you mean?
 
How about a written test? This at a minimum would inform people that left lane is for passing only, slower traffic keep right, how to negotiate a yield sign, stop sign and what to do when the traffic light fails. Round abouts and how to use them? Like that you mean?

Actual driving/riding test, not only written. My 80+ year old grandfather is still legally allowed to drive, even though most of the time he drives through his front lawn without realizing it (and he has "left-turned in front of a MC).

A few days ago I was almost hit by a teenager on the phone who failed to turn left in the "left turn only" lane. She kept going straight...into me!

I've also had a cruiser try to pass me on the left in a parking lot while I was turing left into a parking spot...I guess he was just too impatient.

Groups of squids blocking all lanes on 635 or the North Tollway so they can perform their stunts...

A driving/riding test would maybe not take all of these people off of the road, but at least they would not be driving/riding legally, and eventually be fined at some piont if found doing so.

$.02
 
OK, I know that this may be starting yet another political rant, but it just gets my hackles up every time I hear somebody say this. Then again maybe it's just semantics. Maybe it's just the word "privilege" that sets me off, but to my mind, driving is NOT a privilege.

Number one: our government is (supposedly) not in the business of granting privileges to its citizens. Our government is supposed to be a guarantor of our rights and protector of our liberty. Our founding documents make it very clear that we have natural rights and liberties. Our rights are natural, or if you prefer, God-given, but they do NOT come from the government. The government protects our rights and liberties, it doesn't grant them. It can regulate, and in some instances, limit our rights and liberties when necessary to protect others, but in no case is the government the source of rights, liberties, or privileges.

Secondly, I have a problem with the whole idea of government taking OUR money through taxation, using OUR money to build and maintain roads on OUR (public) property, and then treating those roads as private property and doling out the "privilege" of using them.

To illustrate what I mean, let's try taking it to a more personal level. Suppose your house was half a mile from any road. For the sake of argument, we'll ignore the fact that you could drive to the nearest road without some formal "road", or that you could just build your own. We'll also ignore the fact that in the real world the government couldn't care less if you have a house without a road going to it. So..., the government comes in, takes YOUR money and builds a road on YOUR property that links your house to the nearest existing road. How would you feel if they then told you that you weren't allowed to use that road? How would you feel if they told you that you had to petition them for the privilege of using the road that was built on your land using your money? The principle doesn't change just because there are more people and more money involved; they are still using our money to build and maintain roads on our property and then telling us that it's a privilege to use them. I don't buy it.

I will agree, however, that the government can and should require some kind of demonstration of driving ability before allowing someone to drive on the public roads. But that's a limitation of liberty, not the granting of a privilege. It's a case of limiting individual liberty in the interest of public safety. I believe that users of public roads have a vested interest in assuring that other users actually know how to drive. I consider that protecting my life and property - a legitimate function of government.

There are limitations on who can drive on public roads and limits what they can drive and how they can drive. But just because there are limitations doesn't mean that driving is a privilege.

+1 Lee,

But don't let anyone hear you talking this way. Paraphrasing Henry David Thoreau, "the best government does nothing" and "goverment does not add to the gross national product, and for business is more like the people who put debris on the tracks to stop the trains." There doesn't seem to be a lot of support for discussion of civil liberty any more. I think that comes from many of the rabid groups on both sides who polarize this topic, people just get tired of hearing it.

The American version of democracy at one time aspired to put individual rights in front of the majority decision. I think we have gotten lazy over the years. We have taken the easy way out, "the majority rules". And we all know that majority doesn't make it right.
 
Motorcyclists know the risk they are taking when wanting to ride on the street.

Do you really know that motorcyclists know the risks? You're speaking for everyone with that statement. Isn't that over-generalization on your part?

OK, I know that this may be starting yet another political rant, but it just gets my hackles up every time I hear somebody say this. Then again maybe it's just semantics. Maybe it's just the word "privilege" that sets me off, but to my mind, driving is NOT a privilege.


There are limitations on who can drive on public roads and limits what they can drive and how they can drive. But just because there are limitations doesn't mean that driving is a privilege.

Good point about the semantics. I can see your side about limits. Btw, I love a good republic.
 
I see where you guys are coming from on the safety knowledge aspect of it, and have no problem there, but why should it be mandatory? My point about the descrimination, is that I don't see them doing this for automobiles. Would you feel the same if you had to do a $200, two day course for every vehicle you operated?

How many people out there, legally drive with never haven taken a drivers ed course vs those that have? I took it, for car and bike. I don't know anyone my age, or under that didn't...
 
X2...

And I do believe it should be done for other vehicles as well, not only motorcycles, along with some sort of evaluation every X number of years. If you can't prove you can drive/ride safely, you shouldn't be on the road in ANY vehicle.

Taxi business just became lucrative and in short supply, DART (Dallas Public Transit System) actually has riders.
 
Do you really know that motorcyclists know the risks? You're speaking for everyone with that statement. Isn't that over-generalization on your part?

Do you really know that automobile drivers know the risks of driving? How about skateboarders on public sidewalks, bicyclists in public parks or people taking elevators in public buildings? Should we have mandatory safety courses for them too?

I applaude the folks who responded saying they took the safety course, and got something out of it; that's what it is there for. It is the mandatory part I have the problem with.
 
Rob, as of 9/1/09 I believe that "new" Drivers as well have to take a "behind the wheel course" to get a drivers license and it costs a lot more the $200. I have three kids that went through drivers training in the past 5 years. I am not certain they gained a lot from the training, it seemed the instructors had so many kids, they just kinda went through the routine.

Right, new drivers (minors) were required to take the motorcycle safety course as well. The change now is "all" new riders are mandated to take it. Remember, new does not necessarily mean inexperienced, just new to being street licensed.
 
How many people out there, legally drive with never haven taken a drivers ed course vs those that have? I took it, for car and bike. I don't know anyone my age, or under that didn't...

I'm all legal and I have yet to take a motorcycle-based driving class.

On the note of "driving is a privilege", let's compare this privilege to random "rights" defined in the constitution: how many felons have drivers licenses?

I rest my case. :rofl:
 
Just a thought, but this doesn't do squat for the people who don't bother to get a license.

I did a charity ride a few years ago for the USMC and over half of the riders who showed up didn't have a license. The Marines who showed up did because we forced them.
 
X2...

You can't complain about squids, then also complain about training to reduce the number (notice I didn't say eliminate).

And I do believe it should be done for other vehicles as well, not only motorcycles, along with some sort of evaluation every X number of years. If you can't prove you can drive/ride safely, you shouldn't be on the road in ANY vehicle.

True, but they already had that. You take a written and riding proficiency test before you get your license.
 
Just a thought, but this doesn't do squat for the people who don't bother to get a license.

I did a charity ride a few years ago for the USMC and over half of the riders who showed up didn't have a license. The Marines who showe up did because we forced them.

Exactly!! And don't you think this will only increase that number now?
 
Back
Top