California DMV Motorcycle Driving Test (bribery or idiocy)?
Paul Franz
test at the CA DMV is sheer idiocy by the California bureaucracy or if
it's merely a method to funnel kickbacks to the motorocycle
foundations who run the 200 dollar alternative test (which everyone
passes).
I'm told that the new riding test test is different than it used to
be, so older riders who passed previous tests will not know what I'm
talking about; but new riders who tried to pass the test in anything
above, say about a 650, will back me up. It's nearly impossible.
And it proves absolutely *nothing* about your ability to ride a bike.
WHo *approved* this idiotic riding test anyway?
In a K1200RS, you can't even *SEE* the turning circle, let alone pass
the test. In the last two years (or so), it seems some organization (I
don't know which) has profited immensly from the fact that nobody can
pass that idiotic driving skills test, yet *everyone* (well,
parapalegics have to take it twice) passes the 200-dollar alternative
test provided as an alternative to the 15-dollar government test.
What am I missing?
Q1: What does that idiotic test prove where you can only pass it in a
borrowed 250cc motorcycle (even for 20 years' experienced riders)?
Q2: Who approved this idiotic CA DMV motorcycle riding test?
Q3: Are those approvers the same group who profits from the
alternative 200-dollar 16-hour class?
Q4: Does *anyone* in a 750 or above pass this (new) CA riding skills
test? (Prove it if you say it because I watched a dozen riders fail
and not one made it to the second half of the test.)
I know I can't change the system (I basically have to take the
200-dollar 16-hour class as a bribe to the american motorcycle
association or whomever who sanctioned the idiotic CA DMV test. Even
so, I'll be it's on a 125 cc or 200 cc toy bike instead of a 750 or
larger (where the riders really ride).
Please help me in my frustration.
Is it just me? Or is this test a classic case of government with too
little brains and too much power coupled with a motorocycle
association which cares merely about its profits.
Does anyone have any statistics about who actually can PASS this
idiotic CA DMV riding test (and what bikes they rode)?
Alan Moore
wrote:
>I'm new to California & need to know if the existing riding skills
>test at the CA DMV is sheer idiocy by the California bureaucracy or if
>it's merely a method to funnel kickbacks to the motorocycle
>foundations who run the 200 dollar alternative test (which everyone
>passes).
>
>I'm told that the new riding test test is different than it used to
>be, so older riders who passed previous tests will not know what I'm
>talking about; but new riders who tried to pass the test in anything
>above, say about a 650, will back me up. It's nearly impossible.
>And it proves absolutely *nothing* about your ability to ride a bike.
>
>WHo *approved* this idiotic riding test anyway?
>
>In a K1200RS, you can't even *SEE* the turning circle, let alone pass
>the test.
When I did it, years ago, I discovered that it was possible on my
Guzzi, if I sat on the pillion seat and held the handlebars hard over
with only one hand. If I sat in the normal position, my knee
obstructed the movement of the handgrip, and when I sat well back, I
couldn't reach both handgrips.
> In the last two years (or so), it seems some organization (I
>don't know which) has profited immensly from the fact that nobody can
>pass that idiotic driving skills test, yet *everyone* (well,
>parapalegics have to take it twice) passes the 200-dollar alternative
>test provided as an alternative to the 15-dollar government test.
>
>What am I missing?
Imagination. It's possible to pass. I did it, so it can't be very
hard.
>
>Q1: What does that idiotic test prove where you can only pass it in a
>borrowed 250cc motorcycle (even for 20 years' experienced riders)?
That you can borrow a motorcycle. This is important. It means that at
least one motorcycle owner thinks you can ride. This expert opinion is
better than the opinion of any of the (non-riding) DMV examiners.
>
>Q2: Who approved this idiotic CA DMV motorcycle riding test?
A committee. Most of them from New Jersey, I believe...
>
>Q3: Are those approvers the same group who profits from the
>alternative 200-dollar 16-hour class?
Nope. They aren't even aware that the class is available, and that
their idiocy can be avoided.
>
>Q4: Does *anyone* in a 750 or above pass this (new) CA riding skills
>test? (Prove it if you say it because I watched a dozen riders fail
>and not one made it to the second half of the test.)
I don't know what's changed, but I did it on a Guzzi 850 T-3.
>
>I know I can't change the system (I basically have to take the
>200-dollar 16-hour class as a bribe to the american motorcycle
>association or whomever who sanctioned the idiotic CA DMV test. Even
>so, I'll be it's on a 125 cc or 200 cc toy bike instead of a 750 or
>larger (where the riders really ride).
>
>Please help me in my frustration.
>
>Is it just me? Or is this test a classic case of government with too
>little brains and too much power coupled with a motorocycle
>association which cares merely about its profits.
>
>Does anyone have any statistics about who actually can PASS this
>idiotic CA DMV riding test (and what bikes they rode)?
>
Nope.
Al Moore
DoD 734
beth
[snip all the bitching]
um, wah? i passed with just fine. i didn't even take the MSF beforehand.
you just suck ass as riding motorcycles and should sell that K1200RS to
me at a large discount.
-Beth
Mike Schenk
>I'm new to California & need to know if the existing riding skills
>test at the CA DMV is sheer idiocy by the California bureaucracy or if
>it's merely a method to funnel kickbacks to the motorocycle
>foundations who run the 200 dollar alternative test (which everyone
>passes).
What's the test exactly? It can't be much harder that the test in
Holland that includes doing three laps within a circle with a diameter
of 6 meters and then leaving the circle at a predefined place making a
sharp right (the circle is counter clockwise). While it's very
frustrating to practice it, it does improve the ability to handle your
bike. Whenever I buy a new bike I practice it again until I can do it
and my current bike is a Pan European so you should be able to do it on
the K1200 as well.
Mike
Orak Listalavostok
> If the $200 test is the MSF beginner's course, you will benefit from it
> immensely.
I'm 55 years old. And 285 pounds. Way too old (and with way too much
riding experience) & fat to putt putt in a parking lot on a miserably
puny 125 cc bike with the turn signals and mirrors removed. I tried
the DMV test myself, riding by, out of curiosity. It was mid day &
just my luck, two bikers were in the queue. Both failed, one on the
first half. They seemed comepetent to me.
Get this! California doesn't actually *care* if you can ride or not.
One of those bikers was on his THIRD YEAR of the CA permit!. I didn't
verify that, but, if true, you can ride a bike in California on the
permit forever (just renew it each year) without ever taking the test!
He said the only reason he wanted to take the test was so that he
could travel with his girlfriend on long trips (apparently the
CA-forever permit dissalows passengers on the highway in the evening,
or so he said).
The guy on the CB1100 dropped his bike. He left cursing. I was too
embarrassed for him to even help him pick it up. The CA DMV motorcycle
tester didn't even change expression.
Someone else came by. Said he was an instructor (I didn't ask of
what). He tried to convince the three of us (he thought I was queuing
up for the CA motorcycle riding test) to take the class. He said this
new test is basically impossible on anything larger than about a 450.
He didn't have all his facts straight though, as he said you had to go
around three times and I watched one guy fail on the fourth (two in
each direction). He said afterward he closed his eyes the whole time
and memorized the turning radius because he couldn't see it anyway.
> Almost every *good* rider in this forum would walk away
> having learned something new or remembered something important that they
> forgot.
In *any* class you'd learn something. Why not force every car driver
to take the class. They'd learn something. Why not force the cagers to
take a motorcycle awareness class. They'd learn something. Why not
force all pedestrians to take a walking class. They'd learn something.
And force all bicyclists to take a class. They'd learn something. The
point is that the test by the DMV is designed by the MSF and approved
by the MSF solely for the purpose of the MSF making money in the
alternative class (in which they pass everyone).
> If you've already had the MSF beginner's course, then you should have been
> able to pass any test on anything.
I should stop here. You lost *all* your credibility on that sentence.
Have you *tried* the new test? Check it out. Nobody on earth can pass
this test on even a mid-sized Honda 750.
> I was the only one to go down, but the instructor ... I lost no marks.
I was going to stop when you lost your credibility because this one
proved my point (that everyone passes the MSF class). In the DMV
class, the "testor" is some middle-aged poorly paid lady (mostly) or
man who never once got on a bike, let alone rode one. They stop the
test if your wheel goes outside the line or if your foot goes down.
Period. You'd have proven my point for me with that one sentence if
you hadn't already lost your credibility. Drat.
> Take the $200 course. It will improve your survivability...
Prove it! That's what I'm looking for. Proof that those playing around
in a school parking lot on a 125cc toy bike with hardware removed vs
those playing around in a DMV parking lot on a borrowed 250 cc bike
(with mandatory hardware inspected by the DMV) and then both of those
55 year olds go riding on K1200RS have *different* "survivability". I
think not. But, I'll let the true numbers tell their story.
Can someone post meaningful verifiable statistics on the survivability
of those who take the MSF bribe vs those to borrow a bike to pass the
DMV test?
Orak Listalavostok
Paul Cassel
> I'm new to California & need to know if the existing riding skills
> test at the CA DMV is sheer idiocy by the California bureaucracy or if
> it's merely a method to funnel kickbacks to the motorocycle
> foundations who run the 200 dollar alternative test (which everyone
> passes).
>
We used to have a silly tight thru the cones test in CO. Folks usually
borrowed something like a 125 bike to do the test. I managed it on my
BSA 650. I guess it depends on your skill level and slow riding skills.
Are you saying your BMW doesn't turn tightly enough or you can't ride it
that slowly?
-paul
--
paul DOT cassel aT
gMail dot COM
Steve
news:44d113e9.04092...@posting.google.com:
> Steve <bugge...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:<ANp5d.255$ek.170@okepread03>...
>> If the $200 test is the MSF beginner's course, you will benefit from
>> it immensely.
>
> I'm 55 years old. And 285 pounds. Way too old (and with way too much
> riding experience)
Out of three MSF courses I have taken, the *worst* riders were the ones
with the "most experience." In their cases, "experience" generally meant
"bad habits". They generally were also the least skilled at maneuvering
their own bikes. There were two in each of the three classes I took with
>20 years experience (as they claimed), and they couldn't handle their
own bikes worth a flip.
> In *any* class you'd learn something. Why not force every car driver
> to take the class. They'd learn something. Why not force the cagers to
> take a motorcycle awareness class. They'd learn something. Why not
> force all pedestrians to take a walking class. They'd learn something.
> And force all bicyclists to take a class. They'd learn something. The
> point is that the test by the DMV is designed by the MSF and approved
> by the MSF solely for the purpose of the MSF making money in the
> alternative class (in which they pass everyone).
I was talking about motorcycling, not principles of education in general,
though some of your suggestions are appealing, they don't fly in the land
of the free. You missed my point entirely.
While I can't speak for the MSF test given in CA, my wife took both the
beginner (supplied Nighthawk 250) and intermediate (BYOB, Kat 600), two
of the people in each class of ~12 were failed. Deb scored in the top
two in both... atta girl, babe!
>> If you've already had the MSF beginner's course, then you should have
>> been able to pass any test on anything.
>
> I should stop here. You lost *all* your credibility on that sentence.
> Have you *tried* the new test? Check it out. Nobody on earth can pass
> this test on even a mid-sized Honda 750.
Check yourself. Your statement is as far-fetched as mine if that's the
chosen perspective. If you can do a full lock turn on a motorcycle, then
the only limitation is the turning radius of the motorcycle. Full lock
turns are a learned skill that comes after much practice. Can you do
them? I'd be willing to bet that I could pass the test on my 955cc bike
because I have a skill that optimizes my utilization of the the handling
inherent to my motorcycle. That skill came from training and practice.
>> Take the $200 course. It will improve your survivability...
>
> Prove it! That's what I'm looking for. Proof that those playing around
> in a school parking lot on a 125cc toy bike with hardware removed vs
> those playing around in a DMV parking lot on a borrowed 250 cc bike
> (with mandatory hardware inspected by the DMV) and then both of those
> 55 year olds go riding on K1200RS have *different* "survivability". I
> think not. But, I'll let the true numbers tell their story.
First, you've clearly drawn erroneous conclusions based on your limited
experience, which is surprising given the claimed experience and somehow
relevant claimed girth. You only see the "playing around" in a parking
lot. You don't see the eight hours of classroom instruction that
accompanies it. Motorcycle safety has less to do with inherent riding
skill (ability to operate the equipment) than is has to do with
situational awareness, decision-making and proper execution of said
decision.
I can't *prove* it without a study, and I can't afford one. If one has
been done specifically with those parameters, I can't find it.
Instead, read the Hurt report. Take those conclusions and formulate a
training class that *minimizes* the risks that can be minimized by the
motorcyclist. That's what the MSF curriculum does.
> Can someone post meaningful verifiable statistics on the survivability
> of those who take the MSF bribe vs those to borrow a bike to pass the
> DMV test?
It's an absurd request, and it probably wouldn't matter to you. You've
already dismissed the MSF curriculum as a "bribe" based on completely
inaccurate assumptions, so you're mind is made up. Don't confuse it with
common-sense. Being obstinate is far more worthwhile to you.
Take this little quiz...
Assume:
1) normal traffic conditions
2) no obvious immediate threats
From a risk-reduction point of view, what is the best lane choice for a
motorcyclist for each of the conditions and why?
1) A three lane city street
2) A multilane urban freeway
It's things like this that MSF teaches in order to minimize risk. It's
not just a bunch of toddling about on 125cc scooters.
Steve
--
Steve Keith - in reverse order of procurement:
2002 Blue Daytona
1983 GS1100ED (GS2) - eBay, rode it to PHX from San Jose via the PCH -
sweet!
1993 GSX1100F Fat Kat
1983 GS1100ED (GS1)
My wife says: "Buell rhymes with Stool"
Polarhound
mood of the proctor.
Westfield, MA is the easiest because they have no room. You go down a
street, come to a complete stop, do a u-turn, come back up the street,
enter the parking lot, and do a figure-eight. They don't even have a
full registry, just a motorcycle tester at City Hall.
Thumper
"Paul Franz" <k12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n07cl094bdq98l43r...@4ax.com...
<snip>
Do yourself a favor, take the MSF program.
At least you won't have to take the DMV test oin a 700 lb motorcycle.
--
I trust you'll have the good sense not to mention that I posted this.
Thumper
"I don't want a pickle..."
http://www.thumpers-brithouse.com
2004 H-D Road King Classic
2002 BMW R1150RT "Misty"
1978 Triumph Bonneville
1975 Triumph Trident
1974 Norton Interstate
1969 BSA Red Rocket III
1962 Triumph Tiger Cub
1958 BSA Super Bantam COCK
1954 Velocette MAC
Andrew
"Orak Listalavostok" <orakl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44d113e9.04092...@posting.google.com...
I'd be willing to bet I could pass it on my Speed Triple. We may soon find
out as I have the possibility of moving to San Diego in the next few months.
I'd also be willing to bet any of these guys could pass it on their
ultraglides.
http://seattlecossacks.com/
--
Andrew
00 Speed Triple
00 Daytona
Cam Penner
<44d113e9.04092...@posting.google.com>,
orakl...@yahoo.com says...
> Someone else came by. Said he was an instructor (I didn't ask of
> what). He tried to convince the three of us (he thought I was queuing
> up for the CA motorcycle riding test) to take the class. He said this
> new test is basically impossible on anything larger than about a 450.
I don't have a clue as to what the CA DMV test is, but a
dozen years back I took a training course. One of the
elements in the course was to do figure-8s inside a circle
that was about 15-20 feet in diameter. Nobody was doing
it, not even on a CBX125. We complained to the instructor
that it was too difficult.
He proceeded to start up his touring bike (Venture Royale,
IIRC) and entered the circle. He did a good 5 or 6 figure-
8s in a row without touching a foot or a pylon. He was
dragging the floorboards on either side at less than 10mph.
After he got off, he simply informed us that it WAS indeed
possible, and to stop blaming the equipment. After a
couple more hours of practise, I was actually able to do a
few myself.
I've watched a couple of our local DMV tests. One of the
tough parts is figure 8s within a pair of circles. You are
given your bikes tightest turning circle plus 3 feet for
each circle's diameter. It's tough. Really tough. But it
IS doable, and it IS a pretty good indicator of the fine
level of control and confidence you have on a bike. It's
also a good way to weed out people who haven't been
practising - which is good for everyone on the road.
--
Cam
'89 RZ 350
Burn it, don't churn it.
PWB
news:44d113e9.04092...@posting.google.com...
> news:<ANp5d.255$ek.170@okepread03>...
>> If the $200 test is the MSF beginner's course, you will benefit from it
>> immensely.
>
> I'm 55 years old. And 285 pounds. Way too old (and with way too much
> riding experience) & fat to putt putt in a parking lot on a miserably
> puny 125 cc bike with the turn signals and mirrors removed. I tried
> the DMV test myself, riding by, out of curiosity. It was mid day &
> just my luck, two bikers were in the queue. Both failed, one on the
> first half. They seemed comepetent to me.
Note that some of us pay a lot less for the MSF than you poor bastards in
the PRCa do... in OH, we pay $25 for the MSF Basic Riders Course, and the
same for the Experienced Riders' Course.
Oh, yeah, don't you poor bastards pay $204 a year to register each of your
automobiles? Sucks to live in California, doesn't it?
PWB
Cam Penner
N...@spam.com says...
> Cam Penner
> <Cam.Penner.news1ATpleasedo...@hotmail.com> wrote
> in news:MPG.1bc132ffa...@News.individual.net:
>
> > After he got off, he simply informed us that it WAS indeed
> > possible, and to stop blaming the equipment.
>
>
> possible on a bike much larger than what they are riding. Sometimes my
> wife tags along and I'll do 'em two-up... That usually puts a stop to
> the bitching and gets the "I've been riding forever, you cannot teach me
> anything" assholes to shut up...
Yup. In our case it was shutting up the guys who thought
the exercises were useless and impossible and didn't help
you control a bike at all.
Rob Kleinschmidt
> test at the CA DMV is sheer idiocy by the California bureaucracy or if
> it's merely a method to funnel kickbacks to the motorocycle
> foundations who run the 200 dollar alternative test (which everyone
> passes).
>
> I'm told that the new riding test test is different than it used to
> be, so older riders who passed previous tests will not know what I'm
> talking about; but new riders who tried to pass the test in anything
> above, say about a 650, will back me up. It's nearly impossible.
> And it proves absolutely *nothing* about your ability to ride a bike.
As I remember the test from many years ago, you had to make a circle
inside a set of lines followed by a slalom between a line of cones.
With a couple years of prior out-of-state experience, I passed on the
second try on a 500cc dualsport that I'd bought that afternoon.
What kind of test did they throw at you and what part did you have
trouble with ?
PTravel
I was licensed in California in the 80s, but didn't bother renewing my
license after I gave up my bike. I just bought a Honda 500 CX this summer.
I couldn't pass the new test, either -- the examiner even suggested that I
rent a smaller bike.
I wound up taking the MSC class -- 10 hours out in the sun on a parking lot
riding around on little 125cc Hondas and Kawaskis. I passed, no problem,
but there were quite a few in my class who didn't (and, frankly, they
shouldn't have, either).
I still haven't figured out what practical application being skilled at
driving in circles in a very tight radius might have. The MSC taught (and
tested) on a variation of this -- figure 8s in a very tight box -- but also
taught (and tested) much more important skills, such as swerving and
emergency braking, which are better learned calmly in a parking lot than for
the first time in a do-it-right-or-die scenario. BTW, I think the MSC is a
good thing for brand new riders. In my case, the refresher didn't hurt, but
I can see where it would be a galling alternative for an experienced rider.
Of course, as someone as noted, you don't need to do anything other than
pass a written test to ride in CA. However, you can't ride at night, on the
freeway or with passengers until you get the full license.
"Paul Franz" <k12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n07cl094bdq98l43r...@4ax.com...
PTravel
I just took the class, after a 20-year hiatus from bikes and then failing
the CA DMV test on my Honda 500CX. Even though I had ridden for quite a
while back in the 80s, I still came away from MSF with some new and useful
skills and information, and consider it time well-spent.
One question, though: of what practical use is the ability to make a
tight-radius turn or, as we did at MSF, ride figure-8s inside a tight
rectangular box? All the other skills made sense -- I've never had to
swerve, for example, and it was good being able to practice it in conditions
that wouldn't get me killed if I didn't do it well. However, other than
parking my bike in my garage, when would I ever need to a slow-speed,
counterweight turn (and in my garage, I can just walk the bike when I park)?
"Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9570757D...@66.75.162.196...
> orakl...@yahoo.com (Orak Listalavostok) wrote in
> news:44d113e9.04092...@posting.google.com:
>
> > I'm 55 years old. And 285 pounds. Way too old (and with way too much
> > riding experience) & fat to putt putt in a parking lot on a miserably
> > puny 125 cc bike with the turn signals and mirrors removed.
>
>
> Heh... I've had a good number of students with your attitude. "I
> already know everything. There's nothing new you can teach me."
>
> By the end of the first day they are so humbled in their inability to
> properly ride a motorcycle that they can hardly look me in the eye...
>
>
> --
> IBA# 11465
> http://imagesdesavions.com
Cam Penner
ptr...@ruyitang.com says...
> I still haven't figured out what practical application being skilled at
> driving in circles in a very tight radius might have. The MSC taught (and
> tested) on a variation of this -- figure 8s in a very tight box -- but also
> taught (and tested) much more important skills, such as swerving and
> emergency braking, which are better learned calmly in a parking lot than for
> the first time in a do-it-right-or-die scenario. BTW, I think the MSC is a
The skill you learn doing slow speed maneuvers is one of
confidence and competence when riding a motorcycle. In
order to successfully accomplish the skills, you need to be
in control of the bike, and willing to trust things like
fine brake and clutch control, lean angles, etc. All of
these things also need attention at higher speeds.
Yes, being a perfectly skilled low speed rider does not
guarantee any sort of skill at high speeds, but it
certainly builds a strong base of skills and experience to
draw on.
PTravel
> In article <2rr7m0F...@uni-berlin.de>,
> ptr...@ruyitang.com says...
> > I still haven't figured out what practical application being skilled at
> > driving in circles in a very tight radius might have. The MSC taught
(and
> > tested) on a variation of this -- figure 8s in a very tight box -- but
also
> > taught (and tested) much more important skills, such as swerving and
> > emergency braking, which are better learned calmly in a parking lot than
for
> > the first time in a do-it-right-or-die scenario. BTW, I think the MSC
is a
>
> The skill you learn doing slow speed maneuvers is one of
> confidence and competence when riding a motorcycle. In
> order to successfully accomplish the skills, you need to be
> in control of the bike, and willing to trust things like
> fine brake and clutch control, lean angles, etc. All of
> these things also need attention at higher speeds.
I agree, with respect to everything you've mentioned, none of which has
anything to do with the ability to negotiate a small-radius circle without
putting your feet down. I'm sure that learning to do wheelies, for example,
would improve my confidence and competence on my bike, but I really don't
think I'll encounter a need for this particular skill in any of the riding
that I'll ever do. Lean angles, fine clutch control and the like are
critical skills, but better tested and taught, I think, in real-life
scenarios, rather than an artificial and arbitrary context. At MSF we had
slow-speed training, and quite a lot of attention to initiating and
controlling lean on turns at various speeds -- good skills, all, and
reflective of what actually happens on the road.
I still don't get the point of the figure-8s.
>
> Yes, being a perfectly skilled low speed rider does not
> guarantee any sort of skill at high speeds, but it
> certainly builds a strong base of skills and experience to
> draw on.
Well, beig skilled at low speed is important -- otherwise, you'll fall over
in stop and go traffic. And, in fact, we had a number of low-speed
exercises at MSF that helped with this skill. I just can't, for the life of
me, imagine any situation in which making a tight-radius slow-speed turn
without being able to put down a foot will ever occur.
Mike Schenk
>
>One question, though: of what practical use is the ability to make a
>tight-radius turn or, as we did at MSF, ride figure-8s inside a tight
>rectangular box? All the other skills made sense -- I've never had to
>swerve, for example, and it was good being able to practice it in conditions
>that wouldn't get me killed if I didn't do it well. However, other than
>parking my bike in my garage, when would I ever need to a slow-speed,
>counterweight turn (and in my garage, I can just walk the bike when I park)?
Riding in between traffic on a jammed road is one thing that springs to
mind as a situation where it comes in handy.
And I do think it's always useful to be able to handle your bike in all
situations, including low speed ones.
Mike
Mike Schenk
>
>in stop and go traffic. And, in fact, we had a number of low-speed
>exercises at MSF that helped with this skill. I just can't, for the life of
>me, imagine any situation in which making a tight-radius slow-speed turn
>without being able to put down a foot will ever occur.
I've just been on holidays with my Pan European in the Alps. On some of
the smaller roads I wouldn't have been able to get further up the
mountain, or down for that matter, without being able to do these turns.
Can't go fast, cause the turn is to narrow and can't put your feet on
the ground, cause the road is too steep.
Mike
PTravel
"Mike Schenk" <mike_sch...@planet.nl> wrote in message
news:cj9tvu$247$1...@ziggy.homeip.net...
> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> writes in
rec.motorcycles,alt.motorcycle.sportbike,alt.motorcycles,alt.government.abus
e,alt.law-enforcement:
> >
> >One question, though: of what practical use is the ability to make a
> >tight-radius turn or, as we did at MSF, ride figure-8s inside a tight
> >rectangular box? All the other skills made sense -- I've never had to
> >swerve, for example, and it was good being able to practice it in
conditions
> >that wouldn't get me killed if I didn't do it well. However, other than
> >parking my bike in my garage, when would I ever need to a slow-speed,
> >counterweight turn (and in my garage, I can just walk the bike when I
park)?
>
> Riding in between traffic on a jammed road is one thing that springs to
> mind as a situation where it comes in handy.
Without putting your foot down when and if necessary?
Cam Penner
ptr...@ruyitang.com says...
>
> "Cam Penner"
> <Cam.Penner.news1ATpleasedo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:MPG.1bc20cf43...@News.individual.net...
> > In article <2rr7m0F...@uni-berlin.de>,
> > ptr...@ruyitang.com says...
> > > I still haven't figured out what practical application being skilled at
> > > driving in circles in a very tight radius might have. The MSC taught
> (and
> > > tested) on a variation of this -- figure 8s in a very tight box -- but
> also
> > > taught (and tested) much more important skills, such as swerving and
> > > emergency braking, which are better learned calmly in a parking lot than
> for
> > > the first time in a do-it-right-or-die scenario. BTW, I think the MSC
> is a
> >
> > The skill you learn doing slow speed maneuvers is one of
> > confidence and competence when riding a motorcycle. In
> > order to successfully accomplish the skills, you need to be
> > in control of the bike, and willing to trust things like
> > fine brake and clutch control, lean angles, etc. All of
> > these things also need attention at higher speeds.
>
> I agree, with respect to everything you've mentioned, none of which has
> anything to do with the ability to negotiate a small-radius circle without
> putting your feet down.
Putting your foot down is a bad bad habit, and should be
trained out of you asap. You are giving up a non-trivial
amount of control when you start paddling around with your
feet.
Doing figure-8s in a fixed space is a good way to force you
to get LOTS of performance out of your bike RIGHT NOW. I
don't know if you snow ski at all, but doing the figure-8s
in a box is kind of like skiing a big set of moguls on a 20
foot wide run. When the run is 100 feet wide, you can
mentally prepare for each turn, and when you're ready, pick
your mogul to turn on. When the run is 20 feet wide, you
don't get to choose when to be ready, you have to execute
the skill of turning right away, every time.
When you can do that, YOU ride the road, the road doesn't
ride you.
PTravel
> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> writes in
rec.motorcycles,alt.motorcycle.sportbike,alt.motorcycles,alt.government.abus
e,alt.law-enforcement:
> >
over
> >in stop and go traffic. And, in fact, we had a number of low-speed
> >exercises at MSF that helped with this skill. I just can't, for the life
of
> >me, imagine any situation in which making a tight-radius slow-speed turn
> >without being able to put down a foot will ever occur.
>
> I've just been on holidays with my Pan European in the Alps. On some of
> the smaller roads I wouldn't have been able to get further up the
> mountain, or down for that matter, without being able to do these turns.
> Can't go fast, cause the turn is to narrow and can't put your feet on
> the ground, cause the road is too steep.
Well, that's fine. However, the DMV is testing for minimum competency to
drive a motorcycle in the state of California. I've lived here for 25
years, driven all over in both cars and on bikes, and haven't seen
conditions like you've described. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but
they're certainly not common. I would much rather see the DMV test skills
like swerving and hard stops, which can mean the difference between life and
death on any road anywhere, then a skill which might have application if I
ever happen to take my bike on narrow mountain trails.
The whole point of a drivers license, car or bike, is that it means the
holder has the minimum set of skills necessary to operate a motor vehicle
reasonably safely under common conditions. Despite now being
fully-licensed, I'm not foolish enough to think I'm an expert rider, and
I'll continue to watch my speed, refrain from splitting lanes, be extra
careful at night and in the rain, when carrying passengers, etc., until I've
had considerably more riding experience.
I'm not about to take my bike on narrow mountain trails as, my
recently-acquired ability to make tight figure 8s notwithstanding, there are
a number of other skills in which I am not yet proficient which would make
such an endeavor ill-advised. Riding my bike to work every day, on the
other hand, is something that I feel competent to do safely, as I've had
practice in critical accident-avoidance manuevers, none of which relate to
turning in a tight radius without putting my foot down.
Incidently, simply stopping on a heavily-crowned road can be tricky --
twice, after I bought this new (used) bike, I did this, found the ground
about an inch lower than where my foot thought it would be, and humiliated
myself by dropping the bike when I went off-balance. This wasn't an issue
on the much smaller bike I used to ride (and the bikes which are used in MSF
classes). I would have appreciated some training in this, which I've never
seen mentioned in either the MSF materials or the DMV motorcycle book, along
with how to pick up the bike once it fell over (fortunately for me, I was
leafing through a motorcycle magazine at the shop where I bought my bike and
it had an article about how to do it).
>
> Mike
Beav
"PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:2rr8caF...@uni-berlin.de...
> I must have missed one of your original posts. Are you an MSF instructor?
>
> I just took the class, after a 20-year hiatus from bikes and then failing
> the CA DMV test on my Honda 500CX. Even though I had ridden for quite a
> while back in the 80s, I still came away from MSF with some new and useful
> skills and information, and consider it time well-spent.
>
> One question, though: of what practical use is the ability to make a
> tight-radius turn or, as we did at MSF, ride figure-8s inside a tight
> rectangular box? All the other skills made sense -- I've never had to
> swerve, for example, and it was good being able to practice it in
conditions
> that wouldn't get me killed if I didn't do it well. However, other than
> parking my bike in my garage, when would I ever need to a slow-speed,
> counterweight turn (and in my garage, I can just walk the bike when I
park)?
I've been following this thread, but didn't feel the need to join in as I'm
not likely to take the test in question, but your comment about the
practical use of tight radius turns struck me as very odd. Don't you have
small streets or confined spaces in Ca?
I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time doing precisely that (tight
radius turns) and as the examiner in my test said "If the rider can walk a
bike in a circle (space limitations) then he can RIDE it in that circle or
he shouldn't be riding at all, and he should be able to ride that circle all
day if he wants to without falling off or putting a foot down). I happen to
agree with that.
Another comment you made "I've never had to swerve". That seems to me to be
an impossibility if you've ridden for much more than what? a couple of
hundered miles at most on todays roads. Just about everyone on the road will
try to take YOU off it (You as in bike rider) and despite having eyes in the
back of ones head and at the end of both arms, swerving happens. Are the
streets around you bereft of other vehicles I wonder.
Just my opinion of course.
Beav
Beav
>
> "Mike Schenk" <mike_sch...@planet.nl> wrote in message
> news:cj9tvu$247$1...@ziggy.homeip.net...
> > "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> writes in
>
rec.motorcycles,alt.motorcycle.sportbike,alt.motorcycles,alt.government.abus
> e,alt.law-enforcement:
> > >
> > >One question, though: of what practical use is the ability to make a
> > >tight-radius turn or, as we did at MSF, ride figure-8s inside a tight
> > >rectangular box? All the other skills made sense -- I've never had to
> > >swerve, for example, and it was good being able to practice it in
> conditions
> > >that wouldn't get me killed if I didn't do it well. However, other
than
> > >parking my bike in my garage, when would I ever need to a slow-speed,
> > >counterweight turn (and in my garage, I can just walk the bike when I
> park)?
> >
> > Riding in between traffic on a jammed road is one thing that springs to
> > mind as a situation where it comes in handy.
>
> Without putting your foot down when and if necessary?
Only when the bike has stopped. Not when it's moving. It shouldn't BE
necessary if you've got control over the bike.
Beav
PTRAVEL
"Beav" <beavis....@ntloxoworld.com> wrote in message
news:10lhdmm...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> news:2rr8caF...@uni-berlin.de...
>> I must have missed one of your original posts. Are you an MSF
>> instructor?
>>
>> I just took the class, after a 20-year hiatus from bikes and then failing
>> the CA DMV test on my Honda 500CX. Even though I had ridden for quite a
>> while back in the 80s, I still came away from MSF with some new and
>> useful
>> skills and information, and consider it time well-spent.
>>
>> One question, though: of what practical use is the ability to make a
>> tight-radius turn or, as we did at MSF, ride figure-8s inside a tight
>> rectangular box? All the other skills made sense -- I've never had to
>> swerve, for example, and it was good being able to practice it in
> conditions
>> that wouldn't get me killed if I didn't do it well. However, other than
>> parking my bike in my garage, when would I ever need to a slow-speed,
>> counterweight turn (and in my garage, I can just walk the bike when I
> park)?
>
> I've been following this thread, but didn't feel the need to join in as
> I'm
> not likely to take the test in question, but your comment about the
> practical use of tight radius turns struck me as very odd. Don't you have
> small streets or confined spaces in Ca?
Sure, but not as small or confined as the circle in the DMV test, or the
figure-8 box in the MSF training.
>
> I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time doing precisely that (tight
> radius turns) and as the examiner in my test said "If the rider can walk a
> bike in a circle (space limitations) then he can RIDE it in that circle or
> he shouldn't be riding at all, and he should be able to ride that circle
> all
> day if he wants to without falling off or putting a foot down). I happen
> to
> agree with that.
>
> Another comment you made "I've never had to swerve". That seems to me to
> be
> an impossibility if you've ridden for much more than what? a couple of
> hundered miles at most on todays roads.
I define "swerve" the way the MSF does, a tight counterweighted turn in one
direction, then in the other, with the body perpendicular. I rode a bike
for 2 or 3 years in the 80s, and have been riding daily since August, and
I've never had to swerve. I have had to make evasive manuevers, but by
anticipating potential hazards and leaving sufficient room between myself
and an other drivers, I've never had to swerve.
> Just about everyone on the road will
> try to take YOU off it (You as in bike rider) and despite having eyes in
> the
> back of ones head and at the end of both arms, swerving happens. Are the
> streets around you bereft of other vehicles I wonder.
Hardly. When I had my first bike, I lived in LA. Now I live in San
Francisco.
PTRAVEL
> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in news:2rrk21F1eaf3aU1@uni-
> berlin.de:
>
>> Well, that's fine. However, the DMV is testing for minimum competency to
>> drive a motorcycle in the state of California. I've lived here for 25
>> years, driven all over in both cars and on bikes, and haven't seen
>> conditions like you've described.
>
>
I'm not suggesting conditions like this don't exist. I'm only saying they
are not typical or common and, if a motorcyle license is an attestation of
only minimum competence, it doesn't seem to make sense to test for uncommon
riding conditions.
Mike Schenk
>> the smaller roads I wouldn't have been able to get further up the
>> mountain, or down for that matter, without being able to do these turns.
>> Can't go fast, cause the turn is to narrow and can't put your feet on
>> the ground, cause the road is too steep.
>
>Well, that's fine. However, the DMV is testing for minimum competency to
>drive a motorcycle in the state of California. I've lived here for 25
>years, driven all over in both cars and on bikes, and haven't seen
>conditions like you've described. That doesn't mean they don't exist, but
>they're certainly not common. I would much rather see the DMV test skills
>like swerving and hard stops, which can mean the difference between life and
>death on any road anywhere, then a skill which might have application if I
>ever happen to take my bike on narrow mountain trails.
I've been to California many times and I've seen similar roads in the
mountains than those in the Alps.
Mike
Colin
pointed out is not necessary when on the road, you are actually learning how to
control your bike properly. The manoeuvres that you face on the road will be
easy in comparison.
Orak Listalavostok
> Oh, yeah, don't you poor bastards pay $204 a year to register each of your
> automobiles? Sucks to live in California, doesn't it?
It's worse than that. For example, it cost me $850 dollars to register
my newly bought second-hand 2000 BMW K1200RS just two months ago in
California. I was lucky. The guy next to me registering his non-CA
bike in CA had less than 7,500 miles on it at the time of sale and
they made him truck it out of the state, never again to be registered
in CA (that's the law for out-of-state vehicles, including bikes).
Some of you got the point. The system basically *requires* a class for
bikers (but not for pedestrians, bicyclists, cagers, etc.). The MSF
benefits greatly. They pass nearly everyone for the 200 dollar bribe.
The DMV fails nearly everyone for their 15 dollar fee. Both take more
than a few days of practice. On both, you practice on toy bikes
(because you can't hope to pass the DMV test on a real bike where you
can't even *SEE* the lines you're supposed to stay within).
Regarding out of state fees, the CA MSF course is subsidized for those
under a certain age (I think it's 21 but I didn't double-check). This
is because CA REQUIRES those newbies to take the MSF class.
Interesting. More proof that the government is political (as if you
expected something else from a government). Anyone over that age pays
the full $200 fare though (to subsidize the rest, I guess).
Those of you out of state probably can't believe this conversation.
I wouldn't either (my M1 license from Texas expired long ago).
So, to help out, tomorrow, I'll stop by the DMV and MEASURE the lines
and report them to you on these here newsgroups. Draw those lines in
chalk on your drivway (assumeing it's level) or one-way street. Then
follow the complete test as prescribed by the California DMV.
Since you won't even SEE the lines on a big bike, then tell me how
we're supposed to pass this so-called motorcycle riding test.
Orak Listalavostok
Orak Listalavostok
> the CA DMV test on my Honda 500CX.
PTravel,
You seem to be one of those RARE folks who have tasted BOTH the MSF
bribery and the DMV idiocy. So, that gives you a balance of opinion
almost none of the other helpful posters have (including myself).
Would you therefore kindly answer this one question for the group?
QUESTION:
Could you even *SEE* the lines you were supposed to stay within on the
CA DMV motorcycle riding test?
NOTE:
I'm talking about the 20-foot (or so) diameter circle that you have to
transit twice in either direction, not the swerving through the 5
cones part, nor the 40-foot (or so) foot-wide runways. Those are
relatively easy (even on a big bike compared to staying within a
circle you can't even see).
Could you *SEE* the lines you were supposed to stay within on your
500CX?
Or did you have to memorize the turning radius and wing it after days
of practice (with absolutely no room for error)?
Orak Listalavostok
Paul Franz
Kleinschmidt) wrote:
>What kind of test did they throw at you and what part did you have
>trouble with ?
While it might impress the female neighbors, the CA DMV "basic skills"
motorcycle test has no relevance to riding in the real world.
Picture a driveway with a flat circle (about 20 feet wide) with two
parallel runways (about a foot wide each) eminating from that circle
at about 4 o'clock and at about 8 o'clock with five cones down the
center lane (about 6 feet wide) between those two parallel lanes
(about 30 feet long).
Remember, there is no room for error (even on a 250 cc toy bike)
because they _will_ fail you if you put your foot down or if you stray
outside the lines even for a split second. Consider they never told
you WHAT the test is (you'd never know unless you watched someone and
even then, they'd have to have made it to the second part for you to
see the full test). Also consider you get THREE tries (over three
different dates). If you fail all three (and even if you practiced
'till the cows came home, you will likely fail one or two even on a
puny 250 cc toy bike as there is no room for error), then you have to
start your permit process all over again (picture, fingerprint,
written exam, and yes, of course, money).
Consider the CA DMV examiner (who likely never rode a bike in her
life) 'inspects' your bike. Actually, they merely ask (in broken
english), "Where is the choke", "Where is the clutch", "Where is the
rear brake", "Where is the horn", "Where is the front brake", "Turn on
your left turn signal", "Turn on the right signal", etc. Note: They do
NOT check your headlight or your horn apparently.
Then they ask you to ride down a fifty foot track, onto a lightly
travelled roadway, up through the CA DMV parking lot, to a driveway
sized flat circle (see above) with cars driving through periodically
(yes, even during the test - the cagers don't look) and cars parked
along each side of the driveway circle test. They say to use a few
gears. In all probability, they're not even looking at you since they
have to walk to the driveway circle as you ride it and park your bike.
The CA DMV examiner, in barely discernable english, then instructs you
to never put your foot down and never stray outside the lines or you
will fail (this part they are serious about). They then position you
to one side of the 5 cones which you are told to swerve through
without touching and then you enter, most likely in second gear, the
turning circle, which (if you started to the right will be clockwise,
for two turns. Since you can't even see the circle, you have to
totally guess where it is from about 10 feet in front of your front
wheel. You slip the clutch widely, hold the throttle as wide open as
you dare, and you regulate your speed with your right foot heavily at
times to prevent surging forward out of the wheel-lock turning circle.
Only the front wheel must stay within the foot-wide lines (which you
can not see). After two turns, you exit out of the circle at about the
6 o'clock position and slalom through the 5 cones again.
For the second half of this idiotic driveway test, the CA DMV examiner
positions you on one of the runways. Which runway is dependent on
which way they had you go through the cones. If you started right on
the cones, then you do the right runway. That makes your circle a
counter-clockwise circle this time. You zip down the thirty-foot
foot-wide runway, again slipping into second gear just before hitting
the circle at about the 4 o'clock position. As you slip the clutch,
rev the throttle, and manage your speed with the rear brake, you
circle twice (again, you can't even hope to see the circle on a bigger
bike than a toy two wheeler), and then flip the bike over from a lean
to a straight run down the runway at the 8 o'clock lane (this was the
hardest for me, after the impossible circle, as your lean angle
instantaneously has to change from the circle to verticle without
wavering one bit in the tires along the runway.
Someone please tell me what this idiotic so-called basic-skills CA
riding test proves other than you can do loop-de-loops in your
driveway on a borrowed toy bike without putting your foot down once.
PTRAVEL
"Orak Listalavostok" <orakl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44d113e9.04092...@posting.google.com...
> news:<2rr8caF...@uni-berlin.de>...
>> I just took the class, after a 20-year hiatus from bikes and then failing
>> the CA DMV test on my Honda 500CX.
>
> PTravel,
>
> You seem to be one of those RARE folks who have tasted BOTH the MSF
> bribery and the DMV idiocy. So, that gives you a balance of opinion
> almost none of the other helpful posters have (including myself).
>
> Would you therefore kindly answer this one question for the group?
>
> QUESTION:
> Could you even *SEE* the lines you were supposed to stay within on the
> CA DMV motorcycle riding test?
>
> NOTE:
> I'm talking about the 20-foot (or so) diameter circle that you have to
> transit twice in either direction, not the swerving through the 5
> cones part, nor the 40-foot (or so) foot-wide runways. Those are
> relatively easy (even on a big bike compared to staying within a
> circle you can't even see).
I could see the outside line, but not the inside -- it was blocked by the
frame of my bike and my leg. And I could only see the outside line by
looking down the whole time, which was something I was taught not to do at
MSF. I had no trouble with swerving through the cones, but could not make
it around the circle more than half way. It may have been physically
possible to do that on my bike, but I didn't want to lean the bike over as
far as I would have had to -- I don't think I should have to run the risk of
laying my bike down to pass the DMV test.
>
> Could you *SEE* the lines you were supposed to stay within on your
> 500CX?
> Or did you have to memorize the turning radius and wing it after days
> of practice (with absolutely no room for error)?
I didn't get to practice, and that was part of the problem. There's a big
sign that says, "No practicing" at the motorcycle test site. I asked the
DMV tester if it was enforced, and she said that it was -- no practicing.
She suggested that I find some empty parking lot somewhere and practice with
my bike or, alternatively, rent a smaller bike which was, according to her,
"what everybody who passes does." I don't know where there are any empty
parking lots, and I figured that, as long as I had to lay out money to rent
a bike, I might as well pay for the MSF class.
As I've indicated, I'm glad I took the MSF class. The classroom portion
pulled together a number of things that I was doing intuitively. The first
riding day was pretty much pointless for me, other than it being kind of fun
to go putting around a parking lot on a little bike. The second day,
however, gave me the opportunity to practice swerving in really tight
conditions, and also a chance to try braking hard from a full-lean turn.
I've never had to do either of these on the road, and I liked having had a
chance to practice these skills a bit on someone else's bike in a safe
environment. I also got fairly good at the figure-8s.
The MSF class had enough value for me that I'm glad I took it. I still
would have preferred to simply pass my DMV test (as I did when I took it in
the 1980s -- on my little 125cc 2-stroke Yamaha).
>
> Orak Listalavostok
PleaseNoSpam
<Cam.Penner.news1ATpleasedo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Doing figure-8s in a fixed space is a good way to force you
>to get LOTS of performance out of your bike RIGHT NOW. I
>don't know if you snow ski at all, but doing the figure-8s
>in a box is kind of like skiing a big set of moguls on a 20
>foot wide run.
Would you still recommend to snow ski a figure eight where you can't
even see the figure eight on any skis longer than, say, 155mm?
PleaseNoSpam
<Cam.Penner.news1ATpleasedo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>being a perfectly skilled low speed rider does not
>guarantee any sort of skill at high speeds, but it
>certainly builds a strong base of skills and experience to
>draw on.
Is it a "basic skill" to be able to turn a circle you can't even see?
Then do that four times (two in each direction)?
Then enter and exit at almost right angles?
Without ever putting a foot down or straying out of the 1-foot lane?
That sure seems like an "advanced skill" to me.
Either that, or it's an idiotic beginners' test approved by the MSF so
that they can force thousands of CA suckers each year to take a $200
toy bike class (which interestingly, doesn't run the same idiotic
test) as a bribe to the MSF.
Khamn Nguyen
wrote:
>I was licensed in California in the 80s, but didn't bother renewing my
>license after I gave up my bike. I just bought a Honda 500 CX this summer.
>I couldn't pass the new test, either -- the examiner even suggested that I
>rent a smaller bike.
I have a similar story. My CA DMV examiner spoke Vietnamese fluently.
Luckily I had an Asian friend who interpreted for me. The examiner
told him about one person a month passes her test. She was proud of
the number of riders she flunked. She also runs the car test.
I'll bet they don't make automobile drivers turn 7-meter circles in a
driveway without stepping on the brake once or they fail.
Paul Franz
> I guess it depends on your skill level and slow riding skills.
>Are you saying your BMW doesn't turn tightly enough or you can't ride it
>that slowly?
The main point is that, with this 638 pound curb weight 130 horsepower
BMW, you can't even see the turning circle, let alone ride at slow
speeds staying within the foot wide lines.
I seriously doubt that anyone on earth has passed this recently
idiotic CA DMV test on any big bike (despite what they may claim in
this thread).
It would really be nice to see PROOF printed (for example, a listing
of how many riders take the idiotic CA DMV riding test and how many
pass/fail and on which bikes vs the same data for the MSF bribery.
I suspect I know the answer already ...
MSF MSF MSF | DMV DMV DMV
PASS FAIL SIZE | PASS FAIL SIZE
X 125cc | X 250cc
X 125cc | X 450cc
X 125cc | X 500cc
X 125cc | X 600cc
X 125cc | X 750cc
X 125cc | X 1000cc
X 125cc | X 1100cc
X 125cc | X 1200cc
Why would the MSF endorse a test which basically forces tens of
thousands of otherwise qualified riders to take a 200 dollar class
which the MSF in the main beneficiary of?
Are they _any_ statistics which purport to show that those riders who
train for 16 hours to pass the DMV test are better or worse than those
similar riders who train for 16 hours to pass the (admittedly
tremendously easier) MSF test?
Paul Franz
(Mike Schenk) wrote:
>What's the test exactly? It can't be much harder that the test in
>Holland that includes doing three laps within a circle with a diameter
>of 6 meters and then leaving the circle at a predefined place making a
>sharp right (the circle is counter clockwise). While it's very
>frustrating to practice it ...
Yup. That's basically the test.
Except you need to add both counterclockwise and clockwise circles,
two in each direction, plus a slalom course, in both directions, plus
two runway runs to and from the circle, plus the entering and exiting
of the circle is from four different locations along the circle -- all
without the ability to put your foot down or to stray outside the 30
cm wide lanes.
Compare and contrast that with the 200 USD MSF bribe, which pays for
your ticket to the motorcycle license without having to pass this CA
DMV driveway test.
Paul Franz
>um, wah? i passed with just fine. i didn't even take the MSF beforehand.
>you just suck ass as riding motorcycles and should sell that K1200RS to
>me at a large discount.
>-Beth
How do _you_ propose to see the lines of the test on this bike?
Do you have some see-through mechanism nobody else has?
Oh, and do you want help picking up the 650 pound bike before or after
you drop it during the CA DMV test?
:)
Mike Schenk
>
>QUESTION:
>Could you even *SEE* the lines you were supposed to stay within on the
>CA DMV motorcycle riding test?
You don't have to. You will see them a couple of meters in front of your
bike. That should be enough to *know* where they are when you are
actually at the spot. The trick to all these exercises is basically to
sort of picture yourself some distance in front of the bike and mentally
set out a course. You will more or less automatically make the bike
follow that path.
Mike
Mike Schenk
>On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:13:24 -0600, Paul Cassel <pa...@abq.com> wrote:
>> I guess it depends on your skill level and slow riding skills.
>>Are you saying your BMW doesn't turn tightly enough or you can't ride it
>>that slowly?
>
>The main point is that, with this 638 pound curb weight 130 horsepower
>BMW, you can't even see the turning circle, let alone ride at slow
>speeds staying within the foot wide lines.
I can on my Pan European, and that's the same size as the BMW.
It really is just a matter of practice, which over here in Holland we
all have to do to pass our exam. Keeping up that practice will really
improve your confidence on the bike and that's always a good idea.
Mike
Iggy
"Paul Franz" <k12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6m4il0phhd0le4a0k...@4ax.com...
> On 27 Sep 2004 12:23:39 -0700, Rkleinsc...@aol.com (Rob
> Kleinschmidt) wrote:
>>What kind of test did they throw at you and what part did you have
>>trouble with ?
>
> While it might impress the female neighbors,
Whining, such as you've been doing for the past week, usually tends to drive
the fairer sex away....that is, unless you're a chick, too. You've spent so
much time in here *bitching* about the CA DMV that you could have been done
with the MSF course, gotten your endorsement, and been riding for a couple
of days.....all because you spent the ungodly sum of $200 on something
worthwhile - you're safety.
Odinn
> I just went through this process.
>
> I was licensed in California in the 80s, but didn't bother renewing my
> license after I gave up my bike. I just bought a Honda 500 CX this summer.
> I couldn't pass the new test, either -- the examiner even suggested that I
> rent a smaller bike.
>
> I wound up taking the MSC class -- 10 hours out in the sun on a parking lot
> riding around on little 125cc Hondas and Kawaskis. I passed, no problem,
> but there were quite a few in my class who didn't (and, frankly, they
> shouldn't have, either).
Guess that disproves his theory that EVERYONE who takes the MSF passes.
[ remainder snipped due to top posting ]
--
Odinn
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
Fill in the blanks to reply
PWB
news:9_86d.20796$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> I didn't get to practice, and that was part of the problem. There's a big
> sign that says, "No practicing" at the motorcycle test site. I asked the
> DMV tester if it was enforced, and she said that it was -- no practicing.
> She suggested that I find some empty parking lot somewhere and practice
> with my bike or, alternatively, rent a smaller bike which was, according
> to her, "what everybody who passes does." I don't know where there are
> any empty parking lots, and I figured that, as long as I had to lay out
> money to rent a bike, I might as well pay for the MSF class.
>
> As I've indicated, I'm glad I took the MSF class. The classroom portion
> pulled together a number of things that I was doing intuitively. The
> first riding day was pretty much pointless for me, other than it being
> kind of fun to go putting around a parking lot on a little bike. The
> second day, however, gave me the opportunity to practice swerving in
> really tight conditions, and also a chance to try braking hard from a
> full-lean turn. I've never had to do either of these on the road, and I
> liked having had a chance to practice these skills a bit on someone else's
> bike in a safe environment. I also got fairly good at the figure-8s.
>
> The MSF class had enough value for me that I'm glad I took it. I still
> would have preferred to simply pass my DMV test (as I did when I took it
> in the 1980s -- on my little 125cc 2-stroke Yamaha).
Actually, both in 1985 and in 2003, I had no problems seeing the lines in
front of me, and following them (remember... "look where you want the bike
to go"). Of course, I went through the PennDOT motorcycle exam in 1985 on a
two-stroke Vespa PX150, and the 2003 Ohio BMV exam on a four-stroke Kymco
P150. I had no problems in either case staying within the roughly six-meter
"box" in which we were expected to complete our figure-eights. I also took
the MSF BRC after getting my license, and was likewise able to pass muster
on a Yamaha enduro bike (a TW225, I think). The constant between all three
of these bikes? Short wheelbase and small displacement. I'd never be able
to manage the figure-eight on, say, a Triumph Rocket III. Or, for that
matter, a HD Sportster 1200XL. As it is, my long-wheelbase (62.9 inches)
Suzuki Burgman 650 protests greatly as I flog it through the same
exercise... it's possible to take a larger bike through those
tight-clearance low speed maneuvers, but it's NOT fun and it requires a lot
more skill to do so than it does on a small bike.
PWB
JimmySmitsLovesChocolateMilk
If you could not pass the test, don't blame the test, get better!
this is why the Japanese make better cars / bikes / tv's ect
quit the complaining and get better.
like the one poster said, if you can walk the bike in the circle, you can
ride it in that circle.
and if you can see the line ahead of you, you should be able to figure out
how much you need to turn
to stay inside of the line that is below you.
my 2 cents
Dave
"Orak Listalavostok" <orakl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44d113e9.04092...@posting.google.com...
JimmySmitsLovesChocolateMilk
the MSF is not making money on the class,
its not a for profit organization
think of the cost of the trainers salary, the bikes used in the class, and
insurance for the rooks that dump the bikes
add it all up and 200 for the class is pretty reasonable.
it makes sense to me that if you don't take a class, the test to skip the
class would be harder than the test at the end of the class
Dave
"Orak Listalavostok" <orakl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44d113e9.04092...@posting.google.com...
JimmySmitsLovesChocolateMilk
<snip>I'd never be able
to manage the figure-eight on, say, a Triumph Rocket III. Or, for that
matter, a HD Sportster 1200XL. <snip>
which is exactly the point, if you ride a bigger bike, it is more difficult
to handle,
and, if you can't handle it as well as riding a smaller bike, then maybe
the skill set needs to be looked at once again
I know I could not handle a large heavy bike thru a test like that, but,
with my smaller 500, I am confident I could pass the test,
I can perform the manuvers that prove that I can control my bike well, on a
smaller bike so that is what I ride
, but, the same maneuver on a larger bike is harder to pull off,
I won't be riding a bigger bike till I can pass a test on the larger bike.
I totally agree with you PWB
Cam Penner
nos...@nospam.com says...
Moot point. You don't ski uphill.
Try this one:
Ski a figure "S" where you are not permitted to look at the
ground within 10 feet of your feet. Do it on a slope 20
feet wide with moguls.
If you really know how to ski, this is dead easy. If you
haven't practised, and lack skills, this is really hard.
You don't need to see immediately in front of yourself.
There's nothing of interest there. You need to have your
head turned and be looking through the turn. On the riding
around the circle, you should be looking as far ahead as
you can possibly turn your head. You want to be looking at
the far side of the circle, not where you are on the lines.
As soon as you start looking for the lines by your wheels,
you're going to hit them and fail.
--
Cam
'89 RZ 350
PTravel
"JimmySmitsLovesChocolateMilk" <Not...@doing.ca> wrote in message
news:INudnQ2Vu4W...@comcast.com...
> Dude,
>
> the MSF is not making money on the class,
> its not a for profit organization
> think of the cost of the trainers salary, the bikes used in the class,
and
> insurance for the rooks that dump the bikes
> add it all up and 200 for the class is pretty reasonable.
> it makes sense to me that if you don't take a class, the test to skip the
> class would be harder than the test at the end of the class
I agree with you, but I'll point out one thing. MSF required that we sign
liability waivers that exempted them from just about everything. Now, my
personal opinion (I'm a lawyer) is that the waivers are of at least
questionable enforceability. However, with a liability release that broad,
I'm thinking their insurance costs probably aren't that high.
Cam Penner
k12...@hotmail.com says...
> Compare and contrast that with the 200 USD MSF bribe, which pays for
> your ticket to the motorcycle license without having to pass this CA
> DMV driveway test.
IIRC, the "bribe" actually doesn't even cover it's own
costs. Hardly a bribe. "Here, pay me some money so that
you can learn enough to actually pass the test. Oh yeah,
I'm losing money on the deal, but don't worry about it.
Someone else will subsidize you so that you get the benefit
for even less than it costs."
Get over it. Learn to ride before whining that you can't
pass.
My sportbike, while not large, doesn't have the worlds best
turning circle by any stretch of the imagination. I'll bet
that I could pass the test.
Cam Penner
k12...@hotmail.com says...
> Consider the CA DMV examiner (who likely never rode a bike in her
> life) 'inspects' your bike. Actually, they merely ask (in broken
> english), "Where is the choke", "Where is the clutch", "Where is the
> rear brake", "Where is the horn", "Where is the front brake", "Turn on
> your left turn signal", "Turn on the right signal", etc. Note: They do
> NOT check your headlight or your horn apparently.
And this is too difficult for you? I thought you were
having trouble passing?
> Then they ask you to ride down a fifty foot track, onto a lightly
> travelled roadway, up through the CA DMV parking lot, to a driveway
> sized flat circle (see above) with cars driving through periodically
> (yes, even during the test - the cagers don't look) and cars parked
> along each side of the driveway circle test.
Heaven forbid that you actually have to watch for other
traffic while you ride your motorcycle. It seems to me
this is a very useful thing to test. Just because you're
"concentrating on the test" doesn't mean you shouldn't be
looking for traffic. How else are you going to ride when
you are "concentrating on finding an address" out in the
real world. Cars come through there without looking too.
> for two turns. Since you can't even see the circle, you have to
> totally guess where it is from about 10 feet in front of your front
Well this makes perfect sense. You shouldn't be looking
any closer in front of you anyways. If the circle is
similar to what you've described - you want to be looking
over your shoulder to the far side. Looking down by your
wheels is going to mess up your balance and situational
awareness. Keep your head up, level with the horizon, and
looking at the far side of the circle. Or in the case of
your last loop, at the exit point you want to hit.
> wheel. You slip the clutch widely, hold the throttle as wide open as
> you dare, and you regulate your speed with your right foot heavily at
> times to prevent surging forward out of the wheel-lock turning circle.
This is normal on a motorcycle. Low speed maneuvers are
seldom done with the clutch let all the way out. Give it
3000 RPM, slip the clutch and control your speed with the
"friction zone" and rear brake. The rear brake will also
help stabilize your bike and make the whole process easier.
On a smaller bike, you have to rev it even more. Big
torque bikes will allow you to slip the clutch with less
throttle.
> Only the front wheel must stay within the foot-wide lines (which you
> can not see). After two turns, you exit out of the circle at about the
> 6 o'clock position and slalom through the 5 cones again.
Look where you want to go, not where you are. Keep your
head up and level, looking through the corner. The bike
WILL track smoothly around the circle.
> foot-wide runway, again slipping into second gear just before hitting
> the circle at about the 4 o'clock position. As you slip the clutch,
> rev the throttle, and manage your speed with the rear brake, you
Good so far...
> circle twice (again, you can't even hope to see the circle on a bigger
> bike than a toy two wheeler), and then flip the bike over from a lean
> to a straight run down the runway at the 8 o'clock lane (this was the
> hardest for me, after the impossible circle, as your lean angle
> instantaneously has to change from the circle to verticle without
> wavering one bit in the tires along the runway.
This is a good practise too.
> Someone please tell me what this idiotic so-called basic-skills CA
> riding test proves other than you can do loop-de-loops in your
> driveway on a borrowed toy bike without putting your foot down once.
It proves that you understand the principles of looking
where you want to go, and have sufficient brains, skills,
and strength to ride the bike you have selected for the
PTravel
<snip>
> Are they _any_ statistics which purport to show that those riders who
> train for 16 hours to pass the DMV test are better or worse than those
> similar riders who train for 16 hours to pass the (admittedly
> tremendously easier) MSF test?
>
Almost all of the people in my MSF class were complete newbie riders -- I
and one other guy were the only students who had ridden before. I suspect
this is true of most MSF classes. I was going through the process because I
hadn't renewed my motorcycle license 15 years before. The other guy had
moved in from out of state and, apparently, CA didn't recognize his state's
motorcycle license.
Aside from the two of us for whom the class was easy (except for the
figure-8s), I'd estimate that about half the class caught on relatively
quickly. However, the other half was just plain frightening. These were
folks that you didn't want to be riding until they had some training. I saw
low-sides in the "sudden braking" exercise, people consistently missing
shifts, people locking rear brakes on turns (while the instructor kept
shouting, "Don't brake! Don't brake!" And, though we all had trouble with
the figure-8s initially, there were a significant number who never got it,
including a couple of people who had such poor control of their bikes that
they wound up 50 to 100 feet OUTSIDE the box. None of the bikes had mirrors
(you can guess why), about half of them had a turn signal stalk broken off,
and they were all pretty badly dinged up.
Approximately 1/3 of the class failed (scored less than 80 out of 100 on the
evaluation), and will have to repeat (I got 94 out of 100 -- I put my foot
down once in the figure-8 and, trying to look like the model cautious rider,
entered a turn too slow -- I usually got yelled at for doing everything too
fast). And you know what? Those folks who failed SHOULD have failed. It's
a good thing that they can't ride on highways, at night or with passengers
yet.
However, the rest of the newbies went from "I'm afraid to shift in to
second" to being able to ride smoothly and safely. I'm no where near as
experienced as most of the riders in this newsgroup, but I spent a couple of
years on a bike and THOUGHT I knew what I was doing. Though I didn't get as
much out of the class as the complete newbies, I still picked up a couple of
valuable skills and some worthwhile information.
Frankly, I'd prefer it if MSF was required for anyone getting licensed.
PTravel
The figure-8s in the MSF class are, at least in my opinion, more difficult
than the DMV circle test. I was doing circles when no one was looking as a
way to practice for the figure-8s at the MSF class. The MSF class also
teaches (and gives plenty of practice in) these skills:
very slow speed riding
counter steering
swerving
going over obstacles
full-lean turns
emergency stops on straightaways and on full-lean turns
obstacle avoidance
as well as the basics of starting, shifting, steering, etc. The classroom
portion teaches mechanical basics, start-up and shut-down procedure,
accident avoidance, and gear selection, among other things.
It's really not a bad class for a beginner. When I started riding in the
80s, I just took the DMV written test, jumped on the bike and figured things
out as I went. I still remember, after having ridden for an hour or so,
being stopped at a light and thinking, "Hey, I've got this figured out!"
When the light turned green, I gunned the engine and dropped it into first,
resulting in the bike shooting forward, my front tire coming off the ground
and my nearly falling off the bike. Fortunately, there was no traffic
around me and I recovered without spilling.
That wouldn't have happened if I had taken the MSF course.
>
Rob Kleinschmidt
> On 27 Sep 2004 12:23:39 -0700, Rkleinsc...@aol.com (Rob
> Kleinschmidt) wrote:
> >What kind of test did they throw at you and what part did you have
> >trouble with ?
>
> While it might impress the female neighbors, the CA DMV "basic skills"
> motorcycle test has no relevance to riding in the real world.
>
> Picture a driveway with a flat circle (about 20 feet wide) with two
> parallel runways (about a foot wide each) eminating from that circle
> at about 4 o'clock and at about 8 o'clock with five cones down the
> center lane (about 6 feet wide) between those two parallel lanes
> (about 30 feet long).
>
> Remember, there is no room for error (even on a 250 cc toy bike)
> because they _will_ fail you if you put your foot down or if you stray
> outside the lines even for a split second. Consider they never told
> you WHAT the test is (you'd never know unless you watched someone and
> even then, they'd have to have made it to the second part for you to
> see the full test). Also consider you get THREE tries (over three
> different dates). If you fail all three (and even if you practiced
> 'till the cows came home, you will likely fail one or two even on a
> puny 250 cc toy bike as there is no room for error), then you have to
> start your permit process all over again (picture, fingerprint,
> written exam, and yes, of course, money).
Sounds pretty much like the same test as thirty years ago. I blew
it on the first try, spent a little bit of time practicing on their
course, tried it again that same afternoon and passed. This was
on a dual sport though which is better suited for that kind of stuff.
What I recall particularly was that it went way better leaning
the bike while sitting straight upright and not leaning with it.
This lets you slalom the cones quickly.
If you really can't see where the front wheel's goint, you might
need to stand. You occasionally hit the same problem in real life
when you're trying to pick your way through rocks or branches on
the road.
Whether it demonstrates anything useful or not is hard to say.
You've pretty much got a choice of the DMV course or MSF. Most
say the MSF is actually a money well spent, so you might rethink
that option. I suspect the DMV picked the low speed manuevers
instead of higher speed stuff mostly because of safety concerns.
Joe
I am not that good with metrics but the way I figure this you have about a
one foot wide lane that is in the shape of a circle that has a diameter of
about the width of a two car driveway and you have to prove you can drive in
this?
If this is correct I gotta say this is a bullshit test.
To begin with what is the practical use of this ability?
And secondly I am 39 years old and got my first bike a Honda 50 when I was 9
years old. I have ridden over 5,000 miles on dirt bikes in my life and over
100,000 mile on street bikes and have never wrecked one so I know how to
ride a motorcycle safely. I could probably pass this test on a dirt bike but
I know I could not pass it on my 1100 Shadow Spirit and that says nothing
about my ability to safely ride a motorcycle.
And Thirdly, anyone with a Goldwing or other full dress bike would stand no
chance at all.
Joe
Odinn
I can show you many people that can put a Goldwing or ElectraGlide in
that very easily. One of the local bike cops here claims that 16ft is
all that is needed for a RoadKing/ElectraGlide/RoadGlide, so 20ft is
quite feasible.
Beav
"Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95718F59...@66.75.162.198...
> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in
> Getting to the end of a dead-end road... Parking lots... Maneuvering
> between cars in dead-stopped traffic... Being able to do these maneuvers
> without putting down your feet will actually make for a much smoother
> maneuver... It also helps a whole lot when the road surface is slippery.
I love to watch guys on bikes at stop signs when their time comes to move
off. Both feet sticking out each side of the bike, the bike leaning and one
foot dragging. I'm convinced they think it looks cool, but little do they
know:-)
I get REALLY pissed off with myself if I've ever got to put a foot down when
I know I shouldn't, (and it happens) and I find myself looking to see if
anyone saw me.
Beav
Beav
>
> "Beav" <beavis....@ntloxoworld.com> wrote in message
> news:10lhdmm...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
> > news:2rr8caF...@uni-berlin.de...
> >> I must have missed one of your original posts. Are you an MSF
> >> instructor?
> >>
> >> I just took the class, after a 20-year hiatus from bikes and then
failing
a
> >> while back in the 80s, I still came away from MSF with some new and
> >> useful
> >> skills and information, and consider it time well-spent.
> >>
> >> One question, though: of what practical use is the ability to make a
> >> tight-radius turn or, as we did at MSF, ride figure-8s inside a tight
> >> rectangular box? All the other skills made sense -- I've never had to
> >> swerve, for example, and it was good being able to practice it in
> > conditions
> >> that wouldn't get me killed if I didn't do it well. However, other
than
> >> parking my bike in my garage, when would I ever need to a slow-speed,
> >> counterweight turn (and in my garage, I can just walk the bike when I
> > park)?
> >
> > I've been following this thread, but didn't feel the need to join in as
> > I'm
> > not likely to take the test in question, but your comment about the
> > practical use of tight radius turns struck me as very odd. Don't you
have
> > small streets or confined spaces in Ca?
>
> Sure, but not as small or confined as the circle in the DMV test, or the
> figure-8 box in the MSF training.
I remember my test like it was yesterday (it's at least an hour long over
here) and I thought some of the manoeuvres were a bit ridiculous ntil I came
to riding for real on a bigish (750) bike. We have some ludicrously narrow
streets and many times it's necessary to "do a U-ey" and without the skills
I had to learn to pass the test, I'd have to waddle through the turn like a
spastic duck rather than just ride it around. for me, the tight circle type
of manoeuvres are a must.
>
> >
> > I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time doing precisely that (tight
> > radius turns) and as the examiner in my test said "If the rider can walk
a
> > bike in a circle (space limitations) then he can RIDE it in that circle
or
> > he shouldn't be riding at all, and he should be able to ride that circle
> > all
> > day if he wants to without falling off or putting a foot down). I happen
> > to
> > agree with that.
> >
> > Another comment you made "I've never had to swerve". That seems to me to
> > be
> > an impossibility if you've ridden for much more than what? a couple of
> > hundered miles at most on todays roads.
>
> I define "swerve" the way the MSF does, a tight counterweighted turn in
one
> direction, then in the other, with the body perpendicular.
Ok, but what we describe as swerving is pretty much the same thing. We learn
the countersteering thing on our MANDATORY courses and we've got to stay
upright while the bike does the leaning, but don't you find a need to do
that pretty regularly? I know our roads aren' t spectacularly well
maintained, but I'm equally sure yours aren't either and there are many
occasions where a manhole cover in the middle of the lane will appear from
underneath the car/truck/bus I'm behind, which leaves me with a (pretty much
instant) choice. Go around it, doing the left, right, left, "swerve", or go
over it and I always go around it. Are there no pot holes or manhole
(access) covers in your roads either?
I rode a bike
> for 2 or 3 years in the 80s, and have been riding daily since August, and
> I've never had to swerve. I have had to make evasive manuevers, but by
> anticipating potential hazards and leaving sufficient room between myself
> and an other drivers, I've never had to swerve.
>
>
> > Just about everyone on the road will
> > try to take YOU off it (You as in bike rider) and despite having eyes in
> > the
> > back of ones head and at the end of both arms, swerving happens. Are the
> > streets around you bereft of other vehicles I wonder.
>
> Hardly. When I had my first bike, I lived in LA. Now I live in San
> Francisco.
Well I'm guessing that you have eyes that see further than anyone I've ever
known.
Beav
Beav
"Orak Listalavostok" <orakl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44d113e9.04092...@posting.google.com...
> "PWB" <NOS...@IHATESPAM.rr.com> wrote in message
news:<cbN5d.3797$YI2....@fe1.columbus.rr.com>...
> > Oh, yeah, don't you poor bastards pay $204 a year to register each of
your
> > automobiles? Sucks to live in California, doesn't it?
>
> It's worse than that. For example, it cost me $850 dollars to register
> my newly bought second-hand 2000 BMW K1200RS just two months ago in
> California. I was lucky. The guy next to me registering his non-CA
> bike in CA had less than 7,500 miles on it at the time of sale and
> they made him truck it out of the state, never again to be registered
> in CA (that's the law for out-of-state vehicles, including bikes).
This is something that intriques me greatly. What's the problem with these
lines? If you can see them in front of you, you can (or should be able to)
ride between them. You don't need to see them disappearing under the bike to
know where they are and in fact you shouldn't be looking so close to the
bike, you should be looking "down the road" and if that road merely consists
of two parallel lines, it doesn't make it any less of a road. How would you
travel along that "road" if the lines were walls? Would you ride, or would
you just stop and grow old sitting on a parked bike?
Beav
PTravel
Did waddling around the turn like a spastic duck put you at risk of injury?
If not, then I just don't see tight circles as an essential skill.
Sure -- turning from the left or right lane onto a one-way street, I always
countersteer to some extent. But that's just a 90% turn, not twice around
an even-tighter-radius-circle.
> I know our roads aren' t spectacularly well
> maintained, but I'm equally sure yours aren't either and there are many
> occasions where a manhole cover in the middle of the lane will appear from
> underneath the car/truck/bus I'm behind, which leaves me with a (pretty
much
> instant) choice. Go around it, doing the left, right, left, "swerve", or
go
> over it and I always go around it. Are there no pot holes or manhole
> (access) covers in your roads either?
There are, and I'd have no beef with the DMV if they test swerving (they do,
sort of, with the weave-in-and-out-of-the-cones test).
>
>
> I rode a bike
> > for 2 or 3 years in the 80s, and have been riding daily since August,
and
> > I've never had to swerve. I have had to make evasive manuevers, but by
> > anticipating potential hazards and leaving sufficient room between
myself
> > and an other drivers, I've never had to swerve.
> >
> >
> > > Just about everyone on the road will
> > > try to take YOU off it (You as in bike rider) and despite having eyes
in
> > > the
> > > back of ones head and at the end of both arms, swerving happens. Are
the
> > > streets around you bereft of other vehicles I wonder.
> >
> > Hardly. When I had my first bike, I lived in LA. Now I live in San
> > Francisco.
>
> Well I'm guessing that you have eyes that see further than anyone I've
ever
> known.
All I can say is I've never had an accident (knock on wood).
>
> Beav
>
>
Cam Penner
ptr...@ruyitang.com says...
> Did waddling around the turn like a spastic duck put you at risk of injury?
> If not, then I just don't see tight circles as an essential skill.
Neither is putting your foot down when you stop. You
probably won't hurt yourself too badly when the bike falls
over. But you'd be an unpredictable object in the street -
those are dangerous. Kind of like spastic paddling
motorcyclist wannabes.
> Sure -- turning from the left or right lane onto a one-way street, I always
> countersteer to some extent. But that's just a 90% turn, not twice around
> an even-tighter-radius-circle.
I doubt that California is completely free of roundabouts
or freeway offramps, or....
> There are, and I'd have no beef with the DMV if they test swerving (they do,
> sort of, with the weave-in-and-out-of-the-cones test).
It would be way better if they tested proper emergency
swerving, but that would lead to a harder test, not an
easier one like you want.
> All I can say is I've never had an accident (knock on wood).
That's because the test is so hard to pass...
--
Cam
'89 RZ 350
Burn it, don't churn it.
PTravel
"Cam Penner"
<Cam.Penner.news1ATpleasedo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1bc398b5a...@News.individual.net...
> In article <2rubcoF...@uni-berlin.de>,
> ptr...@ruyitang.com says...
> > Did waddling around the turn like a spastic duck put you at risk of
injury?
> > If not, then I just don't see tight circles as an essential skill.
>
> Neither is putting your foot down when you stop. You
> probably won't hurt yourself too badly when the bike falls
> over.
You don't put your foot down when you stop? I don't get it -- how does the
bike stay upright?
> But you'd be an unpredictable object in the street -
> those are dangerous. Kind of like spastic paddling
> motorcyclist wannabes.
That's me -- the Spastic Paddling Motorcyclist Wannabe (SPMW_. ;)
Seriously, I've had, of course, occassions to make u-turns, but never in
situations so tight that they resembled the DMV test.
>
> > Sure -- turning from the left or right lane onto a one-way street, I
always
> > countersteer to some extent. But that's just a 90% turn, not twice
around
> > an even-tighter-radius-circle.
>
> I doubt that California is completely free of roundabouts
> or freeway offramps, or....
Neither roundabouts nor offramps will have a diameter of 12 feet, though.
You have to lean, yes, but I've never seen one that required counterweight
steering.
Jeff Strickland
"Paul Franz" <k12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:n07cl094bdq98l43r...@4ax.com...
> I'm new to California & need to know if the existing riding skills
> test at the CA DMV is sheer idiocy by the California bureaucracy or if
> it's merely a method to funnel kickbacks to the motorocycle
> foundations who run the 200 dollar alternative test (which everyone
> passes).
>
> I'm told that the new riding test test is different than it used to
> be, so older riders who passed previous tests will not know what I'm
> talking about; but new riders who tried to pass the test in anything
> above, say about a 650, will back me up. It's nearly impossible.
> And it proves absolutely *nothing* about your ability to ride a bike.
>
> WHo *approved* this idiotic riding test anyway?
>
> In a K1200RS, you can't even *SEE* the turning circle, let alone pass
> the test. In the last two years (or so), it seems some organization (I
> don't know which) has profited immensly from the fact that nobody can
> pass that idiotic driving skills test, yet *everyone* (well,
> parapalegics have to take it twice) passes the 200-dollar alternative
> test provided as an alternative to the 15-dollar government test.
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Q1: What does that idiotic test prove where you can only pass it in a
> borrowed 250cc motorcycle (even for 20 years' experienced riders)?
>
> Q2: Who approved this idiotic CA DMV motorcycle riding test?
>
> Q3: Are those approvers the same group who profits from the
> alternative 200-dollar 16-hour class?
>
> Q4: Does *anyone* in a 750 or above pass this (new) CA riding skills
> test? (Prove it if you say it because I watched a dozen riders fail
> and not one made it to the second half of the test.)
>
> I know I can't change the system (I basically have to take the
> 200-dollar 16-hour class as a bribe to the american motorcycle
> association or whomever who sanctioned the idiotic CA DMV test. Even
> so, I'll be it's on a 125 cc or 200 cc toy bike instead of a 750 or
> larger (where the riders really ride).
>
> Please help me in my frustration.
>
> Is it just me? Or is this test a classic case of government with too
> little brains and too much power coupled with a motorocycle
> association which cares merely about its profits.
>
> Does anyone have any statistics about who actually can PASS this
> idiotic CA DMV riding test (and what bikes they rode)?
>
>
Jeff Strickland
clue as to how to structure a test to ascertain the abilities of people that
want to ride motorcycles. Since the Department of Motor Vehicles works
closely with the Highway Patrol, we are to assume the CHP has no idea how to
make a test either.
The MSF test teaches way more than how to avoid the test. Indeed, I venture
a bet that after you pay the $200 bucks, you could actually pass the test if
you bothered to try. I have a real hard time finding any sympathy for your
plight. Get over it, and learn to ride. Sheesh!
PS
You should be able to predict where the line is under your bike by where the
line goes when it isn't under your bike. That is the whole point.
"Paul Franz" <k12...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9o7il05nf3d3540jk...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 09:13:24 -0600, Paul Cassel <pa...@abq.com> wrote:
> > I guess it depends on your skill level and slow riding skills.
> >Are you saying your BMW doesn't turn tightly enough or you can't ride it
> >that slowly?
>
> The main point is that, with this 638 pound curb weight 130 horsepower
> BMW, you can't even see the turning circle, let alone ride at slow
> speeds staying within the foot wide lines.
>
> I seriously doubt that anyone on earth has passed this recently
> idiotic CA DMV test on any big bike (despite what they may claim in
> this thread).
>
> It would really be nice to see PROOF printed (for example, a listing
> of how many riders take the idiotic CA DMV riding test and how many
> pass/fail and on which bikes vs the same data for the MSF bribery.
>
> I suspect I know the answer already ...
>
> MSF MSF MSF | DMV DMV DMV
> PASS FAIL SIZE | PASS FAIL SIZE
> X 125cc | X 250cc
> X 125cc | X 450cc
> X 125cc | X 500cc
> X 125cc | X 600cc
> X 125cc | X 750cc
> X 125cc | X 1000cc
> X 125cc | X 1100cc
> X 125cc | X 1200cc
>
>
> Why would the MSF endorse a test which basically forces tens of
> thousands of otherwise qualified riders to take a 200 dollar class
> which the MSF in the main beneficiary of?
Jeff Strickland
PT, is this course required, or can one ride on the Learner's Permit and
gain the practice time needed, then get his license? I never took this
course when I had my bike. I am pretty sure I could pass it if I had to, all
I need is a few hours to practice.
PTRAVEL
"Jeff Strickland" <bee...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10lk87t...@corp.supernews.com...
>
<snip>
> PT, is this course required, or can one ride on the Learner's Permit and
> gain the practice time needed, then get his license?
It's not required. The Learner's Permit lets you ride anywhere except
freeways, at night or with passengers. I got my bike two months ago and
have been riding it daily on my permit.
The course is an alternative to taking the DMV road test, which includes the
tight-radius circles.
> I never took this
> course when I had my bike. I am pretty sure I could pass it if I had to,
> all
> I need is a few hours to practice.
Unfortunately, they don't let you practice and, at least where I am, it's
difficult to find a big enough and empty enough parking lot to try it on
your own. I'm sure I could pass it on a smaller bike, particularly after
having taken them MSF course. I still don't know if I could do it on my 500
CX Honda (of course, now I don't have to -- I just take my MSF certificate
and my permit down to the DMV and they'll give me a full license).
>
>
>
>
>
Polarhound
>What is the practical use of this ability?
I remember the first time I ever INSTINCTIVELY did a tight turn of this
nature. I was killing time one day exploring a couple of country roads,
and had to do a u-turn in a driveway.
Without even thinking about it I came into the driveway at about a 45
degree angle, weight on the pegs, ass off the seat, head craned ALL the
way over my left shoulder, and swung the bike around on a 180 degree
counterclockwise turn that would make some forklifts jealous.
My first thought as I stopped to wait for traffic to clear after the
turn: "Did I just do THAT?"
Clockwise turns, however, I need to work on a lot more. My confidence
is nowhere near as high when going to that side.
Granted, the above was on the LTD440.. But I have seen riders do a
u-turn with space to spare on a 1-way street with a Winnebiko many times.
PTRAVEL
> "PTRAVEL" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in
> news:9_86d.20796$QJ3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
>
>> to go putting around a parking lot on a little bike. The second day,
>> however, gave me the opportunity to practice swerving in really tight
>> conditions, and also a chance to try braking hard from a full-lean
>> turn. I've never had to do either of these on the road,
>
>
> Okay... I've seen your claims of not having to do this and not having
> to do that one too many times... A few different theories are popping
> up here...
>
> #1 You are a first class troll. Not necessarily a bad thing in Reeky.
> If, in fact, you are trolling, you have done well.
Hardly a troll. Check google -- it's easy to find out my real name, and
you'll see that I don't troll.
>
> #2 You don't really own a motorcycle. (See #1)
Since that big brown thing with two wheels in the garage doesn't have
pedals, I think it's safe to assume that it's not a bicycle.
>
> #3 You are exagerating your riding experience.
Nope. Had a Yamaha 125cc 2 stroke in the early 80s and kept it for a couple
of years until I was rear-ended while in my car on the freeway. I realized
that, had I been on my bike, I would have been killed, so I sold it. This
August, I bought a Honda 500CX for commuting to work -- parking in my office
building is $410/month for a car, $65/month for a motocycle, and insurance
on the bike was 1/10th of my auto insurance -- the bike made sense.
>
> #4 You ride at 10 mph everywhere you go.
No, I used to take my Yamaha on the freeway in LA (which, in retrospect, was
a very stupid thing to do with a bike that small, but I was much younger
then). Here in San Francisco, I get up to 30 or 35 on the city streets (I
haven't been on the freeway since I don't have my full license yet).
>
> #5 You wouldn't recognize a hazard if it bit you in the ass...
If that was the case, I would have run into one by now, and I haven't. I
simply allow sufficient stopping distance, don't split lanes, except at red
lights when everyone is stopped, and try and anticipate when morons are
going to pull out and in front of me. The one thing that I will do is split
lanes so I'm first at a light -- I do enjoy accelerating hard and getting
out in front of the auto traffic.
>
> There is NO way you can ride a motorcycle very often or very far on
> Califorina freeways[1]
I don't ride on California freeways at all, now. When I had my Yamaha, I'd
ride on them occassionally, but not often. I also never rode the bike far
(nor do I do so now). I had a car then, and I have a car now. When I have
to go much further than my daily commute (which is a couple of miles only) I
drive the car.
> without needing to excute a swerve technique.
Maybe we have different definitions of swerve. I go around things, and do
so by leaning. I have not had to do so in an emergency while using
counterweight steering.
> you cannot ride the twisty roads of the Sierra's,
I never road on twisty roads anywhere, and don't take my bike out of the
city. I rode my bike around LA and, now, around SF. My motorcycle isn't a
way of life, nor an avocation or a hobby. It's my transportation. Fun
transportation, yes, but it's simply the way I get to work.
> for example, very far
> or very long without the need of using the brakes in a tight turn.
I use my brakes in (actually, before) tight turns every day. As I said in an
earlier post, turning from the near lane onto a one-way street without
coming to a stop first is a tight turn. They are not swerves, however.
I've never had to ride in tight circles, nor have I had to turn the bike in
a narrow box and do figure-8s.
> > [1] Yes, I have a lot of Cally riding experience. In one four month
> period I put 14,000 miles on my bike with weekend riding only. About
> half of that mileage was on the twisty highways of the Sierra's...
Well, I've put about 300 miles on my bike in the last month and half, which
makes me far, far less experienced than you. I will say this, though. I
don't know how you ride, and I wouldn't presume to tell you or anyone else
how to ride. However, I do see, every day, lots of people on bikes (mostly
crotch-rockets) doing 40, 50 mph, or even more, on city streets that have a
25 or 30 mph speed limit, splitting lanes, cutting off traffic and doing a
lot of things that I wouldn't because (1) I think it's unsafe, and (2) that
kind of riding is beyond my skill level. The crotch-rocket riders seem to
need to swerve quite often.
I've have to stop short on occassion to avoid cars pulling out in front of
me, though I have yet to come remotely close to locking up my wheels when
doing so. I've had to change lanes to avoid stopped traffic, and leaned
when i did so, but these weren't swerves as we did them at MSF -- the MSF
swerves were relatively violent maneuvers that required, essentially,
throwing the bike over while keeping the body relatively perpendicular to
the ground, first one direction then the other.
People ride bikes in different ways and for different reasons. My riding is
quite temperate -- no, I don't ride at 10 mph, but I don't go much faster
than the traffic around me.
Andrew
"PTRAVEL" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:%pp6d.2582$JG2....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
BS, go there when the course is closed, like Tues night or something.
If you can't do their drills, you don't deserve to be on the road.
--
Andrew
00 Speed Triple
00 Daytona
Mike Schenk
>
>And Thirdly, anyone with a Goldwing or other full dress bike would stand no
>chance at all.
I've got a Pan European that is not much smaller than a Goldwing and I
can do it. And really it does improve your confidence in the bike.
There are basically two tricks to it: (1) looking, (2) using the rear
brake
Looking means looking in the direction you want to go, which in this
situation is most likely best done by looking towards the centre of
circle until you want to move out of it, then you sort of mentally
picture the trajectory out of the circle and the bike will almost
automatically follow.
The rear brake adds stability to the bike. In this case you ride in
first gear, don't play with the clutch but control the speed of the bike
with the rear brake. After some practice you will find out that you can
then almost stand still and do anything with the bike that you want to
do.
And that really is a useful skill, and becomes more and more usefull the
heavier the bike is that you ride.
Mike
Keith Schiffer
"Stephen!" <N...@spam.com> wrote in message news:Xns9572C738...@66.75.162.198...
> "PTravel" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in news:2rtgckF1f9mm7U1@uni-
> berlin.de:
>
>> (I'm a lawyer)
>
>
> Which explains your inability to trim nonessential text from your
> replies...
>
Stephen...would you please load up your LT and come over to my house? Seems I now have oatmeal
all over the monitor and it's a bitch to type clearly when you can't see the middle of the
screen. wanker. 8^\
--
You can't hate what you never loved...
Nefarious Necrologist 42nd class
Some people ride, some just like to show off their butt
jewelry once in a while.
Dum vivimus, vivamus
<:(3 )3~~ <:(3 )3~~
Odinn
> Odinn <odinn@atlantab_k_r.n_t> wrote in news:2ru5ndF...@uni-berlin.de:
>
>
>>I can show you many people that can put a Goldwing or ElectraGlide in
>>that very easily. One of the local bike cops here claims that 16ft is
>>all that is needed for a RoadKing/ElectraGlide/RoadGlide, so 20ft is
>>quite feasible.
>
>
>
> I can do the U-Turn on my K11LT within 16'... It's VERY do-able...
>
Best I've gotten is 20 ft on my geezer glide, and I know the bike is
capable of even less. Ever since my incident with the deer 5 yrs ago,
my balance is a little off (or maybe just my confidence), and I've been
slowly working my way to getting tighter and tighter in the U-turns and
circles. I can remember when I got back on a bike after the accident, I
had serious troubles with right handers (it was a right hander I was
coming out of when the deer jumped out directly in front of me), and it
took a bit of work to get past that. A lot of riding up and down my
road (quite a few curves in it) just to get my confidence back.
Unfortunately, there are no empty parking lots near me that I can
practice in, but coming out of my driveway is an excersize in itself,
uphill at about a 60 degree angle to the road, and I have to double back
onto the road. I can't count the number of times I've needed to to do a
U-turn on my back country road due to a tree being down across the road,
or some farmer with his equipment across the road, and I can manage the
U-turn from far edge to far edge (approx 20 ft).
--
Odinn
'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org
Fill in the blanks to reply
Buddy Brewster
wrote:
>Sure -- turning from the left or right lane onto a one-way street, I always
>countersteer to some extent. But that's just a 90% turn, not twice around
>an even-tighter-radius-circle.
You must've taken the MSF class. Countersteering does NOT kick in at
low (i.e., parking lot) speeds. Oh, I forgot, the entire MSF class is
done in a parking lot. Sorry. I guess the real world would be, well,
too real for you. Come to think of it, you NEED the MSF class.
Buddy Brewster
>> You don't put your foot down when you stop? I don't get it -- how
>> does the bike stay upright?
>
>Balance. A skill sharpend by low speed maneuvers...
Actually he's most likely rolling very slowly through the line of
intersection. He just thinks he's stopped. It's all in his mind.
Proof is the disinterested observer that pulled him over.
This motorcyclist is just like the average driver. 10 out of 10 will
rate themselves well above average if you ask them. Even if you don't
ask them. Proof otherwise is in the real numbers.
Seems to me, if you actually stopped, you'd fall down after a short
time. I just don't know how short that time is.
Does anyone actually have real proof (not mere words) on how long a
big bike can stay upright actually motionless at an intersection for
the average rider (which, we all are, in the aggregate).
Buddy Brewster
wrote:
>As it is, my long-wheelbase (62.9 inches)
>Suzuki Burgman 650 protests greatly as I flog it through the same
>exercise... it's possible to take a larger bike through those
>tight-clearance low speed maneuvers, but it's NOT fun and it requires a lot
>more skill to do so than it does on a small bike.
And a 650 is on the low end of a mid-sized bike.
Try it with something double that size.
The point is that this is NOT a basic skills test.
You have only two choices today:
1. rent/borrow/buy a puny 250 to take the idiotic DMV test
2. or you take the redundant MSF class on a puny 125.
Neither one of which is the bike you ride every day.
But you have many choices for tomorrow!
Don't whine. Do something.
Obviously the testing system is broken (& perhaps corrupt).
The real question is how to FIX this.
Does anyone know who has political clout (besides the corrupt MSF who
profits from and sanctions the system) to begin the long process of
CHANGING the current system to something BETTER in the future?
A group letter to that department or person would start the ball
rolling.
Buddy Brewster
<bee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone have any statistics about who actually can PASS this
>> idiotic CA DMV riding test (and what bikes they rode)?
>
>I'm sorry, but I can't get past the crying ...
Seems to me you're the one doing the whining.
You're whining that someone else is asking for facts.
If you have nothing to offer, that's fine.
But don't slam on someone asking for data.
You'd never make it at my school.
Buddy Brewster
Kleinschmidt) wrote:
>If you really can't see where the front wheel's goint, you might
>need to stand. You occasionally hit the same problem in real life
>when you're trying to pick your way through rocks or branches on
>the road.
Tell me you're not serious?
Let me get this straight. You're taking a basic skills test at the DMV
on your 1100 cc bike where you now need to negotiate a 20 foot circle
where you can't even see the circle except over to your left (where
the bike isn't pointing).
You have the bike in first or second gear, you're slipping the clutch
constantly, you're regulating the speed almost exclusively with the
constant and sometimes heavy application of your right foot on the
rear brake - and then you propose the rider now stands up?
May I ask ... do you work for the DMV or for the MSF?
Keith Schiffer
"Buddy Brewster" <blu...@sjstate.physics.edu> wrote in message
news:edlll0t56ujt9bgqs...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Sep 2004 12:29:28 -0700, Rkleinsc...@aol.com (Rob
> Kleinschmidt) wrote:
>>If you really can't see where the front wheel's goint, you might
>>need to stand. You occasionally hit the same problem in real life
>>when you're trying to pick your way through rocks or branches on
>>the road.
>
> Tell me you're not serious?
>
> Let me get this straight. You're taking a basic skills test at the DMV
> on your 1100 cc bike where you now need to negotiate a 20 foot circle
> where you can't even see the circle except over to your left (where
> the bike isn't pointing).
Uh, YEAH...
>
> You have the bike in first or second gear, you're slipping the clutch
> constantly, you're regulating the speed almost exclusively with the
> constant and sometimes heavy application of your right foot on the
> rear brake - and then you propose the rider now stands up?
You aren't "Slipping" it. You are modulating it and if you can't tell teh difference...don't
ride. Yes stand up you twit! My GHU are you just dense or actually stupid?
>
> May I ask ... do you work for the DMV or for the MSF?
Nope just obviously a better motorcyclist than you. I stand in parking lots all the time while
riding a GL1000. It's not hard and makes it easier to move around and park. But just keep
living in your fantasy world...ID10t
Buddy Brewster
>Whining, such as you've been doing for the past week, usually tends to drive
>the fairer sex away....that is, unless you're a chick, too. You've spent so
>much time in here *bitching* about the CA DMV that you could have been done
>with the MSF course, gotten your endorsement, and been riding for a couple
>of days.....all because you spent the ungodly sum of $200 on something
>worthwhile - you're safety.
The point of these postings isn't to pass the test.
The question was (always, from the start), is this test bribery (to
the MSF) or idiocy (of the DMV).
There's nothing the original poster can do in the short term except
pass the DMV test or take the MSF easy way out.
In the long term, there's LOTS you can do.
You can begin the two step process of:
- gathering data about how the system is failing cyclists
- initiating change in the system (to protect cyclists)
Basically, both the MSF class and the DMV test are failing riders
today in a big way. There is NO SAFETY DIFFERERENCE between those who
take the class, pass the DMV test, fail the DMV test, or who ride on
permits in California their whole life (considering the renewal
process merely an additional annual 'registration' hassle).
The fact is stated publically.
You are welcome to prove otherwise but since you can't, the fact
remains:
These MSF classes & DMV tests have failed the motorcycle rider.
Proof is in the numbers. Look it up. There is no difference between
accidents or fatalities between the various sets of uneducated and
supposedly educated riders who think they (now) know how to ride based
on a 3-day class on a 125 cc scooter.
The only numbers which show a statistical difference are the claims
posting by the insurance companies. Guess who wins? Those who take the
MSF class are more than twice as likely to have insurance claims than
those who did not take the class. Think about that one when you write
to your local political representative.
Cam Penner
blu...@sjstate.physics.edu says...
>
> Seems to me, if you actually stopped, you'd fall down after a short
> time. I just don't know how short that time is.
On an above average, but not uncommon day for me, about 5-8
seconds. On a sleep deprived, dull headed day - 2 seconds.
> Does anyone actually have real proof (not mere words) on how long a
> big bike can stay upright actually motionless at an intersection for
> the average rider (which, we all are, in the aggregate).
Tough, without defining average. I'm aware of a case where
a diminutive lady rider balanced a BMW touring bike in
front of a judge for something like a minute. She was
charged with failing to stop because her feet weren't put
down. She was also a riding instructor....
--
Cam
'89 RZ 350