Just failed the CA DMV motorcycle popsicle test (and I thought I had passed)

[Joe Mastroianni]

Took my R1200R on the California popsicle this week, and, I failed.

I was shocked, since I had rated myself pretty good in my practice runs
over the past few weeks.

I guess having someone else rate you is more accurate than rating
yourself.

Lesson learned for others.

I have two more shots at it though.

[Ben Kaufman]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:36:08 +0000 (UTC), Joe Mastroianni <j...@coohoo.com>
wrote:

Sorry to hear that, but did you find out what did you in?

Ben

[gpsman]

On Feb 19, 3:36 am, Joe Mastroianni <j...@coohoo.com> wrote:
> Took my R1200R on the California popsicle this week, and, I failed.
>
> I was shocked, since I had rated myself pretty good in my practice runs
> over the past few weeks.
>
> I guess having someone else rate you is more accurate than rating
> yourself.
>
> Lesson learned for others.

Now that's funny!

You must not know you are among the few not convinced they know
everything about operating every vehicle on the planet, based on
nothing. You're certainly the first with that perspective to hit
rec.autos.driving in forever that I can recall.

You have great chances of becoming an excellent cyclist... if you live
long enough.
-----

- gpsman

[Joe Mastroianni]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:38:28 -0500, Ben Kaufman wrote:

> Sorry to hear that, but did you find out what did you in?

My front tire strayed out of the circle on the fourth loop.

As an aside, who designed this circus act test anyway?

[Joe Mastroianni]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:45:33 -0800, gpsman wrote:

> You must not know you are among the few not convinced they know
> everything about operating every vehicle on the planet, based on
> nothing

I don't think the DMV examiner was lying so I have to believe
that my front wheel strayed out of the circle on the fourth loop.

I did the first wave through the cones and two loops fine by
doing the unnatural act of holding the clutch in almost all the
way, and keeping an even RPM with my hand, and using my foot to
brake the rear along with the clutch for speed, and then simply
attempting to look ahead - although the circle is so small it
would fit in your driveway so "looking ahead" is an oxymoron.

The point is that I can't even see what the tire is doing on
the pavement so I have to take someone else's word for it.

The lesson I learned is that I need to enlist a friend to
grade me - because I was sure I could pass this test, albeit
every once in a while I dropped the bike while practicing.

Ya gotta wonder what this basketball court test has to to with
actually riding a bike though.

[Mark Olson]

On 2/22/2013 6:07 PM, Joe Mastroianni wrote:

> Ya gotta wonder what this basketball court test has to to with
> actually riding a bike though.

A good rider should be able to pass it.

As someone else pointed out, it seems to be a fairly obvious
strategy to encourage people to take the BRC instead. The BRC
doesn't guarantee you'll survive but it does give you a bit
more help than you'd get just from reading the rider's manual
the DMV puts out.

[Ripple Whine]

Mark Olson wrote:

> it seems to be a fairly obvious strategy to encourage people
> to take the BRC instead.

It's really just another way of making money by mandate.

California has more bikers than all other states combined.

If they make a test that literally funnels all those bikers AWAY
from the DMV and into the waiting arms of the BRC (who has a
totally different test!), everyone (from their perspective)
makes money.

The DMV has far far far fewer (free) tests to perform.
And the BRC class makes millions of dollars a year!

It's simply a money-making racket. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Otherwise, the tests and the grading would be similar in at least
one or two ways - yet they're not even close.

[Zen]

Mark Olson wrote:

> A good rider should be able to pass it.

Depends on the definition of a "good rider."

The funny thing is that you'll never in your life perform "any"
of the feats of magic on the road, that you are expected to
perform flawlessly (stray out of the lines just once and you fail)
in the space of half a tennis court.

[Mark Olson]

No? I find it very useful to be able to do close quarter U-turns
and other similar maneuvers without worrying about dumping my
bike or having to resort to 3-point turns or very wide excursions
onto the soft shoulder like I see some other riders doing.

It's very clear that it's a flawed test, and not at all helpful
in teaching you how to ride. That's what the BRC is for. But I
stand by my statement- a good rider should be able to pass it.
If you can't, take a close look at your skills and ask yourself
if you are the best possible rider you could be. I know I am not.

[Twibil]

On Feb 22, 4:40 pm, Zen <z...@is.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Mark Olson wrote:
>
> > A good rider should be able to pass it.
>
> Depends on the definition of a "good rider."

No, it doesn't.

As with any law, the only definition that counts
here is the state's definition; and a wise man
doesn't try to argue that because he doesn't like
it's provisions they shouldn't apply to him.

If a rider can't pass the dreaded "popsicle test"
then he probably *does* need to take the basic
MSF course, and if he doesn't want to do that he
can always (shudder) practise the popsicle test
until he *can* do it.

I hate to think of the agonised screams we'd be
hearing if we required the same sort of motorcycle
lisence qualifying they use in, say, Germany.

[Thomas]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:33:06 -0800, Mark Olson <ols...@tiny.invalid> wrote:

> On 2/22/2013 6:07 PM, Joe Mastroianni wrote:
>
>> Ya gotta wonder what this basketball court test has to to with
>> actually riding a bike though.
>
> A good rider should be able to pass it.

Yebbut it is far too easy to screw up, especially under pressure in a
pass/fail situation.

I've never done it for a license, but I've tried several times after hours
just for fun. AIR, I messed up every time, probably because I was trying
to watch and see if I was successful or not.

When I took my CA MC test in the early 70's, the tester said, "Ride to the
end of the parking lot, turn around and come back. Change gears at least
twice." It was that easy. ~10 years later, I took the MSF course. I think
the DMV should scrap the lollipop test and make every rider take the MSF
course. Or change to a more realistic test that _really_ tests your skills.

[tomorrow]

Ah, I see that you are back, still bitter and angry. Are you *ever* going
to let this go?

And was the original post just another troll from you designed to set
yourself up for more follow-up rants on your favorite subject?
--
Posted from my iPhone using NewsTap via the University of Berlin

[gpsman]

On Feb 22, 7:07 pm, Joe Mastroianni <j...@coohoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ya gotta wonder what this basketball court test has to to with
> actually riding a bike though.

The slower you can ride with control, the better rider you are.

It's counter intuitive, but slow riding will improve the novice's fast
riding faster than fast riding.

You see some guys sticking out their feet still going 20 mph. The
better riders come to a stop, then put down their feet. The best
riders can stop and not put down their feet in what bicyclists used to
call a "track stand".

Any nitwit who can keep a bicycle upright can twist a throttle.
-----

- gpsman

[Twibil]

On Feb 22, 6:28 pm, Thomas <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > A good rider should be able to pass it.
>
> Yebbut it is far too easy to screw up, especially under pressure in a
> pass/fail situation.

Er, isn't that exactly what a rider *should* be tested for?
What could possibly be more "pass/fail" than getting squashed
by a semi because you screwed up under pressure?

> I think the DMV should scrap the lollipop test and make every rider
> take the MSF course.

Why? There are plenty of riders who pass the test on
the first try and who already know everything the MSF
teaches.

> Or change to a more realistic test that _really_ tests your skills.

Any test that did that would require specialized testing grounds
and testers with advanced degrees in motorcycle: neither one of
which California can even *begin* to afford. (Nor would the
aspiring riders want to pay for them.)

[Zen]

Mark Olson wrote:

> I find it very useful to be able to do close quarter U-turns
> and other similar maneuvers without worrying about dumping my
> bike or having to resort to 3-point turns or very wide excursions
> onto the soft shoulder like I see some other riders doing.

Well, for one, a close-quarter u-turn and the California popsicle
test have absolutely NOTHING in common. There are no u-turns in the
California test. Anyone who says so has never taken it.

The U-turns are ONLy in the BRC - and they give you a box that is
immense compared to what you work with on the popsicle
(plus the grading is such that you can totally flunk the u-turn
test and still pass the class with flying colors whereas on the
popsicle, you can't stray even once outside the line).

Second, I can't imagine doing a 3-point turn on a motorcycle.
I'm sure it can be done - but most of the time you can EASILY
perform a u-turn, so, it's really not a skill that is often needed
IMHO. However, YMMV.

> It's very clear that it's a flawed test, and not at all helpful
> in teaching you how to ride. That's what the BRC is for. But I
> stand by my statement- a good rider should be able to pass it.
> If you can't, take a close look at your skills and ask yourself
> if you are the best possible rider you could be. I know I am not.

The size & type of the bike makes an immense difference on passing the
California popsicle. I'm sure people pass it every day, but one must
realize that the entire purpose of the popsicle is to funnel people
to the BRC because MONEY rules everything and lots and lots of money
is being made since California has more motorcyclists than all the
other states combined.

[Joe Mastroianni]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:45:11 -0800, Twibil wrote:

> If a rider can't pass the dreaded "popsicle test"
> then he probably *does* need to take the basic
> MSF course, and if he doesn't want to do that he
> can always (shudder) practise the popsicle test
> until he *can* do it.

You do realize that the two tests have absolutely nothing in
common, right?

Passing one proves absolutely nothing with respect to the other.

So, for example, if you can pass the popsicle test on a decent-sized
bike, all it proves is that you can do double loops in both directions
with great accuracy at extremely slow clutch-slipping high-revving
constant-braking a-baby-could-crawl-faster speeds.

Yet, any moron can pass the MSF test because all you're really doing
is paying a few hundred dollars for your license. You buy your license
in one, and you earn the license in the other.

At least the MSF riding test has a reasonable grading system (as opposed
to the one-strike-you're-out grading system of the DMV test), yet, you
perform the MSF class on toy bikes.

In summary, neither test is realistic. One is designed to be so onerous
that you won't take it - while the other is designed to pass everyone
by giving them a toy bike and allowing dozens of mistakes in the process.

[Danny D.]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:28:04 -0800, Thomas wrote:

> I think the DMV should scrap the lollipop test and make
> every rider take the MSF course.

I think every rider should take the MSF course WITH THEIR OWN BIKE!

[Ripple Whine]

Twibil wrote:

>> I think the DMV should scrap the lollipop test and make every rider
>> take the MSF course.
>
> Why? There are plenty of riders who pass the test on
> the first try and who already know everything the MSF
> teaches.

I think they should allow an experienced rider (say from another state)
to take the advanced MSF class.

But they don't.

I'm not sure why. It's probably that they need the money so they
want the experienced riders to take the basic class plus the advanced
class.

However, if you know WHY they won't allow an experienced rider to
simply take the advanced class in lieu of the basic class, let me know.

[User Bp]

In rec.motorcycles Joe Mastroianni <j...@coohoo.com> wrote:
> doing the unnatural act of holding the clutch in almost all the
> way, and keeping an even RPM with my hand, and using my foot to

The key point of riding is that two wheels are not in any way
equivalent to four wheels. We're taught never to ride the brakes
or clutch in a (manual transmission) car. Those are precisely
the skills needed to control a motorcycle in tight going.

And, in fact, riding the brakes and throttle can be useful in
an automatic transmission automobile if the situation is sufficiently
difficult.

bob prohaska

[Twibil]

On Feb 22, 9:09 pm, Joe Mastroianni <j...@coohoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> You do realize that the two tests have absolutely nothing in
> common, right?

Sure.

I also realise that that makes no difference.

[Thomas]

On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:35:53 -0800, Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 22, 6:28 pm, Thomas <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > A good rider should be able to pass it.
>>
>> Yebbut it is far too easy to screw up, especially under pressure in a
>> pass/fail situation.
>
> Er, isn't that exactly what a rider *should* be tested for?
> What could possibly be more "pass/fail" than getting squashed
> by a semi because you screwed up under pressure?

Except that the lollipop is a lousy test for that. It only judges your
ability to stay between 2 lines at a very low speed. It doesn't test your
judgment, your reaction time, or many of the other skills required in an
emergency.

>> I think the DMV should scrap the lollipop test and make every rider
>> take the MSF course.
>
> Why? There are plenty of riders who pass the test on
> the first try and who already know everything the MSF
> teaches.

Plenty? Really? How did they learn the curriculum if not through the MSF?
I'd been riding for more than 10 years before I took the MSF and I learned
a lot in it. I'll bet a high percentage of those who pass only the
lollipop would be much better riders if they did the MSF too.

>> Or change to a more realistic test that _really_ tests your skills.
>
> Any test that did that would require specialized testing grounds
> and testers with advanced degrees in motorcycle: neither one of
> which California can even *begin* to afford. (Nor would the
> aspiring riders want to pay for them.)

Yet the state makes every cage driver do far more, driving a convoluted
trip on city streets in real traffic.

Driving/riding is a skill that improves with study and practice, yet most
people only learn enough to pass the DMV exam. Imagine how much safer our
roads would be if people were actually encouraged to improve their skills.

[gpsman]

On Feb 23, 4:08 am, Thomas <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:35:53 -0800, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Any test that did that would require specialized testing grounds
> > and testers with advanced degrees in motorcycle: neither one of
> > which California can even *begin* to afford. (Nor would the
> > aspiring riders want to pay for them.)
>
> Yet the state makes every cage driver do far more, driving a convoluted
> trip on city streets in real traffic.

That testing includes demonstrating knowledge of traffic code, which
cyclists are presumed to know... but the last time in their life a
cager performs a "special stop" before crossing a sidewalk is leaving
the exam station.

> Driving/riding is a skill that improves with study and practice, yet most
> people only learn enough to pass the DMV exam.

And virtually everyone assumes experience = practice, and that they
can neglect traffic code for years or decades and suddenly revert to
legal operation whenever they perceive nothing else will do.

Then the city puts up speed and /or red light cameras and they
discover, no, they can't, and rationalize it's the cameras' fault, and/
or traffic code is irrelevant, and/or speed or running red lights is
not a safety concern because their visual perception and snap
judgments are infallible... and often that that car/truck/bus/ped/
cyclist "came out of nowhere".

> Imagine how much safer our
> roads would be if people were actually encouraged to improve their skills.

It's a multiple-edged sword.

You can't convince those who know everything their 15 minutes of
education and training combined with their "experience" have not
rendered them the best operator to ever take the controls. Add some
"skill improvement" to that and overconfidence tends to go off the
fucking charts.

People quickly reach the point where operation becomes autonomous,
they don't really have to think about it much, so they stop thinking
about it much, which leaves the mind free to distract itself, which is
why virtually all motorists are distracted, no electronic device
necessary. An unfocused mind is free to wander, and will; "the brain
never rests".

Concentration is hard. Prolonged concentration is harder, which is
why so few motorists do it, and one reason why I think if you're
riding any bike in traffic you haven't realistically evaluated the
environment in which you must operate.

People perceive that their visual perception is perfect, despite the
universal experiences of having searched for something for 5 minutes
before finding it in front of their nose where it could not have been
missed, and having a motorist apparently look right at them, then pull
right out in front of them anyway.

It's almost impossible to get a person to consider they possess the
identical human limitations, or that it has happened to them, they
just didn't notice. Motorists don't know what-all they've missed
because they can't; they missed it!

Physical skills are imperative, but mental skills more so, which is
why professional sports coaches tend to be bald, from ripping their
hair out at funda-mental mistake after mistake after mistake one would
think professionals would rarely commit.

Virtually everyone grossly overestimates their motoring skills because
they never consider themselves capable of making a mistake, or
rationalize that their mistake is a rare occurrence, or that since a
crash was avoided it wasn't that serious of a mistake... ad infinitum.

The most highly "skilled" motorists remain filled with caution and
doubt, and few things are more rarely exhibited on our roadways.
-----

- gpsman

[Twibil]

On Feb 23, 1:08 am, Thomas <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> > A good rider should be able to pass it.
>
> >> Yebbut it is far too easy to screw up, especially under pressure in a
> >> pass/fail situation.
>
> > Er, isn't that exactly what a rider *should* be tested for?
> > What could possibly be more "pass/fail" than getting squashed
> > by a semi because you screwed up under pressure?
>
> Except that the lollipop is a lousy test for that. It only judges your
> ability to stay between 2 lines at a very low speed. It doesn't test your
> judgment, your reaction time, or many of the other skills required in an
> emergency.

Now all you have to do is supply the California DMV with
the millions of dollars it would take to institute your ideas.

I'm sure you keep small change like that in your hip pocket,
right?

> Plenty? Really? How did they learn the curriculum if not through the MSF?

Pretty much like I did: by knowing the relevant laws and then
riding for many years before the MSF was instituted.

> I'd been riding for more than 10 years before I took the MSF and I learned
> a lot in it. I'll bet a high percentage of those who pass only the
> lollipop would be much better riders if they did the MSF too.

Maybe so. Maybe not. It's all speculation because there's
no way to test the proposition.

> > Any test that did that would require specialized testing grounds
> > and testers with advanced degrees in motorcycle: neither one of
> > which California can even *begin* to afford. (Nor would the
> > aspiring riders want to pay for them.)
>
> Yet the state makes every cage driver do far more, driving a convoluted
> trip on city streets in real traffic.

And you truly can't understand why that is? If that's the case, you
have
no place in this discussion.

> Driving/riding is a skill that improves with study and practice, yet most
> people only learn enough to pass the DMV exam. Imagine how much safer our
> roads would be if people were actually encouraged to improve their skills.

Imagine that the Moon was made of green cheese. "What-ifs" mean
nothing lacking the funding to carry them out.

[Thomas]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 14:09:33 -0800, Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 23, 1:08 am, Thomas <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> Plenty? Really? How did they learn the curriculum if not through the
>> MSF?
>
> Pretty much like I did: by knowing the relevant laws and then
> riding for many years before the MSF was instituted.

Yet we all know how many bad habits ("I had to lay it down", "Don't use
your front brakes") people get without training. And the Hurt report
showed how many lousy riders there were before the MSF.

>> I'd been riding for more than 10 years before I took the MSF and I
>> learned
>> a lot in it. I'll bet a high percentage of those who pass only the
>> lollipop would be much better riders if they did the MSF too.
>
> Maybe so. Maybe not. It's all speculation because there's
> no way to test the proposition.
>
>> > Any test that did that would require specialized testing grounds
>> > and testers with advanced degrees in motorcycle: neither one of
>> > which California can even *begin* to afford. (Nor would the
>> > aspiring riders want to pay for them.)
>>
>> Yet the state makes every cage driver do far more, driving a convoluted
>> trip on city streets in real traffic.
>
> And you truly can't understand why that is? If that's the case, you
> have no place in this discussion.

C'mon, Pete. Stay civil, OK?

In California, you can get a motorcycle license without a car license. If
car drivers were tested like riders, the test would include parallel
parking and nothing more. Would you feel comfortable knowing the cage test
only tested whether the driver could start, stop, and negotiate a tight
turn?

You talk about costs for realistic testing. There are more than 500,000
bikes registered in California. I paid several hundred dollars in DMV fees
last year. D'ya think $10/bike might cover it?

[Brian Ahearn]

Thomas wrote on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 15:25:18 -0800:

> If car drivers were tested like riders, the test would include
> parallel parking and nothing more.

> There are more than 500,000 bikes registered in California.

Actually, if car drivers were tested like bike riders, the car test
would have you do two loops in each direction inside a fenced tennis court.

As for numbers, this official DMV document says there were 818,650
registered motorcycles in California as of 12/31/2011:
http://dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/official.pdf

The same document says the average fee for those bikes was $100 per bike.

So, that's eighty-two-million dollars a year in bike fees alone!
Source: DMV Forecasting Unit, telephone 916-657-8008

[Twibil]

On Feb 23, 3:25 pm, Thomas <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Plenty? Really? How did they learn the curriculum if not through the
> >> MSF?
>
> > Pretty much like I did: by knowing the relevant laws  and then
> > riding for many years before the MSF was instituted.
>
> Yet we all know how many bad habits ("I had to lay it down", "Don't use
> your front brakes") people get without training. And the Hurt report
> showed how many lousy riders there were before the MSF.

You think the MSF solved the problem? Get out and ride much?

> > And you truly can't understand why that is?    If that's the case, you
> > have no place in this discussion.
>
> C'mon, Pete. Stay civil, OK?

No. Not OK.

If you say something silly that you hadn't bothered
to think through before you clicked "send", you'd best
not expect civility.

> In California, you can get a motorcycle license without a car license. If
> car drivers were tested like riders, the test would include parallel
> parking and nothing more. Would you feel comfortable knowing the cage test
> only tested whether the driver could start, stop, and negotiate a tight
> turn?

You just don't seem to get it: California doesn't have
the money to institute your ideas. It didn't even have
the money for that sort of thing *before* the recession;
much less now.

> You talk about costs for realistic testing. There are more than 500,000
> bikes registered in California. I paid several hundred dollars in DMV fees
> last year. D'ya think $10/bike might cover it?

Oh good: let's raise taxes so that you can feel better
about the training and licensing routines your fellow
riders are required to undergo.

How popular do you think that's going to be with the
riders themselves, how long do you think the
politicians who vote to raise those taxes would remain
in office after they did so, and are you really so naive
that you think California has nothing better upon which
to spend our money?

Taxpayers are not a bottomless pocket into which
politicians can -or should be allowed to- reach into
as deeply as they like every time somebody comes up
with another good idea. And that's because there will
never be an end to new ideas that would actually be
useful if they could be put into practise, but there is a
very definite limit to how many things taxpayers can
afford to finance. Unfortunately, an idea motorcycle
training and licensing system is among them.

[Twibil]

Yes, and alas: every penny is already spoken for several years
in advance.

[The Older Gentleman]

Brian Ahearn <bah...@notforspam.com> wrote:

> As for numbers, this official DMV document says there were 818,650
> registered motorcycles in California as of 12/31/2011:

That's a lot. The UK has about 1.3 million, so some 50% more for a
population of about 67 million.


--
Street Triple 800SS XT660 Tenere
GT500 CB400F TS250 x2 GN250
chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Have you tried switching it off and on again?

[Thomas]

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 22:24:17 -0800, Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 23, 3:25 pm, Thomas <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> C'mon, Pete. Stay civil, OK?
>
> No. Not OK.
>
> If you say something silly that you hadn't bothered
> to think through before you clicked "send", you'd best
> not expect civility.

That's too bad. You were actually a nice guy in person.

[Twibil]

On Feb 23, 10:45 pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older

Gentleman) wrote:
>
>
> > As for numbers, this official DMV document says there were 818,650
> > registered motorcycles in California as of 12/31/2011:
>
> That's a lot. The UK has about 1.3 million, so some 50% more for a
> population of about 67 million.

But I think that UK bikers must be an altogether more
determined species when you consider the respective
differences in weather, Etc.

~Pete

[Twibil]

On Feb 23, 11:26 pm, Thomas <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> C'mon, Pete. Stay civil, OK?
>
> > No.  Not OK.
>
> > If you say something silly that you hadn't bothered
> > to think through before you clicked "send", you'd best
> > not expect civility.
>
> That's too bad. You were actually a nice guy in person.

You suppose that could be because you didn't try to
tell me how I should act in person?

[C. Portelli]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:36:08 +0000, Joe Mastroianni wrote:

> Took my R1200R on the California popsicle this week, and, I failed.

Just pay the few hundred dollars for the license at the MSF class
and be done with it on a single weekend.

The MSF test is much easier than the DMV test so you're basically
just paying the private sector for the privilege of not taking the
public sector DMV test.

[gpsman]

I'm reminded of local parents and "driving instructors" recommending
and sending children to the easiest known driving exam station...
publicly... with no apparent sense of embarrassment, responsibility,
or thought of the future:

"Sharonville exam site is toughest for Ohio driver's test
Review of data reveals easiest, toughest places"

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20100129/NEWS0108/1310319/Sharonville-exam-site-toughest-Ohio-driver-s-test

Or http://tinyurl.com/3rnvenp
-----

- gpsman

[Tom $herman]

On 2/22/2013 6:33 PM, Mark Olson wrote:

> On 2/22/2013 6:07 PM, Joe Mastroianni wrote:
>
>> Ya gotta wonder what this basketball court test has to to with
>> actually riding a bike though.
>

> A good rider should be able to pass it.
>

> As someone else pointed out, it seems to be a fairly obvious
> strategy to encourage people to take the BRC instead. The BRC
> doesn't guarantee you'll survive but it does give you a bit
> more help than you'd get just from reading the rider's manual
> the DMV puts out.
>
>
The BRC test is more realistic for real world riding than the MOST and
ALMOST tests.

As some of the best instructors have pointed out, riding at speeds where
the bike responds by direct steering is a completely different skill set
from riding at speeds where the bike counter-steers. It should be
obvious to anyone who is not a politician or a bureaucrat that the
higher speed handling skills are more useful in avoiding serious injury
or death.

The really stupid requirement is for learner's permit holders needing to
have a licensed motorcyclist follow them to ride on the roads - what
good will that do, especially since there is no requirement for
bike-to-bike radio communication? Notably, in some other countries this
is not the case. Unless the point is again to encourage people to take
the BRC (why not make it mandatory then?) or to discourage them to take
up riding in the first place? Not everyone has someone with nothing
better to do than follow them around.

--
Tom $herman

[Tom $herman]

On 2/22/2013 6:07 PM, Joe Mastroianni wrote:

> I did the first wave through the cones and two loops fine by

> doing the unnatural act of holding the clutch in almost all the
> way, and keeping an even RPM with my hand, and using my foot to

> brake the rear along with the clutch for speed, and then simply
> attempting to look ahead - although the circle is so small it
> would fit in your driveway so "looking ahead" is an oxymoron.

The brake-torque technique is taught in most slow-riding classes.

No problems with the dry clutch on the Beemer overheating?

--
Tom $herman

[gpsman]

On Feb 24, 7:00 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>
wrote:

>
> The really stupid requirement is for learner's permit holders needing to
> have a licensed motorcyclist follow them to ride on the roads - what
> good will that do, especially since there is no requirement for
> bike-to-bike radio communication?

Two bikes are easier to see than one?

Independent critique is better than no or self-critique?

The licensed motorist can signal the student to pull over or turn off
to discuss errors, give pointers?

Descriptions of past events are not as accurate as witnessing them in
real time?

A push to talk switch is an unnecessary distraction?

A running critique in the ear is a distraction?

You must suck as a rider.
-----

- gpsman

[Tom $herman]

That is a bizarre and illogical conclusion, especially coming from a genius.

--
Tom $herman

[Twibil]

On Feb 24, 2:53 pm, "C. Portelli" <cporte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Took my R1200R on the California popsicle this week, and, I failed.
>
> Just pay the few hundred dollars for the license at the MSF class
> and be done with it on a single weekend.
>
> The MSF test is much easier than the DMV test so you're basically
> just paying the private sector for the privilege of not taking the
> public sector DMV test.

Well, no, you're paying to learn stuff that you
really need to know.

And it's a max of $250, not a "few hundred".

[Tom $herman]

On 2/22/2013 9:35 PM, Twibil wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:28 pm, Thomas <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> A good rider should be able to pass it.
>>
>> Yebbut it is far too easy to screw up, especially under pressure in a
>> pass/fail situation.
>
> Er, isn't that exactly what a rider *should* be tested for?
> What could possibly be more "pass/fail" than getting squashed
> by a semi because you screwed up under pressure?
>

I would have thought a genius with a background in psychology would
understand the difference. Guess not.

>> I think the DMV should scrap the lollipop test and make every rider
>> take the MSF course.
>
> Why? There are plenty of riders who pass the test on
> the first try and who already know everything the MSF
> teaches.
>

Odd that someone would know everything in the MSF BRC curriculum, but
not have a license. "Plenty of riders" is even more odd.

>> Or change to a more realistic test that _really_ tests your skills.
>
> Any test that did that would require specialized testing grounds
> and testers with advanced degrees in motorcycle: neither one of
> which California can even *begin* to afford. (Nor would the
> aspiring riders want to pay for them.)
>

Have you looked into the most recent UK licensing requirements?

--
Tom $herman

[Tom $herman]

On 2/23/2013 3:08 AM, Thomas wrote:
> Yet the state makes every cage driver do far more, driving a convoluted
> trip on city streets in real traffic.

I would find that a much easier test than the MOST/ALMOST to pass.

It should be noted that in many states one cannot get a motorcycle
license, but rather a motorcycle endorsement to a cage license is granted.

--
Tom $herman

[Twibil]

On Feb 24, 4:00 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>
wrote:
>
>

> As some of the best instructors have pointed out, riding at speeds where
> the bike responds by direct steering is a completely different skill set
> from riding at speeds where the bike counter-steers.

Oh dear.

No, none of the best instructors ever say that, because it's
not true, and "the best" instructors know that. Unless your
feet are holding the bike up, you are using countersteering
-and nothing else.

But while you're at it, would you like to tell us how the best
instructors teach students to "lay her down to avoid an
accident"?

[Tom $herman]

On 2/23/2013 5:25 PM, Thomas wrote:
>>
>> And you truly can't understand why that is? If that's the case, you
>> have no place in this discussion.
>
> C'mon, Pete. Stay civil, OK?

You do not ask for much, do you? :)

--
Tom $herman

[Twibil]

On Feb 24, 5:03 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>

wrote:
>
>
> >> You do realize that the two tests have absolutely nothing in
> >> common, right?
>
> > Sure.
>
> > I also realise that that makes no difference.
>
> That is a bizarre and illogical conclusion, especially coming from a genius.

I'm sure it must seem that way to someone who can't
really ride, can't follow a train of logic, and who thinks
that physics stops working as his bike slows down.

[Tom $herman]

Another side-effect of Proposition 13, eh?

Here in Iowa the counties soak you for cages but have reasonable rates
on bikes - I pay the same for an 11-year old Nissan Frontier as for 3
motorcycles, scooter, and trailer combined ($20/year/each).

--
Tom $herman

[Tom $herman]

On 2/24/2013 12:24 AM, Twibil wrote:
>> C'mon, Pete. Stay civil, OK?
> No. Not OK.
>
> If you say something silly that you hadn't bothered
> to think through before you clicked "send", you'd best
> not expect civility.
>

That is no reason to be uncivil.

--
Tom $herman

[Twibil]

On Feb 24, 5:08 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>
wrote:
>
>

> I would have thought a genius with a background in psychology would
> understand the difference.  Guess not.

You also thought that your bike stopped countersteering
as it slowed down.

And knowing you, you're going to try arguing about it rather
than learning from the fact that you -once more- didn't know
what you were talking about.

[Tom $herman]

On 2/22/2013 11:11 PM, Danny D. wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:28:04 -0800, Thomas wrote:
>
>> I think the DMV should scrap the lollipop test and make
>> every rider take the MSF course.
>

> I think every rider should take the MSF course WITH THEIR OWN BIKE!
>
They will not let you for the BRC.

--
Tom $herman

[Twibil]

On Feb 24, 5:21 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>
wrote:
>
>

> That is no reason to be uncivil.

Hah!

Says the troll whose favorite reply is "fuck you".

[Tom $herman]

On 2/22/2013 8:48 PM, gpsman wrote:

> On Feb 22, 7:07 pm, Joe Mastroianni <j...@coohoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Ya gotta wonder what this basketball court test has to to with
>> actually riding a bike though.
>

> The slower you can ride with control, the better rider you are.
>
> It's counter intuitive, but slow riding will improve the novice's fast
> riding faster than fast riding.
>
Nonsense. Your fundamental understanding of how a motorcycle steers
differently at low and higher speeds is lacking.

Or are you going to tell me that all the advanced riding schools are
full of nonsense? No one teaches advanced riding skills at low speeds
(with the obvious exception of slow riding instruction). Even the Lee
Parks Total Control curriculum which is done in parking lots and not
race tracks (TC-1 at a SuperMoto track excepted) has the exercises done
at speeds where counter-steering and not direct steering is used.

> You see some guys sticking out their feet still going 20 mph.

I saw a guy stick out his inside foot while going into a corner at over
100 mph - heck, he even won the MotoGP race he did it in. :)

> The
> better riders come to a stop, then put down their feet. The best
> riders can stop and not put down their feet in what bicyclists used to
> call a "track stand".
>
A track stand on a bicycle requires either a fixed gear to move the bike
back and forth, or a slight incline (such as the camber on most streets).

Not even the police slow riding classes expect a rider to balance a
stationary motorcycle.

> Any nitwit who can keep a bicycle upright can twist a throttle.

Anyone who thinks there is no other difference but the throttle is a nitwit.

--
Tom $herman

[Tom $herman]

On 2/22/2013 11:59 PM, User Bp wrote:

> In rec.motorcycles Joe Mastroianni<j...@coohoo.com> wrote:
>> >doing the unnatural act of holding the clutch in almost all the
>> >way, and keeping an even RPM with my hand, and using my foot to

> The key point of riding is that two wheels are not in any way
> equivalent to four wheels. We're taught never to ride the brakes
> or clutch in a (manual transmission) car. Those are precisely
> the skills needed to control a motorcycle in tight going.

It has taken me a *lot* of practice to be able to hold a steady throttle
and clutch while brake-torque riding. (I practice by creeping up to red
lights during my normal commuting.)

--
Tom $herman

[tomorrow]

No, it's not, Pete. His favorite reply is "Fuck off!"

Tim
--
Posted from my iPhone using NewsTap via the University of Berlin

[Tom $herman]

Made up insults that do not fit? Is that all you got?

--
Tom $herman

[gpsman]

On Feb 24, 8:36 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>
wrote:

> On 2/22/2013 8:48 PM, gpsman wrote:> On Feb 22, 7:07 pm, Joe Mastroianni <j...@coohoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It's counter intuitive, but slow riding will improve the novice's fast
> > riding faster than fast riding.
>
> Nonsense.  Your fundamental understanding of how a motorcycle steers
> differently at low and higher speeds is lacking.

Nyuh-uh and ad hominem is not rebuttal.

> Or are you going to tell me that all the advanced riding schools are
> full of nonsense?  No one teaches advanced riding skills at low speeds
> (with the obvious exception of slow riding instruction).  Even the Lee
> Parks Total Control curriculum which is done in parking lots and not
> race tracks (TC-1 at a SuperMoto track excepted) has the exercises done
> at speeds where counter-steering and not direct steering is used.

Race riding instruction is not the equivalent of novice street riding
instruction. You are an example of motorists who think they know it
all, and the hazards of advanced instruction... even if apparently
imaginary.

> > The best
> > riders can stop and not put down their feet in what bicyclists used to
> > call a "track stand".
>
> A track stand on a bicycle requires either a fixed gear to move the bike
> back and forth, or a slight incline (such as the camber on most streets).

"The track stand[1] or standstill[2] is a technique that bicycle
riders can use to maintain balance while their bicycle *-remains
stationary-* or moves only minimal distances.

Those proficient at the track stand can maintain the position
indefinitely. More difficult variations, mostly for show or track
stand competitions, involve complications such as putting the non-
dominant foot forward, sitting down, or taking one or both hands off
the handlebars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_stand

> Not even the police slow riding classes expect a rider to balance a
> stationary motorcycle.

You seem to have become lost in a fog consisting of your imagined
superiority and functional illiteracy.
-----

- gpsman

[Tom $herman]

You either do not understand what a troll is, or you are a liar.

--
Tom $herman

[Tom $herman]

You really are clueless.

--
Tom $herman

[Edgar]

Tom $herman wrote:

> Unless the point is again to encourage people to take
> the BRC (why not make it mandatory then?) or to discourage them to take
> up riding in the first place? Not everyone has someone with nothing
> better to do than follow them around.

As is everything in government, it's not really about rider skills.

It's all about M-O-N-E-Y.

The DMV has no interest in certifying riders because it costs M-O-N-E-Y
to do it properly. So, in cahoots with the CMSP (http://www.ca-msp.org)
they offer a "free" test, which tests nothing but which actually is
designed to steer the rider to the CMSP class instead.

The decidedly not-free CMSP class costs M-O-N-E-Y, which, if you look
at the numbers, makes, overall in California, more M-O-N-E-Y than the
entire budget of some cities & even smaller states.

The goal is to fleece as many riders as possible, not to teach them.

[Tom $herman]

On 2/24/2013 6:21 PM, gpsman wrote:
> On Feb 24, 7:00 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> The really stupid requirement is for learner's permit holders needing to
>> have a licensed motorcyclist follow them to ride on the roads - what
>> good will that do, especially since there is no requirement for
>> bike-to-bike radio communication?
>
> Two bikes are easier to see than one?
>
> Independent critique is better than no or self-critique?
>

No legal requirement for any feedback. Only requirement is to follow.

> The licensed motorist can signal the student to pull over or turn off
> to discuss errors, give pointers?
>

Not a requirement of the law, or even suggested in the DMV manual.

> Descriptions of past events are not as accurate as witnessing them in
> real time?
>

Ibid.

> A push to talk switch is an unnecessary distraction?
>

Not something I made any comment on, other than two-way radio
communication is *not* a requirement of the law.

> A running critique in the ear is a distraction?
>

Ibid.

> You must suck as a rider.

You must not be good at comprehending written English.

--
Tom $herman

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 17:05:53 -0800 Twibil wrote:

> And it's a max of $250, not a "few hundred".

That max only applies to under-age riders who are
mandated, by law, to take the class.

Those who take the class in lieu of the lillipop
must take a class which has no mandated max.

[Tom $herman]

On 2/24/2013 7:11 PM, Twibil wrote:
> On Feb 24, 4:00 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> As some of the best instructors have pointed out, riding at speeds where
>> the bike responds by direct steering is a completely different skill set
>> from riding at speeds where the bike counter-steers.
>
> Oh dear.
>
> No, none of the best instructors ever say that, because it's
> not true, and "the best" instructors know that. Unless your
> feet are holding the bike up, you are using countersteering
> -and nothing else.
>

"Few activities in street riding are as frustrating as having to make a
low-speed, tight turn in a limited amount of space - especially if you
don't know the technique. I always teach this skill last in my Advanced
Riding Clinic because it require the exact opposite technique than the
one used in higher speed cornering, and I don't like to confuse people."

Page 86 of Total Control by Lee Parks, 2003 edition.

> But while you're at it, would you like to tell us how the best
> instructors teach students to "lay her down to avoid an
> accident"?
>

You really should seek professional help.

--
Tom $herman

[Tom $herman]

On 2/24/2013 8:42 PM, gpsman wrote:
> On Feb 24, 8:36 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>
> wrote:
>> On 2/22/2013 8:48 PM, gpsman wrote:> On Feb 22, 7:07 pm, Joe Mastroianni <j...@coohoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's counter intuitive, but slow riding will improve the novice's fast
>>> riding faster than fast riding.
>>
>> Nonsense. Your fundamental understanding of how a motorcycle steers
>> differently at low and higher speeds is lacking.
>
> Nyuh-uh and ad hominem is not rebuttal.
>

So why are you using those as your rebuttal?

>> Or are you going to tell me that all the advanced riding schools are
>> full of nonsense? No one teaches advanced riding skills at low speeds
>> (with the obvious exception of slow riding instruction). Even the Lee
>> Parks Total Control curriculum which is done in parking lots and not
>> race tracks (TC-1 at a SuperMoto track excepted) has the exercises done
>> at speeds where counter-steering and not direct steering is used.
>
> Race riding instruction is not the equivalent of novice street riding
> instruction. You are an example of motorists who think they know it
> all, and the hazards of advanced instruction... even if apparently
> imaginary.
>

That is a false accusation, and not even a clever one. If I knew
everything, why would I spend a rather hefty chunk of change for 4 to 6
days of advanced instruction each year?

>>> The best
>>> riders can stop and not put down their feet in what bicyclists used to
>>> call a "track stand".
>>
>> A track stand on a bicycle requires either a fixed gear to move the bike
>> back and forth, or a slight incline (such as the camber on most streets).
>
> "The track stand[1] or standstill[2] is a technique that bicycle
> riders can use to maintain balance while their bicycle *-remains
> stationary-* or moves only minimal distances.
>

Have you ever watched racers at a velodrome track standing? They are
certainly not stationary, with the bikes rolling back and forth slightly.

> Those proficient at the track stand can maintain the position
> indefinitely. More difficult variations, mostly for show or track
> stand competitions, involve complications such as putting the non-
> dominant foot forward, sitting down, or taking one or both hands off
> the handlebars."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_stand
>

We are not discussing professional acrobat level activities beyond the
capabilities of most persons.

>> Not even the police slow riding classes expect a rider to balance a
>> stationary motorcycle.
>
> You seem to have become lost in a fog consisting of your imagined
> superiority and functional illiteracy.
> -----
>
> - gpsman
>

And all you have are foolish insults. (Be we knew that.)

--
Tom $herman

[Tom $herman]

What is the MSF policy on class fees? A cursory search of their website
does not show anything.

--
Tom $herman

[gpsman]

On Feb 24, 10:05 pm, "Tom $herman"

<twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> On 2/24/2013 8:42 PM, gpsman wrote:> On Feb 24, 8:36 pm,
>

> > Race riding instruction is not the equivalent of novice street riding
> > instruction.  You are an example of motorists who think they know it
> > all, and the hazards of advanced instruction... even if apparently
> > imaginary.
>
> That is a false accusation, and not even a clever one.  If I knew
> everything, why would I spend a rather hefty chunk of change for 4 to 6
> days of advanced instruction each year?

The same reason you have provided no video of your participation...

You seem to have lost track of your ignorance of differences in
advanced racetrack and novice street training, which seems unlikely to
occur to a person of your purported education, training and
experience.

Maybe it's just me...

> >> A track stand on a bicycle requires either a fixed gear to move the bike
> >> back and forth, or a slight incline (such as the camber on most streets).
>
> > "The track stand[1] or standstill[2] is a technique that bicycle
> > riders can use to maintain balance while their bicycle *-remains
> > stationary-* or moves only minimal distances.
>
> Have you ever watched racers at a velodrome track standing?

BTDT. Watching appears to be the limit of your experience.

> They are
> certainly not stationary, with the bikes rolling back and forth slightly.

Because it's easier.

> We are not discussing professional acrobat level activities beyond the
> capabilities of most persons.

"At some point you'll feel perfect, motionless equilibrium."
http://www.bicycling.com/beginners/bike-skills/track-stand

You blew a couple chances to shut the fuck up.

> >> Not even the police slow riding classes expect a rider to balance a
> >> stationary motorcycle.
>
> > You seem to have become lost in a fog consisting of your imagined
> > superiority and functional illiteracy.
>

> And all you have are foolish insults.  (Be we knew that.)

I didn't know foolish means "supported by evidence".

Where's yours that track standing requires a fixie, and a grade...?
-----

- gpsman

[Twibil]

On Feb 24, 6:09 pm, tomorrow <tomor...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> That is no reason to be uncivil.
>
> > Hah!
>
> > Says the troll whose favorite reply is "fuck you".
>
> No, it's not, Pete.  His favorite reply is "Fuck off!"

I thought I'd seen both, but you could be right.

It's sort of difficult to concentrate on his exact
words when you're laughing that hard.

[Twibil]

On Feb 24, 6:41 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>

wrote:
> On 2/24/2013 7:17 PM, Twibil wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 5:03 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>>> You do realize that the two tests have absolutely nothing in
> >>>> common, right?
>
> >>> Sure.
>
> >>> I also realise that that makes no difference.
>
> >> That is a bizarre and illogical conclusion, especially coming from a genius.
>
> > I'm sure it must seem that way to someone who can't
> > really ride, can't follow a train of logic, and who thinks
> > that physics stops working as his bike slows down.
>
> Made up insults that do not fit?  Is that all you got?

1.) You *don't* really know how to ride, as you've
demonstrated repeatedly; most lately with your silly
"physics stops working at low speeds" nonsense.

2.) You can't follow a chain of logic either.

3.) That's all anyone needs.

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 21:11:08 -0600 Tom $herman wrote:

> What is the MSF policy on class fees?
> A cursory search of their website
> does not show anything.

I think every class can charge whatever the market will bear.
Sort of like airline ticket costs.
So, a class here will cost differently than a class there.

At least that's how I think it works.

[Twibil]

On Feb 24, 6:43 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>

wrote:
>
>
> >> I would have thought a genius with a background in psychology would
> >> understand the difference.  Guess not.
>
> > You also thought that your bike stopped countersteering
> > as it slowed down.
>
> > And knowing you, you're going to try arguing about it rather
> > than learning from the fact that you -once more- didn't know
> > what you were talking about.
>
> You really are clueless.

Well, I know that you didn't dare try to explain how the
laws of physics suddenly stop working at a certain
speed.

That in itself is a pretty good clue.

[Twibil]

On Feb 24, 6:45 pm, Edgar <ed...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's all about M-O-N-E-Y.
>
> The DMV has no interest in certifying riders because it costs M-O-N-E-Y
> to do it properly. So, in cahoots with the CMSP (http://www.ca-msp.org)
> they offer a "free" test, which tests nothing but which actually is
> designed to steer the rider to the CMSP class instead.
>
> The decidedly not-free CMSP class costs M-O-N-E-Y, which, if you look
> at the numbers, makes, overall in California, more M-O-N-E-Y than the
> entire budget of some cities & even smaller states.
>
> The goal is to fleece as many riders as possible, not to teach them.

Ah, the idiot is at it again.

So if a lie doesn't work the first time, you keep telling it over
and over again on the theory that maybe some idiot will believe
it if you tell it enough times?

Once more: the state of California doesn't make any M-O-N-E-Y
on the classes because they're taught by P-R-I-V-A-T-E schools
that work on the theory of free enterprise.

You've heard of that?

[Twibil]

Not according to the state of California's website.

[Twibil]

On Feb 24, 6:57 pm, "Tom $herman" <twsher...@REMOVETHISsouthslope.net>

wrote:
>
>
> >> As some of the best instructors have pointed out, riding at speeds where
> >> the bike responds by direct steering is a completely different skill set
> >> from riding at speeds where the bike counter-steers.
>
> > Oh dear.
>
> > No, none of the best instructors ever say that, because it's
> > not true, and "the best" instructors know that.   Unless your
> > feet are holding the bike up, you are using countersteering
> > -and nothing else.
>
> "Few activities in street riding are as frustrating as having to make a
> low-speed, tight turn in a limited amount of space - especially if you
> don't know the technique.  I always teach this skill last in my Advanced
> Riding Clinic because it require the exact opposite technique than the
> one used in higher speed cornering, and I don't like to confuse people."
>
> Page 86 of Total Control by Lee Parks, 2003 edition.

Now try to show us where he said that countersteering stopped
working at low speeds: which is what *you* said.

> > But while you're at it, would you like to tell us how the best
> > instructors teach students to "lay her down to avoid an
> > accident"?
>
> You really should seek professional help.

Tsk. The stupid cliche' again. I *am* professional
help: a retired track instructor for the Motorcycle safety
Institute.
> --
> Tom $herman

[Robert Bolton]

It took awhile, but I found a 2008 rate table for Anchorage, AK. BRC -
$250; ERC - $150.

2013 BRC in Juneau is $275
2013 BRC in the Valley (Wasilla, etc) is $275, and $150 ERC
A2009 Valley table said Anchorage and Valley BRC was $275.

Rates must have gone up in 2009.


Classes here are given by A.B.A.T.E (Alaska Bikers Advocating Training and
Education).

--
Robert

[RosemontCrest]

On 2/23/2013 10:24 PM, Twibil wrote:
> On Feb 23, 3:25 pm, Thomas <xs...@xmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Plenty? Really? How did they learn the curriculum if not through the
>>>> MSF?
>>
>>> Pretty much like I did: by knowing the relevant laws and then
>>> riding for many years before the MSF was instituted.
>>
>> Yet we all know how many bad habits ("I had to lay it down", "Don't use
>> your front brakes") people get without training. And the Hurt report
>> showed how many lousy riders there were before the MSF.
>
> You think the MSF solved the problem? Get out and ride much?
>
>>> And you truly can't understand why that is? If that's the case, you
>>> have no place in this discussion.
>>
>> C'mon, Pete. Stay civil, OK?
>
> No. Not OK.
>
> If you say something silly that you hadn't bothered
> to think through before you clicked "send", you'd best
> not expect civility.

Based on my observation, I contend that it would be silly for anyone to
expect civility from a pompous ass such as yourself.

[Edgar]

Twibil wrote:

> Once more: the state of California doesn't make any M-O-N-E-Y
> on the classes because they're taught by P-R-I-V-A-T-E schools
> that work on the theory of free enterprise.

Hello Twibil,
I think you wholly missed the point; so I'll kindly try to clarify.

The point is that the DMV doesn't want to run the free test, yet
the CA-MSP does want to run the test (for a fee vastly greater
than the cost of a California motorocycle license).

They're both clearly in cahoots because California must accept MSP
test results, and even mandates young riders take the MSP class, and,
for those young riders, California clearly mandates the max MSP fee.

I'm not sure who designed the popsicle test, but given that this is
the California government, I wouldn't doubt that the MSP designed the
popsicle in cahoots with the DMV expressly for the purpose of
diverting riders to the MSP class (which, incidentally, has a test
which is absolutely nothing like the DMV popsicle - which tells you
a lot!).

Remember, Home Depot sponsored the bill in California that mandated
C02 alarms in, essentially, every household in California, which took
effect in only one year (2013) from conception to completion.

Why do you think Home Depot did that?
(HINT: Same reason as MSP helped the DMV with their laws.)

[Danny D.]

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:21:00 -0800 Twibil wrote:

>> Those who take the class in lieu of the lillipop
>> must take a class which has no mandated max.
>
> Not according to the state of California's website.

The fee limit is only for those riders who are forced
to take the class because they are under age.

However, from a practical matter, it would be illogical
for the MSF to charge a different price so, in effect,
the mandated fee cap most likely applies to all riders,
in practice (but not in law).

[Twibil]

On Feb 26, 9:48 am, Edgar <ed...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
> The point is that the DMV doesn't want to run the free test, yet
> the CA-MSP does want to run the test (for a fee vastly greater
> than the cost of a California motorocycle license).

Poor little thing. "Want" doesn't come into it.

Any DMV office will give you the "popsicle" test: all you have to
do is make an appointment.

> They're both clearly in cahoots because California must accept MSP
> test results, and even mandates young riders take the MSP class, and,
> for those young riders, California clearly mandates the max MSP fee.

Translation of "clearly in cahoots": "I'm a paranoid idiot who
thinks
that it's a conspiracy".

> I'm not sure who designed the popsicle test, but given that this is
> the California government, I wouldn't doubt that the MSP designed the
> popsicle in cahoots with the DMV expressly for the purpose of
> diverting riders to the MSP class (which, incidentally, has a test
> which is absolutely nothing like the DMV popsicle - which tells you
> a lot!).

1.) Oh wow! You used "cahoots" again! Well, that *PROVES*
it's a conspiracy!

2.) The tests you take in one school district are quite
commonly not the same as the ones you take in another.
This does not mean that the different school districts are
in "cahoots", and that tells you a lot.

> Remember, Home Depot sponsored the bill in California that mandated
> C02 alarms in, essentially, every household in California, which took
> effect in only one year (2013) from conception to completion.
>
> Why do you think Home Depot did that?
> (HINT: Same reason as MSP helped the DMV with their laws.)

To save lives? Yeah, that's pretty much the same thing
all right.

So tell us: where did you ever get the idea that it's
wrong to make a profit for providing a useful service?

'

[Twibil]

On Feb 26, 9:52 am, "Danny D." <da...@pleasedontemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> Those who take the class in lieu of the lillipop
> >> must take a class which has no mandated max.
>
> > Not according to the state of California's website.
>
> The fee limit is only for those riders who are forced
> to take the class because they are under age.

Once again; not according to the state of California's
website.

[Ben Kaufman]

On 24 Feb 2013 22:53:18 GMT, "C. Portelli" <cpor...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:36:08 +0000, Joe Mastroianni wrote:
>
>> Took my R1200R on the California popsicle this week, and, I failed.
>
>Just pay the few hundred dollars for the license at the MSF class
>and be done with it on a single weekend.
>
>The MSF test is much easier than the DMV test so you're basically
>just paying the private sector for the privilege of not taking the
>public sector DMV test.

Plus some insurance companies give discounts for having taken it.

Ben

[jgar the jorrible]

On Feb 26, 9:48 am, Edgar <ed...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> Twibil wrote:
> > Once more: the state of California doesn't make any M-O-N-E-Y
> > on the classes because they're taught by P-R-I-V-A-T-E schools
> > that work on the theory of free enterprise.
>
> Hello Twibil,
> I think you wholly missed the point; so I'll kindly try to clarify.
>
> The point is that the DMV doesn't want to run the free test, yet
> the CA-MSP does want to run the test (for a fee vastly greater
> than the cost of a California motorocycle license).
>
> They're both clearly in cahoots because California must accept MSP
> test results, and even mandates young riders take the MSP class, and,
> for those young riders, California clearly mandates the max MSP fee.
>
> I'm not sure who designed the popsicle test, but given that this is
> the California government, I wouldn't doubt that the MSP designed the
> popsicle in cahoots with the DMV expressly for the purpose of
> diverting riders to the MSP class (which, incidentally, has a test
> which is absolutely nothing like the DMV popsicle - which tells you
> a lot!).

The popsicle was around long before the class. I posted
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.motorcycles/msg/4f2a3e4fb0607e65
referring to when I took it in 1983. After that, the Yamaha dealer
put in some kind of retrofit below the carbs to smooth out the gas/air
mixture flow, mostly to fix a mid-throttle problem.

Things changed in 2004:
http://groups.google.com/group/ba.motorcycles/browse_thread/thread/96f36fea2e95f0ed/686a1f93eb2e764a

MSF was around at least 10 years before that:
http://groups.google.com/group/ca.driving/browse_thread/thread/c3c9abd4b30a08cf/3383663a5dd6d8f8

I didn't ride to work at the job I had around 1990 (street riding for
17 years by then) because it was on a military base and as a
contractor, I would have had to take 3 unpaid days off work to take
the course they required. Then I'd see jarheads pulling wheelies on
the freeway and wonder wtf kind of good that requirement did.

>
> Remember, Home Depot sponsored the bill in California that mandated
> C02 alarms in, essentially, every household in California, which took
> effect in only one year (2013) from conception to completion.
>
> Why do you think Home Depot did that?
> (HINT: Same reason as MSP helped the DMV with their laws.)

Shirley, they did it to make a profit. Stupid people still die every
year, but at least some don't. Sometimes the profit motive is
congruent with the right thing to do. If you are going to complain
about something, at least pick an example that lacks such congruency.

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/feb/25/tp-man-walking-dog-is-shot-beaten-robbed/?page=2#article-copy

[Al Schmidt]

jgar the jorrible wrote on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:41:33 -0800:

> Sometimes the profit motive is
> congruent with the right thing to do. If you are going to complain
> about something, at least pick an example that lacks such congruency.

I think the profit motive of the MSF is noble in that they DO serve a purpose.
On the other hand, the Kalifornia DMV lollipop test serves no useful purpose.

[tomorrow]

Al Schmidt <as...@notforspam.com> wrote:
> jgar the jorrible wrote on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:41:33 -0800:
>
>> Sometimes the profit motive is
>> congruent with the right thing to do. If you are going to complain
>> about something, at least pick an example that lacks such congruency.
>
> I think the profit motive of the MSF is noble in that they DO serve a purpose.

The MSF is a non-profit organization.

--
Posted from my iPhone using NewsTap via the University of Berlin

[edit to send email]

In <990930378383693704.00...@News.Individual.NET>, on
02/27/13

at 09:35 PM, tomorrow <tomo...@erols.com> said:

>Posted from my iPhone using NewsTap via the University of Berlin

Posted without ever having owned an iphone or any apple product.

Cheers, Bjorn.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
bjorn.r...@guzzi.demon.nl (Bjorn Rietdijk)
-----------------------------------------------------------

[gpsman]

On Feb 27, 12:41 pm, jgar the jorrible <joel-ga...@home.com> wrote:
>
> I didn't ride to work at the job I had around 1990 (street riding for
> 17 years by then) because it was on a military base and as a
> contractor, I would have had to take 3 unpaid days off work to take
> the course they required.  Then I'd see jarheads pulling wheelies on
> the freeway and wonder wtf kind of good that requirement did.

If there is any correlation between training and execution as applied
to operation of motor vehicles, it probably leans toward negative
results.

The change from "I got my license!" to "All the rules are stacked
against me!" can only be measured by factors of the speed of light.
-----

- gpsman

[Twibil]

On Feb 27, 1:02 pm, Al Schmidt <as...@notforspam.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think the profit motive of the MSF is noble in that they DO serve a purpose.
> On the other hand, the Kalifornia DMV lollipop test serves no useful purpose.

No, it *does* serve a useful purpose.

It sends the riders who have questionable control
over their bikes to a class they no doubt need to take.

Personally, I'd have no problem with requiring that
class for all new riders; no matter their ages. But
so far the state of California does not agree.

[tomorrow]

edit to send email <guzzi....@mail.ru> wrote:
> In <990930378383693704.00...@News.Individual.NET>, on
> 02/27/13
> at 09:35 PM, tomorrow <tomo...@erols.com> said:
>
>> Posted from my iPhone using NewsTap via the University of Berlin
>
> Posted without ever having owned an iphone or any apple product.
>
> Cheers, Bjorn.

I've owned two Apple products in my life - this iPhone 4 and an Apple II+.
... You can see that one in a museum somewhere.

--

[Al Schmidt]

tomorrow wrote on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:35:57 +0000:

>> I think the profit motive of the MSF is noble in that they DO serve a purpose.
> The MSF is a non-profit organization.

Nobody at the MSF is paid a salary?
They own no capital equipment?
They don't try to grow in size and hire new employees?

You must not realize 'what' a non-profit organization is, so I'll give a hint:

The key differences between a non-profit and profit are two things:
a) They SPEND all the money they make (on salaries, equipment, advertisement, etc.)
b) They don't pay taxes (so they can spend MORE on salaries, equipment, etc.)

So, in summary, the MSF makes tons of money. They just choose to SPEND it all
to keep their non-profit status. It doesn't mean they don't make tons of money.

[Billy B.]

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:40:16 -0800, Twibil wrote:

> Personally, I'd have no problem with requiring that
> class for all new riders; no matter their ages. But
> so far the state of California does not agree.

I've taken the class. It's a joke. Do you know what they do?

First, they give you a 250cc piece of junk.
You can forget about using your own liter-sized bike.
They won't let you use a 'real' bike.

Second, you sit through two classes filled with the same
crap that you can just read by reading the DMV manuals.
If you don't score 50 points out of 50 on that paper test,
you're a real moron as I easily aced it (sorry I can't
prove that statement - you'll have to take my word for it).

Then you go outside for the weekend in the parking lot.
They unload the baby bikes from a trailer parked at the
corner of the lot and you spend an hour "familiarizing
yourself with the bike". Needless to say you rode in on
your 1-liter rice burner, so this is supremely boring.

Then, you take it for a few starts and stops. More boring.

After a while, you get the chance to finally get out of
first gear, although at no time in the entire class will
you ever get into the higher gears. And this is supposed
to prepare you for highway riding?

Now, let's take the circus act. You do a u-turn in a
realistically huge u-turn box. The u-turn isn't hard, but
people miss it by feet. Not inches. Feet. Maybe even yards.
They still pass because it's a grading system of something
like 20 points or so (I don't remember exactly, as it was
a few years ago).

Then you do a curve. They grade you on looking ahead (as if
they can tell) so you exaggerate your head movements unrealistically
(who wants to lose points for nothing), and they grade you on
slowing down going into the curve and accelerating out of it
(which is second nature to any rider anyway).

Then they grade you on stopping. Here is where your skills as
a rider might interfere because they INSIST you ratchet down
in the gears before stopping. Now is not the time to prove a
point, so, you dutifully ratchet down for the last time in your
life in an emergency stop - and you move on to the next part of
the test.

In the end, out of 20 or so riders, 20 pass, even though a few
knocked the cones down, a couple missed the u-turn box by a yard,
one or two forgot to brake in the emergency stop and the instructor
had to jump to the side, and some even snipped a cone or two in the
curve.

Everyone passed. I guess they figured if you pad a few hundred bucks,
you deserve your license. I was just glad the waste of my weekend
was over.

On the positive side, the "coaches" were nice guys who had a job
to do, which they did to the best of their abilities. So I don't
fault them. The system is merely a money-making operation where
you pay for your license. It's still better than blowing a few
hundred at Vegas because at least in the MSF class, you're guaranteed
the license if you simply show up.

However, to their credit, I've heard they flunk people who don't
show up (and don't make up the class), or who show up late, so,
you actually have to do two things to earn the license.

1. Show up.
2. Pay the few hundred bucks.

[Billy B.]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:51:36 +0000, Billy B. wrote:
> you actually have to do two things to earn the license.
> 1. Show up.
> 2. Pay the few hundred bucks.

I forgot to mention all the time they spend on making
sure you turn off the fuel line to the carbs.

Yes, I said carbs.

Now I had two strokes and non-fuel-injtected bikes maybe thirty
years ago, so, I'm familiar with shutting off the fuel line,
but really, the class is just not realistically a training.

It's more like baby sitting.

[Twibil]

On Feb 27, 7:51 pm, "Billy B." <bbi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've taken the class. It's a joke. Do you know what they do?
>
> First, they give you a 250cc piece of junk.
> You can forget about using your own liter-sized bike.
> They won't let you use a 'real' bike.

Whoops.

I'm sure we can all see that you're another of these born
experts who don't need any lessons about anything from
anyone.

What a pity that they forced you to take those boring old
lessons that prevented Honda from adding you to their
MotoGP team as lead rider that year.

Tsk!

[Robert Bolton]

tomorrow <tomo...@erols.com> wrote:
> Al Schmidt <as...@notforspam.com> wrote:
>> jgar the jorrible wrote on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:41:33 -0800:
>>
>>> Sometimes the profit motive is
>>> congruent with the right thing to do. If you are going to complain
>>> about something, at least pick an example that lacks such congruency.
>>
>> I think the profit motive of the MSF is noble in that they DO serve a purpose.
>
> The MSF is a non-profit organization.

Well, that's after salaries.

--
Robert

[The Older Gentleman]

Al Schmidt <as...@notforspam.com> wrote:

> So, in summary, the MSF makes tons of money. They just choose to SPEND it
> all to keep their non-profit status. It doesn't mean they don't make tons
> of money.

So you're agreeing with him. Duh.


--
Street Triple 800SS XT660 Tenere
GT500 CB400F TS250 x2 GN250
chateaudotmurrayatidnetdotcom
Have you tried switching it off and on again?

[The Older Gentleman]

Billy B. <bbi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> They won't let you use a 'real' bike.

Since when was a 250 not a real bike?

[The Older Gentleman]

Billy B. <bbi...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yes, I said carbs.

This may come as a shock to you, but FI has only really become
near-universal in the last decade or so. And people do buy and ride
older used bikes. In fact, there are probably more carbed bikes in
service than FI.

Not too bright, are you?

[edit to send email]

In <512ed447$0$18124$afc3...@read01.usenet4all.se>, on 02/28/13

at 03:51 AM, "Billy B." <bbi...@yahoo.com> said:


>Then they grade you on stopping. Here is where your skills as a rider
>might interfere because they INSIST you ratchet down in the gears before
>stopping. Now is not the time to prove a point, so, you dutifully
>ratchet down for the last time in your life in an emergency stop - and
>you move on to the next part of the test.

And later, after an emergency stop, you are looking in your mirror and see
a car coming at you at 100 kph that won't be able to stop in time. While
you are frantically trying to find first gear and soil your pants you are
thinking of that instructor who might have know what he was talking about
after all.....

[gpsman]

If they spend it all, how would they "make tons of money"...?

"A non-profit organization is a group organized for purposes other
than generating profit and in which no part of the organization's
income is distributed to its members, directors, or officers."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/non-profit_organizations

The premise that a non-profit could operate on an entirely volunteer
basis and accomplish much is silly.
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

On Feb 27, 7:40 pm, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 1:02 pm, Al Schmidt <as...@notforspam.com> wrote:
>
> > the Kalifornia DMV lollipop test serves no useful purpose.
>
> No, it *does* serve a useful purpose.
>
> It sends the riders who have questionable control
> over their bikes to a class they no doubt need to take.

I wouldn't think many people would have the stones to fail their exam
and blame it on the test after thousands have managed to pass, but
then there's the red light camera "issue" that suggests I don't think
too good.

But I still don't think many things exceed motor vehicle operation in
validating the Dunning-Kruger effect.
-----

- gpsman

[tomorrow]

On Feb 27, 10:40 pm, Al Schmidt <as...@notforspam.com> wrote:
> tomorrow wrote on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:35:57 +0000:
>
> >> I think the profit motive of the MSF is noble in that they DO serve a purpose.
> > The MSF is a non-profit organization.
>
> Nobody at the MSF is paid a salary?

When I say that the MSF is a non-profit organization, I mean that it
is a non-profit organization. I do not mean to say (nor do I think,
nor is there any reason for you or for anyone else to think) that I
think that noboday at the MSF is paid a salary.

> They own no capital equipment?

When I say that the MSF is a non-profit organization, I mean that it
is a non-profit organization. I do not mean to say (nor do I think,
nor is there any reason for you or for anyone else to think) that I
think that the MSF is does not own any capital equipment.

> They don't try to grow in size and hire new employees?

When I say that the MSF is a non-profit organization, I mean that it
is a non-profit organization. I do not mean to say (nor do I think,
nor is there any reason for you or for anyone else to think) that I
think that the MSF is does not grow in size nor hire new employees.

> You must not realize 'what' a non-profit organization is,

I know EXACTLY what a non-profit organization is. The MSF is a non-
profit organization. Your suppositions about what I do or do not
know about what a non-profit organization is have NOTHING at all to
do with whether an entity is a nonprofit organization or not, so I'm
at a loss as to why you went to the apparent trouble to make such wild
guesses about my understanding of what a non-profit organization is,
or what it does or does not do.

>so I'll give a hint:

Wow. Aren't you generous!

> The key differences between a non-profit and profit are two things:
> a) They SPEND all the money they make (on salaries, equipment, advertisement, etc.)
> b) They don't pay taxes (so they can spend MORE on salaries, equipment, etc.)

Of course, you failed to list:

c) they are organized and operated exclusively for charitable,
scientific, religious or public safety purposes.

Why would you leave off such a key difference, especially when it is
REQUIRED in order to receive the tax status accorded such entities?

> So, in summary, the MSF makes tons of money.

Really? How much money does the MSF make?

> They just choose to SPEND it all
> to keep their non-profit status.

How much do they spend, and what do they spend it on?

> It doesn't mean they don't make tons of money.

Really? How much money does the MSF make?

[tomorrow]

On Feb 28, 1:53 am, Robert Bolton <robertboltond...@gci.net> wrote:

Which is true of all non-profit organizations. Is the inference that
the management of the MSF is getting filthy rich (via salaries, which
presumable *are* taxed) by using the Motorcycle Safety Foundation
entity as a huge cover?

If so, those making the charge ought to be forthright and say so. It
would be interesting to see their evidence of such a charge.

If not, then what difference does it make?

What, exactly, is this "profit motive" of the MSF, if it is a non-
profit organization? Is it a cover for obscene salaries that are
being built on contrived, collusional, falsely difficult state
motorcycle licensing tests? And if so, are the lowlife MSF executives
paying the state DMV test officials obscene kickbacks from their
obscene salaries?

Someone should investigate NOW!!!!

[T.J. Higgins]

In article <512ed447$0$18124$afc3...@read01.usenet4all.se>, Billy B. wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:40:16 -0800, Twibil wrote:
>
>> Personally, I'd have no problem with requiring that
>> class for all new riders; no matter their ages. But
>> so far the state of California does not agree.
>
>I've taken the class. It's a joke. Do you know what they do?
>
>First, they give you a 250cc piece of junk.
>You can forget about using your own liter-sized bike.
>They won't let you use a 'real' bike.

You will use your own bike if you take the MSF advanced rider
course.

[Al Schmidt]

tomorrow wrote on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 07:20:59 -0800:

> What, exactly, is this "profit motive" of the MSF,
> if it is a non-profit organization?

Just to be clear, I don't think I brought up the fact the MSF
is a non-profit organization (maybe you did?) Dunno who did.

It's only relevant if someone intimates they're not 'making' money,
as in they're doing it for free out of the goodness of their hearts.

That, would not be even close to true.

They're actually 'making' tons and tons of money (revenue) - they're
just SPENDING it all by pouring it into normal business things such
as salaries, advertisements, lobbying the government, etc.).

Hey!

I wonder how much they spend lobbying?
Do they sponsor or bankroll any of the motorcycle legislation?

Do we have any way of finding this out?

[Twibil]

On Feb 28, 7:20 am, tomorrow <s4rsri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > The MSF is a non-profit organization.
>
> > Well, that's after salaries.
>
> Which is true of all non-profit organizations.

Not quite, Tim. There are at least two categories
of non-profit organizations that frequently have no
salaried employees. Both the model railroad and
the astronomy clubs I belong to are typical
examples.

Of course we don't conduct busness on anything
like the scale of the MSF, nor would we be able to
do so unless we wanted to start paying people.

You can only do so much volunteer work before it
becomes a real job.

~Pete

[Ben Kaufman]

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:13:56 +0000 (UTC), Al Schmidt <as...@notforspam.com>
wrote:

"..Federal law clearly states that a 501(c)(3) publicly supported charity may
devote no more than an "insubstantial" portion of its activities to lobbying. ."
http://www.njnonprofits.org/NPsCanLobby.html