could new regulations = more sales

I have been reading about motorcycle sales in the U.S. and there related demigraphics. my take on this issues boils down to two basic groups. Cruisers and Sport bikes. Take a look at the showrooms across America and really think about what your looking at. I did just this and found a hugh gap. A gap that was once present but is now gone. That vode is the small to mid sized bike/scrambler/beginner bike. I am pleased to see Honda jump back into the game with their 250 CBR and for Kawazaki keeping their 250 Ninja in our market for as long as they have.
   Now to the question. Could we as a maket place, create more sales in the motorccyle industry if we were to regulate beginner riders to smaller displacement bikes and as there age and experience increases, so does the size of the bike. I have friends that are from Japan, and this is exactly what they do there. For example you can get your licence here in the states at the age of 14. So, this person would be limited to something under 250cc. At the age of 16, this person is eligable to step up to 550cc or less. Then on the 18 birthday they reach the 650cc or less, and on that grand day of reaching 21, they are welcomed into the world of unlimited CC's.
   Like wise an adult (21 and older) gets there riding licence late in life as I did, they would have to go through a similar step program. Lets say two steps in two years. Get your licence and you ride in the 650cc class for 1 yr then you can step up to 800cc or less for a year, then at the end of that two year period, you can step unto the unlimited CC class.
   I posed the question of a step program in a way to create a market for smaller cc bikes, and to incorrage new rides to the market by the market giving them more choices and safty.
   So, what do you think? I hope I have raised some valid points for us all to think about. I love the motorcycle community and want to see it grow and flurish.  

A graduated motorcycle license program would be a benefit in two main ways.

First is Safety: We all crawled before we walked and walked before we ran.
A graded license program would force new bikers to consider that controlling a bike is far more important than how fast it goes. Learning how to balance and turn a bike properly is easier to learn on smaller less powerful bikes. I'm sure that many of those people who no longer ride because their first bike was too big or powerful might still be riding today if they had got the right size bike in the first place.
I'm also sure that many people who initially purchased a lower displacement bike find they have no need to go to a bigger bike.
A sanctioned motorcycle safety course should also be mandatory for all new riders

Second is Economics: If everyone is out looking for a large displacement bike as their first bike, coming up with the extra money or taking on a larger loan can be too much. Also, a graduated program would help increase the sales of lower displacement bikes. There would be more on the road and greater pool of riders for the dealers to sell to, and a wider range of bikes to maintain and work on.

The biggest obstacle to deal with in changing the rules would be politics. Is it a state or federal responsibility? Is the issue something that is important to politicians and their constituents?

Sorry to say, but maybe it will take the death or serious injury of a high profile person to bring the issue to everyones attention.  
Ride Proud, Ride Safe, Have Fun.

I am reminded of an image I saw on the internet of a newly licenced 17 yr old I think that stuffed his Bimota into the side of a car at an estimated speed of over 150 mph. I have also talked to alot of long time riders about this issue. and for the most part they all would like to see some kind of graduated licence program for both the reasons (safty and economics) I raised at the top of this forum. I ride a Ducati Paso 750. And for me the bike is perfect in power, weight, overall size. But, I would like to also have a really nice under 500cc run-a-round. I have always like the smaller bikes for various reasons. And maybe with Honda giving us another 250cc to choose from, the flood gates just might open over here (U.S.) for those markets.
   If anyone is familar with the licensing program in Japan and Europe, i would like for them to highlight those programs just to shed light on the subject. And anyone that has traveled abroad in the past few years to also share their thoughts on the motorcycle market abroad too.
   
Thanks.  

Unfortunately, the American mentality of instant gratification means that sales would probably suffer in the short and long term. Too many feel they need the personal freedom of being able to choose the biggest, baddest bike they want, regardless of never having to demonstrate the least iota of riding skill (a motorcycle endorsement on their drivers license is rarely required in purchase).

Japan used to have extensive requirements (both financial and skill demonstrative) in order for a rider to own a bike larger than 400cc, but those requirements were relaxed considerably over a period of years from 1996 on in an effort to revive the sagging domestic Japanese motorcycle market, which unfortunately is now struggling on life-support due to reasons unrelated to the ultra-strict licensing requirements. Anyone under 18 is still restricted to 400cc regardless. One test for over 400cc was that the rider was required to pick up a bike on its side by his/herself; can you imagine how many people would fail that test here in the States?

The licensing requirements in Europe vary from country to country, but suffice it to say they are all a far cry from the USA's unbelievably lax requirements.  

I agree with you 100% on the American mentality of "Bigger is Better". It was that very notion that prompted me to pose the question above.
   So, if regulations wont possibly help open up a small to mid size bike market, the pending fuel crisis will or maybe the AMA adding a 250 junior/semi pro class to it pro series.
   I have made a prediction to friends that 5 years from now we will see and explosion of scooters and small displacement bikes because of fuel prices. I just miss see scramblers and the smaller bikes I grew up with. They are great vehicles for city riding as well as out in the country. I learned to ride on a Yamaha DT 175cc. Got me down the road and back and into the woods and through the mud very well!  

The last time gasoline prices soared to almost $5.00/gallon back in 2008, Kawasaki couldn't keep up with sales of the Ninja 250R in this country-- they were back-ordered for months. A fact certainly noticed by Honda this year.  

On this point of fuel economy, whats your take on a diesel motorcycles? I read an artical about a year ago about agoverment contractor that converts the Kawasaki KL 650 to diesel. Why havent more motorcycle companies taken this direction?  

Complexity, weight, emissions, performance...take your pick.

Diesel engines require direct injection, which means very high fuel pressures (much higher than EFI for gasoline) requiring different fueling components. The engine internal components must also be sturdier to handle the increased combustion pressures at lower rpm. All of this adds up to extra weight.

Diesel engines now require different catalyzers that demand maintenance. Emissions standards for automobiles have tightened considerably, and in order to scrub out the NOx, the urea must be replenished at specified intervals or the catalyzer itself must be scrubbed.

While diesels have much better torque, their horsepower levels in normally aspirated form pale in comparison to their gasoline-burning counterparts because they cannot rev as high due to the combustion difference. This is the reason why nearly all diesels in road use today are forced induction.  

I try not to get political on forums, but this post is definitely a political question. Each year I read more and more the loss of the American freedom. In a typical American’s life today, the regulations are so daunting that it is completely impossible and absurd to expect to know all the rules, laws, codes and statutes on the books. We are a baby sat society, grown adults afraid of our own shadows. No credence is given to the benefit of liberty any more, or the value of thinking for oneself, even if that idea is not politically correct or accepted. It’s all about safety. In fact, if you look at the current national level, our unhealthy pursuit of “safety” has devastated our country at its most fundamental level. Privacy has literally been decimated by the so called great thinkers of today, taking their direction from the war mongering United Nations, as we are literally stripped searched without a warrant at airports (a direct violation of the 4th amendment). Further more, we are hunted and preyed upon by radar traffic cameras and police hiding behind a corner ready to catch us and extort more money, while the majority of the money we make is taxed at ridiculous rates. Those who don’t pay taxes are either poor or billionaires, both subscribing to a very disturbing, growing trend of entitlement. We are regulated at work, we are regulated as we drive, as we do business, and literally need a license or a permit to do anything. It’s nauseating. Do we really need more regulation for motorcycle licensing? Personally, I’ve visited different cultures across the globe and do not agree with many of their approaches. Just because Japan likes to restrict the certain citizens from riding motorcycles with larger piston displacement, does not make the argument valid or even a good idea. In fact, Japan has a lot of other different problems than we do because of the restrictive nature of their society. So my answer is no. I don’t want to further grow an already out of control nanny state for the sake of “safety”. In fact, if we truly are concerned about safety, why not just out law motorcycles all together since they are dangerous too. Well, maybe just start with 1000cc bikes, or all sport bikes.  

I admire all of you who replied to the post, it’s obvious you care about the safety of other riders and about the future of this great sport. Your logic is sound and makes sense with regard to having new riders approach the sport in a graduated fashion. However, I encourage our community to look for alternatives to these problems then entangling government bureaucrats in our lives any further. Most beginning riders will listen to reason when you explain the benefits of starting on a smaller bike.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin  

Honestly, my post was aimed more at what can be done to grow the motorcycle market economically as far as the smaller displacement bike are concerned. In the midst safety got intertwined. And then came the fuel crisis for a little spice to mix. I am the type of guy who's political view is "Dont tell me whats good for me", "I am the only one that can make that decision", not someone in Washington, or a claims officer in some other state that out sources to foreign countries.
   I agree 100% with what you said. I know talking about this is like skating on a razors edge. But thats why I wanted to post the issue to begin with. There are alot of things we (motorcycle community) need to think about, and I hope that I made someone think about those issue. You clearly have, and have very valid points.
   As far as the safty is concerned, it comes down to the individual. I have three kids and when they decide to ride, it will be my responsiblity as a parent to teach them in a graduated form. Baby steps all along the way, then once they show they have a firm respect, understanding, and show they are responsible they can move up to larger bike. In fact, my oldest daugher has been riding for three years now...and she will turn 7 this March 12!!! She has both a motorcycle and four wheeler she shares with her younger sister who is 5yr. She and her sister are doing very well on both vehicles. In fact my oldest gets a kick out of playing with the throttle on her motorbike when the grass is wet...she likes hanging the back tire out in very nice power slides. I want them to learn control of a bike in as controlled inviroment as possible, which somewhat leads back to restricting rider at the beginning of the legal riding age just to help their learning curve on the streets.
   Thank you very much for sharring your point of view. And thank you for such an intense love of the freedoms we have in this country!!  

This is a tough one.  Safety is not free.  Neither is liberty.  Determining how much each costs is impossible.  Personally, I default to the side of liberty.

Whether the standards of motorcycle licensure should be increased is about risk and liability.  There is a distinction between the two that needs an example; there is a higher risk of getting into an auto accident as compared to being in an airplane crash BUT my risk of death in the auto accident is low compared to the virtual certainty of death in an airplane crash.  That is the liability in the car accident is low but huge in the airplane crash.  That distinction applies to motorcycle accidents; their risk is higher AND their liability is higher too.

When people take risks, they should take responsibility for the liability that goes with it.  When they don't, should we allow government to assume responsibiliity for their liabilities?  No, but if we do, then we waive thereby objections to government regulation of the underlying risks.  That's the slippery slope.  

Both the risk and the liability, in terms of personal injury, in driving motorcycles is greater than it is in driving cars.  If a motorcyclist does not pay for health and disability insurance because he thinks "won't happen to me" or he cynically counts on government to pick up the tab, then he is foisting his risk of high liability onto taxpayers.  Economists call this liability shifting a "negative externality" and by that term they mean that the rider has passed the liability to someone else.  Polluters do this too.  They dump their problems downstream or into the air and transfer the costs to someone else.

I do not personally believe that government should assume the liabilities that motorcyclists present but since it does and we allow it, then we have left the door open, we have stepped onto that slippery slope, and therefore we really can't argue when the government wants to impose higher licensure standards.  

Can a middle ground be found amidst FREEDOM and SAFTY? Many riders have taken the opption of rider safty courses across America to one, increase their awareness and secondly, (and i think more importantly to them) for a lower insurance rate. Could a middle ground lie within insurance rates? Lets say the insurance companies offer a discount program to new riders and to the young teen age riders if they where to take a graduated step program as I discribed above? Could this lead to better sales in the small displacement bikes, increase awareness among new riders and still maintain our freedom that riding offers us?  

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation, funded mainly by the MC industry and MC insurers, sponsors those MSF rider safety courses and the insurance companies do/may offer rate discounts if you present a certificate of completion.  The CA DMV also expedites (they waive the parking lot physical skills test) obtaining your CA MC endorsement on your driver's license if you complete a MSF course.  

Graduated licenses are a good idea but as Kento noted in the US it's unlikely to occur due to mentality and expectations. A push to make MSF type courses mandatory maybe a first step. The other side of this will be if motorcycle accidents and deaths continue go back to rising will the general public, politicians and insurance companies start crying to ban or restrict motorcycles.