3 ms·

> skill levels required and potential lethality Why does that matter to the government? It requires skill to use a knife, and if it's mishandled it can cause s

> skill levels required and potential lethality Why does that matter to the government? It requires skill to use a knife, and if it's mishandled it can cause severe bodily harm; should we require people to get a license to use a knife in their own kitchen? If it's because of the potential lethality to others, then surely we ought to require licensing for all motorbikes (including small motorbikes); what if a toddler wanders into the bike lane where these small-engine motorbikes are permitted? > speed Non-motorized cyclists can hit speeds of over 120 km/h (admittedly an extreme case, but still): https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/tour-de-france/122kph-jeremy-roy-went-even-faster-tour-de-france-stage-nine-258371 https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/racing/tour-de-france/122... . Should we require licensing for non-motorized bicycles simply because the vehicle has the potential to hit a certain speed? Wouldn't it then make more sense to require licensure for anyone who travels faster than a certain speed, and for any two-wheeled vehicle to be registered and plated? Again I concede that there are naturally differences between large- and small-engine motorcycles. My point is that regardless of which rubric you choose, whether it's safety, skill, whatever, the decision that a mechanical engine requires licensure but an electric one does not, or 125cc motorcycles require licensure but "electric bicycles" do not, wherever that line is drawn is there for historical reasons only, not because of the safety or skill rubric, and therefore is arbitrary, therefore is unjust, therefore should be reformed to be more consistent than just whatever we have today due to historical accident.

coldtea 3y ago
>Why does that matter to the government? It doesn't. It matters to the law, which is a different thing from the government. And it matters because it matters to society whether someone with insufficient training and testing rides a huge motorcycle, or a truck, or whatever. Especially something like a sports motorcycle which needs more skill than an average car, and is much easier to slip (as accidents stats tell). >Non-motorized cyclists can hit speeds of over 120 km/h Rarely and in extreme conditions. Big motorcycles can do it trivially. The world cycle record is 130 km/h, under very special circumstances and for just 200m or so. The highest end of the speed pros usually achieve is (according to wiki) around 70 km/h, quite less than 120 km/h. Not to mention a motorcycle (especially the kind more heavily regulated) has much more weight than a bike, and thus much more momentum even for the same speed. >It requires skill to use a knife, and if it's mishandled it can cause severe bodily harm; should we require people to get a license to use a knife in their own kitchen? I'm pretty sure people are allowed to ride any size of motorcycle in their own kitches or their backyard even. It's when they ride them on the road, and this can kill others, that it gets to be a concern for the law. The same holds for knives btw. Carrying a knife in the streets in many jurisdictions is considered an offense, similar to carrying a gun. It sure is in mine. And in general, for all over the US I read "(...) there are often limits on knives or bladed weapons that may be carried. Most states regulate an individual’s ability to carry a knife based on the following characteristics of the knife itself: The type of knife, including the purpose in which it is typically used for; (...) The length of the blade.".
- solatic 3y ago
  > and this can kill others, that it gets to be a concern for the law. As this is the crux of your argument, please provide data showing how large motorcycles are so much more lethal for pedestrians compared to cars. Because all the statistics I'm familiar with (and I do take issue with them) show risk for the riders themselves, not for others. I don't deny that, of course, if you hit a pedestrian in a 500cc motorcycle going 50 km/h then the pedestrian will certainly suffer major injuries if not death. The difference is that the rider will as well, unlike a 4-wheeler that wraps its driver in a roll cage, seat belt, and airbags. This mutually-assured destruction, I argue, causes motorcycle riders to generally be safer on the roads vis-a-vis pedestrians, and that this should hold true regardless of licensure.

coldtea 3y ago

>Why does that matter to the government? It doesn't. It matters to the law, which is a different thing from the government. And it matters because it matters to society whether someone with insufficient training and testing rides a huge motorcycle, or a truck, or whatever. Especially something like a sports motorcycle which needs more skill than an average car, and is much easier to slip (as accidents stats tell). >Non-motorized cyclists can hit speeds of over 120 km/h Rarely and in extreme conditions. Big motorcycles can do it trivially. The world cycle record is 130 km/h, under very special circumstances and for just 200m or so. The highest end of the speed pros usually achieve is (according to wiki) around 70 km/h, quite less than 120 km/h. Not to mention a motorcycle (especially the kind more heavily regulated) has much more weight than a bike, and thus much more momentum even for the same speed. >It requires skill to use a knife, and if it's mishandled it can cause severe bodily harm; should we require people to get a license to use a knife in their own kitchen? I'm pretty sure people are allowed to ride any size of motorcycle in their own kitches or their backyard even. It's when they ride them on the road, and this can kill others, that it gets to be a concern for the law. The same holds for knives btw. Carrying a knife in the streets in many jurisdictions is considered an offense, similar to carrying a gun. It sure is in mine. And in general, for all over the US I read "(...) there are often limits on knives or bladed weapons that may be carried. Most states regulate an individual’s ability to carry a knife based on the following characteristics of the knife itself: The type of knife, including the purpose in which it is typically used for; (...) The length of the blade.".

solatic 3y ago
> and this can kill others, that it gets to be a concern for the law. As this is the crux of your argument, please provide data showing how large motorcycles are so much more lethal for pedestrians compared to cars. Because all the statistics I'm familiar with (and I do take issue with them) show risk for the riders themselves, not for others. I don't deny that, of course, if you hit a pedestrian in a 500cc motorcycle going 50 km/h then the pedestrian will certainly suffer major injuries if not death. The difference is that the rider will as well, unlike a 4-wheeler that wraps its driver in a roll cage, seat belt, and airbags. This mutually-assured destruction, I argue, causes motorcycle riders to generally be safer on the roads vis-a-vis pedestrians, and that this should hold true regardless of licensure.