Where can we get statistics of which BIKES pass the California DMVriding test?

Discussion in 'Bay Area Bikers' started by JoeSchmoe, Sep 12, 2010.

  1. JoeSchmoe

    JoeSchmoe Guest

    The national average is $100 but in California, which should have
    economies of scale (they license 10,000 riders a year), it's $250.

    You know why?

    Because there is no other game in town.

    The system is rigged, as my buddies all clearly told me from the start,
    so that you have to take the MSF class instead of the DMV test.

    If the MSF isn't being enriched by the forced clientele and the 2.5x
    price increase ... who is?
    JoeSchmoe, Sep 17, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. So I'm curious, Joe. What would you consider a
    reasonable demonstration of competency which
    would prove that someone was qualified to hold a
    motorcycle license ?

    God knows, there are enough bad riders out there
    already. What can we do to improve this situation ?

    I sure don't think the figure eight you described taking
    back east is much of a test.

    Let's hear your thoughts on how you think you should
    have been tested.
    Rob Kleinschmidt, Sep 17, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. JoeSchmoe

    Scott Dorsey Guest

    This is America. In America, driving is a right, not a privilege. Just
    because a person has no ability to operate a vehicle safely is no longer
    a reason not to give him a driver's license.

    In America, everybody has to drive everywhere, even across the street, so
    issuing drivers' licenses to everyone is critical.

    So complaining about the test is futile; the test isn't designed to
    eliminate incompetent drivers. If it were, there wouldn't be so many
    incompetent drivers on the road.
    Scott Dorsey, Sep 17, 2010
  4. JoeSchmoe

    Tim Guest

    Would you like to point out where any words I've said about how the
    CMSP or MSF operate indicate in any way that I don't know what I'm
    talking about?

    How about you backing up your own words that say that the MSF collects
    $200 or more for every rider who takes a CMSP rider course?

    Sheesh. Your obsession has blinded you to the simple facts.
    Tim, Sep 17, 2010
  5. JoeSchmoe

    Tim Guest

    Six years of obsession for $200 or $250. Seems like you've certainly
    gotten your money's worth.
    Tim, Sep 17, 2010
  6. JoeSchmoe

    The Real Bev Guest

    I am SO glad that I got my MC license when they started up. "Ride to
    the fence using as many gears as possible, and ride back."

    Life was better then.
    The Real Bev, Sep 17, 2010
  7. JoeSchmoe

    Twibil Guest

    Oh bullshit.

    Your many many many words posted over a very very very long time say
    you're obsessed with trying to get back at someone -nay, *anyone*-
    because you failed that "impossible" DMV keyhole test that various
    others here breezed right through.

    You've lied repeatedly about the test's dificulty, you've lied
    repeatedly about the test's provisions being a "secret", you've lied
    repeatedly about how it's illegal to practise the keyhole test in
    advance, you've lied repeatedly about how it's "impossible" to pass
    the test on a large bike, and you even lied about how you can't see
    the painted white lines on the ground -which is hysterically funny
    since all anyone has to do is look *downwards* a bit to see them.
    Lastly, you've claimed that anyone in this forum who says they passed
    the test in the first couple of tries is lying about it.
    Taken in toto, these are the signs of a mind that simply can't deal
    with reality.

    And then you think that anyone is going to agree that Tim doesn't know
    what he's talking about and that you -the liar- *do*?

    Good one, fruit-loop!
    Twibil, Sep 17, 2010
  8. JoeSchmoe

    Tim Guest

    I guess the facts don't mean anything to someone suffering from an
    obsession such as yours. Enjoy the next six years of useless rants,
    screeds, nymshifts, and fruitless net postings about something that
    you have obviously allowed to get under your skin and remain there.

    Tim, Sep 17, 2010
  9. JoeSchmoe

    JoeSchmoe Guest

    Very simple.

    The exact test that the MSF provides (starting, stopping, cornering,
    braking, shifting, swerving, u-turn box, etc.).

    But with grading of ZERO errors (just like the DMV test).

    I'd also allow THREE tries (no more than one per day) ... again ... just
    like the DMV test.

    The only thing else I'd change is I'd limit the price the MSF charges to
    only 150% the national average for a MSF class. The current 250% price
    increase in California is gouging that can only sustain itself because
    there is no other viable alternative.

    What do you think of my simple logical fair solution?
    JoeSchmoe, Sep 17, 2010
  10. There are better performers here on the buck-per-moment of obsession
    The Older Gentleman, Sep 17, 2010
  11. JoeSchmoe

    Twibil Guest

    Sure! But this fruitcake is obsessed with something that's at least
    distantly motorcycle-related.

    Unless I've missed it on the news, nobody ever rammed a motorcycle
    into the World Trade Center.
    Twibil, Sep 17, 2010
  12. Well, no. :)
    [email protected], Sep 17, 2010
  13. JoeSchmoe

    Tim Guest

    Except the MSF isn't charging California student riders to take the
    course, the California Motorcyclist Safety Program, administered by
    the California Highway Patrol, charges California student riders to
    take the course. The money goes to the state of California to cover
    the costs of administering the classes.

    That's a simple, logical, fact that your obsession apparently prevents
    you from comprehending.

    If you want this changed, take it up with the California state
    Tim, Sep 17, 2010
  14. JoeSchmoe

    Henry Guest

    Twibil timidly chirped:
    And of course, if someone had ridden a bike through WTC7's
    massive steel frame, according to Tim, twitbull, and the clown,
    it would have felt no different than riding through air. <g>
    This is where Tim, twitbull, and the clown get even sillier,
    or very, very quiet - they've been challenged to read, think,
    and defend their blind faith and ignorance based 9-11 fairy
    tale. ;-)

    Let us know if you disagree with anything written below, and
    if so, what and why.
    Here is a excerpt from a letter written by Richard Gage, founder
    of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth to NIST.


    TO: Dr. Shyam Sunder, National Institute of Standards and Technology

    Dear Dr. Sunder,

    Here are our talking points:

    1. The NIST November 2008 Final WTC 7 Investigative Report has many
    fatal flaws:

    a. NIST was forced to acknowledge the free-fall collapse of Building 7
    for 100 feet of its 6.5 second fall only after being grilled publicly by
    experts who are petition signers of AE911Truth. Yet you do not
    acknowledge the obvious implications of such free-fall collapse ? that
    the structure had to have been removed forcibly by explosives.
    (Anyone knows that a building cannot collapse at the rate of a freely
    falling object while simultaneously crushing 40,000 tons of structural
    steel because all of its gravitational potential energy has been
    converted to motion.)

    Free fall, by definition, can only be achieved if a falling structure
    or object encounters no significant resistance. Obviously, a steel
    frame that's engineered to support several times its own weight can
    not crush itself at the the rate of free fall. The belief that it can,
    is one of the most comically absurd claims in your impossible magic
    fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory.

    The demolitions shown in the video below both display all
    the characteristics of controlled demolition, and none of
    fire induced failure, yet followers of the government's 9-11
    conspiracy theory try to tell us that one was caused by the
    partial, gradual, and random weakening of a small percentage
    of support columns due to gradual heating, and the other was
    caused by the total, instant, and symmetric destruction of all
    the support columns due to demolition. They can't have it both
    ways. That's why no one can produce even *one* example of a steel
    framed high rise that dropped due to fire. Not one. Not ever. Not
    anywhere. It's physically impossible.


    Look at the buckled column in the photo linked below. That's the
    sort of gradual bending and sagging that would be caused by
    *extreme* heat. Of course, the fires in WTC7 never even got that


    Photo from:http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/SCI.htm

    Tell us how you think WTC7 could suddenly drop at the rate of free
    fall while simultaneously bending, crushing and breaking up its steel
    frame - a steel frame that was engineered to support several times its
    own weight and withstand hurricane force wind loads and mild earth
    quakes. Do you understand that free fall can only occur when a falling
    object encounters no significant resistance? Tell us how you imagine all
    the steel columns lost all their strength in an instant. We know that
    gradual, random weakening from minor office fires can't cause that, and
    we also know that most of the steel frame wasn't even exposed to fire.

    Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/


    "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
    Albert Einstein.

    Henry, Sep 17, 2010
  15. JoeSchmoe

    Benj Guest

    Will you stop with the WTC7 crap already?
    Sure it's all true, but we can't handle the truth!
    Benj, Sep 17, 2010
  16. JoeSchmoe

    Henry Guest

    It's the anniversary - and of course, it's truth, not crap.
    The U.S. government's endless campaign of death, destruction,
    terrorism, and war crimes is "justified" by the government's
    9-11 myth. This murderous campaign is destroying not only the
    lives of the People and countries at which it's directed, but
    the U.S. as well. It's the government's 9-11 lie that comes with
    a very heavy price, not the truth....


    "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
    Albert Einstein.

    Henry, Sep 17, 2010
  17. JoeSchmoe

    Bob Myers Guest

    (Elwood Blues mode ON)

    "That's a lot of entertainment...for just $250..."

    (Elwood Blues mode OFF)

    Bob M.
    Bob Myers, Sep 17, 2010
  18. JoeSchmoe

    Bob Myers Guest

    You missed it. Elbonian terrorists, who attempted to ram Tower 2 in
    1993 on Vespas with a roll of black-powder caps in their pockets.

    According to Henry, they were working for the Bush I administration,
    but had not received the memo informing them that Clinton was
    now in office.

    Two quick-thinking security guards averted certain disaster by simply
    opening doors on either side of the lobby and just letting them
    buzz on through...

    Bob M.
    Bob Myers, Sep 17, 2010
  19. JoeSchmoe

    Twibil Guest

    Elbonians = Mossad, you know.
    Twibil, Sep 17, 2010
  20. JoeSchmoe

    M.A. Stewart Guest

    Ya... sure


    Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of
    one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple
    members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent
    members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

    The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the
    loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing
    fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that
    the weak points -the limiting factors on design allowables- were the _angle
    clips_ that held the _floor joists_ between the columns on the perimeter
    wall and the core structure. With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each
    floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its
    own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

    As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and
    the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also
    fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support
    the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these
    angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to
    collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200
    km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse
    would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.
    It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over
    onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that
    should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air
    and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load,
    even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the
    center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within
    the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall
    collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant
    lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure
    has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight

    The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the
    WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail
    on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support
    themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to
    operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The
    WTC towers lasted for one to two hours less than the design life, but only
    because the fire fuel load was so large. No normal office fires would fill
    4,000 square meters of floor space in the seconds in which the WTC fire
    developed. Usually, the fire would take up to an hour to spread so
    uniformly across the width and breadth of the building. This was a very
    large and rapidly progressing fire (very high heat but not unusually high
    M.A. Stewart, Sep 18, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.