Let me try this again
[*]Point 1. You kind of changed the rules in the middle of the game like my daughters do to me when playing monopoly.. " Tiered licensing without any kind of meaningful rider education would have a minimal effect on rider safety in the United States." That's a big change there Gabester.
[*]Point 2 what data are you and Schizuki looking at to say "After we've compiled reports of all motorcycle accidents in 2006, and culled out the ones in which (1) a cager was at fault, (2) the rider was drinking, (3) the rider was unlicensed, and (4) the rider was riding a small-displacement bike, how many remain that could conceivably be blamed on a sober, licensed rider riding a bike that was too much for him? Because until we have that number, we've got nothing to talk about." When I read the WA state report again (look at the conclusions again and all of the charts) and look at other studies. I don't reach the same conclusions My B.S. meter is starting to flash

Please site your data or is this fictitious/hypothetical study that just happens to match your opinion. some us aren't as clever as you two to get it.
[*] There is data to compare the effectiveness of tiered licensing programs just not in the U.S.
[*] Basically your opinion is that tiered licensing has marginal effects at best even with proper training.. Again I think you are ignoring the law of physics, the data in countries such as the U.K. and Australia.and of course common sense. The data is out there you just haven't seen it compiled yet.