Contentious!

[howardr]

I’ve just read in MCN the government’s latest plans to ‘control’ us further by introducing legislation that will restrict new riders to 33 bhp for (at least) a year.

Whilst the motorcycle press are clearly having a field-day moaning on about human rights, the demise of the motorcycle industry etc. I can’t help thinking this is a good thing.

After all, who of you can say you know enough after a direct access course to handle a powerful bike on public roads on a day-to-day basis?

I returned to motorcycling some 5 years ago after a layoff of some 20 years, and I chose to buy a CB500 in order to “find my feet” again. I then progressed to my beloved SV650S in order to further improve my riding skills before progressing to a ‘real’ bike (Triumph Sprint RS).

Luckily (I believe), I was sensible about the whole process and, while not restricted to 33 bhp, chose to restrict myself until I was confident enough that I could handle one of today’s high-powered ‘superbikes’.

Having never ridden a restricted bike, I can’t comment on whether 33 bhp is the right limit (I have ridden underpowered loan bikes however, and consider them to be more dangerous than a ‘normal’ bike), but I cannot help thinking that for some individuals out there, restricting them (because they don’t restrict themselves) is probably not a bad idea. After all, none of us want to see anyone seriously hurt or killed do we? Ultimately, if we do not look after ourselves (somehow) the government will step in to do it for us. I can’t see that learning the ropes on a moderately-powered bike for a year is a bad thing – can you?

Ask yourself this. How many times have you said “Car drivers ought to spend at least a year riding a motorbike before they get a car licence." If they are to ever appreciate our issues and if they are to ever truly make the appropriate allowances for – what is after all – a completely unique mode of transport.

Doctors study for 7 years to learn how to save someone else – you only have to spend one year learning how to save yourself. That seems like a good deal to me.

Just my tuppence-worth. :rant:

[Moriarty]

Bit silly this - If bike riders are to be restricted, then why not other motorists as well. How about all new motorists (including footballers, pop stars, politicians children etc...) be restricted to 1400cc cars with a max power output of 55Kw (i.e. this would accomodate the new ford Ka Duratech 1.3).

Whadd'y'all say?

[howardr]

I don't disagree with your logic.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Although there is some merit behind what you say, I think that any sort of additional legislation in terms of power will ultimately lead to a complete ban of high powered bikes.

My SV is restricted and I've *ahem* tested it de-restricted. Below 6000rpm there is little difference, so I doubt it would do much to curb accidents.

[Grinch]

I like the car restiction idea though... some thing for me to do when I get round to doing my car test. Not that I want's a big car.

[Moriarty]

Although there is some merit behind what you say, I think that any sort of additional legislation in terms of power will ultimately lead to a complete ban of high powered bikes.

My SV is restricted and I've *ahem* tested it de-restricted. Below 6000rpm there is little difference, so I doubt it would do much to curb accidents.

Legislation of any kind here is clearly not the answer. It would be nice if a 'drivesafe' course was organised in some way like the bikesafe course, but that will never happen because it's too much hassle.

This kind of idea though (the 1yr restriction), is very much a peice of politicians logic I'm afraid.

(From Yes Prime Minister): 'My dog has four legs, my cat has four legs therefore my dog is a cat'

Or to put it another way, there are lots of accidents involving motorbikes around and we need to do something. This is something, therefore we should do it.

[22]

I like haward have just returned to bikes after 23 years and like him Iv'e restricted myself to the SV for a year or two to get experience, restricting sounds a good idea but it would be just more infringment on our rights. So I say no.

[MavUK]

Not sure about this...

I was sensible enough to buy a slow looking GPZ500S when I passed my test. 60bhp is nearly double what you are saying and yet I beleive I was perfectly safe.

I chose not to buy a 100bhp supersport that would have had me in a ditch if I'd used the loud grip. Then again my GPZ would have done the same, and I suspect a 33bhp machine could be just as bad if used by idiots... I do think that something should be done though. But am at a loss as to what to suggest...

The timing is also a problem. I get my lisence and ride nothing for a year then get a 180bhp machine. Still got no experience, and still on a superbike.

At the end of the day either bike/car lisences need to be controlled the same as plane lisences to check ehat experience people have, which is just not practical or you have to rely on the common sense of the rider. Oh dear :)

Or I could be at the end of a bad day talking b******s... :lol:

Stu

[454697819]

As a young and somewhat bitter rider!! i have had to put up with being on 33bhp, where as my brother plans on doing his direct acess next year and then can ride any thing, it saddens me!

So i persoanally welcome any restriction on ALL new riders having to wait there turn in order to ride a big machine,

As for the car front, i fully agree with that too, restrict new drivers, i personally am a newish driver 2 and a bit yrs and have only really driven low power cars (excluding comapny cars).

I had to smile the other day when i realised its not long till jan 21st when i can legally remove my restrictors, i feel proud of having stuck it out and earned my power, and how, i will never have to do another bike test ever again!

However, we all know that some ppl do de restrict early, and if found out the insurance is invalidated!
so would this push the rate of non payouts up?? Not saying that older ppl are dishonest but there are some in every age group who will break the rules!!

Heres to waiting and not caring as i get my full and earned entittlment soon, further more im booking some advanced training a week after my bike is full power! fingers crossed,

However having said all that, y 33bhp, its a crap power, i think there is 2 or 3 bike manufactures at this power, other than that you end up with a duff restricted version that is infuriating!! Further more it was only the other day that 33bhp almost got me into trouble as a huge flat spot cought me by suprise and almost got me knocked off while over taking on the A 14! so i still question the governments 33bhp choice, i think they must have chose it as it onbly has 1 number in it, so it is eisier to remember

My 1p worth

Alex

[454697819]

The scooter and 125 riders make my blood run cold :shock: - they should definately have more training before taking to the roads - a CBT is not enough IMO.

hmm, kitten my gf is a scooter rider and although the cbt is basic i feel it is good enough if you have a generally level of compatancy like kitten, she is a very good scooter rider and should be proud of it, i only did my cbt 3 years ago but i found it fine, arogance may block my memeory of those years but i felt and was safe.......enough to have survived.

Alex

[Jelster]

Generally I agree with Howards point of view (OK he bought a Triumph, but I did say generally... :lol: ) However, in May my one and only child will be 16. He's bike mad and wants a "sports" 50... My dilema is, do I do the "proper" thing and make sure he keeps his bike legal, or do I let/help him derestrict it ?

30MPH on a 50MPH dual carriageway is asking for trouble, he'll be an easy target for the "white van man" and will just get in everybodies way. I know it's wrong, but I feel he will be safer being able to reach 60MPH on a derestricted bike.

So, is 33bhp right ? I passed my DAS 2 years ago at the age of 41 and spent 13 months (&17k miles) on my SV, had a Falco for a while and now have a GSXR 600. I learnt to respect the power of the bike (especially the Falco... bloody hooligan machine that :lol: ) and believe that pushing the envelope is the only way forward. I would say that 70BHP (ie an SV) is what new riders should (if at all) be restricted to.

However, pesonally I think that a system of continued assessment is the best way forward, making sure you can repeatidly reach an approved standard before being let loose on a 180bhp machine... And even maybe being assesed on said machine before being allowed to use it.

.

[ArtyLady]

The scooter and 125 riders make my blood run cold :shock: - they should definately have more training before taking to the roads - a CBT is not enough IMO.

hmm, kitten my gf is a scooter rider and although the cbt is basic i feel it is good enough if you have a generally level of compatancy like kitten, she is a very good scooter rider and should be proud of it, i only did my cbt 3 years ago but i found it fine, arogance may block my memeory of those years but i felt and was safe.......enough to have survived.

Alex

I was referring generally to the young lads who think they are indestructable !! Kitten sounds very sensible :) but I worry for those who are not :(

[howardr]

Generally I agree with Howards point of view (OK he bought a Triumph, but I did say generally... :lol: ) However, in May my one and only child will be 16. He's bike mad and wants a "sports" 50... My dilema is, do I do the "proper" thing and make sure he keeps his bike legal, or do I let/help him derestrict it ?

30MPH on a 50MPH dual carriageway is asking for trouble, he'll be an easy target for the "white van man" and will just get in everybodies way. I know it's wrong, but I feel he will be safer being able to reach 60MPH on a derestricted bike.

So, is 33bhp right ? I passed my DAS 2 years ago at the age of 41 and spent 13 months (&17k miles) on my SV, had a Falco for a while and now have a GSXR 600. I learnt to respect the power of the bike (especially the Falco... bloody hooligan machine that :lol: ) and believe that pushing the envelope is the only way forward. I would say that 70BHP (ie an SV) is what new riders should (if at all) be restricted to.

However, pesonally I think that a system of continued assessment is the best way forward, making sure you can repeatidly reach an approved standard before being let loose on a 180bhp machine... And even maybe being assesed on said machine before being allowed to use it.

.

Alternatively, you could force all new riders to get a BMW - they'll come to no harm on something that slow and ponderous (sorry Greg, couldn't resist! :wink: )

[Big Bad Al]

I think its a good idea personally. I bought a 125 over 3 1/2 years ago and did my test a year after buying it fully intending to upgrade straight away. However I spent a further 2 year commutting along the A40 Western Ave (come rain or shine / snow ice etc) - due to finances. I beleive it has taught me much respect about riding safely as I was unable to rip past cars that misbehave as they inevitably do on a daily basis. With the power of the SV it's too easy to become a hothead and show other road users what you can do - and that's dangerous. I think I may have come to harm if I had gone straight on to a big bike - but that may just be me.

A good idea I think.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

...However, pesonally I think that a system of continued assessment is the best way forward, making sure you can repeatidly reach an approved standard before being let loose on a 180bhp machine... And even maybe being assesed on said machine before being allowed to use it.

.

Rubbish. Even a bike restricted to 33bhp will out accelerate most cars on the road and still top 100mph. More than enough to get you into trouble if you disrespect the throttle. You certainly dont need a sports thou to ride like a retard - just look at your average scrote on a scoot.

[northwind]

it'd make more sense to have a higher standard of training or test before being allowed on bigger capacity bikes... Say you have to complete an hour long observed ride on any bike over 400cc or 33bhp before going out unaccompanied... I mean, DAS on a GS500 is no preperation at all for the machines most people will then buy... The cost would be pretty much irrelevant compared with the cost of DAS and a new bike (say £50 for a half day with an instructor)

CBT I have mixed feelings about... I was a pretty safe rider on CBT- don't laugh up the back- I had my share of near misses but I left CSM fairly sorted.

But some people I know have passed it and are basically accidents waiting to happen... My mate Brendan bins his Vespa on a pretty much monthly basis, simply from awful hazard perception skills.

Maybe they could make the theory test compulsory before you do CBT? There's hardly any road rules stuff in CBT, as long as you can bluff through the road ride... Lots of stuff in the theory test that's worth knowing before you ride.

I reckon

[Jelster]

...However, pesonally I think that a system of continued assessment is the best way forward, making sure you can repeatidly reach an approved standard before being let loose on a 180bhp machine... And even maybe being assesed on said machine before being allowed to use it.

.

Rubbish. Even a bike restricted to 33bhp will out accelerate most cars on the road and still top 100mph. More than enough to get you into trouble if you disrespect the throttle. You certainly dont need a sports thou to ride like a retard - just look at your average scrote on a scoot.

Jordan I think you're missing the point.

IF any legislation were to be enforced (and I am certainly against it) I would prefer see a system of continued assesment rather than riders being forced to ride less powerful machines. This would mean that before you could ride a high power bike approved observers would have to satisfied that you can control the machine and more importantly, have the correct temprament to ride it safely. Kind of like the IAM but without the test at the end...

Being able to out accelerate the average car does not represent a problem. Using that power & speed in an unappropriate way does. BUT you should be given the opportunity to prove that you have the correct skills, not forced to ride something else because of other peoples inadequacies.

I may not be the most skilled rider in the world, but I intend to make my son work hard to gain my trust. The CBT will be like a walk in the park compared to the amount of training I will make sure he undergoes. Training works, especially repeated training. All that will happen with reducing the power of the bikes is that they will get ridden to their limits, and when he gets on his new sports 600 it will down the road at the first 90 degree bend he meets...


.

[Nick762]

Rubbish. Even a bike restricted to 33bhp will out accelerate most cars on the road and still top 100mph. More than enough to get you into trouble if you disrespect the throttle...

Agreed.

I don't see how this can even be enforced. I think that the only time someone who has derestricted their bike early is likely to be caught out is AFTER the accident when the remains of the machine are carted off to the vehicle examiner's workshop. This is not much help to anyone.

Sure you have the certificate but because of the numerous ways different machines can be restricted spot checks by the roadside are not going to prove the bike is in fact still legal. What will they do? Strip your carbs or dismantle the EMU to check for chipping? Maybe there will have to be an approved list of "probationer" machines.

The continuous assesment idea has many merits BUT it will cost money. Who is going to pay? Not everyone goes down the plastic crotch rocket path and the additional costs for observed rides etc could just be the last straw. Fewer people will take up biking and it will become more and more elitist, in other words fewer bikers on the road with less lobbying power!

Of course none of this will stop the unlicenced hooligans who will carry on riding anyway.

[timwilky]

A couple of years ago I worked in Taiwan for a while. I asked a mate why I never saw anything bigger than a 250 on the road and was told

"In order to ride big bikes, you must be a member of a club, and are only allowed to ride on organised and approved club runs". I don't know if this was the real truth but would be scary if the goverment caught onto this way to control bikers

[454697819]

The scooter and 125 riders make my blood run cold :shock: - they should definately have more training before taking to the roads - a CBT is not enough IMO.

hmm, kitten my gf is a scooter rider and although the cbt is basic i feel it is good enough if you have a generally level of compatancy like kitten, she is a very good scooter rider and should be proud of it, i only did my cbt 3 years ago but i found it fine, arogance may block my memeory of those years but i felt and was safe.......enough to have survived.

Alex

I was referring generally to the young lads who think they are indestructable !! Kitten sounds very sensible :) but I worry for those who are not :(


Share your opinion, i worry for those who are crazt too :(

[Jelster]

The continuous assesment idea has many merits BUT it will cost money. Who is going to pay? Not everyone goes down the plastic crotch rocket path and the additional costs for observed rides etc could just be the last straw. Fewer people will take up biking and it will become more and more elitist, in other words fewer bikers on the road with less lobbying power!

Of course none of this will stop the unlicenced hooligans who will carry on riding anyway.

If you had to pass an assesment which was made up of a minimum number of hours by a qualified observer BEFORE you were allowed out on a particular machine or group of machines, maybe, just maybe, there would be less accidents and therefore insurance costs would fall. Making the whole thing less expensive.

Now I'm not naive enough to think that insurance companies wouldn't want to lower there rates, but like all things in this world, it's a competitive industry. All it would take is for 1 to start lowering their price and you would see the change.

Continuous assesment is the only way, just look at flying, you have to complete a number of hours in a particular class of machine before you can fly solo. If further regulation is forced upon us, why should it not be in a similar way ?

.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

The continuous assesment idea has many merits BUT it will cost money. Who is going to pay? Not everyone goes down the plastic crotch rocket path and the additional costs for observed rides etc could just be the last straw. Fewer people will take up biking and it will become more and more elitist, in other words fewer bikers on the road with less lobbying power!

Of course none of this will stop the unlicenced hooligans who will carry on riding anyway.

If you had to pass an assesment which was made up of a minimum number of hours by a qualified observer BEFORE you were allowed out on a particular machine or group of machines, maybe, just maybe, there would be less accidents and therefore insurance costs would fall. Making the whole thing less expensive.

Now I'm not naive enough to think that insurance companies wouldn't want to lower there rates, but like all things in this world, it's a competitive industry. All it would take is for 1 to start lowering their price and you would see the change.

Continuous assesment is the only way, just look at flying, you have to complete a number of hours in a particular class of machine before you can fly solo. If further regulation is forced upon us, why should it not be in a similar way ?

.

We've all passed an assessment, we did when we passed our tests. Even if we remained on CB500's, just because we passed a test on them wouldnt make us immune to accidents. Showing that you can pootle round on a sports bike would show what precicely, that you can resist cracking the throttle open while being examined? What happens once you've passed? I doubt you'd show the same restraint - noone buys a sports bike to cruise around on. Even if you did, it STILL wont make you immune to accidents.

The more powerful your machine the greater responsibility required to use it safely, and no amount of assessment will screen out people who'll end up abusing it. Quite frankly, if you own a bike the chances are you WILL abuse it at some point. And lets face it, if you buy a sports bike, you own what is essentialy a road legal racing bike which, it could be argued, is inherantly irresponsible. I would suspect that it is the average weekend warrior who gains the bad reputation however.

So, if we establish that an idiotic proportion buy powerful bikes simply to abuse that power, that power isnt actualy required to ride like an idiot, and that assessment wont weed out the irresponsible or prevent genuine accidents, we arrive at the conclusion that to change licencing laws for sports bikes is completely pointless.

[Nick762]

A couple of years ago I worked in Taiwan for a while. I asked a mate why I never saw anything bigger than a 250 on the road and was told

"In order to ride big bikes, you must be a member of a club, and are only allowed to ride on organised and approved club runs". I don't know if this was the real truth but would be scary if the goverment caught onto this way to control bikers

Scary indeed, I received this from a "Whitehall source"

Draft Legislation for Rules Governing Possession of a Motorcycle:

A person may only posses a Motorcycle if they are a member of a recognised and approved Motorcycle Club.

A recognised and approved Motorcycle Club must be organised along guidelines laid down by the Women’s Institute (promotion of the use of large off-road vehicles for domestic purposes) sub committee. These guidelines are summarised below but will be available in full. Currently only volumes 1 to 14 are available from HMSO. The remaining six volumes plus appendices and bibliography will be published in mid 2005. They will also be able to be downloaded in .pdf file (8700MB) format from the website*. A recognised motorcycle club must however have the full set in hard format for inspection by members and a committee member and permanent member of staff who will be legally responsible for ensuring that the volumes are kept up to date as amendments are released. Furthermore, translations will also be made available and must be maintained in the following languages Welsh, Celtic, Urdu, Cantonese, Zulu, Ancient Mayan and Braille. The appointed member of staff must be fluent in the above languages.

(*for technical reasons, the website does NOT support a connection of more than 9600 bps)

A member of a recognised motorcycle club:
i) may not be in possession of facial hair
ii) may not possess Motorcycling attire that does not conform with the judicial ruling following the case Clarkson v. Constantine and Woodall (2002)
iii) will provide on demand a medical certificate from an appointed medical practitioner as evidence that they have no history of substance abuse particularly relating to the consumption of “real ale”.
iv) must at all times show courtesy and consideration for other road users particularly those engaged in the movement of small children to and from educational establishments at times of peak traffic flow.
v) may not be in possession of tattoos depicting winged skulls, bladed weapons, any entity described in the “The Malleus Maleficarum”, any human form whose visible area is less than 80% clothed or any other picture, icon, logo, symbol, illustration calculated to offend or cause distress. It is however permissible to have a depiction of a small kitten provided that it is no more than 15mm square on the skin covering the right gluteus maximus.

A person wishing to posses a Motorcycle must demonstrate to a Chief Officer of Police good reason to posses a Motorcycle. Due to the provision of a public transport system, the Home Secretary has decided that personal transport to and from a place of business is no longer considered to be a good reason to own a Motorcycle. Likewise, a Motorcycle is considered to be impractical for use in the movement of domestic provisions and should not be used for travel to places of public entertainment as the appearance of persons wearing Motorcycling attire may cause harassment, alarm or distress.

The application to posses a Motorcycle must be accompanied by character references from persons other than relatives who have known the applicant for at least 35 years*.
Suitable referees:
i) Doctor
ii) Academic
iii) A member of the professional institute of light and medium goods vehicle delivery drivers
iv) Any employee of a safety camera partnership
v) Any member of the Volvo Owners Club

* any holder of a Motorcycle riders licence is automatically disqualified from being considered a suitable referee.

It is an offence to be in possession of a Motorcycle in a public place (for the purposes of the act the term motorcycle extends to any component, assembly and sub assembly,) except for the purposes of travelling by the most direct route from a place of permanent residence to a recognised motorcycle club.

The full details of the recognised motorcycle club must be recorded on the Certificate of Motorcycle Ownership. Should a person be able to demonstrate sufficiently good reason, in exceptional circumstances a second recognised motorcycle club may be added to the Certificate of Motorcycle Ownership. (Guideline to interpretation: If the candidate for granting of a Certificate of Motorcycle Ownership is required to live for extended periods more than 400 miles from their registered place of residence to care for a great great grand parent and their spouse who must be resident in the UK mainland, an application for an exception may be made to the Minister provided it has the endorsement of both relevant Chief Officers of Police.)

The place of residence must be recorded on the owners Certificate of Motorcycle Ownership. It is an offence to be in possession of a Motorcycle in a public place without a Certificate of Motorcycle Ownership. A person found in such circumstances will be guilty of an offence the penalty for which is five years imprisonment on a first conviction.

A Motorcycle may not be kept at any location other than the registered place of permanent residence of the registered owner (as entered on the Certificate of Motorcycle Ownership). The term 'kept' extends to cover all times when the Motorcycle is not being used for purposes in direct connection with the business of the recognised motorcycle club or when the Motorcycle is to be left unattended for a period of not less than three minutes.

When kept at the Owner's registered place of permanent residence, the Motorcycle will be kept in a locked secure cabinet. This cabinet will be subject to inspection by the Chief Officer of Police and their nominated representative. When kept in its approved place of storage, the Motorcycle must be maintained in such a condition as it cannot easily be used by an unauthorised person. To this end, the following components must be removed and stored at separate and secure locations no closer than 100 feet to each other at the registered owner's registered place of permanent residence.
i) Wheels (considered for the purposes of the Act to be separate components)
ii) Engine
iii) Fuel Tank (note: it is not permissible under the Act to store automotive fuel on premises where a motorcycle is stored. The tank MUST be drained prior to storage and the contents disposed of in an environmentally appropriate manner)
The motorcycle itself must be secured to a concrete base by not less than three ground anchors. The current specifications for a ground anchor may be found in the following HMSO publication: “Construction Regulations for Offshore drilling platforms (North Sea) 12th Edition”

OK Mr Blair, it's very simple, YOU pop down to the HQ of the local Hells Angels chapter and just tell them that they are not a proper motorcycle club!

[howardr]

Nick 762 :notworthy:

You have too much time on your hands my friend.

However, too near the truth for my liking!

V. funny.

[fraser01]

Sensible stuff being pointed out here, but you only got to look at the young oiks on their 49cc scooters and the amount of accidents, illegal manouvers etc etc etc.....that it does not matter what size you restrict to.

Maybe you should have to do a full test to even be allowed on a 50cc...then if you 17 or under restrict to 50cc for a year...and then do an assessment to see if you are safe enough to ride a bigger bike. with a similar system in palce for older folk..

Mrs Fraser suggested a card system that you have a star system, bronze for example is the least amount of training and thus restricts you to a 125 for example, to progess to silver, you need to do further training (no direct access)

oh well we can debait this but its not us that will change things...shame really.

Regards

Fraser

[exduker]

...and my two penn'th at this late stage......

I fall into the 'restricting oneself' category having had 50-125cc bikes from 16-19 (when I passed my test back in '88 ) then was off bikes between 19 - 26 (needed a car to haul all my crap to uni, then lived overseas for a couple of years), then got a Moto Guzzi 650 ('cos it sounded the dogs doo-dahs and was mint) instead of a sport bike. Unfortunately I got T-boned at a junction and wrote it and almost myself off. Then I was off bikes again for a couple of years before getting a '76 Honda CB400/4 to break myself back into things, then came the Duke 600 (53bhp) and now the SV. The other weekend I had a go on my mate's GSXR1000 (my first exposure to a modern superbike) and treated it with great respect :notworthy: fearful of my life mainly :crutches:

Where am I going with all this? Well I too look back at my 16-19 yo phase and wonder how I made it out alive - and that was on restricted 50cc and 12bhp 125s. As has already been pointed out before, 33bhp will still get you to over 100mph and its the rider that chooses how much of a :toss: they are at all points in between 0 and top speed.

Will it work? I doubt it, age, experience and self preservation are what make me a better rider!

As someone else said before, something must be done, and this is something so the MPs are happy..............

[Sid Squid]

Well, what a load of old b******s from Westminster, (again).
Despite a search I can't find the relevant page, (either on paper or the internerd), but as I remember from just recently the Governments own research suggests that there is no link between power output and accident rates, indeed IIRC there was a reduction in accident rates as engine size rose, although of course this would most likely be accounted for by more experienced riders being the ones who would more likely be investing the larger sums in larger bikes.
So, assuming I haven't remembered the above all arseways, (an ever present possibility), why is this even being considered if the evidence suggests it will not be an effective measure.

I sincerely doubt that restricting power will do anything positive at all, in fact the previous attempts to do this have proved entirely ineffective.

[Nick762]

Nick 762 :notworthy:

You have too much time on your hands my friend.

However, too near the truth for my liking!

V. funny.

It was a quiet afternoon :) I was wondering how to make it completely impossible to own a bike without actually banning them!

Re Exdukers comments....

I wonder myself how I got through the first few years of car driving. I took risks that apall me now. The thing was, I just did not at the time appreciate the risks I was taking. Of course I was guilty of doing what all new riders/drivers do which is driving on my reactions and not anticipating hazards. I didn't realise what this meant although older passengers freqently commented on it until I did some advanced training through my job. As someone said.... "Experience is what you get just after you need it!"

[Grinch]

Mrs Fraser suggested a card system that you have a star system, bronze for example is the least amount of training and thus restricts you to a 125 for example, to progess to silver, you need to do further training (no direct access)


Sounds like McD's to me...

[timwilky]

It is 4:55 in the morning, I should be sleeping. I can't because I am waiting for pain killers to kick in, as my shoulder hurts. It is a year since my off (less 7 days) and I am still in pain. tw@ats, ****s twa@ts. Instead of going on about bikers killing or injuring themselves. The first initiative should be to do something about the dangerous cnuts who attempt to murder bikers.

How about a scheme that if you are in a RTA (of any sort bike, car etc.) and are judged to be at fault. you are required to attend a driver re-education programme. Funded by the insurance industry as it should reduce the number of future claims a driver/rider makes. Without a record of having attended the course you will be unable to re-insure

Put a time limit on the requirement to attend (8 weeks) and revoke their insurance if they have failed to attend. Properly focused where the driver/rider has to confront what they did wrong. The reasons for it and the consequences. OK it will have no impact on the kind of **** who drives without licence, insurance etc. But with ANPR a lot more of these are being picked up.

It is upto the courts to stop pussyfooting around with £60 fines for uninsured drivers and give them £1000 fines. That way it is cheaper to get insured than risk being caught. No insurance and in an RTA it is off to jail you go.

Of course the normal sanctions would still exist of penalties for due care, dangerous driving, dd etc. It is just that the **** that hit me got a new cage, having wrote his off on my bike and was not procecuted. I talked to the copper who witnessed my off and he was astounded that no decision to prosecute was made. So this type of driver carries on with the only penalty being a potential increase in his premium and probably never having considered that he could have killed me.

[Stig]

I actually think this a good idea. Even those that have done a direct access course still have not learnt enough road craft on a motorcycle of "large" power to be safe to themselves or others in the event of an emergency. I used to teach motorcycle riding, (yes I know its ironic when you consider my recent track record :roll: ) in Germany. These guys would train on military 500cc motorcycles, pass thier test, go out and but a tax free supersports and crash. At least if they were restricted it would give them some chance to "learn what the bike and thenselves are capable of before releasing the full power of the machine.

I know that I am tarnishing all with the same brush, but from experience I have seen that the majority of direct access, full power licence passers crash on thier new machines because they go beyond their own capabilities.

I did the full direct access and was one of these people :oops: :oops: :oops:

[Fizzy Fish]

I had a 33bhp restriction for 2 years, and personally reckon a stint on a smaller bike did my riding a lot of good.

some sort of enforced limit is a good idea because not everyone is endowed with any sort of common sense. My friend has just passed his test and naturally is eyeing up sports 600s and a 900cc Ducati - fortunately we were around to gently guide him towards something else, but had he gone to a few dealers I have no doubt that someone would have sold him an unsuitable bike.

However the limit it needs to be higher than 33bhp, maybe 60-80 or so - something a bit more real world usable, or people aren't going to want to bother with bikes at all. Travelling down a motorway with the throttle pinned fully open for 3 hrs can't be doing the engine much good! also one year should be plenty of time to get used to things.

I think they are also missing the point about style of bikes - bhp limits don't differentiate between a commuter and a sports bike, but one is certainly going to be much easier (and probably safer) on a novice than the other.

Plus they need to consider that a 33bhp naked bike is not going to prepare you for a 180bhp supersports one! rather allow people easier to ride bikes e.g. Fazer/SV which sets you up better to move on

as legislation get more and more strict, now is definitely the time to give support to BMF/MAG who are standing up and challenging this sort of thing...