MAG: European Bandwagon Moves Against Motorcycling

[rubberduckofdeath]

.

[jonboy]

So am I alone in approving these licencing changes?


.

[Iansv]

Saw them in MCN, I don't have a problem with em.... but then I already have a licence and aint so young anymore :lol:

[northwind]

His biased statement conflicts with research which indicates that the primary blame for accidents with motorcycles and other vehicles lies with the other vehicle driver at least 40% of the time. Given that it is MAG's opinion that the emphasis should be on other vehicle drivers yet the directive does not address car drivers via the licensing "regime" for these vehicles.


I love the way they just rush trhrough this paragraph in thr hope that you won't actually notice what they've said. Bike crashes are up, and the majority of 2-vehicle crashes involving a bike are not the fault of the other vehicle. And thse guys are supposed to be on the "anti" side.

There's definately a place for something like the MAG in UK riding. But unfortunately, at the moment it's filled by the MAG, who are a joke. They came out swinging against the vehicle tax hike of £2 :roll: Below inflationary increases are apparently anti-biker (the tax rate having not changed for a while)

[chog]

:? I am all for improved rider training, but fear that these proposals miss the point. :cry:
Training should also be aimed at car drivers with more emphasis placed on awareness of othesr.
anti-social/bullying type drive aggressive driving/riding should be stamped out with heavy fines :x
Finally and this is my opinion they should scrap the direct access.
I think it is basically wrong to let someone who due to age and wealth can pass there test and then jump onto there R1 etc with race rep leathers and helmet and then crash through the wall on the first bend they come to. :cry:
I believe that its riding experience that counts not age, just because you have been driving a car for 20 years doesnt mean you can handle the lastest factory rocketship. :shock:
This will not apply to most people on this site as even those who have done direct access are on this site because they own an SV, mostly 650's and they have bought these as a sensible stepping stone.
I live in the peak district and see many of these mid life crisis bikers. They are only into it for the image/fashion, they never wave to other bikes or stop to help the biker in trouble and are only intersted in showing off there latest replica helmet.
Finally we should oppose the law not because i want to keep the death toll high but because it only targets bikes and therefore Is AGAINST MY RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND EXPRESSION. article 8 of the european charter.
Chog 8)

[Mariner]

I don't have any kind of problem with progressive licensing, in fact I am positively in favour of it! I am also positively in favour of periodic re-testing, I really believe that the roads would be much safer if we had to resit our licenses every 5 years. BUT to only enforce it on one particular group of road users is wrong, if they really want to make the roads safer then introduce these rules onto all road user groups.

[lynw]

So am I alone in approving these licencing changes?


.

No. Only things I disagree with is the 2 year restriction of the categories - tbh one would be fine.

But Im sort of anti-MAG/BMF atm. I'd rather they concentrated on:

1. campaigning for ensuring CBT standards are improved and adhered to and all the cowboy training operations are closed down,
2. the kill spills campaign,
3. opening up bus lanes

and other useful campaigns rather than keep trying to fight the helmet law because it should be a choice or this one. Tbh I think MAG and BMF just go anti government changes for the hell of it sometimes.

If someone wants a bike licence they will still get one, or like some people on here will get a restricted one and ride illegally. I think the "this will kill motorcycling" paranoia forgets the fact that this is trying to address the fact we are a high percentage of fatalities and serious injuries, regardless of fault and its designed to be a "this way wont kill as many motorcyclists" policy.

Kind of links into the other thread I posted on earlier. It scares me a 21 year old with no experience can do a 3 day DAS and then go on a Busa if he can afford the insurance. To me that is just asking for trouble - especially as the overconfidence and complacency kick in.

[northwind]

BUT to only enforce it on one particular group of road users is wrong, if they really want to make the roads safer then introduce these rules onto all road user groups.

The reason they apply it to bikers and not car users is that very few 18 year olds can afford a car with the performance of an R1, or even an SV. This is where I think the argument loses direction a little... The SV's considered a beginners or slow bike, but it still does 0-60 in much the same time as a Ferrari F40, or a standing quarter in the same time as an Aston Martin Vantage. So car ownership sort of self-selects against 18 year olds in stupidly powerful cars.

[GSXR Carlos]

if they really want to make the roads safer then introduce these rules onto all road user groups.

this has been my problem for a long time

i've known people who've had big powerful cars from passing their tests, whereas i had to pootle around on a restricted bike

i do understand that moeny restricts car buying and not bikes in the same way, but keep changing the rules for us and not them (car drivers) and there won't be any of us left
Newbie car drivers should be restricted in the early days, maybe a 1.4, then see how the country/europe reacts to these kind of rule changes :evil:

[haggis]

Let's face it, if the Government/EU really cared about safety first and foremost then it would issue an immediate power and speed restriction to suit.

ie. a little black box to prevent us doing any more than say, 85mph, fitted at your next MOT.

Bikes are an acute niche in tax collection compared to cars, especially people who absolutely depend on a bike as their only mode of trasnport. Therefore it's no hardship for them to squeeze more and more red-tape into the learning process/ownership costs.

Doing the same to car owners causes outrage, remember the fuel protests. How effective would they have been if it was only bikers who were targeted?


Half-measures and compromise is what the Government is all about these days.
The smoking ban fiasco is just the same. They're bad for us so ban them outright throughout the country asap, we'd all benefit. They don't owe tobacco companies any favours, so stop buttering them up and think of our nations future first.

Oops,....... :offtopic:

[lynw]

Let's face it, if the Government/EU really cared about safety first and foremost then it would issue an immediate power and speed restriction to suit.

ie. a little black box to prevent us doing any more than say, 85mph, fitted at your next MOT.

Maybe theyre clever enough to realise its going too fast for the conditions/corner that counts and you can still bin it and die at 50mph on a 20mph hairpin. So no point in putting said restrictors in because it wont prevent any accidents tbh.

Bikes are an acute niche in tax collection compared to cars, especially people who absolutely depend on a bike as their only mode of trasnport. Therefore it's no hardship for them to squeeze more and more red-tape into the learning process/ownership costs.

Ok. Do you think under the present system it is a good idea for a 21 year old to have 3 days training then go out and ride a 'Busa or a ZX10? Because I don't. I noticed how many people have binned their SVs when theyve been a first bike [some of us dont even need that excuse either :oops: ], and on the CBR forum I recall a thread where most who had them as their first bike had binned them within a year somehow. And thats just 600s.

As Northwind said, its like giving an inexperienced oik a ferrari without having any road sense to use it.

Also, as much as you'd like to turn it into a tax rant - don't. This isn't about taxes [a subject I do know an awful lot about and happy to share if you insist it is :D ]. Its about EU harmonisation and when one member state proposes a law it affects the others. Got absolutely nowt to do with taxes and more to do with what is the legal process within the EU.

This started as a proposal by the German and Austrian governments, not ours.

[haggis]

Yes, true. Wrong speed for conditions and/or situation around you is the cause of most accidents.

But how many people outside of the racetrack walk away from a 90mph+ off?

I actually think the proposals are fine. My disappointment with the measures is that it's saying bikes are dangerous, no matter who you are or what you ride. But surely cars, all cars, are equally dangerous if not more so. At least on a bike you get a sense of fear after an off, in a car you can crash in relative safety to yourself and do it again. That's where the road respect is lacking in training.



Are there any figures to suggest large numbers of young people are/are not getting on hyper-sports? Legally, I mean. The insurance is crippling for them no matter what they buy, so that doesn't help them decide "oh well, an SV or GS500 is fine. At least it's cheap to insure" because that incentive has gone.

Case in point. A mate of mine is just 20. Sat his CBT at 17. Had a CG125 for 3 months, passed his 33bhp, got an SV for the 2 years. A few minor accidents on it, rode like a nutter everywhere. Got a Daytona 955i, crashed withing a month ot so, and now has a Daytona 650. He's already looking at getting a Mille R. He really doesn't care about insurance prices, or how difficult the test was. He want's to go fast, and whatever it takes that's his aim.

[Ceri JC]

BUT to only enforce it on one particular group of road users is wrong, if they really want to make the roads safer then introduce these rules onto all road user groups.

The reason they apply it to bikers and not car users is that very few 18 year olds can afford a car with the performance of an R1, or even an SV. This is where I think the argument loses direction a little... The SV's considered a beginners or slow bike, but it still does 0-60 in much the same time as a Ferrari F40, or a standing quarter in the same time as an Aston Martin Vantage. So car ownership sort of self-selects against 18 year olds in stupidly powerful cars.

I was talking to the ex-head of traffic for south wales about the tiered system of licencing for bikes and how the car system should mirror it, say <1.2L/60BHP for the first 2 years. Whilst I (and he) concede that it's certainly not the norm for young car drivers to have powerful vehicles, that's not to say there are not enough exceptions to the rules that car drivers should also be legislated against this way:

He saw a lad of 18 who had had his licence 2 weeks crash his turbo cosworth (which Daddy bought him) almost head on into a wall, resulting in broken limbs for him and the passengers.

I've seen students with brand new Impreza WRXs and Mitsubishi Evo 8s. Both driven badly (although thankfully not very quickly, either).

A mate works at a private school. Loads of the sixth formers have flash cars and drive as you would expect 17-18 year old boys in sports cars to; badly. Crash one AMG SLK55 and Daddy buys you another.

A colleague's girlfriend comes from a wealthy family. She is 19 and by his own admission "fluked a pass in her driving test 18 months ago and hasn't driven since". Her parents are buying her a Z4. Her brother, who is in a similar position has just been bought a WRX.

Nowt against rich kids on principle, but typically, if you have that sort of car at that age, you will be spoilt and won't have worked and saved for it. Consequently you'll not respect/love it and will drive it like a knobber, as you won't be terrified of crashing it.

I'd also argue that due to the fact that in a car you're more likely to injure other people, even if you only crash your own car (more likely to have passengers), let alone if you actually hit another vehicle, makes it a more serious problem (albeit a less common one) for other road users than youngsters on bikes.

[northwind]

I agree with the point that you're more likely to do damage in a car, but I still think it comes down purely to numbers- a small number of young and inexperienced drivers can get in a powerful car, but it is and always will be a small number. Changing the entire licensing system, with a load of extra red tape and expense, to legislate for a very small minority would, IMO, be a bad use of resources.

[Ceri JC]

I agree with the point that you're more likely to do damage in a car, but I still think it comes down purely to numbers- a small number of young and inexperienced drivers can get in a powerful car, but it is and always will be a small number. Changing the entire licensing system, with a load of extra red tape and expense, to legislate for a very small minority would, IMO, be a bad use of resources.

It's actually a comparatively small number of kids 18-19 (I'm not talking "scooter youth" they're a different matter entirely) who buy something even as powerful as an SV (most still live at home and a lot of people's parents, mine included, wouldn't let me have one at that age). I'd say there are, what, (conservatively) 50+ cars to every bike? I'd say 1 in 50 new car drivers has a car more powerful than they should be in.

So: Whilst a smaller percentage of car drivers, compared to bikers, can get something powerful enough to warrant putting in a tiered system, as a first vehicle, the fact that there are so many car drivers compared to bikers leads me to believe the quantites are not so different.

Actually, thinking about it, I've only once seen a young lad on a reasonably powerful bike (and that was 'only' an RS250), whereas I've seen at least 2 dozen kids under 21 in reasonably powerful cars. Even if it's just getting insurance on their dad's motor, they're still driving them.

[northwind]

Very true actually. Though I don't think that the size of the sample is the be all and end all here, it's definately relevant.

[timwilky]

The reason they apply it to bikers and not car users is that very few 18 year olds can afford a car with the performance of an R1, or even an SV. This is where I think the argument loses direction a little... The SV's considered a beginners or slow bike, but it still does 0-60 in much the same time as a Ferrari F40, or a standing quarter in the same time as an Aston Martin Vantage. So car ownership sort of self-selects against 18 year olds in stupidly powerful cars.


No quite Northy, the day my daughter passed her test she as a 17yr old was out for a spin in my 130bhp car. Granted the company insurance says any driver and I checked to ensure there were no age or experience requirements first. So whilst not stupidly powerful it can still hit an indicated 130MPH and 0-60 in under 10 seconds. A damm site quicker than the micro 1.0 she had passed her test in an hour earlier.

Strange though that when it comes to my son I told him the insurance rules had changed and you now need to have held a licence for 2 years before you can drive my car. When the truth is I don't trust him and wonder how the hell he ever passed his test, having seen him driving I have bollocked him for excessive speed, lack of observation/control, late hard braking. All the traits of the inexperienced driver who needs a couple of years road experience before getting into something more powerful

[Flamin_Squirrel]

I dont see how can anyone possibly see this as a good thing.

Yes it's unwise to get a litre sports bike when you've just passed your test, but guess what, adult life requires responsibility.

It's not the governments job to absolve people of that responsibility what so ever. Unfortunately noone wants to accept any responsibility anymore.

[Jelster]

I dont see how can anyone possibly see this as a good thing.

Yes it's unwise to get a litre sports bike when you've just passed your test, but guess what, adult life requires responsibility.

It's not the governments job to absolve people of that responsibility what so ever. Unfortunately noone wants to accept any responsibility anymore.

Unfortunately, once again I find myself agreeing with the Squirrel.. :roll:

I would like to see more education for car drivers about bikes. I think just about all of agree that we became better drivers once we had some biking experience and we know where bikes are likely to come from. Learner drivers should be taught more about looking for bikes and where to expect them (i.e. filtering).

.

[GSXR Carlos]

Ok. Do you think under the present system it is a good idea for a 21 year old to have 3 days training then go out and ride a 'Busa or a ZX10? Because I don't. I noticed how many people have binned their SVs when theyve been a first bike [some of us dont even need that excuse either :oops: ], and on the CBR forum I recall a thread where most who had them as their first bike had binned them within a year somehow. And thats just 600s.

but the point should be that its our choice to make, not theirs

[northwind]

but the point should be that its our choice to make, not theirs

That's fine if you live on an island by yourself... But if people are gettign on (or in) machines they can't handle, there's a good chance they hurt other people. It's also our tax that pays to put them back together, and our insurance that goes up to cover the costs of incompetents killing their transport.

[northwind]

It's not the governments job to absolve people of that responsibility what so ever. Unfortunately noone wants to accept any responsibility anymore.

Exactly right. But though I agree with your statement, I don't agree with your conclusion. I think the drive towards legislating these things more tightly is a result of, not a cause of, people's decision not to take responsibility. There's no point saying "It's the individual's job to take responsibility for their actions" when in the real world, many people simply won't. And if they won't, someone has to, because it's not just for their protection. If it was, I'd be quite happy with halfwits killing themselves, there'd be more parts in breakers and less halfwits reproducing :)

[Flamin_Squirrel]

but the point should be that its our choice to make, not theirs

That's fine if you live on an island by yourself... But if people are gettign on (or in) machines they can't handle, there's a good chance they hurt other people. It's also our tax that pays to put them back together, and our insurance that goes up to cover the costs of incompetents killing their transport.

Yeah but where do you draw the line? We'd all be much safer if we were confined to padded cells.

Anyway, if you want to make an impact on casualty figures you go for the greatest source, and that isnt people newly qualified crashing outrageously powerful machines.

[northwind]

Yeah but where do you draw the line? We'd all be much safer if we were confined to padded cells.


And when you have someone who's incapable of making decisions for themselves, that's exactly what you do with them ;)

Totalyl agree with your other point, but I'd say that's more an argument in favour of more legislation, not against this one, myself.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Yeah but where do you draw the line? We'd all be much safer if we were confined to padded cells.


And when you have someone who's incapable of making decisions for themselves, that's exactly what you do with them ;)

Totalyl agree with your other point, but I'd say that's more an argument in favour of more legislation, not against this one, myself.

I see where you're coming from, I just think legislation is too blunt an instrument and should only ever be used as a last resort. There are alternatives, educating new riders of the dangers of high powered machinery for a start.

[northwind]

You have more faith in humankind than me, it seems :wink: I did 5 CBTs, on the grounds that I was utterly incompetent, so met about 25-30 other learners. Maybe 5 of them would have been interested in being educated... But most would obey legislation, to some extent. Everyone knows about the dangers of riding a bike at 150mph, they just don't believe it applies to them.

[Jay]

I'm with the personal responsibility gang - as long as the test guarantees a minimum level of competence it's up to you to know your limits. All this does is change the level of competence required, and makes the, arguably false, assertion that age will equal greater sanity on the road. It is NOT possible to stop people hurting themselves with machinery be it a car, motorbike, mountain bike, skateboard.... To try and do so sets an impossible task.

I guess the question is, do you believe that current competency standards for passing test are too low? Or are we trying to legislate against people harming themselves?

For example, after riding my bike for four years I had an accident, I'd done 12K on the bike I was on at that point, had ridden in all weathers in London and the countryside and put in a huge numbers of hours on it. But I still had an accident, if your going for reducing injury accidents to zero then on these criteria I still wasn't ready to be on the road.

So your competence requirement has now got to be > 28, 4 years experience comprising a minimum of 12000 miles in dry, bright, misty, wet, snow and ice. XXX hours ridden. (all of which supervised or off public roads)

If everyone believes that the test centres are turning out incompetents then it needs addressing, but if we're trying to solve the problem of human beings that a) like going quick and b) don't know their limits - it ain't gonna happen!