new bike test

[Bibio]

would the new laws regarding age and ability to ride different horsepower motorcycles not come under the new Equality Act which states.

the Equality Act has expanded the scope of the Public
Sector Equality Duty, which had as its main aim a duty on public bodies to
apply fairness and equality in their policies and decision-making.

Public bodies
Public bodies are national and local Government bodies carrying out
functions for the public.

A list of bodies covered by the general duties is
contained in Schedule 19 of the Equality Act.

They include:
Ministers of the Crown and government departments.

the Equality Act basically states that no person shall be discriminated against due to age etc.etc

so it's my understanding that they have broke their own laws by setting age related rules.

[PyroUK]

Fair question, doubt it though as its just a licence. Like for cars you have to be a certain age to get one, otherwise it could be argued that anyone who could physically control a vehicle (ie be tall enough to use all the controls) regardless of age could get the licence. At least that is my understanding.

It would be interesting to see how this would tie in with the EU gender ruling though for insurance, as i can imagine that plenty of insurance companies will use this to load premiums instead of gender based on the cat of licence held.

I think the problem is the notion of the rules themselves, not the implementation of them.

Not being able to discriminate based on gender? Fair enough.
Not being able to discriminate based on age? Ludicrous.
Taken to its illogical conclusion this would mean a 7 year old should be allowed to take the bike test on a road legal pit bike. To take it further, they should also be allowed to smoke, drink alcohol and have sex.

Under 25s are spectacularly over-represented in the accident stats. The younger they are, the more over-represented they become. Everything we know and understand suggests that this trend continues into the early teens and below. There must be a point where a country decides that this risk is too high and bars that age from driving. I think we've got it pretty right so far.

Some places in the states allow people to drive at 14, which on the face of it is stupid, but when you consider they're generally automatic cars and you're much less likely to come across other traffic, it doesn't seem quite so bad.

The argument against tiered bike licences always points at car drivers not having to endure anything equivalent. The argument that someone can at 17 go and buy an M5 is moot; the number of 17 year olds that can afford an M5 is so small as to be irrelevant. Conversely, how many 17 year olds could afford to buy a ratty late 90s GSXR? A lot.

Probably not in this way because the new rules aren't discriminating against a particular group (rather it applies to a range of age groups and none more detrimental than others). The licensing requirements, as in any new legislative provisions, usually go past an equality committee to ensure it complies with this legislation but it must also pass the House of Lords. This has been a new implimnetation following the harmonisation of equality laws into the Act.

Its not to say that the provision aren't unfair but the Act more commonly applies to how existing legislation is applied and, if it cannot be applied evenly or fairly to those who it affects, what changes are needed. Its more of a civil liberties thing and so I think the Human Rights Act would be more applicable; where the freedoms or liberties of an individual or class of individuals were affected adversely by the new law..

It can always be challenged but principles of fairness, proportionality and reasonableness can only be determie by Judicial review once a law is passed (which of course it has been).

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

The argument against tiered bike licences always points at car drivers not having to endure anything equivalent. The argument that someone can at 17 go and buy an M5 is moot; the number of 17 year olds that can afford an M5 is so small as to be irrelevant. Conversely, how many 17 year olds could afford to buy a ratty late 90s GSXR? A lot.

I don't know about that, because there are equally old cars out there with sufficiently powerful motors to provide a comparison with the old GSXR. And if the argument about a 17yr old's ownership of an M5 is less relevant due to cost, then the corresponding reasoning could be applied to motorcycles anyway without having to change the licensing requirements.

I think the new regulations are due to social pressure, cost and revenue (i.e. the car industry is far larger than the motorcycle industry and so to remove access to source of revenue to Manufacturer's/dealers and government themselves would not be an easy law to pass.

Gov must be seen to be doing good even if they're not doing enough.

[Bibio]

i think the equality act only covers adults as children have their own set of rules, laws and acts.

another thing is that insurance companies discriminate against age as well. why should a 17 year old pay more than a bumpy dottery old foggey or a crashy happy mid life toy buying individual. insurance should be based on claims so the more you claim the more you pay but everyone should start off with a clean slate.

there should also be no 50/50 as someone is always at fault and claiming against them should not tarnish the claimants record if found not to be at fault.

[650]

[QUOTE=Bibio;2815967another thing is that insurance companies discriminate against age as well. why should a 17 year old pay more than a bumpy dottery old foggey or a crashy happy mid life toy buying individual.[/QUOTE]

I guess because there's FAR more teenagers out there who cause accidents than mid life toy buying types who tend to just pootle about in their new toys rather than seeind how hard they can lob 'em round a tight corner in the rain, it's just statistical fact innit

Originally Posted by Bibio

i think the equality act only covers adults as children have their own set of rules, laws and acts.

another thing is that insurance companies discriminate against age as well. why should a 17 year old pay more than a bumpy dottery old foggey or a crashy happy mid life toy buying individual. insurance should be based on claims so the more you claim the more you pay but everyone should start off with a clean slate.

there should also be no 50/50 as someone is always at fault and claiming against them should not tarnish the claimants record if found not to be at fault.

Insurance is based on risk. Given the choice must people wouldn't have it. Insurers assess risk to actually calculate different premiums. If they didn't and insurance was based on claims only we would all have higher premiums anyway. You have to have the more insurables and the less in order to have the middle. The problem is how they measure risk, not the different levels of risk itself (e.g. the postcode lottery).