33BHP restrictor prices.

Originally Posted by Lozzo

What really boils my p155 is why they ever demanded a dyno run out for the non-fault accident. I can appreciate that it's breaking the law and all that, but if it's not the rider's fault then why the hell would being restricted or not make any difference at all? All they've achieved by dynoing his bike is giving some idiot driver the chance to worm his way out of a claim from the rider. The other case raises my eyebrows as well, the guy clipped someone on a crossing - hardly likely to be out of a 40mph limit so why the need to dyno the bike to see if it had more than 33bhp? 40mph is achievable with far less power, so again I don't see the point.

It's a bloody pointless and discriminatory law in the first place - I'd like to see what would happen if all new car drivers were power restricted for their first 2 years on the road. The bloody country would be up in arms.

Because it wasnt proven at the time that is was the drivers fault. Not everything is as simple as it sounds.

All they've achieved by dynoing his bike is giving some idiot driver the chance to worm his way out of a claim from the rider

and they have achieved removing an uninsured biker off the road too. Doesnt matter whether he is a biker or car driver, break the law, ride or drive without the correct licence a vehicle your not entitled to then expect to get your **** handed to you.

The second case he was doing WELL over the speed limit in a 30mph zone, other than that i know no more.

Originally Posted by Lozzo

What really boils my p155 is why they ever demanded a dyno run out for the non-fault accident. I can appreciate that it's breaking the law and all that, but if it's not the rider's fault then why the hell would being restricted or not make any difference at all? All they've achieved by dynoing his bike is giving some idiot driver the chance to worm his way out of a claim from the rider. The other case raises my eyebrows as well, the guy clipped someone on a crossing - hardly likely to be out of a 40mph limit so why the need to dyno the bike to see if it had more than 33bhp? 40mph is achievable with far less power, so again I don't see the point.

It's a bloody pointless and discriminatory law in the first place - I'd like to see what would happen if all new car drivers were power restricted for their first 2 years on the road. The bloody country would be up in arms.

1+

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by SV650Racer

and they have achieved removing an uninsured biker off the road too.

Did he have insurance?

I got asked for proof of restriction certificate from my insurance. Maybe its just me then xD

Guys I have a Twin Pin restrictor for sale (K7) onwards. £40 P&P included

Anyone interested give me a shout.

Cheers Jeff

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Did he have insurance?

He was riding a bike that he didnt have the correct licence entitlement to ride and therefore his insurance didnt cover him for a non restricted bike. So no he wasnt insured.

[yorkie_chris]

But if he'd hit someone his insurance would have paid them out*, so not really a proper uninsured person.


*He'd have been liable for it afterwards though, but that's his problem.

[timwilky]

Whilst we are in danger of totally derailing the OP's post.

The fact remains that in the UK, we have a poorly thought out piece of legislation that for the best on intents restricts learner riders to under powered bikes and those who take their test on these bikes to approx 33BHP for the first two years.

The DAS rules are discriminatory, It should be a level playing field far all. However, the fact still remains that without a full license. A restriction is required.

However, I would doubt very much that a prosecution could be 100% successful based on Steve Jordan's dyno. It will be indicative as to the BHP of the bike. But it is not evidential, their dyno runs are not in accordance with the EEC procedures for establishing motorcycle engine power etc. A knowledgeable barrister would have the dyno run dismissed an ineligible in minutes.

Fine if the dyno run says 65+BHP on an SV it is obvious no restiction was in place. But if it said 35BHP and there was still a prosecution as the restriction was inadequate. An evidential quality test would be required. I sincerely doubt there are many places in the UK equipped to do such a test other than the specialist R&D facilities with engine dynos and accredited operating staff.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by timwilky

Whilst we are in danger of totally derailing the OP's post.

The fact remains that in the UK, we have a poorly thought out piece of legislation that for the best on intents restricts learner riders to under powered bikes and those who take their test on these bikes to approx 33BHP for the first two years.

The DAS rules are discriminatory, It should be a level playing field far all. However, the fact still remains that without a full license. A restriction is required.

However, I would doubt very much that a prosecution could be 100% successful based on Steve Jordan's dyno. It will be indicative as to the BHP of the bike. But it is not evidential, their dyno runs are not in accordance with the EEC procedures for establishing motorcycle engine power etc. A knowledgeable barrister would have the dyno run dismissed an ineligible in minutes.

Fine if the dyno run says 65+BHP on an SV it is obvious no restiction was in place. But if it said 35BHP and there was still a prosecution as the restriction was inadequate. An evidential quality test would be required. I sincerely doubt there are many places in the UK equipped to do such a test other than the specialist R&D facilities with engine dynos and accredited operating staff.

Or you could just look at the part numbers/inspect the throttle for a stop.

I am assuming a Dyno was used because its the cheapest option, if challenged I would expect that more intrusive inspections would be done.

As for discriminatory or otherwise, until they law is overturned etc you still have to play by the rules.

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

As for discriminatory or otherwise, until they law is overturned etc you still have to play by the rules.

Correct. I dont agree with the 33BHP rule but I certainly would never agree with anyone removing the kit and then riding. IMHO thats no different to a car driver on L Plates driving on their own.