"33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

[hindle8907]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

The biggest joke is the fact that pottering around town at 28mph is exactly the same whether you're on a fizzy or a fireblade!

exactly!

[yorkie_chris]

For the moment I'd probably say the fairest way would be to keep the 33bhp for 2 years but for all riders regardless of age, and add an IAM-esque test which could be taken after 12 months to upgrade to a full license.
12 months is plenty for a high mileage rider.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

For the moment I'd probably say the fairest way would be to keep the 33bhp for 2 years but for all riders regardless of age, and add an IAM-esque test which could be taken after 12 months to upgrade to a full license.
12 months is plenty for a high mileage rider.

+1


May even save a few lives too.

There is no substitute for experience.

[Shellywoozle]

Originally Posted by tommo891

Shelly please baby Im sorry will a fairy cake and the money swing you..lol

Fairy cake .... bottle of voddy would be better and get you out my bad books !!

Originally Posted by Lozzo

Oh man is he in trouble, just pray she never has to arrest you or you may find yourself falling down the station steps or repeatedly slipping on the ice in August

I have the ice machine on order

Originally Posted by tommo891

Shelly should I be getting scared....

Originally Posted by Red Herring

Lozzo, it's all very well you getting on your pedestal and saying what's wrong with the system but how about offering an alternative solution? Are you suggesting a 17 year old should be able to ride an R1 straight after passing his test or did you have some other way of introducing experience to riders in mind?

We had a perfectly good system before when I passed my test in 1979 and the actual road death figures are not much different to pre-restricted licence days, so what does this tell you about the stupidity of the new tests and the difficult to comprehend laws surrounding them?

A 17 year old couldn't ride an R1 nowadays because no-one would insure him, so it's not so much a licencing issue anyway - 99% of people under 21are at the mercy of insurance companies and can't afford to buy and insure faster bikes.

When I passed my test I was riding one of the very first 140mph CB900Fs that same night (borrowed from a good mate) and I survived and so did the vast majority of the people I rode bikes with back then. My first big bike was a Suzuki GT750L Kettle and it taught me alot about how to ride. 17 year olds will hurt themselves on whatever bike you sit them on, so restricting the bike's power is a bloody stupid and discriminatory way of forcing them off two wheels. I don't see or hear about any planned legislation stopping 17 year olds from driving 500bhp Ferraris, so please tell me why we are discriminated against as motorcyclists.

Originally Posted by Red Herring

The current legislation with regard to 'restricted" bikes isn't perfect and it's a nightmare for the police to enforce, as has been seen here, but the principal is fairly sound.

So why was it introduced without any form of a nod towards practical policing of it? Surely the police know it's a farce and ignore it. If it were me out on the streets doing your job I'd be understanding of the stupidity of the law itself and the near impossibility to police it, so I'd not even bother asking about or checking for restrictions.

My personal opinion is that if a 17 year old passes his test he should just derestrict the bike anyway, cos no-one can outwardly tell if it's restricted or not and it's not up to the rider to prove it is anyway. 33bhp is a bloody ludicrous restriction designed to put young people off getting motorcycles

[CheGuevara]

I'm not sure what the answer is regarding restrictions vs age etc but at home (BC, Canada -the rules are different in each province) there are none (restrictions) regarding size or power of bike. At the age of 16, having passed your full licence you can buy any motorcycle you can afford. This is further compunded by a state-run mandatory insurance which does not bias based on age, sex, job etc -just a base rate with a deduction based on years of safe driving (up to a max of 43%).

So we have an unfortunate situation where a large number of kids and young adults (in a relatively small population) are seriously injured or killed riding bikes that they can't handle (or have not developed the appropriate level of responsibility).

A friend sold his GSXR 1000 to a local 16yo a few years back. He had some reservations but figured the kid would buy one somewhere else if not from him. The lad died the very next day while failing to negotiate a corner on the highway at a high rate of speed (showing off for his friends I think).

Even where the injuries aren't serious, the number of expensive bike repairs, write-offs, and stunting in inappropriate places has driven up the cost of insurance, fines for speeding, and general level of enforcement -spoiling things for everyone.

Originally Posted by sunshine

this is one of the reasons Kawasaki invested money into making the ZX250R which only makes 30bhp. would this not work better?

Kawasaki didn't invest a whole load of money developing a 33bhp engine for the Ninja 250R, it was an engine that had been around for ages in things like the ZZR250 of the early 90s and all it ever made was 33bhp when first designed, and that was before any half-baked idiot at the DoT ever thought up a figure for restricted bikes. All Kawasaki did was take that engine and put it in a new chassis with some fancy sporty bodywork - it's much the same as a CBR125R, an old but reliable design of engine in sporty looking clothes.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

That's just going to make people get their license and wait 2 years, <33bhp bikes are bloody expensive for what you get and would be stupidly so if you HAD to get one.

The government are trying to kill off biking altogether with all this sh1te.

My ex-housemate passed his test and waited 2 years for his restriction to run out, then went out and bought a 1200 Bandit. He's still alive and is now on his second B12 and has an RF900 hack and a number of other bikes too.

Originally Posted by Dicky Ticker

Perhaps a bit wiser approach easing myself back in thats why I am in favour of the 33bhp restriction. It takes a fair while to nurture and hone your biking skills and although a pain in the butt if your young it may just keep you alive to enjoy it for a long time

Different people learn at different rates. I have a mate who passed his test and bought a CBR600. Within days we all realised the guy was a natural and encouraged him to go racing, so he did. He did extremely well and got some good results. The guy had done less than 1500 miles on a bike when he won his first race.

Now please explain why that guy should be restricted to 33bhp for two whole years when he can obviously handle a bike to that degree. The law is set up to protect the stupid and penalise the normal - isn't it about time we dumped this insidious Nanny-stateism and got on with a proper democracy where the normal/avcerage is the one we look after and if you can't hack it then tough luck.

I like the idea of mandatory power restriction for any age, with derestriction after a period of time. I'm not quite sure what restriction or time period would work best, but I like the idea at least.