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

Originally Posted by speedplay

+1


May even save a few lives too.

There is no substitute for experience.

I agree that experience counts for a lot, but idiots will hurt themselves no matter what law or restriction you put in place, so why penalise the semsible and responsible? All these nanny-state laws do nothing to encourage young people to be mature and resonsible adults, in fact they do the opposite because they now have so much more to rebel against and when they do get nicked the law is so soft on them and their sentence depends on the results of Social Services reports etc. Again, it's the normal and usually law-abiding who get penalised.

Originally Posted by Triv650

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.

I dislike the idea of any form of licence or power restriction until such time as newly qualified car drivers have to suffer the same indignity and discrimination.

Originally Posted by Lozzo

I dislike the idea of any form of licence or power restriction until such time as newly qualified car drivers have to suffer the same indignity and discrimination.

I also agree with that too. The fact that some 17 year old with enough money from mummy and daddy can go out and buy a ferrari and go out on the road when I am restricted to 33hp is stupid. I wouldn't mind being restricted if cars had the same penalty as me.

[Tallguy]

Didn't know this about BC, can't imagine what the statisticsmust be, plus you have some SERIOUSLY good roads!

Originally Posted by 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.

What you've got to remember for every decent law abiding citizen the cops have to deal with thousands of toe rags too. I would be gutted if my 'Legal' bike was seized but if the coppers let someone go believing there story and they hit me i wouldn't be too impressed when their insurance refused to pay out for their bike not being 33 bhp. Think this is refered to as the greater good. you've just been caught up in the cross fire.
hope everything turns out fine.
Steve

Originally Posted by Lozzo

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.

The normal/avcerage is not able to go winning races after 1500 miles from getting on a bike. Your mate is the exception, not the rule. Why didn't he do DAS if he wanted no restriction...? And was he really so handicapped by a restriction baring in mind the speed limits of the UK's roads..?

I suggest you mop up some teenagers from the tarmac following their tshirt and shorts riding on bikes they can't handle then tell me we penalise the normal and protect the stupid. Go and tell the father (who is also a biker) of the kid in hospital with 2 breaks to his lower back that I had the delight of dealing with a few weeks ago, because he overcooked a bend on an unrestricted bike he shouldn't have been riding. He probably would have overcooked the bend were it restricted anyway, but it doesn't add much weight to your argument of unrestricting everything does it. But your opinion of Police - especially when it comes to Traffic law - is obvious.

If your opinion is that everyone on a bike is capable of being a race winner, then you Sir, are a moron. You're right, people learn at different speeds, and the law has to protect the poorest rider, not the best rider. The laws exist to *try* and protect new and young riders from hopping on something too powerful and adding +1 to the death rate. Sure there will always be some kids who ignore it, but abolishing the law and making it easier for them to do so is pointless.

You draw comparisons with new drivers and powerful cars, the difference is in a car you aren't likely to be scraping along the floor in unsuitable clothing, most have airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones etc. Where is the similarity between the vulnerablity of a car driver to that of a motorcyclist in an accident? Truth is you come off a bike you're flying towards who knows where, towards lampposts, signs, oncoming traffic, kerbs, not to mention the delight of rolling and scraping along tarmac which is a hazard in itself when you see what some of these kids wear to ride.

I suggest you go and tag along with some FLOs and deliver a few agony messages, or observer shifts with your local accident investigators where the blood is still wet before you start advocating kids on Fireblades purely so your friend the bike racer can ride what he wants.

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.

Then thank heavens it's not you, it leaves you free to sit warm and comfy behind your screen acting the keyboard warrior while other people go out and do the work for you to sit and second guess later.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

You draw comparisons with new drivers and powerful cars, the difference is in a car you aren't likely to be scraping along the floor in unsuitable clothing, most have airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones etc. Where is the similarity between the vulnerablity of a car driver to that of a motorcyclist in an accident? Truth is you come off a bike you're flying towards who knows where, towards lampposts, signs, oncoming traffic, kerbs, not to mention the delight of rolling and scraping along tarmac which is a hazard in itself when you see what some of these kids wear to ride.

On a bike you kill yourself.
In a car you kill someone else.

Simples.

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.

It seems to be the only thing that makes sense...

We have all had the debate of age, size of bike, power, road accidents, restriction, and done the debate to death.

Not much we can do about it really, I just have to suck it up for 2 years, then I am free.

Better than riding a 125 just now, and having to wait till 21 to get on something with some puff.

Bah.

Originally Posted by sunshine

panosm can i have some of what your smoking???
yc theres a reason that didnt get past the planning stage i guess.
but riding for two years is nothing if you spend the last 1year and 9 months of it with your leg in a cast, wouldnt it be more suitable to limit to 33bhp for say 10,000miles, i could been unrestricted within 9 months then

you can have as much golden virginia as you like.......

Originally Posted by BanditPat

You my friend are an imbecile

whatever....my opinion is my opinion andyours is yours......

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

18-21 on a 125? You off your tits?

that was an example chris....on my 18th in Greece i got myself a cbr1000rr.....completely legal......

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

On a bike you kill yourself.
In a car you kill someone else.

Simples.

this is what i meant when i said if you are found upside down and common sense....

Originally Posted by Fishtits

You draw comparisons with new drivers and powerful cars, the difference is in a car you aren't likely to be scraping along the floor in unsuitable clothing, most have airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones etc.

That was me actually. I don't think such a flame was necessary on the man, he's only stating his opinion in a polite manner.

My base of thinking was that a high powered car poses a greater threat to life than a low powered car and so restrictions need to be used in that respect. I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.