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

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

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

Simples.

I can tell you that people die in cars.
I unfortunately have the bad experience of my mates being killed or injured, and alot of local kids have suffered the same fate.

And its not the best feeling, never mind if they were to blame.

Originally Posted by Fishtits

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.



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.

Woah! Chill Fishtits. Lozzo is one of the good guys on here, who although strong minded, generally sticks up for us coppers on here!

The dude has expressed a valid point, no need to be calling him a moron!

Think everyone should just relax a bit, no point getting personal with each other.

This thread does seem have strayed quite a lot- a lot of the issues are fairly related, but it's kind of burying the story a bit! Perhaps there should be a separate thread for discussion on the pros and cons of restriction...

I'm reading this with interest- hope it works out Flameboy. Any progress?

Originally Posted by Fishtits

The normal/average 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..?

He was 19 years old when he passed his test, he wasn't able to do Direct Access until he was 21. It's not about whether or not he wanted to ride at speeds above the speed limit, it's the taking away of his freedom of choice to ride a bike capable of doing it. If we were all to think like that this site wouldn't exist because every SV650 is capable of over 70mph, and we all enjoy the freedom of choice to ride a bike capable of doing that and more.

Originally Posted by Fishtits

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.

Yawn yawn yawn...I'm sick and tired of hearing the same old tired "Spend some time scraping them up" argument. If kids are going to kill themselves they are perfectly capable of doing it on a 30mph moped (as another one of my mates found out) or in a 500bhp car, it makes no difference whether they are resticted or not. I'm telling you now that the accident figures for 17 to 21 year olds killed or seriously injured on bikes before we had these ridiculous licence restrictions put in place were about the same as they are now, the only difference is we now have fewer lads and lasses of that age riding bikes, so what has been the point of the licencing laws if they obviously don't work? Can you explain that?

Originally Posted by Fishtits

If your opinion is that everyone on a bike is capable of being a race winner, then you Sir, are a moron.

In my opinion it would be a moron who took my words to mean that. You'd make a lousy politician, they at least can twist words and make them seem plausible.

Originally Posted by Fishtits

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.

Why should we always pander to the poorer rider? I thought we lived in a democracy where we took the average and applied our laws to suit that demographic. Some will benefit and some will lose out, that's the way it works. So some numpty can't ride a bike and goes out and hurts himself, why should that affect the hundreds of those riders who are more sensible. It's the bloody Nanny State getting its oar stuck in again.

If some idiot wants to go kill himself at 150mph then fair play, let him do it - the gene pool is better off without him

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.

They usually have a car full of mates when they plough into a tree or roll the car into a ditch and kill or maim kids from a number of families, or in some recent cases run their car into a crowd of people. Crash on a bike and all you're likely to hurt is yourself and maybe a pillion.

For your information I didn't own a leather jacket for the first year I was riding and didn't buy a pair of leather trousers until I was about 22, nor did any of my friends. I learned not to fall off because it would always cost me a new pair of jeans, and I couldn't afford to keep Mr L. Strauss in Rolls Royces.

Originally Posted by Fishtits

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.

That argument is boring now. You had to deliver agony messages before there were restrictions, you're having to do about the same amount of it now we have restrictions, and no matter what you or anyone else does you'll be doing it until the government has legislated every motor vehicle off the road. When I was 17 we had the liberty to ride whatever the hell we liked as soon as we'd passed our test. Bikes then were capable of 140mph and had handling and brakes that would scare the life out of modern riders, but we coped and we learned how to ride them properly and I hate that we're developing a new breed of kids who are being told that everything they do is dangerous, and they should be careful, and watch this watch that. Just let them get on with it, grow up and become mature responsible adults without clamping down on everything they do and love.

Originally Posted by Fishtits

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.

Oh the "keyboard warrior" argument comes out now, does it, jesus you are scraping the barrel. You obviously don't know me or my background then. If you don't like doing the job yo do then get the feck out of it, but don't try to push Nanny State ideals on me because they don't wash.

I have every respect for the police in this country, it's a crap underpaid job that rarely gets the recognition it deserves. I have had girlfriends who are coppers and some of my closest mates are in the job, but I dislike patronising coppers who think that we need laws to save us from ourselves and try to force their ill thought out and archaic views on the rest of us - leave that for the government to decide because everyone hates them

zzzZZZZzzzz....this thread needs more updates and less bickering.

Agree to disagree people, ffs.

Originally Posted by instigator

zzzZZZZzzzz....this thread needs more updates and less bickering.

Agree to disagree people, ffs.

Hey, if you're not gonna argue, get out


Let's get back on topic people, this topic has been well and truly derailed.

[yorkie_chris]

The 33bhp arguement gets done (and won), over and over again.

Could a mod maybe move the argument into another thread and prune the crap out of this one?

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

The 33bhp arguement gets done (and won), over and over again.

Could a mod maybe move the argument into another thread and prune the crap out of this one?

Won by who?

I never see it as being won until the 33bhp law gets overturned and abolished. Until then I'll do all I can to fight its existence

[garynortheast]

I'd second that.I'm more interested in knowing how Flameboy has got on. The rest of it is just people who have different points of view going around in pointless circles.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

The 33bhp arguement gets done (and won), over and over again.

Could a mod maybe move the argument into another thread and prune the crap out of this one?

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Lozzo

Won by who?

I never see it as being won until the 33bhp law gets overturned and abolished. Until then I'll do all I can to fight its existence

Complaining on here isn't much of a fight. You talked to your MP about it and stuff I take it?