To de-restrict or to not de-restrict that is the question

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by northwind

Bennetts I had the Virago insured with them, I called up to tell them I'd fitted permanent saddlebags. "Are they performance enhancing". Yes, they're turbo saddlebags, dsigned for fitment to funnybike dragsters and adapted for road use. "Are they visible on the bike" No, they're invisible saddlebags- though you can see my shopping hanging there as if suspended on a thread, only the bags themselves are invisible. £120 they quoted, the whole comprehensive policy for the bike was £53.

They also increased my mate Stuart's premium after he fitted an alarm, since that's a modification, and the flashing LED was visible- they recorded it under "aftermarket lighting"

northy, I think you may have just lifted the feelings of the Org there...turbo saddlebags....

I was thinking of having out my restrictor in spring, but its a silly idea. In 2 years I will have learned to ride a 33bhp bike to its limits (hopefully) and be ready to take on something bigger and more powerful. I don't mind waiting out the 2 years, time flies. In the meantime I can do track days to go fast.. the ron haslam school for instance. SS600 bikes with expert instruction And on a different level, my curvy will do 95 or so restricted. People who get caught on the wrong side of 100 tend to be more harshly dealt with by the police.

Apart from the fact its an inherently great idea, I have two problems with restricting bikes.
First, in the 2 years of restriction people should have learned how to ride their bike to somewhere near it's limits. 1 day after, they can go and get on something with 150 more power than what they've had and that's perfectly fine. It lets you learn how to ride your bike to its limits if you want to, but I'm not sure how much it prepares you for bigger more powerful bikes? I don't know, I've only been hanging on to the back of 150bhp bikes, not in the front seat.
Second, any 17 year can go buy a car far more powerful than is sensible. Or get insured on such a car (i.e my mate with well off parents, 17 years old and insured on a BMW M4) Its great that something is done to stop kids on bikes going out and killing themselves with all that power, but what about kids that pass their test one day and jump in a high performance car the next day..

Still, mine stays in.
</rant>

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Sean_C

I was thinking of having out my restrictor in spring, but its a silly idea. In 2 years I will have learned to ride a 33bhp bike to its limits (hopefully) and be ready to take on something bigger and more powerful. <snip>

First, in the 2 years of restriction people should have learned how to ride their bike to somewhere near it's limits. 1 day after, they can go and get on something with 150 more power than what they've had and that's perfectly fine. <snip>

Second, any 17 year can go buy a car far more powerful than is sensible. Or get insured on such a car (i.e my mate with well off parents, 17 years old and insured on a BMW M4)

I like this post. It reminded me to say that a couple of the best riders I've been out with were on 33bhp SVs, I've always thought time served on 125s makes you less lazy on a big bike so the same properly applies.

The 2 year thing annoys because it's so arbitrary. Get your licence today, never ride for 2 years, then you can ride anything. Get your licence today, lap the world on a 33bhp Africa Twin, you can still only ride a 33bhp bike. Makes very little sense. I'm not really convinced that DAS made me any more qualified to ride than the A1 test would have. My mate Bren was miles better on his restricted Bandit after a month than I was when I passed my DAS, but I was allowed anything I wanted despite total inexperience. There has to be a standard, I'm just not sure it's right as it is. If anything, it maybe creates a situation where people then get on a sports bike 2 years after doing their test, with 2 years of biking inactivity? I don't know what the answer is, but I'm really unconvinced that this is it. Not to endorse ignoring the law as it is. I don't think insurance treats it fairly either, a 33bhp SV should be treated alongside the other 33bhp bikes IMO.

Lastly, the response people always come out with for cars is that they're more expensive. Fair play, there's some truth to that, you can buy an old litre bike for less than a really horrible car these days, and not many 17-year-olds can afford a 911. But at the same time it doesn't stop those few from getting in some ludicrous car at an early age, and it creates a double standard.

I used to know someone, when i was at school in Kent, who was caught riding an unrestricted bike. He got punished pretty severely and he was the first to admit that he deserved the ban/fine.

The copper who did him was apparently a reasonable bloke and he reckoned they 'catch' more people violating their restriction than people think. Quite a lot of the plod seem to be bikers as well, so they arn't all knaive.

Whilst i admit to not being a perfect road user, there is something that really irks me about people ignoring their restriction. I'm not entirely sure why....i can't rationalise it...but i find myself hoping they all get busted.

[dirtydog]

Originally Posted by northwind

The 2 year thing annoys because it's so arbitrary. Get your licence today, never ride for 2 years, then you can ride anything.

That's pretty much what i did, passed my test then rode for the remainder of my insurance on my 125. Then didn't ride for another 18 months and bought a grey import with a wopping 50bhp!


But I do agree that riding an unrestricted bike whilst on a restricted licence isn't too clever

Originally Posted by northwind

I don't think insurance treats it fairly either, a 33bhp SV should be treated alongside the other 33bhp bikes IMO.

True, but from an insurance point of view, a 33bhp restricted bike has the same value as and unrestricted bike (slightly more if you want to be pedantic because of the cost of restriction ). In the event of a claim, the bike's value is the same restricted or not. I tend to think insurance companies focus more on the value of the insured bike rather than whether it's being ridden by a riding god or a newbie.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Out of interest, were you subjected to the restricted test when you passed?

I got my licence in 1985.

so NO.

Originally Posted by northwind

Bennetts I had the Virago insured with them, I called up to tell them I'd fitted permanent saddlebags. "Are they performance enhancing". Yes, they're turbo saddlebags, dsigned for fitment to funnybike dragsters and adapted for road use. "Are they visible on the bike" No, they're invisible saddlebags- though you can see my shopping hanging there as if suspended on a thread, only the bags themselves are invisible

Some light relief

Clarifying that i have never bragged about it....

Am i braggin that i havent bragged

An old Chinese man once said:

"If you break both of your legs don't come running to me"

Me thinketh he wath a wise one.

(He also said: "If you break someone else's legs cos of your own silliness, I'm calling the karma police")


Someone has nicked the police smilie! How ironic.