33bhp, do you agree with it?

Just worked a few things out-------for what they want to charge as a months premium I have insured
Honda Accord
VW Polo
Triumph Sprint
All for a year and still have half left over.
Being old does have some benefits

[dizzyblonde]

Then you wonder why so many complain about how many hoops you have to jump through when they change the goal posts when learning to ride, and the 33bhp restriction.

People no matter what the age need some sort of transport in this day and age, so why try and hammer more and more money out of those who try to use the cheaper option?

Nuff said--------------------I'll go back in my shell like Victor Meldrew

[hindle8907]

insurance for me at age 21 on a 1.2 clio would be £2800 a year FPTF
thats why i dont have a car/license

There are obviously some entrenched views, although the poll results are interesting. Over 50% of respondents think it is a good idea, and a third think it is not.

I think what has passed many people by is what the restriction is trying to achieve. In the UK, you are 50 time more likely to die on a motorcycle than in a car. This is mirrored across Europe, although it is worse in the UK than in many other states. You are more likely to die on a bike (per mile travelled) than with any other form of transport, including pedal cycles. We are all well aware of the risks, and they are not huge, but they are there and we also know why they happen. We also know that you can be hit by a meteorite walking down the street; life is not without risk.

Now there are lies, damned lies, and statistics but comparisons with car licenses are not valid in this argument because the powers that be are trying to do something about the disparity in the death statistics. It is cheaper to put a restriction on a bike license than it is to actually educate a cage driver about the risk they pose to bikes (that's educate, not try to educate).

The problem appears to be that there are no statistics to show the effect of the 25kw restriction (nor the CBT come to that), nor can I find any formal argument for its introduction in the first place.

I voted no, i do not agree with the restriction.

Im 17 and on a 33bhp licence, its sucks. I can't see how it helps in one bit except take the character outta the bike, on a road i may just reach 100 restricted and 120 unrestricted... either way if i fall off im going to be hurt.

I'd either say set a higher limit to include more bikes, but stop the ones that will snatch your head off, e.g. gsxr 750's, r1 etc. Or limit it to CC.

I think that they both make more sence than 33bhp, CC because its easier to manage etc, or a higher limit as i say, to include more bikes, and give new riders are better understanding of higher power.

I went from a YBR to the restricted SV and yes was a nice power upgrade, but after my restriction i could go straight to an R1, IMO i think thats actually worse than going from a YBR to a full power SV, but not have the option to go to a full power R1.

[Paul the 6th]

Originally Posted by Chris92

I think that they both make more sence than 33bhp, CC because its easier to manage etc, or a higher limit as i say, to include more bikes, and give new riders are better understanding of higher power.

I think the reason it's 33bhp is because it correlates directly to a set limit in kwh etc.. as is the standard for measuring engine power in europe. The same reason we now have module 1 off road and module 2 on road testing, because the 31mph brake & swerve correlates to 50kph as is the unit for measuring speed in europe.

In terms of testing, I'd be happy to take a re-test every 3-5 years. The government would make a pretty penny from regular testing fee's and the roads would be far safer. Pilots in the armed forces and commercial aviation have to do it, and the skies are far less crowded than the tarmac on our little island.

[Bri w]

Originally Posted by Paul the 6th

In terms of testing, I'd be happy to take a re-test every 3-5 years. The government would make a pretty penny from regular testing fee's and the roads would be far safer. Pilots in the armed forces and commercial aviation have to do it, and the skies are far less crowded than the tarmac on our little island.

Retests, and refreshers are quite common in a lot of industries. Private pilots also need to do a minimum number of hours per year. And don't forget, when you reach 70yrs old you will need to pass a basic minimum to drive.

I returned to biking in June last year, and did some refreshers. I saw youngsters riding better than me struggle to pass their cbt's. Touch wood, apart from 1 dab whilst doing a U-turn I've survived but I do know I'm no where near as competent as I was, or should be, yet I've got an unrestricted licence.

Yes to retests but I also know from what I've experienced in the last 10 months that going from the 125, then 500, then 800 I do feel the 33bhp restriction is the right idea but not for the length of time its in place. Its a good starting place but it could be improved.

Originally Posted by Paul the 6th

In terms of testing, I'd be happy to take a re-test every 3-5 years.

That would be the point where I would become one of those rebellious people who don't bother with a licence, insurance or anything else. More laws restricting use of vehicles is not what this country needs. If anything we should have just one stiffer test at the beginning and that's it, ride or drive what the hell you like once you've shown you have the ability to do so.

Maybe I would agree with 33bhp if there was some sort of system in place for new drivers of all vehicles. But then I probably would have fallen foul of that (I bought a 2 litre turbo diesel after my car test).
If the 33bhp limit was scrapped, I'd hazard a guess that insurance would limit what we could get, just as it does now to be honest.

As for the costs raised by DT:
Bike test all in £550
Bike £2500
Insurance £1100 fc
So that's ~4k to start up on a bike, though now with 2 years NCB, my insurance is peanuts at £160 tpft.

Car test all in £400
Car £2500
Insurance £1500 tpft

Total nearly £4500

So biking was cheaper to get into for me, fine for work, fine for fun, but not cheap which ever way you cut it. And that was when I was 17, not 19 as I was when I got my car.