De-restriction process

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Perhaps it should be a minimum number of bikes hours before you put in for your test, but its expensive enough already.

They do that in the states (albeit for cars) and it doesn't really achieve anything.

Bottom line is, you can let people ride bikes and accept that no matter what you do some people will fall off and hurt themselves, or you can ban them.

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

They do that in the states (albeit for cars) and it doesn't really achieve anything.

I would have thought it would have. I reckon I spent 90% of my DAS lessons riding round town, I never got taught about cornering and what lines to take and where the apex was or anything like that. I think that kind of stuff would be useful skills to learn. Thats the kind of stuff I was thinking of being covered in the time on the bike sessions. So you're being taught how to ride rather than how to pass a test.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Bottom line is, you can let people ride bikes and accept that no matter what you do some people will fall off and hurt themselves, or you can ban them.

Agreed.

[Wideboy]

sv eddy thought me all about the right corner lines ETC, as you said fizz the instructors don't

[dizzyblonde]

me thinks the rules are there to keep young male testosterone infused chappies from hurting themselves. It should be left alone, even when they do there DAS they still can end up chucking themselves at a nice wall on there brand new 1000cc bike at 25. 2 years for under 21, 2 years to keep your nose clean over 21. Silly boys this subject is boring. The rules are there, now live with it.
Those who observe these rules have no problem with them. I managed 2 years after my DAS, extremely frustrating, but my license is more important to me




I will now descend ffrom my soapbox

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Trying to prevent people from injuring themselves by buying powerful bikes before they have sufficient experience.

They know best

Maybe I phrased this wrongly - I wasn't expecting a "stop bad things happening" type answer!

What I mean is, do we need to start with what the problem is and drill down to discover what it is that actually needs stopping/enforcing/whatever?

E.g.
- The problem is people injuring themselves in motorcycle accidents.
- What is happening in those accidents?
- The accidents are people running wide on corners and smashing into vehicles/roadside scenery on the other side.
- What is the reason for them running wide?
- They run wide because they get target fixation whilst cornering.
- Why do they get target fixation?
- Lack of training and/or supervised tuition on the subject, resulting in a lack of knowledge/experience when they need it on the road.

Obviously the above is a bit of a restricted example, and the real 'question-and-answer' session would probably split off into multiple answers at various stages, but that's basically what I mean.
And in the example, you can see that riding a motorcycle that is restricted in power has nothing to do with solving the problem of a rider who gets target fixation (obviously real world it may help to a degree - but I restricted this example to make it simple).
So if the above was the real life situation, you could easily conclude that restricted licences are of no use, and that something else is needed - from the example, probably more/different training.

Hope that makes more sense now...!

This may sound stupid but a *friend* of mine he used to run wide on his SV and feel that he could dump the hammer down to stop it from running wide. He was more confident than waiting for a restricted roll on 33bhp to save it from running wide.

Suppose you could then ask the question why are you running wide...Over-riding, maybe a lack of judgement, maybe a lack of confidence to lean? Swings and roundabouts.

I'm not saying this is how it should be but just wanted to discuss what people thought and why...

So carry on

Originally Posted by plowsie

This may sound stupid but a *friend* of mine he used to run wide on his SV and feel that he could dump the hammer down to stop it from running wide. He was more confident than waiting for a restricted roll on 33bhp to save it from running wide.

The hammer being the throttle? Gotta pick up some of this lingo
So your friend.......he would push it on a bit to save the situation, which he couldn't do, or couldn't do as easily, on a lower-powered machine?

Originally Posted by plowsie

Suppose you could then ask the question why are you running wide...Over-riding, maybe a lack of judgement, maybe a lack of confidence to lean? Swings and roundabouts.

That's *exactly* what I was getting at in my previous post - that maybe there hasn't been enough of the right analysis of what we are trying to achieve with a restriction of some form. Asking these questions is what is needed, root cause analysis oh yes

Right now (current law) it seems there's been a jump from initial problem to cause and that jump is a little...well, guesswork I suppose.

Originally Posted by muffles

The hammer being the throttle? Gotta pick up some of this lingo
So your friend.......he would push it on a bit to save the situation, which he couldn't do, or couldn't do as easily, on a lower-powered machine?

Well yes in a sense, the power is going to speed the wheel up a bit for him on turning, as long as its done right then it works and did for him. He ran wide on his new bike and was literally pulling up on his bars to get it round which doesnt help anything.

Originally Posted by muffles

That's *exactly* what I was getting at in my previous post - that maybe there hasn't been enough of the right analysis of what we are trying to achieve with a restriction of some form. Asking these questions is what is needed, root cause analysis oh yes

Get what ya mean there.

Originally Posted by muffles

Right now (current law) it seems there's been a jump from initial problem to cause and that jump is a little...well, guesswork I suppose.

And there.

Mileage is very difficult to prove, the old method of diy lessons on the 250, 3 time round the block as a test and then taking to the road on a 100 cc bike with a frame with a hinge in the middle and non gripping tyres was a very Darwinian method of operating.

In my line of work the yard stick is flying hours not mileage, some people on the minimum hours for consideration for promotion are very good, with a mature thought process and good handling skills, others tell me that they are!(the skills demonstrated frequently don't match the claims) In our case at a professional level we are tested every 6 months, a leisure pilot is required to comply with minimum experience levels and to fly with an instructor in every 2 year period.

I'm not suggesting periodic testing for the bike, but would support a test to remove the 33 bhp restriction after 12 months, those who have ridden and thought about what they are doing will have matured there skills and thinking and would be cleared on to the bigger bikes; those that think they are the mutts nuts will not and could then be restricted for a further year.

It must be remembered that those that crash and claim, be they on 33 bhp machines or the DAS types on superbikes cause all of us to pay higher insurance premiums.

The best thing that has been stated on this whole thread is that riders should be taught how to ride, not just how to pass a test. What is needed is better quality of instruction to solve this.

Bike tests and training have clearly changed a lot from when I used to teach, I did the original two part test (pre CBT) with a group that ran an 8 week course which included roadcraft (cornering lines etc) as well as the law and basic bike maintenance. After a few years I joined that group and trained to be an instructor. If a pupil was not ready after the 8 weeks, they just carried on till they were ready (at no extra cost to them I might add).

A pillock will ride like a pillock regardless of the power output of the machine that they are on, possibly more likely to over ride a lower power machine trying to keep up with more exotic stuff as well.

All this talk of more steps of power restriction will only add to the cause of the 'safety' lot to bring in more curbs. I'm waiting for the 'well the SV can do nearly double the national speed limit so ban everything quicker' post. Ride with common sense and you'll be fine. Remember there is always someone quicker than you even at slower speeds.

For riding on more powerful machinery I think Fizz summed it up when he wrote about if he got his gixer too soon he may have got hurt even though he does many miles a year in two wheels. This is the difference between adding miles and maturity to ride sensibly within your own limits and 'learn' to ride the quicker bike.

The simple fact is that some people can ride quicker and a lot safer than some slower riders. Adding more legislation will not help. I don't see a need to slow these people down.

The current rules are there. Therefore they should be adhered to. Deal with it. Personally I don't have that much of a problem with it.

If your a slower rider than some, it does not matter. Enjoy the bike and have fun. Just don't try and force (or worse propose legislation) everyone else to ride the same, that will reduce motorcycling even more.

Right, thats my soap box time completed.