33bhp, do you agree with it?

didnt do 33bhp but dont see why i should have, obviusly i was over 21 but at 18 i was running about in my mates cossies and tuned honda's, tbh i went slower on the bike cos i knew if i fecked up on that id would hurt more, think of it like a gun under 21 you can have a pistol over you can have an ak47, with both you can kill yourself or someone else, (and before anyone says you can have a gun at 17) a guns a gun a bikes a bike , the power of each is a very insignificant factor in the reasons for the accident, its attitude, responcabilty, and training, if a 17 year old can handle and pass there test on a gsxr 1000 why cant they ride it on the road, surely thats the point of the test, or should i say it should be, so there you go my great idea is anyone can do the test but only be able to ride upto the cc of bike they did the test on

[L3nny]

Took my test in 2008 when I was 28.

Did DAS so didn't need a restriction.

Think 33bhp is a waste of time. If you take your test on a 125 which has about 10 bhp it's still a big step up to 33bhp.

I think the whole driving test system is complete nonsence. The full test should be the same as a CBT, you take training until your instructor is happy you are at the required standard then gives you your lisence.

The current system is just a way to extort more money from motorists IMO.

Took my test when DAS had just been brought in, and although I was 21, as a poor student had to choose between a) a 125 test and actually owning a bike or b) a DAS pass and no bike.

Had a 2 yr restriction on a 400cc single (SRX), then got the SV after that.

It was slightly frustrating on rides with sports bikes, when you got dropped going up a fast hill, etc. But IMHO riding on a smaller capacity bike teaches you things that it's harder to pick up on a bigger bike, when the power can do some of the work for you. Plus it helps you to settle into riding before you have silly speeds in the mix.

So I'm in favour of a restricted period, and for ALL, not just U21s. But the poxy 33bhp level is silly and IIRC was just plucked out of thin air at the time. Maybe more like 50bhp and DEFINITELY just a year, 2 was far too long.

[Swin]

Not in favour of 33bhp myself.

Passed my test in 1985 on a KH125, I didn't bother in 1980 - should have done it really, would have had a 250 with L plates on then, but I was joining up and couldn't see the point in leaving a bike at home!

I had a course of rider training every Sunday from when I picked the bike up, and was commuting the 27 miles into London every day of the week between training, with a full licence-holding pillion on the back.

I think the training I got and the caution I developed riding into the city have probably taught me more about my own mortality than any enforced period on a restricted bike would do.

Yes,

Passed at 18 obviously doing the 125 test and spent 6 months on a 250 and 18 months on a castrated SV650. I think its a good idea because people who arn't used to the power could easily get themselves into trouble, looking at the past before the restriction I can see im right.

[timwilky]

I have a friend who bought an R1 as her first bike after doing her DAS.

Surprise, surprise. She sold it 3 years later without a scratch. Contrary to what everyone would assume, she never crashed. Because she was old and wise enough to know the throttle turns 2 ways, and wasn't seduced by the power at inappropriate locations.

Should all new riders be subject to a 33bhp restriction. No. Should kids with more testosterone than is good for them be. Yes, I am a parent/grandparent. I want my kids to ride, but I don't want to attend their funeral.

I am 28 and passed my DAS last year. I don't agree with the restriction or the whole test situation. I believe it would be better having recorded continual personal development undertaken by an instructor. So there is a set amount of two hour lesson which cover various aspects of riding. When you have covered the set amount of lessons you present your recorded and signed off training records and recieve your bike license. Then its your choice what you ride but at least no one would sneak through the net who has only had one lesson and passed their DAS, everyone would be much better educated on road use, and yes a bit more out of pocket but at least the roads would be slightly safer.

Originally Posted by timwilky

I have a friend who bought an R1 as her first bike after doing her DAS.

Surprise, surprise. She sold it 3 years later without a scratch. Contrary to what everyone would assume, she never crashed. Because she was old and wise enough to know the throttle turns 2 ways, and wasn't seduced by the power at inappropriate locations.

My friend Marlene did similar - passed her DAS test and bought a Thundercat, 2 weeks later she was bored with it and bought a Hayabusa, which she owned for 2 years and never dropped despite using it daily and living out in the sticks where the bends are full of gravel.

[timwilky]

Originally Posted by Lozzo

Another thing that bugs me is the fact that in 1979 when I passed my test, a 33bhp bike was what we were riding as learners on L plates (RD250 was rated at 32hp) - now you have to have a full licence and that's what you are restricted to once you've gone through all the hassles involved in getting a test pass.

Maybe thats where the 125 requirement came from. As a learner I had a C15, then a Hustler. get on a mates LC and WOW, a different world.

Still they came a cropper when they realised the power a 125 could put out and then had to introduce a power rating as well

Anyone noticing a pattern in the voting? Generally those who are younger and passed a restricted test think it's a good idea and those who didn't or are older think it's a waste of time. Maks me wonder if those younger people who did the restriction would want their bikes restricted if they didn't have to have it done.

I can't see that having a 33bhp restriction has made motorcycling and taking the test any more attractive to anyone, so presumably they'd have done their test and bought the appropriate bike to suit their riding, be that a full on sports monster or a sedate commuter they can gain some skills on. Either way, whatever bike they buy would be governed by the insurance costs, so that's a restriction in itself.