33bhp, do you agree with it?

21 been riding under a year now. i rid 6-7 days a week pasted test about September 2009.

yes i agree with the 33BHP but the time they have to be in has to be reduced. i started learning with wet condisions never lost control of bike although been close many times with restriction. I now have it taken out as i failed my retake of test couldnt be bothered to put it in and i rid slower with it out then i did in.

so yes keep restrictor but reduce length of time it is in the bike to about 6months to a year

Originally Posted by kiggles

so yes keep restrictor but reduce length of time it is in the bike to about 6months to a year

As I have said before, time is of no relevance. You have completed many miles in 6 months. Others have barely rode in 2 years.

It's all very well having a restriction for a period of time, but in this instance it doesn't fit the purpose.

If the gov feel the need for it, then it should be a blanket restriction regardless of rider age.

I personally felt safer during my "silly" period as opposed to having the restrictor in. Having the extra acceleration helps imho.

[timwilky]

Perhaps we should get rid of the restricted part and 125 tests and force everyone to do DAS irrespective of age. At least it would get rid of the feckwits riding like idiots on L plates with no intention of ever doing a test.

[Bri w]

Q1. Is allowing a new rider a totally unrestricted bike safe?

Q2. Is it safer to allow someone who's been restricted access to an unrestricted bike after a qualifying period?

Q3. How many 30 somethings do you see hairing around on a bike/in a car compared to those in their late teens?

As was mentioned by JayneFlakes insurance companies base their premiums on risk. And if the highest premiums are targeted at younger people on big bikes then surely that's where you target your legislation to cut back on accidents.

Lets face it, one of the biggest buzzes you can get off a bike is throwing around the twisties. Do you need a top speed of 125mph to do that? Do you need ballistic acceleration to do that? And if you are on tour, on a M-way, just what speed does 33bhp give you?

For the counter arguments of power will get you out of trouble. For the one time that MIGHT be true how many times will that extra power get the inexperienced rider into trouble? And once you've passed the car test you can drive whatever you like - since when has two wrongs made a right, and what has that got to do with bikes?

I feel a restriction is right but I don't agree with the length of it. But a line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere, and as has been pointed out 2yrs is too long in some cases but not long enough in others. As someone has suggested, maybe the option of a retest should be available within the two year period if someone thinks they're good enough.

[L3nny]

Originally Posted by Bri w

Q1. Is allowing a new rider a totally unrestricted bike safe?

Compared to what? Being on the roads in any form is never completly safe.

Originally Posted by Bri w

Q2. Is it safer to allow someone who's been restricted access to an unrestricted bike after a qualifying period?

Completely depends on the rider and how much riding they did in that period and if they have done any other training.

Originally Posted by Bri w

Q3. How many 30 somethings do you see hairing around on a bike/in a car compared to those in their late teens?.

Well there is me for one

[yorkie_chris]

You see more younger people "hooning around" on bikes because they are more likely to use them as transport, the 35-40 ones, you know the ones that get killed a lot, drive their cars to work.

[Bri w]

Originally Posted by L3nny

Compared to what? Being on the roads in any form is never completly safe.

And maybe thats why we have legislation.


Completely depends on the rider and how much riding they did in that period and if they have done any other training.

And maybe thats why the law is a cover all, and not specifically targeted.


Well there is me for one

Ssssshh! Me too.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

You see more younger people "hooning around" on bikes because they are more likely to use them as transport, the 35-40 ones, you know the ones that get killed a lot, drive their cars to work.

Yes to both but it's about what legislation. And I'm a 'born again' weekend biker who scares the BeJesus out of myself regularly - thank God I don't have to retake my test

I agree with it, it's the reason for me (Being 19, on a restriction) not having to pay £3000 for insurance. And despite being a 19 year old adrenaline junkie, I think it's a pity 33bhp doesn't change much, I can still go very fast.

And to anybody who asked why it's so, I'm convinced cars aren't restricted because they don't go as fast, and if they do, the dent in a teen's pocket will help them rethink things.

Originally Posted by Bri w

Q3. How many 30 somethings do you see hairing around on a bike/in a car compared to those in their late teens?

True! I did a speed awareness workshop, and I was the only person under late 20's. They assured me it was almost always the case, not just during that workshop. People my age are still weary, despite them going fast. It's people who are comfortable enough driving who make mistakes.