MAG: European Bandwagon Moves Against Motorcycling

Originally Posted by haggis

Let's face it, if the Government/EU really cared about safety first and foremost then it would issue an immediate power and speed restriction to suit.

ie. a little black box to prevent us doing any more than say, 85mph, fitted at your next MOT.

Maybe theyre clever enough to realise its going too fast for the conditions/corner that counts and you can still bin it and die at 50mph on a 20mph hairpin. So no point in putting said restrictors in because it wont prevent any accidents tbh.

Bikes are an acute niche in tax collection compared to cars, especially people who absolutely depend on a bike as their only mode of trasnport. Therefore it's no hardship for them to squeeze more and more red-tape into the learning process/ownership costs.

Ok. Do you think under the present system it is a good idea for a 21 year old to have 3 days training then go out and ride a 'Busa or a ZX10? Because I don't. I noticed how many people have binned their SVs when theyve been a first bike [some of us dont even need that excuse either ], and on the CBR forum I recall a thread where most who had them as their first bike had binned them within a year somehow. And thats just 600s.

As Northwind said, its like giving an inexperienced oik a ferrari without having any road sense to use it.

Also, as much as you'd like to turn it into a tax rant - don't. This isn't about taxes [a subject I do know an awful lot about and happy to share if you insist it is ]. Its about EU harmonisation and when one member state proposes a law it affects the others. Got absolutely nowt to do with taxes and more to do with what is the legal process within the EU.

This started as a proposal by the German and Austrian governments, not ours.

Yes, true. Wrong speed for conditions and/or situation around you is the cause of most accidents.

But how many people outside of the racetrack walk away from a 90mph+ off?

I actually think the proposals are fine. My disappointment with the measures is that it's saying bikes are dangerous, no matter who you are or what you ride. But surely cars, all cars, are equally dangerous if not more so. At least on a bike you get a sense of fear after an off, in a car you can crash in relative safety to yourself and do it again. That's where the road respect is lacking in training.



Are there any figures to suggest large numbers of young people are/are not getting on hyper-sports? Legally, I mean. The insurance is crippling for them no matter what they buy, so that doesn't help them decide "oh well, an SV or GS500 is fine. At least it's cheap to insure" because that incentive has gone.

Case in point. A mate of mine is just 20. Sat his CBT at 17. Had a CG125 for 3 months, passed his 33bhp, got an SV for the 2 years. A few minor accidents on it, rode like a nutter everywhere. Got a Daytona 955i, crashed withing a month ot so, and now has a Daytona 650. He's already looking at getting a Mille R. He really doesn't care about insurance prices, or how difficult the test was. He want's to go fast, and whatever it takes that's his aim.

Originally Posted by northwind

The reason they apply it to bikers and not car users is that very few 18 year olds can afford a car with the performance of an R1, or even an SV. This is where I think the argument loses direction a little... The SV's considered a beginners or slow bike, but it still does 0-60 in much the same time as a Ferrari F40, or a standing quarter in the same time as an Aston Martin Vantage. So car ownership sort of self-selects against 18 year olds in stupidly powerful cars.

I was talking to the ex-head of traffic for south wales about the tiered system of licencing for bikes and how the car system should mirror it, say <1.2L/60BHP for the first 2 years. Whilst I (and he) concede that it's certainly not the norm for young car drivers to have powerful vehicles, that's not to say there are not enough exceptions to the rules that car drivers should also be legislated against this way:

He saw a lad of 18 who had had his licence 2 weeks crash his turbo cosworth (which Daddy bought him) almost head on into a wall, resulting in broken limbs for him and the passengers.

I've seen students with brand new Impreza WRXs and Mitsubishi Evo 8s. Both driven badly (although thankfully not very quickly, either).

A mate works at a private school. Loads of the sixth formers have flash cars and drive as you would expect 17-18 year old boys in sports cars to; badly. Crash one AMG SLK55 and Daddy buys you another.

A colleague's girlfriend comes from a wealthy family. She is 19 and by his own admission "fluked a pass in her driving test 18 months ago and hasn't driven since". Her parents are buying her a Z4. Her brother, who is in a similar position has just been bought a WRX.

Nowt against rich kids on principle, but typically, if you have that sort of car at that age, you will be spoilt and won't have worked and saved for it. Consequently you'll not respect/love it and will drive it like a knobber, as you won't be terrified of crashing it.

I'd also argue that due to the fact that in a car you're more likely to injure other people, even if you only crash your own car (more likely to have passengers), let alone if you actually hit another vehicle, makes it a more serious problem (albeit a less common one) for other road users than youngsters on bikes.

[northwind]

I agree with the point that you're more likely to do damage in a car, but I still think it comes down purely to numbers- a small number of young and inexperienced drivers can get in a powerful car, but it is and always will be a small number. Changing the entire licensing system, with a load of extra red tape and expense, to legislate for a very small minority would, IMO, be a bad use of resources.

Originally Posted by northwind

I agree with the point that you're more likely to do damage in a car, but I still think it comes down purely to numbers- a small number of young and inexperienced drivers can get in a powerful car, but it is and always will be a small number. Changing the entire licensing system, with a load of extra red tape and expense, to legislate for a very small minority would, IMO, be a bad use of resources.

It's actually a comparatively small number of kids 18-19 (I'm not talking "scooter youth" they're a different matter entirely) who buy something even as powerful as an SV (most still live at home and a lot of people's parents, mine included, wouldn't let me have one at that age). I'd say there are, what, (conservatively) 50+ cars to every bike? I'd say 1 in 50 new car drivers has a car more powerful than they should be in.

So: Whilst a smaller percentage of car drivers, compared to bikers, can get something powerful enough to warrant putting in a tiered system, as a first vehicle, the fact that there are so many car drivers compared to bikers leads me to believe the quantites are not so different.

Actually, thinking about it, I've only once seen a young lad on a reasonably powerful bike (and that was 'only' an RS250), whereas I've seen at least 2 dozen kids under 21 in reasonably powerful cars. Even if it's just getting insurance on their dad's motor, they're still driving them.

[northwind]

Very true actually. Though I don't think that the size of the sample is the be all and end all here, it's definately relevant.

[timwilky]

Originally Posted by northwind

The reason they apply it to bikers and not car users is that very few 18 year olds can afford a car with the performance of an R1, or even an SV. This is where I think the argument loses direction a little... The SV's considered a beginners or slow bike, but it still does 0-60 in much the same time as a Ferrari F40, or a standing quarter in the same time as an Aston Martin Vantage. So car ownership sort of self-selects against 18 year olds in stupidly powerful cars.

No quite Northy, the day my daughter passed her test she as a 17yr old was out for a spin in my 130bhp car. Granted the company insurance says any driver and I checked to ensure there were no age or experience requirements first. So whilst not stupidly powerful it can still hit an indicated 130MPH and 0-60 in under 10 seconds. A damm site quicker than the micro 1.0 she had passed her test in an hour earlier.

Strange though that when it comes to my son I told him the insurance rules had changed and you now need to have held a licence for 2 years before you can drive my car. When the truth is I don't trust him and wonder how the hell he ever passed his test, having seen him driving I have bollocked him for excessive speed, lack of observation/control, late hard braking. All the traits of the inexperienced driver who needs a couple of years road experience before getting into something more powerful

I dont see how can anyone possibly see this as a good thing.

Yes it's unwise to get a litre sports bike when you've just passed your test, but guess what, adult life requires responsibility.

It's not the governments job to absolve people of that responsibility what so ever. Unfortunately noone wants to accept any responsibility anymore.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

I dont see how can anyone possibly see this as a good thing.

Yes it's unwise to get a litre sports bike when you've just passed your test, but guess what, adult life requires responsibility.

It's not the governments job to absolve people of that responsibility what so ever. Unfortunately noone wants to accept any responsibility anymore.

Unfortunately, once again I find myself agreeing with the Squirrel..

I would like to see more education for car drivers about bikes. I think just about all of agree that we became better drivers once we had some biking experience and we know where bikes are likely to come from. Learner drivers should be taught more about looking for bikes and where to expect them (i.e. filtering).

.

Originally Posted by lynw

Ok. Do you think under the present system it is a good idea for a 21 year old to have 3 days training then go out and ride a 'Busa or a ZX10? Because I don't. I noticed how many people have binned their SVs when theyve been a first bike [some of us dont even need that excuse either ], and on the CBR forum I recall a thread where most who had them as their first bike had binned them within a year somehow. And thats just 600s.

but the point should be that its our choice to make, not theirs