Can they tell it's not restricted?

Originally Posted by TazDaz

In a similar vein of thought regarding the difference between someone under 21 and over...

I'm 20 and passed my test 9months ago after doing a 2 day course on a 125. Some of the time my lessons were shared with a gentleman who was about 35ish in age and doing his DAS on a GS500. He was the worst rider I've ever seen, dropped it about six times within the time I was with him but still managed to scrape a pass with 14 minors. My instructor then had the great pleasure of informing me on my test day that the gentlement went and put a deposit down on a fireblade after his test. (My instructor couldn't actually believe he passed..!)

Me on the other hand, managed to not drop my bike and got 1 minor in my test. Fair enough I did it on a 125, but clearly did a better job than the other guy who bought the fireblade and who has no doubt dropped it since!

The SV is my first personal bike and I never even rode a bike before my CBT. Been driving since I was 17 and managed to somehow not hit anything. Try and find a 17-18 year old who hasn't crashed a car. Majority of local lads around this age seem to write off cars on a monthly basis.

I'd consider myself reasonably sensible and mature for my age. Been in full time employment at the same place for the last three years (since school) and the average age of people I socialise with is probably around 26, which in my opinion has probably matured me past my age so to speak. None of this is taken into account with regards to the restriction!

I have issue with the agist restriction law simply because in every other element of our country we are seriously against it. My job title at work even changed to get rid of the word "junior" as it was seen as agist! It's a hard thing for the government to control though as I know plenty of people my age who would literally point a bike at a wall and full throttle towards it. Would be nice if it could be assessed on an individual basis as I'm sure I'd be allowed to have full power legally, but it will never happen!

I'll admit I've ridden de-restricted occasionally (private runway of course officer!) and if I'm honest I found the bike just as easy to handle - no major difference. As long as you don't act stupid and try to use the additional power in every circumstance then it really doesn't make much difference to general riding. The only benefit, as I'd like to keep a clean licence, is that you don't have to work the gearbox as much to get up to 90mph! (private runway of course officer!)

I've ridden with a few of the guys on here and I'm not the slowest rider in the world, but there is a time and place for speed and in my opinion it's not going into a blind bend! I also have a real sense of mortality as my older brother thought it would be fine to drink drive and killed two of his passenger friends when he crashed...prison...food for thought.

At the end of the day if you choose to de-restrict it and ride at your limits everywhere you will crash and you will be found out. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect the elder members posts as they more often than not have more experience, but I have to agree with some of the young un's on here - the law is cack!

Cheers

PS. apologies if this reads as verbal dribble...I haven't forced you to read it!

I am very much in the same boat as you. I'm 20 years old and own a restricted Suzuki SV 650. I passed my test about 15 months ago.

When I first bought the bike it was unrestricted and I did ride it once or twice before I got it restricted. Like you, I didn't find the bike any harder to control when it was full power.

I don't agree with the law, I think it's unfair that people under the age of 21 don't have the option of taking a direct access test, especially since our age group doesn't have the highest volume of deaths. I admit that alot of people under the age of 21 are idiots and probably won't ride sensibly.. but they'll also ride like idiots on a restricted bike which will still reach 100mph and if you hit something at that speed, chances are you'll still kill yourself. I don't think having a full power bike increases the risk that much. People should have the right to choose. There are loads of things that are potentially dangerous; rock climbing, boxing etc.. but you don't have to be over 21 for those.

For me, the restrictor spoiled riding after a while. If you're going up a steep dual carriage way it totally kills the performance and makes riding a lot less enjoyable.

I'm now looking at selling my SV as I own a 231bhp mazda rx8 which is much more fun (although alot more expensive!). Another point is that a 20 year old can only ride a 33bhp bike, where as a 17 year old can go out and legally drive a ferrari if they've passed their driving test and have enough money for insurance... and you are much more likely to cause damage to others in a car than on a bike.

Also, i've been driving for over 3 years, riding for over 1. I've never had an accident and I don't have any points on my lisence. Worst i've done is scrape my alloys once or twice. Unfortunately, when it comes to bikes everyone under the age of 21 has been tarred with the same brush and considered high risk.

Anyway, my advice to the thread starter - It's up to you but the sensible thing is to get it restricted before you ride. I've been tempted to take my restrictor out a few times, the odds of getting caught are extremely low. However, for me I couldn't bring myself to risk everything. I earn an insane amount of money for my age, potentially have a good life ahead of me. If I took out the restrictor then went out and killed someone on my bike, i'd lose my job, go to prison, possibly have a few hundred thousand pound insurance claim to pay. Ok i'm talking about a worst case scenario here but still, it's potentially what can happen. I'd guess that 99.99% who ride illegally never have serious consquences... but for the remaining 0.01% it can ruin their entire life.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by GeneticBubble

tbh i will proberly try to scrounge lifts off friends and family or just not go

Nah, take the bus, but in full bike kit.

Then when people say "Are you on your bike?" when you get there you can ell them no, and ask if they have seen how rough it is on the buses these days.

Also works with the Tube in central London

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Beltai

STUFF THATS BEEN SAID BEFORE....

Again, a whiner.....

"I have a car thays well powerful...."

All this shows is that you think that power in a vehicle is the be-all and end-all of things, and that if you cant also have that in a bike then you are going to throw your toys out of the pram and take your ball home.

I don't believe that the law is particularly fair, or that it should even exsist, and your argument about no restriction on cars while there are restrictions on bikes is a good one, but put so badly due to the bragging about the power of your car that it just says "car drivers should also be restricted under 21", which is something I believe IS being debated/thought about in the halls of power.

As has been said, if you dont like it, start a campaign to get it changed (and no, one of those online-petitions doesn't count).

Well that's 15 minutes of my life I'll never get back!!

But as I've read it all...

[rant mode] Banditbloke. Get a grip!! You knew the law when you went for your test. If you didn't like it why bother to do it? Yes, I am old enough to not have to been stuck at 33hp but I did have to do a 5 day course unlike my Dad who just had to turn left 4 times and stop. No doubt if you manage to breed at some point in the future your brood may well either not be able to ride bikes (Everything fun gets banned/outlawed eventually) or will have even more stringent laws governing what the can or can't do. I hear your reply, "All the more reason to leave this ***** country!". OK, Bye and mind the door doesn't whoop you on the ar*e as you go. You won't like Australia (Traffic Cops are even more strict and obnoxious), USA (Full of idiots (aopologies to our colonial cousins, just making a point), guns, nutters and hillbillies (I've seen Deliverance! ) or South Africa (Guns, guns, guns, sharks (Human as well as fishy types) and guns). I think New Zeland may be ok but they have killer sheep, hobbits and Soulkiss goes there!!

As someone has already said, Wind your neck in and stop whining! [/rant mode]

Originally Posted by Jester666

As someone has already said, Wind your neck in and stop whining! [/rant]

If people find the restriction route so much of a hassle...wait another 4 years and do the full bike test.

We're lucky that we get the option to ride whatever bike we want, allbeit restricted to 33bhp. I have just over 12months left on my restriction and am more than happy to keep it in. Would hate to get banned and have to re-take my test...espec with this new one coming in

Originally Posted by joshmac

Please note the word Rule. It is NOT a law. You cannot be prosecuted for failing to give way to a to**er in a bus.

Originally Posted by gid

And to drag the thread back onto topic...

Good on you, GB, for sticking with the last few days before the restrictors get fitted.

Originally Posted by Jester666

Please note the word Rule. It is NOT a law. You cannot be prosecuted for failing to give way to a to**er in a bus.

At what point does a rule become a law? Requirements in the highway code such as using correct headlights, and displaying a visible numberplate are surely offences?
Not starting an argument, just interested.