33bhp, do you agree with it?

Originally Posted by BanditPat

Apprennties dont fall in the same bracket as the normal working

Yup

any way i disagree with 33bhp

[TamSV]

I voted no, probably on the basis that "it never did me any harm". But I was surprised to see that most of the riders subject to the restiction actually agreed with it as they feel they're doing all their learning after the test.

When I was a lad (I'm 40) you got a 50cc then a 125 when you were 17 for a year or two before you sat your test and got a big bike. Now relatively few people seem to follow that route so I can maybe see the point in the restriction if all you've had are some lessons on the training school bike.

But I don't think the peeps on this thread would have had a problem on a full power bike. They're obviously aware of their limitations and are probably on the SV because of its friendly reputation. The nobs will be in trouble whatever bike they're on.

So I still vote no. I don't see the need for it. It's based on the assumption that power=speed which is simplistic and, as we've seen from Flameboys thread, it's impossible for the police to enforce without taking your bike for a week!

Originally Posted by Sally

In my opinion, someone who hasn't done the restriction, can't really justify a vote.

Oops. Too late

I agree 100% with the limit. I also think that people like me who went back to biking after an absence of many years should serve some sort of trial period. I nearly caused a few accidents when I went back to biking in 2006. Young car drivers should do the same. I got a load more ideas on how to make bikers safer but this probably isn't the place to air them lol.

If I was 20 and restricted I would be bleating about it too.

Originally Posted by ejohnh

If I was 20 and restricted I would be bleating about it too.

I'm 48 and passed my test in 1979 a few days after my 17th birthday, only had 3 days since when I didn't own a bike and that's when two of mine were stolen. I think the current bike test and 33bhp limit is unjustifiably unfair on younger new riders and discriminatory when you can get a car licence at the same age and drive what the hell you like. It's this patronising government once again treating responsible adults (this is how they themselves class the over 18s) as children who need saving from themselves.

[jamesterror]

The restriction period means nothing, for example I could ride 2,000 miles restricted in the first 2 years, or less than. Whereas, I've actually done just shy of 6,000 miles since owning the bike.

Restricted or not, I tend to short shift there are only some points I use the full potential of first/second/third gear.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Lozzo

once again treating responsible adults (this is how they themselves class the over 18s) as children who need saving from themselves.

And don't forget allowing us to be charged a fooking fortune for the privilege of being insulted.

As much as it is discrimination against young bikers perhaps the accident statistics dictate the policy,rightly or wrongly. There are also the financial factors to be taken into account.
What is the life insurance premium on a 18 year old who joins the services?

Originally Posted by Dicky Ticker

As much as it is discrimination against young bikers perhaps the accident statistics dictate the policy,rightly or wrongly. There are also the financial factors to be taken into account.
What is the life insurance premium on a 18 year old who joins the services?

I can't remember off the top of my head, but I've looked into the statistics for this, and I think it turned out the vast majority of incidents involving young riders were whilst riding peds or 50cc/125cc bikes. The majority of 'big bike' incidents were in the 35-45 range irrc.

You could argue that if the 125 riders were allowed full power big bikes they'd be likely to be involved in an incident - but I'm not sure what 'proper' technique could be employed to use that as an argument.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by Dicky Ticker

As much as it is discrimination against young bikers perhaps the accident statistics dictate the policy,rightly or wrongly. There are also the financial factors to be taken into account.
What is the life insurance premium on a 18 year old who joins the services?

Statistics are freely available from the ministry of transport and do not, IMO, support a need for a 33bhp restriction.

http://mile-muncher.co.uk/dft_rdsafety_035422.pdf

Sure a lot of young lads on 50s and 125s plough into the back of cars... that is lack of attention not a surfeit of power!

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Statistics are freely available from the ministry of transport and do not, IMO, support a need for a 33bhp restriction.

Those recently discussed statistics have no data relating to 33bhp or otherwise, it is purely on engine size. It is therefore impossible to draw any reasonable conclusions about impact of power on the statistics.

I'd still like to find a link to the original EU thinking behind the restriction.