Can they tell it's not restricted?

Play with feathers, get your @rse tickled.

Its down to you at the end of the day.

Originally Posted by dizzyblonde

because people start to get older and wiser



therefore you my dear are a very silly immature person.

disclaimer...I don't know you personally take no offense, but saying daft things like that on a public forum, makes you look very daft indeed

Hmm I still don't think the licenses are justified. I mean a gentleman who used to ride 125s in the 60s, could jump on a Superbike tomorrow. Sure he may be old and 'wise' but will he have the experience and technique to handle such a monster? Then if we were to have a young rider who's 20, been riding since 17 and is a member of the advanced motorcyclists institute or equivalent, never had a conviction or accident etc and was put on the same machine. Who would be more likely to have an accident?


Also I know some very immature 21yr olds...

Just out of curiorsity does the restricted license scheme exist anywhere else other than the UK?

Originally Posted by BanditPat

I don't mind looking daft, i went through my life so far looking daft and chances are I'll go through the rest. I will ride what I want because I think its degrading to be stuck on a 20 year old bike when some one 4 years older can do the same test on a different bike and go out and buy a brand new R1 or a busa

Surely a younger person with a good job could have a nice shiny new bike and someone older with a lesser paid job could only afford a 20 year old bike.

[SV400Rob]

To be honest before my bike was restricted I thought "once round the block won't hurt" but I thought better of it and chose not to. I would like to see what a police officer has to say about the 33bhp rule being ageist. Its there for a reason...to stop inexperienced riders, like us, going out and buying the most powerful sports bike that we can afford. Because thats what used to happen according to my dad who had bikes back in the day when you could ride a 250 or what ever on L-plates, People used to pass their test buy the most powerful bike they could afford and kill themselves on it.
And someone had to do something about the deaths hence the 33bhp restrictored licences. You don't even notice them when there fitted. My dad road my 400sv to the garage where i had it restricted and has since riden it after restriction and he can barely tell. It'll still do a ton no probs.
I don't think IMO that 4days worth of bus fare is worth loosing your licence no matter how slim the chances are.

[Luckypants]

I couldn't care less about whether the restricted licence is fair or ageist or whatever. The point is that a licence is a privilege you earn by respecting the traffic laws while demonstrating machine control, AKA the bike test. You knew when you entered into this what the rules were, so moaning it's not fair now seems pretty pointless.

What I do have a major problem with is folks driving / riding without insurance. By not riding in accordance with your licence this is EXACTLY what you are doing. Whether you were being an idiot or not, if you cause an accident you just ruin someone's day, week, year or even their life and you won't have the means to try to put things right.

So don't ride without insurance. Ever.

[keith_d]

Put me in the conservative camp too.

If you've been pootling around with 10 bhp, a half power SV will be plenty fast enough. I passed my DAS recently and probably don't use more than 33 horsepower very often.

The problem with removing the restrictor is that it invalidates your insurance. So if you do get caught you'll be done for driving with no licence and no insurance. That's a year on the buses, another bloody driving test, then stupidly high insurance premiums for the next three years.

So the risk of getting caught is small, but if you do it's bloody expensive. Not worth it for three or four days, IMO.

Keith.

Originally Posted by SV400Rob

To be honest before my bike was restricted I thought "once round the block won't hurt" but I thought better of it and chose not to. I would like to see what a police officer has to say about the 33bhp rule being ageist. Its there for a reason...to stop inexperienced riders, like us, going out and buying the most powerful sports bike that we can afford. Because thats what used to happen according to my dad who had bikes back in the day when you could ride a 250 or what ever on L-plates, People used to pass their test buy the most powerful bike they could afford and kill themselves on it.
And someone had to do something about the deaths hence the 33bhp restrictored licences. You don't even notice them when there fitted. My dad road my 400sv to the garage where i had it restricted and has since riden it after restriction and he can barely tell. It'll still do a ton no probs.
I don't think IMO that 4days worth of bus fare is worth loosing your licence no matter how slim the chances are.

if only everyones advice was as nicely put as that you should all be ashamed but point taken everyone i will do my time on the bus and then vow revenge on all buses after 4 days

Originally Posted by BanditPat

Theres something degrading about it when you have no choice in the matter but to have a 20 year old tiny capacity bike which most of the time are physically tiny and designed for any one under 5'6" as soon as your taller your the most uncomfortable person on the road

20 Year old bikes are FUN, suspension that's seized, dodgy handling and CHEAP insurance. I personally have a 1986 yamaha SRX 600 that cost me £400. I can have more fun on that than the raptor in certain situations. Don't get me wrong the Raptor's fast as f*** but if i wanna take the pi$$ i'm not gonna do it on a bike with 110bhp. Havin' a restricted SV or not if you take the pi$$ on it and get caught ur still gonna get 3 points.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by dizzyblonde

don't start or no biscuits and brews for you
I stand by what I say, its there for a reason, you already know my personal thoughts over it. So we shall leave that there between you and I

I say the reason it's there is some deskbound warriors needed to be seen to be "doing something", so they picked on the easiest target ... young riders.

You cannot expect to be given any credit in a discussion by simply calling the other party immature. Disobeying a law because you believe it's b0llocks seems to me to be making a decision of risk vs reward vs your own morality. Blindly obeying with no thought is just retarded. St Augustine: "an unjust law is no law at all."

I seem to recall a statistic which shows the 'average' KSI being 35 years old and fairly affluent.

Originally Posted by SV400Rob

To be honest before my bike was restricted I thought "once round the block won't hurt" but I thought better of it and chose not to. I would like to see what a police officer has to say about the 33bhp rule being ageist. Its there for a reason...to stop inexperienced riders, like us, going out and buying the most powerful sports bike that we can afford. Because thats what used to happen according to my dad who had bikes back in the day when you could ride a 250 or what ever on L-plates, People used to pass their test buy the most powerful bike they could afford and kill themselves on it.
And someone had to do something about the deaths hence the 33bhp restrictored licences. You don't even notice them when there fitted. My dad road my 400sv to the garage where i had it restricted and has since riden it after restriction and he can barely tell. It'll still do a ton no probs.
I don't think IMO that 4days worth of bus fare is worth loosing your licence no matter how slim the chances are.

If it was about inexperience then why would being 21 make any difference? surely if its a case of experience then the 33bhp should be applied to every one that passes a test? Why not restrict people till they have done so many miles instead of 2 years?