De-restriction process

Okay so me and Matt after a long and hard (steady on ) convo. Have come across the method at the moment, and a couple of other suggestions, all have bad points and good points.

1) 2 years rule - Age 17-21 Rider passes test and can ride anything of any cc, with 33bhp. It is a long period and you will learn a lot in it if you are riding in the period. What is stopping you not riding for those two years and hopping straight on a gixxer? Then go out and muck yaself up and others.

2) The X(enter mileage here) rule - Same ages Rider passes test, covers X ammount of miles then can be derestricted after this ammount of miles. Gives the rider experience. Whats stopping someone cracking a drill out and winding her on...

3) The Exagerated X(miles) miles rule - Same ages again Rider passes test, covers a certain ammount of miles, then does a sort of MOT riding test, the person who assesses gives leeway for bad habits but not too many. The assessor will look at riding skills/technique on a derestricted bike and be able to tell if the rider has really rode the ammount of miles they say. Take them through so many different situations, ie: twisties, town riding, filtering etc. If Luckypants is reading this, like your mate at the Ponderosa does.

Obviously you can tell my favourite option on this.

I'm not looking for a slagging me off match, just a discussion and vote on what people think regarding the options.

I think the current rules are good for the job. There's more than mileage to the equation, I'd done loads of miles by 18 but still drove like a nobhead. Maturity has a lot to play in it all.

If anything I'd say it's car tests that need assessing; they're just not hard enough and you will always pass eventually. Motorway driving should be taught purely for lane discipline and enforcing the distance between cars.

Out of the options I'll say 3, but (as we discussed on MSN plowsie) I think the assesment should happen after one year has passed. It would be a good follow up to the test anyway, and to correct any bad habits. It wouldnt be as formal as the full test, maybe more like a CBT ride-out or a BikeSafe rideout

It would certainly help widdle out the less carefull riders, the ones who passed their test by fluke..

Matt

[chris8886]

i like number 3. although the age thing is possibly right as dizzy says. though i don't he how this is fair as at 18 i believe i was responsible when it came to driving. plus i think it's a little unfair that a car driver can drive anything from the age of 17 if they can afford it!!

[Luckypants]

While I understand the limitations of option one, the same can be said for both other options. How does one prove you have done X miles? At least 2 years is a definite thing that can be proved with doubt.

I do agree with the restricted licence, it allows you a chance to mature as a rider more safely. Making it a time period allows time for you to mature as a person.

Originally Posted by Luckypants

While I understand the limitations of option one, the same can be said for both other options. How does one prove you have done X miles? At least 2 years is a definite thing that can be proved with doubt.

I do agree with the restricted licence, it allows you a chance to mature as a rider more safely. Making it a time period allows time for you to mature as a person.

Both are very true. I've always though of myself as being a mature (responsible) rider, but I've never once thought I can handle a full power sv...until recently, that is. Time is definatly needed to be certain people are growing in maturity, but then there are some bikers out there who have been riding for years and years, and are not even as mature as some 16 year olds on scooters

Matt

Originally Posted by Luckypants

While I understand the limitations of option one, the same can be said for both other options. How does one prove you have done X miles? At least 2 years is a definite thing that can be proved with doubt.

I do agree with the restricted licence, it allows you a chance to mature as a rider more safely. Making it a time period allows time for you to mature as a person.

The thing about 2 years vs X miles is that X miles is generally considered a closer approximation to experience than 2 years (it's more closely related, if you like).

I guess I'm assuming there is that experience = maturity which may not be correct.

Also the comments on "what's to stop..." for the first two options is a little more different than it sounds - one is legal and one (would presumably be) illegal.

Perhaps the one thing we are lacking here is a very clear definition on what we are trying to achieve with a restricted licence? It sounds simple but defining it isn't quite that easy I think...

[yorkie_chris]

To me the problem with the 2 years is I've been riding pretty much every day since I passed my test, do the twisties for fun whenever I can, commute through the $hitty weather etc.
I've had some offs and near misses (none of them caused by power) even though I may have ridden some much more powerful stuff (on private roads)

But according to the government, I'm not mature enough to handle 34bhp, whereas some mid-life crisis DAS muppet can go and get a gixxer thou.

Possible solutions to the problem? I don't think there is one, if you reduced the 2 years, then all the whingers would point at a 0.0001% rise in fatalities and shout a lot.

Any other hoops to jump through just makes Mr Brown more cash, makes it harder to get on the road, it's expensive and difficult enough already.
And lets face it, you can make tests as hard as you want, but it doesn't make anyone a better rider.

I agree with fact drivers aren't restricted in any way doesn't make sense, there are plenty of crashes where young inexperinced drivers kill themselves and others in any car not just high powered cars....

I wouldn't say you can judge people aganist age and maturity, its experince what counts, somethings can't be taught you have figure it out for yourself. Though bad habits creap in, once you got them they hard to get rid off. You for sure get people who are mature than peers, we are all different.

I'm not sure what the system should be, but a fairer system, or a simalar one to bikes should be placed on car drivers, would make the roads safer I don't know, but if your hit by a car its gonna hurt.

There should be preovious there for people are of the standard to take a test to ride what they want. The majority of the time its other road users that casue the problems with bikes, but we do cause enough of our own problems.

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by muffles

Perhaps the one thing we are lacking here is a very clear definition on what we are trying to achieve with a restricted licence? It sounds simple but defining it isn't quite that easy I think...

Trying to prevent people from injuring themselves by buying powerful bikes before they have sufficient experience.

They know best