Youngsters not taking motorcycle test(s)
Discussion
http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
THE number of under-19s to complete a motorcycle test fell by over 90% following the introduction of new licence rules, latest government figures show.
Between April 2012 and March 2013, 6,788 riders aged 17-18 took both parts of the practical motorcycle test. In the following 12 months the number of 16-18-year-olds to do the same was just 599.
It’s the second set of quarterly government figures showing dramatic decline, after a similar pattern was revealed in June.
The drop follows new rules introduced in January 2013 restricting all 17-18-year-olds to 125cc whether or not they pass a test. Previously, anyone over 17 could take a test to gain a full bike licence, restricted to 33hp for the first two years.
Now, 17-18 year-olds are free to take a test but passing will only gain them a full licence for a 125, which they can already ride as a learner anyway. To ride anything bigger they must pass a test on a more powerful machine aged at least 19, whether or not they took the trouble of gaining a full licence for a 125.
They then face a further two years with an ‘A2’ licence, restricted 48hp, before taking yet another test to get an unrestricted licence. An alternative route is to take a single ‘Direct Access’ test for an unrestricted licence but this is only open to over-24s.
Some decline in test numbers is to be expected following the introduction of new rules, since many people rush to get a licence before the changes. However, even two years before the latest changes the number of under-19s taking the test was six times the figure afterward.
Between April 2010 and March 2011, 3,671 riders aged 17-18 completed both parts of a practical motorcycle test. In the same period in 2011-2012, the number was 4,957.
The total number of motorcycle tests is also down, from 44,889 in 2012-2013 to 30,453 in 2013-2014. In 2011-2012 the number was 39,926 and the year before that 34,484.
Read more: http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
THE number of under-19s to complete a motorcycle test fell by over 90% following the introduction of new licence rules, latest government figures show.
Between April 2012 and March 2013, 6,788 riders aged 17-18 took both parts of the practical motorcycle test. In the following 12 months the number of 16-18-year-olds to do the same was just 599.
It’s the second set of quarterly government figures showing dramatic decline, after a similar pattern was revealed in June.
The drop follows new rules introduced in January 2013 restricting all 17-18-year-olds to 125cc whether or not they pass a test. Previously, anyone over 17 could take a test to gain a full bike licence, restricted to 33hp for the first two years.
Now, 17-18 year-olds are free to take a test but passing will only gain them a full licence for a 125, which they can already ride as a learner anyway. To ride anything bigger they must pass a test on a more powerful machine aged at least 19, whether or not they took the trouble of gaining a full licence for a 125.
They then face a further two years with an ‘A2’ licence, restricted 48hp, before taking yet another test to get an unrestricted licence. An alternative route is to take a single ‘Direct Access’ test for an unrestricted licence but this is only open to over-24s.
Some decline in test numbers is to be expected following the introduction of new rules, since many people rush to get a licence before the changes. However, even two years before the latest changes the number of under-19s taking the test was six times the figure afterward.
Between April 2010 and March 2011, 3,671 riders aged 17-18 completed both parts of a practical motorcycle test. In the same period in 2011-2012, the number was 4,957.
The total number of motorcycle tests is also down, from 44,889 in 2012-2013 to 30,453 in 2013-2014. In 2011-2012 the number was 39,926 and the year before that 34,484.
Read more: http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news--general-...
Wedg1e said:
Once you've created a minority it's easier to get rid of them... 
You don't need to do that as a government. You just need to plant the seed. Look at the thread on ear plugs for the way that bikers have become more risk averse than ten years ago.Rules will come in about ear defence, full body armour and airbags, and not only will it be unopposed, but there is a significant section of bikers who will welcome it. A section that didn't exist twenty years ago, or even ten for that matter.
julian64 said:
You don't need to do that as a government. You just need to plant the seed. Look at the thread on ear plugs for the way that bikers have become more risk averse than ten years ago.
That isn't anything to do with being risk averse, it's simply being more educated and in this example about a common cause of hearing damage. Julian64 said:
Rules will come in about ear defence, full body armour and airbags, and not only will it be unopposed, but there is a significant section of bikers who will welcome it. A section that didn't exist twenty years ago, or even ten for that matter.
It will be a long time before airbags become the norm. They may be used by racers presently, but how many shops are actually selling it? And how many of them are at an affordable price?I remember years ago the whole leg protector debacle. We're yet to see those on the bikes
Edited by Fleegle on Tuesday 16th September 08:24
I'm fairly sure there was a peak of people taking to bikes around the late 90s, early 00s when fast bikes were actually really cheap to buy an use. Far more so than now.
I passe my test in 98 which was the first year of DAS I think (I was restricted as only 17) but it was so amazingly cheap to buy a new very fast bike in the early 2000s when parallel imports were about that I suspect the statistics may be a little skewed. Certainly from the 10 apprentices in my year who were all the same age, well over half of us had sports bikes ((kind of) restricted). Of the current batch of apprentices there's none with bikes as I think insurance and bike prices - plus new tests - have ruled it not feasible.
I do also agree in part with Julian too. I think that bikers are a far more sensuble bunch now as a whole, and that the average age of bikers is certainly going up.
I passe my test in 98 which was the first year of DAS I think (I was restricted as only 17) but it was so amazingly cheap to buy a new very fast bike in the early 2000s when parallel imports were about that I suspect the statistics may be a little skewed. Certainly from the 10 apprentices in my year who were all the same age, well over half of us had sports bikes ((kind of) restricted). Of the current batch of apprentices there's none with bikes as I think insurance and bike prices - plus new tests - have ruled it not feasible.
I do also agree in part with Julian too. I think that bikers are a far more sensuble bunch now as a whole, and that the average age of bikers is certainly going up.
Silver993tt said:
julian64 said:
You don't need to do that as a government. You just need to plant the seed. Look at the thread on ear plugs for the way that bikers have become more risk averse than ten years ago.
That isn't anything to do with being risk averse, it's simply being more educated and in this example about a common cause of hearing damage. Wedg1e said:
Once you've created a minority it's easier to get rid of them...
This is a long term plan and is gradually working. The number of bikers both as a proportion of road users and as an absolute number has been falling consistently and significantly since it's peak in the late 70's/early 80's. Likewise, the "average age" of a biker is getting significantly older. In 30 years time, when all the old farts who make up the majority of bikers at the moment, are beyond swinging a leg over anything but a mobility scooter, biking will be in an ideal place to be banned as there will be so few involved in it. It'll be on the basis of "significantly improving" road accident statistics and helping to protect people from themselves.
julian64 said:
Silver993tt said:
julian64 said:
You don't need to do that as a government. You just need to plant the seed. Look at the thread on ear plugs for the way that bikers have become more risk averse than ten years ago.
That isn't anything to do with being risk averse, it's simply being more educated and in this example about a common cause of hearing damage. julian64 said:
Look at the thread on ear plugs for the way that bikers have become more risk averse than ten years ago.
Preserving your hearing isn't "risk averse", as such. It's common sense. I think people are just better informed.julian64 said:
Rules will come in about ear defence, full body armour and airbags
Airbags will just get more popular when the technology gets cheaper (as it does), I don't think it will need legislating in. (I saw the demo of the Alpinestars stuff on the MotoGP coverage at the weekend and was mighty impressed).Back to the OP - I think that it's very obviously true - biking is getting to be an old mans game, in the main. I was up at Devils Bridge on Sunday (via a couple of other bike stops). As a rule I avoid such haunts (why ride somewhere you know will be crawling with police?) so was astonished at just how old the majority were - very few youngsters or "new blood" around. I'm 46 and I felt young(ish;)).
black-k1 said:
This is a long term plan and is gradually working. The number of bikers both as a proportion of road users and as an absolute number has been falling consistently and significantly since it's peak in the late 70's/early 80's. Likewise, the "average age" of a biker is getting significantly older. In 30 years time, when all the old farts who make up the majority of bikers at the moment, are beyond swinging a leg over anything but a mobility scooter, biking will be in an ideal place to be banned as there will be so few involved in it. It'll be on the basis of "significantly improving" road accident statistics and helping to protect people from themselves.
It isn't just tests that have led to a decline. In the 60's and 70's motorcycling was seen as a cheap method of transport, cars were still a relative luxury. With the high price of fuel and insurance for bikes plus the low purchase price of an economical 2nd hand car, people are favouring 4 wheels
Fleegle said:
It isn't just tests that have led to a decline. In the 60's and 70's motorcycling was seen as a cheap method of transport, cars were still a relative luxury. With the high price of fuel and insurance for bikes plus the low purchase price of an economical 2nd hand car, people are favouring 4 wheels
How do little 50cc scooters fit into all of this? There seem to be an awful lot of them and no full test required and That London seems infested with them - anyone know how numbers compare with, say, the 70s?
Fleegle said:
black-k1 said:
This is a long term plan and is gradually working. The number of bikers both as a proportion of road users and as an absolute number has been falling consistently and significantly since it's peak in the late 70's/early 80's. Likewise, the "average age" of a biker is getting significantly older. In 30 years time, when all the old farts who make up the majority of bikers at the moment, are beyond swinging a leg over anything but a mobility scooter, biking will be in an ideal place to be banned as there will be so few involved in it. It'll be on the basis of "significantly improving" road accident statistics and helping to protect people from themselves.
It isn't just tests that have led to a decline. In the 60's and 70's motorcycling was seen as a cheap method of transport, cars were still a relative luxury. With the high price of fuel and insurance for bikes plus the low purchase price of an economical 2nd hand car, people are favouring 4 wheels
Since I started biking there have been many changes (and attempted changes) and many opportunities for change that have not been taken. When you look back at some of them:
Restricted mopeds for 16 year olds.
Learners on 125s
Two part tests
100bhp limit
More stringent 2 part test
Restricted power after passing test.
Leg protectors
Even more stringent multi part test.
More and longer power restrictions after passing test
VAT on motorcycle clothing (not VAT exempt like other safety equipment.)
None of them have done anything to make motorcycling more accessible or more attractive as a means of transport yet small capacity motorcycles would tick a huge number of any governments “green agenda” boxes.
Add to this the continual "pushing" of information as to how dangerous bikes are yet little is done to help make things safe. For example, it has been shown by Boris that motorcycles in bus lanes reduces motorcycle accidents without increasing risk to any other road users. How many London councils (and other town councils) still ignore this and ban motorcycles from bus lanes?
So, am I cynical or am I realistic?
Nigel Worc's said:
I realise a lot of this stuff is EU led rather than UK made up.
Is it though? I ask because most other EU countries seem far more liberal with their bike licences (50cc at 14 etc.), or is it a case of us blindly adopting the worst of EU legislation and then ensuring greater 'compliance'?
black-k1 said:
julian64 said:
Silver993tt said:
julian64 said:
You don't need to do that as a government. You just need to plant the seed. Look at the thread on ear plugs for the way that bikers have become more risk averse than ten years ago.
That isn't anything to do with being risk averse, it's simply being more educated and in this example about a common cause of hearing damage. So we have evidence from studies showing small amounts (<15mins) of high noise can cause permanent hearing loss, and on the other side, I haven't seen it represented to the extent it should be if the research is right.
The likely answer is that both are right, but the statistics are being misinterpreted. The damage is likey, for MOST, to be at a level which is incrementally very small, and although happening never gets to the level of affecting day to day hearing. Its difficult to prove because high frequency hearing loss with age seems to be a natural background process, and therefore to tease out the relevence is difficult. Probably made even more difficult by the few unfortunates who CAN seem to pin their hearing loss back to episodes of loud noise or barotrauma.
graphene said:
Why does motorcycling have to be made accessible? I think we can make it more useful as a means of transport to/from work and people will do it. There will always be people who say they can't afford this-that, tests are too hard etc... The simple fact is that most choose to spend their time and money elsewhere, and there are now more things in the world to to spend it on.
My point is that there have been lots of things implemented that have made motorcycling less accessible but nothing that makes it more accessible. I’m not saying that motorcycling SHOULD be more accessible, only that there appears to be a very significant bias!Compare that with car driving where the ONLY restrictions that have either been implemented or proposed over the same period are the addition of a theory and hazard awareness test (main test is still pretty much the same).
Meanwhile, hybrid cars and electric cars, which get nowhere near the energy efficiency of a small capacity motorbike for single occupant use, get all sorts of tax advantages.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff