Motorbike license for Piaggio MP3....confused??

[mph1977]

Dr Jekyll said:

If the MP3 is legally a tricycle, does that mean you don't need to wear a helmet?

IIRC there is a category of 'close coupled' tricycle which is considered a Motorcycle - which is why the MP£ etc is considered a motorbike rather than a normal trike or 3-wheeler

track less than 600 or 700 mm iirc

[Dr Jekyll]

That's what I thought, it's legally not a tricycle.

[boyse7en]

Nigel Worc's said:

On the other side of the coin, why do you expect to ride a "motorcycle" based tricycle on a car licence ?

Because his licence (and your's too, if you passed your car test early enough) permits him to

Nigel Worc's said:

Why would you expect to drive a "car" based tricycle on a bike licence ?

One of the main reasons the Reliant three-wheeler range (Robin, Rialto, Regal et al) existed in the first place was because people could drive it whilst holding only a motorcycle licence.

[boyse7en]

Dr Jekyll said:

That's what I thought, it's legally not a tricycle.

It definitely is.

The original Mp3 came in two variants - the Mp3 and the Mp3 LT. The LT version had a slightly wider track and a parking brake, which made it legally a tricycle that could be ridden whilst holding a car licence (the standard Mp3 had a narrower track, no parking brake, and required a suitable motorcycle licence).

The later Mp3 Yourban only comes in the wide-track configuration, so that all models are legally rideable with a car licence.

That changed with the introduction of the new licencing categories in Jan which mean that people obtaining a full driving licence after the cut-off date are not permitted to ride a tricycle and to do so will have to complete a CBT and obtain an A-category motorcycle licence (or A2 if age-appropriate)

[boyse7en]

Dr Jekyll said:

If the MP3 is legally a tricycle, does that mean you don't need to wear a helmet?

You don't need to wear a helmet legally, but it is definitely recommended.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Fort Jefferson said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It's within his discretion.

Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence, discretionary? Your having a laugh.

Not at all. If fact it's not that uncommon. People get stopped all the time with expired photo cards, old addresses, driving the wrong type of van and trailer on a post 97 car licence.

What evidence do you have that this isn't the case?

[Slidingpillar]

boyse7en said:

That changed with the introduction of the new licencing categories in Jan which mean that people obtaining a full driving licence after the cut-off date are not permitted to ride a tricycle and to do so will have to complete a CBT and obtain an A-category motorcycle licence (or A2 if age-appropriate)

There's a but to this. The UK has now exercised the derogation allowed under the Third Driving Licence Directive and that allows the driving of a tricycle by a car test passer when they are 21 or older. This derogation only applies in the UK, and you can't exchange it elsewhere to get the group.

Basic rule came in in 2013, and the derogation this year (DVLC wrote to me and told me - I'm an official pest on the issue...).

[creampuff]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Not at all. If fact it's not that uncommon. People get stopped all the time with expired photo cards, old addresses, driving the wrong type of van and trailer on a post 97 car licence.

What evidence do you have that this isn't the case?

You still have a licence for the vehicle in that case, but you are not complying with the conditions ie keeping the photocard current (you are still licenced without a photocard) or keeping the address current.

You cannot go riding a A-category motorcycle with a B licence or a A-category motorcycle with a A1 licence and hope for discretion as you do not have a licence at all for that class of vehicle

[Fort Jefferson]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

People get stopped all the time with expired photo cards, old addresses

This I would except.

TwigtheWonderkid said:

driving the wrong type of van and trailer on a post 97 car licence.

This I won't, not having, or never had, a licence to drive a vehicle, means no insurance.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

creampuff said:

You still have a licence for the vehicle in that case, but you are not complying with the conditions ie keeping the photocard current (you are still licenced without a photocard) or keeping the address current.

You cannot go riding a A-category motorcycle with a B licence or a A-category motorcycle with a A1 licence and hope for discretion as you do not have a licence at all for that class of vehicle

But in this case, the police were saying his licence used to cover him, but no longer did. So letting him go with a warning and an instruction to get it sorted is nothing out of the ordinary.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Fort Jefferson said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

driving the wrong type of van and trailer on a post 97 car licence.

This I won't, not having, or never had, a licence to drive a vehicle, means no insurance.

If you have valid insurance on the van you were driving, and you'd made an mistake by towing a trailer that, combined with the van, put you outside the scope of your licence, would not invalidate your insurance.

No insurance company would decline a claim on that basis because if they did, no ombudsman etc would uphold the decision.

Just because they can't invalidate your insurance if you once held a licence, doesn't mean they would automatically invalidate your insurance if you hadn't.

[Nigel Worc's]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

creampuff said:

You still have a licence for the vehicle in that case, but you are not complying with the conditions ie keeping the photocard current (you are still licenced without a photocard) or keeping the address current.

You cannot go riding a A-category motorcycle with a B licence or a A-category motorcycle with a A1 licence and hope for discretion as you do not have a licence at all for that class of vehicle

But in this case, the police were saying his licence used to cover him, but no longer did. So letting him go with a warning and an instruction to get it sorted is nothing out of the ordinary.

And that is exactly what happened to me, my licence used to cover me to ride pillion on a motorcycle with "L" plates, the rules had changed and despite the fact my licence still said I could, I in fact couldn't !

[boyse7en]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But in this case, the police were saying his licence used to cover him, but no longer did. So letting him go with a warning and an instruction to get it sorted is nothing out of the ordinary.

I'll have to check it, but I don't think that the DVSA can retrospectively reduce the entitlement on licences (ie. they can change the rules for new licence holders, but not for existing ones)

[TwigtheWonderkid]

boyse7en said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But in this case, the police were saying his licence used to cover him, but no longer did. So letting him go with a warning and an instruction to get it sorted is nothing out of the ordinary.

I'll have to check it, but I don't think that the DVSA can retrospectively reduce the entitlement on licences (ie. they can change the rules for new licence holders, but not for existing ones)

I'm afraid they can. When I was young, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, you could ride a motorcycle up to 250cc on a provisional licence. Then they restricted it to 125. Those who had a provisional licence prior to the change could not continue to ride bikes up to 250cc.

[mph1977]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

boyse7en said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But in this case, the police were saying his licence used to cover him, but no longer did. So letting him go with a warning and an instruction to get it sorted is nothing out of the ordinary.

I'll have to check it, but I don't think that the DVSA can retrospectively reduce the entitlement on licences (ie. they can change the rules for new licence holders, but not for existing ones)

I'm afraid they can. When I was young, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, you could ride a motorcycle up to 250cc on a provisional licence. Then they restricted it to 125. Those who had a provisional licence prior to the change could not continue to ride bikes up to 250cc.

alternate view on the topic

pre 1997 'Car' licence

pre 2014 'car' licences

[Slidingpillar]

The break date for this is 19th January 2013. Although the derogation was only implemented this year - it applies to car test passers since that date. If you passed your car test prior to that date - you'll get group A with note 79 added to your licence when you renew (note 79 is the tricycles only limitation).

Whilst one might argue one needs motorcycle skills to ride/drive the tricycle that started this thread, exactly what relevance do motorcycle riding skills have to my Morgan Three Wheeler? You sit inside the car like bodywork on a car like seat, it has a steering wheel and it takes the same road space as a small car - say an Austin Seven.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mph1977 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

boyse7en said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But in this case, the police were saying his licence used to cover him, but no longer did. So letting him go with a warning and an instruction to get it sorted is nothing out of the ordinary.

I'll have to check it, but I don't think that the DVSA can retrospectively reduce the entitlement on licences (ie. they can change the rules for new licence holders, but not for existing ones)

I'm afraid they can. When I was young, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, you could ride a motorcycle up to 250cc on a provisional licence. Then they restricted it to 125. Those who had a provisional licence prior to the change could not continue to ride bikes up to 250cc.

alternate view on the topic

pre 1997 'Car' licence

pre 2014 'car' licences

It's not an alternative view. It shows that whilst some rights can be carried forward with restrictions only applying to new licence holders, it is also true that DVLA can withdraw entitlements following a change in the regs. As they did with provisional licences and motorbikes.

[boyse7en]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm afraid they can. When I was young, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, you could ride a motorcycle up to 250cc on a provisional licence. Then they restricted it to 125. Those who had a provisional licence prior to the change could not continue to ride bikes up to 250cc.

But that example is not a change in licence entitlement. That was a change in what you could ride or drive without a licence.

[balls-out]

boyse7en said:

You don't need to wear a helmet legally, but it is definitely recommended.

Really? Brilliant.

So finally all those ageing bikers from the MAG and BMF can finally 'Scr*w the helmet Law' and take to the roads lidless?

I can just see all those chopped and bad-a*sed MP3 crusing into town to wreck the place

[TwigtheWonderkid]

boyse7en said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I'm afraid they can. When I was young, and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, you could ride a motorcycle up to 250cc on a provisional licence. Then they restricted it to 125. Those who had a provisional licence prior to the change could not continue to ride bikes up to 250cc.

But that example is not a change in licence entitlement. That was a change in what you could ride or drive without a licence.

A provisional licence is still a licence. I had a full car licence. Back in 1980 my full car licence entitled me to ride a bike up to 250cc with L plates. Then they withdrew that entitlement, reducing it to 125cc from memory.