RE: PH2: new licencing laws explained...
Discussion
I would say that one of the more relevant issues this brings for new bikers and younger people especially is the increase in costs.
Passing the test isn't that difficult assuming you ride with care. Rules are great too but I've probably met just as many restricted riders with de-restricted bikes as those who actually pay £200 or so to have their power capped.
I passed my A2 test in 2010 on my own bike, a CG125, which I did while paying for no instruction (other than the CBT, though I've driven and ridden for years) and I was able to go to and from the test on my own bike.
I got some tips from friends and the only costs were test and fuel costs.
At the time I was 26 and could have done direct access, but I decided that it was wiser to get some practice on a mid-weight bike for a while. Having said that I never had any daytime free for DAS instruction either.
If someone were to do this today they will have to rent a larger bike (or bikes if doing A2 then A), pay an instructor to accompany them to each test and so on. It won't stop there as most instructors will want to sell you a complete course or at least some lessons.
This also has to be planned in with both the learners and instructors availability slowing the process even more.
When I took my practical I also had my first test cancelled due to a strike - I only found this out when I arrived, so today that would have meant more money (renting bike & instructor) rather than just dropping back a week later.
If you're young or hard up this can double or triple the cost and for many the point of a bike isn't just about going fast but a need for cheap transport.
The direct access point is dubious too - in my view what this does is price young bikers off the road and prevent people gaining experience on mid-range bikes, so I'd say the end result is a world with people either on 125's or people who are 24+ jumping straight onto hot bikes that they are not ready for.
Passing the test isn't that difficult assuming you ride with care. Rules are great too but I've probably met just as many restricted riders with de-restricted bikes as those who actually pay £200 or so to have their power capped.
I passed my A2 test in 2010 on my own bike, a CG125, which I did while paying for no instruction (other than the CBT, though I've driven and ridden for years) and I was able to go to and from the test on my own bike.
I got some tips from friends and the only costs were test and fuel costs.
At the time I was 26 and could have done direct access, but I decided that it was wiser to get some practice on a mid-weight bike for a while. Having said that I never had any daytime free for DAS instruction either.
If someone were to do this today they will have to rent a larger bike (or bikes if doing A2 then A), pay an instructor to accompany them to each test and so on. It won't stop there as most instructors will want to sell you a complete course or at least some lessons.
This also has to be planned in with both the learners and instructors availability slowing the process even more.
When I took my practical I also had my first test cancelled due to a strike - I only found this out when I arrived, so today that would have meant more money (renting bike & instructor) rather than just dropping back a week later.
If you're young or hard up this can double or triple the cost and for many the point of a bike isn't just about going fast but a need for cheap transport.
The direct access point is dubious too - in my view what this does is price young bikers off the road and prevent people gaining experience on mid-range bikes, so I'd say the end result is a world with people either on 125's or people who are 24+ jumping straight onto hot bikes that they are not ready for.
Wow, this brings back memories. I was loaned a Honda 250 Superdream by a pal back in 1979 to take my test. – “You only have to ride round the block, it’s a doddle”, he said. Forgot to tell me it didn’t have any Tax at the time so I wasted £20 on a test which was null & void.
Back when I was 17 our world was full of X7’s, RD250’s KH250’s – all capable of 100mph which was light speed to us at the time – there were also plenty of friends lost during that era, such a waste.
Fast forward to 1992 – at the ripe old age of 30 got round to trying again. Did a CBT (30 mins on a car park with some cones to negotiate) and the next day a 3 day supercourse followed by my test and passed. Next week bought a Fireblade.... I'm still here.
For what it’s worth, I have learned more about handling a bike whilst riding an 18bhp Enfield around India at the very limit of what it can do than riding the Fireblade - and enjoyed it just as much… probably cos I’m 50 now and far easier to please nowadays.
Point of note is that any fool can ride one, it takes skill to handle one…. and It’s a life skill that you need to constantly update.
Back when I was 17 our world was full of X7’s, RD250’s KH250’s – all capable of 100mph which was light speed to us at the time – there were also plenty of friends lost during that era, such a waste.
Fast forward to 1992 – at the ripe old age of 30 got round to trying again. Did a CBT (30 mins on a car park with some cones to negotiate) and the next day a 3 day supercourse followed by my test and passed. Next week bought a Fireblade.... I'm still here.
For what it’s worth, I have learned more about handling a bike whilst riding an 18bhp Enfield around India at the very limit of what it can do than riding the Fireblade - and enjoyed it just as much… probably cos I’m 50 now and far easier to please nowadays.
Point of note is that any fool can ride one, it takes skill to handle one…. and It’s a life skill that you need to constantly update.
AntJD said:
Seems like a lot of fuss to restrict bikers further. What difference does being 24 make to your ability to ride a big bike straight away?? I think it should have just stayed as it was but with no direct access. Anyone 19 or over should have to ride 33bhp first. (Two years is longer than nessacerry, if your still struggling to manage 33bhp after a year maybe bikes arent for you! I think we only need a 1 year restriction)
16 - 50cc Ped
17 to 19 - 125cc Ped/Bike
19 & Up - 33bhp for one year the unrestricted with no additional testing
Sounds fair to me.
makes a massive difference, the statisitcs back up the 24 age limit.16 - 50cc Ped
17 to 19 - 125cc Ped/Bike
19 & Up - 33bhp for one year the unrestricted with no additional testing
Sounds fair to me.
For me this does not go far enough, should also be rolled out to cars too, stop rich boys mummy and daddys given them more than they can handle.
Whetever way you argue it, theres no getting away from the fact that more experience you have the better chance you have out on the road.
Seems a bit clunky in application but in principle I'd broadly agree. Like others have said though why not applied to cars? I appreciate insurance effectively controls it for cars but likewise bikes.
Also a missed opportunity for the born again biker brigade.
I stopped riding in my early 30's and did briefly consider getting a VFR a couple of years ago for my commute after not riding for almost 10 years. Many insurers wouldn't touch me for a VFR 800 or if they did they quoted very high. ie. Was paying £150 for my last bike, a GSX-R750, but couldn't get much below £600 for the VFR. So maybe the insurers are gate keeping that to an extent. Trouble is by the time you are a born again biker you have plenty of disposable income to not worry too much about the insurance.
The insurance didn't stop me getting a VFR - the biker I saw almost wiped out by a car who didn't see him moving across all three lanes of the M27 did!
Also a missed opportunity for the born again biker brigade.
I stopped riding in my early 30's and did briefly consider getting a VFR a couple of years ago for my commute after not riding for almost 10 years. Many insurers wouldn't touch me for a VFR 800 or if they did they quoted very high. ie. Was paying £150 for my last bike, a GSX-R750, but couldn't get much below £600 for the VFR. So maybe the insurers are gate keeping that to an extent. Trouble is by the time you are a born again biker you have plenty of disposable income to not worry too much about the insurance.
The insurance didn't stop me getting a VFR - the biker I saw almost wiped out by a car who didn't see him moving across all three lanes of the M27 did!
Gadgeroonie said:
sounds like we are going to have plenty of full power 125's on the roads again - that cant be a bad thing
I loved my 125 LC
I'm glad someone brought that up, because I haven't seen anything about the old 12BHP limits upon passing the CBT. Does that mean that the 125 is always unrestricted? Cagiva Mito 7-speed with about 37BHP will easily crack a tonne with roughly the right carburetion.I loved my 125 LC
Motorcycle manufacturers have been building up to this for a while. That's why stuff like this is available when on an A2:
Ninja 300
I don't know how much (if any) money the government generates from the assortment of tests riders must take; maybe just VAT?
I passed my test aged 24 and have never taken a theory test (might give you an idea as to my age!). I'm not really in a position to comment on whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing. In some respects I appreciate the effort in trying to make motorcycling a safer hobby/commute/occupation. Boy do you have to jump through some hoops now! Only time will tell what effect this will have.
Anyway, I'm far more concerned about the repeated threat of the super-MOT and heavy restrictions proposed on parts/upgrades on bikes. I'd need to buy a new bike as mine's so modified!
ChesterUK said:
I don't know how much (if any) money the government generates from the assortment of tests riders must take; maybe just VAT?
Oh, it's a lot more than the VAT. There's the additional budget for the staff needed to comply with EU legislation, and add on our own little idiocies to it, such as rigidly translating 50kmh to 31mph meaning we need off-road training facilities at a huge cost. Then there is the little matter of all the taxes raised on those employees, and the private sector training staff etc. And after that, there's VAT & vehicle excise duty on all those new sorts of bikes.And all of it means that casualty reductions on bikes can be used to introduce the hideous complexity to car tests. Just you wait.
mph1977 said:
this is One of the many reasons why a US licence holder cannot exchange their licence for an EU one, while EU wide and various other civilised nations it's a simple paperwork transaction to go onto the local system...
Basically the DVLA and Parliament (and their equivalents in the rest of the EU and various other civilised nations ) considers the USA to have driving tests of an equivalent standard to Bongo-Bongo Land ...
I think its just because they rebelled against your country ruling them Basically the DVLA and Parliament (and their equivalents in the rest of the EU and various other civilised nations ) considers the USA to have driving tests of an equivalent standard to Bongo-Bongo Land ...
However, I don't think its just because the Yank test is easy as the Canadian one is the same. Written test that costs about a tenner, which entitles you to buy a brand new S1000RR if you want, and is valid for 3 months, after which point you can take a bike test that takes place in a car park and involves riding around cones for about 10 minutes.
Below is a shining example of the type of question Canadian motorcyclists have to answer on their M1 test:
When you are faced with a red traffic signal, and your intention is to go straight through the intersection, what must you do first?
Stop and proceed only when the signal turns green and the intersection is clear
Slow down, proceed when the way is clear
Stop, give pedestrians the right-of-way, and then proceed with caution
Come to a full stop and proceed only when the intersection is clear
Certainly, paying >£1000 to get a full license when I only had to pay about £200 for mine on this side of the pond but, for what its worth, British riders are more skilled and observant than N American ones imo. I do think the pendulum has swung too far however, and I can understand bikers' ire. The old system was just fine so I don't understand the need to kowtow to Belgium.
These new rules are a horror for small or independent riding schools. The usual learner bikes, like the CB500, ER-5 (which I learned on last year), GS500 are no good for the new Direct Access due to the rules surrounding weight and power of the bike needed for that test.
How costly it will be to buy a bunch of new bikes that are suitable for learners and fit the new legislation whilst being reliable and drop proof.
Glad I passed last year just after turning 21.
How costly it will be to buy a bunch of new bikes that are suitable for learners and fit the new legislation whilst being reliable and drop proof.
Glad I passed last year just after turning 21.
mph1977 said:
Basically the DVLA and Parliament (and their equivalents in the rest of the EU and various other civilised nations ) considers the USA to have driving tests of an equivalent standard to Bongo-Bongo Land ...
well put that man, while i love the USA, any nation that allows the untrained to own a super bike, 500 bhp mustange and automatic weapon all on the turing of 16 i s perhaps a place just to vist an not to emulate Though I suspect the average American could have spelt that last post better than I did
Edited by Gecko1978 on Monday 21st January 22:09
I was doing some research some years ago, in the late 80's, with a view to starting a driving school for youngsters, aged from 14 to 17. I had plenty of encouragement from Lothian and Borders Police (Traffic Division), RoSPA, the IAM, RAC, AA and even Scottish Enterprise. Sadly (for I was skint at the time), no funding.
The idea was to use a number of the (many) disused WWII airfields that litter our country to teach the basics of driving and controlling a car to underage drivers in a safe, off road environment, with the view that it would save money in the long run when taking driving lessons after reaching 17 years of age.
I got the idea when I witnessed an instructor having to physically take the wheel from a learner who was driving on the wrong side of the road, into oncoming traffic. Why was someone who couldn't even control a car allowed on the road?
While preparing a presentation, I was looking at the accident statistics published by the Department of Transport for 1986, and looking in particular at the distribution regarding age groups.
Now, while these statistics are now over 25 years old, I still think that they may have some merit.
They showed, as we are constantly told, that young drivers (17 to 21 at the time) had the most accidents as a percentage of licence holders for that age group, and that the older drivers (40 to 55) had the least.
What it also showed was the total number of accidents by age group, as opposed to the percentage, and it was the 40 to 55 year old drivers that had the most accidents, by far.
It shouldn't take a genius to realise that the largest population has the most accidents, numerically. For me, the striking image that I got was that there were something like 15 times the number of older drivers than younger ones. It made me think that young drivers were getting a bad press simply because the accident statistics were presented in the way that they were. Sure, young drivers were having accidents, and it cost the insurance industry to sort out, but nothing like as much as it cost for the huge number of accidents in the older age group.
Statistics will always be used to present the strongest argument for advocates of an idea or new legislation. I'm sure that the statisticians have been hard at work to justify the new learner laws, and that someone else could produce statistics to refute them. It's just that someone else isn't either the EU or our own government, so it's going to be hard to be heard, or in some cases, believed. Did anyone say BRAKE?
The idea was to use a number of the (many) disused WWII airfields that litter our country to teach the basics of driving and controlling a car to underage drivers in a safe, off road environment, with the view that it would save money in the long run when taking driving lessons after reaching 17 years of age.
I got the idea when I witnessed an instructor having to physically take the wheel from a learner who was driving on the wrong side of the road, into oncoming traffic. Why was someone who couldn't even control a car allowed on the road?
While preparing a presentation, I was looking at the accident statistics published by the Department of Transport for 1986, and looking in particular at the distribution regarding age groups.
Now, while these statistics are now over 25 years old, I still think that they may have some merit.
They showed, as we are constantly told, that young drivers (17 to 21 at the time) had the most accidents as a percentage of licence holders for that age group, and that the older drivers (40 to 55) had the least.
What it also showed was the total number of accidents by age group, as opposed to the percentage, and it was the 40 to 55 year old drivers that had the most accidents, by far.
It shouldn't take a genius to realise that the largest population has the most accidents, numerically. For me, the striking image that I got was that there were something like 15 times the number of older drivers than younger ones. It made me think that young drivers were getting a bad press simply because the accident statistics were presented in the way that they were. Sure, young drivers were having accidents, and it cost the insurance industry to sort out, but nothing like as much as it cost for the huge number of accidents in the older age group.
Statistics will always be used to present the strongest argument for advocates of an idea or new legislation. I'm sure that the statisticians have been hard at work to justify the new learner laws, and that someone else could produce statistics to refute them. It's just that someone else isn't either the EU or our own government, so it's going to be hard to be heard, or in some cases, believed. Did anyone say BRAKE?
Mad Jock said:
Now, while these statistics are now over 25 years old, I still think that they may have some merit.
They showed, as we are constantly told, that young drivers (17 to 21 at the time) had the most accidents as a percentage of licence holders for that age group, and that the older drivers (40 to 55) had the least.
They don't hold any merit if they have been outdated. The data is worthless unless you want to run a comparison between then and now, or you have a time machine and want to go back and add legislation to the mid 1980s. They showed, as we are constantly told, that young drivers (17 to 21 at the time) had the most accidents as a percentage of licence holders for that age group, and that the older drivers (40 to 55) had the least.
Mad Jock said:
What it also showed was the total number of accidents by age group, as opposed to the percentage, and it was the 40 to 55 year old drivers that had the most accidents, by far.
It shouldn't take a genius to realise that the largest population has the most accidents, numerically. For me, the striking image that I got was that there were something like 15 times the number of older drivers than younger ones. It made me think that young drivers were getting a bad press simply because the accident statistics were presented in the way that they were. Sure, young drivers were having accidents, and it cost the insurance industry to sort out, but nothing like as much as it cost for the huge number of accidents in the older age group.
The accident data I gave you is calculated as a percentage. Not an overall, whilst it's not as useful for insurance companies for that very reason, it is the data that should be used for accident profiling. It shouldn't take a genius to realise that the largest population has the most accidents, numerically. For me, the striking image that I got was that there were something like 15 times the number of older drivers than younger ones. It made me think that young drivers were getting a bad press simply because the accident statistics were presented in the way that they were. Sure, young drivers were having accidents, and it cost the insurance industry to sort out, but nothing like as much as it cost for the huge number of accidents in the older age group.
Mad Jock said:
Statistics will always be used to present the strongest argument for advocates of an idea or new legislation. I'm sure that the statisticians have been hard at work to justify the new learner laws, and that someone else could produce statistics to refute them. It's just that someone else isn't either the EU or our own government, so it's going to be hard to be heard, or in some cases, believed. Did anyone say BRAKE?
The statistics are the only rationale basis for this argument, otherwise what do you use? What your mate said at the pub? Stories off the internet? But the statisticians cannot justify the new laws, it doesn't fit, at least not in the UK (and the other countries involved in the paper I added earlier). So its done because we cannot justify exempting ourselves from EU policy.
It's about politics and legislation, not road safety.
ChesterUK said:
Gadgeroonie said:
sounds like we are going to have plenty of full power 125's on the roads again - that cant be a bad thing
I loved my 125 LC
I'm glad someone brought that up, because I haven't seen anything about the old 12BHP limits upon passing the CBT. Does that mean that the 125 is always unrestricted? Cagiva Mito 7-speed with about 37BHP will easily crack a tonne with roughly the right carburetion.I loved my 125 LC
Motorcycle manufacturers have been building up to this for a while. That's why stuff like this is available when on an A2:
Ninja 300
I don't know how much (if any) money the government generates from the assortment of tests riders must take; maybe just VAT?
I passed my test aged 24 and have never taken a theory test (might give you an idea as to my age!). I'm not really in a position to comment on whether this is a good thing, or a bad thing. In some respects I appreciate the effort in trying to make motorcycling a safer hobby/commute/occupation. Boy do you have to jump through some hoops now! Only time will tell what effect this will have.
Anyway, I'm far more concerned about the repeated threat of the super-MOT and heavy restrictions proposed on parts/upgrades on bikes. I'd need to buy a new bike as mine's so modified!
To be honest the main thing bike gives you is freedom and the soaking up of the environment you're in. Other than a Caterham I've never found anything that offers the same type of feeling as a bike as these laws don't change that. If you want a bike you'll still get one.
Glad I'm not trying to get my old bike through super-MOTs. GS550E frame, ZXR400 forks, ZX9R rear, Ducati Monster chopped down seat with GSX-R750H engine.
What if you were 21 and did your test before last weekend?, does that mean you hold the unrestriced full A Licence still?.
I did my bike test at 17, 33 BHP for 2 years then automatically got a full Licence, makes me glad I never had to go through all these hoops, if these rules had been in place back then I probably would have just waited until I was 24, loved my RVF 400 at 17, part of me wishes I bought an RS250 now though.
I did my bike test at 17, 33 BHP for 2 years then automatically got a full Licence, makes me glad I never had to go through all these hoops, if these rules had been in place back then I probably would have just waited until I was 24, loved my RVF 400 at 17
, part of me wishes I bought an RS250 now though.Edited by Walter Sobchak on Tuesday 22 January 19:00
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff