Power restriction for new drivers?

challengemaster

KamiKazi wrote: »

Em, maybe.

How about bumper cars? Slow is safe after all :rolleyes:

bumper cars...I like the idea, but I can see insurance claims for whiplash going through the roof :P

bladespin

Traumadoc wrote: »

Yes busses or even planes are safer than cars ( if the greens had their way we all would be).
But you have to balance individual freedom versus acceptable risk.

Are they really? Using your own logic a plane is much more dangerous to be in than a car or even a motorcycle. In the event of a crash your chance of survival is just about non-existant.

Traumadoc

bladespin wrote: »

Again reference please?
According to the RSA figurse, in 2008 it was 10%, you seem to pull figures out of the air.

The vast, and I mean vast, majority of motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle, usually at fault (junctions iirc), surely then these motorists would benefit from training and thus reduce the amount of injuries sustained to motorcyclists.

I said that motorcyclists were not responsible for most MVAs they are involved in. I agree that motorists would benefit from training.
Sorry pulled the figure from the RSA site:
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Learner-Drivers/Motorcyclists/Motorcycle-Safety/

1 in 8 ( 12.5%)

KamiKazi

Traumadoc wrote: »

Yes busses or even planes are safer than cars ( if the greens had their way we all would be).
But you have to balance individual freedom versus acceptable risk.

Exactly.

It's noones business except theirs how many wheels their vehicle of choice has.

Can we get back to the topic of restrictors?

hayyman

KamiKazi wrote: »

Exactly.

It's noones business except theirs how many wheels their vehicle of choice has.

Can we get back to the topic of restrictors?

I don't think restrictors will solve anything when it comes to peoples attitude to driving as some people manage to crash into each other in slow moving traffic.

AgileMyth

The only bike I've ever come off (other than off-roaders) was a 50cc scooter. The reason for this was I was 16 and didn't have the experience for the situation, it would have been the same minor crash regardless of what size engine I had. There is very little need for limiting the capacity of bikes available to people as insurance companies will do this anyways.

I'm currently waiting for the two years to go by so that I can get a bigger bike. I'm not riding a bike at all at the minute as I can only afford one vehicle and a 125/250 isn't great for regular long trips. I'd say there are a good few in my situation too, so what are we waiting for? Am I going to be magically a better rider next July? Am I f*ck.

So thats a no to the OP;)

Traumadoc

KamiKazi wrote: »

Exactly.

It's noones business except theirs how many wheels their vehicle of choice has.

Can we get back to the topic of restrictors?

Do you think the compulsory helmet law should be repealed?
As I said you have to balance the dangers versus individual freedom.

Max Power1

Traumadoc wrote: »

Do you think the compulsory helmet law should be repealed?
As I said you have to balance the dangers versus individual freedom.

now thats just being ridiculous

Traumadoc

Actually a lot of motorcyclists protested in the late 70s early 80s when the helmet laws were introduced - again it is about individual freedom versus acceptable risk.

It is still argued in some places today:

http://goldiron.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/il-local-motorcycle-riders-rally-around-no-helmet-law/

GTE

P.C. wrote: »

So -

Do you agree with restriction imposed on first time biker riders?

Go back and read the first post, then come back and answer that.

Im not a biker and really dont care about legislation effecting them, aside from the ones like the headlight having to be on like I said.

KamiKazi

bbk wrote: »

Im not a biker and really dont care about legislation effecting them, aside from the ones like the headlight having to be on like I said.

This thread isn't just about bike legislation, if it was it would be in the bikes forum.

This is about the comparison between the legislation between cars and bikes, if you have nothing to add why post?

Teddy Daniels

Max Power1 wrote: »

now thats just being ridiculous

how is it redicilious its my head although i think you should have to have a full lisence first

bladespin

Traumadoc wrote: »

Do you think the compulsory helmet law should be repealed?
As I said you have to balance the dangers versus individual freedom.

And, once again, that has what got to do with restiction of cars?

This thread has nothing to do with motorcycles or your opinions of them (or airtravel as you class them thes same) ok, it's about limiting those who have passed their test, discussing whether restrictions on power outputs should be applied to cars as they are for motorcycles.

KamiKazi

bladespin wrote: »

And, once again, that has what got to do with restiction of cars?

This thread has nothing to do with motorcycles or your opinions of them (or airtravel as you class them thes same) ok, it's about limiting those who have passed their test, discussing whether restrictions on power outputs should be applied to cars as they are for motorcycles.

+1

Love how the mods are quick to warn me for "insulting" other members but they're quite happy to let the thread get dragged off topic again and again.

bladespin

KamiKazi wrote: »

+1

Love how the mods are quick to warn me for "insulting" other members but they're quite happy to let the thread get dragged off topic again and again.

While we're off topic lol, I'm suprised at a certain poster, his attention to detail is severly lacking, as a doctor :eek:, continuously posting off topic and still refusing to give his opinion on the actual subject of the thread, instead waffling on and on about the inherent dangers of bikes (we know, we know, ride one on the road for 2 minutes and you're very aware how vunerable you are). I hope they pay better attention while they're driving than they do to their posting.

the_syco

Max Power1 wrote: »

There is one in practice if not by law. Try and insure anything over 1.3 on a provisional and you are looking at north of 2.5k

1.4 on a provisional was €1,200. On my 2nd year is just over €800.

=-=

Maybe having a limiter put on with a max of 80kmph while on a provisional?

You're not meant to be on a 120kmph motorway, so maybe that'd work?

KamiKazi

the_syco wrote: »

1.4 on a provisional was €1,200. On my 2nd year is just over €800.

=-=

Maybe having a limiter put on with a max of 80kmph while on a provisional?

You're not meant to be on a 120kmph motorway, so maybe that'd work?

Accidents are only serious when the vehicle is travelling faster than 80kmph yea? :rolleyes:

Teddy Daniels

thats not true

i grew up in the late 80's early 90's on bikes and cars
i had 125's for three years 1 year before i passed my 125 test then after 2 years i was allowed get a real bike

there are 2 ways to look at it
1
I was out the other day on a real bike and my mate was with me, the weapons we were riding can go 0-170mph in about 12 seconds we haven't hooned about in years but it was sunny and the mood took us it reminded me of how carefree i was as a 18 year old on a 125cc. When was first riding bikes we all dove everywhere at the top speed so yes the top speed is important those yokes only did 70 mph, but the real issue is the way you drive when you can go from 50mph to 100 mph in a few seconds then you overtake in tiny gaps the sheer power and acceleration is addictive and you want more and more. This makes your driving more and more aggressive, on my way home yesterday after work i was doing 90 when i looked at the clock and it felt like 60. If I had got a 750 or 1000 cc race bike at 17 I would be dead now.

2
A 125cc stroker made about 30 bhp todays restriction on learners is 33bhp and its simply not enough, its not enough to overtake propperly up a hill into a headwind its not enough to get you out of trouble on a motorway and its too restrictive. The limit should be no more than 33bhp till you pass your test and then no more than 80bhp for three years 80 is plenty of power but its not stupid power that will kill you after making you an addict. I believe that the bikes should be limited to 90mph during this time. Also training and not the crazy training thats coming in here soon but propper bike training like the garda get is also very important.

I believe the same for cars I had a fiesta and it was a great car but it didn't have enough pull and it was less safe for that. Once you pass your test car drivers should be limited to 100brake and 90mph for three years. I suppose some are by finances but the qusetion the op asked didn't worry about that.

P.C.

bbk wrote: »

Im not a biker and really dont care about legislation effecting them, aside from the ones like the headlight having to be on like I said.

I am OK Jack - and I don't care about you.

This reminds me of a recent thread about the 30km/h speed limit in Dublin City centre - there were posters from the cycling form coming on here saying just that - I am OK Jack, it does not affect me, and I don't care if it has a negative impact on you.

So, my question to you is:

Why did you even bother to post on this thread if you have nothing to contribute?

GTE

P.C. wrote: »

Why did you even bother to post on this thread

1) A users post was misinterpreted
2) I wanted to say why I think limiters in cars wouldn't work
3) To wind you up, because this thread seems to be doing that to you no end.

But anyway, like my original post in the thread said

For me its bad driving technique that is the problem.
Bad driving technique isn't going to be solved by a slower car, its just going to be made slower

The reason placing a limiter, whether it be speed or on power, on a car wouldn't really do anything productive is because that doesn't automatically raise the competency of the driver, indeed it stops him or her being an idiot over a certain speed but they can still talk on their mobile under the speed limit. Whether its having the intended effect on motorcycles is not something Im interested in. The question of putting limiters of some description into cars is one I am. If this thread is talking about how fair it is for motorbikes having one law and cars having another, inherent in that is should a car have a limiter.

ShiresV2 pretty much got it in one to be honest.

Traumadoc

bladespin wrote: »

While we're off topic lol, I'm suprised at a certain poster, his attention to detail is severly lacking, as a doctor :eek:, continuously posting off topic and still refusing to give his opinion on the actual subject of the thread, instead waffling on and on about the inherent dangers of bikes (we know, we know, ride one on the road for 2 minutes and you're very aware how vunerable you are). I hope they pay better attention while they're driving than they do to their posting.

I am not sure what you mean by my attention to detail being lacking.
Perhaps by responding to my "Off topic" posts you are contributing too;)

I have said I am not sure that power restricting motorbikes works.

I stated I would prefer my child to have a car rather than a motorbike of any description. ( Even If I own one myself).

Power restriction of cars may work but I believe that better enforcement of laws would work better.



If you ride a motorbike and you are in an accident you are more likely to die than if you drive or even take the bus. It may not be the motorcyclists fault but it is the truth.

KamiKazi

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I dont see how 33hp on a bike isnt enough? As I said I know little or nothing about bikes but considering that the bike weighs nothing that 33hp in terms of power to weight ratio would be high. Considering the likes of the citreon 2CV has only 9hp to start with and then got a power upgrade to 27hp. The smaller engined beetles are only around 33-40hp and they are fine to drive. My own car only has 60hp which is less than double the 33hp of a bike but it tips the scales at 900kgs.

Cool, so you'd be OK with a 60hp restriction for new car drivers?

here.from.day.1

To be honest I think better training for more conditions (motorway/snow/ice etc.) would make a far greater impact then an engine restriction that retards the drivers ability once it comes off.

daveharnett wrote: »

I thought about the 911, but afaik the models without TC are primarily intended for trackdays?

Honda S2000, 250~BHP, no traction control or electronic driver aids whatsoever.

Paparazzo

I don't think most bike riders ever even get their bike restricted. But it's possible it could come in for cars, purely so the government could set up centres for testing bhp, charge for testing, create a few jobs and they could also pretend they're doing it for environmental reasons too. All they need to do is comission one of their reports that give them the result they want, i.e. kids are driving powerful cars and are dangerous

Teddy Daniels

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I dont see how 33hp on a bike isnt enough? As I said I know little or nothing about bikes but considering that the bike weighs nothing that 33hp in terms of power to weight ratio would be high. Considering the likes of the citreon 2CV has only 9hp to start with and then got a power upgrade to 27hp. The smaller engined beetles are only around 33-40hp and they are fine to drive. My own car only has 60hp which is less than double the 33hp of a bike but it tips the scales at 900kgs.

There is a huge difference in the way that power is developed and also I stated that the top speed should be limited.
Furthermore bikes aren't cars there is a nonsense in letting riders go round at 33bhp and then one arbitrary day say ok have a gixxer 1000.

This thread is about the restrictrion on inexperianced drivers so i gave my experiance with both bikes and with cars and explained my position on both.
Many people would think that 100bhp in a car was a lot, I do not.

Teddy Daniels

here.from.day.1 wrote: »

To be honest I think better training for more conditions (motorway/snow/ice etc.) would make a far greater impact then an engine restriction that retards the drivers ability once it comes off.



Honda S2000, 250~BHP, no traction control or electronic driver aids whatsoever.

They have abs and electronic power steering.

Teddy Daniels

Paparazzo wrote: »

I don't think most bike riders ever even get their bike restricted. But it's possible it could come in for cars, purely so the government could set up centres for testing bhp, charge for testing, create a few jobs and they could also pretend they're doing it for environmental reasons too. All they need to do is comission one of their reports that give them the result they want, i.e. kids are driving powerful cars and are dangerous

Most do some don't, many drive bikes that are sub 22bhp as standard.
The same would apply to cars if a 100bhp limit was brought in many many cars would pass those would then be the approved cars. As with bikers the more powerful cars could then be restricted and certification passed and presented. Lawbreakers are in all walks of life but as with drink driving its not more laws rather the stricter enforcement of those that are already in the statutes that would be the logical answer.

Paparazzo

Teddy Daniels wrote: »

Most do some don't, many drive bikes that are sub 22bhp as standard.

Is that just a guess? I know someone who worked in a busy city centre motorbike shop, they restricted 2 bikes in 10 years. All anyone does if they're stopped is tell the garda it's restricted, there's not even an official certificate

Teddy Daniels

Paparazzo wrote: »

Is that just a guess? I know someone who worked in a busy city centre motorbike shop, they restricted 2 bikes in 10 years. All anyone does if they're stopped is tell the garda it's restricted, there's not even an official certificate

No its not a guess, I've been active on the biking scene for the last 20 years and the riders that have got bigger than 33bhp bikes and not at least restricted them and then derestricted them after they have become bored is very low. Mabey they de-restrict their bikes earlier than 2 years but that is the law working to an extent. Compliance of a law and enforcement of a law are two differing things tho and what we are discussing is the theory of law and not its compliance.

It is far more worrying to me that the garda are taking a soft line on people still driving without a full lisence than that people can get a 700bhp car after they pass thier test but the topic is the topic.

bladespin

Paparazzo wrote: »

I don't think most bike riders ever even get their bike restricted. But it's possible it could come in for cars, purely so the government could set up centres for testing bhp, charge for testing, create a few jobs and they could also pretend they're doing it for environmental reasons too. All they need to do is comission one of their reports that give them the result they want, i.e. kids are driving powerful cars and are dangerous

I think you're thinking it a little outdated TBH.

True say 5 or 6 years ago most riders wouldn't have bothered with the restriction but things are very different now, look at any motorbike noticeboard or magazine, the amount of enquiries about restriction are incredible, you can get red carded on some sites for posting a thread about it now so riders are very aware of the need.

I'd be confident most get the bike restricted at least in the first year, most of those will see the restriction out but will (rightly) complain about the unfairness of the whole thing.

traco

Just had a scan through the thread - didn't read every post but here are my observations as a restricted Biker and car driver with 16 years experince of 30k miles a year.

An accident on a bike will be much more serious irrespective of who's fault it is. You can't argue with the driver of the other vehicle from the morgue so much better to try and prevent a situation occuring that may result in the need for such a conversation.

I do think restriction on a bike reduces a new riders exposure to basic errors such as cracking the throttle wide open mid corner or in other dangerous situation. However sticking two years on it means nothing, what matters is the amount of miles ridden and experience gained.

Restricted bikes are not slow, just nowhere near as fast as their unrestricted counterparts.

Now to address the engine size question - I don't believe it will solve anything. This is based on what I saw on the N7 monday evening where a small car decided to play pinball with the central barrier and another vehicle in the middle lane. It was a small low powered car so engine size had nothing to with it. The driver made a bad decision and I would suspect it was a red mist scenario which should have been avoidable.

The real issue is training, the fact is the Irish standard of driving is brutal and the focus of our current driver training is "How to pass the test" and not on how to be a better driver. How sad is it that the RSA have to make a TV advert to show people how to drive around a roundabout. Very few people in Ireland ever take an advanced motoring course once they get the pink licence and that is a very sad fact of reality.

Bikers due to their exposure I suspect, tend to take a more active interest in improving their skills and thus hopefully avoiding accidents.

Traumadoc made some valid point but could have put them better. His stats are correct but just identify the net result and not the initial cause of the accident. One thing I didn't see mentioned was how many car occupants deaths were as a result of head injuries? I don't know the stats but I believe it is significant yet I don't see anyone requesting car users to wear fully homologated helmets as enforced by the motorsports authroities for all car racing / trackdays etc. All of this is mute really as its after the fact and the real focus should move to prevention.

I don't think restrictions would make much difference but I do believe a much better driver training program would. IMO this should start with kids in schools on bicycles and be part of the curriculum right up along. The training should also have a siginificant element on focusing on the drivers responsibilities towards other road users and that the decision they make behind the wheel or handlebars has can hugely affect other road users. This could be enforced with a trip to the National Rehabilitation hospital to see the real impact that their decisions can have on innocent parties whatever their mode of transport.

Anyway enough - so who wants the soapbox now????