2 Year Restriction

KTRIC

sf80 wrote: »

This thread just reminded me of my restriction, it ended 3 days ago

Congrats man, now go out and buy a stupidly over powered bike

AgileMyth

Lot of people saying the current restriction system doesn't work. Just wondering, would ye scrap it altogether or is there a better way of doing it?

Tigger

A real test would work where we done have to pretend I don't drive stupid but the set and good way I drive would never pass a test and I did two test the old way and passed both first time.

A test where you filter realistically and where you overtake realistically on real roads would be able to gauge whether a person should be riding a real bike


I did my second test on a gixxer and never went over 30 mph

How does that show I deserved to rude it's 0-100 mph awesomeness on real roads?

bladespin

AgileMyth wrote: »

Lot of people saying the current restriction system doesn't work. Just wondering, would ye scrap it altogether or is there a better way of doing it?

A proper driving school course like in Germany etc, test driving in wet, cold/slippery and dry conditions, a 6 month course where you cover pretty much everything you're likely to experience. School bikes, closed roads, that type of thing. TBH it would cost but the amount of money it would save would be incredible too.

Boskowski

KamiKazi wrote: »

How would you like it if I chopped one of your legs off? Would you not be fast enough with one leg?

You missed my point. Restriction is in place for a reason. I know when you're into fast bikes and you finally have your test done you can't wait to get onto a rocket asap. But a lot of people are obviously not ready for unrestricted power and two years of experience on a restricted bike increases their chances of survival quite a bit.
Probably not what most of these guys want to hear but that's the way it is and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Del2005

Boskowski wrote: »

You missed my point. Restriction is in place for a reason. I know when you're into fast bikes and you finally have your test done you can't wait to get onto a rocket asap. But a lot of people are obviously not ready for unrestricted power and two years of experience on a restricted bike increases their chances of survival quite a bit.
Probably not what most of these guys want to hear but that's the way it is and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Please provide the proof of this.

AFAIK it's all rhetoric from the safety brigade that lower powered bikes are safer, I've never seen any surveys/reports to back it up.

Boskowski

Del2005 wrote: »

Please provide the proof of this.

AFAIK it's all rhetoric from the safety brigade that lower powered bikes are safer, I've never seen any surveys/reports to back it up.

You know very well that I won't be able to 'prove' it.

Are you, however, saying that you couldn't possibly see a common sense type of case for this?

It's like saying if we reduced all swimming pools in the country from 8 foot depth to 4 foot depth is under no circumstances going to reduce the number of drownings. I can see how you could contrue a case for such an argument if you really hate the reduction but from a common sense point of view it doesn't add up.

bladespin

Boskowski wrote: »

You know very well that I won't be able to 'prove' it.

Are you, however, saying that you couldn't possibly see a common sense type of case for this?

It's like saying if we reduced all swimming pools in the country from 8 foot depth to 4 foot depth is under no circumstances going to reduce the number of drownings. I can see how you could contrue a case for such an argument if you really hate the reduction but from a common sense point of view it doesn't add up.

Do you not think that (by that weird logic) that throwing someone who had only every been in a 4 foot pool into an olympic diving pool, they might have a bit of trouble getting used to the new depth? Surely it would be better do do it incramentally rather than plunge them in at the deep end (sorry about the pun lol).

Del2005

Boskowski wrote: »

You know very well that I won't be able to 'prove' it.

Are you, however, saying that you couldn't possibly see a common sense type of case for this?

It's like saying if we reduced all swimming pools in the country from 8 foot depth to 4 foot depth is under no circumstances going to reduce the number of drownings. I can see how you could contrue a case for such an argument if you really hate the reduction but from a common sense point of view it doesn't add up.

bladespin wrote: »

Surely it would be better do do it incramentally rather than plunge them in at the deep end (sorry about the pun lol).

So how come the UK, which has some of the safest roads in Europe, allow people to go straight onto full power bikes. The Irish government selectively implemented an EU licence law on flawed no analysis just a hunch that it's safer.

There is no proof anywhere that putting people on full powered bikes is more dangerous then restricted bikes, because if there was any it would be plastered everywhere.

Which is more dangerous on the road a new rider on a 130bhp bike, a new driver in a 500bhp car or a new HGV driver in a 44t wagon? Yet who is restricted?

bladespin wrote: »

Do you not think that (by that weird logic) that throwing someone who had only every been in a 4 foot pool into an olympic diving pool, they might have a bit of trouble getting used to the new depth?

Since people only swim on the surface so it doesn't mater how deep the pool is:D. If someone can't swim then they'd be in trouble, but if they had to pass a swimming test before they can get into the 8foot pool then they'd be perfectly safe.

Cuddlesworth

Boskowski wrote: »

You know very well that I won't be able to 'prove' it.

Are you, however, saying that you couldn't possibly see a common sense type of case for this?

It's like saying if we reduced all swimming pools in the country from 8 foot depth to 4 foot depth is under no circumstances going to reduce the number of drownings. I can see how you could contrue a case for such an argument if you really hate the reduction but from a common sense point of view it doesn't add up.

Statistically you would get more deaths in the four foot pool. Its because people would take more risks, like getting into it and falling asleep while completely drunk or leaving small children there for long periods of time. That's why lifeguard chairs in the US are placed closer to the shallow end then the deep. They would believe it was safer and so push things further.

The best example of this psychological effect is with push bikes and helmets. You are far more likely to have a bad accident with one then without, since you reason with yourself that by having the helmet you are safer then without and take a larger risk in normal actions.

Ignoring that though, the 33bhp restriction is a good idea in theory but a bad idea in practise. Limiting a bike to a 80mph+ top speed and still abusive acceleration while giving the guise of it being safer is more dangerous then dropping a newbie on a zzr1400. Because the newbie would fear the ZZR.

Boskowski

Look all of ye, I'm not sure how I ended up defending this restriction especially since I didn't like it myself at the time and we all know it's obviously flawed.

Nonetheless, if you're trying to make a case saying that restricted bikes endanger people even moreso for all the various reasons people are plucking out of thin air then I say this:

All your arguments are just as speculative and arbitrary as the arguments in favour of a restriction lacking empirical evidence. Surely people must see that for themselves. I mean people replying along the lines of 'the psychology of this makes people take more risks on a smaller bike' or 'more accidents happen at the shallow end' must surely know that they're just argueing for arguments sake and what they say doesn't really make sense.

It's like saying people are less likely to get hammered with 20 pints in front of them than with 5 because the 20 pints look dangerous to them while the 5 they would just know back without thinking - whereas I say if all you have is 5 then you simply can't get hammered full stop.

There is more accidents at the shallow end because that's where non-swimmers go and not because all the good swimmer suddenly go careless there.

Let's not get silly here and try using common sense. What bike am I more likely to kill myself on? A bike that drives 80 mph or a bike that drives 120 mph? It's that simple.

cantdecide

In the absence of any better system (ie based on skills/ training), restriction is the only show in town. It's flawed but it keeps people safer than nothing.

bladespin

cantdecide wrote: »

In the absence of any better system (ie based on skills/ training), restriction is the only show in town. It's flawed but it keeps people safer than nothing.

How so, can you show for definate that it keeps anyone safe? Have you got figures that prove this?

Also, for a number of years there was restriction but no enforcement, the vast majority of riders I know who were supposed to be riding restricted bikes weren't, the stats show little change since then <2008 or so when it became a more serious issue (at least boards talk wise), that would make me belive it doesn't work at all.

Boskowski

bladespin wrote: »

How so, can you show for definate that it keeps anyone safe? Have you got figures that prove this?

Also, for a number of years there was restriction but no enforcement, the vast majority of riders I know who were supposed to be riding restricted bikes weren't, the stats show little change since then <2008 or so when it became a more serious issue (at least boards talk wise), that would make me belive it doesn't work at all.

How could it be not enforced?

I imagine you simply wouldn't be allowed to tax and/or get insurance for an open bike if you had a restricted license?

Same as for tinkering with what was presented as a restricted bike afterwards. If something happens to you and it turns out you opened her up after obtaining insurance on the premise she was restricted I imagine your insurance cover is nil and void.

And in any case. If you're prepared to shortcut these things why bother getting a license at all? Might as well just drive without anything....

KamiKazi

Boskowski wrote: »

I imagine you simply wouldn't be allowed to tax and/or get insurance for an open bike if you had a restricted license?

And how do you prove your bike is restricted if either ask for proof? Which government approved method?

cantdecide

bladespin wrote: »

How so, can you show for definate that it keeps anyone safe? Have you got figures that prove this?

Also, for a number of years there was restriction but no enforcement, the vast majority of riders I know who were supposed to be riding restricted bikes weren't, the stats show little change since then <2008 or so when it became a more serious issue (at least boards talk wise), that would make me belive it doesn't work at all.

I don't have to prove anything. It's only my opinion.

You can show me the stats you're referring to if you want but having said that, not much has generally changed since 2008 in terms of policing restrictions, IMO.

Boskowski

KamiKazi wrote: »

And how do you prove your bike is restricted if either ask for proof? Which government approved method?

Copy from other countries. Germany for example. We're great at putting regulations and procedures into place.

NCT center appointed to check the restriction is in place. From there it goes straight into the logbook with a stamp. Same procedure for the reversal.

All modifications to any vehicle in Germany are either pre-approved (as in the modification/part has pre-approval for certain verhicles/types) or else must be individually approved for roadworthiness. The latter ones plus stuff that impacts on insurance or licensing goes straight into the logbook.

Semi-state body in charge of all approvals is the TUEV, or equivalent of the NCT centres.

KamiKazi

Boskowski wrote: »

Copy from other countries. Germany for example. We're great at putting regulations and procedures into place.

NCT center appointed to check the restriction is in place. From there it goes straight into the logbook with a stamp. Same procedure for the reversal.

I didn't ask you what regulations and procedures you'd put into place, I asked you which government approved method you'd use to prove your bike's restriction?

It's OK to admit there isn't one.

Boskowski

KamiKazi wrote: »

I didn't ask you what regulations and procedures you'd put into place, I asked you which government approved method you'd use to prove your bike's restriction?

It's OK to admit there isn't one.

That was a misunderstanding then. I guess no there isn't one.

bladespin

cantdecide wrote: »

I don't have to prove anything. It's only my opinion.

You can show me the stats you're referring to if you want but having said that, not much has generally changed since 2008 in terms of policing restrictions, IMO.

There's certainly more interest by AGS in restrictions now, Cork being just one example, TBH I referred to the amount of interest there has been in how AGS would check for it on boards biker, IBF etc, lots of threads started in the past couple of years where before it wasn't a very discussed topic.

Del2005

Boskowski wrote: »

Look all of ye, I'm not sure how I ended up defending this restriction especially since I didn't like it myself at the time and we all know it's obviously flawed.

Nonetheless, if you're trying to make a case saying that restricted bikes endanger people even moreso for all the various reasons people are plucking out of thin air then I say this:

All your arguments are just as speculative and arbitrary as the arguments in favour of a restriction lacking empirical evidence. Surely people must see that for themselves. I mean people replying along the lines of 'the psychology of this makes people take more risks on a smaller bike' or 'more accidents happen at the shallow end' must surely know that they're just argueing for arguments sake and what they say doesn't really make sense.

It's like saying people are less likely to get hammered with 20 pints in front of them than with 5 because the 20 pints look dangerous to them while the 5 they would just know back without thinking - whereas I say if all you have is 5 then you simply can't get hammered full stop.

There is more accidents at the shallow end because that's where non-swimmers go and not because all the good swimmer suddenly go careless there.

There have been countless studies done on nearly every aspect of road use and behaviour. Yet the one case where a small minority of road users are restricted, and looks like getting tougher, when they are newly qualiifed has never been studied. Why has this not been studied if they know it's for safety? Maybe because they know that there is no correlation between power and crashes only experience counts.

How come the UK, which has DA, doesn't have countless people being killed on their roads as soon as they leave the test centre?

Let's not get silly here and try using common sense. What bike am I more likely to kill myself on? A bike that drives 80 mph or a bike that drives 120 mph? It's that simple.

People get killed of bicycles only going 10km/h. Speed isn't a killer, inappropriate speed is and it doesn't mater how powerful or not a bike is you'll still crash if you go too fast into a bend or car!

EvilMonkey

Del2005 wrote: »

How come the UK, which has DA, doesn't have countless people being killed on their roads as soon as they leave the test centre?

Not everyone in the UK does DA, its only available to over 25's 21's who can afford the course and have time to do it. I had my Full before i was 25 so if i lived in the UK i still would have been restricted for 2 years.
Obviously it would be better if we had some kind of direct access but 2 year restriction will still be around for many people.