Learner/Newbie Sticky **All Learner/newbie/Starter Questions Go here!!****

frozenfrozen

You can use the theory test cd at your local library for free too

I actually found this online:

http://www.ism.ie/advice/theory-test/mock-theory-test


Which will do til I get the book/CD (which I'd hoped to get today, but unfortunately didn't get a chance).

Either way, my theory test is booked for 25th September at 2:15pm. If I pass that (and I presume I will, although I'm hoping for luck more than education to get me through) I'll start progressing into looking at IBT, gear, etc.

Either way.. This shalln't be the last ye've heard from I.. Cheers for all your help lads. Sincerely appreciated.

Paulw

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually found this online:

http://www.ism.ie/advice/theory-test/mock-theory-test

Which will do til I get the book/CD (which I'd hoped to get today, but unfortunately didn't get a chance).

Watch out for bike specific questions on the test. There are a few technical ones. I think there are about 5 bike specific questions thrown in to the test.

Best of luck.

Ayrtonf7

Deleted User wrote: »

Either way, my theory test is booked for 25th September at 2:15pm. If I pass that (and I presume I will, although I'm hoping for luck more than education to get me through) I'll start progressing into looking at IBT, gear, etc.

Thats plenty of time to use your knowledge as opposed to pure luck! Just do a few mock theory tests each day between now and then and you will be fine. Try to cover all of the questions at least once (although when I went in to do mine I only had maybe 70-80% completed) but some questions repeat.

Theres a few questions Id recommend either reading the rules of the road or just looking at the question booklet (Stopping distances, some of the technical questions around the bike you might be unfamiliar with, Hand Signals used to always get me!).

Well I've done that mock theory test a few times and only two questions on bikes have really come up, and that was something to the effect of:

"What should you ensure when a passenger is getting off the bike", and the answer was "that the bike is in a safe place".

"If you're driving in rain and your vision is obstructed, what should you do", and the answer was "slow down" (although I got it wrong. I chose "stop and wait for the rain to lessen" or something like that, as I assumed the overly safe option would be the go-to option ).

The only issue with that free test is that it doesn't tell you everything you got wrong. It leaves one out, all the time.

ie; if you get 38/40, it shows you 1 question you got wrong. If you get 36/40, it shows you 3 questions you got wrong etc. instead of showing all of them.


The only questions that have thrown me off are stopping distances. One I got wrong was in wet weather, a car travelling at 50km/h takes how long to stop. The answer was 14.9meters, but I chose 10meters. I feel confident that at 50km in wet weather I could stop my car in much less than 10 meters, though.. maybe 3meters. But its my own fault, the 14.9 answer was the only one that wasnt a rounded off number, so i should have known!

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel confident that at 50km in wet weather I could stop my car in much less than 10 meters, though.. maybe 3meters.

This explains much about how closely car drivers like to follow behind bikes :mad:

Including reaction time you'd be doing well to stop in 3 metres from 5 km/h in the DRY.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This explains much about how closely car drivers like to follow behind bikes :mad:

I don't understand that comment, to be completely honest. I don't know what stopping distance and travelling behind, specifically, a bike have in common? A bike doesn't come to a dead stop. Arguably, a bike will come to a more gradual stop than most cars (as the rider can be flung over in severe braking).

I usually leave about three car lengths between me and whoever's in front (regardless of vehicle type), but I'd argue that if you had to choose a particular vehicle to drive closer behind, a bike would be one of the safer options, as they'll slow down slower than other road vehicles?

Including reaction time you'd be doing well to stop in 3 metres from 5 km/h in the DRY.

There was no mention of reaction time. Just stopping distance.

My mention of 3 meters was more being sarcastic/jokey, but I do think 10 meters is more accurate.

gerrowadat

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand that comment, to be completely honest. I don't know what stopping distance and travelling behind, specifically, a bike have in common? A bike doesn't come to a dead stop. Arguably, a bike will come to a more gradual stop than most cars (as the rider can be flung over in severe braking).

I usually leave about three car lengths between me and whoever's in front (regardless of vehicle type), but I'd argue that if you had to choose a particular vehicle to drive closer behind, a bike would be one of the safer options, as they'll slow down slower than other road vehicles?




There was no mention of reaction time. Just stopping distance.

My mention of 3 meters was more being sarcastic/jokey, but I do think 10 meters is more accurate.

All stopping distances include reaction time. Your figure of 3m down from 50km I'd say would be jamming on, an emergency stop. They're talking about a normal stop -- most people try to stop normally first until it's too late.

At the end of the day, it's the length you should leave between you and what's in front of you, such that if it came to a dead stop, you wouldn't hit it. That's WAY longer than 10m at 50kph in any conditions.

Wottle

Wottle wrote: »

Hi all, I'm 36 and have had a full A1 licence since 2004. I've had a 125cc but am now looking for sth a little bigger, no more than 350cc-400cc. .
Not sure what it is I have to do, I think I need an A2 licence but am I allowed to just apply for a full licence because I've had the A1 for more than 2years? and if so can someone point me to a link with correct form?
I'm lost and have found it a bit frustrating getting my head around it.

Thanks for the help. Have made an appointment for the 24th. Decided to just get the A permit.
So do I need to do anything else other than filling in an application to add another category.
A friend seems to think you need a cert from a training instructor?
Thanks

gerrowadat

Wottle wrote: »

Thanks for the help. Have made an appointment for the 24th. Decided to just get the A permit.
So do I need to do anything else other than filling in an application to add another category.
A friend seems to think you need a cert from a training instructor?
Thanks

Appointment at the NDLS? No, you just need your general ID and that.

You then need to go do your IBT training to be able to ride on the road, which I think is what your friend is talking about.

cantdecide

In a nutshell, you need a learner permit in order to take your IBT.

The big question is whether you need a theory test or not. I already mentioned to you that it depends on whether or not you have completed a theory test at some stage, if so, when and for which categories.

Aside from that, if you already have a learner permit with other categories such as BE or group 2's, the new category or categories will be added to the permit with the otherwise same start and end dates. If you don't have a learner permit at the moment, you will have A and/ or A2 for two years (991 notation).

Aside from that, the form is downloadable and it's a D201 application for a learner permit. If your address is different now to what's on your other licence (or permit) then you'll need valid proof of address; if you haven't attended an NDLS office since they've opened you'll need proof of PPSN and if you answer yes to any of the driver fitness questions (with the exception of the eyesight question) then you'll need a medical report.

You will not need an eyesight report regardless of how you answer the eyesight question because you have a current licence.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand that comment, to be completely honest. I don't know what stopping distance and travelling behind, specifically, a bike have in common?

It's a lot more dangerous to tailgate a bike, there's more than a dented bumper at stake. But for some reason I get it happening to me a lot more on the bike than I do in the car, I put it down to pig-ignorance.

Seems a lot of car drivers totally overestimate their ability to react and stop quickly in an emergency, in some cases they'd be into the back of the vehicle in front before they'd even have a chance to start braking.

A bike doesn't come to a dead stop. Arguably, a bike will come to a more gradual stop than most cars (as the rider can be flung over in severe braking).

On a dry road the stopping ability is about the same, at low speeds the bike could probably stop more quickly, it has much less mass and big brakes for its size

It's very hard to envisage a scenario where braking (as opposed to hitting something) could put the rider over the handlebars of a road bike, the front wheel would slide first. If a stoppie starts to develop the rider has plenty of time to release the brake pressure a bit, it's only when the bike is practically stopped that the rear end can get high enough to tip over

I usually leave about three car lengths between me and whoever's in front (regardless of vehicle type), but I'd argue that if you had to choose a particular vehicle to drive closer behind, a bike would be one of the safer options, as they'll slow down slower than other road vehicles?

That could be a very risky assumption (but it's the rider who will suffer, not the driver.) It's very distracting and annoying for the rider to be tailgated. I have enough things going on in front and beside me to worry about without having some ignorant git tailgating me as well, wondering if they'll react in time if I have to brake.

My mention of 3 meters was more being sarcastic/jokey, but I do think 10 meters is more accurate.

No way are you going to stop in ten metres from 50km/h. That's just under 14 metres per second, even with a very fast reaction time of a quarter second you've travelled over three metres before you even begin braking.

Wottle

cantdecide wrote: »

In a nutshell, you need a learner permit in order to take your IBT.

The big question is whether you need a theory test or not. I already mentioned to you that it depends on whether or not you have completed a theory test at some stage, if so, when and for which categories.

Aside from that, if you already have a learner permit with other categories such as BE or group 2's, the new category or categories will be added to the permit with the otherwise same start and end dates. If you don't have a learner permit at the moment, you will have A and/ or A2 for two years (991 notation).

Aside from that, the form is downloadable and it's a D201 application for a learner permit. If your address is different now to what's on your other licence (or permit) then you'll need valid proof of address; if you haven't attended an NDLS office since they've opened you'll need proof of PPSN and if you answer yes to any of the driver fitness questions (with the exception of the eyesight question) then you'll need a medical report.

You will not need an eyesight report regardless of how you answer the eyesight question because you have a current licence.

Thats brilliant, thanks.
Did a theory test when I passed the car test in 2004, cant remember doing one for the bike. Got my full bike licence for 125 in about 2000

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's a lot more dangerous to tailgate a bike, there's more than a dented bumper at stake. But for some reason I get it happening to me a lot more on the bike than I do in the car, I put it down to pig-ignorance.

Seems a lot of car drivers totally overestimate their ability to react and stop quickly in an emergency, in some cases they'd be into the back of the vehicle in front before they'd even have a chance to start braking.

Well that's coming back again to including reaction time, which I wasn't including. If you've an OAP with poor eyesight driving a car with the drivers seat too low, the overall stopping distance could be 50 or 100 meters as he may have exceptionally slow reaction times.

On a dry road the stopping ability is about the same, at low speeds the bike could probably stop more quickly, it has much less mass and big brakes for its size

As a non biker, I'd have assumed that a hard press of the brakes on a bike would almost guarantee you're going to topple over the handlebar or the wheels will slide out from under you (I'm basing this on my experience as a cyclist, though).

That could be a very risky assumption (but it's the rider who will suffer, not the driver.) It's very distracting and annoying for the rider to be tailgated. I have enough things going on in front and beside me to worry about without having some ignorant git tailgating me as well, wondering if they'll react in time if I have to brake.

In fairness, the same could be said for a car driver in terms of where your head is at in terms of distractions when you're driving. A car tailgating me when I'm also driving a car is as annoying as I can imagine it would be on a bike (albeit, as you point out, more dangerous for the biker should anything happen).

No way are you going to stop in ten metres from 50km/h. That's just under 14 metres per second, even with a very fast reaction time of a quarter second you've travelled over three metres before you even begin braking.

Again, I wasn't including reaction time, just stopping distance (ie; car travels at 50km/h, i was saying you'd stop in 10 meters from the second you hit the brake pedal). And I was thinking of emergency stopping, yeah (ie; child runs out in front of you, etc.)

jimgoose

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...As a non biker, I'd have assumed that a hard press of the brakes on a bike would almost guarantee you're going to topple over the handlebar or the wheels will slide out from under you (I'm basing this on my experience as a cyclist, though)...

In a straight line, a proper bike will bury it's nose in the ground and ripple the tarmac like an F1 car. Bends however, are tricky.

Paulw

Deleted User wrote: »

As a non biker, I'd have assumed that a hard press of the brakes on a bike would almost guarantee you're going to topple over the handlebar or the wheels will slide out from under you (I'm basing this on my experience as a cyclist, though).

With a motorbike though, you have a lot more mass - engine, petrol tank, etc, which will help stop the bike going over the front wheel when you jam on the brakes. You don't have that mass or rear mass, on a bicycle.

Although, of course, you can still go over.

cantdecide

Wottle wrote: »

Thats brilliant, thanks.
Did a theory test when I passed the car test in 2004, cant remember doing one for the bike. Got my full bike licence for 125 in about 2000

Then you don't need the theory test.

You didn't need one for the A1 because the DTT didn't exist until 2001. The first DTT covered all group 1's and then they were later split into B&W and a separate AM in 2006. You have the early 'Type A' DTT from 2004 and you have 'maintained' it by going on to hold full group 1 entitlements so it's still valid today. I'll add to that, don't let them tell you otherwise in the NDLS office; you're definitely covered. Very occasionally, the agent will ask for it to cover their behind but arg it.

Hotblack Desiato

Paulw wrote: »

With a motorbike though, you have a lot more mass - engine, petrol tank, etc, which will help stop the bike going over the front wheel when you jam on the brakes. You don't have that mass or rear mass, on a bicycle.

Although, of course, you can still go over.

Jaysus, if that rider had just let the brake pressure off a little bit when the bike started to rise he'd have stopped safely.

Question is why he reacted so late to the presence of the car!

cantdecide

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Question is why he reacted so late to the presence of the car!

Could have been anything. He could have been checking his mirrors or speedo. This happened to me. I once did a routine mirror check leaving a village in fast flowing traffic what I saw when I looked back up was something blue. I subsequently learned while having a relaxing lie down that a fertiliser spreader had come unhooked from a tractor passing in the opposite direction. I was probably better off not seeing it until the last second as I was powerless to do anything about it.

Max Headroom

If the driver had kept on going instead of stopping for the guy with the helmet cam ther would be nothing to see, the passenger probably let out a shout.......guess the guy predicted that the car would keep going and didnt think he'd need to stop...been there....sometimes its better when they dont see you..:)

firefly08

OK it says this is the place for newb questions, so here goes:

I just bought a 2009 Ninja 250 (first bike) and I need to replace the tires (they're dated 2008). Someone said to me that they had always been told not to replace both tires at once, because new tires will grip poorly until they've been scrubbed a bit, so it's safer to do them one at a time. I've had other people back that up, and others shoot it down as nonsense, saying that the only reason people stagger the replacements is because they don't wear at the same rate...what say you? Is there any truth to it, or would it be ok I just do both at once, and then take it easy for a while? I'll be taking it extremely easy anyway tbh, since I am totally green when it comes to bikes

Thanks

Paulw

On a new bike, both tyres are brand new. So, I can't see it being an issue, otherwise they wouldn't sell bikes with two new tyres,

Maybe someone can contradict that though.

Ayrtonf7

firefly08 wrote: »

OK it says this is the place for newb questions, so here goes:

I just bought a 2009 Ninja 250 (first bike) and I need to replace the tires (they're dated 2008). Someone said to me that they had always been told not to replace both tires at once, because new tires will grip poorly until they've been scrubbed a bit, so it's safer to do them one at a time. I've had other people back that up, and others shoot it down as nonsense, saying that the only reason people stagger the replacements is because they don't wear at the same rate...what say you? Is there any truth to it, or would it be ok I just do both at once, and then take it easy for a while? I'll be taking it extremely easy anyway tbh, since I am totally green when it comes to bikes

Thanks

Both are true!

New tyres have poor grip for the first 100-200km on them. You have to break em in just like the majority of bike parts (break pads etc) so take it easy on them till youve done some distance.

The majority of people do stagger replacements because, as you mentioned, the rear wheel generally wears faster than the front wheel (most people get 2 rear tyres to 1 front, or there abouts).

It would be safer to stagger them but to be honest I think you will be fine fitting them both at the same time, just be cautious when your riding. The tyres wont have great grip for the first hundred or so KM so take that into account when your cornering, judging stopping distance etc. Also be very carful in the wet if you go out on them before there worn in.

DubVelo

Advice from Pirelli is theirs are ready to go soon as you fit them and no scrub-in is necessary. But then the bloke in the bike shop still said 'watch it on that new rubber!'.

I think it's overblown, but anyway all you need to do is wear the shiny off them. More important just to go easy for 10 mins or so at the start of a ride to get some heat in 'em in my opinion.

As above, it's about 2 rear tyres to every front so no point binning both if one doesn't need changing. Obviously use matching brand and type though.

Are you just changing them because of the age or are they worn down? Legal minimum tread is 1mm but most lads might change them at 2 or 3mm.

gerrowadat

Rubber perishes and gets brittle after a while, I'd be starting to get nervous after about 5 years.

firefly08

Thanks all. I'm changing them because of age only - they're not that worn. But they are looking a bit old, and tbh at 7 years I'd be happier changing them no matter what they look like. I'll probably go over everything, change all the fluids etc. I like to start with a clean slate on any vehicle. That way I know the history

Hotblack Desiato

Max Headroom wrote: »

If the driver had kept on going instead of stopping for the guy with the helmet cam ther would be nothing to see, the passenger probably let out a shout.......guess the guy predicted that the car would keep going and didnt think he'd need to stop...been there....sometimes its better when they dont see you..:)

Expecting them to keep going is as dangerous as expecting them to stop!

DMW22

Hi All

I'm currently waiting on my learner permit to come back and once I have it I am going to book the IBT. I'm just wondering how long does it take to complete the training? Also if I have a bike already and want to use that, do I have to load the bike into a van or trailer and bring it to the instructor? Not sure how that works

Paulw

DMW22 wrote: »

I'm just wondering how long does it take to complete the training? Also if I have a bike already and want to use that, do I have to load the bike into a van or trailer and bring it to the instructor?

IBT is normally 2 full days. Or else, you can do it evenings. Most instructors like to just do it in 2 days.

Yes, you can't drive the bike on the roads until you have completed your IBT and then get the bike insured. If you want to use it for your IBT, then you need to get it to the instructor or get the instructor to come to you. Most people just use the school bike.

Ayrtonf7

Paulw wrote: »

Most people just use the school bike.

Yeh its pretty awkward to use your own bike. Plus there is the issue of insurance (some companys require IBT first before insuring).

I dont think theres a cost difference between using your own and using a schools bikes.

I done mine in 2 days. Think it was nearly 7/8 hours a day with breaks. Its not as bad as it sounds though! Actually pretty fun!

DrPhilG

Bloody hell, this is more complicated than I thought…

Long story, I had a provisional bike license many years ago and owned a 125 Suzuki Intruder. Moved to the North and while I was there I did my theory test (passed) and then the practical (failed). That was about 8 years ago.

For various reasons, finance, work, wife etc I ended up selling the bike and only now (aged 36) I’m in a position to go back and do the test and get a decent bike rather than my old 125 chicken chaser.

I’m in the process of reading through this thread but can anyone help me out with a few questions?

Am I correct in thinking that I’m limited on the size of bike I can get for 2 years after I pass the test? If so, how restrictive are we talking? I’d be hoping to get something along the lines of a Yamaha Drag Star or Suzuki Intruder. Probably around 500 or 650cc.

How scandalous are we talking with regards to insurance? I did a quick dummy run with Liberty online and came out with a bit over €700 fully comp.

Is there much competition in terms of insurance companies? Also I have a pending claim from having a bump with another car (usual few scratches on the bumper + whiplash claim) so will that stop me from getting insured at all?

Is there any point in going fully comp? I’d probably only be doing 100-1500km per year at most on a bike with a value of around €5k.

I’ve been enviously staring at every bike I see for years so I’d love to finally take the step and work towards the test.

gerrowadat

If you're over 24, you can do direct access to any bike - 6 months on the learner permit and then you can do the test. The restricted bike thing is gone, unless you're under 20. Factor in about 500 quid for your IBT training.

700 sounds about right for that kind of bike and your age on a provisional.

DrPhilG wrote: »

Bloody hell, this is more complicated than I thought…

Long story, I had a provisional bike license many years ago and owned a 125 Suzuki Intruder. Moved to the North and while I was there I did my theory test (passed) and then the practical (failed). That was about 8 years ago.

For various reasons, finance, work, wife etc I ended up selling the bike and only now (aged 36) I’m in a position to go back and do the test and get a decent bike rather than my old 125 chicken chaser.

I’m in the process of reading through this thread but can anyone help me out with a few questions?

Am I correct in thinking that I’m limited on the size of bike I can get for 2 years after I pass the test? If so, how restrictive are we talking? I’d be hoping to get something along the lines of a Yamaha Drag Star or Suzuki Intruder. Probably around 500 or 650cc.

How scandalous are we talking with regards to insurance? I did a quick dummy run with Liberty online and came out with a bit over €700 fully comp.

Is there much competition in terms of insurance companies? Also I have a pending claim from having a bump with another car (usual few scratches on the bumper + whiplash claim) so will that stop me from getting insured at all?

Is there any point in going fully comp? I’d probably only be doing 100-1500km per year at most on a bike with a value of around €5k.

I’ve been enviously staring at every bike I see for years so I’d love to finally take the step and work towards the test.

DrPhilG

gerrowadat wrote: »

If you're over 24, you can do direct access to any bike - 6 months on the learner permit and then you can do the test. The restricted bike thing is gone, unless you're under 20. Factor in about 500 quid for your IBT training.

700 sounds about right for that kind of bike and your age on a provisional.

Hang on...

Do you mean I can drive any bike on a provisional??

I was going to just do lessons and the test on an instructor's bike and then buy a bike as a reward.

When I first got my provisional about 15 years ago it was 125cc maximum, and I think you were restricted for a while after you passed.

Ayrtonf7

DrPhilG wrote: »

Hang on...

Do you mean I can drive any bike on a provisional??

I was going to just do lessons and the test on an instructor's bike and then buy a bike as a reward.

When I first got my provisional about 15 years ago it was 125cc maximum, and I think you were restricted for a while after you passed.

Yes they changed the licencing a few years ago. If your over 24, as stated above, you can ride any bike you wish (obviously not recommended though if your only starting out!). You will have to sit your test on a bike of at least 595cc/600cc though.

This should give you a good insight into the different licenses available!

gerrowadat

DrPhilG wrote: »

Hang on...

Do you mean I can drive any bike on a provisional??

I was going to just do lessons and the test on an instructor's bike and then buy a bike as a reward.

When I first got my provisional about 15 years ago it was 125cc maximum, and I think you were restricted for a while after you passed.

Yes, any bike. You have to do IBT first (mandatory training, 2 days, will run you 450-500 quid). But after that, you can ride any bike you can insure.

The minimum periods on a restriction all went away in 2013.

frozenfrozen

would a pair of normal canvas shoes / runners be ok for doing the IBT or would proper protective boots be required? I'm planning on doing the IBT with Mo Garvey out in Ennis, says on her site that all gear except for boots is provided. I wouldn't mind actually getting the IBT and insurance out of the way before looking at what gear incl. boots I'll be buying.

Might even see if I can get it done this Sunday if I didn't need to get boots beforehand.

DubVelo

frozenfrozen wrote: »

would a pair of normal canvas shoes / runners be ok for doing the IBT or would proper protective boots be required? I'm planning on doing the IBT with Mo Garvey out in Ennis, says on her site that all gear except for boots is provided. I wouldn't mind actually getting the IBT and insurance out of the way before looking at what gear incl. boots I'll be buying.

Might even see if I can get it done this Sunday if I didn't need to get boots beforehand.

Jaysus... :rolleyes:
Do you not have any hiking boots or anything? You'll be fine as long as you don't come off or drop the bike on your foot or ankle. Boots are a very good idea, it's not for style we wear them!

frozenfrozen

DubVelo wrote: »

Jaysus... :rolleyes:
Do you not have any hiking boots or anything? You'll be fine as long as you don't come off or drop the bike on your foot or ankle. Boots are a very good idea, it's not for style we wear them!

ah go away with that smiley face making me feel like an ejit. I've got steel toe cap work boots and hiking boots and I don't actually even wear canvas shoes but I just mean not motorcycle boots just so I don't show up on the day and be told I'm not allowed on the bike because of health and safety / insurance for not having proper footwear.

Sandals it is so :cool:

DrPhilG

Ayrtonf7 wrote: »

Yes they changed the licencing a few years ago. If your over 24, as stated above, you can ride any bike you wish (obviously not recommended though if your only starting out!). You will have to sit your test on a bike of at least 595cc/600cc though.

This should give you a good insight into the different licenses available!

Excellent. That makes life much easier.

So essentially the benefits of passing the test (other than personal satisfaction) are losing the L plates and cheaper insurance?
By the way that insurance test quote I got earlier was based on me passing the test, not provisional.

frozenfrozen

DrPhilG wrote: »

Excellent. That makes life much easier.

So essentially the benefits of passing the test (other than personal satisfaction) are losing the L plates and cheaper insurance?

and the use of motorways

cantdecide

frozenfrozen wrote: »

and the use of motorways

And the ability to cross borders... and the fact that you don't have to keep going back to renew every 1-2 years with the expense and upheaval... and the fact you don't have wear an L tabard... and the ability to insure bigger and better bikes... and the fact that the test focuses your riding ability theoretically making you a safer rider

Paulw

cantdecide wrote: »

and the ability to insure bigger and better bikes.

Once you get the A learner permit you can ride any bike. No restrictions.

DrPhilG

cantdecide wrote: »

And the ability to cross borders...

Ahhhhh. That's a killer.

I live in Donegal and would be regularly in Derry. So I couldn't cross the border?

Not an issue anyway, I'm still sticking to my plan of doing the test on an instructor vehicle and buy a bike when I'm through the test.

Thanks for the info though everybody.

DubVelo

But you can't apply for the test for the first 6 months.
I'd say you'd be better to get a bike and get some miles under your belt before the test.

cantdecide

Paulw wrote: »

Once you get the A learner permit you can ride any bike. No restrictions.

From an insurance point of view I mean

Hotblack Desiato

frozenfrozen wrote: »

steel toe cap work boots

Don't wear them on the bike, risk of the steel cap folding back and amputating all your toes.

Don't double knot laces, if they get caught on a lever or footpeg you won't be able to pull the knot out. Best not to wear laces at all.

The foot is the part of your body with the worst blood circulation, slowest to heal up, protect it properly.

DrPhilG

DubVelo wrote: »

But you can't apply for the test for the first 6 months.
I'd say you'd be better to get a bike and get some miles under your belt before the test.

Maybe, but the border crossing issue is a killer.

I live 1 mile from the Derry Donegal border. I work in the North, I shop and go to the cinema in the North, my wife's family are in the North.

If I had a bike that I couldn't cross the border on, I would literally be just driving around in Donegal on occasion for the sake of getting some miles in. And while that isn't a bad idea in principle, it's a pretty big outlay in terms of insurance costs etc just to get some practice in.

Plus there's no guarantee of passing the test first time, lol.

Hotblack Desiato

You don't need to own or have a bike insured during the 6 month waiting period for the test.

Lots of people in the UK pass car and bike tests having done no driving other than an intensive course over a few consecutive days. Worth talking to an instructor about, it's not ideal to be taking the test with little experience, but then again you won't be going around by yourself getting overconfident or into bad habits either.

DrPhilG

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You don't need to own or have a bike insured during the 6 month waiting period for the test.

Lots of people in the UK pass car and bike tests having done no driving other than an intensive course over a few consecutive days. Worth talking to an instructor about, it's not ideal to be taking the test with little experience, but then again you won't be going around by yourself getting overconfident or into bad habits either.

I wouldn't say I have no experience, just no recent experience.

I had 2 different 125 Intruders back in the day and at times the bike was my only transport. I'd say I've clocked up over 15k miles in my time.

But that's not always a help. I drove a car for 2 years before I took any lessons and all I did was learn bad habits. I did 3 lessons in the week before my car test and even my instructor didn't expect me to pass.

I'll track down an instructor locally and get some advice.

davycc

Roadcraft wrote: »

Do you have a full car licence?
If you held a full car licence before 21/10/2006 it covers you for category 'AM' mopeds, max 50cc max speed 45kmh.

Hello This has twigged my curiosity in reading through the learner stickie.
a family member has kindly offered me a free moped (think its an auto?)
.
I held a full B licence before 2006 so it would be great if I can get AM added to my current full B when its due for renewal in November . will it be a full AM or a provisional AM I assume ?
if must contact the NDLS and see what they have on file for me i don't think I ever had to do a theory test , a quick google shows the theory test was introduced in 2001 so i hopefully did it already .

im well over 30years old in case it makes any difference
and im half sure i held i provisonal moped licence and a tractor licence when i got my first licence in 1997 ish
. i passed my full b test in aug 2001 im also half sure that when didnt bother with the AM catergory again.
finally would this IBT be legally necessary for someone in my situation

thanks in advance folks:) sorry for the 101 questions