Petition for removal of L plate and 70km/hr limit????

**bobsmith** · 23rd February 2006, 08:24

Hi all, after browing this site for a while and having had my learners for about a month, I'm beginning to come to terms with the fact that having to disply L plate and obey 70km/hr rule really really !*%^# sucks.

I wonder if anyone in the past has tried to start a petition against that, and how sucessful they were.... If not, can anyone advise me exactly what is involved in starting a petition like this?

**Fishy** · 23rd February 2006, 08:34

Load of crap really, I reckon probably only about 10% of learners actually stick to those rules anyway. Get rid of them both. Do learner car drivers have to stick to under 70kph?

**ZeroIndex** · 23rd February 2006, 08:34

Well... I'm about to go for my Learner's today, and although it would be nice to not have any signs pointing to my Learner-ness once I'm on the road, keeping the L plate (until the biker feels they have suffiecient skill that they don't need it) is good, cause a car just "might" be a little more cautious around them...

That stupid 100km/h and the 10pm - 5am thing has gotta go!

**Hitcher** · 23rd February 2006, 08:43

I have been told that cops ignore L-plate bearing bikes that move with the traffic at 100kmh.

Expecting a small at-risk vehicle to travel 30kmh slower than other traffic on the open road is a nonsense.

Based on personal experience, displaying an L plate is highly dangerous. It incenses some road users to all sorts of dumb shit -- my best experience was an imbecile in a Holden Clubsport who insisted on following me with about a 200mm gap between us while tooting his horn. When I got an opportunity I lane split a couple of vehicles between us. At which stage lather could be observed seaping out around his doors.

**Monsterbishi** · 23rd February 2006, 08:44

Yeah, and while we're at it lets allow cellphones to be used in cars because I can drive and talk without crashing.

Oh yeah, since we're doing away with the 70kph limit, lets ditch the 250cc limit too, learners will be fine on litre-bikes.

Learners are exactly that, learning, just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it won't happen to other people, the 70kph rule is there so that when ppl are getting to know bikes, they don't go doing something like over-reacting to a dog crossing the road and punching the rear brake hard, arsing off and generally causing strife.

L plates - nothing wrong with 'em, I'd rather be behind a biker knowing he's new to the game and give him a bit more room, than be following at 2 seconds and have to get all crossed up avoiding him when he screws up.

**enigma51** · 23rd February 2006, 08:50

The idea behind the rule is to make others aware of learners and the speed is to allow the learner to come to terms with riding a bike etc.

The thing I think we petition about is if bike have a cc restriction cars should too!

**Monsterbishi** · 23rd February 2006, 08:52

Originally Posted by enigma51

The idea behind the rule is to make others aware of learners and the speed is to allow the learner to come to terms with riding a bike etc.

The thing I think we petition about is if bike have a cc restriction cars should too!

Or follow the way parts of Australia do it, and have a power:weight limit.

**Ixion** · 23rd February 2006, 08:55

Why then are car learners not restricted to 70 whilst they are getting to grips with driving a car. ? And car drivers have not had to do a Basic Handling Test forst, so would be MORE in need of such protection than bikers. I cannot justify both the bike learner restrictions AND the BHT. Either would be justifiable in absence of the other, but if the BHT is doing what it is supposed to, then the learner restrictions are unjustifiable.

**Monsterbishi** · 23rd February 2006, 09:07

Originally Posted by Ixion

Why then are car learners not restricted to 70 whilst they are getting to grips with driving a car. ? And car drivers have not had to do a Basic Handling Test forst, so would be MORE in need of such protection than bikers. I cannot justify both the bike learner restrictions AND the BHT. Either would be justifiable in absence of the other, but if the BHT is doing what it is supposed to, then the learner restrictions are unjustifiable.

Basic Handling test for bikes = pointless - doesn't prove jack and almost anyone can pass it.

If a bike learner arses off a bike at 70+kph - they're toast, helmet aside - 90% of learners don't have any protective gear, if they survive it's gonna be fun fun fun picking the gravel out what's left of their skin.

If a car learner puts their car through a fence/into a tree, over a kerb at 70+kph - they're gonna end up a whole lot better off, such is the inherant benefit of cages, they only have one brake pedal that has a front bias, so can't screw that up, they have more brakes and traction at hand too.

Summary point is - bikes are more dangerous than cars, it's why we pay higher ACC premiums and why many medics despise them.

**bugjuice** · 23rd February 2006, 09:10

I think the L plate is a good idea, shows that the person could be prone to a mistake or two, so keep the distance. It's a shame in practice, that seldom happens.

I am, however fully against the 70kph rule. It's dangerous, stupid, and an extremely pointless exercise.

The other rules such as time restrictions, CC rating and no pillion, I also agree with.. fwiw

**Ixion** · 23rd February 2006, 09:17

Originally Posted by Monsterbishi

Basic Handling test for bikes = pointless - doesn't prove jack and almost anyone can pass it.

If a bike learner arses off a bike at 70+kph - they're toast, helmet aside - 90% of learners don't have any protective gear, if they survive it's gonna be fun fun fun picking the gravel out what's left of their skin.

If a car learner puts their car through a fence/into a tree, over a kerb at 70+kph - they're gonna end up a whole lot better off, such is the inherant benefit of cages, they only have one brake pedal that has a front bias, so can't screw that up, they have more brakes and traction at hand too.

Summary point is - bikes are more dangerous than cars, it's why we pay higher ACC premiums and why many medics despise them.

If the BHT is pointless then abolish it - but I doubt those who framed the law intended it to be pointless, so the duplication betwixt that and the learner restrictions still stands - one could equally argue the 70kph rule is pointless since few obey it.

I observe that most learners who post here do indeed have a concern about suitable gear, and are often more anal about it than experienced riders - familiarity no doubt breeding contempt.

And whilst a learner in a car may be better protected from the fruits of their own error, the pedestrian, cyclist, or biker whom they take out in the process will not be. So that argument is lacking , the learner car driver is actually far MORE dangerous than the learner biker, the former has charge of a vehicle weighing a ton or more and is a danger to everybody , the latter by and large only to himself.

**Postie** · 23rd February 2006, 09:24

Originally Posted by Monsterbishi

Learners are exactly that, learning, just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it won't happen to other people, the 70kph rule is there so that when ppl are getting to know bikes, they don't go doing something like over-reacting to a dog crossing the road and punching the rear brake hard, arsing off and generally causing strife.

L plates - nothing wrong with 'em, I'd rather be behind a biker knowing he's new to the game and give him a bit more room, than be following at 2 seconds and have to get all crossed up avoiding him when he screws up.

I haven't seen anybody lose control of their bike by using too much rear brake; I’ve seen it from too much front brake but not the back.

Plus if you are following someone too closely, regardless if they are a learner or not and you hit them if they fuck up, then you were following too closely and have no one to blame but yourself. Then again if you are following someone closely, you probably know that rider and their riding style, hence you would presumably know what license they have and if they are safe to follow closely.

**SwanTiger** · 23rd February 2006, 09:26

Hmm, I think the rules are there for a reason however they only prove worthwhile for a select group of riders. People with more experience should be given the opportunity to progress with their license faster so that they can remove the speed and L plate restrictions.

Maybe a 'Learner Exemption' where by the rider has completed an intermediate handling course (at their expense) that proves they are capable of 70kmph + speeds and can navigate traffic and the roads safely.

For those on scooters, or riders with little confidence, they should be stuck under 70kmph and with an L plate. This will usually encourage them to keep off the open road or motorways and confine them to cities and suburbs. That makes sense.

And personally, I can't imagine a petition emphasising the above being effective at all. A discussion could be invoked by I doubt that the Government would do anything, there will always be an opposition side who will come out with all sorts of statistics and bullshit to prevent such a thing happening.

Point being, know why you are breaking the law when you decide not to ride under 70kmph and use an L plate and explain to the police officer why. I intend on doing an couple of extra riding courses to prove my riding ability on a piece of paper and have these ready to present to any officer that challenges why I have no L plate or am exceeding 70kmph.

Then it will be up to them to use descretion as to whether or not I am really posing a safety risk to myself and other motorist as opposed to "just breaking the law". Maybe others should consider doing the same, as it gives you more weight than a line of "Its gay" or "I feel its too dangerous".

"I have completed several courses that enable me to comfortably navigate traffic and open roads exceeding 70kmph, here are my certificates, I do this because it is my opinion that riding obeying such laws as 70kmph may compromise my own safety and other road users".

Any cops want to opinion on what they'd do presented with that explanation?

**bugjuice** · 23rd February 2006, 09:27

Originally Posted by Monsterbishi

Learners are exactly that, learning, just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it won't happen to other people, the 70kph rule is there so that when ppl are getting to know bikes, they don't go doing something like over-reacting to a dog crossing the road and punching the rear brake hard, arsing off and generally causing strife.

who's riding at 70+ in residential areas anyway? (legally)
you could be driving a car in the same circumstance and still fuck up, like skid off into a lamp post or someone's house.

Ride/drive to the situation

**MSTRS:Me** · 23rd February 2006, 09:31

What Buggy said. In theory it's all good (the intent) but in practice, it's a dangerous crock. In saying that tho, I think the 'L' plate should stay. No pillion should stay. The cc thing is a hard one - easier to leave alone. Do away with the 70kph.
And what is with the 10pm thing? I never understood that one.