An Unpopular Thought/Suggestion

[Ghost Lemur]

Well what I'm about to say is an unqualified thought that came to me. I'd like some feedback on it.

What if we changed the licence system so that learners (maybe just learners under 20/18?) were only allowed up to a 150cc instead of a 250. Then were allowed to progress to a 250 with restricted.

I think this could be of benefit.

It would bring us into line with Europe. This has a couple of benefits. There's a hell of a lot more choice as far as <150cc bikes brand new when compared to 250's. Aprilia, Cagiva, all the japas, etc.

But because atm we can go straight to 250 there isn't the market to bring these bikes in.

Wouldn't it be better for our learners to be on these brand new, lighter, flickable, 150cc bikes than 15 year old 250's?

Just a thought. Opinions?

[SpankMe]

Nope, don't agree. If you can't handle a 250cc from the start, you shouldn't even bother.

Anyway, the law should be based on HP not cc. I thought the UK had a 33hp restriction for learners?

[SuperDave]

Then, not only will the 250's be seriously overpriced, but so too would the 150's.

[Biff]

33hp - 125ccin the UK. And that's more than enough for newbies in my book.

[campbellluke]

Modern 150cc's are just as slow as they were 15 years ago. I had an 1987 GL145, and it was faster than those FXR150s that people seem prepared to spend $2000 on.

If I wasn't allowed to use a 4 cylinder 15 year old 250cc on my learners, or possibly a 2 stroke 250cc. I would have been totally discouraged to take up motorcycles in the first place.

[gav]

What will you gain going from a 150 to a 250? Whats the point? Havent we got Learner Approved Motorcycles these days, not neccesarily 250cc?

[erik]

Boooo! ;)

Nah, I don't like the idea. For a start, it would mean you'd have to buy a 150, then go through all the hassle of selling it and buying a 250. And 250's are already pretty flickable and light, plus they're also pretty gutless as well (well, I guess the cbr250rr's and the like are a bit gruntier, and the 2-stroke 250's).

[bugjuice]

Years ago when I was still in the uk, being young and nieve, I was going to get my bike license. Cos you can have any bike and fit a restricting kit on it, I was looking at a nice CBR600 for a first bike. Pretty fukin glad I didn't. However, it would have been strangled to something like 40hp.
I think the hp restriction is an idea, but hassle, and how would a cop pulling over a learner know the kit is still in? Same should apply to cars, even more so if anything. That's so fukin stupid. anyway, ot.

I did hear last year a vicious rumor that learners can start on a 400. But I'm sure (well hope) that's been canned.
I would (however) be thinkin it's an idea to have learners restricted to 250 as they are now, and then (with age part of the factor) allow the restricted riders to 400.

I so think they should restrict cages. I saw a kid in school uniform about 15 or so (God I hope, didn't really look it) driving his mate (assume) in the passenger seat and 3 smaller/younger kids in the back to school!!
When I was applying for my lisence in the AA shop, a kid was applying for her lisence!! scary shit! Just so think it's wrong. I know why they've done it, for kids out in the sticks who need a bit of independance for their parents, but still..

/rant

[anmolt]

the pricing on the 250's arent very attractive to a lot of learners in any case...150's turn out to be a cheaper and more logical option if people mainly want to use the bike to commute....just look at the no of 150cc's around auckland uni ..........

[Zapf]

Yep. Restrict HP not CC.... CC gives torque, makes bike easier to ride :) were as HP gives speed.

[SPORK]

Well, the thing is, for a nice sub-150 (say Cagiva Mito 125 or Aprilia RS125) is that they cost a lot, and they're not even that hardcore.

I'd say let restricted riders have 400s.

[Bob]

33hp - 125ccin the UK. And that's more than enough for newbies in my book.

A 33bhp 125? Now I'd like to see that! 125cc horses limit here? Try much, much less than that! 14.6bhp to be exact.

You don't get to enjoy a whole 33bhp until you pass your main test (and you only have TWO years from getting your provisional licence to do that... or you are off the road for 12 months as a punishment). And you're then restricted to 33bhp (so realistically, a 250 or maybe if you can find one, something like a 350cc Zeal?) for two years... and then finally, you are allowed to ride anything you want.

Unless of course you are over 21, when you can go for Direct Access (which means you can bypass - which means taking the test on a larger bike... but it'll cost you about £400 on top of the 'small bike' training to do so.

This is a nice little guide as to how our licencing system works (http://www.usedbikeguide.com/features/licence.htm)

We used to be allowed up to 250cc for a learner here... and then they halved the capacity allowance. Result? A host of 250's that were worth... nothing.

So the market between 125 and 500cc was killed off. So over here, there were 125's... then 500's and upwards. The small bike market was stone dead. So we get none of those interesting and fun 400cc sportsbikes, or the smaller capacity Bandits or the like.

Of course now, there is a need for the smaller bikes - but there are none about. And they're still not being imported, as dealerships are wary of getting stuck with little bikes they can't shift.

Mind you, if the EU get their way, the rules are changing again - and one of the things that will change is Direct Access, where they are talking about increasing the minimum age to 24/25. So maybe suddenly small capacity bikes will be needed... or it could just cause even more harm to biking as less people try to get their licences as they're stuck on small bikes until their mid-20's.

Still want our licencing laws over there?

[James Deuce]

.

Still want our licencing laws over there?

Yes, with an equivalent for cars.

[StoneChucker]

Yes please. From what I read into it, the whole process is speeded up when compared to NZ. Do you HAVE to wait the whole 2 years until you sit the practical test?

So when you turn 17, all you have to do is sit the CBT, the theory and then your full (when you feel confident) and NOT get 6 demerit points in two years? Can you do this as fast as you want? Also, once you pass your full on a "A" licence, can you go to any CC / power straight away, or must you wait 2 years first?

The ONLY bad part is the not getting 6 demerit points in 2 years, but I've had to deal with a similar situation after doing my CBTA course. Not that tough, just don't be a mad hoon. It's been almost a year for me, so I'm pretty sweet I think :yes:

Overall, I'm really happy with getting my licence in NZ. I couldn't have afforded my bike in SA, or the insurance for it in SA, the roads in NZ are really fun to ride and you lot are all here (where else would you find such a nice bunch :grouphug: )

Oh, and there are alotta sneeeeeky sneaky coppers in the UK so I've heard.

[Blakamin]

do what NSW does... have approved bikes up to 650cc (or sumfin)... all hp rated!! :Punk: :niceone:

[Ghost Lemur]

Hehe

Good to see a nice discussion around this hypothisis.

So here's an expansion.

How about limiting all 15-18 year olds for a minimum of two years to a 150cc or less? Even if they want a car licence. So if they don't bother going for their learners til their 18 they got to be on the 150 til their 20. If they go for their learners at 15 then they're on the 150 for 3 years.

[Mr Skid]

do what NSW does... have approved bikes up to 650cc (or sumfin)... all hp rated!! :Punk: :niceone:
I agree.

Here's the list http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/tests/motorcycleridertrainingscheme/motorcyclesnoviceriders.html

The problem with the 250cc restricition is that the 40-45hp 250/4's are the most attractive bikes to learners, but the least suitable to learn on.

Imagine if you could choose a *real* bike to learn on.. Like a BMW F650CS, Honda Transalp, Triumph Bonneville or a Yamaha SRX600..

Make a hell of a lot more sense than a peaky as hell, close ratio 250cc tupperware racer..

[inlinefour]

I think that 250cc is fine. I started off with a RD250LC and had a ball. True I'd been riding my own bike (smaller) since I was eight, but5 as stated before, if you can't handle it you should either get off it or sell it and buy a scooter :killingme

[John]

I think that 250cc is fine. I started off with a RD250LC and had a ball. True I'd been riding my own bike (smaller) since I was eight, but5 as stated before, if you can't handle it you should either get off it or sell it and buy a scooter :killingme
250's are fine, most newbies keep away from the 2strokers - I like the australian rules but still 250s are the way to go I think.

I think we need more worry about the cars and (some) of the 16 year olds out on the roads eh?

[Wolf]

I would be more inclined to go for something like NSW's restricted bike list than our current (or any variant of) cc rating restriction.

Thanks to Mr Skid for posting this of one of the other threads:

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/tests/motorcycleridertrainingscheme/motorcyclesnoviceriders.html

Restrict both bikes and cars based on kW per Tonne and couple that with more extensive training and testing.

Of course, cagers will whinge "but that means we'd have to buy another car that fits the restrictions..." Oh. Diddums. :whocares:

If bikers have to buy "trainee-level" bikes, then cagers should have to do similar. Oh, cars are more expensive to buy... :whocares:

From the number of young kids blatting around in flash looking cars, I'd say a lot of people are buying another car anyway (unless that's mum's MR5 or Mazdabator-mobile they're speeding down Ward Street in and mum's tastes just happen to run to stereos that can be felt three blocks away and illegally lowered suspension)

If they want to learn to drive, then they should be prepared to pay to do so.

Perhaps the learners should be forced to pay for their own cars - maybe they'll treat them with a lot more respect - to the benefit of themselves and anyone else on the road.

I'm also for regular retesting of drivers/riders - providing they dropped the price down to something reasonable - to ensure they are au fait with the new road rules and aren't reinforcing bad driving/riding habits.

Helen of Wellington is trying to win blue-rinse-power votes by promising to scrap the regular retesting of old-folks. I am opposed to this as there are a large number of people out there that should be tested more frequently - and not just the oldies. What I would like to see is the retesting price dropped so that the oldies who would pass with flying colours are not unduly inconvenienced in the interests of catching those who can no longer drive safely. If Helen wants to drop the perception that retesting is more about revenue gathering than road safety, then drop the amount of revenue gathered.

Edit: Hah. Mr Skid beat me to it in this Thread, too.

[James Deuce]

Of course, cagers will whinge "but that means we'd have to buy another car that fits the restrictions..." Oh. Diddums. :whocares:

If bikers have to buy "trainee-level" bikes, then cagers should have to do similar. Oh, cars are more expensive to buy... :whocares:
.

No they're not. I can easily buy a car for less than just about any bike I want to own.

[Wolf]

No they're not. I can easily buy a car for less than just about any bike I want to own.
I suspect, though, that a bike you want to own with a high price-tag is not a learner-class bike.

You can buy a brand new GN250 and put it on the road for 3400, a brand new car, even one that would satisfy a restriction, costs more than that. Sure you can buy second hand cars cheaper, but you can likewise buy cheaper seconds hand bikes.

My dream bike, second hand, is dearer than a "decent" second hand car but it's not a bike a newbie would be allowed to ride.

Most 250s or less are fairly cheap compared with a car, especially comparing new with new.

But your point is valid - the family/learner can shell out for an "OK" car for a couple of thousand maximum that would be acceptable for learning in.

[James Deuce]

I suspect, though, that a bike you want to own with a high price-tag is not a learner-class bike.

You can buy a brand new GN250 and put it on the road for 3400, a brand new car, even one that would satisfy a restriction, costs more than that. Sure you can buy second hand cars cheaper, but you can likewise buy cheaper seconds hand bikes.

My dream bike, second hand, is dearer than a "decent" second hand car but it's not a bike a newbie would be allowed to ride.

Most 250s or less are fairly cheap compared with a car, especially comparing new with new.

But your point is valid - the family/learner can shell out for an "OK" car for a couple of thousand maximum that would be acceptable for learning in.
Very few "normal" Kiwis buy new cars. Most people I know don't spend more than $10k on a car. I never keep a car for less than 5 years, and my FIAT, which is worth about $700 I've had for eleven years. My bike spend cap every 3 years is $7k. I can buy a nice early '90s 3 series BMW323 for that with about 160,000km on the clock, or barely run in for that under-stressed engine unit. You can buy an early '90s Mitsi Galant of the 1800cc-2400cc variety for the price of a new GN with about 160,000km if you look hard enough.

Most households have 2 cars these days. One will probably be the sort of run about that will fit the kW/tonne model suggested quite nicely.

The argument that led to the 250cc limit is no longer valid. Motorcycles now have brakes, chassis' that don't flex, and suspension that keeps the tyre in contact with the ground. When the 250 law came in big Jap bikes came with brakes that didn't work in the wet and a swingarm (it's a fork really) that twisted when the power was fed in rapidly.

Most 250s are pulling top speeds that are 80% of their '70s 1000cc brethren, and no one seems to have noticed. By the same token, when I was a lad 100bhp was a lot for a sub 2 litre car. With the right dohickeys and gubbins you can get 300bhp in a sub 2 litre car that has significantly better tyres, brakes, and suspension than a 70s/80s car that we had to ring the nuts off to even look like we were "boy racers". I'm sure it is the same on reflection for previous generations.

More young people die in cars than on bikes, and I would have thought that would have been enough justification to introduce a graduated license system that incorporated a kW/tonne model.

[250learna]

Nope, don't agree. If you can't handle a 250cc from the start, you shouldn't even bother.

Anyway, the law should be based on HP not cc. I thought the UK had a 33hp restriction for learners?

yeah i think if any cahnge is to be made it should be based on hp not cc. unrestricted rgv250 as a first bike :nono: you betta have some realy good self control
where as a gn 250 is more than suitable :yes:

edit: and lets not forget about the SG350 Goose :niceone:

[Wolf]

**Excellent post regretfully snipped**
More young people die in cars than on bikes, and I would have thought that would have been enough justification to introduce a graduated license system that incorporated a kW/tonne model.
Excellent points. As my presumption that "cars are dearer" proves to be incorrect, there is really nothing stopping the gummint from introducing a graduated licence system for cars except it'd probably prove highly unpopular and supply the opposition with a ready made election bribe.

[Ranzer]

Personally I don't think changing the cc or HP restriction for learners will make a bit of difference, other than to piss them off and make smaller/slower bikes more expensive. I think what we really need is way better rider training, I mean thorough training and testing before they're even allowed on the road at all. If you give them the training and experience and the right state of mind and a little self control you could put them on a 600 and they'd be safer than on a 250 with no training. As it is at the moment it's the learner riders that are their own biggest problem, not the bikes they're on. The drawback is that proper training would probably put the cost of a learner licence up a lot, but I mean if it keeps people safe... My 2 cents anyway.

[Skyryder]

Well at the risk of sounding like some one eyed liberal why have any restrictions at all. Personally I think the problem with new riders is that many just go too dam fast for their riding skills. Coming into a corner or whatever on a 250cc is just as dangerouse as say 1000cc. So here is my solutuion. No CC restrictions. Compulsary riding tuition. The riding tuition to be certified by qualified persanal. Riders to carry proof that they are enrolled and that they attend these courses on a regular basis. No pillions untill a ful licence has been gained.

Skyryder

[Biff]

A 33bhp 125? Now I'd like to see that! 125cc horses limit here? Try much, much less than that! 14.6bhp to be exact.

Thanks for that Bob - dumbass Biff meant "33hp - try 125cc" for newbies once they've done their Compulsive Basic Training.

[Rainbow Wizard]

What if we changed the licence system so that learners (maybe just learners under 20/18?) were only allowed up to a 150cc instead of a 250. Then were allowed to progress to a 250 with restricted?
After Sam's demise that is, and I realise that there's some damn fast 250cc bikes out there, and the regs don't even differentiate between 2 strokes and 4 strokes. So yes, HP would be more relevant but then so is AGE. Damn stupid for some mature 80+kg male to be forced to ride a 150 for xx months don't ya reckon? And if we restrict bikes then we should restrict cars too, cut the boy racers problem real quick!

[Bob]

Yes, with an equivalent for cars.

I wish! The car lobby is too big and powerful over here.

No limitation on cars at all. Qualify and - if you can afford it (and the insurance), off you go in a Porsche/Lambourghini etc.

I wish they could bring in something similar for cars - it would make sense to me. Learn on something smaller then build up when you have some experience.

[badlieutenant]

id like to see a hp to weight ratio for bikes that learners can ride. And some training with motocross bikes would be good also. I rode road bikes for a few years before I jumped on a motox bike (other than stuffing around on the farm etc) and the amount of learning one can learn in a single day just thrashing out a stuffed 2-stroke was astonishing to me.
would be good test to put a few newer KB riders on a motox bike for the afternoon and see what they think, certainly makes you realise how unfit you are (forearm cramp first)
my 2 cents :D

[Bob]

id like to see a hp to weight ratio for bikes that learners can ride. And some training with motocross bikes would be good also. I rode road bikes for a few years before I jumped on a motox bike (other than stuffing around on the farm etc) and the amount of learning one can learn in a single day just thrashing out a stuffed 2-stroke was astonishing to me.
would be good test to put a few newer KB riders on a motox bike for the afternoon and see what they think, certainly makes you realise how unfit you are (forearm cramp first)
my 2 cents :D

Thought you might find these two paragraphs interesting - these are the proposals from the European Union on power/weight ratios and licence categories:

"The current A1 licence (up to 125cc/11kW) will remain, but the full A licence will be split into two sections; A2, which is the same as the present “2 year restricted” licence (under 25kW/33bhp) and full unrestricted A. A new moped category (AM) would also be introduced.

The proposals also crack down on restricting bikes. Worried that manufacturers will look to make lighter and more powerful machines, the proposals will see Power to Weight ratios introduced. A1 will have a Power to Weight Ratio of 0.1kW/kg and A2 will carry a Power/Weight ratio of 0.2kW/kg. In simple terms, you will no longer be able to restrict a Hayabusa to 125cc!"

Again though, I wish something similar for cars would happen. But there is no chance of that - guaranteed election losing strategy.

[James Deuce]

Again though, I wish something similar for cars would happen. But there is no chance of that - guaranteed election losing strategy.

I've seen that argument pop up a couple of times, and with the voting public getting older, I can't see how it would lose votes. The current baby boomer bulge is precisely the kind of demographic anomaly that would get this legislation passed, on the grounds that not only does speed kill, but we've "discovered" that inexperience does too. We can help stop your kids and grandchildren dying on the roads if you let us pass this.

[Ranzer]

Well at the risk of sounding like some one eyed liberal why have any restrictions at all. Personally I think the problem with new riders is that many just go too dam fast for their riding skills. Coming into a corner or whatever on a 250cc is just as dangerouse as say 1000cc. So here is my solutuion. No CC restrictions. Compulsary riding tuition. The riding tuition to be certified by qualified persanal. Riders to carry proof that they are enrolled and that they attend these courses on a regular basis. No pillions untill a ful licence has been gained.

Skyryder

Y'know I would have to agree with this more than any cc or HP or power/weight limitations... I've ridden an R1 (&lt;plug&gt;Thanks Red Baron! :D&lt;/plug&gt;) and didn't get into any trouble at all cause I knew I had to take it real easy... if I'd been an asshat on it though I could've killed myself about as fast as I can blink. Unless there's some mechanical failure, it ain't the machine that causes the crash...

[Holy Roller]

cc rating restriction is crazy inexperience at higher speeds or at any speed for that matter can have serrious concequences. The horsepower / weight ratio like there is in other countries is a more senseable option for newbies along with compulsory riding school attendance. I learned heaps from going through a riding school even though in those days a pass entitled one to a full licence.

[wildcat_lgf]

Yeah I agree they should do a similar thing with cars! Leave the bike situation alone...but what really gets me (now that I'm on the other side of the car license system :) ) is that any punk kid can go and get a 2L Turbo or V8 or whatever they can afford and hoon around speeding out of control and hurting alot of people (numerous incidents lately to back up this most likely over-exaggerated comment).

They should restrict those on Learners or Restricted car licence to nothing over 1.8L, nothing turbo, supercharged, (certainly not NOS :) ) etc unless they have an adult with full licence for over 2 years beside them. Then if they get done for dangerous driving, speeding, etc you could fine the "responsible" adult for it too :)

A great way to hack alot of people off all in one go :D ...but seriously

[Ixion]

Y'know I would have to agree with this more than any cc or HP or power/weight limitations... I've ridden an R1 (&lt;plug&gt;Thanks Red Baron! :D&lt;/plug&gt;) and didn't get into any trouble at all cause I knew I had to take it real easy... if I'd been an asshat on it though I could've killed myself about as fast as I can blink. Unless there's some mechanical failure, it ain't the machine that causes the crash...


I've changed my thinking on this recently. I used to support the idea of a limit for beginners because of the logic that it would stop someone blasting themselves to oblivion on an R1 at 16 .

But I've read the large number of very responsible posts from new riders here, clearly recognising that it would be foolish to start wioth something too uncontrollable. And noted that there are 250's that have pretty hot performance (two smokers etc) - but beginners aren't all lining up to buy them and spurning the GN250.

So I've changed my mind about limits, I don't think there should be any. Some education about sensible choices, the wise ones will listen the unwise will not. But the latter could still buy an NSR250 under todays rules. And unlimited opend options for the adventure bikes, older (softer) 500's etc.

[Lou Girardin]

Is it potential top speed that's the killer? Or is it the way litre bikes fling you from one corner to the next before your (inexperienced) brain catches up?
An RS250 may do 220-230 k's but it doesn't get there anywhere near as fast as an R1.
Power to weight restrictions are the best option, plus compulsory training for ALL drivers/riders.

[Sniper]

Nope, just stay on 250.

[Ixion]

Is it potential top speed that's the killer? Or is it the way litre bikes fling you from one corner to the next before your (inexperienced) brain catches up?
An RS250 may do 220-230 k's but it doesn't get there anywhere near as fast as an R1.
Power to weight restrictions are the best option, plus compulsory training for ALL drivers/riders.

In theory (and sometimes in practice) in very twisty stuff smaller bikes may be faster than larger ones (gthough it would have to be very twisty to make up for a 250 -> 1000 diff).

And in theory also a small bike can be cornered harder than a large one . Less weight, smaller gyroscopic effects etc. Mr WINJA made some interesting comments on that recently. So you guys on R1's better watch out or I'll take you on the inside on my Nifty 50. :whistle:

[Marmoot]

"restrict HP, not CC"

.....hahahahaha :killingme
Performance Bikes (2 years ago) ran a comparison between a 'strangled' mighty Hayabusa (33hp) and an RS125.
The 125 won hands down. :wait:

ok...there's nothing to see here. Move along... :ride:

[Stevo]

33hp - 125ccin the UK. And that's more than enough for newbies in my book.
Yeah but you're a Pom eh? A Pom prob couldn't handle more than 150cc on a learners given that 99% of you grow up in the cities.
I had been riding motorcycles and ATVs for over twenty years before I finally got round to getting my learner motorcycle license. If I was restricted to 150cc I wouldn't have bought a bike but just waited the time till I could get a decent bike. I guess I had a little maturity on my side when I did it and also thought that riding at 70kph was ludicrous when usually I went faster off road and prob without a helmet :whistle:

We would be far better off trying to change the 70kph law to 90 so at least the poor learning bastards are not likely to be sideswiped by truck and trailer units or the most ignorant of road users (those towing boats).

[Stevo]

Also in the latest type crash stats the highest group was older experienced riders, (obviously taking it all too casual than the young fellas). The least represented group was 25-40 age groups.

[placidfemme]

I think having learners restricted to 150's is pointless and dumb. Most of those wonderful little 150's you mentioned in the first post are 2 strokes... that really rules it down to only about 3 or 4 bikes they can ride, and smaller doesn't mean safer, you're forgetting it's the person on the bike that is dangerous and not the bike. Those 150's brand new cost about $2500 to $4000 brand new, most 250's cost about the same (second hand of-course), and yes all those uni students ride around on 150's... why? Because they are studying and poor and can't afford anything better, most of them arn't even into bikes as an interest or a lifestyle choice... it's the cheapest option. I don't think all learners should be held back and forced to ride 150's because of an argument like that.

But given that money is an option, if they buy a 150, most times they will need financing to buy the bike, then they want to upgrade to a 250, and they're still paying back the first loan, so they top that up to buy a bigger bike... thats just incouraging more debt and not new riders. If I had gone for my learners and I had to ride a 150, I wouldn't have bothered, I would have sat the basic handling skills test, done my learners at AA and not ride a bike for 6 months (not legally anyway) and then gone for my restriced if they aloud 250's.

I think the LTSA should focus on targeting young dick heads in boy racer cars killing themselves and their friends and OUR families before they start worring about bikers being limited to scooter powered bike look alikes...

[Biff]

Yeah but you're a Pom eh? A Pom prob couldn't handle more than 150cc on a learners given that 99% of you grow up in the cities.


Almost correct, born in Wales (I’m told that doesn’t make me a pom – whatever) where a large proportion of people don't live in the cities, and nor do an awful lot more that 1% you quoted of the population of the UK. We also have plenty of A and B roads, country lanes and such like to learn on.

My argument is based upon personal experience. The logic is that when you're riding a 125cc bike there was a snowballs chance in hell of being able to do any 'great' speed (I think you could manage 80 mph ish), certainly not the speeds that some 250s are capable of. There’s also no chance of chasing down any sports bikes on a group ride, but I digress. What the restriction to a 125cc bike does is enable a rider to concentrate on the basics after they've done a Compulsory Basic Training (CBT) course. Something (and here I'm going to offend some people) that appears to be very much lacking here in NZ.

Far too many road users here (bikers and cage drivers), and a fact that we've witnessed by recent posts here, don’t manage to cover off and understand some basic riding/driving skills. I know this statement will piss some people here off but I honestly believe that to be fact. If you need evidence then do a search on this site for accident stats both here and overseas. There was a huge debate about this here some time ago. I’m not saying (although the stats will) that Brits are less prone to accidents, despite the volume of traffic on the roads there, that’s not what I’m aiming to do here, but if the question is are British riders MADE to spend more time learning the basics of road riding, because they have a lower powered bike, then I say the answer is yes. Without a doubt.

There is no substitute for practice, and the fact is that (here I go offending people again - sorry) that the majority of young men (mainly men) think they’re bullet proof and prefer to ride fast than concentrate of riding smoothly and safely. I was one of them, albeit on a bike with half the capacity of the ones new riders (irrespective of their age) are allowed to ride here in NZ.

In the UK new riders learn how to manage the corners, learn their limitations and hone their hazard perception skills on a lower powered bike than they do here in NZ. A bike that is still a lot of fun to ride (I had a DT125 for weekend fun last year in addition to a CBR600RR, it was a hoot). Putting aside the fact that to suddenly reduce the limit in NZ to 125cc would be bonkers, the merits of getting the basics right far outweigh the need to go just that little bit faster on a 250cc IMHO.

Bob - help me out here, but once you've passed your CBT, got some K's and experience under your belt, aren't you then limited to a 500 for a while?

[Ixion]

I actually think too small a bike is dangerous for a learner. Firstly because the power band will inevitably be nasty as the designers try to wring performance from it. Secondly because I find on a large bike you are more likely to be willing to slow down more , because you know that you can get back up to speed easily. On a small (< 150 ) bike momentum is so precious that one tends to be reluctant to brake, knowing that doing so will mean a long tedious buzzing slog up through the gears.

And the reality is that when beginners are restricted for several years (as young ones are), they WILL want to ride their bike on the open road. And a bike that can't easily handle 100kph is going to be problematic and dangerous.

I think that probably best bikes of all for learners would be something like a 400cc cruiser. Low CoG, not too heavy, forgiving handling, gentle power curve, and enough power without too much. Yes, a bit big in the first month or so, but it will see out the restricted period without inviting undue risktaking.

It also means that the next "jump" is not so enormous.

[Ixion]

.. Putting aside the fact that to suddenly reduce the limit in NZ to 125cc would be bonkers, the merits of getting the basics right far outweigh the need to go just that little bit faster on a 250cc IMHO.

But an RG125 is faster than a GN250, but a lot harder to ride and less forgiving of mistakes

If you are going to restrict I think the only way is an approved list. Neither cc restriction nor power to weight nor hp restriction works - there are always loopholes.

Bear in mind also that a lot of the background thinking in such restrictions has nothing whatsoever to do with keeping people safe. It is bureaucrats trying to make motorcycling as unattractive as posisble, in the hope of eventually getting it banned. :Punk:

Can anyone explain to me, otherwise, the logic behind the curfew restrictions (10pm to 5am I think) on a restricted licence.

It can't be to keep inexperienced riders off the road at night, because most of the year there is more night from sunset to 10pm and 5am to sunrise than there is in the curfew period.

And the small hours of the morning is actually a very safe time, little traffic and what there is mostly knows what it is doing.

In reality, it was just a eye poke by the bureaucrats. Dreary tired grey old plonkers all of them , they knew that most riders would be young . They knew that young folk want a social life. And so they decided to make sure that they crippled said social life . Partly I guess out of envy and partly just in the hope that a sufficient number of potential riders will say "nah too much bother". Meh, I hate old people. :mad:

(And please don't talk about stopping riders riding home after a party , drunk. It's OK to ride home drunk a 21:59 , but not at 22:011 ? )

[Wolf]

I think that probably best bikes of all for learners would be something like a 400cc cruiser. Low CoG, not too heavy, forgiving handling, gentle power curve, and enough power without too much. Yes, a bit big in the first month or so, but it will see out the restricted period without inviting undue risktaking.

It also means that the next "jump" is not so enormous.
I'm with Ixion, on this. My experiences in my early days with the RX125 and other small "learner" bikes leads me to believe that they're too dangerous, especially when encountering a gravel road - the narrow tyres, light frame etc meant that the gravel dictatted where you went on the road. You'd hit a drift and it would force the bike to go all over the show.

I used to crawl along gravel roads, especially around the corners as the cagers had piled up drifts that used to do nasty things to my steering.

My LS400 with its low CoG, heavier mass and substantial tyres tends to make its own track in gravel - it goes where you point it.

I've bitched previously about my premise that brakes on small bikes are an afterthought and the ridiculously small footprint of those "razorblade" tyres that conspire to make braking a terrifying prospect. The alacrity with which those narrow tyres break to the side is a horror.

I feel much safer on a substantial, properly set up, bike than on those tiny bikes. Riding the R100 at 128km/h then braking for a set of lights was not scary - I felt totally safe and in control of the machine. I have felt less secure quite frequently on supposedly "safe" learner bikes.

[Biff]

But an RG125 is faster than a GN250, but a lot harder to ride and less forgiving of mistakes

You're right Ixion, I'm dwelling on the 125cc a bit to much. I believe the engines in the UK are restricted to 14-15bhp. I'm sure Bob clarified this - I'll have a look now.

Most learners in the UK ride off roaders, either replicas or the real thing. Few ride race replicas as I guess you look a bit daft riding a 125cc race replica with an engine no more powerful than Ms Biffs hairdryer!

These off roader type of bikes are brilliant bikes to learn on IMO. Wide bars, upright sitting positions, nice n high & forgiving. I learnt on a KMX 125 - brillaint machine. Plus you don't end up kissing the ground if you hit gravel or fancy a bit of nature spotting.

[Pixie]

In NSW they have learner approved bikes ,which include some low output 650cc machines.

[Stevo]

You're right Ixion, I'm dwelling on the 125cc a bit to much. I believe the engines in the UK are restricted to 14-15bhp. I'm sure Bob clarified this - I'll have a look now.

Most learners in the UK ride off roaders, either replicas or the real thing. Few ride race replicas as I guess you look a bit daft riding a 125cc race replica with an engine no more powerful than Ms Biffs hairdryer!

These off roader type of bikes are brilliant bikes to learn on IMO. Wide bars, upright sitting positions, nice n high & forgiving. I learnt on a KMX 125 - brillaint machine. Plus you don't end up kissing the ground if you hit gravel or fancy a bit of nature spotting.
In racing circles the 4 stroke 250s race these 150 two smokers do they not? I fail to see where the current law is failing apart from I think the basic skills test was not a test of my ability but a waste of my time, AND again I waffle on about the absurd (IMHO) 70kph restriction. It should GO!!!!!!!!!! :Punk:

[Bob]

Most learners in the UK ride off roaders, either replicas or the real thing. Few ride race replicas as I guess you look a bit daft riding a 125cc race replica with an engine no more powerful than Ms Biffs hairdryer!



Actually, you'd be surprised at the range of stuff learners ride here. Most schools opt for either the Honda CG125 or the Yamaha SR125 - and you see a lot of those on the road.

You're partly right on the baby trailbike/offroader thing though - I see quite a few on the commuter run, as they're ideal for battling through very heavy traffic.

Mind you, most days I spot a 125cc Suzuki Marauder (ridden by the smallest rider I've ever seen) a Mito and a Sachs! Now I reckon that is a good 125 to ride, it has real presence and looks like a much larger bike.

On the racerep angle... well you don't see many pukka race reps... but the second highest selling bike in 2004? Honda's CBR125R. Looks the part, even if it doesn't actually have race performance.