PDA

View Full Version : Licence Restrictions - WTF?



Wolf
26th January 2005, 15:41
G'day all

Just after some thoughts and opinions.

I don't know if this thread has come up before as I'm a relative n00b to these fora.

Does anyone else here think the licence restrictions are insanely out-of-date?

Specifically the "no more than 250cc" stipulation, which goes by the false premise that a Suzuki RGV250 Gamma (33.6kW (45hp), 37Nm, top speed around 184km/h) is "safer" for newbies than a Suzuki LS400 (17.9kW (24hp), 26Nm, top speed around 130km/h).

I mean, WTF? For a large number of years now, the potential has been there for total newbies (albeit with a fair few more dollars than experience) to buy a device that would laminate them across the scenery faster than my "dangerous" full-licence-only LS400 "Savage" (more like "Tamed and Neutered").

I think it's high time the LTSA looked at the cc-based restriction critically and changed to a kW-based system (not unlike their "<2kW requires only a learner car licence").

The "less than 250cc" rule might have been fine back in the dim, distant past but the diversity of bikes over the last few years is such that my 1990 LS400 is less powerful than a '82 GSX250E in terms of straight power - before factoring in the power to weight ratio (which puts the RGV250 Gamma way ahead of a Suzuki VS750 "Intruder")

I'm not, by any stretch of the imagination, suggesting that the law be changed to allow a newbie to ride an Intruder (even tho' my Great-uncle learned on gravel roads on a 1340cc Harley without a helmet back in the olden days and having an Intruder for a first bike would probably be safer than an RGV250 - better tyres for a start).

What I propose is that a cap is put at, say, 25kW (GN250 range) which will prevent newbies killing themselves (and possibly others) on some of the high-performance mini-crotch-rockets out there (we do want them to survive and become long-term members of the biker community).

Admittedly, it would also allow newbies to ride some of the "big bikes" (like a Tamed and Neutered LS650 "Savage") but as most of those have got better road handling than most of the smaller bikes (not running on effing "razor-blades" for a start) that might not be such a bad thing.

Thoughts? Opinions? Flames? (Donning asbstos underwear already) :Playnice:

inlinefour
26th January 2005, 16:07
At the risk of getting lynched and bad repped.

I think that the resrictions are a bloody good idea, for reasons that the younger generation won't or refuse to understand.
I also think that cars should have some sort of restriction also.

Just wait until you have a mate that kills himself after going from 250cc to 1000cc :mellow:

jrandom
26th January 2005, 16:13
What *I* want to know, right, is... why would anyone, full licence or otherwise, CHOOSE to ride a Savage?

:bleh:

The graduated UK 125cc/<= 33hp/full system is probably better in theory, but it's a bit on the annoyingly picky and complicated side.

Our system works well enough. It ain't broke. Does anyone have data on precisely how many non-full-licence riders have creamed themselves on fast 250s?

In the end, anyway, motorcycles are devices for culling the gene pool. Stupidity is swiftly rewarded. You can only do so much to cushion that with a licencing system.

Skunk
26th January 2005, 16:19
In the end, anyway, motorcycles are devices for culling the gene pool.How did I get though? :pinch:
I'd like to see restrictions on cars. (200+ hp ,for a Learner? WTF :unsure: )

outlawtorn
26th January 2005, 16:21
I reckon we should keep the restrictions, I am a GZ250 rider but I would have probably seen my arse many times if I had a bigger bike, yes it is frustrating but at the end of the day it is for the greater good.

We all need time to learn how to handle the bike and traffic.

What they should do is stop these snotty little shit-fucks in their suped-up boy racer cars. What the hell does a 16-17 year old know about driving a Mazda RX7 or a super fast Subaru? These are the kids who should have restrictions!!!

Waylander
26th January 2005, 16:30
got my licence in the states so i didnt have to deal with the graduated licence system but i rekon its a good idea. it keeps younger and (sometimes) imature riders from getting something that is way too powerfull for them ie. the yamaha R1 or suzuki Hyabusa. you see kids like that everywhere back home had thier licence for a week and they are blasting down the roads pulling wheelies and lane spliting at 150k. they are the real reason bikers have such a lousy rep in the states not the gangs and all.

White trash
26th January 2005, 16:31
Why the fuck would any one want a 400 "Mildly annoyed" when there's a perfectly good RGV250 with 50hp available legaly?

The restrictions are a problem how?

Seriously though, a hell of a lot of newbies in the States are buying R1s and 'Busas 'cause they saw them in a rap vid and they got lots of cred man.

cc limit is the easiest way to police nooBs.

Waylander
26th January 2005, 16:33
Why the fuck would any one want a 400 "Mildly annoyed" when there's a perfectly good RGV250 with 50hp available legaly?

The restrictions are a problem how?

Seriously though, a hell of a lot of newbies in the States are buying R1s and 'Busas 'cause they saw them in a rap vid and they got lots of cred man.

cc limit is the easiest way to police nooBs.

haha got it in just before you did WT :first:

Slipstream
26th January 2005, 16:41
I reckon we should keep the restrictions, I am a GZ250 rider but I would have probably seen my arse many times if I had a bigger bike, yes it is frustrating but at the end of the day it is for the greater good.

We all need time to learn how to handle the bike and traffic.

What they should do is stop these snotty little shit-fucks in their suped-up boy racer cars. What the hell does a 16-17 year old know about driving a Mazda RX7 or a super fast Subaru? These are the kids who should have restrictions!!!

I agree.

I mean you have to do a handling test for a bike licence.
Why not one for a car?

Skyryder
26th January 2005, 16:51
Specifically the "no more than 250cc" stipulation, which goes by the false premise that a Suzuki RGV250 Gamma (33.6kW (45hp), 37Nm, top speed around 184km/h) is "safer" for newbies than a Suzuki LS400 (17.9kW (24hp), 26Nm, top speed around 130km/h).

Herein lies the problem with your solution. CC rating is understood by everybody.

Kilowatts horsepower and Newton meter's, complicated and subject to debate.

Skyryder

Two Smoker
26th January 2005, 16:56
I dont see a problem with the licence graduation system... This is because you can go from a GN125 to a GN250 to a GSX-R250 to a RGV250 (ah bless the Suzuki gods) and learn something from all of those bikes with out breaking the licence rules.... a step from a RGV250 for a GSX-R600 will be a hell of alot nicer than a step from a 30hp bike to a 110hp bike....

dveus
26th January 2005, 17:19
The biggest problem I see with the curent licensing system is that it will take me 2 full years and $300 to get my full. Also the learners -> restricted doesn't really change anything in the way of restrictions, so to me seems to be more of a money grabbing exercise than that of public safety.

Riff Raff
26th January 2005, 17:22
Also the learners -> restricted doesn't really change anything in the way of restrictions, so to me seems to be more of a money grabbing exercise than that of public safety.
Silly - you are allowed to do speed limit now! Oh yeah - so it didn't change anything!

avgas
26th January 2005, 17:31
i agree, lets allow everyone only 50cc for learners, 250 for restricted, 400 for semi restricted, 600 4 / 900 twin for almost full, and then you get your full.
At the end of the day mate - you can still die at 30kph, so a 50cc is too big for these wankers. I say make it a quick death on RGV, i mean whos parents/mates let them get it in the first place.
My old man said i could only borrow money from him to buy a 150, so i made it a fucken fast 150 :bleh: should have seen his face when i got it back from the 'mechanics' and caught up to his 955i.

Wolf
26th January 2005, 17:45
I also think that cars should have some sort of restriction also.

Likewise. Nothing more powerful than a stock Hillman Imp for newbie drivers - AFTER they have held a Full motorcycle licence for a year (just so the stupid bastards will know what it's like out there and look out for motorbikes)

Riff Raff
26th January 2005, 17:50
Yes the graduated system should be pushbike, scooter, motorbike, car, Pajero!

Wolf
26th January 2005, 17:50
What *I* want to know, right, is... why would anyone, full licence or otherwise, CHOOSE to ride a Savage?

:killingme

A short-arsed person who couldn't afford a better cruiser

Wolf
26th January 2005, 17:59
I dont see a problem with the licence graduation system... This is because you can go from a GN125 to a GN250 to a GSX-R250 to a RGV250 (ah bless the Suzuki gods) and learn something from all of those bikes with out breaking the licence rules.... a step from a RGV250 for a GSX-R600 will be a hell of alot nicer than a step from a 30hp bike to a 110hp bike....

'tis the step from BMX to RGV250 that worries me.

The RGV has a definite place - but I don't think it would be appropriate for a total n00b - however the "law" disagrees.

Two Smoker
26th January 2005, 18:10
'tis the step from BMX to RGV250 that worries me.

The RGV has a definite place - but I don't think it would be appropriate for a total n00b - however the "law" disagrees.

Yes as am i... But its the ability to get a RGV when on a restricted licence.... I had far exceeded my bikes limits (RG150) when i was still on my learners....

Krusti
26th January 2005, 19:08
In actual fact, if you want to make all our drivers safer everyone should be required to do 1 year on a bike before being allowed in a car.

mikey
26th January 2005, 19:18
should be like car system....

1st 6 months, ride on back of someones bike
nest year ride o n own bike
after that can have people ride on back of your bike

no matter what size


as long as you can get away from nasty little boys with sirens on there cars

SPman
26th January 2005, 22:45
'tis the step from BMX to RGV250 that worries me.


Shit yeah - some of those BMX's are lethal! An RGV would be a real comedown.

Krayy
27th January 2005, 08:26
...
Kilowatts horsepower and Newton meter's, complicated and subject to debate.

To (loosely) quote Jeremy Clarkson in last seasons Top Gear "Nobody really knows what torques are, but this car has bucketloads of them".

Dodgyiti
27th January 2005, 08:55
I seem to remember when the law first came out about 250's, they were pretty crappy and slow.
Top speeds would have been way down on the latest offerings of today.

TygerTung
27th January 2005, 21:49
Yeah, there are some pretty quick 250's out there, I got a slow bike as my first bike cos I'm sensible, but some may not, but I guess it's darwins theory of evolution in action I guess?

I reckon that no more than 70 on the open road is very dangerous idea, you'd get cleaned up quickly cruising at 70 down the motorway for sure...

inlinefour
27th January 2005, 22:10
Yeah, there are some pretty quick 250's out there, I got a slow bike as my first bike cos I'm sensible, but some may not, but I guess it's darwins theory of evolution in action I guess?

I reckon that no more than 70 on the open road is very dangerous idea, you'd get cleaned up quickly cruising at 70 down the motorway for sure...

A quick wheelie gets rid of the L plate, with the evidence of there actually being one there in the past remaining. I dont think I EVER did the "no more than" speed limit. I read in the road code some where that its better to travel at the pace of the other traffic. The RD250LC generally had no problems doing that , apart from when I was passing the other traffic :bleh:

Stevo
27th January 2005, 23:10
The 250 law is pretty simple really. Even non bikers can understand it. (My mate's Mrs thinks my FZR250 is pretty much the same as Kelz ZX9R for god's sake). Pity I couldn't afford the Aprilia 250 when I got my learners though. :cool:

inlinefour
28th January 2005, 02:06
The 250 law is pretty simple really. Even non bikers can understand it. (My mate's Mrs thinks my FZR250 is pretty much the same as Kelz ZX9R for god's sake). Pity I couldn't afford the Aprilia 250 when I got my learners though. :cool:

But back in the early 1990s a 1981 RD250LC could be made to do 185km/h. Did I mention that I want another one of these bikes at all? :yes:

Monsterbishi
28th January 2005, 04:19
Some of the states in Australia have the right idea, with power:weight limits for non-full licence drivers instead of hp/displacement restrictions...

Wolf
28th January 2005, 10:09
Some of the states in Australia have the right idea, with power:weight limits for non-full licence drivers instead of hp/displacement restrictions...
Sounds a good idea to me and make more meaningful gradings - Restricted licence holders should be able to ride more powerful bikes than learners.

You'd need some kind of database of "approved" models that would have to be regularly updated as new 'bikes come out and to make it simple for the average cop on the street (who doesn't have immediate access to the database) you go back to the differentiated licence labels of the old days - approved bikes can get a "learner" class or "restricted" class registration sticker that can be easily identified (different colours from the full licence variety would be good).

The colour of the sticker will determine that this 350 is approved for use by learners while that 150 is not. Tickets issued accordingly. :sly:

As the registration stickers are printed out by computer these days, it shouldn't be too difficult to set it up so that only approved bikes can get a "learner-class" or "restricted" rego sticker - compare the make/model of the 'bike being registered with the database and, if it's approved, the option for the appropriate label comes up. Full-on 'bikes only have one label option.

Whatever the system used - hp, Nm, Power:weight or a calculated combination - it doesn't matter if the cops or the riders or the public at large understand it, so long as there is a list of what are acceptable learner vehicles (expand it to cover cars) and some quick way of identifying them.

Your local bike shop would of course have a list of all "learner-approved" and "restricted licence" 'bikes. And Road Safety can put the list up on the web, the licensing places could print out a list for a modest fee.

ktulu
29th January 2005, 15:42
Sounds like everyone is scared of the power of the RGV aye... hmmmm

Ah well go and ride your four strokes :D


I think its ok as it is now but as with everything its up to the person, I agree that a bit of natural selection can come in to it lets just hope these people don't harm anyone innocent like so many do in cars.

I had two RG150's before I made the upgrade to my RGV but I now feel more than comfortable and mature enough to make the step up to a 1000 v twin or a 600. Its got a hell of a lot to do with the persons maturity and common sense aswell hence no law ever falls in to the one size fits all category

Wolf
30th January 2005, 00:20
Sounds like everyone is scared of the power of the RGV aye... hmmmm
Ah well go and ride your four strokes :D


My first full licence bike was a torgue-induced RD350 - theoretically capable of the same top speed as your RGV250 and possessing a wicked powerband that transformed the bike into a demon from hell when it kicked in (gotta love coming off the lights in first to turn a corner and having the powerband kick in so you pop a wheelie whilst leaning. I recommend it for all cronic constipation sufferers.)

I say "theoretically capable of the same speed as yours" as I got it up to only 128km/h and the shuddering from the frame passed this Kiwi's fear barrier. Bounding all over the road at eighty miles an hour is not my idea of fun so I eased off the trigger.

I'm not against the RGV - or any other performance bike for that matter, I just think the law is insane saying that my LS400 is "more dangerous" in the hands of a total n00b than your RGV. The RGV is an impressive piece of hardware, and not just when compared with other 250s. It ranks up there, power- and speed-wise, with the "big bikes" that the law seems so dead set against.

NordieBoy
30th January 2005, 08:52
Specifically the "no more than 250cc" stipulation, which goes by the false premise that a Suzuki RGV250 Gamma (33.6kW (45hp), 37Nm, top speed around 184km/h) is "safer" for newbies than a Suzuki LS400 (17.9kW (24hp), 26Nm, top speed around 130km/h).

I traded my Savage in back in Easter 2000 on my first Nordwest and have only just found out to what extent my brother "fixed" the engine after I ran it out of oil (leaky seal).
It had a 1 tooth smaller front sprocket when I bought it which threw the speedo out by 15kph so I used a pushbike speedo.
I thought it was a new pistion/rings and rebore.
Nnnooooo.....
Head skimmed and grindeded, ports matched...

The next owner went everywhere at 130kph comfortably.
I had straight bars on it as well.

Sniper
30th January 2005, 10:16
I like the idea of a change so that you have a kW restriction or horsepower restriction on both car and motorcycle licenses.

Something along the lines of learners license 0-40Hp, Restricted license 0-65hp and full license 0 to hell yea. Just so that you get the learning curve right.

Unless you are brilliant (Im sure many of you are) I wouldnt like to jump off my CBR250RR and my next bike be a 2004 R1 with 186Hp. I mean, Im asking for trouble there. So why not the gradual raise in power before going ape?

Just an idea, but thats my 2c