An Unpopular Thought/Suggestion

[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!!

I agree.

Here's the list http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/licensing/...iceriders.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

[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

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/...iceriders.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.

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

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.

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

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 you betta have some realy good self control
where as a gn 250 is more than suitable

edit: and lets not forget about the SG350 Goose

[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.