L Plates are dangerous

[Cayman911]

It's all a myth that people intentionally intimidate L plate riders.

Like the myth that every biker at front of the lights wants to race. its so funny you get the odd cars next to you eyeing you out and as soon as the light goes green they gas it off hard. and i actually make a turn hahahahaha

[born disturbed]

Alot of the problem with learner riders or even longtime riders in general being tailgated or passed dangerously is that you are not giving the cage driver the feeling that you have presence on the road, they simply see straight past to the nice wide open space & dont think twice as how their next move may affect you. It probably helps me, even with my L's (stoopid court order)that I have been riding well long enough to gauge how drivers react to our riding styles & the fact that I look drastically angry even with my helmet on& need to hit something all the time.

Ride like you pay to use the damn road & yes there will still be fuckwits who pass & tailgate when they dont need too, thats the life of a biker. Keep your L's on for the sake of license & such & ride your bike, just keep an eye on your mirrors

[PirateJafa]

Your learners motorcycle licence to drive is conditional on you using a bike of 250cc or less, that has an L plate.

That's the only vehicle covered by your motorcycle learners licence. You aren't licensed for a 650, Mums car, or Dads B-Train, or a 125 that does not have L plates.

Its not like not having rego or a WOF. Being unlicensed for the class of vehicle you are driving is an easy out for an insurer that chose to play the game the hard way.

It would be an amazingly anal insurer who chose to deny you insurance because your L plate had just fallen off. A slightly less anal insurer who chose to deny it because you chose to ride without it.

But, such insurers exist, and the chance of finding one is directly related to the cost of the payout.

Wrong.

Suggest you actually read the above-mentioned act. As long as thefact they didn't have a little square of yellow plastic on their tail was not a causative factor in the crash, it is no "easy out" for them as long as you are prepared to stand up for your rights.

Having been rear-ended twice on my restricted on >250cc bikes, I can guarantee you that you can get the full money out of even the hard-arsed companies (In the first instance they even paid me twice what I told them I'd bought the bike for, and let me keep the still-reg'd, still-WOF'd, still-ridable "wreck" - and apparently getting money from these guys was usually akin to getting blood from a stone).

Know your rights and be prepared to stand up for them, and you'll be fine.

I don't recall now being tailgated or overtaken when I rode my bikes with or without the "L" plate, but definitely had incidents when I rode my scooters regardless of having the "L" plate or not, even though I always keep to 50-ish km/hr speeds. Similarly my Toyota MR2 was almost never overtaken, but my Mitsubishi L300 van is frequently overtaken when doing the same speeds (~100-ish km/hr on the open roads). Just one of those driver behaviour quirks

In all fairness, in a car I do prefer to overtake vans on the road, as they block a good bit more visibility than having a car in front.

[Neshi]

I'm not intentionally not displaying the L plate because of tailgaters... the sole fact that learners aren't allowed to do 100km/h on the motorway is enough for me. Doing 70 is dangerous, but with an L plate and doing a 100 is in my opinion screaming for attention from the police.. If they have a bad day it's very easy for them to fine you for 30km/h over the limit. Without the L-plate, and a confident attitude it seems like you're doing nothing wrong and they won't give you a second look.

[p.dath]

Suggest you actually read the above-mentioned act. As long as thefact they didn't have a little square of yellow plastic on their tail was not a causative factor in the crash, it is no "easy out" for them as long as you are prepared to stand up for your rights.

You are right PirateJaffa. The problem is even if you are in the "right" it is not often worth the fight. The last big issue I had with an insurance company that kept stalling took me more than a year to work through the legal channel - only to have it settled just before "D" day.

It's just so much grief some times. Just easier to stick "inside" the law, and avoid potential issues that an insurance company can bring up to try and not process a claim in the first place, even if those issues are not "causative".

[scumdog]

haha there was a CBR400 on trademe a while back with 250 stickers on it for that exact reason.

Yeah, THAT will fool the cops.

Until one does a check on your rego....

[scumdog]

I had people tailgating me on my learners, and my restricted and even now on my full. As a learner it probably seems more noticeable and intimidating while you settle on your own strategy for dealing with it. They are not going to disappear just because you get your full licence and a bigger bike.

That is the reality of it, with very rare exceptions the driver behaviour is the same regardless of the 'L' plate or not.

Most don't want to have to have an 'L' plate on their bike purely for ego reasons - but come up with random excuses to not have it on.

[rjg]

I 'wore' my L plate for my 6 months around Welly and down and up the length of the Mainland and never had any issues with other drivers.
I felt better not worrying about getting pulled over for a please explain with Mr Snake. As for the 70km/h rule, I feel you have a much better case to argue for the officers discretion on that then not having an L plate.

I've attached the L plate on my bike when I first got my license. 2 weeks in it fell of on the motorway.. never bothered to put a new one up.

Just one more thing falling off your bike mate.

Of course I stick to 70kph (x2)

And don't dare me, I might just go and do it.

I dare you, I dare you. Just do it man, you know you want to.

[davereid]

Wrong. Suggest you actually read the above-mentioned act. As long as thefact they didn't have a little square of yellow plastic on their tail was not a causative factor in the crash, it is no "easy out" for them as long as you are prepared to stand up for your rights.

Sigh.

Phone your insurer. Ask them if you are still covered if you are un-licenced for the class of vehicle you crash.

Your licence is conditional on you meeting its requirements.

The word AND applies not OR.

You need to meet condition A and B and C etc to be licensed. Its not A or B or C.

Its not that the little piece of plastic was causative to the crash and more than an extra c.c. of engine capacity would be.

Its the fact that the extra c.c., or lack of the plastic thingy means you are not licensed for the class of vehicle.

Your insurer may not even notice it. He may not even care. But, he might just walk off, because legally you are not correctly licensed.

[SMOKEU]

I never even bothered with an L plate, except when I went for my 6R test. I got 3T once by a traffic unit, and he questioned me about the no L plate. I just said "I think I'm a good enough rider not to need one", and he just laughed and let me off without a fine.

[PirateJafa]

Sigh.

Phone your insurer. Ask them if you are still covered if you are un-licenced for the class of vehicle you crash.

Your licence is conditional on you meeting its requirements.

The word AND applies not OR.

You need to meet condition A and B and C etc to be licensed. Its not A or B or C.

Its not that the little piece of plastic was causative to the crash and more than an extra c.c. of engine capacity would be.

Its the fact that the extra c.c., or lack of the plastic thingy means you are not licensed for the class of vehicle.

Your insurer may not even notice it. He may not even care. But, he might just walk off, because legally you are not correctly licensed.

You're wrong. And since it has already been clearly explained that you are wrong, with real-world examples cited, you are unfortunately on a hiding to nothing here.

But it looks like that won't deter you.

[davereid]

You're wrong. And since it has already been clearly explained that you are wrong, with real-world examples cited, you are unfortunately on a hiding to nothing here.

But it looks like that won't deter you.

Go on then. Ring your insurer.

Ask them if you are covered if unlicensed.

Then ask them if you are covered if otherwise licensed but if breach of license conditions.

I have asked my insurance broker. He said, many insurers would not notice, and even if they did they may not care.

But you would not have a leg to stand on if they did care. Being unlicensed is an easy out for them, as is being drunk, or 24.99999 years old when the vehicle is insured for drivers 25 or older.

[PirateJafa]

Go on then. Ring your insurer.

Ask them if you are covered if unlicensed.

Then ask them if you are covered if otherwise licensed but if breach of license conditions.

I have asked my insurance broker. He said, many insurers would not notice, and even if they did they may not care.

But you would not have a leg to stand on if they did care. Being unlicensed is an easy out for them, as is being drunk, or 24.99999 years old when the vehicle is insured for drivers 25 or older.

Insurance companies will of course try and get away with whatever they can. This is not news to anyone. They initially refused to pay out on me too, as I was claiming on a NC30 on my restricted. However if you stand your ground, you will get the payout, as I did.

Just because you don't know your rights, does not mean they don't exist.

Putting your head in the sand will only make it easier for them to take you in the arse.

[Squiggles]

as I was claiming on a NC30 on my restricted

with an exemption from memory?

[PirateJafa]

with an exemption from memory?

Whilst waiting to hear from LTSA regarding my exemption application, from memory...