Proposed changes to motorbike licences

[Genestho]

Nothing new - part and parcel of the 62 initiatives proposed in the Safer Journeys public consultation last year..

More info http://www.transport.govt.nz/saferjo...fety-FAQs.aspx

So those who submitted last year - you still have a ways to go..

Will the public get the chance to comment on these proposals?

The motorcycle and moped safety proposals will require an amendment to the Land Transport (Driver Licensing) Rule. This Rule will be amended as part of the 2010/11 land transport rules programme.

The public will have a chance to have their say as part of the rules consultation process. It is expected that the public consultation on the motorcycle and moped safety proposals will occur before the end of the year.

I'm assuming there's more announcements to come overall regarding the original safer journeys proposals. There will be those here who're upto date with the proposed actions and regulatory impact statements released earlier this year...

[GOONR]

If LAMS is adopted the same way as in NSW and goes up to 650cc for a LAM approved bike and the higher ACC levy kicks in at 601cc isn't there a contradiction in there somewhere.

Basically they would be indicating that certain 650cc bikes are Ok for learners but at the same time they are saying that anything over 601cc is very bad and costs lots to put right in the event of an off.

[bogan]

If LAMS is adopted the same way as in NSW and goes up to 650cc for a LAM approved bike and the higher ACC levy kicks in at 601cc isn't there a contradiction in there somewhere.

Basically they would be indicating that certain 650cc bikes are Ok for learners but at the same time they are saying that anything over 601cc is very bad and costs lots to put right in the event of an off.

but if they go to a database they might do the levies by power to weight as well, catching all the 600cc sportsbike owners out, then again, a far more accurate measure for ACC payout/risk would be income based anyway!

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

["Motorcyclists are 20 times more at risk of being involved in a fatal or serious injury crash than car drivers per kilometre driven.``

20 times... its going up...

only last year it was 16 times more at risk according to Nicks Myth and ACC... . bloody ETS & GST

and yet in reality it its only 4 times..

[neels]

then again, a far more accurate measure for ACC payout/risk would be income based anyway!

How do you figure that?

I have a reasonable income and a reasonable mortgage so not a huge disposable income, I ride a cheap bike about 5000k's a year, my first ever accident on the road after 23 years of having a licence was last week when a van driver tried to kill me.

So why should my income have anything to do with it?

[mister.koz]

yeh but little Johnny (in my case anyway) has already rolled bowled and arsholed a few bikes on the farm anyway, so probably doesn't have as much learning to do on either car or bike for the road. There should be some way of discriminating between those who aren't quite safe enough to drive/ride on the road, and those who are!

Dude, everyone always has heaps to learn. While there's heaps of knowledge to be gained by riding on the farm its nothing like the road. I've seen a few guys jump from farm bikes to sports bikes most of them seemed fearless until the road gave them something to fear.

Being open to learning and critiquing your riding at every step is the best way to keep yourself and your bikes in one piece.

I reckon its good that they are toughening the licence laws but I (at risk of flames) think the test should be more frequent rather than just saying "yip, now you can ride/drive forever - just get your eyes checked every 10 years".

The ACC and registrations are a different argument, pricks are targeting people with bigger bikes because they usually have more cash than people on the smaller bikes.

[mister.koz]

How do you figure that?

I have a reasonable income and a reasonable mortgage so not a huge disposable income, I ride a cheap bike about 5000k's a year, my first ever accident on the road after 23 years of having a licence was last week when a van driver tried to kill me.

So why should my income have anything to do with it?

With you on that, income (like CC's) is not directly proportional to the cost to ACC, if this is user pays style then a scale matching the problem would suit, of course the ACC levy thing isn't about fairness or balance so its a moot point.

[bogan]

How do you figure that?

I have a reasonable income and a reasonable mortgage so not a huge disposable income, I ride a cheap bike about 5000k's a year, my first ever accident on the road after 23 years of having a licence was last week when a van driver tried to kill me.

So why should my income have anything to do with it?

ACC pays out income compensation as well as treatment costs, high wage earners generally ride larger bikes, so ACC pays more income compensation to owners of large bikes.

Dude, everyone always has heaps to learn. While there's heaps of knowledge to be gained by riding on the farm its nothing like the road. I've seen a few guys jump from farm bikes to sports bikes most of them seemed fearless until the road gave them something to fear.

Being open to learning and critiquing your riding at every step is the best way to keep yourself and your bikes in one piece.

I reckon its good that they are toughening the licence laws but I (at risk of flames) think the test should be more frequent rather than just saying "yip, now you can ride/drive forever - just get your eyes checked every 10 years".

The ACC and registrations are a different argument, pricks are targeting people with bigger bikes because they usually have more cash than people on the smaller bikes.

No it's not like the road, but if you come from a farm you already instinctually know where the controls are etc, so rather than learning to ride a two wheeled vehicle at the same time as learning to ride on the road, you only gotta learn the latter. So there's an advantage there, but you are certainly right, everyone has heaps to learn, even the cagers, hoping their tests will get toughened up too!

[neels]

ACC pays out income compensation as well as treatment costs, high wage earners generally ride larger bikes, so ACC pays more income compensation to owners of large bikes.

That's the sort of generalisation that ACC use, that's got us to where we are now. A trainee at my work that makes considerably less than me rides a 1200, I ride a 900 with considerably more experience, does income and cc rating determine who is the bigger risk to ACC?

No it's not like the road, but if you come from a farm you already instinctually know where the controls are etc, so rather than learning to ride a two wheeled vehicle at the same time as learning to ride on the road, you only gotta learn the latter. So there's an advantage there, but you are certainly right, everyone has heaps to learn, even the cagers, hoping their tests will get toughened up too!

I agree, the concept of learning how to operate the machine at the same time as learning how to cope with the environment around you is a very high workload for a learner.

I learnt to drive cars and ride bikes in paddocks and carparks long before I went on the road, when it came to licence time thankfully I only had the road and traffic for my tiny brain to contend with.

[Morcs]

what i dont understand is, why all these proposals are so far away? why not instigate them almost immediately. Its not like theres an argument against them (except all those noobs thatll have to wait longer to get their full, although at the moment most still are noobs when they get their full, this will at least help that a little)

Surely it wont take long to compile the list of power to weight ratio learner friendly bikes.
Then design tests for cruisers, sports bikes etc..
The rest is just administration stuff.

[ckai]

I don't get why on one hand they're trying to make bikers safer on the roads and on the other they're giving no benefit to those that educate themselves?!?!?! I'm talking about not being able to reduce the licence period by doing an approved course.

Don't get me wrong, some of them are crap but some of them do offer some useful shit that can save your life and others.

Oh well, they who know best shall prevail. I know I wouldn't have done a course if it didn't reduce my time.

[mister.koz]

No it's not like the road, but if you come from a farm you already instinctually know where the controls are etc, so rather than learning to ride a two wheeled vehicle at the same time as learning to ride on the road, you only gotta learn the latter. So there's an advantage there, but you are certainly right, everyone has heaps to learn, even the cagers, hoping their tests will get toughened up too!

Thats a really good point, one i didn't think of because i did a fairly decent amount of training and practice before going near the road.

I don't get why on one hand they're trying to make bikers safer on the roads and on the other they're giving no benefit to those that educate themselves?!?!?! I'm talking about not being able to reduce the licence period by doing an approved course.

Don't get me wrong, some of them are crap but some of them do offer some useful shit that can save your life and others.

Oh well, they who know best shall prevail. I know I wouldn't have done a course if it didn't reduce my time.

True, i did the defensive driving course to shorten my licence but after doing it i thought they should make it mandatory... You can't have too much training.

Training day at hamton was a good one too

It is pretty messed up that there are so many restrictions and requirements for bikes and any R driver can pickup a wrx or a skyline without question....

Why not put some restrictions on cars based on HP and up the registration on at-risk cars/drivers?

I think its 1/2 because the powers are lazy and 1/2 because there are more car drivers to complain and they are worried about elections and popularity.

[rustyrobot]

Have there been 'official' BRONZ or MAG-NZ statements on these proposed changes?

Seems to me that a higher level of driver/rider training ALL ROUND is necessary. Don't understand why 6L have the speed restrictions when there is no such restriction on a car. Also, if a power/weight ration can be calculate and considered for motorcyclists, surely there is the grounds to expect the same for learners in cars.

I did my BHS on a nifty-fifty (when I was 15). At the time I had a friend with an RGV250. He was smarter than me and wouldn't let me ride it, but it could have been very messy.

[kave]

When the power to weight ratio comes in I might pick myself up a cheap 250cc, maybe a 2-smoker. It will be interesting to see if the price of 250cc bikes at dealerships come down over the next little while in preparation for this change, I cant imagine a vtr250 for $9,499 (http://www.motorcycletrader.co.nz/Vi...010/38271.aspx) will sell once learners can buy much higher cc bikes. The 20 year old bikes such as (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Mo...-299370312.htm) that currently go for such a hugely inflated price will probably be cheap as chips as well.

[GOONR]

When the power to weight ratio comes in I might pick myself up a cheap 250cc, maybe a 2-smoker. It will be interesting to see if the price of 250cc bikes at dealerships come down over the next little while in preparation for this change, I cant imagine a vtr250 for $9,499 (http://www.motorcycletrader.co.nz/Vi...010/38271.aspx) will sell once learners can buy much higher cc bikes. The 20 year old bikes such as (http://www.trademe.co.nz/Trade-Me-Mo...-299370312.htm) that currently go for such a hugely inflated price will probably be cheap as chips as well.

Yeah, I've already thought about flicking my 250cc in a few months and getting something in the 600cc range. The 250cc will be worth diddly squat if LAM comes in.