The draft Land Transport Amendment Rule [2011] is out...

[p.dath]

I think that you have confused me.

To get on the RTA NSW list the bike needs to have an engine capacity up to and including 660ml and not exceed a power to weight ratio of 150 kilowatts per tonne.

That is what is being proposed over here, the same thing... Or am I really not following what you are saying.

Correct, that is what has to be done to get onto the list. But no learner rider ever has to be concerned with that or the process (in NSW) - because their new law says that a learner rider can only ride bikes on that list - it's up to the manufacturers and importers to get their bikes onto the list (aka those with experience with bikes).

All a learner has to do (in NSW) is check to see if their bike is on the learners list. Very simple.


It looks like in NZ we are going to specify that the bike meets the same requirements to get onto the list - but their wont be any legal requirement for that list. So a learner buying a bike now has to check themselves the engine capacity and power to weight ratio meet the legal requirement.
You can see how this is going to be much harder to someone just beginning their riding life.

[GOONR]

Correct, that is what has to be done to get onto the list. But no learner rider ever has to be concerned with that or the process (in NSW) - because their new law says that a learner rider can only ride bikes on that list - it's up to the manufacturers and importers to get their bikes onto the list (aka those with experience with bikes).

All a learner has to do (in NSW) is check to see if their bike is on the learners list. Very simple.


It looks like in NZ we are going to specify that the bike meets the same requirements to get onto the list - but their wont be any legal requirement for that list. So a learner buying a bike now has to check themselves the engine capacity and power to weight ratio meet the legal requirement.
You can see how this is going to be much harder to someone just beginning their riding life.

I understand it to be that there will be a list published, in the proposal it mentions that new bikes will be added and a notification will be published in the Gazette. If there were no list how would road side check points work? Plod would have to manually work out every bike they stopped with a 6L or 6R licence holder riding it.

[p.dath]

For your interest only, I made a submission to proposal 16 of the changes. Proposal 16 currently states that a learners bike must be under 660cc and less than 150 kw/tonne. They have indicated that a list will be maintained of bikes that meet this requirement to help people out.

I have given some consideration to the wording of proposal 16a, and think a different focus might be of benefit.

I've considered three views.
1. A person wanting to get into riding with no experience. The current wording places the onus on the new rider to ensure the bike meets the legal requires of being under 660cc and less than 150 kw/tonne. This is a lot of knowledge for someone to possess who does not know anything about riding.
2. Enforcement on the road side by Police will be difficult. I cannot see how a Police person could readily determine the power to weight ratio by just looking at the motorcycle. Additionally, I can see some difficulties for the court in trying to uphold this law. For example, how exactly is the weight measured (dry sump, with or without rider, at what RPM, at what temperature). Also there can be quite some variance between a manufactures published power figures at what is actually measured on a Dyno. And even when using a Dyno, no two Dyno's are likely to give the same answer as they often measure the power in different ways.
3. No provision is allowed for new technology, such as electric bikes.

I understand that a list is proposed to be used to assist in these areas.


I would like to propose that the legislation be changed so that it states a learner can only ride a bike that is on the list, as opposed to stating the technical mechanical requirements of the motorbike. This makes it very easy for someone buying a motorbike - it is either on the list or not. It makes enforcement on the side of the road very easy, and it makes it easy on the courts.

I also propose that the legislation provide the power to the LSTA to add and remove motorcycles from the approved learner bike list.

And I propose that the LTSA prepare guidelines saying that only bikes under 660cc and under 150 kw/tonne (as currently proposed in the legislation) will be placed on the list, and that manufacturers and importers (who have the technical knowledge) need to apply to the LTSA to have their bikes placed on that list. This shifts the onus from those without the knowledge to those with the knowledge.

I would suggest that the LTSA could also say that any bike on the Australian list is automatically placed on the NZ list.

The reason I prefer that the process is managed by the LTSA is that the LTSA can adapt faster to changes - such as the uptake of electric bikes. Anything put in legislation takes a long time to change.

[sil3nt]

Your points 1 and 2 are stupid. There will be a set list. Its not like the buyers or the police are going to be crunching numbers.

Point 3 is valid i guess...but not something that will need to be taken into consideration for awhile yet.

[p.dath]

Your points 1 and 2 are stupid. There will be a set list. Its not like the buyers or the police are going to be crunching numbers.

The problem is the list has no legal basis when it comes to enforcement - the law as it is proposed requires that you crunch the numbers. The law also doesn't define exactly how the measurements are to be done. For example, it doesn't say how the weight is measured - which obviously affects the power to weight ratio.

I proposed they remove the "crunching of numbers", and make the legal requirement be that the bike is on the list. Simpler to work out.

[bogan]

The problem is the list has no legal basis when it comes to enforcement - the law as it is proposed requires that you crunch the numbers. The law also doesn't define exactly how the measurements are to be done. For example, it doesn't say how the weight is measured - which obviously affects the power to weight ratio.

I proposed they remove the "crunching of numbers", and make the legal requirement be that the bike is on the list. Simpler to work out.

think that how they do it in aus, so we'll get same limits, same list! and a bunch of shitty detuned bikes, I hear they actually further de-tune a hyo to get it on the list


Got round to having a read of it, heres my notes, to form a submission from in future.

I have no problems with proposals 13 and below. However in the motorcycling section I am displeased to read the 20x figure as a justification for singling motorcyclists out. As you should know in this instance motorcycle is termed as almost any powered two wheeled vehicle, a third of which are mopeds, limited to 50kmhr (essentially urban travel). Clearly merging such classes will skew any result of a per kilometer analysis. In the survey I could find (2009 one, not sure where to get the new one from?) the moped class bikes made up 6% of the km, but 21% of the accidents! Also less than a quarter of a percent of the fleet were included in the survey, giving a large margin of error.

I agree that the motorcycle license tests need to be toughened up, but would like to see this happen for all license classes, after all, around half of motorcyclists accident are not caused by the rider.

List of proposals I support, but would very much like to see them applied to car drivers and other classes as well. If it benefits bikers I see no reason why they won't benefit others too.
14, 15, 16

I support prop 17, and wholeheartedly support proposal 18, the 70kmhr limit does more harm than good in my opinion.

I am a little unclear on proposal 19, there seems to be no difference between 6M and 6L? tests sound the same for both, but 6m you can't ride as much bikes, though I assume the 6L will lapse earlier. Apart from that I agree, moped should always have come exclusively under the class 6 banner.

And I have no strong feeling for the remainder of the proposals.

[davereid]

This is a step in the right direction. The 660cc thing is a waste of paper, it just confuses the issue.

A simple power to weight ratio and perhaps a maximum vehicle weight may be more useful.

[p.dath]

think that how they do it in aus, so we'll get same limits, same list! and a bunch of shitty detuned bikes, I hear they actually further de-tune a hyo to get it on the list

From what I read, our proposed legislation is a mirror image for the Australian legislation. They also run a list to help people work out what is legal or not, but the list itself has no legal basis.

[bogan]

From what I read, our proposed legislation is a mirror image for the Australian legislation. They also run a list to help people work out what is legal or not, but the list itself has no legal basis.

hmmm, maybe it's the uk or somewhere else then, I have a feeling that some country uses a list and the manufacturers have to pay to get thier bikes checked and added to the list. So I assumed it had a legal basis.
But I think the issue of checking them will be easily solved if they adopt the amendment, the amendment doesn't have to say how it will be policed. Could be a list, could be a number on the rego label, could be an approved sticker for the bike after a check by vtnz...

[Dare]

it's up to the manufacturers and importers to get their bikes onto the list

What if the bike in question in currently is being neither manufactured or imported?

Had a look at the Aus list a while back and there were a few NZ learner staples missing..

[DEATH_INC.]

I like it, RGV's and RS's should become cheap again

[phiretrojan]

I might be jumping the gun here (bang jump,! woohoo missed me) , but i was just reading the draft it sounds alot like the AUS Transport rules, so then i checked out

http://www.tradingpost.com.au/Resear...irst-Motorbike


and noticed "between 250 and 660cc are approved or rejected depending on their power output and weight. If it's got a high performance four cylinder engine, than you can bet it's out but if it has a lazy old single or twin cylinder engine, then it's probably in. But you need to check."

cause i know the Cbr250 are high performance four cyl engines! - which means CBr250s are out???

[p.dath]

What if the bike in question in currently is being neither manufactured or imported?

Then it would require someone to apply to have it put on the list ... and if it is a popular bike, then likely some dealer would do it quickly so as to not miss out on any sales.

cause i know the Cbr250 are high performance four cyl engines! - which means CBr250s are out???

There are only 4 bikes that are 250cc or less that are excluded, and that is not one of them.

[sil3nt]

I might be jumping the gun here (bang jump,! woohoo missed me) , but i was just reading the draft it sounds alot like the AUS Transport rules, so then i checked out

http://www.tradingpost.com.au/Resear...irst-Motorbike


and noticed "between 250 and 660cc are approved or rejected depending on their power output and weight. If it's got a high performance four cylinder engine, than you can bet it's out but if it has a lazy old single or twin cylinder engine, then it's probably in. But you need to check."

cause i know the Cbr250 are high performance four cyl engines! - which means CBr250s are out???

They are more talking about bikes like the RVF 400. This bike is on the list but i have heard it has been taken off in some states or will be taken off. The only reason it is on the lists is that Honda understated the RVFs power and the people who make the lists dont realise what they are letting on. In reality it makes about the same HP as every other sports 400. Will be interesting to see if it will be allowed over here.

[phiretrojan]

Here a question,

i don't know if this is true, this is what i just heard.....not to sure if its going to happen in New Zealand

few good mates from aussie, told me, that (should have my full by then but if not) that if a motorcycle is not on a LAMS list, Example R6 but if you get it De-Tuned you can get it accepted ?? would this be true? lol or GSXR600 should be a LAMS bike if you promise to leave it in C Mode lol lol Yes i know get my Full i guess its the fair of not passing