new bike laws, uk?

[Bushcraftsman]

hi,

I know there are a lot of bikers on here so I was wondering if one of you can help me. I'm a bit unsure but what are the new laws they're trying to bring in and why are people saying "get your test done before next year"?? Im 19 and don't necessarily want a bike just yet! (i've done my CBT (december) but I wasn't planning on getting a bike just yet) I was thinking maybe just pass my test, so that I have my license and then after two years I dont have any restrictions as to what I can ride, correct? even if I did pass my test within next 5 months I could always just get a little 250cc or something (it's 33bhp the restriction for first 2 years isn't it?)

Preferably I dont want a reply that is a link to a website where i have to scroll through and read pages and pages of laws and regulations when all I need is a couple of sentances explaining how the law will change and how it could possibly affect me.

Thanks in advance guys!

Jordan

 

[santaman2000]

There are restrictions on what size bikes you can ride!?

 

[ged]

There are restrictions on what size bikes you can ride!?

Hehehehe. Oh, yes. And it gets better...

http://www.camrider.com/news/201204-Newtest2013.html

 

[Bushcraftsman]

thanks for that ged very clear and precise....i better book my test now then!!!!

 

[lub0]

Just proves how messed up this country is. Before we know it you'll need to pass training and hold a license for every possible activity you can think of. Over regulation is awful.

 

[santaman2000]

Quite a bit different from back when I got my driver's license (back then a motorcycle was considered a motor vehicle and didn't require a separate license) I was driving one from age 16 albeit only a 750cc.

 

[roger-uk]

Just proves how messed up this country is. Before we know it you'll need to pass training and hold a license for every possible activity you can think of. Over regulation is awful.

In my opinion its a good thing and long overdue in coming.

 

[santaman2000]

Does it require a license to ride (drive) dirt bikes when not on a public road? Or minibikes?

 

[Mesquite]

Does it require a license to ride (drive) dirt bikes when not on a public road? Or minibikes?

If they're on private land anyone can ride or drive anything they like without a licence from minibike up to a Challenger tank... provided they have permission from the landowner to ride there.

 

[demographic]

I've had my bike licence for ages now but I'm totally baffled at the hoops a new started has to jump through to get a licence. I wouldn't know where to start.

 

[Lupin Rider]

In my opinion its a good thing and long overdue in coming.

I think i agree with you. But having an unrestricted lisence means changes dont affect me. If i was in my 20's i would have argued the other way.

Reality is a modern bike has so much more power to weight and the roads have less bike aware drivers on etc that the environment of old isnt really comparable.

 

[demographic]

Does this go as far as car licences as well, or is it just bikes?

Don't bother answering, its a rhetorical question.

 

[Bushcraftsman]

I think it could potentially be a good thing, but someone could kill/injure themselves just as easily on a 33bhp 250 or whatever bike than they could on something with 1000cc. So I think its just yet ANOTHER way for the DVLA to get more money out of motorists, such as taking a seperate theory test for bikes as well as cars when they are pretty much 90% then exact same content...it is absolutely ridiculous. I better pass soon if I want to be riding anything over 600CC before im 30!

 

[Big Stu 12]

I ve been riding bikes for a few years now.... Over 30....from 50cc to a ZX12r, now had a Daytona 995i for about 6 years, seeing some of the riders and drivers on the roads, more awareness of each other are needed.... Thats riders and drivers.... I am all for restrictions not just on new riders but also on riders that have a liecene from whenthey were in their teens years a go when they had a 750, 1300cc ect, then they jump stright on a new bike its a total world of differece now a gpz 1100used to have 100hp, aZX12r had 180hp... Thats leap nearly double... And a hell of a differance.........i do wonder how many born again bikers fall fowl of the differance.....?????.... But then again not many will tell say so......

 

[ged]

Nearly seventy years ago, five thousand nineteen-year-olds lads took Lancaster loads of bombs to drop on Germany every evening. They didn't really have much choice. Every evening, fifty to a hundred of them didn't come back.

There's a nineteen-year-old lad comes to my judo club. Strictly speaking his mum brings him, and if for some reason she can't, he doesn't come. She won't let him have a motor-bike.

Apparently life was cheaper seventy years ago than it is now, and people grew up faster then than they do now. Times change.

Riders of motorcycles are nearly thirty times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than people in cars. The aftermath of a serious motorcycle accident -- I've seen a few -- is horrendous. It's hideously time-consuming and expensive -- road accidents in the UK probably cost us between fifteen and thirty billion pounds per year, that's 250 to 500 pounds per year for every person in the Kingdom. Search the Internet for 'motorcycle accident statistics' and ninety percent of the hits will be for law firms.

The after-effects can last several lifetimes. Even if you're lucky enough to survive a serious motorcycle accident without needing a wheelchair or losing the use of one or two limbs, you will still probably be a very different person afterwards. It's likely that your whole family, your circles of friends, your capacities to work and pursue leisure activities will all be affected.

This doesn't stop me riding bikes, but it does make me think. Whenever I get on a bike I think "will this be the last time?". And on or off the bike I also think that whatever we can do to cut the accident rates without unreasonably restricting lawful activities must tend to be good.

The government is not saying "you can't ride bikes".

But the average 250 nowadays can easily outperform the fastest bike I could buy when I was nineteen (not quite seventy years ago) , and the government is -- arguably, late in the day as usual -- trying to catch up with that. It's saying, more or less, "For Mercy's sake drive sensibly and stop killing yourselves on bikes".

It's tried education, and at great expense it's tried providing free courses. It's tried publicity and it's tried persuasion. It's tried rigorous enforcement of existing laws and it's even put a few bikes in the crusher.

None of that has really worked. So this is the next step. If this doesn't work, there'll be another step. And another, and another, until we take notice.

The coming changes are not about regulation by Big Brother. They are about saving lives and money, and about looking after us if we refuse to do that ourselves.


http://webarchive.nationalarchives....blications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/rrcgb2009

 

[FGYT]

In my opinion its a good thing and long overdue in coming.

mmm

I think you should be forced to learn and test on a bike and have to ride one for at least 12mths before you can progress onto a car licence
this would give car drivers a good working understanding of bikes and save a lot more lives.

maybe 3-4 test levels for cars of different powers to so you dont get a 17yr old in a Ferrari

ATB

Duncan

 

[santaman2000]

I think it could potentially be a good thing, but someone could kill/injure themselves just as easily on a 33bhp 250 or whatever bike than they could on something with 1000cc. So I think its just yet ANOTHER way for the DVLA to get more money out of motorists, such as taking a seperate theory test for bikes as well as cars when they are pretty much 90% then exact same content...it is absolutely ridiculous. I better pass soon if I want to be riding anything over 600CC before im 30!

They charge you to take the tests!?

 

[ged]

QUOTE=santaman2000;1124626]They charge you to take the tests!?[/QUOTE]

Yup.

They've even tried to make us pay when we're tried and found not guilty of things...

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=20842

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10318753

 

[Andy BB]

A well-reasoned argument there, Ged. And I agree that biking is intrinsically and statistically much more dangerous than a car. But, then, so is cycling!

Like you, I've been riding for a goodly number of years - actually a goodly number of decades! But I don't agree that the latest legislation is about reducing accidents. If they wanted to do that, they'd ban all riders, cyclists - and car drivers - under 25, from the public highway. Because, statistically, thats who cause and suffer from the majority of accidents on the roads today. (No doubt, womens groups would argue that men have more accidents than women, so all men should be banned from the roads!) Bikers however are a small minority with no political clout, or a racial/colour classification that they can shout discrimination about. (remember the sikh dispensation re helmet-wearing? Motor-Cycle Crash Helmets (Religious Exemption) Act 1976 passed by the British Parliament in 1976, Section 2A "exempts any follower of the Sikh religion while he is wearing a turban" from having to wear a crash helmet.) Which from a purely safety point of view is absurd.

Simply put, motorcyclists are an easy target (unlike cyclists and car-drivers), and for some reason seem to have attracted the eye of the European bureaucrats. which is why you end up with absurdities like the new legislation in France - soon to spread to the rest of the EU - that all motorcyclists have to wear fluorescent waistcoats or similar - yet exempt those riding bikes of 125cc or less!

Again - statistically if my memory serves me - british roads and drivers are amongst the safest in the world. It can always be improved - and I'm all in favour of better training for youngsters, particularly on motorcycles. Limiting engine sizes/performance for youngsters or the inexperienced also makes sense, but even a 125cc can do 70+ nowadays. However, to be equitable, it also makes sense to ban young drivers from fast cars (say anything that does over 70mph via a speed restrictor) as well, and we both know thats not going to happen, because it would be politically unacceptable.

 

[santaman2000]

A well-reasoned argument there, Ged. And I agree that biking is intrinsically and statistically much more dangerous than a car. But, then, so is cycling!

Like you, I've been riding for a goodly number of years - actually a goodly number of decades! But I don't agree that the latest legislation is about reducing accidents. If they wanted to do that, they'd ban all riders, cyclists - and car drivers - under 25, from the public highway. Because, statistically, thats who cause and suffer from the majority of accidents on the roads today...

Or would banning under 25s just shift the demographic to the 25-30 year old group? Particularly as they would then just be learning at that age and their reflexes would be slower. I believe the stats may differ a bit from here (though probably not much) as the over 60 age group has the most accidents here (granted followed closely by teens)