De-restricting

[ShortR6]

Right then he we go.

I know I have not been around here that long but I am old enough to know better.

Why oh why do the younger peeps keep on insisting de-restricting their bikes. Yes, it is a pain in the butt, but they are restricted for a reason and that is your safety. As soon as the bike is de-restricted, it becomes illegal. That means no insurance.

Yes most, almost all get away with it, but is it really worth the risk.

Riding down the street happy as Larry minding you own business, when all of a sudden something grabs you attention. You look back at where you are going, oh shit you are on top of a young child on a crossing. You go sliding down the road and poor little Katie ends up scared for life. While lying in your hospital bed thinking how lucky you are, giving all the nurses the eye, Mr insurance bloke is giving your bike the once over and before you know it Mr plod is standing at the end of your bed.

Yes it probably wont happen but who knows. The older riders around will make their insurance company know about all mods made to their bike. Why, because it is not worth the risk and a lot less hassle if pulled or involved in accident.

2 years thats all you have to wait.


Sorry for the little rant but that’s what this section is for.

Andy
____________________
Short but not sweet.

[zaknafien]

[Laura]

I consider myself a safeish rider safer than any bab. The thing is it is ok these days for some 40 year old twat to go out and buy himself a r1 and ride at full power even though he has never ridden a bike before. So what is the differance another stupid pedjuice in this country if you ask me.

My bike was restricted thanks g and steven.
____________________
Good girls ride motorcycles bad girls thrash them.

[Annabella]

For the same reason as most over 21s go straight on to take their DAS!


How is an older person more capable of handling a higher powered bike after one weekend, whereas most under 21s who take their restricted test have already been on the raods riding 125s and have more motorcycling experience, and road awareness as is necessary on a motocycle a middle aged 'born again'.



My bike has never been restricted, and never will be - I have four days left of my two years. In that time I have never had an accident - I had that when I was learning to ride on a 125.
____________________
Avast! Pirates ahoy!
I did Cadwell!
www.bikepics.com/members/bella

[Mr Pants!]

[G]

So, you would tell your insurance company if you had a race can?

So that's telling them you are driving a vehicle that is not fit for road use? Wonder how they could decide to use that information if it was you that was disctracted for that second and hit the girl?

Fortunately I believe they only tend to consider such things if they are a contributing factor... ie if the person was doing over 100 at the time etc.

[Frost]

Ive had to ride a 125 for a year now, dodging people hell bend on ending my existance, if i took a test just as hard as an over 21 would take i would be limited to 33bhp for 2 years. thats 3 years riding expirence getting stung for insurance before i can remorgage the house to pay for the insurance on a 600.

Yet some twat who is 46 can go buy a full power top of the range sportsbike for what i have had to spend over the past 3 years just to get to a mankey old 600.

[Peat]

[Mr Pants!]

Also, was there not a day when there were not restrictions like this, once you passed your test you could ride what ever you wanted?

I guess from experience and statistics, and the amount of incidents that took place with young people thinking they know what they are doing and killing themselves. That the government decided for all concerned to impose these restrictions on the higher risk riders, i.e. the younger generation.

I agree that the born again rider is a danger too. However the older you get, the more sensible you become and aware of how vunerable you are.

I ride my bike fairly sensibly, most of it is fear of dying or not knowing what is round the corner. I am sure if I was on my R1 when I was 19, I would believe I am invincible and be dead within a week!
____________________
Mr Pants! (Alex or Al)
Its better to burn out, than to fade away....

[MarJay]

Incidentally,
almost that exact thing happened to me. I was riding along the road minding my own business when a girl (she was 19) stepped into the road whilst looking at her feet. I slowed. So did she. She stopped in the middle of the road. I cautiously rode on. She decided that she would try to beat me across the road. She ended up hitting the side of my bike and the footpeg caught her leg. Interestingly, the mirror missed her, so she must have walked into the side of my bike.

She was flicked over and her leg was seriously injured.

The police came and gave me a producer. The policeman didn't even look at the back of my license. If he had he might have noticed the restriction. They didn't want to examine my bike, they didn't care wether or not I had a race can.

The 33bhp law is balls. Even the police don't bother with it!

Yet old men regularly go out and buy a ducati or R1 after a long layoff and expose themselves or others to more danger than a 19 year old on an SV650 ever would.

IMO, younger riders (this doesn't apply to cars) are safer riders.

However, I do sometimes cringe on here when we appear to 'encourage' people to remove restrictors. It should be their own decision.

Its funny how people who have never had to do two years at 33bhp always are the ones who moan about people derestricting!
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[Bendy]

[Annabella]

[Bendy]

We're talking 40 year olds, not 90 year olds.

As a guide, the RAF let you fly supersonic fighter planes until the age of 55, so I really don't think the physical reactions thing is a factor at the age of forty.

[G]

[william]

[MarJay]

I think she is saying that anyone over 21 can do a DAS course and buy an R1. A week on a GS500 can't really be considered as 'riding a bike'...

She aint aiming that at anyone in particular.
____________________
British beauty: Triumph Street Triple R; Loony stroker: KR1S; Track fun: GSXR750 L1; Commuter Missile: GSX-S1000F
Remember kids, bikes aren't like lego. You can't easily take a part from one bike and then fit it to another.

[william]

Marjay,

Thanks I wasn't taking it personally it is just a gross overstatement especially if applicable to anyone over 21 so why mention 40 year olds .

Do you wait for me to post

If anyone over 21 can climb onto an R1 (or the like) after a weeks course then so be it. - It is a free country.

When I was 16 you had to have a moped for a year but when you were 17 you could jump on a 250 with L Plates.

I guess because of the statistics and the increasing speeds of 250's then the law was changed further.

Its sooo tough being young

Oh I nearly forgot - I have a race can and a dark visor

[capn]

I thought there was a de-restricting guide on this forum? Can't say i have seen it.
____________________
HMFC # 1

[Ste]

There is a guide to derestricting on the NSR site, it details how to derestrict an NSR. There is no guide on this site to how to derestrict bikes, as it is a very simple procedure, but they are done in slightly different ways on some bikes.

And back onto the original topic, people do it because they disagree with the rules, just like how people speed, how people fit race cans to their bikes, how people use dark visors, and just like how many of the other road laws are broken lots of times by people. I'm sure that anyone who does it is perfectly aware of the risks of what they are doing, and make their decision based on that.

It is a very daft system, it would be much better if it was in a sensible way which could easily be enforced or checked. Someone like all new riders are not allowed above a 500cc bike for the first twelve months or something would be much safer. The system we have at the moment assumes that because you are under the age of twenty one that you are not able to ride a bike in a sensible way. Yet it assumes that you can be safe enough in a car to drive any car you want from the age of seventeen. It should be thought out again and a system set up which is actually sensible and will work, as the current system does not.

[william]

The system may be wrong but the insurance companies dictate that the vast majority of young car drivers do not drive high performance cars.

Even if the law was changed regarding bikes the same would apply to bikes and insurance is prohibitive enough now with the present system.

[Danny]

[william]

Good point - If the government decided that 16 year olds could ride 1 litre bikes then insurance premiums would no doubt ensure that the vast majority couldn't afford the insurance.

[Kickstart]

Hi

Personally I think the basic idea of a restriction is reasonable, but I do not agree with the current implementation. 33hp for 2 years is too harsh, especially when some only slightly older can avoid the restriction altogether. Personally I would think a better limit would be one of around 50~60hp for about a year (enough for bikes like the older sports 400s or a GPZ500).

A cc limit is not really going to work. Limit someone to 500cc and someone will soon come out with a clean light 500cc bike with very high amounts of power. Such a bike would be difficult to ride and totally defeat the object of the restriction, yet someone inexperienced would still be barred from riding a small Harley should they want to.

Currently the police really do not seem to care too much about the restrictions. It seems that most people think a 30mph moped is too slow and that they are safer when derestricted.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing

[Sparks!]

The restriction isn't really very well thought out at the moment though in my opinion.

It seems they restrict bikes on terms of bhp, i.e. 33bhp which restricts almost all bikes to 100mph or so.

So are they restricting the fastest speed you can go?

Thing is, my R6 restricted, would go 110mph so insurance/government are happy with that... wheras my WR400 in full power is 44bhp + whatever the can adds... but it'll only do about 100mph tops with the right gearing...................................................... yet it needs to be restricted to 33bhp?!

The way it seems is they are restricting top end speed as the difference between restricted and full power acceleration on the R6 wasn't that big I don't think...can't really remember, it wasn't restricted for long

IMO opinion the whole restriction thing is poorly thought out, biased and it generalises all of the younger generation. I think the laws should be completely thought out again and changed.
____________________
Current Toys: 06 Yamaha WR250F | Nissan 350Z GT | Tech 4 Homes

[Nighteyes]