Your views on 33bhp?

[Ste]

What are your views on riders and riding without a 33bhp restrictor kit in their bike when where meant to have one and why? And thus would you be willing to ride without one in your bike if you were meant to have one? Also what are your views on the law abut this?

Remember technically this is riding without a license and therefore your insurance is invalid and so no insurance as well.

Me, I can see why people do it being on a 33bhp license. Only have done it basically because of the risk of being caught minimal. Have been stopped by bike cops who knew nothing about it, and have never been asked by my insurance. If the risk was much higher then I wouldn't risk it, bit like with race cans.

Don't think it is a very sensible law, as we're seen to be responsible enough to drive any car at the age of 17 and someone inexperienced is just as much at risk at any age I reckon. Also think that a period of size restriction would be a sensible idea for all riders whatever their age is.

Interested to see what peoples view on this matter as there is a range of age ranges of the people on here, and there are a large number of young riders on here who have had a 33bhp license. And have you ever heard of anyone being done by the police for riding without a 33bhp kit fitted as I haven't ever heard of this.

[baldy]

I think the rider should have a choice (legally) whether to restrict it or not. If they are not confident then they could simply restrict the power. As confident riders should be able to ride unrestricted bikes without that small risk of getting sent to hell and back because the bike was not restricted to 33bhp.
____________________
One day i will rule the world, just not today.

[Ste]

Would I be right in thinking that you're meaning any age should be allowed to do DAS? But surely doing a DAS course on a CB500 type bike is slightly illogical to allow you to instantly go and ride any bike even if you've got no road experience at all? Would also be logical to say not that you have to have your bikes below 33bhp for your first two years as that isn't sensible as there is nothing to say you've even sat on a bike in that time. I think would be better to say you've got to have two years riding experience after your test pass as that is more relevant that how many years you've held the license.

[Frost]

I think descriminating against people based purely on age is stupid.
At age 17 i can pass my driving test, and be a better driver than 90% on the roads. Because of this i am allowed to drive whatever the hell i want.
yet at age 17 i am limited to 33bhp?
the same 33bhp most L plate wearing Rs125 riders have!

Yet old people with poorer reactions who take longer to learn, can go from no expirence on the road, do a DAS then get whatever the hell they like with no restrictions and low insurance premiums!
Similarly born again bikers who have not ridden a bike in 20+ years can jump straight onto the latest plastic missile with ultra low premiums.

I think the system should be as follows:
16 - ped on L plates
17+ - 125 on L plates restricted to 70mph and not more than 14.6bhp

After 1 year on a 125 with L plates:
you may take your test and ride whatever


OR no bike expirence, do a bike test then 33bhp restriction for a year.

I think all riders should be forced to do a learning period on the road of a year on a lower powerd bike regardless of age or wealth.

[baldy]

[Frost]

To be fair the average 33bhp bike will piss all over a 1.4 car

I think with cars the number of people with high performance cars is enough to not justify any form of restriction period. I am however very much in favour of limiting the number of points you can get before having to do an extended retest.

[Jaz]

[craigie b]

I wouldn't say its anything to do with age discrimination. Its due to 17 year olds being a danger on the road. I know up in Scotland many teenagers gets a fast car from their parents and end up wrapping around a lamp post and sometimes killing themselves or others. Now swap that car for a bike which is even more powerful and you've got a serious issue. I'm not saying every 17 year old wants to show off and blast at high speeds but there is enough of them to warrant some form of protection to aids yourselfs and others around you.

[Annabella]

I actually read a newspaper article regarding DAS and reformations of the law that are being considered. The discontinuation of the DAS scheme is one of the main priorities of this new drive to aid motorcyclists (along with national use of bus lanes and increasing secure parking in towns and cities).

I do agree with Ste, that being able to hop into any size car at 17 is dangerous, and believe there should be a similar program for car drivers to be restricted to a certain size/powered car during their fist years of driving.

However, that makes me rather a hypocrite as I have never had restrictors in my CBR400. The cost of having them, plus any damage to the engine put me off. I have been asked for copies of my licence by insurance companies and the 33bhp issue has never been raised or questioned. This may have been different had I been attempting to insure a much higher powered bike.

The simple fact is, it is virtually impossible to be caught with a derestricted bike - unless you are involved in such a severe accident that your bike is impounded, and even then, the police are barely aware of the law. So the attitude generally is - why bother?!
____________________
Avast! Pirates ahoy!
I did Cadwell!
www.bikepics.com/members/bella

[dainesefreak]

I agree with the majority of what has been said. I do think that the 33bhp limit is a good thing and it should be more rigidly enforced by the insurance companies and the police. I also believe that it shouldn't be age based and that a similar system should apply to cars.

The problem with trying to impose new legislation on our four wheeled friends, is that they are a much larger group than us and have a louder voice. Bikers tend to get bullied because we are a minority and within that there is a bigger percentage of apathy. The other thing I can see is the impact on company cars and the engine sizes they offer to employees.

I also believe that anyone who hasn't ridden for a period of time such as 5 or 10 years, should at the least have to pass some sort of health check at a training school. Something along the lines of a part 1 road test, basically a demonstration of control/bike handling.

I would also like to see some sort of re-testing to be completed every 5 or so years for anyone over 65, but the implications of this and amount of work would be major undertaking.

[craigie b]

In Northern Ireland it is compulsory that all drivers keep their L plates for a year after they have passed. Additionally they have to keep their speed below 60mph for a year. Failure to comply means revoking of license. At the end of the year you also have to see the police and they decide wether you are fit to drive without L plates or wether you have to retake your test.
I think that is a good thing.

Craig

[Big Pete]

I have to say that disagree with the 33bhp limit. The old system where learners could ride up to 250cc, then on to anything seemed quite sensible (from a power perspective, I think a detailed test is a good thing tho). I also think that a 2 year L plate limit is stupid. The 250 limit allowed enough power to travel fast enough to keep up with traffic and not be a menace.

After that, so what if a 19 year old buys a turbo `busa? If he can afford it (which very few could), good for him, lets hope he enjoys it.

As long as he is aware of the power of the bike, if he chooses to go mad and kill himself, he has made an informed decision, why should the state nanny him? The less the state interferes the better IMHO.

Last but not least, everybody dies, no one has yet survived life. While it is a devasting tragedy to the people immediately involved, in the overall scheme of things a dead rider isn`t a big deal. Before anybody burns me for being a callous unfeeling bastard, I`ve been to the funerals of friends killed in bike and car crashes, and talked to the parents, and its a grim experience. The state however, is supposed to look after the big picture, not make knee jerk reactions to parental/spouses grief in the papers. Let people take some responsibility for themselves.
____________________
Trust me, I`m an engineer
GarageOfPower.co.uk

[Robby]

One glaring error to start with:

[dainesefreak]

[Tarmacsurfer]

I pretty much agree with Dave ^^^

I do however feel quite strongly on the subject of riding a bike on a restricted license without restrictors (some of you may have noticed...). The chance of being caught may be small. Then again, the chance of you being the one that loses control due to a pot hole/dog/pedestrian in the road is also small, it happens though. And as we've said before, if an insurance company can come up with any reason not to pay out, we all know they'll use it.
Ste, you are getting first hand knowledge of how an insurance claim works is my guess, imagine trying to make the same claim from a government department that is designed to pay as little as possible and also be as stroppy as possible about paying what little they do. I know at least one person who gave up the process due to the hurdles placed in his way. This was for a broken shin, not a particularly small claim.
____________________
I'm immortal. Well, so far.

[Hex]

[hellkat]

[annndy]

The main thing that worrys me about illegally de-restricting is....

Because you are technically riding without a liscense for that power bike would it make your insurance void?

What happens if you hit another car and do some damage. Would the police or insurance company take away your bike for testing? And what kind of penalty are u looking at for doing it? Also what if you cant afford the costs to repair the persons car you hit?
____________________
1991 Suzuki GSF 250 Bandit - 2001 Yamaha YZF R6 - 1998 Suzuki GSF 600 Bandit N

[EuropeanNC30R...]

I agree with Robby 60bhp is for a year is about right. It'd probably make the situation safer aswell because less riders would be tempted to take the piss and get a 100+ bhp bike on a restricted licence.

[Kickstart]

Hi

I did my test long before DAS, 33hp limits and all that.

Anyway as a basic idea I do think some kind of restriction is a fair idea. However I think that 33hp is too little and 2 years is too long. Furthermore 2 years bears no resemblence to experience and takes no account of experience prior to your test (for example I rode as a learner for about 20 months and did something like 26000 miles during that time, which is about 6 years average mileage for a rider).

Not sure how you can take account of experience rather time, short of an extra test which I do not really approve of.

My feeling is increase the hp limit to 50~60hp (enough for the 500cc sporting commuters, and maybe the sports 400s) and reduce the time limit to 1 year. However also enforce it properly. Get rid of DAS (or better, merge the DAS test on a larger bike in with the normal test).

Personally I do not object to much to people having derestricted bikes, if they have enough experience (having had a derestricted MBX125 it would be hypocritical for me to say otherwise). I do worry about people who get a full power 125 as a first bike (very different from derestricting the 125 after a good few thousand miles riding), but as I view the current restriction for people doing their test as far too harsh I cannot blame people for riding bikes over 33hp (as long as they have a reasonable amount of experience and are not taking the p*ss with a litre bike immediatly after their test).

Anyway, non of this really matters as most of it is the UK interpretation of European rules. Think there are only about 2 countries that do not have a DAS equivalent, although the age does vary a bit.

[Ste]

Yup Andy, it is technically riding without a license, and not having a valid license does make your insurance invalid. Have never heard anyone being even asked for proof of restriction by the police, so does suggest they have very little knowledge about it all. As long as you have the bit of paper you'd have to really piss them off for them to want to test the bike, but if you've got the bit of paper and have taken them out then there is nothing stopping you putting them back in again if the needed.

Believe that in the event of your insurance company not covering you and thus not paying out, there is some central body that does cover you (think it's called the Motoring Insurance Bureuro or something like that) but it is you that an insurance claim is against, not the insurance company, the insurance just pays the bill as they cover you for stuff like that.

[dipsy]

The test I'm taking is the 125(wimp not age) which will restrict me to 33bhp.

I've purchased the SV400 on thr thinking that it should have an output of 32.3bhp due to japanese restrictions, but in actual fact when it was dynoed came out at 44.5bhp.

I must admit that as I have a both printouts I know which one I'll be showing the police if ever requested. My insurance company hasn't even requested the printout which I thought was abit strange.
____________________
MY life is just one long blonde moment

[Ste]

Insurance companies in my experiences aren't even slightly interested in the paperwork have not even ever been asked for a copy of my license by them. I would expect that they would be asking for them if I came to having a claim and the more you're needing to claim for then the more they'll be trying to wriggle out of paying it as they don't like paying out.

[Shade_BW]

Why get rid of DAS?

I did it, my girlfriend did it, several of my friends did it.

I restricted myself. I could have bought any bike, I bought one with 50 horses.

Over the last couple of weeks there have been a fair few threads of "binned it", "crashed", "tried to get my knee down and dropped the bike". That's why the limit is in place for under 21s.

Despite the "I'm not an idiot" attitude of the individual, statistically you are a risk. Forget the "any bike" argument, the insurance companies sort that out unless you are Prince William.

As to riding without restrictors, I have made my feelings on this very clear on many threads. You are riding without insurance, and if you get caught and pulled, you will get no sympathy from me, so don't come crying, especially if you involve a third party.

My girlfriend has a small plate and a dodgy can. Her choice to do so, cos it looks pretty, but it's her that looks over her shoulder when we are near a police car, not me.

Shade
Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law.
____________________
If you like this post, rate it!
Karma is there for a reason.

[craigie b]

Kickstart:
Hiya, My girlfriend told me that becauses thats what she had to do when she passed her driving test (shes from belfast). GOt the L plates mixed up though. LOL got the speed mixed up to. But the police can revoke your license if they feel the need to and a re-sit is not unheard of (but then thats the same over here, except oit would have to go through a court, would it not?).