The point is that there is no evidence to suggest that a motorbike at full power makes any difference to how likely they would be involved with an accident, compared to a motorbike at 25Kw, in fact it could be said that the restricted motorbike is more dangerous.
All this law does is cost the new rider additional money to get in to motorcycling legally, but serves no real purpose.
As an example, the 25Kw restriction and labour can cost up to and beyond £200.
For reference, 25Kw equals about 33Bhp.
Why the contribution is important
It is important for several reasons;
Firstly is saves great hassle on a day to day basis. The law is very basic, it only states a power limit and a power to weight ratio, it does not mention where the power is to be measured, or how it is to be measured. It also doesn't mention that any certificates or proof are required to say the motorbike is restricted.
The law is practically unenforceable, police usually have little idea as to the 25Kw law, how to prove that a bike is restricted or not, and are usually uncertain on what certificates are required to prove the motorbike is restricted. It is a matter of fact that there is nothing stating that there must be evidence the bike is restricted.
All this does is creates more hassle for both the rider and the police force.
Additionally is could be said that having a 25Kw restriction can be more dangerous, there have been instances where the lack of power has caused more danger because the rider in question does not have enough power to get out of a sticky situation quickly or effectively.
It is also a discriminatory law, as if you are aged 21 or over you can go straight to a 1000cc 160bhp motorbike, where as an 18 year old is limited. There is no evidence to suggest the 18 year old on a unrestricted bike is more likely to crash. So where is the point in the restriction?
Also, a 17 year old could pass their car test and go straight to a 500Bhp sports car. Whereas on a motorbike they could not do this.
In matter of fact, if a middle aged (say 40 year old) has never been on a motorbike, takes their test and goes straight on to a sports bike they could be more likely to crash than an 18 year old on a slightly slower and smaller but still full powered motorbike.
So in conclusion, is it much fairer and safer to abolish this almost totally unenforceable law, save the police countless wasted hours (allowing them to be catching the real criminals) and not appearing to be useless to the general motorbike rider population.
Is this idea inappropriate? Please login to report this idea to a moderator
Current tags
I will be taking my test very shortly when i turn 17 and can say that this law has been incredibly diffucult to find out about. Some people say you need proof, others say you dont and even the police dont know!! then there are the con artists like fi international who charge up to £200 + fitting for 4 washers because you need a 'cirtificate' which actually has no legal standing. its awful. Do the goverment not think it would be better that young riders used that money to gain proper training? To take an advanced biker course it is £140, and you are going to learn a hell of a lot more on that than you are riding a sluggish bike that was designed to be powerfull enough to pull away from a set of traffic light easily. lets think. you learn to SAFLY overtake. something which is not covered in the bike test and a restricted bike will not teach you this atall. it will tech you how to dangerously overtake because you dont have enoguh power to perform a safe overtake. you also learn how to ride at high speeds etc etc.
I think its stupid that as pointed out, anyone over the age over 21 can just go out and buy themselves a hayabussa that does 220mph with no road experience what so ever, and yet they are less dangerous than a 17 year old? i personally have been riding on the road for nearly a year now with about 4000miles under my belt at the age of 16. but yet after passing my test, i am higher risk than a 21 with NO experience?
It also puts potential uninsured riders on the road... let me explain: If a 17 year old were to de restrict a bike, automaticaly their insurance is invalid. this then puts other road users at risk! i think i woulf prefer to be hit by a 17 year old riding a bike with insurance, than without because he has deresticted his bike.|
Just remove the unenforceable law. it a complete nightmare for any biker!
Just get rid of the law, the police cant enforce it, and it makes our lives hell!
I will be taking my test very shortly when i turn 17 and can say that this law has been incredibly diffucult to find out about. Some people say you need proof, others say you dont and even the police dont know!! then there are the con artists like fi international who charge up to £200 + fitting for 4 washers because you need a 'cirtificate' which actually has no legal standing. its awful. Do the goverment not think it would be better that young riders used that money to gain proper training? To take an advanced biker course it is £140, and you are going to learn a hell of a lot more on that than you are riding a sluggish bike that was designed to be powerfull enough to pull away from a set of traffic light easily. lets think. you learn to SAFLY overtake. something which is not covered in the bike test and a restricted bike will not teach you this atall. it will tech you how to dangerously overtake because you dont have enoguh power to perform a safe overtake. you also learn how to ride at high speeds etc etc.
I think its stupid that as pointed out, anyone over the age over 21 can just go out and buy themselves a hayabussa that does 220mph with no road experience what so ever, and yet they are less dangerous than a 17 year old? i personally have been riding on the road for nearly a year now with about 4000miles under my belt at the age of 16. but yet after passing my test, i am higher risk than a 21 with NO experience?
It also puts potential uninsured riders on the road... let me explain: If a 17 year old were to de restrict a bike, automaticaly their insurance is invalid. this then puts other road users at risk! i think i woulf prefer to be hit by a 17 year old riding a bike with insurance, than without because he has deresticted his bike.|
Just remove the unenforceable law. it a complete nightmare for any biker!
Just get rid of the law, the police cant enforce it, and it makes our lives hell!
I will be taking my test very shortly when i turn 17 and can say that this law has been incredibly diffucult to find out about. Some people say you need proof, others say you dont and even the police dont know!! then there are the con artists like fi international who charge up to £200 + fitting for 4 washers because you need a 'cirtificate' which actually has no legal standing. its awful. Do the goverment not think it would be better that young riders used that money to gain proper training? To take an advanced biker course it is £140, and you are going to learn a hell of a lot more on that than you are riding a sluggish bike that was designed to be powerfull enough to pull away from a set of traffic light easily. lets think. you learn to SAFLY overtake. something which is not covered in the bike test and a restricted bike will not teach you this atall. it will tech you how to dangerously overtake because you dont have enoguh power to perform a safe overtake. you also learn how to ride at high speeds etc etc.
I think its stupid that as pointed out, anyone over the age over 21 can just go out and buy themselves a hayabussa that does 220mph with no road experience what so ever, and yet they are less dangerous than a 17 year old? i personally have been riding on the road for nearly a year now with about 4000miles under my belt at the age of 16. but yet after passing my test, i am higher risk than a 21 with NO experience?
It also puts potential uninsured riders on the road... let me explain: If a 17 year old were to de restrict a bike, automaticaly their insurance is invalid. this then puts other road users at risk! i think i woulf prefer to be hit by a 17 year old riding a bike with insurance, than without because he has deresticted his bike.|
Just remove the unenforceable law. it a complete nightmare for any biker!
Just get rid of the law, the police cant enforce it, and it makes our lives hell!
However, I think allowing a 17 year old test passer to get straight on an R1 is dangerous. Perhaps set a capacity limit of 650cc, and that the bike cannot be designed to make more than 100bhp. There are plenty of options in the under 100bhp range, the Suzuki SV650 for example which is an ideal first 'big' bike, is 649cc and makes 69bhp as standard.
Why do I think it's sensible? Because you only have to see the (generally younger) car drivers and their hot hatches screaming around the road and crashing... now put them in charge of a 100+bhp superbike?
If I buy something sensible like a Honda CB500 commuter bike (at 50-60bhp) I will still have to spend upwards of £100 to have it restricted. This is a massive and unnecessary expense, and an insult to someone who is a sensible rider.
I do understand the need for restrictions; people who have just passed their tests should not be able to ride sport bikes with upwards of 100bhp. I think a restriction of about 70bhp is much more sensible. This would allow new riders to ride bikes like the Suzuki SV650 and Honda CB500 which are ideal first big bikes. The full power makes it much easier to accelerate out of dangerous situations, whilst not being uncontrollable.
Please log in to add comments and rate ideas
I couldn't have put this better myself. When I was in my late teens in 1994/95 I worked in the bike trade and born-again biker accidents were a lot more regular than those involving younger people such as me and my friends who had grown up with modern bikes and were used to that kind of performance.
This was before the 25kw restriction appeared and I think having access to full power machines at that age will help me to be a safer road user for the rest of my life.
I know the homepage of this website says this is about removing laws and not creating them, but I would take this idea a stage further and force all 17-year-olds to spend two years riding a lightweight (full power) motorcycle before they are allowed to take their driving test. This would create a generation of assertive, safe and highly aware road users, entirely unlike a large percentage of car drivers on the roads today.
Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate