I read that a new law is or could be introduced regarding 100 hp engines and ALL riders to wear protective clothing and no fast tracking to a full licence, as thats ending too?.

My own thoughts are, high hp and high speeds SELL bikes and cars, but I for one cannot see why we are always at the front regarding Law changes and other sports past/times are left alone where speed and high power are on the agenda.

Regarding high power, surely the same should apply to a person passing his/her test for a car,if daddy mega bucks buys the sprog a new super dooper Jaguar and at high speed kills or maims some one then there is no difference as to the power ownership be it a car or bike.

I do realise that there is a wheel on each corner on a car and that in someone's eyes makes all the difference but it is still a inexperianced hands just the same as it would be on a two wheeled bike.

I remember well the fuss that was again implimented in and around the 1960's regarding no cc above 250 until a full license was obtained but did it change much or peoples riding?? I dont think so it just prolonged the agony of getting a full licence then I was when I pass my test it will be a 650cc TRI Bonnie or what ever.

I bet there will be a higher fee somewhere in the equasion..

It will be a while before any of this becomes law as it is only threats at the moment. The "reason" for this is that there has been an increase in bike accidents apparently (not surprising that the number has gone up as there are more on the road) and the powers that be want us to put our house in order or they will legislate. What they always seem to omit from this is that it doesn't matter whether you have 12 hp or 150hp if someone pulls out on you but there are no threats to stop car drivers from killing us by taking away their freedom of choice over what car they drive after a few driving lessons and an inadequate test. TC do you have any stats on bike related accidents as to how many/what proportion are caused by a third party and how many/what proportion by rider error?

I think the ability to jump on an R1 straight after passing your test, doesn't do us any favours but these rules should cover everyone, not just bikes. You can do more damage with a car but that goes unregulated. Okay, the car drivers may not be able to buy ferrari's but some of the modern production cars have a fair turn of speed and carry a lot of weight behind them.

Think how much damage a car would do at 40mph just because of the weight behind it. More damage than a bike, that's for sure. So why are all these actions being taken against bike riders, when nothing has really changed for car drivers apart from the theory test? We've seen a fair amount of changes over the years in the form of training and testing. Surely there are lessons which have been learned, which could be applied to other vehicles. This would maybe put an end to programmes such as 'Britain's worst driver' and such like.

However, I have a feeling that the masses of the car driving public would revolt and call it another tax raising scheme. So what's the chances of it happening.

To be honest- the compulsory armour is a good idea- at least it will put paid to the Scooter kiddies riding with a token helmet with shirt and shorts in the middle of the summer. Let's face it- how many people go out without any protection (not counting the helmet).

But as for the others- the ideas are good but need a bit of tweakage...

We need a new licencing structure, to change the way things stand today....

* A CBT must also include a compulsory theory test to be taken BEFORE the CBT. Like the current test but minus the Hazard Perception.

* Direct Access is only available to people who have a full licence for another type of vehicle, say a car or moped licence.

* Once new riders have worked through their restriced period, they will need to take a CBT style test- to make sure they havn't picked up any dodgy habits.

But to reduce road casualties, car's must have a set of updated regulations too.

* Learner Drivers should have a CBT/Theory style course as part of their school curriculum, just about road safety- no car required.

* Like current Bikers, car drivers should have a period of restriction- limited to cars of an engine size of 1.4Litre for two years. Then after the period- can drive any size car. With no Direct Access available!!

* Elderly drivers (drivers over 65) should have a CBT test every five years to make sure they are safe on the road- I read somewhere that 50% of drivers over 70 would fail the DVLA eye test (the car plate at the start of normal tests), and some of the more elderly drivers havn't even taken a normal test.


but of course there will be people who will cause a rukus about changes in law... like when the Gov't changed the Reg's for learner bikers.
You can please all the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time.

The compulsory armour argument can be a difficult one especially if it is only the armour that is tested and not the garment as a whole as currently. As TC will no doubt explain some armour has been known to make injuries worse. I can just imagine the situation where this happens after it is compulsory with lawsuits flying around trying to blame the Government for forcing them to wear something that made their injuries worse. And of course the cost of defending that/paying out compensation comes out of yours and my pockets. As it stands currently you make your own choice and take your chances as a result and therefore have no-one to blame but yourself in an own fault accident or the other party in other cases.

Is Armour really that bad?

In that case they (British Standards) should re-think their testing of biking clothes.

Of course there's always problems with anything- it's a pity that (some) people will start throwing law suits for anything and everything.

But what about the other ideas? I've always thought that a restriction on cars will seriously help reduce accidents.

*[THe other thing I would change is upping the 50cc limit so at least the little beggars can keep up with the traffic, at the moment they are more dangerous stuck in the gutter than if they had mopre power!

That's a good point Shebee, those mopeds are lethal. You're really looking for them to do 45mph. At least that way, they can keep up with traffic on a dual carriageway and up hills. When you see those wee scooters going full pelt at 35 in the 40 zones with cars treating them like mobile chicanes, you start to worry about them.

At least give them the speed to keep up with the flow of traffic.

A lot of interesting points raised here.

I agree with uwl about limiting new drivers to lower capacity engines but would like to add that these cars should in no way be modified to increase the horsepower.

mopeds are a menace and the slow speeds they travel at make them sitting ducks for passing cars, as bd and sheb point out at least give them the speed to keep up with traffic.

All New riders could do with a limit imposing on the size of bikes they ride for two years this would help combat the power ranger attitude.

Not sure about body armour as i've never used it.
Hi-vis markings seem like a good idea the scotchbrite stuff is pretty good and will more likely save your life at night.

As a matter of interest how many riders on here actually use body armour?

Ima raisers a good question here??

I for one buy as most of us do leathers/cordura type jackets, BUT I for one have to addmitt to taking out the back protector and in some jackets the shoulder protection pads or visa versa..

I do this I think for what I call my own and pillion riders safety, as in most cases the armour especially on the shoulders stops me from turning my head to view behind me before moving off depending on the fit of the jacket and as we all know there is no perfect fit for everyone, all this armour is probably ideal for a track but not many track riders keep looking behind themselves.

So my way of thinking is, Is it safer to remove it? or safer to keep it in and not be able to view behind yourself and be more comfortable and able to ride more smoothly as the better you feel, the better you ride in a more relaxed possition..

My jacket was from Heine Gericke (own brand) I kept the armour in, though I really found it irritating and it dug in in areas meaning at times I could sense myself concentrating on that rather than on the road .. very bad.

However, on the day of my accident, I removed it all for comfort coz I knew I was going to be wearing it for a while. I dont think it made a difference to me on that occasion not to be wearing it...I still ended up with a broken left wrist, ankle and shattered pelvis ......the fabric worked well though because I didnt have a scratch, graze or cut anywhere!

Agreed. The additional cost would also help to kill off (no pun intended) the kiddies.



Why minus the Harzard Perception? Surely this is an important aspect of real life riding. As someone who have driven for 10 years, and just done the theory test before CBT and now doing my DA, I found it a useful refresher... but it it would be better if it was show from the point of view of a bike, and not a car.



Agreed, but keep the age requiremment (21+)



but can we have a reasonable restriction...as most schools seem to DA on 500's then lets restrict to 500's. restricted to 125 still does not give the learner the experience of a bigger bike, in terms of handlings if not performance.








Completly agree

Wayne

I did as well with a HG jacket, but they offered to upgrade the armour with some CE rated squidgy stuff. now the Jacket is comfatable enough to wear all day, has CE armour and will hopefully help if/when I have a spill. I had a spill a few years ago in a barbour jacket and dislocated my shoulder, dont know if armour would have saved anything, but I am not taking the risk again..


Wayne