Forum Replies Created
- Posts
There is no limit on how long you can drive a car with L plates, which allows you to gain more driving experience. AS for taking longer than two years on a bike with L plates. Surely the more time a youngster spends on a smaller capacity bike the better they’ll be on a larger bike. Not to mention the time limit of two years also then makes finance an issue. Let’s face it, getting your license isn’t cheap, and if you have a limit to the amount of time you have to get the money together before you get banned for a year…As I said before this is only applicable to bikes. If the law was applied throughout the country for all vehicles then, no it would not be anti-bike. The fact that it is aimed purely at bikers makes it so though.
Been a good debate Richy, which is why I brought it to the attention of a biker forum, to encourage debate. You’re the first person I’ve mentioned it to who hasn’t disagreed with the concept, which is fine, I don’t expect everyone to agree on everything, and hearing other people’s views is what makes for a good debate. Enjoy ya holiday man.
5 examples…easy money…
1) CBT’s being changed to only lasting 2 years, followed by a a 1 year ban if you haven’t taken a full etst by the end of the CBT. Thus depriving new riders of additional riding experience.
2) Restrictions to engine size dependant on age NOT ability. A restriction that ONLY applies to bikes and not to any other form of transport.
3) Exhaust note. How on earth does the sound from an exhaust affect safety? Also why does this affect your insurance and license?
4) Numerous restrictions upon vehicle customisation, including but not limited to, Q plates, offensive paintjobs (???), exhaust emissions, size/design/layout of registration plates, etc etc
5) Tinted visors, anyone who’s ever ridden into or out of the sun knows how useful visor tints are.
That’s five right off the top of my head, although I’m sure the fourth point alone could be stretched to dozens more examples…
Richy, it is not about gaining acceptance from the police, it is about maintaining our personal freedoms in an area that becomes more and more endangered by unjust legislation everyday.
You would think that ‘knee-down’ riding is fairly clear cut, but let me ask you then if everyone was to take to riding with their knee 1 cm above the surface of the road the police would be content to let them go about their business.
As for not being able to do anything about it, we can. We can complain and make our voices heard. The attitude of ‘we can’t do anything, so lets sit with our thumbs up our arses and hope the problem goes away’ is the reason they can get away with this sort of nonsense. Inevitably these people are usually the first to cry out when they lose their license to the same laws they didn’t do anything about.
The system needs to be changed, but it won’t be while the public continue to bury their heads in the sand.
quote:
Originally posted by gixerchicI disagree that it makes it more dangerous though Richy, if you have the bike leant right over then the danger is already there, shifting your weight slightly and sticking knee out doesn’t neccessarily make it more dangerous, what will it be next? Prosecuting for leaning bike too far?
Regardless of whether I intend to put my knee to tarmac on bends, I still shift my rear over and use my weight to advantage to help me get round bend….and yes sometimes I stick my knee out, when it touches down I know I am close to limit, so sometimes a rider can use it to benefit, are they gonna start prosecuting for moving around the bike?This was my bone of contention. Every biker shifts their weight on corners. So what constitutes ‘knee down’ riding? What if you have longer than average legs? as you shift your weight your knee gets closer to the ground. Over 12 years of riding I’ve learnt that shifting my weight stabilises the lean into a corner, enabling the rider to maintain a more constant speed, which is damn useful if you have a car sat on your rear hoop.
The logical conclusion to this scheme is that police will be using their famous powers of ‘discretion’ as to how far you can lean your bike over.
As for saying it is dangerous due to the condition of the roads, surely that issue would be better addressed by improving the quality of the roads. Diesel will still throw you regardless of how far you are leant over so that is surely a moot point.
The fact is that it is not an arrestable offence at the moment because every biker knows that to corner efficiently you must shift your weight, giving the police farce the power to stop you at any corner because they think that this weight shifting is dangerous is just a joke, especially because because the majority of the police force have no idea about riding a bike so they could perceive any amount of lean as an arrestable offence.
Knee-down is not ‘just for show’ it is a genuine riding style that endangers no-one IF the rider is competent and surely that’s what having a full license is supposed to reflect? To award penalty points for using your weight and/or build to succesfully navigate a corner is anti-biker.
And let’s not focus just on the knee-down part here, what happens if you pull away from the lights on a new bike and the front wheel leaves the ground by 1 centimetre. Does that count as a wheelie? How about a real emergency stop (not one of those half-arsed test ones) when the back wheel leaves the deck by a centimetre? Does that deserve 3 points for being a stoppie?
Allow me to raise a quick point in summation. What constitutes knee-down riding? Is it only when a knee slider makes contact with the ground? How about 1 inch above the surface of the road? 5 millimetres above the ground? Does that take into account the fact that a 6’6 rider will be closer to the ground with his knee at the same angle of lean as a 5’9 rider? or will it be the angle of lean on the bike itself? Which bike model will that be assessed upon? This scheme will surely just give the police another excuse to pull bikers on a whim.
