Can a learner drive a Bros 400 CC?

worded

Can a learner drive a Bros 400 CC?

If the power outout is 0.16KW/KG or less then yes you can.

worded

Ive no idea about that.
Are there different Bros 400s?
Can you give me a yes or no amswer?

Thinkingaboutit

The power to weight is fine, the total might be slightly over 33 bhp (35 I think), so yes with the tiniest of reservations over the total power output.

Del2005

If the power to weight is below 0.16 then your fine. They have an OR in our rules not an AND so we can get away with it, assuming it's an A licence not an A1.

A person applying for a first time provisional licence in category A shall be restricted to driving motorcycles with an engine power output not exceeding 25kW or with a power/weight ratio not exceeding 0.16 kW/kg.

http://www.transport.ie/roads/licensing/provisional/index.asp?lang=ENG&loc=1837#Motorcyclists


BTW here is a list of bikes below the limit from MAG Ireland

http://www.magireland.org/33bhp.htm

Idleater

The bros is technically (when it was released) quoted at 40hp.

It is accepted as learner leaga, because it is a twin rather than a IL4 (like the cb400).

Insurance companies and Gardai seem to acknowledge that even the newest bros is only pushing 33hp at best, so you should be okay.

I drove one for a couple of years and they are a brilliant bike to learn on.

Hotblack Desiato

nereid wrote:

It is accepted as learner leaga, because it is a twin rather than a IL4 (like the cb400).

Cock.

Insurance companies and Gardai seem to acknowledge that even the newest bros is only pushing 33hp at best, so you should be okay.

The Gardai either don't give a damn about the restricted bikes law, or don't have a clue. A few hp over the limit is the least of their worries, there are plenty of people on full power bikes 600cc+ on a restricted licence.

Idleater

ninja900 wrote:

Cock.

meh.

At least I _tried_ to offer an explanation, which happens to be the one given to me by 1) Gardai, 2) CN and AON insurers and 3) several motorcycle dealers.

The OP asked a question and I offered my opinion, you may certainly correct that opinion, but I don't think the "you're wrong coz" is helpful to the OP in this instance.

Hotblack Desiato

Yeah but you said it's learner legal because it's a twin - number of cylinders is irrelevant, only the HP and weight of the bike matter.

It's the same thing as saying XXX cc is ok on a restricted licence - it may be (mostly) true but there are exceptions. There are twins putting out more power than fours of the same size.

Del2005

The Gardai do check for restrictions but only really if you are pulling the p!ss. Heard of a guy on a Blade or R1 blasting up the M50. Gets stopped by a bike cop at the toll bridge for speeding. Garda asked for licence and saw it was a restricted one. Says to fellow that he should be on a restricted bike. Fellow tries to bluff and says it is. Garda says no way it's restricted and takes bike for spin up the M50. Comes back and says there is no way it's restricted. Gave the fellow a ticket and tells him to come to the traffic cops headquaters in the Phoenix Park within a week to prove bike is restricted.*


*Don't know if this is true, but thats what I was told.

Hotblack Desiato

Del2005 wrote:

The Gardai do check for restrictions but only really if you are pulling the p!ss.

Heard a few stories about that but it's all urban myth really, no facts.

Garda says no way it's restricted and takes bike for spin up the M50. Comes back and says there is no way it's restricted. Gave the fellow a ticket and tells him to come to the traffic cops headquaters in the Phoenix Park within a week to prove bike is restricted.*

Three big problems with this legend...

1. Totally illegal for them to take your bike for a spin to 'try it out'.
2. No way this would stand up in court.
3. No way you can prove your bike is restricted and no legal requirement for you to do that anyway.

The only way for the Gardai to prosecute would be to get a dyno run and even that is dodgy. No procedure set out in law for doing this. Dynos vary - some vary a lot. Crank bhp? Rear wheel bhp? What about weight - dry weight, wet weight, luggage, rider?
It's a law that's impossible to enforce and was written with no thought about how to enforce it.

Idleater

ninja900 wrote:

Heard a few stories about that but it's all urban myth really, no facts.

Cock!

I know 2 guards that have stopped kids in this manner.

ninja900 wrote:

Three big problems with this legend...
1. Totally illegal for them to take your bike for a spin to 'try it out'.

no it's not. They have every right to stop you if they believe you are committing an offence. eg driving when drunk.

ninja900 wrote:

2. No way this would stand up in court.

doesn't have to. The guard is just getting the little f***er off the bike.

ninja900 wrote:

3. No way you can prove your bike is restricted and no legal requirement for you to do that anyway.

again, in the opinion of the guard he can make a judgement call, and have you prove otherwise.

It is a temporary solution, and most people that are "caught" in this manner are given the spiel because as stated above by Del they are taking the mick completely.

I am not saying that they will not get the bike back (due to the proving of the restriction etc.) but the guard's opinion can be sufficient to stop them driving temporarily at the very least.

worded

For me I hate giving money to insurance companies for no cover.

e.g. In the even of a crash on a bike > your license allows (with an L) the insurance co asks for the restriction cert on the bike. And you dont have one.

Now thats a huge problem.

BigCon

1. I've never ever heard of an insurance company refusing to stand over their cover because the bike wasn't restricted.

2. I've never ever heard of someone being prosecuted because their bike wasn't restricted.

3. Nobody that I know has heard anything to the contrary.

4. Given the above I'd say it's fairly safe (from a legal point of view) to ride whatever you want provided it's insured. The wisdom of riding a powerful bike on a restricted licence is an argument for a different day...

worded

Given your point 1 - 4 if you call Carol Nash and ask for a crash report form they will ask for a “restriction cert if applicable”

So you are saying that if Im in an accident on a Transalp on an L license they will pay out? An insurance company not wangling its way out of paying? To me insurance companies are low life and I find it hard to believe they will just over look the fact that you are not licensed to be on it in the first place and therefore you didn’t disclose all the facts.

This is so Irish.

Hotblack Desiato

nereid wrote:

Cock!
I know 2 guards that have stopped kids in this manner.

So what? The Gardai can stop any vehicle at any time for any reason.

no it's not. They have every right to stop you if they believe you are committing an offence. eg driving when drunk.

Nobody said otherwise.

doesn't have to. The guard is just getting the little f***er off the bike.

They can't (legally) confiscate a vehicle unless it's untaxed or unroadworthy or it's obviously in a class your licence does not cover, or you are unfit to drive. They cannot prove at the side of the road whether the bike meets the restriction requirements or not. If they seized a bike under those circumstances I believe they would be doing so illegally.

again, in the opinion of the guard he can make a judgement call, and have you prove otherwise.

How? I'd love to know what law says that all road users are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. There is no legal procedure for proving a bike meets the restriction requirement. Any 'certificate of restriction' from a mechanic or bike shop isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

I am not saying that they will not get the bike back (due to the proving of the restriction etc.) but the guard's opinion can be sufficient to stop them driving temporarily at the very least.

They're on very shaky legal ground if that's what they are doing.
The law isn't what a garda says it is and many of them, even on traffic duty are ignorant of the law as it applies to bikes.
Why not charge people with dangerous driving if their driving is dangerous? Wouldn't that be the best way to protect the public and ensure that justice is done?

Idleater

yeah so anyway,

BROS 400 is deemed acceptable by Insurance Companies as Learner Legal.

BigCon

worded wrote:

Given your point 1 - 4 if you call Carol Nash and ask for a crash report form they will ask for a “restriction cert if applicable”

So you are saying that if Im in an accident on a Transalp on an L license they will pay out? An insurance company not wangling its way out of paying? To me insurance companies are low life and I find it hard to believe they will just over look the fact that you are not licensed to be on it in the first place and therefore you didn’t disclose all the facts.

This is so Irish.

I'm saying that I've never heard of anyone having a claim rejected by an insurance company because of the lack of a restriction. Given that more than half the bikers that I know are riding powerful bikes on provisonals I think we would have heard by now if the insurance companies didn't honor the policies.
It is a bit Irish alright, and completely wrong, but that's the way it is...

Hotblack Desiato

Well, the situation we have now really is an "Irish solution to an Irish problem".

Irish government couldn't be ar5ed setting up the infrastructure for direct access tests (they can't organise ordinary tests properly, ffs) so refused point blank to allow direct access here. Even though it would mean people would have to take proper training. They'd rather people were "self taught" and just rode around on the restricted bike for two years. Except they can't be bothered to do that properly either, and have some way of actually enforcing the law, or even writing the law correctly in the first place.

So we have a situation where anyone can get on any bike they want, so long as they don't act the complete muppet everyone will just ignore it.

Actually in this case I don't really think that's such a bad thing. European studies show that when restriction is enforced, it has practically no effect on accident rates anyway. Typical of the EU, not listening to the people who know what they're talking about when deciding to make more laws for the sake of it, being seen to be doing something is what's important.

I've said it many times before and will keep on saying it, if they really want to reduce the bike accident rate they have to look seriously at better car driver training. When CBT for bikes comes in we will be among the best trained road users of all, but idiots will still crash into us becase they're crap drivers and the only thing they have to do to get on the road unsupervised is the stupidly easy theory test.

BigCon

ninja900 wrote:

Well, the situation we have now really is an "Irish solution to an Irish problem".

Irish government couldn't be ar5ed setting up the infrastructure for direct access tests (they can't organise ordinary tests properly, ffs) so refused point blank to allow direct access here. Even though it would mean people would have to take proper training. They'd rather people were "self taught" and just rode around on the restricted bike for two years. Except they can't be bothered to do that properly either, and have some way of actually enforcing the law, or even writing the law correctly in the first place.

So we have a situation where anyone can get on any bike they want, so long as they don't act the complete muppet everyone will just ignore it.

Actually in this case I don't really think that's such a bad thing. European studies show that when restriction is enforced, it has practically no effect on accident rates anyway. Typical of the EU, not listening to the people who know what they're talking about when deciding to make more laws for the sake of it, being seen to be doing something is what's important.

I've said it many times before and will keep on saying it, if they really want to reduce the bike accident rate they have to look seriously at better car driver training. When CBT for bikes comes in we will be among the best trained road users of all, but idiots will still crash into us becase they're crap drivers and the only thing they have to do to get on the road unsupervised is the stupidly easy theory test.

Agree 100%, I don't understand why car/motorcycle driving is not a compulsory class in schools, in 5th and 6th years - learn the rules of the road, safety etc in 5th and then introduction to driving in 6th.
Could only have a positive impact.

FiSe

Scrap the "L" drivers. Bring the "continental" way in!
School of motoring, 50 hours with instructor, theory classes, first aid course, technical bits.
Tests in one day, theory, practical, you fail one, you don't drive. Try it again next time after some more lessons. Would that be the solution I wonder?

Del2005

ninja900 wrote:

So what? The Gardai can stop any vehicle at any time for any reason.


Nobody said otherwise.


They can't (legally) confiscate a vehicle unless it's untaxed or unroadworthy or it's obviously in a class your licence does not cover, or you are unfit to drive. They cannot prove at the side of the road whether the bike meets the restriction requirements or not. If they seized a bike under those circumstances I believe they would be doing so illegally.

As I said I didn't know if it was true. But the Garda never confiscated the bike, just took it for a run to see if it was legal. It's pretty easy to tell if a big bike is restricted at the side of the road, once it goes past 250km/h I'd say the restriction has been removed:D Don't forget the Gardai don't have to obey the rules of the road when preforming their duties

How? I'd love to know what law says that all road users are guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. There is no legal procedure for proving a bike meets the restriction requirement. Any 'certificate of restriction' from a mechanic or bike shop isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Speeding is a case in point, you are guilty of speeding till you prove otherwise and the EU just said that it was OK. Agree on there being no way of measuring the power of a bike, but when the EU ruled on speeding above they also said that we suspend some of our rights when we go on the road.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6251936.stm

They're on very shaky legal ground if that's what they are doing.
The law isn't what a garda says it is and many of them, even on traffic duty are ignorant of the law as it applies to bikes.
Why not charge people with dangerous driving if their driving is dangerous? Wouldn't that be the best way to protect the public and ensure that justice is done?

I've never heard of anyone getting done for this so I don't know what legal ground they are shaking.

If you are driving a full power bike on a restricted licence once you have insurance, then the insurance company will pay out any 3rd party claims. But they may come back after you looking for the money later.

Del2005

FiSe wrote:

Scrap the "L" drivers. Bring the "continental" way in!
School of motoring, 50 hours with instructor, theory classes, first aid course, technical bits.
Tests in one day, theory, practical, you fail one, you don't drive. Try it again next time after some more lessons. Would that be the solution I wonder?

Yes, but there would have to be someway of getting all the current licence holders to the same level. And we'd also need to make everyone resit their test every 10 years to insure they are still competent.

Hotblack Desiato

Del2005 wrote:

As I said I didn't know if it was true. But the Garda never confiscated the bike, just took it for a run to see if it was legal.

They're not allowed to do that. If it has ever really happened, it was probably just an excuse to get their jollies... :rolleyes:

Del2005

ninja900 wrote:

They're not allowed to do that. If it has ever really happened, it was probably just an excuse to get their jollies... :rolleyes:

Why aren't they allowed? I've seen Gardai driving loads of cars/bikes they've confiscated, with no lid also, and nobody stops them. Can't they just say I going to confiscate your bike because I believe you aren't licensed to drive it and it's up to you to then prove that you are. I think either way they'd get the bike off you. They could confiscate most bikes in this country for not having road legal pipes on them, if they wanted to.

Idleater

You are right.

They can do whatever they like if they believe you have committed an offence (which driving a vehicle for which you have no category on your licence is).

Same with drink driving. They don't *have* to prove it at the side of the road, they can, but they don't have to.

worded

I called Carol Nash and asked is the Bors 400 ok on a learner.

They said check with the Licensing authority
Do you have a phone number for them?
No was there answer.

Who are the licensing authority?
Is everyone agreed then that a Bros 400 is ok on a learner license?

Del2005

worded wrote:

I called Carol Nash and asked is the Bors 400 ok on a learner.

They said check with the Licensing authority
Do you have a phone number for them?
No was there answer.

Who are the licensing authority?
Is everyone agreed then that a Bros 400 is ok on a learner license?

Check on this link which I posted earlier.

http://www.magireland.org/33bhp.htm

worded

Thanks for that old Bean. So it is can be a learner. Cool.

Del2005 wrote:

Check on this link which I posted earlier.

http://www.magireland.org/33bhp.htm

Hotblack Desiato

nereid wrote:

You are right.
They can do whatever they like if they believe you have committed an offence (which driving a vehicle for which you have no category on your licence is).

This is cr*p, they have no way of knowing what the power output is before confiscating the bike. Unless they just lasered you doing 120MPH or something, in which case they would be entitled to a strong suspicion that the bike is unrestricted.

Same with drink driving. They don't *have* to prove it at the side of the road, they can, but they don't have to.

They can't prove anything at the side of the road without an evidential breath testing machine, big and expensive but I believe they have one or two in Garda cars in certain areas.
What they can and do do with the standard breathalyser bag/hand-held alcolyzer is establish reasonable grounds for suspicion of commission of an offence, enough to arrest you. If you then fail the 'proper' test at the station, you will be charged.

What reasonable grounds for suspicion of the power output (and weight remember) of a bike can you possibly establish by looking at it at the side of the road?

Can anyone give us any evidence better than urban myth that this has (a) ever happened and (b) was legal? Because in the absence of both, it's just sh*te-talk.

Hotblack Desiato

Del2005 wrote:

I've seen Gardai driving loads of cars/bikes they've confiscated, with no lid also, and nobody stops them.

Nothing illegal in that, provided they had a valid reason to seize the machine in the first place. Not liking the look of it isn't a valid reason.

Can't they just say I going to confiscate your bike because I believe you aren't licensed to drive it

What grounds would they have to believe that?

and it's up to you to then prove that you are.

No it's not, they have to arrest you, charge you and then you go to court. It's up to them to prove their case, not you.

I think either way they'd get the bike off you.

I'm not saying they wouldn't. Wouldn't be the first time that gardai have taken the p*ss in the course of duty, but really it's better if police stick to the law when trying to enforce the law...

They could confiscate most bikes in this country for not having road legal pipes on them, if they wanted to.

No, they can't, there is no law against aftermarket pipes in this country and no noise limit apart from what the district justice considers "unreasonable".