Ignoring the 2 year 33bhp restrcition?

Zascar

I just passed my test but i'm raging I still have to wait 2 years until I can ride unrestricted legally. My bike has a throttle restriction which is easily removed. I have taken it off a few times for trips but generally I leave it on all of the time.

A lot of guys though just ignore it and ride full power bikes even though their 2 years is not up.

Do you do it? Did you do it? Or were you 100% law obiding?

Are there many stories of people getting caught?I've never heard of anyone...

Idleater

The one problem that could affect you most is that in the event of any accident the gardai can remove involved vehicles for later inspection by themselves or any insurance company (or assessor).
In such a case they may be within their rights to pursue you for any and all costs if they believe you were riding on a bike that 1) you modified significantly without informing them and 2) were not licenced to drive at the time.
The problem with the period just after passing any test is overconfidence. Personally i'd drive restricted for at least one year after the test because in the grand scheme of things it won't affect you that much and you are really still learning.
In fairness, the test is hardly an accurate portrayal of any sort of real life riding? Do the RoSPA test for a sense of achievement.

Steffano2002

I won't lie to you, I never bothered restricting my first bike (Bandit 600). But I knew I'd be in trouble if I ever caused an accident and it's not nice having that "Sword of Damocles" hanging over your head...

Be legal. The alternative is just not worth the risk...

Oryx

As far as I can see, its VERY common to remove restrictions early. That still dont make it legal. I agree, your biggest issue would be with an insurer, if you had a big claim and they decided to get sticky.

I only know of one attempt at prosecution, and I dont know the result.

jonnner

Zascar wrote: »

I just passed my test but i'm raging I still have to wait 2 years until I can ride unrestricted legally. My bike has a throttle restriction which is easily removed. I have taken it off a few times for trips but generally I leave it on all of the time.

A lot of guys though just ignore it and ride full power bikes even though their 2 years is not up.

Do you do it? Did you do it? Or were you 100% law obiding?

Are there many stories of people getting caught?I've never heard of anyone...

Are you commuting on it daily? If so I would leave it on and maybe take it off for the occasional non-commuting trip.
Or....Keep the throttle-stop in your pocket and throw it on the road when you are hurtling threw the air so you can say it fell off on impact when the car pulled out in front of you!

omb0wyn5ehpij9

I never had my bike restricted either. But I knew the trouble I would have been in if I had of been caught

Zascar

jonnner wrote: »

Are you commuting on it daily? If so I would leave it on and maybe take it off for the occasional non-commuting trip.
Or....Keep the throttle-stop in your pocket and throw it on the road when you are hurtling threw the air so you can say it fell off on impact when the car pulled out in front of you!

Hahaha good idea!

I commute most days but even restricted there is plenty of power for that journey. Taking it on/off is just a case of unscrewing a bolt and pushing a piece of metal to the side.

I did actually get stopped by the cops once when I had just got the bike. It was still on UK plates (I had already paid the VRT but I just had not got the Irish plates made up). The enquired if it was restricted, even started it up and revved the nuts out of it, and said "That's not restricted..." I just said I had a cert and would be happy to show it at a garda station. They were pretty sound and let me go but since then I have only taken it out a few times on rideouts.

Does scare me though just in case I did have an accident when it was unrestricted...

omb0wyn5ehpij9

Zascar wrote: »

Hahaha good idea!

I commute most days but even restricted there is plenty of power for that journey. Taking it on/off is just a case of unscrewing a bolt and pushing a piece of metal to the side.

I did actually get stopped by the cops once when I had just got the bike. It was still on UK plates (I had already paid the VRT but I just had not got the Irish plates made up). The enquired if it was restricted, even started it up and revved the nuts out of it, and said "That's not restricted..." I just said I had a cert and would be happy to show it at a garda station. They were pretty sound and let me go but since then I have only taken it out a few times on rideouts.

Does scare me though just in case I did have an accident when it was unrestricted...

You let a guard start your bike and rev the tits off it?! :eek::eek::eek:

murphaph

I rode unrestricted tbh. The law only requires the bike to be within the 0.16kW/kg ratio so many bikes over 25kW (33bHP) are still legal and the law is completely ambiguous when it comes to determining what weight. It specifically does not say design weight or factory weight. It has never been tested in court as far as I'm aware, probably because nobodu could be prosecuted under such a loose piece of legislation which appears to have been hurried through to get us compliant with the 2nd EU driving licence directive.

Your bike also has to have its power output confirmed because the law doesn't specify 'manufacturers spec' for the power figure and if it's in bits on the side of the road that's easier said than done.

Zascar

Bryn wrote: »

You let a guard start your bike and rev the tits off it?! :eek::eek::eek:

He asked me to start it up, then revved it - probably hoping to see a slow smooth restricted rev range - which there was not - which is why he did not believe me when I said it was restricted. He could have taken the bike off them then and there but let me go...

Phew!

Idleater

Zascar wrote: »

He asked me to start it up, then revved it - probably hoping to see a slow smooth restricted rev range - which there was not - which is why he did not believe me when I said it was restricted. He could have taken the bike off them then and there but let me go...

Phew!

I'd say they were trying to scare you into admitting it wasn't restricited. Under no load there will be no difference in engine note or feel between a restricted and non restricted bike.

I had a restricted sv650 and swapped in and out the ecu. The only difference was the power from 5000 rpm up. below that there was very little in it.

Krusty_Clown

I had a gardai give me two penalty points a couple of years ago (60 in a 50). He correctly surmised that my bike needed to be restricted for another two weeks. He told me that the Gardai had no way of checking to see if a bike was restricted or not, without having a go. Then he asked me for a go..

I said no.

EvilMonkey

I have heard of people been asked to produce a restriction cert at a garda station but i have never heard of anyone getting in trouble for not having one or an insurance claim not being payed because of no restrictor fitted. But their are a couple of new insurers in the market now and quinn direct particularly have a reputation of doing anything to avoid paying out on a claim, so they may react differently to other insurers in the past.

Dorsanty

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

He told me that the Gardai had no way of checking to see if a bike was restricted or not, without having a go. Then he asked me for a go..

I said no.

Damn right. Did he try and argue the point though, or issue threat of removing your bike from you?

I'd definitely fight it myself. Although only 1 month left on license restriction now for me.

seanybiker

i bought me bike the day after passing test. Was on 125 cruiser. Got meself bandit 6 restricted. 2 weeks later the restrictors fell out

Del2005

Dorsanty wrote: »

Damn right. Did he try and argue the point though, or issue threat of removing your bike from you?

I'd definitely fight it myself. Although only 1 month left on license restriction now for me.

The problem is that YOU have to prove that you are licenced and insured to ride/drive whatever vehicle you are on/in. Riding/driving is a privilege not a right. If you can't prove you are legel, they have the power to sieze it. Good knows how you'd prove you are legal if they ignore the cert you have.

Dorsanty

Del2005 wrote: »

The problem is that YOU have to prove that you are licenced and insured to ride/drive whatever vehicle you are on/in. Riding/driving is a privilege not a right. If you can't prove you are legel, they have the power to sieze it. Good knows how you'd prove you are legal if they ignore the cert you have.

I accept that I have to have my stuff in order but I'm not going to be happy about any guard thinking they can hop on and have a go. To the point of fighting that situation tooth and nail.

EvilMonkey

Del2005 wrote: »

The problem is that YOU have to prove that you are licenced and insured to ride/drive whatever vehicle you are on/in. Riding/driving is a privilege not a right. If you can't prove you are legel, they have the power to sieze it. Good knows how you'd prove you are legal if they ignore the cert you have.

Fair enough but if they want to impound my bike they can call a truck, i will not hand over keys or helmet to a garda i don't know.

murphaph

Del2005 wrote: »

The problem is that YOU have to prove that you are licenced and insured to ride/drive whatever vehicle you are on/in. Riding/driving is a privilege not a right. If you can't prove you are legel, they have the power to sieze it. Good knows how you'd prove you are legal if they ignore the cert you have.

The only things a Garda can do in this area are;
Request your name and address on the spot
Request to see your tax disc on the spot
Request to see your insurance certificate presented to a Garda station of your choice within 10 days.

That's it. That is all they are allowed to do! They can't ask for a restriction certificate because the Road Traffic Act doesn't give them the legal right to do so. It is up to THEM to prove you are in breach of a law, be that riding unlicenced or whatever. We don't live in a totalitarian state just yet and the Gardai must act within the law.

I was talking to a Garda recently and he was telling me a lot of drink driving cases had been thrown out because the Gardai had set up their checkpoints and then seen somebody driving suspiciously, chased after them, breathalised them away from the checkpoint and they failed but because the law is structured the way it is, the cases were all thrown out as the specimen of breath was obtained illegaly. Many others have been thrown out because Gardai failed to open the litle plastic tube from it's airtight packaging in the presence of the accused. They have to do this as the tube could have alcohol in it otherwise.

Krusty_Clown

Dorsanty wrote: »

Damn right. Did he try and argue the point though, or issue threat of removing your bike from you?

No, he didn't. He was joking.. Mostly.. Said he was a biker himself. Unfortunately his fraternity didn't extend to not giving me the two points.

navigatoroneill

the way i see it is, if you have a little slide then they'll not look too close, not worth their while but if you have a big off with say big healthcare costs to pay either for yourself or someone else then thats when they'll take a closer look and then you'd be shagged in all sorts of ways. Not worth it. Just spend the two years honing your skills and saving and dreaming of that lovely CBR600RR, R6, Ninja 600, etc.

uncle betty

Was chatting to a dealer recently who says - the 2-year thing is all a load of ****e.

It's not a legal requirement at all, it's merely a European directive. It's what they'd like to do, of course. but it has no force in law.

EvilMonkey

uncle betty wrote: »

Was chatting to a dealer recently who says - the 2-year thing is all a load of ****e.

It's not a legal requirement at all, it's merely a European directive. It's what they'd like to do, of course. but it has no force in law.

Was he trying to sell you a bike?

Quint

I never had my bike restricted in the 2 years after the test. I was stopped twice. Once the guard asked if it was restricted, I said no (cos i'm a big idiot) and he told me to produce my restriction cert and insurance at a garda station. I went down to the station a few days later, produced the insurance and told the guard i'd produce the restriction cert in a few days, they said "what's a restriction cert?". Never produced it, and never heard anything.
Was stopped a few weeks later (in the exact same place funnily enough) and the guard asked if it was restricted. I said it was, and he said "fine" and let me go.
If you carry your licence, insurance and tax, and all are up to date, be nice to the guard and tell him if restricted if he asks, you'll be grand.
My da worked in a motorcycle shop for 15 years and said they restricted 1 bike in that time. Also, some insurance companies don't recognise them, so if you have a restricted fireblade, it'll still be considered the highest insurance group.

paulieeye

EvilMonkey wrote: »

Was he trying to sell you a bike?

was that down pearce st by any chance?

uncle betty

paulieeye wrote: »

was that down pearce st by any chance?

Is correct.

Is he right though ?

EvilMonkey

uncle betty wrote: »

Is correct.

Is he right though ?

No
Of course its a legal requirement its on your licence take it out have a look at it. If you are on a restricted licence driving unrestricted you are effectively driving without a licence which is an offence that is most definitely enforced in law.
Also take a look at your insurance policy somewhere in there it will say you must be licenced to drive the vehicle.
Its not enforced by the guards because their is no quick and easy way to check, just dont give them a reason to look into it further and you will get away with it.

randomway

EvilMonkey wrote: »

No
Of course its a legal requirement its on your licence take it out have a look at it. If you are on a restricted licence driving unrestricted you are effectively driving without a licence which is an offence that is most definitely enforced in law.
Also take a look at your insurance policy somewhere in there it will say you must be licenced to drive the vehicle.
Its not enforced by the guards because their is no quick and easy way to check, just dont give them a reason to look into it further and you will get away with it.

..until you crash and the bike is inspected by the insurance co.

EvilMonkey

randomway wrote: »

..until you crash and the bike is inspected by the insurance co.

Agreed thats why i said

Take a look at your insurance policy somewhere in there it will say you must be licenced to drive the vehicle.

and earlier in this thread

But their are a couple of new insurers in the market now and quinn direct particularly have a reputation of doing anything to avoid paying out on a claim, so they may react differently to other insurers in the past.

The other thing is the guards could decide to clamp down on it at any time.

Slaanesh

I got my fazer derestricted after I got my full license.

However, when the council issued my license they didn't specify a 2 year restricted period, I received a fully unrestricted license for 10 years ... nice.

Zascar

Cool, lucky you! I wonder if you got stopped, would they question it? Does the 2 year tule overrule the licence, or if you licence does not have any restrctions, are you good to go?

I just passed my test and have not yet sent off for my new licence (need passport photos and then i'll send off). Anyway, I was looking at the cert - and there is a section on it for restrictions, but none of them are ticked. I wonder if I will get the same, and get a normal unrestrcited licence?

Fingers Crossed!

murphaph

To those who keep repeating that he insurance company will examine the bike (and I agree they'll give it the once over no question), what do you think they'll do by way of examination because looking in the carbs and finding no washers or looking at the ECU and realising it's a full power one means precisely.....nothing! It does NOT prove the bike was running at ANY particular power. Even going by the (shoddily written) law, nowhere does it say bikes must be restricted-it just says bikes must be under 25kW or 0.16kW/kg. That's it. That's all the law says. The insurance company would have to PROVE that the bike exceeded BOTH of those conditions at the moment of impact. The kg in the 0.16kW/kg part has NEVER been specified in law. You can perfectly reasonably add your own weight and a full tank of petrol and an engine full of oil and any luggage you might have been carrying to end up with a very heavy laden bike. Then do your division and remembering few if any stock bikes actually deliver the manufacturers stated horsepower for very long, you'll often get a 'fast' bike under the 0.16kW/kg figure and once it is, it's legal aon a restricted licence.

Ask youself why you've never heard in biking circles of either the cops or the insurance companies making a big deal in this area. It's because the know the law is far from comprehensive. In the UK for example I believe you MUST have a restriction certificate and the dry weight and manufacturers stated horsepower are taken as binding according to their implementation of the directive. The Dail just made a balls of it.

Quint

murphaph wrote: »

To those who keep repeating that he insurance company will examine the bike (and I agree they'll give it the once over no question), what do you think they'll do by way of examination because looking in the carbs and finding no washers or looking at the ECU and realising it's a full power one means precisely.....nothing! It does NOT prove the bike was running at ANY particular power. Even going by the (shoddily written) law, nowhere does it say bikes must be restricted-it just says bikes must be under 25kW or 0.16kW/kg. That's it. That's all the law says. The insurance company would have to PROVE that the bike exceeded BOTH of those conditions at the moment of impact. The kg in the 0.16kW/kg part has NEVER been specified in law. You can perfectly reasonably add your own weight and a full tank of petrol and an engine full of oil and any luggage you might have been carrying to end up with a very heavy laden bike. Then do your division and remembering few if any stock bikes actually deliver the manufacturers stated horsepower for very long, you'll often get a 'fast' bike under the 0.16kW/kg figure and once it is, it's legal aon a restricted licence.

Ask youself why you've never heard in biking circles of either the cops or the insurance companies making a big deal in this area. It's because the know the law is far from comprehensive. In the UK for example I believe you MUST have a restriction certificate and the dry weight and manufacturers stated horsepower are taken as binding according to their implementation of the directive. The Dail just made a balls of it.

I agree with all that. Has anyone heard of anyone getting done for it? Not me. Never saw it come uo on biker.ie either.

EvilMonkey

murphaph wrote: »

To those who keep repeating that he insurance company will examine the bike (and I agree they'll give it the once over no question), what do you think they'll do by way of examination because looking in the carbs and finding no washers or looking at the ECU and realising it's a full power one means precisely.....nothing! It does NOT prove the bike was running at ANY particular power. Even going by the (shoddily written) law, nowhere does it say bikes must be restricted-it just says bikes must be under 25kW or 0.16kW/kg. That's it. That's all the law says. The insurance company would have to PROVE that the bike exceeded BOTH of those conditions at the moment of impact. The kg in the 0.16kW/kg part has NEVER been specified in law. You can perfectly reasonably add your own weight and a full tank of petrol and an engine full of oil and any luggage you might have been carrying to end up with a very heavy laden bike. Then do your division and remembering few if any stock bikes actually deliver the manufacturers stated horsepower for very long, you'll often get a 'fast' bike under the 0.16kW/kg figure and once it is, it's legal aon a restricted licence.

Ask youself why you've never heard in biking circles of either the cops or the insurance companies making a big deal in this area. It's because the know the law is far from comprehensive. In the UK for example I believe you MUST have a restriction certificate and the dry weight and manufacturers stated horsepower are taken as binding according to their implementation of the directive. The Dail just made a balls of it.

If it ever challenged by an insurance company which is unlikely because they haven't a clue but is possible. They will ask for a cert they wont go looking for restrictions, the weight and power is stated in the vehicle registration document these are the figures they will use, unless you can provide a restriction cert. The restrictor isn't the important bit its the piece of paper that says its fitted. The same way the guards can ask you to produce proof of restriction at a station, they dont ask to see the restrictor.

jackhammer

In relation to the powers that be, here's what I've heard. The gardai have the power to seize an unrestricted bike under Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act as you're deemed to be driving without a licence.

In terms of determining whether a bike is restricted or not, 90% of the time, a twist of the throttle would answer that.

Also, it's up to the bike owner to prove it's restricted, not the garda.

But as previous posters have said, I've also not heard of anyone getting done for it.

Quint

Is there an official restriction cert? I've never seen or heard of these. You don't bring your restricted bike along to a dyno to make sure it's properly restricted. Doesn't the bike shop just give you a letter saying it's restricted?

Bandit883

Never restricted bike and neither did buddies, one of them crashed 1 night and the cops hauled it off to get tested for restricter, court case pending:mad:

Idleater

Quint wrote: »

Is there an official restriction cert? I've never seen or heard of these. You don't bring your restricted bike along to a dyno to make sure it's properly restricted. Doesn't the bike shop just give you a letter saying it's restricted?

I had one on my old SV650.

It was a factory restricted model which means that the ECU serial number and engine + frame numbers are registered with the manufacturer and can be looked up and verified.

Essentially the Vehicle Registration Cert showed 25kw under power.

Factory restricted bikes also benefit from a significantly reduced insurance premium.

Perhaps people are confusing factory and dealer restricted bikes? It is very easy for an insurance company to verify whether the numbers match if they choose to inspect a vehicle. It is also available for any insurance company involved in an incident to verify the evidence if they suspect something.

I have never heard of anything ever happening with this though either, I just don't see the big deal in driving a restricted bike for 2 years. Of course you can get away with it, like so many things in this country.

Zascar

Bandit883 wrote: »

Never restricted bike and neither did buddies, one of them crashed 1 night and the cops hauled it off to get tested for restricter, court case pending:mad:

Interesting. Can you tell us more?

Maybe the posters above can give some advice - if they say it will not stand up in court - then we should soon be able to prove that!

Del2005

murphaph wrote: »

To those who keep repeating that he insurance company will examine the bike (and I agree they'll give it the once over no question), what do you think they'll do by way of examination because looking in the carbs and finding no washers or looking at the ECU and realising it's a full power one means precisely.....nothing! It does NOT prove the bike was running at ANY particular power. Even going by the (shoddily written) law, nowhere does it say bikes must be restricted-it just says bikes must be under 25kW or 0.16kW/kg. That's it. That's all the law says. The insurance company would have to PROVE that the bike exceeded BOTH of those conditions at the moment of impact. The kg in the 0.16kW/kg part has NEVER been specified in law. You can perfectly reasonably add your own weight and a full tank of petrol and an engine full of oil and any luggage you might have been carrying to end up with a very heavy laden bike. Then do your division and remembering few if any stock bikes actually deliver the manufacturers stated horsepower for very long, you'll often get a 'fast' bike under the 0.16kW/kg figure and once it is, it's legal aon a restricted licence.

Ask youself why you've never heard in biking circles of either the cops or the insurance companies making a big deal in this area. It's because the know the law is far from comprehensive. In the UK for example I believe you MUST have a restriction certificate and the dry weight and manufacturers stated horsepower are taken as binding according to their implementation of the directive. The Dail just made a balls of it.

While I agree with most of what you say here. I think you are confusing criminal and civil law. When you take out insurance you sign a legal document saying that everything is true to the best of your knowledge, if you then drive outside the terms of your licence your insurance can become void. It's not up to the insurance company to prove that you where illegal, it's up to you to prove that you are legal as you have signed a document saying that you are legally allowed to ride with a full licence. How you do that if the bike is written off is difficult. But because it'll be a civil case there is no need for the insurance company to pay out if you can't prove you where legal.

In saying all that. I've never heard of anyone getting done for riding without restriction, or having their insurance voided after an accident. But with the way the world economy is going I can see insurnace companies looking for easy ways out of paying claims at some point and riding outside the terms of your licence is an easy way to not pay out.

I don't want to be the person who has to go to court to prove that the 0.16kw/kg includes me, the bike full of fuel and oil and a topbox full of beers for a weekend away. And if I do prove it is, then I can't drive it home.

Quint

nereid wrote: »

I had one on my old SV650.

It was a factory restricted model which means that the ECU serial number and engine + frame numbers are registered with the manufacturer and can be looked up and verified.

Essentially the Vehicle Registration Cert showed 25kw under power.

Factory restricted bikes also benefit from a significantly reduced insurance premium.

Perhaps people are confusing factory and dealer restricted bikes? It is very easy for an insurance company to verify whether the numbers match if they choose to inspect a vehicle. It is also available for any insurance company involved in an incident to verify the evidence if they suspect something.

I have never heard of anything ever happening with this though either, I just don't see the big deal in driving a restricted bike for 2 years. Of course you can get away with it, like so many things in this country.

Yeah, I'm talking about dealer restriction. Know anything about that? It's legal to get your bike dealer restricted, but the bike isn't tested. All the cert is, is a letter from the dealer as far as I know.

Limerick Bandit

jackhammer wrote: »

In terms of determining whether a bike is restricted or not, 90% of the time, a twist of the throttle would answer that.

.

No it wont

Limerick Bandit

Quint wrote: »

Yeah, I'm talking about dealer restriction. Know anything about that? It's legal to get your bike dealer restricted, but the bike isn't tested. All the cert is, is a letter from the dealer as far as I know.

its just a piece of paper saying the mechanic restricted it on a particular date and is worth nothing

Zascar

Only a few of the bikes would be throttle restricted. The others have rings in the carbs I believe.

Del2005

Limerick Bandit wrote: »

its just a piece of paper saying the mechanic restricted it on a particular date and is worth nothing

Like the NCT is a piece of paper that says your car was safe on a certain day. It's still legal for 2 years even if you smack a kerb on the way out and have the car running sideways.

A shop supplied cert is worth while if you get stopped and have to prove to a Garda that you are legally allowed to ride, what you do with the spare parts after you clean your carbs is up to you!

Zascar

When I bought my bike I brought it to Ducai Dublin to get a throttle restrictor sitted on it.

All I got was a receipt for the work done mentioning fitting a restrictor. The guy said that was enough but if I wanted more they could probably do up a letter for me. I never got it but might ask just in case...

Quint

Zascar wrote: »

Only a few of the bikes would be throttle restricted. The others have rings in the carbs I believe.

What abour fuel injected bikes? Do they have to be factory restricted or can the dealer do it?
I heard that some factory restricted bikes can be expensive to de-restrict

Zascar

When I bought my bike I brought it to Ducati Dublin to get a throttle restrictor fitted on it.

All I got was a receipt for the work done mentioning fitting a restrictor. The guy said that was enough but if I wanted more they could probably do up a letter for me. I never got it but might ask just in case...

Factory restricted bikes can be expensive to de-restrict. Its not worth it, only one company recognise factory restriction. Do what I did and get a Grade 2 Certificate and insurance becomes way cheaper

murphaph

EvilMonkey wrote: »

They will ask for a cert they wont go looking for restrictions

Nowhere in my contract with my insurance company does it say I have to hold a certificate of restriction if I'm riding on a restricted licence.

EvilMonkey wrote: »

the weight and power is stated in the vehicle registration document

Nope. Not always. I imported 2 bikes from the UK and both contain no information (actually one says 99999999.999999999kW but it doesn't feel that quick to me ;-) the other is blank ). In any case the LAW doesn't explicitly state that the manufacturer's given output shall be taken (it does in UK law though-see how shoddy the dail implementation is?)

EvilMonkey wrote: »

these are the figures they will use

See above. They can't use figures unless the law says they are the figures to use and the LAW doesn't say that!

EvilMonkey wrote: »

unless you can provide a restriction cert.

A meaningless piece of paper in this context.

EvilMonkey wrote: »

The restrictor isn't the important bit its the piece of paper that says its fitted.

Only if you are seeking a reduced premium for a FACTORY restriction-no company gives reductions for deale restrictions.

EvilMonkey wrote: »

The same way the guards can ask you to produce proof of restriction at a station, they dont ask to see the restrictor.

Show me, please show me the legislation that allows a Garda to ask you for this cert! It doesn't exist! Guards can (illegaly) ask all they like but there's no compulsion on you to have it, nevermind produce it.

Insurance companies can't walk away. They know the law is shoddy themselves. It's like the old provisional driver hitting another whilst driving alone-the company must pay out. They can then sue you for the loss but rarely do and in this case, won't because the law allows you to ride bikes outside the scope of the directive. EU directives are NOT laws.

Idleater

Quint wrote: »

What abour fuel injected bikes? Do they have to be factory restricted or can the dealer do it?
I heard that some factory restricted bikes can be expensive to de-restrict

My SV was ECU restricted.

Bought a S/H full power ecu and it was a 10 minute un-click click job to swap between them.

Still have the full power ECU lying around because I sold it restricted.

The restricted Gixxer ecu is more expensive I believe, as is the 636. To de-restrict via an eg suzuki main dealer it would have cost me €600 odd for the sv for a new ecu, but they are £50 on fleabay.

EvilMonkey

murphaph wrote: »

Nowhere in my contract with my insurance company does it say I have to hold a certificate of restriction if I'm riding on a restricted licence.

It says you must have a valid licence, if you are on restricted licence driving unrestricted you dont have a valid licence.

murphaph wrote: »

Nope. Not always. I imported 2 bikes from the UK and both contain no information (actually one says 99999999.999999999kW but it doesn't feel that quick to me ;-) the other is blank ). In any case the LAW doesn't explicitly state that the manufacturer's given output shall be taken (it does in UK law though-see how shoddy the dail implementation is?)

See above. They can't use figures unless the law says they are the figures to use and the LAW doesn't say that!

It can be obtained from the manufacture, the law doesn't need to say this the Irish law is almost identical to the UK law.

murphaph wrote: »

A meaningless piece of paper in this context.

@Limerick Bandit It should contain reg no, engine no chaise no, your name and address and name and address of who fitted and signed by the person that fitted it.
My driver licence is just a piece of paper too!

murphaph wrote: »

Only if you are seeking a reduced premium for a FACTORY restriction-no company gives reductions for deale restrictions.

Only 1 insurance company gives a discount and no cert is required for factory restricted bikes, its on the vehicle registration document and chaise no.

murphaph wrote: »

Show me, please show me the legislation that allows a Garda to ask you for this cert! It doesn't exist! Guards can (illegaly) ask all they like but there's no compulsion on you to have it, nevermind produce it.

Too lazy to look, i dont think its there. :mad:

murphaph wrote: »

Insurance companies can't walk away. They know the law is shoddy themselves. It's like the old provisional driver hitting another whilst driving alone-the company must pay out. They can then sue you for the loss but rarely do and in this case, won't because the law allows you to ride bikes outside the scope of the directive. EU directives are NOT laws.

They cant walk away because under European law they must pay out on 3rd party clams it is a law this is why Hibernian pulled out to many provisionals carrying pillions were having accidents(moped scams) and they had to pay, They can however issue civil proceedings against you to get their money back.(they dont because its not worth their while, in most cases they wont be able to recover the cost of the claim)

Look I'm not saying you wont get away with it chances are you will(i do ), just be aware of the consequences you could be letting yourself in for.