Power restriction for new drivers?

bladespin

Traumadoc wrote: »

Just motorcyclists are more likely to die or be badly injured.

Reference please, as far as I know, statistically you're less likely to be in an accident in the first place than a car driver.

You are, if unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident, more likely to be injured or killed than a car driver. RSA statistics 2008.

KamiKazi

Traumadoc wrote: »

As I said I own a motorcycle as well, I never said it was the "big bad bikers" fault. In most cases it is not. Just motorcyclists are more likely to die or be badly injured.

bladespin wrote: »

That's true but the discussion is about those who have passed their test, should they be restricted as motorcyclists are?

:rolleyes:

bladespin

Statistically you're more likely to die in a hospital than anywhere else, does that mean we should restrict hospitals?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Traumadoc

bladespin wrote: »

Reference please, as far as I know, statistically you're less likely to be in an accident in the first place than a car driver.

You are, if unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident, more likely to be injured or killed than a car driver. RSA statistics 2008.

This is true, motorcyclists make up 2% of vehicles but 12% of fatalities.

KamiKazi

Traumadoc wrote: »

This is true, motorcyclists make up 2% of vehicles but 12% of fatalities.

Buses are safer than cars, should we all drive buses?

Traumadoc

bladespin wrote: »

Statistically you're more likely to die in a hospital than anywhere else, does that mean we should restrict hospitals?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

That is actually true, hospital acquired infection such as MRSA or C- diff is a real problem. It is one of the arguments to stop people being admitted to hospital.

challengemaster

KamiKazi wrote: »

Buses are safer than cars, should we all drive buses?

Don't you think there's enough busses driving around the place going to "out of service" ? :pac:

KamiKazi

challengemaster wrote: »

Don't you think there's enough busses driving around the place going to "out of service" ? :pac:

Em, maybe.

How about bumper cars? Slow is safe after all :rolleyes:

bladespin

Traumadoc wrote: »

This is true, motorcyclists make up 2% of vehicles but 12% of fatalities.

Again reference please?
According to the RSA figurse, in 2008 it was 10%, you seem to pull figures out of the air.
They do have to share the road with other users so are likely to interact or be interacted upon as it were, their figures wouldn't be resentative of motorcyclists themselves.

The vast, and I mean vast, majority of motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle, usually at fault (junctions iirc), surely then these motorists would benefit from training and thus reduce the amount of injuries sustained to motorcyclists.

Traumadoc

KamiKazi wrote: »

Buses are safer than cars, should we all drive buses?

Yes busses or even planes are safer than cars ( if the greens had their way we all would be).
But you have to balance individual freedom versus acceptable risk.

challengemaster

KamiKazi wrote: »

Em, maybe.

How about bumper cars? Slow is safe after all :rolleyes:

bumper cars...I like the idea, but I can see insurance claims for whiplash going through the roof :P

bladespin

Traumadoc wrote: »

Yes busses or even planes are safer than cars ( if the greens had their way we all would be).
But you have to balance individual freedom versus acceptable risk.

Are they really? Using your own logic a plane is much more dangerous to be in than a car or even a motorcycle. In the event of a crash your chance of survival is just about non-existant.

Traumadoc

bladespin wrote: »

Again reference please?
According to the RSA figurse, in 2008 it was 10%, you seem to pull figures out of the air.

The vast, and I mean vast, majority of motorcycle accidents involve another vehicle, usually at fault (junctions iirc), surely then these motorists would benefit from training and thus reduce the amount of injuries sustained to motorcyclists.

I said that motorcyclists were not responsible for most MVAs they are involved in. I agree that motorists would benefit from training.
Sorry pulled the figure from the RSA site:
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Learner-Drivers/Motorcyclists/Motorcycle-Safety/

1 in 8 ( 12.5%)

KamiKazi

Traumadoc wrote: »

Yes busses or even planes are safer than cars ( if the greens had their way we all would be).
But you have to balance individual freedom versus acceptable risk.

Exactly.

It's noones business except theirs how many wheels their vehicle of choice has.

Can we get back to the topic of restrictors?

hayyman

KamiKazi wrote: »

Exactly.

It's noones business except theirs how many wheels their vehicle of choice has.

Can we get back to the topic of restrictors?

I don't think restrictors will solve anything when it comes to peoples attitude to driving as some people manage to crash into each other in slow moving traffic.

AgileMyth

The only bike I've ever come off (other than off-roaders) was a 50cc scooter. The reason for this was I was 16 and didn't have the experience for the situation, it would have been the same minor crash regardless of what size engine I had. There is very little need for limiting the capacity of bikes available to people as insurance companies will do this anyways.

I'm currently waiting for the two years to go by so that I can get a bigger bike. I'm not riding a bike at all at the minute as I can only afford one vehicle and a 125/250 isn't great for regular long trips. I'd say there are a good few in my situation too, so what are we waiting for? Am I going to be magically a better rider next July? Am I f*ck.

So thats a no to the OP;)

Traumadoc

KamiKazi wrote: »

Exactly.

It's noones business except theirs how many wheels their vehicle of choice has.

Can we get back to the topic of restrictors?

Do you think the compulsory helmet law should be repealed?
As I said you have to balance the dangers versus individual freedom.

Max Power1

Traumadoc wrote: »

Do you think the compulsory helmet law should be repealed?
As I said you have to balance the dangers versus individual freedom.

now thats just being ridiculous

Traumadoc

Actually a lot of motorcyclists protested in the late 70s early 80s when the helmet laws were introduced - again it is about individual freedom versus acceptable risk.

It is still argued in some places today:

http://goldiron.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/il-local-motorcycle-riders-rally-around-no-helmet-law/

GTE

P.C. wrote: »

So -

Do you agree with restriction imposed on first time biker riders?

Go back and read the first post, then come back and answer that.

Im not a biker and really dont care about legislation effecting them, aside from the ones like the headlight having to be on like I said.

KamiKazi

bbk wrote: »

Im not a biker and really dont care about legislation effecting them, aside from the ones like the headlight having to be on like I said.

This thread isn't just about bike legislation, if it was it would be in the bikes forum.

This is about the comparison between the legislation between cars and bikes, if you have nothing to add why post?

Teddy Daniels

Max Power1 wrote: »

now thats just being ridiculous

how is it redicilious its my head although i think you should have to have a full lisence first

bladespin

Traumadoc wrote: »

Do you think the compulsory helmet law should be repealed?
As I said you have to balance the dangers versus individual freedom.

And, once again, that has what got to do with restiction of cars?

This thread has nothing to do with motorcycles or your opinions of them (or airtravel as you class them thes same) ok, it's about limiting those who have passed their test, discussing whether restrictions on power outputs should be applied to cars as they are for motorcycles.

KamiKazi

bladespin wrote: »

And, once again, that has what got to do with restiction of cars?

This thread has nothing to do with motorcycles or your opinions of them (or airtravel as you class them thes same) ok, it's about limiting those who have passed their test, discussing whether restrictions on power outputs should be applied to cars as they are for motorcycles.

+1

Love how the mods are quick to warn me for "insulting" other members but they're quite happy to let the thread get dragged off topic again and again.

bladespin

KamiKazi wrote: »

+1

Love how the mods are quick to warn me for "insulting" other members but they're quite happy to let the thread get dragged off topic again and again.

While we're off topic lol, I'm suprised at a certain poster, his attention to detail is severly lacking, as a doctor :eek:, continuously posting off topic and still refusing to give his opinion on the actual subject of the thread, instead waffling on and on about the inherent dangers of bikes (we know, we know, ride one on the road for 2 minutes and you're very aware how vunerable you are). I hope they pay better attention while they're driving than they do to their posting.

the_syco

Max Power1 wrote: »

There is one in practice if not by law. Try and insure anything over 1.3 on a provisional and you are looking at north of 2.5k

1.4 on a provisional was €1,200. On my 2nd year is just over €800.

=-=

Maybe having a limiter put on with a max of 80kmph while on a provisional?

You're not meant to be on a 120kmph motorway, so maybe that'd work?

KamiKazi

the_syco wrote: »

1.4 on a provisional was €1,200. On my 2nd year is just over €800.

=-=

Maybe having a limiter put on with a max of 80kmph while on a provisional?

You're not meant to be on a 120kmph motorway, so maybe that'd work?

Accidents are only serious when the vehicle is travelling faster than 80kmph yea? :rolleyes:

Teddy Daniels

thats not true

i grew up in the late 80's early 90's on bikes and cars
i had 125's for three years 1 year before i passed my 125 test then after 2 years i was allowed get a real bike

there are 2 ways to look at it
1
I was out the other day on a real bike and my mate was with me, the weapons we were riding can go 0-170mph in about 12 seconds we haven't hooned about in years but it was sunny and the mood took us it reminded me of how carefree i was as a 18 year old on a 125cc. When was first riding bikes we all dove everywhere at the top speed so yes the top speed is important those yokes only did 70 mph, but the real issue is the way you drive when you can go from 50mph to 100 mph in a few seconds then you overtake in tiny gaps the sheer power and acceleration is addictive and you want more and more. This makes your driving more and more aggressive, on my way home yesterday after work i was doing 90 when i looked at the clock and it felt like 60. If I had got a 750 or 1000 cc race bike at 17 I would be dead now.

2
A 125cc stroker made about 30 bhp todays restriction on learners is 33bhp and its simply not enough, its not enough to overtake propperly up a hill into a headwind its not enough to get you out of trouble on a motorway and its too restrictive. The limit should be no more than 33bhp till you pass your test and then no more than 80bhp for three years 80 is plenty of power but its not stupid power that will kill you after making you an addict. I believe that the bikes should be limited to 90mph during this time. Also training and not the crazy training thats coming in here soon but propper bike training like the garda get is also very important.

I believe the same for cars I had a fiesta and it was a great car but it didn't have enough pull and it was less safe for that. Once you pass your test car drivers should be limited to 100brake and 90mph for three years. I suppose some are by finances but the qusetion the op asked didn't worry about that.

P.C.

bbk wrote: »

Im not a biker and really dont care about legislation effecting them, aside from the ones like the headlight having to be on like I said.

I am OK Jack - and I don't care about you.

This reminds me of a recent thread about the 30km/h speed limit in Dublin City centre - there were posters from the cycling form coming on here saying just that - I am OK Jack, it does not affect me, and I don't care if it has a negative impact on you.

So, my question to you is:

Why did you even bother to post on this thread if you have nothing to contribute?

GTE

P.C. wrote: »

Why did you even bother to post on this thread

1) A users post was misinterpreted
2) I wanted to say why I think limiters in cars wouldn't work
3) To wind you up, because this thread seems to be doing that to you no end.

But anyway, like my original post in the thread said

For me its bad driving technique that is the problem.
Bad driving technique isn't going to be solved by a slower car, its just going to be made slower

The reason placing a limiter, whether it be speed or on power, on a car wouldn't really do anything productive is because that doesn't automatically raise the competency of the driver, indeed it stops him or her being an idiot over a certain speed but they can still talk on their mobile under the speed limit. Whether its having the intended effect on motorcycles is not something Im interested in. The question of putting limiters of some description into cars is one I am. If this thread is talking about how fair it is for motorbikes having one law and cars having another, inherent in that is should a car have a limiter.

ShiresV2 pretty much got it in one to be honest.