Power restriction for new drivers?

Traumadoc

bladespin wrote: »

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.

I am not sure what you mean by my attention to detail being lacking.
Perhaps by responding to my "Off topic" posts you are contributing too;)

I have said I am not sure that power restricting motorbikes works.

I stated I would prefer my child to have a car rather than a motorbike of any description. ( Even If I own one myself).

Power restriction of cars may work but I believe that better enforcement of laws would work better.



If you ride a motorbike and you are in an accident you are more likely to die than if you drive or even take the bus. It may not be the motorcyclists fault but it is the truth.

KamiKazi

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I dont see how 33hp on a bike isnt enough? As I said I know little or nothing about bikes but considering that the bike weighs nothing that 33hp in terms of power to weight ratio would be high. Considering the likes of the citreon 2CV has only 9hp to start with and then got a power upgrade to 27hp. The smaller engined beetles are only around 33-40hp and they are fine to drive. My own car only has 60hp which is less than double the 33hp of a bike but it tips the scales at 900kgs.

Cool, so you'd be OK with a 60hp restriction for new car drivers?

here.from.day.1

To be honest I think better training for more conditions (motorway/snow/ice etc.) would make a far greater impact then an engine restriction that retards the drivers ability once it comes off.

daveharnett wrote: »

I thought about the 911, but afaik the models without TC are primarily intended for trackdays?

Honda S2000, 250~BHP, no traction control or electronic driver aids whatsoever.

Paparazzo

I don't think most bike riders ever even get their bike restricted. But it's possible it could come in for cars, purely so the government could set up centres for testing bhp, charge for testing, create a few jobs and they could also pretend they're doing it for environmental reasons too. All they need to do is comission one of their reports that give them the result they want, i.e. kids are driving powerful cars and are dangerous

Teddy Daniels

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I dont see how 33hp on a bike isnt enough? As I said I know little or nothing about bikes but considering that the bike weighs nothing that 33hp in terms of power to weight ratio would be high. Considering the likes of the citreon 2CV has only 9hp to start with and then got a power upgrade to 27hp. The smaller engined beetles are only around 33-40hp and they are fine to drive. My own car only has 60hp which is less than double the 33hp of a bike but it tips the scales at 900kgs.

There is a huge difference in the way that power is developed and also I stated that the top speed should be limited.
Furthermore bikes aren't cars there is a nonsense in letting riders go round at 33bhp and then one arbitrary day say ok have a gixxer 1000.

This thread is about the restrictrion on inexperianced drivers so i gave my experiance with both bikes and with cars and explained my position on both.
Many people would think that 100bhp in a car was a lot, I do not.

Teddy Daniels

here.from.day.1 wrote: »

To be honest I think better training for more conditions (motorway/snow/ice etc.) would make a far greater impact then an engine restriction that retards the drivers ability once it comes off.



Honda S2000, 250~BHP, no traction control or electronic driver aids whatsoever.

They have abs and electronic power steering.

Teddy Daniels

Paparazzo wrote: »

I don't think most bike riders ever even get their bike restricted. But it's possible it could come in for cars, purely so the government could set up centres for testing bhp, charge for testing, create a few jobs and they could also pretend they're doing it for environmental reasons too. All they need to do is comission one of their reports that give them the result they want, i.e. kids are driving powerful cars and are dangerous

Most do some don't, many drive bikes that are sub 22bhp as standard.
The same would apply to cars if a 100bhp limit was brought in many many cars would pass those would then be the approved cars. As with bikers the more powerful cars could then be restricted and certification passed and presented. Lawbreakers are in all walks of life but as with drink driving its not more laws rather the stricter enforcement of those that are already in the statutes that would be the logical answer.

Paparazzo

Teddy Daniels wrote: »

Most do some don't, many drive bikes that are sub 22bhp as standard.

Is that just a guess? I know someone who worked in a busy city centre motorbike shop, they restricted 2 bikes in 10 years. All anyone does if they're stopped is tell the garda it's restricted, there's not even an official certificate

Teddy Daniels

Paparazzo wrote: »

Is that just a guess? I know someone who worked in a busy city centre motorbike shop, they restricted 2 bikes in 10 years. All anyone does if they're stopped is tell the garda it's restricted, there's not even an official certificate

No its not a guess, I've been active on the biking scene for the last 20 years and the riders that have got bigger than 33bhp bikes and not at least restricted them and then derestricted them after they have become bored is very low. Mabey they de-restrict their bikes earlier than 2 years but that is the law working to an extent. Compliance of a law and enforcement of a law are two differing things tho and what we are discussing is the theory of law and not its compliance.

It is far more worrying to me that the garda are taking a soft line on people still driving without a full lisence than that people can get a 700bhp car after they pass thier test but the topic is the topic.

bladespin

Paparazzo wrote: »

I don't think most bike riders ever even get their bike restricted. But it's possible it could come in for cars, purely so the government could set up centres for testing bhp, charge for testing, create a few jobs and they could also pretend they're doing it for environmental reasons too. All they need to do is comission one of their reports that give them the result they want, i.e. kids are driving powerful cars and are dangerous

I think you're thinking it a little outdated TBH.

True say 5 or 6 years ago most riders wouldn't have bothered with the restriction but things are very different now, look at any motorbike noticeboard or magazine, the amount of enquiries about restriction are incredible, you can get red carded on some sites for posting a thread about it now so riders are very aware of the need.

I'd be confident most get the bike restricted at least in the first year, most of those will see the restriction out but will (rightly) complain about the unfairness of the whole thing.

traco

Just had a scan through the thread - didn't read every post but here are my observations as a restricted Biker and car driver with 16 years experince of 30k miles a year.

An accident on a bike will be much more serious irrespective of who's fault it is. You can't argue with the driver of the other vehicle from the morgue so much better to try and prevent a situation occuring that may result in the need for such a conversation.

I do think restriction on a bike reduces a new riders exposure to basic errors such as cracking the throttle wide open mid corner or in other dangerous situation. However sticking two years on it means nothing, what matters is the amount of miles ridden and experience gained.

Restricted bikes are not slow, just nowhere near as fast as their unrestricted counterparts.

Now to address the engine size question - I don't believe it will solve anything. This is based on what I saw on the N7 monday evening where a small car decided to play pinball with the central barrier and another vehicle in the middle lane. It was a small low powered car so engine size had nothing to with it. The driver made a bad decision and I would suspect it was a red mist scenario which should have been avoidable.

The real issue is training, the fact is the Irish standard of driving is brutal and the focus of our current driver training is "How to pass the test" and not on how to be a better driver. How sad is it that the RSA have to make a TV advert to show people how to drive around a roundabout. Very few people in Ireland ever take an advanced motoring course once they get the pink licence and that is a very sad fact of reality.

Bikers due to their exposure I suspect, tend to take a more active interest in improving their skills and thus hopefully avoiding accidents.

Traumadoc made some valid point but could have put them better. His stats are correct but just identify the net result and not the initial cause of the accident. One thing I didn't see mentioned was how many car occupants deaths were as a result of head injuries? I don't know the stats but I believe it is significant yet I don't see anyone requesting car users to wear fully homologated helmets as enforced by the motorsports authroities for all car racing / trackdays etc. All of this is mute really as its after the fact and the real focus should move to prevention.

I don't think restrictions would make much difference but I do believe a much better driver training program would. IMO this should start with kids in schools on bicycles and be part of the curriculum right up along. The training should also have a siginificant element on focusing on the drivers responsibilities towards other road users and that the decision they make behind the wheel or handlebars has can hugely affect other road users. This could be enforced with a trip to the National Rehabilitation hospital to see the real impact that their decisions can have on innocent parties whatever their mode of transport.

Anyway enough - so who wants the soapbox now????