2 Year Restriction

ihateclowns11

Anyone out there know a way around the two year restriction for motorbike license? Picked up my full pinky today having passed the test last friday.So the 2 year count down is on unless somebody knows a faster way;)..

KamiKazi

Nope.

Esel

Get a restricted 'big bike', and don't kill yourself during the two-year wait.

TheUsual

You can get a full powered bike and ride it but then you would be riding a bike with no insurance.
You pay the insurance for a restricted bike and then you change the bike and have no insurance if you crash.

Also if you crash they can send an engineer out to inspect the bike and decide is it was legal or not.

Cuddlesworth

Ahh 1 year, 4 months and 13 days left. Tick Toc, tick toc....

RosieJoe

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Ahh 1 year, 4 months and 13 days left. Tick Toc, tick toc....

3 weeks! 3 long weeks

... then I can dream of the bikes I can ride but can't afford to upgrade to

bladespin

Yes, go to the UK, do the direct access test there, pass and keep the license until it's up.

Boskowski

Whats the big problem with the restriction? Do you think you're not fast enough with a restricted bike? Can the bike you want not be restricted?

KamiKazi

Boskowski wrote: »

Whats the big problem with the restriction? Do you think you're not fast enough with a restricted bike? Can the bike you want not be restricted?

How would you like it if I chopped one of your legs off? Would you not be fast enough with one leg?

Cuddlesworth

Boskowski wrote: »

Whats the big problem with the restriction? Do you think you're not fast enough with a restricted bike? Can the bike you want not be restricted?

Because it completely depends on the engine. Any engine which has its power range in the high Revs drives like a wet sock when restricted. The bigger the engine and bike the worse it gets.

cantdecide

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Because it completely depends on the engine. Any engine which has its power range in the high Revs drives like a wet sock when restricted. The bigger the engine and bike the worse it gets.

I, like my Blackbird, have recently become de-restricted. It drove absolutely fine.

Cuddlesworth

cantdecide wrote: »

I, like my Blackbird, have recently become de-restricted. It drove absolutely fine.

How did you drive after?

bladespin

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

How did you drive after?

Carefully (couldn't resist - sorry).

Cuddlesworth

Anybody else think that after being unrestricted can'tdecide gives a careful ride?

Wossack

2 months to go

then I can hop off my cg125 and finally ride my zzr1400, huzzah

EGOSHEA

Wossack wrote: »

2 months to go

then I can hop off my cg125 and finally ride my zzr1400, huzzah

Jayzus...from a CG125 to an unrestricted ZZR1400. Don't forget your parachute!

KamiKazi

Wossack wrote: »

2 months to go

then I can hop off my cg125 and finally ride my zzr1400, huzzah

See. This is why the two year restriction is a ridiculous concept.

Wossack

KamiKazi wrote: »

See. This is why the two year restriction is a ridiculous concept.

Ill swap user names with ya :P

nah, I dont own a zzr/zxr, just as your post says - highlighting the silly concept

much in the same way as a 'born again', with a license from way back can hop on anything without issue.. rode a cd175 in the 70s, gonna get me a gsx1400 sorta thing

cantdecide

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

How did you drive after?

The same tbh

Fast bike. Slow rider.

cantdecide

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Anybody else think that after being unrestricted can'tdecide gives a careful ride?

I'm very gentle

Del2005

KamiKazi wrote: »

See. This is why the two year restriction is a ridiculous concept.

Or you can pass your test, get full licence, never touch a bike for 2 years then get onto a full power bike. Nothings perfect.

martydunf

Del2005 wrote: »

Or you can pass your test, get full licence, never touch a bike for 2 years then get onto a full power bike. Nothings perfect.

I wouldnt go through all the effort of getting into biking and doing the test to forget about it all for 2 years tbh. Its a stupid system at the end of the day that we all have to put up with.

Del2005

martydunf wrote: »

I wouldnt go through all the effort of getting into biking and doing the test to forget about it all for 2 years tbh. Its a stupid system at the end of the day that we all have to put up with.

Some people may not be able to afford a bike or have somewhere to keep it, so plan ahead.

It was more to point out the flaw in the system that even if you don't ride a bike for 2 years after test you are still allowed to ride full powered bikes. The restriction was supposedly brought in to keep newly qualified riders on less powerful bikes for "safety", though nearly everywhere else in the EU they do give the option of Direct Access.

Miscreant

I waited the 2 years and went from a Suzuki Burgman 125cc scoot to a Honda Pan Euro 1100cc. Used the 2 years to save up for what I really wanted.
Still have the 2 bikes though (although the scoot is a little sick and unloved at the moment).
No way around the waiting that I could find but for trundling around the city I never had an issue with the 125, find I get a bit more respect on the Pan though for some reason.

KamiKazi

125 scooter to a Pan European.

Jesus H Christ.

P.C.

KamiKazi wrote: »

125 scooter to a Pan European.

Jesus H Christ.

No - Miscreant. :rolleyes:

Miscreant

KamiKazi wrote: »

125 scooter to a Pan European.

Jesus H Christ.

I did notice a power difference when I changed to the Pan...
and I do agree with you that the 2 year rule is a bit silly.

bladespin

Was a while back but went from a 125 to a GSXR 7/11 as my second bike, had to wait the 2 years on a 125 then.

Oryx

bladespin wrote: »

Yes, go to the UK, do the direct access test there, pass and keep the license until it's up.

You need a UK address and things like utility bills to prove you live there to go direct access in the UK.

bladespin

Oryx wrote: »

You need a UK address and things like utility bills to prove you live there to go direct access in the UK.

Yes, not hard to get, generally they don't ask for utility bills.

sf80

This thread just reminded me of my restriction, it ended 3 days ago

KTRIC

sf80 wrote: »

This thread just reminded me of my restriction, it ended 3 days ago

Congrats man, now go out and buy a stupidly over powered bike

AgileMyth

Lot of people saying the current restriction system doesn't work. Just wondering, would ye scrap it altogether or is there a better way of doing it?

Tigger

A real test would work where we done have to pretend I don't drive stupid but the set and good way I drive would never pass a test and I did two test the old way and passed both first time.

A test where you filter realistically and where you overtake realistically on real roads would be able to gauge whether a person should be riding a real bike


I did my second test on a gixxer and never went over 30 mph

How does that show I deserved to rude it's 0-100 mph awesomeness on real roads?

bladespin

AgileMyth wrote: »

Lot of people saying the current restriction system doesn't work. Just wondering, would ye scrap it altogether or is there a better way of doing it?

A proper driving school course like in Germany etc, test driving in wet, cold/slippery and dry conditions, a 6 month course where you cover pretty much everything you're likely to experience. School bikes, closed roads, that type of thing. TBH it would cost but the amount of money it would save would be incredible too.

Boskowski

KamiKazi wrote: »

How would you like it if I chopped one of your legs off? Would you not be fast enough with one leg?

You missed my point. Restriction is in place for a reason. I know when you're into fast bikes and you finally have your test done you can't wait to get onto a rocket asap. But a lot of people are obviously not ready for unrestricted power and two years of experience on a restricted bike increases their chances of survival quite a bit.
Probably not what most of these guys want to hear but that's the way it is and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Del2005

Boskowski wrote: »

You missed my point. Restriction is in place for a reason. I know when you're into fast bikes and you finally have your test done you can't wait to get onto a rocket asap. But a lot of people are obviously not ready for unrestricted power and two years of experience on a restricted bike increases their chances of survival quite a bit.
Probably not what most of these guys want to hear but that's the way it is and it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Please provide the proof of this.

AFAIK it's all rhetoric from the safety brigade that lower powered bikes are safer, I've never seen any surveys/reports to back it up.

Boskowski

Del2005 wrote: »

Please provide the proof of this.

AFAIK it's all rhetoric from the safety brigade that lower powered bikes are safer, I've never seen any surveys/reports to back it up.

You know very well that I won't be able to 'prove' it.

Are you, however, saying that you couldn't possibly see a common sense type of case for this?

It's like saying if we reduced all swimming pools in the country from 8 foot depth to 4 foot depth is under no circumstances going to reduce the number of drownings. I can see how you could contrue a case for such an argument if you really hate the reduction but from a common sense point of view it doesn't add up.

bladespin

Boskowski wrote: »

You know very well that I won't be able to 'prove' it.

Are you, however, saying that you couldn't possibly see a common sense type of case for this?

It's like saying if we reduced all swimming pools in the country from 8 foot depth to 4 foot depth is under no circumstances going to reduce the number of drownings. I can see how you could contrue a case for such an argument if you really hate the reduction but from a common sense point of view it doesn't add up.

Do you not think that (by that weird logic) that throwing someone who had only every been in a 4 foot pool into an olympic diving pool, they might have a bit of trouble getting used to the new depth? Surely it would be better do do it incramentally rather than plunge them in at the deep end (sorry about the pun lol).

Del2005

Boskowski wrote: »

You know very well that I won't be able to 'prove' it.

Are you, however, saying that you couldn't possibly see a common sense type of case for this?

It's like saying if we reduced all swimming pools in the country from 8 foot depth to 4 foot depth is under no circumstances going to reduce the number of drownings. I can see how you could contrue a case for such an argument if you really hate the reduction but from a common sense point of view it doesn't add up.

bladespin wrote: »

Surely it would be better do do it incramentally rather than plunge them in at the deep end (sorry about the pun lol).

So how come the UK, which has some of the safest roads in Europe, allow people to go straight onto full power bikes. The Irish government selectively implemented an EU licence law on flawed no analysis just a hunch that it's safer.

There is no proof anywhere that putting people on full powered bikes is more dangerous then restricted bikes, because if there was any it would be plastered everywhere.

Which is more dangerous on the road a new rider on a 130bhp bike, a new driver in a 500bhp car or a new HGV driver in a 44t wagon? Yet who is restricted?

bladespin wrote: »

Do you not think that (by that weird logic) that throwing someone who had only every been in a 4 foot pool into an olympic diving pool, they might have a bit of trouble getting used to the new depth?

Since people only swim on the surface so it doesn't mater how deep the pool is:D. If someone can't swim then they'd be in trouble, but if they had to pass a swimming test before they can get into the 8foot pool then they'd be perfectly safe.

Cuddlesworth

Boskowski wrote: »

You know very well that I won't be able to 'prove' it.

Are you, however, saying that you couldn't possibly see a common sense type of case for this?

It's like saying if we reduced all swimming pools in the country from 8 foot depth to 4 foot depth is under no circumstances going to reduce the number of drownings. I can see how you could contrue a case for such an argument if you really hate the reduction but from a common sense point of view it doesn't add up.

Statistically you would get more deaths in the four foot pool. Its because people would take more risks, like getting into it and falling asleep while completely drunk or leaving small children there for long periods of time. That's why lifeguard chairs in the US are placed closer to the shallow end then the deep. They would believe it was safer and so push things further.

The best example of this psychological effect is with push bikes and helmets. You are far more likely to have a bad accident with one then without, since you reason with yourself that by having the helmet you are safer then without and take a larger risk in normal actions.

Ignoring that though, the 33bhp restriction is a good idea in theory but a bad idea in practise. Limiting a bike to a 80mph+ top speed and still abusive acceleration while giving the guise of it being safer is more dangerous then dropping a newbie on a zzr1400. Because the newbie would fear the ZZR.

Boskowski

Look all of ye, I'm not sure how I ended up defending this restriction especially since I didn't like it myself at the time and we all know it's obviously flawed.

Nonetheless, if you're trying to make a case saying that restricted bikes endanger people even moreso for all the various reasons people are plucking out of thin air then I say this:

All your arguments are just as speculative and arbitrary as the arguments in favour of a restriction lacking empirical evidence. Surely people must see that for themselves. I mean people replying along the lines of 'the psychology of this makes people take more risks on a smaller bike' or 'more accidents happen at the shallow end' must surely know that they're just argueing for arguments sake and what they say doesn't really make sense.

It's like saying people are less likely to get hammered with 20 pints in front of them than with 5 because the 20 pints look dangerous to them while the 5 they would just know back without thinking - whereas I say if all you have is 5 then you simply can't get hammered full stop.

There is more accidents at the shallow end because that's where non-swimmers go and not because all the good swimmer suddenly go careless there.

Let's not get silly here and try using common sense. What bike am I more likely to kill myself on? A bike that drives 80 mph or a bike that drives 120 mph? It's that simple.

cantdecide

In the absence of any better system (ie based on skills/ training), restriction is the only show in town. It's flawed but it keeps people safer than nothing.

bladespin

cantdecide wrote: »

In the absence of any better system (ie based on skills/ training), restriction is the only show in town. It's flawed but it keeps people safer than nothing.

How so, can you show for definate that it keeps anyone safe? Have you got figures that prove this?

Also, for a number of years there was restriction but no enforcement, the vast majority of riders I know who were supposed to be riding restricted bikes weren't, the stats show little change since then <2008 or so when it became a more serious issue (at least boards talk wise), that would make me belive it doesn't work at all.

Boskowski

bladespin wrote: »

How so, can you show for definate that it keeps anyone safe? Have you got figures that prove this?

Also, for a number of years there was restriction but no enforcement, the vast majority of riders I know who were supposed to be riding restricted bikes weren't, the stats show little change since then <2008 or so when it became a more serious issue (at least boards talk wise), that would make me belive it doesn't work at all.

How could it be not enforced?

I imagine you simply wouldn't be allowed to tax and/or get insurance for an open bike if you had a restricted license?

Same as for tinkering with what was presented as a restricted bike afterwards. If something happens to you and it turns out you opened her up after obtaining insurance on the premise she was restricted I imagine your insurance cover is nil and void.

And in any case. If you're prepared to shortcut these things why bother getting a license at all? Might as well just drive without anything....

KamiKazi

Boskowski wrote: »

I imagine you simply wouldn't be allowed to tax and/or get insurance for an open bike if you had a restricted license?

And how do you prove your bike is restricted if either ask for proof? Which government approved method?

cantdecide

bladespin wrote: »

How so, can you show for definate that it keeps anyone safe? Have you got figures that prove this?

Also, for a number of years there was restriction but no enforcement, the vast majority of riders I know who were supposed to be riding restricted bikes weren't, the stats show little change since then <2008 or so when it became a more serious issue (at least boards talk wise), that would make me belive it doesn't work at all.

I don't have to prove anything. It's only my opinion.

You can show me the stats you're referring to if you want but having said that, not much has generally changed since 2008 in terms of policing restrictions, IMO.

Boskowski

KamiKazi wrote: »

And how do you prove your bike is restricted if either ask for proof? Which government approved method?

Copy from other countries. Germany for example. We're great at putting regulations and procedures into place.

NCT center appointed to check the restriction is in place. From there it goes straight into the logbook with a stamp. Same procedure for the reversal.

All modifications to any vehicle in Germany are either pre-approved (as in the modification/part has pre-approval for certain verhicles/types) or else must be individually approved for roadworthiness. The latter ones plus stuff that impacts on insurance or licensing goes straight into the logbook.

Semi-state body in charge of all approvals is the TUEV, or equivalent of the NCT centres.

KamiKazi

Boskowski wrote: »

Copy from other countries. Germany for example. We're great at putting regulations and procedures into place.

NCT center appointed to check the restriction is in place. From there it goes straight into the logbook with a stamp. Same procedure for the reversal.

I didn't ask you what regulations and procedures you'd put into place, I asked you which government approved method you'd use to prove your bike's restriction?

It's OK to admit there isn't one.

Boskowski

KamiKazi wrote: »

I didn't ask you what regulations and procedures you'd put into place, I asked you which government approved method you'd use to prove your bike's restriction?

It's OK to admit there isn't one.

That was a misunderstanding then. I guess no there isn't one.

bladespin

cantdecide wrote: »

I don't have to prove anything. It's only my opinion.

You can show me the stats you're referring to if you want but having said that, not much has generally changed since 2008 in terms of policing restrictions, IMO.

There's certainly more interest by AGS in restrictions now, Cork being just one example, TBH I referred to the amount of interest there has been in how AGS would check for it on boards biker, IBF etc, lots of threads started in the past couple of years where before it wasn't a very discussed topic.