Legislation.

[Rayne]

I am not sure if this subject has been covered on here before but I think it is worth a bit of discussion (or to be ignored if that’s what people want) so I will vent anyway.

Seeing how the Government is always banging on about climate change and we need to exude fewer emissions I would have thought that they would want to encourage more people into biking. Any motorbike will have less impact on the environment than any car (excluding electric vehicles) so why put barriers in the way?

Let’s look at the CBT. This was basically introduced as a cycling proficiency test to make sure that youngsters don’t buy a bike and get splashed as soon as they go out on the road. Now, I’m all for that but then they have to move the goal posts every couple of years. Once you have been deemed as “proficient” enough to take to the road then why, after two years, is it necessary to have to retake the course? Would you become “un-proficient” in that period? Of course not, as the CBT course has already stated that you are safe to ride on the road. Many people just want to stick to a 125 or 50cc with “L” plates as a form of cheap and cheerful transport to get to work and back. They have no interest in moving up to a bigger bike or carrying passengers. Thus taking cars off the road and leaving a better carbon footprint. Logical?

Then there comes the new test. I asked my MP and MEP why a new test was required when the old one had served us so well in the past. I was told that it was to bring us in line with all the other EU countries and to standardise/introduce safer laws. What a load of old twaddle. The new test has put many people off biking due to the time it takes to train and the cost to the individual. In my opinion the new test was introduced with out much thought as the test centres we already had were not equipped to apply the new rules.

So, why all the waffle you may ask. I see all the interference from the EU and our Government as going against all common sense and another way of hitting bikers old and new in the pocket. I am all for making sure that riders are safe and competent enough not to hurt them selves or others but in an age were petrol prices are high, traffic is increasing I would have thought that it would have been prudent to encourage more people into biking of all kinds.

I would like to know what others think. If it has been discussed before then I apologise or am I just whinging.

[Gas up - Let's Go!]

Seeing how the Government is always banging on about climate change and we need to exude fewer emissions I would have thought that they would want to encourage more people into biking. Any motorbike will have less impact on the environment than any car (excluding electric vehicles) so why put barriers in the way?

Thats a valid point, but by having all this congestion, climate change debate it gives them a reason to introduce new taxes, raise revenue etc - Can you think of a single Government Minister that rides a Motorcycle ? there is your answer, they drive about in 'modified' Jags that use more fuel than any other cars on the roads. You'll hear them bang on about security, but that's another debate (illegal wars etc). The bottom line is, they have no interests in a real solution, they still think a square peg will go into a round hole, they have no vision, and every descision they make is based on popularity from the masses - not common sence.

Let’s look at the CBT. This was basically introduced as a cycling proficiency test to make sure that youngsters don’t buy a bike and get splashed as soon as they go out on the road. Now, I’m all for that but then they have to move the goal posts every couple of years. Once you have been deemed as “proficient” enough to take to the road then why, after two years, is it necessary to have to retake the course? Would you become “un-proficient” in that period? Of course not, as the CBT course has already stated that you are safe to ride on the road. Many people just want to stick to a 125 or 50cc with “L” plates as a form of cheap and cheerful transport to get to work and back. They have no interest in moving up to a bigger bike or carrying passengers. Thus taking cars off the road and leaving a better carbon footprint. Logical?

The CBT. It's not a test, it's training with an assesment as to your safety, it's purpose is to give people the very basic requirements to go out and learn. You are not proficient at riding, you do not have any road skills at all, all you have is the very basic skills that may keep you alive on the road. When you pass your test you are considered proficient, but even then this is only a statement that you can go out and learn how to ride properly, safely and with due consideration to others. Last week I passed my Advanced Motorcycle Test, after 20 years on a bike, there are many things to learn even when you think you are a decent rider. If you think you know it all you are very very wrong indeed.

IF you are a proficient rider then you would have no problem in passing the DSA test, would you ?

Personally, I would like to see an end to this CBT practice. You wouldn't let a car driver go out on his/her own with just L-Plates, so why a bike? My view is that you shouldn't be allowed out at all unless under supervision. I'm not suggesting that this should be the same as it is now, but maybe being supervised by an experienced rider (5 years +).

Then there comes the new test. I asked my MP and MEP why a new test was required when the old one had served us so well in the past. I was told that it was to bring us in line with all the other EU countries and to standardise/introduce safer laws. What a load of old twaddle. The new test has put many people off biking due to the time it takes to train and the cost to the individual. In my opinion the new test was introduced with out much thought as the test centres we already had were not equipped to apply the new rules.

Progress. When I first passed mine it was in two parts, you passed the firts off-road part then you got to go out on the road for the second part of the test. This was replaced by the CBT and the 'following' test (where the examiner follows you on a set ride). The issue here is that it is very very difficult to 'fail' a CBT, I know an instruuctor who was 'asked to leave' as he was failing students, and for very good reasons. So what we have is a buntch of young idiots on scooters who have little or no respect for other road users free to ride like twats.

I wonder, honestly now, how many of you can turn your bike (U-Turn) between the curbs without putting your foot down ? Don't come up with excuses - if you can turn left you can do this.........

This is just one example of how skills are lost, so there is your answer to the 'un-procient' question,

There is alot of debate about the new tests, but it's mostly centred around the avoidance test in wet conditions. The basic argument being that you shouldn't be riding at that speed in them conditions, it's a fair point but riders are passing the test so it's not impossible.

Anything that puts good riders on the road, and keeps bad ones off is a good thing in my view.

[Batifan19]

Let’s look at the CBT. This was basically introduced as a cycling proficiency test to make sure that youngsters don’t buy a bike and get splashed as soon as they go out on the road. Now, I’m all for that but then they have to move the goal posts every couple of years. Once you have been deemed as “proficient” enough to take to the road then why, after two years, is it necessary to have to retake the course? Would you become “un-proficient” in that period? Of course not, as the CBT course has already stated that you are safe to ride on the road.

(Im all for training & stuff but I do feel that this is just another method of screwing money out of people! )

So, why all the waffle you may ask. I see all the interference from the EU and our Government as going against all common sense and another way of hitting bikers old and new in the pocket. I am all for making sure that riders are safe and competent enough not to hurt them selves or others but in an age were petrol prices are high, traffic is increasing I would have thought that it would have been prudent to encourage more people into biking of all kinds.

(The law was probably passed by people who know nothing or little about biking and who were swayed by accident statistics - dont forget, a minority of muppets end up tarnishing us all with the same brush in the authorities eyes. Stereotyped to the max for the most part.)

As far as being more economical than cars...horses for courses...some are, some arent. Depends what your looking at - a high performance bike or a 50cc?? What about a bad ass Harley popping and spluttering through your street at 4am when the owners on his way to work everyday?? Environmental Health would have a field day wouldnt they?...more food for thought there...

:

[Gas up - Let's Go!]

As far as being more economical than cars...horses for courses...some are, some arent. Depends what your looking at - a high performance bike or a 50cc?? What about a bad ass Harley popping and spluttering through your street at 4am when the owners on his way to work everyday?? Environmental Health would have a field day wouldnt they?...more food for thought there...

Good point.

My (nice new) car does 60mpg - the bike does the same, the XJR comes nowwhere close.

[Rayne]

Hazel Blears is the only one I can think of that rides a Bike.

Some excellent replies there chaps and definitely something to ponder over.

Gas- it-up…… you say that skills can be lost so this is the reason that the CBT has to be retaken. But would this not also be the case for those that have passed their test? I understand that riders should be safe and CBT training does provide this to a certain extent but why is it needed that for some who does not want to ride a big bike and wants to potter around is seen as less road savvy as some one who has passed a test?

Baitfan……. I never really thought about what bike type I was generalising about but we have all types of cars with different engine sizes so would that not offset a Harley or sports bike? A 3 litre sports car against a Harley? Don’t newer bikes have to pass emissions test same as cars?

I’m not being pedantic here. Just wishing for views.

[Ttaskmaster]

WARNING: Extreme sarcasm ahead.

Please read this post with the same humour it was written in.

Any motorbike will have less impact on the environment than any car (excluding electric vehicles) so why put barriers in the way?

1/. Motorcycling is dangerous. Statistics say so and reports (altered or otherwise, Ken) concur... or are interpreted as such.

2/. Bicycles are even less impacting. You not seen the Ride To Work incentive schemes lately?

3/. Image - Bikes and 'Peds are ridden by speed freaks, gangs and scrotes, not sensible law-abiding, tax-paying folk.

Once you have been deemed as “proficient” enough to take to the road then why, after two years, is it necessary to have to retake the course? Would you become “un-proficient” in that period? Of course not, as the CBT course has already stated that you are safe to ride on the road.

Nope....

Holding a DL196 CBT Cert certifies that you are 'basically safe', not proficient.

Holding a full licence certifies that you have gained enough experience to execute the CBT syllabus to a higher standard.

Proficiency comes mostly through experience.

Many people just want to stick to a 125 or 50cc with “L” plates as a form of cheap and cheerful transport to get to work and back. They have no interest in moving up to a bigger bike or carrying passengers. Thus taking cars off the road and leaving a better carbon footprint. Logical?

Aye, which is why you can take the test on a 125.

I was told that it was to bring us in line with all the other EU countries and to standardise/introduce safer laws. What a load of old twaddle. The new test has put many people off biking due to the time it takes to train and the cost to the individual.

So what you're saying is more revenue from those who still want to try and ultimately less bikers on the road, therefore less people dying?

That's great!! Look what a wonderful, caring government we have!!!!

I am all for making sure that riders are safe and competent enough not to hurt them selves or others

Statistically, using the road is about the most dangerous thing the average member of the public can do these days. Cars are safer, bicycles are more friendly.

Everything else is a menace, from bikers to horses to skateboarding, to being a dumb-ass suicidal pedestrian.

[oldtimer]

this is an extract from a goverment select committee on transport sorry it is a bit long winded but this is why we need a minister for motorcyclists who knows what he is talking about, and not ministers who think motorbikes are a problem!

(quote from goverment report)

One objective should be to get rid of forced or unwanted motorcycling by improving walking, cycling and public transport. This involves reallocating road space to these modes, limiting the use of cars in other ways, lowering and enforcing speed limits, possibly some subsidies. These are all things which should be done anyway, independently of the problem of motorcycles, and there is no need to elaborate them here.

The danger and nuisance of motorcycling start with the machines. Vehicle design, for motorcycles as for cars, should be based on the principle, implemented through construction and use regulations, that no vehicle should consume more non-renewable resources, in its construction, use or ultimate disposal, or cause more danger, pollution, noise or other nuisance than is required for the performance of its transport function. Clearly motorcycle design is not now based on this principle. A few years ago I went through a motorcycling magazine and found forty models with a top speed of twice, or more than twice (sometimes much more), the national speed limit. No one needs that speed, or the power, acceleration (acceleration may be more important as a cause of danger than speed, at least in towns) and weight of many machines now in use. In fact, it is hard to see why anyone except the police, military and emergency services, needs a powerful, heavy machine at all. However, it may be that some other people do, and it will also take time to get suitable construction and use regulations passed and to phase out the existing machines. To the extent that some fast, powerful and heavy machines are still allowed, there should be a strict system of graduated driver licensing. This would mean that to be eligible to take the test to ride a motorcycle of a certain grade, riders would have to have held a licence for the machine of the grade one below with a clean record for a specified amount of time.

Responsibility for vehicle regulation has now passed to the EU, which means that progress on motorcycle regulation is likely to be slow, but, as I understand it, responsibility for driver licensing still largely rests with member states. If so, Britain could introduce a strict system of graduated driver licensing quite soon. I have been told that Britain has been the obstacle to progress in Brussels in making construction and use regulations tougher, because of the fear that doing so might damage the interests of British motorcycle manufacturers. I have not attempted to check this point, but the Committee might like to do so.

Any motorcycle, even a light and relatively low-powered one, designed for use on motorways would be capable of exceeding the speed limit in towns or on other low-speed roads. The development of variable speed limiters, which can be set at or below the speed limit of the road on which the vehicle is being driven at any particular time, is therefore of great importance. Speed limiters can either be externally activated or operated by the driver. I suggest that the Committee ask the DfT what research is taking place on speed limiters for motorcycles, both for new motorcycles and retrofits for machines already in use. If this topic is not now being pursued urgently, I hope the Committee will recommend that it should be.

Even light motorcycles, of limited power and fitted with speed limiters, may be a threat to cyclists and pedestrians. Local authorities should consider banning motorcycles altogether from town centres and other streets much used by these vulnerable people. People who want to travel on two wheels but need or want some power to supplement their muscles could use electric or electrically assisted bicycles. They have a low top speed and are entirely compatible with ordinary bicycles, so could be allowed to share cycle lanes and other such facilities.

are they mad!(Local authorities should consider banning motorcycles altogether from town centres and other streets much used by these vulnerable people.) sorry i told you it was long winded but if this is what they really think god help us!

[Rayne]

Beyond belief Oldtimer. A 17 year old can past a car test and propel him/herself at unlimited speeds (OK, the insurance costs usually dictates a small CC engine) but they can do more damage to pedestrians and cyclists than a bike.

It has (not is) turning into a nanny state when they propose banning bikes from certain areas. Making more rules and regulations will push people into cars and not public transport or electric bicycles.

[DirtyDT]

Here is my two pence worth. Or should that be 1.5 euros?

Seeing how the Government is always banging on about climate change and we need to exude fewer emissions I would have thought that they would want to encourage more people into biking. Any motorbike will have less impact on the environment than any car (excluding electric vehicles) so why put barriers in the way?

There is no proof that emissions harm the environment. There are a lot of top scientists out there that dismiss global warming and see it as natures way of working. We only have weather records going back a few Centuries and if you consider the changes to the planet e.g. the movement of plates to separate Countries that were connected, The ice age and the extinction of the dinosaur etc. what was to "blame" for that? If you believe that emissions do harm the environment then it has been well documented that Countries like America, India and China pump out so much industrial sh*t that transport is very low in having an effect. America has already stated that they expect their emissions to rise. Why do you think that these Countries are not signing the treaties to lower emissions? Another theory is methane gas from farmyard animals

Let’s look at the CBT. This was basically introduced as a cycling proficiency test to make sure that youngsters don’t buy a bike and get splashed as soon as they go out on the road. Now, I’m all for that but then they have to move the goal posts every couple of years. Once you have been deemed as “proficient” enough to take to the road then why, after two years, is it necessary to have to retake the course? Would you become “un-proficient” in that period? Of course not, as the CBT course has already stated that you are safe to ride on the road. Many people just want to stick to a 125 or 50cc with “L” plates as a form of cheap and cheerful transport to get to work and back. They have no interest in moving up to a bigger bike or carrying passengers. Thus taking cars off the road and leaving a better carbon footprint. Logical?

Then there comes the new test. I asked my MP and MEP why a new test was required when the old one had served us so well in the past. I was told that it was to bring us in line with all the other EU countries and to standardise/introduce safer laws. What a load of old twaddle. The new test has put many people off biking due to the time it takes to train and the cost to the individual. In my opinion the new test was introduced with out much thought as the test centres we already had were not equipped to apply the new rules.

So, why all the waffle you may ask. I see all the interference from the EU and our Government as going against all common sense and another way of hitting bikers old and new in the pocket. I am all for making sure that riders are safe and competent enough not to hurt them selves or others but in an age were petrol prices are high, traffic is increasing I would have thought that it would have been prudent to encourage more people into biking of all kinds.

As someone who has experienced the 250cc learner riding and at that time there was no time limit I would say that some pre training is a good idea. I spent several years as a CBT instructor and you would be surprised what you see. Be afraid.

The driving regulations are being harmonised for Europe in 2013 so there will be a lot of pain for a lot of people then as most European countries have different laws. The problem is with the government and is two fold.

1) people attempting to justify their jobs so make up some story to keep them employed. There has never been consideration into the cause and effect but just a view which is steamrolled a think tank and then presented. A bit like the emperors new clothes. Because a lot of government employees don't want to rock the boat they jump on the bandwagon as it will harm their prospects.

2) the belief that it is down to emissions and not just another stealth tax. Government think we are all plebs and they know best. They forgot who appointed them. You have to remember that this is like no other job. There is no interview, best candidate etc it is about others putting them into power. You only have to look at the expenses saga to see how arrogant they are. The were saying how dare we, the taxpayer, ask them questions.

The Government wastes Millions of Pounds each year. I know this through personal experience based on one small section of Central Government where I did some contract work.

We, as bikers, will always be a minority and therefore can be targeted with little fear of a backlash. If you believe that emissions cause global warming and want to reduce emissions look to the largest manufacturing Countries out there. If you want to cut government motoring expenditure get rid of the road tax and put the tax on fuel.

I would suggest that the cost of learning to ride is cheaper than learning to drive, however with Boroughs like Westminster wanting to charge for bike parking what chance has anyone got? During Maggies rein they were caught in the cash for votes row and some of the leaders should have been sent to jail. They had to personally pay back Millions. Just look at This here.

Just as a last note, and slightly off the subject, a Government spokesperson stated in a paper the other day that 1 in 200 could die of swine flu. My other halfs son had a cough, we phoned the doctors they said don't come here go to the hospital. The hospital had set up a separate area which was full of people (so if you didn't have swine flu when you got there, you might catch it there) but you had to walk through the hospital to get there. They dished out tablets but they can't test as it needs a blood test and the tablets need to be taken within 48 hours I think. We called the doctors as he had no swine flu symptoms and went to the doctors. He has a chest infection. My point. Bad and misguided information being sent out by the Government. Bad organisation as to what to do. The cost of dishing out and reporting cases of swine flu which are wrong and will that spokesperson be sacked when it is proven that it is just another variation of the flu and the 1 in 200 dead is bo**ocks?

Starting to rant now so better go.

[DirtyDT]

If I read this I would ask a couple of questions.

One objective should be to get rid of forced or unwanted motorcycling by improving walking, cycling and public transport. Why?

These are all things which should be done anyway, independently of the problem of motorcycles, Define the problem

The danger and nuisance of motorcycling Based on what? start with the machines. Vehicle design, for motorcycles as for cars, should be based on the principle, implemented through construction and use regulations, that no vehicle should consume more non-renewable resources, in its construction, use or ultimate disposal, or cause more danger, pollution, noise or other nuisance than is required for the performance of its transport function. Clearly motorcycle design is not now based on this principle. Based on what?

A few years ago I went through a motorcycling magazine and found forty models with a top speed of twice, or more than twice (sometimes much more), the national speed limit. The same applies to cars

In fact, it is hard to see why anyone except the police, military and emergency services, needs a powerful, heavy machine at all. However, it may be that some other people do, Do they or don't they? Make your mind up!

To the extent that some fast, powerful and heavy machines are still allowed, I thought you said no one needed them!

there should be a strict system of graduated driver licensing. This would mean that to be eligible to take the test to ride a motorcycle of a certain grade, riders would have to have held a licence for the machine of the grade one below with a clean record for a specified amount of time. Another tax. Does the same apply to cars? One licence fits all.

Responsibility for vehicle regulation has now passed to the EU, which means that progress on motorcycle regulation is likely to be slow, but, as I understand it, responsibility for driver licensing still largely rests with member states. If so, Britain could introduce a strict system of graduated driver licensing quite soon. I have been told that Britain has been the obstacle to progress in Brussels in making construction and use regulations tougher, because of the fear that doing so might damage the interests of British motorcycle manufacturers. I have not attempted to check this point, but the Committee might like to do so. So is this fact or hearsay?

Any motorcycle, even a light and relatively low-powered one, designed for use on motorways would be capable of exceeding the speed limit in towns or on other low-speed roads. The development of variable speed limiters, which can be set at or below the speed limit of the road on which the vehicle is being driven at any particular time, is therefore of great importance. Speed limiters can either be externally activated or operated by the driver. Does this apply to other vehicles to? We have speed limiters built in - they are called throttles!

I suggest that the Committee ask the DfT what research is taking place on speed limiters for motorcycles, both for new motorcycles and retrofits for machines already in use. If this topic is not now being pursued urgently, I hope the Committee will recommend that it should be. More tax money

Even light motorcycles, of limited power and fitted with speed limiters, may be a threat to cyclists and pedestrians. Local authorities should consider banning motorcycles altogether from town centres and other streets much used by these vulnerable people. Why? pedestrians should be on the pavement or should use the green cross code and some cyclists want to run red lights and pull out without looking but they are still under the highway code.

[hate_camel]

I think someone needs to remind these people that they are governing human beings, with free will and ideas and a desire to do stupid things every now and then. Why don't they just build giant conveyor belts into the roads so we can all be transported to and from work in an orderly and safe fashion. After all why would you want to do anything else but go to work, be a productive unit and then come home and sit and stare at your Telescreen all night whilst being told how great your life is...

[Gas up - Let's Go!]

Here is my two pence worth. Or should that be 1.5 euros?

There is no proof that emissions harm the environment.

I'm with you on that, wasn't it really warm once (millions of years ago) then, didn't it get really cold , and didn't this cold create places such as the Lake District, Wales, The Highlands, then didn't it get warm again....... isn't it just still getting warmer.......

Just the natural way of things, us humans trying to explain everything, whatever happend to "just because".......

[DirtyDT]

Most of the beauty of Scotland, the lakes and Wales were caused by glaciers melting and moving hence the Lochs and lakes. Those cavemen and dinosaurs must have had fossil burning vehicles (but I am not sure fossils were around then) or we burnt ourselves out and this IS the second coming.

[Cynic]

Most of the beauty of Scotland, the lakes and Wales were caused by glaciers melting and moving hence the Lochs and lakes. Those cavemen and dinosaurs must have had fossil burning vehicles (but I am not sure fossils were around then) or we burnt ourselves out and this IS the second coming.

Global warming melting ice caps, mmmmmmm

There were dinosaus living in bloody pine forest in 30 degree heat a geological few minutes ago at the pole cap.

I'm all for the emmisions thing thats why i'm getting a TDR250 and selling the 'clean' 600.

And of couse following correct government advice changing to a smaller lighter vehicle!

[barkwindjammer]

What if the 'hokey cokey" really is what its all about ?

[PeterC]

This 'report' is in fact a memorandum submitted to the select committe on transport by Stephen Plowden in Dec 2006.

It carries no more weight now than it did then. This guy is just anti-motorbike transport planner.

Not aware he has published anything else since 2006.

[oldtimer]

This 'report' is in fact a memorandum submitted to the select committe on transport by Stephen Plowden in Dec 2006.

It carries no more weight now than it did then. This guy is just anti-motorbike transport planner.

Not aware he has published anything else since 2006.

yes he wrote the report in 2006 and presented it to the select committe not in dec 2006 but Wednesday 7 February 2007 along with other reports wrote by the chief constables committe ,the point i was making was that if we had a minister of motorcycling rather than relie on reports by people so anti motorcycling that we might be better served, his report or memorandum is still being mentioned, on local and national level .

[PeterC]

Point taken. I agree that a motorcycle 'Czar' may help.