www.zxrworld.co.uk

How seriously it pisses me off when I go on the 'Getting to Know You' section to read some knob posting up how he's riding a derestricted bike on a restricted license, as if I'm supposed to say 'Hey dude, welcome, what do I care?' Because I really do f*cking care that said numpty is riding around with invalid insurance and when he takes someone else out, that poor bugger is going to be facing years of higher premiums as he has to claim off his own policy, or if he's only young with TPFT he might even be faced with a written off bike, no money to replace it, AND years of premiums so high he can't afford to be a biker any more. :smt013

Most of us have endured some form of restriction in their biking lives and have just gone with it, done the hard yards, and waited until their time was up. Some people seem to think they are different, that they don't need to do this, that they can just stick two fingers up to everyone and do their own thing. Then they come on a forum after giving everyone the bird and expect friendship and help

Would we be welcoming some teenage car driver to the forum who came on proudly boasting that he can't afford to insure his motor so drives round uninsured? When he takes a bike out who's going to pick that tab up? So why should I say 'hi' to some :wanker who is doing the same on a bike?

I'd prefer the lot of 'em to be banned but from now on any uninsured rider is getting the fast train to Coventry from me.

Thanks for listening over.

iv obviously never met you but i think i can tell you feel quite strong about this...I agree

Its a technicality and would probably only become apparent after a serious collision to the degree that the softest part of the bike would probably be written off anyway, hence their willingness to fly by the seat of their pants

I had to serve my restriction between a tzr125 which kept blowing up and wasnt over 33bhp anyway and a cb500. I was practically salivating approaching that big 2 year mark when the restrictor was coming out. It was like i had changed bikes

Tom mccrea wrote:Its a technicality and would probably only become apparent after a serious collision to the degree that the softest part of the bike would probably be written off anyway, hence their willingness to fly by the seat of their pants

That's true Tom. But it's amazing what the feds can establish from the wreckage. As we saw when Bendog66 had his recent prang with the cow, they DO go over a bike with a fine toothcomb in the case of a serious RTA. They were even casting aspersions over the brand of his tyre You can be sure that if you seriously injure someone else and you're on a restricted license, one of the things they will look for is the restrictor kit, and if it ain't there the toad will fly.

Just a random stab in the dark, but you have read this today havent you................

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=123343

Totally agree that people shouldnt be doing this for the reasons already mentioned. Like everyone else I did my two years service at 33bhp and its part of the learning curve of owning a bike.

However, i dont think it would be fair to ban people just for saying that they are doing what they are doing, this is a forum after all, and at the end of the day if you dont like what someone writes, dont read it. In fact, i believe there is a fuction to ignore a particular users post so id advise using that if its really boiling your piss. You can report it to us if it really offends you You also have the option of reporting it to the 'feds'........

again i agree tirpitz...

my point was the rider wouldnt give a dam because after a collision of that severity the last thing they think of (if still in a position to think) is the restrictor. the sherrifs dept will have an authorised officer inspect the bike and thats where the brown stuff hits the whirly round thing.

Unless of course the forensics place the bike at excess speed for a restricted bike then it obvious there is none fitted. But again if they were travelling at speeds in excess of the ability of a restricted bike (around 90mph i think)? they are up that particular creek without a paddle and a very lucky boy or girl to survive, peeling into insignificance the fall out legally of not having a restrictor fitted.

I may sound like woman or dare i say it my father 11 years ago when i was under restriction, but whats the problems with serving your time on the roads and if you want to play do it at a track day where other riders are consciously or unconsciously aware of the extra risk?

You could be the best at physically handling a bike but observations and reading he road are a completely different thing to learn and attempt to master because lets face it, if we are being honest we will never master good observation. Noone can say they are perfect at it and in my opinion its the one thing each of us on the road should continually strive to improve and never be complacent.

RedexRobB wrote:However, i dont think it would be fair to ban people just for saying that they are doing what they are doing, this is a forum after all, and at the end of the day if you dont like what someone writes, dont read it. In fact, i believe there is a fuction to ignore a particular users post so id advise using that if its really boiling your piss. You can report it to us if it really offends you You also have the option of reporting it to the 'feds'........

No, bans are probably not the best way forward on reflection. A better message is probably sent out if, like you say, the individual just gets ostracised. After all, you come on a forum to communicate with like minded people, and half the fun of riding is the other people you can meet and talk toad with about bikes, so if you get the cold shoulder it's a harsh message.

Reporting is another thing altogether. Only people who should go down that road are those who comply with every law 100%.

CaNsA wrote:Just a random stab in the dark, but you have read this today havent you................

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=123343

Dude, link no workee

viewtopic.php?f=32&t=12343

fixed

CaNsA wrote:viewtopic.php?f=32&t=12343

fixed

Cheers. Yes, I did chip in on that one. My piss started simmering around that date and has gradually increased in temperature over subsequent weeks as more uninsured dudes have popped up

Totally agree................it is completely unacceptable behaviour.


Makes us sound like grumpy old men but I dont give a flying f***...............the first little bollox that is uninsured that hits or crashed into me or my family will find himself in serious trouble...................and then the cops can have him

haven't read it yet but i replied to the last one who wrote something like 'restrictors are out but they dont need to know' - lol!

pisses me off would put it midly...

the majority of decent folk do their probationary time and get on with it.

Then you have the dilligaf's who just give the decent biker a bad name, want to go as fast everywhere all the time and generally ride like an arsehole.

The 2 year limit is for two reasons.

Youth and inexpenice.

Anyone who disagrees probably isn't old-enough to know better... christ we make some shite decisions when were younger and inexperienced and both.

I've met some great bikers over the years who are courteous and know their bikes really well and have ridden long enough to know when it is safer to go fast and when its more appropriate to slow down.

Any believe me a crash time will find your not restricted and insert their huge dick of the law up your ass.

I was in a major RTA a few years ago and there was nothing left of the front of my vehicle... the engine was where the driver would be and the drivers seat was closer to the passanger seat.

They RTA team established my lights were on becuase the fragments of bulb filaments they found were stretched, which happens when a hot wire suddely stops... if they can tell this then they'll sure as hell know you don't have restictors in.

All my paperwork and vehicle was in order and it was 100% not my fault so I was in the clear.. if I was on an unrestricted bike without the appropriate licence i'd have been done for

-No insurance
-Driving a bike without a licence

Not to mention these factors show lack of character so could have been implicated in the accident.

I'd suggest to anyone they just comply, 2 years will pass in no time and you can learn to ride the damn thing, 33bhp is plenty enough to have some fun, some of my happiest biking moments have been on 50cc and 125 machines!

Neosophist wrote:The 2 year limit is for two reasons.

Youth and inexpenice.

Is the right answer

I had three offs within 18 months on a 100cc learner bike when I was 19. Within 2 years of passing my test and riding a GPX250R, becoming over-confident and thinking I knew it all, I'd had another - which hurt. At the risk of tempting fate I've never had another. When I look back with the benefit of age and hindsight, all were mainly or totally my fault and all were avoidable. I was riding more or less like a :wanker At that stage of the law I could have had a 750+ if I'd wanted as soon as I'd passed my test, but I'd probably be underground now.

You just don't see it when you're younger. My restrictor kit was my wallet, I couldn't afford to insure a big bike. Several years of riding around on the GPX were the best thing that happened to me. If people use their two years of restriction wisely it can be a help. not a hindrance.

Anyway, 33bhp on a modern light bike ain't bad at all We're not talking about moped-power here

Im gonna put my 10p in aswell.

I had 2 offs on a 125 12 years ago and again my restrictor was my wallet. However, if at that age if could get on a bigger bike (and i did ride a gsxr4oo rr(lsp?) for a day and nearly stacked it at 130mph plus on a tightenening tree lined bend) I jumped on without a license insurance or a give a toad - the dangers werent apparent. I agree with you in principle tirpitz but we were all young once.... and i had mates die and crippled on bikes steamin around norfolk. After the tree lined bend incident, me and my mate rode home got off, stood and shook a little and i didnt ride a bike again till last year!!!

Best to not scream and shout but to gently advise. And that wont stop em doing it either!

in my youth at 16 you could ride a 50cc so long as it had pedal assistance a moped.................the japs built ones to meet the law but truth be told they were very sporty and fast for 50cc................I fell off mine at least once a week for 4 maybe 5 months......................and I was 17.

At 17 as a learner with NO training you could go into a bike shop and buy a brand new 250cc with easy 100mph performance and if you passed your test.............no restrictions of any kind buy any bike you wanted to and off you go...................I lost many many friends stone dead.....................including 3 in one week.
I still see guys that crashed and got hurt bad with permanant injuries that will be with them forever................

The law changed for good reason and breaking it is asking for trouble.............................