How fast does Darwin work?

Great. When my dad took his bike test it involved 30 minutes of
tuition on an army camp followed by 10 minutes of riding around said
army camp. The smallest bike he ever owned (1) was a 500 and he was
used on escort duties the day after he took his test.

The difference is that today the roads are more crowded and bikes are
more powerful. I'm all for people being allowed to take extended
courses to avoid having to ride around on L plates but I think a
100bhp limit for 12 months wouldn't be a bad thing.

(1) Actually he's owned a 350 but that was about 15 years after he
stopped riding regularly and he fully restored it after it had spent
about 20 years in a farm shed.

 

I am always amazed that people can afford to run the sort of machinery
that they do in their yoof. I could barely afford to run a DT125 for
many years. Later a couple of rust-bucket cars and, eventually, an
XS750 and a 250LC that I backmarkered on the track for a couple of
seasons, when I could afford the entry fees.

 

Pip Luscher says...

I've always bought and sold bikes for profit. It's rare I lose money on
them over the year or so I keep them. When I was younger I'd turn them
round weekly, or sooner if someone offered the right money. That kept me
in toys and beer, and my lodger paid the mortgage.

 

Christisk, I went from a DAS to a 900 without probs. Kidz 2day, don't
no there born.

 

That depends on which 900 and how fast you rode it. I know a couple of
riders who did DAS and are very fast on big bikes and I know others
who are barely above floating turd level.

 

I'd make them drive smart cars to rallies.

That'd teach 'em.

 

Andy Bonwick wrote:

<WAVES>


--
Dan L

Too much time to think, too little to do.


http://thebikeshed.spaces.live.com/
1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr

BOTAFOT #140 (KotL 2005/6/7)
X-FOT#000
DIAABTCOD #26
BOMB#18 (slow)
OMF#11

 

My thoughts too
Unfortunately bikes were not on the menu for me as a teenager, but my
cars were unbelievably shite:

1964 Morris Minor (bought it of my grand dad for ?60, it was a year
younger than me).
1972 MG Midget (what the **** was I thinking, it was turquioise FFS)
1975 Ford Excort 1100L (An unspeakable pile of pea-green shite)
1977 Honda Civic Auto (Years ahead of it's time, i.e. biodegradeable)

As for bikes, I lusted after a Honda CD175.

Fortunately after the Civic I started getting company cars, which was a
culture shock.

The cars my kids drive, (and their mates) never ceases to amaze me, in
comparison they are nearly new compared to the shite I was able to
afford. Mind you, my kids have been lucky, as my lad "acquired" my
dear old dad's Xsara Hdi for nowt, and my daughter "acquired" the
Hyundai Accent I used for a year, which only cost us ?100.

The cars of my kids' generation don't seem to be as long lived as those
of mine, so I suppose they would be newer by default.






--
Dan L

Too much time to think, too little to do.


http://thebikeshed.spaces.live.com/
1996 Kawasaki ZR1100 Zephyr

BOTAFOT #140 (KotL 2005/6/7)
X-FOT#000
DIAABTCOD #26
BOMB#18 (slow)
OMF#11

 

So all we have to do is build a really big moped that floats!

 

<snif> Twas the Trophy. I wouldn't say I ragged it, but it was easy
enough to keep up with anyone I rode with. Whether they were quick or
not I don't know. I do remember when I didn't make a hairpin at about
70mph though, that was quite interesting.

Now I'm sober again, my point is it doesn't really make much difference.
It's more the attitude of the rider than the bike. I mean, once its
quick enough up to 70 then things are going to get interesting, and any
modern bike is that quick.

All this limiting power is pointless, you'd have to limit it to 20bhp to
make much difference, then the gap between limited and unlimited would
be to great.

 

Good point, well presented.

 

snip>

Bollocks.

If someone has passed a test on a school bike then they should
certainly be capable of riding something at least double the power of
the wanky little 33bhp efforts you're allowed to ride if you pass your
test on a 125cc bike.

If you impose reasonable power to weight limits that allow bikes like
an SV650 to be ridden (or more powerful but lardier touring bikes if
that's the riders preference) then you're still giving someone an
incentive to do DAS but making sure they can't just hop onto a 165bhp
missile and **** up my insurance premiums.

The other option is for insurance companies to absolutely hammer new
riders if they want to ride big sports bikes but that would affect
younger riders more than the 40 something who's mum wouldn't let him
ride a bike when he was 17.

 

Funnily enough I was giving this subject a fleeting thought the other day.

It would seem there doesn't seem to be as many old cars knocking about -
forget the classic car brigade - I mean old snotters.

I started driving in 1986/87 with a brace of Triumph Heralds and Morris
1000s. Mostly about ?80 with a couple of months of tax and MOT. They
were all about 18-20 years old when bought.

D, E, F, G reg cars weren't unusual sights but I was the exception in my
choice of car as most of my peers were running about in M, P, R, S reg
Fords and Vauxhalls.

My bikes at the time (late 80s) were nearly new in comparison, W and V
reg Suzuki GS550s.

Anyway, my point is those younger drivers who buy their own cars tend to
buy the same 10-15 year old bangers. The difference is now is they look
more modern than the fifties and sixties designed cars we had and there
simply is greater choice as there are more cars on the market.

In summary: It's the same as it ever was.

 

Yep, we're in agreement here.

But why not? I can do a driving test and jump in a Bugatti Veyron quite
happily, why can't I pass a bike test and get an R1?

But insurance companies allready do! A young rider on a big bike is
just too expensive. Old riders who have the money will have less
trouble. So it comes down to who do you want forced off the road, young
inexperienced riders or old inexperienced riders.

Just to make this quite clear, I see nothing good coming out of post
test power limits. If you have a peice of paper saying you can ride it,
then that's it. I suppose you could put a different license category on
bikes over 100bhp and make people do a seperate test for them.

 

But how would you test for ability to control such a bike? Any
official test would have to be within the traffic laws, unless it were
conducted on a track. That might just push the cost up a tad.

I suppose one could carry out a pursuit-type test on open roads and
make sure the rider was making good progress in good control or
something, but it wouldn't test much more that was already tested for
on smaller bikes.

IME the only differences on a high-powered bike as opposed to a less
powerful bike that are different are the need to be more careful with
the throttle in lower gears or in slippery conditions, and the
'ground-rush' effect[1] at naughty speeds.

[1] I don't really notice it much these days, but that 'It's miles
away... still miles away... GETTING CLOSE UNCOMFORTABLY QUICKLY' sort
of thing.

 

That's exactly the reason I'd sooner see limits placed on what a
person can ride based on ability and experience rather than cash in
pocket.

I don't want anyone forced off the road, I want them to be able to
ride bikes that go like **** and handle reasonably well and then to
buy something even faster and better handling.

I suppose a second test would be more popular with the government as a
revenue raiser rather than just saying that once someone has held a
licence for a year or so then they must be a better rider than they
were after a few hours.

I suppose I look on DAS as a means of being able to buy experience and
while I readily admit that if I was a new rider I'd be taking
advantage of the system it's still a shit system.

 

There's an army of selfless individuals out there keeping tabs on trains
and buses in case one gets lost, and all at no cost to the taxpayer.
That's the only explanation that makes any sense; anything else is
pointless.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a

"A scone and tea at half past three
Makes the day a little brighter
Keep your cakes and fancy tarts
And stick them up your shiter."

 

Mine went on beer, girls and touring Stalinist countries. One hobby, so
many facets.

 

That's a strong assertion given that you know sod-all about me.

I suppose I /could/ have lived like a hermit for a year or two to save
the money, but it wasn't as though I was out on the piss every night.
I was living in a shared house and paying for it; not comfortably at
home with parents. Holidays away were things that happened to other
people. Money really was very tight.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Pip Luscher

"We was poor, but we was fookin' miserable".