Should people who pass DAS have some kind of restriction

[Bogof]

'No'

What's the point of having DAS if you then place restrictions after passing? We have too much nannying going on these days - let people make their own choice over personal risk.

 

It's not just personal risk if they rely on the National Health Service to patch them up

[techno]

'No'

What's the point of having DAS if you then place restrictions after passing? We have too much nannying going on these days - let people make their own choice over personal risk.

 

It's not just personal risk if they rely on the National Health Service to patch them up

 

Ha nice to see someone roll out that old pointless decaying chestnut, lets lump in obesity, smoking, any of a million other accidents, infact lets not use the health service for anything afterall its not like we pay for it, oh hang on seems we did including your broken arm!

[Roadtorque]

Your asking the wrong question,, You should be asking, if new car drivers who have just passed their test should be restricted to the engine size for 2 years the same as bikers,,,,

but to answer your question, YES, riders who go the DAS rout should have a limit of 600cc for the first 2 years,,

[Throttled]

'No'

What's the point of having DAS if you then place restrictions after passing? We have too much nannying going on these days - let people make their own choice over personal risk.

 

It's not just personal risk if they rely on the National Health Service to patch them up

 

Ha nice to see someone roll out that old pointless decaying chestnut, lets lump in obesity, smoking, any of a million other accidents, infact lets not use the health service for anything afterall its not like we pay for it, oh hang on seems we did including your broken arm!

 

I believe that the state has a duty of care which with road users are safe roads by construction, signage and the legal system punishing those who blatantly put others at risk by say drink driving. I also think we have a duty of care to the state by behaving responsibly and not putting ourselves at an unnecessary risk so burdening the NHS.

[Bogof]

It's not just personal risk if they rely on the National Health Service to patch them up

 

Ha nice to see someone roll out that old pointless decaying chestnut, lets lump in obesity, smoking, any of a million other accidents, infact lets not use the health service for anything afterall its not like we pay for it, oh hang on seems we did including your broken arm!

 

I believe that the state has a duty of care which with road users are safe roads by construction, signage and the legal system punishing those who blatantly put others at risk by say drink driving. I also think we have a duty of care to the state by behaving responsibly and not putting ourselves at an unnecessary risk so burdening the NHS.

 

If state = society, agreed 100%.

[techno]

I believe that the state has a duty of care which with road users are safe roads by construction, signage and the legal system punishing those who blatantly put others at risk by say drink driving. I also think we have a duty of care to the state by behaving responsibly and not putting ourselves at an unnecessary risk so burdening the NHS.

 

But who dictates unnecessary risk? Surely motorcycling as a whole would fall into that category?

Afterall what is a risk to some is taken in stride by others, why do we always have to legislate to the lowest common denominator, I say its because its easier than dealing with the root cause.

[Throttled]

Society does and reacts through government.

There is a fine tradition of those who sail or mountain climb supporting the RNLI and Mountain Rescue. There are cases of people who have been rescued by either having paid back the whole cost of the rescue in recognition of how they have been saved. People who put themselves at risk on the sea nd the hills are treated as idiots to be scorned by the rest of the sailing and climbing community.

Just because the NHS is not a charity staffed with volunteers, which the majority of RNLI and mountain rescue are, does not mean we should demand their services and hell mind our actions.

EDIT - how about Bikers for the NHS, a charity who raise money for A&Es across the country?

[techno]

Hey theres no right or wrong, but a line has to be drawn where the nhs is concerned, we'd all like to live without its services, as i said most of us contribute through tax, and hopefully some in the knowledge they never used it.

We will continue to ride some will crash, hell sometimes its worn as a badge, been a member of the club but one thing bogof is correct about, and people will be up in arms is the fact that whilever it sits at what some see as an unnaceptable level it will lead to more and more draconian laws been implemented, now non of us really would want that.

[Mawsley]

It's not just personal risk if they rely on the National Health Service to patch them up

Isn't it?. They are personally at risk, their choice whether they rely on the NHS, private care or Carpet Supacentre.

The term 'personal risk' applies to the choice of machine and the chance of pain not to who pays the bill afterwards.

[Bogof]

It's not just personal risk if they rely on the National Health Service to patch them up

Isn't it?.

 

No

[Mawsley]

It's not just personal risk if they rely on the National Health Service to patch them up

Isn't it?.

 

No

That was rhetorical due to the supporting argument.

Automatic gainsay ceased to be a constructive form of debate after The Argument Sketch.

[Aaron]

It's not just personal risk if they rely on the National Health Service to patch them up

Isn't it?.

 

No

 

If someone has no alternative but to rely on the NHS to patch them up, because the state steals the fruits of their labour from them at gunpoint (albeit thinly veiled) which they could otherwise be free to spend on medical insurance of their own free choice, then cost implications to the NHS can hardly be of any legitimate concern to them.

One surely can't use use violence, or the threat of violence, to force their preferences upon someone else against their will and then righteously complain when the consequences of using said violence incurs a cost

Now thats not to say that I don't think there shouldn't be any rules for the road, although setting those rules is not the job of the state. But that's besides the point. The point is that institutions like the NHS are fundamentally immoral and as such any arguments based upon them should be, for anyone who wouldn't like to think of themselves as a bully, self contradicting.

[Bogof]

No

That was rhetorical due to the supporting argument.

 

Noooo.... really?

[Mawsley]

No

That was rhetorical due to the supporting argument.

 

Noooo.... really?

How's that window taste?

[Guinnless]

Your asking the wrong question,, You should be asking, if new car drivers who have just passed their test should be restricted to the engine size for 2 years the same as bikers,,,,

but to answer your question, YES, riders who go the DAS rout should have a limit of 600cc for the first 2 years,,

 

It's not Direct Access then is it?

And you can't restrict by capacity either - Hmm I can't get the 883cc Harley Davidson cos the engine's too big so I'll have this lovely ex Barry Sheen little 500cc Suzuki RG500 instead.

[GazW]

Definatly not.

A 33bhp bike can still reach 100mph, fall off at that speed on anywhere but a track and its almost certainly death. The minority that pass DAS get a ridiculous bike and ride like they think they are invincible, have a blatant disregard for their own safety, will probably still ride a restricted bike with little or no thought for themselves or any other road users. If anything the idea of a restriction may make them think the bike is 'beneath' them and make them worse still.

The majority of new riders have respect for their machines, the fact they are so vunerable, and a twist of the wrist in the wrong place could be death. I passed my DAS and bought a 500. Yeah its over 33bhp, but I haven't done anything stupid, I don't intend getting rid of this for an R-1, I may get a CBR600. I respect the fact if I ride like a pillock, that I could quite easily kill myself or others around me, I believe this is what makes me want to be a better rider, and a safer rider. I like being alive, its quite enjoyable, I have ridden at around 85 on the motorway and had the thought 'If I'm off now I'm dead' run through my head. Hopefully that part of my brain will keep me alive

[Gixer jme]

WoW I don't think I'd ride my bike if I had that thought going thro my head at 85mph.

[Nogin]

I have kept out of this ones as its totally pointless... but Ill say my bit now.

1) we already have an A2 test set up for this.

2) speed and manner of driving is down to the rider not the power out put of the bike and this is something that you cannot restrict.

3) you can kill your self on a 50cc scooter so perhaps we should restrict everything to walking pace.

4) another nanny state idea.

[Guest]

How old are you boothy? I'm thinking you must be young and that you have only got a restricted bike. I did my das because I wanted a big fast bike, not a restricted one, and no, we dont want to be like the europeans who are already restricted. If your frightened of what a fast bike can do, then i suggest you keep to your 33bhp and leave everyone else to do has we please.

Thanks for listening

[Comrade]

Im not doing DAS but wouldnt want to be restricted if i had done it, maybe alot comes down to educating people and generally engage their brains before they open wallet/or engage gear.

Dealers could be encouraged to discourage new riders getting bikes that are animals and get something a bit calmer, its in the dealers interest to keep the customer alive after all!

Id say most bikers appreciate just how insane some bikes will let you go but ultimately that bike will stand there all day not hurting a single person , until till someone gets on.

[Boothy]

How old are you boothy? I'm thinking you must be young and that you have only got a restricted bike. I did my das because I wanted a big fast bike, not a restricted one, and no, we dont want to be like the europeans who are already restricted. If your frightened of what a fast bike can do, then i suggest you keep to your 33bhp and leave everyone else to do has we please.

Thanks for listening

 

1) 17

2) Yes could only have a restricted bike

3) Bored out of my mind on a restricted bike - could argue I'm jealous that people are able to do DAS

4) I started this thread not for that reason but because I saw a post about somebody getting a bike that IN MY OPINION was too big and a silly thing to do.

5) Don't jump to conclusions, because if you had just read the thread you would have no looked so silly.

Would just like to point out again I am NOT saying 33bhp.

[Throttled]

Boothy, would you prefer the 15hp limit to be 33hp? What difference would it make to you?

[Boothy]

Boothy, would you prefer the 15hp limit to be 33hp? What difference would it make to you?

 

Would mean that they put the restriction up to 66BHP? Because otherwise what would be the point in taking your test?

[Throttled]

I mean if learners of all ages were allowed up to 33hp, on L plates and then without once the tests had been passed, and DAS was as it is now.

[Boothy]

I mean if learners of all ages were allowed up to 33hp, on L plates and then without once the tests had been passed, and DAS was as it is now.

 

No then, makes no sense, people would never take their test.

 

How old are you boothy? I'm thinking you must be young and that you have only got a restricted bike. I did my das because I wanted a big fast bike, not a restricted one, and no, we dont want to be like the europeans who are already restricted. If your frightened of what a fast bike can do, then i suggest you keep to your 33bhp and leave everyone else to do has we please.

Thanks for listening

 

Oh and just another point, not just me... 17 people voted yes.