Conference terri::cars_uk

    I thought there was a "Gentlemens agreement" to limit bikes to 125BHP
    anyway. This was some time ago though.
    
    I think a similar thing exists in Germany where speed is
    limited to 250kph for cars.
    
    
    Ian.

    I believe bikes are limited to 100hp in Germany.
    
    Someone said that this was because BMW were unable to produce more
    than 100hp from a 1000cc engine :-). 
    Having tried a K75 (75hp, 750cc) I would not want more power simply 
    because the chassis was not up to it.
    
    Having said that, it doesn't mean they are not fun to ride.

    I think you'll find that the 100bhp limit for bikes comes from the
    unelected part of the EEC (the commision I think) rather than the
    Parliament who, as you say, have already thrown this out.  The limit
    was based on some research in Germany (?) which has already been
    discredited and even the researchers don't believe in it's validity
    now.  Not that this cuts much ice with the unelected beaurocrats who
    could still overrule the MEP's and push it through.  The British
    "Government's" stance is to not rock the boat by opposing it !!!!!!!
    
    If you disagree with this further attack on your freedom to choose then 
    write to your MEP.  
    Personally I probably couldn't handle more than 100bhp on my bike
    (anyone who's seen me ride will concur !) however that's not the point.
    
    Remember - If bikes get hit today it will be cars tomorrow.
    
    Stevie.

	"...If bikes get hit today it will be cars tomorrow."

	Err, pardon me, but do car drivers have to pass an extended
	test (including written bits) or wear crash helmets?  I think
	that governments are being much more punative towards bike
	riders.

	Dave

    .2�    I believe bikes are limited to 100hp in Germany.
    
    Same in France.

	as a car driver, it seems to me that the safer motor cyclists
	are those with the big bikes. it's the small ones you have to
	worry about - i'd be in favour of banning anything *under*
	100bhp.

	jack 

    Yes, I agree. The problem with small learner bikes is that they are
    pushing the envelope - going as fast as they can, accelerating as hard
    as they can - within the learner law restrictions.  This means very
    light weight, razorblade power bands, twitchy handling, noise, minimal
    lighting etc - just what you need when you're venturing out in the
    traffic for the first time...
    
    Contrast this with the archetypal Honda 250 of twenty years ago. 
    Handling was average, brakes were average, there was a broad spread of
    (low) power from a four-stroke engine.  It wasn't too noisy, the lights
    were okay, you could take a pillion without destroying the performance
    and you didn't have to bang it down three cogs if the wind changed
    direction...
    
    .....those were the days 8*)
    
    Problem was that the manufacturers kept upping the power/performance
    (two-strokes mostly - Suzuki X7 probably started the rot) and the
    government of the day had to do something about all these ton-up
    learner bikes.  So they halved the max displacement for learners and
    the race was on for the first 100mph 125....
    
    Richard
    

	Yep, I bought one of those in 1982 for 750 pounds (new); the
	new regulations limiting learners to 125cc and 17hp had just 
	come in.
	

	Dave

I thought I read somewhere that the EEC people had requested proof that 
Superbikes contributed to accident rates. Was it in Autocar?

I suppose that a costly study will be set up and instructed to report back 
no later than 1998 :-)

Dave

    
    There was an article in the Independent last week where the writer
    made some interesting points about road safety (well, the lack of
    it, really). One of his assertions was that statistics show that "fast,
    powerful" cars are involved in a substantially higher proportion of
    injury accidents than "average" cars. 
    
    Now, if "fast, powerful" cars were restricted, it's fairly likely that
    some of their drivers would continue to drive as irresponsibly in
    slower vehicles. The end result might be the same number of accidents.
    
    Personally, I think that a lot of the blame lies with the whole car
    industry (manufacturers, and the media) for putting a huge emphasis on
    speed and performance. I think their recent change of heart towards
    safety is rather barefaced. Perhaps if they hadn't encouraged us all to
    buy expensive fast cars, we wouldn't need all the new expensive safety
    features.
    
    Trevor

	Trevor (et al),

	I disagree.  The car industry gives us the cars we want, not 
	neccessarily what is best for us.  The same is true of any
	product.  What we want is speed and power symbols.

	Dave

    Oh no! No, no, no, no! I do not want 4 doors, or even three, no safety
    belts or let alone an airbaig, no high mounted brake-light, no
    fog-light, no ABS, no 200 pounds of crash protection, no batteries of 
    idiot lights and certainly no irritating warning beepers. Yet I cannot 
    find affordable (and still reliable so count Skoda out) transport 
    without it.
    No I cannot buy what I want cause they stopped making it a long time
    ago!
    
    All these obligatory safety devices make me feel a real idiot. I am
    capabel of carrying my own responsibilities!
    Yep I do make a lot of miles, yep I do drive pretty fast, no I hardly
    ever mind speed limits and are often called an anti-social driver 
    but....I have never ever hit anybody with my bike and had only one 
    minor dent with my car in 19 years of driving over 30K miles/year.
    So why am I saddled up with all the expense that's intended for those
    who oughtn't have their license in the first place!
    
    Bikes do get more attention of the legislator but this is probably
    because the little bureaucrats want to get all people in line and
    cosider bikes to be out of order altogether.
    
    Peter

    
    re .last
    
    ok.... so we get the cars 'Marketing' think we want!
    
    R.
    

    Why not kill two birds with one stone and get Digital's marketing
    people to 'market' all these fast, expensive and otherwise overloaded
    with extras cars?

    I thought this was a notes conference for cars not motorbikes.
    
    Anyway motorbikes are inherently dangerous and any legistlation to curb
    their use must be good.
    
    IMHO motorbikes are just an example of out moded transport. 
    
    And why have we just invested in a new motorcycle stand at DECpark? I
    wouldn't let them in - creates a very poor image of the company!
    
    I'm sure my opinion will be shared by many - it's just with all this
    fashionable hype about motorbikes no one dares say a thing. Ban 'em I
    say.
    
    
    

    �I'm sure my opinion will be shared by many
    
    Speak for yourself mate.
    
    I'm sure I'm not the only motorcyclist who found your comments
    laughable.
    
    Its the cars on the roads that make motorcycling dangerous.
    
    To say that it is an outmoded transport is absurd.
    
    I expect you drive a Volvo.
    
    Royston 

Re .15

I'm sure it is tongue in cheek. I'm been riding a bike now from Feb '92 (just
over a year) and i love every moment of it and anyone who does try it, i'm
sure would love it!

However, were i in England, and at home in London, i'm not sure whether i'd
have such a powerful bike. The roads in the UK (near major cities anyway) are
just not designed for safe riding. Also, plus that with the fact that most car
drivers who have no idea what it's like riding a bike, are complete and utter
idiots or they're just plain arrogant.

It's my opinion that as part of the Car Test there should be a road-awareness
test. By this i mean, that Mr Joe Bloggs who passes his test has no idea what
it's like to drive a bike, and therefore has no "road-sense" in regards to 
this. I didn't have any until i went on a bike (bike-releated road-sense i 
mean! ;-)). It's completely different. Even being a pillion-passenger helps
you understand a little of the problems faced with day-to-day bike riding. I'm
sure it's the same for lorry drivers aswell. I know before i had my Jeep my
opinion was (to another Jeeper) "come on! Get that heap out of the way". Now i
can appreciate the fact that Jeep-type vehicles are not suited for fast road
driving, and i always try and give them plenty of room to pull out, accelerate
etc... call it driving etiquete... and it's not shown by everyone.

Bike's are not dangerous! They're just as dangerous as any form of transport if 
you get a wally driving! 

Re a previous note... the bike test is NOT 3 part yet. There is no written part
for the test (unless you count filling out the application form! ;-)).




			Err, how do you spell Lewis? ;-)

    Re .17  - Hear,Hear.
    
    I think/hope .15  was a wind-up, but someone forgot the smiley ?
    
    The only point I hoped to make was that the EC like to "meddle", using
    the excuse of "harmonisation" and "safety" to introduce more and more 
    bureaucracy.  Bikers tend to get picked on first, partly because they
    are a smaller group than others and partly because as has been said
    before they don't "fit in" with some small minded peoples view of the
    world.  
    
    	However I think that we would be doing nobody any favours if
    this note degenerated into a car versus bike squabble, perhaps any
    vehement anti-bikers could just accept that we're all entitled to our
    own views, otherwise we'll all just bore the pants (or skirts) off
    everybody else in here.  Please take any purely bike stuff across to 
    the bikes notes file.
    
    
    Steve.
    An enthusiastic GPX750 rider and MR2 driver.

    The 125 bhp limit previously mentioned is an agreement local to the UK.
    
    The proposed ban is only slightly less ludicrous than the leg
    protectors scare, remember them?
    
    My theory is that the bigger the bike the better, in that you have more 
    'presence' on the roads and Volvo drivers think twice before pulling 
    out.
    
    Huw. (only a 400 cc at the moment.) 

    Ref .15
    
    Yes it was a wind up. Being a biker at heart I know how easy it is to
    do!
    
    Still people like that do exist - They're the ones lobbying for the
    125bhp limit and worse.
    
    Regs,
    
    Rupert 8^)

    re .19...
    
    >My theory is that the bigger the bike the better, in that you have
    >more 'presence' on the roads and Volvo drivers think twice before
    >pulling out.
      
    Nope - has to be much bigger than that - probably over 30 tons :-)
    
    Jc (Volvo tank driver for the past 3 years)
     

Despite all contrary expectations, Volvo's are no safer than any other car on
the road with their claimed safety points. I remember reading that their body 
skin is no thicker (as claimed). They may just have sturdier crush bars (etc) 
which does mean they would be safer but not in the hugely way they are claimed.
It's kinda hard to explain.

They are always getting done for their TV adverts which are completely
mis-leading (remember the one with the car driving out of a 4 storey building
window - they were fined heavily for that). But they still have got the
reputation. I suppose martketing ploys do work! ;-)

    One of the orthapetic units in Belfast has recently been quoting the
    following rule of thumb
    
    If a motorcyclist has a significant accident before the age of 21
    and
    that person continues to ride a motorcycle
    then
    the chances of that person living beyond 30 is approximately 0
    
    I have not seen the statistical evidence behind this, but I have no
    reason to believe that it is exagerated, or untruthful.
    
    

    My mum used to work in the intensive case unit of what was Warrington
    Infirmary a few years ago. This was a 3 bed ward which would be
    shutdown if nobody was ill enought too keep it open�. For the 10 or so
    years she worked there, when ever it was open there was a m-cycle
    victim occupying one of the beds !
    
    	Rik-who-doesn't-ride-a-bike
    	   -but-agrees-that-it's-car-drivers-that-are-at-fault
    
    �It would usually be open for 40-45 weeks of the year.

    Is this a regional thing then?
    
    My wife is a senior member of the nursing staff in the I.T.U. unit in
    Aberdeen (Large biker population).  In the 6 years she has been there
    the number of road accident victims seems to be on the high side 1-2
    beds out of 16... 52 weeks of the year.... last year they had only 4
    bikers in the unit.
    
    There could also be a case for them being dead before they reach
    I.T.U.!
    
    In general terms, I see motorcyclists as being less of a raod hazard
    than those on push bikes.  The fact that m/cycles are inhearently
    dangerous when driven by the LAME brains.
    
    As for the eurocrats... why not ensure that m/cyclists are given
    adequate training on government licensed schemes, and re-tested every
    say 5 years (this should also be introduced for car/lorry drivers). 
    That way if the tests were stringent enough, we may be able to save
    lives of those without the correct skills, and also those victims of
    the lame brains.
    
    I support any issue for road safety that puts the emphisis on training
    and stricter teasting.  I am not infavour of limitaions of machines
    (except where customization makes the machine unsafe...) as a general
    rule... (I like fast cars, and love fast bikes but my biker days are
    gone for the mean time).
    
    
    Bob

re .23

Here's some more stats;

* If you don't have an accident (any kind) within the first 2 years of driving
  a motorbike, then you're likely to survive riding a bike (but you may still
  have accidents) without serious consequences. By this they mean that you may
  not cripple yourself, or kill yourself etc...

* If you have an accident within the first 6 months and continue to ride after
  this then you're not likely to outlive the 2 year period.

* An accident between 6 months and 2 years and you're likely to have a serious
  accident resulting in a permanent disablitity.

Scary isn't it! Anyone got any personal experiences (i know this is CARS_UK) but
it won't hurt to have a little variety! ;-)



			Lewis_with_only_6_months_to_go!

    I had several accidents (more than five) in my first two years' bike
    riding. After that I did the Silver and Gold courses run by the police,
    and never had another accident in the three years or so that I went on
    using bikes. 
    
    Training saves lives.
    
    Piers

    I had an accident on my first day (back in Sept '77).  I continued to
    ride for a few years after, passed my test etc, never had any training.
    The slightly more cautious attitude that I adopted post-accident may
    have contributed to my survival....8*)
    
    Do the statistics ditinguish between accidents caused by the motor-
    cyclist involved and accidents caused by, say, Attack Volvoes?
    
    Richard
    

    Ok, you got me back in here :-)
    
    Based on personal experience, 
    
    I had a serious accident on a motorcycle before I was 21
    
    I continued to ride bikes
    
    I am 37.
    
    Perhaps I really am immortal ?
    
    In fact, between the ages of 17 and 20 I had countless accidents on
    small bikes. This could prove several things
    
    a) I was a reckless lunatic.
    b) Small bikes are dangerous.
    c) As I didn't kill anyone else, bikes are safer than cars :-)
    
    After I bought my first 500cc bike, my accident rate dropped
    dramatically.
    
    However, in addition to riding bigger bikes, several other things
    changed.
    I got married.
    I smoked a pipe.
    I had some sense knocked into me in the Army.
    
    So, perhaps the rule of thumb should be :
    
    If someone rides motorcycles
    and they ride extremely powerful and fast motorcycles.
    and they get married
    and they smoke a pipe
    and they join the army
    then they will live for ever.
    
    :-)
    
    Byeee

    On my first two bikes, a hi powered moded (an oxymoron?) and then a
    Kawasaki 400 triple I came off more times than i can remember. I slid
    off on ice, oil, diesel, petrol, mud etc. I had a minor accident with a
    car. Forgot to put the side stand up and was forced into it's wing.
    
    I had these two bikes for 3 years.
    
    However after this litany of accidents I have had only two others in
    the subsequent 15 years, although my mileage per year has been
    dramatically lower (like non-existent at the moment - I had my bike
    stolen last year).
    
    Also I am paranoid about trapping my leg under the bike - so I now
    always wear full leathers.
    
    Regs,
    
    Rupert "the wind up man" 8^)

Accidents in the first 6 months (When aged 18) - 
several!
Why I didnt land in hospital I dont know? I was trying 
hard enough. Hit a car at speed but didnt come off.
in a stop or die emergency stop the bike flung me 
10 metres down the road. The car moved out the way while
I was in mid air.

	I was commutting between Liverpool and Manchester
during the winter.

	Rode accross a big roundabout unintentionally
and was flung into the air.

	During this time I took up rock climbing
and broke an ankle and was in plaster for
3 months but that didnt stop me riding my bike.

I had to give up after hitting a stationary vehicle. 
The insurance was too much!

I've now taken up bike riding again and of course
Motor racing.

		The Death wish  lives on

			Derek

    Okay, so you wanted a variey of stories...
    
    I've never had a Bike accident on the road.  I've had my licence now
    for 8 years, mind you I'd been riding off road since I was eight. 
    I've lost count of the number of streams I fell into off my trials
    bike.
    
    Huw.

    Any one know where I could lay my hands on a Ford Cosworth engine
    cheap?
    
    I fancy building myself a new bike...

    re .33
    
    Yer a wimp.  A bloke in Oz called Lucky Kaiser sawed the two end
    cylinders off a Rolls Royce Merlin and built himself a 5 litre V-twin. 
    I've got photos of it (you can't see the first two rows of the crowd
    because of the cloud of blue smoke) and I've been on it.  The clutch is
    so heavy he uses compressed air to move it!  (For some bizarre reason
    people persistently mistake the bottle of compressed air for nitro.  I
    mean, who the hell would want nitro on a 5 litre V-twin?)
    
    I hear his next project is a bike that goes around corners...

    re:.34
    
    There's a trike near Bradford with an un-sawed Merlin (and a trike
    means no crash helmet!)
    
    What would the EEC make of that :-)

    The reason you need nitro on a 5-litre V-twin is to get over the turbo
    lag...
    
    There was a bloke in this country a few years back stuck a Rover V-8
    into a Featherbed frame - went fine, handled well.  Which begs the
    question: what the hell were the McCandless brothers thinking of, all
    those years ago, making the frame that strong when all it had to cope
    with was a weedy Norton...
    
    Richard
    

        Having just been through an 5-day intensive course of motorcycle
    training up to and a bit beyond test level, I'd be interested to know
    if the statistics quoted earlier in the topic had a breakdown of the
    time that the subjects had been riding.  As I understand it, since the
    m/c tests were changed to the current CBT & test system, the accident
    rate is unique in that it's been dropping while the rates for all other
    road users have continued to rise.

Gwyn,

I done this 5 day course 2 years ago, and that's where the stats came from.
Whether or not they are completely reliable who knows?

IMO, it's well worth doing this course, it taught me a hell of a lot more 
than i would have discovered for myself.

    Safe motorcycling is much to do with knowing the borders of the
    possible. Getting to know these borders when, like in riding bikes,
    they are not marked or posted involves some experimenting. Meaning
    crossing the border. So, as a result learning proper driving skills is
    about crossing the borders of the possible with as little damage as
    possible!
    So for all but the psychic a proper course is very usefull. The
    attendee can find his borders under controlled conditions under
    guidance of skilled instructors. A racing school is very good too, as
    is racing itself.
    Still the real test is the traffic! I guess the stage license is a very
    sensible thing to get to learn about driving techniques and to get to
    grip with traffic at moderate speeds.
    
    Peter