Mate has a court summons for driving without a license and insurance!

jamief said:
Speed != Acceleration.

The restricted bike can't accelerate as quickly.

Therefore maybe he was accelerating upto 40mph at a faster rate than he could have on a desrestricted bike.

For example - a Gallardo and a Punto can both do 70mph - put your foot down and one will accelerate a hell of a lot quicker.

Maybe the biker was accelerating hard (upto 40mph) at a rate faster than he could have, had his bike been restricted.

The insurance company are correct - the insurance is invalid.
Click to expand...

a gallardo that is de-restricted and a gallardo that cant go past 70 can get to 40 in the same time.... or is this not the case?


my issue isnt with the accident nor how he was riding, but that he was knowingly riding without insurance and in my mind he deserves the book thrown at him for that.
 
Last edited:
Cookie-Monster said:
rubbish,

a gallardo that is de-restricted and a gallardo that cant go past 70 can get to 40 in the same time....


my issue isnt with the accident nor how he was riding, but that he was knowingly riding without insurance and in my mind he deserves the book thrown at him for that.
Click to expand...

His licence was for a restricted 33bhp bike.

He was riding an unrestricted 750cc bike (with maybe twice the power?)

The two have completely different acceleration characteristics.

It is akin to having a licence which says you can drive a Punto, and crashing whilst driving a Gallardo. They both hit 40mph, but do so in drastically different times.
 
InvaderGIR said:
The restriction isn't on top-end, it's on overall power output, which will decrease the top-end, but also decreases acceleration speeds.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected having never ridden a restricted bike.

although I stand by my "he should have the book thrown at him" for knowingly riding while uninsured,

tbh I dont give a monkeys about riding outside the parameters of his licence that only affects him, but the insurance thing affects other people
 
Moley said:
If you have modified your vehicle to the extent that you are no longer driving a roadworthy vehicle or that you have been tested and deemed incapable of driving then you should not be on the road. FULL STOP.
Click to expand...

You put it accross as though he took a bike test and failed so got some restricted lower licence. This is an automatic restriction that lifts after two years.

Anyway, I'm not disputing the legality of it. I'm just annoyed that so many people are getting so bent out of shape about it when a)The accident wasn't his fault, as far as we know and b) it is EXACTLY the same situation as the guy with the trailer, who was trying to get off on a 'technicality' and yet this guy is getting a real battering for it.
 
monkey_boy said:
You put it accross as though he took a bike test and failed so got some restricted lower licence. This is an automatic restriction that lifts after two years.

Anyway, I'm not disputing the legality of it. I'm just annoyed that so many people are getting so bent out of shape about it when a)The accident wasn't his fault, as far as we know and b) it is EXACTLY the same situation as the guy with the trailer, who was trying to get off on a 'technicality' and yet this guy is getting a real battering for it.
Click to expand...

OK Firstly, I know nothing about the trailer incident so can't comment.

Secondly, I didn't put it across in any such way. He has a license which limits him on the power of bike he can ride until such a time as he has gained enough experience to move up to a higher power level. He is not qualified to drive the higher power level vehicle and therefore is not allowed to drive one on the public highway. He chose to ignore this, he has to take the consequences - thank god he didn't kill himself or anyone else as a result of his arrogant attitude to the conditions imposed on him having a license to start with.

The accident as it happened may not have been his fault, but as I stated earlier the courts will take the view that he simply should not have been on the road on that vehicle. Same as a drunk driver or someone with no license at all should not be on the road in any vehicle. Therefore the accident is his fault - had he been on a vehicle that he was qualified to drive then it would not.

Simples.
 
Being restricted to 33bhp for two years is painful but thats the law so you either stick to it or pay the consequences. The ops mate was in the wrong place at the wrong time but now has to admit he was driving a vehicle he wasnt licensed to drive, technicality or not.
 
Sagalout said:
Was much simpler when we passed our tests!

Pass test, try and survive the heady cocktail of youthful immortality and a 50bhp loony tunes 2 stroke for a few years and then buy a 'big' bike.
Click to expand...

hah so so true... jumping straight from TZR125 to a brand new KR1 250 with 55-60bhp

though in all honesty my TZR was unrestricted also :o
 
He will have the book thrown at him hopefully.
His license is restricted to 33bhp for 2 years for a reason. It is the law.

IMO it's exactly the same as chucking L-plates on an R1 and trying to ride it on a 125cc provisional.
 
Rilot said:
He will have the book thrown at him hopefully.
His license is restricted to 33bhp for 2 years for a reason. It is the law.

IMO it's exactly the same as chucking L-plates on an R1 and trying to ride it on a 125cc provisional.
Click to expand...


I love how you think taking the same to the extreme is still "exactly the same". It gives your "IMO" a lot of credibility.
 
monkey_boy said:
I love how you think taking the same to the extreme is still "exactly the same". It gives your "IMO" a lot of credibility.
Click to expand...

reductio ad absurdum

It is done to prove a point by providing an absurd analogy to help clarify the reasoning behind the point.

How is Rilot's scenario any different to OP's mate?
 
Eriedor said:
reductio ad absurdum

It is done to prove a point by providing an absurd analogy to help clarify the reasoning behind the point.

How is Rilot's scenario any different to OP's mate?
Click to expand...

Because to ride around on an R1 with L plates doesnt require you to pass a test, which the OPs friend has done.
 
The bloke is looking at 6-8 points for the no insurance, which means he will instantly have his licenced revoked by DVLA. Back to square one. Dunno about the no licence part but the IN10 will be enough to fubar his licence.

He forgot rule number 1.
 
mrgubby said:
I thought I'd seen some **** in the motors forum but that takes the prize ......
Click to expand...

it's how the courts will most likely view it, if someone that shouldnt have been on the road in that vehicle at that time is involved in an accident, then they will believe that had that not been the case the accident wouldnt have happened
 
The OP's mate knew full well what he was doing and decide to chance his luck. He got caught and now needs to "man up" and take his punishment and learn from his mistakes.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. All thoughts about whether its a silly law or not aside, it is the law. If you get caught, take your lumps and get on with it. Its the same as doing 80 on the motorway, 70 is perhaps a silly limit these days, but if you get 3 points for knowing the limit is 70 and yet doing 80 then fair enough, surely?

Crash or no crash, fault or no fault, none of this matters, if he is cherged with riding other than as allowed on his license then the crash is a non-event, he is being charged for the license (and/or resulting insurance issue) not the crash, its just that the crash allowed him to get caught.

I have no view one way or the other on the law, but if you break a law, and get caught, tough im afraid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom