Revision of Class 2 license system

[mechwira]

knowledge not enough, please pardon me.. (for the Super 4 thing)

 

ppl discuss to exchange views and learn more wat, nothing wrong. not say i (or anyone else) all the time correct anyway.

 

Think nothing can change the system in this aspect, in certain perception, this is caused by the system itself. This point is more of individual's choice.

 

so then would you agree that my proposal will not change anything with regards to this issue?

 

In certain views, most people might be satisfied with owning a class 2A license, as this will allow them to have more choices of bikes.

 

wat more choices? besides super 4 and hornet250 and twister250 and a few korean models, wat bikes are available 1st hand today?

 

personally, i feel that a 400cc bike is ideal for singapore. its more stable than the 2B bikes, and assuming u use it solely to commute locally, then anything bigger would most of the time just be a waste of petrol/insurance/maintenance. hence the popularity of the super4. and frankly, i would really really like to buy a 1st hand 400cc sportsbike and keep it long term. but there isn any, not here or anywhere. the market has collapsed. to look at new sportsbikes bigger than the 125/150cc, i have to turn immediately to 600cc class.

[StingRhea]

I wish that age shouldn't be a deciding factor~

[hohosaint]

If it's a money strategy. I don't see the goverment will hesitate.

[rhema83]

The biggest problem with class 2A is the fact that 201-400cc bikes are extremely limited. And taking class 2A and then class 2 one year later makes very little sense. Let me elaborate...

 

No matter what class 2B or 2A bike you ride, you will take some time to adjust to a litre-class bike. Whether you ride a Wave or a RVF, you won't be able to control a R1 well on the first few days. The jump in power is still very big (2-3 times or more).

 

We can see that the "intermediate step" which is class 2A is actually not very useful. One year of riding a 400cc bikes is not going to make handling a 1000cc any easier.

 

So why not do away with class 2A? After one year of riding a small bike on probation (capacity can remain or be changed, and I am not focusing on that here), a rider should be trained with a bigger bike (eg 600cc or 750cc) and take the open-class test. I agree that there should still be a handling test in the circuit to show that the rider is capable of handling the bigger bike. I fully agree that it's better to crash in the circuit than on the road.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by rhema83@May 21 2004, 11:03 PM

So why not do away with class 2A? After one year of riding a small bike on probation (capacity can remain or be changed, and I am not focusing on that here), a rider should be trained with a bigger bike (eg 600cc or 750cc) and take the open-class test. I agree that there should still be a handling test in the circuit to show that the rider is capable of handling the bigger bike. I fully agree that it's better to crash in the circuit than on the road.

ok then, how bout a revision to my proposal:

 

everyone takes Class 2B exactly like it is now. But, thereafter, the rider will have a 1 year probation period whereby he will not be allowed to ride anything larger than 200cc. at the end of this 1 year probation period, he receives an automatic upgrade to Class 2A, without need for circuit or road lessons and tests. also, upon completing the 1 year probation period, he becomes eligible to take lessons and tests, circuit only, for Class 2 exactly like it is now.

 

my revised proposal completely does away with the obsolete Class 2A license. there will be no need to spend time and money to obtain the class 2A, and the waiting period to be eligible to obtain open class is reduced to 1 year from the current 2 years. furthermore, it will be compulsory for the rider to gain exposure on large capacity bikes in order to upgrade. i'd like to add that i strongly feel that it should be this way for cars as well.

 

one big disadvantage of my revised proposal from my original proposal is that once it is implemented, the centers will immediately find no use whatsoever for their 250/400cc bikes, unless they hold voluntary riding courses similar to their defensive riding courses. also, ppl taking 2A will immediately drop out, since they would have immediately been awarded the 2A license. however, i think that where laws and regulations are concerned, one should not place too much emphasis on the business impact if it does not concern a major industry. also, perhaps implementation period of 1 or 2 years from confirmation would be sufficient to allow the centres and riders to adjust, the same way they did when the age limit was upped from 16 to 18.

[Sckona]

i hate to say this.... in this way... certain amount of $$ will not go to the centres... and no way they will agree... unless they also see beyond $$ then still got chance...

 

wat i meant earlier is that if class 2A is raised to include below 600cc... there will be more choices of bikes for these groups of license holder...

[Guest deganduss]

After passing 2B & automatic getting larger capacity machine licence after 1 yr is good provided the rider ride during tis 1yr period.

But if he/she just took the test & keep the licence without riding at all and than decided 2 get a large capacity bike after 1 yr than here can b a bit unsafe (lack riding time)

I think a test or some kind of assesment is necessary to confirm the rider capability in handling the bike.

Unless the rider can show that he rode during tis 1 yr period.

2 cent opinion

[mechwira]

Originally posted by Sckona@May 22 2004, 02:08 AM

i hate to say this.... in this way... certain amount of $$ will not go to the centres... and no way they will agree... unless they also see beyond $$ then still got chance...

 

wat i meant earlier is that if class 2A is raised to include below 600cc... there will be more choices of bikes for these groups of license holder...

like i said, you cannot and should not make a law or regulation that does not concern trade based on how much money other people will make from it. how would you like it if tomorrow a regulation comes up saying to ride bicycle you need license and this law is to allow the jobless to take up job as bicycle trainers? thus i disagree that the driving center should be given a large say on the licensing law based on how much money they can make.

 

furthermore, my proposed revision will not make it unprofitable for driving centers. else then how do overseas driving centers cope when they conduct riding tests only once using only one class of motorcycles, which is still one less than my proposal?

 

and regarding your 600cc suggestion, its ideal for those with 2A, but what about those who wish to ride a liter class bike? 600cc to 1000cc is not a big jump. you dun need so much adjustment if you're already experienced on a 600cc bike. the key jump is from under 400cc to above 600cc. this is where the cap should be.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by deganduss@May 22 2004, 10:06 AM

After passing 2B & automatic getting larger capacity machine licence after 1 yr is good provided the rider ride during tis 1yr period.

But if he/she just took the test & keep the licence without riding at all and than decided 2 get a large capacity bike after 1 yr than here can b a bit unsafe (lack riding time)

I think a test or some kind of assesment is necessary to confirm the rider capability in handling the bike.

Unless the rider can show that he rode during tis 1 yr period.

2 cent opinion

you have a valid point and i tot of it as well BUT i believe this point is not relevant to my proposal because the current system already has this flaw. with the current system, you are able to jump onto a large bike without any prior road riding experience after 2 years of first taking 2B, provided you pass the Class 2 test. with my second proposal (the one with the Class 2 test), i am only reducing this time to 1 year, and you still need to take and pass the Class 2 test. so, with regards to the issue you brought up, what difference does my proposal make to this flaw from the current system in place?

 

furthermore, i think there is no real way of correcting this flaw. how can you ensure that the person has been riding? make it law that to take the next test he must have a bike ownership under his name for a year? not fair. my TA150 is under my father's name, meaning i did ride for a year but do not own the bike. make sure that he at least has an insurance such as 2nd rider if he does not own a bike? does not solve anything, becoz a rider can just 'season parking' his name on a friend's or family's bike for a year or two without riding. hence there is no real way of solving this flaw, current system or proposal.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by MrLau@May 22 2004, 11:29 AM

If someone can pass the test, mean he can handle the bike.

 

The current system work fine, there is no need to change.

how many tests do i have to take before i am considered able to handle a bike?

 

i say, 1 test sufficient, maximum 2, no need for 3.

 

why must i spend $300 and 3 months anually for 2 years, going around a circuit and being penalised for not checking blind spot and changing lane abruptly instead of my handling capability, before i am allowed on a larger bike?

 

i say, its all too much of a hassle and money, and that is reason enough to consider changing, bearing in mind one should not do so at the expense of safety.

 

why are riders not allowed to get on large bikes immediately but drivers are allowed to do so?

 

i say, riders should be considered just as capable as drivers.

 

why are our western counterparts considered capable of adopting my proposed revision but singaporeans are incapable of doing so?

 

i say, we are just as capable.

 

why keep our class 2a category when globally the 250/400cc class of bikes has gone obsolete? what can i do with a class 2a license today?

 

i say, the class 2a tag on my license card is useless, i only have a handful of choices for brand new bikes.

 

dont tell me no need to change. tell me why my reasons for change are not valid.

[hohosaint]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 22 2004, 12:46 PM

how many tests do i have to take before i am considered able to handle a bike?

 

i say, 1 test sufficient, maximum 2, no need for 3.

 

why must i spend $300 and 3 months anually for 2 years, going around a circuit and being penalised for not checking blind spot and changing lane abruptly instead of my handling capability, before i am allowed on a larger bike?

 

i say, its all too much of a hassle and money, and that is reason enough to consider changing, bearing in mind one should not do so at the expense of safety.

 

why are riders not allowed to get on large bikes immediately but drivers are allowed to do so?

 

i say, riders should be considered just as capable as drivers.

 

why are our western counterparts considered capable of adopting my proposed revision but singaporeans are incapable of doing so?

 

i say, we are just as capable.

 

why keep our class 2a category when globally the 250/400cc class of bikes has gone obsolete? what can i do with a class 2a license today?

 

i say, the class 2a tag on my license card is useless, i only have a handful of choices for brand new bikes.

 

dont tell me no need to change. tell me why my reasons for change are not valid.

Well.... I couldn't agree more than your said obsolete 250cc and 400cc production which left us (consumer) non-sport bikes and other options to choose. Too constrain.

 

Personally, 400cc and 600cc have big major differences in it's design and bhp to handle for a class 2A holder.

 

However, questioning on how they are going to implement a precaution methods to allowing bypassing will be a challenge should this is approved.

 

It does affects Centre and Goverment financially but utimately, we need to excel.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by hohosaint@May 22 2004, 12:56 PM

Well.... I couldn't agree more than your said obsolete 250cc and 400cc production which left us (consumer) non-sport bikes and other options to choose. Too constrain.

 

Personally, 400cc and 600cc have big major differences in it's design and bhp to handle for a class 2A holder.

 

However, questioning on how they are going to implement a precaution methods to allowing bypassing will be a challenge should this is approved.

 

It does affects Centre and Goverment financially but utimately, we need to excel.

i agree with your point regarding 400cc and 600cc, which is why i say if there must be a cap on capacity, then it should be placed on 400cc and not 600cc.

 

regarding the bypass precaution you mentioned, as i said, this flaw already exists in the current system, so why make such a big issue of it in considering my proposal? if its an important issue (which it probably is), then it should be discussed in the context of the current system, and not in considering my proposal.

[rhema83]

The point is, class 2A is outdated. We need an updated system. So we do away with that class and riders are trained on a 600cc or above bike once they finish their probation year on a 200cc (or maybe 400cc). They will still be tested for handling and safety according to current class 2 standards, so there is no compromise on safety and readiness to handle a large capacity bike.

 

If I'm not straightforward enough, the point is to DO AWAY WITH 2A, or MERGE 2B and 2A to 400cc, ie train fresh riders with a bigger bike. You can still start out by letting them bang tyres on a 200cc training bike, but once they have the basic handling skills, give them the 400cc to train with.

 

Right now SSDC gives the riders CB125T to bang tyres and gain basic skills, and then a newer and more powerful bike for the rest of the courses.

[hohosaint]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 22 2004, 01:16 PM

i agree with your point regarding 400cc and 600cc, which is why i say if there must be a cap on capacity, then it should be placed on 400cc and not 600cc.

 

regarding the bypass precaution you mentioned, as i said, this flaw already exists in the current system, so why make such a big issue of it in considering my proposal? if its an important issue (which it probably is), then it should be discussed in the context of the current system, and not in considering my proposal.

Without any further exchanging of opinions and raise up. Are you in a process of submitting this proposal or system to the appropriate authority?

[mechwira]

Originally posted by MrLau@May 22 2004, 01:06 PM

This statement has already prove that you are not ready.

You just failed to meet the minimum requirement to ride safely on the road. It is no diff in 2B, 2A or 2 or 3.

 

Riding on the public road is not just "release clutch and maintain balance", it is about safety for you and other road users.

 

Take the test, prove to the tester you are qualified.

have i not already been tested on this during my 2b? when u say i need to experience larger bike before being allowed, is the concern not on my handling capability, ie, the obstacle courses? but this is just a minor point. if u insist it is a major point, then why not make it compulsory for motorcyle license holders to go for retest every, say 3 years, to ensure they have not lost their safety riding habits? so how many times do i have to keep proving myself? and if its no diff in 2b, 2a or 2, then why keep retesting? isn that the whole point of my argument? that there is not much of a difference to keep retesting and making us spend money and time?

 

and what about my other arguments?

[mechwira]

Originally posted by rhema83@May 22 2004, 01:16 PM

The point is, class 2A is outdated. We need an updated system. So we do away with that class and riders are trained on a 600cc or above bike once they finish their probation year on a 200cc (or maybe 400cc). They will still be tested for handling and safety according to current class 2 standards, so there is no compromise on safety and readiness to handle a large capacity bike.

 

If I'm not straightforward enough, the point is to DO AWAY WITH 2A, or MERGE 2B and 2A to 400cc, ie train fresh riders with a bigger bike. You can still start out by letting them bang tyres on a 200cc training bike, but once they have the basic handling skills, give them the 400cc to train with.

 

Right now SSDC gives the riders CB125T to bang tyres and gain basic skills, and then a newer and more powerful bike for the rest of the courses.

i fully agree. i am willing to concede that in my original proposal, an automatic upgrade to open class without any need for retest may be flawed. but 2A is obsolete and uneccessary.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by hohosaint@May 22 2004, 01:22 PM

Without any further exchanging of opinions and raise up. Are you in a process of submitting this proposal or system to the appropriate authority?

i just threw this in as a discussion topic. i wouldn mind writing in, if somebody would tell me who to write to. i'm not sure traffic police is a good destination, they're enforcers not lawmakers. if its not within their power to make changes, they're just gonna mail back saying why cannot, and i hear enough of that in this forum.

 

and i thought moderators say they might decide to air this particular forum upwards?

[hohosaint]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 22 2004, 01:30 PM

i just threw this in as a discussion topic. i wouldn mind writing in, if somebody would tell me who to write to. i'm not sure traffic police is a good destination, they're enforcers not lawmakers. if its not within their power to make changes, they're just gonna mail back saying why cannot, and i hear enough of that in this forum.

 

and i thought moderators say they might decide to air this particular forum upwards?

errr.... Hmmm.... Could somebody be so kind to give some pointers on how to submit this proposal or system to the correct and appropriate authority? I suppose the effect's of this will be quite workable, nevertheless.

 

As mentioned of the phased out of 250cc and 400cc which left class 2A holders meaningless in getting and, should we say donating money to centre whilst no exact bike can be bought after acomplishing the course?.

[Throttle]

having ridden for over a decade, i must say that a higher limit on the 2A should iron things out.

 

perhaps for class 2A, allowance is up to 600cc.

 

then keep class 2 for open cat.

 

however, the upgrading test should not be the same becos that will be STOOOPID.

 

the upgrading test should exclude basic manouvers and include advance manouvers.

 

whats the point in taking the same tests on a bigger bike??

some 1000cc are as small as 400cc!!!!!!!

 

emphasis should be on the right skills and the social responsibilities of riding

[StingRhea]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 20 2004, 05:35 PM

frankly, i just added it to anticipate the cunter-argument about riders under 21 being the most prone to serous and fatal accidents. to be honest, i agree with the counter-argument, but i feel the focus is the age/maturity, not the capacity. but then again, ppl 'upstairs' might not so readily understand or agree, hence my pre-emptive strike.

yes, does under 21 most vulnerable, but age is not equals to maturity~

[bigman_185]

Originally posted by EXC-Alan4@May 20 2004, 11:30 PM

lets hope 2C will come out hahaha

 

2C - veh not exceeding 125cc

2B - veh not exceeding 250cc

2A - veh not exceeding 600cc

2 - veh exceeding 600cc

That's a good one. It sounds better than auto-upgrade.

[rhema83]

Originally posted by Throttle@May 22 2004, 07:58 PM

having ridden for over a decade, i must say that a higher limit on the 2A should iron things out.

 

perhaps for class 2A, allowance is up to 600cc.

 

then keep class 2 for open cat.

 

however, the upgrading test should not be the same becos that will be STOOOPID.

 

the upgrading test should exclude basic manouvers and include advance manouvers.

 

whats the point in taking the same tests on a bigger bike??

some 1000cc are as small as 400cc!!!!!!!

 

emphasis should be on the right skills and the social responsibilities of riding

Can't agree more. "Emphasis should be on the right skills and the social responsibilities of riding." Especially the responsibilities. If riders, particularly young and hot-blooded ones, can be more responsible when they are on the road, I am sure the number of accidents and fatalities involving motorcycles can be reduced greatly.

 

On the part on handling the physical size of bigger bikes, I totally agree. A modern 600cc or even litre-class sports bike is not much heavier or bigger than a 400cc (Once I parked my NSR150SP side by side with a CBR600F-Sport and frankly they looked very similar in size).

 

However, I can't think of what "advance manouvers" that should, or can, be tested in the circuit...

[rhema83]

So let me try to summarise...

 

1) We need to do away with Class 2A because...

a) There are too few bikes between 201cc and 400cc to choose from.

b) The course, meant to be an intermediate step towards open class, does not help a rider adjust from a small to big bike significantly.

 

2) We suggest a revision to the system. We can...

a) Merge Classes 2B and 2A, and train new learners with a 400cc bike.

b) Merge Classes 2A and 2, and train riders who finished probation with an open-class bike.

 

3) We emphasize that safety should not be compromised in any scenario.

 

Please correct any mistakes I made...

[mechwira]

Originally posted by rhema83@May 23 2004, 01:21 AM

So let me try to summarise...

 

1) We need to do away with Class 2A because...

a) There are too few bikes between 201cc and 400cc to choose from.

b) The course, meant to be an intermediate step towards open class, does not help a rider adjust from a small to big bike significantly.

 

2) We suggest a revision to the system. We can...

a) Merge Classes 2B and 2A, and train new learners with a 400cc bike.

b) Merge Classes 2A and 2, and train riders who finished probation with an open-class bike.

 

3) We emphasize that safety should not be compromised in any scenario.

 

Please correct any mistakes I made...

i'd like to add to your part 1:

 

1) We need to do away with Class 2A because...

 

a) There are too few bikes between 201cc and 400cc to choose from.

 

b) The course, meant to be an intermediate step towards open class, does not help a rider adjust from a small to big bike significantly.

 

c) It will save motorcyclists 1 year and the cost of 1 round of tests and lessons in getting Class 2.

 

d) Our western counterparts, and some parts of asia especially Japan, have all adopted such a system, and we should consider ourselves equally capable in terms of handling ability.

 

e) Our Class 3 licensing system is not tiered like our Class 2 system, and if a driver is considered capable of handling a high performance car immediately upon passing, then riders should be treated with the same respect.

[rhema83]

On a sidenote, this plan actually makes economic sense.

 

Firstly, driving centres should not be totally profit-oriented and the loss caused by one less motorcycle class should not cause an outcry.

 

Secondly, motorcycle businesses will benefit. Instead of importing Japanese domestic 400cc bikes and reselling older 400cc bikes, which all have very limited support, agents will now have a bigger market for the more profitable and widely-supported open class. Currently the open class market is not very big because not everyone will go all the way to take all the 3 classes of motorcycle license.

 

Lastly, consumers will benefit. As the agents bring in a larger selection of open-class bikes to cater to the larger market, consumers now have a wider range to choose from. The price will also reduce as trade volume increases. Also, wider support for open class bikes also mean that consumers will have less headaches searching for replacement parts like they do now for their outdated 400cc bikes. And newer and more reliable bikes also mean a higher level of safety.