Revision of Class 2 license system

[rhema83]

I sincerely hope that we will eventually come to a consensus and submit our suggestions to the relevant authorities in an appropriate manner...

[jason_fz6]

i agree with rhema's plan. very sensible. and i dun think the gahment has not considered this before, though i think the dwindling 400cc market supply is probably the overiding push factor for a policy change.

 

heres to a 2 tier bike licensing system in the future.

[mechwira]

if somebody knows what the next step should be, i would like to volunteer to type out the formal letter outlining our arguments.

[hohosaint]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 23 2004, 02:13 PM

if somebody knows what the next step should be, i would like to volunteer to type out the formal letter outlining our arguments.

I believe's that it has to do with LTA.

[happyrider]

i've being watching this thread wif much interest....

 

 

Mechwira : yr concerns of the class 2A being obselote seems to revolve ard the point of wasting time and $$$ on waiting for 1 yr to upgrade. But pls do bear in mind that statistics still show that relatively inexperienced riders with new licenses (eg. new 2B or new 2A) contribute signicantly to road fatalities. That is a fact that u cant change. Are u saying that cost and time is more important den safety?

 

But i do agree with throttle that a raise on the class 2A cap to 600cc should more or less correct the current imbalance.

 

Furthermore, nv directly compare what the other countries are doing to their licensing system to that of s'pore's. Simply becos of differing conditions in difference countries. Besides, i feel the 3 tier system is doing juz fine. Bearing in mind that even wif such a realtively comprehensive testing system in place, rd fatalities of riders still remain sky high.

 

As for why modern powerful cars can be driven by a new class 3 holder, you either got to wait until a minister that rides to change this or juz suffer in silence. I highly doubt any noise made in this aspect is gonna change anything.

 

 

 

my 2 cents...

[mechwira]

Mechwira : yr concerns of the class 2A being obselote seems to revolve ard the point of wasting time and $$$ on waiting for 1 yr to upgrade. But pls do bear in mind that statistics still show that relatively inexperienced riders with new licenses (eg. new 2B or new 2A) contribute signicantly to road fatalities. That is a fact that u cant change. Are u saying that cost and time is more important den safety?

 

i fail to understand the relevance of your point, and i believe vice versa as well. in what way will my proposal (2-tiered) make it any less safe? proposal or current system, there will always be new 2b riders around. same for 2a. my point is, forcing riders to go for class 2a does not make it any safer. furthermore, i foresee that in the coming years, with the obsolescence of the class 2a category of bikes, riders wishing to ride larger bikes will eventually take 2a merely as a stepping stone, and continue riding their 2b bike (or not at all) for the 2 years of waiting to obtain class 2. i am already doing this now, and i am not alone. so then why must we keep this system, if it is just a white elephant?

 

Furthermore, nv directly compare what the other countries are doing to their licensing system to that of s'pore's. Simply becos of differing conditions in difference countries. Besides, i feel the 3 tier system is doing juz fine. Bearing in mind that even wif such a realtively comprehensive testing system in place, rd fatalities of riders still remain sky high.

 

in what way are the conditions different then? wide open roads with little traffic? do not forget that they have congested cities too, and some even more congested than ours.

 

i understand your concern relating high fatalities, and yes i agree it is indeed an important point. but what i have felt all along is that the capacity of the bike has very little, if not at all, relation to this phenomenon. point out to me a person who is dangerous on an R1, and i will say that he will be just as dangerous on an NSR150 or even a honda cub. if you wanna tackle this problem then tackle it properly; dont top up your brake fluid and ignore your worn out brake pads.

 

As for why modern powerful cars can be driven by a new class 3 holder, you either got to wait until a minister that rides to change this or juz suffer in silence. I highly doubt any noise made in this aspect is gonna change anything.

 

everything starts with a little bit of noise, provided the noise is constructive and objective.

[Guest BoBOKik]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 23 2004, 06:47 PM

everything starts with a little bit of noise, provided the noise is constructive and objective.

and with a sensible solution to the problem... instead of makin all the noise without givin any sensible solutions and expect the gahment to find a solution for us.

[rhema83]

Originally posted by BoBOKik@May 23 2004, 08:52 PM

and with a sensible solution to the problem... instead of makin all the noise without givin any sensible solutions and expect the gahment to find a solution for us.

With all due respect, what do you think of all the suggestions so far and how would you improve on them? Also, do you know a way we can convey the message to the relevant authorities without sounding like the typical Singaporean trying to complain about everything?

 

I do not rule out the possibility of a signed petition, though.

[happyrider]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 23 2004, 07:47 PM

i fail to understand the relevance of your point, and i believe vice versa as well. in what way will my proposal (2-tiered) make it any less safe? proposal or current system, there will always be new 2b riders around. same for 2a. my point is, forcing riders to go for class 2a does not make it any safer. furthermore, i foresee that in the coming years, with the obsolescence of the class 2a category of bikes, riders wishing to ride larger bikes will eventually take 2a merely as a stepping stone, and continue riding their 2b bike (or not at all) for the 2 years of waiting to obtain class 2. i am already doing this now, and i am not alone. so then why must we keep this system, if it is just a white elephant?

 

 

 

in what way are the conditions different then? wide open roads with little traffic? do not forget that they have congested cities too, and some even more congested than ours.

 

i understand your concern relating high fatalities, and yes i agree it is indeed an important point. but what i have felt all along is that the capacity of the bike has very little, if not at all, relation to this phenomenon. point out to me a person who is dangerous on an R1, and i will say that he will be just as dangerous on an NSR150 or even a honda cub. if you wanna tackle this problem then tackle it properly; dont top up your brake fluid and ignore your worn out brake pads.

 

 

 

everything starts with a little bit of noise, provided the noise is constructive and objective.

the basis of my arguement is that it takes time for riders to adapt to a more powerful machine.

 

most 2A bikes are capped at 53bhp, wif a few older models kicking a few more horses. BUT are u aware what kind of consequences may result if we were to eliminate the class2A altogether? pls do take note that modern 600cc sports bikes are kicking out near 120bhp. 53bhp vs 120 bhp. u do the math...

 

new class 2B riders suffers the highest fatalities among all classes. Remember all the blue signs on expressways asking for witnesses for accidents of riders? sadly, i would say abt 6-8 out of 10 are due to self-skid or loss of control. do u read the papers or the latest news section in sbf? almost everyday, i will see reports of accidents. i will put that to be due to new 2b riders being too rash, over-confident n unaware of the kind of power that their machines can generate and thus resulting in loss of control.

 

of cos, i'm nt saying more experienced riders dun get into accidents. sh*t happens sometimes and i feel a gradual upgrade path in terms of cc or bhp is the correct approach, hence my support for the current system.

 

And wad's the the whining in posts and threads abt TP targeting 2B riders? Being less experienced, its a fact that they are the among the most vulnerable on the rd and most likely to be involve in serious accidents. In fact, i support the idea that TPs are looking out for this group and make them learn their mistakes, rather den having to attend to fatal or serious accidents and see these young riders covered wif white sheets...

 

some pple learn, some dun, u put these very same riders on even more powerful machines a year later without having to go thru some form of testing system to make sure they can handle more powerful bikes, nt negating the possibilities that they may nt even b riding for the entire year of "probation", i cant imagine the consequences.

 

 

differring opinions are welcumed...

[rhema83]

Originally posted by happyrider@May 23 2004, 11:20 PM

the basis of my arguement is that it takes time for riders to adapt to a more powerful machine.

 

most 2A bikes are capped at 53bhp, wif a few older models kicking a few more horses. BUT are u aware what kind of consequences may result if we were to eliminate the class2A altogether? pls do take note that modern 600cc sports bikes are kicking out near 120bhp. 53bhp vs 120 bhp. u do the math...

 

new class 2B riders suffers the highest fatalities among all classes. Remember all the blue signs on expressways asking for witnesses for accidents of riders? sadly, i would say abt 6-8 out of 10 are due to self-skid or loss of control. do u read the papers or the latest news section in sbf? almost everyday, i will see reports of accidents. i will put that to be due to new 2b riders being too rash, over-confident n unaware of the kind of power that their machines can generate and thus resulting in loss of control.

 

of cos, i'm nt saying more experienced riders dun get into accidents. sh*t happens sometimes and i feel a gradual upgrade path in terms of cc or bhp is the correct approach, hence my support for the current system.

 

And wad's the the whining in posts and threads abt TP targeting 2B riders? Being less experienced, its a fact that they are the among the most vulnerable on the rd and most likely to be involve in serious accidents. In fact, i support the idea that TPs are looking out for this group and make them learn their mistakes, rather den having to attend to fatal or serious accidents and see these young riders covered wif white sheets...

 

some pple learn, some dun, u put these very same riders on even more powerful machines a year later without having to go thru some form of testing system to make sure they can handle more powerful bikes, nt negating the possibilities that they may nt even b riding for the entire year of "probation", i cant imagine the consequences.

 

 

differring opinions are welcumed...

Hi there, I think I should clear your misunderstanding.

 

The upgrading course and test should NOT be abolished, for obvious safety reasons. However, we are suggesting that the 3-tier system be revised to a 2-tier system.

 

So, upon completion of his probation year, a rider can take the open-class course and subsequently the test. He must be able to control the open-class bike in the circuit before he is allowed to ride on the road. So safety is not compromised.

 

The flaw you pointed out is inherent to the system. Right now, a rider can take all 3 classes of motorcycle licenses without owning a bike. Then, he can buy an open-class 150+bhp machine, maybe years later. The result is the same as the situation you described.

 

I think the main problem with riders are not the inability to control the machine, but inability to control themselves. Give someone with good self-control a powerful machine and he can still stay as accident-free as when he rides a small bike.

[mechwira]

the basis of my arguement is that it takes time for riders to adapt to a more powerful machine.

 

most 2A bikes are capped at 53bhp, wif a few older models kicking a few more horses. BUT are u aware what kind of consequences may result if we were to eliminate the class2A altogether? pls do take note that modern 600cc sports bikes are kicking out near 120bhp. 53bhp vs 120 bhp. u do the math...

 

with regards to the proposed 2-tier system, i would like to point out once again that with the obsolescence of the Class 2A bikes, especially when the non-super4 models currently available only as second hand disappears, people like me will eventually take Class 2A and not ride any Class 2A bike, and jump to a Class 2 bike from riding a Class 2B bike. This will happen because there are are no other viable Class 2A bikes apart from the super4. tell me then what difference does a class 2A license make at all?

 

you can either:

 

immediately train new riders on 250/400cc bikes and immediately award them the 2A license (and eligible for Class 2 a year later),

 

or:

 

do away with class 2a, keep the existing 2B regulation limits but instead after 1 year of owning Class 2B license enable them to be eligible for Class 2 through lessons and tests.

 

the second method, especially, will render your argument invalid, does it not? particularly when people choose not to ride 2A bikes altogether?

 

new class 2B riders suffers the highest fatalities among all classes. Remember all the blue signs on expressways asking for witnesses for accidents of riders? sadly, i would say abt 6-8 out of 10 are due to self-skid or loss of control. do u read the papers or the latest news section in sbf? almost everyday, i will see reports of accidents. i will put that to be due to new 2b riders being too rash, over-confident n unaware of the kind of power that their machines can generate and thus resulting in loss of control.

 

once again, i fail to see the relevance of this point. in what way will my 2-tiered proposal change this situation from the current system? there will always be new 2b riders.

 

and i question your statement regarding 6-8 out of 10 are due to self-skid or loss of control. is this due to hard factual statistics, or your own personal opinion? here i would like to state that last year malaysian TV3 did a road safety campaign for riders, stating that according to statistics two thirds of serious or fatal accidents involving bikes are caused by cars. this is statistical evidence. malaysian riders riding largely honda cubs.

[Harley_Hong]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 24 2004, 05:32 PM

with regards to the proposed 2-tier system, i would like to point out once again that with the obsolescence of the Class 2A bikes, especially when the non-super4 models currently available only as second hand disappears, people like me will eventually take Class 2A and not ride any Class 2A bike, and jump to a Class 2 bike from riding a Class 2B bike. This will happen because there are are no other viable Class 2A bikes apart from the super4. tell me then what difference does a class 2A license make at all?

 

you can either:

 

immediately train new riders on 250/400cc bikes and immediately award them the 2A license (and eligible for Class 2 a year later),

 

or:

 

do away with class 2a, keep the existing 2B regulation limits but instead after 1 year of owning Class 2B license enable them to be eligible for Class 2 through lessons and tests.

 

the second method, especially, will render your argument invalid, does it not? particularly when people choose not to ride 2A bikes altogether?

 

 

 

once again, i fail to see the relevance of this point. in what way will my 2-tiered proposal change this situation from the current system? there will always be new 2b riders.

 

and i question your statement regarding 6-8 out of 10 are due to self-skid or loss of control. is this due to hard factual statistics, or your own personal opinion? here i would like to state that last year malaysian TV3 did a road safety campaign for riders, stating that according to statistics two thirds of serious or fatal accidents involving bikes are caused by cars. this is statistical evidence. malaysian riders riding largely honda cubs.

Hi,

 

Well Said, I would like to add a few pointers...

 

To me, the best proposal is..

 

Class 2B - Licensed to ride bikes up to 250cc

Class 2A - Licensed to ride bikes up to 400cc

Class 2 - Licensed to ride bikes 400cc and above

 

From date of passing of Class 2B , 6 months later, s/he is legible to take class 2A.

From date of passing of Class 2A , 1 year later, s/he is legible to take class 2.

 

The horsepower between class 2B and class 2A bikes ain't a heaven and hell comparison, hence they (LTA) should reconsider...

 

As for the class 2A to class 2, they should remain as it is...

 

Regards

"Harley" Hong

[happyrider]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 24 2004, 06:32 PM

with regards to the proposed 2-tier system, i would like to point out once again that with the obsolescence of the Class 2A bikes, especially when the non-super4 models currently available only as second hand disappears, people like me will eventually take Class 2A and not ride any Class 2A bike, and jump to a Class 2 bike from riding a Class 2B bike. This will happen because there are are no other viable Class 2A bikes apart from the super4. tell me then what difference does a class 2A license make at all?

 

you can either:

 

immediately train new riders on 250/400cc bikes and immediately award them the 2A license (and eligible for Class 2 a year later),

 

or:

 

do away with class 2a, keep the existing 2B regulation limits but instead after 1 year of owning Class 2B license enable them to be eligible for Class 2 through lessons and tests.

 

the second method, especially, will render your argument invalid, does it not? particularly when people choose not to ride 2A bikes altogether?

 

 

 

once again, i fail to see the relevance of this point. in what way will my 2-tiered proposal change this situation from the current system? there will always be new 2b riders.

 

and i question your statement regarding 6-8 out of 10 are due to self-skid or loss of control. is this due to hard factual statistics, or your own personal opinion? here i would like to state that last year malaysian TV3 did a road safety campaign for riders, stating that according to statistics two thirds of serious or fatal accidents involving bikes are caused by cars. this is statistical evidence. malaysian riders riding largely honda cubs.

As long as Super4 and other 200-399cc bikes remain in production, meaning that there are new class 2A bikes, the effectiveness of the current 3 tier system remains and the arguement for a revision fails.

 

This will happen because there are are no other viable Class 2A bikes apart from the super4. tell me then what difference does a class 2A license make at all?

 

the difference is ranging from

 

120bhp - 53bhp = 67bhp to 180bhp - 53bhp = 127bhp

 

 

To the govt, its nt always about trying to squeeze every drop of cents from our pockets but they formulate policies based on the local conditions. Much studies had been conducted before the transition from the "1 test take all license" to the current 3 tier system.

 

and i question your statement regarding 6-8 out of 10 are due to self-skid or loss of control. is this due to hard factual statistics, or your own personal opinion? here i would like to state that last year malaysian TV3 did a road safety campaign for riders, stating that according to statistics two thirds of serious or fatal accidents involving bikes are caused by cars. this is statistical evidence. malaysian riders riding largely honda cubs.

 

I do ample of local riding (~4,000km/mth) both on expressways and normal rds to witness these signs on local expressways. The picture on these signs shows self skid or lost of control of the motorbike. And i dun quite get y u bring in statistics from our neighbouring country. Its S'pore we're tokin abt here.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by Harley_Hong@May 24 2004, 05:55 PM

 

To me, the best proposal is..

 

Class 2B - Licensed to ride bikes up to 250cc

Class 2A - Licensed to ride bikes up to 400cc

Class 2 - Licensed to ride bikes 400cc and above

 

From date of passing of Class 2B , 6 months later, s/he is legible to take class 2A.

From date of passing of Class 2A , 1 year later, s/he is legible to take class 2.

 

actually i dun see much difference between your suggestion and the current system, particularly since 250cc and 400cc has an even smaller gap of differences.

[mechwira]

As long as Super4 and other 200-399cc bikes remain in production, meaning that there are new class 2A bikes, the effectiveness of the current 3 tier system remains and the arguement for a revision fails.

 

kindly list out for me all the models of 2A bikes available as new and group them into roadsters, sportsbikes, cruisers and scooters. i would like to say that if with this list you refuse to acknowledge that the 2A category has gone obsolete today, then neither of us has won this point.

 

the difference is ranging from

 

120bhp - 53bhp = 67bhp to 180bhp - 53bhp = 127bhp

 

people who are not keen on super4 will take 2B, ride 2B bike, take 2A, continue riding 2B bike, then take 2 and upgrade from 2B bike into large bike immediately. this WILL happen because the super4 is the only viable 2A bike today, and if a person chooses not to ride the super4, then he will do precisely as i say. do not tell me it will not happen; i am doing this already and i am not alone.

 

so, i ride my 2B bike for 2 plus years; and in the exact middle of this 2 plus years i take 2A lessons and tests, while still riding my 2B bike, then jump to Class 2 bike. dont tell me the difference in bhp; i can do the maths myself, tell me what difference this 2A test makes in terms of my riding experience if i and others like me continue riding 2B bike.

 

To the govt, its nt always about trying to squeeze every drop of cents from our pockets but they formulate policies based on the local conditions. Much studies had been conducted before the transition from the "1 test take all license" to the current 3 tier system.

 

this was from a time when there was a multitude of 2A bikes available. but gone are the days of the RD250 and RD350, the FZR400, the TZR250, the RGV-250R, the ZX4, the GSX400, the CBR400, even the RS250 and all the other class of bikes, sportsbikes or otherwise, in this capacity. when 2A bikes was a real and viable option, then of course the 2A license was viable and valid. but if today only one model of 2A bike remains a viable option, then why should the 2A license remain viable and valid? do not tell me that as long as honda produces the super4 then 2A remains valid; there is no such thing as one option because one option is no option at all.

 

I do ample of local riding (~4,000km/mth) both on expressways and normal rds to witness these signs on local expressways. The picture on these signs shows self skid or lost of control of the motorbike. And i dun quite get y u bring in statistics from our neighbouring country. Its S'pore we're tokin abt here.

 

you make your statement based on your own opinion. i can also do so, and i seriously feel that while riding capability plays a role in bike accidents, treatment of riders on the road by other vehicles plays an equally, if not larger, role in causing these accidents. i am not saying this just to counter your argument; i frimly believe this is so, thus what makes your point more valid than mine? i do ample riding as well. what seperates opinion from fact? statistical or factual evidence. at least i have some to back up my claim. do you have any apart from what you see and feel? and i will flatly disagree if you say that most news articles about serious/fatal bike accidents are due to loss of control, because this is definitely not true.

[mechwira]

at this point, i have a burning question to ask all those who are still agianst the idea of the 2 tier system. first of all, a recap on the 2 proposed types:

 

1) Class 2B exactly as it is now, but do away with 2A and 1 year after 2B, eligible for Class 2 via lessons and tests on 600cc bikes.

 

2)Do away with Class 2B, immediately train new riders on Class 2A thereby awarding them Class 2A, and 1 year later eligible for Class 2 via tests and lessons.

 

personally i like the first option. but anyway, my question is this: do you accept that a person who takes and passes the tests, be it Class 2B, 2A or 2, should and would be deemed to be capable of riding bikes in the said class?

 

if your answer is yes, then:

 

Consider that in option number 1, a rider is still required to take and pass the Class 2 before being allowed on larger bikes. then with this proposal, would it not mean that we are allowing capable riders on larger bikes, as is today?

 

Consider that in option 2, even though you are allowing new riders on 250/400cc bikes on the road, has he not proven himself capable of doing so by passing the test?

 

if your answer is no, then:

 

whats the point of testing then? current system would be equally invalid as proposal, no? you cannot say 'qualified on large bike only if passed 2A test AND proven to ride 2A bike in at least 1 year', because there is no real way of enforcing this, and this loophole already exists in current system making the argument invalid with regards to the proposal.

[nux_newbie]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 24 2004, 11:01 PM

at this point, i have a burning question to ask all those who are still agianst the idea of the 2 tier system. first of all, a recap on the 2 proposed types:

 

1) Class 2B exactly as it is now, but do away with 2A and 1 year after 2B, eligible for Class 2 via lessons and tests on 600cc bikes.

 

2)Do away with Class 2B, immediately train new riders on Class 2A thereby awarding them Class 2A, and 1 year later eligible for Class 2 via tests and lessons.

 

personally i like the first option. but anyway, my question is this: do you accept that a person who takes and passes the tests, be it Class 2B, 2A or 2, should and would be deemed to be capable of riding bikes in the said class?

 

if your answer is yes, then:

 

Consider that in option number 1, a rider is still required to take and pass the Class 2 before being allowed on larger bikes. then with this proposal, would it not mean that we are allowing capable riders on larger bikes, as is today?

 

Consider that in option 2, even though you are allowing new riders on 250/400cc bikes on the road, has he not proven himself capable of doing so by passing the test?

 

if your answer is no, then:

 

whats the point of testing then? current system would be equally invalid as proposal, no? you cannot say 'qualified on large bike only if passed 2A test AND proven to ride 2A bike in at least 1 year', because there is no real way of enforcing this, and this loophole already exists in current system making the argument invalid with regards to the proposal.

Mechwira, you're on to a good thing, but I do take issue with the way the arguments are presented. I'll just comment on the last post.

 

Firstly - "do you accept that a person who takes and passes the tests, be it Class 2B, 2A or 2, should and would be deemed to be capable of riding bikes in the said class"

 

I don't think this question develops the argument. Both the current system and your proposals rely on tests. If I were to answer NO, it invalidates the current system, as well as your proposals. If I were to answer YES, your proposals stand, but so does the current system. It is also simplistic to reduce the answer to a choice between yes/no, for the answer to this question must surely lie in-between.

 

Secondly - the point about bikes in the class 2A category being 'obsolete', creating the phenomenon of class 2B riders 'waiting out' their 2A probation, taking the class 2 thereafter and jumping 'straightaway' to a Class 2 bike.

 

How does your proposal - "Class 2B exactly as it is now, but do away with 2A and 1 year after 2B, eligible for Class 2 via lessons and tests on 600cc bikes." improve the situation?

 

If the phenomenon of 'waiting out' the Class 2A probation is indeed widespread, this will make it worse. I'm not going to buy a Class 2B bike with this system in place. Why waste the money? Wait one year, take another test, I'll be on a Class 2 bike straight away. So which is worse? Ride Class 2B two years, jump onto a Class 2 bike, or don't ride at all and jump onto a Class 2 bike straightaway (with a one year waiting period, of course...)

[happyrider]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 24 2004, 11:38 PM

kindly list out for me all the models of 2A bikes available as new and group them into roadsters, sportsbikes, cruisers and scooters. i would like to say that if with this list you refuse to acknowledge that the 2A category has gone obsolete today, then neither of us has won this point.

 

 

 

people who are not keen on super4 will take 2B, ride 2B bike, take 2A, continue riding 2B bike, then take 2 and upgrade from 2B bike into large bike immediately. this WILL happen because the super4 is the only viable 2A bike today, and if a person chooses not to ride the super4, then he will do precisely as i say. do not tell me it will not happen; i am doing this already and i am not alone.

 

so, i ride my 2B bike for 2 plus years; and in the exact middle of this 2 plus years i take 2A lessons and tests, while still riding my 2B bike, then jump to Class 2 bike. dont tell me the difference in bhp; i can do the maths myself, tell me what difference this 2A test makes in terms of my riding experience if i and others like me continue riding 2B bike.

 

 

 

this was from a time when there was a multitude of 2A bikes available. but gone are the days of the RD250 and RD350, the FZR400, the TZR250, the RGV-250R, the ZX4, the GSX400, the CBR400, even the RS250 and all the other class of bikes, sportsbikes or otherwise, in this capacity. when 2A bikes was a real and viable option, then of course the 2A license was viable and valid. but if today only one model of 2A bike remains a viable option, then why should the 2A license remain viable and valid? do not tell me that as long as honda produces the super4 then 2A remains valid; there is no such thing as one option because one option is no option at all.

 

 

 

you make your statement based on your own opinion. i can also do so, and i seriously feel that while riding capability plays a role in bike accidents, treatment of riders on the road by other vehicles plays an equally, if not larger, role in causing these accidents. i am not saying this just to counter your argument; i frimly believe this is so, thus what makes your point more valid than mine? i do ample riding as well. what seperates opinion from fact? statistical or factual evidence. at least i have some to back up my claim. do you have any apart from what you see and feel? and i will flatly disagree if you say that most news articles about serious/fatal bike accidents are due to loss of control, because this is definitely not true.

the whole point of getting riders to go thru 3 stages of testing before obtaining the open class license (Class2) is to ensure that the steps in which riders have to take to upgrade is gradual and manageable. I would say that few actually exploits the loophole of nt having to actually ride a 2B or 2A bike during the probation period and straight away hope onto a class 2 machine. For the benefit of the vast majority, the system actually allows the riders to slowly adapt to more powerful machines, 1 yr at a time. This i strongly feel, greatly lowers the chances of riders getting into accidents due to ability to control their machines.

 

kindly list out for me all the models of 2A bikes available as new and group them into roadsters, sportsbikes, cruisers and scooters. i would like to say that if with this list you refuse to acknowledge that the 2A category has gone obsolete today, then neither of us has won this point.

 

 

U cannot deny that there are still new class 2A machines out there in the mkt though i agree the choices are rather limited. Even if it is forced down our throats that we haf to go thru the very limited choices of class 2A bikes, i would feel that its still reasonably justified, simply becos of concerns whether riders are able or nt to control their more powerful machines the moment they get their new upgraded licenses.

 

Furthermore, the more tests a rider has to go thru to obtain a class 2 license in order to ride their dream machines, the more they would value their licenses and tend not to do anything rash that might jeopardise their hard-earned class 2 license. Didn't u ever hear before more exp riders and drivers even advising new riders and drivers alike to value their hard-earned licenses? This, i consider an effective deterence for any rash acts likely to be committed by riders.

 

 

you make your statement based on your own opinion. i can also do so, and i seriously feel that while riding capability plays a role in bike accidents, treatment of riders on the road by other vehicles plays an equally, if not larger, role in causing these accidents. i am not saying this just to counter your argument; i frimly believe this is so, thus what makes your point more valid than mine? i do ample riding as well. what seperates opinion from fact? statistical or factual evidence. at least i have some to back up my claim. do you have any apart from what you see and feel? and i will flatly disagree if you say that most news articles about serious/fatal bike accidents are due to loss of control, because this is definitely not true.

 

It seems to be that u're hardly paying attention to all these signs on the roads. Yes, i nv say that my arguement is based on hard facts. But these signs that are put up on the expressways do nt get errected by themselves. They do speak for themselves that the inability to control their bikes remain as 1 of the vital reasons for riders getting into accidents. And pls, do nt get emotional and get defensive saying the media always distorts the truth and reports riders always get into self-accidents due to inability to control their bikes. There's a chinese saying...Wu2 Feng1 Bu4 Qi3 Lang4...

[mechwira]

Firstly - "do you accept that a person who takes and passes the tests, be it Class 2B, 2A or 2, should and would be deemed to be capable of riding bikes in the said class"

 

I don't think this question develops the argument. Both the current system and your proposals rely on tests. If I were to answer NO, it invalidates the current system, as well as your proposals. If I were to answer YES, your proposals stand, but so does the current system. It is also simplistic to reduce the answer to a choice between yes/no, for the answer to this question must surely lie in-between.

 

the point i am trying to bring across is that since both my proposal and the current systems have tests in place to ensure only capable riders are allowed on roads with larger bikes, then one cannot say that my proposal is any less safe, based on one less test. the tests are there. i am trying to bring across the idea that the 2 tiered system does not reduce safety simply because both involve tests.

 

Secondly - the point about bikes in the class 2A category being 'obsolete', creating the phenomenon of class 2B riders 'waiting out' their 2A probation, taking the class 2 thereafter and jumping 'straightaway' to a Class 2 bike.

 

How does your proposal - "Class 2B exactly as it is now, but do away with 2A and 1 year after 2B, eligible for Class 2 via lessons and tests on 600cc bikes." improve the situation?

 

the current trend of bikes are such that globally, 600cc is the lowest available capacity of bikes while southeast asian markets such as ours receive thai made 600cc bike. unfortunately, with the current system, to execute this jump, it involves 2 plus years of waiting period, including time and money spent in between of these 2 years for lessons of no real benefit because i and others like me do not ride a 2A bike in the interim. my proposal eliminates this wastage of time and money.

 

If the phenomenon of 'waiting out' the Class 2A probation is indeed widespread, this will make it worse. I'm not going to buy a Class 2B bike with this system in place. Why waste the money? Wait one year, take another test, I'll be on a Class 2 bike straight away. So which is worse? Ride Class 2B two years, jump onto a Class 2 bike, or don't ride at all and jump onto a Class 2 bike straightaway (with a one year waiting period, of course...)

 

if i suggest that in my proposal, the waiting period after Class 2B to take Class 2 is increased to 2 years, thereby saving time and money by eliminating the need to take Class 2A in between, while still ensuring a minimum 2 year probational period, will you then agree that my idea is workable?

 

if yes, then i have yet another counter proposal: exactly same as now, with all 3 classes, but now 2 years after obtaining Class 2B, a rider is elgible to go for Class 2 without having the need to have obtained Class 2A. therefore 2A becomes optional, purely for those wanting to own super4. ppl who are interested solely in super4 are not affected whatsoever, and people interested in skipping 250/400cc save time and money.

 

see, i strongly feel the need for change due to the obsolescence of 2A bikes. at the same time, i fully agree that one should not make any changes at the expense of safety. so, either tell me why my reasons for change are not valid, or tell me why my proposals reduce safety, and i will be genuinely interested in coming to a compromise. dont keep telling me no good not safe no good not safe; tell me why.

[mechwira]

the whole point of getting riders to go thru 3 stages of testing before obtaining the open class license (Class2) is to ensure that the steps in which riders have to take to upgrade is gradual and manageable. I would say that few actually exploits the loophole of nt having to actually ride a 2B or 2A bike during the probation period and straight away hope onto a class 2 machine. For the benefit of the vast majority, the system actually allows the riders to slowly adapt to more powerful machines, 1 yr at a time. This i strongly feel, greatly lowers the chances of riders getting into accidents due to ability to control their machines.

 

U cannot deny that there are still new class 2A machines out there in the mkt though i agree the choices are rather limited. Even if it is forced down our throats that we haf to go thru the very limited choices of class 2A bikes, i would feel that its still reasonably justified, simply becos of concerns whether riders are able or nt to control their more powerful machines the moment they get their new upgraded licenses.

 

clearly neither of us will win this point because i will not acknowledge that 2A bikes still is, and will remain, a viable option; and i cannot convince you that 2A bikes are obsolete and riders will no longer ride 2A bikes, thereby rendering this 'gradual and manageable' upgrade into something that is no longer real.

 

Furthermore, the more tests a rider has to go thru to obtain a class 2 license in order to ride their dream machines, the more they would value their licenses and tend not to do anything rash that might jeopardise their hard-earned class 2 license. Didn't u ever hear before more exp riders and drivers even advising new riders and drivers alike to value their hard-earned licenses? This, i consider an effective deterence for any rash acts likely to be committed by riders.

 

i only partially agree. a person who values his license actually values the riding experience, not the effort taken to get the license. a person who gets his license revoked feels the most pain not due to the waste of effort at getting the license, but due to being denied to ride his bike. but thats just my opinion.

 

It seems to be that u're hardly paying attention to all these signs on the roads. Yes, i nv say that my arguement is based on hard facts. But these signs that are put up on the expressways do nt get errected by themselves. They do speak for themselves that the inability to control their bikes remain as 1 of the vital reasons for riders getting into accidents. And pls, do nt get emotional and get defensive saying the media always distorts the truth and reports riders always get into self-accidents due to inability to control their bikes. There's a chinese saying...Wu2 Feng1 Bu4 Qi3 Lang4...

 

first of all, i have no idea what these signs are that you are talking about. at first i had the imression that you were talking about how you see young riders weave in and out of traffic, and seeing first hand riders losing control of their bikes. but it seems in this post you are talking about actual physical traffic signboards. which signs? 'motorcycles keep left unless overtaking'? or the picture of the biker in white half faced helmet fully strapped with fluorescent vest smiling on his bike? what do they have got to do with causes of bike accidents?

 

and to clarify a misunderstanding, i did not mean to imply that the media distorts the truth. what i meant was that in media reports there are many cases of serious/fatal bike accidents caused by errant drivers, and therefore you cannot point to media reports to back up the claim that loss of control is the number 1 killer.

[kenken]

i dun think they even care if 2a bikes goes totally out of production. it'll still remain capped at 400cc. more newbies dead on e road. sg is a city unlike rural areas in foreign countries. where u need bigger cc bikes to travel longer distance. u ride smaller bike there's no way u can go faster so fatal accident rate is maintained at a certain level.

 

u think they'll let u ride bigger bikes in a shorter time just bcos 2a bikes go out of production? compromising accident rate to availability. if ppl really knows how to think why is e accident rate still going up? any fella who gets his hands on a new bike will think of testing e bike's limit. humans never learn from history. they oni learn it e hard way, when they get into e situation themselves.

 

u're suggesting something u think is correct. but will u ever feel anything when more ppl die on e road bcos wat u propose comes true? u'll just push away e blame saying they dunno how to think.

 

these category is setup to let riders get more experience, like a baby learning to walk slowly. look back. in e past its e same as cars. u pass one time u can ride any cc. e.g. if u try to loosen up this cap closed tightly to keep e water in(equivalent to accidents) they put on even by abit it'll surely result in more water spilling out, meaning more accidents.

 

i will never support this idea just bcos i want to be able to ride a bigger cc bike w/o paying. i would rather pay n go through e test. to be sure i can handle tat machine. waiting 2yrs to get an any category bike is worth it. it gives mi more time to consider settling for smaller cc bikes for good. in e end i save more $$$ as its cheaper to get a bike 400cc or below. just think abt e max speed limit in sg. do u really need anything more than 400cc? a 200cc bike cannot go faster than 90km/hr, which is e speed limit? unless u want to use it for overseas tour. even for tat a 400cc bike is enuff.

 

ppl from jb or even further who come here to work rides a cup kia. i should be more satisfied wif my machine already. so why loosen e cap to allow those who wants to speed get their way? to let them die faster? or to let them kena license suspended faster?

[mechwira]

i dun think they even care if 2a bikes goes totally out of production. it'll still remain capped at 400cc. more newbies dead on e road. sg is a city unlike rural areas in foreign countries. where u need bigger cc bikes to travel longer distance. u ride smaller bike there's no way u can go faster so fatal accident rate is maintained at a certain level.

 

u think they'll let u ride bigger bikes in a shorter time just bcos 2a bikes go out of production? compromising accident rate to availability. if ppl really knows how to think why is e accident rate still going up? any fella who gets his hands on a new bike will think of testing e bike's limit. humans never learn from history. they oni learn it e hard way, when they get into e situation themselves.

 

 

when a person adopts the attitude 'nothing i do or say can change anything', then others say singaporeans are a resigned lot, apathetic, 'bochap', not passionate, not creative and all those crap. then when a person speaks out, you scoff at him for trying to change something that will not happen. if u adopt the attitude that nothing can be changed, then why enter into any discussion at all? you want to adopt that attitude, fine, but don't go and shoot people who feel strongly for change based on this attitude of yours. disagreeing with a person, and telling him nothing can be changed, are two different things.

 

furthermore, singapore is not the only urban city area. other countries have congested cities too, even more congested than ours; london and tokyo being prime examples. its not all wide open spaces. the people awarded riding licenses to ride in these wide open spaces are the same ppl who also ride into the congested city areas.

 

and i still dont understand why the point about irresponsible riders is being brought up. irresponsible riders will exist both in the current system as well as my proposal. then why keep using the point to argue?

 

u're suggesting something u think is correct. but will u ever feel anything when more ppl die on e road bcos wat u propose comes true? u'll just push away e blame saying they dunno how to think.

 

excuse me, i do not see the need to take the moral high ground and argue using guilt as a tool.

 

i will never support this idea just bcos i want to be able to ride a bigger cc bike w/o paying. i would rather pay n go through e test. to be sure i can handle tat machine. waiting 2yrs to get an any category bike is worth it. it gives mi more time to consider settling for smaller cc bikes for good. in e end i save more $$$ as its cheaper to get a bike 400cc or below. just think abt e max speed limit in sg. do u really need anything more than 400cc? a 200cc bike cannot go faster than 90km/hr, which is e speed limit? unless u want to use it for overseas tour. even for tat a 400cc bike is enuff.

 

ppl from jb or even further who come here to work rides a cup kia. i should be more satisfied wif my machine already. so why loosen e cap to allow those who wants to speed get their way? to let them die faster? or to let them kena license suspended faster?

 

firstly, nobody has yet convincingly explained to me how a person benefits (in terms of riding ability) if he takes class 2A without riding Class 2A bike, and upgrade to Class 2 bike immediately from Class 2B. as i said many times before, this is the current trend, and will increase in future because non-super4 models will completely disappear.

 

secondly, if you are talking about choice of bikes, you have no right whatsoever to tell a person which bike he should and should not ride. that is my right and my choice, and i believe no other rider in this forum will stand up and say other riders should be told that they should not ride anything larger than 200cc.

[mechwira]

to recap, this is my very latest proposal:

 

keep the current 3 tiered system, BUT after 2 years of obtaining Class 2B, a rider becomes eligible to take Class 2 without habving obtained Class 2A beforehand. the class 2A license is still available 1 year after 2B, but is now optional.

 

a person who wishes to upgrade to Class 2 bike immediately from 2A will not face the hassle of spending time and money by taking Class 2A in between.

 

furthermore, a person who owns a class 2B license and rides a class 2B bike for 2 years and then decides he is financially ready for a Class 2 bike will not need to first take 2A, wait yet another year while still riding 2B, and then take Class 2 before purchasing his new bike.

 

if you want to argue a point, please do so based on how the difference between my proposal and current system gives rise to your point. this proposal is very, very similar to the current system, while making it convenient for people bypassing 2A. as i said, this is a real trend that will increase in future based on the current production trends of bikes, which is a phenomenon you cannot reverse.

 

having said thus, i must admit that if tomorrow 2A bikes suddenly become popular globally and we suddenly see new CBR400RR, GSX-400R, ZX-4R, YZF R4, and cruisers like VTX400, roadsters like Z-400 and Fazer4; then i will honestly stand down from my proposal because 2A will become a viable option again. but if this is unlikely, as it is now, then my proposal stands.

 

all in favour say aye.

[william_liu]

My humble proposal:

 

1) A person may choose to take Class 2B, Class 2A or Class 2 from the begining. They will have to complete the full (circuit + road) test with the respective class of bike they have chosen. Of course testing requirements may be more stringent for Class 2A and Class 2 as deemed necessary.

 

2) A person has who has taken Class 2B and now wishes to upgrade, he may do so subject to the following:

 

- If he is upgrading to Class 2A, he need only to take a modified (circuit only) test, provided a minimum period of 1 year has passed since obtaining his Class 2B.

- If he is upgrading to Class 2, he need only to take a modified (circuit only) test, provided a minimum period of 2 years has passed since obtaining his Class 2B.

 

If the minimum period of time requirement has not been met, the person will have to take the respective full (circuit + road) test to demonstrate his competency.

 

3) A person has who has taken Class 2A and now wishes to upgrade, he may do so subject to the following:

 

- If he is upgrading to Class 2, he need only to take a modified (circuit only) test, provided a minimum period of 1 year has passed since obtaining his Class 2A.

 

If the minimum period of time requirement has not been met, the person will have to take the full (circuit + road) test to demonstrate his competency.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by william_liu@May 25 2004, 04:25 PM

My humble proposal:

 

1) A person may choose to take Class 2B, Class 2A or Class 2 from the begining. They will have to complete the full (circuit + road) test with the respective class of bike they have chosen. Of course testing requirements may be more stringent for Class 2A and Class 2 as deemed necessary.

 

2) A person has who has taken Class 2B and now wishes to upgrade, he may do so subject to the following:

 

- If he is upgrading to Class 2A, he need only to take a modified (circuit only) test, provided a minimum period of 1 year has passed since obtaining his Class 2B.

- If he is upgrading to Class 2, he need only to take a modified (circuit only) test, provided a minimum period of 2 years has passed since obtaining his Class 2B.

 

If the minimum period of time requirement has not been met, the person will have to take the respective full (circuit + road) test to demonstrate his competency.

 

3) A person has who has taken Class 2A and now wishes to upgrade, he may do so subject to the following:

 

- If he is upgrading to Class 2, he need only to take a modified (circuit only) test, provided a minimum period of 1 years has passed since obtaining his Class 2A.

 

If the minimum period of time requirement has not been met, the person will have to take the full (circuit + road) test to demonstrate his competency.

 

you have an excellent proposal and i am all for it. unfortunately, the number 1 gripe from people in the forum is that it is not safe for a new rider to immediately jump onto a large capacity bike, even though the new rider has shown himself capable of passing the test on the large bike. hence my latest proposal which includes the current system's prohibitions limiting the allowed capacity for new riders while doing away with the obsolete Class 2A.

 

but i would like to point out a flaw in your proposal. if it is possible to take Class 2A and 2 right from the beginning, then why have 1 and 2 year probational limits upon passing 2B? a person taking 2B will undergo a necessary 2 year probational exactly as now, but he can skip all this probational period by immediately taking Class 2 from the start?

 

from the counter-arguments laid out against me, i concede that it is indeed necessary to limit the capacity for new riders. however, i stand firm in my belief that Class 2A is no longer a viable option, and while it may be necessary to limit new riders to the current Class 2B, the next limit on Class 2A no longer serves its purpose, and is more of an unnecessary hassle than a means to ensure 'gradual upgrading process'.