Revision of Class 2 license system

[william_liu]

Hi mech,

 

The 1 year and 2 years minimum periods are to prevent people from abusing the system, for example: Class 2B is easier to pass, so I just take Class 2B then get auto/easy upgrade to Class 2A or 2.

 

At the same time, the minimum periods will give an advantage to people who took Class 2B from the start and after riding for some time, wishes to upgrade. The proposed system will take into account their riding experience and permit them to take a simplified test (circuit only perhaps), saving time, effort and money.

 

I believe not everyone needs or wants a Class 2A or Class 2, therefore they can decide which class of license they want from the start. And as stated the proposed 'full testing' for Class 2A and Class 2 will be even more stringent than what we currently have. (Class 2 being the most difficult)

 

If they can pass this complete and difficult circuit and road test on a Class 2A or 2 bike, then I personally don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed on the roads. After all, there are already currently a large number of Class 2B riders getting into big trouble and even losing their lives on Class 2B bikes.

[kenken]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 25 2004, 10:17 AM

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.

i'm not trying to shoot or flame ppl here. just being straightforward. maybe my words r too harsh to make u think tat way?

 

this new idea is good i must say. but oni wif some modifications to cover e loopholes would be better. instead of just parking ur license at home u need to have 2 yrs of riding experience, n not 2 yrs of holding e license to jump straight to class 2. however those who chose to take e regular way need not have any riding experience. cos there might be ppl who just want e license n dun want to ride.

 

its fair to all, as it protects e big cc riders cos they at least have 2yrs of riding experience, saves them $$$ too. e authorities might just approve this one cos its just adding another option. at e same time it oso protects e riders n other rd users cos ppl dun just jump onto a class 2 bike without any riding experience.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by kenken@May 25 2004, 06:06 PM

i'm not trying to shoot or flame ppl here. just being straightforward. maybe my words r too harsh to make u think tat way?

 

this new idea is good i must say. but oni wif some modifications to cover e loopholes would be better. instead of just parking ur license at home u need to have 2 yrs of riding experience, n not 2 yrs of holding e license to jump straight to class 2. however those who chose to take e regular way need not have any riding experience. cos there might be ppl who just want e license n dun want to ride.

 

its fair to all, as it protects e big cc riders cos they at least have 2yrs of riding experience, saves them $$$ too. e authorities might just approve this one cos its just adding another option. at e same time it oso protects e riders n other rd users cos ppl dun just jump onto a class 2 bike without any riding experience.

wow hey some form of consensus can be reached after all. its a good start.

 

regarding the loophole, yes i admit it exists. but my point all along is that this loophole exists in an exact similar way with the current system. i am not saying the loophole does not exist, nor am i saying the loophole is unimportant; i am asking why this loophole is so important as a measure against my proposal if it also exists in the current system?

 

i have no problems if you say this loophole needs to be plugged. i am all for it. but bear in mind that any practical solution becomes applicable to the current system as well. meaning, this loophole is a separate issue altogether, applicable to both the current system as well as my proposal.

 

but is there any real solution to this loophole? personally i cannot think of any. i only ask that this lack of solution not be used as a reason to shoot down my proposal, because if you cant plug it in my proposal, then neither can you plug it in the current system. with regards to the loophole, my proposal does not improve from the current system, but neither does it worsen the situation, because they are both the same.

[mechwira]

hi william

 

At the same time, the minimum periods will give an advantage to people who took Class 2B from the start and after riding for some time, wishes to upgrade. The proposed system will take into account their riding experience and permit them to take a simplified test (circuit only perhaps), saving time, effort and money.

 

I believe not everyone needs or wants a Class 2A or Class 2, therefore they can decide which class of license they want from the start. And as stated the proposed 'full testing' for Class 2A and Class 2 will be even more stringent than what we currently have. (Class 2 being the most difficult)

 

i'd like to explain why i think there is a flaw. as you mentioned, your proposal makes it possible to take Class 2A and Class 2 from the start. But a person who takes Class 2B is eligible for Class 2 only 2 years after passing.

 

consider 2 people, A and B. both are completely new riders with intentions to take a motorcycling license, both with the ultimate goal of riding a liter class bike as soon as possible. A is not financially capable of owning a class 2 bike yet, so he decides to take 2B and ride 2B bike while saving up.

 

B is already financially capable, so he immediately takes Class 2 from the start and immediately rides a liter class bike. now lets say 6 months later A strikes 4D or something. he can now afford to own a liter class bike, but unfortunately due to his Class 2B prohibitions, he can only do so 1 and a half years later, unlike his friend B who is already on a class 2 bike without having ridden a 2B bike at all. i do not see how A with his 2B has been more advantageous than B who took class 2 from the start.

 

faced with this situation, nobody will consider taking Class 2B at all. regardless of intention to ride 2B bike or not, everyone will take Class 2 immediately from the start for convenience.

 

If they can pass this complete and difficult circuit and road test on a Class 2A or 2 bike, then I personally don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed on the roads. After all, there are already currently a large number of Class 2B riders getting into big trouble and even losing their lives on Class 2B bikes.

 

i completely agree. in fact, i had already brought up this point earlier. yet at the same time, i fully understand the opinion that it is less safe to allow completely new riders on large capacity bikes. i think we have no choice but to find a compromise to reconcile both sides of this argument.

[william_liu]

Hi mech,

 

Regarding your point, I quote:

 

i'd like to explain why i think there is a flaw. as you mentioned, your proposal makes it possible to take Class 2A and Class 2 from the start. But a person who takes Class 2B is eligible for Class 2 only 2 years after passing.

 

consider 2 people, A and B. both are completely new riders with intentions to take a motorcycling license, both with the ultimate goal of riding a liter class bike as soon as possible. A is not financially capable of owning a class 2 bike yet, so he decides to take 2B and ride 2B bike while saving up.

 

B is already financially capable, so he immediately takes Class 2 from the start and immediately rides a liter class bike. now lets say 6 months later A strikes 4D or something. he can now afford to own a liter class bike, but unfortunately due to his Class 2B prohibitions, he can only do so 1 and a half years later, unlike his friend B who is already on a class 2 bike without having ridden a 2B bike at all. i do not see how A with his 2B has been more advantageous than B who took class 2 from the start.

 

faced with this situation, nobody will consider taking Class 2B at all. regardless of intention to ride 2B bike or not, everyone will take Class 2 immediately from the start for convenience.

 

I forgot to add to add that under my proposal, there is no prohibition for a Class 2B holder to take Class 2A or Class 2 if he has not met the minimum requirement, it just mean he has to take the "full test", and not entitled to the comparitively cheaper and less time-consuming "simple test".

 

Using your example, Rider A struck 4D, he can immediately start on his Class 2 lessons, but have to undergo the full testing applicable (as if he was a new learner).

[rhema83]

The point is, in a democratic society like Singapore, it is very difficult to plug that loophole effectively. How are you going to ensure that a person rides a 2B bike for one year before taking class 2A? You cannot.

 

I feel that the the probation period for the lower capacity class should stay before one can take the open class. That should satisfy those who think that a probation can make the upgrade more gradual. However it is undeniable that class 2A does not do much in helping a person upgrade to class 2. In fact, the CB750 and Hornet 600 are deemed by many riders to be easier to control than the CB400SF. If a rider is allowed to train with a large capacity bike one year after he obtain his license, he should be able to control a class 2 bike as well as one that goes through the current system.

 

Just a thought. There will be different opinions. But what we need are constructive suggestions and not opinions that dampens our thinking spirits here.

 

I welcome any suggestions or improvements to our proposals. For me, I will stick to the 2-tier system with one year probation after the lower capacity license.

 

BTW mechwira and william_liu, I am very encouraged by your discussion over the last few posts. Keep it going man!

[william_liu]

Originally posted by mechwira@May 25 2004, 09:02 PM

 

 

i completely agree. in fact, i had already brought up this point earlier. yet at the same time, i fully understand the opinion that it is less safe to allow completely new riders on large capacity bikes. i think we have no choice but to find a compromise to reconcile both sides of this argument.

 

Dear mech,

 

On this point, I'll like to think that the "full test" for Class 2 should be designed in a very stringent and comprehensive way (including a riders' mentiality test perhaps) to weed out thrill-seekers looking for a short-cut for access to the fast bikes.

 

Thus, under my proposal, riders may choose to take the 'traditional' route of Class 2B -> (after 1 year) easier class 2A -> (after 1 year) easier Class 2. This way helps them get onto the road eariler and gain valuable road experience.

 

OR

 

Take the 'short-cut' alternative route if they feel that they are mature and skillful enough to bypass the tedious 3 years.

[mechwira]

william, i get what you mean now, and i think its fair. the only question that remains is whether the people who insist 'new riders cannot get on big bikes through any means whatsoever' can accept that a much more strigent test will deem the rider as capable. i'm not the one who needs convincing though; i have from the start held the belief that the capcity of the bike holds little relation to bike accidents, and that if a person passes Class 2, whether or not he has prior riding experience, he should be deemed capable of riding Class 2.

 

no offence, but i kind of like my latest proposal better because i think it is a simpler change to execute than yours. i am not saying yours is not workable though.

 

thanx.

[mechwira]

hey anyone has any idea who to write to? like i said earlier, i am not convinced that traffic police is the place to go. how sure is anyone that LTA is the place to go? i was actually thinking of NMP Mr Steve Chia. but not that i always see him at kopitiam or anything, i donno how to contact him either.

[nux_newbie]

Send it to the ST Forum.

 

I don't recall this topic being brought up ever. If it generates enough interest, the relevant authorities would respond.

[william_liu]

Mech,

 

I've also realised my proposal is indeed a little complex... With a view to keep it simple, I guess the most feasible way would be:

 

1) Follow as your latest revised proposal, class 2B compulsory

 

and maybe

 

2) Raise capacity of class 2A to 600cc (solves the problem of obsolete 400cc bikes)

[TeePeePhobe]

mechwira, I'm just curious what license you hold now and what bike you ride/have ridden? Also, what driving experience do you have?

 

i have from the start held the belief that the capcity of the bike holds little relation to bike accidents

 

how did you come to this conclusion? Perhaps if the person already has big bikes experience and then downgrade this would be true. The typical small bike can be ridden hamfisted, as all small bike riders probably do to wrung out as much power as possible, with little consequences. Ride a peaky bike (400 and 600 sportsbikes) or a mid range monster (anything with >800cc) without good throttle control, discipline and respect, you will get into trouble. Riding a big bike opens a door to problems of control and handling seldom if ever encountered with 2b bikes. Just twitching the throttle on a bumpy road can instantly propel you forward quite a bit. Now twitch that throttle on a fast sweeper

 

, and that if a person passes Class 2, whether or not he has prior riding experience, he should be deemed capable of riding Class 2

Are you refering to passing our current TP test? Joke rite? The circuit cannot even utilise the performance potential of 2b bikes. It only proves that by riding at a fraction of the performace of the bike, not even hitting the powerband, you can chugg the machine around a set of obstacles. Sure, it's now up to the rider to ride smartly and safely, but if so, why do we even need a bike more powerful than a 2b? Power on tap is just plain EVIL, it will make you want to try it out, after all, isn't more power the key reason you have upgraded for bigger engines? If the person is just upgrading to look good on the lastest sexy 1000cc, then there is no problem, go ahead.

 

Without modifying the training methods and test criterions, it is wrong to assume experienced 2b riders can take to a class 2 like duck to water, especially if they are upgrading for more power, without even a hint of what can potentially happen with so much as a twitch of the throttle. Sure, the cars drivers get it, but how responsive are cars, even with WRX and EVOs, compared to bikes? Acceleration figures of the 2 mentioned are roughly on par with 400cc only, with so much more grip and stability inherent of a car. In retrospect, if I were to learn bike again and get to choose, I will think that learning and riding on a 400 will better prepare myself for a class 2 bike than a 2b ever will. The peak 10~20% performance of a 400 will give a hint of what power related troubles to expect in a 1000cc. There is alot more to riding a bike safely than negotiating a circuit at a turtle pace.

[mechwira]

mechwira, I'm just curious what license you hold now and what bike you ride/have ridden? Also, what driving experience do you have?

 

i hold a class 2A. i will be eligible for Class 2 in june. i currently ride a TA150, for about 2 1/2 years now, and never on anything bigger than that, except for my 2A lessons.

 

i am a student right now and therefore not financially capable of upgrading on anything larger than my current bike, not even a super4. however, i do have plans to upgrade when i graduate next year. it is because of my plans to upgrade that i took 2A last year. it is because of what i have done that i have realised the 2A is worth nothing. i could have done without 2A, and immediately take 2 when i am financially ready, without decreasing my capbility because the 2A tag on my card had no real beneficial impact.

 

how did you come to this conclusion? Perhaps if the person already has big bikes experience and then downgrade this would be true. The typical small bike can be ridden hamfisted, as all small bike riders probably do to wrung out as much power as possible, with little consequences. Ride a peaky bike (400 and 600 sportsbikes) or a mid range monster (anything with >800cc) without good throttle control, discipline and respect, you will get into trouble. Riding a big bike opens a door to problems of control and handling seldom if ever encountered with 2b bikes. Just twitching the throttle on a bumpy road can instantly propel you forward quite a bit. Now twitch that throttle on a fast sweeper

 

i cannot say you are completely wrong, nor will i say i am completely correct. i can explain why i feel i am partially correct, but i readily confess that i cannot prove you completely wrong. it is precisely because of these differing views that i have changed my proposals in order to reconcile the two. please clarify if my latest proposal is inadequate in this respect.

 

Are you refering to passing our current TP test? Joke rite? The circuit cannot even utilise the performance potential of 2b bikes. It only proves that by riding at a fraction of the performace of the bike, not even hitting the powerband, you can chugg the machine around a set of obstacles

 

There is alot more to riding a bike safely than negotiating a circuit at a turtle pace.

 

heres the intersting answer. this being so, why have additional 2 tests at all? if u consider the tests inadequate, as you have explained earlier, then why not just hold 2B test and then auto-upgrade without tests in 1 and 2 years time? to reduce demand? then charge people when they auto-upgrade, my 2A cost me at least $300 as it is.

 

i dun see how there can be any 2 ways about it. if u consider our tests inadequate, then do away with it. if you consider our tests adequate, then anyone who passes Class 2 test, regardless of his actual riding experience, should be deemed as capable of riding large bikes.

 

In retrospect, if I were to learn bike again and get to choose, I will think that learning and riding on a 400 will better prepare myself for a class 2 bike than a 2b ever will

 

of course it will. i do not disagree. i am just saying that with today's current trend of bike production, 2A bikes are no longer a viable option. if it was, i wouldn bring up my proposal at all.

 

Sure, it's now up to the rider to ride smartly and safely, but if so, why do we even need a bike more powerful than a 2b?

 

once again, i think we should all refrain from questioning people's choice of what bikes they want to ride.

[TeePeePhobe]

Yes, the current system does not address the issues of power increase, but it does makes it all the more difficult to get that license to open class craziness. I'll bet that IS the intention of the authorities who 1st designed this system, so that anyone who wants it must have enough determination to go through all the waiting and the stupid circuit 3 times, hoping that by the time, the fella will have gained enough experience and sense to know what he's getting into. They just want to make it difficult, costly and time-consuming to eliminate candidates, period.

 

2ndly, I'm not questioning about type of bikes people want to get. What I am pointing out is that the main motivation of getting a big bike is for the power. Quite obviously, you cannot realistically expect the fella to ride like he does in the circuit when he has power of a class 2. A circuit test does little to prepare the fella, but at least 1 yr on a 400 will give a taste what to expect.

 

I'm not trying to shoot you down, just presenting the alternative perspective that the lawmaker will most likely be looking. They do not CARE about the 300 bucks you have to 'waste', or the lack of 400cc machines. They care only about accident stats, however accurate that may be in telling the full story. So unless you can sell it to them so that they'll gain something (ie significantly lower acc rate), I don't see why they'll give a hoot. In addition, I think u should not base your expections of a open class machine on a TA150, I hope I dun sound like I'm suaning you.

[mechwira]

Yes, the current system does not address the issues of power increase, but it does makes it all the more difficult to get that license to open class craziness. I'll bet that IS the intention of the authorities who 1st designed this system, so that anyone who wants it must have enough determination to go through all the waiting and the stupid circuit 3 times, hoping that by the time, the fella will have gained enough experience and sense to know what he's getting into. They just want to make it difficult, costly and time-consuming to eliminate candidates, period.

 

I'm not trying to shoot you down, just presenting the alternative perspective that the lawmaker will most likely be looking. They do not CARE about the 300 bucks you have to 'waste', or the lack of 400cc machines. They care only about accident stats, however accurate that may be in telling the full story. So unless you can sell it to them so that they'll gain something (ie significantly lower acc rate), I don't see why they'll give a hoot.

 

the population of riders is 'controlled' with the 2B. beyond that, whether or not he upgrades, he will still be riding. my proposal will not increase this population from the current system. 2A and 2 does not 'control' this population. therefore, saying that we need to 'eliminate candidates' for 2A and 2 is the same as saying that we should tell riders what bikes they should and should not ride.

 

if you are goint to tell me my proposal is not valid because it makes things more convenient, theres no point in arguing anymore, is there? its just the same as telling me dont bother trying to change anything because the authorities not happy to see me make my life easier. it is precisely because it is difficult, time-consuming and costly, at no real benefit, that i am pushing for a change. if you can show me in what way my proposal will decrease safety, then do so. i am trying to suggest how things can be easier, cost less, and take less time, without compromising safety. i do not believe in 'difficult for the sake of being difficult'.

 

yes, my proposal will not decrease accident stats. but in what way will it increase it? more people will ride Class 2 bikes? exactly what deters a person from riding Class 2: the hassle of getting the license, or financial concerns? make it easier for capable riders (emphasis: capable) to get Class 2 bikes, and the people will still decide whether or not to ride Class 2 based on their financial capabilities.

 

and why worry about more Class 2 riders if they are all capable? it seems you hold the opinion that a person is capable only if he has been riding a 2A bike. but the trend of bypassing 2A is due to production trends, not licensing systems. you cannot eliminate the root source of this trend, and it will increase in future, whether or not you change the system.

 

2ndly, I'm not questioning about type of bikes people want to get. What I am pointing out is that the main motivation of getting a big bike is for the power. Quite obviously, you cannot realistically expect the fella to ride like he does in the circuit when he has power of a class 2. A circuit test does little to prepare the fella, but at least 1 yr on a 400 will give a taste what to expect.

 

as i said earlier, i agree with the point that riding 400cc is beneficial. but 400cc is not a viable option today. its like telling me i should buy cassette tapes rather than CDs because cassette tapes are cheaper and cost $7 but CDs cost $20. my argument is based on the obsolescence of 400cc. if you disagree that 400cc is obsolete today, we cannot continue this argument.

 

In addition, I think u should not base your expections of a open class machine on a TA150, I hope I dun sound like I'm suaning you.

 

i fail to see your point. i have already conceded that i cannot convincingly explain why increased capacity will not decrease safety. there are 2 sides to the coin. i have already revised my proposal because of this. i would like you to show me how my proposal decreases safety, bearing in mind current trends. thats all.

 

i gather that the root source of your opinions is the prejudice against riders who jump onto Class 2 bikes straight from Class 2B bike. you seem to feel that even if they pass Class 2 test, they are still incapable because they have never ridden a 2A bike. as i said, you cannot stop this trend because its source is production patterns.

[obitrok]

ok. maybe a small comment..

 

would you want to see new 2b riders riding an aprilia 250, capable of hitting speeds of 220 and able to reach 100km/h in 4 secs?

 

err no, not really.

 

or a rider who has never sat on a 4 stroke litre class sportbike, make the jump from an nsr150 to a k3 in a day?

 

err.. i wouldnt want to see that either.

 

the current system is in place to educate and allow riders to mature and develop proper riding skills.

[TeePeePhobe]

I urge you to reread again. I have no prejudice against any riders, it does not concern me whether or not new riders can get class 2 faster, I already have mine and I do not derive any joy from the 'exclusivity' of a class 2 license

 

You can believe what you want, but to succeed in changing the lawmaker's mind, the best guarantee is to be able to suggest something to their advantage, which your suggestion currently cannot. I don't think you get it, they WANT to limit motocycles, especially big bikes, that was the whole idea. If they cared about training people to be capable on big bikes, the course will involve a lot more high speed activities, which has obvious responsibility and cost issues for the conductor. So, the way out is to make it tedious to get the biggests and the fastest, and crossing their fingers that you'll learn enough yourself progressively to stay alive.

 

Have you not noticed the bike unfriendly slant of the road safety campaigns? The onus of PROOF is on you to show how your idea can at the least, maintain the status quo in acc rate, which I can tell you, is highly unlikely based on the difference in character of a class 2 vs 2b.

 

I say again, your TA150 cannot be used as a basis of judgement for what bikes like, say, the ZX10 or the R1 can do to you. It's not JUST a faster TA150. Look, for eg, even motoGP riders needed technological help (slipper clutch) to counteract some of the handling quirks of huge engine brake from high compression 4 strokers when compared to their 500cc 2 strokers. Not to say that 500cc 2 stroke was a breeze to ride (quite the opposite), just that the nature of the bikes makes it do things that make it hard to control in some situations if you ride it with the old mentality, do you want to find that out the hard way or progressively?

[mechwira]

would you want to see new 2b riders riding an aprilia 250, capable of hitting speeds of 220 and able to reach 100km/h in 4 secs?

 

i would like to point out that our western counterparts are doing this. 250/400cc bikes are considered 'learner' bikes, whereas 600cc bikes are considered 'entry level' bikes. i have questioned the difference between them and us. the only answer i have received is that they have wide open roads. but i have countered by saying that they have cities too, which are even more congested than us.

 

BUT you do not need to continue arguing this point with me, because i have already conceded that it may be less safe for new riders to jump onto >200cc bikes. my proposal does not encourage this any more than the current system, unless you can show otherwise. emphasis is any more than the current system.

 

or a rider who has never sat on a 4 stroke litre class sportbike, make the jump from an nsr150 to a k3 in a day?

 

err no, not really.

 

the current system is in place to educate and allow riders to mature and develop proper riding skills

 

 

question: do you, or do you not, acknowledge that 2A bikes are obsolete today? the variety of 2A bikes available as new today are drastically less than a decade ago. this is fact. there are no 2A sportsbikes available as new at all today. this is fact. if with these facts you will still not ackowledge that 2A bikes are obsolete, i do not see how we can continue this argument. you are entitled to your opinion of course, but my arguments are based on the idea that 2A bikes are obsolete. if you do not subscribe to this idea, then we cannot continue discussing.

 

this bypassing of the 2A bikes is already happening today, whether or not you want to see it. in the coming years, class 2A sportsbikes will completely disappear even as second hand bikes. then sportsbikes fans will all do exactly as you say you don't want to see. it is already happening today, even with other category of bikes, and in future it will be completely impossibe to stop because of production trends of bikes.

 

if we can agree that 2A license and bikes are obsolete, then there will be a genuine case for phasing out 2A without reducing safety.

[StingRhea]

Since class 3 holders have no restrictions on car capacity they are entitled to drive, why dun we merge 2b and 2a together? if not, maybe shorten the time span till being able to take class 2a, but still being on probation.

[mechwira]

I urge you to reread again. I have no prejudice against any riders, it does not concern me whether or not new riders can get class 2 faster, I already have mine and I do not derive any joy from the 'exclusivity' of a class 2 license

 

if you do not harbour any such prejudice, please explain why you are against 2B riders jumping to Class 2 bikes, bearing in mind the obsolescence of class 2A bikes. please note that i agree that it is beneficial for a rider to get on a 400cc bike, but faced with obsolescence, it is not a viable option today and riders are already bypassing. if possible, i would appreciate relating it to my proposal.

 

You can believe what you want, but to succeed in changing the lawmaker's mind, the best guarantee is to be able to suggest something to their advantage, which your suggestion currently cannot. I don't think you get it, they WANT to limit motocycles, especially big bikes, that was the whole idea....

 

look, if we are all going to adopt the attitude "dun try to change anything because the authorites will not listen to anything, not even constructive suggestions which benefit us, unless it benefits them as well", then we might as well all shut up and dont bother discussing about anything at all. you want to adopt this attitude, fine, but please dont tell others to adopt this attitude as well. at least i am not blowing empty hot air and complaining without offering any real solutions.

 

yes, my proposal might not benefit the authorities, but if it can make things better for us while not making things worse for them, i believe its a valid argument. if you don't believe so, then don't join the discussion, because you are not helping anything. there are others who support a revision of one form or another, give us the respect of letting the authorities themselves tell us to our faces that they will not listen to anything that doesn benefit them, regardless of any good that will come off it. i started this thread with an intention of discussing proposals based on safety issues. i want to hear "it is less safe because....", i dont appreicate hearing "the gahment will not listen at all".

 

The onus of PROOF is on you to show how your idea can at the least, maintain the status quo in acc rate,

 

what the HECK have i been attempting to do these 4 pages worth of threads if not exactly this?

 

I say again, your TA150 cannot be used as a basis of judgement for what bikes like, say, the ZX10 or the R1 can do to you. It's not JUST a faster TA150

 

i dont believe i have ever compared my TA150 to any liter class bike. i have already conceded the dangers of immediately jumping onto liter class bikes, as is evident from my proposal. i am saying that jumping on 600cc or even 1000cc bikes is a real phenomenon happening today based on bike production and is a trend that cannot be stopped or reversed. i propose a way to keep up with this change while not compromising safety.

 

if you have no problems with riders bypassing 2A, what is your point, other than the govt will not listen at all no matter how i argue?

[obitrok]

ok, bottom line is this..

 

the way our gahment see things is that riding is bad (no1 road accident fatalities). they will NEVER make it easier to get a license. the bigger the bike, the more likely you'd wanna speed and speeding, which the gahment also views as the number one killer, and the worst thing u can do on the road. (although its more of poor riding habits/lack of judgement that get ppl into accidents).

 

thus, reviewing the class range so that u will get that bigger bike faster? definitely a no no. Or getting a bigger bike faster for your pleasure, its of no concern to them. does the gahment really care if class2a goes obsolete? (class2a will never be obsolete for that matter of fact, just a lack of sporty options in the end, of which the gahment also wont give a rats ass about).

 

another take at why there is a 3 year stint is that 50% of us probably dont wanna make it pass class 2b. why? because most of us have an eventual target of getting a car. 3 years easily put ppl off. why wait 3 years before i can ride a big bike whereas i only need one license (class3) to drive any sized car i want?

to most, biking is only a fad and the goverment hopes a 3 yr stint results in waning of interest towards riding.

 

hope this makes some sense to you.

[acid]

to quote the original poster :

"i got the idea coz most western countries dun have our system of 3 tiered motorcycle license. even Japan has phased out its old system, causing sportsbikes of 400cc to completely go out of prouction. i heard in australia, its the same system as my first paragraph".

 

it will be difficult convince the gahment to change the current system because there are no new 400cc sportsbikes / roadbikes. 2A also includes 250cc. unless it can be proven that

1) no more 2nd hand 250 / 400 cc bikes in singapore,

2) no more 2nd hand 250 / 400 cc bikes that can be imported from overseas

3) no manufacturer in the whole world will make new 250 / 400 cc bikes.

 

CounterExamples :

1) A GN250 / CB250 (NightHawk) can last for years and years. from the gahment viewpoint, a newly passed 2A biker can always ride a 2nd hand 250cc bike. why has it got to be a 400cc?

2) if japan has changed its system, and 400cc is phased out, then there should lots of 2nd hand 400cc bikes that can be imported into SG.

3) i am not sure about this point. maybe korean manufacturers are making new 250cc bikes like comet250.

 

we can better influence the gahment in other ways. eg, by telling them that bikes can help to reduce traffic congestion. saves time, money and land area. when the gahment becomes more aware to the contributions of bikes, then they will be more open to changing the system.

[TeePeePhobe]

They introduced the system to make it difficult, and now u want to thwart their original intentions, you better have some good bargaining chips, something that will be to their advantage, understand? Acid gives an example of what I mean by suggesting something to their advantage:

we can better influence the gahment in other ways. eg, by telling them that bikes can help to reduce traffic congestion. saves time, money and land area. when the gahment becomes more aware to the contributions of bikes, then they will be more open to changing the system.

[tuapuisai]

Yup, if this was purely an academic discussion, then we can argue based on the merits and demerits of the current licensing system.

 

If its a proposal to change the current system, then its a matter of negotiation, and in negotiations its always a matter of whether you're coming from a position of strength. Unfortunately when negotiating with the authorities, the average citizens' bargaining power is close to ZERO. So we have to make it worth their while to change the current licensing system.

 

I can't speak on behalf of the other forumers who posted, but I suppose it's not so much a matter of disagreeing with your proposal, but rather the approach. The ends justify the means. Time to change tack perhaps...

[mechwira]

perhaps i failed to make it clear from the start that i am interested in an academic discussion first, not a negotiable preposition. surely any negotiable preposition must start with an academic discussion. my main concern was, and still is, safety issues. if i cannot settle the safety concerns first, then any preposition placed in such a manner as to benefit the authorities will eventually be shot down even though they give a listening ear at first, yes?

 

the only pertinent argument left seems to be 'the gahment will not listen'. i think this discussion has run its course. before we go into that, do we or do we not agree that a change can be made without compromising safety? if you dont, then keep arguing based on whether a change is necessary or whether safety is compromised; how can we continue if we do not achieve this consensus at all?

 

for users such as rhema and william (among others), i would be very interested to carry on a discussion based on what would be the best proposal. i would also be very interested if you or anyone else feels seriously about finding a channel and bringing it up together. for those who continue to have opinions regarding the authorities' listening ear, please do carry on posting if you genuinely feel the need for change and are genuinely interested in establishing a proper negotiating preposition. if you are gonna argue because you want me to know that i shouldn bother, you can do so of coz but i will not personally reply to your post.

 

as it stands, i do not see any fresh arguments against the need for change, or against the safety considerations. i will gladly entertain fresh and valid arguments. but as it stands, i think the discussion should carry on only for supporters for change at finding the best proposal and how to bring it up credibly.

 

dont misunderstand; i am not against opponents for change, i just think what you say needs to be constructive.