Revision of Class 2 license system

[X-ilED]

ok. hope i dun come in and get flamed ah. wat i personally feel is that bringing up the 2a limit to 600cc would be good enough to safisfy most of the people in this arguement. there was an earlier suggesting the same thing too.

 

the reason i can think of is that a 600cc bike would satisfy alot of local bikers. we must have heard of ppl taking class 2 but going for a 600cc bike reason being more economical.

 

so in a sense, this kinda kills 2 birds wif one stone. mechwira's pt about 2a being obsolete would not be applicable if the 2a limit was raised.... and if for some reason, lets jus say "if", the govt really wants to curb the no of bikers on big bikes, then a 2a allowing 600cc bikes would do the trick.

 

people contended with a 600cc bike at hand= less likely to upgrade or maybe upgrade at a later stage.

 

driving centres then is then strictly to use only 400cc bikes for training. this would bridge the gap for the 600cc limit.

 

well this is jus my pt of view lar. hope i didn't offend anyone ah..

[mechwira]

ok. hope i dun come in and get flamed ah. wat i personally feel is that bringing up the 2a limit to 600cc would be good enough to safisfy most of the people in this arguement. there was an earlier suggesting the same thing too.

 

the reason i can think of is that a 600cc bike would satisfy alot of local bikers. we must have heard of ppl taking class 2 but going for a 600cc bike reason being more economical.

 

so in a sense, this kinda kills 2 birds wif one stone. mechwira's pt about 2a being obsolete would not be applicable if the 2a limit was raised.... and if for some reason, lets jus say "if", the govt really wants to curb the no of bikers on big bikes, then a 2a allowing 600cc bikes would do the trick.

 

actually i agree. if we must insist that a 2A bypasser simply cannot get on a liter class bike straight from 2B, then we must find a viable capacity in between. 600cc is definitely a viable option. raising the 2A limit to 600cc would once again make 2A a real option, and ppl will once again consider an interim bike before taking the liter class. its all about whether people are given a real option or not.

 

in fact, after further consideration, i think this might actually increase safety. like i said, the bypassing trend cannot be avoided. but this method might possibly curb direct 2B to liter class and once again encourage gradual upgrade via 600cc.

 

i know earlier i disagreed with raising the 2A limit to 600cc because i said the next jump from 600cc to 1000cc is not significantly different enough to warrant yet another class. i'd like to explain. for an experienced rider on a 600cc, i felt that he might not agree he needs to go yet another round of tests to jump to liter class. but if we feel that a much greater concern is on the 2B jump to liter class, then this is definitely the way to go. and perhaps the experienced rider i mentioned might also not have a case because in both current system and revised system, he would still be taking total 3 sets of tests to finally obtain class 2. hence, this type of change does not in actuality bring more inconvenience, which i think we should also avoid. we should not make one group of people convenient at the expense of another group, that would be pointless.

 

but we have to note that with this proposal, centers will now have to purchase 750/1000cc bikes as training bikes to meet Class 2, because the current 600cc bikes for class 2 would have been a capacity for class 2A. they will still have to get rid of either their 250/400, or their 600, else give trainees choice which they prefer, the same way class 2 trainees choose between 600cc or bigger in some centers. we'll need to discuss which of these is wisest.

 

so, we have:

 

1) optional 2A

2)class 2B and eligible for class 2 a year later

3)increase 2A to 600cc

[mechwira]

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

 

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.

 

i dun think we are in the business of importing 2nd hand vehicles, but sure, we can do that. but banking on 2nd hand models is just delaying the inevitable. they will eventually disappear, won't they?

 

exactly when do we consider a product obsolete? when did you first purchase a music cd or music cd player, be it a discman or home entertainment system? did you wait for cassete tapes and cassette tape players to go completely out of production?

 

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

 

i do not know how else to show this other than pointing out that even the very last 2A sportsbike in the world, the aprilia rs250, has just gone out of production within the past year.

 

sure, the super4 is likely to be around for a long time afterwards. but do riders have a real option? they are already bypassing, which means the purpose of the 2A license has failed. thats the point.

[acid]

trying to get the gahment to change the system is like trying to ask your manager for budget to buy a new machine. they will say " give me 10 good reasons", or "why can't we recycle, re-use, modify existing machine".

 

i have a suggestion that might just get the gahment to listen. 2-strokes bikes causes environmental and noise pollutions that results in health problems. and health problems will be a burden to the country's finances.

 

lately, they are experimenting with environmental friendly fuels to replace diesel. so now might be a good time to advance this proposal.

 

my proposal is to phase out 2 strokers and raise the 2B limit to 250cc. why raise to 250cc? because 2B 4 strokers are have limited power. and 250cc is not that powerful. if we can have cbx200 and ta200, we can surely handle an extra 50cc.

 

here's the crux. once 2B becomes 250cc, then it makes little sense to limit 2A to 400cc. we can argue that japan and other countries is phasing out 400cc, so it will make more sense for 2A limit to be raised to 600cc. class 2 will be > 600cc.

 

even if the gahment agree to this proposal, they may still add in other conditions. eg rider must be X years old, hold 2B for Y years first, etc. yes, it will be troublesome and some people will definitely be sidelined, but then we have achieved our goal of getting 2A to be 600cc.

[william_liu]

So perhaps the focus of the proposal to the authories should change to become a revision of the respective class limit:

 

Class 2B - below 250cc

Class 2A - below 600cc

Class 2 - 601cc and above

 

I think this may be workable, just like the 30% tinted visor case where a rider pointed out that cars are allowed to have a 30% tinted windows.

 

We can draw parallels of fresh "P" plate drivers having access to exotic and powerful cars like WRXs or even sportscars like a Ferrari/Porsche/etc, compared to our not so unreasonable request to raise the capacity by 50cc and 200cc respectively.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by acid@May 27 2004, 04:17 PM

my proposal is to phase out 2 strokers and raise the 2B limit to 250cc. why raise to 250cc? because 2B 4 strokers are have limited power. and 250cc is not that powerful. if we can have cbx200 and ta200, we can surely handle an extra 50cc.

 

here's the crux. once 2B becomes 250cc, then it makes little sense to limit 2A to 400cc. we can argue that japan and other countries is phasing out 400cc, so it will make more sense for 2A limit to be raised to 600cc. class 2 will be > 600cc.

 

even if the gahment agree to this proposal, they may still add in other conditions. eg rider must be X years old, hold 2B for Y years first, etc. yes, it will be troublesome and some people will definitely be sidelined, but then we have achieved our goal of getting 2A to be 600cc.

it makes sense for upgraders and yes our goal will be achieved. but wont a complete ban on 2 strokers create hell and chaos in the 2B market? doing this will create a great upcry from SEA jap manufacturers such as thai honda and m'sia yamaha coz it will have a devastating impact on their trade. this time it will affect a major trade industry.

 

and local riders too will raise an outcry coz it will seriouly cut down many models of 2B bikes such as RXZ and a majority of sportsbikes. 2-strokers are definitely on their way out, i'll admit, but for 2B bikes they are nowhere near the level of obsolescence of the 250/400cc bikes.

 

we'll need to first figure out how to do this without resulting in the catastrophe i've described. ideas?

 

and another problem. by arguing on the side of pollution, the solution would be to ban 2-strokers and doing so has little follow-up towards raising 2A to 250cc. you have argued the point about raising 2A to 250cc based on the little power difference of 250cc 4 strokers, which has little to do with pollution. we'll need a much stronger link between the 2 to use pollution as an argument to raise the 2A limit.

[mechwira]

To supporters for change, regardless of which proposal you are most in favor of,

 

after searching the net, i found that the best way to submit is to the Feedback Unit. i will be typing out a proposal and submitting via e-mail. if you are interested to place your actual name and IC number, please PM me your email address. this will no longer be about anonymous forum chatters, so PM me only if you are truly serious about declaring your true identity. you do not have to give me your name and ic number yet, email will do. do not expect an immediate reply, give me some time to type and gather.

 

as it stands, i'm planning to write in with 2 alternative proposals: optional 2A, and 600cc 2A (as in, 2 choose either 1). my apologies to those who support the '1 year 2B and then class 2', coz i think its a valid argument that this solution might encourage new riders to get on liter class bikes immediately.

 

once i have typed it out, and i have gathered names, i will mail it to you and it will then be up to you to read and decide if you want to give me your name and address for submission. please understand that if after reading, you do support change but disagree with my proposal, the option is for you to not give me your name and address. i hope you understand that its not that i am appointing myself high-and-mighty representative of all riders; i just think its fair that if i've started this and i've typed it out, then i have final say in what i submit.

 

i am still open to ideas on which is the best proposal and how best to argue. but please continue all discussions on this thread. PM and email will be strictly for the act of submission itself.

 

thank you.

[hohosaint]

I think it's time for us to get over of the 3 systems motorcycle courses (This really makes us foolish). I was informed by my Japanese colleague that Japan has changed their motorcycle capacity test and, ranging allowance upon passing. Should I'm not wrong, we're actually following Japan driving/ridding standards in the past. How about now? Since they've proceeded which mean that this can be done safely and correctly.

[mechwira]

thank you, i have replies from 3 members so far.

 

as it stands, the gist of my proposal will contain the following:

 

Reasons for change

 

1) obsolescence of 2A bikes

 

2) riders are bypassing 2A

 

Proposals and merits

 

1)optional 2A

 

- eliminates hassle for bypassers since for them 2A is not beneficial anyway

- very identical to current system thus is the simplest change of all to execute

 

2)raise 2A to 600cc

 

-will once again make 2A a viable option and the original intention of 3-tier to encourage gradual upgrade will be met and followed again

 

 

of coz, my proposal will explain all these points in detail. once again, PM me your email address if you are interested, and do so only if you truly feel the need for change and are willing to place your actual name and IC, although you o not need to give me your name and IC yet, email will do. i will not entertain people who are merely curious as to what i will actually type out, but do not support the change or have no real intention to place your real identity.

 

pls continue all discussions on this thread. one person suggested raising the 2A limit even higher to perhaps 750cc. i disagree and i would like to explain. the higher you make the 2A limit, the more irrelevant Class 2 will be. furthermore, if there is a real concern about gradual upgrade, then the 2A must be placed at the lowest possible capacity between 2B and 2, and this is the 600cc.

[swish]

**post removed by moderator**

[william_liu]

I don't think we are doing this for ourselves.... for the future generations of bikers perhaps.... because before any changes are implemented it'll probably have to go through some committee and all that hoola...

 

Anyway, tinted visors were once considered "impossible", "dreaming" and something we would not have seen happen in our lifetimes...

[acid]

i think that 2B was limited to 200cc to prevent the hell riders of the 80s to ride 250cc 2-stroke sportsbikes, like RGV250, TZR250, LC250, etc... now that 250cc 2-stroke sportsbikes are no longer in production, they can safely raise the limit. times have changed, we can ask them to review the system based on this reason.

 

however, they may be worried that 18 yr olds are able to ride an old 250cc 2 strokers. to counter this, they can restrict the resale of 250cc 2 stroke sportsbikes to class2a riders and above.

 

we can also suggest that, for environment reasons, 2 strokers to be phased out. owners of 2 strokers are able to use their bikes for the rest of their COE period. once their COE expire, they will not be able to renew.

 

but in return, we can ask for a raise to 250cc to make up for the loss in power. SP150 has 39hp. CBX200 has ard 18hp. if SP150 is phased out, then 2B riders will, in theory, lose alot of hp. a hornet250 has 40hp which is comparable to SP.

 

once 2B is raised to 250cc, the chances of getting 2A to be 600cc will be higher.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by acid@May 29 2004, 02:30 AM

i think that 2B was limited to 200cc to prevent the hell riders of the 80s to ride 250cc 2-stroke sportsbikes, like RGV250, TZR250, LC250, etc... now that 250cc 2-stroke sportsbikes are no longer in production, they can safely raise the limit. times have changed, we can ask them to review the system based on this reason.

 

however, they may be worried that 18 yr olds are able to ride an old 250cc 2 strokers. to counter this, they can restrict the resale of 250cc 2 stroke sportsbikes to class2a riders and above.

 

we can also suggest that, for environment reasons, 2 strokers to be phased out. owners of 2 strokers are able to use their bikes for the rest of their COE period. once their COE expire, they will not be able to renew.

 

but in return, we can ask for a raise to 250cc to make up for the loss in power. SP150 has 39hp. CBX200 has ard 18hp. if SP150 is phased out, then 2B riders will, in theory, lose alot of hp. a hornet250 has 40hp which is comparable to SP.

 

once 2B is raised to 250cc, the chances of getting 2A to be 600cc will be higher.

i realli think that its not practical to suggest phasing out 2-strokers at this point in time. granted, things are on their way; the TA150 has been changed to a 4 stroke TA200 for some years now, and honda's latest CBR150 is also a 4 stroker. but it is still not at the level where phasing out becomes practical. doing so would phase out the NSR150, the ZX150KRR, the TZM150, the RXZ and some more others. the hornet250 is not a suitable alternative because it is much more expensive. so, the net result would be that you will phase out more bikes than you make available. and there will be a backlash from manufacturers.

[wolfang]

i dont think age affects riding.

 

for myself, i think i can achieve a class2 before i reach 21.

 

im not saying i'm gd, i got friend also same as me, jus waiting to get class2 end of this yr.

 

its the riding attitude of the rider to determine safety aspects.

 

implementing age into riding, i don't think it is adequate.

 

Went to thailand, kids ride cupkias here and there, but i did not c any accident.

(maybe i did not c). their road traffic condition, oh man, cars cut here and there,

super dangerous. The kids can mange the bike and still ride..... Age doesnt play a part in riding, maybe abit but not all.... hehe

 

thanks for reading.

[rhema83]

Sorry mech and william, I am in China touring now and can only access the net once in a while in net cafes. So won't reply often. But I promise I'll read all your posts.

 

So far, to reply all those who oppose the change because upgrading from "a NSR150 to a K3 in one day" is dangerous, I can only say that it is inevitable. Many people, including I, are doing it, mostly because of financial reasons. I rode a NSR150SP coincidentally and my next bike will be a sport tourer or a supersport. I am well aware of the danger of such a huge increase in power but I won't be stupid enough to whack open the throttle on the first few days.

 

I think I need to clear a misconception here. Most bikers are not "speed-hungry", "power-hungry" and "have no self-control". In fact, I know many friends who are very careful with their bikes and the throttle. A rider who jump from a $4000 2B bike to a $20000 litre-class supersport will probably think twice before riding it hard because it would be too expensive to crash it anyway.

 

As for the proposal, my stand remains the same. Either merge 2b and 2a, or merge 2a and class 2. Increasing 2b to 250cc and 2a to 600cc might be viable but I think it is not very different from my proposal. Why? Because many oppose the proposal because of the sheer power of litre bikes. But the fact is, many 600cc bikes boast power-to-weight ratios that can rival litre bikes.

 

Please feel free to comment.

 

Mech, I look forward to seeing the letter. My email is in your PM.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by rhema83@May 29 2004, 10:51 PM

As for the proposal, my stand remains the same. Either merge 2b and 2a, or merge 2a and class 2. Increasing 2b to 250cc and 2a to 600cc might be viable but I think it is not very different from my proposal. Why? Because many oppose the proposal because of the sheer power of litre bikes. But the fact is, many 600cc bikes boast power-to-weight ratios that can rival litre bikes.

i agree about the similarity between 600cc and 1000cc bikes. thats why earlier i didn think raising 2A to 600cc is a good idea, coz as a rider we'll consider class2 irrelevant then. but the authorities will continue to equate capacity with power, so i've decided to use this belief to my advantage in arguing, if the concern is on gradual upgrading.

 

like i mentioned, if we make class 2 eligible only 1 year after 2B, i think its valid to argue that we might start a trend of bypassing 2B entirely. we're willing to wait out 1 year of 2A as it is, so no doubt with such a system ppl will be willing to wait out 1 year of 2B and jump to class 2 immediately.

 

so i figured that in order that we do not encourage such a trend any more than the current system, the period should remain at 2 years, just like today when if you want to bypass entirely, you need at least 2 years of waiting out. hence i proposed that class 2 is eligible after 2 years of 2B. but then i remembered that for ppl planning to get super4 and stop there, changing the system this way and doing away with 2A entirely will mean they now need to wait 2 years after 2b instead of the current 1 year. so 2A remains in place for them after 1 year of 2B. this is how i came up with my optional 2A idea.

 

thanx for the support.

[mechwira]

Final call for names. everything is ready for submission. i will wait at most 1 week from this post for more people to join in. but if the current group is agreeable before then, and i see no replies, i might submit earlier.

 

i will post to notify if i have submitted. as long as you dun see that post, means i'm still open for names.

 

thank you.

[mechwira]

the following is a comment about my proposal:

 

actually, now not so much for the idea of increasing the cc for class 2a up to 600 cos still not many models in the market. an increase to at least 650 would be better cos some bike are slightly above the 600 mark. kindly take note that the japs are still producing 400cc bikes. but i would agree that most riders now would rather wait for their class 2 before replacing their bikes. appreciate the effort. hope the department concerned would be able to do something about this

 

i thought we've all agreed that the japs are NOT producing 400cc? we have super4, hornet250, cbx250, xjr400 (not sure if still available) and no sportsbikes. drastically less than a decade ago isn it?

 

600cc we have at least 1 sportsbike and 1 roadster/naked sports per manufacturer, AT LEAST. much better than the situation with 250/400cc. granted, zx6r is actually 636cc, suzuki has the sv650, and a few scramblers are 650cc, but i meant 600cc as a generic capacity; the LTA might later on give concessions for certain models on a per model basis. even if not, its a heck of a wider variety than what we have at 250/400cc.

[acid]

i think the gahment is not likely to change the 3-tier system. if the accident rate goes up after merging, then they have to answer to the public, and to answer to the parents who have lost their children.

 

the gahment will listen to the parents, not the bikers. in fact, if the parents have their way, they will pressure the gahment to ban biking in singapore!

 

merging the system from 3-tier to 2-tier will be perceived as loosening the requirements, no matter how we explain it.

 

the reasons of (bike obselete, no new bikes to choose), (people beat system using bypassing) are really weak compared to parental pressure, and accident rates.

 

thats why i suggested keeping the 3-tier system, while increasing 2b to 250cc and 2a to 600cc. to get the gahment to increase engine capacity, i suggested phasing 2 strokers to reduce pollution. and in return, we ask for increase in engine capacity to compensate for the power loss.

 

in this way, we are making changes within the framework of the 3-tier system. the risk of public backlash is lower, and thus the gahment will be more open to listen to our proposal.

 

i urge patience and careful planning before writing to the gahment; we must make a very strong case right from the start. we must have the answers to all their questions. if we cant anticipate ALL their questions, then we need to anticipate MOST of their questions. we must make our case so convincing that if they reject us, then it is them who is being unreasonable.

 

if we advance a weak proposal, then they will shoot us down, and they will not take up our case again for long time.

 

let's use this forum to put our heads together. think of all the questions they will ask. then help mech to finalize the proposal to be sent to the gahment.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by acid@May 31 2004, 01:52 AM

i think the gahment is not likely to change the 3-tier system...

you still haven explained how we can avoid the resulting backlash from motorcycle owners, would-be owners, and manufacturers. this, i believe, is the biggest drawback to phasing out 2 strokers at this point in time, and a solution must be met before we suggest this. an idea that is good isn always practical.

 

and how would your suggestion create any lower a backlash than mine? you are proposing an increase in limit in 2 classes. my optional 2A is very similar to current system, and something (new) which everyone is doing anyway, plus no raises in limits whatsoever. my raise 2A to 600cc is argued based on its potential to encourage gradual upgrade once again, a benefit, and anyway this is same as yours.

 

arguing on the side of environment has merit. but you are suggesting a completely different angle of attack from mine. my bottomline is the obsolescence of 2A bikes. you're welcome to submit your own proposal, but for mine, i'd like supporting points, not a complete shift in angle.

 

i'd very much like to hear if you have a solution to the prob i mentioned though.

[acid]

i think i mis-read your postings. i thought you are leaning towards "optional 2a", and dropping "raising 2a to 600cc".

 

i am just giving my views in support of raising 2a to 600cc and the various tactics to achieve our goal. maybe i am a little too overboard and irrational. for this, i sincerely apologize for any mis-understandings caused.

[mechwira]

Originally posted by acid@Jun 1 2004, 01:19 AM

i think i mis-read your postings. i thought you are leaning towards "optional 2a", and dropping "raising 2a to 600cc".

 

i am just giving my views in support of raising 2a to 600cc and the various tactics to achieve our goal. maybe i am a little too overboard and irrational. for this, i sincerely apologize for any mis-understandings caused.

no apologies necessary. its just that by phasing out 2 strokers now, we will be placing new riders and riders staying at 2B for financial reasons at a severe disadvantage even though we benefit upgraders. i think any proposal we bring up should be such that no group of riders be worse off. if this can be avoided, then we can use the environmental issue.

[rhema83]

As much as I don't really want it, 2-stroke bikes will be phased out worldwide just like 400cc bikes. In fact I think it will come sooner than you think because environmental issues are much more pressing.

 

I am not trying to shift the angle here. However we can make use of multiple attack points instead of just one, which is the lack of new 2A bikes. We need stronger arguments to counter the authorities in case they don't buy our first point.

 

Making 2A optional after one year of 2B, and then let everyone take 2 after two years of 2B doesn't seem to address the "time" factor, though. Maybe we can reconsider.

 

Public pressure is strong because of how the media protray us bikers. The best way to do it is to make a concerted effort to write in to the ST Forum and other local forums, online and offline. I really hate it when my mother show me the newspaper and tell me to read accident reports involving bikes. In fact, when the track-going R1 crashed at Clementi Ave 6, I was preparing for a lecture from my parents too.

 

We need to not only change the class system, but also the education system. For example, we can make defensive riding complusory and improve the theory lessons to include slightly more advanced topics instead of just "checking blindspots and keeping a safe distance". For example, it would really benefit to tell new riders how to corner properly, how to minimise injuries during an inevitable crash, etc.

 

Acid, we appreciate your suggestions. No need for apologies.

 

Mechwira, I think you should let us view the proposal proper before submitting it, since it is representative of us all.

[hohosaint]

A petition? Will that helps?

[william_liu]

Yes, I agree with Rhema83...

 

Mech, perhaps you should show the proposal to the public, that way we may get more people to agree to put their names down... think it will help carry more weight.