I passed in November and have a 50 BHP bike and a 100 BHP bike…both can do over 110 mph, so it’s not like the smaller one hangs around much - there’s still not many cars about that can keep up off the lights. The main difference is that you are changing gear less, revving less and the ride is smoother. I have come off once, and it was on the bigger bike, but it was a badly read corner doing 70 on a country lane and could have happened on either bike. I do agree that the potential for realising too late you’re in ‘far too fast’ territory when something happens (corner, someone pulling out etc) is higher on a more powerful bike as for a start it feels much smoother and 100 mph isn’t a problem to cruise at. Reading the road and having control of what your right wrist does will keep you at about the same risk level no matter what the bike IMO.
How many times have we seen this debate over the years ? I don’t believe it will ever happen - there is no evidence to suggest that it enhances safety, and you can reach 150+ on a 100bhp bike no problem.
Unless there are power caps (or power-to weight) applied to cars, it would be more than a little difficult to justify in terms of road safety
If it did go ahead, the Japanese factories are hardly going to redesign their engines just for us, so they’ll just restrict them electronically, which will be simplicity itself to reverse 
Well I think this is completely the wrong approach and they should be introducing a minimum, rather than a maximum, bhp.
This may sound crazy but I find the ability to easily out-accelerate cars from pretty well any public-highway speed is definitely the most important tool in my armoury for keeping alive, more so than having brakes.
Look at it this way: a boy racer in an Audi suddenly approaches you at high speed, getting very close, on a dual carriageway when you’re overtaking a lorry that’s going uphill. The road ahead of you is clear. Would you rather be on a 50cc scooter or a Hayabusa? I know what I’d prefer :laugh:
Well, I posed the question on behalf of another member and next time I see that member, I’m gonna chant (To the tune of Portobello Road from Bedknobs & Broomsticks):
“37-1, 37-1, LB Is The Place Where The Battles Are Won!”
.
I’m not for the restriction thing. Isn’t it up to freedom of choice. If there was a limit on every road vehicle then so be it, but not for just bikes. That would mean that spotty teenage premiership footballers would still be able to cane it around in lambos off their t*ts on cocaine while bikers who have a passion for 'busas etc would be penalised.
However, I’m DO agree with the zero to hero DAS thing whereby you shouldn’t really be able to go from never being on a bike to a thou in 3 days. In a perfect world it would be cool if all car drivers had to do a ‘mini’ CBT as part of the driving test - just to see what the roads are like for another perspective.
Campaigners for bringing in restrictions like these always say that they are trying to cut down on rider deaths etc. but I wonder what the percentage decrease would actually be.
…just out of interest…how come it’s ok to take up any other form of unrestricted ‘dangerous’ persuit ? why does nobody ‘restrict’ numpty walkers & hikers who choose to climb Ben Nevis in the middle of winter wearing nothing more than an orange kagool !! That’s more like certain death to me, let alone huge financial costs in attempting to save them. Nanny state !!!
sorry, started going a bit off piste there, rant over…
what is there left to say… I know 41-1 41-1 HAHAHAHA :w00t:
to be honest if it was restricted id only come along and derestrict it anyway 
Oh no I am the fool that clicked no :w00t:
I think all vehicles should be limited.
Car drivers should have a 1l limit for 2 years (or whatever is the least that can hit ~80mph).
This alone would also help revive our ailing car industry ect.
I have an 8bph scooter that can hit 72( rev limiter 
.) and while I agree with all the reasons for needing power for safety ect. there is a limit and 100+ is unnecessary. But as some one above said it would open the flood gates of nanny state cotton wool crap that is unnecessary and aimed to **** people off.
Only restricted though so power can go back up for the track days 
If the suggestion of a bhp limit is to save (bikers) lives then, as many have pointed out already, it is flawed, simplistic and pointless.
IMHO, if you want to save bikers lives you need to raise training standards and ensure a higher level of skill and awareness in new (and many existing) riders. I believe that the elements that constitute the current test do not reflect real world riding at all e.g. the test doesn’t incorporate scrutiny of bends at any reasonable speed - one of the principal causes of biking accidents!
I would like to see much of the theory and practice of what is currently called ‘advanced riding’ incorporated into training requirements and the test itself. In my opinion a lot of ‘advanced riding’ is not advanced at all - it is essential riding skills that everyone on two wheels needs to survive! FWIW, for me ‘advanced riding’ refers to things like pursuit tactics used by the police, or racing skills used on the track.
If that means the test is quite a lot harder well, frankly, great! - it might prevent a few idiots from killing themselves. As has been said already it is just crazy that you can go from CBT to unrestricted license in three days with DAS.
It’s an irony that many think riding a powerful bike is cool (and says something about the rider’s ability) when in reality its actually only about money and the minor inconvenience undertaking DAS and passing a simple test.
Don’t cripple bikes with legislation, but make being able to ride a big bike an achievement that’s earned
I’ve got 33bhp kit on my bike and i’ve reached 110mph and there was still more speed available. How did you come up with your figures? Does that mean my bike pumps out more than 33bhp?
I can get 70mph out of my 12bhp 125cc 
…And I can just about get that with two of us and a back box full of crap if I get a long enough bit of road