A Kafka-esque situation exists at present whereby car drivers are limited only by the size of their wallets as to the cars they drive, whilst motorcyclists are restricted to power limits - even after passing the test. John Wheeler argues for a sea-change in attitudes
From the age of 17 you can legally drive a Jaguar, Lamborghini, Porsche, Ferrari or any of the world's high performance cars. Things are, however, rather different in the world of motorcycling.
Between the ages of 16 and 18, a motorcyclist is legally restricted to riding machines with cubic capacities not more than 125 cc. The relevant licence is the "A1". This restriction applies even after passing the driving test.
From the age of 18, a motorcyclist can ride larger machines on an "A" licence. The driving test - yes, another test has to be taken - can be taken on a machine of no more than 150 cc; in other words, one which is only marginally more powerful.
In December 1999 yet another restriction came into force: holders of an "A" licence became restricted for two years after passing the "A" licence driving test, to machines which do not have a power output in excess of 25 kW, or had a power to weight ratio of less than 0.16kW per kilogram.
Behind these restrictions, bearing in mind the lack of comparable restrictions for cars, one would expect there to be some rationale. A newcomer to the world of motorised transportation would reasonably assume there was a direct relation between the performance capabilities of a motorcycle and the incidence of crashes and fatalities. They would also assume, from the legal requirements that no such relationship existed if one chose to travel on four wheels.
Those of us who started riding in times when crash helmets had hardly been invented, let alone made compulsory, started on 350 cc or 500 cc machines. We learned, usually on day one, that bikes can bite back. From our riding infancy we had respect for both the power and weight of larger machines. You do not learn that on a 125 cc.
Defending the restrictions, a Department of Transport spokesperson said that they have "adopted the option (the '25 kW' restriction of the EC Directive) in the light of the high motorcycle fatality rate of the younger age group".
Yet, at the same time, they lowered access to larger machines from 21 years to 18.
Certainly no one is unconcerned at needless fatalities, least of all motorcyclists themselves. Pat Costello, chief executive of the National Safety Council, says that as of August 9th, there had been 15 fatalities in the 16-30 age group this year, and 21 in the 16-35 group, with eight of these within the 21-25 age group. He says these figures are more indicative of the need for training, and in the case of those returning to motorcycling, the desirability of refresher training.
The '125 law' has been around for many years. Yet all we have seen in the interim is an increase in crashes and fatalities. The '25kW law' has only been around for less than two years, but there would seem to be little likelihood its effect will be significant.
In the majority of motorcycle collisions where another vehicle is involved, the primary cause is the "other" vehicle. Restricting the motorcycle's power output does nothing to change that. Taking Irish and European crash figures as a whole, about two-thirds of motorcycle collisions are "single vehicle collisions": that is, where no other vehicle was involved.
This indicates a lack of skill, a lack of training and a lack of "roadcraft". Power seems to play a very minor role. It would be a better world if, for all road users, high-quality training which thoroughly covered not just machine, but also "roadcraft" became the norm, rather than well-meaning but ineffectual restrictions.
Meantime, 17-year-olds in high performance cars can fail their first driving test, and then drive unaccompanied on their second provisional licence.