Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[ACT] Mature bike licencing.

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by Ushario, Jan 28, 2008.

  1. I'm interested in finding out if there is any difference in restrictions for a mature rider (42) than for a young hoon such as myself, a ripe old 20 :twisted:

    Heres the deal, my Dad held a full bike licence before a certain incident on a GSXR1100 involving the ever watchful highway patrol. This was a fair way back, hell I'm guessing it was close to when I was born.

    He has never owned a bike since said incident :p but he IS interested in getting back into it. So whats the deal, I've heard different things from people and can't seem to find anything in the legislation for vehicles in the ACT.

    Hes a bit pissed that he may have to get a restricted licence - mostly because he sees it as a waste of time, as he wants a V-strom 1000 for some touring.
    I however see it as an opportunity, for him to give me a interest free loan for my first bike and let him do his restricted licences on it as well! :cool:

    Thanks for reading



    PS If my plan happens...my poor bike! Cops think I'm a hoon...*mumbles*
     
     Top
  2. I believe the ACT has provisions for mature riders.

    Your dad will still need to ride a LAMS approved bike whilst he is on his L's. But once he gets his P's he'll have no bike restrictions. Although pillions may be restricted for a year..... have to check with the RTA on that thou.

    So he'll need a LAMS bike for at least 3 months if he wants to ride straight away.
     
     Top
  3. And please make your dad aware that as a returning rider, he is statistically FAR more likely to have a big accident. Stay upright do a subsidised course for returning riders, aimed at rebuilding old skills and renewing confidence.

    Regards, Andrew.
     
     Top
  4. If he's got a full bike licence then what's the problem? Does he still have a Bike down on his licence?
     
     Top
  5. A litre bike after a 20yr break :?
    At least they stop these days :LOL:

    Throw a leg over a Bandit if he can, if he's after a long distance tourer.
     
     Top
  6. Sounds like the said incident resulted in a loss of said licence?

    If so, obtaining a new licence (if it is a result of a cancellation) is bounded by a probationary period (in the ACT at least). With this period you are restricted to a LAMS bike, no pillion and BAC of 0.02.

    I looked by on the ACT licencing site and found no reference to mature riding scheme?

    http://www.rego.act.gov.au/licensing/licencemotorcycrestrict.htm
     
     Top
  7. Woops sorry about that, yes that incident did result in a loss of licence for something like 3 years...

    He has ridden since then, trailbikes etc.
    Considering he started riding on the road with that GSXR1100 hes lucky enough to be alive now. He was riding bikes from 10yrs old apparently, which also makes him the god of all knowledge concerning....everything with an engine! :roll:

    Thanks for the info
     
     Top
  8. The reason I think there is a mature licensing scheme is that during my P's test there was a bloke about 50 who was going to get his new 800 after he passed his P's.
     
     Top
  9. Nope, no such thing in the ACT. The only concession to "mature" (over 25) riders is that after the first 6 months on your bike P's you can get an extra 4 points and no longer have to display your P plates without having to do the P off course available to under 25s - you just go into Canberra connect and they add it to your license conditions.

    Assuming your dad has got a full car license he will only have his P's for 1 year, as opposed to 3, but the restrictions only apply for the first year of a provisional license anyway so the only real advantage is in the extra points.
     
     Top
  10. If your dad held a full riders lic at some stage, he is possibly (not sure on ACT leg) entitled to pass a riding assessment then go straight back the the full license.

    Check with Transport Authority, thats how it works in some other states
     
     Top
  11. True, but ACT legislation states that if a licence was lost due to suspension or cancellation, then a re-issuing will encumber a re-restriction.
     
     Top
  12. Yeah I think Scoob is right, there's no specific scheme for mature riders returning. Call 02 6207 7000 (god, i know that number by heart!) and speak to Road User Services (RTA - rego) and the speculation will end!
     
     Top
  13. Personally, I think giving any sort of concessions to so called "mature" riders is the stupidest thing i've ever heard.

    I mean its just asking for trouble. It defies any logic. If you have a motorcycle license, then you can ride bikes, if you dont have a motorcycle license then you go get one and go through the whole learning process like everyone needs to. The notion that you are somehow better because you once rode a bike in 1922 is is stupid. If your license lapsed (for whatever reason) i think you should have to go through the whole process again.
     
     Top
  14. Thank Christ that other, more sensible people disagree with you... :roll:

    As for the OP, there is a course geared toward returning motorcyclists (you know, those who've done it before and know at least the basics); have a look at stayupright and look for MASTERS courses in the ACT. (Can't post the link as I don't have 5 posts yet...)
    I did this course a few years ago and would highly recommend it.
     
     Top
  15. Fine, but care to offer some useful commentary to back up your view?

    If you can convince me, I'm happy to reconsider my view but I cant see any valid reason other than it benefited you because you didnt have to go through the whole licensing process again. The fact that it is easier doesnt mean its for the best.

    I'm not saying that people who just havent ridden for a while should lose their license, I'm saying that if people have let their license lapse (for whatever reason) for a years, then thats when they should have to go through it all again.

    But as i say, open to hearing genuine reasons why that shouldnt be the case.
     
     Top

  16. Hmmmm, how about, they already know how to handle a vehicle in traffic, and have many years experience with it. Many already know how to ride a bike, and have the skills for it. They are also older and more mature, therefore less likely to bin it going into turn four...err, I mean on a country road.

    Regards, Andrew.
     
     Top
  17. yeah but how can you assume that?

    How can you know that they ever actually rode a bike before? They might have got their license 40 yrs ago and never ridden.

    I just think its more risky than it needs to be.
     
     Top
  18. I think you're an idiot, but I am just assuming that.

    Regards, Andrew.
     
     Top
  19. Yep your right, an idiot for expressing an opinion different to the status quo on Netrider. :roll:
     
     Top
  20. I guess it's a matter of degrees. The MASTERS course that the Stay Upright people run is geared at people who've been off 'bikes for a while ( and still retain a valid licence ), who are returning to riding. So, in that sense, I would agree with the point about lapsed licenses...In the case of the OP, if his father actually lost his licence, I imagine he would have to go through the whole process again anyway.

    ...and the vast differences in the abilities of the current machinery versus the earlier stuff is just one of the reasons they run them.


    I guess the question is "where do you draw the line" in deciding who should gain a benefit and who shouldn't? Your 40-year example is probably valid, but if they still hold a valid licence....?

    The MASTERS course was devised specifically because stats showed a (statisically relevant) number of returnees were having "offs", so if it's a choice between offering some benefit to returning riders in the form of such a course, or letting them jump on a 'bus and "go for it", I think I'd be happy to allow them the benefit of the course...

    BTW, when I did it, it was partially subsidised by the NRMA; I'm not sure if it still is or, if it is, whether there are any strings attached. I'd been off bikes for only a few years, and still had my licence. Others had been off for considerably longer (but still retained their licences - there were one or two "older gents" on the course)

    Anyway, just my 2c.
     
     Top