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.

vic fine for riding a bike thats not lams

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by MR_PEA, Apr 2, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. what is the fine and demerit points for riding a bike that not on lams for a restricted licence rider.

  2. $2400 and 6 points.


    although I have heard that they may be able to excercise some of the hoon legislation to it as well.
  3. Use the Search tool; it's been asked a million times before. ;)

    Note that your insurance company won't pay out if you have a crash and are riding a bike you're not licensed to ride.

    So that could be a "fine" of the cost of repairing/replacing your wrecked bike, plus the $5000+++ worth of damage to the car you ran up the back of. Try not to hit anything expensive.
  4. Not sure where you came up with this, because it isn't right.

    The actual fine is $119 and no demerit points, there's a slightly different offence depending on whether you have L's or P's, but the same penalty.
    If you want to look it up, it's under Road Safety (drivers) regulations 1999 211b(1)(a) or 211b(2)(a)
    The main problem isn't the penalty, but the fact you are not covered by TAC or insurance, and if busted, you will not be riding the bike home, but getting it towed etc.
  5. Same as not using the search feature, bike gets crushed, then death. :LOL:
  6. i issued a non-sensical answer to a stupid question.

    worst case the OP hits a ferrari, causing $25k+ damage... Whose life would the OP be living then?
    Best case they don't get caught.

    It's more than likely you will get caught once, with the amount of Breath Tests, etc... Then say They get knicked for something minor, or a speed offense which goes to court... The prosecutor could point to the riding out of class as a complete disregard to the road rules or something to that effect, and say you appear to make a habit off it. I remember reading something similar earlier in the year/late last year.

    DON'T Do it!

    How's that saying go? Cash, grass or arse?
  7. kewl thanks..
    just wanted an idea.
    had a quick search on a mates laptop... but dident find much.

    on another note, i just got a quote for third party insurace with restricted licence being picked from insuremyride. how is that possible?

  8. Stupidity has not been outlawed so if the bike is regd he's covered by TAC or equivalent in other states.
  9. Why is it a stupid question? And why woudn't you be covered?

    I think you need to stop telling this guy what to do. :roll:
  10. I never said he wasn't covered. But on that topic the PDS does say for IMR that it is a reason to refuse cover.

    We may disagree with whether its a stupid question or not, I guess its a matter of personal opinion.

    With LAMS, is it necessary to go over restrictions?
    Finally I only told him not to do it, as I would tell anyone who was thinking of doing it.

    edit;; op should also look at the answer on this page. https://netrider.net.au/?page=askpolice&showpage=3
  11. Fail.
  12. Kishy would be better help here, but I'd think that your duty to disclose all information could be used to deny you a claim. Most policies I have taken have asked me for how long I've held a full licence. I suppose if you said '3mths' and they didn't pick that up, you'd be fine. But if you lied and said '15mths', then made a claim, you'd be at risk of having it denied.

    With LAM's though and the range of bikes out there, being on your L's or restricted P's is not the hardship it used to be and aside from the attraction of riding a 600/1000, there isn't any real need to exceed the LAM's.
  13. Some grossly stupid and/or mis-informed people responding here.

    1. If you are operating a vehicle that you are not licensed to operate you are driving/riding while unlicensed.

    2. Becasue you are unlicensed, your insurance company will laugh at you if you try to make a claim as a result of a traffic incident.

    3. As long as the vehicle is registered, TAC will come to the party for covering ambulance transport and medical treatment.

    4. Riding unlicensed is not terribly smart. Have a look at the crash and fatality data available and note that unlicensed/unregistered riders are grossly over-represented in crash statistics.
  14. Officially at present you are not riding unlicensed - there are specific seperate penalties for that. It's very likely however that the penalty will be changed later this year to be the same as riding unlicensed.

    It's also very possible that unlicenced drivers/riders may come under the "hoon" laws as far as confiscation of vehicles goes.
  15. well one more question that ill pose..

    whats the diffrence between me a 27yo with 6 months left on his restrictions and a shiteload of experience on a 250 vs an 18yo whos parents buy him an evo? both with full comp.

    if the 18yo has an accident he is covered, why would not this be the case for me.
  16. yes, you are riding unlicenced.

    It's no different from you jumping in a Semi B-Double, while on your normal Car P-Plates. your simply not covered, and could be charged accordingly.
  17. Does no-one read the posts, especially from people like TonyE?

    There is a world of difference between riding unlicenced and riding outside of your restrictions. Tony indicates that this particular situation may well change in the next few months.
  18. The current penalty comes under 207 - Conditions on licences or learners permits. You are not riding unlicenced - you are simply not obeying a condition of the licence. It's treated the same way if you have a requirement to wear glasses and don't wear them.

    It's one penalty unit.

    For unlicenced:
    If your licence has expired and you've just forgotten to renew - it's 2.5 penalty units. Otherwise it's 5 penalty units.
  19. The 18yo. will not be covered as the vehicle would not be one authorised for use by a P-plater. The insurance company would laugh at them too.
  20. Yep, what TP said.

    From the Vic Roads Website:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.