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] Removing “E” conditions (i.e. LAMS)

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by qsign, Feb 15, 2010.

  1. Anybody ever tried to shorten your “E” restriction (i.e. LAMS only bike, zero BAC, no pillion)? And before some start to yell “grow up” I tell you my circumstances.

    I use to ride a while back and decided to return. Funny enough my wife also decided to join me. I have got “L” in October 2008 and next day got a bike – Suzuki VL250. It was nice bike for my wife, but well too small for me. She meantime got her “L” a month or so later and rode our small cruiser since then. Knowing that this stupid law is just that – brainless and stupid invention of bunch of brainless idiots, I have got my license on first possible day (18 Jan 09). So my “E” restriction finished and I have upgraded our 250 to Suzuki C50 on 19 January :). My dear being lazy/busy (cross one of your choice LOL) and managed to get her full license only in July. So now she has not got anything to ride. Keeping two bikes was out of question – two registration, insurance etc. Furthermore - she has tried C50 (illegally of course) and said that selling VL250 was right move because she does not like to ride one after trying C50 :) ). So stupid law says that it would be safer for her (and everybody else of course!) do not ride anything at all for almost half a year rather then ride C50. Mind you – it is cruiser, not Hayabusa or similar. In weight to power ratio it sits well below 150kw/tonne, but has 145 more cubic cm then LAMS allows. There are plenty of LAMS approved bikes that heavier and more powerful. Oh, also both of us well above 40.

    So – anyone ever tried to remove or "softened" that restriction and what was came out of such a try?

  2. After you've got that through Vic Roads you could then go and find Bin Laden and ultimately solve world famine.:LOL:
  3. Feeling in my guts telling me that you right, but your answer indicate that you have not tried it by yourself :)

  4. They won't budge. You should have kept both bikes for 6 months.
  5. I'm not 100% sure of your question qsign but if it helps when I got my license re-printed / renewed after a month suspension I was off restrictions at the time - yet they still printed the E condition with the date to indicate end of restrictions which had already passed. Go figure.

    Hope that helps... ??
  6. I'm sure a lot of people have thought about it but then probably thought it's to hard and either ridden the bike anyway or just stayed with a LAMS bike.

    I'm curious though as to what you would argue. Would you argue that the bike should be LAMS or that your wife shouldn't have restrictions applied.

    The bike is clearly bigger than 660cc and your wife is no different to anybody else that is stuck with restrictions so in my opinion it would be a waste of time and effort.
  7. In my strong opinion cruisers are different to other bikes - their engines built for torque, not for revs and Kw. Any sport oriented bike with 4 cyl 800cc engine will be twice or even triple powerful comparing to C50. Plus there are very few cruiser that fit LAMS at first place; those that fit have smallish frame and almost always done on budget - no EFI, ABS etc. In general LAMS if not friendly to cruiser community at all - IMHO cruisers should be exempt from 660cc and extend to 1000 or even 1200, providing that thay stay in power to weight ratio.

    Though could not agree more about wasting time and effort, thus asking if anyone already did it.
  8. Only cases I know of where Ls or E condition period are shortened (or removed altogether) are when the individual has an overseas motorcycle license, but is not eligible to convert that license straight over to a Vic license. Basically, these people go through all the paperwork & testing, but waiting time period for Learner Permit/E condition is waived.
  9. Good luck, they won't waive it as you don't fall into the class of persons who are "eligable".

    LAMS has it's flaws, but it's way way better than the old 260cc limitation.
  10. Agreed, and furthermore OP, I wouldn't call this a problem. More of somebody wanting off their restrictions before they really can. Nobody likes being on their restrictions, but everybody has to do it.
  11. Just have to wait it out. She should have got them earlier and/or you should have kept a bike she was legally able to ride.

    Maybe get a pony?
  12. We need a manufacturer to name a model of bike "Pony". Preferably a hardcore sportsbike. And we also need one named "Squirrel".

    On topic: She doesn't need it, its simply a matter of convenience for the two of you. Vicroads and its like only make exceptions when a need is demonstrated (and quite rightly too). So no, they aren't going to let her off restrictions early. Just wait the five months, its not going to kill either of you.
  13. Hardly can imagine how one can demonstrate need to ride bike at all and specific type/model in particular. No-one even need drive a car - there is taxi service available. Everything from this POV just convenience anyway.
  14. What about people who don't have white-collar jobs, or don't live in a city?
  15. get a pony \\:D/
  16. I know it may be different here in Tas, but I was successful in having the restrictions taken off as soon as I got my P's with the above letter.
  17. Boobmeister did you have the LAMS scheme there at the time?
    Most of the bikes on the LAMS scheme are "full sized" just power to weight limited.
    As such the argument would be that you could find a suitable "LAMS" vehicle.
  18. That letter wouldn't be relevant in VIC - the whole LAMS system was introduced to allow a much wider range of safer bikes to be ridden and this includes larger capacity bikes than 260cc and physically larger bikes.

    They will not accept that there is no appropriately sized bike for the OP.
  19. True, however the point is, the OP needs to write a letter as I did, substituting his arguments for mine.

    VicRoads may or may not approve the removal of restrictions, but it takes SFA effort to send a letter to find out.
  20. Thanks Boobmeister, your replay is the only one that is relevant :). I do not put much hope for success, but surely worth to try.