Why fewer young people ride motorcycles. The UK Licencing Laws explained and ripped apart! 

I am British but grew up in France, and the laws over there are very different, the equivalent of a theory test called AM license is actually included in our education at 14 at the start of summer holidays the school will do a couple hours teaching road safety then do the theory test which is really easy but everyone does it and it teaches everyone road laws and safety, then you can do a quick test which is very cheap then you can ride a 50cc at 14, when you get to 16 you can apply to do a AM2 license which is fairly simple theory test then a cheap regular road test, after you pass you can ride any from from 50cc to 125cc, when you are 18 you can then do a full license and ride any motorbike of your choosing and it's all quite cheap and because it's cheap majority of 14 or 15 year Olds get a 50cc 2 stroke, absolutely rail the engine and make it able to go 60mph to 70mph, then when they get to 16 or some even keep that 50cc bike till they are 18 then do a full test, to upgrade and they are all experienced and such.

I love the fact this guy looks like he should talk like a character from sons of anarchy but he is actually a well spoken English gent.

Your laws are too complicated and ridiculous. Here in the good ol USA you just pass your test ( written and riding) and ride any size motorcycle.

Here in the US, you either have a motorcycle license, or you don’t. That seems to work here without the added complications

Yet another example of our young people getting completely ripped off....totally taking the piss..

I passed my test in 1975 on a BSA B40. I told the examiner it was a 250 and he believed me. I progressed through the bigger capacity bikes, ending up with a Honda 1000. Now I'm back in a 125 because I'm old and crinkly and besides ... It's more fun if you have to ride like you stole it 😉

I like the bit in the Japanese bike test where you have to lay the bike down & stand it up again unassisted, it forces manufacturers away from ridiculous bikes & riders away from bikes they can't handle.

It’s a form of discrimination.. if you pass your car driving test at 17 and have a rich daddy you can have a Lamborghini but only a 125cc if you pass your bike test. I’m an instructor and I think it’s absolutely ridiculous the way motorcycle test categories are…as do some of the examiners.

Government has killed the motorcycle industry in the uk

Once you put a bureaucrat in charge of solving a problem, you can always expect all kinds of unintended negative consequences, but with very little likelihood of the original problem actually being solved.

14 - 50cc. 16 - 125cc. 18 - You’re an adult and can do what you want.

I took my bike test in the UK back in 1962 on a 200cc Triumph Tiger Cub. For a learners license back then the min age was 16 y/o and max cc was 250cc, no pre training required. For my test, the test guy just stood on a corner and watched while I drove backwards and forwards through the intersection a few times. At one point he jumped out in front of me, luckily I'd been keeping an eye on him and anticipated this move so I didn't run him down. Back then the bike test was infinitely easier than the car test. Two months later I bought a 650cc Triumph Bonneville complete with clip-ons and a tight fibreglass racing fairing. Been riding a Harley now for the last 10 years. Not sure I'd be bothered to go through everything required to get out on two wheels in the UK these days.

In Australia you need to hold a car licence for a year before you can get a bike licence. The idea is that you get used to traffic in a car which is safer and when you get on the bike you can concentrate more on the riding. Apart from that need to do a day course to get your learners and a 2 day one to get your licence up to a 650cc after 2 years you can do another course for your unrestricted.

Motorcycle Legislation in the U.K as absolutely nothing to do with training, safety & progreation through the licensing & all to do with extraction of maximum money from Joe m.c rider @ bill the m.c builder

50cc tops out around 30 - 40 with good wind and is very dangerous, 125s are decent however can only get up to 70 with a full tuck meaning you can barely keep up to speed on dual carriageways. i think everyone should start on 125s as no one will flip them and its not enough speed to be dangerous!

gov't shouldn't be in the business of telling you what cc bike you can have. show your basic ability, and you should get a license at 16 or so. that's the way they do it in the USA, and it works. parents restrict the kids that need it, not govt.

The best way to reduce road collisions would be to make everyone take a bike test before being allowed to drive a car. That would ensure that all drivers are aware of road and weather conditions and be more considerate to other road users. As for the bike test 16 is ok to start on a bike with limited power output and speed but then progress to any bike after completing training and test. Another highs would be to make the car test much tougher.

This is just typical of the UK. Been riding for 55 years and I have absolutely no idea of what these two guys are talking about, you couldn't make this bullshit up. All I had to do was ride a 250cc around the block a few times, read a car number plate and do an emergency stop. That was it, next bike a T120 and have progressed onwards from there. Still ride.

I started as a learner with a 250 cc new bike,..passed my test got a 500 cc then a 750 cc in 1980 ..I've had bikes all my life I now ride a Ducati Streetfighter 1098 from new and now planning to buy a BMW S1000XR. The law is stupid, because UK is run by stupid politicians. The old way was far better. 😊👍👍🇬🇧

Yet you see people on electric bicycles and scooters who have never done any test whatsoever all over roads and pavements in any major city jumping lights ignoring one way streets carrying passengers not having lights wearing actual camouflage the violations are endless…. So why would someone wanting cheap mobility actually pay out for training or tests when they can ignore it all

Bloody hell, things have changed!!, glad i passed mine 30 years ago, seems very complicated, needs to go back to basics.

And yet…..One can pass a car driving test in a sub 1 litre, 50hp vehicle, then hop into 300mph 1500hp Bugatti Chiron!

The licensing just seems like a cash grab or a way to STOP people from riding motorbikes.

I think the laws are there to discourage motorcycling

Passing my test in 1975 on a Suzuki GT250, involved riding around the block of the test centre one way, then the other, with the examiner on foot. All over in 10 mins.

This seems like discrimination against motorcyclists. In the UK, a 17 year old can pass a car driving test and then drive any car, regardless of the car's power output. Why should motorcyclists have to take three tests? And given the current massive interest in cleaner transport, bikes like the Honda CB125F can do over 140mpg! The government should be encouraging people of all ages to ride motorcycles. Bikes can be more fuel efficient, cheaper to run, cause less traffic congestion, and use less parking space. Also, bikers are more alert than many car drivers, they aren't playing with an infotainment system or texting It's time for a review of the current legislation.

You can drive a car at 17 which is far more lethal than a motorcycle All these Restrictions should be lifted at 17 Everything depends on the person...if he rides like a nutter whether bicycle motorcycle or car...nothing will ever cure such stupidity

I passed my test about 1960 on a BSA 250 cc. and got a full licence to ride any motorcycle. The test consisted of riding round a block a number of times while the tester stood at one corner so he could see me half of the time. I was told that when he stepped in the road and raised is hand, I should do an emergency stop. I have to admit I was not really a safe rider after that, but after a number of close calls, I wised up and went on to be a good rider for the rest of my life. I had in fact cottoned on to defensive riding without being taught or knowing it had a name. I never had a serious accident, just the usual like coming off on black ice even though I was riding slowly. I don't ride any more, too old to risk broken bones now so I just drive a car.

I’m on 20 seconds and I’ll tell you why... Insurance costs way too much for young people to afford

The problem with the tests are they are super expensive, especially if you are hiring the bike in the usual way. I would agree with starting at 14 for 50cc, I also agree with doing the test once, but what I would suggest is like they do on the continent, make it so everyone is A2 for 2 years and then they get automatically upgraded to full A. That way you get the safety and progression without the expense. The main issue is the cost of multiple tests, at a time of your life when you are generally poorest.

The solution sounds as ridiculous as the problem. Why all the complications? I'm in the US. I have an "M" endorsement on my license. I can ride any motorcycle. No such thing as limiting the CCs, horsepower, or weight here. I did live in the UK for a couple years and have to say that the restrictions that the laws and regulations create on just about everything are astounding. I guess if you grow up there and its all you know it would seem normal.

It's simple. Cost. For new riders it costs almost as much to ride a motorcycle as to drive a car. Except it's less practical and most parents won't help out financially for motorcycles. So many young people just can't afford it.

Here in Portugal the laws are the following: 50cc at 14, 125cc at 16, A2 at 18 and full A license at 25 or after 3 years of A2 or A1(125cc). This means that if you get your A1 license at 16 you can get your A license has early has 19. You only need to take your written test once, and you only have to take driving lessons for the first time you get a license. After that you only need to do a practical exam if you want to upgrade o a higher license.

I thought that a 18 you were an adult, what happens at 21? And why 24? I passed my test at 16 plus one week. Passed and was able to ride what I wanted, for the rest of my life. This whole farce is to just stop anybody having a bike at all.

The main reason why young people aren't getting motorcycles isn't licensing. It's cost. It's the same reason that fewer young people are driving The same reason fewer young people buy houses Same reason fewer young people are having kids Getting married Going on holiday Investing This generation is poor. When compared with their parents, who could buy a motorbike with the money earned from a part time job. That idea in today's economy is laughable

Brilliant review covering an over complex system. I may get shot down for this but IMO all these separate licences age ranges tests etc are to generate more revenue for the chancellor. I have been both a motorcycle and car instructor The bureaucracy is ridiculous. Once you've passed that's it. No extra checks or advice on advanced riding. I've been out the game for 15 years but believe its still a case of making it as difficult and costly to pass the test but once done government interest in our safety and riding standards cease. Like exorbitant road tax for bikers its just a money making machine. Solution. Everyone should spend 2 years riding a bike before they can regress (lol) to a car. Bring age down to 15 and increase to 125 category. 50cc is bloody dangerous! Stay safe

The current complicated system grew up over many years as reactionary drawn out attempt to get young motorcyclists to a point where their maturity and experience meant they would be less likely to be a fatality. I started riding in the 70s, up to 250cc without any tests or training. I came off a few times doing stupid things, lost a friend showing off on a CB250 into a wall. Many years later I found myself flying air ambulance and police helicopters, one of our regular tasks was road traffic collisions, it was clear that the majority of single vehicle fatalities Involved loss of control due to excessive speed for the road conditions and statistically motorcyclists were far more likely to be the fatality. Another observation was that the age of the fatalities was changing, born again motorcyclists, men in their 50s who had survived the 70s and 80s as young riders who gave it up then drove cars, had families etc, decided to take up biking again and could afford something much bigger and more powerful than they'd ever dreamed of but hadn't had the years of near misses and scares that motorcyclists learn from. On more than a few occasions I've been to the scene where the fatality is a rider from the back of a group trying to keep up and taking one risk too many for their experience level.

If the government in th UK want's the next generation of people to be contributing members of society their going to have to ease up on the licensing laws that's not opinion that's fact because with the UK having such restrictive licensing laws businesses an the economy are eventually going to start suffering as a result

My view here is that the UK gov have never liked motorcycles or motorcyclists and therefore have made this whole licensing process as complex as possible to deter would be new riders. With the current focus on climate change they have missed a big opportunity, over a number of decades, to include motorcycles as part of a joined up transport policy. What they should have been doing is encouraging people to ride motorcycles and scooters to ease traffic congestion and pollution levels. Instead we have a road tax charging structure which also contributes to deterring new be riders due to the costs and an overly complex licence process which you need an a level to navigate. I have been a motorcyclist for 35+ years and my eldest son was keen to start riding but the whole complexity of the licence process put him off and he went straight to a car. Maybe the new electric bikes coming onto the market will give the gov an opportunity to change their misguided licensing process but then again Boris’ lot are not that bright sadly…..keep up the great work with the vids guys…

I personally believe it should be the same as a car. You get a theory and practical test at 17 and are then allowed to ride any bike. I think the cost of insurance would stop any young person from picking up a 600 or 1000cc. Heck, for me It's £1,400 for insurance for my 125cc and I'm 23. I do however think that you should be allowed a 50cc at 14. The whole idea that people will be constantly upgrading bikes as they get the more advanced licenses is just unrealistic due to financial reasons. I will stay with my Hoodlum (which I bought thanks to your video on the bike) until I do my full unrestricted license. But by that point, many people would have just purchased a car.

The CBT system is just a gravy train.

Ridden bikes personally think 50cc is too slow for modern traffic but the test system I agree is messed up putting it politely why have basically 4 Tests (CBT,theory,mod 1 ,mod2) .I've got a car license,done my CBT every 2 years since 16 just so I can keep riding as could never afford to do a course as they were nearly 500 quid, the theory part is what gets me as a lot of things don't really change when riding compared to driving its all basic common roadsense.in a car theory there was nothing about vehicle maintenance compared to a bike theory

It’s all about money. More test equal to more times the government can get in your wallet.

One test for car and it Should be One test for motorcycles

I'm grateful i got into bikes when i was 27. Didn't need to bother with all the silly progressive licensing. Don't blame young people not wanting to spend so much money to have a restricted bike. Then they get bored of it and buy a car then never bother with a bike again

This is probably intentionally nebulous. The fun police really don’t like motorcycles and will always invoke “the greater good” and “the real costs to society “ in their reasoning.

The guy that passed these laws must be anti motorcycle. It's a CRAZY law! I'll take a taxi, bus or train.

The difference being that a 20 year old couldn't get their Ferrari on the road as either no company would insure them or the cost would make it impractical. A powerful secondhand bike with a low value would cost next to nothing to insure. Just a thought. I was an idiot that did it all the wrong way. I went from a 125 lt to a 1200 VMax then a Blackbird - a Hayabusa - a 2.3 lt Rocket and now a 2.5lt Rocket. I was lucky that fear and the wisdom that I was not bulletproof kept me calm and alive. I worry that if I was eighteen, with less life experience -I would have ridden VERY differently...

Surely the stupid bike licensing and training process in the uk must actually be costing motorbike manufacturers loads of money ? because many people young and old even if they have always dreamt of owning and riding a motorbike are simply looking at whats involved and saying nah dont think il bother its just too much hassle ? not being funny but if the law states that they are happy for you tp ride a motorbike on the main road in heavy traffic after just 4 - 6 hrs tuition for a cbt then whats the problem ? the law is saying YOUR ABLE TO RIDE A MOTORBIKE. all the other things such as riding more powerful bikes simply comes with time and experience.just like driving a ford fiesta and then jumping into a 200mph ferrari yet as already stated on here the government are happy for new drivers to do that ? none of it makes any sense its like if you want to be a biker you will be pinalised for it. im 50 next year and have always wanted to have a motorbike and am seriously considering doing all the test but some days im like but why ? cbt they are happy you have proven your safe enuf to ride a motorbike. but then id also have mod 1 and then also mod 2 and not forgetting the theory test which i already did and passed for my full car licence. its just alot of hassle and simply a money racket.

Completely agree, you could even make it hours/miles based like for flight training. Start on a 125 when your 16, when your 18 you can go up to a 400 but only if you've had X amount of hours/miles, same again at 21 you can go up to a 800 but only if you've had x amount of hours/miles on the 400. This would stop people from riding a 125 for 4 years and then switching straight to a fireblade and killing themselves, especially if they've owned the 125 but it's sat in the yard 99% of the time. Edit: Or, start on a 125, when your 18 OR when you've hit your hours/miles you can go up, so even if you're 17 but you have X hours experience you can jump to the 400. Older does not mean more experienced or skilled, more experienced and skilled means more experienced and skilled. If they wanna be really strict they could have you be required to do a ride with an instructor each time you jump levels, as long as you're not seriously dangerous then they can just give you advice on your riding and tell you what needs improving. If you are seriously dangerous you get x hours mandatory training and a retest before you can ride again. I'm not against licenses at all really (even though they don't really stop idiots from driving tbh), but they should make sense.

All car licences should be issued on the proviso that the person has ridden a 50cc for at least 1000 miles. This would familiarise more road users to the dangers of biking. After that the licencee can choose car or bike. For a bike they move up a 2 tier scale which improves on training and experience. Training should be cheaper and more accessible providing jobs and promoting fun and safety. Roughly.

I just find it funny that there are so many more steps (at least for young people) to get a full motorcycle licence, yet imagine the uproar if the government made similar rules for car drivers. Cars are bigger, heavier and consume more resources to make and run, yet they’re so much easier to be made legal to get behind the wheel of one.

Simple really the powers that be in this country DON'T WANT motorcyclists on the road. It's always been this way because of the disproportionate number of accidents, the statistics did show a bleak picture. Compulsory training was brought in but in my opinion (as a ten year bike instructor cbt, DAS Advanced IAM, DIA, ROSPA) IT WAS never set up right in the first place and cbt's were a joke, 2 hrs on the road before being let free ! I would have structured it so MORE TRAINING was compulsory BUT it would be ROAD BASED and assessment based. All the rules ,power limits etc etc were and still are laughable which puts youngsters off completely. A well trained and assessed rider can pass his bike test easy, no matter what his age, I trained lads for months after cbt's for very little money knowing they were going to make very good observant conciencious riders. The trainees enjoyed it too (like going for a ride out with a more mature experienced rider watching and teaching ) I loved teaching and training but got fed up of forever changing rules and regs making it harder for eager young riders to start riding. I had a 99% pass rate with my students because if they were not ready to go for it they were told. (And it wasn't for just getting more money out of them either) I got a great deal of personal satisfaction training guysand girls/ ladies to be great observant conciencious riders. My ethos was train em like they were my blood and when they had that confidence and without thinking ability to ride well and safe they were ready. Common sense also played a huge part in it too and some people just weren't cut out for it. 😉 Stay sharp , stay frosty with your spidey sense switched on and you'll spot em before they get you. 🏍🏍🏍🏍🏍

I’m glad I did my license before it all went mad, I had a125 until 21 then did my direct access. Once passed a weeks course I used my own common sense to progress up in cc an power (500 twin, 600 four, 750 and then 1000), this is my 15 year of riding full power and still loving it... nothing wrong with the old system, it’s just another way of our government nannying us, a 17 year old in a 20 year old Corsa can be a lot more dangerous then a 21 year old on a 500cc...

How come you don’t just ride without a license? It’s pretty common in the US.

I agree with you. I've said all along you can't ride a big bike but can drive a sports car! Absolutely no sense in it. A car can do a lot more damage than a bike in an accident

Guys, the whole point of the motorcycle licensing laws is to dissuade people from riding bikes and get them into cars.

FYI all the different licensing categories that you've covered are a European thing. All countries in the EU have the exact same system, barring a few small technical variations and the lack of a CBT.

I think an ideal scenario would be a 125 from 16-18 and forget about 50cc. They're too slow for the roads, hard to find and expensive. Make kids do their CBT at 16, then go back for the test at 18, to allow them access to bigger machines. Could always put a power restriction in place for the first 2 years of the license. I think that part should apply to everyone anyway.

I'm 19 and I simply can't afford to spend £700-£800 on A2, and then £2000 on a decent motorcycle and again £2000 on insurance, that's why I don't drive even though I would really like to.

I'm now in that situation where I've taken my A2 and am riding a restricted 600. What makes little sense is that in two years when I'll have 3 years experience, 2 of those on a 600, I'll have to spend a grand on the same tests again just to ride my bike without the restrictor. To me the solution is to have the restriction categories in place but have the licence automatically upgrade a to A after two years. Or perhaps require a CBT style training course, but not the same test on the same bike I just took but with a throttle stop removed that I never went past the whole test anyway.

To be honest the CBT shouldn't be only for 2 years. It should be forever or at least last longer.

I live in Indiana USA . You have to be 15 to ride a 50cc bike . Once your 16 you can get your riding permit (written test)and ride anything , but you are restricted to ride during the day with no passenger, and must wear a helmet.After holding the permit for 30 days you can take a riding test and get your license. We have lobbyists for helmet laws and training . The training provided by these groups is affordable and is very beneficial.

I didn't bother taking my test until I was 26 in 1976, it was simple, Borrow a 250cc, take the test, give the bike back, buy what you liked, job done no confusion, what you describe is government lunacy.

Bring back the "Sidewinder" (yeah im that old)

I rode my first bike in 1976, it's a very different biking world these days. The UK has some of the busiest roads in the world so that makes us a little unique, we also have some of the most narrowest and ancient roads in the world so that also makes us a little unique, so I'm not sure that we can compare ourselves to other countries very easily.

I subbed. 💪💪 Here in America you test once on any bike and if you pass you can ride any bike no matter the size.

It all about keeping you off the road What mp rides a motorcycle

Crazy, just sounds like a government money grab, in North America we can ride any size bike once you pass your test.

The British government have had it for motorcycles since the mid 70s it got worse in the 80s from then on just got worse they know young folk won't wait years that's why they ruined it just simple money make.

In Vietnam you don't need a licence to ride any bike - to me that is the solution. De-regulation so the UK isn't so oppressive to its citizen members so it doesn't become an Asian colony. Oh wait, too late.

Motorcycle laws have been crafted to dramatically reduce motorcycle use by making it difficult to obtain a full licence, I expect the same shortly for car driving licences.

I’m still very confused with all the licenses

Here in Portugal you have 4 licenses: AM, A1, A2 and A. AM: up to 50cc and can't exceed 45Km/h. You can have it at minimum age of 14 years old as a "special license" with a 15 hour formation (8 pratical hours and 7 theorotical hours) + the exams. At minimum age of 16 years old as a "normal" license + exams and guess what... minimum 25 years old with the B driver's license! A1, A2 and A are pretty much the same as in England. But still, I can't understand this restrictions. I took my driver's licence with 19 years old and I can drive a Citroen AX with 45 horsepower or a Bugatti Veyron with 1001 horsepower.

If you want to ride motorcycles you would do whatever it takes to achieve that goal.that doesnt mean i dont agree with the stupidity of the tests these days.however,there are plus points to keeping inexperienced riders off 180bhp bikes until they get 'the hang' of things.

I passed my motorbike test in Chile after leaving the UK aged 20. I've drove the Dakar, numerous times around Latin America... and apparently after 20 years riding when I go back to the UK... That all means nothing and I have to re take my exam and everything. Truly bizarre

I'm considerably past the 'young person' category, but I can confirm, having begun motorbike training a couple of years ago, that the process of getting a bike licence in the UK is considerably harder and more confusing than getting a car licence.

On my 16th birthday I got my provisional license, bought a brand new 250cc bike a couple of days later, never looked back, still an all weather speed freak rider at 73, have not fallen off yet (on road) trials and motocross is another story....the system is just a rubbish money maker.

It is so bad. The people who made these decisions are clueless and probably never rode a bike before. I think they have done this to prevent younger people from getting on bikes and make a lot of money in the process.. I have been riding for 3 years now waiting to turn 19 for my a2. I've rode a cbr1000rr before and yes there is a lot of power but so does my ford fiesta that can do 130mph... the only real argument would be the weight differences between bikes but then again, you can't feel the weight once you are moving so it makes no sense to me. How it should be in my opinion: Progressive Route: CBT at 16 years old (125cc max) A2 LICENCE - Theory, MOD 1 and 2 at 18 years old on a bike with 47hp (must have at least 1 years riding experience first) Upgrade to A licence at 19 by retaking a more in depth MOD 1 test on a heavier/more powerful bike and completing an advanced riding course. (minimum of 2 years riding experience) Alternatively, at 22 years old you can go direct access with full MOD 1, 2 and Advanced riding course. This would eliminate the issue of retaking the same test just on different bikes for each licence.

I passed my test in 1969 on a 200cc Triumph. I agree that there needs to be a progression, but it seems to me that Government policy is to discourage motorcycling, rather than just trying to make it safer. On returning to motorcycling in 2016 after a 27 year break I deliberately bought a 500cc Royal Enfield as being something within my competence, only too aware that at 67 my reactions are a lot slower than they used to be. Sadly, common sense seems to be absent among some bikers. It is well worth taking further training.

As a criminal lawyer, I can tell you that the magistrates court list is full of kids who just gave up on the crazy system. This means loads are uninsured costing us all money. I'm a biker of 45 years and my son of 29 just cannot find a test center while his CBT is valid.

Because most car drivers don't give a flying shit about looking out for bikers. The risk of serious injury or death at the hands of someone who's nothing short of ignorant makes it just not worth the time and effort. Add to that. Guys don't ride them as much because it's no longer cool and doesn't make the ladies swoon anymore like an expensive car does. Then thirdly. It's bad enough working crap jobs with even crappier pay and conditions without having to go into work either freezing cold or soaking wet. Assuming you don't get killed on the journey. I've always wanted to own and ride a monkey bike. Something about the size and the look of them appeals to me. But having seen the way drivers treat bikers with total disregard I'll never buy one. Simple really.

Have been having a similar discussion with a friend of mine, had a 125 when I was 17 soon after passed my driving test and bikes went by the wayside. I'm now 29 and will be getting a pair of vintage bikes that have gone down through the family. My friend is slightly older than me and did direct access and went straight into big bikes and doesn't see why I still want something smaller for a few years to get the gist of thinks even through direct access! Just because I can have an 1100 doesn't mean it should be my first bike!

Didn't Great Britain have teen age bomber pilots during WWII? They couldn't drive a car but did fly missions over Germany. What have you become?

I don’t think so. The license is an issue, but the main reason is money and status. Bikes are getting expensive and don’t have the attraction of heaters and weather protection. Time was, you bought a bike because you couldn’t afford a car. Nowadays, the insurance difference isn’t great, that tax is very little comparatively and the upfront cost of a bike is too high. Second hand bike for £2000, insurance for £500 and tax at £20 or whatever it is these days. Secondhand car £500, insurance £2000 and tax at £50 for economical 1.0. I’d pay £30 extra at 17 to have 4 mates, all of us dry and warm and more protection in an accident. As would most parents.

I like the suggestion of one time test and restriction through insurance grouping. The only improvement to it that I can suggest is progress based on experience than age. So for e.g even if a guy starts riding due to midlife crisis or something starts on 125cc and in 2 years is eligible for 400cc and a further 2 years or 20000 miles for 1000cc.

I don't disagree with the sentiment. BUT, the ideas and proposals need to be supported by statistics (# crashes, # fatalities, age groups etc). Without the supporting data nobody will listen, no matter how sensible the ideas seem in principal. I'm 50 and only got on a bike 12yrs ago. CBT + A2 within a couple of months, followed by A1 and straight on to a 600cc 100hp sports tourer. I didn't ride it too hard cos I was apprehensive and frankly scared, but I built my skills and 6mths later got a 1200cc 165hp hypertourer. Bikes are only as fast as you make them go and that's the crux here, people naturally overestimate their competence especially when they're new to it, exhilarated and/or "keeping up" with others....we are competitive. Training about how to develop skills and competence responsibily; how to manage the urges to "keep up" and to stay within your limits and through experiential learning would be far more valuable than the stupid system we have in place today.

I passed my test on a 125cc in 1968 and have been riding anything I want ever since. I was riding a Bonneville and a Gold star at 17 I am srtill here.

we just need to get rid of the nanny state.

This is symptomatic of the massive government over-reach and pointless meddling that prompted people to vote for Brexit. Unfortunately it turns out that the British Civil Service is staffed by a cadre of jobsworths a thousand times worse than those in Brussels.

I'm 51 and going to do cbt in a week. ( been frightened of bikes for some reason.) A lot of bike schools keep trying to get me to do full license which takes a week, I'm going to buy a 125 and get some road experience for a few months. Think this would be better for most people.

It should be the same for cars not just motorcycles

Like most government regulations it it targeted to discourage people from owning bikes because the type of people in politics don't like bikes.

Wow! That is incredible. How in the Hell can they come up with something as intrusive and complicated as that. I can only imagine the bureaucracy behind this. The day that I turned 16, 1971, I was at the local drivers licence office at eight o'clock in the morning with my dad's car and my motorcycle. I had purchased a Honda SL125 three months earlier and had already spent hundreds of hours, mostly in the dirt but many illegally on country back roads, in the saddle. Socialist Illinois, where I grew up, had a two tiered system of licensing motorcycles. Until a rider turned 18, they were restricted to bikes 150cc, or less. These bikes were classified as "Motor Driven Cycles" and were legal on all public roads except interstates. To this day, there are still signs on Illinois interstate on-ramps declaring this law. There was no special markings on the bike's license plate but, if I remember correctly, there was a different class marked on the drivers license. When a rider turned 18 they upgraded the license and the rider could, legally, ride any motorcycle. I bought a Honda CB450 as soon as I could and rode it for the next couple of years. I have owned over thirty bikes since. I, currently, keep five licensed and insured. This was a very interesting video. Thanks.

I totally agree with your idea with the insurance. The licensing is a typical uk shambles. They do anything to make our life harder and rip us off.

Don't you think that the effect of less younger people riding a motorbike is by government design. The testing system for motorbikes is onerous by design, to reduce the number of motorcyclists on the road for a reason. Everybody knows that motorbikes are inherently much more dangerous than cars and hence the hard government testing system to reduce the numbers on the road. I still ride a 600 cc motorbike but when i was young and learning, I nearly lost my life and my mate Geoff Smith did die in a collision. It seems with motorbikes that you either learn, ride better with age and experience and live or die in the learning process, with good/ bad luck thrown in along the way. It is for a very good reason that motorcyclist are referred to as 'donors'.

I’m 17 tomorrow and I’m just riding a yz 125 in fields and tracks and it’s frustrating because my yz 125 has more power than pretty much all road bike 125s in terms of power to weight (33horsepower to around 90 kilo) so I have experience on a fast bike, yet I have to wait years until I can get a bike on the road with a similar power to weight

Or take a page from America and A 2 day class the 1st day to get you familiarized with the motorcycle the 2nd days taking your written test and your final writing exam and then they just give you a motorcycle license and call it A-day the UK is always over complicating something

I started riding at 16 on a 50cc Fizzy in 1977 then bought a Suzuki GSX 250cc in 78 when I was 17 which was capable then of about 85mph! I then sat my bike test at 18 in 79 and progressed to a Honda 550 four, which I wish I still had. Ive had more than a few bikes since and at 61 still dabble although now in summer only lol. Keep Riding.

Thay dont like motorcycles so thay make it a money making scheme .