LAMS Law Discussion & Opinion

[@jacksonwelch9870]

agree with what your saying i used to race enduro dirtbikes from when i was 13-16 years old when i crashed and basically ran out of money and stopped riding until i was 18, now I'm 20 and cruising around on a RVF400 like yours and i honestly think i could handle a 600 like a r6 for example without any issue, the restrictions are a bit tight in terms of bikes we can actually own and for people like us who want sport bikes, maybe the time shouldn't be what changes but for people with prior experience should be allowed more powerful bikes like r6's cbr600's etc

[@Sundaymov]

need that 4k intro :p

[@stocksy5798]

Yeah, going to make a neew intro when I have done a few more videos!

[@Sundaymov]

slacker :p

[@CustomcrowdMitroc]

i have been riding dirtbikes since i was 5 years old so i have been riding motorbikes for 11 years, so its kind of shit that i have to use a low powered bike after how much i have allready ridden. I rekon if u have proof that u have been riding motorikes for heaps long you should be able to use more powerful bikes.

[@tdunster2011]

There is pretty much no comparison between riding on the road and riding a dirt bike. If you ride on the road the way you ride in the bush odds are you will die. Handling the bike is the easy part - it's the handling the traffic around you which is the issue.

[@stocksy5798]

Agreed to an extent. However, if you're talking about someone who just rides in the bush for fun on holidays and every 2nd - 3rd weekend to someone who raced at a high level for 20 years you can guarantee the racer will have far more bike control, road or dirt. If that is purely the case though why do you still have to go through LAMS laws if you have 6+years experience driving on the roads or even more? I don't think young kids who can race should just jump straight on but if you already have both experiences why do you have to be limited for 3 years, seems like a long time for someone with such experience.

[@tdunster2011]

From a policy makers perspective how would society benefit safety wise if racing history / performance was taken into consideration when licensing motorcyclists ? Mind you there are bikes like the 660 Street triple on the Lams list and letting noobs ride them is just insane - so it goes both ways I guess. I think the answer probably resides somewhere been practicality and bribes from motorcycle manufacturers.

[@stocksy5798]

I feel like you didn't listen to what I said in the video at all. But I will just give you two very simple questions As a motorist your self (I assume) If you had the opportunity to drive with other road users who had years and years of racing experience in either a car or motorcycle? Or, Betty, never had any track experience, no experience pushing her vehicle, learning how to brake properly, not assertive, far from quick thinking and panics. I know I would much prefer to drive with other road users who have complete control of their vehicle and is competent. It seems as though your argument is "if you race you drive like a hooligan" that's how it seems at least. From a policy makers perspective, it means nothing to them (which I addressed in the video in a way). Just because it doesn't make a difference to them it still makes a difference to a minority of people. The fact you're put under the same blanket program as someone who has POTENTIALLY never even ridden a motorcycle is bizarre to me. Imagine throwing C class riders in a Pro race..