Should Buisness use/delivery be banned for L Plate Riders?
Discussion
No - all you'd be doing is making sure that people that (being realistic) don't have much money cannot earn, or you'd make them poorer on day one. Based on anecdotal evidence/perception of poor riding. You'd also probably drive up prices of deliveries (with very little of that money going to the rider).
CoreyDog said:
Yes, let’s be fair, some of the standards of riding we see from Deliveroo/Uber East etc is pretty shocking.
But… they also made the motorcycle test needlessly expensive and long winded, especially if you are 24 or under.
Agreed, I think they should replace the CBT with the A1 and scrap the A2, A categories... Once you've done the theory, MOD1 and MOD 2, it's daft to make people do them all over again (apart from theory) on a larger capacity bike.But… they also made the motorcycle test needlessly expensive and long winded, especially if you are 24 or under.
Yes.
Why?
The L-plate system is supposed to be for people who want some time to practice on a 125 before they take their full test. Their objective is to pass the big bike test. They are incentivised to take lessons and improve their skills because no motivated motorcyclist in their right mind wants to ride around on a 125 for the rest of their lives.
The L-plate system as used by delivery drivers is a professional qualification - a means to earn money. They are happy with the cheapest bike/scoot they can get hold of they can legally ride. They have no incentive to take the big bike test - it's an unnecessary expenditure of money and time. They effectively have a permanent 125 licence as long as they renew the CBT every 2 years. And nobody really knows how many do actually renew. In this category the riders are not "learners" as such - they have all the accreditation they need to fulfil their requirements.
The problem?
It's not in the interests of road safety to have urban fleets of professional scooter riders who haven't passed a bike test. It's as simple as that.
It's not for me to criticise the riders themselves - they are responding to the extant regulatory framework and economic incentives. I'm in favour of people earning a living, and also of riding motorcycles. But it's in everyone's best interests to ensure that professional riders are properly trained and have proven themselves competent before being allowed to work.
If that makes some lazy sod pay 50p more for their McDonalds delivery, in the interests of road safety, that's fine by me.
Why?
The L-plate system is supposed to be for people who want some time to practice on a 125 before they take their full test. Their objective is to pass the big bike test. They are incentivised to take lessons and improve their skills because no motivated motorcyclist in their right mind wants to ride around on a 125 for the rest of their lives.
The L-plate system as used by delivery drivers is a professional qualification - a means to earn money. They are happy with the cheapest bike/scoot they can get hold of they can legally ride. They have no incentive to take the big bike test - it's an unnecessary expenditure of money and time. They effectively have a permanent 125 licence as long as they renew the CBT every 2 years. And nobody really knows how many do actually renew. In this category the riders are not "learners" as such - they have all the accreditation they need to fulfil their requirements.
The problem?
It's not in the interests of road safety to have urban fleets of professional scooter riders who haven't passed a bike test. It's as simple as that.
It's not for me to criticise the riders themselves - they are responding to the extant regulatory framework and economic incentives. I'm in favour of people earning a living, and also of riding motorcycles. But it's in everyone's best interests to ensure that professional riders are properly trained and have proven themselves competent before being allowed to work.
If that makes some lazy sod pay 50p more for their McDonalds delivery, in the interests of road safety, that's fine by me.
_Neal_ said:
No - all you'd be doing is making sure that people that (being realistic) don't have much money cannot earn, or you'd make them poorer on day one. Based on anecdotal evidence/perception of poor riding. You'd also probably drive up prices of deliveries (with very little of that money going to the rider).
Not anecdotal evidence:https://www.mooneerams.com/blog/food-delivery-driv...
Notable extracts:
- 75% of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the comment that ‘there have been occasions while working where I have had to take action to avoid a crash.'
- Of those interviewed, 42% said that their vehicle had been damaged as a result of an accident they were involved in whilst working.
- The same survey revealed that 41% of those whose work was mobile phone app-based, found that the app had caused them distractions whilst driving/ riding.
Good lord above. That is a disaster.
As for the economic argument, as per the stats above, that money saved by the worker simply means increased society costs in injuries which the state has to pay to sort out. I'm not buying it.
modellista said:
_Neal_ said:
No - all you'd be doing is making sure that people that (being realistic) don't have much money cannot earn, or you'd make them poorer on day one. Based on anecdotal evidence/perception of poor riding. You'd also probably drive up prices of deliveries (with very little of that money going to the rider).
Not anecdotal evidence:https://www.mooneerams.com/blog/food-delivery-driv...
Notable extracts:
- 75% of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the comment that ‘there have been occasions while working where I have had to take action to avoid a crash.'
- Of those interviewed, 42% said that their vehicle had been damaged as a result of an accident they were involved in whilst working.
- The same survey revealed that 41% of those whose work was mobile phone app-based, found that the app had caused them distractions whilst driving/ riding.
Good lord above. That is a disaster.
As for the economic argument, as per the stats above, that money saved by the worker simply means increased society costs in injuries which the state has to pay to sort out. I'm not buying it.
Why would you make (most likely) poor people poorer, in an environment where people who work full-time have to resort to food banks, with no actual evidence that to do so would improve road safety?
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff