more bike bashing ?
in [Aussie Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Yamaha design flaw
Next: Got some spare coin?
From: Lars Chance on 23 Nov 2009 04:31 Hammo wrote: > > ....although. I can see why one might use the term moped. > > www.rta.nsw.gov.au/.../vsi_27_-_mopeds_and_power-assisted_pedal_cycles_july_ > 2008.pdf > Hmmm.. OK so NSW *does* have a moped vehicle-classification; just that they then don't offer any different licencing or registration on that classification, instead making users pay the same and use the same licences as for motorcycles. I had more luck with this link: <http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi_27_-_mopeds_and_power-assisted_pedal_cycles_july_2008.pdf> -- Elsie. (The cynic in me says that the NSW classification exists *solely* to stop people using "mopeds" to do motorcycle licence tests.)
From: Lars Chance on 23 Nov 2009 04:31 Hammo wrote: > > ....although. I can see why one might use the term moped. > > www.rta.nsw.gov.au/.../vsi_27_-_mopeds_and_power-assisted_pedal_cycles_july_ > 2008.pdf > Hmmm.. OK so NSW *does* have a moped vehicle-classification; just that they then don't offer any different licencing or registration on that classification, instead making users pay the same and use the same licences as for motorcycles. I had more luck with this link: <http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/registration/downloads/vsi/vsi_27_-_mopeds_and_power-assisted_pedal_cycles_july_2008.pdf> -- Elsie. (The cynic in me says that the NSW classification exists *solely* to stop people using "mopeds" to do motorcycle licence tests.)
From: Lars Chance on 23 Nov 2009 04:43 Lars Chance wrote: Lars Chance wrote: > Bloody hell; I'm seeing double! -- Elsie.
From: Nev.. on 23 Nov 2009 06:14 CrazyCam wrote: > Hammo wrote: > > <snip> > >> Sorry, I wasn't clear. >> Does his comment mean that he is describing powered two wheeled bikes >> other >> than motorcycles as either mopeds or scooters? > > I dunno <shrug>, but I'd expect someone in his position to know that a > moped is a class of vehicle which doesn't exist in NSW. I dunno. Just because you're involved in one part of an industry or something doesn't mean that you know all of the associated lingo, or understand why it is used. I was riding motorbikes on the road for over 15 years and was a quite proficient lane splitter through high speed, low speed and stationary traffic before I started hearing people on L and P plates telling me that lane splitting and lane filtering were two different things and one was good and one was evil. *shrug* Just because someone knows the lingo doesn't mean they understand it or have any particular proficiency... and vice versa. Nev.. '08 DL1000K8
From: CrazyCam on 23 Nov 2009 15:55
Lars Chance wrote: <snip> > Hmmm.. OK so NSW *does* have a moped vehicle-classification; just that > they then don't offer any different licencing or registration on that > classification, instead making users pay the same and use the same > licences as for motorcycles. OK, they have a document acknowledging the existence of the class, but, in effect, lump them in with any other motorbike or scooter. :-( A difference that makes no difference...... right. I hadn't known that. > (The cynic in me says that the NSW classification exists *solely* to > stop people using "mopeds" to do motorcycle licence tests.) When the pre-learners course was first established, the RTA chose, and owned, the fleet of bikes used by the various schools running the courses. There was usually at least one 49cc automatic scooter at each school. I dunno when that situation ceased. For the MOST, provided it is a legal and roadworthy bike, they have to allow folk to be tested on whatever they ride up on. Only the gear changing mechanism makes any difference. regards, CrazyCam |