My View on the Government’s Motorcycle License Law Consultation
- Ben Grayson
- Jan 9
- 5 min read
I’ve been involved with motorcycles for as long as I can remember. Over the past decade in particular, I’ve watched UK biking culture steadily shrink — not because people have stopped loving motorcycles, but because the barriers to entry have continued to grow.
There isn’t one single reason for this decline. It’s a combination of factors:
Cost of living
Weather (we are in the UK, after all)
Cost of purchase
Cost of insurance
Prohibitive licensing
That last point — licensing — is the one I want to focus on here, because in my view it has become the biggest blocker stopping new riders from entering motorcycling at all.
I’ve shared my thoughts on the current licensing system before, and I won’t repeat all of that here. But with the government’s latest consultation on “modernising” motorcycle training, testing, and licensing, I felt it was important to respond — not emotionally, but honestly, from the perspective of someone who has spent over 25 years inside this industry.
If you’d like to read the full consultation document, you can find it here:
What follows is my response — cherry-picking key points and offering an alternative, practical perspective from the real world.
Do I know everything? Of course not.Do I have a vested interest in the future of motorcycling in the UK? Absolutely.
And right now, it feels like the collective voice of riders, dealers, instructors, and industry professionals simply isn’t being heard.
The Foreword: Some Immediate Concerns
The consultation opens with several familiar statements:
“Road safety is fundamental to everything this government stands for.”
Yet the reality on the ground tells a different story. UK roads are riddled with potholes. Motorways increasingly lack hard shoulders. If you break down in winter with children in the car, you’re exposed, vulnerable, and frankly unsafe. Road safety doesn’t start and end with licensing.
“Reducing pressure on the NHS.”
This is a weak justification when framed purely around motorcycle licensing. It implies that motorcyclists are “clogging up” the NHS due to poor training, when there is little evidence that licensing structure alone is the root cause of serious injuries.
“Motorcyclists are disproportionately affected in road traffic collisions.”
This is the elephant in the room: motorcycles don’t have steel cages around them. Around 38% of motorcycle fatalities involve another vehicle — usually a car. Yet there’s no corresponding proposal to improve driver training, observation skills, or awareness of vulnerable road users.
“Preventing riders from continually riding on a provisional licence.”
In my view, the real issue isn’t the provisional licence — it’s the outdated nature of the CBT itself. That’s where reform should focus, not on penalising riders who have valid reasons for staying where they are.
These quotes are attributed to Lilian Greenwood, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Local Transport — someone who does not hold a motorcycle licence or have two-wheel experience. I have reached out to her for comment, and I genuinely hope to hear back.
Executive Summary: Where the Logic Starts to Unravel
“Motorcyclists are over 40 times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than car occupants.”
Riders already know this. Risk is inherent to motorcycling — and, for many, that’s part of the appeal. Licensing alone will never eliminate this disparity unless we put cages around bikes.
What’s missing here is balance:
No mention of compulsory safety clothing
No focus on car driver education
No meaningful discussion of road quality
This feels like a high-level statistic being used to justify narrow reform.
“92% of KSI casualties are male.”
Approximately 90% of UK motorcyclists are male. This stat is meaningless unless the proposal is genuinely designed to attract more female riders — which would be brilliant, but isn’t addressed.
Rural vs urban casualties
Riders seek out rural roads for enjoyment — naturally, incidents occur there. Urban casualties are more likely linked to commuting and delivery work, often involving other vehicles. Again, this points toward environment and usage, not just licensing.
“The training and testing regime has remained largely unchanged for decades.”
On this, I completely agree. It does need modernising.
The Proposed Reforms: What Works, What Doesn’t
1. Automatic vs Manual Licences
Agree completely.If you pass your CBT on an automatic, you should ride automatics only — with a clear training route to upgrade. This is common sense.
2. Theory Testing
Partly agree.
The appeal of CBT is simplicity and low cost — but that’s also its weakness. Rather than forcing riders into a formal theory test with long waits and extra costs, a more in-depth theory element built into CBT would be far more effective.
(And yes — why aren’t we taught this properly at school?)
3. A2 to Full A Licence
I strongly disagree with adding more hoops.
If a rider has two years of continuous, evidenced A2 experience, an automatic upgrade via an online DVLA course makes far more sense than another test. Gaining an extra 40bhp after two years isn’t a safety cliff edge.
For context: in five years, only 3,125 riders upgraded from A2 to A.That’s 625 new big-bike riders per year — and we wonder why big-bike sales are collapsing and dealers are closing.
4. Updating the CBT
Yes — absolutely — as long as it remains sensible, affordable, and accessible.
5. Instructor Qualifications
Not my area to comment on, but I know poor instructors exist. The industry should lead on this discussion.
6. Limiting CBT Renewals
Categorically disagree.
There are three types of riders who renew CBTs:
Those using bikes for work (couriers, delivery riders)
Those happy with small bikes for fun or commuting
Those gaining experience before progressing
Riders in groups 1 and 2 do not need full licences — and many would never have started riding if forced to take one. Penalising them will devastate the small-capacity market overnight.
7. Digital CBT Certification
Makes perfect sense.
My Frustration (and Why This Matters)
Yes, this is a consultation — and people should respond. But this isn’t the first time. We’ve been here before, and mistakes were made then too.
Too often, decisions are shaped by people who don’t ride and don’t understand motorcycle culture. Safety matters — deeply — but I refuse to believe the casualty figures quoted are primarily the result of poor training.
I personally know highly experienced riders whose lives have been changed forever by motorcycle accidents. Safety improvements are possible — but let’s be honest about what they are.
This consultation shouldn’t be framed as “motorcycles are dangerous and licensing will fix it.”It should be about helping motorcyclists help themselves, while making the industry accessible, sustainable, and attractive to new riders.
Over to You
What do you think?Have you responded to the consultation yet?
You have a voice — don’t waste it.
Comments