Where are all the cheap bikes hiding??

Finishing off the motorhome build now, and we're now looking for a cheap
bike to put on the back of the van, so we can get about and see the places
we visit.. hard to do that in a 7 meter long motorhome, expecialy when it
drinks diesel like george best drinks beer, i'll make the carrier my self,
and idealy want to keep around 120 kilo's for the bike, also the type of
carrier i'll make will involve us lifting the bike into the wheel cradles,
front end first, then lift the back end and swing it in,

We're only after a 125cc machine, i havent passed my test yet.. last rode 10
years ago, so i'll need to do a CBT again, then the proper bike test a few
weeks after that.. think all i can get away with not doing is the theory
test, as i've held my car licence for 11 years,

But the idea is to get a cheap learner legal bike, twat about on it for a
few weeks to get the hang of things again, then have a go at the bike test i
should have taken 10 years ago but kept on putting off, then get a bit more
practice in, de-restrict the bike, and plonk me GF on the back and have a go
riding with a pair of tits pressed against me back.

The type of bike we're after would be what i used to have, something like an
early 90's KMX 125, tho idealy something with a more arse friendly seat
don't want a total rust bucket, mechanical work dosent bother me one bit,
but idealy something that at least runs in a fassion,

But i just can't seem to find any, we'll have about 4 to 500 quid max to
spend on the bike, but it seems all the ads nowadays are for 2 or 3 year old
bikes, with 5k miles on them, for 6 grand,

or classic bikes 30 or so years old, maybe it's just where i live, i know a
2 stroker dosent last much past 25k miles, but what happens to them then?
surely some people re-build the engines and carry on with them,

This is something we have to do on a budget, a trials style bike is a must
as we'd like to ride off road a bit, so yamaha DT, kawasaki KMX, honda
whadyacallit etc, 125cc, not a total shed, and cheap to boot,

am i asking too much?

We're based over nottingham way (east of notts) so if anyones got a suitable
bike for sale, let us know (on here, as the e-mail addy is munged)

 

No. You just aren't looking in the right places.

But trying to find a decent 125 dirt bike for under 500 quid is next to
impossible.

 

I think you're going to struggle. Small trail bikes are very sought
after, hence hold their prices. I've just checked the database for my
website (www.muddystuff.co.uk), & the only bikes ever advertised for
£500 or less have been 50/80cc kids bikes, or basket cases. The cheapest
125 on there at the moment is a c.1996 unregistered Italian import
Aprilia RX125 for £700 no offers!

There's a 'wanted' section on there if you want to place an ad - it's
free. Alternatively check out the fields & railway embankments near your
local council estate.

 

see the way you refresh the selection page using javascript to reload
the various dropdowns?

1) it's annoying as ****
2) because you've got a .co.uk and not an .org.uk you're representing
yourself as a commercial concern - you'll be liable to be sued for
discriminating against people with disabilities come the new
legislation later on this year - no navigation features allowed that
cannot be replicated by people who've disabled javascript, or who are
using screen readers.

 

I didn't realise that people's disabilities affected their javascript, bad
news.

 

to be serious for a moment, I'm having to do this as part of my
day-job at the moment - many partially sighted people and people with
certain types of motor dysfunction turn off Javascript. If you're
running a commercial site, and the navigation is dependant on
Javascript i.e. there's no way of getting to certain pages without it,
then you'll be liable to be sued for discrimination later on this
year.

 

What constitutes a commercial site, just the domain name?

 

darsy wrote

and some of them cripples make militant seem a fairly innocuous word.

 

Sort of... though the only bit that gets refreshed that way is the list
of models when you select a different make. The makes are stored in an
application array. I'm very open to suggestions though, bearing in mind
there are 3 tiers (category, make, model), & techie web stuff isn't
really my thing.

In what way?

It did start out as a commercial concern, but now it's more of a hobby.
If people insist on having javascript disabled, they'll have to go
elsewhere.
Does the new legislation really apply to *all* commercial websites? I
can see the courts filling up very quickly if that's the case!

 

theoretically yes - though it's "unlikely" to affect people with
obviously "personal home page" type sites that just happen to be
..co.uks.

However, offering a sale/wanted classified advertising service such as
Preston's, and being on a .co.uk site would leave him liable.

On one other hand, you might think that because it's not a
particularly high profile site, so no-one with such disabilities might
ever notice it.

However, our accessibility consultants have already mentioned that
certain of the less reputable "claims direct" style legal outfits have
been compiling lists of "commercial" websites which they can sue "on
behalf of a client".

You've been warned.

Even before this years specific web-site oriented legislation, there's
been a successful legal action taken against a large UK financial
organisation - they were offering a discounted interest rate on one of
their services, but it was only on a webpage that was viewable via a
javascript link - this is clear cut discrimination already. The new
laws will mean websites need to be very easy to navigate (or have an
alternate navigation structure) for people using screen readers/no
javascript etc.

In fact, one of the things you have to ensure is that people not using
a mouse i.e. using Tab to jump between page elements get a "fair deal"
so you have to position your page elements in a way so that tabbing
through them appears to work in a logical way. In addition, for these
users to have to ensure that anywhere you use an onMouseOver event,
you also have to provide the same functionality using onFocus.

 

<snip> Interesting. Perhaps we could see a surge in demand for web monkeys
again.

What about different browsers? Could you be sued if your site works with IE
sans javscript but not say, Safari?

 

Surely turning off Javascript is their choice though, rather than
something they have to do as a direct result of their disability? If
they also choose not to allow cookies, does that mean every company with
an ASP site, or who use cookies for shopping baskets can be sued? These
are serious questions btw.

 

They can sit next to the **** who always has to explain to his mates what's
happening on screen.


--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2,ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1/13a,MCT#1,DFV#2,SKoGA#0 (and KotL)
BotToS#5,SBS#25,IbW#34, TEAR#3 (and KotL), DS#5, COSOC#9, KotTFSTR#
The speccy Geordie twat.

 

there's certainly a surge in the ammount of "accessibility
consultants" out there already - after the legislation, expect more.
In fact, if you're an out-of-work web monkey, with some common sense,
re-branding yourself in the accessibility sphere could be the way to
go.

Gray area so far - wait for the court cases. I can't envisage how the
above scenario would happen in any case - if you're providing
bog-standard HTML navigation to all your pages, it'll work in all
browsers. There is a "reasonable cut off" for old browsers. No-one's
too sure about /obscure/ modern browsers (read: Linux ones).

If you're a real commercial operation, you at least "need to be seen
to be making an effort" at making your site accessible.

 

Ah - now it all makes sense, technically if not morally.

 

"turning off Javascript" is not the issue - it's for screen-reading
browsers for the blind - they cannot by definition support a
navigation element that relies on clicking on something with a mouse,
that isn't an HTML link i.e. a javascript "onClick" event.

I asked this (because two of our sites use cookies[1]) apparently
they're fine - people can choose to turn them off, but it's nothing to
do with their disability.

the whole thing would be laughable if it *weren't* so serious, IMO.

[1] not for shopping baskets; to maintain a session and indicate
whether or not they've clicked on the disclaimer page[2] that they
have to view before reading any other page on the site.
[2] /this/ is to satisfy UK investment compliance laws.

 

I'm sure dwb mentioned this to me - they need to provide an
explanatory alternative sound track that can be picked up by those
radio hearing aid things.