Are Bikers being a bit naive protesting over this

Bigus

I know this is covered in the bike forum but I want to know what other road users think of bikers protesting about these measures proposed by the EC.

Personally i agree with the High Viz, and headlight on and ABS

robbie_998

What a load of me hole


ABS is such a nice feature and times and it stops ya from skidding and plouging into a ditch.

i can agree with the headlight part... did they not try that on cars at one stage ? its stupid.

High viz.... during the day i can agree but at night i'd see you a lot better if ya had one... plus its not a big deal to have on anyway.

just like if ya were walking home in the pitch dark on a road with no lights i'd see ya sooner and not whack ya outta it !

challengemaster

robbie_998 wrote: »

What a load of me hole


ABS is such a nice feature and times and it stops ya from skidding and plouging into a ditch.

i can agree with the headlight part... did they not try that on cars at one stage ? its stupid.

High viz.... during the day i can agree but at night i'd see you a lot better if ya had one... plus its not a big deal to have on anyway.

just like if ya were walking home in the pitch dark on a road with no lights i'd see ya sooner and not whack ya outta it !

To be completely honest, I agree with the lights thing. We're in a country where the colour of everything can just turn into one murky grey/black/white mix. It's hard enough to see black cars when the weather is bad, nevermind something like a bike

And bikes are much louder than any boy racer tin-can exhaust which has been cracked down on big time, if it's really about noise pollution then yes, they should be banned from urban areas

corktina

in my view bikers ought to sse the common sense behind many of these measures. I think that its the idea of being TOLD what to do they object to rather than the actual measures.

Tigger

corktina wrote: »

in my view bikers ought to sse the common sense behind many of these measures. I think that its the idea of being TOLD what to do they object to rather than the actual measures.

One of the proposalls is no bikes over 7 years in urban areas

Makes no sense And since I collect old bikes ( and mak them like new ) I really really object to this

robbie_998

challengemaster wrote: »

To be completely honest, I agree with the lights thing. We're in a country where the colour of everything can just turn into one murky grey/black/white mix. It's hard enough to see black cars when the weather is bad, nevermind something like a bike

And bikes are much louder than any boy racer tin-can exhaust which has been cracked down on big time, if it's really about noise pollution then yes, they should be banned from urban areas

is crappy weather its pretty much common sense to through on a few lights and everyone should do it

but in the middle of the day when its fairly bright out and your driving along a road its not too difficult to tell what cars are and are not on or driving.

but in bad weather with the likes of fog and rain it shouldn't matter what color anything is that you should have enough sense to throw on the lights.

challengemaster

Tigger wrote: »

One of the proposalls is no bikes over 7 years in urban areas

Makes no sense And since I collect old bikes ( and mak them like new ) I really really object to this

Not everyone appreciates the noise of a bike

OldmanMondeo

A lot makes sense, a lot most bikers already do anyway, lights always on, wearing hi-vis. But some is a load of poo, and I can't see getting passed, ie bikes over 7 years old in urban areas. Just because a bike hits the grand old age of 7 it becomes a death trap? bring in an nct for bikes instead, this will help remove some of the dangerous bikes off the road.

furtzy

Lot of negativity to some good measures and equally some really stupid EU suggestions.

Yes to headlights always on (thought this was the law here already)
Yes to noise limitation
Yes to safer crash barriers. The wire and post barriers are a death trap to bikers
Yes to an NCT for bikes

Mr Benevolent

You should hear the pushbike cyclists who preach that wearing a helmet is more dangerous then not wearing one :rolleyes:

Mint Sauce

Stumbled across this thread on the motor biking forum, one of the proposals would even prevent them accessing some part of the engine if they were servicing their own bike. I think this was the main objection.

Confab wrote: »

You should hear the pushbike cyclists who preach that wearing a helmet is more dangerous then not wearing one :rolleyes:

As a cyclist aswell, the arguement there is that if wearing a helmet some drivers sub subconscious drive closer to you because you might be safer or more in control of your bike.

Mr Benevolent

irish-stew wrote: »

As a cyclist aswell, the arguement there is that if wearing a helmet some drivers sub subconscious drive closer to you because you might be safer or more in control of your bike.

That's madness. I avoid the wobbly feckers as much as possible.

sleepysniper

challengemaster wrote: »

they should be banned from urban areas

yeah sure, why not just ban them all together then:rolleyes:

L1011

the 7 years (And crash barriers, in so far as the wire rope barriers are just crap all round) are the only ones I can agree with.

Compulsary helmets, headlights, type approval not being allowed **** with the bike etc - just grow up and become mature road users ffs.

MrTsSnickers

[As a cyclist aswell, the arguement there is that if wearing a helmet some drivers sub subconscious drive closer to you because you might be safer or more in control of your bike.[/QUOTE]

Thoughts it was more that the cyclist had an inflated sense of safety when they were wearing the helmets and therefore took more risks?

Heard this argument before but here's another link for "back up" http://bicycleuniverse.info/eqp/helmets-nyt.html

copeyhagen

cant see any of them being brought in tbh.

i, like most, drive with lights on all the time.

drive with a hi vis backpack too.

nct for bikes was only a matter of time anyways.

the 7 year old urban rule is laughable, will never happen, 85% of bikes on our roads are probably older than 7 years.

thirtythirty

robbie_998 wrote: »

What a load of me hole


ABS is such a nice feature and times and it stops ya from skidding and plouging into a ditch.

i can agree with the headlight part... did they not try that on cars at one stage ? its stupid.

High viz.... during the day i can agree but at night i'd see you a lot better if ya had one... plus its not a big deal to have on anyway.

just like if ya were walking home in the pitch dark on a road with no lights i'd see ya sooner and not whack ya outta it !

The protests are warranted in my view - but that poster was very poorly put together and puts across the wrong message.

Remember that these are pan-european measures, and that's where a lot of the protests spawned.

Hi-Viz - think of all the hot countries where bikers never wear more than a t-shirt, it's just impractical. I would accept hi-viz after 7pm rules however.

No-tampering and ABS are not retro-fittable to most bikes, and the ones that could take it would be at a cost several grand, forcing the sale of bikes that don't have it (~70% at a guess)

Roadside diagnostics - basically a sneaky way for them to have a look at your riding history - how would you feel if road side diagnostics for cars was coming into force and you could be disciplined for "spirited" driving etc

Headlights - most bikers use headlights all day everyday

7 year urban ban - basically wiping out the courier industry! Along with all the other issues around that.

NCT - accidents on bikes are realy due to component failure, and the proposal doesn't reference any statistics relating to such. 95% of bikers are bikers because they're into it, plus they know the dangers so nobody bloody drives around with dodgy breaks!

It's not that laws regarding bikes are being looked at that's annoying, it's that its clear civil servant baseless thought and utterly unrealistic. Imagine a ban on cars or trucks over 7 years old in urban areas!???

-Chris-

Confab wrote: »

You should hear the pushbike cyclists who preach that wearing a helmet is more dangerous then not wearing one :rolleyes:

@everyone - this discussion is off-topic, and more suited to the Cycling forum. Let's drop this line of discussion please.

Bigus

spottyelephant wrote: »

The protests are warranted in my view - but that poster was very poorly put together and puts across the wrong message.

The Bikers are protesting about everything, just like drink drivers did here 7 years ago, yet look at the fall in road deaths in Ireland from over 400 to probably below 200 this year. I can't argue with that, even though I lost a substantial business over the new law.

No-tampering and ABS are not retro-fittable to most bikes, and the ones that could take it would be at a cost several grand, forcing the sale of bikes that don't have it (~70% at a guess)

These are not retro Plans but would apply to bikes sold in the EC from now on

Roadside diagnostics - basically a sneaky way for them to have a look at your riding history - how would you feel if road side diagnostics for cars was coming into force and you could be disciplined for "spirited" driving etc

I agree sneaky but bikers are impossible to catch at anything eg Ghost Rider

Headlights - most bikers use headlights all day everyday

Most isn't all hence the need to make it compulsory ... simple

7 year urban ban - basically wiping out the courier industry! Along with all the other issues around that.

Probably to get the smelly mopeds off the streets of Tenerife etc, probably the one that won't happen

NCT - accidents on bikes are realy due to component failure, and the proposal doesn't reference any statistics relating to such. 95% of bikers are bikers because they're into it, plus they know the dangers so nobody bloody drives around with dodgy breaks!

I don't think there is any mention of NCT in the proposals ...bikers get your facts right before protesting

It's not that laws regarding bikes are being looked at that's annoying, it's that its clear civil servant baseless thought and utterly unrealistic. Imagine a ban on cars or trucks over 7 years old in urban areas!???

Who else but civil Servants is going to help save bikers and pillion passenger lives ??????????

Cuddlesworth

robbie_998 wrote: »

ABS is such a nice feature and times and it stops ya from skidding and plouging into a ditch.

And would render a load of dual purpose off-road bikes worthless.

robbie_998 wrote: »

i can agree with the headlight part... did they not try that on cars at one stage ? its stupid.

DRL's are already on every new bike. I'm not sure of the purpose of that part.

robbie_998 wrote: »

High viz.... during the day i can agree but at night i'd see you a lot better if ya had one... plus its not a big deal to have on anyway.

We could make cars safer too by plastering High Vis stickers all across the front, sides and back. Any objections to that?

robbie_998 wrote: »

just like if ya were walking home in the pitch dark on a road with no lights i'd see ya sooner and not whack ya outta it !

We have lights on the front and back. Like a car. If you need any more to see us at night you shouldn't be driving.

challengemaster wrote: »

To be completely honest, I agree with the lights thing. We're in a country where the colour of everything can just turn into one murky grey/black/white mix. It's hard enough to see black cars when the weather is bad, nevermind something like a bike

DRL's are standard on all new bikes.

challengemaster wrote: »

And bikes are much louder than any boy racer tin-can exhaust which has been cracked down on big time, if it's really about noise pollution then yes, they should be banned from urban areas

Then they need to crack down on loud aftermarket bike exhausts. Which has nothing to do with age. I don't remember them banning cars older then seven years from urban areas because boy racers were modifying exhausts.

corktina wrote: »

in my view bikers ought to sse the common sense behind many of these measures. I think that its the idea of being TOLD what to do they object to rather than the actual measures.

I object to being told what to do, when the reasoning behind it is "because I said so". I'm a fully grown adult, I will question any decision which effects my life and merit its pro's and cons before making up my own mind.

Very little of it is common sense, most of it is a form of hysteria. Better compulsorily bike training for all bike users on a ten year cycle and not installing safety barriers which cut you in half.

KTRIC

The reaction here is typical of what the non biking motoring community think of bikers in general and is driving the reason we're protesting in the first place.

Pure ignorance at its highest order. Walk a mile in my shoes and then judge me

thirtythirty

Bigus wrote: »

The Bikers are protesting about everything, just like drink drivers did here 7 years ago, yet look at the fall in road deaths in Ireland from over 400 to probably below 200 this year. I can't argue with that, even though I lost a substantial business over the new law.

I think it's important to draw distinctions between drink driving laws, and bans on 7 year old bikes!

Bigus wrote: »

These are not retro Plans but would apply to bikes sold in the EC from now on

My understanding is that it's deeper than that i.e. Enduro style bikes at least never (or won't) have those features, so to use one legally that you currently own would require retrofits - I'm going off scanning other motorbike forums here without much indepth reading so I appreciate I may be wrong!

Bigus wrote: »

I agree sneaky but bikers are impossible to catch at anything eg Ghost Rider

:pac:

Bigus wrote: »

Most isn't all hence the need to make it compulsory ... simple

Probably fair enough - but I'd rather see DRLs from 20xx onwards than the enforcement of a rule that didn't work on cars.

Bigus wrote: »

Probably to get the smelly mopeds off the streets of Tenerife etc, probably the one that won't happen

This is the worst one alright - I currently ride an admittedly crap looking, but mechanically sound 1998 125 and could no-way afford a new bike. It would be the end of me taking the bike to work, and instead the start of me adding to congestion by having to take the car.

Bigus wrote: »

I don't think there is any mention of NCT in the proposals ...bikers get your facts right before protesting

lol, picked that up on a quick scan of this thread

Bigus wrote: »

Who else but civil Servants is going to help save bikers and pillion passenger lives ??????????

Even independant review commissions that engage with rider groups, bike designers, transport and accident data providers, and other wider macro interest groups; e.g. I would like to see research into the benefits of ABS in fatal crash scenarios of bikes - corner crashes, front wheel slips, driver error etc. Straight line breaking tests where obviously it will stop in a straight line test better is of no use. But proper insight into the cost/benefit ratio - perhaps ABS on bikes wouldn't add as much safety as it does in cars and should remain as an option, not compulsory. I don't know the answer to that, and I bet the two desk-clerks who "heard of ABS" and decided they should throw it in with the rest of their nice list of proposals that might get them a promotion don't know either.

Proposals are fine by me if quantified - but not if just suggested!

dr.fuzzenstein

KTRIC wrote: »

The reaction here is typical of what the non biking motoring community think of bikers in general and is driving the reason we're protesting in the first place.

Pure ignorance at its highest order. Walk a mile in my shoes and then judge me

I'd agree with you there.
What is this doing in this forum anyway?
Most threads here have degenerated into "we need 500% more laws, police presence on every corner, all modifications should be banned and nobody should have any accidents under any circumstances, ever".
It really should be renamed the "down with that sort of thing, won't someone please think of the children" forum, sadly it is indicative of the general wave of hysteria that has been sweeping Ireland for a few years now when it comes to anyone or anything that does not agree with the screaming ninny brigade.
If it was up to the screaming masses, we would have a 24 hour surveillance police state that would make George Orwell rip up Big Brother for being too optimistic.
Ireland is drowning in a beige wave of mediocrity as it is, before long everything will be beige by law, even loud perfumes will be banned.
The Irish truly dislike anything that's loud, crass, different, funky, bright or has bubbles in it.
Born To Be Mild!

Tigger

challengemaster wrote: »

Not everyone appreciates the noise of a bike

There is no correlation between older
Bikes and louder bikes

KTRIC

Tigger wrote: »

There is no correlation between older
Bikes and louder bikes

Exactly, my bike is loud and new

As are HD's but people cast a blind eye at them because they're usually driven by Dave , your nice next door neighbour that you've known for years and works as a solicitor / dentist.

Everyone else is Ghost Rider and drives a super charged monster than eats children and drives around on the back wheel all day :rolleyes:

Robbo

I had a cursory read over this a couple of weeks ago and two points jumped out at me:

1. This isn't legislation yet. This isn't close to legislation. There could feasibly be the best part of a decade between this becoming EU law and it being in effect here, or not, depending on which instrument of EU legislation is used. At the moment, it's a draft Framework Regulation produced by one Commissioner which has to be passed by the European Parliament.

Moreover, as a set of proposals, there are plenty of common sense ones. This is how the legislative process works. The madder elements get debated out of it in Parliament and the document gets watered down, this is Junior Cert Civics. Rather than tooling up and down a road on a bike, why not lobby your MEPs in a calm and organised manner, after all they have the final say on it? If you really are terrified of it, lobby your TDs for a derogation if you think it's path is inevitable.

2. It seems to be rooted in good old UK-based Euroscepticism and has made it's way over here through our good friends the internet petition and Copy'n'Paste. Even the original missive from the UK MAG blithers on about German conspiracies in the finest Daily Mail manner. Why bother thinking something through when you can just repeat some Euromyth about Straight Bananas? It's rather telling that the picture in the OP has a "Brussels Back Off" tshirt to tell you about the kind of "informed" Europeans we're dealing with here.

If I've missed anything here, or the situation has changed and Angela Merkels stormtroopers are, as we speak, taking baseball bats to any non-pure Motorrads, please correct me.

BronsonTB

KTRIC wrote: »

The reaction here is typical of what the non biking motoring community think of bikers in general and is driving the reason we're protesting in the first place.

Pure ignorance at its highest order. Walk a mile in my shoes and then judge me

+1

I would like to see everyone do a 3 month stint driving a moped/bike. Would improve their road wareness no end & appreciate other road users.
(I know it has mine)

And it's within every biker's right to protest just like every other walk of life so why not.....

mikemac

I thought the lights on was already here due to an EU rule about eight years ago

I owned two bikes, well scooters and it was not possible to turn the lights off.
You had dims and full and that was it

I'd like to see how they'll enforce these in Rome where the standard clothes is a T-shirt, shorts or a skirt and flip flops for a scooter
And in Spain many don't wear helmets on their scooters

BlackWizard

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

And would render a load of dual purpose off-road bikes worthless.

...

Very little of it is common sense, most of it is a form of hysteria. Better compulsorily bike training for all bike users on a ten year cycle and not installing safety barriers which cut you in half.

Good post Cuddlesworth. Saved me a lot of time having to respond to some of the posts here.

Bigus

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I'd agree with you there.
What is this doing in this forum anyway?

Its here because Motors are the biggest road users and the debate in the Bikers forum is non existent to the extent of hysterical debate about stuff some of which not even proposed.

I'm For High Viz
I'm for Headlights on
I'm for ABS, we've moved on from the first types in the 70's

I have always thought it ridiculous that cool bike wear is always black, probably a throwback to black oil leaks from British and American bikes in the 60's , so your black hands didn't destroy your black leathers.

As i said earlier, us motorists all jumped up and down giving out about the drink driving laws being enforced ,but you can't argue with roads deaths going from 400 to under 200 in 5 years

So sometimes legislation works whether or not we like it.

subway

**** poster, makes bikers look like agreesive ****ers / bank robbers / general scumbags (which is what plenty of people think anyway)
too much text also.
poster doesnt exactly help the cause.

next time, pay a few quid and get a grpahic designer to help you