Are Bikers being a bit naive protesting over this

Eoin

duke916 wrote: »

Seems to be only ones here slagging off the bikes and wanting these laws brought in, is in fact car drivers. Im a believer in looking at both sides of the coin before having a rant. Bikers like myself are well safety conscious when it comes to having their bikes, protective clothing and helmets in tip top order, and mindset completely geared towards attention and awareness before taking to the road.

OK a bike might have a loud exhaust, or take off from a set of lights quicker than you can fart? ...while you fail to indicate at every roundabout, throw cig butts out the window onto vehicles behind, talking on your mobile phones .....there is a long list here!! Point is, there is no comparison and whats good for the goose then....

Perhaps the EU should send all the four wheeled victims here a voucher for specsavers so you can all see bikers better (for once) instead of us spending heaps of money on LED rear lights, xenon lights etc. so you can maintain your sight issues.

Do you really think that this sort of insular "us versus them" and "four wheeled victims" attitude really helps anything?

Cuddlesworth

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Yes its ALWAYS the car drivers fault... Yawn

There is quite a difference of opinion within the biking community about what causes accidents. I would be of the belief that a large portion of the biking population could do with much improved training. Others would believe that all car drivers need training. I suppose there should be a middle ground. Especially since a large portion of whats wrong with our current drivers affects pedestrians and cyclists as well.

Eoin wrote: »

Do you really think that this sort of insular "us versus them" and "four wheeled victims" attitude really helps anything?

Makes for interesting reading though.

Anan1

Del2005 wrote: »

What friends? The majority of car drivers are in their own little world and don't even notice bikes, till we drive past when they are stuck in a queue.

I've always been considerate & accommodating of bikers, the occasional nonsense spouted here about 'cagers' and kicking off wing mirrors notwithstanding. Here's a bit of friendly advice - lose the persecution complex, and remember that we're all people. People who don't deserve to be bullied in the way MAG Ireland proposes. Carry on like this and you'll end up commanding about as much public respect as the taxi drivers.

Bigus

Bigus wrote: »

NCT has removed a lot of dangerous cars off the road and rightly so.

Very few accidents is a few too many, on a bike there is no such thing as a small accident.

Asmuch as I agree with you about the NCT being a good thing for cars I would not feel safe giving my bike to the "mechanics" in the local NCT centre.

Del2005

Bigus wrote: »

It's got all to do with HOW regulation and legislation can look silly at the time but looking back seems a good idea. To save 200 lives per annum in Ireland alone is an example of how legislation that we don't want can protect us from ourselves. The DD laws are an example of this and so the proposed bike legislation may be a good thing too, bar the 7 year rule

The DD laws didn't save 200 lives. They saved a few but the vast majority of our road deaths decrease came from the opening of hundreds of km's of motorway and dual carriage way.

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Yes its ALWAYS the car drivers fault... Yawn

The 2nd biggest cause of bike accidents is car drivers "Sorry I didn't see you". The biggest is the riding too fast for corners, something which training should reduce.

Anan1 wrote: »

I've always been considerate & accommodating of bikers, the occasional nonsense spouted here about 'cagers' and kicking off wing mirrors notwithstanding. Here's a bit of friendly advice - lose the persecution complex, and remember that we're all people. People who don't deserve to be bullied in the way MAG Ireland proposes. Carry on like this and you'll end up commanding about as much public respect as the taxi drivers.

I'd never advocate knocking a wing mirror off. But then there are morons on bikes and there are morons in cars. The difference is that car drivers aren't the ones who are having proposals made to interfere with them yet!

Last time I read into in the EU was trying to force car manufactures to open up their OBD systems for anyone, where as for bikes they want them sealed

Cuddlesworth

LIGHTNING wrote: »

There is a great saying "Drive for the conditions" if you driving something that is hard to see you should drive in a manner that reflects this.

I cycle to work and I make sure I dont put myself in a situation that I know as a car driver would be hard to see. I know that there are certains areas that I am practically invisible. No point in making a turn or a move and expect people to see me.

That's a issue of training. Most of the near misses I have seen have nothing to do with "not seeing you" as much as they had to do with not anticipating another road user.

Anan1

Del2005 wrote: »

I'd never advocate knocking a wing mirror off. But then there are morons on bikes and there are morons in cars. The difference is that car drivers aren't the ones who are having proposals made to interfere with them yet!

Last time I read into in the EU was trying to force car manufactures to open up their OBD systems for anyone, where as for bikes they want them sealed

It's not the bikers protest i'm opposed to, it's the idea of creating a rolling roadblock to inconvenience commuters. Whatever the merits of your protest, that's a sure-fire way to flush any existing goodwill down the toilet.

Blitzkrieger

OldmanMondeo wrote: »

A 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?

That's surely a joke? I've seen 10 year old bikes for sale with 3,000km on the clock in immaculate condition.

I'd say a lot of the anti-tampering regs is more aimed at restricted bikes. It's fairly simple to de-restrict a bike that is insured as factory restricted. I'd say a lot of the roadside diagnostic stuff is aimed at this as well. I'd have to see exactly what the proposals are before not objecting.

Some of it could be "green" concerns too. Mine came from the factory restricted to 192mph for emissions reasons. On newer bikes chipping them could radically alter the emissions.

A lot of people have mentioned loud exhausts - any tampering with the factory exhaust is illegal. We don't need new laws to deal with it. It can be tough to find a 2nd hand bike without a modified exhaust, and cost a fortune to put the standard one back one, so I wouldn't like to see any Draconian measures there....

Compulsory ABS (on new bikes) I wouldn't really object to, as long as it can be switched off. Nobody wants it on a track or off road.

Mandatory hi-vis clothing is daft, and surely open to interpretation. I've a hi-vis strip on my jacket - if you made it compulsory I'd say I already comply. If I felt I'm not visible enough, I'd wear more. I have that rare thing known as common sense.

My biggest objection would be with the 7 year old bike rule. I live in an urban centre. So I'm not allowed drive home anymore?

Cionád

What is the objection to always on headlights? Are the proposals to make this compulsory to all road users or just bikers? It should help reduce the "didn't see you there" incidents.

Del2005

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

That's surely a joke? I've seen 10 year old bikes for sale with 3,000km on the clock in immaculate condition.

I'd say a lot of the anti-tampering regs is more aimed at restricted bikes. It's fairly simple to de-restrict a bike that is insured as factory restricted. I'd say a lot of the roadside diagnostic stuff is aimed at this as well. I'd have to see exactly what the proposals are before not objecting.

People removing restrictions is already against the law, riding outside the terms of your licence, and can be dealt with in that manner. Once the person is legally allowed to ride a full power bike, don't forget the French still restrict all bikes to 100bhp, then why shouldn't they be allowed to modify it once they are insured?

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Some of it could be "green" concerns too. Mine came from the factory restricted to 192mph for emissions reasons.

On newer bikes chipping them could radically alter the emissions.

Your bike wasn't restricted for emissions reasons. The manufactures got scarred and imposed the upper limit to avoid half baked ideas that powerful motorcycles are dangerous, which has never been proven in any study.

There are countless threads on this and other sites about chipping cars to improve performance. Improving the performance of a car is much more dangerous then a bike, as a biker will more then likely only injure themselves cars don't.

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

A lot of people have mentioned loud exhausts - any tampering with the factory exhaust is illegal. We don't need new laws to deal with it. It can be tough to find a 2nd hand bike without a modified exhaust, and cost a fortune to put the standard one back one, so I wouldn't like to see any Draconian measures there....

There are no laws against tampering with an exhaust in this country. Currently we don't even have any noise laws.

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

Mandatory hi-vis clothing is daft, and surely open to interpretation. I've a hi-vis strip on my jacket - if you made it compulsory I'd say I already comply. If I felt I'm not visible enough, I'd wear more. I have that rare thing known as common sense.

The French proposal for high viz is arm bands! How the hell is that supposed to make a motorbike more visible? If they can't see the headlight or tail light how will they see something that doesn't even emit light.

Cionád wrote: »

What is the objection to always on headlights? Are the proposals to make this compulsory to all road users or just bikers? It should help reduce the "didn't see you there" incidents.

Most bikes already have lights on or drive with them on. People still pull out in front of bikes.

Cionád

Del2005 wrote: »

Most bikes already have lights on or drive with them on. People still pull out in front of bikes.

True, but it is less likely to happen if your light is on. When I began driving my car with the headlights on, incidents of people pulling out in front of me decreased.

I'm just wondering what the objection is? To save fuel?

BronsonTB

Cionád wrote: »

When I began driving my car with the headlights on, incidents of people pulling out in front of me decreased.

Again, just shows the poor awareness of drivers on our roads.

The whole purpose is, bikes have them on & are seen better but if ALL road users have their lights on, then it defeats the purpose of forcing bikes to have them on in the first place.(As they wouldn't stand out any different to other vehicles)

Taking personal choice away is rarely a good thing......

Ryan0

I agree that most of the laws won't be passed, or at least will be turned down a notch before they are passed.

It is not naive to protest it, though. If we don't protest bull**** laws being forced upon us now, then they will walk all over us in the future.

F**k motorcycle/car inequality, too! If we need high vis, paint cars high vis. If we can't have our motorcycles over the age of 7 years in urban areas, ban cars. If we can't get a license and drive a full power motorcycle, then why should some rich kid be able to drive a Ferrari at age 17? If we must have our running lights on and wear high vis because of other drivers incompetence, then why not make more of an effort to educate car drivers on biker awareness?

Get everyone that you know to go to a protest!

Eoin

BronsonTB wrote: »

The whole purpose is, bikes have them on & are seen better but if ALL road users have their lights on, then it defeats the purpose of forcing bikes to have them on in the first place.(As they wouldn't stand out any different to other vehicles)

I don't think it does defeat the purpose. You're going to notice a headlight in your mirrors if it's on much easier than if it's off, regardless of whether all other vehicles have them on or not.

Ryan0 wrote:

F**k motorcycle/car inequality, too! If we need high vis, paint cars high vis.

Yeah, that makes real sense.

Ryan0

Eoin wrote: »

I don't think it does defeat the purpose. You're going to notice a headlight in your mirrors if it's on much easier than if it's off, regardless of whether all other vehicles have them on or not.



Yeah, that makes real sense.

Neither does banning motorcycles over the age of 7 years from urban areas. My point is that we should be treated with equality.

Eoin

Actually I don't agree with all the proposals, I'm just trying not to make silly arguments against them.

Lots of bitching about how car drivers aren't observant enough. If that's the case, then I don't understand why you wouldn't voluntarily want to be as visible as possible. Who cares what you look like, or if you'll go through bulbs quicker.

Ryan0 wrote:

My point is that we should be treated with equality.

Being treated equally does not always mean being treated the exact same. There are fundamental differences between cars and bikes that have to be accounted for. If you want to be treated the same, then how about if you're not allowed filter, and have to do an NCT every year?

challengemaster

Yeah, if you want to be treated equally then I'd love to see a law brought in like the US - You treat the bike like a car, no overtaking lines of traffic, no filtering through between cars at lights, you stop behind a car and wait like everyone else.

duke916

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

There is quite a difference of opinion within the biking community about what causes accidents. I would be of the belief that a large portion of the biking population could do with much improved training. Others would believe that all car drivers need training. I suppose there should be a middle ground. Especially since a large portion of whats wrong with our current drivers affects pedestrians and cyclists as well.

learner motorcyclists are capped to two years restricted license on performance bikes on top of the two years provisional so im not sure what else can be done here apart from additional advanced biking courses available whereas an 18 year old just has to pass the test in a car and go out and drive a 3.2ltr BMW M3 that can do 180mph. which is more dangerous? At least the LAW has stated bikers MUST have more training. Where is the same restriction rule for Learner car drivers??

a case of them verses us? perhaps but not always so. i also have a car, but i pay the same amount of attention and awareness when driving either vehicle. fact is, there is motions being put forward by the EU for one type of vehicle and its not fair. If your goin to ban a bike off the road for being 7 years old +, then its only right cars, vans, buses etc of that age should have the same rule applied. right?

on one hand we have car drivers saying bikes are dangerous blah blah blah and they cause accidents, on the otherhand we have bikers saying people who drive cars have no regard for bikers, which imo and with experience on the road couldnt be more true. i would say the latter of the two is more common. when was last time you heard of a biker carelessly smashing himself up compared to a biker being smashed up because someone wasnt paying proper attention and pulled out from a junction or knocked a biker off on the motorway because they didnt check mirrors when changing lanes?....
just check out the last rsa advert on tv asking car drivers to show more awareness to bikers on the road. says it all really.

im not saying every car driver is incompetent of handling a car, far from it, but there is a high percentage who think that once you can use the clutch, brake and accelerator then its perfectly acceptable to go out and do what ya like.

Ryan0

Eoin wrote: »

Actually I don't agree with all the proposals, I'm just trying not to make silly arguments against them.

Lots of bitching about how car drivers aren't observant enough. If that's the case, then I don't understand why you wouldn't voluntarily want to be as visible as possible. Who cares what you look like, or if you'll go through bulbs quicker.



Being treated equally does not always mean being treated the exact same. There are fundamental differences between cars and bikes that have to be accounted for. If you want to be treated the same, then how about if you're not allowed filter, and have to do an NCT every year?

Well high vis clothes, and running lights are probably the only two proposals that I agree with. Nowadays, most motorcycles don't have have an option for running lights off anyway.

NCT every year? it's every two... and I do agree with that. It will help to keep buckets of s**T off the road.

As for filtering, I guess that is an advantage to us being treated different. (edit, forgot to finish sentence)

challengemaster wrote: »

Yeah, if you want to be treated equally then I'd love to see a law brought in like the US - You treat the bike like a car, no overtaking lines of traffic, no filtering through between cars at lights, you stop behind a car and wait like everyone else.

I'd prefer to queue in traffic, along with not having to go through so much hassle to get onto a motorcycle, than the newly proposed laws.

Are there any other things that you can think of that would be bad for biking, if we were treated the same as car drivers? I do find that the Gardai are generally friendlier to me on my motorcycle, than if I was in a cage, but that's nothing to do with being treated equally in lawful terms.

Del2005

Cionád wrote: »

True, but it is less likely to happen if your light is on. When I began driving my car with the headlights on, incidents of people pulling out in front of me decreased.

This is the thing I can't understand. I never drive my car with the lights on unless it's raining/fog or dark. No cars ever pull out in front of me and I've driven all different colour of cars.

Do you think that your driving style may have more to do with people pulling and the DRLs are compensating?

Sorry for going OT

Bigus

We seem to have made some progress since last night with A good few bikers now agreeing to some of the more sensible measures proposed.

Perhaps its time for bikers to get a new poster done by a professional graphics person(as suggested by another poster) & clearly targeting the real threats instead of.

"LETS PROTEST AGAINST EVERYTHING AAAAARGGH!"
see below

Sesshoumaru

Bigus wrote: »

We seem to have made some progress since last night with A good few bikers now agreeing to some of the more sensible measures proposed.

Perhaps its time for bikers to get a new poster done by a professional graphics person(as suggested by another poster) & clearly targeting the real threats instead of.

"LETS PROTEST AGAINST EVERYTHING AAAAARGGH!"
see below

What a big axe you have

I'm a biker and I was already in favour of some of these proposals e.g. ABS, lights and high visibility clothing. Stereotyping a random assortment of people who happen to use motorcycles as "ghost riders" didn't sway me either way.

FGR

I'm happy with everything proposed bar the 7 year rule and (to an extent) the hi-vis rule.

I would see it working if restricted to hours of darkness and it being say, a Sam Browne belt as opposed to a full length hi vis.

galwaytt

Ryan0 wrote: »

NCT every year? it's every two... and I do agree with that. It will help to keep buckets of s**T off the road.

I don't believe that for a minute. That's the same BS they pulled when they changed the NCT for cars over 10 years to every year.

The EU directive only requires a test every two - our greedy bastard's just needed a carrot to get Applus to compete with SGS for the tender for the next 10 years, and saw an opportunity.

1yr vs 2yr test as being a relevant contributor to saftey, is completely bogus.

As I said earlier, if Brussels doesn't have an NCT for bikes, we shouldn't have one, either.

Ryan0

galwaytt wrote: »

The EU directive only requires a test every two.

1yr vs 2yr test as being a relevant contributor to saftey, is completely bogus.

Did the NCT change to have tests annually or something? Last time I had a cage it's NCT lasted for 2 years.

Paparazzo

None of these will actually be brought in. Come on, why is riding with the lights on even on the poster? Every biker does it anyway. Think about the 7 year old bike ban for more than 10 seconds and you know that it's not going to happen.

And the state of the bloke on the poster, it doesn't help people take the rest of the points serious.

robbie_998

i find it funny they dont want abs on their bikes

they dont want to wear high viz jackets, dont want safety checks at the side of the road to see if their bike is more powerful than what it should
dont want old bikes taken off the roads as a safety measure


but they want safer crash barriers for when they crash :pac:

cant have cake and **** it


now to be honest i do find some of the rules stupid ... like the 7 year rule... you wouldnt do that to a car so why would you a bike ?

and im not having a go at motorbikers or anything. i do appreciate you like bikes just like i like cars and thats all well and good.

some of those rules might as well be passed on to cars too but it'll never happen.

i can honestly say imo they are hitting bikers a bit hard here but that poster doesn't really help their case
in the poster they just kinda said "dont tell us what to do" a bit like when the seat belt law was introduced.

but i can agree with the bikies on half of the stuff there being silly but the other stuff like having lights on they should not just lash out at the bikers for that but get cars and all in on that too... but again it wont happen

Ryan0

Paparazzo wrote: »

None of these will actually be brought in. Come on, why is riding with the lights on even on the poster? Every biker does it anyway. Think about the 7 year old bike ban for more than 10 seconds and you know that it's not going to happen.

And the state of the bloke on the poster, it doesn't help people take the rest of the points serious.

Yeah, the 7 year one is ridiculous.

Also just realized that wouldn't Ireland, as an independent state, be able to reject some of the laws? For example if the 7 year bike ban was passed, couldn't Ireland choose to not enforce it in Ireland? Forgive me if I'm wrong..

StonedRaider

Ryan0 wrote: »

Did the NCT change to have tests annually or something? Last time I had a cage it's NCT lasted for 2 years.

Have you been hiding under a rock or something?

Has to be said lads...it's only a matter of time before they start this crap with cars as well..and it's not going to be fun:(

Ryan0

StonedRaider wrote: »

Have you been hiding under a rock or something?

Has to be said lads...it's only a matter of time before they start this crap with cars as well..and it's not going to be fun:(

http://cars.donedeal.ie/for-sale/cars/2313112

That car has a 2 year NCT, and so did many others for sale.

challengemaster

Ryan0 wrote: »

http://cars.donedeal.ie/for-sale/cars/2313112

That car has a 2 year NCT, and so did many others for sale.

Any car older than 10 years old has to have an annual NCT these days

StonedRaider

Ryan0 wrote: »

http://cars.donedeal.ie/for-sale/cars/2313112

That car has a 2 year NCT, and so did many others for sale.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73957880

mb1725

No to bad spelling!! :mad:

Ryan0

challengemaster wrote: »

Any car older than 10 years old has to have an annual NCT these days

Ah, okay. Thank you very much. Last cage was a 2004, so I had no idea about that. Cheers!

KTRIC

ABS significantly extends braking distance. It's been scientifically proven and I've experienced it myself when my new ZZR1400 tried to mate with a Zafara. Cost me a lot of money.

Any biker with the correct training should know how to stop their wheels locking without the need for this.

Oh and that poster is ridiculous, it makes us all look like extras from Lock Stock with dirt bike helmets.

sleepysniper

robbie_998 wrote: »

dont want safety checks at the side of the road to see if their bike is more powerful than what it should

Do you really think that they will use the diagnostics to just check how powerful a bike is??

That's very naive thinking on your part.

and "Safety Checks" me hole:rolleyes:

Cionád

Del2005 wrote: »

This is the thing I can't understand. I never drive my car with the lights on unless it's raining/fog or dark. No cars ever pull out in front of me and I've driven all different colour of cars.

Do you think that your driving style may have more to do with people pulling and the DRLs are compensating?

Sorry for going OT

I think I'm just more visible with the lights on. My previous car was green and the majority of my commute (often early-morning light, and evenings) was countryside so I can understand that some drivers who are not as blessed sight-wise didn't notice me at times, or misjudged my speed.

I've heard the same said by drivers of silver cars, especially where there are trees overhanging the road on a sunny day.

My current car is a Volvo and has DRLs that I can't turn off

Robbo

KTRIC wrote: »

ABS significantly extends braking distance. It's been scientifically proven and I've experienced it myself when my new ZZR1400 tried to mate with a Zafara. Cost me a lot of money.

Any biker with the correct training should know how to stop their wheels locking without the need for this.

Oh and that poster is ridiculous, it makes us all look like extras from Lock Stock with dirt bike helmets.

I've also just noticed that it's a crudely photoshopped version of Al Murray's Pub Landlord character, one designed to lampoon Little Englanders but too often co-opted by them as some kind of folk hero.

When the promotional material is going on about "Unelected beaurocrats (sic)" rather than a democratically elected Dutch MEP, it's not exactly coming from the most enlightened of origins.

The upshot of all this, along with the misguided protests in preference to engaging with the democratic process, aren't really helping to dispel any negative stereotypes or caricatures of bikers. If they do get regulated out of existence as they claim, they may have dug their own grave.

MikeC101

Robbo wrote: »

I've also just noticed that it's a crudely photoshopped version of Al Murray's Pub Landlord character, one designed to lampoon Little Englanders but too often co-opted by them as some kind of folk hero.

When the promotional material is going on about "Unelected beaurocrats (sic)" rather than a democratically elected Dutch MEP, it's not exactly coming from the most enlightened of origins.

I think it's been very badly put together from that aspect alright (part of the problem may be that there's a lack of a single directing force. A lot of it seems to be people taking it up themselves to do stuff, and frankly a lot of it comes off as a standard tabloidesque anti Europe rant. The poster does bikers no favours at all, from the spelling errors to the picture that plays to the worst "biking thug" stereotypes.

There are some real legitimate concerns in the proposals (and they've been articulated very well by a few posters on this thread), but I fear they're going to be drowned out.

For what it's worth, I think I'll be attending the MAG demonstration on the Saturday, but I'm far less inclined to go to the one on Sunday.

krissovo

Robbo wrote: »

I've also just noticed that it's a crudely photoshopped version of Al Murray's Pub Landlord character, one designed to lampoon Little Englanders but too often co-opted by them as some kind of folk hero.

I dont think its Al Murray, I will not say names but it looks like a biker I know from Cork and he is far from a thug.

BTW as a biker myself agree with high vis vests and lights on, what is the harm?

tiernanobrien

turbodiesel wrote: »

Agree with ye there on pretty much every point.

If they really want to make the roads safer then target all categories of vehicles by introducing mandatory refresher courses on a five year basis that teach respect for all road users.

We all fall into bad habits.

I say this from 25 years of driving bikes/cars/vans/trucks/taxis/chauffeur cars.

No category of driver is perfect.

I use a car and a bike regularly and I agree with this. The seven year rule is ridiculous as alot of bikes over 7 years old wouldnt even have 10000 miles on them. Its like banning cars over 7 years old from motorways...

Robbo

krissovo wrote: »

I dont think its Al Murray, I will not say names but it looks like a biker I know from Cork and he is far from a thug.

BTW as a biker myself agree with high vis vests and lights on, what is the harm?

I think this is the source image and it's Al Murray:

Bones08

Iv read through the entire 7 pages and realise there is sillyness on both sides here,
I am riding bikes with 5 years and driving cars with 15.
From reading through the lines i think what the protests are really about is the fact that nobody will be allowed to modify bikes in any way should this be passed, thus stopping all bikers from having 'streetfighters' homemade trikes, changing screens, changing brake levers to ones that actually work better etc. This would rule out alot of guys that will only ride these type of bikes,
So while they are at it they will say no to everything and then be happy when the lights and hi-vis are the only new laws passed (look for everything and accept less)
I think that wearing a hi-vis jacket has improved people seeing me on my bike and i always ride with the light on anyways, but i do admit i have a heavly modified bike, with exhaust, brake levers, hid bulbs etc etc. 170mph
I would be totally against the road side 'tacograph' type diagonistics but im sure the 'paddy' would find his way around it anyways ;-)
I ride regularly with 'Bike cops' who will themselves give it the odd lash but only on open roads where common sense provails (ps there not all bad)
being honest I cant see it getting that far anyways.

seamus

There is kind of an additional problem with these kind of mandatory safety laws in that they prejudice the biker in the event of an accident.

If a biker is involved in accident which wasn't their fault, but they weren't wearing a high-vis, the judge will automatically have less sympathy for them, and possibly even assign partial blame to the rider, even if it's broad daylight and just an example of bad driving.

Same goes for an older bike with no ABS, DRLs and so forth - "Sure he was riding an old deathtrap, what did he expect?"

Cyclists see the same problem in that they've been criticised in court by judges for not wearing a helmet or high-vis, even though these things aren't legally required and the accident wasn't their fault.

Mandatory safety equipment creates a culture of victim-blaming, whereby you get held wholly or partially liable for not protecting yourself against the offender.

Safety equipment should only be mandatory if it can be proven that the wearing of such provides a statistically significant protection against death and serious injury, when in everyday use.

There can also be a "don't tell me what to do" attitude, probably because of the less conformist personality types that are attracted to motorcycling. There are groups in the US, for example, that actively protest against any attempt to introduce mandatory helmet laws, despite good evidence to show that wearing a helmet gives you a better chance of surviving an accident.

krissovo

Robbo wrote: »

I think this is the source image and it's Al Murray:

Thats certainly not my mate

si_guru

seamus wrote: »

There is kind of an additional problem with these kind of mandatory safety laws in that they prejudice the biker in the event of an accident.

If a biker is involved in accident which wasn't their fault, but they weren't wearing a high-vis, the judge will automatically have less sympathy for them, and possibly even assign partial blame to the rider, even if it's broad daylight and just an example of bad driving.

Same goes for an older bike with no ABS, DRLs and so forth - "Sure he was riding an old deathtrap, what did he expect?"

Cyclists see the same problem in that they've been criticised in court by judges for not wearing a helmet or high-vis, even though these things aren't legally required and the accident wasn't their fault.

Mandatory safety equipment creates a culture of victim-blaming, whereby you get held wholly or partially liable for not protecting yourself against the offender.

Safety equipment should only be mandatory if it can be proven that the wearing of such provides a statistically significant protection against death and serious injury, when in everyday use.

There can also be a "don't tell me what to do" attitude, probably because of the less conformist personality types that are attracted to motorcycling. There are groups in the US, for example, that actively protest against any attempt to introduce mandatory helmet laws, despite good evidence to show that wearing a helmet gives you a better chance of surviving an accident.

Good post.

...plus it is easier to smoke if you don't wear a helmet.

Bones08

Hi Vis does work, any that use it will say the same.
On every single day iv ever ridden my bike somebody in car has pulled out in front of me, mostly in around towns when people are franticly looking up and down roads looking for a spot to pull out thus not seeing the small bike coming, this has definatly reduced since i bought my hi vis jacket, maybe they think im the plod or that they can just see me better who knows, all i know it has definatly helped.

Paparazzo

Bones08 wrote: »

Hi Vis does work, any that use it will say the same.
On every single day iv ever ridden my bike somebody in car has pulled out in front of me, mostly in around towns when people are franticly looking up and down roads looking for a spot to pull out thus not seeing the small bike coming, this has definatly reduced since i bought my hi vis jacket, maybe they think im the plod or that they can just see me better who knows, all i know it has definatly helped.

On the flip side, I never wore a high vis jacket and very very rarely have people pull out in front of me.
I never will wear one either, they're the stupidest looking things ever.

si_guru

Paparazzo wrote: »

On the flip side, I never wore a high vis jacket and very very rarely have people pull out in front of me.
I never will wear one either, they're the stupidest looking things ever.

Come on... and being dead looks cool?

Red Silurian

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

Maybe something like an outright banning of bikes with loud engines in urban areas? Or maybe stop them from driving a bike in urban areas between 11 and 7? It wouldn't stop bikes, it'd stop people taking the mick though!