Are Bikers being a bit naive protesting over this

ANXIOUS

I agree with most of the measures, except the one about the banning of older bikes in residental areas.

galwaytt

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.

There is no common sense in mandatory tamper-proofing of machinery. Why aren't we seeing that for cars, if it's such sense, and seeing as more people die in cars than anything else ? (sheer numbers...)

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

And car people need to bear in mind, if they did this for bikes, they could just add the word 'car' to it tomorrow. Ignore stuff like this at your peril.

challengemaster wrote: »

Not everyone appreciates the noise of a bike

Not everyone appreciates a Nissan Primera, either.

furtzy wrote: »

Yes to an NCT for bikes

No, actually. There is no evidence in the car world, let alone the bike one, that NCT will do anything. And, to make it viable, they'll have to subsidise it - if NCT centre's can't test a % of cars already due to equipment issues, then for bikes they have nothing. And, would you let some guy with no bike licence on your bike ? Nope - that's a penalty point offence, I'm afraid......

irish-stew wrote: »

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.

Yes, and we could close 'Motors' down if that kind of thing came to pass........

MYOB wrote: »

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.

FFS yourself - cop on. Educate yourself first. Who mentioned helmets ? It's not on that (admittedly, poorly done) poster. Type Approval is in, and has been for years. If you ban bikes over 7 years, you better ban cars as well.

copeyhagen wrote: »

nct for bikes was only a matter of time anyways.

No it's not - Belgium doesn't have an NCT for bikes, and that's the HQ of the loons behind this legislation, so why should we have to do it ?

mikemac wrote: »

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

Dead right - proof of my point to MYOB above - mandatory lights have been here for years.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

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

Well, according to the RSA, cars are responsible for 2/3rds of bike accidents, so this is exactly the place for it, actually.

The lights thing isn't an issue for me, my bikes lights a cannot be switched off anyway. When I had bikes where the lights could be turned off I left them on. ABS doesn't really bother me either. I have reflective stripes on both my black jackets. That combined with my lights is enough to make me visible. If nobody can see me unless I'm wearing a fluorescent suit, then the problem is with other drivers observational skills or lack thereof.
The ban on seven year old bikes is ludicrous, I'd wager that many bikes that old are in better condition, than a lot of cars that age. Most people I know take ridiculously good care of their bikes, so I just see the reasoning behind that at all.

Eoin

robbie_998 wrote: »

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

Why is it "stupid"? All you've given is reasons why it might not be 100% necessary all of the time. That's a far cry from it being stupid. I think Volvo an SAAB still have always on lights. I leave mine on as well, as they just turn off when the engine turns off so I never have to do it myself.

As I'm sure you're well aware, not many people put on lights because of dull conditions. You're lucky if they put them on at dusk.

I really think people should pick their fights properly.

robbie_998 wrote: »

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.

Daved_XB

galwaytt wrote: »

And car people need to bear in mind, if they did this for bikes, they could just add the word 'car' to it tomorrow. Ignore stuff like this at your peril.

This would be my biggest concern here too... I don't own a bike but I've an interest in this as I see this as maybe the thin end of the wedge...

I would not want a no tamper rule to come in for my cars... nor find my classic banned from urban area's due to it's age or noise..

Lets face it the bureaucrats would like us all to be compliant in crappy little silent square electric/eccono boxes.. but they can't pass a law today to make that so overnight... but they can slowly legislate it to be that way over time

challengemaster

Tigger wrote: »

There is no correlation between older
Bikes and louder bikes

Fair enough, bad assumption on my part. Then just start enforcing noise limits as per cars.

galwaytt wrote: »

Not everyone appreciates a Nissan Primera, either.

And that has what to do with what?

pajo1981

You do realize that the people who organised this couldn't care less about bikers.

Hint: Guy(Brit) in back off Brussels t-shirt.

Del2005

Bigus wrote: »

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

The Gardaí have stopped plenty of speeding and dangerous bikes, they put a couple of squad cars across a bridge for one lunatic. Must police forces now have helicopters and it's hard to outrun one of them. But why tar all bikers for the loony element, there are plenty of crazy car drivers.

Robbo wrote: »

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.
.

It's not going to the EU parliament. That's one of the issues. It's a draft proposal at the moment but there is no democratic vote for it, it's all done by civil servants. Also if it's only at draft stage why have they already set up a competition to invent an anti tamper system for motorcycles?

Bigus wrote: »

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

High viz is BS, get peoples eyes tested correctly so they can see in normal lighting conditions. Bikes already have lights so if people can't see the lights how will they see a reflective surface till their lights are already shinning on it?

ABS can be dangerous for motorcycles. And there are loads of dual purpose bikes where ABS is actually dangerous. The proposal is for always on ABS, the option to switch it off is what's being asked for.

Bigus wrote: »

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.

Our road deaths came down because we have better roads and safer cars. The drink driving laws had very little to do with it.


The problem with these proposals is that they want to ban motorcyclists doing a lot of things to their bikes when there's no proof that it will make the slightest bit of difference to the bikers safety, and with mandatory ABS potentially add danger.

The NCT for bikes in this country is going to cost a huge amount of money for a negligible safety benefit since very few bike accidents are caused by faulty equipment. Most are caused by excessive speed or car drivers.

turbodiesel

There's a lot of mis information about these proposals thanks to the likes of motorcyclenews.com

There's two protests coming up this weekend.

The Sat one is about compulsary sleeve length dayglo clothing

http://www.irishbikerforum.com/forums/index.php/topic/90333-mag-ireland-demo/page__view__findpost__p__612365

There's a range of demo's on Sunday not just in Ireland but accross the whole of europe.

http://www.magireland.org/2011/slider/protest-rides-25th-september/

Most of the rides are meetign up around 11 - 12.30 and then riding slowly (just above the minimum speed limit) for a smal period of time , say maybe 30-60 mins as a show of strength.

If this "warning shot" is ignored protests will escalate to working days of the week.

Anan1

turbodiesel wrote: »

Most of the rides are meetign up around 11 - 12.30 and then riding slowly (just above the minimum speed limit) for a smal period of time , say maybe 30-60 mins as a show of strength.

If this "warning shot" is ignored protests will escalate to working days of the week.

How to lose friends and alienate people..

-Chris-

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

What is this doing in this forum anyway?

Because:

Bigus wrote: »

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.

It's a fair question, and ok to ask for the perspective of non-bikers imho.

If it degenerates into Drivers vs Bikers, or if it starts to replicate the arguments of the thread in the Motorbikes forum, it'll be locked.

turbodiesel

Del2005 wrote: »

The Gardaí have stopped plenty of speeding and dangerous bikes, they put a couple of squad cars across a bridge for one lunatic. Must police forces now have helicopters and it's hard to outrun one of them. But why tar all bikers for the loony element, there are plenty of crazy car drivers.



It's not going to the EU parliament. That's one of the issues. It's a draft proposal at the moment but there is no democratic vote for it, it's all done by civil servants. Also if it's only at draft stage why have they already set up a competition to invent an anti tamper system for motorcycles?



High viz is BS, get peoples eyes tested correctly so they can see in normal lighting conditions. Bikes already have lights so if people can't see the lights how will they see a reflective surface till their lights are already shinning on it?

ABS can be dangerous for motorcycles. And there are loads of dual purpose bikes where ABS is actually dangerous. The proposal is for always on ABS, the option to switch it off is what's being asked for.



Our road deaths came down because we have better roads and safer cars. The drink driving laws had very little to do with it.


The problem with these proposals is that they want to ban motorcyclists doing a lot of things to their bikes when there's no proof that it will make the slightest bit of difference to the bikers safety, and with mandatory ABS potentially add danger.

The NCT for bikes in this country is going to cost a huge amount of money for a negligible safety benefit since very few bike accidents are caused by faulty equipment. Most are caused by excessive speed or car drivers.

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.

Del2005

turbodiesel wrote: »

Most of the rides are meetign up around 11 - 12.30 and then riding slowly (just above the minimum speed limit) for a smal period of time , say maybe 30-60 mins as a show of strength.

If this "warning shot" is ignored protests will escalate to working days of the week.

In Ireland there is no minimum speed limit. The only law we have is that vehicles using a motorway have to be able to exceed 50km/h, there's no law that requires you to do that speed if you don't want.

Anan1 wrote: »

How to lose friends and alienate people..

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.

Bigus

Del2005 wrote: »

High viz is BS, get peoples eyes tested correctly so they can see in normal lighting conditions. Bikes already have lights so if people can't see the lights how will they see a reflective surface till their lights are already shinning on it?

High viz is not BS, the rider is the highest part of the Bike & often bike lights are blocked out by other obstacles, e.g bonnets, gate post etc etc, High level brake lights work well on cars, so it makes sense to have the bulky part of the bike ie the RIDER in high viz.

S can be dangerous for motorcycles. And there are loads of dual purpose bikes where ABS is actually dangerous. The proposal is for always on ABS, the option to switch it off is what's being asked for.

Traction Control and stability control can be switched off in cars, dual purpose bilkes could have an ABS off - off road function

Our road deaths came down because we have better roads and safer cars. The drink driving laws had very little to do with it.
??????????????????????????? Bo**ox better roads yes but DD is the main improvement

The NCT for bikes in this country is going to cost a huge amount of money for a negligible safety benefit since very few bike accidents are caused by faulty equipment. Most are caused by excessive speed or car drivers.

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.

seanybiker

Bigus wrote: »

on a bike there is no such thing as a small accident.

Yes there is. Myself and dozens of bikers I know have had small accidents on bikes.


What you banging on about drink drvng for? What's that got to do with motorbikes and these regulations?

Henry Ford III

I bought a 15 y.o. 650cc motorbike this year from N.I.

Reasons were:

1/. I wanted it.
2/. I had done the bike test years ago.
3/. Classic Insurance.
4/. The bike was tremendous value, and VRT was €100.

I did a nice bit of work to it, and it's now running beautifully. I even taxed it. It never had abs.

Why should I suddenly not be allowed drive my bike in cities? That's just mad.

Robbo

Del2005 wrote: »

It's not going to the EU parliament. That's one of the issues. It's a draft proposal at the moment but there is no democratic vote for it, it's all done by civil servants. Also if it's only at draft stage why have they already set up a competition to invent an anti tamper system for motorcycles?

You really need to look at how the EU works. The rapporteur who's presenting this to the Comittee for the Internal Market (IMCO) is a Dutch MEP, Wim van de Camp (apparently also a biker, if Wikipedia is to be trusted). The committee will be having a vote on this matter on October 17th. They adopt a position, this then goes to the Commission (where our own Maire Geoghegan Quinn sits) who according to the MAG-UK are kicking it over to the Parliament on November 14th. So we have elected representatives at both ends of the process, and a vote on the floor of the Parliament. The proposal is rife with democracy, just because you don't feel the need to engage with your representatives doesn't make it undemocratic.

If you read the newsletter of the committee in question, you'll see that issues such as proportionality have been raised in relation to some of the mooted proposals. Proportionality is a *huge* thing in the EU legislative process, possibly one of the biggest aspects that influences legislation. If you're going to have someone proposing that 30% is added onto the cost of a bike with extra kit, proportionality will be wheeled out and that dog won't hunt Monsignor.

Secondly, that's not any EU body looking for submissions on an anti-tampering device, it's a private company looking for their work to be done for them with a view to taking advantage of a possible future event. Opportunism, in other words.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off for my lunch of emulsified high-fat offal tubes and straightened bananas.

micdug

Seriously guys, like Robbo said - THESE ARE PROPOSALS THAT ARE BEING DEBATED.

For example, the seven year rule in urban areas is only being proposed by France as sound limits for mopeds primarily were brought in seven years ago. If you've ever been in the city centre of a large european city you can appreciate the cacophony of mopeds buzzing around which can be incredibly irritating - this is what France wants dealt with. It will be amended by the time the legislation is drawn up but it is based on a serious issue which affects some EU countries but not Ireland. Also it's not some "loony" EU bureaucrat but French politicians who are probably reacting to complaints by their citizens. You know - democracy and all that. On the bright side it will probably not be enforced in most countries.... like the Gardai not enforcing car noise limits.

Of the rest - they are common sense - some really idiotic comments here like not wearing hi vis because you can only wear a tshirt in hot countries... or that cars should have hi-vis stickers on them (clue: cars are a lot bigger then motorcyclists). So if the EU have to save bikers from their own stupidity so be it.

It's seems like some Bikers are gung-ho about safety issues if it's somebody else's problem (e.g. the grater type motorway barriers) but when it comes to minor actions they could do like hi-vis vest or daylight running lights... well, you know, that's too much effort. Hard to take ye serious when thats your attitude. It's really really hard to see a bike out of your car window on a miserable day - every last bit of visibility counts.

Rather then listening to English Daily Mail types have a look at this:
http://www.fema-online.eu/uploads/documents/vehicle%20aspects/20110129_TA_FEMA_position_Final.pdf

A much more reasoned contribution from bikers rather then a meaningless rally against proposals. I don't agree with it (the education angle is always fallen back on those who have lost the logical argument e.g. should car drivers have taken more education classes rather then ABS installed in cars??) and straw man arguments (EU is not saying that ABS will solve all motorbike accidents). But at least its constructive unlike some of the posting here. But sure go on anyway - have your protest - p*ss off everyone and the rest of us will start a letter writing campaign to our MEP's supporting the legislation....

Bigus

seanybiker wrote: »

What you banging on about drink drvng for? What's that got to do with motorbikes and these regulations?

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

duke916

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.

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.