Are Bikers being a bit naive protesting over this

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?