Are Bikers being a bit naive protesting over this

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!

Paparazzo

si_guru wrote: »

Come on... and being dead looks cool?

The options aren't wear a high vis and live, don't wear them and die. If there's evidence that they save lives then fine. Show me and I'll make my mind up based on that.

Red Silurian

Paparazzo wrote: »

The options aren't wear a high vis and live, don't wear them and die. If there's evidence that they save lives then fine. Show me and I'll make my mind up based on that.

So it's a trial and error situation, except the if it's "error" then somebody dies!

spankmaster2000

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

How powerful "should" a bike be? Or a car for that matter?

seamus

Paparazzo wrote: »

The options aren't wear a high vis and live, don't wear them and die. If there's evidence that they save lives then fine. Show me and I'll make my mind up based on that.

The Hurt report is pretty much considered the benchmark report for statistical information on motorcycle safety.

It's 30 years old this year and it was conducted in the U.S., but the bulk of the report is still considered valid in a general sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_findings_in_the_Hurt_Report

Point 14.

The full report is still available:

http://isddc.dot.gov/OLPFiles/NHTSA/013695.pdf

Painful reading, but maybe worth going through if you're serious about your safety.

MAIDS is a more recent EU study:

http://www.maids-study.eu/ (You need to register to see it, but it's free)

Thinkingaboutit

Ryan0 wrote: »

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..

Given the noxious wrecks that taxi drivers and others pilot, a seven year ban is stupid, and the modification ban would put a lot of people out of work. The only motor industry we have comes through the modification of vehicles. The country can pick and choose. I do hope they do that properly. Half the week I ride a 1976 Kawasaki 750. It works fine, and gives off a good sound. It runs far better than lots of newer things I see on the roads like modified hothatches/whatever that stink of petrol (do the drivers have nostrils?) which are the very definition of fail. The cream crackers in Leinster House, those failures, (wannabe) tyrants, scumbags and traitors can go swivel. I hope that falling satellite lands there.

Bones08

Paparazzo wrote: »

The options aren't wear a high vis and live, don't wear them and die. If there's evidence that they save lives then fine. Show me and I'll make my mind up based on that.

I bet there is evidence or atlease a study taking place on it now.

Found this on http://www.begin-motorcycling.co.uk/clothing.htm

CLOTHING

Long sleeves and trousers resist abrasion and protect against sunburn,windburn, dehydration, and hypothermia. Light colors or reflectivity increase a rider's visibility.
Good clothing will help you stay comfortable while riding in adverse conditions. In case of a crash or spill, high-quality riding clothes will help prevent or reduce injury.A research study states that covering the body with leather or another thick material can provide "an extremely high level of injury protection."

Clothing sold specifically for motorcycling will afford the best combination of fit and protection. These garments are designed to fit while sitting in a riding position. They are cut longer in the sleeves and legs and are fuller across the shoulders. Flaps and fasteners seal out the wind and extra padding helps protect you in case of a spill.

Wide-flared pants, flowing scarves and similar items should be avoided because they could become entangled in the motorcycle and flap uncomfortably in the wind.
Fabrics and Materials
Leather clothing is often used by riders because it is durable and abrasion-resistant, giving good protection against injury. Many other synthetic fabrics have also been developed that are abrasion or wind resistant, waterproof, or have high visibility properties. Many motorcycle dealers carry a varied line of riding jackets and suits. They can be helpful in answering questions you may have regarding the beneficial properties of each. Personal riding habits, budget, and local weather conditions will influence your choice of purchase. Shop wisely, making sure your purchase is strong enough to resist abrasions.
Visibility
The clothes you wear when riding can serve to make you more visible in traffic. Choose brightly colored clothing when possible. Only two riders of the 900 accident cases studied by researchers were wearing brightly colored clothing. If you wear dark clothing, inexpensive retroreflective vests can be worn over the jacket. Also, it is a good idea to affix reflectorized tape striping to garments you wear regularly when riding. This applies to bright clothing worn during the day. Unless they are reflectorized, they will not offer the same good visibility at night. Jackets made with retroreflective material also will help make you more visible at night.
Comfort and Fit
Your clothing should fit comfortably without binding. A jacket with a zippered front will be more wind-resistant than a jacket with buttons or snaps. A flap of material over the zipper of a jacket gives additional protection against the wind. Jackets with snug cuffs and waist are recommended to keep wind from blowing into the garment. Be careful about collar style - a large, loose collar will flap when riding and may irritate your skin or distract you.

spankmaster2000

Imagine driving on the M7; and your car breaks down on the side of the motorway. You hop out of the car to have a smoke / to talk on the "SOS phone", when a squad car then pulls up and issues you with a fine. You weren't wearing your high-vis jacket.

What if there were penalty points associated with that?


I'm pretty sure anyone in that situation would be moderately upset, but such is the law in France now. (As is compulsary wearing of high-vis vests for cyclists).
Despite the fact that it may indeed be safer!


Did I have a relevant point here? Yes; but I've forgotten it...

Wossack

7 year rule is just ridiculous. Thats just 2004. Propose the same with cars, and picture the outrage.

ABS as on option on bikes is ~800e more then the standard model. All bikes to go up in price by 5-10%?

fully agree with seamus' post on blame transfer in the event of an accident - RE high vis. Im certainly not against high vis, I just dont want it forced upon me, and then to somehow exonerate a careless driver cause I didnt make make myself more visible to someone who didnt look anyway.

Zascar

I've been riding bikes for a good few years - I cross the city every day to work, and I ride a lot at the weekends - and honestly it's very rare I have a car pull out in front of me that causes me to brake hard or do a sharp manoeuvre. I got a lot of training to a high standard and it has really stood to me. When I hear people saying cars pull out in front of them all the time I cannot help thinking they are just not being observant enough.


Having to wear a high vis jacket would really piss me off. I recently got a Ducati 749 which I think its a really beautiful bike - and having to wear a gay looking yellow jacket would make me looks like a complete muppet. You may not agree, but what if you had just bought a beautiful BMW/Porsche/Ferrari or whatever and then you were told you had to plaster it with high vis strips like police cars and ambulances have - I'm sure you'd be pretty p1ssed off too.

robbie_998

spankmaster2000 wrote: »

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

How powerful "should" a bike be? Or a car for that matter?

Powerful enough to reach the maximum speed limit in Ireland of 120KM/h and not struggle

I believe the same for cars.

What's the point having more if you cant use it.

Only exception is the likes of race tracks and the likes which is perfectly fine

But on the main roads and that you don't need a 220km/h top speed because your never gonna get that speed

Cuddlesworth

. Choose brightly colored clothing when possible. Only two riders of the 900 accident cases studied by researchers were wearing brightly colored clothing. If you wear dark clothing, inexpensive retroreflective vests can be worn over the jacket. Also, it is a good idea to affix reflectorized tape striping to garments you wear regularly when riding. This applies to bright clothing worn during the day. Unless they are reflectorized, they will not offer the same good visibility at night. Jackets made with retroreflective material also will help make you more visible at night.

Here is my problem with these stats. There is no thought given to the driving styles of those that choose to wear high Vis vests or to the ratio of drivers who do or don't wear them. Is it not entirely possible that those who go to the effort of wearing a vest may also be more cautionary approach to taking risks and that(especially on the continent) only a tiny percentage actually wear them.

A bad motorcycle driver with a High Vis vest is still a bad driver. Address the issue. Look at the death Stats, a huge portion are males aged 35-45. Retraining would address the issue of the midlife crisis biker killing himself. Throw money at actual issues, not made up ones.

Anan1

Zascar wrote: »

Having to wear a high vis jacket would really piss me off. I recently got a Ducati 749 which I think its a really beautiful bike - and having to wear a gay looking yellow jacket would make me looks like a complete muppet. You may not agree, but what if you had just bought a beautiful BMW/Porsche/Ferrari or whatever and then you were told you had to plaster it with high vis strips like police cars and ambulances have - I'm sure you'd be pretty p1ssed off too.

What's your position on motorcycle helmets being compulsory?

Anan1

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Here is my problem with these stats. There is no thought given to the driving styles of those that choose to wear high Vis vests or to the ratio of drivers who do or don't wear them. Is it not entirely possible that those who go to the effort of wearing a vest may also be more cautionary approach to taking risks and that(especially on the continent) only a tiny percentage actually wear them.

A bad motorcycle driver with a High Vis vest is still a bad driver. Address the issue. Look at the death Stats, a huge portion are males aged 35-45. Retraining would address the issue of the midlife crisis biker killing himself. Throw money at actual issues, not made up ones.

IMO those are two good points in their own right, but I don't see how they add up to an argument against high-viz.

spankmaster2000

robbie_998 wrote: »

Powerful enough to reach the maximum speed limit in Ireland of 120KM/h and not struggle

I believe the same for cars.

What's the point having more if you cant use it.

I don't think many car / bike drivers would agree with you there. A Fiat Punto can do that. What do you drive?

Anyway, that's completely beside the point!

spankmaster2000

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Here is my problem with these stats. There is no thought given to the driving styles of those that choose to wear high Vis vests or to the ratio of drivers who do or don't wear them. Is it not entirely possible that those who go to the effort of wearing a vest may also be more cautionary approach to taking risks and that(especially on the continent) only a tiny percentage actually wear them.

A bad motorcycle driver with a High Vis vest is still a bad driver. Address the issue. Look at the death Stats, a huge portion are males aged 35-45. Retraining would address the issue of the midlife crisis biker killing himself. Throw money at actual issues, not made up ones.

Agreed!

In fact; take a Google for "Motorbike Jackets".
The odds are that the majority of the results you'll see are black/dark coloured. So the point that "only two riders of the 900 accident cases studied by researchers were wearing brightly colored clothing" doesn't particularly have much correlation to anything.
The other 898 may have been police riders / instructors / etc?

Reminds me a bit of Henry Ford's old quote about cars coming in any colour so long as they're black. Clearly differences in safety standards then and now are as a result of more brightly coloured cars becoming available.

Paparazzo

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Here is my problem with these stats. There is no thought given to the driving styles of those that choose to wear high Vis vests or to the ratio of drivers who do or don't wear them. Is it not entirely possible that those who go to the effort of wearing a vest may also be more cautionary approach to taking risks and that(especially on the continent) only a tiny percentage actually wear them.

A bad motorcycle driver with a High Vis vest is still a bad driver. Address the issue. Look at the death Stats, a huge portion are males aged 35-45. Retraining would address the issue of the midlife crisis biker killing himself. Throw money at actual issues, not made up ones.

Exactly.
And what percentage of drivers wear high viz? It's a useless stat unless broken down. Compulsory spinal protection makes sense.

seamus

Anan1 wrote: »

IMO those are two good points in their own right, but I don't see how they add up to an argument against high-viz.

It's an argument against compulsory high-vis rather than anything against high-vis.

It's the correlation/causation argument in reality. We don't know if high-vis is safer because those who voluntarily use it are less likely to get into an accident anyway.

The same argument doesn't really hold up for helmet laws as helmets are designed to prevent deaths, not to prevent accidents.

KTRIC

Anan1 wrote: »

What's your position on motorcycle helmets being compulsory?

What do you mean, they are compulsory :rolleyes:

Paparazzo

Imagine the government banned silver cars because they're harder to see?

BlackBlade

Some dribble in this thread from non bike users!
lights on all the time is taking control away from the rider, could mean the difference in starting the bike or not if the battery is low and mean getting home or not!
try this on cars and listen up for the answer.
Hi vis and lights on in tests are shown to have no impact on results what so ever FACT!
ban on 7 years or more is just crazy!
anti tampering also means you cant fit things like newer tyres and crash protectors or up rated brakes so unless you understand them fully please dont comment!

they start with minorities so wait till you hear the country stand up when they mention cars!