Are Bikers being a bit naive protesting over this

copeyhagen

Zascar wrote: »

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.
.

zascar i drive from outside city centre into the city centre every morning and i can honestly say i can remember 2 significant scenarios in last 6 months where people in a car pulled out in front of me without looking.

one was on malahide road heading away from town, drove through the UCI junction, was in buslane (that's another debate altogether)and a woman decided to pull straight across me from her lane and into one of the paint factories without looking, i jammed on, rear skidded and had to skid into her lane to avoid hitting her. she just waved apologetically and drove straight in.

that was a row of traffic which was at a dead stop that that b1tch decided to pull straight across without checking mirrors.

the other one was far less exciting involving a taxi in north strand but theyre both in the last 6 months.

MikeC101

BlackBlade wrote: »

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!

I think the anti tampering means you can't mess with / modify engine / power train etc...

What you might be referring to is article 52: "If systems, components or separate technical units on a list in a delegated act to this regulation, have a
dual use, for vehicles intended exclusively for racing on roads and for vehicles intended for use on public roads, they may not be sold or
offered for sale to consumers"

Which seems to have been interpreted as "So if your K&N filter can fit a CBR race bike and a CBR road bike, the best way to police that, is to make it illegal to sell the filter in Europe."

Which I don't think is necessarily correct - the item would have to be on this delegated act list. (Problem in itself as I don't know how or who decides what goes on the list).

duke916

colmtheperson wrote: »

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!

Anyone neutral here would get the impression that anyone who drives a bike 'has' to be loud and 'has' to be dangerous thus terrorizing every neighborhood as the sun begins to set. i see the old fashioned 'hells angels' stereotype of anyone who drives a bike hasnt moved on in 2011.

...when in fact the only person(s) flying around in the summer evenings as afar as i can see are those spotty faced teenagers with 20+ friends in the back, rallying around in a clapped out suspension-dropped toyota starlet with a can of beans on the back and all sorts of toymaster products selotaped to every part of the body for 'extra downforce'.

people need bikes to get to work as much as people in cars do. putting a curfew on bikes in residential area's is a lame idea really. Imagine been dragged to court for refusal to pay a fine out of principle for simply 'driving home' after 7pm for working late.

On another note, bikes as well as cars can be very expensive to upgrade. Considering the state of the country and with some people barely able to make ends meet, last thing we want is to trade in our 7 year old bike for a spanky new one with money we dont have. Which ever bright spark thought of these ideas has too much time on their hands and being paid too much money to sit around and scratch their arse!

Anan1

seamus wrote: »

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

That much I get.;)

seamus wrote: »

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.

I understand the argument, what i'm trying to ascertain is this: Were it to be proven that compulsory high-viz clothing for bikers would save lives, would you still be opposed to it either on aesthetic grounds or on a point of principle?

Anan1

duke916 wrote: »

Anyone neutral here would get the impression that anyone who drives a bike 'has' to be loud and 'has' to be dangerous thus terrorizing every neighborhood as the sun begins to set. i see the old fashioned 'hells angels' stereotype of anyone who drives a bike hasnt moved on in 2011.

...when in fact the only person(s) flying around in the summer evenings as afar as i can see are those spotty faced teenagers with 20+ friends in the back, rallying around in a clapped out suspension-dropped toyota starlet with a can of beans on the back and all sorts of toymaster products selotaped to every part of the body for 'extra downforce'.

So stereotypes are fine as long as they're your stereotypes, is that it?

duke916

not my stereotype. but the stereotype given of 'car only' drivers of bikers.

whats your point?

seamus

Anan1 wrote: »

I understand the argument, what i'm trying to ascertain is this: Were it to be proven that compulsory high-viz clothing for bikers would save lives, would you still be opposed to it either on aesthetic grounds or on a point of principle?

Me? No. But I know exactly what kind of experiment I would accept. Take a few thousand bikers, ask half to wear high-vis and half not to, cook for 3 years and compare the groups for deaths and injuries afterwards. The

However, it's a funny argument. How far can we go to limit people's personal choices in the name of safety?

Statistics show that black cars are more likely to be involved in a collision than white ones. In poor lighting conditions, you are 50% more likely to be involved in a collision. Therefore it stands to reason that if we require all cars to be painted white, yellow or gold (the statistically safest colours), we will save lives.

So why not? I personally wouldn't have a big problem with banning all other colours of vehicle. The statistics are there, it's a sounds argument. But I understand why people would consider it a step too far to so severely restrict the available colours of vehicle. The high-vis argument is the same IMO.

For the record, I drive a black car

Cuddlesworth

Anan1 wrote: »

I understand the argument, what i'm trying to ascertain is this: Were it to be proven that compulsory high-viz clothing for bikers would save lives, would you still be opposed to it either on aesthetic grounds or on a point of principle?

On a personal level, I don't like High Vis Vests. Its hard to get them to fit properly over my normal gear without creating distracting movement, they act as wind sails in extreme conditions, they hold water against the fabric creating issues with waterproofing and I haven't felt a need to wear one to increase my visibility, people either look and see me or just don't bother looking. The usual turn, brake, indicate and glance technique seen in many under-skilled drivers tends to make them unnecessary.

Also, a good vest in daily use would have to be replaced every six months at least. It fades into obscurity at a alarming rate. Am I to be liable for a accident because my vest was faded? What if I choose to wear a bag on my back? Does that have to have its own high Vis covering? Am I liable if my bag wasn't visible or the vest was obscured?

From a motorbike perspective, proper training saves lives.

Take the above example of the motorbike travelling down the bus lane and the person drives out in front of him. He was travelling too fast for the conditions, stationary traffic on the right, impatient drivers and a upcoming entrance on the left. All those factors should be taken into account. Its doubtful he even realizes that by changing his driving style he can reduce those events at a small loss of time.

Paparazzo

Anan1 wrote: »

That much I get.;)


I understand the argument, what i'm trying to ascertain is this: Were it to be proven that compulsory high-viz clothing for bikers would save lives, would you still be opposed to it either on aesthetic grounds or on a point of principle?

I still wouldn't wear one. As I said earlier, I've driven long enough without one with little enough incidents to warren one.
If the government decided every car had to have a 4 inch strip of reflective tape running down the side of every car to improve visibility would you be ok with it? It would make cars much easier to see from the side.

I've no problem with an nct for bikes, and always on lights

Bones08

Also, a good vest in daily use would have to be replaced every six months at least. It fades into obscurity at a alarming rate. Am I to be liable for a accident because my vest was faded? What if I choose to wear a bag on my back? Does that have to have its own high Vis covering? Am I liable if my bag wasn't visible or the vest was obscured?

From a motorbike perspective, proper training saves lives.
-
All protective wear manufactures are supplying full blown floursent proctective jackets, which are washable. (i have a frank thomas one)
And Im sure you wont need to cover your back pack caus I doubt you will be reversing up the road at speed or anything...

To other poster, Im after having 3 differant colour bikes in the last year with the same jacket and i didnt look to bad on either (red ST4S)(black n blue GSXR) and now (blue n white R1)
I also have done around 10,000, fairly quick road miles town and country without an accident (touch wood) maybe its that i see everything thats why i mite break early as they were just about to pull out, i dont know,

Fey!

My view on each point, bearing in mind that I'm not a biker.

Hi-Viz - fully agree with it; makes bikers that bit easier to see, especially when I'm pulling out of a junction in a car.

Anti-tampering - no idea what this is about

Type Approval - no idea what this is about

Always On Headlights - fully agree for the same reasons as the hi-viz. I also agree with this for cars.

7 Year Old Bikes Banned From Urban Areas - can't see the point in banning them.

Compulsary ABS - would be nicer for the bikers safety, but does this mean that both new and old bikes that don't have ABS (some of which never had an ABS unit designed for them) would have to have ABS retro-fitted? Who would carry out this work, who would test that it was done right, and who would foot the cost?

Roadside Diagnostics - no idea what this is about

Safer Crash Barriers - absolutely agree with this; even some of the newly erected crash barriers around aren't long enough or aren't put in the right places, and neither the NRA or the RSA care.

BlackBlade

MikeC101 wrote: »

I think the anti tampering means you can't mess with / modify engine / power train etc...

What you might be referring to is article 52: "If systems, components or separate technical units on a list in a delegated act to this regulation, have a
dual use, for vehicles intended exclusively for racing on roads and for vehicles intended for use on public roads, they may not be sold or
offered for sale to consumers"

Which seems to have been interpreted as "So if your K&N filter can fit a CBR race bike and a CBR road bike, the best way to police that, is to make it illegal to sell the filter in Europe."

Which I don't think is necessarily correct - the item would have to be on this delegated act list. (Problem in itself as I don't know how or who decides what goes on the list).

power train is top of the airbox to the rear tyre!
rear tyre cant be changed
brakes lines cant be changed
sprockets cant be changed
K&N air filter will fall into 2 brackets so will be more illegal than heroin..

these laws are mad to eventually ban bikes over the next few years and then onto cars!
so if you ride a bike or not you should treat it as the first steps to taking away your freedom not just your bikes!
where does it stop like!

Paparazzo

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Em the EU did do that, they are called daytime running lights. All new cars have to have them.

Not sure if you read the post right. And my bike has always on lights, even if it didn't I'd leave them on. In fact, its rare to see a bike without them on.

BlackBlade

Fey! wrote: »

My view on each point, bearing in mind that I'm not a biker.

Hi-Viz - fully agree with it; makes bikers that bit easier to see, especially when I'm pulling out of a junction in a car.

Problem is car drivers not looking for is "seeing is different"
why should we be forced to wear these when car drivers are the problem here????

Anti-tampering - no idea what this is about

Type Approval - no idea what this is about

Always On Headlights - fully agree for the same reasons as the hi-viz. I also agree with this for cars.

7 Year Old Bikes Banned From Urban Areas - can't see the point in banning them.

Compulsary ABS - would be nicer for the bikers safety, but does this mean that both new and old bikes that don't have ABS (some of which never had an ABS unit designed for them) would have to have ABS retro-fitted? Who would carry out this work, who would test that it was done right, and who would foot the cost?

Roadside Diagnostics - no idea what this is about

Safer Crash Barriers - absolutely agree with this; even some of the newly erected crash barriers around aren't long enough or aren't put in the right places, and neither the NRA or the RSA care.

crash barriers but up are known by bikers as "cheese graters" its just wire cables that will stop a car yet shred a biker!

tests prove that vests and lights make no difference what so ever!
I think this video of the police bike with siren, hi viz & even flasing blue lights are not enough to counter act the comfort of the car driver with the radio on the phone in one ear and half asleep from the heater blaring!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8w4OAYTHtY

Alkers

I agree with the DRLs and any bike I've ever driven has had them. Car drivers, keep an eye out for the amount of bikes you see driving without their lights on - few and far between.
The problem with the mandatory Hi-Vis imo is that the new proposals call for full-length sleeve hi vis jackets but make no mention of leathers or padding etc. The vast majority of bikers will be far more safety conscious than your average car driver, already having spent hundreds of euros on protective gear that will now not be legal to wear.
For those saying we are having our cake and eating it wanting safer crash barriers - the ones in use atm are akin to a cheese greater - could you imagine your body going up against one of those at motorway speeds because a car didn't check their mirror while changing lanes.
ABS sounds well and good to car drivers but its a different kettle of fish on a two wheeled vehicle. IIRC ABS actually INCREASED breaking distances in all occasions except for straight-line breaking in the wet.
This is the kind of attitude upsetting bikers, lumping safety regulations on top of us that have no evidence backing them up!

MikeC101

BlackBlade wrote: »

power train is top of the airbox to the rear tyre!
rear tyre cant be changed
brakes lines cant be changed
sprockets cant be changed
K&N air filter will fall into 2 brackets so will be more illegal than heroin..

None of this is necessarily true though, it's just hypothetical hysteria.

BlackBlade wrote: »

these laws are mad to eventually ban bikes over the next few years and then onto cars!

No they aren't. You can't honestly believe the EU wants to stamp out the motorcycle industry in Europe - BMW, Ducati and KTM have a big lobbying influence...

savagecabbages

I dont think the ABS issue is purely about stopping distances, more to do with allowing the biker to keep control of the bike while stopping, rather than it slipping out from underneath him/her due to locked brakes.

Also giving equal importance to the less vital issue of DRL's and the 7 year urban area rule is silly on the part of the bikers, it makes the important issues seem lost amongst the less life-changing ones...

BlackBlade

MikeC101 wrote: »

None of this is necessarily true though, it's just hypothetical hysteria.

No!

No they aren't. You can't honestly believe the EU wants to stamp out the motorcycle industry in Europe - BMW, Ducati and KTM have a big lobbying influence...

They mention bikes 3 times in the new bill and those 3 times are in relation to them having no place in the new europe so yes I do!

MikeC101

Simona1986 wrote: »

ABS sounds well and good to car drivers but its a different kettle of fish on a two wheeled vehicle. IIRC ABS actually INCREASED breaking distances in all occasions except for straight-line breaking in the wet.

I don't think this is the case, not in any test I've read anyway.

http://www.msf-usa.org/imsc/proceedings/a-green-comparisonofstoppingdistance.pdf

"In general, the test results demonstrated an improvement in braking
performance with the use of ABS, whether braking on a dry or wet surface even compared with the best stops obtained without ABS."

Similarly I read an article in one of the bike magazines where they compared ABS vs non ABS, with both an "expert" and a "novice". The "expert" was able to either just about beat the ABS, or come very close, but it took him numerous attempts to do so.

I still wouldn't want mandatory ABS (at least it has to have the ability to be switched off, dual-sports aren't much use otherwise).

MikeC101

BlackBlade wrote: »

They mention bikes 3 times in the new bill and those 3 times are in relation to them having no place in the new europe so yes I do!

Do you have a link to where they say "motorcycles have no place in the new europe" in this new bill...?

Anan1

seamus wrote: »

Statistics show that black cars are more likely to be involved in a collision than white ones. In poor lighting conditions, you are 50% more likely to be involved in a collision. Therefore it stands to reason that if we require all cars to be painted white, yellow or gold (the statistically safest colours), we will save lives.

So why not? I personally wouldn't have a big problem with banning all other colours of vehicle. The statistics are there, it's a sounds argument. But I understand why people would consider it a step too far to so severely restrict the available colours of vehicle. The high-vis argument is the same IMO.

Let's for a moment follow the reasoning that every one of us is entitled to decide how to protect their own lives, and that the only valid reason for legal intervention is to protect the lives of other road users. In this scenario, high-viz clothing would be mandatory to help protect motorists/pedestrians against being hit by bikes, but helmets would not be. And yet people seem to be arguing the reverse - that we need to be protected against our own stupidity, but without a duty of care towards others. Seems backwards to me.

GaryMunster

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Em the EU did do that, they are called daytime running lights. All new cars have to have them.

No need for the attitude. He just said he has no problem with having lights on all the time?

BlackBlade

MikeC101 wrote: »

Do you have a link to where they say "motorcycles have no place in the new europe" in this new bill...?

not to hand but you will find it if your interested!
I do have a reply from a UK MEP who did read the bill and gave this as his opinion of it!................................................



The reply:

Thank you for your email concerning the EU regulations on motorbikes.

The EU wishes to enforce the so-called "Anti-tampering regulation",
aimed at preventing bike mods and enforcing absolute conformity to EU
motorbike specifications, however bad they are. This is merely part of a
raft of interfering and patronising regulations. (Another example would
be the Day-Glo jackets for motorcyclists.) All of these are all
ultimately aimed at removing the motorcyclist from the roads in Europe,
except perhaps as officialdom such as the police may wish use them.

The EU Commission and Council are hostile to the personal car, and are
making the lives of drivers ever more expensive and regulated, but they
of course cannot deny the personal use of the car as being of huge
importance and the huge value of its market. The EU parliament is merely
a tail-end appendage on the body of the Commission and the Council in
this process, designed to prevent the public having any real say in the
matter. This is all in line with the EU obsession of planning and
taxation, and only public mass transport is so easily controlled and
planned as they wish. They only think of people as "the masses", not as
individuals. They only ever speak approvingly of the use of personal
cars in their documents or in committee for "car pooling" - as promoted
by officialdom of course. Their interfering attitude is quite
unstoppable.

They are uniquely hostile to the motorcycle and the motorcyclist, as
they are so individual and unnameable to collectivization, and they have
therefore been also curiously negligent of their existence for decades.
They are only now considering how to eliminate the motorcyclist, but by
small, slow, stages, as is normally their manner. The two easy ways to
regulate and eliminate them is via the "climate change and pollution"
demonization method, and the ubiquitous "Health and Safety" nanny-state
control. In the parliamentary transport and trade and commerce
committees this is the universal approach.

For example, the European Commission 2010 White paper on "European
Transport Policy" at:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/strate...per/lb_com_200
1_0370_en.pdf

treats motorcyclists purely negatively, unlike all other forms of
transport discussed, not at all recognizing their value for in normal
road use for personal transport, courier transport, and pleasure, but
rather as a hazard to be controlled. It mentions motorcyclists three
times only, as I detail here:

The first mention on page 68 is part of the paragraph about, "the
scourge of drink-driving", and the Commission recommendation for a
"maximum permitted blood alcohol level of...0.2mg/ml for commercial
drivers, motorcyclists and inexperienced drivers".

Page 85 unhelpfully notes that, "In terms of safety, one fatal accident
in two takes place in urban surroundings, and the highest casualties are
among pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists." (This useless statistic
fails to provide any way of judging whether more or less than "one in
two" journeys "takes place in urban surroundings", thus making in it
impossible to judge whether urban journeys are relatively more or less
dangerous than any other type, presumably they mean compared with rural
only. They do not seem to mind if these incommensurable methods of
travel are all lumped together - spurious statistics are foisted upon us
in a fatuous rhetoric, later to be used to justify any safety measures
they then wish to impose. The fight starts with resistance to these
nonsensical figures.)

Page 89 has you as an afterthought, "Some [European] local authorities
are planning to allocate priority lanes to public means of transport
(buses and taxis) and also to private vehicles being used for car
pooling, for example, while increasing the number of lanes reserved for
cyclists and even motorcyclists."

I shall oppose this at every turn (As shall my UKIP colleagues) and vote
against any such proposals should they come before us in the EU
"parliament".

Please feel free to lobby your local MP as this is a matter of UK
democracy too, rapidly disappearing as it is. Also, I would recommend
linking up with the UK and French motorcycling associations, who are all
up in arms about this. Write letters to the motorcycling press, and be
absolute in your opposition to this and all other EU interferences in
our lives and liberties. Finally, please support UKIP in all elections -
we cannot do much without your vote.

Weylin

day glo jacket or headlight on,i dont think you need both to be seen......

Anan1

BlackBlade wrote: »

I do have a reply from a UK MEP who did read the bill and gave this as his opinion of it!................................................

The UKIP don't give a toss about bikers, you're just a convenient stick with which to beat the EU.:)

BlackBlade

Weylin wrote: »

day glo jacket or headlight on,i dont think you need both to be seen......

see video above for prof that neither work not even together with a siren! :rolleyes:

Anan1 wrote: »

The UKIP don't give a toss about bikers, you're just a convenient stick with which to beat the EU.:)

The UK bikers and euro bikers all have the same view as us!
have you seen any of the French protests about said new laws?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taofBCKiOQQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omYe1j9qT2g

MikeC101

BlackBlade wrote: »

not to hand but you will find it if your interested!

Well, the thing is I am interested, and have been reading through the documents and can't find anything like that. Even a rough idea of where it is, or how the statements are phrased?


Are you basing it on the below (from a UKIP MEP):

It mentions motorcyclists three times only, as I detail here:

The first mention on page 68 is part of the paragraph about, "the scourge of drink-driving", and the Commission recommendation for a
"maximum permitted blood alcohol level of...0.2mg/ml for commercial drivers, motorcyclists and inexperienced drivers".

A lower permitted blood alcohol level for motorcyclists. Doesn't seem particularly fair alright.

Page 85 unhelpfully notes that, "In terms of safety, one fatal accident in two takes place in urban surroundings, and the highest casualties are among pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists."

Ok, fairly throwaway statistic, but hardly aimed solely at motorcyclists – unless the EU are planning on banning pedestrians too…?

Page 89 has you as an afterthought, "Some [European] local authorities are planning to allocate priority lanes to public means of transport
(buses and taxis) and also to private vehicles being used for car pooling, for example, while increasing the number of lanes reserved for cyclists and even motorcyclists."

Some local authorities are planning on increasing the number of lanes reserved for motorcyclists use – and his problem with that is because motorcyclists are mentioned last??

If these are the three mentions – this in no way equates to the claim that the EU are saying motorcyclists have no place in the new Europe….

MikeC101

BlackBlade wrote: »

have you seen any of the French protests about said new laws?

Just to point out the French protests were against proposed laws by their own government (on filtering, wearing armbands, and mandatory hi vis as well, larger license plates) rather than being to do with the proposed EU stuff.

unklerosco

Simona1986 wrote: »

The problem with the mandatory Hi-Vis imo is that the new proposals call for full-length sleeve hi vis jackets but make no mention of leathers or padding etc.

This is a very valid point.. There's no law saying I can't go out in a pair of Speedos and a hi-vis jacket (to be honest there shouldn't be cause I look great dressed like that :p). It's crazy the amount of people u see wearing jeans,tracksuits and t-shirts out on the bikes. 30mph skidding down the road dressed like that is gonna give you some very very nasty burns. But the EU are fine with that... Crazy.

I am a bike and I agree with the obvious stuff but the items regarding no tampering with ur bike etc etc are a bit much and to be honest anything like that should be in place for all motor vehicles, not just bikes. I'm off to the states, sure over there having the wind in your hair is more important than saving ur head...

two wheels good

There is a lot of nonsense and misleading information posted in this thread.

From Mag Ireland
http://www.magireland.org/2011/campaigns/right-to-ride-on-the-eu-regulations/

There is no EU proposal to ban bikes over seven years old from urban centers. This was in fact a domestic French proposal.

There is no EU proposal for mandatory high viz. Again, this is a domestic French proposal.

The real issue are
Anti-tampering, Type approval, and road side diagnostics

Would anyone care to take to time to elaborate on the detail of how home servicing and modifications will be banned? And how this will mean more profit for the corporates, more work for the dealers and less for the small bike shops. (Sorry, I don't have the time.)

And how the proposed rules could mean a device (I think of it as something like a tachograph) installed on the motorcycle which would allow law enforcement officers to check how the vehicle had been ridden.
I wonder how the car drivers contributing to this thread would feel about that?

BTW As already mentioned, the poster promoting the protest "was very poorly put together and puts across the wrong message."