Are Bikers being a bit naive protesting over this

Kev.OC

After reading all 17 pages of this argument/debate/discussion (quite a lot of it regurgitated) there is a lot more to it than "yes to this, no to that".

In my opinion, it's driver training. I've been driving for 5 or 6 years, and the sheer lack of discipline i see in the roads on a daily basis is simply shocking.

Now, apparently it came in recently that you need 10 or 12 lessons before you take your test, but in my experience this is both long-overdue and badly needed.

I'm currently in the middle of the IBT. For those that don't know it's a compulsory 16 hour course (including time in a classroom) that you have to do before you can ride a bike on the road. Once i have this passed, i've to wait 6 months before taking the test. And after that my licence is restricted for 2 years. This is a good thing. It gives new riders time to build their skill and their confidence.

This should also apply to learner drivers. If nothing else they'll get some experience under their belt. As someone pointed out earlier, it's not right that some 17 year old from a well-off family could pass his/her test and hop straight into a 3.2L BMW M3 (granted, more likely pre-recession than now). But i think perhaps a restricted licence might be one possible solution to try and improve road safety.

As a car driver (and hopefully a soon to be motorbike rider), personally i think that the biggest difference could be made by education. It's not enough to be able to reverse around a bend and start moving from a slope. People should be brought into a classroom and be made more aware of other road users and how their driving affects those around them, told what to look out for in some of the grey areas of everyday motoring.

Europe can bring in all these measures to try and make the roads safer, and yes, maybe they're unfairly targeting bikes, and yes, maybe cars will eventually follow, but ultimately the key to reducing accidents lies with increasing the competency of all road users, regardless of the mode of travel they choose to avail of.

daenerysstormborn3

galwaytt wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I disagree - they should have refused to do the burnout. TV crew gave you rope, and ye took it.

As for the organisation, dunno about Dublin, but the Galway thing was well run, marshalled, GTC bikes, support van(s) etc.

And surely MAG's raison d'etre is to do Press ????

I wasn't protesting in Dublin.

I didn't say they couldn't or wouldn't do press, i don't speak for MAG. It's fairly difficult to do press when the press have no interest until after the fact. I tried to get even a small piece in a few neespapers and was refused and told there would be no interest.

GaryMunster

Bigus wrote: »

Personally I think the "protest was very counterproductive"

Also with the current biker attitudes eg "everybody should drive a moped for a year "

Anyway Glad i asked the question in the first place and now I have a lot less respect for Bikers in General with one or two exceptions

Grow a pair

turbodiesel

Eoin wrote: »

Are you for real? How many times do I have to say that I don't have particularly strong feelings either way?

Please have the common courtesy to read my posts properly. I can't see how much clearer I can be.



See above. What I'm wondering is why bikers don't voluntarily do so. From what I can tell, it seems to be an image thing.



Training on a moped as part of your driving lessons / license application procedure? Good idea. Being made drive one for a year isn't the least bit practical.


To clarify what I meant. I don't think it's a bad idea as such - it makes sense (although how it would tie in with a 10 year license could be tricky).

My point was that I bet that the vast majority of incidents are not because of physical eye sight issues, but observation.



Better education? Agreed again.

Now please - if you're going to respond, please don't just jump down my throat and read my posts thoroughly.

how about this.

I think compulsory one/two day training courses for all road users from cyclists & motorcyclists through to artic drivers on a five year cycle is what's needed.

Throw a ten euro levy on every road insurance policy or a cent on every litre of fuel and use it to fund enforced road training.

An hour on each bicycle/motorcycle(even as a passenger if they are unable to drive a bike)/Car/Van/Truck to see the viewpoint of all road users.

We are all sinners on the road.....

Thats if the governments both EU and Irish are genuine about tackling road accidents.

faceman

To throw in my 2c and I'm going to descend into a battle with anyone. I drive both bikes and cars.

The compulsory high Vis makes no sense really. During the day, it makes no difference, especially if you have your lights on (and most bikers do anyway)
I wear a Sam Brown at night and while again, its not really necessary I wear it on the off chance I come off the bike so that other motorists can see me.

I'm pro "always on" headlights but i believe it should be compulsory for all road users. At a minimum it should be compulsory on motorways.

The ban on bikes over 7 years wont pass, its something that local french authorities are pushing for but given most of every city in ireland is urban, it wont be considered.

Compulsory ABS sounds great but there is good argument against using ABS when driving over loose road surface or gravel. Aside from that though, I dont have an issue with this as long as I dont have to retrofit. (My CBS is fine thanks!)

The roadside diagnostics and NCT is a cash cow. Given the low level of fatalities related to mechanical fault with bikes and the low carbon emissions (The ACEM has written many reports on this already) then it shouldnt be necessary.

Jonybgud

faceman wrote: »

I drive both bikes and cars.

The compulsory high Vis makes no sense really.

I'm pro "always on" headlights.

The ban on bikes over 7 years wont pass.

Compulsory ABS sounds great but there is good argument against using ABS when driving over loose road surface or gravel.

as long as I dont have to retrofit.

The roadside diagnostics and NCT is a cash cow.

That pretty much sums it up for me as well.

KamiKazi

There is no need for compulsory high viz, it should be down to rider choice.

I moved to the UK a few months and the difference in cagers attitudes to bikers is staggering. I've yet to be SMIDSY'd, and when overtaking traffic well over 50% of drivers see you approaching and move to the left to let you by quicker.

Fair enough, I'm on a bright yellow sportsbike that puts out over 100dB when moving, but if you can't see me already a bit of high viz won't make a difference!

OBDs are just the beginning of complete nany stateism, who needs speed cameras when a quick check of your ECU tells the copper exactly what speed you've hit?

Type approval is a measure to help BMW grow in the EU bike market, nothing else.

KTRIC

KamiKazi wrote: »

There is no need for compulsory high viz, it should be down to rider choice.

I moved to the UK a few months and the difference in cagers attitudes to bikers is staggering. I've yet to be SMIDSY'd, and when overtaking traffic well over 50% of drivers see you approaching and move to the left to let you by quicker.

I've seen the same thing in NI. They're a lot more friendly to bikes there in general.

There's definitely some deep seated issues with bikers in Ireland that goes beyond "sorry I didn't see ya mate" :rolleyes:

simplybam

Ok, got a few points to make here. Firstly, here's a wee video that shows how useful high-viz gear is considering that car drivers don't care looking in the first place (and this is no exception, but a daily occurrence):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NayWH2nTNsg&feature=player_embedded

Secondly, even if there are cheaper options than buying all new high-viz biker gear, I'd have to wear it over my safety gear (which is already hot enough standing at a traffic light), and I really don't fancy getting cooked on my way to work and needing a shower first thing getting there.

Thirdly, if you watch any of the youtube videos of the protests last Sunday, you'll notice that almost every single bike has it's headlights on (because it's been standard on bikes for years) and there's no switch to turn 'em off.

In the end my issue is that I do a lot of work all over the country and I have a car and a bike. Whenever I have a job in Dublin I choose to use the bike, since it cuts my commuting time down by up to 75%, depending on the time of day. By cutting down my commuting time I'm also cutting down on the impact I make on the environment.
I don't believe I should be punished in any way for the mistakes of other motorists (are learner drivers being punished any more if they're involved in an accident with a full license holder, because they're learner drivers? That's exactly the kind of thing they're trying to do to bikers - blame 'em before the fact!).
Most other countries in Europe have had compulsory driving lessons for both motorcycle AND car drivers before obtaining a driver's license for years, and it certainly didn't hurt them.
If the EU really wants to make the roads safer for motorcycles they should implement the safer crash barriers for motorbikes (which Ireland voted AGAINST back in June of this year).

There are loads more points I could make here, but I give it a break now. If anyone wants to know more, let me know and I will continue.

Alkers

simplybam wrote: »

Ok, got a few points to make here. Firstly, here's a wee video that shows how useful high-viz gear is considering that car drivers don't care looking in the first place (and this is no exception, but a daily occurrence):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NayWH2nTNsg&feature=player_embedded

Secondly, even if there are cheaper options than buying all new high-viz biker gear, I'd have to wear it over my safety gear (which is already hot enough standing at a traffic light), and I really don't fancy getting cooked on my way to work and needing a shower first thing getting there.

Thirdly, if you watch any of the youtube videos of the protests last Sunday, you'll notice that almost every single bike has it's headlights on (because it's been standard on bikes for years) and there's no switch to turn 'em off.

In the end my issue is that I do a lot of work all over the country and I have a car and a bike. Whenever I have a job in Dublin I choose to use the bike, since it cuts my commuting time down by up to 75%, depending on the time of day. By cutting down my commuting time I'm also cutting down on the impact I make on the environment.
I don't believe I should be punished in any way for the mistakes of other motorists (are learner drivers being punished any more if they're involved in an accident with a full license holder, because they're learner drivers? That's exactly the kind of thing they're trying to do to bikers - blame 'em before the fact!).
Most other countries in Europe have had compulsory driving lessons for both motorcycle AND car drivers before obtaining a driver's license for years, and it certainly didn't hurt them.
If the EU really wants to make the roads safer for motorcycles they should implement the safer crash barriers for motorbikes (which Ireland voted AGAINST back in June of this year).

There are loads more points I could make here, but I give it a break now. If anyone wants to know more, let me know and I will continue.

That clip sums it up very well, this happens so often when on the bike.

daenerysstormborn3

simplybam wrote: »

Ok, got a few points to make here. Firstly, here's a wee video that shows how useful high-viz gear is considering that car drivers don't care looking in the first place (and this is no exception, but a daily occurrence):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NayWH2nTNsg&feature=player_embedded

Secondly, even if there are cheaper options than buying all new high-viz biker gear, I'd have to wear it over my safety gear (which is already hot enough standing at a traffic light), and I really don't fancy getting cooked on my way to work and needing a shower first thing getting there.

Thirdly, if you watch any of the youtube videos of the protests last Sunday, you'll notice that almost every single bike has it's headlights on (because it's been standard on bikes for years) and there's no switch to turn 'em off.

In the end my issue is that I do a lot of work all over the country and I have a car and a bike. Whenever I have a job in Dublin I choose to use the bike, since it cuts my commuting time down by up to 75%, depending on the time of day. By cutting down my commuting time I'm also cutting down on the impact I make on the environment.
I don't believe I should be punished in any way for the mistakes of other motorists (are learner drivers being punished any more if they're involved in an accident with a full license holder, because they're learner drivers? That's exactly the kind of thing they're trying to do to bikers - blame 'em before the fact!).
Most other countries in Europe have had compulsory driving lessons for both motorcycle AND car drivers before obtaining a driver's license for years, and it certainly didn't hurt them.
If the EU really wants to make the roads safer for motorcycles they should implement the safer crash barriers for motorbikes (which Ireland voted AGAINST back in June of this year).

There are loads more points I could make here, but I give it a break now. If anyone wants to know more, let me know and I will continue.

Well said, particularly that point.

I use a road everyday which has a long stretch with these barriers down the centre and there has been 100s of accidents and the evidence of these accidents is still very obvious because they haven't bothered to repair the death traps.

I was driving home from work last Friday, overtaking a car and a guy in a Jeep threw a full 1.5 litre bottle of coke out his window at me, on purpose (as was clearly evident by the laughter of him and his passengers). The bottle smacked into my helmet and fell down between my arms onto the tank and then my legs, at which point I was terrified it would go under the back tyre of the bike. When this happened I was driving along the stretch of road with these wire barriers. I was fine obviously but aside from the accident he may have caused I would've come off seriously worse if I had ended up wrapped around those barriers.

I hate them! :mad:

seanybiker

simplybam wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NayWH2nTNsg&feature=player_embedded

I know him. Sound chap. Can take a corner fairly good on that vmax and all.

He was lucky in that vid

Kev_ps3

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Well said, particularly that point.

I use a road everyday which has a long stretch with these barriers down the centre and there has been 100s of accidents and the evidence of these accidents is still very obvious because they haven't bothered to repair the death traps.

I was driving home from work last Friday, overtaking a car and a guy in a Jeep threw a full 1.5 litre bottle of coke out his window at me, on purpose (as was clearly evident by the laughter of him and his passengers). The bottle smacked into my helmet and fell down between my arms onto the tank and then my legs, at which point I was terrified it would go under the back tyre of the bike. When this happened I was driving along the stretch of road with these wire barriers. I was fine obviously but aside from the accident he may have caused I would've come off seriously worse if I had ended up wrapped around those barriers.

I hate them! :mad:

Jesus, did you get his reg? I would have beat the guy to death:mad:

KamiKazi

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Well said, particularly that point.

I use a road everyday which has a long stretch with these barriers down the centre and there has been 100s of accidents and the evidence of these accidents is still very obvious because they haven't bothered to repair the death traps.

I was driving home from work last Friday, overtaking a car and a guy in a Jeep threw a full 1.5 litre bottle of coke out his window at me, on purpose (as was clearly evident by the laughter of him and his passengers). The bottle smacked into my helmet and fell down between my arms onto the tank and then my legs, at which point I was terrified it would go under the back tyre of the bike. When this happened I was driving along the stretch of road with these wire barriers. I was fine obviously but aside from the accident he may have caused I would've come off seriously worse if I had ended up wrapped around those barriers.

I hate them! :mad:

I would have left the fvcker in a wheelchair! :mad::mad:

daenerysstormborn3

No, I was overtaking him on a 2+1 road and the road was just narrowing back into a single lane so rather than cause an accident I just drove on. It was lashing so couldn't even see the reg in my mirrors.

Ah sure, alive to tell the tale but who knows how many bikers he's pulled that stunt on and will continue to do so for his own entertainment.

Cuddlesworth

simplybam wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NayWH2nTNsg&feature=player_embedded

You came out fast into the roundabout through a gap that a car could not have. And yet you seem surprised that the cars pulled out. Your road positioning in the second clip could have been better, you should have been much further to the right of the road to allow both you and other cars better visibility. Also you were travelling a little too fast for the conditions.

No matter how hard you try you can't change other peoples driving, so change your own.

davoxx

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

You came out fast into the roundabout through a gap that a car could not have.

i disagree here. true he did 'squeeze' onto the roundabout. but it was clear for him to do so and we can not tell if there was a 'gap'. traffic for his right was empty (i presume).

but vehicles approaching the roundabout need to give way to vehicles on the roundabout and vehicles to the right.

those cars should have slowed down, preparing to stop on approach to the roundabout. they did not seem to care that there were vehicles to their right.

anyway that is my opinion ... feel free to disagree

Cuddlesworth

davoxx wrote: »

i disagree here. true he did 'squeeze' onto the roundabout. but it was clear for him to do so and we can not tell if there was a 'gap'. traffic for his right was empty (i presume).

but vehicles approaching the roundabout need to give way to vehicles on the roundabout and vehicles to the right.

those cars should have slowed down, preparing to stop on approach to the roundabout. they did not seem to care that there were vehicles to their right.

anyway that is my opinion ... feel free to disagree

Both the Micra and the Van before it, braked before leaving the roundabout and he pulled out hard and fast just after the Micra(who was braking at the time). A car could never have done that and a car is what other drivers plan for when approaching a roundabout. It wouldn't have helped that the Van had blocked their view of him as they approached.

What the cars should have done is in essence irrelevant. You can only change your own actions to minimize the risk.

davoxx

i can't make out the brake lights on the van and micra (my screen is not the best). though them braking does not make a difference to me.

the two cars approaching the roundabout made no attempt (based on the few scenes i can see) to stop or brake. they seemed to go for it, if it was a truck/bus, they would have slowed down :pac:

they should not be 'planning for a car' and if their view was blocked .. they know what to do ... slow down and prepare to stop.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

What the cars should have done is in essence irrelevant.

i feel it is relevant, as they will be the ones causing the accident. they may or may not be in the majority of blame though.

but to me this is the problem of incompetent drivers. they drive badly and their errors are absorbed by the competent drivers, but eventually their errors will cause an accident.

just because a car can not pull away fast enough does not mean you pull out in front of a vehicle ...


this is one more reason why everyone should have to drive a moped before getting a full license ...

Cuddlesworth

davoxx wrote: »

i can't make out the brake lights on the van and micra (my screen is not the best). though them braking does not make a difference to me.

It places perspective on their actions.

davoxx wrote: »

the two cars approaching the roundabout made no attempt (based on the few scenes i can see) to stop or brake. they seemed to go for it, if it was a truck/bus, they would have slowed down :pac:

Most people at roundabouts in traffic "go for it". Anticipating that is what makes you a good driver.

davoxx wrote: »

they should not be 'planning for a car' and if their view was blocked .. they know what to do ... slow down and prepare to stop.

Once again, what they do doesn't matter. Their surrounded by A pillars, crash absorption bars and steel. He isn't. If he wants to hit them or get hit, then discuss the finer merits of their driving he is more then welcome to. If he wants to avoid getting hit, then he should assume a level of responsibility for his driving. We all should.

davoxx wrote: »

i feel it is relevant, as they will be the ones causing the accident. they may or may not be in the majority of blame though.

but to me this is the problem of incompetent drivers. they drive badly and their errors are absorbed by the competent drivers, but eventually their errors will cause an accident.

just because a car can not pull away fast enough does not mean you pull out in front of a vehicle ...


this is one more reason why everyone should have to drive a moped before getting a full license ...

I like the way you are pushing for "bike training" for all but happily refuse to believe that current bikers don't need it.

Also, a incompetent driver in a car is a incompetent driver on a bike. It won't make a difference.

davoxx

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Most people at roundabouts in traffic "go for it". Anticipating that is what makes you a good driver.

just because most people do it does not make it right.

Anticipating this is what makes you a better person at predicting stupidity. predicting stupidity dumbs the intellect ...

but are you saying:
when a car goes for it, it is ok.
when a bike does, he is going to fast?

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I like the way you are pushing for "bike training" for all but happily refuse to believe that current bikers don't need it.

huh?
i did not refuse anything.
i never said bike drivers do not need to drive mopeds.
i said that car drives do, one does not infer the other.

and as a fact, all drivers need to be retested to draw a base line, too many got away with licences in the post, too simple or flawed driving tests, or have not mastered how indicators work.

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Also, a incompetent driver in a car is a incompetent driver on a bike. It won't make a difference.

not really true there ted, as you will know riding a bike takes a lot more skill, incompetent bike drivers generally do not last long

but yes there are idiots on bikes too.

but the difference is an incompetent driver on a bike, will more than likely kill him/herself, while an incompetent driver in a car will kill others as well.

before we go on, i must say i feel like you are anti-bikers.
i'll happily state that i'm neither pro bikers nor anti-cars.

bad drivers are bad drivers, but punishing all motorbike drivers is incorrect. taking bad drivers of the road (any vehicle) is correct.

i am anti gaybo though ... :pac:

faceman

On the topic of high vis, its the law in Spain that all 4+ wheeled vehicles drivers must have a high vis jacket in the car within reach (i.e. not the boot) and it must be worn when you get out of the car if you have a breakdown.

Making that mandatory here would be more effective in Ireland than targeting bikers.

You also have to have spare lights too as well as a first aid kit and coppers carry out checks.

Cuddlesworth

davoxx wrote: »

before we go on, i must say i feel like you are anti-bikers.
i'll happily state that i'm neither pro bikers nor anti-cars.

I'm anti other drivers. Because they are all morons, bikers included. Keeps me safe. Its a general theme, you get it a lot when you read books about defensive driving, do classes with professional drivers and complete advanced driver lessons. One that all the Grade4 assessments out there failed to understand.

davoxx

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

I'm anti other drivers. Because they are all morons, bikers included. Keeps me safe. Its a general theme, you get it a lot when you read books about defensive driving, do classes with professional drivers and complete advanced driver lessons. One that all the Grade4 assessments out there failed to understand.

fair enough.

though i can't see how that explains when you are saying that in that video the biker was in the wrong and not the cars.


regarding defensive driving i don't buy it (that's just me personally).

the best form of defence is offence, "floor it" and take em all to hell with you


isn't defensive driving part of the driving test? two second rule, checking your mirrors ... etc

Cuddlesworth

davoxx wrote: »

fair enough.

though i can't see how that explains when you are saying that in that video the biker was in the wrong and not the cars.


regarding defensive driving i don't buy it (that's just me personally).

the best form of defence is offence, "floor it" and take em all to hell with you


isn't defensive driving part of the driving test? two second rule, checking your mirrors ... etc

I never said the cars were not in the wrong. They shouldn't have pulled out at the roundabout and the women in the Micra was a absolute plank. The difference is, we can't change their driving. You can go on about training for all, it doesn't matter. There will always be human error in driving as long as humans are in control. As a driver, the only realistic thing you can do is adjust your own driving to account for the idiots on the road. His driving, while not exactly **** your pants horrible could do with improvement. Mine can too, before anybody would like to add.

If you can look at any bad possible accident you were in, work out what part of your driving could have been changed to avoid it(within reason) and try incorporate that into your daily driving then your on to a winner.

Unless your that guy who got ploughed out of it by the tractor. That was just horrific luck.

simplybam

Just for info, the biker in the clip isn't me. It's just s clip from youtube that shows how ignorant some car drivers are. The woman in the micra who pulls out right in front of the bike didn't even look to see if anyone's coming from her right!

davoxx

but to me its not "human error", but ignorance and "not giving a sh1t" that is the problem ...

people stop for trucks, they don't for bikes (cause the bike will stop, while a truck might not)

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

If you can look at any bad possible accident you were in, work out what part of your driving could have been changed to avoid it(within reason) and try incorporate that into your daily driving then your on to a winner.

i got rear ended at red traffic lights .. twice, so all i can say is ... staying at home

Fr Dougal

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Right back at you! Some of the behaviour by bikers on our roads defies belief.

Absolutely. See them all the time on their mobiles, or sending text messages, reading maps or even books while putting on their makeup and trying not to spill their coffee, all the time, wandering in and out of the lanes.

Oh, wait, thats car drivers...:rolleyes:

P.C.

THIS THREAD IS GOING WAY OFF TOPIC.

WHAT I A READING NOW IS - 'US AGAINST THEM'.

KEEP IT TO TOPIC OR THIS THREAD WILL BE LOCKED.

noodler

I cannot understand the banning of the bikes over 7 years old.

Father rides vintage and classic bikes all his life and the work and care that has gone into ensuring they are in top shape is enourmous - perfect roadworthy condition

P.C.

noodler wrote: »

I cannot understand the banning of the bikes over 7 years old.

Father rides vintage and classic bikes all his life and the work and care that has gone into ensuring they are in top shape is enourmous - perfect roadworthy condition

The 7 year old thing was a French suggestion for France only!

As far as I know it has been dropped.

davoxx

unfortunately car drivers who do not driver bikes see bikers as them while bikers who do not drive cars see car drivers as them.

i think nothing will change this, and that is why bikers are being targeted first for this crap.

Fr Dougal

P.C. wrote: »

THIS THREAD IS GOING WAY OFF TOPIC.

WHAT I A READING NOW IS - 'US AGAINST THEM'.

KEEP IT TO TOPIC OR THIS THREAD WILL BE LOCKED.

I think the thread is continuing in the spirit of the opening post

Bigus wrote: »

I want to know what other road users think of bikers protesting about these measures proposed by the EC.

Do you not think perhaps this is a "Them V's Us" opening line?

And as per the OP continually comapring bikers with drink driving is as far off topic and ill thought out as you can get....


Anyway, back on topic, as a car driver and biker, here's an extract from an email which I have sent to the minister for transport, the RSA and also posted it on a couple of news sites discussing the topic. Might give some of the non-bikers an insight into some of the issues.
I do think the overall debate is being skewed by the Hi-Viz discussion and news articles intimating that the bikers are just complaining about hi-viz.

"Point 1. Protective clothing
Legislation is being written to make full sleeve Hi-Viz hjackets mandatory for all motorcyclists. Legislation does not care what you wear under this high viz jacket, you could wear your boxers for all they care.
So why is this a contentious issue. I believe bikers want hi-viz to be optional, on a sunny day a rider could be more vizible in dark clothing. Also, riders want the option to wear Hi-Viz Sam Browne belts, this helps break up the contour of the image.
Hi-Vis jackets have sometimes been called invisibility jackets as they are two a penny, builders, road-workers, emergency services etc. We have not seen any report that proves Hi-Vis jackets improve the visibility of bikers (I am not arguing that it doesent either though).
Personal Protection Equipment (PPE). Most bikers agree with wearing protective motorcycle clothing. Groups have been campaigning to get motorcycle gear recognised as PPE in Ireland and get the VAT removed so that bikers can purchase protective clothing without breaking the bank. I buy my helmets up in Northern Ireland as they are excluded from VAT up there. I am unaware of any mention of removing VAT in the Irish legislation.

Point 2 Mandatory ABS
I believe this is being written into legislation for all new road bikes. This will add significant cost to new bikes and price people out of the market. There is no such similar legislation proposed for cars.

Point 3 Mandatory On Board Diagnostics.
Currently the law states that the power output of a motorcycle must be imited for riders on a provisional licence and for 2 years after getting a full licence. However, the Gardai do not have any way to check this. Therefore the motorcyclist is being asked to pay to have onboard diagnostics on the bike to facilitate random road checks where a gardai can plug in a laptop and check features/power of the bikes. Why should bikers have to pay for this.
Note, there is no such power restriction for car drivers, a 17year old can drive any power car, Porsche, Ferrari, Suburu Impreza, Glanza Turbo, whatever and no restrictions on power.

Point 4. Type Approval.
I believe this means that every single piece of equipment I put onto my bike, I must get certified to prove it is made my the manufacturer. I believe in the German model, if I want to put new handlebars or a new exhaust or whatever on my bike, it would have to be manufactired by the motorcycle manufacturer(Honda, Yamaha etc.). I am unaware if any similar type approval is being planned for cars but I doubt it.

Point 5 Bikes over 7 years banned from city centres.
I believe this was just proposed in France but gives example of the stupidity and lack of thought that is going into the new legislation in Europe. Bikes are not the cause of congestion or pollution in city centres but should, in fact, be considered part of the solution and should be encouraged.

Point 6. Filtering
I believe there is no mention of filtering in the draft Irish legislation. However, Brussels has recently made filtering legitimate in Belguim and issued guidelines for filtering. No mention of this in the Irish juristriction.
Bikers want this to be legalised and would be happy to assist with a code of conduct. Normal dangerous driving considerations would stll apply.

Point 7 Use of bus lanes
There is no mention of use of bus lanes in the legislation. Action groups have been campaigning to legalise motorcycle use of Bus Lanes.
Although not legalised, authorities regognise that motorcyclists are safer in bus lanes. From 24th June 2010, UK Authorities have opened up bus lanes in London to motorcycles on a trial basis.
Bikers want Irish authorities to adopt a similar policy in Ireland.

Point 8. Motorcycle parking
There are only a very small few designated motorcycle parking areas throughout the country. A motorcyclist may be fined if they park in a spot designated for a car. They may also be fined if they park out of the way on pavements on in bicycle parking bays.
Motorcyclists want designated parking areas in towns and cities.

I am a biker quite a number of years, full licence holder, a member of ROSPA and over the last number of years, I have voluntarily spend about €800 on advanced motorcycle training. I am also a project manager, a dad, a son, a husband and I am one of the first to get involved in charity fundraising.

In my opinion, bikers are annoyed because the only measures being taken are those that will have an adverse affect on biking as a whole, increasing cost of machines, locking them down so they must be serviced by main dealers and giving the authorities more reasons to fine motorcyclists if they do not comply.

We want joined up thinking. We want give and take. We want to play a part in the decision making process, is that too much to ask? Why not come up with policies that promote motorcycling in a positive manner?

All of the above is a laymans view and I stand to be corrected.

We don't want a Them and Us situation, this is the thin end of the wedge. Next thing we will see a similar thread in the Modified Motors section and then the motors, it will keep going on and on.

mlumley

ABS 4 wheels, fine. ABS 2 wheels, not very good on loose surfaces, BAD. Get out your car and try to handle it on gravel. I'll visit you in A&E as drs try to pick gravel out of you leg.

It is not the same as in a car, you have 4 wheels to grip, we only have two and ABS on a bike with loose gravel ( such as re-surfacing a road) your ABS cant grip on the gravel and may make you loose control. 4 wheels youll slide a bit, we'll loose control. Please dont compare a bike with a car, its the same as an elephant and a tiger, two diferent animals.

Syllabus

subway wrote: »

it wont get visibility, people hate these kind of things and majority of people laugh at them getting reposted with little regard for the content etc...........

please qualify this statement

Paparazzo

I have ABS on bikes for the last 6 years. You can always turn it off, but it was an €1200 extra. Definitely something that's up to the driver. On my last bike (BMW R1150GS) it was rubbish. Brake over any sort of bump and it would kick in, felt like you were accelerating. On the 1200 it's far better. Not sure if I'd get it again if I was buying a new bike. Probably not. Don't think it's helped me in any situation. And the one on the 1150 should be banned!

Syllabus

i am a biker of 12ish yrs

i have worn and not worn all types of hi viz/dayglo. i have ridden with lights on all the time, i have ridden with no lights on. i have ridden well outside the letter of the law, i have riiden to the letter of the law.

i have had 2 accidents in all this time(both car drivers fault - proven in court) had i not been as aware as i was, as skilled as i was(no trumpet blowing) i would have had a lot more accidents.

it doesn't matter what you wear, what colour your bike is or how good/bad you are riding. the observant car driver will see you from a few hundred meters back, the non observant car driver wont even notice you go by them.

bikes vs cars shouldn't even come into this. any and all car drivers that HATE bikers should still be able to see that the proposed laws, if passed, will eventually be passed onto cars.

all we, as bikers, are trying to do is keep the choice and the control in our own hands

Tigger

Car drove out in front of me in 93
Both driver and his witness swore I had no lights on( it was dark)
It was proven than my lights cannot be turned off ( I was an electronic engineer at the time ) yet neither were punished for lying in court

If they don't look they won't see you

Keith186

Fr Dougal wrote: »

I think the thread is continuing in the spirit of the opening post
Do you not think perhaps this is a "Them V's Us" opening line?

And as per the OP continually comapring bikers with drink driving is as far off topic and ill thought out as you can get....

Excellent post Fr Len!

I would go along with nearly all of it.

The 'type form' legislation is a little confusing.
I asked on boards before and I was told it would mean a part would be classified as a road or race part i.e. k&n filter is dual use at the moment but it would no longer be allowed.

daenerysstormborn3

Keith186 wrote: »

Excellent post Fr Len!

I would go along with nearly all of it.

The 'type form' legislation is a little confusing.
I asked on boards before and I was told it would mean a part would be classified as a road or race part i.e. k&n filter is dual use at the moment but it would no longer be allowed.

You're right there. If a part can be used in both race and road bikes (not parts stamped for race use only) it will just be made illegal altogether. Imagine how that will affect racing in Ireland, the likes of track days in Mondello. The non-illegal parts will sky rocket in price.

galwaytt

...and don't forget the kids, kids.........what is worth protecting is the future of motorcycling - and I don't mean in the next 1 or 2 years, but the next 10 or 20...........my kids' time, in other words.........



More pics from the day, here...... http://galwaytt.smugmug.com/Motorcycles/EU-Motorcycle-Protest-25th/19344000_Zz4LJB#1511033303_wpSZst6

bulldog_ollie

here is my viewpoint.

1. Wearign a high viz bib makes you more noticeable: YES

However

2. Whether you wear a high viz, or a jacket with flashing lights and sirens makes no difference to the gombeen in the car who is too busy on the phone or TEXTING to actually pay any attention.

Last week I had a guy in a jeep on the phone who almost caused an accident with me, I saw a garda a few yeards down the road and I pulled in and asked him if he would ask the guy to put the phone down, he looked at me and laughed and walked off!

Maybe instead of forcing us to wear high viz bibs, the gardai should actually DO their jobs instead!

galwaytt

Btw - on ABS - the proposal has already been watered down, and looks like it won't be standard on small bikes. This, I assume, for reasons of cost and complexity.

And, let's not forget, you can't fit ABS to (mechanically-operated) drum brakes............so anything so-equipped would be exempt.

I see a big return to these, so :

CJhaughey

Those twin leading shoe drums actually worked well, I had some on an IT175J back a while ago:rolleyes:

Del2005

galwaytt wrote: »

...and don't forget the kids, kids.........what is worth protecting is the future of motorcycling - and I don't mean in the next 1 or 2 years, but the next 10 or 20...........my kids' time, in other words.........



More pics from the day, here...... http://galwaytt.smugmug.com/Motorcycles/EU-Motorcycle-Protest-25th/19344000_Zz4LJB#1511033303_wpSZst6

OT

Great idea about the kids. But she could at least have been beside a Honda not a Yam ;-)

galwaytt

Del2005 wrote: »

OT

Great idea about the kids. But she could at least have been beside a Honda not a Yam ;-)

...oh, er, yeah, sorry about that

...they've moved on to a CRF70 lately btw, getting the hang of gearchanging now.

Next Week: back it in on corners.........

thomashood10

Ban this

mandatory that

I'm all for safety, but I'm more for freedom of choice.

Otherwise lets pass a law that require all cars to be painted luminous yellow so they can be seen at night.

Being on the road is inherently dangerous, but in my opinion the danger is from being careless as opposed to low visibility and old machines/mechanical failures.

Keep in mind that all road users should be out there with 20/20 vision or they should be wearing glasses.

Cienciano

ABS should definitely be optional. It's a bit of a "bikes are dangerous, make them have abs, because abs is safe m'kay?" attitude that politicians come out with because it seems safe.
I've had ABS on 2 different bikes for the last 8 years at this stage. If I was buying a new bike tomorrow and it was an option, I wouldn't get it. I don't think it's nessessary on a bike, it doesn't work as well as on a car.

Please Kill Me

Cienciano wrote: »

If I was buying a new bike tomorrow and it was an option, I wouldn't get it. I don't think it's nessessary on a bike, it doesn't work as well as on a car.

Likewise. Linked brakes are great, ABS is not.

Hotblack Desiato

Ultimately it's the usual nanny state bulls**t of 'we know best what's best for you' (even though they don't have a clue about riding a bike.)