Are Bikers being a bit naive protesting over this

davoxx

Eoin wrote: »

I just said that I don't understand why people wouldn't take every opportunity available to make themselves safer, especially something that seems as innocuous as hi vis because of image issues.

because it takes away the responsibility of the car driver and places it on the bike driver.

flashing blue lights would make bikers stand out more .. for a while .. then it will get filtered out as noise ..

the correct way to solve this is to FORCE all car drivers to drive a moped for a year. they'll understand just how venerable a bike is and how some car drives are just twats (driving while on the phone and swinging widely around a corner).

though in saying that there are a lot of bad motorcyclists out there, if the opposite lane has traffic (ie the canal) DO NOT OVERTAKE!!

but what we are missing is that both car and motor bikes drivers and cyclists need to work together, rather than fighting each other.

cantdecide

davoxx wrote: »

we'll need to buy new bikes, have to pay to get it serviced, buy new clothing ....
is this just a money making exercise? or a distraction?

and then using motorbikes as justification, cars will be next?

i remember a car company (i think it was BMW) that wanted the Apple solution to cars. basically the whole engine bay was sealed except for oil and water. anything else had to go through an authorised dealer ...
they were marketing it as being 'safer' as the car was tamper proof ...

I think this is supposed to be a BMW fantasy here too.

Of course that will go down well in the EU. Everyone will buy a basic new vehicle and come back and change it every three years. Governments have nice predictable tax income, the vehicle is effectively worthless thereafter due to exorbident /spell/ servicing cost and ridiculous depreciation. All vehicles will have a life cycle of 5 years. Everybody wins :rolleyes: except for the poor sod having to toe the line.

Eoin

davoxx wrote: »

because it takes away the responsibility of the car driver and places it on the bike driver.

As I said earlier, not being at fault is not the same as not paying the price.

davoxx wrote: »

the correct way to solve this is to FORCE all car drivers to drive a moped for a year. they'll understand just how venerable a bike is and how some car drives are just twats (driving while on the phone and swinging widely around a corner).

Is that a genuine suggestion? I'm finding it hard to tell at this stage.

davoxx wrote: »

but what we are missing is that both car and motor bikes drivers and cyclists need to work together, rather than fighting each other.

Agreed 100%; unfortunately this thread is absolutely proof of that.

daenerysstormborn3

Eoin wrote: »

As I said earlier, not being at fault is not the same as not paying the price.

Is that a genuine suggestion? I'm finding it hard to tell at this stage.

Agreed 100%; unfortunately this thread is absolutely proof of that.

Yes, and hi viz is useless if there is an accident so it's irrelevant when it comes to paying the price.

I think it's amusing how you shoot down every single suggestion that would put other road users to some sort of expense yet see nothing wrong with putting us to another expense to compensate for other road users being unable to navigate the roads without running one of us over.

davoxx

Eoin wrote: »

As I said earlier, not being at fault is not the same as not paying the price.

Agreed. bikers do end up paying the price.

Eoin wrote: »

Is that a genuine suggestion? I'm finding it hard to tell at this stage.

yes it is ... i think the more experience a driver has the better.
this includes understanding how the two wheeled vehicles behave on the road (braking distances/stability/speed)

so since i drive as both, i understand how much space i need to leave, that crawling out of a junction is dangerous and stupid especially when a bike is on the main road with right of way.

if people experienced life on a moped, they would (should) have a better understanding of it. they'll understand why talking on your phone while driving is dangerous (and impossible on a motorbike), they will understand road conditions, they will think about mirrors ....


it is a bit harsh of an idea, but i think it also has the benefit of taking cars of the road during nice days

jambofc

To all the irate car drivers abusing bikers nationwide today & yesterday, may I paint you a picture? Imagine being told that you had to use original dealer parts every time your car needed attention. Bye bye Halfords, Kwik Fit, etc. Imagine being regularly stopped by the police when you were out driving perfectly legally, for them to check you hadn't tampered with your vehicle or fitted any non-standard parts. Imagine being told that you were forbidden to drive unless you were wearing a certain colour clothing. ... Imagine having the control of your vehicle taken out of your hands and trusted to a computer. Imagine being told that your 7 year old car, your pride and joy, was now forbidden from entering towns and cities. Imagine (like in my case having to travel 180 miles to my nearest registered dealer for every service). This is the reason you were held you up for 20 minutes today. Be under no misunderstanding, the bikers are the first in line for draconian EU interference. If we fall, it will be a domino effect. Support us now, Bikers are fighting so that you wont have to.

davoxx

pixiebean22 wrote: »

I think it's amusing how you shoot down every single suggestion that would put other road users to some sort of expense yet see nothing wrong with putting us to another expense to compensate for other road users being unable to navigate the roads without running one of us over.

before we start picking camps ... you guys know, bad roads/layout is a major contributory factor in irish accidents leading to road deaths.

think of all the right merging lanes (where traffic on the left has right of way) vs the fact that traffic on the right has right of way in merging traffic (without markings)

and insurance companies also hype up damages and responsibilities ... if they released all the actual facts, premiums would fall, but divide and conquer is the insurance methodology ...

Paparazzo

Eoin wrote: »

In fact, I've said that I don't have particularly strong views on it either way. I just said that I don't understand why people wouldn't take every opportunity available to make themselves safer, especially something that seems as innocuous as hi vis because of image issues.

How much safer is it? I'd love to see a survey done that will tell me how much safer these high viz yolks are.
Would you get your car sprayed day-glow Orange like a dyno-rod van? Suppose it was for free?

subway

jambofc wrote: »

To all the irate car drivers abusing bikers nationwide today & yesterday, may I paint you a picture? Imagine being told that you had to use original dealer parts every time your car needed attention. Bye bye Halfords, Kwik Fit, etc. Imagine being regularly stopped by the police when you were out driving perfectly legally, for them to check you hadn't tampered with your vehicle or fitted any non-standard parts. Imagine being told that you were forbidden to drive unless you were wearing a certain colour clothing. ... Imagine having the control of your vehicle taken out of your hands and trusted to a computer. Imagine being told that your 7 year old car, your pride and joy, was now forbidden from entering towns and cities. Imagine (like in my case having to travel 180 miles to my nearest registered dealer for every service). This is the reason you were held you up for 20 minutes today. Be under no misunderstanding, the bikers are the first in line for draconian EU interference. If we fall, it will be a domino effect. Support us now, Bikers are fighting so that you wont have to.

the facebook copy paste strategy.
thats how they cured cancer, right?

Sids Not

Paparazzo wrote: »

How much safer is it? I'd love to see a survey done that will tell me how much safer these high viz yolks are.
QUOTE]

Well it helps me to see people when theyre in our estate.....:)

Eoin

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Yes, and hi viz is useless if there is an accident so it's irrelevant when it comes to paying the price.

It's a wild guess, but I'm thinking the idea is to prevent accidents. And what's the big deal about wearing a few quids worth of fabric to increase your odds? Maybe it shouldn't be mandatory, but I am still trying to understand why people don't cover all the bases, especially for something that seems like such a small deal. I don't have to keep my dips on the whole time, but have done so for years.

And as I said earlier, if armour was made mandatory (which does seem more sensible?), don't tell me that we wouldn't see the exact same arguments being made about having things forced upon you.

pixiebean22 wrote: »

I think it's amusing how you shoot down every single suggestion that would put other road users to some sort of expense yet see nothing wrong with putting us to another expense to compensate for other road users being unable to navigate the roads without running one of us over.

I would happily pay for an eye test every year, but as I said earlier, I don't believe it's a problem with physical eye sight; I believe it's an observation problem. I presumed you were just being facetious and not actually serious about that one.

Being made driver a moped for a year? Come on...

What are the sensible suggestions?
Better driver education? Agreed
License re-tests? Agreed

I'm genuinely trying to see both sides of the argument, but all that's happening is that posts I make are being taken out of context and seemingly deliberately misunderstood. It's just the same tired old "us v cages" crap, that is very dull at this stage.

daenerysstormborn3

Eoin wrote: »

It's a wild guess, but I'm thinking the idea is to prevent accidents. And what's the big deal about wearing a few quids worth of fabric to increase your odds? Maybe it shouldn't be mandatory, but I am still trying to understand why people don't cover all the bases, especially for something that seems like such a small deal. I don't have to keep my dips on the whole time, but have done so for years.

And as I said earlier, if armour was made mandatory (which does seem more sensible?), don't tell me that we wouldn't see the exact same arguments being made about having things forced upon you.

I would happily pay for an eye test every year, but as I said earlier, I don't believe it's a problem with physical eye sight; I believe it's an observation problem. I presumed you were just being facetious and not actually serious about that one.

Being made driver a moped for a year? Come on...

What are the sensible suggestions?
Better driver education? Agreed
License re-tests? Agreed

I'm genuinely trying to see both sides of the argument, but all that's happening is that posts I make are being taken out of context and seemingly deliberately misunderstood. It's just the same tired old "us v cages" crap, that is very dull at this stage.

Since you seem to be championing the proposal to bring in mandatory hi viz, where is the evidence that this will magically reduce the number of accidents on the roads?

Why should anyone be told how to dress? Are you told how to dress when driving the vehicle of your choice? I think not. I choose to wear full body protection but that is my choice. If mandatory PPE was introduced it would be welcomed by many but then you have the flip side of that which is that PPE is really really expensive and if it's made mandatory the price will only increase because people will be forced to spend their money, that is why a lot of bikers are proposing a VAT reduction on PPE or VAT elimination. How is it fair that there is VAT on helmets which are a mandatory requirement not a luxury?

Where are your sensible suggestions?

There are many many bikers on the roads who would genuinely suggest that other road users do some sort of training on a moped or low powered motorbike to get a better understanding of what it means to drive a motorbike on Irish roads.

The only eye test people undergo for their licence is when they first obtain it when they are between 18 and 25 when their eye sight is at its best. Eye sight tests are not done again until the person is in their 50s (that was the case with my parents anyway). I don't see how more frequent eye testing seems so ridiculous?

How about the RSA use some of the hundreds of thousands they intend spending on a hi viz campaign on actually educating all drivers of the dangers faced by all road users? A very simple educational video could be made by any biker by simply attaching a camera to their helmet and recording their journey.

jambofc

subway wrote: »

the facebook copy paste strategy.
thats how they cured cancer, right?

what's wrong with that?
the more people that see these kind of things the better

and your cancer comment cop on lad

Eoin

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Since you seem to be championing the proposal to bring in mandatory hi viz, where is the evidence that this will magically reduce the number of accidents on the roads?

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.

pixiebean22 wrote: »

Why should anyone be told how to dress? Are you told how to dress when driving the vehicle of your choice? I think not.

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.

pixiebean22 wrote: »

There are many many bikers on the roads who would genuinely suggest that other road users do some sort of training on a moped or low powered motorbike to get a better understanding of what it means to drive a motorbike on Irish roads.

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.

pixiebean22 wrote: »

The only eye test people undergo for their licence is when they first obtain it when they are between 18 and 25 when their eye sight is at its best. Eye sight tests are not done again until the person is in their 50s (that was the case with my parents anyway). I don't see how more frequent eye testing seems so ridiculous?

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.

pixiebean22 wrote: »

How about the RSA use some of the hundreds of thousands they intend spending on a hi viz campaign on actually educating all drivers of the dangers faced by all road users? A very simple educational video could be made by any biker by simply attaching a camera to their helmet and recording their journey.

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.

daenerysstormborn3

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.

No, I won't bother responding to you actually. It's a waste of my time and it's only cluttering up this thread with your dictionary definitions that have nothing to do with the OP :rolleyes:

Eoin

Expected as much, sorry for using reason with you.

/unsubscribed

subway

jambofc wrote: »

what's wrong with that?
the more people that see these kind of things the better

and your cancer comment cop on lad

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.

maybe you dont know about the cancer refernce?
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/can-a-facebook-status-do-anything-to-fight-cancer/article1748057/

Wossack

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.

would you be for or against, mandatory hi vis stipes down the side of cars? any other reason bar aesthetic ones too please, as they're not allowed

I, personally, am against being forced to make myself be more visible. And then, god forbid, I am hit, they have an automatic exhonerating defense of 'oh his hi vis is dirty, obsured by his top box/backpack, not exact to specifications, or not even worn etc etc'

Sure you see it all the time. 'I ran into an L plate driver, can I use the fact he was unaccompanied, to get out of it?' etc

Atomic Pineapple

Wossack wrote: »

would you be for or against, mandatory hi vis stipes down the side of cars? any other reason bar aesthetic ones too please, as they're not allowed

You cant compare a vehicle that is much larger, immediately making it more visible, that has more lights and that can only travel within a column of traffic as opposed to being able to weave in and out traffic to a bike.

It should be illegal for lights to be off on a car at anytime but saying just because cars don't have to have hi vis vests on them bikes shouldn't either is a bit of bad argument to put forward, it doesn't hold much water.

The issue is that bikes are small, agile and fast meaning that even the most observant driver can get caught out, so surely bikers should have no problem with making themselves more visible?

daenerysstormborn3

draffodx wrote: »

You cant compare a vehicle that is much larger, immediately making it more visible, that has more lights and that can only travel within a column of traffic as opposed to being able to weave in and out traffic to a bike.

It should be illegal for lights to be off on a car at anytime but saying just because cars don't have to have hi vis vests on them bikes shouldn't either is a bit of bad argument to put forward, it doesn't hold much water.

The issue is that bikes are small, agile and fast meaning that even the most observant driver can get caught out, so surely bikers should have no problem with making themselves more visible?

And other road users should have no problem with undertaking additional training or instruction to make them more careful, more observant and endanger fewer lives.

Wossack

draffodx wrote: »

You cant compare a vehicle that is much larger, immediately making it more visible, that has more lights and that can only travel within a column of traffic as opposed to being able to weave in and out traffic to a bike.

It should be illegal for lights to be off on a car at anytime but saying just because cars don't have to have hi vis vests on them bikes shouldn't either is a bit of bad argument to put forward, it doesn't hold much water.

but if it makes it even a small percentage more visible, and saves just one life, then it should be so, surely? in fact, some people do believe this to be the case, and volunarily put extra reflectors on their car, and retro fit DRL to their cars. They currently have the choice to be more visible, as so do we.
To be clear, I am not against hi vis, I am against mandatory high vis. My lights are on all the time, and I wear hi vis on occasion when I believe it to be of benefit (night time generally)

draffodx wrote: »

The issue is that bikes are small, agile and fast meaning that even the most observant driver can get caught out, so surely bikers should have no problem with making themselves more visible?

my problem is not with the most observant drivers. My problem is with the unobservant drivers, who, if it does happen, were going to hit me anyway, whether I was wearing hi vis, on fire, or stark naked. And then, because I was mandated by law to be wearing hi vis/be on fire/freezing my balls off, they have some irrefutable excuse

If the most observant drivers are being caught out, I would say its due to lack of training on the bikers behalf. Something the hi vis does not address either. A big part of training is using road positioning to make yourself more visible, behave more predictably and recognise danger signs (car pulling in to the left without indicators could be able to do a u-turn, for example)

Del2005

Eoin wrote: »

*sigh*

I never said it would help on every single occasion. That particular example was just illustrating how I think I am less vulnerable than a biker, because of yet another irrelevant pedantic response to what I was saying.

We know how vulnerable we are and I was pointing out that wearing Hi Viz in your story wouldn't have saved the biker hitting the ground.

That's the problem with mandatory Hi Viz. It won't help in the vast majority of cases, but if we aren't wearing it we'll be held partly responsible. Hi Viz only works if there are light shinning on it.

The amount of times a motorcycle would be in a position where Hi Viz is the 1st thing a driver see is very rare. Most car/bike accidents are T-bones or side swipes from cars changing lanes. These generally happen when the bike is behind or to the side of a car. If the car driver doesn't see a bike, with it's lights on, how will they see the Hi Viz?

Atomic Pineapple

pixiebean22 wrote: »

And other road users should have no problem with undertaking additional training or instruction to make them more careful, more observant and endanger fewer lives.

I 100% agree, if you search the motors forum you'll see me banging on about the need for better education and re-education

Jak O Shadows

Robbo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Spot on, most of these proposals will never see the light of day, it is very early days, FEMA and the motorcycle manufacturers will lobby heavily to get the daftest proposals removed. I'm not terribly concerned yet.

Eoin wrote: »

I don't think it does defeat the purpose. You're going to notice a headlight in your mirrors if it's on much easier than if it's off, regardless of whether all other vehicles have them on or not.

I'm afraid you are wrong on this one. They have been discussing introducing compulsory DRL on cars for years now. It hasn't been introduced because there is a very strong argument that it will increase the risk to vulnerable road users (bikers cyclists and pedestrians). It is like the white out that occurs when there is a large expanse of light coloured grave or stone.

challengemaster wrote: »

Yeah, if you want to be treated equally then I'd love to see a law brought in like the US - You treat the bike like a car, no overtaking lines of traffic, no filtering through between cars at lights, you stop behind a car and wait like everyone else.

Only some states ban filtering, most don't. some don't have helmet laws. Should we copy them too?



The proposal for the ban on bikes over 7 years old is an internal French proposal. The French are well able to look after themselves It will never see the light of day.


The NCT proposal is contained in the National Motorcycle Safety Strategy 2010-2014. All it says is that they will do a cost benefit analysis. They will probably find that the cost outweighs the benefit. It happened when the NCT was originally introduced and I can't imaging much has changed.



People seem to be mixing up day-glo and reflective materials. Day-glo works during the day, reflective at night. All bike clothes have reflective strips incorporated. Hi-Viz is a combination of day-glo and reflective materials.

Personally I disagree on the Hi-viz, I wear one most of the time and it has never stopped cars pulling out in front of me, if you don't 'look' you can't 'see'. The rest of the safety strategy is very good but this stands out as the only coercive measure and it is at odds with the tone of the rest of the document. It seems like it is tagged on.

Why not try education and awareness first, give out hi-vis free or at cost price, encourage us to wear them. Instead they went down the road of compulsion. There is no proof provided that it will produce any benefit to safety. I'm afraid 'I think it might' isn't good enough.

I also have an issue with the message it sends out. It implies that if a car pulls out in front of a motorcyclist and causes and accident that it is the motorcyclists fault for not being visible enough. This puts the responsibility solely onto the biker and absolves the driver of responsibility.

Under the law as it stands I must wear a helmet and must pay full VAT on it. (same goes for car safety equipment) I do not have to wear protective clothing, boots or gloves. I choose to wear these as it is in my interest to do so. I also wear hi-viz if I feel the need, I don't need some nanny state bureaucrat telling me I have to. It appears to me as if this is a soft option, the RSA can then tick their box and say look we did stuff to reduce motorcycle accidents.

The full document can be read here.
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Road%20Safety/Motorcycles/National_Motorcycle_Action_Plan.pdf

P.S to my fellow car drivers (I am one of those too) GET OFF THE PHONE, you are an accident waiting to happen. In the last 3 weeks I have had two people pull out in front of me and one encroach on my lane. All were on the phone and too interested in their conversation to look where they were going. :mad:

Jak O Shadows

seamus wrote: »

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.

A lot of bike clothes is multicoloured for this reason, as it prevents blending.

Jak O Shadows

FizzyCola wrote: »

Ive had cars pull out in front of me quite a bit. Maybe once evry 2 weeks on average. Sometimes you get a few in a week and then not many for a while. Often I will anticipate them pulling out and have braked in plenty of time. At junctions I always look to see what way the driver is looking. Sometimes no amount of anticipation will save you. In 3 years of riding ive only had one where I really thought I was going into the side of the car. People on the side of the road stared in disbelief. On other occasions where they pulled out at the last second, quick reactions, good brakes,a highly maneuverable bike and a bit of decent bike control has saved me.

I appreciate bikes are hard to see and often when a bike comes behind me I struggle to see them at times when they pop in and out of view ( most likely avoiding manhole covers, white lines, gravel, horse ****, rocks, plastic bottles, potholes, puddles, spilled oil, coke cans etc). What really annoys me is when they didnt even realise what they had just done. As long as people acknowledge it and possibly learn from it I dont mind too much or when they laugh at you as happened last week to me when they looked in my direction and pulled out in front of me when I was about 20 feet away and then laughed at me as I raised my hand in a what the f***k sort of manner. Again I had anticipated and had scrubbed off some speed before I had to eventually brake to avoid them. Other cars even beeped at them.

I have fitted a 136bd horn, that gets their attention;)

Pedro K

The biggest problem I have with these proposals is the 7 year rule. It will put my bike pratically off the road (mines a '99) and I don't have the money to get a newer one.

EDIT: My bike has always on headlights anyway, so I don't see a problem there. Being forced to wear a hi-vis during the day is pointless.

Jak O Shadows

flyingsnail wrote: »

you could just buy a long sleeve vest (Link and Link). And I thought that ABS and OBD was only for new builds??

Both those vests will fly open at speed and become a sail, very distracting. The arms will flap also annoying. I have one supplied by the RSA, the people who want to introduce mandatory hi-viz. It is fine around town, out on the open road it is the most annoying flappy thing going.

Jak O Shadows

MikeC101 wrote: »

You don’t see the issue with performing an illegal manouvre while on camera for the 6.1 news?

Are they illegal? I'm not arguing just curious. Or is it just antisocial. I have never done one as tyres are too expensive to waste on a juvenile display.

MikeC101

Jak O Shadows wrote: »

Are they illegal? I'm not arguing just curious. Or is it just antisocial. I have never done one as tyres are too expensive to waste on a juvenile display.

On public roads / property I'd assume so - you could be done for reckless / dangerous driving I'd think? (Not 100% sure on this...but don't see how it could be otherwise).

Notice people are still going on about the "7 year" rule...