This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Just thought I'd post this for all you(us) car drivers.......
This sums up quite well the reasons for the protest: "To all the irate car drivers abusing bikers nationwide, may I paint you a picture? Imagine being told that you had to use OE 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. This is the reason you were held up for 20 minutes on 25/09/2011. Be under no misunderstanding, Car drivers will soon be moaning when the new MOT rules come into play in 2012, It's just the start!, the bikers are the first in line for draconian EU interference. If we fall, it will be a domino effect. Support us now, because u are next..
This sums up quite well the reasons for the protest: "To all the irate car drivers abusing bikers nationwide, may I paint you a picture? Imagine being told that you had to use OE 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. This is the reason you were held up for 20 minutes on 25/09/2011. Be under no misunderstanding, Car drivers will soon be moaning when the new MOT rules come into play in 2012, It's just the start!, the bikers are the first in line for draconian EU interference. If we fall, it will be a domino effect. Support us now, because u are next..
In reply to JohnnyW:
No.
If you want to get people to support you then try NOT using bullying and threats and "if you don't then it's you next"
How about providing us with something to help us make an informed choice? Do you have a link or something we can go on or do you just want to deal in scare stories?
No.
If you want to get people to support you then try NOT using bullying and threats and "if you don't then it's you next"
How about providing us with something to help us make an informed choice? Do you have a link or something we can go on or do you just want to deal in scare stories?
In reply to JohnnyW:
Imagine understanding what your going on about.
Imagine understanding what your going on about.
In reply to JohnnyW: Being an avid biker myself, the bureaucratic idots who think up there stupid ideas want to try riding for 20 years before making ill informed ideas.
I agree with the protests, if we as a people club together more instead of being so self centered we would be doing a lot better as a country.
I agree with the protests, if we as a people club together more instead of being so self centered we would be doing a lot better as a country.
In reply to JohnnyW: agree. It's been coming since the 80's.
Things do get trialed on bikers first; daytime headlights, fluorescent clothing (not compulsory, but seen as a contributory factor...we cannot be lazy and assume if we can't see fluorescent yellow, there's no-one there.)
Compulsory helmets..then compulsory meatballs (tho'....dammit that's not all bad!)
Please find a link though, please!
Things do get trialed on bikers first; daytime headlights, fluorescent clothing (not compulsory, but seen as a contributory factor...we cannot be lazy and assume if we can't see fluorescent yellow, there's no-one there.)
Compulsory helmets..then compulsory meatballs (tho'....dammit that's not all bad!)
Please find a link though, please!
In reply to JohnnyW:
Ermmmmm, 'compulsory seatbelts', not 'meatballs' (unless you have a Vespa , Saab or Volvo, presumably) ..
Ermmmmm, 'compulsory seatbelts', not 'meatballs' (unless you have a Vespa , Saab or Volvo, presumably) ..
In reply to Rampikino:
http://www.ridersarevoters.org/how-the-eu-anti-tampering-regulation-is-prog...
> (In reply to JohnnyW)
> How about providing us with something to help us make an informed choice? Do you have a link or something we can go on or do you just want to deal in scare stories?
http://www.ridersarevoters.org/how-the-eu-anti-tampering-regulation-is-prog...
In reply to thin bob:
Heh, compulsory meatballs would be awfully messy!
> (In reply to JohnnyW)
> Ermmmmm, 'compulsory seatbelts', not 'meatballs' (unless you have a Vespa , Saab or Volvo, presumably) ..
> Ermmmmm, 'compulsory seatbelts', not 'meatballs' (unless you have a Vespa , Saab or Volvo, presumably) ..
Heh, compulsory meatballs would be awfully messy!
In reply to JohnnyW:
abusing bikers? WTF has this got to do with what(ever) you're getting at?
> "To all the irate car drivers abusing bikers nationwide..."
abusing bikers? WTF has this got to do with what(ever) you're getting at?
In reply to sjc:
Yeah, just you imagine......
> (In reply to JohnnyW)
> Imagine understanding what your going on about.
> Imagine understanding what your going on about.
Yeah, just you imagine......
In reply to JohnnyW:
Good on 'em. I'd have joined them if my bike was on the road. I went on the MAG Parliament Square demo back in the '90s to protest against European proposals then and it seems to have delayed things for a decade, let's hope the same happens again.
Good on 'em. I'd have joined them if my bike was on the road. I went on the MAG Parliament Square demo back in the '90s to protest against European proposals then and it seems to have delayed things for a decade, let's hope the same happens again.
In reply to Glyno:
Yeah - I didn't actually write it, but he is refering to the reaction of Joe Public to the 'go-slow', as there was some rather less-than-polite reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced on their Sunday run to the family lunch.
> (In reply to JohnnyW)
> [...]
>
> abusing bikers? WTF has this got to do with what(ever) you're getting at?
> [...]
>
> abusing bikers? WTF has this got to do with what(ever) you're getting at?
Yeah - I didn't actually write it, but he is refering to the reaction of Joe Public to the 'go-slow', as there was some rather less-than-polite reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced on their Sunday run to the family lunch.
In reply to JohnnyW:
Thanks for the links guys.
I have to say that some of it sounds like beaurocratic nonsense, but not all of it - however as a non-biker I don't have the full perspective.
I think it is dangerous to go down the route of "pushing the responsibility away from ignorant road users" - that's more inflammatory than necessary. Bikes are generally smaller and, in my experience, can come up on you very quickly and weave in and out of traffic. Being seen is very important and it is a dual responsibility.
Legislation has to be good all round, sounds to me as though it hasn't all been considered fully - but that's Europ for you.
Thanks for the links guys.
I have to say that some of it sounds like beaurocratic nonsense, but not all of it - however as a non-biker I don't have the full perspective.
I think it is dangerous to go down the route of "pushing the responsibility away from ignorant road users" - that's more inflammatory than necessary. Bikes are generally smaller and, in my experience, can come up on you very quickly and weave in and out of traffic. Being seen is very important and it is a dual responsibility.
Legislation has to be good all round, sounds to me as though it hasn't all been considered fully - but that's Europ for you.
In reply to JohnnyW:
Teensy bit patronising there. Just my opinion for what it's worth, but not really a great way to gain support
> (In reply to Glyno)
> [...]
>
> Yeah - I didn't actually write it, but he is refering to the reaction of Joe Public to the 'go-slow', as there was some rather less-than-polite reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced on their Sunday run to the family lunch.
> [...]
>
> Yeah - I didn't actually write it, but he is refering to the reaction of Joe Public to the 'go-slow', as there was some rather less-than-polite reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced on their Sunday run to the family lunch.
Teensy bit patronising there. Just my opinion for what it's worth, but not really a great way to gain support
In reply to JohnnyW:
Why are you second guessing what car owners want to do? "Sunday run to the family lunch" Why not just say; "there was some rather less-than-polit reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced." and leave it at that?
> (In reply to Glyno)
> [...]
>
> Yeah - I didn't actually write it, but he is refering to the reaction of Joe Public to the 'go-slow', as there was some rather less-than-polite reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced on their Sunday run to the family lunch.
> [...]
>
> Yeah - I didn't actually write it, but he is refering to the reaction of Joe Public to the 'go-slow', as there was some rather less-than-polite reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced on their Sunday run to the family lunch.
Why are you second guessing what car owners want to do? "Sunday run to the family lunch" Why not just say; "there was some rather less-than-polit reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced." and leave it at that?
In reply to JohnnyW:
Sadly the bikes/cars issue is quite divisive. It's such a shame. After all, nobody wants to get hurt and everybody wants to use their mode of transport without being hassled by anyone else.
Sunday I was at Tremadog, and sad to say that a lot of bikers were using the long stretch to test their accelleration. Sad to say but a lot of cars were doing the same thing. The people at most risk were those climbers and walkers alongside the road! Bikers and Car Owners were just as bad as each other.
Sadly the bikes/cars issue is quite divisive. It's such a shame. After all, nobody wants to get hurt and everybody wants to use their mode of transport without being hassled by anyone else.
Sunday I was at Tremadog, and sad to say that a lot of bikers were using the long stretch to test their accelleration. Sad to say but a lot of cars were doing the same thing. The people at most risk were those climbers and walkers alongside the road! Bikers and Car Owners were just as bad as each other.
In reply to JohnnyW:
Presumably all the bikers on the Cat and Fiddle pass of a weekend have a valid and pressing need to get from Buxton to Macclesfield (or vice versa) in a hurry?
Seriously, though, that does look like a pretty stupid piece of legislation...
> (In reply to Glyno)
> [...]
>
> Yeah - I didn't actually write it, but he is refering to the reaction of Joe Public to the 'go-slow', as there was some rather less-than-polite reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced on their Sunday run to the family lunch.
> [...]
>
> Yeah - I didn't actually write it, but he is refering to the reaction of Joe Public to the 'go-slow', as there was some rather less-than-polite reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced on their Sunday run to the family lunch.
Presumably all the bikers on the Cat and Fiddle pass of a weekend have a valid and pressing need to get from Buxton to Macclesfield (or vice versa) in a hurry?
Seriously, though, that does look like a pretty stupid piece of legislation...
In reply to JohnnyW: I just had a brief check on the new 2012 car MOT and the things in it seem reasonable enough?? No re mapping your engine, fair enough? It's perfectly possible to increase the horsepower a LOT through re mapping. If you've a more powerful car it needs to be declared as such. Road clearance....... reasonable enough.
Re bike checks, also reasonable. As a younger man I was forever modifying my bike!!!
The only thing I don't like the sound of is where you say being forced to wear a particular colour, I take it you mean hi vis jackets? Whilst hte y will obviously save live, I agree, I wouldn't want to wear one.
The rest doesn't seem unreasonable.
Re bike checks, also reasonable. As a younger man I was forever modifying my bike!!!
The only thing I don't like the sound of is where you say being forced to wear a particular colour, I take it you mean hi vis jackets? Whilst hte y will obviously save live, I agree, I wouldn't want to wear one.
The rest doesn't seem unreasonable.
In reply to JohnnyW:
whilst the proposed legislation clearly goes too far penalising people for actually understanding and maintaining their own machines, I believe applying it to 50cc scooters might prevent everyone in my street being woken up by the resident idiot 16 year old (and his mates) on their modified washing machines, however maybe a better approach would be to have more police about to get said scooter owners pulled over as I believe it is illegal for them to be modified to perform beyond certain noise levels and speed(30mph?)
whilst the proposed legislation clearly goes too far penalising people for actually understanding and maintaining their own machines, I believe applying it to 50cc scooters might prevent everyone in my street being woken up by the resident idiot 16 year old (and his mates) on their modified washing machines, however maybe a better approach would be to have more police about to get said scooter owners pulled over as I believe it is illegal for them to be modified to perform beyond certain noise levels and speed(30mph?)
In reply to Rampikino:
It shouldn't be about car drivers v bike riders, it should be about legislation for road users that makes sense. I can't see the sense in introducing legislation banning bikes over 7 years old from city centres. We should be encouraging more people to use bikes instead of cars for single occupancy commuter journeys to alleviate congestion problems and a 7 year old small to mid size bike makes a great commuter tool. Instead, it will polarise bike ownership towards fast sportbike 'toys' like the ones you saw at Tremadog even more, whilst removing an opportunity to reduce congestion and materials consumption. I've got an 11 year old bike, a nine year old car and the Mrs has got a 12 year old car, all three of which pass their MOTs every year, including the emissions tests. Why dig a load of metal out of the ground to manufacture, and subject us to paying through the nose for new vehicles, just so that we can get to work on journeys not well provided for by public transport? I just can't see the sense in it. Other parts of the proposals like daytime head lamps I don't have a problem with.
> (In reply to JohnnyW)
>
> Sadly the bikes/cars issue is quite divisive. It's such a shame. After all, nobody wants to get hurt and everybody wants to use their mode of transport without being hassled by anyone else.
>
> Sunday I was at Tremadog, and sad to say that a lot of bikers were using the long stretch to test their accelleration. Sad to say but a lot of cars were doing the same thing. The people at most risk were those climbers and walkers alongside the road! Bikers and Car Owners were just as bad as each other.
>
> Sadly the bikes/cars issue is quite divisive. It's such a shame. After all, nobody wants to get hurt and everybody wants to use their mode of transport without being hassled by anyone else.
>
> Sunday I was at Tremadog, and sad to say that a lot of bikers were using the long stretch to test their accelleration. Sad to say but a lot of cars were doing the same thing. The people at most risk were those climbers and walkers alongside the road! Bikers and Car Owners were just as bad as each other.
It shouldn't be about car drivers v bike riders, it should be about legislation for road users that makes sense. I can't see the sense in introducing legislation banning bikes over 7 years old from city centres. We should be encouraging more people to use bikes instead of cars for single occupancy commuter journeys to alleviate congestion problems and a 7 year old small to mid size bike makes a great commuter tool. Instead, it will polarise bike ownership towards fast sportbike 'toys' like the ones you saw at Tremadog even more, whilst removing an opportunity to reduce congestion and materials consumption. I've got an 11 year old bike, a nine year old car and the Mrs has got a 12 year old car, all three of which pass their MOTs every year, including the emissions tests. Why dig a load of metal out of the ground to manufacture, and subject us to paying through the nose for new vehicles, just so that we can get to work on journeys not well provided for by public transport? I just can't see the sense in it. Other parts of the proposals like daytime head lamps I don't have a problem with.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
I think the biggest thing in this is the forced use of OEM parts... does that mean not being able to have a different brand of tyres? or winter tyres?
It could also effect the cost of your insurance (most insurers now use non-OEM parts for repairs to keep costs down)
> (In reply to JohnnyW) >
> The rest doesn't seem unreasonable.
> The rest doesn't seem unreasonable.
I think the biggest thing in this is the forced use of OEM parts... does that mean not being able to have a different brand of tyres? or winter tyres?
It could also effect the cost of your insurance (most insurers now use non-OEM parts for repairs to keep costs down)
In reply to balmybaldwin: Actually I agree there too. If the part is certified I don't see it's the state's business who supplies it.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Problem is Wonko, they're talking about anything not OE as being a modification.
So, a pattern chain and sprocket kit with the original gearing (ie: just a replacement for worn parts, not a performance increase) would count as a modification and not be legal to sell in the EU. The motorcylist is then only left with the option of buying the original manufacturers parts at twice the cost, or trying to squeeze more miles out of dangerously worn components.
It's the equivalent of not being able to buy windscreen wipers or lightbulbs from Halfords or an exhaust, brakes or tyres from Quickfit and having to buy them from Audi or Peugeot or whatever instead.
> (In reply to JohnnyW)
> Re bike checks, also reasonable. As a younger man I was forever modifying my bike!!!
> Re bike checks, also reasonable. As a younger man I was forever modifying my bike!!!
Problem is Wonko, they're talking about anything not OE as being a modification.
So, a pattern chain and sprocket kit with the original gearing (ie: just a replacement for worn parts, not a performance increase) would count as a modification and not be legal to sell in the EU. The motorcylist is then only left with the option of buying the original manufacturers parts at twice the cost, or trying to squeeze more miles out of dangerously worn components.
It's the equivalent of not being able to buy windscreen wipers or lightbulbs from Halfords or an exhaust, brakes or tyres from Quickfit and having to buy them from Audi or Peugeot or whatever instead.
In reply to JohnnyW: Is there a clause about allowing MOTs on vehichles which already have OEM parts fitted?
If not, that'll see a few come off the road!
If not, that'll see a few come off the road!
In reply to myth:
What's that got to do with anything? :0)
My bike can pull perfectly good wheelies in standard factory form while the rider's wearing a HiVi jacket and the headlight is switched on. Providing of course that the rider has more skill and / or bottle than I've got.
> (In reply to JohnnyW)
>
> I saw a biker do a wheeley in liverpool city centre yesterday.
>
> I saw a biker do a wheeley in liverpool city centre yesterday.
What's that got to do with anything? :0)
My bike can pull perfectly good wheelies in standard factory form while the rider's wearing a HiVi jacket and the headlight is switched on. Providing of course that the rider has more skill and / or bottle than I've got.
In reply to JohnnyW: Anyway, if any of you bikers slow me down at the weekend I'm going to push you out of the way with my car and claim I couldn't see you because you were wearing the wrong colours
In reply to JohnnyW: Whilst I have every sympathy with people protesting about legislation that they feel is wrong, the correct place to make this protest is not in front of my car to prevent me going somewhere.
Sorry and all, but if I'm impeded by such a demonstration anyone trying to justify the inconvenience will get short shrift from me. There are better ways to raise people's awareness than to make them annoyed with you and the cause you espouse.
T.
Sorry and all, but if I'm impeded by such a demonstration anyone trying to justify the inconvenience will get short shrift from me. There are better ways to raise people's awareness than to make them annoyed with you and the cause you espouse.
T.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Haha! SLOW YOU DOWN Wonko? That'll be the day! We've seen you driving along in your Allegro with your hat, coat and driving gloves on, holding up all the caravans...
> (In reply to JohnnyW) Anyway, if any of you bikers slow me down at the weekend I'm going to push you out of the way with my car and claim I couldn't see you because you were wearing the wrong colours
Haha! SLOW YOU DOWN Wonko? That'll be the day! We've seen you driving along in your Allegro with your hat, coat and driving gloves on, holding up all the caravans...
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Question is, are they referring to OEM parts only being fitted, or OEM "spec" parts being fitted?
If it's exactly equivalent to original spec for performance, size, etc, then surely that can't be a problem?
I can't see the EU being quite so stupid as to legislate for one thing that then hammers a continent's-worth of parts dealers and manufactuers? Many parts in a car aren't made by the car manufacturers anyway, they're bought from companies that also sell direct.
Question is, are they referring to OEM parts only being fitted, or OEM "spec" parts being fitted?
If it's exactly equivalent to original spec for performance, size, etc, then surely that can't be a problem?
I can't see the EU being quite so stupid as to legislate for one thing that then hammers a continent's-worth of parts dealers and manufactuers? Many parts in a car aren't made by the car manufacturers anyway, they're bought from companies that also sell direct.
In reply to JohnnyW:
not sure how I got to this date without hearing about this stuff. That's ridiculous! if the OE stuff and the 7 year rule goes ahead you're pretty much taking the majority of bike commuters off the road!
not sure how I got to this date without hearing about this stuff. That's ridiculous! if the OE stuff and the 7 year rule goes ahead you're pretty much taking the majority of bike commuters off the road!
In reply to teflonpete:
Hardly likely, my Allegro is modified with twin silver stick on stripes adding at least 0.75 HP, no WAY I'm holding anything up.
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
> [...]
>
> Haha! SLOW YOU DOWN Wonko? That'll be the day! We've seen you driving along in your Allegro with your hat, coat and driving gloves on, holding up all the caravans...
> [...]
>
> Haha! SLOW YOU DOWN Wonko? That'll be the day! We've seen you driving along in your Allegro with your hat, coat and driving gloves on, holding up all the caravans...
Hardly likely, my Allegro is modified with twin silver stick on stripes adding at least 0.75 HP, no WAY I'm holding anything up.
In reply to JohnnyW:
I'm sorry, but I don't actually understand what the original post is about. It comes across very teenage angst about something to do with imposed restictions on thier bike whilst being appauled at car users for having a little more freedom.
The thing is that I'm sure the OP was trying to make a valuable point, but sadly started with "To all the irate car drivers abusing bikers nationwide". This at once puts me (and probably alot of other car drivers) on the defensive. I personally don't see how I'm "abusing" bikers nationwide. Like alot of car motorists I try and let bikers pass and move over to the side of the road to give them more room when I see them coming.
As for having to use OE parts everytime my car needed attention, well maybe thats not such a bad thing. At the end of the day halfords and kwik fit are just going to start offering OE parts to thier customers anyway.
Car motorists can get pulled over, it's just that it doesn't happen as much. There are VOSA check points all over the place (if you look) and there is nothing to stop them checking.
As for certain colour clothing? Bikers, as far as I'm aware don't have to wear any certain colour clothing at the moment, but surely as a safety conscious road user a motorbiker would choose to wear something that makes them more visible.
As for the rest of the points, there are not links to explain what they mean, and for me just a run of the mill, average car owner I don't really know what you are moaning on about. Maybe the OP should have sent us a link to a petition to sign against there clear crimes against humanity?
I'm still angry at being branded a "bike abusing car owner" tbh.
I'm sorry, but I don't actually understand what the original post is about. It comes across very teenage angst about something to do with imposed restictions on thier bike whilst being appauled at car users for having a little more freedom.
The thing is that I'm sure the OP was trying to make a valuable point, but sadly started with "To all the irate car drivers abusing bikers nationwide". This at once puts me (and probably alot of other car drivers) on the defensive. I personally don't see how I'm "abusing" bikers nationwide. Like alot of car motorists I try and let bikers pass and move over to the side of the road to give them more room when I see them coming.
As for having to use OE parts everytime my car needed attention, well maybe thats not such a bad thing. At the end of the day halfords and kwik fit are just going to start offering OE parts to thier customers anyway.
Car motorists can get pulled over, it's just that it doesn't happen as much. There are VOSA check points all over the place (if you look) and there is nothing to stop them checking.
As for certain colour clothing? Bikers, as far as I'm aware don't have to wear any certain colour clothing at the moment, but surely as a safety conscious road user a motorbiker would choose to wear something that makes them more visible.
As for the rest of the points, there are not links to explain what they mean, and for me just a run of the mill, average car owner I don't really know what you are moaning on about. Maybe the OP should have sent us a link to a petition to sign against there clear crimes against humanity?
I'm still angry at being branded a "bike abusing car owner" tbh.
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Introducing the new driving force from Austin... Allegro!
Being driven by that old bloke from Eastenders!
youtube.com/watch?v=73rKQXCRHeA&
Introducing the new driving force from Austin... Allegro!
Being driven by that old bloke from Eastenders!
youtube.com/watch?v=73rKQXCRHeA&
In reply to mlmatt:
From the 6th Sept...
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=473764&v=1#x6544343
Didn't take any notice then did you? Why would you? That's not meant to be provocative in any way, but just to show why sometimes, demos and the discussion that comes in their aftermath do more to raise public awareness than petitions.
> (In reply to JohnnyW)
> As for the rest of the points, there are not links to explain what they mean, and for me just a run of the mill, average car owner I don't really know what you are moaning on about. Maybe the OP should have sent us a link to a petition to sign against there clear crimes against humanity?
From the 6th Sept...
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=473764&v=1#x6544343
Didn't take any notice then did you? Why would you? That's not meant to be provocative in any way, but just to show why sometimes, demos and the discussion that comes in their aftermath do more to raise public awareness than petitions.
In reply to JohnnyW: Sounds very French to me. Over there, you can not modify your car one iota and kit cars built by hand are banned. But the French love that sort of bureaucracy I guess?
In reply to JohnnyW:
FWIW I don't think bikers' organisations always get their PR right, I'm not sure but I think those suggesting that inconveniencing car drivers as part of a protest could be counter-productive might have a very good point.
Their heart is in the right place though; the proposed legislation is pretty stupid and very scary from a biker's PoV. It follows a *long* tradition of very poorly thought out legislation being proposed about bikes. Dr Chinn's f**king stupid 'leg protectors' just wont lie down and die it seems.
Given that we're talking about ill-thought out legislation restricting people's freedom (even perhaps as far as restricting what colour clothes they can wear FFS) for a perceived increase in their safety - I'd have thought climbers would more naturally tend to support the bikers' point of view than car drivers.
Never mind what'll happen to cars. If you stand for this, it'll be compulsory top-ropes next! (With stitched eyes and maillons - because no way can you trust people to tie their own knots).
FWIW I don't think bikers' organisations always get their PR right, I'm not sure but I think those suggesting that inconveniencing car drivers as part of a protest could be counter-productive might have a very good point.
Their heart is in the right place though; the proposed legislation is pretty stupid and very scary from a biker's PoV. It follows a *long* tradition of very poorly thought out legislation being proposed about bikes. Dr Chinn's f**king stupid 'leg protectors' just wont lie down and die it seems.
Given that we're talking about ill-thought out legislation restricting people's freedom (even perhaps as far as restricting what colour clothes they can wear FFS) for a perceived increase in their safety - I'd have thought climbers would more naturally tend to support the bikers' point of view than car drivers.
Never mind what'll happen to cars. If you stand for this, it'll be compulsory top-ropes next! (With stitched eyes and maillons - because no way can you trust people to tie their own knots).
In reply to Tony the Blade:
I admit, that video has me flumoxed. It's before the days of CGI and digital enhancements, yet they managed to film an Allegro not only going around a corner at speed, but stopping quickly?
I wonder how they did it?
> (In reply to Wonko The Sane)
>
> Introducing the new driving force from Austin... Allegro!
>
> Being driven by that old bloke from Eastenders!
>
> youtube.com/watch?v=73rKQXCRHeA&
>
> Introducing the new driving force from Austin... Allegro!
>
> Being driven by that old bloke from Eastenders!
>
> youtube.com/watch?v=73rKQXCRHeA&
I admit, that video has me flumoxed. It's before the days of CGI and digital enhancements, yet they managed to film an Allegro not only going around a corner at speed, but stopping quickly?
I wonder how they did it?
In reply to Wonko The Sane:
Time lapse photography!
And they thought 'bullet time' in The Matrix was something new.
> (In reply to Tony the Blade)
> [...]
>
> I admit, that video has me flumoxed. It's before the days of CGI and digital enhancements, yet they managed to film an Allegro not only going around a corner at speed, but stopping quickly?
>
> I wonder how they did it?
> [...]
>
> I admit, that video has me flumoxed. It's before the days of CGI and digital enhancements, yet they managed to film an Allegro not only going around a corner at speed, but stopping quickly?
>
> I wonder how they did it?
Time lapse photography!
And they thought 'bullet time' in The Matrix was something new.
In reply to JohnnyW: I presume the demo was on a Sunday because that's the only day they ride their bikes
In reply to toad:
Yes, because during the week they are working taxpayers. Your point?
> (In reply to JohnnyW) I presume the demo was on a Sunday because that's the only day they ride their bikes
Yes, because during the week they are working taxpayers. Your point?
In reply to JohnnyW:
Hi, i've not read all the thread so sorry if others have coverd this but...
I was delayed on my journey from way before the organised dispersal time by overly rude and down right dangerous bikers.
4 of which were hailing such a barage of abuse to a lady in a car with two small children that i was frankly shocked!
Non of the participating riders even attempted to advertise their cause either on themselves or on bridges.
Now that just seems dim to me. It was only by chance that i happend on this thread that i discovered what its all about.
I do agree with you're (riders everywhere) angst, but acting in the way that some of you did has not helped the cause and has honestly done more damage than good.
Think before action guys, you just came across as petty and dimwitted.
Good luck next time.
Hi, i've not read all the thread so sorry if others have coverd this but...
I was delayed on my journey from way before the organised dispersal time by overly rude and down right dangerous bikers.
4 of which were hailing such a barage of abuse to a lady in a car with two small children that i was frankly shocked!
Non of the participating riders even attempted to advertise their cause either on themselves or on bridges.
Now that just seems dim to me. It was only by chance that i happend on this thread that i discovered what its all about.
I do agree with you're (riders everywhere) angst, but acting in the way that some of you did has not helped the cause and has honestly done more damage than good.
Think before action guys, you just came across as petty and dimwitted.
Good luck next time.
In reply to JohnnyW: I didnt go on the demo. I would like to see all the fuel protesters pushed into a big hole with a JCB so Im hardly going to join a MAG demo. Id be happy enough if they just banned Sunday bikers.
The proposed regulations on hi-viz clothing doesnt apply to me.
The proposed regulations on hi-viz clothing doesnt apply to me.
In reply to mlmatt:
Perhaps you might want to consider that since you are not an "irate car driver abusing bikers nationwide" then it didn't apply to you, but only to the irate car drivers that do abuse bikers?
Just a thought.
It seems to be quite specific. It doesn't say "all car drivers" it was targeted at a described sub-set of drivers.
> but sadly started with "To all the irate car drivers abusing bikers nationwide". This at once puts me (and probably alot of other car drivers) on the defensive. I personally don't see how I'm "abusing" bikers nationwide.
Perhaps you might want to consider that since you are not an "irate car driver abusing bikers nationwide" then it didn't apply to you, but only to the irate car drivers that do abuse bikers?
Just a thought.
It seems to be quite specific. It doesn't say "all car drivers" it was targeted at a described sub-set of drivers.
In reply to Dominion:
Fine, but your demo aims to disrupt all car drivers whether they be good or bad.
So... the bikers are not happy with legislation and they way they choose to vent their anger is to take it out on car owners.
Yep, going to get you lots of support.
Fine, but your demo aims to disrupt all car drivers whether they be good or bad.
So... the bikers are not happy with legislation and they way they choose to vent their anger is to take it out on car owners.
Yep, going to get you lots of support.
In reply to Dominion:
if it wasn't targetted at 'all car drivers' then why did I miss high tide whilst driving to Berry Head to go DWS on Sunday because of the 'protest' on the A38?
I attempt to be as 'bike aware' as possible when driving and don't deem myself 'irate'
if it wasn't targetted at 'all car drivers' then why did I miss high tide whilst driving to Berry Head to go DWS on Sunday because of the 'protest' on the A38?
I attempt to be as 'bike aware' as possible when driving and don't deem myself 'irate'
In reply to deepsoup:
I change my mind regularly over this kind of thing. On the one hand I don't have to go to a crag and climb to be a regular fully-functional member of society, but I do, as a rule, have to use the road network. My life, and the lives of other people using the roads, are often put in danger by people expressing their personal "freedom" on those same roads. Accidents on the roads are expensive and affect everyone - in terms of cost, inconvenience and, all too frequently, people's health and life.
On the other hand, there's that whole slippery slope nanny state argument (although I notice that most people wear seatbelts these days with only a small amount of grumbling).
It's relatively easy to make estimates about the lives and pounds that could be saved by introducing a certain piece of legislation, but rather harder to quantify the loss of 'freedom' thus incurred. They could make it compulsory for all bike riders to wear fluorescent chicken suits and drive at a maximum speed of 10 miles an hour reducing biker accidents to zero at a stroke. I for one would be happy with that, but I imagine that bikers might be rather less happy.
I do wonder where some of these pieces of legislation come from though. It sounds suspiciously like some of them were written by car manufacturers...
> Given that we're talking about ill-thought out legislation restricting people's freedom (even perhaps as far as restricting what colour clothes they can wear FFS) for a perceived increase in their safety - I'd have thought climbers would more naturally tend to support the bikers' point of view than car drivers.
I change my mind regularly over this kind of thing. On the one hand I don't have to go to a crag and climb to be a regular fully-functional member of society, but I do, as a rule, have to use the road network. My life, and the lives of other people using the roads, are often put in danger by people expressing their personal "freedom" on those same roads. Accidents on the roads are expensive and affect everyone - in terms of cost, inconvenience and, all too frequently, people's health and life.
On the other hand, there's that whole slippery slope nanny state argument (although I notice that most people wear seatbelts these days with only a small amount of grumbling).
It's relatively easy to make estimates about the lives and pounds that could be saved by introducing a certain piece of legislation, but rather harder to quantify the loss of 'freedom' thus incurred. They could make it compulsory for all bike riders to wear fluorescent chicken suits and drive at a maximum speed of 10 miles an hour reducing biker accidents to zero at a stroke. I for one would be happy with that, but I imagine that bikers might be rather less happy.
I do wonder where some of these pieces of legislation come from though. It sounds suspiciously like some of them were written by car manufacturers...
In reply to anonymouse: And I might be happy that all climbers are forced to wear helmets and only top rope or use designated bolted routes for the same reason that bikers are forced to protect themselves from themselves and as some people have pointed out the cost we can depress the economy further as we won't need ambulance techies, nurses, doctors and morticians.
In reply to anonymouse:
That's pretty much the proposed legislation as it is, innit? ;O)
Except of course that it wouldn't reduce accidents to zero. I don't quite get our national (I always thought it was a UK thing, I guess its actually more widespread) obsession with hi-vis clothing. Somehow there seems to be a belief that it has some magical property that automatically makes any situation safer, and a *lot* of the time that's just rubbish.
A lot of the time I'm sure you're right, but I think in this case the fluorescent chicken-suit manufacturers have had an input too. ;O)
Car manufacturers have probably been too busy making sure that even as the cost of driving has gone through the roof what with fuel, insurance and all, so public transport fares have gone up even more - to the point that trains are now a 'rich man's plaything' apparently.
I think I'm going to put my tin foil hat on and hide in the cellar a while, it's all getting a bit too much today.
> They could make it compulsory for all bike riders to wear fluorescent chicken suits and drive at a maximum speed of 10 miles an hour reducing biker accidents to zero at a stroke. I for one would be happy with that, but I imagine that bikers might be rather less happy.
That's pretty much the proposed legislation as it is, innit? ;O)
Except of course that it wouldn't reduce accidents to zero. I don't quite get our national (I always thought it was a UK thing, I guess its actually more widespread) obsession with hi-vis clothing. Somehow there seems to be a belief that it has some magical property that automatically makes any situation safer, and a *lot* of the time that's just rubbish.
> I do wonder where some of these pieces of legislation come from though. It sounds suspiciously like some of them were written by car manufacturers...
A lot of the time I'm sure you're right, but I think in this case the fluorescent chicken-suit manufacturers have had an input too. ;O)
Car manufacturers have probably been too busy making sure that even as the cost of driving has gone through the roof what with fuel, insurance and all, so public transport fares have gone up even more - to the point that trains are now a 'rich man's plaything' apparently.
I think I'm going to put my tin foil hat on and hide in the cellar a while, it's all getting a bit too much today.
In reply to anonymouse:
Hi-vis on bike(r)s is quite a nuanced debate. There's a good discussion of it here:
http://www.visordown.com/forum/forummessages.asp?UTN=408005&dt=4&UR...
> (In reply to deepsoup)
> [...]
They could make it compulsory for all bike riders to wear fluorescent chicken suits...> [...]
Hi-vis on bike(r)s is quite a nuanced debate. There's a good discussion of it here:
http://www.visordown.com/forum/forummessages.asp?UTN=408005&dt=4&UR...
In reply to JohnnyW:
Surely it was those who wilfully set out to inconvenience others that were being "less-than polite"?
Who are you to judge the value of their journey?
> (In reply to Glyno)
> [...]
>
> Yeah - I didn't actually write it, but he is refering to the reaction of Joe Public to the 'go-slow', as there was some rather less-than-polite reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced on their Sunday run to the family lunch.
> [...]
>
> Yeah - I didn't actually write it, but he is refering to the reaction of Joe Public to the 'go-slow', as there was some rather less-than-polite reaction from the car owners being inconvenienced on their Sunday run to the family lunch.
Surely it was those who wilfully set out to inconvenience others that were being "less-than polite"?
Who are you to judge the value of their journey?
In reply to timjones:
Why not focus on the legislation proposed instead of the OP's point of view?
I dare say it'll be affecting bikers you'd see as reasonable. ()
I don't drive or bike and I don't think it's a good thing.
More people riding bikes instead of driving cars could help to reduce our environmental impact, and this will make biking more expensive for a lot of people.
There's a couple of reasons why it's not good legislation.
Cheers
Tim
Why not focus on the legislation proposed instead of the OP's point of view?
I dare say it'll be affecting bikers you'd see as reasonable. ()
I don't drive or bike and I don't think it's a good thing.
More people riding bikes instead of driving cars could help to reduce our environmental impact, and this will make biking more expensive for a lot of people.
There's a couple of reasons why it's not good legislation.
Cheers
Tim
In reply to myth:
Is that a myth?
> (In reply to JohnnyW)
>
> I saw a biker do a wheeley in liverpool city centre yesterday.
>
> I saw a biker do a wheeley in liverpool city centre yesterday.
Is that a myth?
In reply to jobbers:
Thanks. I wouldn't say the debate is nuanced, so much as that there is no clear cut evidence that hi-vis clothing helps save lives. I'm intrigued by the fact that it seems that some measures designed to make bikes more visible - e.g. keeping your lights on at all times - might actually increase the number of accidents. There were some interesting studies about the effects of various measures, but little persuasive evidence to say what the actual causes are. It seems to overlap with psychological studies on attention and perception without citing any of that literature. Without known causes it's difficult to suggest how lives might be saved so we're very much in the realm of "try it and see".
From a brief review of the evidence it seems that the safest thing to do might be to ban motorbikes altogether.
> (In reply to anonymouse)
> [...]
> They could make it compulsory for all bike riders to wear fluorescent chicken suits...
>
> Hi-vis on bike(r)s is quite a nuanced debate. There's a good discussion of it here:
>
> http://www.visordown.com/forum/forummessages.asp?UTN=408005&dt=4&UR...
> [...]
> They could make it compulsory for all bike riders to wear fluorescent chicken suits...
>
> Hi-vis on bike(r)s is quite a nuanced debate. There's a good discussion of it here:
>
> http://www.visordown.com/forum/forummessages.asp?UTN=408005&dt=4&UR...
Thanks. I wouldn't say the debate is nuanced, so much as that there is no clear cut evidence that hi-vis clothing helps save lives. I'm intrigued by the fact that it seems that some measures designed to make bikes more visible - e.g. keeping your lights on at all times - might actually increase the number of accidents. There were some interesting studies about the effects of various measures, but little persuasive evidence to say what the actual causes are. It seems to overlap with psychological studies on attention and perception without citing any of that literature. Without known causes it's difficult to suggest how lives might be saved so we're very much in the realm of "try it and see".
From a brief review of the evidence it seems that the safest thing to do might be to ban motorbikes altogether.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...