Politics - read at your peril!

[Jayneflakes]

As many of you will know, I am engaged in political action and as such I have tried to engage many of our candidates in debate to discover what it is that they stand for.

Recently the Green Party were seen to release a rather embarrassing statement that showed them to be opposed to motorcycling. Reading this, I decided to confront our local candidate over this and have now received his replies.

I was greatly concerned because what I got back could be percieved as open hostility to us as riders and I have continued to debate this with him. This is what I have so far discovered and with the usual backtracking and blatant electioneering that these people are currently do, I remain cautious.

Firstly I asked him why I should trust the Greens, this was his reply.

Why should you trust the Greens?

Maybe you shouldn't. No human individual or organisation is perfectly trustworthy; not me, not you, not anyone. We are all imperfect. In groups, we can be even worse than as individuals, because groups and parties have their own issues of organisation, personalities and relationships. The Green Party is not perfect. Parts of it are excellent. Parts of it are wobbly. Our policy document is huge, because it is produced democratically; any group of members can put policy forward, and it gets voted on by Conference after a process. As a result, it is a large, but not infallible document.

I then asked him about Green party policy on motorcycles.

There are many things said about the Green Party that are untrue. We are in favour of motorcyling as a fuel efficient and less congesting alternative to the car. It is true that our policy is against the use of bus lanes by bikes, but in fact Brighton overruled that.

I have been thinking hard about motorcycling since the MAG meeting last Wednesday and hope to find the time to write to the DoT about it, because Parliamentary candidates have the same access to Govt departments as MPs.

A couple of days later I recieved this rather confrontational message.

I wanted to discuss with you a letter from me, at Parliamentary
Candidate, to the DoT on the MAG issues - mainly training (cost and
complexity), bus lanes (use of) and parking spaces.

As a Parliamentary candidate, I have equal status with a real MP, so I
have privileged access - the DoT is obliged to reply.

The thing is, that I would suggest to the DoT in my letter that they
should negotiate with your 3 points above.
However, I would suggest that the DoT would ask MAG to accept more
stringent regs on silencers in exchange.

At the Burrington meet we failed to really discuss noise, though it was
mentioned, and I noticed someone say "loud pipes save lives".

Loud pipes also ruin lives. The fact is that one motorcycle crossing
London at 3 am will wake 50,000 people.
I truly find this unacceptable.
If the M/c community is ready to trade noise for the 3 points above, I
will work with you.

What do you say?


I am personally not in favour of full open pipes and engines so loud they cause a disturbance, but there are limits as to what stops being a noise issue and what then becomes a civil liberties issue. So I questioned further and asked him what levels he considered to be too loud? I also asked him what research he had done into the noise levels produced by modern motorcycles

This was my reply.

I am not, repeat not, hostile to m/cycles.
I am not a stranger to Nempnett Thrubwell.
I am however aware that loud noise is a real stressor. So it needs research.

I'll try to do the research, but corruption in Westminster is going to take most of my attention right now.

Hardly a reassuring statement, one hopes that should he get into power, he will indeed do the research before he implements policies that directly impact upon us.

I shall be forwarding his replies to my local MAG rep.

In the mean time I have still heard nothing from two of the other three parties standing in my area. I shall keep you updated if I hear anything more on the Greens view on motorcycles, should we have any Green voters on here.

Cheers,

Jayney

[dkid]

Stick it to 'em Jayne!

Honestly though, the fact I can ride in bus lanes is probably the single biggest factor in my choice of transport for my daily commute (20 mile round trip across Bristol and back). If the greens implement their plans to ban us from bus lanes, they'll effectively push me back into my car, adding to congestion and pollution as a result.

As far as noise goes, I agree that straight pipes etc are just annoying and anti social but common sense should prevail surely? That's why it's at the discretion of the mot tester I'd suggest.

[ophic]

If only all candidates were as up front.

Not that I agree with his policies.

[Wideboy]

Why is he making a point of noisy bikes? is he going to propose they're to be shot on the spot?

Bike's exceeding the noise limit are MOT failures, therefore illegal and you'll receive 3 points. So what his point? It's like people who call for the speed limit to be lowered to tackle speeding, why? people will still speed, you're not achieving anything just punishing the people who already abide it.

People with loud bikes will still have loud bike's

[ophic]

"The fact is that one motorcycle crossing London at 3 am will wake 50,000 people."
I think if that really is a fact, it needs proving. Trains are far noisier than most bikes and there are houses built along very many railway lines in London. And he doesn't specify a motorcycle with a loud exhaust either. The stock SV exhaust would struggle to wake a wired ferret.

Thinking about it, the engine noise from an HGV is louder than the average motorcycle as well. Perhaps he also intends to address this issue?

Having said that, the noise regs are a bit loose. I know of some bikes which are louder with their baffles in than mine with its baffle out, and they pass MOTs like that.

[Wideboy]

Buy that's down the mot'er Passing it when he shouldn't. Again another problem he would have no way of solving.

With the amount of hot air he's producing he'll need some sort of emissions regulations for him and his homeboys in Westminster.

[ophic]

Buy that's down the mot'er Passing it when he shouldn't. Again another problem he would have no way of solving.

With the amount of hot air he's producing he'll need some sort of emissions regulations for him and his homeboys in Westminster.
I think the exhaust regs say something quite vague, like "no noisier than an exhaust should be on that model of motorcycle".

If elected, he could submit a bill to restrict MOT passes to specific noise levels, introduce stringent checking on MOT passes to ensure the MOT garages aren't taking the michael, and introduce greater powers for catching and punishment of noise offenders. Oh and double the MOT fee to fund it all. The rest would be down to parliament.

[Jayneflakes]

I have tackled him on the noise levels of other vehicles and have raised the issues of trains already. I used to live next to a railway station and during the summer I could not have my window open at night because the drivers would leave the engines running while they waited in the sidings, often for two hours or more!

I have also tackled him about noise levels from cars with very loud stereos and noise from trucks and buses. If you have ever lived on a busy road, you know how loud trucks and buses are.

The sound of one single motorbike in the dead of night is frankly pathetic. When I was a child staying with my Grandparents, I heard their neighbour pull up late at night (about half nine) on their super loud bike and for me it just made me want a Honda C50 just like theirs!

I agree that overly loud exhausts can me a menace, there is a local Harley rider who has a bike with a big bore and short drag pipes. That is above acceptable levels of noise as far as I am concerned, but at the same time what about his civil liberties?

More legislation does not automatically make for a better society.

Another message has popped into in box from him and I think that I may be starting to wind him up! I will report back once I have read it.

[orose]

Only thing I'm going to add is that some people need winding up to function properly - worth seeing if this works on politicians, because they don't seem to function at the moment ;)

[Viney]

Bit a motorcycle isn't as fuel efficient as a car. My car happily does 40-55 mpg and can carry 4 people and stuff doing that whereby my bike returns around 45mpg and only carries me. Where's the efficency in that? Admittedly most cars are used by a single user and probably sit in traffic more. Again my car has start/stop so produces no emissions in traffic.

[littleoldman2]

You're confusing motorcycles with forms of transport, as opposed to a leisure activity.

[Jayneflakes]

I have engaged the Green candidate for Weston Super Mud, Dr Richard Lawson over the last few days and have tried to discuss with him the benefits of riding motorcycles and pointing out that limiting the noise of a bike will make little difference when trains, buses, trucks and cars make so much noise already. It is really a bit of a non issues when compared the levels of noise that people living next to busy roads or railway stations have to endure. Dr Lawson is attempting to make a deal with voters, if he tries to reduce the complexity of bike tests, allow us to ride in bus lanes, improve bike parking and reduce vehicle excise duty, we will be grateful and accept a severe restriction to exhaust noise. In this final e-Mail, through the language he uses and with the twisted double speak of a politician he states a concern over after market exhausts and proposes on the spot checks carried out by the Police. Is this then making a loud exhaust a criminal offence that can get you locked up in jail?

Have a read and decide for yourself what it is that he is proposing.

Let's agree on what we agree on so far.

We both want PTW use to be encouraged because they are more fuel efficient than cars, and cause less traffic congestion
We both want PTWs to be as safe as is reasonably possible.
To achieve this, we have to negotiate with the DoT.
I am offering to do this in my capacity as a Parliamentary candidate, which gives me quasi-MP status.
The aim of negotiations with the DoT is to get them to make the following concessions:
Simplify and rationalise the licensing regime (while making sure that safety is maintained or improved)
Reduce or remove the road fund license for PTWs
Improve parking provision for PTWs
Allow PTWs in bus lane
Now my point is that these are 4 concessions that we are seeking from the DoT, which represents (or is supposed to represent) the interests of society at large. We may say that the changes will benefit society (via fuel and congestion savings), but at the same time we are asking for work and expense from the DoT. How can we motivate them?
This is where noise comes in. I have just taken a quick refresher course on noise pollution. I had a lot to do with environmental health noise experts in my time on the Council. I find that noise pollution relates to hypertension, coronary incidents, stress, hearing loss and tinnitus. Road noise is a significant component of noise pollution, and PTWs contribute to total road noise.
Incidentally, I came across an assertion in the literature that there is no methodical or scientific evidence that "loud pipes save lives". Maybe you know of some?
o my proposal is that we should offer to meet the DoT (and DEFRA and the DoH, who should take an interest) and say we are ready to negotiate for the 4 items above, and concede controls on PTW noise. There are standards in place anyway (I guess) but they might be tighter in newer bikes. There would be agreed standardised roadside/lab tests. The law would be enforced on non-standard pipes, which I understand are available in shops.
All of which might be a bit offensive to some of your more libertarian members, but then you can't please everyone...
That is what I am offering. A balanced package.
I really hope you do not see me as rude or arrogant. I am trying to help. I felt a bit bad because I didn't join MAG at Burrington (your lovely membership sec looked really hurt when I didn't join, but believe me I am trying to unjoin a lot of organisations, I get so much stuff from them). I do want to show that my party wants to work to change things in a realistic way.
I could join MAG, and say "Ain't it awful, the nasty Government won't do what you want". Instead I am trying to get some win-win going.

I have also tackled him on his attitude towards GMOs, energy generation, poverty and unemployment. Although he has skipped over most of these questions or answered them vaguely, he has confirmed that he would like to use the unemployed as a labour force to carry out community work. When I asked him why if work needing to be done was it not actually made into a paid piece of employment, he failed to answer the question. So bare that in mind too, this guy is in favour of Work Fair and would like to see it extended to litter picking, gardening, caring for elderly/infirm/disabled people and restoring the towns we live in. To me these all sound like opportunities for real paid employment, rather than schemes to chuck disenfranchised unemployed people into. Having been both an environmental professional and a disability caring professional, I can say that this concerns me greatly.

So with this in mind, I contacted my local Labour candidate and once I had finished roasting him because he and his party have failed to reply to any of my letters for the last three years, I asked him for his views on bike related issues, of which he had not the first clue until he also attended the same MAG meeting as the Green guy. This was his reply.

Motorcycling - this is not a subject I claim great expertise on but recently I went to the Motorcycle Action Group meeting at Burrington. It's clear to me that the current testing regime is far too complicated and seems that someone is making a lot of money out of all these tests. To be honest I'm not aware of Labour policy on this issue, I don't think there is one, but as a local candidate I will speak up for motorcyclists. You seem to be the poor relations of the road, squeezed between the powerful car and cycling lobbies.

That was it. At least he was honest I suppose, although I do not know how honest it was to say that he will speak up for us. It seems that attending the MAG meeting was simply a case of electioneering to gain the votes of a marginalised group.

Anyway, that is enough of my waffle. If I am not careful you will all start to think that I am either a Card Carrying Communist or a Pro Fox Hunting Tory! Oh and before you ask, the reason for my not detailing any of the replies from UKIP, I would be happy to do, once he learns to write in anything other than Crayon or with his own poo!

[timwilky]

Jayne

After market exhaust are already regulated under EEC type approval rules and need to carry the markings to indicate what approval they conform to, as is required for OEM. The construction/use requirements are legally enforceable. It only needs a copper who knows what he is doing.

However, having performed noise measurements according to the manual. It is extremely complex and requires sufficient empty space to ensure there is no reflected noise etc. It requires both static and ride by measurements etc.

I doubt if one minor British wannabe politician could shift the eec on noise standards.

[Jayneflakes]

Jayne

After market exhaust are already regulated under EEC type approval rules and need to carry the markings to indicate what approval they conform to, as is required for OEM. The construction/use requirements are legally enforceable. It only needs a copper who knows what he is doing.

However, having performed noise measurements according to the manual. It is extremely complex and requires sufficient empty space to ensure there is no reflected noise etc. It requires both static and ride by measurements etc.

I doubt if one minor British wannabe politician could shift the eec on noise standards.

Thank you Tim,

I have tried to put this point across to him, but as an elderly gentleman just about to celebrate his 80th Birthday, he is a little set in his ways. Without being too unkind, I have wondered if he is just trying to leave his mark on the world before he leaves us.

[orose]

Hope your guy gets further with the DoT than we have over the last 7 years. What I'd expect is that he'll get stonewalled, and then find out that the actual rules are controlled by the EU Driving Licence Directive version 3 (which brought the AM/A1/A2/A crap).

What we've been telling MPs and candidates is that the number of motorcyclists in your constituency may well be larger than your majority, so it's worth engaging with us. As a result, we're seeing a lot of the events like the one you attended being organised, and usually with lots of candidates attending (typically all 5 English parties, from the ones I've seen).