View Full Version : Child Pillions - Important legislation
Have a read here
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/059/05059.i-i.html#j006
I despair at some cr@p they come up with. OK have some form of legislation covering the carrying of pillions if you must, but at least get it right.
What do you make of this
(1)
The Motor Cycles (Protective Helmets) Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1807) are
amended as follows.
(2)
In regulation 4 (protective headgear), after paragraph (1), insert—
“(1A)
Every person to whom paragraph (1) applies who is under the age of 17
shall wear protective headgear which is of a size and construction that
enables the headgear—
(a)
to be securely fastened to the head with a strap or chin cup
suitable for the size of the head of that person,
(b)
to be worn without there being a gap of more than four
centrimetres between the top or sides of the person’s head and
the inside of the helmet.”
Now call me picky but anyone carrying a child pillion where there is a gap of 4cm between head and helmet should be put down, and any nob-head politician who thinks it's acceptable should be put down too.
.....and that's not all. How about regs on pillion footrests?
“102
Passengers on motor cycles
(1)
Every two-wheeled motor cycle for use on a road shall have suitable
supports or rests for the feet of a person carried astride that motorcycle
in addition to the driver.
(2)
The supports or rests referred to in paragraph (1) shall be constructed
so as to enable them to be reached by the feet of a person aged 10 of
average height for that age.
(3)
Every two-wheeled motor cycle for use on a road shall be maintained
in good working order so as to comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (1) and (2).”
I may be mis-reading this, but if it is interpreted that EVERY motorcycle used on the road MUST have pillion rests it could make any single seat bike (or like my SV with a seat cowl and no pillion rests) illegal. I would like to think it means that IF a pillion is carried it must have rests, but it could be interpreted differently. Police bikes are not constructed to carry pillions, and don't have rests.
......and what is an "average 10 year old" for ****'s sake.
Carsick
10-03-05, 06:39 PM
I agree about the first one, it's stupid of them to start making regulations so specific (and wrong) they should just say that the helmet should be properly fitted and suchlike.
As for the second one, I think where it says "Every two-wheeled motor cycle for use on a road shall have suitable supports or rests for the feet of a person carried astride that motorcycle in addition to the driver. " it literally means that any person carried in addition to the driver should have proper footrests. It doesn't mean footrests should be there just in case you have somebody extra.
..that's what I hope it means, Carsick, but it's not what it says. I thought the idea of rules/regulations was that they should be specific and unambiguous. :roll:
If I wrote a technical report as badly worded as that I'd get a shafting.
Did you also see the penalties for carrying a child (i.e. under 17) without the permission of the parent/guardian?
level 5 and/or 6 months, 6 penalty points, discretionary disqual.
Carsick
10-03-05, 06:47 PM
I think that is what it says.
"for the feet of a person carried astride that motorcycle"
To me that literally means "A person who at this moment is carried astride that motorcycle"
not
"A person who theoretically might be carried astride this motorcycle at some point"
Carsick
10-03-05, 06:47 PM
Did you also see the penalties for carrying a child (i.e. under 17) without the permission of the parent/guardian?
level 5 and/or 6 months, 6 penalty points, discretionary disqual.
:?
Nope that is not what it means as There is an ammendment to the MOT standard which makes foot pegs a requirement for passing the MOT. It also has legislation making it an offence not to maintain the bike to that standard therefore you can't remove them.
This is highly unlikely to become law though, its second reading is tomorrow and it has to be totally passed before the end of this session and that finishes at the Easter Break. Legislation on this, or at least questions have been tried regularly over the last few years.
Keep your eye on it though as if it gets much further a mass protest to parliament will be needed, this has been proposed based on a 3500 name petition, a 5000 bike protest will overwhelm that
Amendment of the Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981
(1)
The Motor Vehicles (Tests) Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981/1694) are amended as
follows.
(2)
In regulation 20 (fees for examinations), in paragraph (3A)(b), after the
reference to “steering wheel”, insert—
20
“supports or rests for passengers on motor cycles”.
I agree about the first one, it's stupid of them to start making regulations so specific (and wrong) they should just say that the helmet should be properly fitted and suchlike.
With great respect, I disagree.
Speaking as a law enforcement officer, it is far easier to enforce something specific, i.e. something that can be measured or objectively assessed, rather than something more subjective like "properly fitted" which becomes a matter of opinion or needs case law to define it (at which point we're back in the realms of the specific anyway).
timwilky
10-03-05, 07:20 PM
(a)
to be securely fastened to the head with a strap or chin cup
suitable for the size of the head of that person,
Where chin cups not made illegal on helmets in the late 70s. As a result of the large number of hemets that were coming off in accidents?
Hi Jabba
nothing personal here. :wink:
How do you go about measuring the clearance between a child's head and the helmet it's wearing, and what sort of precision are we talking here? How do you determine 3.9cm (legal) or 4.1cm (illegal)?
Can't see the manufacturers being over the moon with designing footrests "so as to enable them to be reached by the feet of a person aged 10 of average height for that age". I don't think that dimension fits with ISO standards myself, and try sending a drawing with that on it down to the machine shop. :roll:
Carsick
10-03-05, 07:28 PM
Wait a minute, we're not allowed to take children under 17 without parental permission but we have to have bikes that will fit them just in case we decide to?
If that is literally how they've decided for it to be, then it may well be the biggest pile of sh*t this government has come up with.
As for the helmet thing, Jabba, I think embee has put my point a little more concisely. They're trying to be specific about something without actually making it useful. Which bit do they consider the inside of the helmet? The shell or the padding? Are they going to shave the child first? Since that would add some thickness. If they're not going to shave them, then are balaclavas allowed to contribute?
Hi Jabba
nothing personal here. :wink:
Never is with anyone on here :thumbsup:
How do you go about measuring the clearance between a child's head and the helmet it's wearing, and what sort of precision are we talking here? How do you determine 3.9cm (legal) or 4.1cm (illegal)?
Point taken - I dunno :D Someone will come up with a solution, no doubt. Conversely, how do you assess "properly fitted"? :?
Can't see the manufacturers being over the moon with designing footrests "so as to enable them to be reached by the feet of a person aged 10 of average height for that age". I don't think that dimension fits with ISO standards myself, and try sending a drawing with that on it down to the machine shop. :roll:
I does sound a bit daft.
I want to know if there is an employment opportunity here for average sized 10 year olds, They could spend their Sundays sat in a police car waiting for a biker to pass and then be used as a measuring device.
In fact at majopr bike meets there could be 1 10 year old to every 2 police,
Do the right thing and vote out this bunch of morons in May, Use your vote well.
Jelster
10-03-05, 08:39 PM
Wait a minute, we're not allowed to take children under 17 without parental permission but we have to have bikes that will fit them just in case we decide to?
If that is literally how they've decided for it to be, then it may well be the biggest pile of sh*t this government has come up with.
You may be their parent, so you can "consent" to taking them on the back....
.
Sid Squid
10-03-05, 08:41 PM
With great respect, I disagree.
Speaking as a law enforcement officer, it is far easier to enforce something specific, i.e. something that can be measured or objectively assessed, rather than something more subjective like "properly fitted" which becomes a matter of opinion or needs case law to define it (at which point we're back in the realms of the specific anyway).
Is what you're saying is the law musn't be appropriate to the circumstance, for example "properly fitting" because the law enforcement operatives aren't sufficiently trained to correctly enforce it?
And before anyone says that the police, quite understandably, can't be intimately aware of all the vaguaries of legal specifics, what we're discussing is something that officers administering traffic law, particularly traffic officers as presumably they would be those officers most called upon to do so, really ought to know, it's as basic as knowing how much tread should be on a tyre, I'm sure that every officer could quote that without the necessity of radioing the station.
To go back to basics on the child helmet thing, there are 2 separate issues here.
1 - having a specified measurement is of no use if the methodology of determining that measurement is not practical, which would be my argument in this case. OK, this bit is really somewhat academic.
2 - far more fundamental and important, the reg says the helmet is
"to be worn without there being a gap of more than four centrimetres between the top or sides of the person’s head and the inside of the helmet.”
(note - centrimetres )
Well this is a bizarre description of a helmet "fit", indeed I would say that not only is this not a "fit" in any sense of the word, not even a "**** in a shirt sleeve" fit, it would constitute an extremely dangerous condition.
No-one with an ounce of knowledge about the subject would countenance a helmet on anyone, let alone a child, with a 4cm gap all round. Just think what this means, you could have a childs head on one side of the helmet and an 8cm gap to the other side. That will kill them in an accident.
This bit of nonsense has obviously been drafted by someone with absolutely no knowledge of the subject, and is a total disgrace. Why are these imbeciles allowed to waste OUR resources in such a manner?
I feel a missive to my MP coming on once I can build up enough bile and spleen to vent! :evil: :evil: :evil:
Sid Squid
10-03-05, 09:01 PM
You can borrow some of mine if you want.
the saying . . if it aint broken , dont fix it.
im not gonna get carried away with all the statistics here.
bikers have common sense, as do most people,
they wouldnt allow a child on the back with an ill fitting helmet anyway,
and those that would . . . wouldnt pay attention to the legislation anyway, and would get away with it due to their being not enough police on the roads to enforce it.
so why make the silly laws? havent they got anything bettter to do ?
Why are these imbeciles allowed to waste OUR resources in such a manner?
Because some malicious and ill-informed member of the public with a single-issue axe to grind convinces an MP of the logic of doing so. Then some equally ill-informed member of the Civil service is charged with drafting equally illogical regulations with the aim of:
1. Getting them through the system unnoticed
2. Trying to upset the least number of vested interests and
3. without having to consult with those directly affected
:evil:
I still maintain that its easier to enforce a specific measurement (e.g. does this petrol pump dispense in litres +/- a small but clearly defined tollerance factor) rather than a subjective one (e.g. does the petrol pump dispense what to the inspector looks approximately like a litre).
But thats semantics. The draft regs are ill advised, poorly worded and abiguous (even though they probably meant to try to be specific :lol: ).
northwind
10-03-05, 09:24 PM
Hi Jabba
How do you go about measuring the clearance between a child's head and the helmet it's wearing
Plastigauge...
Sid Squid
10-03-05, 09:30 PM
What's the torque setting for the lid?
If it's not tweaked up right you'll get a false reading.
Oh, just checked, my Plastigauge gauge don't go as far as 40mill.
northwind
10-03-05, 09:58 PM
What's the torque setting for the lid?
Twist his head till it pops off, then back it off half a turn...
My 6yo daughter has the thickest mop of hair you could wish for. Really really thick strawberry blonde hair, it's beautiful but a nightmare when there's a lice alert at school :lol: - and so that might be OK.
But this business of carrying a child without parental consent. Given that a 16yo can ride a scoot, and might well have a provisional licence, be badgering you as next door neighbour for a ride, you don't have his/her parent's consent, you could be prosecuted. Said 16yo can buy fags and have sex quite lawfully but can't go on the back of your bike.
Quite shocking really what this bunch of boneheads come up with.
Thinking more about this 4cm gap business.
According to the Schuberth data sheet, the smallest helmet they do is XXXS at 48cm circumference, and the largest XXL at 63cm.
If heads were round (OK not quite right),
48cm = 15.3cm diameter
63cm = 20cm diameter
a difference of 4.7cm diameter or 2.4cm "gap... between the... sides of the person’s head and the inside of the helmet" (as per the regs).
So the biggest helmet they make on the smallest head gives a gap of 60% of the maximum permitted.
A friend of mine once went into too much detail of the birth of their daughter, quoting her head to have been 38cm. That would be 12cm diameter.
So a new born baby's head in the largest helmet Schuberth make would just reach the limit of fit allowed, 4cm gap at the sides (all round).
I rest my case. [-(
Sid Squid
10-03-05, 11:13 PM
Well, that didn't take long did it, in a couple of hours and about eighty words Embee entirely rubbishes the considered, (sic), opinion of those who - unfortunately - made the decision to formulate this sh1te.
Well done that man, (yet again).
northwind
11-03-05, 12:21 AM
Fair enough, but i think a bit of perspective's called for: This is a private member's bill, and look how far it's got towards being made law:
09.02.05
430 c1523-5
Motion for leave to introduce a Bill. Agreed to on question. Presentation and first reading. (Bill 59 of 2004/05).
link
09.02.05
Bill 59 2004/05
Presented by Nigel Waterson.
In other words "I would like to present a bill" "OK then" "Here it is" and there it died.
What you have to understand before getting torn into these things is that any MP can raise a private member's bill on practically anything, and that the huge majority never get anywhere. In this case, it was a Ten Minute Rule bill- which as well as being a way to get an Bill rolling, is a very effective way for a relatively powerless backbencher to make a speech on a subject.
It is a good way to get a Bill tabled, and can occasionally lead to good bills being passed, or more importantly future bills being drafted. The advantage is that nobody can be prevented from asking for a Bill they feel's needed; the downside is that nobody can be prevented from asking for a Bill they feel's needed.
So what was he doing? Well, he almost certainly wasn't expecting to get the law passed, so the content of the Bill is relatively unimportant as long as it draws attention to his cause. But he did get to draw attention to a tragic death that probably could use more public attention. He was also able to publicise a forthcoming RoSPA campaign to require that young children wear properly designed kids helmets. And he gives a bit of PR to the BMF's excellent work- you'll notice that he actually gives a lot of space to their objections. And he maybe lays the foundation for a more serious debate or Bill at a later date. Now the next bill on the subject doesn't have the problem of bein ght efirst bill on the subject, and this one, however doomed, might sit in people's memories.
Also, he can go back to his constituent and say look, I've raised it in the House, I've tabled a Bill... Your son's death could save others.
Reading it, and from what little I remember of the whole lawmaking process, I'm sure this was a bill designed never to be passed... It's got very obvious weaknesses and the speech contains all the ammunition needed to shoot it down. It's just a trojan horse for the speech.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmhansrd/cm050209/debtext/50209-10.htm#50209-10_head0
is interesting reading, it's the guy's justification for bringing the bill.
To be honest, I think he missed an opportunity... Some of what he had to say makes a lot of sense, it's just his Bill that's useless.
Ceri JC
11-03-05, 09:52 AM
What about bikes with no pillion seat (I'm thinking out and out sport bikes with no pillion space- not just those with tiny seats)?
If they're included, it's bloody stupid. If they're not, what about bike modified so that you can't easily put a pillion seat on (eg Race type rear fairing that doesn't use a removeable cowl)?
What about people like me, I'm not insured to carry pillions, it would be breaking the law for me to do so, why should I have to make provision for them on my bike (and the marginal fuel increase the extra weight entails)?
Similarly, why should pillion footrest height be determined by the size of "a" passenger. If I were to ever take a pillion, it'd be an adult- putting pillion pegs too high up would make their knees stick out more (hence more dangerous), as well as be uncomfortable.
Northwind has shown the real reason for this bit of nonsense.
I'm not sure whether I feel relieved that it's just an irrelevant piece of political posturing, or even more annoyed that it's just a piece of political posturing.
The fact that an MP has taken an unfortunate and sad incident that occurred in his constituency and turned it into an amateurish mistargetted attempt to introduce an almost irrelevant piece of ambiguous imprecise drivel is, quite frankly, depressing.
The incident sparking this action seems to have been an accident which resulted in a motorcycle passenger's death due to a car driver driving without due care and attention, viz
"What has been the legal aftermath of this tragedy in my constituency—the very sad death of young Sean Pearce-Weston? The rider of the motorcycle has not been prosecuted. The driver of the car was prosecuted and admitted driving without due care and attention, rather than dangerous driving. He was fined £500 and banned from driving for six months. Sean's mother pointed out in the local paper at the time that £500 was less than the cost of organising Sean's funeral."
The impression I get from these words is that the MP would like to see the motorcyclist prosecuted, and so has dreamt up some half baked ideas which would allow it.
If the MP had taken up the real issue here, I would have respect for him. As it is, this whole piece of parliamentary dross should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
:rant:
As a parent I think there should be a law to protect children on motorbikes, I’ve seen kids on bikes with grossly bad fitting lids and feet flailing about because there are no pegs.
There are irresponsible bikers around.
The law needs to be specific and simply measurable for the users and those that have to enforce it.
My daughter (aged eight) can easily turn all the way round inside my lid, and that’s just with a fingers width of space. So 4 cm is clearly ridiculous.
When my daughter is 15/16 the chances are that her boyfriend is going to be slightly older. If he were to turn up at the door to collect her on a bike, offer her his ill-fitting spare lid, (you know, the one that he doesn’t use himself ‘cause he dropped it). I would rat on him without a seconds thought :evil: .
PS How do you know you type open bracket 8 close bracket without getting an icon.
Flamin_Squirrel
11-03-05, 11:21 AM
As a parent I think there should be a law to protect children on motorbikes, I’ve seen kids on bikes with grossly bad fitting lids and feet flailing about because there are no pegs.
There are irresponsible bikers around.
The law needs to be specific and simply measurable for the users and those that have to enforce it....
The law IS already specific - it's a requirement for the pilion to be able to reach the footpegs (as I understand it) so carrying a pilion without pegs is ilegal.
There are vast numbers of irresponsible parents out there, and they'll always be able to find ways of damaging their children. This proposed changing the law is yet another move to restrict the rights of law abiding citizens while doing nothing to protect the people it's supposed to.
Ceri JC
11-03-05, 11:30 AM
The law IS already specific - it's a requirement for the pilion to be able to reach the footpegs (as I understand it) so carrying a pilion without pegs is ilegal.
But what about people like myself who don't (and can't) carry pillions? Why should I have to keep my pillion pegs rather than just get an exhaust hanger?
I believe it's also a legal requirement pillions kepe both feet on both pegs at all times while the bike is in motion? Bit harsh- riders often stretch their legs to avoid cramps. I'd rather my pillion didn't get cramp if I were carrying one (My legs spasm at the knee sometimes under extreme cramps! :shock: )
Flamin_Squirrel
11-03-05, 11:38 AM
The law IS already specific - it's a requirement for the pilion to be able to reach the footpegs (as I understand it) so carrying a pilion without pegs is ilegal.
But what about people like myself who don't (and can't) carry pillions? Why should I have to keep my pillion pegs rather than just get an exhaust hanger?...
No I mean that the law doesnt need changing because it only says that when carrying a pilion they need to be able to reach the pegs. That covers everything; it means it's already illegal to carry kids if they can't reach the pegs (or there arent any) and that if you don't have a pilion you don't need them.
I’m in agreement with you, Jordan, on the pillion and the footpegs – leave the law as it stands.
As for the helmet law, I’m not sure about the detail of what it states at the moment, I presume that prescribing 4cms is an improvement of what stands, and if so 4cm is no way good enough and a revision is long overdue. We’ve got helmet legislation - there’s no changing that - so let’s make it good with no woolly statements that are open to interpretation.
Before I had kids I was all liberal (with a small “l “), lets try to understand why people do the things they do. Now I’m a dad and much older, (not necessarily wiser), if I read, or watch the news about anyone hurting kids unavoidably, I am much more Draconian with the normal response of “Hang ‘em”.
northwind
11-03-05, 04:19 PM
I'd definately agree with leaving the pillion law as it stands too... But I can see a case for a smaller law with a parental consent clause for anyone under the age of (picks a number at random) 13, say... And RoSPA's campaign for better kiddy gear can't be faulted.
At the end of the day, i do think the rider was in the wrong... Would you take such a young kid on your bike at all? I wouldn't (though I'm not criticising anyone who does) but to do it without the parent's consent, with borrowed gear, is bang out of order.
All the stuff about permanent pegs, bikes having to be ablke to carry pillions, it's just obvious nonsense though- that's why I reckon it's a Bill designed to fail.
As for whether or not the MPs reasons were sound... Well, yeah, there's a chunk of PR work in there, so you could say he's exploiting a tragedy. Alternatively, you could say that what he's done might make the parents feel better about it, and could actually help contribute to a sensible debate in the future. For the cost of 10 minutes of Parliamentary time, and a few hours of a backbencher's, if there's any benefit then I'm fine with that.
Fortunately the House of Commons is so busy fighting with the House of Lords that they have not yet finished Thursdays business so the odds of this getting its second reading have virtually dissappeared.
As one who does carry his 7 year old on the bike and even has the 4 year old riding in the side car, I still feel that a law to make parental consent necessary is overkill, where does it stop? Will we need consent for anything that a kid may wish to do? Nanny state going even madder than a box of frogs.
northwind
11-03-05, 05:06 PM
That's your kid, and of course that's fine, but think about this family with a dead 8-year-old because some biker was an a***hole... How would you feel if someone took your kids out without your permission? There's a lot of riders I wouldn't trust to give me a ride, never mind a wee kid, and I'd want to make that decision.
You can put down any law by saying "Where does it stop"... I say you can't be afraid of common-sense laws because they might be the point of an insane law. Sometimes these things are step one of a bigger agenda, but more often they're not, and even if they are, the next law needs to go through the process too. We could have applied "Where does it stop" to the first drink driving laws...
Jelster
11-03-05, 05:09 PM
As one who does carry his 7 year old on the bike and even has the 4 year old riding in the side car, I still feel that a law to make parental consent necessary is overkill, where does it stop? Will we need consent for anything that a kid may wish to do? Nanny state going even madder than a box of frogs.
Yes, but....... A few of my sons friends have asked me to take them on the bike. I won't, just in case their parents don't approve. I have spoken to 1 set of parents who are happy for me to take him for a spin for 10 minutes, and he has that to look forward to on Sunday.
I think that for under 16's parental consent should be obligatory.
.
The ******* did not take the kid out "without permission" he took the kid out against the express wishes of the parents. He would have ignored the law anyway he was scum.
As for the whole permission thing thats a civil issue not a legal one.
Personally I will not take anyone elses kid out without permission from thier parents anyway and I have been asked, my nephew and niece are both desperate to have a go but my brother is anti bike and has said no. I guess that their first experience will be as mine was, with out them knowing on the back of an under trained and probably unlicensed 17 year old.
northwind
11-03-05, 05:20 PM
Personally I will not take anyone elses kid out without permission from thier parents anyway and I have been asked, my nephew and niece are both desperate to have a go but my brother is anti bike and has said no.
That's because you're a good guy... I think- I hope- everyone else here would do the same, but at the same time, there's a lot of absolute c***s on bikes out there. A law might not deter many, but then again it might deter some- better than nothing in my book. Also, it means they can get what's coming to them if the worst happens.
Personally I will not take anyone elses kid out without permission from thier parents anyway and I have been asked, my nephew and niece are both desperate to have a go but my brother is anti bike and has said no.
That's because you're a good guy... I think- I hope- everyone else here would do the same, but at the same time, there's a lot of absolute c***s on bikes out there. A law might not deter many, but then again it might deter some- better than nothing in my book. Also, it means they can get what's coming to them if the worst happens.
It also removes the duty of care from the rider and places shared blame on the parent who said it was OK.
Lets get some perspective here; There are very few child (under 16) pillion fatalities or serious injuries, out of this already small number very few are as a result of a lawfully ridden machine, in the main the riders are either not licensed at all TWOCKERS or are on a pillion licence.
Laws need to be passed where they will make a difference and I am sorry but the only difference this will make is to the law abiding rider who is un able to take a child pillion because of bike design features and demonisation.
northwind
11-03-05, 06:46 PM
It doesn't remove the duty of care of the rider at all- it just removes the suggestion that the child shouldn't have been riding. If the rider does anything illegal or dangerous they would remain solely responsible (same as current pillion law)
At the moment pillion law's pretty weak- CBT riders or restricted license holders routinely carry pillions. A new law would be an opportunity to start sorting that out too...
How do you know you type open bracket 8 close bracket without getting an icon.
What? Like this: (8) ?
Check the "Disable Smilies in this post" which is between the message box and the Preview/Submit buttons.
Carsick
12-03-05, 01:58 PM
At the moment pillion law's pretty weak- CBT riders or restricted license holders routinely carry pillions. A new law would be an opportunity to start sorting that out too...
I thought the law was already quite specific on that.
If you don't have a full iicense, it's illegal for you to carry pillions.
I'll save my comments on the rest of the issues raised till I've thought about them some more, but these "proposed" changes make no difference whatsoever to those who are already doing it illegally.
Just a thought. Taking a child anywhere without parental consent - isn't that abduction? And that's illegal, right? So why is a special new law required? Is the whopping great fine something to do with it?
Carsick
12-03-05, 02:25 PM
Just a thought. Taking a child anywhere without parental consent - isn't that abduction? And that's illegal, right? So why is a special new law required? Is the whopping great fine something to do with it?
I think the point is aimed at people who have the child in their care at the time but take them out on the bike without the parents knowledge/permission.
wheelnut
12-03-05, 02:51 PM
Can kids ride side saddle on a motorbike? :P you know fasten 2 stirrups on the seat like a orse!
Well it works for Queenie
northwind
12-03-05, 09:34 PM
I thought the law was already quite specific on that.
If you don't have a full iicense, it's illegal for you to carry pillions.
I'll save my comments on the rest of the issues raised till I've thought about them some more, but these "proposed" changes make no difference whatsoever to those who are already doing it illegally.
Aye... My point was that a Road Traffic Act could change the penalty system for carrying a pillion illegally- since at the moment it's basically an irrelevance even if you're stopped. Simply up the ante a bit, and make it worth enforcing the current restrictions.
While we're at it, make it illegal to use a bike for business while on CBT, that really gets me... CBT barely gives you enough training to get home in one piece, never mind tearing around delivering parcels and pizzas...
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.