Child Pillions - Important legislation - SV650.org

embee · 10-03-05, 06:34 PM

Have a read here

http://www.publications.parliament.u....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.

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.

embee · 10-03-05, 06:43 PM

..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.

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.

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"

10-03-05, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by embee

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.

10-03-05, 06:54 PM

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”.

10-03-05, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carsick

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by embee

(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?

embee · 10-03-05, 07:23 PM

Hi Jabba

nothing personal here.

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.

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?

10-03-05, 06:34 PM	#1
embee Member Mega Poster Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Warwickshire Posts: 2,804	Child Pillions - Important legislation Have a read here http://www.publications.parliament.u....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.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Child Helmet	trevrobwhite	Helmets	0	26-04-09 09:21 AM
New parking legislation	Sudoxe	Soho Massive	6	13-01-08 12:43 AM
child tax credits, child benifits etc.	timwilky	Idle Banter	99	11-11-07 04:09 PM
Drinking at home legislation proposed	Baph	Idle Banter	21	28-04-07 05:02 PM
new government legislation	Gnan	Idle Banter	18	21-02-06 09:55 AM

10-03-05, 06:39 PM	#2
Carsick Guest Posts: n/a	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.

10-03-05, 06:43 PM	#3
embee Member Mega Poster Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Warwickshire Posts: 2,804	..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. 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.

10-03-05, 06:47 PM	#4
Carsick Guest Posts: n/a	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"

10-03-05, 06:54 PM	#6
Patch Guest Posts: n/a	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”.

10-03-05, 07:23 PM	#9
embee Member Mega Poster Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Warwickshire Posts: 2,804	Hi Jabba nothing personal here. 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.

10-03-05, 07:28 PM	#10
Carsick Guest Posts: n/a	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?