Legal Minimum Gear Standard

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Instead of worrying about the money being put into clearing up accidents, why not invest into subserdising advanced training instead?

I'm happy to go one further. Make advanced training compulsory for both bikers and car drivers with three yearly re-tests. Oh and because of this force the insurance companies to drastically lower their premiums.

Do rememeber that the laws of physics dictate that everything will take the path of least resistance, including people. If you don't force people to take advanced training then most never will "cos they're good enough already".

There is one alternative however: Turn the IAM/ROSPA certificate into an official class 1 civilian licence that will guarantee you 50% discount in insurance costs. A two-tiered licence system might just psychologically persuade people to "upgrade" and be the new "must-have" bike accessory. Surely this could only have a positive impact? (no pun intended )


.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Instead of worrying about the money being put into clearing up accidents, why not invest into subserdising advanced training instead?

.....for cage drivers

I'm fed up about hearing about the nanny state. I think we live in a country where personal freedoms are pretty damn good. It could be far, far worse. (thinks.... North Korea, China, Afghanistan, Middle eastern 'dry' states) anyone who wants more personal freedom can go and live in america, pay for their medical bills, enjoy the lovely gun crime, enjoy watching motorcyclists riding after no (or very little) training and enjoy the experience of 14 year old kids driving cars legally

Apologies to any American friends on here who this may have offended, this was not my intention. More to show that actually we have some quite good points to our own country (ies - so as not to offend anyone this side of the pond )

Originally Posted by jonboy

Yes. Er well I did think that but as I've just stepped off the scales (they're probably wrong though) I think I might just reconsider...

.

I prefer your alternative Mr Jonboy. As I previously mentioned, I prefer encoraging people to do things instead of making them. Its better for everyone.

rukus - slipperly slope m'lady remember the governments primary interest is power, which means as many laws/bans/rules as possible. We as a nation are blind to this, and we ignore it at our peril. The Americans take the freedom thing to the extreme, but there at least personal responsibility is key - something the UK populous sorely lacks right now.

I'm in two minds about the legislation thing. Over the last weekend I lost count of the number of bikers without full coverage protective gear and I simply cannot understand the mentality of going on the road dressed like that. I had a couple of shortish runs on Saturday and was drenched (it was fine once I started moving) but I'd rather feel a bit warm than undergo extensive plastic surgery. If you don't wear the kit in the summer, why bother when it's cooler? I just cannot understand it. OK, there is that lovely sensation of warm breeze blowing over your naked flesh (get a bloody push bike if that's what turns you on) followed shortly after by that burning stinging sensation as you shed pieces of same flesh over the road when you come off (not quite so nice).

I'm curious to know exactly who these people are? What experience of biking do they have?

However, I'm not sure legislation is the answer. As has previously been said, biking legislation is drawn up by people who do not understand biking and I dread to think what spec of kit they would come up with... probably a cross between a Kendo suit and medieval plate armour (and just as heavy). On the other hand, there is a cost to putting people back together following spills. I really wonder how much road safety legislation is driven by genuine humanitarian concern and how much is driven by the balance sheet. I guess as long as you expect the state to pick up the pieces, there is a resonsibility to minimise your own exposure to risk and the state is entitled to place conditions to protect its investment.

Education I feel is the answer rather than legislation but I wouldn't be surprised if we do see laws being passed as another stick to beat us with. Imagine the scene... mid winter, police road check..'please strip off sir, we just want to confirm your armoured jock strap conforms to Euro spec E-563895/T/BS/406.7'

I believe that for the private citizen, everything should be allowed except what is specifically forbidden by law but, for the government, everything should be prohibited except that which is specifically permitted by law.

I would like to vote Yes and No, but ended up voting No

No, minimum standard for rider leave the law stand at helmet only

as for children riding pillion, yes Helmet, Gloves, Jacket, Boots

The government doesnt actualy care about road safety, only money and power.

As for paying for the privilage of being scraped off the road, I think thats more than covered by exorbitant motoring taxes. I never ride without kit, because I like my skin, but I could never support further state opression.

I believe that for the private citizen, everything should be allowed except what is specifically forbidden by law but, for the government, everything should be prohibited except that which is specifically permitted by law.

Very well said, and absolutely true. Indeed, the Europeans love this kind of thing, they want a law for everything

Originally Posted by Nick762

...I lost count of the number of bikers without full coverage protective gear and I simply cannot understand the mentality of going on the road dressed like that. I had a couple of shortish runs on Saturday and was drenched (it was fine once I started moving) but I'd rather feel a bit warm than undergo extensive plastic surgery. If you don't wear the kit in the summer, why bother when it's cooler?

Precisely! An excellent point.


.

Hmm. Should we ban fags? And booze? And while we're about it, caffeine? And baked beans, they make you fart after all.

Not in favour of a law. Nick 762 is right, methinks.

So we propose or accept a mandatory on protective clothing. Then what?

People will still die on bikes, the broken bones will be the same, the bikers tossed into a field will still happen. Whats next? Well the only real way to stop the casualties amongst bikers is to stop people riding powerfgul machines isnt it?

So all on 250 or below and then 125s and still we'll die because the issues are not ever dealt with, so we'll die. And whats left then? Well the biking minority will be an even smaller minority as the power freaks amongst our mist move to sport cars etc where they have less restrictions. These people will have the same capability at driving as they do in biking, ie none, so they'll cut the white lines as they corner so they'll kill more of us. Whats left? Ban Bikes thats what.

Am I just paranoid? You'd better believe I am not. It is already a stated objective of the chief advisor to the DFT that M/C Power should be reduced and London Borough of Kensington have tabled a motion to ban Bikes from their roads.

If biking is that dangerous maybe it should be banned. Its the same with child pilions, 2 died last year and a petition is presented to ban under 16's.

Biking is a choice, wearing or not wearing protective clothing is a choice. FWIW my own choice depends on what bike I am riding. The VFR always sees protective clothing as I ride it hard and quickly, if I am on the cruiser I may not bother as the likely hood is that I am ridng chilled and not going much faster than a tractor. Still a risk? yes but one I accept just like you accept the risk of riding in the first place.

Beware the Government they have one adgenda and it isn't yours