Child Pillions - Important legislation

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

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 - 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.

[embee]

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]

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]

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.u...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.

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.

[embee]

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.

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 .

PS How do you know you type open bracket 8 close bracket without getting an icon.

Originally Posted by Mogs

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.

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

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! )