Child Pillions - Important legislation

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

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]

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]

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...

Originally Posted by Patch

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]

Originally Posted by Patch

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.

Originally Posted by northwind

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]

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...