Should it be illegal to ride without the correct gear on?
- Thread starter Fergie
- Start date
:comp2: choose any three smilies to affect the composition of replies, as needed. FFS.
Fergie
New member
gordj65 said:i should have said all cyclists should be made to wear a helmet permanently.ideally nailed to their head and in luminous colours,so other people will instantly recognise them and can shun/abuse them as required
I agree. Maybe not nailed but certainly super glued.
And they should pay road tax.
And have compulsory third party insurance.
And made to fit lights.
rockjock620
New member
sarcasm alertfergie said:How do you MOT a horse?
rockjock620
New member
they could at least check to see if the steering and brakes worked.fergie said:How do you MOT a horse?
B
berto
Just visiting
Yorky
New member
I feel there are far more other hazards that need tightening up on before we challenge the acceptable kit to wear for riding our M/Cs. Here are a few.
1. Is it acceptable to display a "Mud On Road" cautionary sign where farmers have dragged crap from the fields on to the highway or should there be a enforceable legal requirement for them to clean it up ?
2. Is it acceptable for horses and riders to ride two abreast thus taking up half the available road space or should there be a legal requirement for them to ride singularly.
3. Is it acceptable for pedestrians to walk across traffic light controlled crossings when the red man is showing or should there be "Spy Cameras" nicking them and dishing out on the spot fines.
4. Is it acceptable for Council Highways departments to paint white circles around pot holes or should they be legally enforced to repair them immediately.
The list goes on and on and i'm sure you can all add your own.
1. Is it acceptable to display a "Mud On Road" cautionary sign where farmers have dragged crap from the fields on to the highway or should there be a enforceable legal requirement for them to clean it up ?
2. Is it acceptable for horses and riders to ride two abreast thus taking up half the available road space or should there be a legal requirement for them to ride singularly.
3. Is it acceptable for pedestrians to walk across traffic light controlled crossings when the red man is showing or should there be "Spy Cameras" nicking them and dishing out on the spot fines.
4. Is it acceptable for Council Highways departments to paint white circles around pot holes or should they be legally enforced to repair them immediately.
The list goes on and on and i'm sure you can all add your own.
B
berto
Just visiting
charlieh
New member
I am old enough (just) to have ridden before the helmet law came in.... I nearly always wore one anyway, but there was always the quick 1 mile trip to the garage or what-ever, when I didn't bother. The main thing to remember is that there was a hell of a lot less traffic then...and the general standard of driving was far more sedate (not neccessarily from me, LOL!)
We all know that wearing a helmet saves lives, and protective clothing should be worn....but compulsion. I think not. There are little or no freedoms left in this nanny state.
You may think that choice does not matter but many of my generation had freedoms that the 25-40's have never experienced because they were erroded before they even started riding bikes.
Helmets, 250cc restriction for learners, reduced to 125cc later, CBT; noise regulations, closing of green roads,and more recently bhp limits after passing the test. Many of which had the effect of helping to destroying the British motorcycle industry. Not quite as much as the Japanese though, they reacted to legislative change and built the bikes the learners needed.
It should also be remembered that close to 85% of all accidents involving motor cycles are caused by a driver (four wheels or more) pulling out of side turning in front of the biker. What is needed, before any compulsion to protect ourselves from these myopic morons, is a change in the law that makes it mandatory to bring an automatic prosecution, for "Dangerous Driving"....
...."I didn't see you" means "I didn't look properly"
As soon as the DVLC or television advertising become involved the do-gooder, nanny state, apologists, will jump on the band wagon....and the wearing of safety clothing hasn't had a significant effect in Germany where leathers have been compulsory for years.
We all know that wearing a helmet saves lives, and protective clothing should be worn....but compulsion. I think not. There are little or no freedoms left in this nanny state.
You may think that choice does not matter but many of my generation had freedoms that the 25-40's have never experienced because they were erroded before they even started riding bikes.
Helmets, 250cc restriction for learners, reduced to 125cc later, CBT; noise regulations, closing of green roads,and more recently bhp limits after passing the test. Many of which had the effect of helping to destroying the British motorcycle industry. Not quite as much as the Japanese though, they reacted to legislative change and built the bikes the learners needed.
It should also be remembered that close to 85% of all accidents involving motor cycles are caused by a driver (four wheels or more) pulling out of side turning in front of the biker. What is needed, before any compulsion to protect ourselves from these myopic morons, is a change in the law that makes it mandatory to bring an automatic prosecution, for "Dangerous Driving"....
...."I didn't see you" means "I didn't look properly"
As soon as the DVLC or television advertising become involved the do-gooder, nanny state, apologists, will jump on the band wagon....and the wearing of safety clothing hasn't had a significant effect in Germany where leathers have been compulsory for years.
Last edited: