Discussion
Anyone read MCN this week ? The gov are still unhappy with the number of deaths on our roads and have decided its down to motorcyclists because there has been a slight rise in bike related deaths in the last decade. We all know thats due to the large increase in the number of bikes and the poor condition of our roads (and the odd nutter). The gov have decided its down to bikes being over 100hp. There is now a threat to limit all bikes to 100hp max. How long before they come up with a bhp limit on cars as well ??? The fact that this can't be policed (unless our police are all going to tow rolling roads with them now)and the fact that most bikes in these figures are lower than 100hp anyway (new riders / scooters etc)is being overlooked.
hmmm I wonder how many Smart cars I can get if I have to px both bikes and the ZR1 in........
hmmm I wonder how many Smart cars I can get if I have to px both bikes and the ZR1 in........
No, but this whole thing sounds sorta familiar. Maybe I've got cynical in my old age or alternatively I understand how politics works - but it sounds like the usual story of them coming up with someone to blame so the men in suits can then look like they have a solution. Once upon a time I used to think how jolly the future would be, but certainly in the world of motoring now it seems like it's time to get out there and enjoy yourself before your vehicles on board computer automatically contacts big brother central and posts a fine direct to your bank account - the moment the speed limit is broke by 1mph or you accelerate slightly quicker to whatever EU directive.
(Oh dear - this is a bit of a rant for my first PH posting!!)
(Oh dear - this is a bit of a rant for my first PH posting!!)
The number of deaths on the roads every year is about 3,500. The number of deaths due to obesity is about 30,000. Is the government so weightist that it doesn't want to save the lives of fat people ? I suggest they start by wiring the jaws of everyone who works in the Palace of Westminster shut !
Funny statement about carrying rolling roads 
.
How dumb though, first theres modification laws in the USA, now these ceilings. Japan has a tax on displacement and an alledged 280hp ceiling (which gt-r's and supras break, slightly).
These 100+bhp bikes are not designed for everyone, they are designed not for the performance junkie, but for the performance junkie who can handle performance, because you need to, and if you can't, wel... It is just like a luxury car and a Honda Civic are designed for two very different market segments/demographics. Why doesn't the government do something about the people buying, riding, and racing, these bikes, not the actual bike itself? Without doing this, there'll still be accidents (fair enough, maybe less).
. How dumb though, first theres modification laws in the USA, now these ceilings. Japan has a tax on displacement and an alledged 280hp ceiling (which gt-r's and supras break, slightly).
These 100+bhp bikes are not designed for everyone, they are designed not for the performance junkie, but for the performance junkie who can handle performance, because you need to, and if you can't, wel... It is just like a luxury car and a Honda Civic are designed for two very different market segments/demographics. Why doesn't the government do something about the people buying, riding, and racing, these bikes, not the actual bike itself? Without doing this, there'll still be accidents (fair enough, maybe less).
You mean better training, higher fines for people that spill diesel on our roads etc. There is already a very effective system in place that keeps 99% of people that are inexperienced and not ready for the 160 bhp bikes off them.......insurance.
I have a NCB that dates back to when I was 16 and this year was the first year I didn't have to phone round to get a quote under £1k. On top of this is the tyres at an average of £250 a set or more with a life of 1-2000 miles a set and thirst for petrol that makes the ZR1 look eco friendly - you can see that owning these big bikes is already out of reach of most youngsters. Which is pobably why so many bikes are nicked !
So why are they changing the test (yet again) to make it harder and on about hp limits. What they need to do is wake up to the idea that no-one buy a bike to ride within the law. I say keep the 2 part test but change it so one part is on the road (highway code etc) and the other is track tuition teaching people how to ride them fast properly so at least when they get on to the roads and go mad, they know what they are doing.
I have a NCB that dates back to when I was 16 and this year was the first year I didn't have to phone round to get a quote under £1k. On top of this is the tyres at an average of £250 a set or more with a life of 1-2000 miles a set and thirst for petrol that makes the ZR1 look eco friendly - you can see that owning these big bikes is already out of reach of most youngsters. Which is pobably why so many bikes are nicked !
So why are they changing the test (yet again) to make it harder and on about hp limits. What they need to do is wake up to the idea that no-one buy a bike to ride within the law. I say keep the 2 part test but change it so one part is on the road (highway code etc) and the other is track tuition teaching people how to ride them fast properly so at least when they get on to the roads and go mad, they know what they are doing.
I'm all for advanced driving licences renewable every 5 years. You take an extended test to prove that you are capable of handling a powerful machine at speed for a bike/car as desired. Once you pass then you can drive the said machine. Anyone caught driving without the proper licence then gets mega points on their licence similar to a drunk driver.
If carefully marketed to the public there could be a snob appeal to this "Gold" licence which would encourage people to improve their driving skills generally. No need to have an age limit on the "Gold" licence, just need to prove you have the correct blend of intelligence, co-ordination, alertness and anticipatory skills.
If carefully marketed to the public there could be a snob appeal to this "Gold" licence which would encourage people to improve their driving skills generally. No need to have an age limit on the "Gold" licence, just need to prove you have the correct blend of intelligence, co-ordination, alertness and anticipatory skills.
That test should be done when someone takes their driving test. Why? Because people sometimes buy economy cars and stick in mega power engines (sometimes one that is mega tuned, two - front and back, that are mega tuned, or another engine). At least this way we don't get kids buying fast cars as their first car who can't control the car at young ages - something which happens a lot in America (Supra, Evo, WRX STi, Camaro, even Vipers and Vettes). It can't be the car manufacturer's responsibility, and all they want is profit at the end of the day, and doing advanced driving tests on Civics are inconvenient - who to teach? How do you know who to teach? It is about time the government woke up and did something that would benefit the motoring community, and not use the car manufacturing industry to milk profit.
And another issue is that why do we have to have pedestrian protection on cars? Fair enough, the reason is obvious, but:
-It ruins the styling of cars. I can't begin to imagine what BMWs would look like with this measure being used. They look bad enough as it is - completely new design (although subjective/opinion). Cars are killed off due to these regs, and adds weight.
-Why does the victim have to pay? It's down to drunk people wandering on the roads, and kidswanting to be killed by not looking or crossing at the wrong places (at a crossroads, when they should cross at traffic lights or zebra crossings). When I say victim, I mean the law-abiding driver. Something should be done about the people who don't think. They intentionally or not intentionally kill themself by wanting to get hit by a car, yet nothing happens to them in terms of educating them (like kids on where and when to cross), yet we make them have an easy ride, if they get hurt, then they'd learn.
It is the government's own fault, yet they penalise the group that hasn't contributed to the deaths - the manufacturer of cars/bikes.
>> Edited by z064life on Saturday 8th November 13:31
>> Edited by z064life on Saturday 8th November 14:55
And another issue is that why do we have to have pedestrian protection on cars? Fair enough, the reason is obvious, but:
-It ruins the styling of cars. I can't begin to imagine what BMWs would look like with this measure being used. They look bad enough as it is - completely new design (although subjective/opinion). Cars are killed off due to these regs, and adds weight.
-Why does the victim have to pay? It's down to drunk people wandering on the roads, and kidswanting to be killed by not looking or crossing at the wrong places (at a crossroads, when they should cross at traffic lights or zebra crossings). When I say victim, I mean the law-abiding driver. Something should be done about the people who don't think. They intentionally or not intentionally kill themself by wanting to get hit by a car, yet nothing happens to them in terms of educating them (like kids on where and when to cross), yet we make them have an easy ride, if they get hurt, then they'd learn.
It is the government's own fault, yet they penalise the group that hasn't contributed to the deaths - the manufacturer of cars/bikes.
>> Edited by z064life on Saturday 8th November 13:31
>> Edited by z064life on Saturday 8th November 14:55
......like the stupid cow infront of me yesterday (school run time) thought it would be a good idea to stop on a roundabout to let someone out.
I'm all for a better test but it would need to be reworked to have all the crap cut out. The stopping distances need to be upgraded into the 21st century along with the rest of the irrelevant crap thats in the test. I said about track time being part of a bike test. Well that should maybe go for cars as well. If not full on track tuition a morning of instruction on a skid pan would be a must. Now we have these mild winters, its a 'mare when we do get snow or bad ice because half the drivers on the road have never driven in it.
I know a while back Honda were providing free track tuition when you bought one of their new bikes. I think Lotus did something similar for a while.
well I've kept my options open, I should have my PPL for next spring
I'm all for a better test but it would need to be reworked to have all the crap cut out. The stopping distances need to be upgraded into the 21st century along with the rest of the irrelevant crap thats in the test. I said about track time being part of a bike test. Well that should maybe go for cars as well. If not full on track tuition a morning of instruction on a skid pan would be a must. Now we have these mild winters, its a 'mare when we do get snow or bad ice because half the drivers on the road have never driven in it.
I know a while back Honda were providing free track tuition when you bought one of their new bikes. I think Lotus did something similar for a while.
well I've kept my options open, I should have my PPL for next spring
BMW took a counter measure with the M3 CSL, that they cannot be sued or legally be held liable should a customer crash the car due to the semi-slick tires on it, by signing a legally binding contract, which meant that BMW cannot and will not be held responsible, and rightly so. Other carmakers should fully suit, seeing as how, relating to my earlier example, people buy powerful cars at a young age as their first cars without getting experience in lesser cars, which are less competent, and when they crash the car, they blame the carmaker with some half-thought out reason, when they have probably been warned of the car's nature at some point, like in the manual.
Alternatively, the carmaker should have an ethical or legal responsibility to ensure that the right car for one group of people (experienced drivers), do not get in the hand of the wrong group of drivers (kids) by checking their driving history (claims made, previous, if any, cars, also the age - but this would once again be at the expense of the carmaker) - and if not being satisfactory, then don't sell a high performance car, but then this goes against (conflicts) what I said about the carmaker only caring about profit, because that is pretty much true as that what a business wants at the end of the day and is in business for that and because of that, and sales WILL be effected. But then, as I said, everything shouldn't be down to the carmaker, and the carmaker shouldn't be blamed for everything.
Alternatively, the carmaker should have an ethical or legal responsibility to ensure that the right car for one group of people (experienced drivers), do not get in the hand of the wrong group of drivers (kids) by checking their driving history (claims made, previous, if any, cars, also the age - but this would once again be at the expense of the carmaker) - and if not being satisfactory, then don't sell a high performance car, but then this goes against (conflicts) what I said about the carmaker only caring about profit, because that is pretty much true as that what a business wants at the end of the day and is in business for that and because of that, and sales WILL be effected. But then, as I said, everything shouldn't be down to the carmaker, and the carmaker shouldn't be blamed for everything.
vetteheadracer said:
The 3,500 deaths on the roads is regrettable but shit happens. There are more lorries involved in serious / death accidents than speeding cars therefore we should ban all lorries 
>> Edited by vetteheadracer on Monday 10th November 12:02
And transfer all the stuff/freights that is carried on lorries to trains and air, or other freight? Not wise, when the trains in this country are as bad as they are. And lorries are only able to travel on motorways, as they usually get stuck on small roads.
Not this dead horse again? This came up years ago via the EU commissioners (sp?), you know, those unelected people who want to bring in laws when the electorate have no means of removing them in case of bad decisions/performance. There were huge protests at the time & all sorts of statistical data was quoted. The vast majority of bike deaths are due to other road users, bad roads (there's nothing quite like hitting diesel on a bend on a wet day) & smaller capacity machines ridden my inexperienced people. Another big fatality area was to "born again" bikers. These are the people who have bought a modern bike after the kids have left home & they're suddenly back in the money. So they get on these modern, lightweight rocketships having last ridden an old GS1000 & they get a surprise (I know of one bloke who crashed his new bike a couple of miles from the shop!!! He yanked the front brake on, expecting it to be like his old Z/GS/XS/whatever & flew off the front 
). The death rate for the powerful stuff was proportionately a lot lower than for small capacity stuff. That campaign was one of the 1st (if not the 1st) to overturn an EU commissions decision. And now it's game on again 
Have these people got nothing better to do? I protested the 1st time, not because I've got a bike over 100hp (I've never had the urge to get one), but because it was a gross infringement of my right to choose. Why shouldn't I be able to go out & get the latest rocketship when a kid can go and buy a Ferrari immediately after passing his test?
Oh well, I guess they know best. Tw@s
). The death rate for the powerful stuff was proportionately a lot lower than for small capacity stuff. That campaign was one of the 1st (if not the 1st) to overturn an EU commissions decision. And now it's game on again Have these people got nothing better to do? I protested the 1st time, not because I've got a bike over 100hp (I've never had the urge to get one), but because it was a gross infringement of my right to choose. Why shouldn't I be able to go out & get the latest rocketship when a kid can go and buy a Ferrari immediately after passing his test? Oh well, I guess they know best. Tw@s
You are right about the freight Nige. All the stuff from Thames port In Grain and the power station there used to go via train down a small track near where I grew up. Now its over grown and not used - all moved by lorry now and the Grain road - now known as a death trap. Royal Mail have stopped using the night trains now and have switched to lorries as a cost cutter.
The last EuroCrap threat I protested about was leg protectors on bikes. Loads of bikes met in London to protest and that worked....for now. For those that don't know, leg protectors were a a large strengthened extension to the fairing that covered the legs. The idea being that when hit from the side they would protect the legs. What a great idea they were, how often is a bike hit from the side ??? On top of that, the first thing you do when in a bike accident is to get away from the bike the best you can. Thats why they never got approved.
The last EuroCrap threat I protested about was leg protectors on bikes. Loads of bikes met in London to protest and that worked....for now. For those that don't know, leg protectors were a a large strengthened extension to the fairing that covered the legs. The idea being that when hit from the side they would protect the legs. What a great idea they were, how often is a bike hit from the side ??? On top of that, the first thing you do when in a bike accident is to get away from the bike the best you can. Thats why they never got approved.
Gassing Station | Corvettes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff