Idiots?

[Digit]

There is a rather heated debate on a certain motorcycle forum at the moment about the possibility that we riders may be required in the near future to wear hi-vis clothing, and to be honest I am astonished at the heat the debate has generated.
Most of the objections seem to be based on the idea that such gear is 'unfashionable!'
I pointed out that I was around when the same arguments about 'freedom' etc were voiced at the introduction of the helmet laws and the seat belt regs, dieing for a fashion statement seems pretty silly to me.
BTW, I ride hi-vis!

Roy.

 

[Jacob]

I ride a push bike with hi-viz if I'm on busy main roads. You can feel the difference, people give you more clearance immediately without a doubt.

 

[Digit]

Yep, being invisible is a silly way to die isn't it?

Roy.

 

[andycktm]

The ego's don't come any bigger than in motorcycling

 

[Digit]

If the argument dosen't die down I intend asking those opposed to hi-vis if they would ride without a helmet, the same thing ocurred with helmets for cyclists, only 'wimps' used them, at first, now it is an accepted and sensible arrangement.

Roy.

 

[Losos]

It's just common sense, but humans are often slow to accept new ideas, as a car driver I try to always look out for bikers and wearing Hi-Vis jackets makes it easier for me and safer for them - Simples :!:

 

[Dodge]

I'm not anti bikes in any way albeit I have never been a biker but I must admit if bikers wore Hi-Viz it would make them a darn sight easier to see when they insist on riding right in my blind spot, undertaking or decide to tear down the middle of two lines of traffic.

The signs always say think bike - Why is this? Maybe from what you say they are too busy thinking about their fashion sense to be able to think about their own safety or have consideration for other road users!

 

[doctor Bob]

If the argument dosen't die down I intend asking those opposed to hi-vis if they would ride without a helmet, the same thing ocurred with helmets for cyclists, only 'wimps' used them, at first, now it is an accepted and sensible arrangement.

Roy.

Just wondering if you would object to your bike being limited to the speed limit?

 

[No skills]

Natural selection, let them be fashonable and we will eventually have less idiots on the road.

In a link thinner than a pound shop stanley blade - http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/

 

[Digit]

Just wondering if you would object to your bike being limited to the speed limit?

It is, by my right hand.

Roy.

 

[MickCheese]

I'll enter this debate stating I wear Hi-Viz.

But

As far as I know there is no research showing wearing hi viz makes you safer. There is a school of thought that suggests Hi-Viz makes it more difficult for other road users to assess your speed and distance. A lot of motorcycle accidents are not caused by others not seeing you but their inability to judge your speed and distance.

And

How far down the compulsion route should we go? How about legislation that all motorcyclists wear boots, gloves, leathers, armour or a flashing amber light on their helmets? Just playing devils advocate!

Mick

 

[doctor Bob]

Just wondering if you would object to your bike being limited to the speed limit?

It is, by my right hand.

Roy.

But would you object to the government limiting it.

 

[andycktm]

Think your going to have to try a bit harder bob

 

[Chippyjoe]

I for one do not agree that you should have to wear a hi viz jacket. Hopefully this stupid law will not come in.
Where will it all end ffs. :evil:

 

[MickCheese]

Just wondering if you would object to your bike being limited to the speed limit?

It is, by my right hand.

Roy.

But would you object to the government limiting it.

Of course not as long as it still does 185mph, 200mph is just too insanely fast.

Mick

 

[Digit]

But would you object to the government limiting it.

Your a bit late Bob, the government already does. With a car licence once you have passed your test at 17 you can drive anything in that class that you can afford to insure. Not so with bikes.
Also would you object to having your car limited by law?
Falling off a bike is painful, but rarely fatal. Most fatal accidents involve another road user, and according to ROSPA it frequently means a car driver not having seen the biker.
The police ride hi-vis, and I spotted one on Friday six vehicles behind me. That's good enough for me.

Roy.

 

[doctor Bob]

I'm aware of the rules Roy, I have had many bikes.
I don't have a bike anymore as I was a nutter on them, I would have ended up in prison eventually.
I never seemed to have the ability to limit my speed, yet in a car it was no problem.

eventually we will be so controlled you may as well go on a bus.

are you a politician Roy you are very good at not answering the question?

 

[Digit]

Where will it all end ffs.

This is the view on the bike forum, next step flashing orange lights, air bags etc. BUT, the helmet regs did not result in a flood of additional regs.
The reaction of course is 'why should we have to take these steps to prevent other idiots hitting us?'
Which I can understand, it's rather like blaming a householder, who hasn't locked his doors, for being burgled.
But if needs must.

Roy.

 

[doctor Bob]

BUT, the helmet regs did not result in a flood of additional regs.

Roy.

Hang on you just mentioned the bike rules limiting what a 17 -21 can ride .... that has come in. But you seem to think this is bad?

Do you think a 17 year old should be on a Ducati 998?

I'm just yanking your chain Roy but personally I think we are over regulated and this is just another example on our road to emasculation.

 

[andycktm]

1098 or even 1198 would have hit better.