Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Dec 12, 2019 13:21

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:03 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Icandoit wrote:
Good job the police are not the law makers then isn't it? I know of a serious incident that a rider without lights on was involved in (SMIDSY on a mini-roundabout) and the question never came up as part of the investigation or was reflected in his final pay-out.


Well then I guess it depends on the officer and the insurer. I certainly don't want to feel obliged to use lights when I don't need to or it would be detremental.

Icandoit wrote:
It is not a 'law' in the UK because no-one has called for it to be so. The recent government study suggested that the effective compulsory DRL on motorcycles should be removed (perhaps with an 'AHO off switch'!). The DfT have shown support against compulsory DRL too. There is a cross European manufacturers agreement to sell bikes with DRL as a way (IIRC) of attempting to 'reduce motorcycle injuries'.


It wasn't the UK government that was trying to bring it in, it was the EU. I seem to recall saying that it was a manufacturers agreement with the EU, not a law... :roll:

Icandoit wrote:
A friend has just bought a run-out Triumph Tiger (995?) and it came with DRL. He has converted it to a switch (£95 of bits from Triumph) as in the first few weeks he had some unexpected near ROWV's. Since switching his lights off this has now stopped. (BTW before you question his experience he is an ex Police class 1 instructor and currently an IAM examiner)


I can well believe it. For the record I only use my lights when its actually dark or visibility is poor.

Icandoit wrote:
Sixy_the_red wrote:
The DSA don't actually have a clue and that's the problem. The rules on visor tinting are about to change, yet if 'my mate the instructor' is caught riding with a tinted visor AT ALL he will lose his job. Go figure.

That is not correct either. The DSA do not have objections to the use of legal and tinted visors. (Can you point me to the information about pending changes to visor legislation please?)

At what point did I say that the DSA were against legal and tinted visors for the general public? They have banned all their instructors from wearing them at any time.

The legislation change is not imminently pending, but in the pipeline.

Bottyburp - according to the latest bumf issued to instructors they are relaxing the rules on tinting, allowing for a darker tint.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
Sixy_the_red wrote:
I certainly don't want to feel obliged to use lights when I don't need to or it would be detremental.

I think it is impotent that we all (individually) do not become complicit in this creeping 'safety' paranoia. There is very little evidence that any of it actually 'works' and, like the use of 'safety cameras', the growing clamour that 'something must be done' will hammer ever more nails into coffin of the 'freedom' to use private motor vehicles.
Sixy_the_red wrote:
It wasn't the UK government that was trying to bring it in, it was the EU. I seem to recall saying that it was a manufacturers agreement with the EU, not a law... :roll:

You wrote 'the only reason it's not law is because the big 4 made an agreement....'. I don't think that is the case at all. There was no serious calling for DRL to become compulsory in the UK.
Sixy_the_red wrote:
At what point did I say that the DSA were against legal and tinted visors for the general public? They have banned all their instructors from wearing them at any time.

I don't think that is the case at all. 'Illegal' visors, maybe. Legal tinted ones, no.
Sixy_the_red wrote:
according to the latest bumf issued to instructors they are relaxing the rules on tinting, allowing for a darker tint.

Is that for instructors too? :?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
Icandoit wrote:
R1Nut wrote:
I ride with lights on at all times but surely by forcing us to wear bright coloured helmets is taking away our freedom to express ourselves? What's the definition of a brightly coloured helmet anyway?

Perhaps you should have thought about that before complying with the totally unproven DRL='safe' mantra.


My lights are not DRL as my bike is a 1998/9 model but I choose to ride with my lights on most of the time because they are twin headlights and very bright. This means that I am not confused with a car because the headlights are close together and when filtering, considering I ride the M3/M25 and traffic light controlled dual carriageways a lot, drivers tend to see me coming better.

Sixy_the_red wrote:
Bottyburp - according to the latest bumf issued to instructors they are relaxing the rules on tinting, allowing for a darker tint.


The rules regarding tinted visors, and if I recall number plates, are actually ACPO guidelines. At a recent ACPO meeting they thrashed out these guidelines and came up with a common sense approach. IIRC tinted visors are now allowed, even the previously "illegal" tints as long as they are used in the correct conditions. So a rider with a black visor will be pulled if they're riding in the dark. WRT the number plate, I think that as long as it's not too small then slightly undersized plates will be ok.

I think we need In Gear or another :bib: to give us the correct info.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
R1Nut wrote:
My lights are not DRL as my bike is a 1998/9 model but I choose to ride with my lights on most of the time because they are twin headlights and very bright.

You say you use your headlights on most of the time? That is using a 'daytime riding light' (although originally in the '70's DRL were quite different being an unfocused 21W bulb rather than focused headlights....but that is a separate discussion). What you don't have is AHO (automatic headlight on), the Europe wide 'agreement' to sell bikes without an 'off' option.

My point being that because you have swallowed the DRL='safe' piffle and are habitually using DRL unnecessarily you are not in a position to justifiably criticise any further 'safety' advice being foisted on you.
R1Nut wrote:
This means that I am not confused with a car because the headlights are close together and when filtering, considering I ride the M3/M25 and traffic light controlled dual carriageways a lot, drivers tend to see me coming better.

If only this were so. How do bikes with DRL manage to have incidents in traffic?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:26 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Icandoit wrote:
[...]If only this were so. How do bikes with DRL manage to have incidents in traffic?

Because unfortunately, our roads are infested with complete ar$eholes who refuse to look properly!

Bikers can only do so much to make sure they are easily visible.

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:34 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
BottyBurp wrote:
Icandoit wrote:
[...]If only this were so. How do bikes with DRL manage to have incidents in traffic?

Because unfortunately, our roads are infested with complete ar$eholes who refuse to look properly!

Bikers can only do so much to make sure they are easily visible.


Agreed.

Icandoit wrote:
My point being that because you have swallowed the DRL='safe' piffle and are habitually using DRL unnecessarily you are not in a position to justifiably criticise any further 'safety' advice being foisted on you.


So I can't disagree with airbags on bikes and leg protectors then? Both of which I fail to see the benefits and WRT leg protectors, proven to be adverse to safety.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
BottyBurp wrote:
Because unfortunately, our roads are infested with complete ar$eholes who refuse to look properly!

So how is having any lights on going to help R1Nut? He can't tell which drivers are going to 'look properly' or not and should be riding presuming that every driver is not......
BottyBurp wrote:
Bikers can only do so much to make sure they are easily visible.

What about the use of lights as camouflage and distraction?

As an aside (and bringing the thread somewhat back on topic) I was reading an article recently (can't remember where though) that suggested that young men are aggressive because they lack danger and competition in life. The article suggested that experiencing more danger would help kerb aggression.

I wonder, even though motorcycling is considered 'dangerous', if riding with lights/leathers/full helmets/gloves and feeling 'safer' can create a more aggressive rider? Perhaps the same could be true of drivers cocooned in a 'safe' car?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:50 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Icandoit wrote:
Sixy_the_red wrote:
It wasn't the UK government that was trying to bring it in, it was the EU. I seem to recall saying that it was a manufacturers agreement with the EU, not a law... :roll:

You wrote 'the only reason it's not law is because the big 4 made an agreement....'. I don't think that is the case at all. There was no serious calling for DRL to become compulsory in the UK.


And again, it wasn't the UK government that was trying to bring it in, but the European one. Do you seriously think that the UK market is big enough to warrent the manufacture of 2 different model specs? Its far cheeper and easier from the manufacturers POV to say 'The EU want DRL so we'll fit it to ALL european bikes' rather than selling one model in Europe and one here....

Sixy_the_red wrote:
At what point did I say that the DSA were against legal and tinted visors for the general public? They have banned all their instructors from wearing them at any time.

I don't think that is the case at all. 'Illegal' visors, maybe. Legal tinted ones, no.[/quote]

That's EXACTLY the case. 'My mate' was told in no uncertain terms that if he is caught riding with ANY tint in ANY conditions even when not at work he will be diciplined and possibly have his ticket revoked.

Icandoit wrote:
Sixy_the_red wrote:
according to the latest bumf issued to instructors they are relaxing the rules on tinting, allowing for a darker tint.

Is that for instructors too? :?


That's the point - the rules contradict each other.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 13:18 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Icandoit wrote:
What about the use of lights as camouflage and distraction?

You might want to look http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 45&start=0

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 13:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
Sixy_the_red wrote:
And again, it wasn't the UK government that was trying to bring it in, but the European one. Do you seriously think that the UK market is big enough to warrent the manufacture of 2 different model specs? Its far cheeper and easier from the manufacturers POV to say 'The EU want DRL so we'll fit it to ALL european bikes' rather than selling one model in Europe and one here....

It is still not 'a law' it was always a manufacturers agreement, as far as I can tell the manufacturers saw that further legislation might reduce their sales and the agreement was penned in an attempt to reduce the numbers of European wide motorcycle KSI. (This has not worked!)
Sixy_the_red wrote:
'My mate' was told in no uncertain terms that if he is caught riding with ANY tint in ANY conditions even when not at work he will be diciplined and possibly have his ticket revoked.

I'd like to know what authority he thinks the DSA have to stop him riding legally.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 13:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
R1Nut wrote:
Icandoit wrote:
My point being that because you have swallowed the DRL='safe' piffle and are habitually using DRL unnecessarily you are not in a position to justifiably criticise any further 'safety' advice being foisted on you.

So I can't disagree with airbags on bikes and leg protectors then? Both of which I fail to see the benefits and WRT leg protectors, proven to be adverse to safety.

You can disagree. But I see that your use of DRL and as one of the riders who has swallowed 'safety' advice that has no measurable benefit, you are already part of the 'problem' rather than the solution.

Personally I can see that the use of motorcycle airbags as potentially beneficial and the idea behind developing leg protectors was sound as lower limb injury is a serious problem for motorcycle riders (and passengers) who crash. But I would not argue for either to become mandatory.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 14:01 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Icandoit wrote:
Sixy_the_red wrote:
And again, it wasn't the UK government that was trying to bring it in, but the European one. Do you seriously think that the UK market is big enough to warrent the manufacture of 2 different model specs? Its far cheeper and easier from the manufacturers POV to say 'The EU want DRL so we'll fit it to ALL european bikes' rather than selling one model in Europe and one here....

It is still not 'a law' it was always a manufacturers agreement, as far as I can tell the manufacturers saw that further legislation might reduce their sales and the agreement was penned in an attempt to reduce the numbers of European wide motorcycle KSI. (This has not worked!)


Which is exactly what I said...... :roll:

It still doesn't stop insurance companies jumping on it as an excuse not to pay up.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 14:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
BottyBurp wrote:
Icandoit wrote:
What about the use of lights as camouflage and distraction?

You might want to look http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewt ... 45&start=0

I believe I am aware of most of the arguments about this topic.

I was asking you, perhaps rather obtusely, what you think about the problems that can be caused when trying to 'make sure they are easily visible'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 14:07 
Offline
Member
Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 22:47
Posts: 1511
Location: West Midlands
Is it FJSRiDER?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 14:09 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
BottyBurp wrote:
Is it FJSRiDER?


That thought had crossed my mind too...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 14:12 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
Sixy_the_red wrote:
Which is exactly what I said......

No. You have not shown us anything to suggest it was ever going to become 'a law' at all?
Sixy_the_red wrote:
It still doesn't stop insurance companies jumping on it as an excuse not to pay up.

I have no direct experience that this is the case in any of the non-headlight users I know who have made claims. I have read comments from others who claim that another (usually) third party has not been paid out. But this just second-hand reporting and unverifiable.

Since it is not the law and there are plenty of studies that suggest the use of daytime headlights can cause problems, while I don't doubt that many insurers may try to wriggle out of paying, as long as you are riding within the law the state of your headlight (in good daylight) is not likely to be of any concern.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 14:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
Icandoit wrote:
You can disagree. But I see that your use of DRL and as one of the riders who has swallowed 'safety' advice that has no measurable benefit, you are already part of the 'problem' rather than the solution.


I have swallowed nothing. I have ridden with the lights on and off and have discovered that when filtering through traffic I tend to get seen better if I have my lights on. It's a personal choice.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 14:26 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Definately sounds like FJSRIDER... :roll:

Either that or its turkishmuppetfeaturesyoghurtboy from C+...

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 14:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:27
Posts: 361
R1Nut wrote:
I have ridden with the lights on and off and have discovered that when filtering through traffic I tend to get seen better if I have my lights on. It's a personal choice.

It is personal choice that, when adopted by the majority, becomes accepted as a norm.

Do you accept that just because some people want speed cameras they are acceptable or do you question their use?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 14:28 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 16:04
Posts: 816
No I don't because there is no choice. It's the law. DRL is a choice, there is no law.

_________________
Prepare to be Judged


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.461s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]