Sixy_the_red wrote:
I mate of mine on another forum was involved in a VERY nasty SMIDSY a while back that involved him having an intimate moment with a wall, and he was told in no uncertain terms by the attending police officer that if he had not had his lights on then he would have been held partly responsible for the accident.
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.
Sixy_the_red wrote:
Insurance companies take the 'should ride with lights on' as a get out clause even though its complete b*llocks. The only reason it's not law is because the big 4 made an agreement with the EU to install DRL on all new bikes as of (I think) 2003.
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'. I have not seen anything to suggest that this has done so, nor do I think it would have. I suspect that it is a way of making it easier to make a larger profit.
Sixy_the_red wrote:
I challange you to find me a new bike on the market that doesn't come with hard-wired lights.
Last time I looked some KTM's and Piaggios.
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)
Sixy_the_red wrote:
Same deal with helmet colour. From the sounds of it its basically being made 'law' that if you're not riding with a white or brightly coloured lid and you're involved in a SMIDSY then you can be held responsible. Bear in mind that most of the 'rules' in the H/C aren't YOU WILL / WILL NOT, but are YOU SHOULD / SHOULD NOT. There's actually very little in the H/C that is a specific offence in its own right.
The H/C is not 'law' but the DSA are responsible for what goes in to it. I thought I was pretty clear in quoting the points about helmet colour and headlights. They say '
You could' and '
may' which are rather less didactic than your suggestion.
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?)