Quote:
Originally Posted by R2D2
Aye, but it's a slippery slope to allow the police to start pulling bikes over when they haven't broken any laws.
Under UK law the police can already pull you over without any reason to do so.
I have mixed feeling on this.
Clearly the intention is to stop bikers killing or maiming themselves which I think most of us would agree is a good intention and possibly a good use of tax payers money consdiering the expense of a facility (£1.25M when I did bikesafe in 2005).
Remember that word "lecture" is MCNs interpretation and their interest is to sensationalise.
Quote:
Motorcycle lobbyists say the schemes signals a shift of blame onto riders for accidents caused by drivers who don't see them (SMIDSY)
Well let's play devils' advocate for a moment.
Do you have a responsibility for being seen and avoiding accidents on the public highway?
I don't agree with Chris or Kevin that a car is the same as a bike for visibility purposes, it also doesn't incurr the same risk or death or serious injury or the same economic or human cost.
So the argument boils down, what risks/costs should we be able to take in a public space and on a public budget? and how much choice should we have?
For example should we allow people to climb mountains when there's a chance they might incurr hugh expense in terms of search and rescue.
Personally I see nothing wrong in encouraging people to wear high viz but it should remain optional. We already have compulsorary helmets and most motorcyclist voluntarily wear a lot more armour for their own protection. I believe both the MCN and MAG articles are a bit sensational, but then it's important that someone points out the dangers and stops this being the thin end of the wedge.
Quote:
Motorcycle lobbyists say the schemes signals a shift of blame onto riders for accidents caused by drivers who don't see them (SMIDSY)
I think that's a leap in logic, but I do think riders have to take some responsibility if they value their life/health.
Quote:
The Motorcyle Action Group (MAG) believes its a step towards reduced insurance payouts for riders NOT in hi-vis, to be followed by new laws making the gear compulsary.
Huge leap in logic and sensationalist.
Put me off joing MAG tbh (sorry fj, jsut sayingn how I felt when I read it).
Quote:
The group is urging riders stopped to make a formal complaint to the relevant force.
I would urge people to withold judgement.
None of the police officers I know would "lecture" you (MCN's words).
Do you think a complaint is a good way to waste tax payers money when the police are trying to protect your health, safety and tax bill?
I would urge people not to make their mind up on how the police are dealing with this and make your mind up once you've actually spoken to them.
Those of you who have been on bike safe will know that they are a nice bunch of guys.
Remember that hi-viz is not the only way to be seen.
Positioning and speed are factors as well.
It's dangerous to believe you are invincible just because you are wearing hi-viz.
Quote:
Its not the wearing of Hi-vis I object too its shifting the blame on to us if someone doesn't see us. whether wearing Hi-vis or not.
The police aren't doing that stu.
That's stuff that's made up by MAG and MCN by some huge leaps in imagination.