Call for motorbike speed limiters

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6505423.stm

"MPs have urged the government to carry out a study into the
possibility of fitting speed limiters to motorbikes."

The article seems a little confused. It starts off on reducing
accidents with power limiters but finishes on the mini moto problem.

Another poorly thought out waste of time that won't go anywhere.

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmtran/264/264.pdf

"...that it is hard to see why anyone except the police, military and
emergency services, needs a
powerful, heavy machine, as did the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Accidents
(RoSPA) who could not see any justification for producing powerful
vehicles that can
reach speeds of more than twice the maximum speed limit and suggested
that motorcycles
be limited to 125cc."

Interesting reading.

 

But that's OK, as we also don't need powerful cars either when the 999cc
People's Car will allow the Workers to travel to their Workers' Paradise at
59mph.

Provided that they haven't exceeded their carbon ration by farting too much,
that is.

 

The problem with this kind of ananlysis is that is presumes that there is a
"causal" relationship i.e. that motorcycles "cause" accidents. What it
doesn't take into account is that motorcycles are predominantly ridden by
young(ish) men, many of whom are very likely to enjoy "risky" activities.
To make a valid comparison with other vehicles and drivers there should be a
"matched group" of drivers of other vehicles. The second asumption is that
because many motorcycles are capable of high speeds then high speeds must be
the "cause" of accidents. However, there is no analysis of the speeds of
the bikes involved in crashes so we have no idea how many of the accidents
referred to may have involved bikes travelling within speed limits.

The data on emissions also raises some reasonable concers. However, as
bikes make up such a small proportion of vehicles there constribution to
overall pollution and greenhouse gasses is negligable.

One obvious way to reduce the problems associated with (but not necessarily
caused by) motorcycles is to make the owners of high-powered, high-emission
bikes pay extra through taxation to cover the additional costs. If it the
road tax for such bikes was, say, £1000 pa then the numbers of people using
them would be reduced and they would largely cxonfined to more mature riders
who could afford that level of taxation. Not that I am advocating such a
step - but it would be preferable to some kind of blanket ban.

As for speed limiters - it would be bizarre if my bikes were to be speed
limited whilst I was still free to drive at up to 140+ in my car

 

FFS, bikes are the new 4x4's then.

 

And how long do you think you'd be allowed to exceed the speed limit - any
speed limit, that is - in your car? Hmm?

 

Yup, that's what I've been thinking as well. It's a shame, because I like
living here in the UK but some people seem to be hell-bent on screwing it
up for other people. Oh well, I was looking at partial emigration anyway...

And oddly enough Ann mentioned the word "farm" because she thinks we'll need
a barn anyway to keep all my shit^Wtoys in.

Well, depending on where you are, that's already happening anyway (the
congestion charging zone is a prime example where they are tracking at
least who's entering and leaving a very small space).

Heh. Not to mention that these devices are probably not that easy to
retrofit anyway, especially if your car doesn't even have its original ECU
anymore. But they'll probably try to outlaw this as well, as clearly no-one
would need something like that either.

 

About 50 years to late IMO.

I have nothing against people smoking, as long as they do not do it around
me.

The ban would not actually be required if pubs/restaurants and other
public places had volunterilly banned smoking and just side aside an area
for it as they are being forced too do now.

 

I see that RoSPA decided to leave this bit of the 2001 'Position
Statement' out of the 2006 'Policy Statements':

"In the early 1990’s a proposed European Commission limit of 100 bhp
on motorcycles failed, partly because it was not possible to demonstrate
a link between bhp and accident risk. Therefore, it was not possible to
show that imposing a limit would reduce the number of motorcycle
accidents."



--

+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Gilera Nordwest Yamaha WR250Z |
| Gilera GFR Moto Morini 2C/375 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+

 

We hope.

 

Face it. "They" just want to ban them. They've been looking for ways to
make them unappealing for years. They've failed, admittedly., but they'll
get there.

 

Quite right too. Nasty dangerous things...

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

message > Face it. "They" just want to ban them. They've been looking for
ways to

so, we all end up on those new fangled tricycle things?

 

I suspect they'll not actually ban them, but they'll legislate all the
fun out of new machines. Glad I've got the 10R, before they start doing
so. [1]

[1] Although this isn't strictly true, they've made it Euro3 emissions
compliant.

 

The doc first says that motorcycles produce 17g/km of CO against 4 for cars,
then later points out that new bikes have to conform to Euro-3 emissions
and only produce 2g/km. So there's no problem. It's just the difference
between carbs and emasculated fuel injection, and anyway, my CO is fuel
for the injected car following. As for CO2, that's just proportional to
petrol used so bikes are better than cars, and CO2 is not mentioned at all!

 

and then we can tackle the thorny issue of recreational skiing. It is
clearly environmentally damaging and unsustainable and should be
outlawed within the EU

 

Oh no there is no problem, Ogden told me recently didn't he..... Ah,
that kinda answers that question, doesn't it.

The Nanny Superstate isn't inevitable. In the current EU it seems likely
however. I agree with the view that the environmental hysteria is
neo-marxist driven and aimed and capitalism and globalisation. As always
they will most effectively penalise the poorest quartile of western
society and the Third World, but then your average Anti-Capitalist/SWP
etc. isn't over endowed with brain cells. OTOH those running the show
are very shrewd indeed and are playing the Long Game.

 

And globally. Only those of us prepared to walk up the mountain firrst
would be able to continue skiing.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Climate change is covering that one for us, I think..

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Ace

Only if you're prepared to walk to the resort in the first place.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Podium Placed Ducati Race Engineer as featured in
Performance Bikes and Fast Bikes

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (Falling apart) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Yamaha Vmax Honda ST1100 wiv trailer