Yorkshire renamed...

to New North Wales

As Brunstrom fucks off and the new regime seems to be relaxing their
discrimination against motorcyclists...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8602464.stm

 

"Motorcyclists account for just 1% of the traffic on the UK's roads, but
almost 19% of all deaths on them"
sort of brings it home a bit don't it.

 

It would be interesting to extract the proportion of those deaths that are
in the 16-17 age goup as I'm sure that skews the data somewhat.

 

Form up, Grieving Widow Comfort Squad!

 

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

I am in correspondence with the idiot Barry Sheerman, MP on the matter.

 

And here she is again....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/8602623.stm

 

15 dead Yorkshiremen in a year?

"A Good Start".

 

Not really, no.

<rant>
Of course you're more likely to be seriously injured or killed on a
motorcycle - you're not sitting in a padded tin box. A low speed
accident you'd walk away from in a car can quite easily kill you if
you hit the wrong object (or get run over by an oncoming artic). Then
there's the fact that the margin for error is much smaller and the
sensitivity to changing conditions required much greater on a bike
meaning accidents are easier to have in the first place. So it's not
surprising at all.

The only way to reach parity with respect to accident figures would be
to ban biking altogether, reduce the motorcycle maximum speed to 10mph
or cover all roadside objects and other vehicles in several feet
thickness of cotton wool.

I wish the police, government,media and assorted do-gooders would
accept the fact that biking is by its nature more dangerous than
driving a car, accept the fact that *we* accept that it's more
dangerous and let us carry on killing ourselves at the current rate.
</rant>

 

Told you last year NY are utter cunts now.

--


Nige,

Land Rover 90
Yamaha R1
Range Rover Vogue

 

Since a high percentage of crashes involve inexperienced and/or
intoxicated riders whose right-of-way is violated by a cager turning
in from of them, those stats are meaningless to mature, sober riders
who pay attention to what they're doing.

 

What a complete fucking bucket of festering gutter run out he is.

 

Same here, I am expecting a standard reply

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Dan L

Oh, I've had that. I've replied to it.

 

Rather surprised that the bike 'leaking fuel' had to get a new MOT. It
was a '58' plate so surely isn't due to get an MOT for 18 months or so.

Was also impressed that police spent a lot of time 'fixing faults'; the
only ones I've been involved with when I had a fault (no rear light on a
bike) suggested I "tried some WD40"... Another found a stolen car some
years ago and told me they'd been watching it for a couple of days, but
it was alright because 'we've disabled it'... how? They removed the HT
lead on cylinder 1.

Oh well. At least I'm not suffering from N.Yorkshire's policing.

 

wrote in :

I muttered something when I heard that. I suppose the rider would have to
get an MOT station to certify that a permanent repair had been made, after
a rectification notice had been served, as the "repair" was a bodge with
tape or somesuch.

 

While you're at it, ask the BBC why they're talking bollocks again. In
that clip, the Police Team intercept a guy on a bike in a pub car park.
The bike is apparently leaking fuel. The reporter says: "And once he's
fixed it, he'll have to get a new MOT before he can use his bike on the
road again".

I hope she was talking bollocks, anyway.

 

You know what journos are like.
Copper probably mentioned the bike would fail an MoT with a fuel leak
and perhaps issued a rectification notice - journo couldn't get her
pretty little head around such technical issues and performed mental
shorthand on it, resulting in bollocks.
But hey, it's only telly, so it's all right - ephemeral tripe.

 

If it's a 58 plate, I imagine he was down the dealer waving the
warranty around.

 

Heh. Drive. Heheh.

Yes, of course there is. Every now and again, when there's a perceived
gain to be made, a random official or politician will pop up and
declare "zero tolerance" on road deaths and announce yet another
"initiative" to reduce casualties to something approaching what is
obviously the mythical target of zero. Usually because every RTC is
alleged to cost the country a million quid, and every death three
million or something like that, and the working days lost due to
whiplash equate to six double deckers.

So they stick some silly signs up and shove some more road furniture in
places most likely to decapitate a sliding biker, and slap a shitload
of slippery paint right in the middle of a braking zone or an apex on
every A road in the county, in the interests of their latest "Road
Safety Project". So yes, there is such a drive, or at least lip
service thereto.

 

I've just done a CBT extra thing (can't remember exact name, free in
Derbyshire) and I can't accept your 'natural' argument, and I suspect a
good number of accidents/deaths could be avoided by the rider. Just a
ton of stuff I learnt that would never have occurred to me.

But if you've got evidence that such nanny statism runs counter to your
facts, please tell.

Rob