Further on the Nanny State

I know it's MCN, but apparently Lincs and Notts Police are following
Sussex Plod in stopping motorcyclists for a little chat, and handing
out hi-vis bibs (and a load of propaganda about speeding):

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2010/Feb
ruary/feb1210-police-to-issue-thousands-more-riders-with-hiviz-vests/Pos
t.aspx?R=EPI-122125

Now, I don't object to the issue of freebies that can be ignored,
binned or hurled into the boot of the car for use on the side of the
road. I do, however, object on principle to the concept of being
stopped (and you can't ignore a copper who tells you to stop) going
about my law-abiding business and then being lectured by a snotty
copper who would far prefer to be scoffing doughnuts as per his job
spec.

Further, I really don't know what I'd say to a copper who stopped me
and started to lecture me, (for my benefit, obviously) about the
hazards of wearing black leather rather than a hi-vis tabard (as if I
was a courier or learner, ffs). I habitually ride with my headlight
on, and with newer bikes there's no choice, right? Lights on at all
times. I'm quite sure that if a driver doesn't see a large bike with a
bright light on it, he wouldn't see a bit of light green flapping
around behind a fairing.

OK, there's always a chance of some muppet pulling out of a side
turning and T-boning you, as happened to Marc Donovan - but if the
cunts don't look, they still won't see a flappy bib, eh? I really
don't see the point of this, except as a propoganda exercise.

 

There've been a couple of letters in the current edition of Road (M.A.G.'s
magazine) where people have taken a hiviz vest out for a week as an
experiment to see how many motorists ignore them, drive right up their arse,
pull out, etc...

One letter reported that the experience was better. Two reported that every
fucker out there seemed to be out to kill them, and when they drove without
the vest things returned to a pleasant safe normality.

--
| |What to do if you find yourself stuck in a crack|
| |in the ground beneath a giant boulder, which you|
| |can't move, with no hope of rescue. |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc |Consider how lucky you are that life has been |
| in |good to you so far... |
| Computer Science | -The BOOK, Hitch-hiker's guide to the galaxy.|

 

"The Motorcycle Action Group says the tactics are a step towards
compulsory hi-vis clothing or reduced insurance pay-outs for riders in
dark kit."

Is there a shred of evidence to suggest that wearing dayglow shit makes
you any less likely to be clobbered by someone else driving improperly?

The suggestion that you could be to blame in any way for not being the
correct colour is stupid. Are green cars to blame for 'hiding in
hedges' or black ones for 'looking like tarmac'?

 

Heh, good old Motorcycle Action Group says "We’re advising all riders
stopped without obvious cause in order to deliver these lectures to make
a stand by lodging formal complaints."

What would the formal complaint be about ?

It does stink of "we need an excuse to pull all the bikers" for high
visibility policing though.

 

"wasting the time of a citizen"

Quite - good enough for the goose etc.

 

The evidence for clothing isn't conclusive either way, although the
evidence in favour of daytime headlights is pretty solid. Google for
`motorcyclist conspicuity'.

 

the "Ring of Steel" coppers also stop cars and vans "randomly" too,
though for some reason walking along London Wall, most of the
"randomly stopped" vehicles you'd see would be bikes, quite often by
City of London bike coppers. That said, despite it being a 30mph zone,
it's quite often you'd see bikes (and cars, incidentally) doing around
70-80mph[1] on it, so maybe the police stopping isn't all that
"random".

to whom, and what do you think it would achieve?

[1] done it myself, though there's really no point[2], as it's pretty
much impossible to do London Wall end to end without hitting a red
light.
[2] except it's fun.

 

It's all bullshit. If the powers that be really cared, they'd let you
put a different coloured & preferrably flashing light on the front of
your bike. Even just painting one light yellow[1] on a bike with twin
headlights makes a huge difference ime, especially at night.

And <thread merge> why would people care anyway when you can cripple
someone for months & only get punished with a day on a training course?
I bet a mandatory 12 month ban & 2k fine for causing a SMIDSY would do
a far better job of reducing them.

[1] Using that headlight paint you used to be able to get for foreign
trips.

 

and write to the Daily Mail!

 

Better to be invisible and move more quickly than the other traffic assuming
they can't see you.

 

cf: Accidents in The Netherlands involving bicycles. The motor vehicle
is always at fault - even if the cyclist is dressed in black and has no
lights while riding across a red traffic light in the dark.

 

I know that's the theory, but does it /really/ happen like that? E.g.
if said motorist was trundling along at 20mph & a cyclist coming
t'other way swerved across into the front of his car at the last
possible second, while a bunch of cops, judges & TV cameras were
watching, would the car driver really get done?

 

About as acceptable as those vehicle taxes you mentioned.

 

No they're not. This oft-misquoted rule refers to the requirement for
no-blame insurance, so the cyclist can always claim off the driver's
insurer, but said driver is not held to be at fault (unless fault is
proven, of course).

 

See other post. If the cyclist is indeed to blame then he/she would
still be open to prosecution in the normal way.

 

You are right about the insurance part however Dutch, and I believe
German, laws require motorists to anticipate unsafe actions by
pedestrians and cyclists.

When a car:bike collision involves a child or elderly person the
motorist is usually judged to be entirely at fault. If a crash is
caused by an *illegal* move by cyclist or pedestrian, the motorist is
almost always judged to be partly at fault.

Note the word illegal - not unsafe.

 

"Get us out of Europe" ;o)

 

Yes, after due process is applied most motorist/pedestrian accidents
(anywhere) would be judged to be at least partly the fault of the
driver. But that's a mile away from what you said before.

 

Ha the Singaporeans have got it taped, so I read while waiting in Changi

 

But I haven't changed anything:

I said "The motor vehicle is always at fault", to which you said they're not.

I followed up with either "enitrely at fault" or "partially at fault"
to which you now not only agree but have extended to "anywhere".