Road Safety (Pillion Passengers) Bill

Why the difference, then?
Why 'yes' to a law re bikes, and 'no' to a law re cars?

Are you anti bike?

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Bear wrote:

I noticed that in the February version of this. Suprised me a little.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

For the second time in one night "I don't know". I just hadn't expected
it. I had you down as more of a 'people should be able to get on with
their lives' sort of person.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Yep, it says " Every two-wheeled motor cycle for use on a road shall
have suitable supports or rests for the feet of a person carried astride
that motor cycle in addition to the driver."

No mention of it needing to have two seats.


--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

No, you just looked at it a different way.

I'm finding myself opposed to the myriad legislation which limits
freedom of action, unless there is a *real* need to do so. On this
count I'm not sure there is.

You might be right that the main argument will be regarding younger
riders, but if that's the case, perhaps altering laws for under 18
riders might be a better option.

This law would impinge upon my own freedom and were it law currently, I
would have broken it a few times by now.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Result: got you onboard by the back door ;-)

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

I think to pass such a law, we should be pretty sure.

I was thinking of your suggestion that the main culprits would be young
lads taking girls on the back. The greater risk of lunacy is with
these, so if for safety's sake we want to pass a law, then under 18's
might make some sense: they do have less legal responsibility after all.
Not to say I'm automatically in favour of it, but it's a thought.

Not a habit as such, but I do occasionally. If I have to take one of my
kids' friends home then I'll take them on the bike.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

Which is why I suggested the 'young persons amendment'

In most cases, probably, but not in every one. But why should I have
to? There is one kid in particular who won't come one the bike: whether
that's his choice of his parents I don't know, and that's fine: he
either gets picked up, walks, or waits for the car to become available.

--
John

SV650
Black it is
and naked

 

It's managing exposure to risk.

If you have a crash in a car the occupants are less likely to be injured,
have a crash on a bike and the pillion is likely to be injured.

 

Bloody hell.

 

So how do we find out about the progress of this bill and stop it?

I expect the House of Lords will point out that monoposto poseurcycles
should not have pillion pegs and then Tony will invoke the parliament
act to show who's the boss.

 

So you are equally unhappy to have 'a stranger' drive or pillion your
kids. The legislation is discriminatory towards motorcyclists however.
Would you be happy to have one of your kids pillioned by someone whose
riding abilities you know and trust without them having to contact you
first?

 

No, I'm unhappy with both, but far from "equally" unhappy. And my
unhappiness about cars varies from virtually none in the case of
proper taxi drivers to marked in the case of young lads.

And in this case, IMHO, rightly so. As Bear eloquently puts it above,
the risks (particularly when the rider is inexperienced) are very
different. As a general point, I suspect that I have more problems in
general with laws that fail to discriminate when they should than with
laws that discriminate when they shouldn't.

Indeed I would, including your goodself [1] - and, when I think of it,
all of the ukrmers I've met so far. There is implied consent there.
However, if the law were to require consent for each and every
occasion then I could live with that. It's an area where it would be
nice if the law were able to discriminate, difficult to see how it
could.

[1] I trust we'll hit [2] Olivers Mount again this year?

[2] please use discrimination in your interpretation!

 

See sweller's post below

I'm anti some bikers.

 

Well they tend to be better drivers than the wankas in private hire cars, but
still...

 

Hmmm, I forsee insurance payouts being denied to pillions of safe riders who
get smidsy'd because of no proof of phone call to parents....

Just give me a bit of notice of the date and I'll be there.

 

Fucked cheeks in the case of a pillion with pegs but no seat.

 

Good point. To go further, parents who had given oral consent could
subsequently deny it and sue the rider. I guess written consent is
going to be advisable, although I imagine it could be blanket.

I'm going to have to track this law down.

 

And what if you marry a sixteen year old?
Do you have to ask your mother-in-law every time you want a ride?

 

<consults diary>

Cock o' the North 3rd July
Gold Cup 18th Sept