Motorbike riders in Blackburn area beware....

[redbaron]

I could be wrong (sorry if i am) but I'm guessing you don't have a bike licence and have no intention of getting one. This being the case' date=' then your opinions aren't worth too much in my book.

Cheers

Paul[/quote']

dont worry as a biker your opinion aint worth much in my mind either...

no i dont have a bike ticket. no i dont want one. my dad rode them for the police and watched too many friends die.

[WW_VRS]

Simple truth is that you can drive anything motorized safely or unsafely. Same goes for pushbikes. If more people would respect other road users, and that includes pedestrians, it would all be a lot safer on the road. You have lorry drivers who pull out regardless of whether they can, and you have those who indicate, wait for someone to flash or leave space and then come out. Similarly, you've got those who cut up a lorry to get off the main road to that junction, inches before a lorry's front bumper. That's just crazy. And those who slow down a little and go in behind it, or actually showed some sense and found a safe way to get to that junction in the first place

This country is by far the worst for empty slow lane driving. I have gone past about a mile (!!) of traffic once without having to change out of the slow lane, whilst going at the speed limit rather than going in the fast lane at 50 mph. And no, this was not on the M25 where you are recommended to stick your lane

It's still crazy though, back on topic a bit more, that someone who ruins someone elses live, obviously takes zero responsibility for his actions, gets away with this level of punishment. It's embarrassing. Hit and run, 2 months? You've gotta be kidding me!

[plo]

dont worry as a biker your opinion aint worth much in my mind either...

no i dont have a bike ticket. no i dont want one. my dad rode them for the police and watched too many friends die.

Paul, I don't really see myself as a biker. I'm very much a fair weather Panda shandy lightweight. I've been driving on 4 wheels for the last 20 years and riding bikes for last 2 (summers). I know I'm not the world best car driver, having had a few minor scraps in early years. When riding the bike I am acutely aware that I need to be that bit more careful as any accident could result in severe injury or worse. Maybe 3 years ago before I decided to spend almost a grand on doing my direct access I would agreed with your views, but now I know better.

Through my job I regularly meet traffic cops (bikers and car drivers). All the bikers I talk seem to start off in cars and progress to bikes. I'm not aware of many of these guys crashing on a regular bases. I can understand any parent trying to dissuade their kids from getting into motorbikes, like yours dad and my mum.

If you have no interest in bikes then that's fine. So long as we can all show each other a bit of respect out there.

Cheers

Paul

[redbaron]

If you have no interest in bikes then that's fine. So long as we can all show each other a bit of respect out there.

Cheers

Paul

as per my orig comment it seems the smaller the engine the worse its ridden...

very similar to cars really... (apart from nobody makes a 5 dr 1.9tdi motorbike and sells it as a performace vehicle... )

although most of the really poor examples of roadcraft have been unhelmeted quadbike riders recently.....

[robmawer]

This country is by far the worst for empty slow lane driving. I have gone past about a mile (!!) of traffic once without having to change out of the slow lane, whilst going at the speed limit rather than going in the fast lane at 50 mph.

And part of that problem is caused by people referring to the lanes as the "slow lane" and the "fast lane" - the lanes are referred to by numerics, as absolute speed is irrelevant to your choice of which lane to use...

Rob.

[Dr_Pepper]

I've got a full motorbike license, which was going to be an intermediate before I passed my driving test. But I hate motorbikes, and I'm afraid I tend to agree with Ffelan here. They are insanely dangerous and I'm sorry but it is not a tiny minority of them who drive unsafely it's way more than that.

In this case the car driver was at fault. He is a **** of the highst order and deserves to be locked up and the key thrown away. However all too often it is the motorcyclists causing the accidents, illegally lane hopping and going through the middle of traffic. They then blame the car driver who changes lanes because they can't be seen. My point is if two car drivers have a small crash and one is at fault, there is a bit of agro and two cars have to get repaired. If the same small crash happens between a car and a bike, the motorcyclist could easily be looking at serious injuries. Accidents do happen and more motorcyclists need to be aware of the risks.

I have two friends who had crashes, one broke his legs, both claim it was a car driver's fault but in both cases it's hard to see it that way knowing them well and knowing the way that they drive. That doesn't mean I don't have upmost sympathy with the motorcyclist in this case but it does mean that I despise bikes and I haven't ridden one since that day I passed my test.

[eddie]

Accidents do happen and more motorcyclists need to be aware of the risks.

It's the car drivers who need to be aware of the risks, since they're the ones making the biggest contribution to it.

[fab16v]

When I am on my bike, I am fully aware of the risks! Car drivers should be aware that bikes do exist and they do 'filter' in traffic, which incedently is perfectly legal, and they do tend to overtake more often than a car would. I try to think of what a car driver would be thinking while I am on my bike and as it helps to have a rough idea of what the tin box might be doing next.

I have been knocked off once, breaking my wrist and thumb and almost having my bike written off. This by some plank who failed to indicate whilst in traffic and just decided to turn right whilst I happened to be alongside him. There is nothing you can do to prepare for that as there is no indication as to what the driver is going to do!

I am not against car drivers as I am one myself. What I am against though is those that don't give 2 hoots about bikers and don't give them any consideration. It is these people that tend to cause accidents by failing to give any idea as to what they are going to do next.

[robmawer]

What I am against though is those that don't give 2 hoots about bikers and don't give them any consideration. It is these people that tend to cause accidents by failing to give any idea as to what they are going to do next.

These muppets are just bad drivers...it's not that they don't give 2 hoots about bikers in particular, they're just generally rubbish and shouldn't have a licence. Or rather, they shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car, judging by some of the stories you hear...

Rob.

[heresmo]

Hi

Question re motorbikes, about which I know zilch.

Some years ago, a friend was delighted to switch from his rather noisy Velocett to a swish BMW I think. His new bike had leg shields(?) across the front, whereas I notice that bike piccies in the Desktop thread don't seem to have this protection.

Ta

Mo

[heresmo]

Observation rather than comment:

Living in a prominent pedal cycle area and leaving room on the left for them to undertake queuing traffic, it is not unusual for motorbikes to appear from nowhere (often exceeding the speed limit) and being on the wrong side of the road when they do.

"Island" speed bumps in 20mph-zone areas are ignored by motorbikes as they can ride through in between, which rather defeats the object of bumps near schools etc.

Pedal cyclists, I believe, are extremely vulnerable, usually by no fault of their own, with an exception being those who ride at night in dark clothes, some even with no lights. What happened to "Wear something white at night" - equally true for pedestrians.

I am glad, in this vein, that motorcyles even during daytime help themselves be seen by driving with headlight on.

My two cents.

Mo

[robmawer]

"Island" speed bumps in 20mph-zone areas are ignored by motorbikes as they can ride through in between, which rather defeats the object of bumps near schools etc.

An off/soft-roader can also glide unflappably over these speed bumps - which is ironic really, seeing as these will probably be the cars which pass over them most often, and would probably inflict most damage to a child... :rubchin:

Rob.

[spinndrift]

You get dickhead bikers and dickhead drivers.

Like has been mentioned drivers get away with bumps - bikers generally don't.

I've had bikes since I was 16 and had two accidents and lost two friends.

First accident I came off on some diesel and got hit by a transit van whilst I lay in the road resulting in a busted shoulder.

Second accident a woman in a metro pulled out on me from a side road and I went straight into the side of the car. I bust a few ribs and the same shoulder. My pillion went through the window of the car and headbutted the driver and ripped all his arms open and ruptured his spleen.

My first mate went round a bend and straight into a tractor.

Second friend was wiped out by a lorry.

The thing is when an accident happens involving a biker it's generally bad news and as such gets reported. Bikers are still suffer from being labelled as social misfits.

I find some peoples views in this thread a trifle disturbing.

[cra]

now if we had chip and pin id cards that you had to insert in a card reader on the dash the prob of uninsured/untaxed/untrained drivers would go away as the immob would prevent vehicle use.....

but that would infringe on civil liberties..

I'm having a little trouble following your logic. I'm not for one minute condoning people who drive untaxed and uninsured, but there must be people out there who have done this entirely accidentally (a mate of mine drove his car for 6 months without an MOT because the dealer forgot to do it) - That didn't turn him into a raging lunatic looking to hunt down the nearest biker.

ANPR is the way to go to detect and prosecute untax/uninsured drivers. Imagine the cost of the infrastructure needed to facilitate a chip and pin scheme. It is never going to happen.

Civil liberties have nothing to do with it. We need solutions to actual problems, not gimmicks.

Cra

[robmawer]

ANPR is the way to go to detect and prosecute untax/uninsured drivers. Imagine the cost of the infrastructure needed to facilitate a chip and pin scheme. It is never going to happen.

But by the same token...when was the last time you saw a police car which was in a position to check your numberplate? Statistically, if you're relying on police cars running ANPR to catch people who are untaxed/uninsured, then said perps have a very good chance of getting away with it until it's too late.

Any kind of automated ANPR system would also be flawed, as I'd imagine a lot of untaxed/uninsured drivers also don't have an up-to-date V5, hence they will be fairly untraceable. They'll also be able to get away with driving past every ANPR camera and getting snapped, running over pedestrians until they are eventually caught.

ANPR also isn't that hard to "trick"...not least by putting someone else's numberplate on your car.

Rob.

[heresmo]

An off/soft-roader can also glide unflappably over these speed bumps - which is ironic really' date=' seeing as these will probably be the cars which pass over them most often, and would probably inflict most damage to a child... :rubchin:

Rob.[/quote']

I agree absolutely that those 4x4s are the most arrogant (or dippy "get out of my way") of all drivers, be it bumps, roundabouts - you name it - certainly around here at least, but probably best I don't get into tailgating again...

It was a standing joke here (town streets) when off-roaders first became popular that you might actually see mud on one of them, or not: ROFL That joke faded pretty quickly. People carriers (valid) are different from King of the Road 4x4's IMO.

Sorry, ranting again

Mo

[KentStu]

Thought the story referred to at the start of the thread is horrendous :eek: Drivers like that should suffer far more serious punishment.

Re: bikers - my view is that there are idiots in cars and bikes - but unfortunately a bike allows some of the idiots to believe that they can get away with things which are just not on. A bike with its size and acceleration should be much safer for getting in and out of traffic and overtaking safely - but some riders seem to take this to an extreme and feel that they can overtake / undertake at anytime without consideration for car drivers ... sometimes with horrendous results for all parties involved. The alternative is that there are some drivers who never use their mirrors or have such poor awareness that they never seem to see bike riders. For example, my cousin was hit twice on roundabouts within 6 months on her moped, both times the driver "didn't see her" but admitted fault, and the second time she had a stroke and lost her memory and many motor skills for about two years :(

I love bikes, but my parents were so anti us using them on the road that they actively encouraged us to scramble / motorcross them when younger as long as we agreed not to ride them on the road. It worked as well!

Re: filtering: although legal within certain parameters, i've lost count of the number of filtering motorcyclists who do cross solid white lines, do it at speed and don't take any apparent regard for safety of others. Im sure its these idiots that stick in the mind of most car users and which leads to such a negative impression of bikers

[cra]

But by the same token...when was the last time you saw a police car which was in a position to check your numberplate? Statistically' date=' if you're relying on police cars running ANPR to catch people who are untaxed/uninsured, then said perps have a very good chance of getting away with it until it's too late.

Any kind of automated ANPR system would also be flawed, as I'd imagine a lot of untaxed/uninsured drivers also don't have an up-to-date V5, hence they will be fairly untraceable. They'll also be able to get away with driving past every ANPR camera and getting snapped, running over pedestrians until they are eventually caught.

ANPR also isn't that hard to "trick"...not least by putting someone else's numberplate on your car.

Rob.[/quote']

Rob

I accept that the current ANPR implementation is pretty dire. To improve it would require re-engineering business processes relating to taxing cars, MOT's, car insurance and V5 registration.

Remember the context of this was the suggestion that chip and pin was the way forward. I don't agree. A proper implementation of ANPR would, in my view, catch a lot more people.

I for one am a big advocate for more Traffic Police but I think we would want them to concentrate on safety issues rather than technical issues.

Cra

[robmawer]

Remember the context of this was the suggestion that chip and pin was the way forward. I don't agree. A proper implementation of ANPR would' date=' in my view, catch a lot more people.

[/quote']

But there lies the distinction - an ANPR system could catch people committing the offence, whereas a chip'n'pin system which rendered the car unusable to non-valid users could prevent the offence from being committed in the first place...which, IMHO, would be of more use.

Something else which would help would be to stop having "joke" penalties...for example, I know that if I were to drive without insurance, I know that statistically I stand little chance of being caught, and if I was then the fine I'd receive would mean I'd have to be caught three times a year before it would start being unprofitable...

Rob.

[cra]

But there lies the distinction - an ANPR system could catch people committing the offence' date=' whereas a chip'n'pin system which rendered the car unusable to non-valid users could prevent the offence from being committed in the first place...which, IMHO, would be of more use.

Something else which would help would be to stop having "joke" penalties...for example, I know that if I were to drive without insurance, I know that statistically I stand little chance of being caught, and if I was then the fine I'd receive would mean I'd have to be caught three times a year before it would start being unprofitable...

Rob.[/quote']

Rob

So instead of investing a relatively small sum to improve the ANPR system, you'd advocate spending billions of pounds on fitting every single car with a CHIP and PIN system? And how many decades would it take before every car had the requisite hardware installed?

I can see where you are coming from but the system you are advocating is simply not workable.

I agree completely about drivers with no insurance.

Craig

[robmawer]

So instead of investing a relatively small sum to improve the ANPR system, you'd advocate spending billions of pounds on fitting every single car with a CHIP and PIN system? And how many decades would it take before every car had the requisite hardware installed?

I'm not advocating chip'n'pin...I think it would be unworkable, and wouldn't be all that defraud with an inclination.

Really, the point I was making was that it would aim to prevent people from causing the offence, rather than attempting to catch them while they're doing it...

The other alternative which I've seen proffered and which does have some advantages is that of abolising road tax and having every road user covered by a basic third-party liablity insurance...the cost of both of these then being factored into the cost of fuel prices.

It would probably cause a pretty steep increase in fuel prices, but would prevent people from avoiding either tax or insurance. This would also be more logical in a "the more you use the road, the more you pay" way...

Admittedly it wouldn't do much to verify against un-MOT'd vehicles...although I think the MOT is a bit flawed having seen the state of some 1 year old fleet vehicles - possibly having a yearly check on all cars would be a better idea than the current system. Then seeing as most filling stations now record licence plates anyway, an ANPR system could be integrated which would only allow cars which have a valid "roadworthy pass" status to fill up...

There would be ways round the system though.

Rob.

[Dr_Pepper]

An excellent idea Rob I'm totally with that. The total cost for drivers would be the same, and nobody can avoid it.

[cra]

I'm not advocating chip'n'pin...I think it would be unworkable' date=' and wouldn't be all that defraud with an inclination.

Really, the point I was making was that it would aim to prevent people from causing the offence, rather than attempting to catch them while they're doing it...

The other alternative which I've seen proffered and which does have some advantages is that of abolising road tax and having every road user covered by a basic third-party liablity insurance...the cost of both of these then being factored into the cost of fuel prices.

It would probably cause a pretty steep increase in fuel prices, but would prevent people from avoiding either tax or insurance. This would also be more logical in a "the more you use the road, the more you pay" way...

Admittedly it wouldn't do much to verify against un-MOT'd vehicles...although I think the MOT is a bit flawed having seen the state of some 1 year old fleet vehicles - possibly having a yearly check on all cars would be a better idea than the current system. Then seeing as most filling stations now record licence plates anyway, an ANPR system could be integrated which would only allow cars which have a valid "roadworthy pass" status to fill up...

There would be ways round the system though.

Rob.[/quote']

Rob

With the best will in the world we are ALWAYS going to need policemen and associated technology to detect and catch wrong-doers.

I agree that the MOT exemption for cars under 3 years should be scrapped.

The problem with scrapping road tax is that rural post offices will take a further hit (not good politically) - I agree in principle, though.

I'm not sure I agree about scrapping insurance, though. What would be the incentive for people to drive carefully if they didn't have a NCB to lose?

Cra

[robmawer]

The problem with scrapping road tax is that rural post offices will take a further hit (not good politically) - I agree in principle' date=' though.

I'm not sure I agree about scrapping insurance, though. What would be the incentive for people to drive carefully if they didn't have a NCB to lose?

[/quote']

Is road tax especially profitable for post offices? I really couldn't even begin to guess how much they make on doing this... :rubchin:

It wouldn't be scrapping insurance as such - merely integrating a very basic 3rd party liability insurance into a cost incurred by all motorists who fill up a car. Additional fully comp policies would still be available to supplement this.

I guess the NCB incentive question could currently be asked about those who don't drive with insurance, and also those who have "protected NCB"!

Rob.

[heresmo]

Road tax - throwing this one in:

Cars get clamped around here and I always look to ascertain what they did wrong. Yesterday, I saw one with the sticker "Car not taxed", I guess meaning both a fine and an "unclamping" charge.

Mo