are next ?
Posts 13 | Views 400
wots wunna them then?....this is a forum for islamaphobia and socialist propoganda
Manufacturers realised that people who are afriad will buy things to make them less afraid. Advertisers cottoned on, because safety has no snappy counterargument that a loud mouth cannot simply shout "So you think we should all be killed then!!!" over the top of (detailed arguments always lose to the loudmouths).
Then, politicians realised that they could make us agree to pretty much anything becuase it imporved safety; and there is no easy counter argument.
Now, manufacturers and government are in cahoots. Requirements to add saftey equipmet to everything and companies to sell it to us. Profits go back into ensuring the re-election of the saftey crowd. Its a perfect circle. Americans refer to these as Iron Triangles, as we have fused government, may I suggest an "Iron Circle" instead? Impossible to break, continually repeating the same sequence of events.
Fight Club warned us about this over a decade ago - you are not safe. you will never be safe. get over it and live your life; and stop buying crap that advertisers tell you to.
Will we listen before its too late?
Sticking to bikes, as I always do, without exception
It's a bit like compulsory ABS, for anything over 125cc. Or are those to be included now?
Rules (laws) saying you can't modify or sevice your own vehicle.
People should be able to choose between spending some of their life working, to pay for safety measures, or putting the fruits of their labours towards something else, and taking their chances.
Ya gotta nip these things in the bud. Think very first speed bumps.
don't give 'em ideas you fool
Motorcycling is something generally taken up by thrill seekers. Trying to force needless expensive safety legislation isn't going to make most of them buy new overpriced/ safety biased bikes.
I for one am not convinced by safety benefits of CBS, anti wheelie etc (I occassionally like to wheelie when circumstances allow). I'll not be going along to my local motorcycle dealer to buy a bike with airbags etc even if legislation dictates. I'll just keep and use existing 'dangerous' bikes.
worthy sentiments....but best hope we don't adopt a varient of law in some European countires where vehicles over X years old are banned form certain roads [notably city centres - under the guise of emmission regulation].
Becuase then, you masy have your "safer" modern bike, or none at all (on the roads anyway)
There are some but they're bloody complicated to put across in the face of "We're doing this for Your Safety". Put quickly (and simply 'cos I'm not that clever really!!) one of them is about the level of "Perceived Risk" Vs the Actual Risk. If you make the driver/rider feel safer within/on the vehicle they will then drive the vehicle in a manner to compensate the level of safety they feel is being provided to give them the risk feedback that human nature requires.
We're all different so our level of acceptable risk is different, so when we watch some of these vids on youtube some of us chuckle while other's do a sharp intake of breath! It's also why that whilst cars have got safer the overall K.S.I's (Killed & Seriously Injured) have stayed rather static.
As I say this is waaay over-simplifying the matter and all the while you've got a Gov't manipulating statistics to make us all "safer" which is a hell of a lot easier than the rebuff it requires.
Got to go back to work now (Phew I hear you cry!)
If History has taught us One thing....
It's We've learnt None of Histories Lessons!
Fair point but I would deffo disable ALL electronic supposed safety features fitted on the bike (I'm a design engineer by profession so producing hidden work arounds wont be that hard). These supposed safety features aren't wanted, needed or justified from my position (and might even cause more accidents) but others are welcome to their own point of view.
I thought this Department of Transport study was interesting too. It assesses the implications of an EU Directive which will permit 10% ethanol in petrol.
Government and safety
I don't know why they pick on motocyclists with regard to safety improvements, If I was them I would be more concerned about people jumping out of areoplanes with only a piece of silk to stop them exploded when they reach mother earth. What a pointless excercise if not just for the shear thrill of it.
Those vehicles not designed to cope with 10% ethanol in fuel.
Just to put my previous post in context, you might legally evade new EU safety and emissions regulations by keeping old bikes but that plan could have its own problems. If a vehicle wasn't designed to run with 10% ethanol the report suggests that standard forecourt petrol after 2013 could hasten its demise.
Indeed there are many compelling counter arguments. The strongest for me perhaps is the very simple "One day you WILL die, deal with that fact" especially when mated to "risk is inevitable and something you have to manage".
But, neither of these withstant the tabloid headline of "Government refuses to curb ultra-powerful death cycles!!"
the fact is
motorcycles irritate a lot of people, it is seen by some people as a non comformist mode of transport, so people will make money on the back of these in the slow erosion of one of the last land based freedoms(IN RELETIVE TERMS) the thing that worries me is insurance companies jump on the band wagon, phone up for quote has your bike got an airbag, it hasn't sorry we dont insure bikes without airbags,