|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2007 8:29:42 GMT
"the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) who could not see any justification for producing powerful vehicles that can reach speeds of more than twice the maximum speed limit and suggested that motorcycles be limited to 125cc" I missed this first time around.... Mmmmmm could be an interesting topic of conversation Yes I can see why we should all be limited to 125cc and cars shouldn't be over 600cc with 70mph limits for all. Mind you I could still then ride at 70 in a 30 zone so no advantage there then. Not likely to happen though, thankfully. |
|
|
|
Post by alpaholic on Apr 12, 2007 8:34:01 GMT
Mmmmmm could be an interesting topic of conversation Yes I can see why we should all be limited to 125cc and cars shouldn't be over 600cc with 70mph limits for all. Yeah, it's one of those things I disagree with but can't really frame a logical argument against. Like you say, it aint gonna happen. (Is this why Advanced riders all ride BMW twins?[1] So they already have the BHP of a 125?) [1] Yes, I know I'm a big fan of BMW twins but let's not dwell on that! |
|
|
|
Post by m40man on Apr 12, 2007 8:54:57 GMT
"the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) who could not see any justification for producing powerful vehicles that can reach speeds of more than twice the maximum speed limit and suggested that motorcycles be limited to 125cc" I missed this first time around.... But to be fair to RoSPA, you really should repeat the quote I provided in full.. "Mr Plowden agreed that it is hard to see why anyone except the police, military and emergency services, needs a powerful, heavy machine, as did the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) who could not see any justification for producing powerful vehicles that can reach speeds of more than twice the maximum speed limit and [he] suggested that motorcycles be limited to 125cc". By simply inserting a 'he' between the words 'and' and 'suggested', as I have done above, the meaning changes somewhat. That is actually how I read it. Surely, amongst the mixed messages coming from RoSPA (the mix being the difference between what they say & then what they actually do on the road, regarding speed limit adherence!), they can't be accused of being so daft? |
|
|
|
Post by alpaholic on Apr 12, 2007 10:19:15 GMT
"the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) who could not see any justification for producing powerful vehicles that can reach speeds of more than twice the maximum speed limit and suggested that motorcycles be limited to 125cc" I missed this first time around.... But to be fair to RoSPA, you really should repeat the quote I provided in full.. "Mr Plowden agreed that it is hard to see why anyone except the police, military and emergency services, needs a powerful, heavy machine, as did the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) who could not see any justification for producing powerful vehicles that can reach speeds of more than twice the maximum speed limit and [he] suggested that motorcycles be limited to 125cc". By simply inserting a 'he' between the words 'and' and 'suggested', as I have done above, the meaning changes somewhat. That is actually how I read it. I certainly didn't read it like that, but it is ambiguous, the first half of their comment would seem to be reasonable. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghoti on Apr 12, 2007 15:36:07 GMT
From MCN:
RoSPA misquoted in 'speed control' report
29 March 2007 12:27
A spokeman from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has revealed the organisation has been misrepresented in the Fifth Report on the Government's Motorcycling Strategy.
The report is the basis for new calls for motorcycle speed controls, and claims the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) had called for all bikes to be limited 125cc but a RoSPA spokesman said this was incorrect. He said "It implies that we've called for motorcycles to limited to 125cc which we have not done.
What RoSPA's view is I'm not sure. Last I heard they said lots moe research is needed into speed controls, there are obvious dangers to cutting a bikes power at the wrong time and that bike specific equipment is required rather than modified car equipment.
|
|
|
|
Post by CD on Apr 15, 2007 12:28:10 GMT
This week's MCN has an article with Hazel Blears backing biking. She's clearly got some sense, but its the others we need to worry about.
Remember these:
Dangerous dogs
Pole Tax
Hunting with dogs
etc
In this country its too easy for parliament to make new laws. None of the above were written properly or achieved what they were purported to do and only the pole tax got dumped.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpaholic on Apr 16, 2007 8:42:37 GMT
"RoSPA misquoted in 'speed control' report "
Fairy snuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by m40man on Apr 16, 2007 9:50:45 GMT
What RoSPA's view is I'm not sure. This thread is about speed limiters, but given your quote .... RoSpa's view appears to be: "A Feasibility Study into the development of intelligent speed adaptation devices for motorcycles is needed." (Source: www.rospa.org.uk/roadsafety/advice/motorcycling/policy.htm)Rather more direct that 'lots more research'. (Which, if that was their view, would be a nice way of saying 'bury this stupid idea in years of research, & quietly forget about it') As with other training organisations, RoSpa have a vested interest in pushing extra training into legislation. Some of their 'policy' conclusions are plain common-sense, understood for years. Eg, "Good motorcycle clothing can protect motorcyclists from the wet and cold and from some types of injury" I'm not really sure why this is in their policy statement - this isn't a policy, it's just an obvious common sense observation. But other bits would serve to increase the market for their 'products', like on the subject of ABS or linked braking - "It is important to ensure that riders understand how advanced braking systems work and receive training in their use." Underlining is mine. Why is the emphasis as high on training to use them, as on the rider understanding?? I can't help but be suspicious of motives when a financial interest is there. I guess this is my problem with such organisations. "Post-Test Training Recent years have seen significant developments in rider training. The Driving Standards Agency (DSA) is also working with motorcycling training providers to develop national standards for post-test training for all motorcyclists with full licences, particularly newly qualified riders, riders returning to motorcycling after a long break and riders who are changing to larger, more powerful machines. " Nice. All sounds quite laudable. But read this quote carefully, to realise the limitations (eg, further (perhaps banded) restrictions on capacity / output) that would be required, in order to 'permit' riders to move-up to bigger or more powerful machines. How many steps would be ideal to maximise the benefits? Are the benefits essentially that less riders ever get through the series of obstacles, so KSI stats drop numerically purely because more riders give up riding?? RoSPA is a campaining organsation, for safety, so doesn't have to be the motorcyclist's friend. Logically, it should be quite the opposite. Fair enough. It also needs to sell its services to survive (it is a reg charity but that doesn't alter this fact at all.) "Income grew by 15% to £1.9 million (this is just RoSPA's road services results) and contribution increased by £67k. Government funded programmes were all delivered to time and cost while margins in the fast-growing Driver & Fleet business were tight due to strong competition." My previous posts on this subject show my acceptance that the RoSPA view on speed limiters is not the same as the 'near-mis-quote' they objected to. But we shouldn't be surprised if their position is close to it. That's what RoSPA exists for. |
|
|
|
Post by CD on Apr 16, 2007 16:04:00 GMT
All very fine, but if RoSPA, UK Govt, etc really wanted to do something about road accidents they would quit the fixation on "excess" speed and make every one take refresher tests every few years. They always have lots of excuses as to why this can't be done, but the real reason is votes.
Too few average motorists (and maybe a lot of motorcyclists) could never achieve a good enough standard. Either that or the pass levels would be set so low that no-one would fail. Either way the Gov't would get a pasting from the press and back out. Who's forgotten what happened to Maggie after her Poll tax debacle.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpaholic on Apr 17, 2007 8:19:31 GMT
All very fine, but if RoSPA, UK Govt, etc really wanted to do something about road accidents they would quit the fixation on "excess" speed and make every one take refresher tests every few years. So true. We'd all hate it but it would make the roads safer. Also I can't help but wonder if a test that everyone can pass after one or two attempts is strict enough. Maybe the level of the test should be set such that the 20/30 per cent of worst co-ordinated drivers simply can't pass. (if it turns out I'm in that 20/30 per cent worst drivers then the policy should be re-considered). Speed enforcement is about revenue not safety, increasing road safety costs money it doesn't save it. |
|
|
|
Post by CD on Apr 17, 2007 10:05:21 GMT
Quote:
Speed enforcement is about revenue not safety, increasing road safety costs money it doesn't save it.
ABSOLUTELY
Though another money saving idea might actually work...
Trials are being done removing all the excess white lines, signs, chevron boards, etc. They give a false sense of security and lead to worse accidents. They also cause confusion that also leads to accidents.
|
|
