Hmm. I've had a change of attitude on this hi-viz thing

[Berries]

Berries post didn't have time of day or place etc but was a blanket statement about "arrogant wankers" who had their headlights on full.

The person in question could have just forgotton to dip them.

Middle of the day, perfect conditions. At night I can forgive someone for forgetting to turn them off. Nearly.

And yes, it is an offence-

8.3 Use of motor vehicle lighting equipment on road
(1) A person must not use vehicle lighting equipment in such a way that it dazzles, confuses, or distracts so as to endanger the safety of other road users.
(2) If a vehicle’s headlamps are in use, a driver must dip those headlamps—
(a) whenever they would be likely to interfere adversely with the vision of another driver in motion on a road; or...........

[Ocean1]

High beam will mask the vehicle behind it making it impossible see what is generating the light source - in some circumstances.

I'm finding I have that problem recently seeing past signage on corners. There's a couple near home here where some big chevron signs are exactly perpendicular to oncomming traffic, can't see a fucking thing beyond them at night.

[caspernz]

I'm finding I have that problem recently seeing past signage on corners. There's a couple near home here where some big chevron signs are exactly perpendicular to oncomming traffic, can't see a fucking thing beyond them at night.

Yeah, I find the same with some roundabouts being littered with either loads of signs at the wrong height or simply planted with greenery that makes sightlines a joke...

[James Deuce]

Yellow ones are way worse than the old white chevrons.

[Bassmatt]

I'm finding I have that problem recently seeing past signage on corners. There's a couple near home here where some big chevron signs are exactly perpendicular to oncomming traffic, can't see a fucking thing beyond them at night.

They are probably considered a "traffic calming" device, all the better to make you slow down cos speed kills remember.

[Berries]

Nah, they are installed wrong. It's a particularly bad problem for elderly people because their eyes take even longer to refocus after being dazzled at night.

[James Deuce]

Nah, they are installed wrong. It's a particularly bad problem for elderly people because their eyes take even longer to refocus after being dazzled at night.

Watch it sonny!

[Spazman727]

I don't. All "safety" measures are fundamentally pointless in regard to riding a motorcycle. State sponsored legal compulsion has a name. It kind of escapes me. Begins with "F", ends with stifling creativity, difference and ultimately killing people who don't meet the legal definition of "normal".
IT'S BORING!

I like that coming from the Grammar Nazi.

From a utilitarian point of view, no one other than the individual concerned should be able to impose personal safety measures on someone to prevent harm to themselves, unless they are mentally incapable of understanding the implications of their actions i.e a child can legitimately be prevented from doing something which will cause themselves harm because they do not yet posses the faculties required to realise that what they are doing may cause them harm. so, that essentially means that the state should not legislate that people must wear helmets because they (presumably) understand the risks etc of not wearing one, and the only physical harm that can be done is to the rider themselves. However, there are other harms that can be done to other people which result from a rider who is not wearing a helmet if they crash, i.e the riders family who lose a loved one and a possible source of financial support. so therefore, the state does have a right to make the wearing of a helmet while riding compulsory as there is evidence (somewhere) that says that helmets can reduce head injuries and death in the event of a crash.
On the point of Hi Vis however, there is little or no data to support that they make a rider more visible and so less likely to be hit, so therefore, the state has no right to force someone to wear hi vis.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but maybe its food for thought?

[James Deuce]

I like that coming from the Grammar Nazi.

From a utilitarian point of view, no one other than the individual concerned should be able to impose personal safety measures on someone to prevent harm to themselves, unless they are mentally incapable of understanding the implications of their actions i.e a child can legitimately be prevented from doing something which will cause themselves harm because they do not yet posses the faculties required to realise that what they are doing may cause them harm. so, that essentially means that the state should not legislate that people must wear helmets because they (presumably) understand the risks etc of not wearing one, and the only physical harm that can be done is to the rider themselves. However, there are other harms that can be done to other people which result from a rider who is not wearing a helmet if they crash, i.e the riders family who lose a loved one and a possible source of financial support. so therefore, the state does have a right to make the wearing of a helmet while riding compulsory as there is evidence (somewhere) that says that helmets can reduce head injuries and death in the event of a crash.
On the point of Hi Vis however, there is little or no data to support that they make a rider more visible and so less likely to be hit, so therefore, the state has no right to force someone to wear hi vis.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this, but maybe its food for thought?

What bilge! What does "grammar" have to do with my position, wall of text man?

Helmets make bureaucrats feel good. The lines between fine, disturbed, scrambled, and vegetable are not distinct. Head injuries are a spectrum disorder. The mildest head injury still affects family, financially, emotionally, and often physically.

We live in a civilised society. I'm tired of the line that families must bear the burden of a "loved one's" rehabilitation or ongoing care. We ALL do. Make an effort to keep up or move back to that damn cave.

[Berries]

However, there are other harms that can be done to other people which result from a rider who is not wearing a helmet if they crash, i.e the riders family who lose a loved one and a possible source of financial support. so therefore, the state does have a right to make the wearing of a helmet while riding compulsory as there is evidence (somewhere) that says that helmets can reduce head injuries and death in the event of a crash.

I imagine if you look hard enough you might find some evidence that riding a motorbike is dangerous as well. Should the state have the right to say what form of transport you should use to prevent harm to loved ones?

[Conquiztador]

Well see... The society we live in does today change rapidly. Things we took for granted yesterday are not tolerated anymore today, and things we have just learnt to live with will change tomorrow.

My gripe with all this is that nothing is planned properly. All new rules and regulations are ad hoc. And more often than not as a result of a knee jerk reaction to something that has just happened. If you did run a business in that fashion you would very soon end up closing your door.

Personally I think the main cause for all this is the erosion of our personal responsibility. If people fuck up today they look for someone else to blame. So the ones that have been blamed in the past have become scared and try to cover them self for any possibility. But by doing this they are actually adding to the problem, as now people start to rely on there being a rule/policy/law/regulation for anything and everything. And if they manage to find a loop hole and injure them self by riding a bike while holding a pair of sissors and they then stab them self in the leg while turning, it has to be someone elses fault. So if there is no law stating that you can not ride a bike with a pair of sissors in your hand, then they will blame it on the ones who did not put that law in place. One of the most stupid things I have seen is the sticker on rearview mirrors that state: "Warning, the image in the mirror will look smaller than it actually is" or something to that effect. I have not done any research in to this, but would expet that the text is there so they do not get sued by some muppet who do not know how to use a mirror.

Re the dayglow vest issue; I will never wear one. I take 100% responsibility for my own riding and the only thing I do agree with Katman on is that if I crash it is because I fucked up. Be it that I smashed in to a grandma who came out from a driveway, I slammed in to a big pothole in the road or I find my self needed to be peeled of the radiator of a bus. It does not matter. I should have anticipated it. The dayglow vest will do absolutley nothing one way or another.

[Oakie]

Re the dayglow vest issue; I will never wear one. I take 100% responsibility for my own riding and the only thing I do agree with Katman on is that if I crash it is because I fucked up.

What if you're sitting somewhere in a stream of traffic and get slammed from behind? Not your fault. You can take 100% responsibility but there are circumstances that you cannot control. (Although admitedly whenever I stop in a stream of traffic I always check the mirrors. Saved me once too.)

[Conquiztador]

What if you're sitting somewhere in a stream of traffic and get slammed from behind? Not your fault. You can take 100% responsibility but there are circumstances that you cannot control. (Although admitedly whenever I stop in a stream of traffic I always check the mirrors. Saved me once too.)

Same applies: I am the only one in charge of my decision makings. If I am not alert and have an escape plan no matter where I am or what I am doing while on my bike and something goes wrong, it is my fault. And if you think I would need a dayglow vest when I sit in the traffic so that some half blind cager won't hit me, then we are fucked anyhow, as the way the whole issue is handled is not addressing the issue.

[MSTRS:Me]

One of the most stupid things I have seen is the sticker on rearview mirrors that state: "Warning, the image in the mirror will look smaller than it actually is" ...

Thank the yanks. Their litigious society is all-pervading.
The people that brought you "Caution: contents may be hot" on coffee-to-go cups. Oh - and one about remaining in the driver's seat when using cruise control...

[Spazman727]

What bilge! What does "grammar" have to do with my position, wall of text man?

I wasn't having a go at you, I thought it was funny what you said. No, grammar has nothing to do with it, I just found the way you worded it amusing. And with my wall of text, I was trying to point out how ridiculous it is that the state tries to legislate all this stuff to protect individuals. It can go so far that the state will prevent anyone doing anything.