Euro transport authority questions need for “Motorcycle toys”

[Bob]

The Motorcycle Action Group (MAG) stepped in to defend biking against comments from an EU “expert”. A recent report from the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC), contains the following comments from Norwegian Rune Elvik:

“In Norway, I believe all the most cost effective measures have been implemented – mandatory helmet use, strict licensing, engine tuning ban, daytime running lights for motorbikes. The question that needs to be raised now is whether there should be any place for these motorised toys in the transport system at all.”

The Flemish Parliament in Belgium was presented with the ETSC report as a basis for legislation on motorcycle safety. Thankfully, MAG Belgium – with support from Belgian MPs - were able to successfully defend biking and were able to get their bike-friendly agenda adopted, by using the Federation of European Motorcyclists Associations’ (FEMA), European Agenda for Motorcycle Safety.

MAG’s General Secretary, Trevor Baird, said “Motorcycling is under constant threat from the European safety agenda. The introduction of this agenda has been thwarted in Belgium before it spreads further like a rash across Europe. MAG will continue to protect motorcycling and defend riders’ rights from whatever quarter the threat comes.”

[awayatc]

Scary, hope this doesn't give our do-gooders some ideas....

Last year alone 8264 people have been seriously injured falling of staircases. Lets ban multiple storied buildings.

Life is a sexualy transmitted terminal condition.... lets ban sex....(Would have saved us from Rune Elvik)

82.07% of the population dies in bed, so we ought to ban beds...or make sleeping illegal.....

Could somebody lock those sort of people up please, Quickly! before it catches on....look at Sue Bradford....

[spookytooth]

Scary,
....look at Sue Bradford....[/QUOTE]

you trying to make me chunder ?

[The Stranger:Me]

“In Norway, I believe all the most cost effective measures have been implemented – mandatory helmet use, strict licensing, engine tuning ban, daytime running lights for motorbikes. The question that needs to be raised now is whether there should be any place for these motorised toys in the transport system at all.”

Ok, the thing I don't get is this. Why do these types get so hell bent on trying to save me from me. FFS it's my choice! I know the risks and they should be mine to take.
They haven't thought it through. Imagine if they actually managed to save every unnecessary death on the planet. We'd all die from starvation. So let the one that want to have some fun and kill themselves do so for christs sake.

[davereid]

Ok, the thing I don't get is this. Why do these types get so hell bent on trying to save me from me. FFS it's my choice! I know the risks and they should be mine to take.

Just hang around kiwibiker a bit more.. you will see endless threads started by people concerned they saw a scooter rider without a jacket, or an expired WOF or an endless series of things that worry them senseless.

The idea of "live and let live" has long since been buried by years of safety indoctrination.

My grandkids are riding small motorbikes around the backyard.
I bet they won't see their grandkids on them though. In fact, allowing a child to do something so inherently dangerous would possibly result in you getting a visit from the CYPS-SS.

[James Deuce]

The idea of "live and let live" has long since been buried by years of safety indoctrination.

Don't worry mate, some of us are fighting back.

[ElCoyote]

[QUOTE
Could somebody lock those sort of people up please, Quickly! before it catches on....look at Sue Bradford....[/QUOTE]

Did once, still feeling queezy. Took 3 years to get over seeing Uncle Helen on a billboard last election...........oops farce.

[swbarnett]

Ok, the thing I don't get is this. Why do these types get so hell bent on trying to save me from me.

They actually think they're doing you a favour. The trouble is they are missing the two most important truths about life:

1. My life is exactly that MINE!

2. To "Live" and to "Survive" are not the same thing. They think that just because someone shows all the physiological signs they're alive.

[davereid]

They actually think they're doing you a favour. The trouble is they are missing the two most important truths about life:

1. My life is exactly that MINE!

2. To "Live" and to "Survive" are not the same thing. They think that just because someone shows all the physiological signs they're alive.

You are so right.

But sadly the Nanny state won't admit that you own your life.

It authorises itself to use violence to make sure you are safe, and productive.

Yes, I know that sounds like you are the property of the state, perhaps a slave even. And so are your children.

In the last few years your Nanny-owner has made a few decisions about your rights and obligations.

With due thanks to Peter Creswell who has summarised them:

We may not discipline our children
We may not let them eat tasty food
We must pay for hysterical advertising that treats adults like children
We must not watch advertising that treats us like adults
We may not drive fast cars in industrial areas at night
We may not climb tall ladders
We may not act in ways that Nanny deems "anti-social"
We may not buy vitamins and minerals without a prescription from Nanny
We may not drink alcohol in public places
We may not smoke cigarettes at work or in the pub
We may not smoke marijuana anywhere
We may not ride a bicycle without a helmet
We may not walk a poodle without a muzzle
We may not buy fireworks that go ‘Bang!’
We may not put up bright billboards or sandwich boards around our cities
We may not cut down trees on our own property
We may not repair our own property if Nanny says we can't
We may not plant trees on our own property without Nanny’s approval of the type of tree
We may not paint our houses in colours of which Nanny disapproves
We may not build houses at all where Nanny says we can’t
We may not advertise for young female employees
We may not open for business on days Nanny specifies
If we do open for business, we must act as Nanny's unpaid tax collectors
We may not fire staff who steal from us
We may not fire staff, whatever their employment contract says
We must surrender our children to Nanny’s factory schools
We must pay for teachers that can’t teach and for centres of education that aren’t
We must believe that Alan Bollard knows what he’s doing
We must believe that our money is not our own
We must not call bureaucrats “arseholes”
We must not offend people paid to boss us around with our money
We must answer stupid questions when Nanny asks us
We may not spend our own money in ways of which Nanny disapproves
We may not defend ourselves against people who try to kill us
We must pretend that snails are more important than we are
We must pretend that murderers are people too
We must pretend that totalitarian Islamists do not want us dead, that Castro’s hospitals are not abattoirs, and that Che Guevara was a humanitarian
We must apologise to tribalists for things we didn’t do
We must not offend criminals for things they did do
We must apologise to conservationists for things we need to do
We must apologise for success
We must ignore failure
We may not build new power stations that actually produce real power
We must not offend Gaia by driving big cars and enjoying overseas holidays … unless we’re a cabinet minister
We may not end our own lives when we choose
We must pay for art we don’t like and TV shows we don’t watch
We must pay middle class families to become welfare beneficiaries
We must pay no-hopers to breed

[Manxman]

Scary, hope this doesn't give our do-gooders some ideas....

Last year alone 8264 people have been seriously injured falling of staircases. Lets ban multiple storied buildings.

Life is a sexualy transmitted terminal condition.... lets ban sex....(Would have saved us from Rune Elvik)

82.07% of the population dies in bed, so we ought to ban beds...or make sleeping illegal.....

Could somebody lock those sort of people up please, Quickly! before it catches on....look at Sue Bradford....

...like your style...but unfortunatley 'tis too late for Sue. I can't wait for one of her, or Labour's ilk, to turn up on my doorstep during this coming election campaign. They won't wtf hit them when I climb into them about all the shite they have foisted upon us in the last wee while, and will be begging to leave (Reverse Jehovah's syndrome).

[dipshit]

FFS it's my choice! I know the risks and they should be mine to take.

With attitudes like this is it any wonder. You are forgetting that it is the state that has to pay for your attitude. In an age where new car safety features eventually become the norm and/or compulsory... motorcycles are practically in the dark ages as far as protection and survivability goes. This is not helped when some motorcyclists choose to not even wear a jacket or sometimes even a helmet. The small number of motorcycles on the road do soak up more than their fear share of money spent on treating road injuries.

So don't act surprised if some lawmakers and bean-counters responsible for road safety one day decide... "fuck it, lets just ban the lot of them".

Idiot motorcyclists will only have themselves to blame.

[scumdog]

I see another mountain climber has been found dead at Mount Cook.

Lets ban mountains........

[Ixion]

We need to ban boats too, because people get drowned, and sometimes boaties don't wear lifejackets and keep themselves clipped to the boat by ropes.

[dipshit]

Get over yourselves. Nobody could give a fuck if you live or die... what they are concerned about is taxpayers money being spent to support your lifestyle.

Nobody needs to climb a mountain. They do it for fun at their own risk. They also don't expect the taxpayer to pay for search and rescue to save their butts from the predicaments they put themselves in.

Boaties and mountaineers can be sent the bill for search and rescue. So yes, they can take the risk but they also pay the price.

[Ocean1]

In the last few years your Nanny-owner has made a few decisions about your rights and obligations.

With due thanks to Peter Creswell who has summarised them:

Nice, cheers.

With attitudes like this is it any wonder. You are forgetting that it is the state that has to pay for your attitude.

Who the fuck asked them to? Some of us are quite prapared to assume financial responsibility for ourselves, how much extra do you suppose we're paying for the damage cause by the "no fault" ACC cover?