QuoteMinisters are exploring the introduction of the devices - expected to cost hundreds of pounds - which automatically cut the throttle on motor-bikes to bring them within the speed limit.
Known as Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA), the devices will also be able to track bikers’ journeys and store data about each motorbike’s speed.
If further trials are successful, the devices could be brought in for cars and other vehicles in an attempt to drastically cut the death toll on the country’s roads.
To me this is dangerous (cutting the throttle while overtaking :blink:) as well as a huge intrusion of our civil liberties. Where will it stop, chipping at birth! :sideways:
I doubt it will happen though, too much money is made from speeding motorists in fines, the government won't want to stop the revenue stream.
Article in full
(http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/tracking-bikers-speed-smacks-of-big-brother)
I also would think that this would be dangerous.
Surely sometimes a biker needs to power out of a dangerous situation ?
PEN
Don't get me going about motorbikes and power. :ranting2:
Your right doorman.... why cant we have track power bikes on the road? I find production bikes just too damn slow..... :boxing:
Quote from: Whitey;173203To me this is dangerous (cutting the throttle while overtaking :blink:) as well as a huge intrusion of our civil liberties. Where will it stop, chipping at birth! :sideways:
I doubt it will happen though, too much money is made from speeding motorists in fines, the government won't want to stop the revenue stream.
Article in full
(http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/tracking-bikers-speed-smacks-of-big-brother)
If it didn't cut the throttle unless it was held open at length while your speed increased well beyond the limit (overtaking only takes a short moment and if the car in front is going at the limit you really have little case for going faster just to be in front :narnar:)
Second if it only transmitted the speed reading when you went over the limit knowingly (so ignoring occasional brief excesses (5-10 seconds) for avoiding danger by accelerating out or overtaking etc) would that be better.
Better just to get rid of this Nanny State Government:ranting2: :racing: :ph34r:
At risk of stirring wrath, what are you all so scared of?
If done sensibly there is no reason it would be a problem, bike / car / bmx, speed limits may need reviewing, but do you need a bike that tops 150? um.....no.
Quote from: Benny;173339At risk of stirring wrath, what are you all so scared of?
If done sensibly there is no reason it would be a problem, bike / car / bmx, speed limits may need reviewing, but do you need a bike that tops 150? um.....no.
Do you
need a car that goes over 35mph and an engine larger than 500cc? No.
What's that - the NSL is 60mph? Well that can easily be fixed.
But I digress. One scenario among many: Reducing a car's speed arbitrarily whilst cornering is vastly different to doing the same to a bike. On a bike, the inertia translates to weight on the front wheel causing "dive" and compression of the front shocks and an unbalanced bike halfway round a corner which, with the bike leaning, will cause a lowside. Into a soft verge if you're very, very lucky on a right-hand corner, under the wheels of oncoming traffic on a left-hander if you're not. Either way, you, the bike or both - plus any number of other road users are comprehensively f***ed.
Yes, I can see how that would cut road deaths.:blink:
Oh, and I'll bet that speed snooping transponder would be completely useless in aiding the emergency service to the crash site.
The BMF (government arse-kissing biking lobbyist organisation) said:
QuoteThe BMF PTS Committee agreed that while a voluntary speed advisory system might well have its advantages from a rider perspective in helping to avoid inadvertent speeding, actual intervention, by whatever means, is unacceptable.
MAG (Motorcycle Action Group) were more forthright:
QuoteMAG President Ian Mutch was emphatic about the issue. "Let's keep this one simple, we don't want it, not today not tomorrow - not ever."
I'm with MAG on this one. I'd rather not let the Safety Nazis take over my life, thanks.
[/FONT]
Quote from: Benny;173339If done sensibly
I have found the flaw in your logic. You really expect the government would do this sensibly?
Goverment and logic and/or sensible shouldnt be in the same line. KISS, ppl that speed on a motorbike choose to do so, meaning they choose to have a greater risk of accidents then a biker that keeps to speed limit. Why bother with a lot of money to try and prevent? Theyll prob find a way to undo it, and it risks other bikers due to way system works.
Quote from: Bastet;173377......Why bother with a lot of money to try and prevent?
...Ask Mrs. Doorman, or anyone else who's been run over by a twat on a bike.
They are many sensible and responsible bikers out there (as there are car drivers). There are also a bunch of prats (as there are car owners).
I've had one close friend killed whilst riding his bike (and he was a sensible rider) and another almost killed.
Personally I'd ban them altogether - I've seen enough friends buried.
PEN
Quote from: DogMeat;173367
Do you need a car that goes over 35mph and an engine larger than 500cc? No.
What's that - the NSL is 60mph? Well that can easily be fixed.
ignoring the obvious bait...
QuoteBut I digress. One scenario among many: Reducing a car's speed arbitrarily whilst cornering is vastly different to doing the same to a bike. On a bike, the inertia translates to weight on the front wheel causing "dive" and compression of the front shocks and an unbalanced bike halfway round a corner which, with the bike leaning, will cause a lowside. Into a soft verge if you're very, very lucky on a right-hand corner, under the wheels of oncoming traffic on a left-hander if you're not. Either way, you, the bike or both - plus any number of other road users are comprehensively f***ed.
[/FONT]Would Monkeys solution not make sense?
Quote from: MonkeyBoyIf it didn't cut the throttle unless it was held open at length while your speed increased well beyond the limit (overtaking only takes a short moment and if the car in front is going at the limit you really have little case for going faster just to be in front :narnar:)
Second if it only transmitted the speed reading when you went over the limit knowingly (so ignoring occasional brief excesses (5-10 seconds) for avoiding danger by accelerating out or overtaking etc) would that be better.
I do see your point and do agree, but you must admit there is some mileage in it - no pun intended.
I do speed on occasion, I don't in a 30, I do on a motorway if it's clear, but for every 50 sensible speeders (sounds like a game) there's one twat who wipes out a family. Is it worth having some control somewhere? I'm talking all transport now, not just bikes.
Quote from: Benny;173391ignoring the obvious bait...
[/font]Would Monkeys solution not make sense?
I do see your point and do agree, but you must admit there is some mileage in it - no pun intended.
I do speed on occasion, I don't in a 30, I do on a motorway if it's clear, but for every 50 sensible speeders (sounds like a game) there's one twat who wipes out a family. Is it worth having some control somewhere? I'm talking all transport now, not just bikes.
OK, let me put it another way...
Would you like to have a civil servant sitting next to
you in
your car grabbing the wheel and trying to use the controls while you're driving?
Remember, these are the people who pish away
billions of taxpayers money on government computer systems that never work. Are these
really the sort people you would trust with
your family's lives every time you get in the car with them?
The only person who should be in control of a vehicle is the driver/rider. If you want to raise their standard, train them better.
Quote from: DogMeat;173439If you want to raise their standard, train them better.
:thumb:
My dad said....
"there's only 2 types of biker, those that have had an accident, and those that are going to have an accident"
After 25 years attending road accidents, I have come to the conclusion that cars/railings/trees/dry-stone walls/kerbs/mobile cranes/lamp posts/just about everything are hard, and bikers are soft.
my 2 years on a bike was the scariest 2 years of my life...
the scariest bit was that I wanted a faster bike:crazy:
I'm glad I came to my senses.
I've got 1 son who's passed his (car) test, he's in uni with no car...Tox is about to take his car test in feb, and a 14 year old daughter who's bagged my '68 mini cooper (lookylikey)...
it's stressful enough worrying about them in cars...I'd never sleep if one got a bike:sad:
Quote from: Blunt;173447My dad said....
"there's only 2 types of biker, those that have had an accident, and those that are going to have an accident"
I always heard it was that there were only two types of driver: those that have hit a biker, and those that are going to hit a biker.
Meh.
Quote from: DogMeat;173439If you want to raise their standard, train them better.
Good idea. It has one serious flaw though. You can train a kid to the highest degree but you wont be able to do anything about the extremely high levels of testosterone in them. (to be fair, most of them try to rid themselves of excess testosterone by spitting in the street, but that another meh) Highly trained or not, there's a large section of them that are convinced that they could show Valentino Rossi a thing or two! Or those in their 1200cc Corsas who know better than Schumacher.
Just in case anyone thinks I'm anti bike, I'm not. I'd love a motorcycle.
Doggers, you're speaking from the point of view of a man with experience and seem to think anyone that rides a bike also has that experience. Not so. The guy that hit my wife NOW has the experience to know that you can't see round blind bends, I doubt he'll make that mistake again.
Nothing will change though. I was no better in my youth, the saving grace was that the roads were emptier then. There is now no longer a 'quiet' period.
Mmm, that looks about 20c worth.
While I agree that a device that actively cuts the throttle is a bit stupid because it cannot know if there is a good/legitimate reason for the excessive speed, and would be more likely to cause accidents than prevent them, transmitting back to a base that "bike A" just broke the speed limit for a 30-mile stretch by some margin is something that the driver/owner of the bike would have to answer for.
I think that on one hand it's a great idea because it'd do away with speed cameras. I find speed cameras really distracting - if you've not got cruise control and want to keep a car at 70mph (or thereabouts) on the motorway it requires you to constantly check your speedo to make sure you've not crept too far over 70 at any time. A combination of cruise control (which can be over-ridden if you stomp on the accelerator or brake) and speed-checker should work okay. Legitimate speeding is generally short-lived - to get out of danger, to complete an overtake fast enough, etc - but anything much longer is just gratuitous.
Perhaps you could apply to take an advanced driving test where your reactions and skills and sensibility are tested. This advanced license could give you the right to go faster as you are indeed a better driver. However, any violations or abuse etc then it gets revoked.
In reality they've been talking about doing this to cars for a while already (the tracking part, the auto-braking part happens when accidents appear to be imminent and cars are capped at 155 due to tire limits and autobahn limits I assume?)
I'm with D "I'm talking sense here people" M on this one.
Responsibility will always be with the person in control of the vehicle, whether it is an 18 year old on a bike or in a car, but the bike rider (in most cases Ron) is far more vunerable, causes less damage overall and can't take three of his mates with him when he wants to impress them with his "clever (stupid) driving".
Limiting the capacity of bikes up to the age of 21 would be an idea that, whilst frustrating some, would still give the majority the feel for the bike and those that loved it enough would be more mature at 21 when they were able to get a bigger bike.
Of course you could argue that programmes like Top Gear, with their outrageous testing of supercars, encourages young car drivers to be reckless and promotes less desirable driving habits in the young........so none of you would mind if it wasn't on again then?!!:devil:
Oh, and Ron, there is always Castration to dispose of that testosterone:woot2: :woot2:
For all those in favour of such measures let me put it simply for you. I don't support this for one reason, that is it would make us acustome to yet another form of control. To anyone here who like playing computer games..... support this and next time they might pick something YOU LIKE!!
Maybe soon after they will introduce a rule that will make your PC quit a game after 1 hour game play.... its for your health and saftey you understand!!!!!
Why do we keep having so many restrictions put on our actions all as always supported by unsound facts, that are belivable to the lay-man.
(I suspect my spelling is at that of sheepy standard at the mo, forgive me it happens when I'm seeing red and about to wang a laptop through my front window).
I have to say its not just bikes that re going to be hit with a black box in the car. The idea of it being able to control the throttle though is way out of order.
I have this posted on another forum.
Sign up if you'd prefer NOT to have some dodgy tracking device installed in your car.
The government's proposal to introduce road pricing will mean you having to purchase a tracking device for your car and paying a monthly bill to use it. The tracking device will cost about £200 and in a recent study by the BBC, the lowest monthly bill was £28 for a rural florist and £194 for a delivery driver. A non working Mum who used the car to take the kids to school paid £86 in one month. On top of this massive increase in tax, you will be tracked. Somebody will know where you are at all times. They will also know how fast you have been going, so even if you accidentally creep over a speed limit in time you can probably expect a Notice of Intended Prosecution with your monthly bill.
If you care about our freedom and stopping the constant bashing of the car driver, please sign the petition on No 10's new website (link below) and pass this on to as many people as possible.
The idea of tracking every vehicle at all times is sinister and wrong. Road pricing is already here with the high level of taxation on fuel. The more you travel - the more tax you pay.
It will be an unfair tax on those who live apart from families and poorer people who will not be able to afford the high monthly costs.
Please Mr Blair - forget about road pricing and concentrate on improving our roads to reduce congestion.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/