Biker's targeted again.

Whitey · January 15, 2007, 01:52:07 PM

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

Penfold · January 15, 2007, 04:28:53 PM

I also would think that this would be dangerous.

Surely sometimes a biker needs to power out of a dangerous situation ?

PEN

Doorman · January 15, 2007, 04:34:16 PM

Don't get me going about motorbikes and power. :ranting2:

Stryker · January 15, 2007, 04:50:35 PM

Your right doorman.... why cant we have track power bikes on the road? I find production bikes just too damn slow..... :boxing:

suicidal_monkey · January 15, 2007, 05:19:56 PM

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

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.

Dingo · January 15, 2007, 07:29:31 PM

Better just to get rid of this Nanny State Government:ranting2: :racing: :ph34r:

Benny · January 16, 2007, 09:57:30 AM

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.

DogMeat · January 16, 2007, 01:28:00 PM

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]

Carr0t · January 16, 2007, 02:15:06 PM

Quote from: Benny;173339If done sensibly

I have found the flaw in your logic. You really expect the government would do this sensibly?

Bastet · January 16, 2007, 02:25:53 PM

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.

Penfold · January 16, 2007, 02:47:49 PM

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

Benny · January 16, 2007, 03:48:52 PM

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.

DogMeat · January 16, 2007, 11:13:53 PM

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.

delanvital · January 16, 2007, 11:32:07 PM

Quote from: DogMeat;173439If you want to raise their standard, train them better.

:thumb:

Blunt · January 17, 2007, 12:45:16 AM

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: