Forum

[Rattlebattle]

I'm not against ABS per se; I've owned 5 bikes that had it. I find it sad that some people would reject a bike because it doesn't have ABS. Oh, and two of my bikes were bought new since September last year, so I'm hardly hanging in to old bikes even though they don't have ABS. That said I do also have a positive death trap of a bike by some people's standards - a 1954 Triumph Tiger 100 with half width SLS drum brakes, 6 volt dynamo lights and an 8 axis swinging arm mount (or so it seems). I ride that in a leather jacket and jeans too. How have I lived so long I wonder? The answer of course is the reverse of the Volvo syndrome that many choose to adopt. Maybe the standard of driving would improve if instead of an air bag there was a bl**dy big spike that shot out of the steering wheel when a frontal impact occurred.

[apparently lucky eddie]

My '63 Tiger 90 has always had ABS. The first owner had to Anticipate Braking Sometime and 53 years later it's still as bad.

[Bertie the Bullet]

Guess its because I have only been riding a few years and dont know any different but for someone to say they dont like being told what to do when the benefits to you are obvious, such as wearing a helmet, ABS brakes, wearing gloves etc etc it just seems crazy to me to complain about it. i wouldnt even contemplate going out without a helmet/gloves/various pads in my kelvar clothing, lights and ABS are an added bonus, I wonder if some people forget that riding 40 or 50 years ago wasnt half as dangerous as it is nowadays because there was no where near the amount of traffic and the general pace was slower, and lets face it the driving standard was much better.. just my opinion.

[Rattlebattle]

I dispute your assertion that the riding/driving standard was better 40/50 years ago. To pass the test back then (even if you took one; my Dad never did - he learned in the army) was farcically simple compared to today's borderline incomprehensible system. Have you never read about the rocker era when bikers tried to do the ton between cafes etc? They were riding bikes with skinny tyres with relatively poor grip (sometimes down to the canvas). The single leading shoe front brakes were next to useless, a feature shared with the lights. There were two plus points - the lack of traffic, as you have mentioned, and the vastly superior acceleration of larger bikes compared to the average car of the day. Today's equivalent is probably the race rep rider pulling a wheelie at 80-90mph. In either case one grows out of it, if you survive. I still advocate personal responsibility over compulsion. A life without risk is a life half-lived in my book. FWIW I always wear gloves and helmet.

[2cvandy]

Well,,, speaking as someone who started riding 41 years ago,,,, I am opposed to compulsory safety kit.

Wear whatever makes you comfortable on your bike by all means, if folk are more comfortable with "all the gear all the time" that's fine by me. Just don't expect me to do the same. I don't jump on my bike expecting to have an accident or get injured, I know these things are possible of course, but I'd much rather rely on my skill and judgement to avoid an accident in the first place than to rely on what I'm wearing to keep me safe.

I live in France, and we've recently had gloves made compulsory for both rider and pillion. That seems perfectly sensible you might think, and to be fair I do always wear gloves, I always have, mainly because I find it uncomfortable to ride without. But the French government went one step further and said we all have to wear CE approved gloves. Now me and my missus have 3 pairs of bike gloves each, summer, winter, and spring / autumn, and only 1 pair out of the 6 has a CE label. Obviously we are not going to rush out and replace 5 pairs of perfectly serviceable gloves, so we are now law breakers.

The ABS issue is slightly different, on the one hand it can shorten stopping distances in the wet, on the other hand there will now be riders who've never ridden a bike without it, so best hope they never decide to buy a classic bike then?

There was a huge debate in the UK bike press back in the 1980s around "risk compensation theory". The idea that if you gave someone a car fitted with all the latest safety aids they would then take more risks because they felt "safe". A few years ago I was parked up in my Humber Super Snipe in a small town in northern Spain and an English guy with a new Mercedes SL parked next to me. He then started to tell me that my car was dangerous because it didn't have seat belts and went on to tell me that his was the safest car currently on the market because of it's computer controlled suspension. He actually said "you cannot roll this car, I know, I've tried"!

What worries me is that now people are buying bikes that they expect will get them out of trouble with traction control, ABS, etc.

I'm just glad I learnt to ride / drive at a time when we actually had to learn how to control all that stuff ourselves.

[nigelphoto]

The last two posts by Rattlebattle and 2cvandy are two of the most sensible posts I've seen on a Forum for a long time. I passed my test in 1964 and I'm still alive! I do wear full safety gear and ride with lights on (although on my MZ with 6v the headlight is 'candle in the wind') and I abide by the Highway Code and I don't exceed the speed limit but the is that my father and his father before him fought 2 world wars so that I can enjoy the freedom NOT to be told by the State what to wear, whether I have ABS on my bike, whether to put my lights on, whatever else all 'for my own safety'. Why should a motorcyclist going about his/her business be criminalised for wearing gloves which are not CE approved? Its absolute Bollox with a capital 'B'!

[beamish]

I have really enjoyed this debate. Made me think of my Grandfather who took his own Douglas "fore and aft" to the WW1 trenches. He came back, the bike did not. He was a great believer in individual responsibility, exercised responsibly. His mantra was: "Here lies the body of Sir Henry Gray, who died defending his right of way, he was right perfectly right as he sped along, but he's just as dead as if he were wrong!"
I've relished 50 years of motorcycling, and I've been lucky. Just enjoyed a bracing ride across the moors to Hebden Bridge. The road damp and inclined to Autumnal slime. Inspite of no ABS, I survived! A minor miracle!

[Scalyback]

It's very comforting to read these posts and to realise that there are intelligent people who can think for themselves. I wonder why the government does not realise that people have this facility?



"But hey... My new bike will have ABS, so I can do 100 MPH up to the traffic lights and still be safe....." right!

Another trouble... with all the modern systems, vehicles (4 wheels) have become very easy to drive. You don't need to concentrate anymore no clutch and scraping gear changes, cancelling indicators, all that stuff, so you can drive along with the car pretty much looking after itself, allowing you to think about that new jacket that you would like to buy... BA_DONK... Oh heck, what was that?

[Scalyback]

In the USA, they just added a jumper cable. Remove it and the lights worked as before.






No idea if this applies to UK or not...

[tribonnie]

Here's a thought. Let's supposed after 40 years of safe drivng god forbid you have an accident, damage your bike and, more importantly, damage another vehicle or person. What do you think your insurance company is going to say or what do you think the police or magistrate is going to say. I doubt whether it will be "oh yes you do make a very good argument, and of course i will pay to repair your bike" or maybe the judge saying "good point and in that case i wont fine you". Last time I looked it was 2016. Richard