This Forum is now CLOSED use the link to get more details viewtopic.php?f=4&t=13925
User avatar
By Scalyback
#64886
Yes, I could not work out who tribonnie was replying to ether?
By nigelphoto
#64887
Scaly - the vid clip unfortunately doesn't apply here in the UK as the 2016 models came through with no switch so it would need an ancillary switch and a lot more mucking about. I did have a look but I've given up and just go with the flow. As the newer alternators charge right down to idle then we're not going to get a big bill at the end of the quarter!
By 2cvandy
#64888
I'm assuming tribonnie, your reply was referring to altering a hard wired headlamp to be switchable? But like Scalyback I'm not entirely sure.

Again though, (as with everything) there are two sides to the headlamp argument. Yes, it seems obvious that a bike with it's headlamp on will be easier to spot than one without, but in bright sunlight? As I said earlier, I live in France, headlamps are compulsory here for bikes (with the exception of some vintage bikes where the electrical system just couldn't cope) so yes, I ride with the light on all the time. But I know that on a bright day, with the light behind me, it won't be seen. So I ride in black clothing, not the best for visibility you might think, but what better colour to offer a silhouette against a bright background?

A few years back the government here were proposing that all vehicles should have headlamps on all the time, utterly pointless IMHO because then the bikes would be lost in a sea of other lights, but some government expert thought it was a good idea. It just goes to prove to me that we shouldn't just accept every "safety" measure without questioning it and examining it properly.

As I understand it, all new bikes in the UK will now be sold with their headlamps wired to come on with the ignition, but there is no legal requirement for bikes to have the headlamp on whilst on the road. Until and unless that situation changes I can see no reason why it's any business of a magistrate or insurance company if individuals decide to fit a switch to the headlamp of their own bike.

I used to think that people generally, and bikers in particular, were smart enough to figure out when a headlamp might be useful, sadly it seems many folk are loosing the ability to think for themselves and take responsibility for their own safety.

On a slightly tangential note, and I'm not saying you are one of these people necessarily tribonnie, because I don't know you. But in recent years I've noticed an increasing tendency for newcomers to bikes, people who've just been through the training, been lectured on "all the gear all the time", had it drummed into them how dangerous bikes are,,,,, to sit in judgement on people who like to make their own judgments about what's safe and what's not. So here's the thing,,, I've been riding 41 years. I've always worn a helmet because they were already compulsory 41 years ago. I always wear gloves because I find it uncomfortable to ride without them. I normally wear boots, except for the odd test run round the block in my "garage slippers" after a repair or service. I will ride in T shirt and jeans if the temp is above 30 degrees, I'd rather be comfortable and have my wits about me than be stifling in gear that might prevent injury if I crash, far better not to crash in the first place.

Now some of you will agree with the above, many of you will not. But those are my choices, based on 41 years experience and my judgment of the risks involved, and when I've been doing those things for that long without a problem, it's kind of hard to stomach being told it's wrong or dangerous.
By Vikinglynn
#64890
Hi Folks: Stateside, in Kansas, we got the helmet law revoked a couple of decades ago, while neighboring Missouri still requires its use. Regulations are determined state by state; older bikes dont require day lighting; our warm summers find few bikers wearing gloves, etc. That said, I wear boots, leather jackets and long pants year round. Recall the old axiom: "There are two types of bikers: those who have gone down and those who will."
By Rattlebattle
#64891
I agree entirely with 2cvandy. I started riding in 1968, before helmets were compulsory. Once or twice in the summer I rode without a helmet (bear in mind also that pre and immediately post-war nearly everyone did. Risk compensation theory applied to me on those few occasions when I rode bare-headed. It is the same theory that explains why, statistically, older drivers have fewer accidents i.e. because they compensate automatically for their slower reflexes by driving more slowly and leaving a bigger gap between the vehicle in front and their car/bike. I found that I didn't much care for the wind rushing through my long (I wish now...) hair, so unless riding in a field when camping I choose to wear a helmet. With regard to seat belts, I am in favour of compulsion despite the fact that under certain circumstances they can cause injury. In my young and wild days I briefly owned a Triumph TR4 sports car. One night I lost the rear end at 80mph going round a bend on a dual carriageway. The car spun, hit the central reservation and took off. It inverted mid-air and landed upside down on a brick wall, demolishing the windscreen. We all fell out through the hood. If we had been wearing seat belts we would probably have been decapitated. Despite that I always wear a seat belt - something to do with the likelihood part of the risk assessment. I feel also that we need to distinguish between things that mitigate the impact of a risk event e.g. a crash occurring such as helmets and gloves and things that claim to reduce the likelihood of a risk event happening e.g. ABS. These two aspects are distinct and in my view it's wrong to treat them as the same in arguing one's case.
By papasmurf
#64892
I hope the ride naked brigade never has to have a surgeon remove gravel from their backside with a wire brush.
By 2cvandy
#64893
I don't recall anyone advocating riding naked, but if that's what floats your boat,,,,,, But like I said, there are two sides to every argument, and I would argue that if anyone has so little faith in their ability to remain upright, then maybe they shouldn't be riding a bike in the first place?
By papasmurf
#64894
It isn't personal expertise in riding motorcycles that is the problem it is the generally very bad driving skills of car drivers. Try riding a motorcycle in Cornwall during the tourist season, there are around 1/2 a dozen near death experiences per mile due to drivers who can't drive and/or are using a mobile phones.
By nigelphoto
#64895
Papasmurf - what about the 'very bad driving skills of motorcyclists'? The figures for Staffordshire are probably indicative of what is happening in the rest of the country but over the past five years there were 261 KSI motorcycle accidents of which 128 were attributed to error on behalf of the rider, or 49%. Unfortunately the 'old view' that its always the (whatever German car you hate most) driver's fault, which indeed it might well be, doesn't help to keep us alive. The only way is for bikers to ride with a 'React or Die' attitude towards every other class of road user. It might well be a car driver's fault because they broke the 'rules' but the blame game ain't going to help the grieving rellies. If you are interested in bike safety this website goes some way to providing some answers https://nosurprise.org.uk
By papasmurf
#64896
Motorcyclists with bad skills with few exceptions die early, or don't last long.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 8

Shop for accessories at Hitchcocks Motorcycles