Should motorbikes be banned?

zbluebirdz

VinLieger wrote: »

Originally Posted by rjpf1980
Cyclists should pass tests pay tax and have licences.

They do pay tax, the vast majority of cyclists also own cars so therefore they also pay road tax, so they would also have to pass a test and also own a driving license.

Your arguments are all ridiculous and incredibly uninformed btw, did you have a bit of a scare on the way home from the shopping yesterday or something?

Cyclists don't pay tax directly.

By using your logic, a person should only pay the annual vehicle tax once - regardless of how many transportation devices he/she owns (truck, van, car, motorbike, bicycle, skateboard, roller skates, segway ....). I love to pay only once ... but I don't. I pay twice - one for each road vehicle I own (car + motorbike).

Nor is having just one license is sufficient ... if you have just a car license only, it doesn't allow you to drive a HGV or bus or motorbike (legally). A test for a car license is a bit different from a test for a motorcycle or truck or bus ... I don't see why we shouldn't have one for bicycles ...

K.Flyer

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

...Anyone who owns a motorbike is an inconsiderate git. FACT!

So you are saying that you have met, encountered or know every single biker in the country?
Or, you have a couple of inconsiderate gits living near you, but you will just go ahead and tar everyone in the country with the same brush? :rolleyes:

bladespin

Teyla Emmagan wrote:

Anyone who owns a motorbike is an inconsiderate git. FACT!

Lol, I've 4, my neighbours have bikes too, come visit, you'd love it.

K.Flyer

rjpf1980 wrote: »

I watch out for motorcyclists all the time. I drive carefully and look out for hazards. Even being careful it is still difficult to see motorcylists in busy moving traffic especially when they are weaving through vehicles like in a Tom Cruise movie. You know this. I know this. We all know this. That's a simple fact. I merely pointed out the inherent danger of motorcycles and get abuse and personal attacks and no coherent replies. I haven't seen one serious comment or intelligent reply that has taken my argument apart.

We all know motorbikes are dangerous. We all know motorcylists die or are injured disproportionally.

Why have a needless hazard? Ban them.

Basic logic.

You obviously dont do much driving, otherwise you would also see the amount of Fu@kwit CAR drivers on Irish roads who seem to be out to try and cause accidents or kill people.
Take a look at the Dash-Cam Thread for a healthy supply of videos of moronic Irish car drivers.
There is a saying about when you lift your hand and point your finger, you will have three fingers pointing back at you.
Based on what I see on a daily basis, there is a large proportion of car drivers that should be banned off the road.

KwackerJack

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Yes, they should be banned. Or banned from residential areas at least. You should have to park in a designated bike parking spot and that spot should be at least a half a mile from the nearest inhabited abode. So you won't wake up your neighbours revving the stupid thing and they don't have to listen to you for ten minutes after you've driven off.

Anyone who owns a motorbike is an inconsiderate git. FACT!

Awh are they waking you up! Let's ban bin trucks, barking muts, lawn mowers and the pesky noisy wind

VinLieger

zbluebirdz wrote: »

Cyclists don't pay tax directly.

By using your logic, a person should only pay the annual vehicle tax once - regardless of how many transportation devices he/she owns (truck, van, car, motorbike, bicycle, skateboard, roller skates, segway ....). I love to pay only once ... but I don't. I pay twice - one for each road vehicle I own (car + motorbike).

Nor is having just one license is sufficient ... if you have just a car license only, it doesn't allow you to drive a HGV or bus or motorbike (legally). A test for a car license is a bit different from a test for a motorcycle or truck or bus ... I don't see why we shouldn't have one for bicycles ...

The reason we test and have licenses for cars and bikes is they are lethal machines that can cause serious damage to others. Can bikes kill another person in a collision? possible but very unlikely. Should we also have test for people who run or walk along the sides of the roads?

Cyclists dont pay tax for being a cyclist but why should they? Im not a cycling fan, far far from it, but I cannot grasp any reason to want cyclists to pay tax unless youve got a massive chip on your shoulder about them

jimmy blevins

We'd better ban sex while we're at it. You could catch an STD.

slapper2

rjpf1980 wrote: »

There are numerous ads on TV asking us to be careful about motorcyclists.

I've had enough of this nonsense.

Motorcyclists are the most reckless and dangerous road users. In cities and towns and on motorways and rural roads they speed and weave through traffic and are a hazard to themselves other drivers and pedestrians.

Disproportionately motorcyclists die or are victims of accidents.

The reason is obvious. The motorcycle if it were invented today would not be allowed on the road. There is no protection for a driver whatsoever even at low speeds or legal speeds. A helmet or padded jacket or jumpsuit is rather flimsy when it comes in contact to the road or a collision with another vehicle. I have relatives who work with the emergency services and the stories they have told me would horrify. Motorcyclists literally get dismembered in high speed accidents.

Cars and other vehicles with the introduction of crumple zones protective structures within the car body and frontal and side air bags and of course seat belts have made crashes much more survivable.

There is literally no way to make lethal motorcycles safer.

Ban them and ban them now.

If people want to commit suicide that's fine. But motorcyclists endanger themselves and society.

Thoughts?

If morons like you were made drive a bike as part of a minimum requirement to drive a car then you would be a safer driver all round.
The average biker can read the road conditions better than the average car driver.
The average biker is more aware of their surroundings than the average car driver.
The average biker has quicker reaction times than the average car driver.
How often do a biker pull out of a stop sign in front of a car. Now how often does a car driver pull out in front of a biker at a stop sign.
Yes bikers over take quicker and in shorter straights. We have a much higher power to weight ratio.
About 30% of the bikes on the road have an engine bigger than your micra with 1/5 of the weight. So excuse me if we use that advantage to get past dangerous drivers who drive 10-20 below the limit and still jam on the brakes when they see a speed van. This shows how unaware some car drivers are.
Now look at the social side of things how often do you see cars come together to raise money for charities (other than vintage clubs).
Biking is a way of life. It's my way of life. Let me come into your life and critisise your religious belief. Let me critisise your cooking for the sake of it. Let me critisise your Choice of paint for the hall walls.
Look at yourself before mouthing off at others

mox54

Pugzilla wrote: »

Bikes are an amazing way to travel. Closest thing to flying without leaving the ground or doing drugs.

You can glide by a line of traffic and dramatically reduce your journey time.

Even a bog standard motorbike has more performance than any car the average person will ever be able to afford.

They're to cheap to tax and insure. Even the big bikes have decent fuel economy.

You don't even have to break the speed limit, taking a bike through a series of corners and getting it leaned over is the most fun part.

Legend response, I'm a biker and this is just bang on, Car drivers are just a moany bunch because they dont have the guts to get on a bike and want to spoil our fun, Biking is the business.

witchgirl26

I don't go on motorbikes coz they scare the bejaysus out of me (I'm not good on pedal ones either) but the bikers I know (family & friends) are all very careful drivers. A few of them have done extra courses with insurance companies for the safe driver discount and aced it.

I do hate that revving thing that goes on in the morning with some neighbours bikes but it's not that bad and in fairness I should be up by the time their doing that so doesn't affect sleep.

Driving home on the M50 yesterday, thinking about this thread as a few bikers passed me. All were doing the speed limit (I was going slower due to traffic in the lane). They were lane splitting but safely and not causing any problems that I could see. I'm not saying there aren't idiots out there on motorbikes - course there are. There's also idiots in cars. Like the one who didn't see my car and tried to pull into a lane on top of me. Any accidents I've seen or have happened to bikers I know have legitimately been the fault of the person in the car.

I've never found it difficult to see motorbikes coming (or hear them - kinda handy that!) and make sure that if they are lane splitting, I'm not disproportionately taking up that side of the lane. I also make sure to not just use my mirrors before changing lanes but also check my blindspot. It's called being a considerate road user. We're all trying to get somewhere.

Do I think they should be banned? Not a chance.

Galway K9

ANy ****ing twat can go behind a wheel of a car and a car is far more dnageorus ot other road users than a bike with its sheer size, weight and speed.

jimgoose

My immediate, instinctive answer to this sort of thing is that maybe we should consider banning various members of the Volvo-driving Sphincter Police who simultaneously fill their colostomy bags and howl in temper at the idea that someone may be a) thinking differently from them and/or b) having a good time. But this time I shall be the bigger man and say no such thing.

Instead, I shall point out that far from banning motorcycles, we should be encouraging them actively. The most powerful of them will do 40-50 mpg when ridden in a civilised manner - most of them will do much better than that - and you can fit many more of them on the road. Motorcycles don't do traffic-jams either. I would also argue that motorcycling is better for you - you get to experience the world as it is, with all the senses, and the roadcraft and savvy developed while spending a few years on bikes will make you a better driver of everything from wheelbarrows to aircraft-carriers until the end of your days.

The argument that motorcycles should be banned or severely restricted because they are more dangerous than trundling around in a car doesn't really hold water either. By the same rationale pedestrians and cyclists should be banned from the motor-carriageways. Obviously that'd be ridiculous. Right? Right! Now, I won't attempt to argue that there aren't looderamawns out there riding motorbikes, of course there are. But this is a universal phenomenon, not a motorcycling phenomenon. These characters learn pretty quickly, or else... well, or else they don't.

The thing is, we are all vulnerable. There is a hierarchy of vulnerability on the road, ranging from pedestrians to 22-wheel trucks. If more of us kept our eyes open and tried deploying a small bit of consideration and empathy instead of staying in our little bubbles and screaming "Ban 'em!!" every time tragedy strikes, I suspect we'd do a lot better. May the road rise. 'Goose out.

jimgoose

rjpf1980 wrote: »

...If motorcycles had not existed for the past century or so and someone invented them today they would not be allowed on the road...

Hmm. Can you imagine if there were no motor-vehicles at all until, say, 2012? With the full armour-piercing battery of EU regulations and 'Elf'n'Safetyinnit and institutionalised busybodyism and all the rest of it? "I know! Let's give every eejit a ton or more of metal to wander about in, wherever they like, at user-selectable speeds of up to well over 100mph, limited by statute, of course. And they'll be propelled by a series of rapid, small, controlled explosions of a highly flammable liquid, carried in a ten or more-gallon tank in the back, that has to be dug out of the ground and refined at colossal expense and will cause more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of everything ever. The universal personal transport solution - it'll be ruddy great!!". :pac:

keyboard_cat

Slanty wrote: »

I have no issue at all with slow moving traffic and filtering through that. No harm can be done and that's the advantage of a bike.

It's the motorway, if you drive down the middle of two lanes you are overtaking the car in the slow lane and undertaking the car in the fast lane. Doesn't mean either car shouldn't be their.

I refuse to believe a motorbike would go between a car overtaking another car on the motorway.

Ronald Wilson Reagan

There is a thread over in the motors forum here where the majority of drivers seen to think they are perfectly entitled to drink coffee while they drive due to the presence of cup holders.
Speaks volumes to the attention some road users give to their driving, at least on a bike the rider is fully concentrating on controlling their vehicle.

guppy

keyboard_cat wrote: »

I refuse to believe a motorbike would go between a car overtaking another car on the motorway.

I've had it happen to me on the M50, at about 3.30 on a Friday afternoon. I was in the middle lane, there was traffic in the right lane and we were all going 100km+. This biker created another lane between the middle and right and zoomed through. It really does happen.

faceman

guppy wrote: »

I've had it happen to me on the M50, at about 3.30 on a Friday afternoon. I was in the middle lane, there was traffic in the right lane and we were all going 100km+. This biker created another lane between the middle and right and zoomed through. It really does happen.

Was the left lane empty?

McDave

keyboard_cat wrote: »

I refuse to believe a motorbike would go between a car overtaking another car on the motorway.

I've seen it - frequently.

McDave

efanton wrote: »

Filtering is LEGAL. Filtering by definition means passing between or besides STATIONARY or slow moving traffic if there is space to do so that does not put any road user at risk.

You are also quick to jump to unfounded assumption. I personally do not use bicycle or bus lanes, although I have seen this done. My personal opinion however would be that it would make far more sense to allow motorcyclists to use them as this means they filter in a far safer environment.

Bus lane use is legal. Makes sense.

But not cycle lanes. Wanting to put motorbikes into competition with bicycles just about sums up your attitude. Safer for motorbikes. But stuff cyclists who have all manners of hazards to deal with.

XR3i

yes motorbikes should be banned,

however i'm looking for a bike myself thats fit for a 90 mile commute, on bad and good road,

i thnk it's time for a harley

bladespin

XR3i wrote:

i thnk it's time for a harley

Oh jaysus.

jimgoose

XR3i wrote: »

yes motorbikes should be banned,

however i'm looking for a bike myself thats fit for a 90 mile commute, on bad and good road,

i thnk it's time for a harley

The perfect motorcycle for someone who already thinks motorcycles should be banned.

Or you could, y'know, try out a sensible Jap middleweight that works, and see what you think of it.

XR3i

jimgoose wrote: »

The perfect motorcycle for someone who already thinks motorcycles should be banned.

Or you could, y'know, try out a sensible Jap middleweight that works, and see what you think of it.

ya ya, iwas thinking of a bike like th etreminator was driving, it must be a harley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOo45cEVMhs

jimgoose

XR3i wrote: »

ya ya, iwas thinking of a bike like th etreminator was driving, it must be a harley...

Yes, it's an early '90s Softail Fatboy with buckhorn 'bars, one of my favourites. "Tis no commuter, bah!

rjpf1980

slapper2 wrote: »

If morons like you were made drive a bike as part of a minimum requirement to drive a car then you would be a safer driver all round.
The average biker can read the road conditions better than the average car driver.
The average biker is more aware of their surroundings than the average car driver.
The average biker has quicker reaction times than the average car driver.
How often do a biker pull out of a stop sign in front of a car. Now how often does a car driver pull out in front of a biker at a stop sign.
Yes bikers over take quicker and in shorter straights. We have a much higher power to weight ratio.
About 30% of the bikes on the road have an engine bigger than your micra with 1/5 of the weight. So excuse me if we use that advantage to get past dangerous drivers who drive 10-20 below the limit and still jam on the brakes when they see a speed van. This shows how unaware some car drivers are.
Now look at the social side of things how often do you see cars come together to raise money for charities (other than vintage clubs).
Biking is a way of life. It's my way of life. Let me come into your life and critisise your religious belief. Let me critisise your cooking for the sake of it. Let me critisise your Choice of paint for the hall walls.
Look at yourself before mouthing off at others

Are motorcyclists dying disproportionally because they have no protection when hitting objects being struck by vehicles or when they hit the road?

Yes or no?

If yes that makes motorbikes ridiculously dangerous doesn't it?

Surely if these machines were banned - nobody seriously denies they aren't driven recklessly - immediately a significant minority of road deaths would eliminated?

You can't argue with that logic can you?

I am still waiting for an intelligent posters who doesn't just resort to abuse.

Armchair Andy

Pulled in to let a motorcyclist off the other day, he put his left hand out to acknowledge me as he passed. I was well pissed off, I want a leg salute if there's gonna be any thanks!!!

rjpf1980

jimgoose wrote: »

Hmm. Can you imagine if there were no motor-vehicles at all until, say, 2012? With the full armour-piercing battery of EU regulations and 'Elf'n'Safetyinnit and institutionalised busybodyism and all the rest of it? "I know! Let's give every eejit a ton or more of metal to wander about in, wherever they like, at user-selectable speeds of up to well over 100mph, limited by statute, of course. And they'll be propelled by a series of rapid, small, controlled explosions of a highly flammable liquid, carried in a ten or more-gallon tank in the back, that has to be dug out of the ground and refined at colossal expense and will cause more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of everything ever. The universal personal transport solution - it'll be ruddy great!!". :pac:

Motor vehicles will eventually become entirely automated and there should be no reason why vehicles should be allowed to exceed the speed limits. Vehicles should all have black boxes too. The technology is already available. Use it. When all vehicles are automated the existence of motorbikes will unsustainable. Road deaths would plummet.

There is no logical counter argument.

VinLieger

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Are motorcyclists dying disproportionally because they have no protection when hitting objects being struck by vehicles or when they hit the road?

Yes or no?

If yes that makes motorbikes ridiculously dangerous doesn't it?

But is the answer yes? You have consistently made claims called them "fact" and when asked to provide evidence slunk away and ignored those questions.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Surely if these machines were banned - nobody seriously denies they aren't driven recklessly - immediately a significant minority of road deaths would eliminated?

You can't argue with that logic can you?

Cars are driven recklessly, planes are driven recklessly, as well as boats and trains, in fact every form of vehicule can be driven recklessly so yes I can deny your logic as its incredibly selective

And again your being selective, more pedestrians died than motorcyclists, why arent you asking for pedestrians to be banned from walking near roads?

rjpf1980 wrote: »

I am still waiting for an intelligent posters who doesn't just resort to abuse.

Ahh classic play the victim card, "oooh answering peoples questions on my ass backwards logic is too hard, im gonna cry and not play any more cus they are mean to me"

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Motor vehicles will eventually become entirely automated and there should be no reason why vehicles should be allowed to exceed the speed limits.

Yes motor vehicles will all eventually become automated but with the way our current road networks operate and the fact that they arent automated there are numerous reasons for vehicles to be able to exceed speed limits. Obvious example is overtaking slower drivers safely requires speeds that are in excess of speed limits sometimes.

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Vehicles should all have black boxes too.

Except for that little thing called privacy laws but who needs em in your draconian dystopia

rjpf1980 wrote: »

The technology is already available. Use it.

Technology like you suggest that is secure, untamperable and affordable does not exist

rjpf1980 wrote: »

When all vehicles are automated the existence of motorbikes will unsustainable. Road deaths would plummet.

How do you not yet understand speaking using wide sweeping statements that have zero basis in fact just makes you look ridiculous

rjpf1980 wrote: »

There is no logical counter argument.

:pac::pac::pac::pac:

Pugzilla

Unlike cars, motorbike accidents usually don't kill or maim other innocent people. It's the riders choice to get on a bike.

faceman

rjpf1980 wrote: »

I am still waiting for an intelligent posters who doesn't just resort to abuse.

You're very selective with your replies. You haven't responded to any of my replies.