Remove the prohibition on Right Hand Sidecars

I would like to remove the prohibition on motorcycle sicecar combinations with the motorcycle on the left. There is no similar prohibition on left hand drive cars being used on the public road, and there is a very useful range of these vehicles that are ideal for forestry and agricultural workers as they have optional two wheel drive to cope with off road conditions and are far less expensive to buy and run and less damaging to the environment than a typical 4×4 vehicle. Due to the limited size of the right hand drive market globally (other RHD countries dont have this restriction) the manufacturers find it uneconomic to produce a RHD version.

Currently the vehicles can be used but cannot be driven on a public road to get from site to site or from home to work (or vice versa), meaning that another vehicle and trailer must be used in addition to the combination, or that a larger 4×4 must be used at all times.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to remove the prohibition on motorcycle sicecar combinations with the motorcycle on the left. There is no similar prohibition on left hand drive cars being used on the public road, and there is a very useful range of these vehicles that are ideal for forestry and agricultural workers as they have optional two wheel drive to cope with off road conditions and are far less expensive to buy and run and less damaging to the environment than a typical 4×4 vehicle. Due to the limited size of the right hand drive market globally (other RHD countries dont have this restriction) the manufacturers find it uneconomic to produce a RHD version.

Currently the vehicles can be used but cannot be driven on a public road to get from site to site or from home to work (or vice versa), meaning that another vehicle and trailer must be used in addition to the combination, or that a larger 4×4 must be used at all times.

Car daytime running lights

Stop the forced imposition of daytime running lights on motorists.

From 2011 all new vehicles must come with daytime running lights.  Although I can see the merits for Scandinavian countries for safety purposes, for the UK this is completely unnecessary and will only increase the fuel consumption.  At a time when we are all trying to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce wasteful energy use, how does this help?

Why is this idea important?

Stop the forced imposition of daytime running lights on motorists.

From 2011 all new vehicles must come with daytime running lights.  Although I can see the merits for Scandinavian countries for safety purposes, for the UK this is completely unnecessary and will only increase the fuel consumption.  At a time when we are all trying to reduce our carbon footprint and reduce wasteful energy use, how does this help?

Number plates (with particular relevance to motorcycles)

It is currently illegal to build or import a motorbike with a front-mounted numberplate. This legislation was introduced for pedestrian safety, but there is increasingly an appreciation that it is impossible to eliminate risk, and undesirable to try. I propose that this law be repealed. I also propose that it be legal to manufacture and trade, not only to possess, old-style number plates, for pre-1973 vehicles.

Why is this idea important?

It is currently illegal to build or import a motorbike with a front-mounted numberplate. This legislation was introduced for pedestrian safety, but there is increasingly an appreciation that it is impossible to eliminate risk, and undesirable to try. I propose that this law be repealed. I also propose that it be legal to manufacture and trade, not only to possess, old-style number plates, for pre-1973 vehicles.

Motoring accident statistics

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. And this is never truer than when applied to accident statistics for motorcycles.

 

Did you know that if a car has an accident on the road it is called a road traffic accident, but if the car crash is offroad, such as on a trackday, greenlaning, rallying, etc, it is called a sports accident.

 

But if you crash your bike ANYWHERE, on-road, off-road, trackdays, etc, it is known simply as a motorcycle accident. So all the weekend motocross, club racing, trials and green laning accidents are clubbed together to make the stats for motorcycling look worse than it really is.

 

There can only be one reason for this – to drive us off the roads forever.

Why is this idea important?

There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. And this is never truer than when applied to accident statistics for motorcycles.

 

Did you know that if a car has an accident on the road it is called a road traffic accident, but if the car crash is offroad, such as on a trackday, greenlaning, rallying, etc, it is called a sports accident.

 

But if you crash your bike ANYWHERE, on-road, off-road, trackdays, etc, it is known simply as a motorcycle accident. So all the weekend motocross, club racing, trials and green laning accidents are clubbed together to make the stats for motorcycling look worse than it really is.

 

There can only be one reason for this – to drive us off the roads forever.

Permanent CBT for motorcyclists

Stop the DVLA requirement to re-do the Compulsory Basic Training Certificate (CBT) every two years.  One CBT should be sufficient to allow a user to ride a motorcycle up to 125cc for the rest of their life.  You only take a car test once, why should you have to retake a bike test every two years? 

Why is this idea important?

Stop the DVLA requirement to re-do the Compulsory Basic Training Certificate (CBT) every two years.  One CBT should be sufficient to allow a user to ride a motorcycle up to 125cc for the rest of their life.  You only take a car test once, why should you have to retake a bike test every two years? 

Remove the 25Kw restriction for motorcyclists under 21

The point is that there is no evidence to suggest that a motorbike at full power makes any difference to how likely they would be involved with an accident, compared to a motorbike at 25Kw, in fact it could be said that the restricted motorbike is more dangerous.

All this law does is cost the new rider additional money to get in to motorcycling legally, but serves no real purpose.

As an example, the 25Kw restriction and labour can cost up to and beyond £200.

For reference, 25Kw equals about 33Bhp.

Why is this idea important?

The point is that there is no evidence to suggest that a motorbike at full power makes any difference to how likely they would be involved with an accident, compared to a motorbike at 25Kw, in fact it could be said that the restricted motorbike is more dangerous.

All this law does is cost the new rider additional money to get in to motorcycling legally, but serves no real purpose.

As an example, the 25Kw restriction and labour can cost up to and beyond £200.

For reference, 25Kw equals about 33Bhp.

something needs to be done about the motorcycle test

Last year a new 2-part test was brought in for motorcyclists as it stands all trainees have to preform 2 "high speed elements, the swerve avoidence and the emergency stop these must be preformed at a min of 50kph now first of all we live in britain where its mph also this law makes no allowences for smaller cc bikes or weather conditions as an instructor we teach people to reduce there speed in wet conditions now as part of A2 or DAS training we're haveing to go againsed this, since the introduction of the test all training schools have seen a significant drop in people taking up training due to the addional cost and time involved in test training also the sales of motorcycles have also fallen this will be further affected if the new laws come in further restricting the age that a motorcyclist is able to take his/her test 

Why is this idea important?

Last year a new 2-part test was brought in for motorcyclists as it stands all trainees have to preform 2 "high speed elements, the swerve avoidence and the emergency stop these must be preformed at a min of 50kph now first of all we live in britain where its mph also this law makes no allowences for smaller cc bikes or weather conditions as an instructor we teach people to reduce there speed in wet conditions now as part of A2 or DAS training we're haveing to go againsed this, since the introduction of the test all training schools have seen a significant drop in people taking up training due to the addional cost and time involved in test training also the sales of motorcycles have also fallen this will be further affected if the new laws come in further restricting the age that a motorcyclist is able to take his/her test 

Rather Silly Motorcycle Visor Regulations

By law Motorcycle Helmet's Visors, like glass in the windows of cars, are not allowed to be tinted more than a certain amount. To a certain extent, this is understandable, but on particularly sunny days the glare can be really bad, and so the only alternative is to wear sunglasses under the visor. However, if the rider then goes into a tunnel, or say into the shade of trees, unlike a visor, (which can be flicked up more or less instantly and so allows continued safe riding in the conditions) the sunglasses can't be taken off without stopping, perhaps de-gloving, taking the glasses off, finding somewhere to put them etc etc. This is all incredibly silly when compared to just allowing a tinted visor in the first place. That way, when there is a safety issue concerning glare whilst riding, the rider retains the option of flicking it out of vision straight away.

 

Further to this, there is no restriction on the amount of tint that Sunglasses can have, but there is a restriction on the amount of tint that a visor can have.

 

So, something that can be removed is not allowed to be tinted beyond a certain amount for safety reasons, but something that can't be removed can be so dark it's unusable in normal conditions.

 

This is completely daft, and deserves taking out of any regulations or statute that presumably has originally been written by some well meaning but in-experienced non-motocycle rider.

Why is this idea important?

By law Motorcycle Helmet's Visors, like glass in the windows of cars, are not allowed to be tinted more than a certain amount. To a certain extent, this is understandable, but on particularly sunny days the glare can be really bad, and so the only alternative is to wear sunglasses under the visor. However, if the rider then goes into a tunnel, or say into the shade of trees, unlike a visor, (which can be flicked up more or less instantly and so allows continued safe riding in the conditions) the sunglasses can't be taken off without stopping, perhaps de-gloving, taking the glasses off, finding somewhere to put them etc etc. This is all incredibly silly when compared to just allowing a tinted visor in the first place. That way, when there is a safety issue concerning glare whilst riding, the rider retains the option of flicking it out of vision straight away.

 

Further to this, there is no restriction on the amount of tint that Sunglasses can have, but there is a restriction on the amount of tint that a visor can have.

 

So, something that can be removed is not allowed to be tinted beyond a certain amount for safety reasons, but something that can't be removed can be so dark it's unusable in normal conditions.

 

This is completely daft, and deserves taking out of any regulations or statute that presumably has originally been written by some well meaning but in-experienced non-motocycle rider.

Abolish the requirement for motorcycles to display a tax disc.

Abolish the requirement for motorcycles to display a tax disc. They get stolen too easily and the victim then needs to buy a replacement in order to stay legal.

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the requirement for motorcycles to display a tax disc. They get stolen too easily and the victim then needs to buy a replacement in order to stay legal.