Repeal section of NERC act that downgred RUPPs

The NERC act downgraded all "Roads Used As Public Paths" RUPPs that should have been re-designated by County Councils as either footpath, bridleway or byway to Restricted Byway, in cases where councils had failed in their mandate to grade them according to historical use, thus wiping out over 100 years of freedom to ride these trails on motorcycles.

Rider groups complied with requests not to overload councils with claims at the time the act was going through parliament, but The Lords, with heavy lobbying by an extremely well funded alliance of Ramblers (who had themselves just won the “Right To Roam”) and landowners, passed amendments which outrageously backdated the date for claims to a point when the process was first publicised. This meant that all the volunteer work by riders groups (in the spirit of “The Big Society”) was invalidated.

The result is that many counties now have no byways at all for no better reason than that their councils failed in their duty. We now see a domino effect where byways in counties bordering these are overused and councils are applying Traffic Restriction Orders (TROs).

The already tiny percentage of off-road trails with vehicular rights has now been eroded in the most illogical way possible leaving vast areas of the country with none at all.

The act should be repealed so that RUPPs could be used according to the previous criteria with volunteer groups allowed to submit claims for a number of years, with the remainder the reverting to Restricted Byways, which would be fair to all.

Why is this idea important?

The NERC act downgraded all "Roads Used As Public Paths" RUPPs that should have been re-designated by County Councils as either footpath, bridleway or byway to Restricted Byway, in cases where councils had failed in their mandate to grade them according to historical use, thus wiping out over 100 years of freedom to ride these trails on motorcycles.

Rider groups complied with requests not to overload councils with claims at the time the act was going through parliament, but The Lords, with heavy lobbying by an extremely well funded alliance of Ramblers (who had themselves just won the “Right To Roam”) and landowners, passed amendments which outrageously backdated the date for claims to a point when the process was first publicised. This meant that all the volunteer work by riders groups (in the spirit of “The Big Society”) was invalidated.

The result is that many counties now have no byways at all for no better reason than that their councils failed in their duty. We now see a domino effect where byways in counties bordering these are overused and councils are applying Traffic Restriction Orders (TROs).

The already tiny percentage of off-road trails with vehicular rights has now been eroded in the most illogical way possible leaving vast areas of the country with none at all.

The act should be repealed so that RUPPs could be used according to the previous criteria with volunteer groups allowed to submit claims for a number of years, with the remainder the reverting to Restricted Byways, which would be fair to all.

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.

No to compulsory use of motorcycle helmets

To remove the compulsory need to wear a motorcycle helmet whilst riding on the public roads, provided the individual has taken some form of insurance policy to cover the costs of medical care and treatment should they have an accident that causes injury that a helmet would have prevented in teh opinion of a medical expert, and thus not place an excessive burden upon the health service through their personal choice.

Why is this idea important?

To remove the compulsory need to wear a motorcycle helmet whilst riding on the public roads, provided the individual has taken some form of insurance policy to cover the costs of medical care and treatment should they have an accident that causes injury that a helmet would have prevented in teh opinion of a medical expert, and thus not place an excessive burden upon the health service through their personal choice.

Removal of Laws for Personal Safety for Over 18’s

Laws regarding personal safety, such as the wearing of motorcycle crash helmets and seat belts in cars, should be wiped from the statute books.

This should not include laws which protect others, such as use of mobile phones while driving, or driving under the influence of any substances.

Why is this idea important?

Laws regarding personal safety, such as the wearing of motorcycle crash helmets and seat belts in cars, should be wiped from the statute books.

This should not include laws which protect others, such as use of mobile phones while driving, or driving under the influence of any substances.

Make it easier to switch from four wheels to two

The current weight of legislation surrounding motorcycle training is absurd; even if you only want to ride a tiny little 125cc twist-and-go scooter without L plates you have to jump through all sorts of hoops, especially when it comes the obstacle course side of things.

 

Learners and trainees should be allowed to ride machines up to 250 cc – twice the current limit. This will make them safer in higher speed zones because when they crawl along at 40 or 50 mph in 60 zones people get frustrated and start taking risks around them. This often with deadly consequences.

 

Those who wish to progress on to even more powerful machines should be free to do so, and experience on much more sensible 250cc machines will serve them well with regard to meeting the required standards.

 

So, 250cc max for learner riders as opposed to 125cc

Why is this idea important?

The current weight of legislation surrounding motorcycle training is absurd; even if you only want to ride a tiny little 125cc twist-and-go scooter without L plates you have to jump through all sorts of hoops, especially when it comes the obstacle course side of things.

 

Learners and trainees should be allowed to ride machines up to 250 cc – twice the current limit. This will make them safer in higher speed zones because when they crawl along at 40 or 50 mph in 60 zones people get frustrated and start taking risks around them. This often with deadly consequences.

 

Those who wish to progress on to even more powerful machines should be free to do so, and experience on much more sensible 250cc machines will serve them well with regard to meeting the required standards.

 

So, 250cc max for learner riders as opposed to 125cc

Repeal the law requiring motorcyclists to wear helmets

The only person who suffers in the event of an motorcycle accident, where the driver or passenger is not wearing a helmet, is that person.  The government has no business legislating to control people's behaviour, where that behaviour only affects the person in question.

Why is this idea important?

The only person who suffers in the event of an motorcycle accident, where the driver or passenger is not wearing a helmet, is that person.  The government has no business legislating to control people's behaviour, where that behaviour only affects the person in question.

Motorcycle speed limits

A motorcycle has a weight of aproximatly a quater of a small car, and some of the larger spv weight twice that. As such the energy due to the speed of a motorcycle is propartionaly lower. We have lower speed limits for heavy vehicles and when trailers are involved.

Modern motorcycles are high performance machines, which are capable of very high speeds and have the brakes  and handeling to match. When a motorcycle crashes, it is usually the rider who comes off worse, so there is very little risk to the wider public. The rider would only have themself to blame.

Therefore the speed limits for modern motorcycles should  be increased. this would be in line with trucks who have lower limits, It may also improve the flow of trafic as motorcycles would quickly move through trafffic remaning out of the way of other drivers.

Sugget say, for 20, 30, and 40 limits remain the same. But 50 for card, 60 for bikes. 60 goes to 70, 70 Dual carrige way is 80 for a bike, and motorways are 100mph. Many motorcycles would not go at these speeds, as it would be too hard work for the rider for a long period.

Why is this idea important?

A motorcycle has a weight of aproximatly a quater of a small car, and some of the larger spv weight twice that. As such the energy due to the speed of a motorcycle is propartionaly lower. We have lower speed limits for heavy vehicles and when trailers are involved.

Modern motorcycles are high performance machines, which are capable of very high speeds and have the brakes  and handeling to match. When a motorcycle crashes, it is usually the rider who comes off worse, so there is very little risk to the wider public. The rider would only have themself to blame.

Therefore the speed limits for modern motorcycles should  be increased. this would be in line with trucks who have lower limits, It may also improve the flow of trafic as motorcycles would quickly move through trafffic remaning out of the way of other drivers.

Sugget say, for 20, 30, and 40 limits remain the same. But 50 for card, 60 for bikes. 60 goes to 70, 70 Dual carrige way is 80 for a bike, and motorways are 100mph. Many motorcycles would not go at these speeds, as it would be too hard work for the rider for a long period.

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.

Repeal motorcycle crash helmet law

The wearing of approved crash helmets on motorcycles is currently compulsory, and we frequently see proposals to extend the compulsory use of protective and high-visibility riding gear.

While it cannot be argued that such equipment can mitigate the severity of injuries caused in an accident, there is evidence that wearing full protective gear makes riders "feel" safer and inclines them to take more risk – increasing the likelihood of an accident which may injure both rider and others.

The case for compulsion is not watertight, and the decision to wear a helmet or not should be left to the rider.  The risk is all borne by the rider; so should be the responsibility.  This is the view being taken in an increasing number of US states, so why not here?

Why is this idea important?

The wearing of approved crash helmets on motorcycles is currently compulsory, and we frequently see proposals to extend the compulsory use of protective and high-visibility riding gear.

While it cannot be argued that such equipment can mitigate the severity of injuries caused in an accident, there is evidence that wearing full protective gear makes riders "feel" safer and inclines them to take more risk – increasing the likelihood of an accident which may injure both rider and others.

The case for compulsion is not watertight, and the decision to wear a helmet or not should be left to the rider.  The risk is all borne by the rider; so should be the responsibility.  This is the view being taken in an increasing number of US states, so why not here?