I think it's a great idea, I never exceed the speed limit and never use more than the minimal required amount of power to accelerate gently with. cough.
Seriously, it's just public servants trying to make jobs for themselves again, and deciding that it might be good to pick on a pereceived minority group of users, motorcyclists. I'll be amazed if it comes to anything, think of the consequences for the UK bike industry, that would take some sorting out, not to mention the reaction of the ever-growing, ever-vocal, biker population if it progresses any further.

The day they restrict new bikes or fit gps trackers on them so they can track your speed, is the day I pack my balls and leave. no ****ing chance I will stand for that shit. Germany, France, the states, I dont care, but i will move. Ignore the fact that I'm planing on moving in 5 or so years anyway. TBH, the UK is becoming a bad place to be a biker. There is still some good in it, but noise restrictions, speed cameras and anti bike campaigns. Me no like.

And on the car test bit. I agree with you dan. I have thought for a very long time that car drivers should be made to do a cbt or have a part fo their test dedicated to bikes, and vice versa for bikes to cars (when we appear suddenly next to you on the motorway, it can be scary, or so Ive been told). It would cut on accidents, not by a whole hell of alot, but I still think it would.

v4forlife, you are not alone, there is quite many with similar thoughts, what I have understood. Also I know one guy from other forum that did move to France from UK and what I have read he likes it there quite a lot, even French ppl are crazy j/k

Quote from v4forlife :

And on the car test bit. I agree with you dan. I have thought for a very long time that car drivers should be made to do a cbt or have a part fo their test dedicated to bikes, and vice versa for bikes to cars (when we appear suddenly next to you on the motorway, it can be scary, or so Ive been told). It would cut on accidents, not by a whole hell of alot, but I still think it would.

It would also be handy if bikers stop treating one lane as two and instead overtake the same way everybody else does.

but then we might as well just get a higher powered car. and I dont want a high powered car. its not our fault that we are so slim and take advantage of the lack fo width in cases like that.

Quote :

They should make it illegal for anyone in a city to buy a 4x4, that would help everyone out!

+1. Not to save the environment (because global warming is a natural process), but simply because people who buy 4x4s then DONT TAKE THEM OFFROAD and just do city runs (the most offroad these people have been is up the kerb outside their kid's school!) tend to be twunts who think they own the road.

Also, people carriers piss me off. If you have less than five kids, DON'T F***ING BUY ONE- because you don't need it! Buy a Kia Cerato!

Quote from v4forlife :

but then we might as well just get a higher powered car. and I dont want a high powered car. its not our fault that we are so slim and take advantage of the lack fo width in cases like that.

Fair enough, so long as you concede it's not the car driver's fault when you get knocked off your bike while ignoring the highway code.

I hope to have no more than two children in my lifetime. And thus, I won't need to get anything much bigger than an RX-8 (albeit with a sensible engine) - 4 seats, rear wheel drive, decentish handling, fairly good looking. That's the only type of people carrier anyone with less than 3 kids (or even with 3 kids assuming they are divorced) should ever consider.

No kids = 2 seater sports car (seat for you, seat for wife/gf) or motorcycle
One kid (or 2 and divorced) = McLaren F1, or four seater sports car
Two kids (or 3 and divorced) = four seater sports car
Three kids (or four and divorced) = sporty 5 seater (rare I know), and a vasectomy

Quote from tristancliffe :

I hope to have no more than two children in my lifetime. And thus, I won't need to get anything much bigger than an RX-8 (albeit with a sensible engine) - 4 seats, rear wheel drive, decentish handling, fairly good looking. That's the only type of people carrier anyone with less than 3 kids (or even with 3 kids assuming they are divorced) should ever consider.

No kids = 2 seater sports car (seat for you, seat for wife/gf) or motorcycle
One kid (or 2 and divorced) = McLaren F1, or four seater sports car
Two kids (or 3 and divorced) = four seater sports car
Three kids (or four and divorced) = sporty 5 seater (rare I know), and a vasectomy

No, divorce = You can afford only a used Nova, if there is 4 kids and divorced you can't afford any kind of car

I like how they make those semi decent cars in Australia, big engine and better suspension than US cars, 4 doors and no silly electronics or at least you can turn them off if you like to, last good cars, imo.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Fair enough, so long as you concede it's not the car driver's fault when you get knocked off your bike while ignoring the highway code.

If I'm doing something stupid, and I get hit, then fair enough. It's when I'm riding along, and some bint pulls out in her volvo/chelsea tractor/family carrier with one person in it that I go mad.

'Sorry mate, I didnt see you' is the worst and crappest excuse ever.

OPEN YOUR ****ING EYES!!!!! take that extra 3 seconds to look for a single headlight, or a reflective vest/belt thing, or maybe a brightly coloured power ranger suit. it's not that hard. [/rant]
Oh, and get a subaru legacy. fits all needs.

Quote from v4forlife :

If I'm doing something stupid, and I get hit, then fair enough. It's when I'm riding along, and some bint pulls out in her volvo/chelsea tractor/family carrier with one person in it that I go mad.

Well yeah, pulling out from a junction into traffic and taking out a biker is pretty bad form, but if you're on a dual carriageway and a biker decides he can pass in the three-foot gap between you and the central reservation then if he ends up wrapped around the barrier it's not the fault of the car driver.

Quote from v4forlife :

OPEN YOUR ****ING EYES!!!!! take that extra 3 seconds to look for a single headlight, or a reflective vest/belt thing, or maybe a brightly coloured power ranger suit. it's not that hard. [/rant]

Bikers do drive like twats a lot though. It's easy enough if they're making themselves visible, but if they're weaving around, doing 20mph+ more than anybody else then they're not going to be seen when they arrive.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

Bikers do drive like twats a lot though. It's easy enough if they're making themselves visible, but if they're weaving around, doing 20mph+ more than anybody else then they're not going to be seen when they arrive.

Just as much as BMW drivers or *Pick any car maker* drivers. It is just that you notice those driving like twats much easier and you primitive brain (sorry, our brains work sometimes very primitive, I'm not stating that you would be any more primitive than I or anyone else) makes conclusion Bike, driver drives like twats that must be bike drivers drives like twats, it is however not truth.

Same basic reason in human brain activity that makes us act like racists so easily, we need to work hard to get away from such thinking.

Most bikers I have seen do drive very nicely and are more aware of traffic than most car drivers.

I don't own a bike, I don't even like a lot from bikes, but I must say that I kind of respect those that are willing to put their lives on play to be able to enjoy from something they like, it is quite risky to drive among with blind drivers with ton of steel around them...

Quote from tristancliffe :

I hope to have no more than two children in my lifetime. And thus, I won't need to get anything much bigger than an RX-8 (albeit with a sensible engine) - 4 seats, rear wheel drive, decentish handling, fairly good looking. That's the only type of people carrier anyone with less than 3 kids (or even with 3 kids assuming they are divorced) should ever consider.

No kids = 2 seater sports car (seat for you, seat for wife/gf) or motorcycle
One kid (or 2 and divorced) = McLaren F1, or four seater sports car
Two kids (or 3 and divorced) = four seater sports car
Three kids (or four and divorced) = sporty 5 seater (rare I know), and a vasectomy

You obviously have no idea how much room it takes to carry 2 children do you? LOL. Sometimes I wish I had a bus so I could put one in the front and one way in the back! As for the wife? I just strap her up on the luggage rack on the roof. Perfect place for her. If I need to say something to her, I just open up the sunroof and say what I need. Then close it as she starts spouting out of her mouth.

I'm not gonna get into a argument about stereotyping, but you shouldnt put all bikers into one little group. I know people who drive alot worse, but I also know people who ride completly within the limits, and ride because they love the whole 'wind in the hair' thing. personally, I'm somewhere in the middle.

I will not care abaut limiters , I just take it off and thats all

Actually 150-160kph is more speed you ever are going to need on road, on track however it should be possible to turn off. I would not mind if all cars had such limiter that won't let it accelerate after that speed as long as it would be possible to turn off by myself for track days and visits to German autobahns.

If I would have bike, it would be same.

At least roads in here are not so good and wide that it would be use more speed safely anyway and as for public roads where limit is 120 tops there is no any reason to faster than that, many roads has limit of 80 and there 140 is already tad too quick from various of reasons. I do like from speed, but I prefer getting bit less speed and to be able to do that also tomorrow

How can they say bikes pollute more than cars? That is beyond logic. The bikes I've been eyeing up and the bike my mate at uni ride get around 50MPG, most of the cars on the market today would be lucky to get 25MPG. So how do bikes pollute more? They take up less road space, need less storage space, the parks and engines are smaller, they use less fuel, use less tires so need less rubber, and can easily carry two, which is one more than most cars seem to hold.

Quote from tristancliffe :

No kids = 2 seater sports car (seat for you, seat for wife/gf) or motorcycle
One kid (or 2 and divorced) = McLaren F1, or four seater sports car
Two kids (or 3 and divorced) = four seater sports car
Three kids (or four and divorced) = sporty 5 seater (rare I know), and a vasectomy

We used to cram 5 children in the back of cars at one point. Hell you can easily fit three in the back of a car (though that got ****ed that up with this baby seat bullshit).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but bikes do not outbreak cars.

you are correct there. but with the general and average rider/driver, the biker will be more aggresive then a car driver, which is why this myth has come about.
4 times the contact point, more braking power, and abs all help the car.
they also corner quicker, but again, due to the nature of the average biker, we tend to go round corner faster.

Quote from P5YcHoM4N :

...use less tires so need less rubber...

This is the only one I can disagree with in your statements. I did not have a sportsbike as what is more popular outside of the US. My bike, a smaller "commuter" bike, had simple cheap long lasting tires and I could only get 8000 miles out of them. I put a more performance oriented tire on my little bike once and they lasted 4000 miles. Typical car tires will last 60,000 miles unless you guys have drastically different tires than we do.

Quote :

Correct me if I'm wrong, but bikes do not outbreak cars.

A 3000 pound car with 4 disk brakes compared with a 500 pound motorcycle with half the brakes and much better engine braking ability. You do the math. A bike will definitely out brake a car.

I haven't read the link yet in the OP. I intend to do this tonight at home. FWIW, our cars over here are mostly speed limited to 105-107 mph. Of course, our maximum speed limits are only 65 mph, and 75 in some areas. I don't know what the limit is being proposed, but I highly doubt you would ever need to reach 110+ mph to avoid an accident. Bikes accellerate so quickly that you will be past the trouble spot before you reached 100+. My thoughts are of course based on the limits that I say there for around here in the states.

That still doesn't change my infuriation over government doing stuff like this whether it is here or over there for you guys.

Edit: Well, v4forlife posted while I posted and contradicted what I say about braking. Hmmm....

Quote from mrodgers :

A 3000 pound car with 4 disk brakes compared with a 500 pound motorcycle with half the brakes and much better engine braking ability. You do the math. A bike will definitely out brake a car.

A bike has a much smaller combined contact patch than a car. Despite the lower mass, this means the average pressure on the tyres is higher, so thanks to tyre load sensitivity, the tyres will have less grip.
Brakes are strong enough to lock the wheels even on a 3000 pound car, so that is essentially irrelevant.
Cars have a much larger frontal area, thus more air drag.
So more grip from tyres + more from air drag = shorter braking distances.

I've never seen braking distance/time numbers for bikes but I'd imagine they be larger (although not by much) than the figures for a car.

On the other hand, your post about your family in the car was hilarious.

Summer tires don't last over 40 000km here ( I think more like 30 000km or even less in normal use), perhaps it is our tarmac or something but certainly no way that tires would last even 40 000 miles yet 60 000 miles!

Quote from mrodgers :

A 3000 pound car with 4 disk brakes compared with a 500 pound motorcycle with half the brakes and much better engine braking ability. You do the math. A bike will definitely out brake a car.

Engine braking don't enter into it. If you're on the threshold you'll have minimal weight on the rear wheel. Effectively, you've got whatever the front tyre can do for you, and that's it. A heavy car has more momentum, but it has a much larger contact patch. Note that it's the tyre friction that matters for a single braking instance, not disk/drum brakes - if they can lock the wheels, there's enough braking power.

As for limiting bikes, isn't it funny how Rospa have forgotten that in the early 1990s "a proposed European Commission limit of 100 bhp on motorcycles failed, partly because it was not possible to demonstrate a link between bhp and accident risk. Therefore, it was not possible to show that imposing a limit would reduce the number of motorcycle accidents." (http://www.begin-motorcycling.co.uk/rospa7.htm - point 7.3.5)

I don't doubt that motorcycles are ridden irresponsibly, but life in general is dangerous. If they're to limit bikes because they're dangerous, they pollute and they can exceed the speed limit then (as someone said in another place) why have any other vehicle, "when the 999cc
People's Car will allow the Workers to travel to their Workers' Paradise at
59mph."

Quote from Christofire :

Engine braking don't enter into it.

With a v-twin it does, I get TONS of engine braking, that combined with a slipper clutch means I can use the engine braking VERY effectively.

But if you brake very hard with brakes isn't engine just adding more work to brakes instead doing part of work? So in that sense engine braking is not helping to make braking distance shorter even surely it slows bike down without or just a bit brakes applied.