Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

[UK] Bikes need lower speed limits than cars

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' at netrider.net.au started by pro-pilot, Oct 24, 2007.

  1. Insanity :roll:


    ‘Bikes need lower speed limits than cars’

    By Steve Farrell

    Politics & the law

    17 October 2007 11:17

    Speed limits for motorcycles need to be lower than those set for the rest of the traffic, two leading transport advisors have said.

    Stephen Plowden and Mayer Hillman, transport authors and advisors to the Slower Speeds Initiative, said the measure would improve safety for pedestrians.

    The calls came in the build up to an MCN backed mass ride in London this Saturday against road pricing for bikes and calls for motorcycles to be ‘downsized’ from Stephen Plowden, Mayer Hillman and eight road safety groups.

    Hillman and Plowden wrote to MPs in August demanding they insist Government look at limiting the power, weight and speed of motorcycles.

    A joint letter signed by signed by eight road safety groups claimed motorcycles were ‘about 1.5 times as likely as cars to be involved in collisions which cause injury to cyclists’ and ‘about 3.8 times as likely as cars to be involved in slightly or serious [sic] injuring pedestrians’.

    Mayer Hillman, a senior fellow emeritus at the Government-funded Policy Studies Institute, has now claimed that the high rate of collisions with pedestrians occurs because “on two wheels it’s much more difficult to keep controlâ€. He said: “That’s the nature of a two-wheeled vehicle.

    "It’s much easier to keep control of a four-wheel vehicle. It’s that combined with the issue of speed, because on a bicycle you’ve got the same problem of only two wheels but at least you have the consolation that because you are riding at a much lower speed it’s easier to control.â€

    He said motorcycles consequently needed lower speed limits than cars, although enforcement difficulties made it impractical. “I would certainly veer on the side of lower speed limits,†he said.

    Stephen Plowden said that while the “default urban speed limit†was set at 30mph, lower limits were needed for motorcycles. “I’m with Mayer on that,†he said. He claimed special measures were needed for motorcycles because their rate of acceleration was a hazard to pedestrians.

    “It means that their speed on impact is likely to be greater but also it means they are more likely to have an accident, particularly as they sometimes can be quite hard to see,†he said.

    Stephen Plowden said he would like to see the default urban speed limit for all vehicles lowered to 20mph. “If that happened, and if it were properly enforced, then I don’t think there would be a case for having a lower speed limit for motorcycles, but I still think there would be a need to do something about the fact they accelerate so much more quickly than other vehicles,†he said.

    Craig-Carey Clinch, policy director for the Motorcycle Industry Associations, said the pedestrian and cyclist collision figures quoted by Plowden and Hillman were “inaccurate and full of conjecture†because they did not take into account fault.

    He said: “One has to look at the causes of accidents and you tend to find that, even though motorcycles are named by people like Plowden and Hillman et al as being a great threat to pedestrians, when you actually look at the causation factors in pedestrian and cycle accidents, you often find it’s the cyclists or pedestrian failing to look, give way or obey basic road traffic law.â€

    To join our ride this Saturday against Plowden and Hillman’s calls and road pricing for motorcycles, go to www.rider-connect.com/rideforrights2007

    To find out what other extreme ideas Stephen Plowden and Mayer Hillman have for transport, including a world in which people live more â€local lives,†completing most journeys on foot, bicycle or bus, get MCN, on sale Wednesday, October 17, 2007.
  2. My thoughts exactly. Conveniently forgotten by the wowsers, hey? :evil:
  3. I shudder to think of the sheer stupidity people aren't being tested for, before they are appointed to a position of power.

    Even just look at this Hillman moron...

  4. 20mph (32kph) speed limits?! :shock:

    We're almost back in the old days where cars had to have the guy walking in front of cars, waving the flag, just so people don't get run over. :roll:
  5. I don't see the problem? Of course we need to be slowed down, or how are the slower thinking pond life out there going to get a fair go at hitting us on their Sunday arvo drive?
  6. Discrimanatory, just a little! Most riders would have ten times the roadskills than the average driver. What a load of sh!t.

    Yep Ktulu, definitely a kiddy fiddler.
  7. Darwin must be rolling in his grave.
  8. To be fair, any nitwit can swerve to dodge someone in the Falcon. Not every rider can do the same on their bike.

    But yeah, seriously missing the issue there. How about everyone opens their eyes?
  9. Un. Fcuking. Believable.

    The world needs a few good assassinations.
  10. Words fail me. :cry:
  11. What naive, uninformed retards. EG

    Demonstrates an obvious lack of understanding about bikes! ffs..
  12. Hope he comes downunder and steps out in front of me.....sorry officer didn't see him. Tosser!!!

  13. Seems like our "mate" Harold Scruby isn't alone in the world - which is sad.

    By their reasoning, if less wheels means harder to control and hence more likely to injure, and smaller size means harder to see, and faster acceleration means more likely to cause more injury in an impact, then trucks should be allowed to drive at 5 times the general speed limit. Amazing how easily people can take a couple of statistics, twist them into a theory that matches their manifesto and then issue an edict that everyone should radically change their lives as a result.
  14. anyone remember the sydney toll slow ride a year or two back? That really showed that cagers could play well with bikes capped to a lower speed.
  15. I really dont know what to say........

    What a fcking crazy idea !!!!!

    Some people just dont deserve to be heard !
  16. His observation is valid. Although that in itself is not even required for anyone to open their gob in public in our fair countries.

    You saying that nothing you don't want to hear should be voiced smacks of a desire to have state controlled media and an army of SS agents hunting down the rebels!

    What you should be doing is putting together a reasoned argument as to why the proposal is unworkable rather than calling the guy an idiot and blowing a fuse. Behaviour like that will only have him listened to and not you.
  17. I wasnt meaning to be against free speech.

    But its like others have said, some people just take some facts and then twist them to suit their own agenda......

    What I meant was that someone should think about these sort of things properly before coming out and saying something like that to the general public.
  18. Please get off your high horse, no-one is espousing an entirely censored society. They are indicating that these extremist d1ckheads need to not be paid the time of day in the media. Where would Harold Scruby be if he never got his stupid scone on TV? He'd just be a crackpot website author.

    As for free speech, and if you are going to exaggerate what was said in this thread, would you say the same of someone trying to justify a different speed limit for people with black skin or blue eyes on the grounds of genetic traits that they believe to be proven. The overwhelmingly vast majority of society knows this sort of thing is wrong and find such a theory offensive. Should that person be given the same media time as someone who is espousing the need for reduced speed limits at school zones? Free speech is one thing, but there needs to be limits on the access that clearly fcuked in the head people have to say their piece. And this isn't an "SS" state that we are talking about. It is a society that has standards and doesn't condone abhorent and clearly unacceptable ideas.

    As for mister Hillman(I bet he still drives one that only does 20mph), others have only voiced their opinion of his theories. Or does free speech not extend to calling someone a tosser?
  19. so where were you and your horse when it came to tony abbott espousing his anti abortion religious views on this country?

    You are completely missing the point about free speech and need to look up what it means - to censor anyone, regardless of what they are saying or how big an audience they can find means you have a controlled state.

    Now poor arguments can always be refuted, however if what you are saying about "the population knows better" was ever true, then you wouldn't have situations in which wars were started or CTP premiums being different between bikes and cars.

    You can't (and shouldn't) stop people like this from speaking. What you should be doing is explaining how and where their logic is faulty or where the idea would infringe on civil liberties or any number of other things. Otherwise we are no better than China and its media and internet laws.

    As for the high horse, i'll bet you're the first to go crying and running to the free speech and civil liberties people when something like a national ID card or compulsory vehicle GPS trackers puts a twist in your panties.
  20. But it's more fun to vent!

    I think the guy is a moronic doughnut puncher who drills for Vegemite in small animals.

    Contained herein is my written permission for anyone to quote me in their well researched and reasoned essay on the matter.