Motorcycle Helmet Law

[TC1474]

If that helmet was legal at the time of manufacture, regardless of its age, it still remains legal.

 

It's a plastic novelty german helmet makes a 50's pudding basin look positively enormous. Anyway my way of saying to lid laws

 

OK, fair enough, The picture did not do it justice. It looked like an old corker, which was the point I was trying to make

[humbucker]

Saying that you have the right to the choice, or that it is the nanny state is kind of forgetting something. The roads you are riding on are not yours. Yes, you do pay to use them and yes they are public roads but that just means that the public have access to them. They are owned and maintained (!) by whatever public body looks after that class of road. If you think you own a part of it, try digging a piece up and see what happens. When you pay your VED, you are basically paying to use the road on their conditions, the same as you would have to abide by conditions of entry to or use of anything privately owned, including a circuit for track days.

You would have a valid case to say that whilst on private land the nanny state insists on you wearing a helmet, having an MOT etc but as far as I am aware, unless it is a place to which the public have access you can wear what the heck you want and drive anything you like however you like. The argument that it should be your choice holds no more validity for the public road than it does for a track day. Why do they insist on you wearing a lid and one piece leathers? If you smack yourself up, you have signed away all but the most basic of rights to make a claim. Same thing, it's their turf, it's their rules. It isn't ours to dictate what we can and cannot do on the roads other than to campaign for them to change the law.

[littlecat]

no one wants a nanny state making all our decisions for us...but as a girl who grew up riding bare headed....I would now always choose to wear a lid myself....my bigger concern, as a mother of a biking daughter , is that if it weren't a legal requirement we would probably see tons of young 'cool' kids choosing not to , and while i'm sure my daughter has more sense, I would prefer there not to be a choice in the matter. no parent in their right mind , regardless of their own views on freedom of choice, is going to want their kids out there riding with an unprotected head

[wr6133]

Saying that you have the right to the choice, or that it is the nanny state is kind of forgetting something. The roads you are riding on are not yours. Yes, you do pay to use them and yes they are public roads but that just means that the public have access to them. They are owned and maintained (!) by whatever public body looks after that class of road. If you think you own a part of it, try digging a piece up and see what happens. When you pay your VED, you are basically paying to use the road on their conditions, the same as you would have to abide by conditions of entry to or use of anything privately owned, including a circuit for track days.

You would have a valid case to say that whilst on private land the nanny state insists on you wearing a helmet, having an MOT etc but as far as I am aware, unless it is a place to which the public have access you can wear what the heck you want and drive anything you like however you like. The argument that it should be your choice holds no more validity for the public road than it does for a track day. Why do they insist on you wearing a lid and one piece leathers? If you smack yourself up, you have signed away all but the most basic of rights to make a claim. Same thing, it's their turf, it's their rules. It isn't ours to dictate what we can and cannot do on the roads other than to campaign for them to change the law.

 

Sorry but that is a failed argument. Our roads are state owned so actually yes they are owned by us. Vehicle Excise Duty is not Road tax so that actually has nothing to do with paying to use the road on "their" conditions. None of that has any relevance to Helmet laws though, the Nanny state telling me I have to do follow a rule that should I break is only going to harm me has nothing to do with who owns the roads. Track days are on private property so they can make you wear a gimp suit and a school tie if they want again has b all to do with helmet laws.

 

no one wants a nanny state making all our decisions for us...but as a girl who grew up riding bare headed....I would now always choose to wear a lid myself....my bigger concern, as a mother of a biking daughter , is that if it weren't a legal requirement we would probably see tons of young 'cool' kids choosing not to , and while i'm sure my daughter has more sense, I would prefer there not to be a choice in the matter. no parent in their right mind , regardless of their own views on freedom of choice, is going to want their kids out there riding with an unprotected head

 

I can see more sense in this argument than any of the others. Still disagree with it though. Once your kid turns 18 it's their choice to take risks, state should not be dictating what risk they can take if it does not harm others. If we follow your argument through then the state should simply ban motorcycling it is dangerous so nobody should have a choice in the matter...... many non biking parents would likely agree to that.

Sorry if I seem argumentative but this is a topic that riles me up especially as no safety Nazi/nanny statist can answer the question, What right does the state have to pass a law that stops me doing something that poses no risk to others only a risk to myself?

I also think it's a slippery slope one law leads to another and as they see people roll over and pass away their personal freedoms/choices they will slowly take away more

[littlecat]

Saying that you have the right to the choice, or that it is the nanny state is kind of forgetting something. The roads you are riding on are not yours. Yes, you do pay to use them and yes they are public roads but that just means that the public have access to them. They are owned and maintained (!) by whatever public body looks after that class of road. If you think you own a part of it, try digging a piece up and see what happens. When you pay your VED, you are basically paying to use the road on their conditions, the same as you would have to abide by conditions of entry to or use of anything privately owned, including a circuit for track days.

You would have a valid case to say that whilst on private land the nanny state insists on you wearing a helmet, having an MOT etc but as far as I am aware, unless it is a place to which the public have access you can wear what the heck you want and drive anything you like however you like. The argument that it should be your choice holds no more validity for the public road than it does for a track day. Why do they insist on you wearing a lid and one piece leathers? If you smack yourself up, you have signed away all but the most basic of rights to make a claim. Same thing, it's their turf, it's their rules. It isn't ours to dictate what we can and cannot do on the roads other than to campaign for them to change the law.

 

Sorry but that is a failed argument. Our roads are state owned so actually yes they are owned by us. Vehicle Excise Duty is not Road tax so that actually has nothing to do with paying to use the road on "their" conditions. None of that has any relevance to Helmet laws though, the Nanny state telling me I have to do follow a rule that should I break is only going to harm me has nothing to do with who owns the roads. Track days are on private property so they can make you wear a gimp suit and a school tie if they want again has b all to do with helmet laws.

 

no one wants a nanny state making all our decisions for us...but as a girl who grew up riding bare headed....I would now always choose to wear a lid myself....my bigger concern, as a mother of a biking daughter , is that if it weren't a legal requirement we would probably see tons of young 'cool' kids choosing not to , and while i'm sure my daughter has more sense, I would prefer there not to be a choice in the matter. no parent in their right mind , regardless of their own views on freedom of choice, is going to want their kids out there riding with an unprotected head

 

I can see more sense in this argument than any of the others. Still disagree with it though. Once your kid turns 18 it's their choice to take risks, state should not be dictating what risk they can take if it does not harm others. If we follow your argument through then the state should simply ban motorcycling it is dangerous so nobody should have a choice in the matter...... many non biking parents would likely agree to that.

Sorry if I seem argumentative but this is a topic that riles me up especially as no safety Nazi/nanny statist can answer the question, What right does the state have to pass a law that stops me doing something that poses no risk to others only a risk to myself?

I also think it's a slippery slope one law leads to another and as they see people roll over and pass away their personal freedoms/choices they will slowly take away more

 

and taking away the safety net of not requiring a helmet would drastically impact the number of new riders...there are many bikers who start at 17/18 / whatever age, with help from their parents ( whether they are seen legally as adults or not ) and as a biking fanatic, even I would baulk at letting one of my precious offspring loose if they could choose to not wear a helmet....so just imagine the reduction in numbers who don't come from biking backgrounds.

I actually bought my daughter her first bike, and refused to let her out on it until we had acquired a full set of protective gear, which she was quite happy to comply with, had she had the legal freedom to bugger off on it wearing shorts, tee shirt and bare head she'd still be saving up now( whereas I have enabled her at 19 to be riding a restricted 500 on A2, mostly paid for by me )

im not disputing the fact that we want the freedom to do whatever we choose, and am by no means any kind of self appointed atgatt police type, but helmets for me are a bare minimum requirement.

just my opinion... and thankfully , currently law.

how about this for food for thought....there are many bikers who frequently take their offspring/loved ones/mates for pillion rides.....if there was no helmet law , how big a can of worms would that open up?

[humbucker]

Sorry but that is a failed argument. Our roads are state owned so actually yes they are owned by us. Vehicle Excise Duty is not Road tax so that actually has nothing to do with paying to use the road on "their" conditions. None of that has any relevance to Helmet laws though, the Nanny state telling me I have to do follow a rule that should I break is only going to harm me has nothing to do with who owns the roads. Track days are on private property so they can make you wear a gimp suit and a school tie if they want again has b all to do with helmet laws.

 

 

Not a failed argument at all. If you damage the road or take a sign post and try and claim it is 'your' road because it belongs to the State....well, good luck with that! Your right to use the roads does not make them yours.

You are right that on private land such as track days, they can make you wear a dead kipper if they so wish, it is their show. Whether you accept it or not, the public roads are not yours to pick and chose which laws you think should apply to you. The State see it as a means of enhancing your safety on their roads, you see it as an infringement of your free choice so it comes down to whether you think the State is wrong to show some concern for your safety in the face of a huge risk you decide to take. I agree with the law as it is but like I wrote earlier, if you want to campaign to have the law changed, I wish you luck.

[wr6133]

how about this for food for thought....there are many bikers who frequently take their offspring/loved ones/mates for pillion rides.....if there was no helmet law , how big a can of worms would that open up?

 

As far as I'm concerned if the pillion is an adult that's should be between the pillion and the rider.

[littlecat]

how about this for food for thought....there are many bikers who frequently take their offspring/loved ones/mates for pillion rides.....if there was no helmet law , how big a can of worms would that open up?

 

As far as I'm concerned if the pillion is an adult that's should be between the pillion and the rider.

 

until the worse happens !!!

anyway, the joy of this whole debate I guess is that we can all express our own opinions....I for one love that people have such varied and different perpectives....but I still don't want my kids , or anyone elses out there without head protection ,. and if it takes the current legislation to ensure that . then I have no problem with it.

if I want to feel the wind in my hair I will go ride somewhere that doesn't require me to wear one

[littlecat]

how about this for food for thought....there are many bikers who frequently take their offspring/loved ones/mates for pillion rides.....if there was no helmet law , how big a can of worms would that open up?

 

As far as I'm concerned if the pillion is an adult that's should be between the pillion and the rider.

 

ooh, sorry , had to pick up this one....so what if the parent/biker is an anti helmet/freedom of choice fanatic, and therefore believes as a safe rider he/she should also be able to give their kids the wonderful freedom of feeling the wind in their hair ( or the tarmac on their face).

would we then need legislation that only protects minors????

how is that any different to having a blanket law providing a basic safety cover for all motorcyclists.

[wr6133]

Not a failed argument at all. If you damage the road or take a sign post and try and claim it is 'your' road because it belongs to the State....well, good luck with that! Your right to use the roads does not make them yours.

 

Of course I can't take parts of the road as I don't own it. However they are publicly owned so we do have a stake in them. Still a retarded argument to advocate helmet laws being good.

 

You are right that on private land such as track days, they can make you wear a dead kipper if they so wish, it is their show. Whether you accept it or not, the public roads are not yours to pick and chose which laws you think should apply to you. The State see it as a means of enhancing your safety on their roads, you see it as an infringement of your free choice so it comes down to whether you think the State is wrong to show some concern for your safety in the face of a huge risk you decide to take. I agree with the law as it is but like I wrote earlier, if you want to campaign to have the law changed, I wish you luck.

 

Again I ask

What right does the state have to dictate to me laws that prevent me from doing something that poses only harm to myself?

As far as I'm concerned if I pose no harm to others I don't want my safety enhanced by decree it's my choice to enhance it or not.

Laws should exist to stop me harming others and that is all.

[littlecat]

Not a failed argument at all. If you damage the road or take a sign post and try and claim it is 'your' road because it belongs to the State....well, good luck with that! Your right to use the roads does not make them yours.

 

Of course I can't take parts of the road as I don't own it. However they are publicly owned so we do have a stake in them. Still a retarded argument to advocate helmet laws being good.

 

You are right that on private land such as track days, they can make you wear a dead kipper if they so wish, it is their show. Whether you accept it or not, the public roads are not yours to pick and chose which laws you think should apply to you. The State see it as a means of enhancing your safety on their roads, you see it as an infringement of your free choice so it comes down to whether you think the State is wrong to show some concern for your safety in the face of a huge risk you decide to take. I agree with the law as it is but like I wrote earlier, if you want to campaign to have the law changed, I wish you luck.

 

Again I ask

What right does the state have to dictate to me laws that prevent me from doing something that poses only harm to myself?

As far as I'm concerned if I pose no harm to others I don't want my safety enhanced by decree it's my choice to enhance it or not.

Laws should exist to stop me harming others and that is all.

 

and I reiterate.... if you choose to exercise your right to only endanger yourself, on a stretch of road I happen to be travelling after you, and you then smear your brains over the road... and I fall off as a result.... then im sorry , but I would consider that to be you endangering others .... ive never had the displeasure of riding through someone elses spilt brains, but I would imagine at the very least it would be a slipping hazard

[wr6133]

ooh, sorry , had to pick up this one....so what if the parent/biker is an anti helmet/freedom of choice fanatic, and therefore believes as a safe rider he/she should also be able to give their kids the wonderful freedom of feeling the wind in their hair ( or the tarmac on their face).

would we then need legislation that only protects minors????

how is that any different to having a blanket law providing a basic safety cover for all motorcyclists.

 

I believe it should be a choice for Adults, minors should wear lids.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Probably but we generally accept a minor cannot make a decision in the way an adult can so not wearing a lid in your example there would not necessarily be their free choice but one pushed upon them so it would possibly be another persons actions risking harming another (parents action/pressure risking the child) which I have maintained is the only thing laws should guard against.

To be clear I am not one of those nut jobs that argues no lid is safer. I know a lid is safer. I am just adamant it should be individual choice and were there no helmet law I would still wear one of some variety.

 

and I reiterate.... if you choose to exercise your right to only endanger yourself, on a stretch of road I happen to be travelling after you, and you then smear your brains over the road... and I fall off as a result.... then im sorry , but I would consider that to be you endangering others .... ive never had the displeasure of riding through someone elses spilt brains, but I would imagine at the very least it would be a slipping hazard

 

Having witnessed a fatal head wound from about 2 feet away I doubt very much my mashed up head following a crash will present a hazard to you. My mashed up bike would present a hazard though and would have done with or without helmet.

[littlecat]

quite possibly a valid point, but then again my wish to not see minors/youngsters/anyone at all smear themselves all over the road without at least having their head protected doesn't take away your right to object to such legislation, nor does it take away your right to not want legislation, despite the fact you would probably still choose to wear a helmet regardless.

it might be intriguing to admit at this point in the debate that I actually think choosing to not wear protective clothing or a helmet might make you a safer rider , as you would quite possibly then not be prepared to take risks......but that's a whole other debate

[Joeman]

it might be intriguing to admit at this point in the debate that I actually think choosing to not wear protective clothing or a helmet might make you a safer rider , as you would quite possibly then not be prepared to take risks......but that's a whole other debate

Agreed..

Also, dressing up in preparation to have an accident seems crazy when you think about it.. crazy that people still ride when they are so confident they are going to NEED all that gear!

[littlecat]

it might be intriguing to admit at this point in the debate that I actually think choosing to not wear protective clothing or a helmet might make you a safer rider , as you would quite possibly then not be prepared to take risks......but that's a whole other debate

Agreed..

Also, dressing up in preparation to have an accident seems crazy when you think about it.. crazy that people still ride when they are so confident they are going to NEED all that gear!

 

or is it ??

as kids with a total conviction that we were invincible, my brother and I rode the same bike, on the same bit of private road ( my bike I might add, that he had no business being on in the first place)

both in totally innapropriate clothing ( or rather lack of lol) , and I managed to stay in one piece , even wearing a bikini ( yeah yeah , I know)...while he somehow managed to rip half his chest off, and spend the ensuing 4 hours having gravel picked out with tweezers, and copious amounts of iodine.

doubt that we had different intentions at the start of that day...but I bet theres at least one of us that would have worn protective gear with the benefit of hindsight

[humbucker]

Again I ask

What right does the state have to dictate to me laws that prevent me from doing something that poses only harm to myself?

As far as I'm concerned if I pose no harm to others I don't want my safety enhanced by decree it's my choice to enhance it or not.

Laws should exist to stop me harming others and that is all.

 

Actually no, it isn't all. The State has every right to dictate these laws to you, whilst you are on their roads. That is what they do, they are the lawmakers, these laws are made using a system that is not perfect by any means but is basically well meaning. If you think the State has no right to dictate what laws they can make, we are off on another topic altogether.

Secondly, whilst you are free to excercise your objections to decisions that you think only apply to your safety, am I right in assuming that once you have this 'freedom' in place, you will waive the right to be treated in a State funded hospital for any injuries you receive? Bearing in mind the amount you will have to fork out for private health cover (if you can get it for this) which will be your only option, it suddenly doesn't look such so much a principle of individual freedom, so much as cherry picking which parts of society apply to you. If you think that would not be a proviso of you being allowed to ride without a helmet, you may find money speaks louder than actions.

[Tango]

I think that the reality is that this law is never going to be repealed.....there is too much evidence to suggest that there would be no benefit from removing it from law....

I guess what I was looking for with the poll is what most people think.......are MAG wasting their time in pursuing its abolition? Would MAG attract more members if they dropped this and concentrated on other biking issues and possible further governmental interference with biking laws? Would MAG actually lose membership if they did drop the anti-helmet campaign? Are they concentrating on spending time and resource on subjects that represent a minority of bikers than on issues that affect the majority of bikers?

Don't get me wrong....I am fully supportive of MAG (and the BMF).....but the comments that I saw on an article about MAG seemed to suggest "forget the helmet law, move on and concentrate on other issues"

Thoughts?

[wr6133]

Actually no, it isn't all. The State has every right to dictate these laws to you, whilst you are on their roads. That is what they do, they are the lawmakers, these laws are made using a system that is not perfect by any means but is basically well meaning. If you think the State has no right to dictate what laws they can make, we are off on another topic altogether.

Secondly, whilst you are free to excercise your objections to decisions that you think only apply to your safety, am I right in assuming that once you have this 'freedom' in place, you will waive the right to be treated in a State funded hospital for any injuries you receive? Bearing in mind the amount you will have to fork out for private health cover (if you can get it for this) which will be your only option, it suddenly doesn't look such so much a principle of individual freedom, so much as cherry picking which parts of society apply to you. If you think that would not be a proviso of you being allowed to ride without a helmet, you may find money speaks louder than actions.

 

I'm not going to type another 2 1/2 pages of arguing today. All I can say is if that's your attitude then you should go live in Iran the political system there is more suited to you.

A greater man than I can ever be once said this

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

It applies to you

[Tango]

OK guys.... please can we keep this civil......everyone is entitled to their opinion......agree to disagree if necessary.....

[wr6133]

I think that the reality is that this law is never going to be repealed.....there is too much evidence to suggest that there would be no benefit from removing it from law....

I guess what I was looking for with the poll is what most people think.......are MAG wasting their time in pursuing its abolition? Would MAG attract more members if they dropped this and concentrated on other biking issues and possible further governmental interference with biking laws? Would MAG actually lose membership if they did drop the anti-helmet campaign? Are they concentrating on spending time and resource on subjects that represent a minority of bikers than on issues that affect the majority of bikers?

Don't get me wrong....I am fully supportive of MAG (and the BMF).....but the comments that I saw on an article about MAG seemed to suggest "forget the helmet law, move on and concentrate on other issues"

Thoughts?

 

I'm not a member of MAG or BMF as I think grass roots activism is dead and lobbying groups such as these have evolved mostly in too gravy trains. I would join a group that actually openly protested restrictive legislation against bikers but by that I mean properly protested not hired some wannabe celeb former MP to occasionally make a press release and attend fancy dinners. MAG did it once Fred Hill was a real man he stood up for what he believed and took the blows that came with actually living that belief rather than just mumbling about it. He was tested and not found wanting, I don't think MAG can claim that nowdays.

However to answer your question I don't think dropping their objection to lid laws would generate more membership as it's not exactly something they passionately campaign against now.

I wouldn't be surprised if MAG fades away especially with the recent news from them. BMF I suspect will grow due to the events it holds more than any kind of lobbying they claim to do.

[humbucker]

I'm not going to type another 2 1/2 pages of arguing today. All I can say is if that's your attitude then you should go live in Iran the political system there is more suited to you.

A greater man than I can ever be once said this

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

It applies to you

 

If you are going to quote Benjamin Franklin at me and tell me to live in Iran because I have the audacity to disagree with you and try and point out a reasonable argument aginst deregulating crash helmets, I'm out of here. By the way, read the life of Benjamin Franklin and the context that quote comes from, you may have time whilst you are in hospital recovering from a preventable head injury.

p.s.

That last bit was not meant literally, I am trying to keep this civil and light hearted.

[Fozzie]

Bah...

This is silly!

I HAAAAAAATE the argument "well people smoke" blah blah blah... faaack off

How long have people been smoking?

How long have people been driving?

How long have people been riding?

Now...

Tell me in this current climate of UBER health and safety if a cancer causing, addictive and expensive product and two vehicles powered by an explosive substance would ever be allowed through current health and safety rules? Not a fooking chance. So that argument is near on totally irrelevant on the basis that they are only allowed to continue now as it benefits the fat cats up top.

Smoking etc only exist today as the market is just too big, and it makes the government too much money from it. Even so they are upping costs of smoking and advertising why you shouldn't do it. They even have the NHS that they pay for giving free quit kits.

Smoking can't kill you every time you do it... Whereas everytime you ride a motorbike there is a risk, however small.

Also "I'm a careful rider" doesn't make you invincible against sudden failures of your motorbike such as a front tyre blow out, or an engine seizure (both I have suffered, both threw me off and BOTH knackered my helmet).

On holidays yes I rode a ped around with no helmet... I had a whale of a time, hilarious... It was in the back of my mind the whole time if I came off I was buggered as I was also in shirts and shorts.

I have lived on the anti-ATGATT side of things and when someone pulled out on me I shit myself more than usual as it was in the back of my head I have nothing protecting me. The added panic could easily have caused an accident.

It's not about it offending bystanders... If my dad who rides or any friends died from a head injury from not wearing a helmet when he would likely have survived otherwise I would be upset AND angry as what an idiot is what I'd think.

Also if you hit a hail of bugs at 40mph and fall off I want to see how your insurance company responds... "yes sir, I wrapped it around a tree when a few bugs hit my eyes"... "yes sir I am a prat".

[Mr Fro]

Like my mum always says to this very day regarding motorcycling: "It's not you I worry about, it's all the other idiots on the road".

[cruz]

I think that the reality is that this law is never going to be repealed.....there is too much evidence to suggest that there would be no benefit from removing it from law....

I guess what I was looking for with the poll is what most people think.......are MAG wasting their time in pursuing its abolition? Would MAG attract more members if they dropped this and concentrated on other biking issues and possible further governmental interference with biking laws? Would MAG actually lose membership if they did drop the anti-helmet campaign? Are they concentrating on spending time and resource on subjects that represent a minority of bikers than on issues that affect the majority of bikers?

Don't get me wrong....I am fully supportive of MAG (and the BMF).....but the comments that I saw on an article about MAG seemed to suggest "forget the helmet law, move on and concentrate on other issues"

Thoughts?

I agree that there is no chance of repeal Tango, but also believe that it should always be on MAG's agenda, along with the many achievable targets, anti slip drain covers for one (which also won't happen as it would mean councils/road builders would have to pay for them and not the motorcyclist. a safety concern ? Yes. A way of reducing accidents/injuries/deaths?

Yes. Can we get the motorcyclist to pay for it ? No. ok lets not bother).

Daylight riding lights have come in through the back door, Hi-Viz seems to be happening more and more. When do we get the leg protectors.

Anyone else in Hyde Park in '88 ?

I support MAG though I'm not a Member, even if a former National President is a good friend of mine

[Joeman]

I think that the reality is that this law is never going to be repealed.....there is too much evidence to suggest that there would be no benefit from removing it from law....

I guess what I was looking for with the poll is what most people think.......are MAG wasting their time in pursuing its abolition? Would MAG attract more members if they dropped this and concentrated on other biking issues and possible further governmental interference with biking laws? Would MAG actually lose membership if they did drop the anti-helmet campaign? Are they concentrating on spending time and resource on subjects that represent a minority of bikers than on issues that affect the majority of bikers?

Don't get me wrong....I am fully supportive of MAG (and the BMF).....but the comments that I saw on an article about MAG seemed to suggest "forget the helmet law, move on and concentrate on other issues"

Thoughts?

I agree that there is no chance of repeal Tango, but also believe that it should always be on MAG's agenda, along with the many achievable targets, anti slip drain covers for one (which also won't happen as it would mean councils/road builders would have to pay for them and not the motorcyclist. a safety concern ? Yes. A way of reducing accidents/injuries/deaths?

Yes. Can we get the motorcyclist to pay for it ? No. ok lets not bother).

Daylight riding lights have come in through the back door, Hi-Viz seems to be happening more and more. When do we get the leg protectors.

Anyone else in Hyde Park in '88 ?

I support MAG though I'm not a Member, even if a former National President is a good friend of mine

 

Beepers for when filtering will be next big idea i reckon!!

like the talking reverse sirens on dustbin lorries...

"Caution, This Vehicle is filtering"...