Another day, another IAM poll ...

This time it about the perennial SMIDSY ('Sorry, mate, I didn't see you') accident, so familiar to cyclists of both the motor and pedal variety.

You don't have to be a member, etc etc. Responses from as wide as possible, pass it on, etc etc.

Here it is. Fill your boots.

Another day, another IAM Poll

This time it's about MoT tests. The Government is considering bringing MoT testing into line with the minimum European requirements, which would be:

• First test after four years from new (currently three)
• Subsequent tests every other year after that (currently annual).

Personally, I have no problem with MoT testing. I'm glad to ride around knowing that there is a scheme in place to make sure that other vehicles sharing the road with me are at least of a minimum standard of roadworthiness. I know the system is fallible and can be got around, but it's better than nothing. Also, I'm glad to put any vehicle of mine to an independent test every twelve months. Two sets of eyes are better than one, and occasionally an MoT tester has spotted something that I either hadn't seen, or had underestimated the seriousness of. In those circumstances, I have been very glad to be told.

I use any one of three testing stations, and all of them know that I will be taking the car or bike away, doing the work myself, and re-presenting it, so there's no danger of the make-work brigade finding faults that aren't there, although I appreciate that this is a problem with some places who might see a gullible or non-technical customer as an opportunity to get some workshop time when things are slow.

As for reducing the fequency of testing from 3+1 to 4+2, I am not sure. Most modern vehicles will still be in as roadworthy a condition after four years as they are after three. The regs were brought in when vehicles were much less reliable than they are today, and I doubt if that extra year will make much difference. Once a vehicle gets to 5-6 years old and has perhaps 60-70k miles on the clock, however, my instinct tells me that an annual check is a good idea. That's when things start to fail, and some of them are safety-critical.

Anyway, go and have your say. Unlike Mr Cameron, the IAM are keen to get the opinions of as many people as possible. You don't have to be a member, etc.

UPDATE: Having done the survey, and learned that 27% of cars fail their first MoT at three years old, I am inclined to say keep things as they are. Getting a 3-year-old car tested, and then testing every year thereafter, is hardly onerous.

Another Season, Another IAM Poll

This time, it's winter driving. Got your shovel? Got your Thermos of tea? Got your woolly blanket? Then go for it ...

Here.

Shame there's no motorbike version. I could tell 'em a thing or two.

IAM and ABS 3

I have been having some correspondence with a gentleman called Vince Yearley of the IAM over their support for EU proposals for mandatory ABS on new bikes. Previous posts here and here.

I received a second reply from Vince today. Here is what he said:

Dear Richard

Your points about compulsion, not choice, are well made. As I understand it, you have no problem with ABS on bikes if it is an option.

I am reluctant to talk about instances of compulsion, such as seat belt laws or mandatory wearing of crash helmets for motorcyclists where there has been a road safety benefit. It is the compulsory fitting of ABS to new bikes we are addressing.

And I don’t believe we have taken a formal position on the other European moves you cite (compulsory high viz clothing and anti tampering measures).

“Increasing skills” and raising driver and rider standards are what you have signed up for over the last 19 years (apols for earlier error). Those principles are just as important whether or not your bike in future comes with ABS fitted as standard as I believe it is still possible to make riding errors even on bikes with the best spec. I really hope that our one news release declaring support of ABS on motorcycles won’t cause you to consider leaving the IAM.

Regards


Vince

And my reply to him this evening:

Hi Vince

I really do appreciate your taking the time to make a substantive reply to my comments. You are correct in your first paragraph. I have no objection the ABS on bikes per se. I have had it on two bikes in the past and never once caused it to activate, apart from in informal testing. Neither of my current bikes has it, and I don't miss it. I pride myself on my forward planning and riding skills and hope that they keep me out of trouble. If I am wrong in that, then that is my concern and no-one else's. I would be pleased if ABS were an option on any bike where there was a demand for it. Freedom of choice applies to those who want ABS too. As long as it is an option, and not mandatory.

I cannot deny that there has been a road safety benefit in the laws on seat belts and crash helmets, although it is not as clear-cut as many would like to think. The reduction in KSI numbers for car occupants after the seat-belt law, for example, was accompanied by an increase in injuries and deaths for cyclists, pedestrians and other vulnerable road users. I am sure you are familiar with the concept of risk homeostasis or risk compensation. Seat belt laws, in effect, made life safer for car occupants and more dangerous for everyone else. On the other matter, I believe that anyone who doesn't wear a crash helmet is an utter fool - but I don't support compulsion there either. Your life; your choices.

I am pleased that the IAM has not yet taken a formal position on the other topics under discussion, such as compulsory hi-viz and anti-tampering, and I hope that perhaps the organisation will take a more anti-authoritarian view if these subjects are debated in your policy discussions. Governments will always interfere, firstly because they think they know better than everyone else how people should live their lives, and secondly because they can. This does not mean that private organisations such as the IAM should support them in that.

I doubt that we will agree on this matter, but I am grateful that you have given my remarks your attention and I hope that, if you have any input into the direction of IAM policy in the future, you will remember this exchange and realise that not all of your members are happy with the IAM's embracing of mandatory measures 'for our own good'. My membership is due for renewal next month and I shall probably let it continue, because I do support all the work the IAM does in promoting skills and high standards. But I am still unhappy that my fees and the fact of my membership are being used to support something which, philospohically and politically, I am dead against.

Thank you again, and apologies for the inordinate length of this reply.

Richard

As it is a safety organisation, I can see why the IAM supports everything from seat belts to ABS. What I can't get over is their support for the EU mandating this for everyone regardless of their wishes or needs. I don't want to be accused of tinfoil-hattery, but I can seriously see a situation developing where the EU (or any government) will say:

Well, we made them have ABS and we made them wear high-visibility clothing. They took that OK. They took on board the message that motorcycling was inherently dangerous, and that technology and conspicuity (mitigating the consequences) rather than skill and intelligence (preventing dangerous situations developing in the first place) were the way to make it safer. They believed that we were 'experts' and knew best what is good for them. The next step is to convince them that no sensible person needs more than 80 bhp. And then 60. and then 40. And then we can help them achieve these greater safety benefits with remote throttle control to help them keep to speed limits (I am not making that bit up). When they are all doing 30 mph and slower than almost anything else on the road, but still getting wet and cold, they will start to give up this dangerous pastime altogether. After that, banning 'dangerous' motorcycles will be easy.

The 'salami-slice' method. It worked with smokers. I am not happy that the IAM is collaborating with it.

IAM and ABS 2

In my previous post, I mentioned that I had written to the IAM over their stance of support for the European Parliament proposals for compulsory ABS on bikes over 125cc. I reproduce their reply to my first message, and the content of my reply to that.

Dear Mr Nowhere

Thank you for your email of 22 September.

It is true that we have publicly supported this measure on road safety grounds, but it would be a shame if this single story were to bring your nine years’ support of the IAM to an end.

This European move is in any event unlikely to mean a retro-fitting of ABS to existing bikes.

Anything that makes motorcyclists safer in education terms we would support, and so by extension, if engineering can help reduce motorcycle casualties, we support that too.

Regards
Vince Yearley
IAM

My response:

Hi Vince

Thank you for your prompt reply. Just on a point of detail, I joined the IAM in 1992, so I make that 19 years of membership.

I think you may have missed the main issue that I have with the IAM's position. It is not the benefits of ABS that I was questioning, but the forcing of manufacturers to fit it to all new bikes. There is a big difference between advice, guidance and education on one hand, and compulsion on the other. I would support the first, but feel uncomfortable with the second.

Whether ABS will be mandated to be retro-fitted or not is irrelevant. It is the compulsory fitting to any bike, and the IAM support of it, that I object to. I suppose I could just keep riding older and older bikes if I chose to. That's a kind of freedom, isn't it?

I cannot accept the logical leap in your final sentence, from supporting education in motorcycle safety to supporting mandatory engineering solutions. Education enables people to make informed choices, whereas compulsion removes choice altogether. One does not naturally flow from the other.

Do I take it that the IAM will be supporting all the other proposals currently under discussion in the European Parliament, such as compulsory high-visibility clothing and anti-tampering measures?

The header line to your website speaks of "increasing skills" and "raising driving and riding standards". I cannot see how you get from that position to one where you are supporting the removal of people's freedom to choose. As you can see, this is a philosophical concern, not a technical one. But if the IAM is going to come down on the side of Big Brother, then I fear we may have to part company.

Best wishes

Richard

I know I have a lot of non-biking readers of this blog (and you are all very welcome, be assured of that), who might be asking: What is he on about? If it makes his hobby safer, what's the problem? Surely no-one in his right mind could object to the imposition of rules and regulations designed to save lives?

Well, yes I could. The state in general has no right to force people to do things for their own good. The EU in particular has no mandate to pass any laws or regulations governing British people, because their consent to such rule has never been sought. People with no experience of motorcycling have no right to tell motorcyclists what is or is not good for them. And, of course, there is the 'slippery slope' argument. It's ABS on bikes today. What tomorrow?

• All people walking in remote areas must take a satellite phone (for their own safety)
• All people wishing to take a boat from off its moorings must be aged 18 or over and have passed a rigorous test of competence (for their own safety)
• Anyone proposing to commit an 'act of a horticultural nature' must have a medical certificate to prove they have had a tetanus jab and be wearing the appropriate protective clothing (for their own safety).

All perfectly reasonable regulations if you believe that the state has a duty to stop people harming themselves. But where does it stop?

And let me dispose of the 'if it saves just one life' argument. If every biker in Europe was forced to wear fluoro yellow suits, have ABS, kept their bikes totally unmodified, and rode everywhere at 45 mph, and it saved one life, would it be worth it?

My answer is no, it wouldn't.

IAM and ABS

I read a story in Visordown that the IAM, of which I am a member for both car and motorcycle, is supporting calls to make anti-lock brakes compulsory on all large motorcycles from 2015. Apparently, the European Parliament is shortly to be discussing proposals to force manufacturers to fit ABS to all bikes over 125cc by 2017, and the IAM has lined itself up with these proposals, and in fact is lobbying to have them brought in two years early.

This post is not about ABS. I have ABS on my car, and I love it, although I would appreciate an 'off' switch, because there are a limited number of circumstances where it makes things far worse - ice, for one. I have had bikes with ABS and bikes without, and I haven't ever had to brake hard enough in an emergency for it to kick in. I am much less convinced of the benefits of ABS on a bike because hard braking on a bike calls for much greater care and skill than in a car, and keeping the wheels turning is only part of the equation. ABS adds weight, expense and complexity to a machine where lightness and simplicity are virtues. I'd prefer a bike without it, although it wouldn't be a deal-breaker if the machine I wanted was so equipped. But I would like the choice. The European Parliament would appear to think that I should be denied that choice. And the IAM appear to be supporting them.

This post is about compulsion, not technology. One of my favourite quotations of all time, and one I try to live by, is currently heading the blog:

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.
- P. J. O'Rourke

We do not have the right to tell others how to live their lives. We have the right to insist they do not harm us; but we do not have the right to insist they do not harm themselves. That is why, although I always wear a helmet and safety gear while riding and a seat belt while driving, I do not support laws making these things mandatory. The same goes for ABS.

There are two kinds of people in the world: those who wish to see the world made a better place, usually in accordance with their own prejudices, and by force if necessary, and those who just wish to live their lives according to their own consciences, without interference. I am firmly in the latter camp, while governments of both left and right are in the former. By supporting the calls for mandatory ABS, the IAM is aligning itself with those who wish to interfere, to nanny, to scold, and to control. The IAM has done, and continues to do, a great job in educating, training, assessing and advising. But when it crosses the line into supporting compulsion, it ceases to be an organisation I want to be part of. Yesterday, I wrote the following to IAM Motoring Policy and Research:

I have read on a motorcycling website that the IAM is publicly supporting compulsory ABS for new motorcycles. Please could you confirm if this is true or not? If true, this could be a resigning issue for me. If the IAM sees itself as assisting government in applying yet more rules and regulations to our already overburdened lives, then I would not want to be part of it. The IAM would no longer speak for me.

Advise members by all means, advise government by all means, but when you cross the line into advocacy of compulsion that will affect your members you have gone too far.

Today, I received the following reply:

Dear Mr Nowhere

Thank you for your email of 22 September.

It is true that we have publicly supported this measure on road safety grounds, but it would be a shame if this single story were to bring your nine years’ support of the IAM to an end.

This European move is in any event unlikely to mean a retro-fitting of ABS to existing bikes.

Anything that makes motorcyclists safer in education terms we would support, and so by extension, if engineering can help reduce motorcycle casualties, we support that too.

Regards

Vince Yearley
IAM

This reads like a whole degree course in missing the point, and I will be replying in due course. And it's 19 years, not nine, by the way.

More anon.

Another day, another IAM poll ...

This time, it's all about Deaths and Injuries on British Roads. Basically, you are being asked to give your opinion on why deaths and injuries have fallen in recent years, and whether they will fall or rise during the next few. You either know or you don't, and your opinion doesn't really make a scrap of difference. How being able to say "British motorists think that ..." will be a useful tool in influencing Government policy is a mystery. Still, if you want to have a go, fill your boots. You don't have to be a member, etc.

For the first time, I have been able to see a column of comments after the poll has been completed. I'm afraid it just what you might expect from the "Oim a considerably better droiver than yow" membership. My heart sank when I read James's comment:

Reduce the speed limit to 55mph.

Two weary responses from me:

1. If people are ignoring a 60 mph limit, what on earth possesses you to think they will suddenly obey a 55 mph one?

2. Today, 55. Tomorrow, 50. And then 45, 40 ... see where it's heading?

Latest IAM poll

The latest IAM poll is on 20 mph speed limits, pedestrian areas, and so on. It also asks about woonerfs (areas with no signage, based on a Dutch idea, which I have discussed before).

Have a go here (you don't need to be a member, etc.).

For what it's worth, I have no problem with 20 mph limits in the appropriate areas (residential districts, outside schools and so on). There is a direct connection between the limit and the reason for the limit, and the limited area is clearly defined. France (where I am until tomorrow morning) has many of these limits: in fact, villages without the huge, soft speed cushions and the 30 kph signage are quite rare. Compliance seems to be very high, as you might expect where a law is sensible and restricted to the immediate need.

Another damn IAM Poll ...

This time on your Local Authority, and how it spends its your money on the road infrastructure. Not the most romantic of topics, but a worthwhile one. Perhaps.

Poll here.

You do not have to be a member, etc etc.

Go nuts!

IAM poll - Eco Driving

Coming thick and fast, here is yet another opportunity to tell the IAM what you think.

IAM Poll - Eco Driving

I had fun with this one.

• I haven't changed my behaviour to save fuel. Turning hydrocarbons into motion and noise is one of the few pleasures left.
  
• I haven't considered giving up my car (or bike, don't forget the bike). Cold, dead hands, etc.
  
• I do the usual things to reduce fuel consumption, like check my tyre pressures, but if I want to brake hard or accelerate unnecessarily, I will bloody well do so.
• Toll roads and parking rates should not reflect the fuel efficiency of the vehicle: that is the start of a very slippery slope.
  
• Diesel and petrol should be taxed the same, and as low as possible, if at all.
  
• My next car will be a diesel, because of the way they make the power, not for any eco-loony reason. Grunt is good.
  
• I would not consider going on an eco-driving course. My life is sad enough as it is.
  

Some of those responses were hard to fit in, as you might imagine.

You don't have to be a member, etc., etc.

IAM Poll - Government Strategy

Another day, another IAM poll - this time on the Government strategy and proposals for dealing with motoring offences. Verbal warnings or fixed penalties? Compulsory re-training or having your vehicle crushed?

Go and have your say, and you don't have to be an IAM member.

Happy Birthday Highway Code

The Highway Code is 80 today!

Boring, boring, boring - after all, it's only what you must do to pass your test, right? A bit like all those skool textbooks: used to get what you wanted, and immediately forgotten thereafter.

I'm a big fan of the Highway Code, as it happens. Everything you need to know is in there, and if everyone drove according to its (quite reasonable) guidance, accidents would be few and far between. Sometimes what it says is a bit obvious, but then it has to cater for a readership from the barely literate up to winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature. In its structure and detail, it's a model of clarity. And so it should be, after 80 years of development.

The IAM is conducting a survey on attitudes to the Highway Code. You don't have to be a member to take part. Poll is here.

UPDATE: the IAM site seems to have fallen over for the time being. It was fine earlier today. If you want to take the survey, perhaps try later. (Perhaps posting a link to them here gave them more traffic than they could cope with? Nice thought.)

UPDATE TO UPDATE: The links to the site and polls seem to be working fine now (Thursday 18:00)

Flashers of the World, unite ...

... and get thee over to the IAM website, where there is a poll in the use of headlight flashes. I think this is in response to the chap who was prosecuted recently for warning oncoming drivers of a speed trap.

The IAM view is that we shouldn't flash our lights at all, as it is not mentioned in the Highway Code and any 'message' could be misinterpreted. This is a reasonable point, although it ignores the fact that in the real world there is already lots of flashing going on, and we have developed a fairly sophisticated code - long/short, single/repeated and so on. I can't describe the code here, but I would say that I have rarely, if ever, misunderstood when someone has flashed me. 9 times out of 10 it is a polite 'after you, Cecil' - the other one time, there is usually no misunderstanding of the guy's hostile intent.

The IAM are interested in getting as many views as possible, so get over there and spend two minutes helping them out. There are some text boxes so you can make your meaning perfectly clear. To be fair, the options cover all shades of opinion. You don't have to be a member to take part.

Click here to join the fun.

Another IAM poll - driver pre-training

There's another poll over on the IAM website, here. Open to all, as before. This time it's about the topic of driver pre-training: getting youngsters behind the wheel off the road so that they can get familiar with the control of a car before they start to learn on the road. The questions seem a little better designed than the last one. Some are complete no-brainers, but I suppose they have to try to cover all bases. If you are interested, head on over and say your piece. Takes less than a minute.

I did a post on this topic earlier this year, so I knew what I wanted to say before I started. I think it's a VERY good idea.

Speeding Poll

The IAM are conducting a poll on speeding. They want as many people as possible (members and non-members) to take part as they are seeking a "wide range of views".

The poll is on this page; head down to 'Speeding Poll'. Sorry I can't link directly, but it looks as if there is something in place to prevent the 'vote early and vote often' brigade, and I couldn't return to the page.

And be honest ...

You have until 19 September.