Glove laws, thank fook for Brexit :)

[GappySmeg]

WaferThinHam said:

Guess we'd better all stop riding bikes as taking the bus is far safer for the state.

Be reasonable... I did say "minimise".

You can't think it reasonable that a State-funded health system has to find funds to remove gravel from fingers, when a sub-£100 pair of gloves would've prevented a problem?

[TooMany2cvs]

WaferThinHam said:

You could argue that disposable filling station gloves are PPE, just not certified for motorcycle usage.

You certainly could. Whether the judge would agree is another question entirely... <grin>

[WaferThinHam]

GappySmeg said:

Be reasonable... I did say "minimise".

You can't think it reasonable that a State-funded health system has to find funds to remove gravel from fingers, when a sub-£100 pair of gloves would've prevented a problem?

But you're just picking arbitrary points. Why £100 pair of gloves. Why not £150?

It's impossible to enforce I guess is the point I'm trying to make.

[WaferThinHam]

TooMany2cvs said:

WaferThinHam said:

You could argue that disposable filling station gloves are PPE, just not certified for motorcycle usage.

You certainly could. Whether the judge would agree is another question entirely... <grin>

Oh, for sure. You could have a pair of J&S's £10 bargain bin finest "pleather" gloves and they'd offer the same protection as a pair of filling station disposable gloves, but the judge would look on you far more favourably.

I guess what I'm getting at is the the law is an ass (first) and pretty much unenforceable (second).

Maybe they should have a strike to revoke the law. The French love a good strike.

[RemaL]

A difficult one.

On one hand I don't want to be told all the time what I can and cannot do. Taking the choice out of my hands


But then again some of the darwin people need to be protected

[WaferThinHam]

RemaL said:

A difficult one.

On one hand I don't want to be told all the time what I can and cannot do. Taking the choice out of my hands


But then again some of the darwin people need to be protected

I see what you did there.

[RemaL]

WaferThinHam said:

RemaL said:

A difficult one.

On one hand I don't want to be told all the time what I can and cannot do. Taking the choice out of my hands


But then again some of the darwin people need to be protected

I see what you did there.

not intentional . Just had a BBQ and lots of beers so not in a fit state,

[Dr Jekyll]

RemaL said:

A difficult one.


But then again some of the darwin people need to be protected

Why?

[Condi]

RemaL said:

A difficult one.

On one hand I don't want to be told all the time what I can and cannot do. Taking the choice out of my hands

But then again some of the darwin people need to be protected

But if I pop round to my mates, 2 mins up the road in a small town, I'll quite often just throw a helmet on. Is that qualifying for a Darwin award? Or is that just assessing the risk and deciding that it doesnt require anything other than the bare essentials as the chances of coming off are small and the chances of coming off at any speed are negligible?

[creampuff]

GappySmeg said:

Be reasonable... I did say "minimise".

You can't think it reasonable that a State-funded health system has to find funds to remove gravel from fingers, when a sub-£100 pair of gloves would've prevented a problem?

I think you should be told you cannot ride your bike. Riding your bike makes you about 30 times more likely to cost me, the taxpayer, NHS costs. I don't want to pay for it.

[Superhoop]

Condi said:

But if I pop round to my mates, 2 mins up the road in a small town, I'll quite often just throw a helmet on. Is that qualifying for a Darwin award? Or is that just assessing the risk and deciding that it doesnt require anything other than the bare essentials as the chances of coming off are small and the chances of coming off at any speed are negligible?

If that's accessing risk, I'd look at how you do so.. Isn't it something stupid like 1in 3 accidents happen within a mile of home?

[Pothole]

TooMany2cvs said:

Pothole said:

TooMany2cvs said:

bogie said:

I wonder if the Frenchies will try to get their new glove laws enforced across the EU?

They're French laws, not European ones.

irrelevant to the question

No, it's very relevant indeed.
The French can no more "try to get" their laws enforced by other European countries than the UK can. Or the Germans. Or any other country.

so they can try, then?

Pothole said:

TooMany2cvs said:

They're also basic bloody common sense.

are you also in favour of compulsion to do everything else which is "common sense"? If so, who is the arbiter of same?

More a case of "Is the biggest problem of the world that somebody else is bringing in a law requiring you to do what you'd do anyway?"

hmmm

[TooMany2cvs]

Pothole said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Pothole said:

TooMany2cvs said:

bogie said:

I wonder if the Frenchies will try to get their new glove laws enforced across the EU?

They're French laws, not European ones.

irrelevant to the question

No, it's very relevant indeed.
The French can no more "try to get" their laws enforced by other European countries than the UK can. Or the Germans. Or any other country.

so they can try, then?

Well, the French government can petition (as could anybody else - including glove manufacturers) the commissioner responsible for Transport, Violeta Bulc (who's Slovenian) to get a debate in the European parliament for MEPs to vote on - but, apart from that... no.

[768]

Esceptico said:

I am fairly libertarian. If someone doesn't want to wear protective clothing that is their right. What gets my goat is that those same people that claim "don't nanny me" about such rules never say "don't nanny mr" when it comes to accepting NHS healthcare to put them back together after they crash or refuse disability or other benefits. If you don't want to play by the rules that is form but be consistent.

So you're ok with people not wearing protective clothing.

People who don't like rules that force wearing protective clothing must have a conflict with using NHS healthcare.

Who do you use instead of the NHS then?

[black-k1]

Esceptico said:

I am fairly libertarian. If someone doesn't want to wear protective clothing that is their right. What gets my goat is that those same people that claim "don't nanny me" about such rules never say "don't nanny mr" when it comes to accepting NHS healthcare to put them back together after they crash or refuse disability or other benefits. If you don't want to play by the rules that is form but be consistent.

This is always such an ill conceived approach. Do we refuse benefits, including NHS care, for self inflicted injuries from Sunday league footballers? Those who hurt themselves doing DIY? Cancer care for anyone that smoked? How about anyone who has ever consumed more than recommended amount of alcohol?

We all pay in to allow us to each do what we want ant be covered if or when it goes wrong.

[black-k1]

Like many, I object to being told what is and isn't good for me. Without a clear definition of which gloves are PPE and which aren't it's a pointless law that smacks of tokenism. But then the French have always been good at tokenism.

[Pothole]

TooMany2cvs said:

Pothole said:

TooMany2cvs said:

Pothole said:

TooMany2cvs said:

bogie said:

I wonder if the Frenchies will try to get their new glove laws enforced across the EU?

They're French laws, not European ones.

irrelevant to the question

No, it's very relevant indeed.
The French can no more "try to get" their laws enforced by other European countries than the UK can. Or the Germans. Or any other country.

so they can try, then?

Well, the French government can petition (as could anybody else - including glove manufacturers) the commissioner responsible for Transport, Violeta Bulc (who's Slovenian) to get a debate in the European parliament for MEPs to vote on - but, apart from that... no.

Or their idea could be picked up anyway, a bit like Sweden's Vision Zero?

[TooMany2cvs]

Pothole said:

Or their idea could be picked up anyway, a bit like Sweden's Vision Zero?

...which isn't a law.

[2OOM]

black-k1 said:

Like many, I object to being told what is and isn't good for me. Without a clear definition of which gloves are PPE and which aren't it's a pointless law that smacks of tokenism. But then the French have always been good at tokenism.

and .. there is also the french minister who had an interest in an alcohol testing company that pushed through the testing kit law ..

[Oilchange]

While I think it's rather common sense to wear gloves whilst on a motorbike, I like to think the enforcement could be made, well, a little bit more of an economy stimulating exercise.
I'll elaborate:

Set a trap for motor bikers with
1. a rather curvy lady Police Officer and
2. a supplier of bikers clothing

Pull over all the bikers who aren't wearing gloves and threaten them with a fine of 68 euros and points or the option of purchasing a pair of Francois' finest kevlar reinforced super-fandango power ranger gloves for, you guessed it, 68 euros!

It's a win win