Glove laws, thank fook for Brexit :)
Discussion
Prof Prolapse said:
Gavia said:
This whole discussion is irrelevant anyway as it's compulsory in France and not here and the EU piece is even less relevant if that's possible.
It may be relevant to those of us who travel abroad with our bikes. Prof Prolapse said:
RE: PPE vs. CE. My understanding was that the French do not always favour the CE standard, so have another standard for their clothing. Googling suggests it's called the EN 13595-1:2002 Standard.
http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-clothing/ce...
So they would not be able to refer to this as meeting the CE standard, so rather than suggesting they'll accept any old tat, this is presumably this is what they mean by PPE?
Just a thought.
That's precidely it and exactly what they mean by "conforme aux normes". From what you say there seems to be a Norme Francaise for motorcycle clothing, this is what they will need in the absence of any other CE marking or similar. In French Law a NF can be a requirement, it's one way they finagle their way around Europe and favour suppliers from their own country. Don't have a NF certification? Sorry, M'sieu, we can't use it.http://www.webbikeworld.com/Motorcycle-clothing/ce...
So they would not be able to refer to this as meeting the CE standard, so rather than suggesting they'll accept any old tat, this is presumably this is what they mean by PPE?
Just a thought.
battered said:
it's one way they finagle their way around Europe and favour suppliers from their own country. Don't have a NF certification? Sorry, M'sieu, we can't use it.
And what prevents non-French manufacturers from conforming to that standard?It's not finagling anything - it's doing exactly what some people swear blind is impossible. An EU country making their own laws...
TooMany2cvs said:
It's not finagling anything - it's doing exactly what some people swear blind is impossible. An EU country making their own laws...
Some people would do well to first know that all EU countries make all of their own laws. They are each sovereign states.Edited by Prof Prolapse on Tuesday 27th September 13:02
TooMany2cvs said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Gavia said:
This whole discussion is irrelevant anyway as it's compulsory in France and not here and the EU piece is even less relevant if that's possible.
It may be relevant to those of us who travel abroad with our bikes. I once upset a 17yr old on his way to GTi Tuning show in France by telling him he couldn't legally drive in France as the minimum age for driving is 18.
He didn't think the French driving licence laws applied to him because he was British
Dr Jekyll said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Some people would do well to first know that all EU countries make all of their own laws. They are each sovereign states.
But EU regulations are laws to all intents and purposes. They are enforced as laws.But that doesn't mean that those member countries can't also set other laws. And it certainly doesn't mean that those other laws somehow trickle up then back down elsewhere.
TooMany2cvs said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Prof Prolapse said:
Some people would do well to first know that all EU countries make all of their own laws. They are each sovereign states.
But EU regulations are laws to all intents and purposes. They are enforced as laws.But that doesn't mean that those member countries can't also set other laws. And it certainly doesn't mean that those other laws somehow trickle up then back down elsewhere.
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
Bit nimby this. You either believe in personal freedom or you don't. You can't simply believe when it suits your agenda and cry for freedom when it doesn't.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
One of the biggest problems with our democracy is that people believe a minority is wrong rather than different, and its echoed all over this thread. People are quite prepared to persecute a minority without actually having any affect on them. Almost a mob culture.
Not wanting to wear gloves or even a helmet isn't wrong. As long as the person is capable of understanding the risks they should be the arbiters of their own risk level as long as it doesn't increase anyone else's.
Helmets and gloves affect no one other than a theoretical risk to added expense on the NHS. If real, a price I'd be willing to pay for that sort of liberty.
I see proponents of this, or worse still people who hold an opinion without thinking this through as interfering busybodies. There should be a lot more abstaining in a democracy when the issues have no effect on you.
julian64 said:
Bit nimby this. You either believe in personal freedom or you don't. You can't simply believe when it suits your agenda and cry for freedom when it doesn't.
One of the biggest problems with our democracy is that people believe a minority is wrong rather than different, and its echoed all over this thread. People are quite prepared to persecute a minority without actually having any affect on them. Almost a mob culture.
Not wanting to wear gloves or even a helmet isn't wrong. As long as the person is capable of understanding the risks they should be the arbiters of their own risk level as long as it doesn't increase anyone else's.
Helmets and gloves affect no one other than a theoretical risk to added expense on the NHS. If real, a price I'd be willing to pay for that sort of liberty.
I see proponents of this, or worse still people who hold an opinion without thinking this through as interfering busybodies. There should be a lot more abstaining in a democracy when the issues have no effect on you.
What's your view on smoking, alcohol and illegal drugs?One of the biggest problems with our democracy is that people believe a minority is wrong rather than different, and its echoed all over this thread. People are quite prepared to persecute a minority without actually having any affect on them. Almost a mob culture.
Not wanting to wear gloves or even a helmet isn't wrong. As long as the person is capable of understanding the risks they should be the arbiters of their own risk level as long as it doesn't increase anyone else's.
Helmets and gloves affect no one other than a theoretical risk to added expense on the NHS. If real, a price I'd be willing to pay for that sort of liberty.
I see proponents of this, or worse still people who hold an opinion without thinking this through as interfering busybodies. There should be a lot more abstaining in a democracy when the issues have no effect on you.
Gavia said:
julian64 said:
Bit nimby this. You either believe in personal freedom or you don't. You can't simply believe when it suits your agenda and cry for freedom when it doesn't.
One of the biggest problems with our democracy is that people believe a minority is wrong rather than different, and its echoed all over this thread. People are quite prepared to persecute a minority without actually having any affect on them. Almost a mob culture.
Not wanting to wear gloves or even a helmet isn't wrong. As long as the person is capable of understanding the risks they should be the arbiters of their own risk level as long as it doesn't increase anyone else's.
Helmets and gloves affect no one other than a theoretical risk to added expense on the NHS. If real, a price I'd be willing to pay for that sort of liberty.
I see proponents of this, or worse still people who hold an opinion without thinking this through as interfering busybodies. There should be a lot more abstaining in a democracy when the issues have no effect on you.
What's your view on smoking, alcohol and illegal drugs?One of the biggest problems with our democracy is that people believe a minority is wrong rather than different, and its echoed all over this thread. People are quite prepared to persecute a minority without actually having any affect on them. Almost a mob culture.
Not wanting to wear gloves or even a helmet isn't wrong. As long as the person is capable of understanding the risks they should be the arbiters of their own risk level as long as it doesn't increase anyone else's.
Helmets and gloves affect no one other than a theoretical risk to added expense on the NHS. If real, a price I'd be willing to pay for that sort of liberty.
I see proponents of this, or worse still people who hold an opinion without thinking this through as interfering busybodies. There should be a lot more abstaining in a democracy when the issues have no effect on you.
Gavia said:
julian64 said:
Bit nimby this. You either believe in personal freedom or you don't. You can't simply believe when it suits your agenda and cry for freedom when it doesn't.
One of the biggest problems with our democracy is that people believe a minority is wrong rather than different, and its echoed all over this thread. People are quite prepared to persecute a minority without actually having any affect on them. Almost a mob culture.
Not wanting to wear gloves or even a helmet isn't wrong. As long as the person is capable of understanding the risks they should be the arbiters of their own risk level as long as it doesn't increase anyone else's.
Helmets and gloves affect no one other than a theoretical risk to added expense on the NHS. If real, a price I'd be willing to pay for that sort of liberty.
I see proponents of this, or worse still people who hold an opinion without thinking this through as interfering busybodies. There should be a lot more abstaining in a democracy when the issues have no effect on you.
What's your view on smoking, alcohol and illegal drugs?One of the biggest problems with our democracy is that people believe a minority is wrong rather than different, and its echoed all over this thread. People are quite prepared to persecute a minority without actually having any affect on them. Almost a mob culture.
Not wanting to wear gloves or even a helmet isn't wrong. As long as the person is capable of understanding the risks they should be the arbiters of their own risk level as long as it doesn't increase anyone else's.
Helmets and gloves affect no one other than a theoretical risk to added expense on the NHS. If real, a price I'd be willing to pay for that sort of liberty.
I see proponents of this, or worse still people who hold an opinion without thinking this through as interfering busybodies. There should be a lot more abstaining in a democracy when the issues have no effect on you.
If people want to smoke then that’s entirely up to them but individuals should have the right to not be subjected to passive smoking. If an indavidual is sad enough to stand outside in the cold and rain just to feed a habit, then let them. However, those in the warm and dry have a right not to be subjected to passive smoking.
Likewise with alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is not the issue, it’s the impact on others that is the problem. If you sit quietly in the corner and get pissed, then that’s fine. It's when you start impacting on others who simply want to get on with their lives that the problems start.
Likewise with drugs. Do it to yourself then that’s fine. It’s when your habit starts to impact on others that laws are required.
I fail to see how a motorcyclist not wearing PPE/safety equipment impacts on anyone other than themselves thus they should be free to make that choice.
black-k1 said:
All perfect example s of where personal choice may require regulation because of the potential impact that one person’s choice has on another person.
If people want to smoke then that’s entirely up to them but individuals should have the right to not be subjected to passive smoking. If an indavidual is sad enough to stand outside in the cold and rain just to feed a habit, then let them. However, those in the warm and dry have a right not to be subjected to passive smoking.
Likewise with alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is not the issue, it’s the impact on others that is the problem. If you sit quietly in the corner and get pissed, then that’s fine. It's when you start impacting on others who simply want to get on with their lives that the problems start.
Likewise with drugs. Do it to yourself then that’s fine. It’s when your habit starts to impact on others that laws are required.
I fail to see how a motorcyclist not wearing PPE/safety equipment impacts on anyone other than themselves thus they should be free to make that choice.
Here's a few impactsIf people want to smoke then that’s entirely up to them but individuals should have the right to not be subjected to passive smoking. If an indavidual is sad enough to stand outside in the cold and rain just to feed a habit, then let them. However, those in the warm and dry have a right not to be subjected to passive smoking.
Likewise with alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is not the issue, it’s the impact on others that is the problem. If you sit quietly in the corner and get pissed, then that’s fine. It's when you start impacting on others who simply want to get on with their lives that the problems start.
Likewise with drugs. Do it to yourself then that’s fine. It’s when your habit starts to impact on others that laws are required.
I fail to see how a motorcyclist not wearing PPE/safety equipment impacts on anyone other than themselves thus they should be free to make that choice.
Cost to NHS, cancelled scheduled operations due to urgent medical care for biker, caused by lack of protective clobber, impact on life of those whose operation has been cancelled, trauma on family / friends / witnesses to accident both immediately after accident and long term.
Opportunity cost of other emergency services and what they could have been doing otherwise
Every decision anyone makes impacts on others. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes not, but don't pretend that having an accident whilst not wearing protective gear only impacts the individual in the accident. I'm not necessarily in favour of legislation to compel everyone to do something, but I think the simplistic laissez faire approach is fundamentally flawed.
Why do we need defined standards in the construction of vehicles, or roads, or anything?
Gavia said:
Here's a few impacts
Cost to NHS, cancelled scheduled operations due to urgent medical care for biker, caused by lack of protective clobber, impact on life of those whose operation has been cancelled, trauma on family / friends / witnesses to accident both immediately after accident and long term.
Opportunity cost of other emergency services and what they could have been doing otherwise
Every decision anyone makes impacts on others. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes not, but don't pretend that having an accident whilst not wearing protective gear only impacts the individual in the accident. I'm not necessarily in favour of legislation to compel everyone to do something, but I think the simplistic laissez faire approach is fundamentally flawed.
Why do we need defined standards in the construction of vehicles, or roads, or anything?
Okay this a major argument for the nanny state. The indirect impact of personal freedom.Cost to NHS, cancelled scheduled operations due to urgent medical care for biker, caused by lack of protective clobber, impact on life of those whose operation has been cancelled, trauma on family / friends / witnesses to accident both immediately after accident and long term.
Opportunity cost of other emergency services and what they could have been doing otherwise
Every decision anyone makes impacts on others. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes not, but don't pretend that having an accident whilst not wearing protective gear only impacts the individual in the accident. I'm not necessarily in favour of legislation to compel everyone to do something, but I think the simplistic laissez faire approach is fundamentally flawed.
Why do we need defined standards in the construction of vehicles, or roads, or anything?
Firstly I've worked in the NHS most of my life and I would say that it makes no real difference. Someone comes into casualty regardless of whether they've been wearing a seatbelt or not, helmet or not. The severity of the injury is a function of the persons attitude to risk. You do what you can whether they are a smoker with lung cancer or a teenager who feel off a scooter while doing a wheelie.
Casualties would be better off if everyone got into cars and no one had a motorcycle. I would have been better off if I'd never seen a dead body, but you do the job and you get used to it because you are paid to do it and there is no-one else there. Everyone in the NHS gets affected by if you get lasting ptsd by seeing this then you need to accept you have chosen the wrong career and do something about it. You can't use it as an argument to restrict peoples freedom.
crossing the arctic is a stupid thing to do. Joining the army is stupid. If I could I would ban everyone doing marathons and absolutely ban rugby as a game. No one would be allowed to do boxing. The list is endless. The thing about a helmet is that it only affects you if you crash. The other sports I've mentioned affect you pretty much every minute you do them. They aren't even a gamble.
Everyone of those activities will have impacts on those around them.
Are you seriously suggesting you want to take a look at everyone's activities and stamp you own version of what's acceptable and what's not, or that a government has a right to legislate?
My fathers in his late eighties, took part in the last war, never wears a seatbelt and when challenged simply refuses as he's never worn one his entire life. He thinks seat belts should only be worn in fighter planes and in cars he thinks its rubbish. If you were a cop at the side of the road spotting him, would you arrest him?
Gavia said:
black-k1 said:
All perfect example s of where personal choice may require regulation because of the potential impact that one person’s choice has on another person.
If people want to smoke then that’s entirely up to them but individuals should have the right to not be subjected to passive smoking. If an indavidual is sad enough to stand outside in the cold and rain just to feed a habit, then let them. However, those in the warm and dry have a right not to be subjected to passive smoking.
Likewise with alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is not the issue, it’s the impact on others that is the problem. If you sit quietly in the corner and get pissed, then that’s fine. It's when you start impacting on others who simply want to get on with their lives that the problems start.
Likewise with drugs. Do it to yourself then that’s fine. It’s when your habit starts to impact on others that laws are required.
I fail to see how a motorcyclist not wearing PPE/safety equipment impacts on anyone other than themselves thus they should be free to make that choice.
Here's a few impactsIf people want to smoke then that’s entirely up to them but individuals should have the right to not be subjected to passive smoking. If an indavidual is sad enough to stand outside in the cold and rain just to feed a habit, then let them. However, those in the warm and dry have a right not to be subjected to passive smoking.
Likewise with alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is not the issue, it’s the impact on others that is the problem. If you sit quietly in the corner and get pissed, then that’s fine. It's when you start impacting on others who simply want to get on with their lives that the problems start.
Likewise with drugs. Do it to yourself then that’s fine. It’s when your habit starts to impact on others that laws are required.
I fail to see how a motorcyclist not wearing PPE/safety equipment impacts on anyone other than themselves thus they should be free to make that choice.
Cost to NHS, cancelled scheduled operations due to urgent medical care for biker, caused by lack of protective clobber, impact on life of those whose operation has been cancelled, trauma on family / friends / witnesses to accident both immediately after accident and long term.
Opportunity cost of other emergency services and what they could have been doing otherwise
Every decision anyone makes impacts on others. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes not, but don't pretend that having an accident whilst not wearing protective gear only impacts the individual in the accident. I'm not necessarily in favour of legislation to compel everyone to do something, but I think the simplistic laissez faire approach is fundamentally flawed.
Why do we need defined standards in the construction of vehicles, or roads, or anything?
With regards to protective motorcycle clothing, the NHS and emergency services are involved as if there was an accident and no one did anything, the only person at increased risk is the person not wearing the clothing.
As I said before, the NHS is a stupid argument. If using that we’d need to ban all Sunday sports, all DIY and all kitchen appliances. (All causes of a large numbers of A&E visits) We’d also need to ban motorcycling totally, along with horse riding, push bikes and being a pedestrian as they’re all a much greater risk than driving a car. We certainly couldn’t allow sky diving, scuba diving, rock climbing and all forms of motorsport.
We’d then have to use the money "saved" to pay for the increase in psychiatric services as all the "bored out of their mind" people try to top themselves.
julian64 said:
Okay this a major argument for the nanny state. The indirect impact of personal freedom.
Firstly I've worked in the NHS most of my life and I would say that it makes no real difference. Someone comes into casualty regardless of whether they've been wearing a seatbelt or not, helmet or not. The severity of the injury is a function of the persons attitude to risk. You do what you can whether they are a smoker with lung cancer or a teenager who feel off a scooter while doing a wheelie.
Casualties would be better off if everyone got into cars and no one had a motorcycle. I would have been better off if I'd never seen a dead body, but you do the job and you get used to it because you are paid to do it and there is no-one else there. Everyone in the NHS gets affected by if you get lasting ptsd by seeing this then you need to accept you have chosen the wrong career and do something about it. You can't use it as an argument to restrict peoples freedom.
crossing the arctic is a stupid thing to do. Joining the army is stupid. If I could I would ban everyone doing marathons and absolutely ban rugby as a game. No one would be allowed to do boxing. The list is endless. The thing about a helmet is that it only affects you if you crash. The other sports I've mentioned affect you pretty much every minute you do them. They aren't even a gamble.
Everyone of those activities will have impacts on those around them.
Are you seriously suggesting you want to take a look at everyone's activities and stamp you own version of what's acceptable and what's not, or that a government has a right to legislate?
My fathers in his late eighties, took part in the last war, never wears a seatbelt and when challenged simply refuses as he's never worn one his entire life. He thinks seat belts should only be worn in fighter planes and in cars he thinks its rubbish. If you were a cop at the side of the road spotting him, would you arrest him?
I'm not arguing anything, as I like the idea of freedom of choice too. Firstly I've worked in the NHS most of my life and I would say that it makes no real difference. Someone comes into casualty regardless of whether they've been wearing a seatbelt or not, helmet or not. The severity of the injury is a function of the persons attitude to risk. You do what you can whether they are a smoker with lung cancer or a teenager who feel off a scooter while doing a wheelie.
Casualties would be better off if everyone got into cars and no one had a motorcycle. I would have been better off if I'd never seen a dead body, but you do the job and you get used to it because you are paid to do it and there is no-one else there. Everyone in the NHS gets affected by if you get lasting ptsd by seeing this then you need to accept you have chosen the wrong career and do something about it. You can't use it as an argument to restrict peoples freedom.
crossing the arctic is a stupid thing to do. Joining the army is stupid. If I could I would ban everyone doing marathons and absolutely ban rugby as a game. No one would be allowed to do boxing. The list is endless. The thing about a helmet is that it only affects you if you crash. The other sports I've mentioned affect you pretty much every minute you do them. They aren't even a gamble.
Everyone of those activities will have impacts on those around them.
Are you seriously suggesting you want to take a look at everyone's activities and stamp you own version of what's acceptable and what's not, or that a government has a right to legislate?
My fathers in his late eighties, took part in the last war, never wears a seatbelt and when challenged simply refuses as he's never worn one his entire life. He thinks seat belts should only be worn in fighter planes and in cars he thinks its rubbish. If you were a cop at the side of the road spotting him, would you arrest him?
Your points aren't great though. The severity of the injury is the whole point and that's what rules like this are trying to reduce, not eliminate, just reduce. Someone who falls off a bike wearing gloves is likely to have less severe hand injuries, than someone who isn't wearing them.
My point is if we don't like these sort of rules, then is it because we can see a reason why they are genuinely flawed, or is it because we don't like the idea of something being compulsory while we experienced it being optional. I mean are we arguing that restrictions on the availability of drugs, guns etc should be removed and just allow people to make their own choices?
black-k1 said:
Gavia said:
black-k1 said:
All perfect example s of where personal choice may require regulation because of the potential impact that one person’s choice has on another person.
If people want to smoke then that’s entirely up to them but individuals should have the right to not be subjected to passive smoking. If an indavidual is sad enough to stand outside in the cold and rain just to feed a habit, then let them. However, those in the warm and dry have a right not to be subjected to passive smoking.
Likewise with alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is not the issue, it’s the impact on others that is the problem. If you sit quietly in the corner and get pissed, then that’s fine. It's when you start impacting on others who simply want to get on with their lives that the problems start.
Likewise with drugs. Do it to yourself then that’s fine. It’s when your habit starts to impact on others that laws are required.
I fail to see how a motorcyclist not wearing PPE/safety equipment impacts on anyone other than themselves thus they should be free to make that choice.
Here's a few impactsIf people want to smoke then that’s entirely up to them but individuals should have the right to not be subjected to passive smoking. If an indavidual is sad enough to stand outside in the cold and rain just to feed a habit, then let them. However, those in the warm and dry have a right not to be subjected to passive smoking.
Likewise with alcohol. The consumption of alcohol is not the issue, it’s the impact on others that is the problem. If you sit quietly in the corner and get pissed, then that’s fine. It's when you start impacting on others who simply want to get on with their lives that the problems start.
Likewise with drugs. Do it to yourself then that’s fine. It’s when your habit starts to impact on others that laws are required.
I fail to see how a motorcyclist not wearing PPE/safety equipment impacts on anyone other than themselves thus they should be free to make that choice.
Cost to NHS, cancelled scheduled operations due to urgent medical care for biker, caused by lack of protective clobber, impact on life of those whose operation has been cancelled, trauma on family / friends / witnesses to accident both immediately after accident and long term.
Opportunity cost of other emergency services and what they could have been doing otherwise
Every decision anyone makes impacts on others. Sometimes it's for the better, sometimes not, but don't pretend that having an accident whilst not wearing protective gear only impacts the individual in the accident. I'm not necessarily in favour of legislation to compel everyone to do something, but I think the simplistic laissez faire approach is fundamentally flawed.
Why do we need defined standards in the construction of vehicles, or roads, or anything?
With regards to protective motorcycle clothing, the NHS and emergency services are involved as if there was an accident and no one did anything, the only person at increased risk is the person not wearing the clothing.
As I said before, the NHS is a stupid argument. If using that we’d need to ban all Sunday sports, all DIY and all kitchen appliances. (All causes of a large numbers of A&E visits) We’d also need to ban motorcycling totally, along with horse riding, push bikes and being a pedestrian as they’re all a much greater risk than driving a car. We certainly couldn’t allow sky diving, scuba diving, rock climbing and all forms of motorsport.
We’d then have to use the money "saved" to pay for the increase in psychiatric services as all the "bored out of their mind" people try to top themselves.
You didn't address the point around a witness seeing the accident.
Your NHS arguments are missing the point. I'm not saying stop all risky activity, but I am saying that the background to this law in France will be around minimising the severity of injury and trying to reduce the burden on the taxpayer. A friend of mine needs a hip replacement and she spent all day yesterday waiting for surgery from early morning, which was cancelled as other more sever, but completely avoidable surgeries took precedence.
Gavia said:
I'm not arguing anything, as I like the idea of freedom of choice too.
Your points aren't great though. The severity of the injury is the whole point and that's what rules like this are trying to reduce, not eliminate, just reduce. Someone who falls off a bike wearing gloves is likely to have less severe hand injuries, than someone who isn't wearing them.
My point is if we don't like these sort of rules, then is it because we can see a reason why they are genuinely flawed, or is it because we don't like the idea of something being compulsory while we experienced it being optional. I mean are we arguing that restrictions on the availability of drugs, guns etc should be removed and just allow people to make their own choices?
Guns I'm okay with apart from the fact they are often used to affect other people in the most serious way. Drugs are difficult because I'm still not sure to what extent someone taking drugs really has a choice in what they are doing. in other words if I don't believe someone is making an informed choice then all bets are off, and 'those people' have to be protected from themselves.Your points aren't great though. The severity of the injury is the whole point and that's what rules like this are trying to reduce, not eliminate, just reduce. Someone who falls off a bike wearing gloves is likely to have less severe hand injuries, than someone who isn't wearing them.
My point is if we don't like these sort of rules, then is it because we can see a reason why they are genuinely flawed, or is it because we don't like the idea of something being compulsory while we experienced it being optional. I mean are we arguing that restrictions on the availability of drugs, guns etc should be removed and just allow people to make their own choices?
But I agree with you that at least some of the problem here is that you do miss something being taken away that you have experienced.
I remember a sailing holiday in Greece (well on one of the islands) many years back. I hired some local chaps motorcycle. It was a crappy old Honda 250, obviously his pride and joy but he was willing to lend it and I was willing to rent it to show my girlfriend the island for a day. No gloves helmet and tee shirt and flip flops.
I can't actually describe how good that day was. I've been a biker In the UK for over thirty years on the best bikes on offer, on track/on road, and a day on a crappy Honda beat them all by some margin.
Even many years later when tee shirt and no gloves, but obviously a helmet is a rarity in the week of summer we get in this country. I try to use those days as a faded reminder.
Sounds stupid when put in type.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff