Dusty the difference of opinion here is not is it safe to ride fast but rather is it sensible to ride fast with a child on the back. Also freedom of choice does not entitle you to come tearing down the road over the speed limit and put other road users at risk. If you want to do that go on a track day where the risks are minimised as much as possible.
i think i'll just agree to differ and say i took all my kids on the bike at some time or another but the youngest was always on the back from age 7 (as i had no car) he always wore full leathers, boots, helmet and gloves even for a trip to the shops, i believe i minimised the risk for me and him as much as possible but know i probably exceeded the speed limit on occassions....but anyway...they all lived to tell the tale and if anyone wants to judge - tear away
@ gloom 30mph will kill you and anyone else The 'speed' of the speed limit is someones opinion it doesn't mean you ain't gonner die if you crash at 70 but you will die at 75 . Besides , why put the article on the site ? Was it a bit 'holier than thou' were you condemning this guy to show us how 'good and sensible' you are? Jumping on the anti biker 'bandwagon' does you NO credit whatsoever.
A further point , if this guy was on a German autobahn doing 200mph with his kid on the back . It would have been a non issue , coz the kraut govt. has a different OPINION to ours .
Nope it's not a holier than thou attitude. I've been riding for over 35 years and done my fair share of stupid things on the road I do however find your defence of someone doing 110 on public roads with a kid on the back a little strange. If breaking the law is simple personal choice then by your reasoning there is nothing wrong with people riding while over the legal limit for alcohol and putting other road users lives at risk. Personally I think a two month ban was way to lenient.
Kwakgirl If as you said you always minimised the risk then I'm a little confused as to how you can support someone doing nearly twice the legal speed limit as that is not minimising the risk.
I've always advocated informed personal choice and that goes as far as believing that helmets should not be compulsory but I also believe that none of us have the right to make a choice that increases the risks of harm to any third party.
quote "but I also believe that none of us have the right to make a choice that increases the risks of harm to any third party."
Every decision you make in life that is a choice could, given the right set of circumstances, increase the risk of harm to a third party....Gloom, i'll let you have a think about that.
@ gloom . you know nothing about the guy or the kid . You're ignoring everyone' s opinion except your own . You're ignoring everyone's point of view except your own . Of course , you don't have your own opinion do you ? You're just repeating some journalists opinion . Some journalist who is only interested in sensationalism Coz that' why the muppets buy newspapers. Regardless of what you say , people reading this thread will have their own opinion of your stance. Dusty
From that I assume you've not read the article I posted. It is just a statement of facts. It contains no comments on the right or wrong of his actions. I'm open to a reasoned discussion about why you believe his actions are perfectly acceptable and I'm not so bloody minded that I can't be persuaded that I'm wrong in thinking what he did was very foolish.
i have now read the article. it was a very brief overview of " facts" but was it "all the facts" or just the ones the journalist who wrote it wanted you to read?
The Mail online £400 fine 56day ban . Riding at 110mph is UTTERLY PERILOUS There is NO SPEED LIMIT on German AUTOBAHNS The police were SHOCKED . With all that the cops deal with , d' y' really think so? The CHILD could clearly seen on the back . IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE A MINOR ON THE BACK . Road safety campaigners hit out at the LENIENT sentence. A 56 DAY BAN IS STANDARD FOR THAT SPEED IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO HAVE A MINOR ON THE BACK . So gloom , are you planning a campaign to ban the under 18s from the pillion seat .? Are you planning a campaign to have bikes electronically restricted to the legal speed limit ?
@ gloom If you actually read what I've posted you will see that I have not defended the guy . I merely pointed out that what is legal or illegal depends on where you live. I was attacking your viewpoints. I do not take kindly to any anti biker propaganda. Slagging the guy off coz he doesn't live in Germany or the isle of Man seems very petty. This is a biker site , not an anti biker site
There is only the readers opinion on this mine is I would never ride at that speed with a child on the back. but each to there own, your choice to make not mine to maqke for you. as for the police yes thay will always say its stupid becuse thats there job and when it goes wrong thay have to clean up the mess and go knock on the door and tell the other half she/he has just lost there familey
Spot on JP . My mates two kids (a boy 7, a girl 11) love bikes whenever I go round on the bike they ask to go on the back '' oh go on just to the end of the street pleeeeeeease'' I always say no . My own daughter (26) has never been on the back of the bike coz she thinks they're dangerous . BUT I DO NOT WANT IT MADE ILLEGAL.
Parents should still have some rites in this Nanny State.
Nice one Cent,,,,,. vfunny On the Mag thread the c,b,arsed comment was designed to amuse. But give me a bigot who thinks he has the rite to tell the rest of us how to live our lives and I'm like a dog with a bone . However , thanks to your very funny post I've buried the bone in the garden ...Dusty
After reading the 'article' and all the postings here I agree with jp. My son was aged 6 when he first went on the back of me and I did not go over the speed limit. In fact, I would go as far as to say that initially my riding changed... braking alot earlier, very gentle acceleration and overtaking was practically non existent. The reason for the change was that I took into account my son had no experience of going on the back, was a fly weight by comparison and did not have the strength to to use his body to compensate for late braking and sudden acceleration. By the age of 11, my son had done thousands of miles on the back of me and yes, I admit, that on occasion I may have gone over the speed limit but never the speeds of 100+mph.
No I personally wouldn't put any age restriction on a pilly but I seem to recall that it was seriously considered 6 or 7 years ago after a couple of young kids who were riding on the back of bikes lost their lives.
Public perception already sees motorbike as inherently dangerous and all it takes is a well publicised death caused by rider error at high speed and politicians will jump on the band wagon and bring in laws already in force in several European countries restricting the age of a pillion.
So my view is that anyone who seriously exceeds the speed limit with a child on the back risks everyone’s right to chose.
Right that's my last rant on this topic as it's just starting to go round in circles.
oh dear god - wind ya necks in boys!
accept some of us take our kids on bikes....leave it to us (parents) to decide whats appropriate... and keep the rest of your comments to yourselves.
![There's always some fool (2) - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![There's always some fool (2) - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
