17. Power Limits

MAG are totally opposed to the principle of limiting the power of
road-going motorcycles. The European Commission has made strenuous efforts to introduce a 100 brake horse power (bhp) limit against the wishes of both motor cycle manufacturers and the motorcyclists of Europe. In defence of their claim that such a limit is necessary, one Commissioner dishonestly quoted the findings of a German report (BAST) which he insisted supported the Commission's viewpoint. The authors of the BAST report had actually appended a footnote to their published findings warning against their use in justification of a power limit, since their research identified no clear link between power and accident rates. The survival of this politician in the wake of such transparent deceitfulness represents a severe indictment of the European political system which is self evidently corrupt.

MAG recognises that most motorcycle accidents occur at low speeds (70% below 30mph) with 75% of accidents occurring in built up areas (ROSPA accident fact sheet 1/90 1988). At such speeds and in such an environment, only a fraction of a motorcycle's power can be developed; high power being developed much further up the rev range. In short, the exponents of a power limit have completely missed the point and embraced the red herring of absolute power as a scapegoat.

In reality - in 65% of accidents involving motorcycles, the other involved party is primarily at fault. It is a prime example of blatant discrimination that politicians are singling out motorcyclists for power limits when motorists are not being threatened with
a similar limit on their cars. MAG believe this unequal treatment owes everything to the political power of the motoring lobby and nothing to a genuine and objective pursuit of road safety.

MAG recognise that inexperienced riders are over-represented in accident statistics. Since the majority of inexperienced riders are young, the inference is that young riders represent a greater risk than older ones. While the relationship between youth and high accident involvement would seem to be established, the more pertinent factor is inexperience, that factor being masked in many statistical presentations by its coincidence with youth. The economics of motorcycle ownership and insurance rates however, naturally prevent the vast majority of young riders from acquiring high powered motorcycles.

There is a real danger when analysing raw data, of mistaking one factor for another and placing the blame on undeserving victims. For example the probability of high risk takers owning high powered vehicles could cloud the issue when accident records are superficially interpreted. It seems probable that in the event of a ban on bikes producing over 100bhp, aficionados of those machines would simply buy the next most powerful machines available, thus transferring their poor accident rates to a lower category. What MAG fear is a gradual ratcheting downward of maximum power as legislators pursue their red Herring whilst failing to recognise the legitimate common factor.

At present, the European Commission has ordered a two year study of accident statistics to explore the possibility of a relationship between high powered motorcycles and accident rates. If an apparent relationship can be shown to exist, albeit for the 100bhp plus category only, then an ominous precedent will have been established. The natural extension of the 'logic' that might emerge from such conclusions, could result in the eventual prohibition of
motorcycles on the grounds that they are associated with more injury
accidents than cars. Such a conclusion would ignore the fact that most of those accidents are the fault of the other party anyway.

MAG consider it grossly unfair and simplistic to heap blame upon a class of vehicle for accident causation, when in fairness, the analysts should examine the characteristics of the other involved but commonly un-injured party to see if a quite different and more just identification of blame exists.

Sadly, most politicians, certainly most European Commissioners, prefer to swallow the lurid 'scare of the month' hysteria sown by tabloid journalists and propagated by 'safety' lobbyists in search of a caring hook to hang their credentials upon.

MAG insist that the key to safety lies with education, largely through training and the promotion of awareness by all road users, not through draconian legislation that robs the public of fine and exhilarating machines.

Update March 1998: The two-year TNO study mentioned has found in favour of the MAG position.

18. Road Pricing and Toll Collection

MAG opposes any general use of road tolls in this country however implemented believing them to be an anachronistic, inefficient means of financing road, maintenance, detrimental to traffic flow and fundamentally unacceptable. 

MAG believes that road pricing would be detrimental to economy in that it would distort well established work patterns in key sectors of the economy and victimise those people whose work involves them in an above average amount of road travel, such as couriers and sales representatives. MAG further takes the view that road pricing would be self-defeating as the most likely effect would be a redistribution of traffic volume onto the roads least able to cope with an increase. MAG believes that such a redistribution would result in heavier road damage in the long run together with increased risk to most road user groups. Tolling on motorways would be the easiest to implement yet on a mile for mile basis these roads are safer.

MAG believes that the definition of a highway as a route which all persons, rich or poor, can use to pass and repass as often and whenever they wish without hindrance or charge should remain the norm and that there should not be any significant erosion of or departure from this principle where existing highways are concerned.

Where new highways, tunnels and bridges are concerned MAG accepts that there may be a case for these to be built specifically to carry toll-paying traffic provided all reasonable public consultation is carried out and general public acceptance obtained in the specific geographical areas and user groups concerned, and provided that such roads tunnels and bridges will attract sufficient tolls to finance them on the basis of their own merits. MAG opposes any attempt to improve the viability of attractiveness of such schemes by imposing artificial limitations on the existing network, running it down, failing to maintain or otherwise dealing with it in such a way as to render it less attractive than toll-roads.

Electronic tagging of vehicles whilst being workable for cars, where the tag can be fixed on the interior of the car, is less practical for motorcycles. Motorcycles have no enclosed space where such a tag could be safely located. Theft of motorcycle tax discs is rife and it is the experience of many motorcyclists using pay and display car parks that their stickers are simply stolen. It is difficult to envisage a different situation with an even more valuable tag. Were GATSO type cameras to be used to assist enforcement then this would raise further concerns over civil liberties as has already occurred elsewhere.

MAG takes the view that motorcycles should be recognised as an environmentally friendly mode of transport, the increased use of which would vastly reduce damage to the infrastructure. As such, motorcycling should be encouraged by total exemption from tolls. Whilst MAG is acutely aware of the need to reduce congestion, it does not see road pricing as being the solution.

19. Speed limits and enforcement

MAG recognises that many accidents are caused through the inappropriate use of speed but does not accept that speed alone is the main cause of accidents. 

Human error in the form of careless and irresponsible driving is inarguably the main cause of accidents. Speed is only one factor in this complex situation. Evidence from other countries where accidents rates are higher despite lower speed limits (Japan for instance) provide clear indication that speed should not be targetted in isolation. Speed is relative to road and traffic conditions.

MAG welcomes the reduction in accident occurrence where speed calming measures have been employed in residential urban side streets, in particular, the reduction in pedestrian and infant fatalities.

MAG recognise that the public road is not a racetrack. It is neither economically viable or reasonable that an environment which is 'safe to crash in' should be sculptured to accommodate the competitive aspirations of an irresponsible minority. Roads must be shared and crossed by slow moving and non powered vehicles or individuals whose vulnerability must be a matter of prime concern.

MAG recognise that staying within the prescribed 30mph limit under certain circumstances does not necessarily represent a sufficient duty of care. In many circumstances such as narrow residential streets, particularly in the vicinity of schools, a vehicle may often be travelling too fast for safety even if it is within the 30mph limit prescribed. While MAG would not welcome a blanket reduction of the 30 mph limit across urban areas, we believe that the principle of selectively imposing lower limits, as already introduced in some areas is entirely justified.

Road intersection design and routing must also play an important part in reducing speed-related accidents. Housing estates, schools and playgrounds should not be sited directly on main thoroughfares. Bypasses allowing drivers to avoid high-risk urban areas and ring roads to minimise town and city centre traffic are also important.

MAG does not believe that the current speed limit on motorways is appropriate for all vehicles in all conditions and would welcome an independent and objective study to assess the probable consequence of changing motorway limits for different vehicle groups and road conditions as employed in other European countries.

MAG recognise that for speed limits to be respected, their need must be obvious and understood . Unnecessary speed limits and convenient enforcement which suggest revenue collection and entrapment rather than concern for road safety foster contempt for the law and breeds an anti-social attitude of non compliance. 

Due to the wide variance of road conditions MAG does not believe that the use of automatic enforcement devices outside urban reduced speed limit areas or known accident black spots is justified. The discretion and judgement of the Garda Siochana should be applied instead.

We believe that the best way for the police and courts to foster respect for the law lies with a revised policy of enforcement and sentencing. Such a policy should reserve the severest penalties for those who have selfishly put the lives of others at risk, rather than one which arbitrarily links penalties to increments of speed in excess of legal limits, irrespective of circumstance. A properly driven vehicle travelling at speed on an empty open road in good conditions poses much less risk to others than one travelling in bad conditions in an urban area. This "risk to others" aspect should be taken into account both in sentencing and in enforcement.

Inappropriate speed is the cause of many accidents and it is in controlling this that we feel effort and resources can best be spent.