LED headlight conversion

Shajota said:
Easy question, easy answer Lothar - of course you have a better chance all togged up!
But that's a binary question, the type politicians ask to get the answer they want.
Perhaps in your survey a follow up question could be "Is it safer to sit on your lounge drinking hot chocolate?"
We all need to evaluate risk and probabilities involved in anything we do.
As an example an elderly fellow was killed this morning in Brisbane when a vehicle mounted the footpath and hit him when he was walking!!
Should he have been wearing protective gear or should he have just stayed at home?
It is clearly obvious that as we get older we are more risk averse so fair enough and I am not trying to downplay the value of protective gear, just some of the Atgatt stuff gets way over the top.
Anyway I think there's quite enough in the classic bike scene who would prefer to sit at home and drink hot chocolate, so I'll pass, but to each their own;)
Click to expand...

That's a bit comparing appels with bananas here, Peter, from my point of view, please. There are billions of people walking without this happening every day and only a rare chance this will ever happen to you or anyone you personally know on a sidewalk. There is almost a guarantee though that if you ride a motorbike in traffic, one day or the other, you get hit or drop the bike yourself. Sure you are more exposed to risk on a bike than on a couch - no doubt about that. Have never fallen off the couch nor would I have been seriously injured, other than having an accident on a bike, potentially at speed.

Law's are (generally speaking) there to protect the community from the consequences of an individuals stupidity or missbehaviour. If there are speed limits, bet on it there were crashes caused by driving with to high speed or it is to reduce noise for the people living in that area, to reduce the risk of hitting a deer or similar. (Ask Piet, he lives on the country side and experiences the consequences of stupid, egoistic riders every day several times...). Or the road is in bad shape - or what ever. They are not there because someone in an office thinks about how to annoy you, be sure... (even though you might feel annoyed).

If someone rides to fast on a twisty road and crashes into another car, bike or pedestrien, it can ruin not only the live of the person responsible for the accident (and her/his family members lives) but affect the live of other families, too. Freedom comes with responsibility. Laws are there to manage those that don't take responsibility for themselves and others. As said, at least that's the case over here. Do I understand always all the rules or do I like all of them? No. Most of them make sense though, if you know why they are there. And many of them are not there to annoy the perfect rider but to protect the not so perfect one from getting hurt and causing troubles and cost to the community.
 
I can't speak for Germany, but laws are generally brought about by "campaign groups/religious organisations" who get hysterical about an issue and come up with a simple fix, more often than not ill thought out and repressive.
Your logic for the creation of laws would appear perfect for the illegalisation of cocaine, forcing its removal from Coca Cola, less than 125 years ago.
For the Volstead Act (Prohibition) in the US, 1919. revoked 14 years later after it lost support. Largely because ignoring the law gained increasing social acceptance, also organised crime and violence increased.
The laws regarding sexual behaviour between consenting adults, in the UK, now largely set aside, were tortuous to say the least.
When I was a youngster, in the UK, suicide was against the law ( mid 13th Century, revoked 1961).
Anyone unsuccessful, in an attempt, was likely to be prosecuted and jailed!

In case you think that is as stupid as it can get?

The law requiring motorcyclists and their passengers to wear a crash helmet came, to the UK in June '73, but do not apply if you are a Sikh.
That religion, apparently, confers all the protection of Arai's finest to a turban!
I'm often tempted to self-identify as a Sikh, to see how well that works.


PS. As for the ATGATT crowd: I flew jet aircraft at 500mph, for thousands of hours, in a short sleeved shirt.
 
Last edited:
The Sock said:
I can't speak for Germany, but laws are generally brought about by "campaign groups/religious organisations" who get hysterical about an issue and come up with a simple fix, more often than not ill thought out and repressive.
Your logic for the creation of laws would appear perfect for the illegalisation of cocaine, forcing its removal from Coca Cola, less than 125 years ago.
For the Volstead Act (Prohibition) in the US, 1919. revoked 14 years later after it lost support. Largely because ignoring the law gained increasing social acceptance, also organised crime and violence increased.
The laws regarding sexual behaviour between consenting adults, in the UK, now largely set aside, were tortuous to say the least.
When I was a youngster, in the UK, suicide was against the law ( mid 13th Century, revoked 1961).
Anyone unsuccessful, in an attempt, was likely to be prosecuted and jailed!

In case you think that is as stupid as it can get?

The law requiring motorcyclists and their passengers to wear a crash helmet came, to the UK in June '73 but do not apply if you are a Sikh.
That religion, apparently, confers all the protection of Arai's finest to a turban!
I'm often tempted to self-identify as a Sikh, to see how well that works.


PS. As for the ATGATT crowd: I flew jet aircraft at 500mph, for thousands of hours, in a short sleeved shirt.
Click to expand...
Where do you put the laws on genocide resulting from the Nuremberg tribunal?
Or the biblical "thou shalt not kill"?
 
The Sock said:
PS. As for the ATGATT crowd: I flew jet aircraft at 500mph, for thousands of hours, in a short sleeved shirt.
Click to expand...
Don't think you ever rolled down the window though... :rolleyes:

Perhaps you think you may be immortal, but, you most probably are not. As long as society in general (sort of) cares for its individuals, some people just have to be protected from themselves. If EVERYBODY were to ALWAYS stand in for the FULL consequences of their actions, regulations wouldn't be needed in the scope as we have now. The most universal stance in any unfortunate circumstance is to place the blame on someone/something else.

Sure, medieval laws need reforming eventually, especially those originally imposed by religion. About fucking time humanity shrugs off that burden! Hopefully society will wake up in time before we head down that rabbit hole once again. Far too much in our world is (again) governed by religious right-wing nut-jobs and it's getting more dangerous by the week.

piet
 
One thing I’ve not seen mentioned is the impact of racism behind the introduction of repressive laws. The prohibition of cannabis being only the most obvious. And let’s not overlook the common double standard in the enforcement of superficially neutral regulations.
 
sfcpiet said:
Sure, medieval laws need reforming eventually, especially those originally imposed by religion. About fucking time humanity shrugs off that burden! Hopefully society will wake up in time before we head down that rabbit hole once again. Far too much in our world is (again) governed by religious right-wing nut-jobs and it's getting more dangerous by the week.

piet
Click to expand...
Amen to that!
 
Alzero said:
One thing I’ve not seen mentioned is the impact of racism behind the introduction of repressive laws. The prohibition of cannabis being only the most obvious. And let’s not overlook the common double standard in the enforcement of superficially neutral regulations.
Click to expand...
Race and religion are closely tied. Those that consider themselves superior constantly wave the Bible/Qur'an/or whatever their Holy Book may be, and have done so for centuries.

Racism and religion both belong in the trash can of humanity.

As long as humans are governed by their own species, there will be double standards. Hardly anybody wants to sacrifice the raisins they consider they are entitled to. People in power often enough regard themselves as being above the laws, even those they have put down themselves.

piet
 
We are lucky, most of us, to live in places where laws can be discussed, and democratically amended. Sometimes with difficulty but the alternatives are not to be recommended.

The problem with a lot of mankind is intolerance and lack of respect for one another. Racism stems from there, as does of course religious intolerance.
You don't get rid of football violence by banning football.
The Nazis were atheists.

The answer to intolerance and lack of respect is education, education, education.
And large calibre munitions.

Paul
 
Perry said:
So are you saying LED's are a good idea or not ?
Click to expand...
They're a bad idea at least on our overcrowded European roads.
They just hurt oncoming drivers/riders.
The only advantage is low consumption.

I have however put LEDS on the back of all my old bikes who have a rear light and stop light about as visible at night as a dead glow-worm.

Paul
 
chrisk said:
I’m considering ordering a 200kg wet suit made from stainless steel mesh, so I can swim in the sea without fear of sharks killing me.
Click to expand...
The bite force on a Great White (Carcharodon carcharias), up toof 18,216 newtons (4,095 lbf) wouldn't be, in the slightest, deterred by that outfit, Chris, and you'd need a BCD the size of a weather balloon.
If that got bit, next stop ocean floor.
 
Last edited:
Paul Marx said:
Or the biblical "thou shalt not kill"?
Click to expand...
The 6th commandment was communicated by God to Moses and the Hebrew people, it is commonly misquoted after being incorrectly translated from ancient Hebrew to Aramaic. It was common to read it as 'Thou shalt not kill' but the original wording transcribed in Hebrew on the Scrolls is "Thou shalt not murder", big difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top