Campaigns
MAG Position - Power Limits
MAG is totally opposed to the principle of limiting the power of road-going motorcycles. The European Commission made strenuous efforts to introduce a 100 bhp limit against the wishes of both motorcycle manufacturers and the motorcyclists of Europe and could do so again.
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 vehicle 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 recognises 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 that being masked in many statistical presentations by its coincidence with youth. The economics of motorcycle ownership and insurance rates 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 downwards of maximum power as legislators pursue their red Herring whilst failing to recognise the legitimate common factor.
The natural extension of the 'logic' that might emerge 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 considers 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.
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.
MAG UK© October 2001 All rights reserved.
