And The Point Of The Thread?

@GerOttman @JamesBugman Well, yes, it does affect other people either by bereavement or if the rider is not killed but disbale for life, by the cost, time and effor of care.

And any road traffic accident, especially involving at least serious injury also involves a lot of expensive time and effort by the emergency- and medical- services.

@SunshineGirl I remember it well because I already had a motorcycle and car driving licence by the time the law was introduced in the UK.

Yes, it was seen as an attack on personal freedom by many bikers, partly perhaps through "helmets-now-what-next" type fear; but this was in the UK not USA so it had nothing to do with any perceived "right" or "left" political beliefs.

I cannot remember whether it was by a Conservative or Labour government, but Bills on matters like this have supporters and opponents on all sides.

Similarly with the seat-belt law created in subsequent (not consequent!) years - the arguments over that had nothing to do with right or left politics either.


Oh - and I always wore a helmet when motorcycling, even before it became compulsory, and so did many other motorcyclists.

@ArishMell here in the US, it's decided by each state whether to wear helmets or not, or any of those types of rules of the road.

My state made it a law in 1992. I've been riding since I was a kid and have always worn a helmet and always wore a seat belt. I think the seat belt law was passed in the mid 80's.

The thing that gets me about most laws that get added is that they usually require us to buy something in order to comply. ..and the things we must buy, many of them are non transferable or have expiration dates on them.

Car seats for babies is an example of an item that must be purchased, they're non transferable and they expire after a certain amount of time. ..as do motorcycle helmets

Another thing I've noticed is that if a new law doesn't require us to buy anything, they will be a reason to make us pay money if we don't comply.

@GerOttman What is your take on the automatic spinning loom?

@SunshineGirl with the arguments of trapped in a burning/ sinking in water, car

@Jayciedubb Useful things cost money. Driving is a luxury that should not necessarily be subsidised by the state, but I think it would be appropriate if these goods were sold at cost price by government.

@SunshineGirl I don't know but it sounds like something someone would say when they have nothing important to say but feel a desperate need to say something... anything...

@GerOttman You seem to have an aversion to technological advance.

@SunshineGirl I wear a hard hat at work!

@GerOttman Good man 👍

@SunshineGirl I know that driving is stated as a privilege but it's really a necessity in the US for people who want to be gainfully employed.

That aside, I agree with you about having to pay to play, and it would be nice if there was a way to regulate the pricing on at least the basic versions of whatever is required.

The expiration dates and the non transferable status on certain equipment really tells me what the real motivation is behind these new laws, when there was once no law at all in place to one with so many specific requirements and none of them result in money coming back to us.

You know what else I've noticed... cellphones used to come with mic'ed earbuds. Then they made a law about having to be using your phone hands free when diving. Then cellphones quit coming with mic'ed earbuds.

Something similar happened when they made a law about having to drive with headlights on whenever it's raining. That's the exact same time cars quit coming with daytime running lights.

It's like the deck is being stacked against us. .."license, registration and proof of insurance" must be provided whenever we're pulled over by police. Eventhough, the tag is visible on the rear license plate, you can't get a car registered without it being insured, and that car the cop is driving has the ability to check all that before the cop ever gets out of the their car.

Yet we still have to keep all that paperwork together when our insurance policies don't usually coincide with our registration dates, and many of us maintain multiple vehicles, some of them require 2 registrations, like boats on trailers

😅 omg. Dont get me started on that demonstration of frustration. ..its about a time when I had to explain to one of the people at DMV what a boat trailer was.

DMV: hol'on 'Jayciedubb.' What a boat trailer. ..its like a trailer that floats?

Me: No. It's a trailer for the boat.

DMV: Oh, I see. It's a trailer you pull with the boat?

Me: No. It's a trailer I put the boat on so I can tow the boat.

DMV: REALLY!? How do you get the boat on top of the trailer?

Me: *facepalm* is there anyone else who can help me with this...

@Jayciedubb It is interesting as a "foreigner" to read posts like yours, to compare or contrast different countries' systems.

The need for a car is widespread in much of the UK and likely many other countries, especially in rural areas and even some suburbs where public transport is scant or non-existent. Even many trading-estates are not served directly by buses, though there may be stops on the main road passing the estate.

A vicious circle sets where public services diminish so more people need cars, so the buses or trains lose trade, so....

In some areas here the railways have gained over the last few decades as long-distance - many >100 miles - commuters with city-based work drive to the nearest station and continue to town by train. Most still need the car between home and railway-station though.


The registraion laws in the UK seem fairly similar to yours, with the mutual dependence of the tax, insurance and Mot (annual roadworthiness inspection) status.

Though the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) holds a record of all vehicles, "registered keepers" and legality, so the Police can easily verify these even before stopping the car, and they do not need the driver to present any documents there and then.

The public has limited access to the database to verify tax and MoT status of a car offered for sale, or to report ones apparently abandoned, but DVLA keeps the owner's identity confidential on the public pages (probably protected by the Official Secrets Act.) DVLA's web-site, and many other "dot-gov-dot-uk" ones, are very clear and simple to use.


I think one major difference between the US and UK is in how every motor-vehicle is registered for public roads.

Each British car, motor-bike, lorry, etc. has a Vehicle Identification Number on a plate in some obscure place, and the registration-number on the displayed plates. Both numbers are intended to last for the whole life of the vehicle irrespective of owner and any use on public roads - the number-plates are never changed.


The system is conformable across all vehicle types, irrespective of owner, for any use on public roads: from an exotic Italian sports-car to a moped, a bus or lorry, road-repairs or agricultural machine to Army battle-tank. Even a miniature traction-engine though only by its owner applying to be allowed to drive it on public roads.

The registration-number can be traded, to a point, via DVLA, so an owner can have a particular registration-number transferred to a new vehicle, but it is expensive and not really encouraged. I know two people who have done this.


Indeed, I was once pulled in for the MoT test having expired. I had not realised this, but once stopped and told the problem, I twigged I had muddled the MoT and Insurance expiry dates. The Police Officers accepted this was a genuine mistake and let me go with a warning to complete that journey but not use the car again until taking it for a booked test.