Mmmm. That contradicts all the benefits many stayers have been attributing to h&s through eu..
But you are right...there is a happy compromise somewhere, trouble is we all draw line in a different place..
I also think it highlights the point I made weeks ago about our closest cultural cousins are over the big pond somewhere. The blame and claim culture has taken hold far stronger here than France.
Can you really imagine folk's reaction if some young lad ( underage) drove through town on pavement, no tax, test , insurance or even registered ??? Then think what would happen if he bumped into someone. I,m not saying right or wrong either way ( but as normal you look for the argument) I,m highlighting our differences with France/ French.
And its far from foolish. Its called being prepared and doing things properly for benefit of all. Strictly speaking a 14 kid shouldn't be riding up library steps on his trials bike ! But my village in France see it as ok...or turn a blind eye anyway. Until it goes wrong !
The same French attitude sees far more killed on their roads...sees far more uninsured drivers, sees much more drink driving...
Interestingly the French have a 100bhp limit on bikes sold in country.( its under review and bikers do get around it, ) but they don't have mot ( control technique) for motorcycles.( again under review but at moment there isn't one)
So if you bought a new Fireblade in France it would be limited to 100bhp but nobody would ever check it throughout its life...on anything !!! ( I didn't know about 100bhp limit , bought a Blackbird engine for a car and was seriously disappointed...was a French spec engine...easy to get through SVA / emissions tho)( meant a cam change and remap/ power commander..a lot of hassle)
No road tax either..and control technique every two years. Very thorough test but cars pass that would fail mot ! Again very odd. Got a list of stuff needing doing ( including deff fail in UK) and a pass cert...!!
Oddly enough it was Germany that first proposed an EU wide100 bhp limit long ago. The EU turned it down but France for some reason adopted it. There was a general thought at the time of Germany's proposal that it was because BMW at that time long ago couldn't match the Japanese sport bikes!
You were very wrong in saying this:
( but as normal you look for the argument)
I'm not specifically looking for an argument with you, just informing you of a long held point of view. I've very long disliked our UK legalism and believe two European countries get this far more right than we do, but for very different reasons from each other.
I most admire the Italian way of the individual choosing whether to obey laws and their police making a judgment on each occasion whether to act according to the behaviour seen.
My reasoning is quite simple, it means the only people who get troubled by the law and punished are the ones who get things wrong in their judgment regarding obedience. Under what I see as our stupid system, everyone disobeying a law can get punished, whether their decison turned out to be wise or not. All that does is maximise the inconvenience to everyone and build resentment.
Yes there are more accidents etc under the greater freedom system, but there are always accidents anyway and no-one can say what a suitable level is. It's matter of balance. We could institute a universal 20 mph limit everywhere with all vehicles governed to that and slash our present very low deathrate, but the inconvenience and all forms of cost would be immense. I think we have the enforcement balance wrong, leaning far too much to the safety end at too great a social cost.
Our way brings the arrogant stupidity of a police traffic officer insisting to a driver of a new high end BMW who was doing 90 on an empty motorway that he was driving dangerously. Arrant nonsense of course, especially since said officer will be happy with the 70 mph driver of an old small car in dense motorway traffic, simply because the law says that's ok. It's in situations like this where I want to see commonsense judgment from our law enforcers, rather than the far too common rigid zombie approach.
Other examples of our idiocy are speed bumps and speed cameras, both of which promote slow past the obstacle and sprints between. All they achieve is a worsening of pollution, premature failure of suspension components, anger and frustration. There is clear evidence that they do not prevent accidents or deaths.
.
