is this 4 real ? ( I'm in Qld so phewww 4 now.)

Nice post from one of the 4wd forums IM on


The cross section of a motorbike is for arguments sake 10% of a car
therefore has much less room to place an identifying devise. If they
were to make the number plate proportional to the size of the vehicle
it would be that small it would be useless.

The only way to put one on the front of a bike would be to make it
much smaller so it will not obstruct lighting, windscreens and airflow
and soft enough to conform to the myriad of shapes bikes come in so as
to not effect aerodynamics, stick on in a way so they wouldn't damage
anything when being removed but be hard enough to remove so that
vandals and troublemakers couldn't just peel them off.

If they can come up with something that satisfies these criteria then
most bike riders would gladly put one on but they are not looking to
do this. They want to spend a fortune on a poorly researched idea that
will effect airflow and aerodynamics and will obstruct vision on some
bikes because it is the cheapest and easiest design to use.

They are not interested in the arguments against such an idea as they
have their agenda which is to plug the hole that a small percentage of
road users slip through in their revenue trap. They then sell this
propaganda campaign that they are doing everything possible to make
the public safe to the brain-dead drones that believe the smoke and
mirrors the media spew out to generate the frenzy that results in
ratings which translates into profits.

I am not against the idea of front identification, but I am against
the way in which they are proposing to do it. The plan to fit a hard
rectangular plate the size of a rear plate in front of the fairing or
headlight on every bike just because cars and trucks have them is a
stupid idea. The idea to fit them because a couple of hundred riders
get away with speeding through a camera trap is stupid. The idea of
spending millions of dollars on a poorly thought out plan that will
create resistance and rebellion due to its floors in design is stupid.
Inefficiency and stupidity from a government department; now who
would've predicted that?

G-S wrote:
> Nev.. wrote:
>> G-S wrote:
>>> Nev.. wrote:
>>>> Knobdoodle wrote:
>>>>> "Peter Cremasco" <Firstname.Lastname RemoveThis @bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:609h07F1qa1h0U2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> Knobdoodle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fairings and panniers are usually voluntary and generally include
>>>>>>> all sorts of disclaimers and limitations as to their use. It's a
>>>>>>> different matter with "compulsory"!
>>>>>> You mean like Honda's 'we do not recommend exceeding 130 kph with
>>>>>> panniers' limitation?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok. So we'll then get 'front plates do not cause unnecessary
>>>>>> distabilisation at road-legal speeds'. What are you gonna do?
>>>>>> Argue that they are dangerous at 150 kph, therefore should be
>>>>>> scrapped? I can hear the incredulous laughter already.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Track days, Northern Territory riding, private roads....
>>>>> Remember; you have to cover ALL legal uses of a bike.
>>>>
>>>> Fastest legal speed in NT nowadays is 130kph and there is no reason
>>>> why the regulators should take into account any off-road use when
>>>> deciding what regulations they should enforce for on-road registration.
>>>
>>> What most people call off-road use is actually dirt-road use. And
>>> legal dirt road use (say the NT on a dirt track at 130kph) *is* legal
>>> use.
>>
>> Now you're just playing stupid word games and arguing silly points
>> which don't exist. Obviously in the context of my sentence and the
>> context of Clem's, to which I was replying, off-road means anything
>> which is not a road for the purposes of registration and regulation.
>>
>> There are no dirt roads in the NT with a legal speed limit of 130kph
>> either.
>>
>> Nev..
>> '07 XB12X
>
> OK.... so just to be sure...
>
> You're saying you're 100% certain the proposed designs are 100% safe on
> gazetted roads (dirt, tar or otherwise) across Australia at the
> applicable legal maximum speed under all possible situations.
>
> That is what you are arguing right?

No, I'm not. I don't think I ever said that either directly or
indirectly. I don't know where you got that idea. Have you been
reading the same thread or something different perhaps. See, it's
typical of you're black and white, mutually exclusive approach which is
a common theme throughout this thread. Just because you think something
is 100% unsafe you therefore assume that anyone who challenges what you
say believes it is 100% safe.

I'm just think that many of the arguments put forward in opposition to
front number plates are not thought well through. You have failed to
convince me. Sweeping generalisations and theories like "1970s number
plates on 1970s motorcycles were dangerous in particular circumstances
therefore 2000's number plates on 2000's bikes MUST be dangerous" won't
be taken seriously by anyone, particularly anyone in authority.

Nev..
'07 XB12X