James Deaken's Sarcastic Post on Allowing Motorcycle Backriders But With Barriers Went Viral

Veteran TV Host and motorcycle enthusiast James Deaken made a sarcastic post on the controversial decision of the Department of Interior and Local Government allowing motorcycle backriders in various parts of the country provided that the said motorcyle will be modified with a barrier.



According to James Deaken he is very confused if backriding is only allowed for married couples or live-in partners, then why the need for the barrier. He explained that he could understand the reasoning if it were Angkas and you're accepting strangers.



The veteran TV host doubts if the divider may offer a sliver of extra protection and even wonder how much research went into the crash safety.

Deaken even noted that he don't want to come across as a basher of initiatives, but poorly thought out cosmetic solutions to real problems do more damage than good because it not only provides a false sense of security but it could expose people to other dangers that more than outweigh the potential benefits.

Based on his understanding, vehicle is a highly especialized and heavily regulated fired, designs need to be tested against every possible outcome. He also asked if the divider provide more protection or present an extra risk for injuries.



Read the Complete Statement of James Deaken:

That’s one way of doing it I guess...Or they could always just ask both riders to wear full face helmets of course. Just saying.

Forgive my sarcasm. I’m just very confused. If  backriding is only allowed for married couples (or live-in partners as Año said) then why the need for the barrier? I could understand the reasoning if it were Angkas and you’re accepting strangers, but even then, while a divider may offer a sliver of extra protection, I wonder how much research went into the crash safety...

Don’t get me wrong, I understand what they are trying to achieve here and I don’t want to come across as a basher of initiatives, but poorly thought out cosmetic solutions to real problems do more damage than good because it not only provides a false sense of security but it could expose people to other dangers that more than outweigh the potential benefits—for example, accidents or injuries caused by improper modifications that the vehicle was never designed for. Imagine the shards of plastic when that thing shatters? Or the steel edges?

There’s a lot that goes into vehicle design. It’s a highly specialized and heavily regulated field. Designs need to be tested against every possible outcome. Now I’m not an engineer, but just think about the effect this will have on wind resistance at 60kph. 70. 80... also, what’s the effect in an accident? Does it provide more protection or present an extra risk for injuries?



Again, I don’t wanna hate, but we would demand this from the private sector if they wanted to introduce anything new into the market that affects safety; Manufacturers go through years of R&D before modifying any structural components or adding any safety features and it could take years before those designs are approved.

It’s the government themselves that requires it. So why the free pass when it’s the other way around? Forgive me if I sound skeptical here, but it doesn’t even look like the manufacturers were ever consulted.

Which opens up a new problem. What about warranty and liability? Considering that is not OEM, what happens in the event that this causes an accident, or creates more injuries as a result of what would have been a simple one, who do you sue? The manufacturer or the governing bodies that required it? Serious question po.

I can already read the comments. There will be those that say, hey, at least they are trying. And I appreciate that. But trying and involuntary human testing are two different things.



That’s my concern. if you were in any way involved in any safety design that would be enshrined into law and imposed upon others, the very first thing you would ask is: how much more protection does this legitimately offer the passengers vs the risk that it poses.

The answer is pretty obvious. If both riders are already wearing a full face helmet, what does this do that outweighs the risk of, say, getting caught with a gust of wind at 70km/h? Or being impaled by it in a minor accident?

PS: maybe they could stick a marriage contract on both sides of the divider for even more divine protection.

PPS: for the ones that have the gas tanks under the seat, how do you fill gas? Asking for a friend.

Source: James Deaken FB Page

James Deaken's Sarcastic Post on Allowing Motorcycle Backriders But With Barriers Went Viral James Deaken's Sarcastic Post on Allowing Motorcycle Backriders But With Barriers Went Viral Reviewed by Phil Newsome on July 12, 2020 Rating: 5
Powered by Blogger.