Richpudd2003 said �If using them (kerbs) was banned it would just be another nail in the nanny state coffin that is being forced upon us against our will�.
Well not enforcing the existing white line and no contact rules has resulted in the CIK nanny state imposing the additional regulations requiring disc protectors, sprocket protectors, homologated crash tested bodywork and plastic rear bumpers. That is more nanny state rules, not less!
Would people also describe the regulations concerning tyre softeners, fuel additives, maximum engine capacity and minimum weight as nails in the nanny state coffin? Plus the requirement for disc protectors actually proves that kerbs cause damage.
I don�t see the point debating this further if some people are incapable of using reason and logic, so resort to throwing insults and making immature posts. However nobody can then complain when any of the following happen and the cost incurred:
Chassis tubes grind flat. Chassis cracks around bearing hangers or seat fixings. Bent kingpins. Bent stub axles. Collapsed wheel bearings. Worn rose joints. Cracked seat. Broken engine clamps. Snapped chain. Bent sprocket. Cracked brake disc. Compulsory sprocket protector. Compulsory brake disc protector. Exclusion due to taking a kerb that a particular CoC deems illegal, whilst others are deemed legal. Passed by a driver with a larger budget that can afford to cut more of the corner than you can afford to cut. Eventually more compulsory bolt on bits that results in a minimum weight increase that ruins the purity of the driving experience. Compulsory front brakes in all classes to cope with the increased minimum weight.
|
|