Instilling a sense of conscience. [Archive] - Page 2

beyond

22nd July 2009, 19:49

Well, when you change lanes you check over your shoulder... always! Period!
Especially in a group ride.

For what it's worth I have actually ridden with most of the people in this thread.... except for Katman.

Don't know how Katman rides.... he sounds like an angel... never speeds and always rides safe.

I can however vouch for Boomer, Sixpackback, The Stranger and a few others on here, who I would ride with anytime and day under any conditions. All bloody good riders who have never put me in danger or given me cause for concern...... except for......

Just Kidding :)

Katman

22nd July 2009, 19:54

I can however vouch for Boomer, Sixpackback, The Stranger

Interesting that you pick the three who seem the most reluctant to consider accepting any sort of morally acceptable riding standards.

Much like your own reluctance I suppose.

beyond

22nd July 2009, 19:59

LOL, that's the problem... your sense of morally acceptable riding standards.

What about our sense of morally acceptable riding standards.

Why is yours better than ours? Do I judge you for the way you ride because of my sense of morally acceptable riding standards?

No... why? Because we are all different and we all have a different level of morally acceptable riding standards and we all have different levels of experience and... and.... could write a book.... wait... I already have but can't get it published.

Never mind. Just enjoy your rides and keep on believing that you are simply the best morally acceptable rider on the roads and the rest of us will just get on with enjoying our riding.

Katman

22nd July 2009, 20:02

LOL, that's the problem... your sense of morally acceptable riding standards.

Ok, then I'll ask you the same question that boomer and sixpack have decided not to answer.

Should all car drivers be allowed to drive at any speed and in any manner that they see fit?

Should all truck drivers be allowed to drive at any speed and in any manner that they see fit?

Or is it only motorcyclists that you think should be allowed to?

beyond

22nd July 2009, 20:05

The answer to that is simple.
Many car drivers and truck drivers already drive at what ever speed and manner they see fit so where's the issue?

I nearly get run of the road by them everyday... something very difficult to do to them on a motorcycle.

Katman

22nd July 2009, 20:08

The answer to that is simple.
Many car drivers and truck drivers already drive at what ever speed and manner they see fit so where's the issue?

Read this carefully Paul.

Should they be allowed to?

bogan

22nd July 2009, 20:16

Read this carefully Paul.

S h o u l d t h e y b e a l l o w e d t o?

my names not paul but ill chip in anyway.

when did we start talking about changing laws? nobody is allowed to drive in any manner they see fit, speed limit, dangerous driving etc.

beyond

22nd July 2009, 20:18

In many parts of the world they are allowed to do whatever speed they think is acceptable and safe. AS for the manner, we all try and consider other road users in what we do and I am sure most truck and car drivers do as well.

In countries where open road speed limits are available, there are actually far fewer accidents because of the heightened awareness and the fact concentration levels are so much higher than drivers falling asleep at the wheel due to low speed boring driving.

AND yes, I know you will come straight back with "well you certianly don't consider other road users" but again, your opinion, you weren't there, you have no idea of the overall picture and spatial awareness.

Just pre-empting your next strike because you refuse to accept what other people consider to be acceptable riding or driving.

Katman

22nd July 2009, 20:18

nobody is allowed to drive in any manner they see fit, speed limit, dangerous driving etc.

Exactly. <hgvhgvhjv>

Katman

22nd July 2009, 20:20

AND yes, I know you will come straight back with "well you certianly don't consider other road users" but again, your opinion, you weren't there, you have no idea of the overall picture and spatial awareness.

Just pre-empting your next strike because you refuse to accept what other people consider to be acceptable riding or driving.

Your videos say more about you than I ever could.

beyond

22nd July 2009, 20:23

Your videos say more about you than I ever could.

That's exactly the response I was talking about.

That glass house you live in must be getting a little cold with all the stones you are throwing about :)

boomer

22nd July 2009, 20:25

Your videos say more about you than I ever could.

you got your answer, then resorted to this..... Seriously Katman.. get a fukin grip

Kiwi Graham

22nd July 2009, 20:32

Your videos say more about you than I ever could.

Steve why do you persist mate?

What is it you want to achieve?

You must know its impossible to expect everybody to reach standards you set!

You yourself will fall short of standards others set.

You set yourself up for a cyber slating time and again! :kick:

Mom

22nd July 2009, 20:34

What a bunch of crap this thread has degenerated into. Seriously, this is silly. I doubt anyone is actually against Katmans stance on the way bikers ride on the road, but he does provide such a good target for others to take the mickey.

Well, from what I gathered from reading his posts he was saying that the gixxer was in the same lane as him coming up past other bikes and then moved out across the centre line and passed him as he was moving out across the centre line to pass the car. If Shrub was indicating then pulled out and and the gixxer was not indicating and just pulled out to shoot past the indicating bike in front of him then I would suggest the gixxer was at fault. But this is supposition based on what I gathered from what Shrub said - without being there as an independent witness to the whole manoeuvre it is hard to be sure who was where when Shrub pulled out.

Sounds to me as if the gixxer rider had very good reflexive object avoidance skills too.

when did we start talking about changing laws? nobody is allowed to drive in any manner they see fit, speed limit, dangerous driving etc.

And I doubt that many on here would disagree with you.

Katman

22nd July 2009, 20:35

You yourself will fall short of standards others set.

What? Are you talking about wheelstanding and getting your knee down at 200kph?

beyond

22nd July 2009, 20:38

What? Are you talking about wheelstanding and getting your knee down at 200kph?

Kiwi Graham manages both from what I've seen and heard........ only on the track of course!

bogan

22nd July 2009, 20:39

Steve why do you persist mate?

What is it you want to achieve?

You must know its impossible to expect everybody to reach standards you set!

You yourself will fall short of standards others set.

You set yourself up for a cyber slating time and again! :kick:

He does instigate some interesting debates, if we could filter out all the unnecessary off topic bullshit that get posted along with it (bout 80% of posts in this thread I reckon), I think it'd make for good reading.

Kiwi Graham

22nd July 2009, 20:44

What? Are you talking about wheelstanding and getting your knee down at 200kph?

You set yourself up there whiter than white and are happy to criticise anybody that doesnt meet your standards. It must get bloody lonley perched on that pedestal.

Kiwi Graham

22nd July 2009, 20:45

Kiwi Graham manages both from what I've seen and heard........ only on the track of course!

Of course...............:whistle: ;)

Mom

22nd July 2009, 20:45

You know what really bothers me here?

We have 3 KB mentors agruing openly about this.

beyond

22nd July 2009, 20:48

You know what really bothers me here?

We have 3 KB mentors agruing openly about this.

But I was never picked to be a Mentor? :weep:

:)

bogan

22nd July 2009, 20:50

You know what really bothers me here?

We have 3 KB mentors agruing openly about this.

Is that what the :ME means on the end of the username?

Mom

22nd July 2009, 20:51

Is that what the :ME means on the end of the username?

Go to the top of the class! Yes that is exactly what the :ME means.

Kiwi Graham

22nd July 2009, 20:54

You know what really bothers me here?

We have 3 KB mentors agruing openly about this.

Haha, its not what Steve has to say I've got issues with its the holier than thou attitude it comes with!

Katman

22nd July 2009, 20:55

Haha, its not what Steve has to say I've got issues with its the holier than thou attitude it comes with!

Bless you my son.

beyond

22nd July 2009, 21:01

Can I get the last word in before bedtime please?............ :dodge:

Katman

22nd July 2009, 21:05

Can I get the last word in before bedtime please?............ :dodge:

Sure, why not?

MSTRS

23rd July 2009, 09:25

You know what really bothers me here?

We have 3 KB mentors agruing openly about this.

Who's arguing? This is merely robust KB banter. *says :ME #4*

Katman

23rd July 2009, 09:34

Just pre-empting your next strike because you refuse to accept what other people consider to be acceptable riding or driving.

Ok Paul, how about you put this video back up for public viewing and then we can all decide whether your riding style shows any consideration for others.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1686097&postcount=1

boomer

23rd July 2009, 09:37

Ok Paul, how about you put this video back up for public viewing and we can all decide whether your riding style shows consideration for others.

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1686097&postcount=1

shut up and go to work you miserable old man

CookMySock

23rd July 2009, 09:41

You know what really bothers me here? We have 3 KB mentors agruing openly about this.Thats not arguing, thats pedantic bickering. It could be arguing if there was a topic and the OP stuck to it, but thats not feasible.

No one can "instill conscience" anyway, one can only "instill guilt".

Steve

MIXONE

23rd July 2009, 09:59

Here I was thinking the ME stood for "Look at me,look at me!"

Dare

23rd July 2009, 12:02

Thats not arguing, thats pedantic bickering. It could be arguing if there was a topic and the OP stuck to it, but thats not feasible.

No one can "instill conscience" anyway, one can only "instill guilt".

Steve

The catholic church knows ALLL about that :innocent:

Ixion

23rd July 2009, 13:59

Ok, then I'll ask you the same question that boomer and sixpack have decided not to answer.

Should all car drivers be allowed to drive at any speed and in any manner that they see fit?

Yes. Provided that the speed and manner is safe (within generally accepted tenets of 'safe')

Should all truck drivers be allowed to drive at any speed and in any manner that they see fit?

Yes. Provided that the speed and manner is safe (within generally accepted tenets of 'safe')

Or is it only motorcyclists that you think should be allowed to?

Katman

23rd July 2009, 14:06

(within generally accepted tenets of 'safe')

So do you think that travelling well in excess of 200kph is "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible is "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that high speed wheelstands are "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

(Bearing in mind that by "generally accepted" I'm assuming you mean generally accepted by the general public).

MSTRS

23rd July 2009, 14:21

So do you think that travelling in excess of 200kph is within the "generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible is within the "generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that high speed wheelstands are within the "generally accepted tenets of safe"?

(Bearing in mind that by "generally accepted" I'm assuming you mean generally accepted by the general public).

Bugger the 'general public...what would they know.
All your above examples still fall into the 'time and place' category....there'd not be many that would indulge at any'n'all times. And live, that is.

Dare

23rd July 2009, 14:25

swbarnett

23rd July 2009, 16:25

Ok, then I'll ask you the same question that boomer and sixpack have decided not to answer.

Should all car drivers be allowed to drive at any speed and in any manner that they see fit?

Should all truck drivers be allowed to drive at any speed and in any manner that they see fit?

Or is it only motorcyclists that you think should be allowed to?
How about this - allow all drivers/riders to travel at any speed in any manner that they see fit as long as no-one else is hurt in the process. In the event that someone else is hurt in the process and the speed or manner is deemed irresponsible or excessive after careful examination by a court of law throw the book at them. A death caused would be a manslaughter charge and injury caused would be grievous bodily harm.

Katman

23rd July 2009, 16:31

How about this - allow all drivers/riders to travel at any speed in any manner that they see fit as long as no-one else is hurt in the process. In the event that someone else is hurt in the process and the speed or manner is deemed irresponsible or excessive after careful examination by a court of law throw the book at them. A death caused would be a manslaughter charge and injury caused would be grievous bodily harm.

I can't figure out whether that's a piss take or not.

Are you suggesting total anarchy on the road?

And do you really think our fucked up and already overflowing court system could handle the extra work load?

SixPackBack

23rd July 2009, 17:17

How about this - allow all drivers/riders to travel at any speed in any manner that they see fit as long as no-one else is hurt in the process. In the event that someone else is hurt in the process and the speed or manner is deemed irresponsible or excessive after careful examination by a court of law throw the book at them. A death caused would be a manslaughter charge and injury caused would be grievous bodily harm.

Brilliant.
Total fucken anarchy; I like it!
Think of the advantages:

No speeding tickets for the quick cahnts.
Weed out all the useless slow riders [Darwin takes control].
The remaining riders left after the initial rash of deaths can go forth and multiply creating a super race of quick cahnts.
Crashers are locked away from the bitches and cannot participate in the race of quick cahnts.

swbarnett

23rd July 2009, 17:17

I can't figure out whether that's a piss take or not.
No, not a piss take. Just my view of a driving utopia. And something for the law to aspire to instead of aspiring to total control.

Are you suggesting total anarchy on the road?
That depends on how the anarchy forms. A free-for-all resulting in a 90% fatality rate, no, but one that relies on consideration of your fellow road user instead of over-controlling laws to produce a fair and equitable system, yes.

It has been said that anarchy is the only true democracy (not sure who said it, maybe it was just me).

And do you really think our fucked up and already overflowing court system could handle the extra work load?
Agreed, there would have to be a lot of work in this field before my utopia could be realised (even partially).

I'm not suggesting that my utopian view of driver freedom is achievable. It just concerns me that we seem to be going far to far the other way.

The Stranger

23rd July 2009, 18:09

You know what really bothers me here?

We have 3 KB mentors agruing openly about this.

Why does that bother you Mom?

Ixion

23rd July 2009, 18:26

So do you think that travelling well in excess of 200kph is "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible is "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that high speed wheelstands are "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

(Bearing in mind that by "generally accepted" I'm assuming you mean generally accepted by the general public).

No. 'generally accepted' by people who know whereof they speak. F'instance, I would not be competent to judge whether something an aeroplane pilot did was acceptably safe or not. I do not know how to fly an aeroplane. How could i make such a determination, on something I know nothing of? Likewise, Enid, who has never ridden a motorcycle, would not be qualified to judge 'generally safe'.

Would you argue that someone who cannot drive a car was qualified to determine what was safe for car drivers? Anyone who sets themselves up as a judge of any activity must needs have some experience of it themselves

Generally safe by the standards of experienced, safe (as in , they don't crash) riders. Bikie cops would probably be a good place to start.

As to your more specific examples: not many roads in NZ safe at 200kph. But I can think of some. And there'd be more in the Souff Island (lucky bastards). As always, time and place and conditions come into it. There'd be plenty of people on this site have seen the double ton, in circumstances which I would not deem unsafe.

Taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible? No - but no-one has suggested it is. By definition the maximum safe speed in a blind corner is governed by visibility , not road grip. That's why it's called a blind corner. You are setting up straw men.

I'm struggling myself to think of a setting where wheelies could be deemed safe. But that may be an indication of my own lack of skill. I'll leave that one for people who do them.

Of course, myself, I never speed. Speed kills, this I know, cos the gubbermint tells me so. I catch up to the riders who do speed by ignoring those traffic light things. That saves time, and it must be safe cos the cops don't care . (providing you're not speeding when you go through the red light, of course)

boomer

23rd July 2009, 18:31

I catch up to the riders who do speed by ignoring those traffic light things. That saves time, and it must be safe cos the cops don't care .

i'm lovin it.. bling sent.

:rofl: so fookin true

although in all fairness, i did get pulled over and nearly done for wheelieing thru the only set of traffic lights in taupo; coincidentally they had turned orange..

Katman

23rd July 2009, 18:53

As to your more specific examples: not many roads in NZ safe at 200kph. But I can think of some. And there'd be more in the Souff Island (lucky bastards). As always, time and place and conditions come into it. There'd be plenty of people on this site have seen the double ton, in circumstances which I would not deem unsafe.

And they would be swamped by the examples of people doing 200+ speeds for sustained periods in less than ideal settings.

Taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible? No - but no-one has suggested it is. By definition the maximum safe speed in a blind corner is governed by visibility , not road grip. That's why it's called a blind corner. You are setting up straw men.

I'm talking specifically about motorcyclists pushing themselves to and beyond their limits on corners that could easily hide hazards for which evasive action would see them jepardising others safety -another thing that happens with routine regularity.

I'm struggling myself to think of a setting where wheelies could be deemed safe. But that may be an indication of my own lack of skill. I'll leave that one for people who do them.

We'll take this one as a no then.

PrincessBandit

23rd July 2009, 19:06

Brilliant.
Total fucken anarchy; I like it!
Think of the advantages:

No speeding tickets for the quick cahnts.
Weed out all the useless slow riders [Darwin takes control].
The remaining riders left after the initial rash of deaths can go forth and multiply creating a super race of quick cahnts.
Crashers are locked away from the bitches and cannot participate in the race of quick cahnts.

I would laugh but sadly think there is more than a pinch of seriousness in your list here. I'm sure there are a number of people out there who actually would like the idea of what you are proposing (tongue in cheek or not) who wouldn't give a second thought to wiping out, oops make that "weeding out" the "useless" other road users. I'd love to hear your list of what makes a "useless" rider (oh, except for slow, you've already named that one).

You knew there would be at least one bite to your shameless troll.

Katman

23rd July 2009, 19:13

Yes. Provided that the speed and manner is safe (within generally accepted tenets of 'safe')

Do you think the testosterone that accompanies, and indeed fuels, a huge number of group rides comes "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

SixPackBack

23rd July 2009, 19:34

I would laugh but sadly think there is more than a pinch of seriousness in your list here. I'm sure there are a number of people out there who actually would like the idea of what you are proposing (tongue in cheek or not) who wouldn't give a second thought to wiping out, oops make that "weeding out" the "useless" other road users. I'd love to hear your list of what makes a "useless" rider (oh, except for slow, you've already named that one).

You knew there would be at least one bite to your shameless troll.

Troll?....I'm a fucken amatuer compared to katman on crack:bash:

scumdog

23rd July 2009, 19:39

Brilliant.
Total fucken anarchy; I like it!
Think of the advantages:
[LIST]
No speeding tickets for the quick cahnts.
Weed out all the useless slow riders [Darwin takes control].

The second lot will wipe out out the first lot.

A win all round!:2thumbsup

SixPackBack

23rd July 2009, 19:43

The second lot will wipe out out the first lot.

A win all round!:2thumbsup

Naturally the need for coppers will be radically reduced, so you might have to find a real fooken job:bye:

scumdog

23rd July 2009, 19:45

Naturally the need for coppers will be radically reduced, so you might have to find a real fooken job:bye:

Nah, all sweet mate, don't ride a 'work' bike! :woohoo:

caseye

23rd July 2009, 19:48

Real? LOL it's real enough and theres more an more fools out there need reeling in. Pity is there arn't enough real ones left in it to be effective anymore.

swbarnett

23rd July 2009, 19:48

who wouldn't give a second thought to wiping out, oops make that "weeding out" the "useless" other road users
Nature does this all the time, it's called natural selection. Humans are unique in that we have very nearly succeeded in wiping out the process of natural selection. Because we no longer have to learn to survive people don't bother. We need a bit of natural selection put back in to our lives. How long do you think jay-walking would last if car drivers who had green lights were suddenly allowed to run them down?

The legal system that we have built in the name of safety in conjunction with vehicle safety improvements has created instead a system where being a twat on the road (or anywhere else for that matter) does not come with personal consequences. The result of which is that we get more twats.

SixPackBack

23rd July 2009, 19:51

Nah, all sweet mate, don't ride a 'work' bike! :woohoo:

Oh okay. We'll keep the REAL coppers on.

Ixion

23rd July 2009, 19:53

Do you think the testosterone that accompanies, and indeed fuels, a huge number of group rides comes "within generally accepted tenets of safe"? 
 
I have no idea. 
I select the rides I go on with some care. I do not think any of them are accompanied or fuelled by testosterone. 
Those I do go on, I have very seldom seen riding that would not fall within those tenets. Mistakes, certainly, but that is quite another matter. 
The riders I know ride , for the most part anyway, in a sensible fashion. They want to stay alive. That does not mean that they never break the speed limit, though. 
And in my own case my balls are much too small for testosterone to affect the way I ride. And I never speed, speed kills, this I know , for the gubbermint tells me so. 
You complain of riders riding at 'reckless speeds". Of "going as fast as possible through blind bends". Of being "ghostrider wannabes" . Of being "testosterone fuelled". Those are very subjective and emotive allegations. No doubt such behaviour may occur. But in the world that i move (and ride ) in (and I think, that most riders move in ) , those are the rare exceptions. If you are able to instance widespread behaviour of the nature you complain of, then you should put forward the specific details. 
As in everything in life , there will always be a small percentage of nutters. I do not think the percentage is much if any greater in motorcycling than anywhere else, like for like. Slinging wild accusations at motorcyclists in general is unhelpful and counter productive 
Or, perhaps you need to chose your rides more carefully?

Katman

23rd July 2009, 20:00

As in everything in life , there will always be a small percentage of nutters. I do not think the percentage is much if any greater in motorcycling than anywhere else, like for like.

http://www.gosport.gov.uk/files/fraud/pics/10.gif

bogan

23rd July 2009, 20:44

It seems the thread has gone rather of topic, so ill try and go back to the orginal post, hopeless though my efforts may be!

Wictionary (the source of much great wisdom) defines conscience as:

The moral sense of right and wrong, chiefly as it affects one's own behaviour.
1949, Albert Einstein, as quoted by Virgil Henshaw in Albert Einstein: Philosopher Scientist,
Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it.

ie, you have to listen to your own sense of right or wrong, not katmans, not ixions, not anybody elses. Though of course others can use reason to change your own sense of right or wrong.

So this debate of what is acceptable riding behaviour is of no consequence to the original question.

It is the riders that ride in a manner which they themselves decide to be unsafe, this is where the term conscience applys, and where the focus should be had.

Of course I'm also aware of the fun some have bickering about the small stuff, if thats the case.....

as you were my good sirs :bleh:

98tls

23rd July 2009, 20:49

It seems the thread has gone rather of topic, so ill try and go back to the orginal post, hopeless though my efforts may be!

Wictionary (the source of much great wisdom) defines conscience as:

ie, you have to listen to your own sense of right or wrong, not katmans, not ixions, not anybody elses. Though of course others can use reason to change your own sense of right or wrong.

So this debate of what is acceptable riding behaviour is of no consequence to the original question.

It is the riders that ride in a manner which they themselves decide to be unsafe, this is where the term conscience applys, and where the focus should be had.

Of course I'm also aware of the fun some have bickering about the small stuff, if thats the case.....

as you were my good sirs :bleh: Wonder who Clayton Weatherston (or whatever his name is) listened to,thank fuck he wont be riding for awhile.

Katman

23rd July 2009, 21:00

Though of course others can use reason to change your own sense of right or wrong.

And this thread is my means of conveying my reason. The delivery may not be perfect :msn-wink: but if anyone else can do better they're welcome to join in.

bogan

23rd July 2009, 21:10

And this thread is my means of conveying my reason. It may not be perfect :msn-wink: but if anyone else can do better they're welcome to join in.

yeh i can see that, just seemed the original question had not really been answered

short-circuit

23rd July 2009, 21:16

yeh i can see that, just seemed the original question had not really been answered

Big Classic Triple with cheese combo, and a deluxe cheeseburger - Coke for the drink thanks

elevenhundred

23rd July 2009, 21:22

And can I have 1 Ice Age 3 combo, a Filet o Fish combo and 2 apple pies thanks, yup, coke for the drink, take away

tigertim20

23rd July 2009, 21:23

Do you think the testosterone that accompanies, and indeed fuels, a huge number of group rides comes "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Katmanb, just curious, so here is a question specifically for you.
Do you have a firmly set idea of what is and is not ok, or safe, eg, do you have a set percentage of the speed limit you stick to? eg Do you never break the limit, or always saty within 10% (110km) 20% (120) 30% (130) of the open road limit?
I am just wondering what YOUR rule of thumb is for YOU when YOU are riding.
Not picking, just asking.
oh, and does your rule of thumb change when its wet, or theres lots of traffic?, if so, by how much?

ok so its more than one question.

Katman

24th July 2009, 09:16

Do you have a firmly set idea of what is and is not ok, or safe, eg, do you have a set percentage of the speed limit you stick to?

Nothing set in stone.

The reality is though that most people's sense of conscience is actually very similar to one another. What varies is how receptive we are to examining and listening to our consciences.

And yes, there are in fact some peoples out there seemingly devoid of a sense of conscience. It is those ones that require peer pressure to beat a sense of conscience into them.

MSTRS

24th July 2009, 09:25

And yes, there are in fact some peoples out there seemingly devoid of a sense of conscience. It is those ones that require peer pressure to beat a sense of conscience into them.

Seldom are 'that type' found alone.
Ergo, they are found in the company of others in the same ilk.
In which case, from whence will this 'peer pressure' of which you speak, come from? Seeing as how they are surrounded by their peers.
'Peer' is a word meaning 'equal'