Police get riders at over 200 km/h [Archive] - Page 2

smoky

17th April 2009, 13:29

Who decides whether the conduct in this partcular circumstance is careless, reckless or dangerous???

.. you can hardly cry foul if there happened to be a friendly little speed camera along the way which records your moment of light speed. The law might be an ass but it's still the law.

I'm not arguing with that point - do the crime do the time.
But lets not be hypocrites - is one law more breakable than another? is breaking one law not as bad as breaking another law on the road?

If you travel at 105Klm/hr are you any more innocent as the next?
Do you always indicate, always come to a complete stop at stop signs, always have 100 meters clear visibility when over taking, always observe the 2 second following rule all the time?
What about talk on your cell phone while driving?
Just what is an acceptable limit of transgression before people can sit in lofty righteousness and pontificate agin the rest of us?
We could be novel and discuss this topic with out pretending there are some on here who are better at keeping the law than others
For the record I haven't had a ticket on a motorbike for over 20 years.
I see some people riding at stupid speeds far too often - but I posted from my perspective. Honest discussion is more valuable on this topic than bullshit

True, but when you only put yourself at risk (minimised or otherwise) .....
When there are other lives at stake - ..... faced with a fuckwit who has momentarily lost control of his line and is now sharing a collision course with him etc etc - who has the right to say "I'm allowed to ride as fast as i like and damn everyone else who tut tuts me".
Speed is one thing - A fully licensed rider, on a bike far too powerful for their ability, riding at legal speeds can present a far more likely risk of being on the wrong side of the road, run into you on your bike on a ride, or make a fatal error - I see it happen all too often
Does a beginner on a 250 doing 70klm/hr get it wrong more or less often than an experienced rider at 120klm/hr?
My point is not about wether it is right or wrong to break the law, it's about; ....... if you have the perpensity to ride at 200klm/hr a lot, then you increase your chances of having an accident and injuring yourself or others. But there is a hell of a lot more things than just purely speed that increases the risk of that happening

PrincessBandit

17th April 2009, 14:12

I'm not arguing with that point - do the crime do the time.
But lets not be hypocrites - is one law more breakable than another? is breaking one law not as bad as breaking another law on the road?

...
For the record I haven't had a ticket on a motorbike for over 20 years.
I see some people riding at stupid speeds far too often - but I posted from my perspective. Honest discussion is more valuable on this topic than bullshit

Speed is one thing - A fully licensed rider, on a bike far too powerful for their ability, riding at legal speeds can present a far more likely risk of being on the wrong side of the road, run into you on your bike on a ride, or make a fatal error - I see it happen all too often
Does a beginner on a 250 doing 70klm/hr get it wrong more or less often than an experienced rider at 120klm/hr?
My point is not about wether it is right or wrong to break the law, it's about; ....... if you have the perpensity to ride at 200klm/hr a lot, then you increase your chances of having an accident and injuring yourself or others. But there is a hell of a lot more things than just purely speed that increases the risk of that happening

For sure, I see what you are saying. However despite a person's riding ability or years of experience there can be no doubt that speed can exponentially increase the degree of severity when things don't go to plan.

3umph

17th April 2009, 14:16

For sure, I see what you are saying. However despite a person's riding ability or years of experience there can be no doubt that speed can exponentially increase the degree of severity when things don't go to plan.

so can ice grit on a part of road or even a bit of black tar or a sheep running out or the roack on the road from a slip... and heaven forbid a cop doing a u-turn

everything is a hazard... everything can potentially kill... I think we should all get wrapped up in cotton wool and live in padded rooms so nothing will happen to us

Murray

17th April 2009, 14:17

WTF - then how come I can get 344 out of my 108hp Hornet?
:2thumbsup:2thumbsup:2thumbsup:2thumbsup

I was after 350+ and thought that doing it naked covered in Vaseline would help the friction (Honda riders always have a tub of vaseline handy...), however it just attracted a lot of bugs that increased my surface area, thus slowing me down to 344 :crybaby:

Pictures soon.......

Are we saying that you were trying to sell it for $350+ (bit expensive) and when you got on it naked the price went down??? So it should cause i bet you left skidmarks!

Mikkel

17th April 2009, 14:21

I'm told that any speed over 40 km above the limit is an instant 28 day suspension of your licence + 28 days in the vehicle impound.
40k over IS a breach of the boy racer laws, thats life in helengrad :argh:
I think you actually get less for DIC than for excessive speed.

Incorrect - on both counts.

Although, if you get an instant 28 day disqualification while on a bike you will most likely need to get your bike taken somewhere.

40 km/h above is just speeding. It doesn't figure under the boyracer legislation (i.e. display of excessive acceleration(this must accompany a main charge - e.g. speeding, careless use...), sustained loss of traction and what have you).

DIC is a criminal offense I believe and as such it is much nastier than any speeding fine - it'll go on your criminal record. Monetary penalty may be less than a high speeding fine - but for DIC I believe you'll receive an automatic 6 months disqualification, the first time.

smoky

17th April 2009, 14:26

despite a person's riding ability or years of experience there can be no doubt that speed can exponentially increase the degree of severity when things don't go to plan.

of course
For my self; if I find I'm having the ol' 'heart leap into my mouth' kind of moments on my bike, then I need to calm down.
:crazy::eek5::Oops::shit::o

Over cooking a corner, having to lock up the rear wheel for something, back wheel breaking loose unexpectedly - these things can happen even at safe speeds, but if they are happening with regularity then I know I'm pushing it too far - and I slow down

Over confidence on a bike (or even in a car) can kill, for me it's the number one thing I keep reminding myself

1vanvan1

17th April 2009, 14:27

leaving aside the question of whether this particular speed in these circumstances was safe or not, (my view being that it was, others, not so much) the thing that shits me about this is the blind belief that an arbitrarily picked velocity is somehow "Safe" and yet a velocity 2% more than that is by definition unsafe: i.e. 99 kph is "safe" but 101 kph is "not safe". That just isnt true: what is "safe" is up to the rider or driver, and depends on a lot of factors: how they feel, whether they had coffee, is it raining, is the road flat and wide, is there other traffic around etc etc etc.

The abandonment of personal responsibility is, I think, what I am getting at.

My long held view is that there should not be any arbitrary speed limit anywhere: there are already enough mechanisms for determining whether particular conduct in particular circumstances is careless, reckless or dangerous, and appropriate penalties if after due investigation, it is found that the person has not met those standards, in those circumstances.

But of course to corrupt politicians (and all politicians are corrupt because they all have a vested interest: they need to be popular enough to be elected again so they can get yet another trotter in the trough) the lie that"speed kills" is an easy sell, coupled with a lazy and corrupt media who buy into it.

So, I will continue to decide how fast I want to go* in any given set of circumstances, because that is the morally correct thing to do.

Bring on the flame war.

*remember what I ride on the street... its happiest at 100 to 120 kph. but it might have been north of 160 a few times.

oh, and people going on about "if you want to do 200k go to the racetrack"

Absolute speed is irrelevant on a racetrack, and if you've ever done a trackday they advise you to blank off your speedo because its distracting. Relative speed (i.e. am I quicker than my mate) is all that matters. so 60, 80, 180 or 280 doesnt matter there. Any given velocity is simply a byproduct of being at the racetrack.

Meh. might go to kaikoura for lunch. lets see, its about 200k away, so just over an hour. That works.

I totally agree with you.

Speed is in the eye on the driver. Speed limits are there because it is the 'safe' speed to go. Not always true.

Not a dig at anyone in particular but, Old people for example. Driving in a 70 zome at 50. Is it because they don't want to break the law? Don't think so. It is because that is the speed they feel safe doing. Learners are another, When we all started out learning we all drove real slow as driving was a new thing and that is as safe as we felt going. Not rasict here or anything but I live in Howick. And quite often drive past china town. And boy do they drive slow sometimes. Is it because they are law abiding? Once again. I dont think it is.

So in conclusion. Speed is in the eye of the driver and how safe they feel driving at speed.

I am not saying go full tit everywhere you go. But drive to the condition.

For example. Your driving through a industrial area and you never saw a speed sign so you don't know what the speed is. By law you should go 50 as its not sign posted but would you? No you would probabaly drive somewhere between 60-70 because thats what you feel is SAFE for that area.

I am not saying these uys actions are right or wrong, Just my perspective on it.

I have touched 200+ before manyatimes. But in places i know the road and obviously when the road is clear.

jafar

17th April 2009, 14:28

Incorrect - on both counts.

Although, if you get an instant 28 day disqualification while on a bike you will most likely need to get your bike taken somewhere.

40 km/h above is just speeding. It doesn't figure under the boyracer legislation (i.e. display of excessive acceleration(this must accompany a main charge - e.g. speeding, careless use...), sustained loss of traction and what have you).

DIC is a criminal offense I believe and as such it is much nastier than any speeding fine - it'll go on your criminal record. Monetary penalty may be less than a high speeding fine - but for DIC I believe you'll receive an automatic 6 months disqualification, the first time.

Could be right too, I'm only going off hearsay & besides I never speed:pinch:

Thani-B

17th April 2009, 14:30

DIC is a criminal offense I believe and as such it is much nastier than any speeding fine - it'll go on your criminal record. Monetary penalty may be less than a high speeding fine - but for DIC I believe you'll receive an automatic 6 months disqualification, the first time.

True. There is no way to get off a DIC charge. You get pulled up and blow over your limit, you are screwed. You may not lose your licence right then but after your court appearace you have at least 3 months (depending on age and how much over the limit you are) with no wheels.

And it is a criminal offense. It is there until you can apply to have it wiped (7 years I think?).

PrincessBandit

17th April 2009, 14:35

so can ice grit on a part of road or even a bit of black tar or a sheep running out or the roack on the road from a slip... and heaven forbid a cop doing a u-turn

everything is a hazard... everything can potentially kill... I think we should all get wrapped up in cotton wool and live in padded rooms so nothing will happen to us

I'd still rather take my chances with any of those things at a lower speed than a higher one. Doesn't guarantee my survival but I'm sticking with what I said. Faster speed gives less reaction time and greater velocity to get rid of if needed. And yes I have had experience with this, currently not able to ride for at least another month; and yes I walked away from what could have been a disastrous result (on the motorway in South Auckland); and yes people have died in lesser speed accidents than the one I had; yes everyone who goes out in a vehicle (motorbike, truck, car, bicycle) knows there is risk involved. Blah blah blah. But trying to minimise the shit stuff is not the same as living in bubble wrap.

klingon

17th April 2009, 14:52

...crock of shit... Who the fuck's ...fucken racetracks ...fucken outings ... fucken year ... some shit... fuck-all.. fucken safe... the main fucken highway ...tough shit.

...fucktard squids ...wank wank wank wank ... bullshit...fucken book ...arsehole squids ...fucking good long hard whipping...these fuckers ...

*Hands the Viscount a bar of soap and a scrubbing brush*

Maha

17th April 2009, 15:01

Shit, i just read 14 pages of PIFFLE.
A brief summary fo those who have just joined us, like myself:

Katman & our friend Doug over there in the corner - anything over 100KPH is directly from the devil, death to the infidels of law. Laws are made for our well being.

madbikeboy and few few other like minded peoplez - 211KPH in the right area at the right time is hardly something to wake the Prime minister up about.

and basically, it is this banter backwards and forwards to varying degrees.

I love the nutshell version of most threads.....
Did you actually read all 14 odd pages?....only to discover what a waste of fucken time?
Now if someone like yourself could take sole charge of thread skimming, it will benefit the less interested.

MIXONE

17th April 2009, 15:31

I find I can only do those sort of speeds after smoking P otherwise I can't concentrate.
Afterwards I go bash a few seals then melt them down for their blubber.It's the best thing to cook whale steaks in.

Brett

17th April 2009, 15:59

I love the nutshell version of most threads.....
Did you actually read all 14 odd pages?....only to discover what a waste of fucken time?
Now if someone like yourself could take sole charge of thread skimming, it will benefit the less interested.

Amusingly, yes I did! And I realised 30 mins later than I would never get those 30 mins back...in fact...why am I even still active in this thread?????

SPman

17th April 2009, 16:41

Sorry, but that is FAR too fast to be going on a public road. .
You're right!
Anything over 200kph is just far too serious.

ajturbo

17th April 2009, 16:46

i recon this is a big old have....

just to see what sort of respons the kiwibiker group would come up with and who would say how bad it was and who would say how impressed they were ... and then there's me...

bummer guys....but you stopped??????????

why????

munterk6

17th April 2009, 17:49

maybe ran out of gas? maybe another copcar tried to kill them by turning in front of them? maybe they felt guilty and wanted to come clean? Maybe maybe maybe..... I know who they are, but I can't say.:oi-grr:

AllanB

17th April 2009, 18:03

Your speedo is optimistic :oi-grr:
If you want to get 350 out of a hornet try chucking it out of an airplane @ 10,000 feet :crazy:

Hmmm I may be wrong but I suspect the Terminal Velocity of the Hornet and myself (clothed in this case, as it will be very cold up there and I'd worry about shrinkage) would stop us reaching 350.

Mikkel

17th April 2009, 19:28

True. There is no way to get off a DIC charge. You get pulled up and blow over your limit, you are screwed. You may not lose your licence right then but after your court appearace you have at least 3 months (depending on age and how much over the limit you are) with no wheels.

And ironically, let's suppose a speeding ticket for 41+ km/h above the limit doesn't hold up in court - then you will already have received your punishment. Which is why road side suspension of license is not just a load of bunkum - but also a breach of our supposedly civil rights.

Alas, the general public have been fed the "speed kills" bullshit long enough that it's being eaten raw...

And it is a criminal offense. It is there until you can apply to have it wiped (7 years I think?).

I am a little uncertain on this - but I believe that depending upon the offense it may be either 2 or 5 years. Mind, it's only stricken from you "public" criminal record (and it should happen automatically - not by application) but it will still remain on file with the police for the rest of your life. It just means that e.g. overseas immigration services and potential employers can access that information.

Oakie

17th April 2009, 20:03

Which is why road side suspension of license is not just a load of bunkum - but also a breach of our supposedly civil rights.

Seeing you mention 'civil rights', what about my civil right to use the road without idiots endangering my life by travelling at more than double the speed limit?

Alas, the general public have been fed the "speed kills" bullshit long enough that it's being eaten raw....

I saw a rider fall off his bike at 200kph a couple of months back at Ruapuna and a few minutes later was able to pick him self up and walk (admittedly, into an ambulance) so no ... I agree that 'speed' per se does not kill ... it's the sudden stop at the end that does the damage. He was OK because of good gear ... probably some sense of how to fall ... and the fact that there were no solid objects to give him the sudden stop during his tumble. It's all semantics though. Using the 'speed doesn't kill' argument you could just as easily argue that jumping from a plane without a parachute is perfectly safe (until that very last foot of freefall).

I prefer the message 'the faster you go, the bigger the mess'. Much more accurate.

scumdog

17th April 2009, 20:05

Ixion

17th April 2009, 20:15

Seeing you mention 'civil rights', what about my civil right to use the road without idiots endangering my life by travelling at more than double the speed limit?

..

But in what way was your life endangered? And how did they endanger your life, specifically, by travelling at 200kph instead of 100 kph ?

I have seen nothing at all so far that suggests that the guilty pair endangered anyone or anything , except themselves.

So far no one has said that another motorist has had to take evasive action. No one has reported that the Easter Bunny ran out in front of them and was squashed.

Mr Ginger Malloy has recently suffered a serious head injury. Not as a result of speeding on his motorcycle at 200kph (which he has often done), but as a result of tripping and falling down on his stairs (he fell one step!).

Clearly , stairs are very dangerous. Should I complain, the next time I hear of someone running down a flight of stairs, that he is endangering my life by doing so (even though I was not there). After all, if I *had* been there, and he had crashed into me as he reached the bottom of the stairs, I could have suffered the same fate as Mr Malloy.

My grandmother used to scold me for running with scissors, too.
I think all users of stairs and scissors should be burned also.

If I had ever proceeded at 200kph (not that I ever have of course, because I never speed, speed kills, this I know because the gubbermint tells me so), but if I hypothetically had , I am sure that no third party (not even the Easter Bunny would have been endangered. And not Mr Oakie, for whose continuing safety I have a particular solicitude

Big Dave

17th April 2009, 20:17

Would you believe 350?

Ixion

17th April 2009, 20:20

Would you believe 350?

NO! Do not muddy already murky waters.

We are already having enough trouble with the premise that 200kph puts the Easter Bunny in dire peril. At 350 you'll get airborne, and the next thing we'll have complaints from Santa Claus and his reindeer.

marty

17th April 2009, 20:24

Hmmm I may be wrong but I suspect the Terminal Velocity of the Hornet and myself (clothed in this case, as it will be very cold up there and I'd worry about shrinkage) would stop us reaching 350.

350km/h is pretty close to absolute terminal velocity in the lower atmosphere, given a slipstreamed shape. stable freefall is about 220km/h (12000fpm) - it would take a reasonably determined effort to get near 350km/h (around 19000fpm), although at high altitude in a low drag situation I think the free fall speed record is near 1000km/h

_Shrek_

17th April 2009, 20:32

*Hands the Viscount a bar of soap and a scrubbing brush*

bling

actually I think it has something to do with having a brain about the size of a canoly

scumdog

17th April 2009, 20:33

350km/h is pretty close to absolute terminal velocity in the lower atmosphere, given a slipstreamed shape. stable freefall is about 220km/h (12000fpm) - it would take a reasonably determined effort to get near 350km/h (around 19000fpm), although at high altitude in a low drag situation I think the free fall speed record is near 1000km/h

So my Harley won't make the 300kph then?:wacko:

malfunconz

17th April 2009, 20:35

my trumpy wont

doc

17th April 2009, 20:43

Where the ferk did 350 come from terminal velocity of a falling object is 120mph ish

Oakie

17th April 2009, 20:45

But in what way was your life endangered?

Oh boy! How obtuse was I?! Ok. When I said 'my' it was a 'royal my' on behalf of all the other road users who have been on the same piece of road as those guys.

Whynot

17th April 2009, 20:49

So were the police going 200kph in order to catch them?

Is that safe?

AllanB

17th April 2009, 20:52

So were the police going 200kph in order to catch them?

Is that safe?

Ah but it was probably legal :girlfight:

Ixion

17th April 2009, 20:52

Oh boy! How obtuse was I?! Ok. When I said 'my' it was a 'royal my' on behalf of all the other road users who have been on the same piece of road as those guys.

Were they (or anyone except the naughty lads) ACTUALLY endangered . I have seen nothing reported to suggest such a conclusion.

There is , in my mind, a clear distinction between riding *dangerously* and riding at an illegal *speed*.

It may be that the two in question did endanger other road users. In that case they deserve condemnation. But , I have not seen anything reported to draws me to such a conclusion.

A hypothetical surmise that if you, or Her Majesty, or the Easter Bunny, had been on the same piece of road , they would somehow have automatically been endangered (beyond the inevitable fact that any other vehicle is always a danger) is totally speculative and calls upon emotion rather than logic.

This all too easily leads to the "I don't do that so that proves it must be dangerous , immoral and perverted" view of life. Many people do things which I do not do - for many reasons. many people do things that you do not do. Neither statement proves that the unspecified "things" are dangerous, or otherwise to be deprecated. Merely that some people do that which I (and you) do not.

It is as if we were to condemn all Honda riders for endangering the rest of us on the basis that somehow they would cause us to be infected with AIDS.

Big Dave

17th April 2009, 20:52

Where the ferk did 350 come from terminal velocity of a falling object is 120mph ish

African or European Swallow?

Ixion

17th April 2009, 20:56

Ask Mr carver about that . I am given to understand he swallows.

McJim

17th April 2009, 21:03

Where the ferk did 350 come from terminal velocity of a falling object is 120mph ish

That depends on mass, surface area and aerodynamics.

A dart falls faster than a flag.

Wasn't me. I've posted a video of what I was doing this past weekend :) my bike maxes out at about 190kph.

MVnut

17th April 2009, 21:19

African or European Swallow?

According to Monty Python, neither species is quite as 'dangerous' as a copper in a silver Hyundai Sonata .

Mikkel

17th April 2009, 23:10

Seeing you mention 'civil rights', what about my civil right to use the road without idiots endangering my life by travelling at more than double the speed limit?

Ixion covered this quite well I think. But I think you'd have to agree that sleeping or distracted motorists in vehicles weighing more than 1000 kgs travelling at 95 km/h constitute more of a risk to you as a person than someone who's operating a ~200 kg machine at 211 km/h.

I certainly know which body carries the higher momentum - which ultimately is what you should be concerned with if it ends up heading towards yourself.

I prefer the message 'the faster you go, the bigger the mess'. Much more accurate.

Haven't you noticed that people are mainly fed up with the "speed kills" bullshit. No one in their right mind would argue that the risks and consequences escalate with higher speeds. That, however, doesn't imply that high speeds are lethal or even necessarily dangerous.

350km/h is pretty close to absolute terminal velocity in the lower atmosphere, given a slipstreamed shape. stable freefall is about 220km/h (12000fpm) - it would take a reasonably determined effort to get near 350km/h (around 19000fpm), although at high altitude in a low drag situation I think the free fall speed record is near 1000km/h

988 km/h according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excelsior) - and what an adventure :2thumbsup

So my Harley won't make the 300kph then?:wacko:

Put some fairings on the old girl and take of the tassles and maybe you'll get there. :D

According to Monty Python, neither species is quite as 'dangerous' as a copper in a silver Hyundai Sonata .

Aw come on mate, they didn't have Hyundai Sonata's in the middle ages - nor even when MP went their seperate ways.

I'm fairly confident that it was a black Rover V8.

...tiny-brained wiper of other peoples bottoms... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfoXlDVBq24&feature=PlayList&p=6630A2275A62425A&index=10)

scumdog

18th April 2009, 08:18

It may be that the two in question did endanger other road users. In that case they deserve condemnation. But , I have not seen anything reported to draws me to such a conclusion.

Of course all those that were about to pull out onto the road from gate-ways or about to overtake etc. and almost shit themselves when they realised the speed of the approaching bikes was waay faster than they allowed for will naturally report it/post on KB so we all know?:oi-grr:

Sollyboy

18th April 2009, 09:53

350km/h is pretty close to absolute terminal velocity in the lower atmosphere, given a slipstreamed shape. stable freefall is about 220km/h (12000fpm) - it would take a reasonably determined effort to get near 350km/h

what if they fold the mirrors in and cover they self in a vaseline?

marty

18th April 2009, 09:56

Where the ferk did 350 come from terminal velocity of a falling object is 120mph ish

How many skydives have you done?

Ixion

18th April 2009, 12:49

Of course all those that were about to pull out onto the road from gate-ways or about to overtake etc. and almost shit themselves when they realised the speed of the approaching bikes was waay faster than they allowed for will naturally report it/post on KB so we all know?:oi-grr:

I don't remember too many gate ways on the fast stretches of that road.

As to overtakers, they never see bikes at any speed, so there's no difference there.

One of the interesting things about bikes is that they seem to have a connection into another dimension. One populated exclusively by hordes of children, old people , and vehices perpetually pulling out of driveways.

Whenever there is a motorcycle moving at pace in our universe, some sort of extra-dimensional tunnel opens up, so that hordes of children , animals, driveways with pulling-out-vehicles, and farmers appear from nowhere, which did not actually exist in out universe untill the arrival of the motorcycle. Stranger still, these hordes are invisible to both the motorcyclist and anybody else. But still possess sufficient corporeality to cause accidents. Or so we must conclude from the frequency with which these vagrant hazards are invoked by the condemnatory.

It would surely merit investigation by the quantum physicists ? Or Pterry.

As to the reporting deficiency, that may be so. But, by exactly the same logic, we could prove that all coppers are taking bribes: since neither the briber nor the bribee would be likely to report the activity , which therefore proves that it is going on. I prefer to assume that the absence of a report of something means that there is nothing to report.

3umph

18th April 2009, 12:53

Sooooo.... has any one noticed anyone without a bike and now has been walking or busing lately that may of been for a ride to Kaikoura for coffee????

Blackshear

18th April 2009, 16:47

African or European Swallow?

The real question, do Coconuts migrate?

Squid

19th April 2009, 05:13

What I cant quite understand is why the 2 chappies pulled over.

and yes cruising along at 211kph is a tad silly. If anything jumps out in front of you and its lights out.

As those with larger capacity sportbikes know it is ridiculously easy to do those kinds of speeds though. Even on my old gixxa the difference between 100 and 170ish*mumble-mumble* was a rolling the throttle another 30deg around....

SARGE

19th April 2009, 08:42

Apart from the fact that you would need to be a dickhead to be doing that sort of speed and putting yourself and innocent others at risk?

Sorry, but that is FAR too fast to be going on a public road. Go to a racetrack if you want to do speeds like that. We should NOT be condoning this sort of thing IMHO.

yea .. FAR too fast .. dickheads.. risk.. innocent ..racetrack ..condone.. dickheads .. :innocent:

my bikes only do 102kph at the stops .. :whistle:

nallac

19th April 2009, 08:46

yea .. FAR too fast .. dickheads.. risk.. innocent ..racetrack ..condone.. dickheads .. :innocent:

my bike only does 102kphish at the stops .. :whistle:

yeah same here...in 1st gear tho.....

SARGE

19th April 2009, 08:51

yeah same here...in 1st gear tho.....

lawless heathen .. i bet you ride in jandals and a tshirt too??..

i swear you youngsters these days with your loud rock and roll and video game parlors and MePods

100 kph is fast enough for anyone .. too fast if ya ask me ...:girlfight::lol:

you should obey all the laws set down by the gubmint .. they know best and are only looking out for us ..

sorry ... i tried so hard to keep a straight face when i typed that .. i think i wee'd a little ..

LBD

19th April 2009, 09:58

There were too many Tui's moments in the last 301 posts to count...

I could talk the legs of a Donkey when I get going but I reckon you lot could convince it to go for a walk afterwards...

munterk6

19th April 2009, 12:43

Is that it? are we done? Please say we are...this is sooooo repetitious.
Even if I told you all EXACTLY what happened, I doubt if anyone would be at all interested...seems a good old argument is what peeps on this thread want.
:girlfight:

3umph

19th April 2009, 13:42

Forest

19th April 2009, 18:47

Ixion covered this quite well I think. But I think you'd have to agree that sleeping or distracted motorists in vehicles weighing more than 1000 kgs travelling at 95 km/h constitute more of a risk to you as a person than someone who's operating a ~200 kg machine at 211 km/h.

I certainly know which body carries the higher momentum - which ultimately is what you should be concerned with if it ends up heading towards yourself.

You are completely wrong. :oi-grr:

Kinetic Energy of a moving object = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2

In other words, if you travel at twice the speed then you have four times the kinetic energy.

Let's look at the numbers in your example:

E_k of car = 0.5 * 1,000 (kg) * [26.39 (m/s)]^2 = 348 kJ

E_k of bike = 0.5 * 200 (kg) * [58.61 (m/s)]^2 = 344 kJ

In other words both vehicles have exactly the same amount of energy at impact, and will cause exactly the same amount of damage.

3umph

19th April 2009, 20:50

so if the car was loaded up 2000kg then there would be a difference of????

what about a 4500kg camper????

Mikkel

19th April 2009, 21:28

You are completely wrong. :oi-grr:

Kinetic Energy of a moving object = 0.5 * mass * velocity^2

In other words, if you travel at twice the speed then you have four times the kinetic energy.

Let's look at the numbers in your example:

E_k of car = 0.5 * 1,000 (kg) * [26.39 (m/s)]^2 = 348 kJ

E_k of bike = 0.5 * 200 (kg) * [58.61 (m/s)]^2 = 344 kJ

In other words both vehicles have exactly the same amount of energy at impact, and will cause exactly the same amount of damage.

It's quite rich that you who haven't learned - or maybe simply didn't bother - to read in the first place is claiming what I posted is wrong.

I didn't mention energy - I mentioned momentum (equal to the product of velocity and mass). If you want to analyse an impact you will consider the momentum of the involved vehicles. Both momentum and energy are conserved enterties - however energy can dissipate in many different ways: heat, deformation, etc. Momentum however does not dissipate in that manner. This means it is easy to calculate the change of momentum experienced by either party in a collision. Since force is equal to the time-derivative of momentum (F = dp/dt) you can calculate the force excerted during the collision if you can estimate the time that the collision took. And force is what will break your bones and burst your arteries and internal organs.
Once you have established the change in momentum you can then estimate what energy was absorbed as deformation of the vehicles using the conservation of energy. The more the better - it means that the impact took longer time and so the forces involved would have been lower.

If you are in your car you WILL prefer to be hit by a motorcycle at 211 km/h compared to a car at 95 km/h. (The point of impact and other circumstances being the same). If you are travelling in a car (1000 kg) at 100 km/h and have a frontal collision with a bike (200 kg) travelling at 200 km/h you will continue travelling forward at 50 km/h. If you have a collision with another car (1000 kg) travelling at 100 km/h you will come to a complete stop - what do YOU think will hurt the most?

[nerd part]

Conservation of momentum - assuming the vehicles "stick" after the collision. m and v are the mass and velocity of vehicle 1 and M and V are the mass and velocity of vehicle 2 - v' is the velocity of the "compound" body following the impact.

mv + MV = (m+M)v' <=> v' = (mv+MV)/(m+M)

Vehicle 1: m = 200 kg, v = -200 km/h (negative since direction is opposite to vehicle 2).
Vehicle 2: M = 1000 kg, V = 100 km/h.

v' = (200 kg * -200 km/h + 1000 kg * 100 km/h)/(200 kg + 1000 kg) = (60000 kg*km/h)/(1200 kg) = 50 km/h

Oakie

19th April 2009, 21:31

Let's look at the numbers in your example:

E_k of car = 0.5 * 1,000 (kg) * [26.39 (m/s)]^2 = 348 kJ

E_k of bike = 0.5 * 200 (kg) * [58.61 (m/s)]^2 = 344 kJ

In other words both vehicles have exactly the same amount of energy at impact, and will cause exactly the same amount of damage.

Good work that man! I would add that all that kenetic energy is going to be concentrated in a smaller area too instead of being spread out as it would be by a car so if you happen to be behind that point of impact it's not going to be good(I'm sure we all remember that old photo of the sports-bike embedded in a wee nana car from Europe somewhere?)To my simple mind I think that if you are the guy pulling out of a side-road there's not going to be too much difference being hit by a 1000kg at 100kph or a 200kg vehicle at 200kph. He's probably going to be just as dead.
Intereresting analogy just ocurred to me. Would you rather be hit on the head by a full swung carpenter's hammer or by a half swung sledgehammer?

lankyman

19th April 2009, 21:44

Apart from the fact that you would need to be a dickhead to be doing that sort of speed and putting yourself and innocent others at risk?

Sorry, but that is FAR too fast to be going on a public road. Go to a racetrack if you want to do speeds like that. We should NOT be condoning this sort of thing IMHO.

Cummon! we've all done it before. wrong place, wrong time

3umph

19th April 2009, 21:46

[nerd part]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

all went over my head :crazy:

Mikkel

19th April 2009, 21:51

Good work that man!

Making flawed conclusions and calculating the kinetic energy of two moving bodies. :clap::rolleyes:

Consider a .50 BMG round (~50 g, ~900 m/s) and an elephant trundling along (3000 kg, 13 km/h) - they have about the same kinetic energy (~20 kJ) and I'm not going to argue which is more deadly. But could you please tell me which of them would be better at moving a heavy body (e.g. a car) when they collide with it?

Forest

20th April 2009, 09:11

It's quite rich that you who haven't learned - or maybe simply didn't bother - to read in the first place is claiming what I posted is wrong.

I didn't mention energy - I mentioned momentum (equal to the product of velocity and mass). If you want to analyse an impact you will consider the momentum of the involved vehicles. Both momentum and energy are conserved enterties - however energy can dissipate in many different ways: heat, deformation, etc. Momentum however does not dissipate in that manner. This means it is easy to calculate the change of momentum experienced by either party in a collision. Since force is equal to the time-derivative of momentum (F = dp/dt) you can calculate the force excerted during the collision if you can estimate the time that the collision took. And force is what will break your bones and burst your arteries and internal organs.
Once you have established the change in momentum you can then estimate what energy was absorbed as deformation of the vehicles using the conservation of energy. The more the better - it means that the impact took longer time and so the forces involved would have been lower.

If you are in your car you WILL prefer to be hit by a motorcycle at 211 km/h compared to a car at 95 km/h. (The point of impact and other circumstances being the same). If you are travelling in a car (1000 kg) at 100 km/h and have a frontal collision with a bike (200 kg) travelling at 200 km/h you will continue travelling forward at 50 km/h. If you have a collision with another car (1000 kg) travelling at 100 km/h you will come to a complete stop - what do YOU think will hurt the most?

Yes the momentum is conserved.

However you have redefined your argument (which is a common rhetorical trick).

In your original post you made absolutely no reference to what kind of vehicle the observer was traveling in, and then in your reply you have suddenly specified that the observer is traveling in a car.

Why is the observer in a car? Why not another motorcycle, a bicycle, or a bus?

My point was valid. Using the numbers you provided in your example, the speeding motorcycle and the non-speeding car each have the same kinetic energy.

Mikkel

20th April 2009, 09:19

Yes the momentum is conserved.

However you have redefined your argument (which is a common rhetorical trick).

In your original post you made absolutely no reference to what kind of vehicle the observer was traveling in, and then in your reply you have suddenly specified that the observer is traveling in a car.

Why is the observer in a car? Why not another motorcycle, a bicycle, or a bus?

Not a trick, where did I redefine anything? I may have been vague - although not by intent, more likely laziness.

If you are on a bike I probably wouldn't bother even looking at the numbers, with any likelihood you'd be in a sorry state indeed. ;)

The reason for putting the observer in the car is more to do with the argument being about putting other road-users at risk - most road-users are in cars.

Forest

20th April 2009, 09:20

so if the car was loaded up 2000kg then there would be a difference of????

what about a 4500kg camper????

I used the numbers that he provided in his example.

If you want to consider the kinetic energy of larger vehicles, then the numbers will of course be different.

Forest

20th April 2009, 09:35

Not a trick, where did I redefine anything? I may have been vague - although not by intent, more likely laziness.

If you are on a bike I probably wouldn't bother even looking at the numbers, with any likelihood you'd be in a sorry state indeed. ;)

The reason for putting the observer in the car is more to do with the argument being about putting other road-users at risk - most road-users are in cars.

No drama.

My point was only that introducing a discussion of momentum only makes sense if you know the specific masses and velocities of both parties that are involved in the collision.

If you don't know the masses and velocities of the colliding vehicles then you cannot draw a general conclusion.

Jantar

20th April 2009, 09:36

Yes the momentum is conserved.

However you have redefined your argument (which is a common rhetorical trick).

In your original post you made absolutely no reference to what kind of vehicle the observer was traveling in, and then in your reply you have suddenly specified that the observer is traveling in a car......

I don't see any re-defining of the argument. It doesn't really matter what vehicles are involved, as Mikkel points out its the conservation of momentum that will dtermine the final outcome, not the dissipation of energy.

If it was solely the dissipation of kinetic energy that decided whether or not a person was killed or injured in a crash then it would be possible to calculate the exact velocity at which this would occur, and it wouldn't matter whether someone hit a tree and stops instantly, or slides along the ground on a slippery surface for hundreds of meters while slowing down gradually. They would both die.

Using the kinetic energy argument is just another method that the PTB use to convince the uneducated that all speed is dangerous.

Mikkel

20th April 2009, 10:18

My point was only that introducing a discussion of momentum only makes sense if you know the specific masses and velocities of both parties that are involved in the collision.

If you don't know the masses and velocities of the colliding vehicles then you cannot draw a general conclusion.

Oh, I am not going to dispute that. But since we are engaging in a thought experiment here we do have the luxury of setting the variables however we like. However, it seemed to me that your point was that I was "Completely wrong" because I didn't calculate the kinetic energy of the vehicles...

As I have often asserted before in other discussions - most real-life situations are too complicated to actually calculate exactly. The art is in removing the small things that doesn't have a significant impact from the equation (e.g. localised heat distribution in the tyres and its impact upon traction, angular momentum carried by the flywheel at the time of impact...) so you end up with something which can actually be calculated. If you follow that through to its natural conclusion you'll end up with the conservation of momentum. It is the very fundament for analysing impacts - you then build layer upon layer of complexity on top of that (conservation of angular momentum first then maybe conservation of energy).

Forest

20th April 2009, 10:44

I don't see any re-defining of the argument. It doesn't really matter what vehicles are involved, as Mikkel points out its the conservation of momentum that will dtermine the final outcome, not the dissipation of energy.

It does matter which vehicles are involved.

There's a world of difference between hitting a bicycle, and hitting a bus.

If it was solely the dissipation of kinetic energy that decided whether or not a person was killed or injured in a crash then it would be possible to calculate the exact velocity at which this would occur, and it wouldn't matter whether someone hit a tree and stops instantly, or slides along the ground on a slippery surface for hundreds of meters while slowing down gradually. They would both die.

Using the kinetic energy argument is just another method that the PTB use to convince the uneducated that all speed is dangerous.

The kinetic energy of a moving vehicle is transferred into any object that it collides with. This includes oncoming vehicles.

More kinetic energy = bigger collision.

This is simple and unarguable.

Mikkel

20th April 2009, 10:47

Pixie

20th April 2009, 11:18

If you are in your car you WILL prefer to be hit by a motorcycle at 211 km/h compared to a car at 95 km/h. (The point of impact and other circumstances being the same). If you are travelling in a car (1000 kg) at 100 km/h and have a frontal collision with a bike (200 kg) travelling at 200 km/h you will continue travelling forward at 50 km/h. If you have a collision with another car (1000 kg) travelling at 100 km/h you will come to a complete stop - what do YOU think will hurt the most?

[

Ha Ha what a croc.
You may as well say you would prefer to be hit with a bullet carrying 1000 ft /lbs of kinetic energy than a loose bag of feathers with the same energy

Mikkel

20th April 2009, 11:29

Ha Ha what a croc.
You may as well say you would prefer to be hit with a bullet carrying 1000 ft /lbs of kinetic energy than a loose bag of feathers with the same energy

If you don't understand something, you probably shouldn't comment on it. For starters "ft /lbs" is not a unit for energy - "ft * lbs" is, there is a slight difference.

Sorry, you fail.

Forest

20th April 2009, 12:53

That is both simple and wrong.

It is correct to a first approximation.

A more precise answer depends on the coefficient of restitution (but that obviously depends on the type of collision we are studying).

More kinetic energy = bigger collision

Mikkel

20th April 2009, 16:02

The kinetic energy of a moving vehicle is transferred into any object that it collides with. This includes oncoming vehicles.

More kinetic energy = bigger collision.

This is simple and unarguable.

It is correct to a first approximation.

A more precise answer depends on the coefficient of restitution (but that obviously depends on the type of collision we are studying).

More kinetic energy = bigger collision

What I have here highlighted from your previous post are two incorrect statements. 1) The kinetic energy is not transferred into the other body - that is an incorrect description. 2) Simplistic yes, however even considering a statement unarguable is an error of logic. For starters you have to explain what you mean by bigger - are we talking larger volume? More deadly? What? It's like saying a GSX-R1000 is bigger than a VFR800 - not incorrect as such, but not exactly 100% true either.

There's no insight in the "more kinetic energy = bigger collision" statement - it's no different from saying "bigger truck = bigger collision" or "the faster you go = the bigger the mess". It's not untrue - but it doesn't provide an ounce of understanding either.
All I am trying to get across is that the scale of an impact is proportional to both the masses and the velocities - not the square of the velocity as with kinetic energy.

Forest

20th April 2009, 18:15

What I have here highlighted from your previous post are two incorrect statements. 1) The kinetic energy is not transferred into the other body - that is an incorrect description.

The energy is most certainly transferred into the other body. The degree of energy transfer depends on the coefficient of restitution (which determines the degree of inelasticity).

2) Simplistic yes, however even considering a statement unarguable is an error of logic. For starters you have to explain what you mean by bigger - are we talking larger volume? More deadly? What? It's like saying a GSX-R1000 is bigger than a VFR800 - not incorrect as such, but not exactly 100% true either.

Bigger = more energetic

That should have been obvious from the context.

There's no insight in the "more kinetic energy = bigger collision" statement - it's no different from saying "bigger truck = bigger collision" or "the faster you go = the bigger the mess". It's not untrue - but it doesn't provide an ounce of understanding either.
All I am trying to get across is that the scale of an impact is proportional to both the masses and the velocities - not the square of the velocity as with kinetic energy.

The severity of the impact is proportional to the energy of the colliding objects, and the energy is proportional to the square of the velocities.

Jantar

20th April 2009, 18:24

The energy is most certainly transferred into the other body. ....
Wow, This is great news. If you are correct I can ride my suzu 1000 at high speed into a concrete wall and not only will the bike remain undamaged, but I'll suffer no injuries at all because all that kinetic energy will transferred into the wall.

Somehow I don't think I'll risk it. I'll continue to believe in conservation of momentum, and energy being disapated into both bodies according to function of force x distance. As the wall wont move, then all the energy would be disapated with my own body and the bike. That seems both painful and expensive and lines up with what we know to happen in practice.

thepom

20th April 2009, 18:36

god your all so boring....get a life.....

Mikkel

20th April 2009, 18:50

The energy is most certainly transferred into the other body. The degree of energy transfer depends on the coefficient of restitution (which determines the degree of inelasticity).

I can assure you that no kinetic energy is being imparted into the other body during a collision. What you are saying is equivalent to the other body speeding up during the impact - that would emply a negative mass if that should make sense physically.

Bigger = more energetic

That should have been obvious from the context.

So what you are saying is: "more kinetic energy = more energetic collision". How profound. :rolleyes:

The severity of the impact is proportional to the energy of the colliding objects, and the energy is proportional to the square of the velocities.

Again, you are mistaken - or at the very least guilty of over-simplificating the matter.

short-circuit

20th April 2009, 18:53

over-simplificating.

There's no such word.

Fuck this thread is boring

Thani-B

20th April 2009, 22:46

There's no such word.

Fuck this thread is boring

I agree. I was enjoying reading this thread but its over the top now

Butch

21st April 2009, 10:36

I agree. I was enjoying reading this thread but its over the top now

Too many people thinking the more posts they make the better it makes them... :wacko:

Get of the keyboard and get out and ride your bikes!

The original post of this thread was about them guys getn busted for a little speed, personally I dunno why they stoped, must have been running low on gas or something leggit...

merv

21st April 2009, 13:04

Butch

26th April 2009, 14:37

Its coz the air is cooler down here and we all know bike produce more power easier with a colder air flow....

slofox

26th April 2009, 15:11

Well, it's SOUTH innit? Which is DOWN innit? So ya go faster going DOWN dontcha?...fuckin obvious I woulda thort...

3umph

26th April 2009, 15:12

Its coz the air is cooler down here and we all know bike produce more power easier with a colder air flow....

Well, it's SOUTH innit? Which is DOWN innit? So ya go faster going DOWN dontcha?...fuckin obvious I woulda thort...

yip yip yip :msn-wink:

Forest

26th April 2009, 16:34

I can assure you that no kinetic energy is being imparted into the other body during a collision. What you are saying is equivalent to the other body speeding up during the impact - that would emply a negative mass if that should make sense physically.

Are you serious?

Have you never played billiards?

Each colliding body imparts energy into the other. In the case of billiard balls, the collisions are almost entirely elastic. Stop and think about it for a moment.

So what you are saying is: "more kinetic energy = more energetic collision". How profound. :rolleyes:

Again, you are mistaken - or at the very least guilty of over-simplificating the matter.

Right. That's exactly what I am saying.

Traveling at higher speeds results in more energetic collisions. The energy of the moving bodies is proportional to the square of the velocities. Therefore traveling at higher speeds will have an exponentially adverse effect on the unfortunate person that you collide with.

Forest

26th April 2009, 16:41

Wow, This is great news. If you are correct I can ride my suzu 1000 at high speed into a concrete wall and not only will the bike remain undamaged, but I'll suffer no injuries at all because all that kinetic energy will transferred into the wall.

The amount of damage to the wall will increase as your speed increases.

Do you disagree with this?

Somehow I don't think I'll risk it. I'll continue to believe in conservation of momentum, and energy being disapated into both bodies according to function of force x distance. As the wall wont move, then all the energy would be disapated with my own body and the bike. That seems both painful and expensive and lines up with what we know to happen in practice.

Yes. Energy is dissipated into both bodies!!

And that is the problem with vehicle collisions. Higher speeds results in exponentially more energetic collisions.

yachtie10

26th April 2009, 16:59

Highlander

26th April 2009, 17:01

cool excuse except the north islands the fish, south islands the canoe

Yup, Wellington is the mouth, East Cape / Taranaki the fins and Auckland.....

Mikkel

26th April 2009, 18:34

Each colliding body imparts energy into the other. In the case of billiard balls, the collisions are almost entirely elastic. Stop and think about it for a moment.

It's momentum. The fact that they are almost perfectly elastic collisions means that in that particular case you can actually use conservation of energy to gain useful information.

In an impact where there is deformation this is not true. In such imperfect circumstances you consider the momentum first because the kinetic energy is not conserved - some of it will be transformed into heat and deformation during the impact. On the other hand conservation of momentum will allow you to figure out the velocities after the impact and you can then calculate the kinetic energies associated with each body.

Right. That's exactly what I am saying.

Traveling at higher speeds results in more energetic collisions. The energy of the moving bodies is proportional to the square of the velocities. Therefore traveling at higher speeds will have an exponentially adverse effect on the unfortunate person that you collide with.

Your statements (equations even):

"higher kinetic energy = bigger collision"
&
"bigger = more energetic"

=> "higher kinetic energy = more energetic collision"

Of course that is correct - but it just doesn't contain any insights at all. It's no different from saying that "colder = lower temperature" i.e. obvious and uninteresting.

The fact of the matter is that the severity of an impact is closely related to the forces acting upon your body during the impact which again is the time derivative of change of momentum.

Also, the kinetic energy is not growing exponentially with the velocity by the way - it's a quadratic growth... not to be pedantic or anything.

Winston001

27th April 2009, 12:00

Fascinating physics discussion - suspect you chaps are reading past each other and really arguing definitions.

So - any update on what's happening with these lads? Charges?

Squid

27th April 2009, 15:40

I blame it all on the South Island, it makes bikers ride fast like that, its not their fault, the Police should make allowance for that.

Is it something to do with the Island really being a fish and trying to race hard away from Maui or something?

Its coz the air is cooler down here and we all know bike produce more power easier with a colder air flow....

Well, it's SOUTH innit? Which is DOWN innit? So ya go faster going DOWN dontcha?...fuckin obvious I woulda thort...

As a recent convict, no CONVERT to the south island I feel oddly qualifed to answer some of these questions :first:
- YES it is colder down here,
- YES my gixxa likes it better,
- YES it is easier to go faster, dunno if that coz of the downhill aspect of the fact everthing is just that much futher away and takes longer to get there... Like riding along towards a set of mountains and thinking "yeah about a hr away" 2 hours later...... @ 100kph that is.

Yup, Wellington is the mouth, East Cape / Taranaki the fins and Auckland.....

Aucklands the arse. It has to be, its auckland after all.. :bleh:

Fascinating physics discussion - suspect you chaps are reading past each other and really arguing definitions.

So - any update on what's happening with these lads? Charges?

Have been keeping a eye on the local papers but havnt heard anything more about it. :mobile:

Monty69

27th April 2009, 17:05

Wow science lessons on KB, good reading so far. Well done for getting busted at 211kmh mystery bikers, and nice self control stopping for the cops! good story to tell your mates:laugh: I took... i mean a friend took my new CBR up to 250kmh on an empty stretch of road with no driveways or intersections and plenty of clear visibility all round on the weekend and i feel that was safe, even on a public road.

Jantar

27th April 2009, 17:42

The amount of damage to the wall will increase as your speed increases.

Do you disagree with this?

Yes I do disagree. In many cases there would be no damage to the wall at all. A very sensitive thermocouple inside the concrete may register a slight rise in temperature showing a small amount of energy transfer, but certainly not ALL the energy as you claimed in an earlier post.

Yes. Energy is dissipated into both bodies!!

And that is the problem with vehicle collisions. Higher speeds results in exponentially more energetic collisions.

This part I almost entirely agree with. However as Mikkel has already pointed out the total energy rises with the square of the speed, noit exponetially, but it is the time that the energy is dissipated, and the rate of dissipation that determines the amount of injury/damage etc.

So come off your bike at over 200 kmh onto a damp grass surface where you can slide for a long distance and you are likely to suffer no injury at all. (Yes I have done this at Levels). Hit something solid, like another vehicle, at the same speed and injury is certain.

Winston001

27th April 2009, 19:51

Yes I do disagree. In many cases there would be no damage to the wall at all. A very sensitive thermocouple inside the concrete may register a slight rise in temperature showing a small amount of energy transfer, but certainly not ALL the energy as you claimed in an earlier post.

This part I almost entirely agree with. However as Mikkel has already pointed out the total energy rises with the square of the speed, noit exponetially, but it is the time that the energy is dissipated, and the rate of dissipation that determines the amount of injury/damage etc.

So come off your bike at over 200 kmh onto a damp grass surface where you can slide for a long distance and you are likely to suffer no injury at all. (Yes I have done this at Levels). Hit something solid, like another vehicle, at the same speed and injury is certain.

Haven't followed the argument but seems like you guys just need to remember e=mc2. The faster the mass is moving, the greater the energy of the body. At lightspeed, pure energy only, all mass is converted.

At somewhat more pedestrian speeds, energy of any collision will be transferred in numerous directions - the brick wall's atoms will vibrate more quickly, as will the bikes atoms, and the air will be affected, there will be photon releases, and sonic energy. Crunch. :eek: Heck even the local gravity field will flinch and the local magnetic field will be interrupted by bits of flying iron disrupting its flow.

Edbear

27th April 2009, 19:58

...

So come off your bike at over 200 kmh onto a damp grass surface where you can slide for a long distance and you are likely to suffer no injury at all. (Yes I have done this at Levels). Hit something solid, like another vehicle, at the same speed and injury is certain.

I coulda told ya that without the Physics lesson...:third:

...At lightspeed, pure energy only, all mass is converted. ...

Can you put that in Physics?
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Faster%20than%20light%20speed.htm

Mikkel

27th April 2009, 20:44

Haven't followed the argument but seems like you guys just need to remember e=mc2. The faster the mass is moving, the greater the energy of the body. At lightspeed, pure energy only, all mass is converted.

I think we are going a bit too far afield. Not only is the theory of relativity relatively tricky (which is illustrated by the erroneous statement highlighted above) it is also absolutely irrelevant for anything within the scope of present discussion.

As for the physics lesson, I post for two reasons 1) incorrect statements pertaining to any field of science must be challenged immediately and 2) I appreciate the irony of the inane "This thread is boring now!" replies...

Winston001

28th April 2009, 09:05

I think we are going a bit too far afield. Not only is the theory of relativity relatively tricky (which is illustrated by the erroneous statement highlighted above) it is also absolutely irrelevant for anything within the scope of present discussion.

My bad, inaccurate words. Mea culpa......but this is KB! :bash: Think of a photon = travels at lightspeed, plenty of energy but has zero mass.

Relativity works at all speeds, it just isn't detectable most of the time. And you are correct, its not much help with the brick wall scenario which is too slow.

MarkH

28th April 2009, 09:57

Aucklands the arse. It has to be, its auckland after all.. :bleh:

I am sure you are thinking about it the wrong way around. Surely with all the wind in Wellington it must be the arse? It is full of politicians too, further giving credence to the idea that it is the arse!

SVboy

28th April 2009, 10:39

I read it was a couple of Rangiora based riders-mid-later 40s. Passed the mufti at 160 plus, who followed and clocked them at 211kms,after Parnassus. Re running-no where to go-Leader up to Waiau perhaps-but few places to hide on SH1.

Mikkel

28th April 2009, 11:23

Bummer, it'll be interesting to know what punishment the establishment finds appropriate for such gross flaunting of the current mantra "speed kills"...

Think of a photon = travels at lightspeed, plenty of energy but has zero mass.

More importantly - anything with a rest-mass different from zero will never be able to achieve lightspeed (in vacuum) due to the relativistic mass increase.

Since the speed of light in most materials is less than 300.000.000 m/s you can observe fast moving particles breaking the "light-barrier" - e.g. in a reactor - and as a result electromagnetic shockwaves are emitted AKA Cerenkov Radiation. Which again is why everything fancy in Sci-Fi movies has to have this eerie blue glow.

The most mind-boggling aspect of the photon is that it has a momentum and therefore an effective mass despite the fact it's just a packet of electro-magnetic waves.

Winston001

28th April 2009, 12:19

The most mind-boggling aspect of the photon is that it has a momentum and therefore an effective mass despite the fact it's just a packet of electro-magnetic waves.

Good man, the photon acts on objects as if it does have mass. Now let's see you explain wave/particle duality.....:bye:

James Deuce

28th April 2009, 12:59

Has anyone opened the box lately and if they have, is the cat still OK?

Winston001

28th April 2009, 13:33

Noooooooo!! Do not open the box. I like cats and I want this one to remain safe. Anyway it's a potential cat and it'll get away if you release it......:argh:

Mikkel

28th April 2009, 13:43

Good man, the photon acts on objects as if it does have mass. Now let's see you explain wave/particle duality.....:bye:

Explain wave/particle duality? :eek5: - dunno if it's ever really been explained. I'd say it's more of a source for wonder than anything. It's not too difficult to grasp mathematically or as an abstraction. However, trying to reconcile it with anything we can observe with our own eyes is very difficult indeed.

Has anyone opened the box lately and if they have, is the cat still OK?

They opened the box long ago mate. No cat - just all the evils of the world.

Noooooooo!! Do not open the box. I like cats and I want this one to remain safe. Anyway it's a potential cat and it'll get away if you release it......:argh:

And now for philosophy 102 - is the glass half full or half empty? :devil2:

Btw - the book Schrodinger's Cat by Robert Anton Wilson is an interesting read... if somewhat of a mindfuck.

James Deuce

28th April 2009, 14:06

And now for philosophy 102 - is the glass half full or half empty? :devil2:

Neither. It's twice as big as it needs to be.

Btw - the book Schrodinger's Cat by Robert Anton Wilson is an interesting read... if somewhat of a mindfuck.

Love it. I will have to dig it out and read it again now.

peasea

28th April 2009, 15:27

Good man, the photon acts on objects as if it does have mass. Now let's see you explain wave/particle duality.....:bye:

Is that like putting TWO lots of Brylcreem on your hair?

Ixion

28th April 2009, 18:00

More like putting Brylcream on your hair when you're bald.

Mikkel

28th April 2009, 20:40

More like putting Brylcream on your hair when you're bald.

Well if atheism is a religion - bald is a hair colour.

Edbear

28th April 2009, 20:49

Noooooooo!! Do not open the box. I like cats and I want this one to remain safe. Anyway it's a potential cat and it'll get away if you release it......:argh:

Not neccessarily, it might be dead when you look...

I like this guy... http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm

Edbear

28th April 2009, 20:51

Has anyone opened the box lately and if they have, is the cat still OK?

Well, apparently with a 50/50 chance of it being okay or dead, not too many are willing to see for themselves....

James Deuce

28th April 2009, 21:15

It's all predestined anyway, you damned Protestant! ;)

3umph

28th April 2009, 21:24

I heard today that the bikes in question overtook a mufti cop....

munterk6

28th April 2009, 22:43

so what sort of fine/licence disqualification can these guys expect? I'm ignorant as to how the court appearance thing works.
11 years ago I was busted for 258kmh on the Mackenzie Basin...nice cruise on a nice day. Until the cop arrived.
I was fined $1800 and disqualified for 9 mths, done for failing to stop for the cops, careless use, and exceeding 200kmh.
That was 11 years ago, God knows what the damage would be now!:crazy:

I was with a group of 6 last Sunday, we overtook a mufti cop around the Culverden area in a black Hyundai Sonata at 145, he never did a thing. I dont think he wanted to deal with a group...single riders are easier pickings Im guessing.

There's a lot of riders that constantly travel at 130-200ish every time they ride...and never seem to get busted.

Winston001

29th April 2009, 09:03

They opened the box long ago mate. No cat - just all the evils of the world.

That's Pandora's Box, a cube of a different hue.

Btw - the book Schrodinger's Cat by Robert Anton Wilson is an interesting read... if somewhat of a mindfuck.

Excellent book, just set it aside recently for a second read. :2thumbsup:

Winston001

29th April 2009, 10:48

Not neccessarily, it might be dead when you look...

I like this guy... http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Quantum%20mechanics.htm

But you see - that is the point. If no-one opens the box the cat will be fine.......sortof. :whistle: It remains a potential cat.

Good link, thanks. :2thumbsup:

nallac

29th April 2009, 11:03

[QUOTE=Winston001;1129190424]But you see - that is the point. If no-one opens the box the cat will be fine.......sortof. :whistle: It remains a potential cat. QUOTE]

but how do ya feed the cat?..someone is feeding the cat aren't they????.

Animal

29th April 2009, 12:05

so what sort of fine/licence disqualification can these guys expect? I'm ignorant as to how the court appearance thing works.

For comparison, being clocked in Western Australia at 148kmh in a 90kmh zone resulted in bike collection from site of bust and impoundment for 7 days (AU$550.00), speeding fine (AU$2000.00), loss of license for 6 months under Hoon Laws.

Ten kms earlier and I was well over 211kmh. That would've probably hurt even more! :Oops:

Chrislost

29th April 2009, 12:16

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release.html?id=5021
1:28pm 16 April 2009

The Police radar locked at the speed of the two motorcycles heading for Kaikoura 211 km/h.

16 April 2009

Police have caught two motorcyclists who reached 211 km/h on their way 'to Kaikoura for a coffee', during an operation targeting high-risk behaviour on South Island's stretch of State Highway One. The riders had their licences suspended immediately for 28 days, and will appear in later in court.

"Motorcyclists are some of the most vulnerable road users in New Zealand and are over-represented in crash statistics," says Acting Canterbury Road Policing Manager Neville Hyland. "This type of behaviour is one of the reasons why. There are plenty of clubs with access to race tracks if you want to travel at these speeds. Otherwise, stick to the rules or be prepared for the consequences."

Police issued 448 tickets for the operation over the first week of April, adding to the 355 issued during the same operation in early March.

......

Didn't anyone ever tell the cops about the time exposed to danger theory?

I'm sure that if there is a % chance of crashing (that statistics tell me is higher for bikes? the same stats they base these "safety campaigns" on)

therefore if i am on the road for half a hour, I am half as likely to crash as if i am on the road for an hour.

unless of course i happen to find a police officer U-turning near me, then the chance increases as his mate has probably u-turned across the next corner to help him.

jasonzc

13th October 2009, 02:54

First of all ... both sides of the argument are valid.
but one thing i dont think has been mentioned is that most motorist are not expecting a bike to come at them at 200ks.
Therefore if a car wanted to change lanes, motorist peek at his mirror and sees a bike at a distance. He may get lured into a false sense of security, that the bike is at a safe distance for him to pull into the bikers lane... b4 he knows it.. the bikes right besides him and by that time it may be all too late...

just hypatheticals...

i cant belive this is one of the first threads i have read while on this forum.. kinda a waste of time, o well..

the physics lessons were intersting though.. i think i agree with mikkel (?) on most aspects. (i have an engineering back ground)

and no.. i cant spell... to save my life.:confused: