Speed and the law

[outlawtorn]

There is not a road on the planet that is 100% safe at any speed.

What we are talking about is a sliding scale of safety that varies considerably from place to place, time to time and person to person that is punctuated by some very real legal limits with even more real punishments.

Yes, there are times when it is relatively safe to go quite fast for a brief time in some places. As for me, in general I don't exceed the limit by any more than 20kph ever as that is the limit of pain I can stand... Plus any more is a bit irresponsible and can't be sustained for long.

I guess what I find odd... Admitting you do 110 (which is already breaking the legal limit) and blagging someone that got pinged for 160. That means you have already ignored the legal limit and so physics aside are we are just talking about a sliding scale of comfort and illegality...

Cheers

FYI dude, I achieved 110 going downhill just outside of Auckland on the motorway where it splits to go either to Hamilton or to the Coromandel. I was also with a couple of other KBers as we were on our way to the Toy Run. I also find the difference between 110 and 160 fucking huge. I have been in a car at 160+ and have basically shat myself because it is bloody fast it is nothing compared to 110 and I come from south Africa where the speed is 120kph on the highways.

[MSTRS:Me]

the difference between 110 and 160 fucking huge.

On your bike perhaps.

[madboy]

I also find the difference between 110 and 160 fucking huge. I have been in a car at 160+ and have basically shat myself because it is bloody fast it is nothing compared to 110 and I come from south Africa where the speed is 120kph on the highways.

So what you're saying is that you personally believe that 110 is safe and 160 is not. And on that basis 110 downhill on the motorway is safe, and 160k under any circumstances is not. Is that a fair comment for me to make?

Because I personally believe that 230k in a car was exciting, and 250k on the bike last night was even more exciting (bordering on scary actually but that's only cos it's a new bike to me, I'm sure I'll get used to it). Those are my personal beliefs. So is it fair for me to say that 250 is safe and 300 is not?

But then there was the time I was cruising down a gravel road (100km/h speed limit but closed that day for competition) in my rally car, misjudged the hairpin and rolled it... speed I was travelling at - approx 30km/h. But I was doing 70km/h under the speed limit had it been an open road?!!

[Wolf]

That had to be one sick RD then. Even the 250s could do 100mph on a good day

It was the second bike I ever bought - the first being my TS125 (the RX125 doesn't count as dad bought it for me). I was young and knew SFA about bikes so I wound up with a TS125 that was shit hot and an RD350 that was just shit.

Wish I still had the TS125, it was fun and pretty-much indestructible (cost me a fortune in muffler bandages, tho') and could get up to a reasonable speed 2-up.

[Paul in NZ]

On your bike perhaps.

It is on my Guzzi as well but I have ridden a Triumph ST where I thought I was getting on a bit at 100kph when I realised the speedo was in mph (ie 160kph) Because the bike was (to me) so damn good, I was going way faster than I thought!

However, even on a dreadfull old shitter like my Guzzi, if I was blindfolded I'd be hard pressed to 'feel' the difference between 100 and 140....

Yes, at 160 you are taking a bigger risk and in some times and places it's an insane speed but one that a great many of us have done and will do again in relative safety and with minimum risk to others. It's NOT an automatic death sentence.

No one is complaining about the ticket, the law or anything else. Its a more than fair cop.

[outlawtorn]

So what you're saying is that you personally believe that 110 is safe and 160 is not. And on that basis 110 downhill on the motorway is safe, and 160k under any circumstances is not. Is that a fair comment for me to make?

Because I personally believe that 230k in a car was exciting, and 250k on the bike last night was even more exciting (bordering on scary actually but that's only cos it's a new bike to me, I'm sure I'll get used to it). Those are my personal beliefs. So is it fair for me to say that 250 is safe and 300 is not?

But then there was the time I was cruising down a gravel road (100km/h speed limit but closed that day for competition) in my rally car, misjudged the hairpin and rolled it... speed I was travelling at - approx 30km/h. But I was doing 70km/h under the speed limit had it been an open road?!!

no it aint a fair comment to make, nowhere did i state that 110 is safer than 160, I just stated that 110 is the fatest I have ever gone and the result of that was probably because I was going downhill.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Some people believe the lie that speed kills. Speed does not kill. they thought that last century when the little man had to walk in front of the car waving the red flag.

They also thought that going too fast would cause your internal organs to implode etc.

In fact speed does not kill. Rapid deceleration does.

Thus any speed is safe.

QED.

Therefore our friend should be able to mount a defence based on that fact.

Also, our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark could be called as a witness, because she obviously subscribes to the same point of view, having travelled perfectly safely and reasonably from South Canterbury to Christchurch at an average speed of 140kph.

[MSTRS:Me]

no it aint a fair comment to make, nowhere did i state that 110 is safer than 160, I just stated that 110 is the fatest I have ever gone and the result of that was probably because I was going downhill.

Can't be fecked re-reading entire post, but gist of what your posts seem to be saying is that you've done 110 on your little bike & that's too fast, and anyone going faster than that is a blithering idiot who deserves a mighty pinch by the law or death.

[spudchucka]

In fact speed does not kill. Rapid deceleration does.

You can't achieve one without first indulging in the other. Its a yin & yang thing.

[MSTRS:Me]

In fact speed does not kill. Rapid deceleration does.

Almost right. It is the G-forces that come into play. Because in the case of a speeding object (read vehicle) hitting a person standing in the way, that person's body is subjected to rapid ACCeleration.

[outlawtorn]

Can't be fecked re-reading entire post, but gist of what your posts seem to be saying is that you've done 110 on your little bike & that's too fast, and anyone going faster than that is a blithering idiot who deserves a mighty pinch by the law or death.

I first read the post abot the guy getting busted and thought 'what a pity he got nailed' but then on reflection it does serve him right for doing a really high speed limit on our roads.

And I don't give a shit how straight and long our fucking roads are the law is the law and if you are prepared to speed on your bike be prepared to get busted.

As far as going 110 is concerned, once again, I said it because that is the fatest I have gone on my 'little' bike, not to say that it was safe to do so or was it right to do so, I was just stating a fact.

At the end of the day I feel that speeding is dangerous and yes most of you disagree with me and I accept that. I ride like a nana and I accept that. I just don't see any justification for doing 160kph on our roads, sorry but that is my point of view, if you want to speed then save it for a track day or a drag meet.

Like I said in another thread I was travelling back from the Coromandel and encountered a group of riders who were riding recklessly and fast. That's gets my goat as I have my wife and kids in the car with me and their safety is the most important thing in the world to me and it pisses me off when I am trying to reach home safely and some bikers come past who are causing problems for everyone, mainly because of the speed they are travelling through the traffic.

[Ixion]

.. I also find the difference between 110 and 160 fucking huge. I have been in a car at 160+ and have basically shat myself because it is bloody fast it is nothing compared to 110 ..

WADR, must disagree. It all depends on the road, the vehicle and the circumstances. 160 in the right place, on a fast bike or car is neither here nor there.

Indeed, one of my main objections to the new "no discretion" enforcement is that it is all too easy for the speed to "sneak up" without one realising it. The difference between 100kph and 120kph may be no more than a bit of a downhill, or catching a tail wind.

On the Beammer it's almost impossible to tell the difference between 100 and 140 without looking at the speedo. So I find I have to ride with an almost constant eye on the speedo, which is certainly not safe .

in general I don't exceed the limit by any more than 20kph ever as that is the limit of pain I can stand... Plus any more is a bit irresponsible and can't be sustained for long.

I find that most North Island roads, a comfortable cruising speed is between 80 and 120 kph. So I generally travel between those. Faster is often possible, and not necessarily unsafe, but it's more tiring.

I'm not really into going as fast as possible, I'm more wanting to go at a speed where I can keep up a reasonably steady progress without constantly having to brake and accelerate hard.

Riding as hard as possible becomes very tiring when you're trying to put 600 or 700 km into the day, and repeat it the next day. I don't want to arrive tired and stuffed out. So I settle for a nice "flowing" speed. So overall I think that 100kph is a reasonable figure for the speed limit. But they should reintroduce the discretion factor for the Police.

[Paul in NZ]

You can't achieve one without first indulging in the other. Its a yin & yang thing.

Hey! Not fair!! This thread is complicated enough without bringing Billy Connelly and Religion into it...



Goodness what a horrible day I'm having at work... aaarrgghhh! Must buy a looto ticket this weekend...

[James Deuce]

Almost right. It is the G-forces that come into play. Because in the case of a speeding object (read vehicle) hitting a person standing in the way, that person's body is subjected to rapid ACCeleration.

You're quite right. There is no such thing as deceleration, only varying degrees of positive and negative relative acceleration.

[handy_dog]

To those that answered the questions raised; thankyou.
To those that offered advice on the subject of speed your points have been taken on board, and will be filed (deep) and referenced as necessary. I broke the rules, and knew the concequences.

It's a shame that in a country as small as ours our polititions have an unhealthy desire to regulate and impose extra costs to those that desire to do anything that might pass as enjoyable or profitable.
Rht Honerable (there's a joke) Helen. Feel free to kiss my ass next time your through Waimate but only if you have time to stop.