Instilling a sense of conscience.

[Mom]

I'll need Moms gaskets!! (LOL!)

Sorry babe, I need all the gaskets I can find

[The Stranger:Me]

You tackle what you think is the important issues Noel.

I'm sure there's enough needy causes to go around.

Well yeah, 2 too many actually.
You and DB.

Well skidmark too I guess.

[Ixion]

It's perfectly logical.

Is it morally irresponsible to operate your vehicle in a manner that creates a high degree of risk to other roads users. Driving/riding pissed and riding in excess of twice the speed limit do exactly that.

Thats a subjective and emotive statement void of any objective evidence. Define "pissed" and provide evidence that riding at "twice the speed limit" *EVER* on *ANY* road is a high degree risk to other road users. becaus eI am sure that I can provide evidence (time and place ) where riding at any multiple of the speed limit would not create ANY risk to any (non existent) other road users. You are just buying into the police propaganda that anyone rising at 111 kph will die instantly and anyone riding at 99kph is invulnerable, Which is crap. Your argument deserves a better advocate.

I'd agree with " Is (sic) it morally irresponsible to operate your vehicle in a manner that creates a high degree of risk to other roads users" . I don't agree with " Is it morally irresponsible to operate your vehicle at twice the speed limit" and I challenge your to provide objective evidence for your claims.

[98tls]

Thats a subjective and emotive statement void of any objective evidence. Define "pissed" and provide evidence that riding at "twice the speed limit" *EVER* on *ANY* road is a high degree risk to other road users. becaus eI am sure that I can provide evidence (time and place ) where riding at any multiple of the speed limit would not create ANY risk to any (non existent) other road users. You are just buying into the police propaganda that anyone rising at 111 kph will die instantly and anyone riding at 99kph is invulnerable, Which is crap. Your argument deserves a better advocate.

I'd agree with " Is (sic) it morally irresponsible to operate your vehicle in a manner that creates a high degree of risk to other roads users" . I don't agree with " Is it morally irresponsible to operate your vehicle in a manner that creates a high degree of risk to other roads users" when 100kph+ is axiomatically defined as being morally irresponsible " , and I challenge your to provide objective evidence for your claims.

Wow,six minutes that changed my life.

[Brian d marge]

Locomotives on Highways Act 1896

its coming back to a city near you ( actually quite true in some uk cities !)

Stephen

[The Stranger:Me]

So how was I supposed to do that? I indicated, looked in my mirror and saw a row of headlights behind me with nothing in the right hand lane - the retard on the Gixxer was moving up in our lane and I am told passed within a metre of the guys behind me too.

Honestly, if that's the way it went down you are clearly in the wrong.
It is your duty to ensure your way is clear in that situation.
There is no way you could have done that without a head check, which I note from your description above you didn't do.

[swbarnett]

For the purpose of this exercise I'll define pissed as being at the point where you judgment and your ability to react to any situation is reduced or affected by even the slightest degree. (Sort of like travelling at 200+kph).

This, I think, is where your argument falls down. The situation is far from black and white.

Consider reaction times as a measure of a driver/rider's ability to react (the actual numbers don't matter as this is a relative example). Suppose person A has a 0.8 second reaction time and person B has a 1 second reaction time. Now, suppose person A ingests enough alcohol to increase their reaction time to 0.9 seconds and person B ingests no alcohol whatsoever. Person A still has a better reaction time than person B (0.9 as opposed to 1) but, by your definition, person A is now "pissed".

[Ixion]

Surely you're not suggesting that travelling at 100kph rather than 200kph wouldn't give you more options on how you might react?

Certainly. And 10kph will give you a lot more options than 100kph. Got your red flag ready? Cos, where you're going you're going to need it . Why do you think that 100kph has some magical mystical significance?

[Ixion]

Wow,six minutes that changed my life.

Glad to hear it. Some lives need chnaging.

But, y' might want to think, if the slowest , most risk averse, cautious , safety conscious, doddery old nanna in the country (maybe the world - the guy who's slower than your nanna's nanna) isn't convinced;then maybe the argument is'nt all that strong?

[mstriumph]

i'm still struggling with the 'morality' of ANY 'onesizefitsall' speed limit ...

i'm with dickens "'If the law supposes that', ........... 'the law is an ass '"

... or words to that effect

[SixPackBack]

You tackle what you think is the important issues Noel.

I'm sure there's enough needy causes to go around.

Your are 'tackling' excess speed when it has been pointed out to me [in one of your other rambling threads] that you yourself road race and speed.
Hypocrite.

[Katman]

It's funny how people attempt to construe words to suit their own purposes.

I have never said "do not exceed 100kph".

I am asking people to consider "is travelling at excessive speed and placing other road users at increased risk, morally acceptable?"

I have never bought into the theory that 100kph is safe while 101kph is unsafe.

[shrub]

Honestly, if that's the way it went down you are clearly in the wrong.
It is your duty to ensure your way is clear in that situation.
There is no way you could have done that without a head check, which I note from your description above you didn't do.

Nice idea - look in my mirror counting headlights behind me before I overtake. Actually I probably wouldn't need to overtake, I'd have almost certainly run off the road by then.

I don't know how much riding you have done, but at 90 kmh you're travelling at 25 metres per second. There were around a dozen bikes behind me so it would have taken me a minimum of 5 or 6 seconds to count them assuming they were all visible. In that time I would have travelled around 150 metres blind - I don't know about you, but I find it's much safer to watch the road in front of me than ride by instinct and memory.

I think with thought you'll find that I was clearly in the right and the retard on the Gixxer was in the wrong because it is extremely dangerous and very, very stupid to overtake bikes in the same lane, and mind bogglingly stupid to do it with a high speed differential. I was talking to a chap from an insurance company the other day and he said the overwhelming majority of claims are for sports bikes. Given they ride in the same conditions as everyone else, you have to deduce from that that their riders exceed the safe limits of their skill and the road, and riding to the conditions is a skill, so in essence they exceed their skill level. Easy to do on a bike that would have been winning Formula 1 races a few years ago. I don't have the skill to ride the current superbikes fast, and I know plenty of people who own them are no better than me.

[Max Preload]

There were around a dozen bikes behind me so it would have taken me a minimum of 5 or 6 seconds to count them assuming they were all visible.

I believe watching 'Sesame Street' can improve your ability to count quickly and accurately. But more importantly...

Honestly, if that's the way it went down you are clearly in the wrong.
It is your duty to ensure your way is clear in that situation.
There is no way you could have done that without a head check, which I note from your description above you didn't do.

ALWAYS DO A HEAD CHECK!

[The Stranger:Me]

Came up behind a slow car through a couple of corners and as we came out of the corners onto a straight I flicked on my indicator, glanced in my mirror and saw nothing in the right hand lane and a bunch of lights behind me, so pulled out. At that moment aformentioned GSXR rider screams past me less than a meter away at one hell of a speed. If I had pulled out a fraction earlier I would be a newspaper article.

I don't know how much riding you have done, but at 90 kmh you're travelling at 25 metres per second. There were around a dozen bikes behind me so it would have taken me a minimum of 5 or 6 seconds to count them assuming they were all visible. In that time I would have travelled around 150 metres blind - I don't know about you, but I find it's much safer to watch the road in front of me than ride by instinct and memory.

I think with thought you'll find that I was clearly in the right and the retard on the Gixxer was in the wrong because it is extremely dangerous and very, very stupid to overtake bikes in the same lane,

I'm smelling bullshit here.
There was a car in front of you which you had indicated to overtake, yet the gixxer was in your lane. Were you executing the overtake from the left hand side of the lane? Did he miss the car in front of you?

I think what really happened was you wee'd youself as a result of your own ineptitude and wanted someone else to blame.

The onus is on YOU to ensure it is safe to pull out to pass. Mirrors ARE NOT going to cut it, head check or die.
This is exactly the sort of shit Katman is referring to, you have no right to take another person's life. You need to learn to accept responsibility.

Should he have done it? I wouldn't have and can't say I support him, but that's no excuse for you fucking up.