Instilling a sense of conscience.

[shrub]

Different ideas indeed.

You sound like a thug, or maybe a copper!

Wrong on both counts - being wrong is something you're good at huh?

[Usarka]

Go on, admit it, you weren't able to come up with anything cleverer than Waaaaaaaaaah!

Nah I just think you're a hypocrite. Usually a futile effort arguing with those....

[shrub]

Nah I just think you're a hypocrite. Usually a futile effort arguing with those....

A hypocrite? How so?

[CookMySock]

Not to me - sounds like the guy showed a commendable level of restraint, and the guy on the Gixxer sounds like a grade A pillock

I reckon.

There is something very ghey about this thread. All the wrong people agreeing. What if all get good and pissed, then we wont agree and everything will be normal again.

Steve

[tigertim20]

But what about someone taking umbrage at my passing manoevre? Passing a two tonne car on a 200KG bike poses little or no risk to them. Sure I might give them a fright, but that does not mean they were actually at risk.

Steve

50/50, the thing here (probably already been mentioned) is that we all make our decisions from our own perspective, but dont always think to try and look at it from someone elses. e.g. in you example, bike vs car = car1, bike0. Fair to say from your perspective that your manouver isnt dangerous, but what if, as you suggest, driver gets a fright, jerks the wheel in their fright, and veers off the road. All comes down to diferent perspectives are gonna result in a different veiw on the acceptability of the same manouver.

Not to me - sounds like the guy showed a commendable level of restraint, and the guy on the Gixxer sounds like a grade A pillock

agreed x2.

[Ixion]

..
Imagine this - a motorcyclist decides to go for a good hard fang in order to satisfy their need for an adrenalin fix. They misjudge a corner and plow head on into another motorcycle killing the other rider.

Do we say "Ah well, life's full of risks. Bad luck for the other motorcyclist" or do we say "You stupid prick, what right do you have to take an innocent life?"

..

Imagine this - an inexperienced motorcyclist is riding along within the legal speed limit, sober and carefully They misjudge a corner (that inexperience thing) and plow head on into another motorcycle killing the other rider.

Do we say "Ah well, life's full of risks. Bad luck for the other motorcyclist" or do we say "You stupid prick, what right do you have to take an innocent life?"

This one's just as likely as yours.

The mistake the newbie makes may affect others beside himself. The mistake the experienced rider makes may affect others beside himself.

You must either condemn everyone who makes a mistake (and , by corollary, claim that you have never made one yourself), or accept that, yes, shit happens.

Of course, I never speed. Speed kills, this I know for Katman tells me so. Mind you, I reckon I'm going to die of a coronary soon, what with all the effort of pushing this bloody motorbike everywhere.

[Katman]

Imagine this -

Your example is nothing like mine. I am talking specifically about motorcyclists who intentionally ride in a manner that has a high potential for disaster for other road users as well as themselves.

[Ixion]

Your example is nothing like mine. I am talking specifically about motorcyclists who intentionally ride in a manner that has a high potential for disaster for other road users as well as themselves.

But your definitions of "intentionally" and "high potential for disaster" are subjective and emotional.

I very much doubt that many motorcyclists ride unintentionally. And almost all motor cycle riding has a high potential for disaster.

Compared with , say, users of mobility scooters, we're all a massive public menace.

The experienced rider riding at 200kph (on chosen roads , at chosen times) may have less "potential for disaster", than the inexperienced rider at 100kph (on hazardous roads and conditions).

So, unless "high potential for disaster" is to be interpreted as "anything that Katman disapproves of", then your argument is meaningless.

The 200kph rider never (almost never , anyway) "intentionally ride in a manner that has a high potential for disaster for other road users as well as themselves". Rather he rides in a way that he *thinks* is acceptable, given all the circumstances, and which, in *his* judgement has an acceptable and realistic safety rating. Whether his judgement is sound or not, may of course be another matter. He may be an idiot , and his judgement may be totally crap. But without knowing all the facts of any specific instance none of us can answer that question one way or the other.

And in the context of a hypothetical and non-specific argument, Mr 200kph's judgement must be considered as valid as anyone else's (including yours or mine). Otherwise we would have to accept that all of us may be judged by the standards of Enid or Stan.

My experience is that the few riders who do ride in a way that exhibits manifest poor judgement , or in an intentionally dangerous fashion (again, given the circumstances) , quite quickly get given the message (if not the bash) by their peers.

[YellowDog]

Your example is nothing like mine. I am talking specifically about motorcyclists who intentionally ride in a manner that has a high potential for disaster for other road users as well as themselves.

I think that the purpose of this thread has been to make a vary valid point about show-boaters being irresponsible and unnecessarily endangering the lives of others.

Unfortunately there seems to be some personality issues on here, so the point has been twisted and lost in pointless criticisms and arguments.

Shame really.

[CookMySock]

Fair to say from your perspective that your manouver isnt dangerous [....] but what if, as you suggest, driver gets a fright, jerks the wheel in their fright, and veers off the road.

All comes down to diferent perspectives are gonna result in a different veiw on the acceptability of the same manouver.

The difference is how circumstances are handled. If someone responds to an overloaded emotional state and takes some disastrous course of action, then what is the real problem?

That overloaded emotional state may be a motorcyclist on some bravado streak, or some motorist who takes some action in response to some stimulus.

There was a driver (a police officer IIRC) who had his BBQ on a trailer, and the lightweight tin BBQ lid flew off and hit the windscreen of a car travelling in the opposite direction. The terrified motorist swerved the steering wheel and rolled the van, killing a child. A court of law found the BBQ/trailer owner guilty.

IMO, it is the nut on the bars that is responsible for accidents.


Steve

[SixPackBack]

I think that the purpose of this thread has been to make a vary valid point about show-boaters being irresponsible and unnecessarily endangering the lives of others.

Unfortunately there seems to be some personality issues on here, so the point has been twisted and lost in pointless criticisms and arguments.

Shame really.

There was no point, well other than katman show boating.......Again!

[Katman]

So, unless "high potential for disaster" is to be interpreted as "anything that Katman disapproves of", then your argument is meaningless.

No wonder BRONZ is seen as little more than a joke.

[tigertim20]

The difference is how circumstances are handled. If someone responds to an overloaded emotional state and takes some disastrous course of action, then what is the real problem?

That overloaded emotional state may be a motorcyclist on some bravado streak, or some motorist who takes some action in response to some stimulus.

There was a driver (a police officer IIRC) who had his BBQ on a trailer, and the lightweight tin BBQ lid flew off and hit the windscreen of a car travelling in the opposite direction. The terrified motorist swerved the steering wheel and rolled the van, killing a child. A court of law found the BBQ/trailer owner guilty.

IMO, it is the nut on the bars that is responsible for accidents.


Steve

I agree that the nut on the bars is generally responsible, further, I am saying that they are responsible for (or should be responsible for) considering how others might react to what they are doing. e.g. I know that im on a loud harley, I know I am gonna pass this car on a slight bend, cos I know I can see the road is Clear. I know I am gonna drop it two gears and hammer past the car to complete my manouver quickly. But I dont consider that the deafening noise of the harley suddenly screaming past a sedately (legally) operated vehicle, travelling around a corner, might be cause for a bit of a fright, which may result in an unintentional tug on the wheel, which results in an accident. Accident occurred, even though I knew exactly what I was doing. But I didnt consider other road users. I know what I am doing, but do the other people I am sharing the road with know what I am doing?
Your example of the cop is very much different. He shoulda checked his load, it is an offence to cart an insecure load, which his obviously was, or it wouldve stayed on his trailer.

second thoughts, maybe it is the same thing. If he had stopped to think what the consequences of his insecure load might be for OTHER motorists, he might have used extra rope, or tied his load on tighter, or in a different, more secure manner. In this example, the BBQ flying of didnt make a shit of difference to him. Not a bruise on him. But someone else died, because he didnt tie his load on properly.

[98tls]

My experience is that the few riders who do ride in a way that exhibits manifest poor judgement , or in an intentionally dangerous fashion (again, given the circumstances) , quite quickly get given the message (if not the bash) by their peers.

Or it all ends in tears on the side of the road somewhere i guess.I see Katmans point and since this is a motorcycle based forum a relevent thread all things considered.Nothing will stop those so inclined to do so from doing so other than as you say a clip round the head from there peers or possibly a good off with lots of pain (worked for me).Then again who knows what people think when they read such threads,if it makes someone think maybe Katmans got a point and they do things a little different then it was worth him posting it,simple really.I dont see why people have a such a problem with him posting up this stuff,not like hes trying to shag anyones wife (that i know of) hes for my money just putting out a simple message and as a bloke thats been riding many years am of the opinion that no matter how good we think we are on a bike you cant really hear it to many times.(not directed at you ixion)

[=cJ=]

Time and place.


Enough said.