Has the current propaganda focus on speed and road safety affected how you ride?

[avgas]

Don't go there.
The thought of 4.2 million kiwis bent over,lubricated and waiting to be rogered makes me shudder

Perhaps you did not understand the first few lines of the national anthem......the ones the politician love to sing.
Something about kiss my toes, tax payer.

[buellbabe]

Well I am not gonna get into a debate (interesting reading it has been though!) with anyone.

In answer to the question...I couldn't truthfully tick any of the poll options.

Yes I am definately reining in the Beast (currently riding the 1125CR) on the more widely used roads. Jeez! Trying to keep it at 104 on the motorway (work and back every day) ain't easy so I am constantly checking the speedo and have noticed a general drop in the speed of most drivers which ain't a bad thing. But why is it that very few car drivers (from my own daily observations) slow down for the 70km work zones? A few months back when the Manukau bit was still pretty rough I was on my way to work on the bike and saw a car hurtle past me , bounce the wrong way on an uneven bit of road and smash straight into the barrier. I continued on my merry way thinking "serves ya right!" (Sorry if that offends anyone but that is honestly how I felt).

So yes, like I have already said I am making an effort to slow down on the main state highways but on the back roads I do my own thing and "ride to the conditions" at a speed that I deem to be safe. Quite often that is over the posted limit but there are also some roads where I think "100kph? you have to be kidding!" and will ride slower than the posted limit...swings and roundabouts...

And quite frankly if someone wants to try for their top speed on a deserted straight stretch of road with 100% visibility then whats the freaking harm in that?

I have always tried to be an "aware rider", looking for potential hazards, be they speed cameras or wandering stock/tractors pulling out etc so no, this campaign hasn't made me more aware in that sense. As far as I am concerned , that aspect hasn't changed for me.

[MSTRS:Me]

And quite frankly if someone wants to try for their top speed on a deserted straight stretch of road with 100% visibility then whats the freaking harm in that?

Deserted? Then it never happened, eh?

[Ocean1]

Deserted? Then it never happened, eh?

Well, no photographers....

[buellbabe]

Exactamondo!

No photos, it never happened LOL

[idleidolidyll]

Yes, I deliberately avoid anywhere I think the scum might be hanging out waiting to tax me for exceeding an arbritary speed limit based on the opinion of some tossed who has probably never ridden a motorbike.

If they were serious about it instead of just anal wankers and drones collecting taxes, they'd legislate to allow motorbikes to go 10kmh faster so they could legally put themselves into that safe place where there are bugger all tin tops.

[p.dath]

If they were serious about it instead of just anal wankers and drones collecting taxes, they'd legislate to allow motorbikes to go 10kmh faster so they could legally put themselves into that safe place where there are bugger all tin tops.

What? How would legislating to allow motorcycles to travel at a different speed to the rest of the road users make it safer?

It's for this very reason they are dropping the 70km/h restriction for learner riders. Traffic is usually safest when everyone is moving at the same speed. Nice and smooth.

[idleidolidyll]

Why are trucks limited to 90?

Think about it: is it safer to ride amongst the stream of cars or in that large gap up ahead where there are no cars for ages?

A stream of cars doing about 100kmh currently obliges us by law to stay in that dangerous place where cars do dumb shit and don't see us.

Allowing us to do say 110 kph would legally allow us to overtake and sit in the gap. If we went slower we would always be caught by cars and would have to suffer the danger of riding with tin tops.

Actually, this is how I ride now. It may be illegal for me to speed to get into that gap but it's safer. Once in the gap I generally watch ahead and in my mirrors to try and match my speed with the tin tops and stay in that big open space for a while longer time.

[idleidolidyll]

What? How would legislating to allow motorcycles to travel at a different speed to the rest of the road users make it safer?

It's for this very reason they are dropping the 70km/h restriction for learner riders. Traffic is usually safest when everyone is moving at the same speed. Nice and smooth.

Damn iPad: won't let me scroll inside a text box.

No, it is NOT safer in a stream of traffic because your utopian vision and reality do not match.

Cars tailgate, turn without indicating, drive at 70, text while driving and scratch their arses or pick up crap they've dropped on the floor. Any motorbike rider who pays attention and/or has been doing this for a while knows that the most dangerous place on the road is when you are riding in close proximity to cars and trucks.

[p.dath]

Why are trucks limited to 90?

Try stopping 40 tonnes. Takes a bit longer than a car or a motorbike. Also the momentum makes truck manoeuvrability trickier (imagine 38 tonnes of trailer "pushing" your 2 tonne tractor unit as you try to turn a corner - who do you think wins when it goes wrong?). Also there are special considerations to be given to high walled trucks and wind. All of these things are directly impacted by speed.

Think about it: is it safer to ride amongst the stream of cars or in that large gap up ahead where there are no cars for ages?

Weather you can travel 10km/h faster than a car or not has nothing to do with choosing to ride on a safe place on the road.

I could just as easily say - slow down - and choose the safer place behind all the cars. Easy huh? And it requires no special laws to be passed.

A stream of cars doing about 100kmh currently obliges us by law to stay in that dangerous place where cars do dumb shit and don't see us.

Negative. No law requires you to place yourself in danger or to ride where you can not be seen. Only you can choose to do that. Simply don't ride somewhere that you think is dangerous. Move to a safe place.

You choosing to ride somewhere safe. 2s (including your reaction time).
Time for parliament to make a new law which wont be effective - 5 years.

You choose.

Allowing us to do say 110 kph would legally allow us to overtake and sit in the gap.

Next thing cars will want a law to allow them to travel 10km/h to get past motorbikes to make it safer. Then cyclists will want a law saying people have to go 10km/h slower past them for their safety. It's not safer for anyone.

Road users making sensible decisions - that's safer. Personal responsibility.

Actually, this is how I ride now. It may be illegal for me to speed to get into that gap but it's safer. Once in the gap I generally watch ahead and in my mirrors to try and match my speed with the tin tops and stay in that big open space for a while longer time.

I consider the law a blunt tool intended for the well being of society, to help everyone live together, and to be fair. I bet 99.9% of the people in NZ don't know every law. I don't. The thing is you don't have to know every law - you just have to be considerate and fair to others. The law is to help moderate those that are selfish and act for themselves without regard for others.

The last thing we want is for the law to be a rule book with a rule for every aspect of our lives, telling us exactly what we have to do.

So I say ride/drive to the conditions, with due consideration for others, and not worry about the exact semantics of the law. If this means going 10km/h faster than the limit for a short period of time, then I personally say do it.


Oops, almost ranting. Sorry.

[MarkH]

Deserted? Then it never happened, eh?

I'm pretty sure my sig covers this situation!

[idleidolidyll]

Try stopping 40 tonnes. Takes a bit longer than a car or a motorbike. Also the momentum makes truck manoeuvrability trickier (imagine 38 tonnes of trailer "pushing" your 2 tonne tractor unit as you try to turn a corner - who do you think wins when it goes wrong?). Also there are special considerations to be given to high walled trucks and wind. All of these things are directly impacted by speed.

So then the fact that my KTM 690 stops way quicker than a Transit van and is much better around corners means bikes should be allowed to go faster?
Thanks for wrecking your own argument


Weather you can travel 10km/h faster than a car or not has nothing to do with choosing to ride on a safe place on the road.

I could just as easily say - slow down - and choose the safer place behind all the cars. Easy huh? And it requires no special laws to be passed.

WRONG! You didn't read my posts did you.
If you go slower than the traffic you will always have some dick in a car up your date. If you can go faster legally, you can pick the gap then match your speeds to stay in that gap longer.

Negative. No law requires you to place yourself in danger or to ride where you can not be seen. Only you can choose to do that. Simply don't ride somewhere that you think is dangerous. Move to a safe place.

Duh! I choose to speed a little to stay alive. what isn't clear about that?

You choosing to ride somewhere safe. 2s (including your reaction time).
Time for parliament to make a new law which wont be effective - 5 years.

You choose.

I chose to ignore assholes who make dumb laws that put me in danger years ago. Why are you advocating that bike riders stay in danger (lines of traffic) just to stay legal?

Next thing cars will want a law to allow them to travel 10km/h to get past motorbikes to make it safer. Then cyclists will want a law saying people have to go 10km/h slower past them for their safety. It's not safer for anyone.

Chcken Little would be proud of that nonsnese

Road users making sensible decisions - that's safer. Personal responsibility.

Read my post

I consider the law a blunt tool intended for the well being of society, to help everyone live together, and to be fair. I bet 99.9% of the people in NZ don't know every law. I don't. The thing is you don't have to know every law - you just have to be considerate and fair to others. The law is to help moderate those that are selfish and act for themselves without regard for others.

The law is an ass and is designed around what works for cars and trucks with fuck all thought given to the reality of motorbikes

The last thing we want is for the law to be a rule book with a rule for every aspect of our lives, telling us exactly what we have to do.

There's that Chicken Little thing again

So I say ride/drive to the conditions, with due consideration for others, and not worry about the exact semantics of the law. If this means going 10km/h faster than the limit for a short period of time, then I personally say do it.


Oops, almost ranting. Sorry.

ALMOST ranting?

[p.dath]

So then the fact that my KTM 690 stops way quicker than a Transit van and is much better around corners means bikes should be allowed to go faster?
Thanks for wrecking your own argument

I was supplying a reason why trucks might be limited to a top speed of 90km/h instead of 100km/h. You've inverted and twisted the argument to justify why bikes should be allowed to go faster, which has nothing to do why trucks have to go slower.

Using your argument you might as well say change the speed limits to 200km/h for motorcycles because they can corner faster.

WRONG! You didn't read my posts did you.
If you go slower than the traffic you will always have some dick in a car up your date. If you can go faster legally, you can pick the gap then match your speeds to stay in that gap longer.

I did read your post. Did you read mine?

You wanted an increase in 10km/h for motorcycles so you could speed up to get into a gap in front. I said you could just as easily slow down for a little but to get into the gap behind.

Duh! I choose to speed a little to stay alive. what isn't clear about that?

That is probably the worst argument I have heard - that speeding a little will keep you alive.

I'll agree that riding to the conditions to be safe is the important factor, and that this may mean going both faster and slower than the posted limit.

[rastuscat]

Stop thinking that speed causing crashes is the big issue. Speed causes a few (like failing to take a corner coz your entry speed is too high, the open road disease), but it contributes to far more injuries.

For eggsample, someone pulls put of a give way into your path. You deply the parachute, 3 discs and your foulest language, and manage to pull up short. Had you crashed, the cause would have been the dickhead that pulled out into your path.

However, add 20 km/h to whatever you were doing, and the difference is , Dr Spock, staggering. You'd be embedded in the dickheads drivers door. The cause would still have been the dickhead that pulled out into your path, but you'd be scraping your bike off his car for some time to come.

As for the speed limits being arbitrary, yes they are. Otherwise, yopu'd be having to leave it to the individual Popo to decide what speed is safe and reasonable in the circumstances. That sort of subjectivity is damn hard to interpret.

On the North Shore the council used to be dead reluctant to vary speed limits, despite East Coast Road being easily fit for a 60 km/h limit, up from 50. I always wondered why. When I moved to Chch I was pleased to see that the council had varied the limits based on traffic volume, habitation, population density etc. Then I found that driving around, people oftten had bugger all idea what the limit was, as the signs met the standard, but who ever sees the signs?

So be careful what you wish for (in terms of speed limit variation) as you just might get it. Alog with a great opportunity for speed enforcement to enter your life.

So, speed causes some crashes, but not many. Any crashes that happen for other reasons are made significantly worse (bloody law of physics) by an increase in participant speed.

Donuts.

[swbarnett]

Stop thinking that speed causing crashes is the big issue. Speed causes a few (like failing to take a corner coz your entry speed is too high, the open road disease), but it contributes to far more injuries.

I have absolutely no problem with this statement.

For eggsample, someone pulls put of a give way into your path. You deply the parachute, 3 discs and your foulest language, and manage to pull up short. Had you crashed, the cause would have been the dickhead that pulled out into your path.

Again, right on the money.

However, add 20 km/h to whatever you were doing, and the difference is , Dr Spock, staggering. You'd be embedded in the dickheads drivers door. The cause would still have been the dickhead that pulled out into your path, but you'd be scraping your bike off his car for some time to come.

Also spot on.

However, All of the above ignores the fact that, at a higher speed (or lower), you wouldn't have been there in the first place. It also ignores the situation where one may be travelling over the posted speed limit where there are no intersections (or at least no vehicles approaching from the side) but one is alert enough to spot a potential danger and adjust your speed (up or down) or take other action (lane change for example) to removes said potential.

Deciding what speed is suitable in a given situation for a given stretch of road is a complex process that can only be reliably arrived at by the driver. The only time that a driver can be reliably said to have got this decision wrong is in the aftermath of a crash. No crash, no problem.

As for the speed limits being arbitrary, yes they are. Otherwise, yopu'd be having to leave it to the individual Popo to decide what speed is safe and reasonable in the circumstances. That sort of subjectivity is damn hard to interpret.

So what you're saying is because it's hard it shouldn't be done? Human progress relies on exactly the opposite - find something hard and figure it out. Otherwise we'd still be living in caves (actually, we wouldn't have moved in to caves yet).

So, speed causes some crashes, but not many. Any crashes that happen for other reasons are made significantly worse (bloody law of physics) by an increase in participant speed.

Also true:

So, driving causes some crashes, but not many. Any crashes that happen for other reasons are made significantly worse (bloody law of physics) by an increase in driving.

By this logic we should abanden driving. Or walking. Hell, let's just all committ scuicide now. That should lower the road toll.