Radar detectors could be banned

[Toaster]

Well maybe I didn't work that out because I'm not a moron. I tracked back through the referred posts and found that your comment



was in reference to:



Nowhere have I found any reference to

Whatever mate. I think you need to get out more often!

[homer]

Yes, I do believe I have heard of physics, and the strange thing is that physics actually proves that sometimes a higher speed is safer than a lower speed.

Try riding your bike at 5 kmh on the open road and see how safe you are. Then ride the same piece of road at 100 kmh and see how much more responsive your handling is. The main difference between a cage and a bike that makes a bike safer at slightly higher speeds is the different physics involved in the vehicles handling characteristics. A cage relies mainly on gravity and friction for stability whereas a bike relies more on centripedal force and centrifugal reaction. These last two are more pronounced as rotational speed increases. A car relies almost entirely friction and mechanical advantage (steering box or power steering) to change direction, but a bike has centrifical progression as an additional aid.

Thus a cage is very safe and stable at no speed, but a bike will fall over at zero speed. A cage becomes more dangerous with every extra kmh, but a bike becomes safer as speed increases to the speed where the wheels, frame, tyres and suspension all work as a unit, then, from that point on (like a cage) risk increases with speed.

No-one can deny that a rider is more likely to be injured in an accident than a cage driver, but in many circumstances a rider has more chance of avoiding the accident in the first place. Unfortunately, many riders do over extend themselves and throw away that advantage by riding right on the limit.

Based on the laws of phisics the faster everything travels the less collisions occur

[Jantar]

Whatever mate. I think you need to get out more often!

Oh man, I only wish I could. 9 weeks now since I've ridden and looks like another 3 months at least.

[The Pastor]

When I think about them banning radar dectors. I think of one thing. Isnt there a LOT of things more important to worry about?

75 demerits for having a dector. WTF. 75 demerits!! WTF


WTF

WTF

WTF

WTF

[swbarnett]

So you DO think your riding is so good you could handle any situation? Thought as much.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That's not for you to say. I do however believe that I have the ability to judge the conditions to a fair degree of accuracy and still leave some margin for error (as do most motorcylists).

BTW: 200km/h would seldom if ever be appropriate but there are a great number of roads and conditions where 120km/h or maybe even 130km/h would not be inappropriate.

The timing argument is just ridiculous. What rubbish. That is a what if senario that carries no logic at all.

I use this frequently when following cars at a distance and someone wants to turn right towards me. I will speed up to close the gap so they don't try and take the gap I happen to be in.

And bringing up the 50km/h in a 100 zone is also ridiculous. No one is advocating that.

You did when you said that slower is ALWAYS safer.

[Delphinus]

I do however believe that I have the ability to judge the conditions to a fair degree of accuracy and still leave some margin for error (as do most motorcyclists).

BTW: 200km/h would seldom if ever be appropriate but there are a great number of roads and conditions where 120km/h or maybe even 130km/h would not be inappropriate.

Thats right on the money. Problem is... how many of the general public could work out where its safe to do 120 and where its better to be doing that corner at 60k?

If only the police had orders to have more choice in who they dish out tickets to. If you're driving like a cock then ticket you. If you're cruising along the Canterbury straights at 120... nothing wrong with that

[RiderInBlack]

OK so all posted speeds are safer? Yer Right. Pass Me A Tui's.
I find that my bike is a lot more stable on road works above 30kph they post for it. When it comes a choice between keeping my bike up, I'll choose a speed that makes it safer, and bugger it if they want ta ticket me for it.
Sorry but I just don't buy that some how the post speed limits are magically the safest speeds ta go at. Ride to the conditions. If that means throttling up ta get me out of trouble instead of staying ta get hit, I'm going ta throttle up (speed limit or no speed limit).

[Max Preload]

To who? No group of politically minded people believe in freedom for the majority.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That's not for you to say. I do however believe that I have the ability to judge the conditions to a fair degree of accuracy and still leave some margin for error (as do most motorcylists).

Both these points come down to the stupidity of the masses - the first in they'll vote for people who say what they want to hear, the second in that we're forever catering to the lowest common denominator hence the ridiculously low speed limits. I've said it before, but I'll say it again anyway - the standard required to actually get a license needs to be raised considerably and we need regular re-testing with Police powers to order a resit of the testing. There are people out there who have no fucking idea other people even use the road around them - they need to be removed from the road. Forget speed as the boogeyman - that's largely bullshit.

[Delphinus]

What I fail to comprehend EVERY DAY I drive on the road, is why people have this phobia of letting people overtake them...
I dont often have people come up behind me, but when they do I'll often slow down on straight bits or pull over a bit if the road is wide to let them pass... Its not hard.. adds about 2.3 seconds to my trip, but NOONE does it.

[Coyote]

Both these points come down to the stupidity of the masses - the first in they'll vote for people who say what they want to hear, the second in that we're forever catering to the lowest common denominator hence the ridiculously low speed limits. I've said it before, but I'll say it again anyway - the standard required to actually get a license needs to be raised considerably and we need regular re-testing with Police powers to order a resit of the testing. There are people out there who have no fucking idea other people even use the road around them - they need to be removed from the road. Forget speed as the boogeyman - that's largely bullshit.

If I was to "vote for people who say what they (I) want to hear", I'd simply go National*. They're saying what the particular audience at the time wants to hear all the time. But once they get into power they'll bend you over and have their way with you. It'd be so much easier if we could actually decided on what they told us, but what they tell us is a fog of lies and hidden truths.

Regular re-testing is a good idea. For most people, once you've done the test the information learnt goes out the window. Saw that so often at school.

*an exaggeration

[mowgli]

I have read some creative ways of concealing said detectors. A bad law will always be flouted or circumvented.

Sorry to rain on your parade but concealing won't work. Most if not all automotive radar detectors have very noisy oscillators that are piss easy to detect.

[mowgli]

surely they cannot make it illegal to have one in your car - even turned off.

I'll bet they do. "honest, Orificer. That opened, half-full bottle of Jim in the passenger seat isn't mine. I don't drink, really!" Compare it with drug dealing where intent can be determined by possession. Doesn't matter that you only make it into town every couple of months and decided to stock up.

BTW I don't and have never

[Hellraiser]

So does anyone know when they intend on passing it into law?

[Coyote]

Maybe try 120 KB members in govt... good party at least!

I bags defence and police.... oh and finance portfolios.

I bags ejukashun

How much are private islands going for these days?

[Delphinus]

How much are private islands going for these days?

I'll chip in.