Unnecessary exhibition of speed or acceleration

[scumdog]

So what you're saying is that because I and others like me (or better) have to drive like we're complete idiots? Guess what, treat people like idiots and that's what you get.

You only have to look around when out riding (or read KB threads) to realise a shit-load of drivers/riders out there ARE complete idiots, THEY are the ones causing resticive laws to be made - to protect them from themselves AND hopefully you from them.

[swbarnett]

You only have to look around when out riding (or read KB threads) to realise a shit-load of drivers/riders out there ARE complete idiots, THEY are the ones causing resticive laws to be made - to protect them from themselves AND hopefully you from them.

No, the restrictive laws are creating them.

[N4CR]

but it flys in the face of common sense to suggest that you can have one without the other.

if a perfectly good bike spontaneously combusts while stationary then it's an accident right? it didn't involve speed either find a way to tax that one!

[Squiggles]

Most of us dont burn off from the lights at full bore, only half which looks real quick (unless its a gn ) how bout showing the cop what it looks like when you really accelerate quick (and dont stop)

good info on pg2 of this thread in regards to not breaking any other law in the process

[spudchucka]

if a perfectly good bike spontaneously combusts while stationary then it's an accident right? it didn't involve speed either find a way to tax that one!

Fine for littering!

[Biff]

No, the restrictive laws are creating them.

Are you trying to say that before speed limits and other restrictions on motor vehicles and their drivers were first made law over a hundred years ago (England, 1903, a speed limit of a heady 20mph was introduced) and enforced, the roads of the world were a safer place, and the standard of driving better than that which exists today, with tens of thousands of times more traffic on the roads than at the turn of the last century?

Or that by removing all restrictions the roads would be a safer place?

Or were you being sarcastic?

[swbarnett]

Are you trying to say that before speed limits and other restrictions on motor vehicles and their drivers were first made law over a hundred years ago (England, 1903, a speed limit of a heady 20mph was introduced) and enforced, the roads of the world were a safer place, and the standard of driving better than that which exists today, with tens of thousands of times more traffic on the roads than at the turn of the last century?

100 years ago the roads and vehicles were a lot worse than today but the drivers thought for themselves and may well have been better.

What I'm trying to say is that if you treat people like idiots that's what you'll get. You have to temper restrictions so that they still allow drivers to use their brains. If a law is too restrictive and leaves no room for common sense (or defies common sense) people will stop thinking, zone out and become worse drivers as a result.

[Biff]

if you treat people like idiots that's what you'll get.

Sorry mate - but I fail to follow your logic. Although I've obviously heard that particular statement of yours applied to a thousand and one different scenarios.

In no way do I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot because I'm told what the acceptable (legal) limits are with regards to any aspects of my life. I know the speed limit is 100Kmph, but any decent thinking cop wouldn't consider pinging me until I was traveling more than 110. If I do (did) exceed these speeds it would be because I wanted to experience the 'rush' associated with speeding (or similar), and not because I knowingly or unknowingly believed I was being treated like an idiot.

Any given laws were/are designed to protect the majority from the idiotic actions of a minority. Get rid of/educate that minority - and the world would be a much better place.

[crshbndct]

this government seems to be in a current mood of passing legislation which counteracts whichever thing is in teh news currently...

boyracers kill someone... pass new boy racer law.
some old fatty dies becasue noone bothered to point out to her that a lifesaving medical device(which it was most definitley NOT) should be on a ups/backup generator... pass new laws about when and how to switch off power

etc etc etc..

[MotoGirl]

...If I do (did) exceed these speeds it would be because I wanted to experience the 'rush' associated with speeding (or similar)

I get what you're saying, however, no matter what the speed limit is we're going to exceed it. It's human nature to get off on doing things we know are wrong.

My point is that idiots will be idiots regardless of the rules.

[swbarnett]

Sorry mate - but I fail to follow your logic.

It goes something like this:

Before - Driver is looking for hazards on the road because they there are a lot of them about.

After - Driver believes that all hazards have been removed by laws, stops looking for hazards. Actually only a proportion of hazards have been removed.

If the perception is that a road is "safe" people stop looking for the hazards that are still there.

In no way do I feel like I'm being treated like an idiot because I'm told what the acceptable (legal) limits are with regards to any aspects of my life.

A lot of the time the set limit is sensible for the circumstances under which it is applied. With speed limits, however, the limit is often grossly inappropriate. Sometimes higher speeds are just as safe, other times lower speeds are called for. By setting an arbitrary limit that has at best only a thin basis in logic you're telling people not to think because common sense doesn't tally with the law.

Any given laws were/are designed to protect the majority from the idiotic actions of a minority. Get rid of/educate that minority - and the world would be a much better place.

In principle I agree. In practice, however, most laws are put in place to meet a political agenda. We have a choice - either eliminate the minority and take some innocents with them or err on the side of caution and leave a small part of that minority untouched. I'd rather have the odd murderer wandering the streets than have innocent people in jail.

[Patrick]

I'd rather have the odd murderer wandering the streets than have innocent people in jail.

Like BAIN? He's "wondering" the streets... like... "I wonder how the fuck I pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes and got away with mass murder"... but couldn't help myself tho...

[swbarnett]

My point is that idiots will be idiots regardless of the rules.

Yes and no. Although you will always have idiots, the number and degree can be influenced by the way people are treated. When someone is down in the dumps you can brighten their day just be smiling at them. Frown at them and they will just go down further. Like it or not, we are reactionary beings and our surroundings (including the laws that are placed on us) have a large influence.

[swbarnett]

Like BAIN? He's "wondering" the streets... like... "I wonder how the fuck I pulled the wool over so many peoples eyes and got away with mass murder"... but couldn't help myself tho...

Well, yes. If we can't prove the case beyond "reasonable doubt" without resorting to twisting logic then we need to let the person go. This should be applied to the road thus: If we can't prove someone is a danger to others (even a common sense argument would do) we should leave them alone.

[Patrick]

Well, yes. If we can't prove the case beyond "reasonable doubt" without resorting to twisting logic then we need to let the person go. This should be applied to the road thus: If we can't prove someone is a danger to others (even a common sense argument would do) we should leave them alone.

You have a very scary logic... "if you cant prove someone is a danger then let it go..." Is that for the rules on the road????? Good luck to you on that one... Afganistan and Iraq will welcome you with open arms, they have very few rules (and very high road death rates too...)

As for BAIN, he was proved beyond reasonable doubt... but some new things have come up from both sides, which need testing in court. Have a read of the BAIN thread of recent weeks... some VERY interesting points made there which leave me in no doubt whatsoever (way beyond reasonable...) that he is guilty as sin...