Instilling a sense of conscience.

[CookMySock]

You know what really bothers me here? We have 3 KB mentors agruing openly about this.

Thats not arguing, thats pedantic bickering. It could be arguing if there was a topic and the OP stuck to it, but thats not feasible.

No one can "instill conscience" anyway, one can only "instill guilt".

Steve

[MIXONE]

Here I was thinking the ME stood for "Look at me,look at me!"

[Dare]

Thats not arguing, thats pedantic bickering. It could be arguing if there was a topic and the OP stuck to it, but thats not feasible.

No one can "instill conscience" anyway, one can only "instill guilt".

Steve

The catholic church knows ALLL about that

[Ixion]

Ok, then I'll ask you the same question that boomer and sixpack have decided not to answer.

Should all car drivers be allowed to drive at any speed and in any manner that they see fit?

Yes. Provided that the speed and manner is safe (within generally accepted tenets of 'safe')

Should all truck drivers be allowed to drive at any speed and in any manner that they see fit?

Yes. Provided that the speed and manner is safe (within generally accepted tenets of 'safe')

Or is it only motorcyclists that you think should be allowed to?

[Katman]

(within generally accepted tenets of 'safe')

So do you think that travelling well in excess of 200kph is "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible is "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that high speed wheelstands are "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

(Bearing in mind that by "generally accepted" I'm assuming you mean generally accepted by the general public).

[MSTRS:Me]

So do you think that travelling in excess of 200kph is within the "generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible is within the "generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that high speed wheelstands are within the "generally accepted tenets of safe"?

(Bearing in mind that by "generally accepted" I'm assuming you mean generally accepted by the general public).

Bugger the 'general public...what would they know.
All your above examples still fall into the 'time and place' category....there'd not be many that would indulge at any'n'all times. And live, that is.

[Dare]

So do you think that travelling well in excess of 200kph is "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible is "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that high speed wheelstands are "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

(Bearing in mind that by "generally accepted" I'm assuming you mean generally accepted by the general public).

Now your just latching on to one example, I suppose I have to ask, where do YOU draw the line? 111kph? Somewhere else? You seem to be moving the line all the time..

[swbarnett]

Ok, then I'll ask you the same question that boomer and sixpack have decided not to answer.

Should all car drivers be allowed to drive at any speed and in any manner that they see fit?

Should all truck drivers be allowed to drive at any speed and in any manner that they see fit?

Or is it only motorcyclists that you think should be allowed to?

How about this - allow all drivers/riders to travel at any speed in any manner that they see fit as long as no-one else is hurt in the process. In the event that someone else is hurt in the process and the speed or manner is deemed irresponsible or excessive after careful examination by a court of law throw the book at them. A death caused would be a manslaughter charge and injury caused would be grievous bodily harm.

[Katman]

How about this - allow all drivers/riders to travel at any speed in any manner that they see fit as long as no-one else is hurt in the process. In the event that someone else is hurt in the process and the speed or manner is deemed irresponsible or excessive after careful examination by a court of law throw the book at them. A death caused would be a manslaughter charge and injury caused would be grievous bodily harm.

I can't figure out whether that's a piss take or not.

Are you suggesting total anarchy on the road?

And do you really think our fucked up and already overflowing court system could handle the extra work load?

[SixPackBack]

How about this - allow all drivers/riders to travel at any speed in any manner that they see fit as long as no-one else is hurt in the process. In the event that someone else is hurt in the process and the speed or manner is deemed irresponsible or excessive after careful examination by a court of law throw the book at them. A death caused would be a manslaughter charge and injury caused would be grievous bodily harm.

Brilliant.
Total fucken anarchy; I like it!
Think of the advantages:

• No speeding tickets for the quick cahnts.
• Weed out all the useless slow riders [Darwin takes control].
• The remaining riders left after the initial rash of deaths can go forth and multiply creating a super race of quick cahnts.
• Crashers are locked away from the bitches and cannot participate in the race of quick cahnts.

[swbarnett]

I can't figure out whether that's a piss take or not.

No, not a piss take. Just my view of a driving utopia. And something for the law to aspire to instead of aspiring to total control.

Are you suggesting total anarchy on the road?

That depends on how the anarchy forms. A free-for-all resulting in a 90% fatality rate, no, but one that relies on consideration of your fellow road user instead of over-controlling laws to produce a fair and equitable system, yes.

It has been said that anarchy is the only true democracy (not sure who said it, maybe it was just me).

And do you really think our fucked up and already overflowing court system could handle the extra work load?

Agreed, there would have to be a lot of work in this field before my utopia could be realised (even partially).


I'm not suggesting that my utopian view of driver freedom is achievable. It just concerns me that we seem to be going far to far the other way.

[The Stranger:Me]

You know what really bothers me here?

We have 3 KB mentors agruing openly about this.

Why does that bother you Mom?

[Ixion]

So do you think that travelling well in excess of 200kph is "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible is "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

Do you think that high speed wheelstands are "within generally accepted tenets of safe"?

(Bearing in mind that by "generally accepted" I'm assuming you mean generally accepted by the general public).

No. 'generally accepted' by people who know whereof they speak. F'instance, I would not be competent to judge whether something an aeroplane pilot did was acceptably safe or not. I do not know how to fly an aeroplane. How could i make such a determination, on something I know nothing of? Likewise, Enid, who has never ridden a motorcycle, would not be qualified to judge 'generally safe'.

Would you argue that someone who cannot drive a car was qualified to determine what was safe for car drivers? Anyone who sets themselves up as a judge of any activity must needs have some experience of it themselves

Generally safe by the standards of experienced, safe (as in , they don't crash) riders. Bikie cops would probably be a good place to start.

As to your more specific examples: not many roads in NZ safe at 200kph. But I can think of some. And there'd be more in the Souff Island (lucky bastards). As always, time and place and conditions come into it. There'd be plenty of people on this site have seen the double ton, in circumstances which I would not deem unsafe.

Taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible? No - but no-one has suggested it is. By definition the maximum safe speed in a blind corner is governed by visibility , not road grip. That's why it's called a blind corner. You are setting up straw men.

I'm struggling myself to think of a setting where wheelies could be deemed safe. But that may be an indication of my own lack of skill. I'll leave that one for people who do them.

Of course, myself, I never speed. Speed kills, this I know, cos the gubbermint tells me so. I catch up to the riders who do speed by ignoring those traffic light things. That saves time, and it must be safe cos the cops don't care . (providing you're not speeding when you go through the red light, of course)

[boomer]

I catch up to the riders who do speed by ignoring those traffic light things. That saves time, and it must be safe cos the cops don't care .

i'm lovin it.. bling sent.


so fookin true

although in all fairness, i did get pulled over and nearly done for wheelieing thru the only set of traffic lights in taupo; coincidentally they had turned orange..

[Katman]

As to your more specific examples: not many roads in NZ safe at 200kph. But I can think of some. And there'd be more in the Souff Island (lucky bastards). As always, time and place and conditions come into it. There'd be plenty of people on this site have seen the double ton, in circumstances which I would not deem unsafe.

And they would be swamped by the examples of people doing 200+ speeds for sustained periods in less than ideal settings.

Taking blind corners at the fastest speed possible? No - but no-one has suggested it is. By definition the maximum safe speed in a blind corner is governed by visibility , not road grip. That's why it's called a blind corner. You are setting up straw men.

I'm talking specifically about motorcyclists pushing themselves to and beyond their limits on corners that could easily hide hazards for which evasive action would see them jepardising others safety -another thing that happens with routine regularity.

I'm struggling myself to think of a setting where wheelies could be deemed safe. But that may be an indication of my own lack of skill. I'll leave that one for people who do them.

We'll take this one as a no then.