Highway 75 ChCh - Speed trap - Thanks and get f***ked

[red mermaid]

Ok, you've called me silly names, and avoided the question, which is pathetic in a way but shows you have no counter arguement.

So now answer my original question...I put it to you that in both of these cases, if the rider had been going slower their survivability chances would have been higher.

If they covered themselves in cotton wool and built a cage around their bikes, if they had employed a point man with a flag to walk in front of them - they would both be still alive as well

Don't be a fukwit

Maybe if they'd taken the bus?????????

[peasea]

Ok, you've called me silly names, and avoided the question, which is pathetic in a way but shows you have no counter arguement.

So now answer my original question...I put it to you that in both of these cases, if the rider had been going slower their survivability chances would have been higher.

Do you work for the politically correct Serious Crash boffins or someone like that?
In some cases, if the rider had been going slower he might have fallen off!

You sound like a brainwashed copper.

[Ixion]

Ok, you've called me silly names, and avoided the question, which is pathetic in a way but shows you have no counter arguement.

So now answer my original question...I put it to you that in both of these cases, if the rider had been going slower their survivability chances would have been higher.

If they had been stopped their chances would ahve been excellent. Your argument is crooked.

In the cases cited , in one at least (and maybe both), it is improbable in the extreme that the rider was speeding. Certainly, had they been going slower they might have managed better. But since they were not breaking the speed limit , your argument that these cases prove that breaking the speed limit is dangerous is totally fallacious.

And in fact shows the illogic of that speed limit. In cars , it may now be true (though I doubt it) that a crash at 100 kph is always going to be surviveable. Though if you really believe that I invite you to put it to the test with yourself as guinea pig.

But on bikes it is emphatically not true. Crash at 100kph and you like as not die (or , maybe not. bike crashes are strange and unpredictable). What is predictable is that to guarantee survival in the event of a crash you must reduce the speed limit to no more than 30kph.

The cases cited, in fact, show that your argument that you are safe so long as you do not break the speed limit is pure bull shit.

And show that the important thing for survival is to be able to correctly judge the appropriate and manageable speed (NOT a "safe speed" - no speed is safe on a motorcycle). If the rider cannot manage this judgement at under 100kph he or she will sooner or later crash. Despite NEVER speeding. If he or she can manage to correctly judge appropriate speed at < 100kph, then he or she will probably also judge correctly at > 100kph. And not crash. And vice versa. The rider who cannot correctly judge at > 100kph is almost certain to be unable to do so at < 100kph. And will crash , shibbolethic delusions of safty in "never speeding" not withstanding.

It's all about getting the judgement call right. Miscall it, speeding or not, and you crash. Get it right, speeding or not, and you don't (not from speed causes, anyway).

That judgement will vary from bike to bike, rider to rider, day to day, road to road. It can never be set by a cop or a bureaucrat.

[peasea]

Ok, you've called me silly names, and avoided the question, which is pathetic in a way but shows you have no counter arguement.

So now answer my original question...I put it to you that in both of these cases, if the rider had been going slower their survivability chances would have been higher.

Your arrogance and spelling give you away, copper.
"arguement".....?.....

[Oakie]

Oooooh oooooh, can I be a weasel? I think they're cute. Hang on , I might be confusing that with ferret...

I understand. They're weasely mistaken .... although if you're thinking of stoats, then weasels are weasely distinguished as stoats are stoatally different.

[Shadows]

I guess: aiding and abetting

Pffft.

You have a speed detector on your bike so you know such an outrageous "crime" as exceeding the posted speed limit is being committed, do you?

When was signalling somebody to be wary of the speed he is travelling at actually helping him to break the law anyway? It has quite the opposite effect.

[Shadows]

By the way - regardless of what I'm driving or riding I always flash my lights at bikers if they are approaching a speed trap. If you don't then you are nothing but a cunt.

[terbang]

What sort of farktard wouldn't warn another?

Wannabe biker fucktards?

[cruza]

there are definately nice bikers, and some arrogant arses!!!
was coming home from a rally this morning, and some of the stupid f**kers overtaking me (on a 225 so wasn't too hard) on blind corners - some of them weren't mucking around either... gotta wonder how some of them are still alive. i certainly don't want to watch a head on crash happen right in front of me - about just as much as i'd want to be in one

Pretty shit riding when ya pass on a blind corner trying to keep up with ya mates who had already cut in front of rummie and forced space behind slow cars, then ride beside her on the wrong side of the road , and move across into her space cause of oncoming traffic, farking retard. Of course We were going a really slow 95-100km.

[cruza]

By the way - regardless of what I'm driving or riding I ALWAYS flash my lights at bikers if they are approaching a speed trap. If you don't then you are nothing but a cunt.

Couldn't agree more. When I'm working I have to draw a line , but still always warn bikers, as normally I know from CB chatter where H/P cars are. When I'm in the car/bike , always make the effort.
There are times when you see a dickhead who needs pulling up, and smile as he goes past.

[smoky]

Ok, you've called me silly names, and avoided the question, which is pathetic in a way but shows you have no counter arguement.

You don't read very well do you? You posted a question that i had previously covered in my post, and if you can't work out the relevance of my answer - then that's your problem; Do you think 100Klm/hr is a magical speed, that anything over that you risk carnage, but if you do 100 or less you don't? surely you're not that stupid?

If they covered themselves in cotton wool and built a cage around their bikes, if they had employed a point man with a flag to walk in front of them - they would both be still alive as well

So now answer my original question...I put it to you that in both of these cases, if the rider had been going slower their survivability chances would have been higher.

And just for you - since you couldn't read it your self;

Speed contributes to the level of carnage, I agree, but it shouldn't be the sole focus

...... those on here who fool themselves that if they go slow they'll be safe, is; .....It can give you a false sense of security thinking if you go slow you won't kill yourself - when really there needs to be a hell of a lot more awareness about how to improve rider ability, how and when to brake, tyre safety, is your bike in safe condition, how many have their bike suspension set up or checked for them, learn about road positioning, how to correct lack of traction......... instead we sell the 'slow down' message as the 'cure all'.

[shrub]

That judgement will vary from bike to bike, rider to rider, day to day, road to road. It can never be set by a cop or a bureaucrat.

Excellently put - a very well worded post, thank you.

[smoky]

If they had been stopped their chances would ahve been excellent. Your argument is crooked.
The cases cited, in fact, show that your argument that you are safe so long as you do not break the speed limit is pure bull shit.

And show that the important thing for survival is to be able to correctly judge the appropriate and manageable speed (NOT a "safe speed" - no speed is safe on a motorcycle). If the rider cannot manage this judgement at under 100kph he or she will sooner or later crash. Despite NEVER speeding. If he or she can manage to correctly judge appropriate speed at < 100kph, then he or she will probably also judge correctly at > 100kph. And not crash. And vice versa. The rider who cannot correctly judge at > 100kph is almost certain to be unable to do so at < 100kph. And will crash , shibbolethic delusions of safty in "never speeding" not withstanding.

It's all about getting the judgement call right. Miscall it, speeding or not, and you crash. Get it right, speeding or not, and you don't (not from speed causes, anyway).

That judgement will vary from bike to bike, rider to rider, day to day, road to road. It can never be set by a cop or a bureaucrat.

That there is a post from someone who understands how to maximise their chances of staying on his bike, and more likely to live.
Good post dude

My trap is over confidence - even at legal speeds accidents can happen thru over confidence - cockieness

[red mermaid]

Its ok, you were safe, because speed doesn't kill.

Pretty shit riding when ya pass on a blind corner trying to keep up with ya mates who had already cut in front of rummie and forced space behind slow cars, then ride beside her on the wrong side of the road , and move across into her space cause of oncoming traffic, farking retard. Of course We were going a really slow 95-100km.

[DMNTD:Me]

Its ok, you were safe, because speed doesn't kill.

...but it's a shocking habit!