Speeding facts vs fiction

[rastuscat]

Na I think what most are asking for is common sense & zero extortion

Reckon you might be surprised how much tolerance is shown.

Say I write ten tickets in a day. I would have seen 30 offences in that day but either couldn't get to them or couldn't be arsed disrupting traffic flows to do do. Do the 20 feel lucky? Most don't even know they've been seen.

[Ocean1]

Reckon you might be surprised how much tolerance is shown.

Say I write ten tickets in a day. I would have seen 30 offences in that day but either couldn't get to them or couldn't be arsed disrupting traffic flows to do do. Do the 20 feel lucky? Most don't even know they've been seen.

Trouble is mate, all it takes is one cop to ping someone for 105 in perfect conditions in the middle of the Himatangi straights and any goodwill that member of the public had for the rozzers is toast for bloody years.

Tolerance works both ways.

[rastuscat]

Tolerance works both ways.

Just for the record so does intolerance.

[Ocean1]

Just for the record so does intolerance.

Oh aye. Tends to be ingrained though, rather than episodic.

[Urano]

Please do not put words in my mouth. You can only say this is what you've found. Others have found quite different.

sure.
for example others have found that black cats will bring you bad luck...

may be a problem with your bike and gear but not the case on either of my bikes, of course i have only ever gone over 100km/hr on a track .
i would suggest you need to invest in a good quality helmet or get one that fits correctly if you have an issue with noise in your helmet

thanks for the suggestion.
despite your hypothesis though, various studies (but i encourage you to simply have a look at COST 327) have found noise levels inside helmets as "dangerously high".
it spans from 90db at 65kmh to 120 at 160kmh.
exposing to a noise level higher than 95db for more than 2 hours will exceed widely accepted safety limits for workers.

as i often say, USE EAR PLUGS!
anytime your trip will stretch out the city limit, stop a sec and put them on.
(btw, yes, they're often forbidden...wrongly...)

that takes us back to the point: if you're going to travel along way, blasting it in 3 hour at 150 it's prolly worse than trolling at 120 arriving 40 minutes later...

[avgas]

After reading half the dribble I see - I often wonder why many of your don't crash at slower speeds.

Speeding is a personal thing. I personally can no longer hack the 170+kph I used to be able to do on straights. Small things catch me out and I know one day I will be fucked. However I am quite comfortable at 140kph corners.
It's knowing your personal limit and riding there.

The road doesn't care what speed you are going, but it certainly helps it at killing you at a higher velocity than a lower one. The same as it is easier to really hurt yourself with a hammer if you swing it fast than if you swing it slow. This doesn't mean you can't hurt yourself if you swing it slow - just that changes are you will notice you are about to hurt yourself and stop your action.

Mother fucking rocket science people.

[yevjenko]

The same as it is easier to really hurt yourself with a hammer if you swing it fast than if you swing it slow. This doesn't mean you can't hurt yourself if you swing it slow - just that changes are you will notice you are about to hurt yourself and stop your action.

Mother fucking rocket science people.

You just added to the dribble. To correct your analogy, you should compare swinging a hammer really fast, to only slightly less fast.

If we come off at 120, there won't be much difference than if we came off at 100. The road furniture is still going to make you come to a very abrupt stop if the other road users don't do it first.

sent from my phone (so scuze auto correct typos)

[Reckless]

You just added to the dribble. To correct your analogy, you should compare swinging a hammer really fast, to only slightly less fast.

If we come off at 120, there won't be much difference than if we came off at 100.

Not according to the TV ads if someone pulls out on you and your doing 8k over its all your fault for his kids life??
The cops make everything about speed but its not working, is it?

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=Reckless;1130734428]Not according to the TV ads if someone pulls out on you and your doing 8k over its all your fault for his kids life??
The cops make everything about speed but its not working, is it?[/QUOTE

You believe TV ads???

[Reckless]

[QUOTE=scumdog;1130734766]

Not according to the TV ads if someone pulls out on you and your doing 8k over its all your fault for his kids life??
The cops make everything about speed but its not working, is it?[/QUOTE

You believe TV ads???

Of coarse not Scummy and you know it was meant to be sarky, bad try at a Troll LOL

BUT a large % of of joe public do, that's why everyone is falling to sleep or listening to there MP3, stuck behind grandma at 85K, miles of double yellows, passing lanes coned off, to scared to exceed the limit to safely pass in case you blokes are patrolling the passing lanes with your instant on set at 104k.

haha troll worked I guess LMAO

[avgas]

If we come off at 120, there won't be much difference than if we came off at 100. The road furniture is still going to make you come to a very abrupt stop if the other road users don't do it first.

You missed the point fella.
So here is the mother fucking rocket science.

100 kph = 27.8 ms
120 kph = 33.3 ms

Say a reaction time of the average fool is 0.7 seconds.
So you see a car suddenly pull out in front of you (morons are everywhere) - even if you neglect braking distances.
@100kph by the time you reach the brake lever you have traveled 19.49m
@120kph by the time you reach the brake lever you have traveled 23.31m

Difference = 3.85m
Or the length of the car you didn't want to hit.

As I mentioned - find what speed your a capable at. If you get it wrong - your fucked purely on the laws of physics. Regardless of what you think.

Mother fucking rocket science.

[russd7]

sure.
for example others have found that black cats will bring you bad luck...





thanks for the suggestion.
despite your hypothesis though, various studies (but i encourage you to simply have a look at COST 327) have found noise levels inside helmets as "dangerously high".
it spans from 90db at 65kmh to 120 at 160kmh.
exposing to a noise level higher than 95db for more than 2 hours will exceed widely accepted safety limits for workers.

as i often say, USE EAR PLUGS!
anytime your trip will stretch out the city limit, stop a sec and put them on.
(btw, yes, they're often forbidden...wrongly...)

that takes us back to the point: if you're going to travel along way, blasting it in 3 hour at 150 it's prolly worse than trolling at 120 arriving 40 minutes later...

haven't used earplugs since i started buying better quality helmets and quite regularly do trips in excess of 500kms at speeds above 120km/hr
I have issues with neither wind nor noise and incedently, according to the hearing test i had for work friday last week, my hearing is well above average for my age which is not bad considering i farmed for 25 yrs and have ridden motorcycles for over 30yrs and now work around noisy woodworking machinery all day.
oh and by the way, my trips do occasionally stretch in to city limits unfortunately.

[Urano]

haven't used earplugs since i started buying better quality helmets and quite regularly do trips in excess of 500kms at speeds above 120km/hr
I have issues with neither wind nor noise and incedently, according to the hearing test i had for work friday last week, my hearing is well above average for my age which is not bad considering i farmed for 25 yrs and have ridden motorcycles for over 30yrs and now work around noisy woodworking machinery all day.
oh and by the way, my trips do occasionally stretch in to city limits unfortunately.

you're saying tha... oh sorry...

YOU'RE SAYING THAT DESPITE YEARS OF MOTORBIKE RIDING AND WORK IN NOISY ENVIRONMENT YOUR HEARING IS BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE?

well, good for you. if i were you i'd go to the nearest university and offer myself as an interest case study.

now you understand that (given your case is still applicable considering requirements, levels and frequency of test, correctness of data, procedure and equipment) this could only been considered as a personal experience of no statistic value, right?
it's the ancient, rusty problem of the "old pal" everybody has that has crashed wearing nothing more than a t-shirt, had not even a scratch and now is claiming that atgatt is for morons...

so, if want to give us something useful simply repeat your test twice again, then build up a statistic graph of measurements.
then find out another bunch of guys with a similar story (at least 150-200. better 500. 1000 would be great.) test them three times and make similar graphs. then correct the data for age, gender, race, place, and anthropometric differences and come back here tellin us your findings.
it would be awesome.

while we wait we'll stick to others that have done all these stuff before you, and whose results are, as i said, worth of attention.

http://www.isvr.co.uk/at_work/m_cycle.htm

this is something newer:
http://www.cieh.org/jehr/hearing_los...rcyclists.html

and the cost327:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsa...nal_report.pdf

and here i report a screenshot (for the lazy ones...) of page 220-221 chapter 8:

[Big Dog]

you're saying tha... oh sorry...

YOU'RE SAYING THAT DESPITE YEARS OF MOTORBIKE RIDING AND WORK IN NOISY ENVIRONMENT YOUR HEARING IS BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE?

well, good for you. if i were you i'd go to the nearest university and offer myself as an interest case study.

now you understand that (given your case is still applicable considering requirements, levels and frequency of test, correctness of data, procedure and equipment) this could only been considered as a personal experience of no statistic value, right?
it's the ancient, rusty problem of the "old pal" everybody has that has crashed wearing nothing more than a t-shirt, had not even a scratch and now is claiming that atgatt is for morons...

so, if want to give us something useful simply repeat your test twice again, then build up a statistic graph of measurements.
then find out another bunch of guys with a similar story (at least 150-200. better 500. 1000 would be great.) test them three times and make similar graphs. then correct the data for age, gender, race, place, and anthropometric differences and come back here tellin us your findings.
it would be awesome.

while we wait we'll stick to others that have done all these stuff before you, and whose results are, as i said, worth of attention.

http://www.isvr.co.uk/at_work/m_cycle.htm

this is something newer:
http://www.cieh.org/jehr/hearing_los...rcyclists.html

and the cost327:
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsa...nal_report.pdf

and here i report a screenshot (for the lazy ones...) of page 220-221 chapter 8:

To be fair in 1992 an 1996 ( the dates mentioned ) my helmet was much noisier. True up until my CLSP above 140 or below 110. My FG-15 is much quieter again least wind noise is a pocket this time about 60 to 160. . As was my shoei. But where it becomes a little less about science and a little about the anecdote: I had to discontinue the of earplugs in the 90's and again in the 00s because recurring ear infections were causing hearing loss that returned when the plug use stopped. Last hearing check my hearing was above normal.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Urano]

To be fair in 1992 an 1996 ( the dates mentioned ) my helmet was much noisier.

true.
the data are not extremely "fresh".
i myself remember my old 1994 mds helmet as quite different, from a construction standpoint, compared to my actual shoei xr1100.
cieh survey though is not farther than 2004, and still i feel the annoying "whistle" in my ears when i keep for more than a pair of hour... "happy" speeds...