New crash study.

[Ocean1]

No less gullible than the poster/s on here that have read words to the effect you must "Up the pace" when riding bends in their instruction book on how to ride. I would believe the tow truck driver over any theorists who have written a manual. Even the diagrams posted on cornering yesterday by a poster are really no more than based on an ideal theoretical situation. The real world is sadly not like that

You mean the posters that have all said they didn't in fact read that?

The ones who pointed out that you continuously misrepresent shit you've been told is wrong multiple times?

Those posters?

I guess you really are a fucking prat.

[pritch]

From what you have said here the author has made 2 conflicting statements in that you quote it is more satsfying to "up the pace" on a winding road but dont go so fast you get into trouble. Well from reading that I would simply conclude that if you dont up the pace there is no chance of getting into trouble as guys who do decide to up the pace will often ride at a dangerous pace anyway.

There are no conflicting statements and you are the only one talking about dangerous pace. Fuck it! You are back in ignore.

[Viking01]

Ok if we want to be semantical it was me that threw in "must" but the interpretation "upping the pace" was Pritch's exact impression of the book from what he read.

As for the diagrams they give an impression that the bike and car coming towards one another on a bend always stay in their lane and are travelling at the same speed towards one another which in real life is not the case. Even another poster felt one or more of the diagrams were not to real life. Some of us are line obseesed and some of us are not I guess. For those that are line obseesed they must get extremely angry when traffic congestion denies them the ability to ride their line, they then "up the pace" which can result in disasterous consequences as they have little time to react if shit happens.

There's no semantics about it. Again, you were simply putting words into other people's mouths. I see that UlsterKiwi called you out for doing the same earlier.

Pritch (who paraphrased Nick Ienatsch) simply stated that Ienatsch found it more "satisfying" to be able to "up the pace". Neither party was recommending it. And Yes, I too have a copy of Ienatsch's "Sports Riding Techniques" book. Given Ienatsch's background and riding capability, that comment is no surprise. If he chose to "up the pace", he would only do it if he judged it to be safe to do so.

As for the riding line diagrams, your comment:
-"they always stay in their lane, and are traveling at the same speed towards each other". How could you possibly derive those two conclusions from the diagrams ?

"Line Obsessed" - again your comment:
Maybe others on this website - who have been on rider training courses and done some reading - realise the benefits that such riding lines confer. Under most circumstances. I believe that Pritch and UlsterKiwi both made the point that smart riders sacrifice riding line (position) for safety and stability. So they will try and ride these lines where possible - but will change their riding line where either safety or stability might be compromised. If that makes me "line obsessed", then I'll plead guilty as well.

And as for your last comment:
" For those that are line obsessed they must get extremely angry when traffic congestion denies them the ability to ride their line, they then "up the pace" which can result in disastrous consequences". Congratulations ! You have simply outdone yourself this time. This is just pure fiction on your part.

Let me ask you three simple questions in turn:
-Why would I change my riding line simply because traffic had become more congested ? (please explain why)
-Why must I necessarily get "extremely angry" ? (are you saying that I can't think for myself and exert some self control )
-Why would I "up the pace" in response to traffic congestion (especially if that was a totally inappropriate course of action) ?

Cheers

[Viking01]

Ok if we want to be semantical it was me that threw in "must" but the interpretation "upping the pace" was Pritch's exact impression of the book from what he read.

As for the diagrams they give an impression that the bike and car coming towards one another on a bend always stay in their lane and are travelling at the same speed towards one another which in real life is not the case. Even another poster felt one or more of the diagrams were not to real life. Some of us are line obseesed and some of us are not I guess. For those that are line obseesed they must get extremely angry when traffic congestion denies them the ability to ride their line, they then "up the pace" which can result in disasterous consequences as they have little time to react if shit happens.

There's no semantics about it. Again, you were simply putting words into other people's mouths. I see that UlsterKiwi called you out for doing the same earlier.

Pritch (who paraphrased Nick Ienatsch) simply stated that Ienatsch found it more "satisfying" to be able to "up the pace". Neither party was recommending it. And Yes, I too have a copy of Ienatsch's "Sports Riding Techniques" book. Given Ienatsch's background and riding capability, that comment is no surprise. If he chose to "up the pace", he would only do it if he judged it to be safe to do so.

As for the riding line diagrams, your comment:
-"they always stay in their lane, and are traveling at the same speed towards each other". How could you possibly derive those two conclusions from the diagrams ?

"Line Obsessed" - again your comment:
Maybe others on this website - who have been on rider training courses and done some reading - realise the benefits that such riding lines confer. Under most circumstances. I believe that Pritch and UlsterKiwi both made the point that smart riders sacrifice riding line (position) for safety and stability. So they will try and ride these lines where possible - but will change their riding line where either safety or stability might be compromised. If that makes me "line obsessed", then I'll plead guilty as well.

And as for your last comment:
" For those that are line obsessed they must get extremely angry when traffic congestion denies them the ability to ride their line, they then "up the pace" which can result in disastrous consequences". Congratulations ! You have simply outdone yourself this time. This is just pure fiction on your part.

Let me ask you three simple questions in turn:
-Why would I change my riding line simply because traffic had become more congested ? (please explain why)
-Why must I necessarily get "extremely angry" ? (are you saying that I can't think for myself and exert some self control )
-Why would I "up the pace" in response to traffic congestion (especially if that was a totally inappropriate course of action) ?

Cheers

[Zedder]

There are no conflicting statements and you are the only one talking about dangerous pace. Fuck it! You are back in ignore.

If we all did it then hopefully it might go away.

[swbarnett]

That line is one put out by the Police/NZTA/ACC and it would be based on actual crash data which you seem to be quite happy to ignore and it would take an actual crash happening to you before you take notice maybe.

Once again you have completely missed the point. Read the phrase again "The faster you go, the bigger the mess". Nowhere in there does in mention an actual accident. If you have an engine that will push you fast enough you can travel near the speed of light in absolute safety if you don't hit anything.

Now, if they'd exercised a tiny piece of their tiny minds they would know this and change the phrase to "The faster you HIT, the bigger the mess". That I could somewhat agree with but for the fact that it still completely ignores the many other factors that govern the carnage that a particular crash will result in. For example, I could run in to a brick wall unprotected at just over 8kph and break a bone. I could run into the same wall at many times that speed while wrapped in bubble wrap and sustain no injury whatsoever.

[caseye]

If we all did it then hopefully it might go away.

I have! AGAIN. Cant stand being anywhere near what it spouts as gospel and now sying it has friends and agreers here in KB. FUCK OFF! ewe do bitch.
I'd cut my hand off rather than be exposed to or allow innocent new riders to be anywhere near it!

[Viking01]

But for all I know many of the guys (you included) I am in debate with on here could very well be group riders pushing the limit to "keep up" and if you have never seen such riding all you need to do is come to Christchurch and travel the road to Akaroa on mostly weekends in Summer. You will see many examples of riders "upping the pace" in order to keep up and if you were to see such riding I would love to know how you would think its safer than not "upping the pace" In the past on here the question that has been asked is if riding schools were so good why is going to a riding school not a compulsory part of getting a license and the reply that came back from another poster was that if going to a riding school became compulsory it would create a feeling of overconfidence and if tutors are saying things like if you take this particular line you will be able to up the pace through any bend its easy to understand why. If I was teaching lines at riding school my focus would be on the end result that you are less likely to run off the road if you take this line if its safe to do so rather than telling students they will be able to ride faster.

Sorry, don't change the subject of discussion. We were discussing riding lines.

And I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier questions with a sensible response.

Cheers

[swbarnett]

Its no always "Your Hit" that creates the mess though but the "Hit" from someone/thing/animal else to you and by not riding with the thought that I must keep a higher than a speed limit/advisory pace up may very well buy you some valuable time should shit come your way from another direction.

Oh, fucken hell. Even you can't really be that thick? It matters not one fuck who hit who. It's still your accident, even if not technically your fault. Without a hit there is no mess. Now if you can't get that through you obviously one-cellular brain (even that's a stretch) then I strongly suggest you crawl back into the womb and have another go. You obviously missed out on a brain the first time around.

[Berries]

The cassina MO is well enough known now. Join in on a topic because you read something in a magazine once some years ago, mention the fact that someone once in one thread kind of agreed with you so you are clearly correct and always make sure to bring up the issue of people crashing due to riding under pressure to keep up with others on a group ride. State the obvious like it is news, like most single bike crashes happening on curves, and refuse to admit any culpability whatsoever for the numerous crashes that you have been in. Dismiss the idea of training without ever having done any or considering that it could make you a better and safer rider. Ride at or below the posted advisory speed and be proud of it

I see more people in this thread have now come to the realisation that it is absolutely pointless entering in to a 'debate' with cassina. It can only end in frustration, been there done that. Now I just laugh.

Talking of laughs - https://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/s...r-1k-etc-Which

[nzspokes]

I have also never crashed due to my own fault.

Yes you have, you've dogs and shit.

You lack forward observation and a riding plan. For how you say you go around a turn you have no idea how to do that either.



Oh the corner speed signs, I thought the rule was double it plus 10.

[swbarnett]

Cassina. Don't expect any more replies from me. You're not worth the time and frustration. I just wish there was a way to put you on ignore permanently with no change to take you off.

[Akzle]

.



Oh the corner speed signs, I thought the rule was double it plus 10.

double, and read in mph.

[Akzle]

If I spout so much crap on here as you say why then do so many others enter into debate with me when you would think they would have better things to do with their time and that includes you?

you being repeatedly shot down is not "a debate" fuckwit.

forgotten this already?

because you are a FUCKING IDIOT and letting your horseshit stand unchallenged, in a public forum where new or inexperienced riders might not be able to determine it for what it is, is frankly dangerous, and a disservice to road safety (=point of thread)

[SVboy]

If I spout so much crap on here as you say why then do so many others enter into debate with me when you would think they would have better things to do with their time and that includes you?

Because you are such an easy target, and we were bored........ Love your 'balanced' criticism of Nick Ienatsch. Respected racer, riding coach, motorcycle journalist and author of highly respected books on road riding. Must be great to know more and be better than him. Except you don't. What the KB readership really wants to know, what is it like for you as an autistic Honda Africa owner?