Radar detectors could be banned

**les king** · 24th December 2007, 14:06

for f---- sake i thought the earthquke was in gisborne didnt realise it rattled heads in hastings helen reign is all over.

**c4.** · 24th December 2007, 15:01

It’s a bit like being told that you may not look ahead for signs of law enforcement, close your eyes if you see a car, that may or may not contain an officer of the law.
Surely their very presence on our roads is to encourage us to slow down, or at least check the speed we are traveling.
Incidentally enough, this is exactly what happens every time I detect the presence of law enforcement, be it through visual by seeing lights/vehicles/camera vans, aural by hearing sirens, or my radar detector screaming at me to beware the demerit sharks.
Can anyone else see a massive bottleneck about to occur in the courts?
Meanwhile the burglary and youth crime figures sail through the roof.
I will be continuing to use my detector in the same manner I use it legally now, not to careen around the countryside, but to avoid situations where inattention to minor infractions might now very well cost me my ride.

Does any one know whether or not Harry should have to offer amnesty or recompense for outlawing one of our vehicular tools.

5 Knots

**c4.** · 24th December 2007, 16:27

does any one here have links for hiding the statisical indicator device?

**P38** · 24th December 2007, 16:59

Originally Posted by les king

for f---- sake i thought the earthquke was in gisborne didnt realise it rattled heads in hastings helen reign is all over.

Yeah it did shake a bit here too.

Not enouugh to fuddle the brain though, took care of that myself.

Just dont be too dissapointed if Aunty Hellen returns for another term.

She certainly wont give up without a fight.

An if she dont survive, then dont expect too much from the new mob cos as far as I can see it's the same old horse just with a different jockey.

**Moxy** · 24th December 2007, 17:49

Originally Posted by swbarnett

The problem remains. Our activities are being curtailed in the name of safety when what we're doing is not dangerous in the first place.

I like the idea of radar detectors. They give people early warning for when the cop is catching dangerous drivers at the end of an overtaking lane.. you know... catching the people who are overtaking at 111k in a 100k zone...

**Toaster** · 24th December 2007, 18:21

Originally Posted by swbarnett

The problem remains. Our activities are being curtailed in the name of safety when what we're doing is not dangerous in the first place.

And how is fantasyland nowdays? Ever heard of physics?

Higher speed is always more dangerous than lower speed. You simply can't stop or react as fast because you give yourself less time to do so.

But then you are better than the rest of us aren't you? Hey what the hell, just ride at 200km/h everywhere since you are so damn good nothing will ever happen to you because it isn't dangerous according to the gospel of swbarnett.

**Jantar** · 24th December 2007, 19:09

Originally Posted by Toaster

... Ever heard of physics?

Higher speed is always more dangerous than lower speed. ....

Yes, I do believe I have heard of physics, and the strange thing is that physics actually proves that sometimes a higher speed is safer than a lower speed.

Try riding your bike at 5 kmh on the open road and see how safe you are. Then ride the same piece of road at 100 kmh and see how much more responsive your handling is. The main difference between a cage and a bike that makes a bike safer at slightly higher speeds is the different physics involved in the vehicles handling characteristics. A cage relies mainly on gravity and friction for stability whereas a bike relies more on centripedal force and centrifugal reaction. These last two are more pronounced as rotational speed increases. A car relies almost entirely friction and mechanical advantage (steering box or power steering) to change direction, but a bike has centrifical progression as an additional aid.

Thus a cage is very safe and stable at no speed, but a bike will fall over at zero speed. A cage becomes more dangerous with every extra kmh, but a bike becomes safer as speed increases to the speed where the wheels, frame, tyres and suspension all work as a unit, then, from that point on (like a cage) risk increases with speed.

No-one can deny that a rider is more likely to be injured in an accident than a cage driver, but in many circumstances a rider has more chance of avoiding the accident in the first place. Unfortunately, many riders do over extend themselves and throw away that advantage by riding right on the limit.

**swbarnett** · 24th December 2007, 23:49

Originally Posted by Toaster

Higher speed is always more dangerous than lower speed.

High speed and fast driving are not the same thing. What you're talking about is rampant speed with no regard for the conditions i.e. hooning. What I'm talking about is driving fast with respect for the conditions i.e varying speed to what is appropriate irrespective of the posted speed limit.

There is one word that disproves your point - TIMING. At 100km/h I may end up right in the path of a turning car whereas at a higher speed I'm past the intersection before the car even approaches. Slower does not always equal safer (just try doing 50km/h in amongst 100km/h+ traffic).

**sAsLEX** · 25th December 2007, 13:33

Originally Posted by swbarnett

High speed and fast driving are not the same thing. What you're talking about is rampant speed with no regard for the conditions i.e. hooning. What I'm talking about is driving fast with respect for the conditions i.e varying speed to what is appropriate irrespective of the posted speed limit.

There is one word that disproves your point - TIMING. At 100km/h I may end up right in the path of a turning car whereas at a higher speed I'm past the intersection before the car even approaches. Slower does not always equal safer (just try doing 50km/h in amongst 100km/h+ traffic).

And maybe toasted could answer this riddle.

Why, when in the states they raised the speed limits on certain stretches of roads, did the accident rate drop?

Especially since speed is inherently linked to the road toll and crashes?

And why on many motorways the world over the speeds travelled at much higher than NZ yet they don't have an exponentially higher accident rate?

I mean UK 100MPH is common on their motorways, France 130 limit, Germany no limit.

**sAsLEX** · 25th December 2007, 13:35

Originally Posted by swbarnett

There is one word that disproves your point - TIMING. At 100km/h I may end up right in the path of a turning car whereas at a higher speed I'm past the intersection before the car even approaches. Slower does not always equal safer (just try doing 50km/h in amongst 100km/h+ traffic).

**boomer** · 25th December 2007, 14:50

Originally Posted by Toaster

And how is fantasyland nowdays? Ever heard of physics?

Higher speed is always more dangerous than lower speed. You simply can't stop or react as fast because you give yourself less time to do so.

But then you are better than the rest of us aren't you? Hey what the hell, just ride at 200km/h everywhere since you are so damn good nothing will ever happen to you because it isn't dangerous according to the gospel of swbarnett.

Since fitting Ohlins my bike handles much better the faster i go.

I think you're talking shite.

**Toaster** · 25th December 2007, 20:38

Originally Posted by swbarnett

High speed and fast driving are not the same thing. What you're talking about is rampant speed with no regard for the conditions i.e. hooning. What I'm talking about is driving fast with respect for the conditions i.e varying speed to what is appropriate irrespective of the posted speed limit.

There is one word that disproves your point - TIMING. At 100km/h I may end up right in the path of a turning car whereas at a higher speed I'm past the intersection before the car even approaches. Slower does not always equal safer (just try doing 50km/h in amongst 100km/h+ traffic).

So you DO think your riding is so good you could handle any situation? Thought as much.

The timing argument is just ridiculous. What rubbish. That is a what if senario that carries no logic at all.

And bringing up the 50km/h in a 100 zone is also ridiculous. No one is advocating that.