Police get riders at over 200 km/h

[HenryDorsetCase]

leaving aside the question of whether this particular speed in these circumstances was safe or not, (my view being that it was, others, not so much) the thing that shits me about this is the blind belief that an arbitrarily picked velocity is somehow "Safe" and yet a velocity 2% more than that is by definition unsafe: i.e. 99 kph is "safe" but 101 kph is "not safe". That just isnt true: what is "safe" is up to the rider or driver, and depends on a lot of factors: how they feel, whether they had coffee, is it raining, is the road flat and wide, is there other traffic around etc etc etc.

The abandonment of personal responsibility is, I think, what I am getting at.

My long held view is that there should not be any arbitrary speed limit anywhere: there are already enough mechanisms for determining whether particular conduct in particular circumstances is careless, reckless or dangerous, and appropriate penalties if after due investigation, it is found that the person has not met those standards, in those circumstances.

But of course to corrupt politicians (and all politicians are corrupt because they all have a vested interest: they need to be popular enough to be elected again so they can get yet another trotter in the trough) the lie that"speed kills" is an easy sell, coupled with a lazy and corrupt media who buy into it.

So, I will continue to decide how fast I want to go* in any given set of circumstances, because that is the morally correct thing to do.

Bring on the flame war.





*remember what I ride on the street... its happiest at 100 to 120 kph. but it might have been north of 160 a few times.



oh, and people going on about "if you want to do 200k go to the racetrack"

Absolute speed is irrelevant on a racetrack, and if you've ever done a trackday they advise you to blank off your speedo because its distracting. Relative speed (i.e. am I quicker than my mate) is all that matters. so 60, 80, 180 or 280 doesnt matter there. Any given velocity is simply a byproduct of being at the racetrack.

Meh. might go to kaikoura for lunch. lets see, its about 200k away, so just over an hour. That works.

[AllanB]

Note that the power needed to push an object through a fluid increases as the cube of the velocity. A car cruising on a highway at 50 mph (80 km/h) may require only 10 horsepower (7.5 kW) to overcome air drag, but that same car at 100 mph (160 km/h) requires 80 hp (60 kW). With a doubling of speed the drag (force) quadruples per the formula. Exerting four times the force over a fixed distance produces four times as much work. At twice the speed the work (resulting in displacement over a fixed distance) is done twice as fast. Since power is the rate of doing work, four times the work done in half the time requires eight times the power.[/I]

WTF - then how come I can get 344 out of my 108hp Hornet?


I was after 350+ and thought that doing it naked covered in Vaseline would help the friction (Honda riders always have a tub of vaseline handy...), however it just attracted a lot of bugs that increased my surface area, thus slowing me down to 344

Pictures soon.......

[3umph]

those buggs will do it every time

[PrincessBandit]

Anything can go wrong on the road at 80klm/hr, 110klm/hr, 120klm/hr and you take an innocent life. Do 80klm/hr in town and your more likely to hurt someone else if you come off, do 50klm/hr in rush hour traffic lane splitting and hit a pedestrian!

Riding a bike is exposing yourself to more risk, but being selective with when & where you use speed can reduce that risk somewhat

True, but when you only put yourself at risk (minimised or otherwise) no-one really gives a shit, except the people who love you and don't want you to die foolishly before your time.

When there are other lives at stake - the unsuspecting driver coming from the side street, the other motorcyclist further up round the bend in the road who suddenly is faced with a fuckwit who has momentarily lost control of his line and is now sharing a collision course with him etc etc - who has the right to say "I'm allowed to ride as fast as i like and damn everyone else who tut tuts me". The problem arises when we think there's no one else or any potential danger in our path but it can only be seen at the last moment, then the shit hits the fan, and probably your undies.

Sure, there are lots of long long stretches of road where you can see for kilometres ahead where "excessive" speeds might be considered safe (as there are no other visible vehicles in sight to the horizon). However you can hardly cry foul if there happened to be a friendly little speed camera along the way which records your moment of light speed. The law might be an ass but it's still the law.

And I quite agree, that even fatalities can still occur at much lower speeds. But anyone who speeds knows that they have bugger all justification when the unthinkable occurs and they have to face their victims loved ones.

[Murray]

My long held view is that there should not be any arbitrary speed limit anywhere: there are already enough mechanisms for determining whether particular conduct in particular circumstances is careless, reckless or dangerous, and appropriate penalties if after due investigation, it is found that the person has not met those standards, in those circumstances.

So the weather is beautiful the road is good I can do 130 kph past the school gates at 3 pm because there's no traffic. Who decides whether the conduct in this partcular circumstance is careless, reckless or dangerous???

All down to personal interpretation???

How do you set standards for conduct on the roads, in particular circumstances?? the list goes on, the list goes on, the list goes on, the courts go on, the courts go on

[PrincessBandit]

True, but when you only put yourself at risk (minimised or otherwise) no-one really gives a shit, except the people who love you and don't want you to die foolishly before your time.

Even so, putting only yourself at risk unnecessarily (which is really more the point you are driving at) still is no defense when having your day in court:

"Yes, your honour, I was speeding but there wasn't any risk to anyone else..." Somehow I think they'd only be interested in the first six words of that sentence.

[jafar]

That's a fucking bargain! You should see the fines they throw around elsewhere - e.g. a 3 months salary fine.

Don't think they can impound their vehicles though. Only breach of boyracer statutes and driving while disqualified will see your vehicle impounded.

I'm told that any speed over 40 km above the limit is an instant 28 day suspension of your licence + 28 days in the vehicle impound.
40k over IS a breach of the boy racer laws, thats life in helengrad
I think you actually get less for DIC than for excessive speed.

[HenryDorsetCase]

So the weather is beautiful the road is good I can do 130 kph past the school gates at 3 pm because there's no traffic. Who decides whether the conduct in this partcular circumstance is careless, reckless or dangerous???

All down to personal interpretation???

How do you set standards for conduct on the roads, in particular circumstances?? the list goes on, the list goes on, the list goes on, the courts go on, the courts go on

No. I was hinting that the po po would issue you a ticket for either careless, reckless or dangerous driving, then the state sanctioned arbiter of whether or not citizens had contravened the Lor would decide. We already pay judges and own court buildings and whatnot. All these mandatory penalties do is obscure the process, (in the name of efficiency and safety) and derogate from citizens rights. In this case to an independent assessment of the conduct in the circumstances, by an impartial and experienced arbiter.

I dont see any problem witht hat scenario at all.

[Eddieb]

geez mate have you been living under a rock?

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...&highlight=211

Nah, I just don't often venture out of one section into the masses of the great unwashed, too many wankers with opinions.

I did search first though, honest injun.

[madbikeboy]

WTF - then how come I can get 344 out of my 108hp Hornet?


I was after 350+ and thought that doing it naked covered in Vaseline would help the friction (Honda riders always have a tub of vaseline handy...), however it just attracted a lot of bugs that increased my surface area, thus slowing me down to 344

Pictures soon.......

You dirty naked fucker, you'd go faster if you could stop your dick from dragging like an anchor.

[jafar]

WTF - then how come I can get 344 out of my 108hp Hornet?


I was after 350+ and thought that doing it naked covered in Vaseline would help the friction (Honda riders always have a tub of vaseline handy...), however it just attracted a lot of bugs that increased my surface area, thus slowing me down to 344

Pictures soon.......

Your speedo is optimistic
If you want to get 350 out of a hornet try chucking it out of an airplane @ 10,000 feet

[HenryDorsetCase]

Even so, putting only yourself at risk unnecessarily (which is really more the point you are driving at) still is no defense when having your day in court:

"Yes, your honour, I was speeding but there wasn't any risk to anyone else..." Somehow I think they'd only be interested in the first six words of that sentence.

thats right, but if you take out the arbitrary reference to velocity, then the arbiter MUST assess whether there was in fact danger to the "speeder" or to the public (or the sheep or whatever)

[jafar]

there is a wee bit of discussion about it here

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...ad.php?t=97300

ya muppet why would you put up a shortcut the the thread that we are already on?

[smoky]

Who decides whether the conduct in this partcular circumstance is careless, reckless or dangerous???

.. you can hardly cry foul if there happened to be a friendly little speed camera along the way which records your moment of light speed. The law might be an ass but it's still the law.

I'm not arguing with that point - do the crime do the time.
But lets not be hypocrites - is one law more breakable than another? is breaking one law not as bad as breaking another law on the road?

If you travel at 105Klm/hr are you any more innocent as the next?
Do you always indicate, always come to a complete stop at stop signs, always have 100 meters clear visibility when over taking, always observe the 2 second following rule all the time?
What about talk on your cell phone while driving?
Just what is an acceptable limit of transgression before people can sit in lofty righteousness and pontificate agin the rest of us?
We could be novel and discuss this topic with out pretending there are some on here who are better at keeping the law than others
For the record I haven't had a ticket on a motorbike for over 20 years.
I see some people riding at stupid speeds far too often - but I posted from my perspective. Honest discussion is more valuable on this topic than bullshit

True, but when you only put yourself at risk (minimised or otherwise) .....
When there are other lives at stake - ..... faced with a fuckwit who has momentarily lost control of his line and is now sharing a collision course with him etc etc - who has the right to say "I'm allowed to ride as fast as i like and damn everyone else who tut tuts me".

Speed is one thing - A fully licensed rider, on a bike far too powerful for their ability, riding at legal speeds can present a far more likely risk of being on the wrong side of the road, run into you on your bike on a ride, or make a fatal error - I see it happen all too often
Does a beginner on a 250 doing 70klm/hr get it wrong more or less often than an experienced rider at 120klm/hr?
My point is not about wether it is right or wrong to break the law, it's about; ....... if you have the perpensity to ride at 200klm/hr a lot, then you increase your chances of having an accident and injuring yourself or others. But there is a hell of a lot more things than just purely speed that increases the risk of that happening

[PrincessBandit]

I'm not arguing with that point - do the crime do the time.
But lets not be hypocrites - is one law more breakable than another? is breaking one law not as bad as breaking another law on the road?

...
For the record I haven't had a ticket on a motorbike for over 20 years.
I see some people riding at stupid speeds far too often - but I posted from my perspective. Honest discussion is more valuable on this topic than bullshit


Speed is one thing - A fully licensed rider, on a bike far too powerful for their ability, riding at legal speeds can present a far more likely risk of being on the wrong side of the road, run into you on your bike on a ride, or make a fatal error - I see it happen all too often
Does a beginner on a 250 doing 70klm/hr get it wrong more or less often than an experienced rider at 120klm/hr?
My point is not about wether it is right or wrong to break the law, it's about; ....... if you have the perpensity to ride at 200klm/hr a lot, then you increase your chances of having an accident and injuring yourself or others. But there is a hell of a lot more things than just purely speed that increases the risk of that happening

For sure, I see what you are saying. However despite a person's riding ability or years of experience there can be no doubt that speed can exponentially increase the degree of severity when things don't go to plan.