Christmas Woes.

[Azner]

Life just got better.

Ham came in the door.

 

[sinkoman]

To be honest I've never even understood the need to be dumb on a road. When I get my car, I'm making it a point to never speed.

"speed" doesn't kill. Differentiations in speed are far more dangerous.

Picture this, all but one lane on a 4 lane freeway is moving along at 75 mph. The guy in your lane is going 50. There's a que building up behind this guy, and everybody has to move out of this lane to keep the flow of traffic going.

Everybody makes a mad dash to the surrounding lanes, and hammers onto the throttle to catch up with the rest of traffic. It's a dangerous situation that I see far too often whilst piloting a cage.

 

[Cheomesh]

If I don't speed, cops can't pick on me.

Also, the dangerous person isn't the guy obeying the limit -- it's the idiots making a mad dash like their schedule matters more.

If you're not zooming along at 90 something miles per hour, chances are you'll be better able to react to something vs not.

As for traffic laws being designed for cars, that makes sense. Cars dominated the rodes before motorcycles, and in all honesty I've never seen any real point to taking a motorcycle to the roads outside of "fun" factor.

 

[Krynn72]

I was in the christmas spirit, suckers!

 

[repiV]

If I don't speed, cops can't pick on me.

Also, the dangerous person isn't the guy obeying the limit -- it's the idiots making a mad dash like their schedule matters more.

No, the dangerous person is the guy causing the tailback as he's causing every other road user to alter their behaviour. If the majority of people are exceeding the speed limit, the limit is too low.

If you're not zooming along at 90 something miles per hour, chances are you'll be better able to react to something vs not.

Speed of travel is only one variable that influences reaction time - you travel faster, you leave more room. Common sense. The most important variable here is actually how much attention you pay to the road ahead - not concentrating for two seconds has the same effect as travelling 50mph faster.
It's impossible to say that one speed is safe and another is dangerous, for it's all interdependent on so many other factors. On an empty motorway/highway etc. with good visibility and weather conditions in a vehicle designed to operate at such parameters, there is no reason why 250mph would be at all unsafe.

As for traffic laws being designed for cars, that makes sense. Cars dominated the rodes before motorcycles, and in all honesty I've never seen any real point to taking a motorcycle to the roads outside of "fun" factor.

There are loads of advantages to a bike over a car.

1. They don't get stuck in traffic - my commute would take me 3 hours by car, it takes an hour by bike. In the era of traffic congestion, bikes bring predictability back to journey times in a way that hasn't existed for decades with cars.
On the flipside, bikes solve congestion. Every bike on the road means one less car holding you up. They're good for everybody.
2. They're much faster - even a "boring" commuter bike annihilates pretty much every car out there in the acceleration stakes, and for the price of a pretty average car you can get a ridiculously powerful hyperbike that will do 0-100 and back to 0 again in under 10 seconds. From a standing start, to 100mph, and back to a stop. Incredible, no?
3. They're much cheaper to buy, run and insure - the scene has changed somewhat now, but back in the 1970s, the motorbike was the poor man's transport - you had to be well off to afford a car, but everyone could have a bike.
4. Bike parking is almost always free, and a parked bike takes up about a fifth of the space of a parked car. Over here they are also exempt from all congestion charging schemes and in many cases are allowed to use bus lanes.
5. You have far better visibility on a bike, as you aren't surrounded by blind spots. You can also see out over the traffic into the distance due to the elevated seating position, allowing much more awareness of the road ahead. Also, there are no distractions on a bike - it's you and the elements. Bikers concentrate fully 100% of the time, whereas drivers tend to function on autopilot.
6. Riding a bike makes you a far better driver - you have to be a great rider to survive, the vast majority of car crashes result in no injuries whatsoever, but in almost any bike accident you risk serious injury or death. Add this to the vastly increased risk of crashing due to inattentive drivers (who cause somewhere in the region of 90% of all motorbike accidents), dodgy road surfaces and weather conditions which affect the handling and stability of a bike to a far greater degree than they do in a car.
People often say that they learn more about road safety in a few months on a bike than in an entire lifetime driving a car.
7. All these unique characteristics of bikes, added to the fact that almost all motorcycles are designed to be ridden to the very limit, makes them far safer to operate at much higher speeds than cars. They can reach three figure speeds in an instant - for a car, it's a long process. They can come to a stop from three figure speeds in a few seconds. They can overtake anything at almost any time. The riders are directing every bit of their concentration to the road ahead. A bike is much narrower and more maneuverable than a car, making a collision much easier to avoid. In the event of any collision, a bike will do a tiny fraction of the amount of damage a car will do to whatever it hits.
Current speed limits are completely inappropriate for motorcycles - bikers speed everywhere usually because it's safe and appropriate to do so.

As a means of personal transport, motorcycles are unrivalled. They get there quicker (much quicker, in congested conditions), cheaper and you don't have to spend ages looking for somewhere to park.

 

[Stigmata]

I was in the christmas spirit, suckers!

Showoff.

 

[Nemesis6]

I have nothing to complain about this Christmas. I don't really need anything except peace of mind. I was wondering if I shouldn't have gone to church and see if they didn't have some kind of Christmas play or something. Or even if there wasn't, then just to watch the small children. .. Yeah I know, too creepy to joke about especially when involving churches. Anyway, it's been under reconstruction for about ? years, and I'm lazy. So with Christmas Radio on Winamp, I'm perfectly well here with my family. Ain't nothin' bad happened to me this Christmas.

Why visit a church? Well, it is kind of a nice building... except when you're at the top! :x -

 

[Cheomesh]

snip

I would likely get those cruiser types if I had to be stuck with a bike. I guess i could carry a few things in it.

You forgot to mention the disadvantage of bikes: Open air, less safe in a crash, and can't carry much of anything.

As for insurance, I thought bikes where equal to or more than cars? That might just be Allstate.

Also, it's never "Appropriate" to speed just because you're on a bike. You yourself mentioned accidents on that are a load more fatal. I'd rather crash at 60 than 100. Also, if you speed, you make the traffic cop have to mess with you. That's just jerkish.

 

[sinkoman]

I would likely get those cruiser types if I had to be stuck with a bike. I guess i could carry a few things in it.

You forgot to mention the disadvantage of bikes: Open air, less safe in a crash, and can't carry much of anything.

As for insurance, I thought bikes where equal to or more than cars? That might just be Allstate.

Also, it's never "Appropriate" to speed just because you're on a bike. You yourself mentioned accidents on that are a load more fatal. I'd rather crash at 60 than 100. Also, if you speed, you make the traffic cop have to mess with you. That's just jerkish.

Depends on the bike. I know some folks get somewhere around 50 USD a year for full coverage on dual sports, and i've heard of folks getting between 100-200 USD a year on a mid sized sport bike.

And it's not unheard of for people to outrun cops regularly on their midsized sport bikes. Of course, that's never recommended, but I know of some folks who've outrun the popo 4-5 times in their lifetime.

 

[repiV]

I would likely get those cruiser types if I had to be stuck with a bike. I guess i could carry a few things in it.

Don't see the point in cruisers. You pay a premium piece for a slow, heavy piece of shit with terrible performance.

You forgot to mention the disadvantage of bikes: Open air, less safe in a crash, and can't carry much of anything.

You said you didn't see the point of a bike. I told you.
The disadvantages are self-evident. It gets so cold in the winter you wouldn't believe, even when you're kitted up like a polar bear, but you still get there much quicker and frankly I'd rather be cold for a while than sit in traffic jams all evening.

As for insurance, I thought bikes where equal to or more than cars? That might just be Allstate.

Certainly not here in the UK. A crappy 1 litre car would cost me at least 1000 quid a year to insure third party, whereas I'm insured on my 600cc high performance bike for 450 quid a year. I could get insurance on a 125cc for a third of that amount, and it would still have faster acceleration than most cars on the road. I could insure an insurance group 20 bike (same IG as the fastest sportscars on the road) for 800 a year.
There's no reason why bikes should cost more to insure - they cause a lot less damage in an accident so there's a lot less that needs to be paid out for. In almost all cases, the only person that gets hurt in a bike accident is the rider, yet there are three passengers/pedestrians etc. killed for every driver killed in a car accident.
Frankly, I'm quite happy not to have that responsibility.

Also, it's never "Appropriate" to speed just because you're on a bike.

You've never ridden a bike, and so far as I can tell, you don't yet drive either, so you can't possibly make such a claim.
"Speeding" is such a ridiculous term anyway - the very suggestion that an arbitrary number on a sign could ever tell you the safe speed is idiotic and intellectually barren.
Most drivers just blindly follow the sign - they'll sit at 60 regardless of whether it's a wide open road or a narrow area with junctions bringing more traffic onto the road.
I, on the other hand, will slow down to 40 or so on approach to a junction, move out to the middle of the road and possibly weave to make myself more visible so that I don't get T-boned by joining traffic. As soon as the road opens up though, I'll whack open the throttle to whatever speed is appropriate to the road - anywhere up to 130, as the engine really starts to labour after that.
Needless to say, my approach is both much safer and much more intelligent than the "go everywhere at the speed limit" zombies - which is precisely the kind of brainless driving that excessive speed enforcement encourages.

You yourself mentioned accidents on that are a load more fatal. I'd rather crash at 60 than 100.

Good drivers/riders don't ask what would happen if they crash, they avoid crashing in the first place. Going faster does not automatically make you more likely to crash, and in many cases it can make you a lot less likely to have an accident.
On a bike this is especially important - any collision can be fatal, and since you come off a bike, rather than get trapped inside it, your fate largely depends on where you are thrown, how you fall and what you slide into. If you hit a car at 60, your chances of survival are minimal and you'll certainly be very seriously injured. If you fall off at 100 but don't hit anything as you slide, you'll probably walk away feeling sore in the morning. The damage caused in an accident is a completely irrelevant consideration, especially on a bike - and it's a dangerous mindset too, since it belies the attitude that accidents "just happen", when in fact they are all avoidable.

Also, if you speed, you make the traffic cop have to mess with you. That's just jerkish.

I break the speed limit by at least double on every single journey I make, and I've never been stopped. Fortunately, traffic cops tend to ignore speeding bikes that are well-ridden.

 

[Cheomesh]

I'd heard great things about cruiser performance. I could, however, be thinking of the wrong term. They're the more stable looking ones imo. Can also carry stuff, which is good.

 

[repiV]

I'd heard great things about cruiser performance. I could, however, be thinking of the wrong term. They're the more stable looking ones imo. Can also carry stuff, which is good.

Cruisers are bikes like Harley Davidsons. They're slow, inefficient and have an available lean angle so limited that you'd find the footboards grinding on the ground if you tried to take a corner at even a moderate speed.
All bikes can carry stuff, just some are better than others.

I have one of these:

It's a sports tourer, which is kind of a hybrid between a sportsbike and a touring bike. That's quite a broad definition, but this bike has a detuned sportsbike engine (so it provides more power throughout the rev range rather than having a wild rush at the top end), and a more upright seating position with concessions to comfort and practicality. It's kind of like a comfortable sportsbike really.
I use a tankbag for carrying stuff - it has magnets that attach it to the fuel tank, and you can also use a tailpack to strap luggage onto the back seat. A top box can attach to the grab rail at the back, and panniers can hold luggage either side of the bike.
Of course, any luggage you carry negatively affects the handling of the machine. A tank bag isn't too bad, but in very windy weather or at very high speeds it can act as a kind of sail, disrupting the aerodynamics of the bike and pulling it to one side in gusts of wind. Top boxes are especially bad for that. I prefer to ride without any luggage at all whenver possible, but if your concern is just to get somewhere with a load of stuff, there's no reason you can't do that.

This is the sportsbike it's derived from:

As you can see it's much more extreme - the riding position leaves you in a permanent racing crouch, the footpegs are much higher and the pillion seat is like a postage stamp. You can't really use a tankbag on these kinds of bikes, they get in the way, and the lightweight design of the rear makes carrying extra luggage a lot more difficult.
Given that a bike is not just a Sunday toy for me, I think these kinds of bikes are too extreme. I'd definitely get one as a second bike, but they're designed to be raced and not much else.
They're not the only option for fast bikes, though. Mine can still do 0-60 in 3.2 seconds, when you try it out for the first time the reaction is kinda like "holy ****!". Sometimes I like to stand up riding, it gives you a much greater appreciation of the sheer forces involved - you really have to lean forward when you accelerate and lean back when you brake, even gently. Seated and gripping the bars, you do get isolated from the sheer punch of acceleration and deceleration. A passenger is subjected to similar forces to when you stand up - they can fall off the back if they don't hold on properly. It's good to understand what it's like for them.

 

[Cheomesh]

http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/Detail.aspx?id=220

^^ That's what I was thinking of. Looks solid enough.

BTW what the hell is hanging off the back of the yellow bike?

 

[repiV]

http://www.kawasaki.com/Products/Detail.aspx?id=220

^^ That's what I was thinking of. Looks solid enough.

Ah right. That's a big sports tourer, though unlike my bike it's more tourer than sports. Those kinds of bikes are designed primarily for travelling long distances in comfort, and they take passengers very well.

BTW what the hell is hanging off the back of the yellow bike?

Numberplate and indicators. They have to be attached separately as the frame of the bike has nowhere to hold them - after all, it's just a race bike that's been adapted for road use. Race bikes don't have numberplates, indicators or mirrors.

 

[Cheomesh]

Well, it looks quite nice, the one I linked.

I've never been a fan of the Harley Davidson bikes. They look and sound stupid.

 

[ríomhaire]

I've only read the first page of this thread but you guys are all so depressing! At our house we didn't really "celebrate" Christmas, I don't really see what there is to celebrate unless you're talking about the religous side of things, but the whole family just stayed home and had a good time and talked had a great dinner.

 

[Zephos]

I laugh at how off-topic this thread has become.

Scoff, even.

 

[Cheomesh]

I've only read the first page of this thread but you guys are all so depressing! At our house we didn't really "celebrate" Christmas, I don't really see what there is to celebrate unless you're talking about the religous side of things, but the whole family just stayed home and had a good time and talked had a great dinner.

Nobody gave me a happy Yule message :|

 

[hungryduck]

at least you got to go to dennys.

 

[Raziaar]

I laugh at how off-topic this thread has become.

Scoff, even.

This thread was never even intended to go on this long. It was just supposed to be a one post, possibly one page thread.

I certainly don't think it has the capability of going off topic :thumbs: