What kind of car do you drive?

[Saturos]

High performance vehicles are safer because they give you the power to get out of trouble. You can control your own destiny on the road, whereas in a slow car you're at the mercy of everyone else to a far higher degree.
Plus, people who drive religiously by the speed limits are a liability on the road. "Hey look at me bitches, I'm doing a straight 70 the whole way. I'm so smug because I'm such an angel, hehehehehe OHSHITIMGONNAHITTHATGUYINFRONTCOSIWASLOOKNGATMYSPEEDONOTATTHEROAD!!!!!"

Personally, I use the performance of my bike to keep as far away as possible from other vehicles. Whenever possible, I don't want to be anywhere near any cars because they're a danger to my life and the whole area surrounding them is a potential "killzone".

Half of all motorcycle accidents occur on machines of 125cc capacity or less - they typically have a top speed of about 65mph. 1000cc bikes and above are involved in by far the smallest % of accidents, relative to their numbers as well as in absolute terms, and I can guarantee you now that anyone who rides a 1000cc sportsbike will take it up to over 150mph on a regular basis.

There's only one reason people will tell you that fast cars/bikes are dangerous - ignorance.

It's not the physical danger I'm talking about personally, it's the local law enforcement. I guess London cops aren't too strict when it comes to traffic violations eh? In some places over here in the States, they'll try to bust someone going 5 mph over the limit while issuing outrageous ticket citations. It's a real pain in the ass. Believe me. Also, motorbikers obviously do have a heighthened sense of awareness on the road. Motorbikers logic: two wheels + high speeds + no walls = :x That makes sense to me.

 

[repiV]

It's not the physical danger I'm talking about personally, it's the local law enforcement. I guess London cops aren't too strict when it comes to traffic violations eh? In some places over here in the States, they'll try to bust someone going 5 mph over the limit while issuing outrageous ticket citations. It's a real pain in the ass. Believe me. Also, motorbikers obviously do have a heighthened sense of awareness on the road. Motorbikers logic: two wheels + high speeds + no walls = :x That makes sense to me.

Broadly speaking, we have speed cameras instead of cops. The scameras will rape you for 5mph over the limit, but the cops are usually quite a bit more tolerant - and rare too, since they've been replaced to a large degree by the stupid cameras.
I've never driven a car, but from my observations they usually turn more of a blind eye to bikes speeding - it's pretty much expected. Some forces have a vendetta against bikes and will find any excuse to stop a biker and screw them over, but generally speaking, you can get away with a great deal more on a bike. When I used to commute through the city, I'd hit over 120mph at some points pretty much every day (highest speed limit on the route being 50) and I never got any trouble from the police. They seem to respect skilled riding - if you're riding like a twat, then they'll have you. As it should be.
Much higher sense of awareness yes - the average driver probably devotes 30% of their attention to the road, whereas any biker will be devoting 100% - and their sense of awareness will be much more attuned. Still, given the right car and driver, speed limits mean very little to cars either. But they are far less relevant to bikes.

 

[CyberPitz]

What's the point of fast sport/muscle cars anyways? Most governments and countries have speed limits on every highway, with exception to the autobahn in Germany. Not sure if it still exists though, but uber fast cars are pointless nonetheless imo. Am I the only person here that thinks this way about cars?

AutoX, Drag strips, etc? Why do people always put "Fast and powerful cars" with "Stupid, reckless, and irresponsible" in the same category?

 

[Qonfused]

Broadly speaking, we have speed cameras instead of cops. The scameras will rape you for 5mph over the limit, but the cops are usually quite a bit more tolerant - and rare too, since they've been replaced to a large degree by the stupid cameras.
I've never driven a car, but from my observations they usually turn more of a blind eye to bikes speeding - it's pretty much expected. Some forces have a vendetta against bikes and will find any excuse to stop a biker and screw them over, but generally speaking, you can get away with a great deal more on a bike. When I used to commute through the city, I'd hit over 120mph at some points pretty much every day (highest speed limit on the route being 50) and I never got any trouble from the police. They seem to respect skilled riding - if you're riding like a twat, then they'll have you. As it should be.
Much higher sense of awareness yes - the average driver probably devotes 30% of their attention to the road, whereas any biker will be devoting 100% - and their sense of awareness will be much more attuned. Still, given the right car and driver, speed limits mean very little to cars either. But they are far less relevant to bikes.

Do you really believe half of what you're saying? A part of me thinks you're just pulling all of our legs. "They respect skilled riding," oh God I lol'd. If a camera takes your picture, and they go to issue a citation, I'm sure one will say to the other: "No man, look at his posture. Don't give him a ticket, he's skilled." Before you state the obvious, yeah, I'm ignorant to speed, blah, blah whatever. Here in Michigan if you go anything above five over, you're getting a ticket. I don't care what anyone says is the "safe speed" for driving. A $150 ticket is worse than arriving 10 minutes earlier.

 

[repiV]

Or indeed "fast drivers" and "stupid, reckless and irresponsible" in the same category.

Safe and fast: Safe and fast

Suicidal

 

[repiV]

Do you really believe half of what you're saying? A part of me thinks you're just pulling all of our legs. "They respect skilled riding," oh God I lol'd. If a camera takes your picture, and they go to issue a citation, I'm sure one will say to the other: "No man, look at his posture. Don't give him a ticket, he's skilled." Before you state the obvious, yeah, I'm ignorant to speed, blah, blah whatever. Here in Michigan if you go anything above five over, you're getting a ticket. I don't care what anyone says is the "safe speed" for driving. A $150 ticket is worse than arriving 10 minutes earlier.

What? Where did I ever say anything about discretion from speed cameras? I said precisely the opposite.
I was talking about traffic cops.

 

[Qonfused]

Alright, my mistake. But do you say that these cameras are plentiful, yet you don't receive a nasty letter in the mail when you speed? Because it sounds like you speed a majority of the time.

 

[xcellerate]

I was talking about traffic cops.

They don't respect skill either...they'll pull you over for speeding, no matter how 'good' a drive you may think you are.

 

[repiV]

Alright, my mistake. But do you say that these cameras are plentiful, yet you don't receive a nasty letter in the mail when you speed? Because it sounds like you speed a majority of the time.

The cameras are easily visible and bright yellow, and accompanied by signs warning of their presence. They're nothing more than a dangerous distraction and a revenue collection exercise, you'd have to be an idiot to get flashed by one but whenever they're nearby it stops people from focusing on their driving. A travesty.

They don't respect skill either...they'll pull you over for speeding, no matter how 'good' a drive you may think you are.

Not here, they won't.

 

[Lucid]

A 1992 Oldsmobile 88, bought it used for $300.

But I've spent about 2 grand on fixing it and modernizing it a bit.

 

[CptStern]

I drive two vehicles ..one goes vroom vroom the other goes VROOM VROOM

 

[xcellerate]

Not here, they won't.

so you're saying if you pass a cop going 100mph in a (let's say) 70mph zone, the cop won't pull you over if you are skilled?

Well then I must ask...how exactly does the cop separate the skilled drivers from the non skilled?

Just because you can drive 100mph doesn't make you skilled, driving at 150mph or 170mph doesn't make you skilled either, because you can drive 100mph in a 35mph zone, or you can drive fast in the rain/snow, or because you haven't wrecked yet, or you can do a sweet burnout, or use the word 'apex' properly in a sentence doesn't mean you're skilled either.


Police are there to enforce the law, and the law doesn't NOT apply to 'skilled' drivers. I just think you're over exaggerating or a little delusional, or not explaining what you're talking about well enough.

 

[repiV]

so you're saying if you pass a cop going 100mph in a (let's say) 70mph zone, the cop won't pull you over if you are skilled?

There's a good chance of it. Pretty much everyone does 80-90 in 70 limits anyway, and on a few roads in the country pretty much all traffic is doing the ton.
It entirely depends on the cop, but usually if you're not posing a danger to anyone, they don't tend to care that much. But as I said, it's probably a little different with cars - bikes are expected to be travelling at warp factor 9. They also have the ability to go from 40mph to 120mph for a short straight stretch with no junctions and then slow back down to 40 in the blink of an eye, unlike cars, which tend to travel at roughly the same speed everywhere. Another key difference.
As long as you aren't blatantly taking the piss, you generally go unnoticed. The advanced riding organisations even teach you how to ride safely at well into three figure speeds.
You must appreciate that even a budget streetbike can do 60mph in first gear, and reach it in under four seconds - and stop even more quickly. They are designed to be ridden at their limits, unlike cars. The rules of the road are completely inappropriate for motorcycles, and the pragmatic elements over here realise that.

Well then I must ask...how exactly does the cop separate the skilled drivers from the non skilled?

Just because you can drive 100mph doesn't make you skilled, driving at 150mph or 170mph doesn't make you skilled either, because you can drive 100mph in a 35mph zone, or you can drive fast in the rain/snow, or because you haven't wrecked yet, or you can do a sweet burnout, or use the word 'apex' properly in a sentence doesn't mean you're skilled either.

What's your point? Driving at 100mph, or 170mph for that matter doesn't necessarily make you dangerous either. The moral of the story is, you can't measure safe driving in miles per hour and this obsession with speed is dangerous and misleading. It's an insignificant factor in the causes of real accidents, worsened by the obsession with adhering to speed limits which reduces peoples' ability to select a safe speed for the conditions.

Police are there to enforce the law, and the law doesn't NOT apply to 'skilled' drivers. I just think you're over exaggerating or a little delusional, or not explaining what you're talking about well enough.

I think I would know what I'm talking about, having first-hand experience of road traffic enforcement in my local area...?

 

[Saturos]

AutoX, Drag strips, etc? Why do people always put "Fast and powerful cars" with "Stupid, reckless, and irresponsible" in the same category?

Motorsports are an exception. Shouldn't that have been obvious? Having a fast sports car on public streets is not a valid excuse to drive like an idiot thereby putting other lives in danger. Emergency situations could be the only possible excuse, but nobody's likely to get to the hospital/fire in one piece anyways if they drive 120 mph+, no matter how good a driver they think they are.

 

[CyberPitz]

I've seen some pretty crazy things. Like when the cop should give the person a ticket, but they just end up talking about the car and stuff of that sorts. Makes me glad of the car I've got, since I get out of tickets just because cops like to talk about em.

*EDIT* And Saturos, there's that whole, "Since they have fast cars, they must act like stupid shits on the street and cause millions of accidents!" ignorant talk I was saying. That's the complete wrong idea to have towards people with fast cars, just because you don't approve of the idea. It's a very common item to have a fast car to daily drive while on the weekends/random times take it to the track and have fun. It's really not as uncommon as you apparently believe.

 

[repiV]

Motorsports are an exception. Shouldn't that have been obvious? Having a fast car on public streets is not an excuse to drive like an idiot thereby putting other lives in danger. Emergency situations could be the only possible excuse, but nobody's likely to get to the hospital/fire in one piece anyways if they drive 120 mph+, no matter how good a driver they think they are.

Only if they're shit drivers - which, to be fair, most people are. But that's besides the point.
Explain the Autobahn being twice as safe as US highways, and there being no appreciable difference in accident risk between the speed limited sections of the Autobahn and the unrestricted ones.

By FAR the biggest danger on the road is people not paying attention. Compared to that - which goes infinitely unnoticed by the authorities until the morons cause an accident - accidents caused by driving at 120+mph (virtually none) doesn't even factor.

 

[CptStern]

2 incidents in the same week ..guy in an suv rounding a corner too fast slams into a young couple with a stroller ..all are killed ..he drives off

a few days later an older couple are killed when a speeding car loses control and plows through the sidewalk

in my experience people know how to put their foot down making their vehicle go faster ..but that's the extent of their skill

 

[Saturos]

Only if they're shit drivers - which, to be fair, most people are. But that's besides the point.
Explain the Autobahn being twice as safe as US highways, and there being no appreciable difference in accident risk between the speed limited sections of the Autobahn and the unrestricted ones.

By FAR the biggest danger on the road is people not paying attention. Compared to that - which goes infinitely unnoticed by the authorities until the morons cause an accident - accidents caused by driving at 120+mph (virtually none) doesn't even factor.

True, to be fair, most accidents are caused at congested intersections, idiots running red lights and the such, but I heard recently that Germany plans to limit the autobahn because of the growing population and the greater likelyhood of traffic accidents caused from said growing population. More cars on the street = greater chance of automotive related accidents. Freeways that have constant flowing traffic usually have less accidents in general, except for drunk drivers and immature fools that think their Ford Mustang is capable of "The Fast and The Furious-esque" stunts just because it's fast.

2 incidents in the same week ..guy in an suv rounding a corner too fast slams into a young couple with a stroller ..all are killed ..he drives off

a few days later an older couple are killed when a speeding car loses control and plows through the sidewalk

in my experience people know how to put their foot down making their vehicle go faster ..but that's the extent of their skill

I totally agree with Stern too. :thumbs:

 

[repiV]

2 incidents in the same week ..guy in an suv rounding a corner too fast slams into a young couple with a stroller ..all are killed ..he drives off

How would speed limits help in that situation?
I crashed on a corner too, as you know, but that had to do with excessive lean angle rather than excessive speed. If I hadn't been hanging off the bike, the speed at which I exceeded the safe lean angle would have been about 45mph rather than 60, since hanging off the inside of the bike gives you significantly greater ground clearance.
Likewise, if I had stayed in the saddle, and gone round the corner at 45mph, the rear tyre would have been at equal risk of losing grip. And ground the footpegs on the tarmac at around 50.
Only training can prevent these kinds of accidents. And yes, pretty much every car driver has absolutely no idea how to go round a corner.

Incidentally, the speed limit on that road? 60mph.

a few days later an older couple are killed when a speeding car loses control and plows through the sidewalk

in my experience people know how to put their foot down making their vehicle go faster ..but that's the extent of their skill

I've never been endangered by people driving too quickly, but I've been nearly knocked off far too many times to remember by people just not looking where the **** they're going.
The fact is that people aren't taught how to drive properly. Personally it escapes me how there are so many car accidents, you'd have to be an idiot to cause an accident in a car under most circumstances. But it comes down to risk compensation - people think they're safe in a car and they pay less attention as a result. Result = accidents.

True, to be fair, most accidents are caused at congested intersections, idiots running red lights and the such, but I heard recently that Germany plans to limit the autobahn because of the growing population and the greater likelyhood of traffic accidents caused from said growing population. More cars on the street = greater chance of automotive related accidents.

They don't plan to - some green whacko suggested it and got widely shot down. Bit of a difference.
In any case, despite the dramatic increases in traffic density over the years, accidents and fatalities have fallen at the same dramatic rate. The UK is barely larger than Florida and we have 28 million cars on the road, but we also have some of the safest roads in the world. And they are far safer than they were 30 years ago, despite there being two and a half times as many cars on the road now.
Road safety policy (like all policy) should be based on facts, not assumptions and prejudices.

 

[AKIRA]

How would speed limits help in that situation?
I crashed on a corner too, as you know, but that had to do with excessive lean angle rather than excessive speed. If I hadn't been hanging off the bike, the speed at which I exceeded the safe lean angle would have been about 45mph rather than 60, since hanging off the inside of the bike gives you significantly greater ground clearance.
Likewise, if I had stayed in the saddle, and gone round the corner at 45mph, the rear tyre would have been at equal risk of losing grip. And ground the footpegs on the tarmac at around 50.
Only training can prevent these kinds of accidents. And yes, pretty much every car driver has absolutely no idea how to go round a corner.

Incidentally, the speed limit on that road? 60mph.



I've never been endangered by people driving too quickly, but I've been nearly knocked off far too many times to remember by people just not looking where the **** they're going.
The fact is that people aren't taught how to drive properly. Personally it escapes me how there are so many car accidents, you'd have to be an idiot to cause an accident in a car under most circumstances. But it comes down to risk compensation - people think they're safe in a car and they pay less attention as a result. Result = accidents.



They don't plan to - some green whacko suggested it and got widely shot down. Bit of a difference.
In any case, despite the dramatic increases in traffic density over the years, accidents and fatalities have fallen at the same dramatic rate. The UK is barely larger than Florida and we have 28 million cars on the road, but we also have some of the safest roads in the world. And they are far safer than they were 30 years ago, despite there being two and a half times as many cars on the road now.
Road safety policy (like all policy) should be based on facts, not assumptions and prejudices.

please, ive had enough of you going on and on about how you're some top gear host of a driver, and that everyone is a dumbass on the road.

Shit happens, accidents are caused by hundreds of different factors and usually speed is a big factor. More speed=less reaction time.

If you actually believe in what you're saying, then you should seriously stay off the road for your own safety, and others. Now, I agree that speed limits can cause some problems, but generally, they're there for a good reason.

 

[Cavalry]

yes, speed limit=traffic jam

speeding=

 

[repiV]

please, ive had enough of you going on and on about how you're some top gear host of a driver, and that everyone is a dumbass on the road.

What? I'm not a driver at all, I'm a biker.

And, as a biker, it is fundamental to my safety that I assume that everyone else on the road is trying to kill me. The majority of the people on the road are ****ing dumbasses, and being the type of road user who suffers the most from bad driving, I'm more than qualified to make that claim.
You would not survive a day without having an accident riding through heavy city traffic without anticipating the foolish actions of other road users. People almost killing you is a daily occurence on a bike in London.

Shit happens, accidents are caused by hundreds of different factors and usually speed is a big factor. More speed=less reaction time.

No, more speed does not = less reaction time. Reaction time is a combination of speed, distance, attention, anticipation and the handling and braking characteristics of the vehicle. Most people don't look any further ahead than the car in front of them when they're driving, and even then they're not really thinking about what they're doing - making their reaction times far higher than someone at twice the speed who is scanning all the way up to the horizon, keeping track of all factors and devoting absolute attention to the road.
I can shed 20mph off my speed in the space of a second - someone driving at 30mph who lets their attention wander for just two seconds will have the same reaction time as myself travelling at 70mph. Go figure.

If you actually believe in what you're saying, then you should seriously stay off the road for your own safety, and others. Now, I agree that speed limits can cause some problems, but generally, they're there for a good reason.

You talk crap. We all make mistakes, and I'll be paying for one of mine for the rest of my life, but that doesn't change the fact that my concepts of safe driving are the correct ones. I spend much of my spare time studying roadcraft, or just out on the road practising my riding for hours on end in all weather conditions, I ride with others and learn from them, I'm an associate member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists who do advanced examinations based on police riding techniques, and I am always improving on my riding. I take pride in it, as a hobby.
So what the hell do you do that qualifies you to make that judgement upon me? Have you done anything to actively improve your driving since you took your test?

 

[AKIRA]

What? I'm not a driver at all, I'm a biker.

And, as a biker, it is fundamental to my safety that I assume that everyone else on the road is trying to kill me. The majority of the people on the road are ****ing dumbasses, and being the type of road user who suffers the most from bad driving, I'm more than qualified to make that claim.
You would not survive a day without having an accident riding through heavy city traffic without anticipating the foolish actions of other road users. People almost killing you is a daily occurence on a bike in London.



No, more speed does not = less reaction time. Reaction time is a combination of speed, distance, attention, anticipation and the handling and braking characteristics of the vehicle. Most people don't look any further ahead than the car in front of them when they're driving, and even then they're not really thinking about what they're doing - making their reaction times far higher than someone at twice the speed who is scanning all the way up to the horizon, keeping track of all factors and devoting absolute attention to the road.
I can shed 20mph off my speed in the space of a second - someone driving at 30mph who lets their attention wander for just two seconds will have the same reaction time as myself travelling at 70mph. Go figure.



You talk crap. We all make mistakes, and I'll be paying for one of mine for the rest of my life, but that doesn't change the fact that my concepts of safe driving are the correct ones. I spend much of my spare time studying roadcraft, or just out on the road practising my riding for hours on end in all weather conditions, I ride with others and learn from them, I'm an associate member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists who do advanced examinations based on police riding techniques, and I am always improving on my riding. I take pride in it, as a hobby.
So what the hell do you do that qualifies you to make that judgement upon me? Have you done anything to actively improve your driving since you took your test?

let's clear some things up first.

a) you've never driven a car before in your life
b) yes, i can say i've never ridden a bike before (other than dirtbikes in some field) so i won't get into the mechanics of how to ride a bike.
c)You keep babbling on about how others drive, when you can't possibly know where they look or what they're doing when they're driving, unless you stare at people driving to see what they're doing and where they're looking which would make you a bad driver in doing so.

And yes, more speed DOES equal less reaction time. You are driving fast, and someone cuts you off suddenly..hmm oh right, if you're going 100km/h you'll have PLENTY of time to react and act accordingly...lol seriously man think about what you're saying.

And not everyone is in an Advanced Driving Society Club Where We're All Cocky Bastards Who Think Much Too Highly Of Ourselves, so enough with that garbage.

Point is, speed is a major factor in accidents, and cars are safer than bikes simply because you're enclosed, they have a crumple zone, and numerous safety features.

 

[Saturos]

And, as a biker, it is fundamental to my safety that I assume that everyone else on the road is trying to kill me.

My father is a biker too and he has said the exact same thing before!

No, more speed does not = less reaction time. Reaction time is a combination of speed, distance, attention, anticipation and the handling and braking characteristics of the vehicle.

I disagree to an extent here. I think your over-complicating things a bit really. Most of that stuff you mentioned the experts already assume. I can't really argue though since you seem to be an experienced biker, but ironically, didn't you wreck your bike recently? :dozey:

 

[repiV]

let's clear some things up first.

a) you've never driven a car before in your life

What's your point?
Riding a bike teaches you infinitely more about road safety than driving a car. I don't need to drive a car to know that.
If you rode a bike with even twice the same level of ability and awareness that the average person drives, you would be dead in short order. Riding demands expertise and finesse in all areas, without it you don't survive.
Bikes are inherently unstable machines, and require far more skill to operate because of this. They are frequently not seen in traffic, resulting in people pulling out on you or changing lanes right into you. They suffer far more than a car from bad road surfaces or bad weather conditions, and some of the most common and most fatal bike accidents are not even possible to have in a car.

b) yes, i can say i've never ridden a bike before (other than dirtbikes in some field) so i won't get into the mechanics of how to ride a bike.
c)You keep babbling on about how others drive, when you can't possibly know where they look or what they're doing when they're driving, unless you stare at people driving to see what they're doing and where they're looking which would make you a bad driver in doing so.

Of course I know where they look and what they do, it's a vital survival skill. I really don't think you understand the sheer extent of the things you need to be aware of when you're on a bike, perhaps you should learn to ride. I guarantee it will help your driving.
I keep track of every single vehicle around me, to one degree or another - both in front and behind. I mentally flag dodgy drivers, and I watch to see the cars with kids in the back, the drivers on mobiles, or chatting to passengers, and of course, when someone tries to drive into you because they didn't look or didn't see you were there, that's a dead giveaway that the driver doesn't know what they're doing.
As it is when they sit in the overtaking lane for miles on end, or tap the brakes all the way around a gentle bend.

And yes, more speed DOES equal less reaction time. You are driving fast, and someone cuts you off suddenly..hmm oh right, if you're going 100km/h you'll have PLENTY of time to react and act accordingly...lol seriously man think about what you're saying.

I am thinking about what I'm saying. It's you who isn't thinking. You think reaction time is all about speed, but it isn't. The key is in the term "reaction time" - it's about creating time to react. Speed is one of many factors that contribute to this, as such it is impossible to say that any one speed is safe and another is dangerous. It completely depends on the situation, and a speed limit is never an accurate judge of the safe speed.

And not everyone is in an Advanced Driving Society Club Where We're All Cocky Bastards Who Think Much Too Highly Of Ourselves, so enough with that garbage.

So you think taking further training is garbage? Why exactly should I take heed of your opinions in that case?
IAM tests are conducted exclusively by Police class 1 motorcyclists - they're the highest-trained riders in the entire world, and the IAM offers the highest standard of driver/rider training available to civilians.
I don't have a holier than thou attitude, but if you're going to personally attack me for your opinions, you better have a good ****ing reason. So far, you've demonstrated not only that you lack any qualifications to get personal, but that you actively shun learning beyond your test and thus I have no reason to listen to you at all.

Point is, speed is a major factor in accidents, and cars are safer than bikes simply because you're enclosed, they have a crumple zone, and numerous safety features.

Speed is not a major factor in accidents. According to the UK's own government statistics, excessive speed was a contributory factor in less than 5% of all accidents. Facts, not assumptions. Don't insult my intelligence.
Cars are safer for the occupants of the car, but they're far more dangerous to everyone else on the road than a bike. I don't see your point.

 

[repiV]

My father is a biker too and he has said the exact same thing before!

That's because it's true. 73% of all motorcycle accidents in the UK occur because another driver did not see the bike and pulled out into its path.

I disagree to an extent here. I think your over-complicating things a bit really. Most of that stuff you mentioned the experts already assume.

If you really want to reduce accidents, then you start by getting people to pay attention to what they're doing. Inattention is the leading cause of accidents, something like 39% IIRC. It inflates peoples reaction times far more than going a bit faster does, and ironically by forcing people to drive more slowly than they would normally choose to, you bore them and inattention is the result. So it's very possible, even likely, that slowing people down causes more accidents.

I can't really argue though since you seem to be an experienced biker, but ironically, didn't you wreck your bike recently? :dozey:

Yes I did, but I fail to see why that means I should chant the "speed kills" mantra. Far more useful is that I know exactly why the accident happened, and exactly how to avoid it happening again.
Furthermore, every rider wrecks their bike at some point, usually multiple times over the course of their riding career. It's much easier to crash a bike than it is to crash a car. Occupational hazard, if you will.

 

[Higlac]

I can't be bothered to read these ****ing long posts. But as for those pictures, how ****ing stupid do you have to be to hit a nonmoving object? And as for bikes, have you ever seen one talking on a cellphone or texting while driving? Those are the dangerous drivers, not the fast ones.

 

[Kula Meenur]

AKIRA, let's clear some of your shit up now my friend. let me put forward that i both ride and drive and have been doing so for some time.

c)You keep babbling on about how others drive, when you can't possibly know where they look or what they're doing when they're driving, unless you stare at people driving to see what they're doing and where they're looking which would make you a bad driver in doing so.

Any experienced rider knows that every other mother****er on the road is dangerous no matter who he or she is. That is why any good rider will tell you that when they ride, they make sure that they are always checking their surrounding vehicles, road tread and road layout every single second from when they hop on, to when they take their balls off the tank. The fact with your above statment is that it is true. You do have to constantly look at and through other peoples car windows to see what they are going to do. I cannot profess how often this has saved my life. What you actually check for as a rider is the hand moving to the indercator of a driver, or their hand placement on the wheel or their head if they're going to move into another lane.

Repiv sounds to me like he knows what he is doing, so i think he would know this.

The amount of times i have barped my horn at some inattentive shit on the freeway is uncountable, the amount of times i would have been wiped out and flattened if i had done otherwise is the same. I barp because i, as a rider, see them moving to do something they would not have done if they had seen me first.

Plainly put, shut up cause you are way outta your league. As a biker, people dont see you because of a huge amount of reasons (inattentiveness, tiredness, laziness) which puts the fact forward, as a biker you always need to have your wits about you or somebody will kill you. that is a definite.

Point is, speed is a major factor in accidents, and cars are safer than bikes simply because you're enclosed, they have a crumple zone, and numerous safety features.

True mate, resulting in an unbelievably high amount of fatalities even in Perth, but speed on my bike also get's me out of trouble nine times out of ten. After a set of lights after i check the intersection is clear of stupid mother****ers who race the lights, i always stay at the head of the pack moving off. Never inbetween cars or in "the convoy". Chances of survival based on those around you are always better for you at the head of a pack rather than not on a bike.

Truth is yes, bikes are far greater unsafe than that of cars but a good biker accounts for that and always acts accordingly.

 

[Parrot of doom]

yes, speed limit=traffic jam

speeding=

Speed limits didn't do much for them.

 

[Kaptain H]

I drive a 2003 Mitsubishi Diamante. I've seen, like...two others on the road before. Mine is orange-red.

And just for the record, being a passenger in a car with a guy under 25 who thinks he's an awesome driver is almost guaranteed to be a terrifying experience.

 

[Kula Meenur]

Oh yeah, this is my baby--->

My Honda VTR250 V2. I used to have a 750FirebladeRX but this was my brothers. Also, the red piece of shit in the background is a 1994 1.5l Nissan Pulsar TI and i drive that too, but only as a people mover. Been riding since i was 11

Shot with Nokia 6500s 3.2mp Carl Zeiss Tessar 4.5 at 2008-01-09




This is my other baby

Shot with Nokia 6500s 3.2mp Carl Zeiss Tessar 4.5 at 2008-02-01

 

[repiV]

Oh yeah, this is my baby--->

My Honda VTR250 V2. I used to have a 750FirebladeRX but this was my brothers. Also, the red piece of shit in the background is a 1994 1.5l Nissan Pulsar TI and i drive that too, but only as a people mover. Been riding since i was 11

Sweet. I would be tempted by a naked bike myself if I didn't do so much long-distance riding, would love a Triumph Street Triple.

I've got an '02 Yamaha FZS600. I love it because it has most of the performance of a sportsbike, without any of the disadvantages. Could use maybe another 15-20bhp, but other than that it's pretty much the perfect bike.

 

[AKIRA]

i hate "chopper" bikes. They look really tacky and ugly and they probably suck with performance. I like the look of street bikes, like the ones the japanese make. They look, sleek, modern and fast and im sure they can destroy and "chopper" in terms of speed and maneuverability.

 

[Kula Meenur]

I've got an '02 Yamaha FZS600. I love it because it has most of the performance of a sportsbike, without any of the disadvantages. Could use maybe another 15-20bhp, but other than that it's pretty much the perfect bike.

Joy mate, she looks up and high slung, how does she handle? Yeah, you get used to riding without a fairing after a while especially after switching from a full faired to a nakie, but i like the way you can really put your knees behind a naked in comparison to a full faired. Only bad thing about the VTR is that it tends to wear your calve muscles out after around 120k, and i'm a pretty fit bloke!

How goes the FZS on medium to long journey's, you done much travelling on?

 

[repiV]

i hate "chopper" bikes. They look really tacky and ugly and they probably suck with performance. I like the look of street bikes, like the ones the japanese make. They look, sleek, modern and fast and im sure they can destroy and "chopper" in terms of speed and maneuverability.

Yep. Harley-Davidsons and other cruisers are shit, you pay a premium price for a slowass unreliable machine that can't take corners.
The Harleys they're pumping out now and flogging for 15 grand are virtually the same bikes they were making 40 years ago.

 

[Maria Flores]

This is my other baby

1 Epic scar is epic.
2 I'm sure she appreciates you posting pics of her on the internets.

How much is one of those worth, repiV?

 

[Kula Meenur]

:upstare: Concur repiv, sidebangers like harley's and overworked madison's are a waste of time. In perth there's this chick that skoots round without a helmet on a 1944 triumph making a hell of a noise.

I don't really understand the meaning behind riding a bike that'll make you get tinnitus at 30. Honestly, you temporarily lose your hearing after an hour even with ear plugs and the ****ing vibrations make it a hugely uncomfortable ride for long journey's.

1 Epic scar is epic.

That's her hair you fool, we were at the beach!!!

 

[Qonfused]

The point of a chopper is to be loud, gaudy and old.

 

[repiV]

Joy mate, she looks up and high slung, how does she handle?

Great handling, imo. Very flickable. It's not light and flickable like an R6 is, but it's no slouch. And the upright riding position means you don't get crippled after half an hour's riding and it's much easier in traffic.
Of course, you can't crank it over as far as a sportsbike because the pegs are lower down, but frankly if you max out the cornering potential of a sportsbike on the road you've got a deathwish anyway so it's only really an issue on track. The pegs can grind if you're riding in a spirited fashion and you don't hang off, but it's not a major issue.

Yeah, you get used to riding without a fairing after a while especially after switching from a full faired to a nakie, but i like the way you can really put your knees behind a naked in comparison to a full faired. Only bad thing about the VTR is that it tends to wear your calve muscles out after around 120k, and i'm a pretty fit bloke!

I rode a Bandit 650 for a while (insurance bike), I found it really hard work. Almost impossible to ride properly over 80mph, and could be hard work even at 60 on windier days - it just doesn't want to stay in a straight line, and the windroar is ferocious.
Perfect city commuter bike though, it did that job perfectly.
I wish it were possible to have the aerodynamics of a sportsbike without the uncomfortable riding position, they really are a dream for high-speed cruising.

How goes the FZS on medium to long journey's, you done much travelling on?

I haven't done anything I'd class as touring, though I'm planning to do a cross-Europe trip this summer. I do frequently make the 200 mile journey from here to Devon though, as my best friend lives there, and I'm quite happy to press on the whole way besides the necessary fuel stop.
It does nearly 200 miles to a tank, which is handy. The only problem really is that for my tastes it doesn't have quite enough power, the engine really starts to labour above 120mph which isn't a problem under most circumstances, but the route is just open road almost devoid of traffic and junctions the whole way, it will do 140 but you wouldn't want to for any length of time.
It loses a lot of power and handling capabilities when you load it up too, I guess you really need a thou to take passengers without making sacrifices.
It's ideal for me though, I use it for mad blasts, everyday riding and long distance and it's brilliant at all three.

 

[repiV]

How much is one of those worth, repiV?

They stopped making them in 2003, but at the time they cost a shade under 5000GBP new.
I got mine for 1250, but it was worth about 2000 really. He sold it cheap because it had some minor crash damage that was easily fixed.
Other than that, mint condition - only 13,000 miles, ran like a dream.

:upstare: Concur repiv, sidebangers like harley's and overworked madison's are a waste of time. In perth there's this chick that skoots round without a helmet on a 1944 triumph making a hell of a noise.

I don't really understand the meaning behind riding a bike that'll make you get tinnitus at 30. Honestly, you temporarily lose your hearing after an hour even with ear plugs and the ****ing vibrations make it a hugely uncomfortable ride for long journey's.

I don't like anything about them - the bikes are horrendous and the subculture is pathetic. It's hilarious, you get these Harley meets and they load the Harley into the pickup truck, drive to the meet, unload the Harley and stand around talking about it. I mean, what the hell is that all about?
Harley survive by selling a prepackaged "lifestyle" for unthinking automatons, whereas other manufacturers focus on making good bikes.
I wouldn't spend 500 quid on one of those pieces of shit, I don't understand why someone would pay the asking price for them.

Plus, Harley riders, almost without exception, consider themselves to be "above" other bikers - they never acknowledge anyone except other Harley riders. And they all wear the same uniform - tatty jeans, ridiculous casual leather jacket that provides next to no actual crash protection, piss pot for a helmet and oversized shades.
About the only plus side in all this is that they tend to have a much higher life expectancy than sportsbike riders.