Speaking of bikes, i agree with some of your points. But it all depends on who is riding it, how they are riding it, and how much self control they have. But all this is just common sense... everyone knows if you an idiot on a bike, you are more likely to have an accident regardless of what you ride, and if you are safe and vigilant it doesn't mean you are more likely to have accident on a bigger bike. So it's all relative.
Also, the statement that a smaller bike is safeer going 60kmh than bigger bike in 100kmh is irrelevant... and also relative. You can't apply this in general, because different people will be choosing bikes to fit their style of riding, trip conditions, different types of terrain, speed etc. You can't say that it's better to ride a small scooter every day on a freeway, than a big visible and louder bike. But then, a scooter may be safer option riding on metropolitan roads. So you just can't generalise here and provide an universal answer and say one is better than the other. In fact if you look up bike safety references, the most important thing is the gear and training.

I do disagree what you said about the 9 months experience. Given that most riders I know do not regularly commute with their bikes, and use them for leisure and weekend touring, I believe that most riders do not ride every day. So in one year a non regular rider would have covered WAY less hours on the bike than the one riding every day (as well as weekend touring) - giving him way longer exposure to different weather and traffic conditions - hence experience.

i think by the end of this thread we'll be launching each other's kites...
there are less disagreeable things in each reply.

And hence since the laws are based on average ****heads who do what you said, then even innocent have to suffer... which is why some of them choose to bend the rules every once in a while to adjust the balance in the universe.

jev7337 said...

Saffer said...

A 600cc bike and a 50cc scooter will handle exactly the same way when they hit a wet tram track, but I'm willing to bet the 600cc bike will result in a worse injury because the guy riding it will be going faster.

I like talking bikes but have to disagree with you. A larger bike will be much safer than a scooter, due to the difference in wheel size. The larger the wheels the easier it is to handle the bike, up to a certain size of course. Scooters with those small wheels are just not made to go over 80km/h.
Hitting the tram track with 60km/h on any decent bike will be no issue but doing the same on a scooter will definitely feel much wobblier.
But I guess that’s not the point of this thread, that’s right - the point is HTFU

I said hitting a wet tram track...both will slide like you just slept on the wet spot.

I'm not saying the laws are perfect, but I am telling you the speeding ones are justified. I'm loving the whole "I can drive a car/bike at 130km/h and still be safe" attitude displayed from a lot of people on this thread. It shows the arrogance of most male drivers and gives a classic example of why women have lower accident statistics, they don't ever estimate their own abilities. Wanna know why self governance in kiting doesn't work? Because every guy on the water also over estimates his ability to jump near hard objects, swimmers etc.

Uh-huh. Kindof an arrogant viewpoint don't you think
In any case, I don't recognise your authority to tell me anything :

No, I'm not capable of safely driving a car down a busy suburban street at 130kmh. I'm quite capable of driving it safely at that speed in the a$$ end of nowhere on an empty freeway, and have done for many years, perfectly legally on busier roads without any incident (not in this country).
Equally I'd be a damn sight more dangerous driving past a school at 30 looking at the speedo than 40 looking out the window. Speed is just a small part of the picture, and the limit an arbitrary number set by someone.

Or, perhaps I could compare the posters found near many roads: "Only a little bit over? You bloody idiot". Could equally be "Only a little bit under? You bloody idiot", could it not?

You've never seen a young kid do something spontaneous? guess what, they do! You can be walking next to a 7 year old, and they'll decide to sprint towards something random at the time you least expect it or before you have a chance to stop them. I don't even have kids and I know that.

I agree that parents should take responsibility for kids, but there are times when kids do stupid things.

When I couldn't be trusted to behave next to a road, I was on toddler reins. When I got older I had to hold a parent's hand. It was drummed into me that roads were dangerous and not to be messed with. I did not do stupid things with roads - it's called parenting.

You know what you know, and are quite right in that respect, precisely because discipline isn't fashionable, and the majority of the little **** do exactly what they please. It's not unavoidable. It's largely there because they mimc the example of their parents who also think that everything bad that happens is someone elses's fault, and make excuses rather than fronting up, taking responsibility (or even HTFU), and getting on with it.

P.S. I don't kite close to the beach either - that silly R word again..

mark1234 said...

I'm not saying the laws are perfect, but I am telling you the speeding ones are justified. I'm loving the whole "I can drive a car/bike at 130km/h and still be safe" attitude displayed from a lot of people on this thread. It shows the arrogance of most male drivers and gives a classic example of why women have lower accident statistics, they don't ever estimate their own abilities. Wanna know why self governance in kiting doesn't work? Because every guy on the water also over estimates his ability to jump near hard objects, swimmers etc.

Uh-huh. Kindof an arrogant viewpoint don't you think
In any case, I don't recognise your authority to tell me anything :

No, I'm not capable of safely driving a car down a busy suburban street at 130kmh. I'm quite capable of driving it safely at that speed in the a$$ end of nowhere on an empty freeway, and have done for many years, perfectly legally on busier roads without any incident (not in this country).
Equally I'd be a damn sight more dangerous driving past a school at 30 looking at the speedo than 40 looking out the window. Speed is just a small part of the picture, and the limit an arbitrary number set by someone.

Or, perhaps I could compare the posters found near many roads: "Only a little bit over? You bloody idiot". Could equally be "Only a little bit under? You bloody idiot", could it not?

You've never seen a young kid do something spontaneous? guess what, they do! You can be walking next to a 7 year old, and they'll decide to sprint towards something random at the time you least expect it or before you have a chance to stop them. I don't even have kids and I know that.

I agree that parents should take responsibility for kids, but there are times when kids do stupid things.

When I couldn't be trusted to behave next to a road, I was on toddler reins. When I got older I had to hold a parent's hand. It was drummed into me that roads were dangerous and not to be messed with. I did not do stupid things with roads - it's called parenting.

You know what you know, and are quite right in that respect, precisely because discipline isn't fashionable, and the majority of the little **** do exactly what they please. It's not unavoidable. It's largely there because they mimc the example of their parents who also think that everything bad that happens is someone elses's fault, and make excuses rather than fronting up, taking responsibility (or even HTFU), and getting on with it.

P.S. I don't kite close to the beach either - that silly R word again..

You don't have to recognise me as an authority, the law is already there and you definitely aren't going to increase it in the near future. Speed does kill, your chances of having an accident and the risk of dying increase with the speed you travel. You can blame it on old blind people, kids or whatever you want, but its there and its been proven.

You can also claim you're safer on a quiet road travelling at 130, but isn't it ironic how often head on collisions happen on quiet roads? Next time you see a head on collision in the newspaper, check out the details of where it happened, and I'm willing to bet its on a quiet road...

I said it before and I'll say it again, if you have to watch your speedo constantly to make sure you are travelling 40 or 60, then you should be on a P plate or an L plate. You look down once to get your speed bearings and then you are set...

Incidentally, you bring up issues with parents not fronting up to their mistakes but isn't this post about exactly that? not fronting up to your mistakes? People blaming the law for the fact that they are going too fast?

Nope, it's been proven to your satisfaction - there's a difference.

To quote an old saying "lies, damn lies and statistics". Speed kills is an arguament that's purile in it's oversimplicity. If you apply the same logic, you should travel less because that increases the chance of an accident - "leaving the house kills"; you may get injured kiting, ergo "kiting kills", etc.

And I did say *freeway* i.e. big road, central margin, separated traffic. Head on's are rather rare on those. Nor did I suggest it's always safe to travel at that speed. like everything in life, 'it depends'. I'd also sumbit that there are times when it's positively homocidal to travel at the posted limit...

You're obviously better than the average melbourne driver who seems unable to see past the end of their nose - I completely agree you should be able to. I'm merely making the point that speed ain't the whole story - an attentive driver is still safer than an inattentive one, to hell with the speed they're going at.

And no, I don't think so - this post was about silly cotton-wool wrapping laws, which includes *some* (not all) speed limits - that was a small part of the original post. The apologists/speed kills brigade seem to have seized upon one small aspect of this to turn it into a speed kills therefore if you ever exceed the limit you may as well eat babies kindof arguament.

We could turn this into a debate on the nature of power (the authoritarian kind), which would be far more interesting than speeding. But let's just say the world exists in shades of grey - those that see black and white (in any arguament) are generally dangerous :)

Right oh.. You're entitled to your opinion.