Speed limiters for Sportsbikes?

Ratmick · Post by **Ratmick** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:12 pm

...if you live in the UK and proposed legistation comes to pass then Sportsbikes may be limited to 65mph

.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070329/od_ ... bikes_dc_1

Bunch of nuff-nuffs...NFI

.

Neka79 · Post by **Neka79** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:23 pm

so they gunna limit cars too??

wankers... that would be SUPER handy for if u took ur bike to the track...

varden · Post by **varden** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:06 am

Get your insanely powerful and sensibly restricted to 300kph superbike now before the nanny state has you stuttering on the end of your 65mph speed limiter as that truck mows you down.

photomike666 · Post by **photomike666** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:47 am

It would be dangerous for motorcyclists to be restricted to 65mph when the limit on their motorways is 70mph!

I see it as yet another case of over legislation, and to an extent, discrimination.

stevew_zzr · Post by **stevew_zzr** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:51 am

Great now we are gunna get more immigrants like Rossi...

*sigh*

mick_dundee · Post by **mick_dundee** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:12 pm

And photomike, Ronster, HalfEmpty1 and shit knows how many other poms...

balanse · Post by **balanse** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:30 pm

Being an idea of the bureaucrats it will probably just be 124 teeth rear sprockets.

Then we will get lead weight on the front wheel to stop the inadvertent wheelstands.

Then mandatory steering dampers to stop people being killed by death wobbles.

Then govt. gym assistance handouts for first time motorcyclists to help them build arm muscles so they can turn the front wheel.

Then someone with no arms will sue a motorcycle manufacturer for making a vehicle that requires big strong arms and discriminating.

Then...

Daisy · Post by **Daisy** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:47 pm

Where did it say 65 mph? Anyway, a bureaucrat who tried to get that through would be sacked in no time. Common sense would have it set at 50% more than the speed limit - so they can still get their revenue.

MiG · Post by **MiG** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:53 pm

Fuck I hate the world (even though the actual words were "...he could not see why anyone needed a bike with a top speed of more than 65 mph.")

JetPilot · Post by **JetPilot** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:53 pm

Daisy wrote:Where did it say 65 mph? Anyway, a bureaucrat who tried to get that through would be sacked in no time. Common sense would have it set at 50% more than the speed limit - so they can still get their revenue.

Thats a good point....

Tenoq · Post by **Tenoq** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:58 pm

Daisy wrote:Where did it say 65 mph? Anyway, a bureaucrat who tried to get that through would be sacked in no time. Common sense would have it set at 50% more than the speed limit - so they can still get their revenue.

What did you say? Increase speed limits by 50%? Brilliant idea, Daisy!

Seconded!

Saki · Post by **Saki** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:19 pm

The issue is wether a bike can do 300kp/h, that isn't the reason people are dying left right and centre on a bike,
the real issue is the other road users!

The stat might drop a tiny bit if they do restrict the bikes to only 65mp/h, but even still all the car drivers will still be day dreaming when they get in there car and still not looking or paying any attention and hitting cyclists.
Regardless of a bike ebing able to do 300 or not.

It would b interesting to see those stats and how many where involved with the speed and how many where involved with other vehicles!

Plus if this law came into play, wats the say they won't just throw out the stocko 65mp/h ECU and replace it with an aftermarket unit so there bike will just do top speed again ??

who ever thought up this idea is a tard

I-K · Post by **I-K** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:23 pm

Saki wrote:It would b interesting to see those stats and how many where involved with the speed and how many where involved with other vehicles!

The trustworthier of the stats point to about two thirds of all serious motorcycle accidents being single-vehicle crashes. How much of that is people going down on gravel, big corrugations or oil is open to interpretation...

stevew_zzr · Post by **stevew_zzr** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:37 pm

drive offs could be a factor as well in that statistic. problem with road statistics is that ithey are typically an observational study, and are always biased by variables that aren't measured or data that's unavailable.

As much as people like to hold their crank about their freedoms, I imagine being forced to go 65mph tops would probably save quite a few lives. People should be better informed and should CHOOSE to go slower on the roads, not be forced to. How to go about that, and what to do about the people who choose not to go so slowly is a complicated moral discussion.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the current system of enforcement, it should be a little less narrow and should focus more on penalising poor driving behaviour and attitudes rather than focusisng on about two simple measurable indicators of such (like speeding and blood alcohol level). But the current system of driver and rider education i think is woeful.

Shifty · Post by **Shifty** » Sun Apr 01, 2007 2:18 pm

I saw a motorcycle travelling from the Sunshine Coast to Brisbane today at about 140km/h. I don't believe the guy was riding at all dangerously, but for half the ride (110km/h zone) he'd have lost 6 points and the other half (100km/h zone - interestingly being a better road surface and double the number of lanes than the higher-zoned area) he'd have had an instant suspension for a minimum of 6 months.

Over the next 10 years penalties will be continually revised to a point where being over by 15km/h or more will be instant loss of license... I can't see blanket-ban limiters being introduced.