Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

Just take off yer plates. Problem solved

red_dave wrote:

aardvark wrote:

dutchy wrote:Oh shit...here we go again. Lets have a massive back and fourth about speeding.

How about we hijack and discuss this instead

http://www.funnymos.com/wife-on-terrori ... l#more-523

Or we could try doing like we are doing now and have a debate where everyone is entitled to their opinion, without the need to resort to offensive name calling.

Except Dave inferred I was inconsiderate.

I called the act "not courteous"... I have other names for you

You should see the carnage that happens when someone is doing 7km/h under the speed limit in morning traffic on Parramatta road.

When the fuck in the morning can you do 7km/h under the speed limit. I would be happy if you could do 30km/h under the speed limit on that piece of shit road in peak hour.

I think Aardvark has said it already, no one is forcing you to speed, it is called the speed limit not the minimum.

The very reasons that give us the shits about people going to slow is that they believe it is their right to do so, which it is, but is also called be an arsehole when you are the only one on the road and are clearly holding up others who may choose to break the law. But that has nothing to do with speeding and getting caught that is an attitude to driving.

I don't have an issue with police enforcing the speed limit with any means at their disposal, don't care if the tolerance is 0, no point having a law that isn't enforced

Naked Twin wrote: I don't have an issue with police enforcing the speed limit with any means at their disposal, don't care if the tolerance is 0, no point having a law that isn't enforced

Refresh my memory. What is the point of this law again?

Unfortunately due the large range or people in this world and being a democracy where we don't want to leave people behind, we need to have rules that meant to cater for the majority, those rules/ law whether we like it or not bring order.

Ever seen what happens when there no lines marked for a que, it is anarchy people are sheep and need to follow rules. We may argue the effectiveness of some and whether they are appropriate, but there is no point having enforcement officers if they can't enforce them. It is a bit like the people who complain about parking tickets, sure when you want a spot and there isn't one due to someone overstaying we want them moved, but when it is us who has overstayed and we get a ticket well burn them officers at the stake.

Yes there are some officers of the law that are turds, that percentage is probably reflective of the general population.

I read a paper on people's behaviour (part of a selling management course) where it showed that those who most opposed the rules and enforcers of such rules when given the chance to be the enforcer were the least empathetic/ considerate and much more vigilant than those who don't oppose the rules. Would be interesting to see if such liberal ideas would be applied by those who so oppose the enforcement.

In short speed, don't speed but don't bitch when we get caught.

Perhaps we have 2 different issues here. On the one hand enforcement of a law with 0 tolerance (that's the "if you don't speed you won't get caught" argument, and the "screw you if you want to travel at 100 in a 100 zone and I want to drive in front of you at 60" argument). On the other hand, we have speed limits being constantly dropped to what many consider unnecessarily and unrealistically low speeds. Why was 110 safe on one side of the SA/Vic border but unsafe and illegal on the other? If crashes on the Black Spur were due to vehicles breaking the speed limit when it was 100, why should dropping the speed limit to 80 make the road safer? And (gaining momentum but losing focus) why do the police now claim repeatedly on tabloid TV (ACA please raise your hand) that it is inherently unsafe to overtake across a single white line when up until November 2009 it was legal in Victoria? Even the VicRoads website acknowledged that the change was made to make road laws uniform between the states and was not driven by road safety (though interestingly that web page has been removed when I just checked). Were cars less safe in Jan 2010 than they were in October 2009? Were drivers suddenly less competent?

I think most of us would agree that if you do 100 in a 40 zone you're a dickhead. However, most of us would also feel that doing 101 in a 100 zone, or 111 in a 110 zone is not and should not be treated as a dangerous offence. The law should not be there simply to give the police something to do, or to provide increased revenue for cash-starved governments. Exceeding the speed limit by less than 1% for a fraction of a second should not be penalised because it is not any more dangerous than the inherent dangers in travelling at 100 or 110.

I reckon.

What happens when you change your tyre profile.? Doesn't that alter your road speed reading on your speedo.?

Ah, but that would be your fault. If you change from OEM, that's your responsibility . What's the percentage circumference change in a profile change on a front tyre? I worked it out once on a (really) boring ride on some really straight roads. Circumference = 2 pi r, so on a 17 inch wheel with a 120 vs 130 profile... oh screw it. Someone else can do the maths

aardvark wrote:I dont intentionally piss other people off. I drive at a speed I feel comfortable diving at that just happens to be below the limit. The speedo in my car is out by about 7km/h at 60. Knowing this, I sit on 60 in a 60 zone knowing I will be safe from the prying lens of a speed camera. If other drivers are annoyed at having to sit 7km/h under the speed limit, then stiff shit. I will not be pressured by anyone to travel at a faster speed because they are in a hurry!

That's a bit arrogant and disruptive to traffic flow IMO, but unfortunately your not alone. Today there are as many people driving 7 k's or less below the limit as there are people doing 7 k's or more over the limit. This may not be a big issue in 60k areas, but in 100k areas, I reckon it's dangerous.........

I can almost tollerate people going under the limit, but why in the hell do they speed up when there is an opportunity for me to pass them

aardvark wrote:

Phil wrote: So its OK to intentionally piss other road users off Wow, sound like a form of road rage if you ask me.

I dont intentionally piss other people off. I drive at a speed I feel comfortable diving at that just happens to be below the limit. The speedo in my car is out by about 7km/h at 60. Knowing this, I sit on 60 in a 60 zone knowing I will be safe from the prying lens of a speed camera. If other drivers are annoyed at having to sit 7km/h under the speed limit, then stiff shit. I will not be pressured by anyone to travel at a faster speed because they are in a hurry!

So, knowing your speedo is 7 km/h out, why not sit on 65 km/h ? You would still be under the limit in a 60 zone by 2 km/h, piss off far less following motorists,
and still be safe from speed cameras ..... and not encourage said following motorists into an unsafe overtaking manouvre because they ARE pissed off ?

Or is your post a deliberate attempt to inflame the debate ?

photomike666 wrote:However, the grubbyment would lose millions.

They would lose millions, absolutely. And unfortunately, whether we like it or not, those millions is what pays for hospitals, roads, the GG's flower bill, politicians flights to the Bahamas etc. Maybe we should do away with speed cameras and go back to the way we used to collect extra money when it was needed..... conquer and pillage!

red_dave wrote:I called the act "not courteous"... I have other names for you

Yes, but you promised we'd only use those in the bedroom. Please stick to your side of the bargain.

6maniac wrote:Or is your post a deliberate attempt to inflame the debate ?

Nope, it's the way I drive. I'm not encouraging anyone into performing an unsafe overtaking maneuver. If they can't get around me safely or find an alternative route with such a minor discrepancy in the speed, perhaps they should hand in their licence?

6maniac wrote:So, knowing your speedo is 7 km/h out, why not sit on 65 km/h ? You would still be under the limit in a 60 zone by 2 km/h

Because I choose to sit at about 7km/h under.

aardvark wrote:

6maniac wrote:Or is your post a deliberate attempt to inflame the debate ?

Nope, it's the way I drive. I'm not encouraging anyone into performing an unsafe overtaking maneuver. If they can't get around me safely or find an alternative route with such a minor discrepancy in the speed,

12% is hardly a "minor discrepancy" ...... if your water/electricity/phone/gas bill was out by that much, you would be more than irritated.

Or the radar gun being used ......

I love you jase

aardvark wrote:Because I choose to sit at about 7km/h under.

Me too, but only when I have warrants

In my opinion if you don't feel comfortable sitting on the speed limit then perhaps driving is not for you, or some more driver training is required.

When I went for my driving test the Rta judged me on my ability to maintain the speed limit and move into gaps without. Disturbing traffic flow. Thus promoting flowing traffic.

Driving is seen as a right and I feel that is wrong. Some people just can't drive and shouldn't. However rather then handing in their license and finding another form of transport they upset the larger community because they have the narrow minded view that it is their right to drive and everyone else can get stuffed.

Blurr wrote:In my opinion if you don't feel comfortable sitting on the speed limit then perhaps driving is not for you, or some more driver training is required.

I feel very comfortable sitting on the speed limit. I also feel relatively comfortable exceeding the speed limit by quite a margin in the right circumstances. I just choose to drive under it.