If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
General SportbikesThis area is made for sportbikes in general. Posts that dont really belong anywhere else besides here. Questions can be answered and addressed to fully understand certain aspects. If your question is Manufacturer specific please post it there.
So maybe the real way to fix the problem is to raise the speed limits on highways but also make the fines for going over the speed limits much steeper.
Haven't we already been trough this? Not sure how many remember the double nickel?
It's probably safe to assume that passing another vehicle at 30 mph over the speed limit while the other vehicle is driving under the speed limit (that IS why you're passing, right?) would not be considered safe, so why would they accommodate that scenario? And speed limits are speed limits... they don't allow a greater speed limit for passing, or at least that is how we were instructed in driver's ed back in the day.
A person should pass any vehicle as quickly and safetly as possible, most motorycle accidents are caused from a car turning left in front of the bike. Simply becouse there is a blindspot there, so the longer you stay in that blind spot the longer you increase your risk of eating the side window.
Now passing a truck and trailer ESPECIALLY should be done quickly, the vast majority of Non commercial drivers hauling have zero idea what they are doing with a truck and a trailer, most haul past safe speeds which can cause the trailer to "whip" as well as yanking the steering wheel when they start to drift. Most people also do not know how to use there mirrors.
On a semi the biggest reason to pass is becouse of a possible blow outs, which happen all the time even with new tires, and being slammed with a tread will mess up your day on a bike I guarentee it, second reason is a trucker has alot larger area than anyone else to watch out for to safely change lanes and to turn.
The problem with drivers ed is it does not allow for "other things that may influence your driving" meaning there are multiple reasons a person may need to exceed the speed limit, passing safely is definatly one of them. To limit yoruself exclusivly to one taught method is idiocy at its greatest level.
Posts: 793
Casino Cash: $51250
Sportbike: 2006 Blue Yamaha FZ6
Quote:
Originally Posted by 636blurr
To limit yoruself exclusivly to one taught method is idiocy at its greatest level.
The exaggeration is amusing. I'm sure there is idiocy on greater levels than that.
You always risk surprising the driver you are passing when you pass. To whip by at a differential of 30+ mph is not safe. Period. You can make excuses and give plausible reasons, but none of that makes it safe. Shock the driver, he/she/it yanks the wheel because you just scared the shit out of him/her/it. That could ruin someone's day too.
Shall we keep making up scenarios? Just because your bike/car has the capability to accelerate to an additional 30+ mph over the length of a semi-trailer doesn't mean you should, that it's safe, or that it's legal.
For the record... I speed. My mom does, and your mom probably does too. We all do. None of this makes it right, but it does say that I don't care if they take bikes/cars/llamas away from owners for going 30 mph over the limit. I'm not dumb enough to do it on a public street. Neither does my mom. And I hope your mom doesn't.
__________________
-Keith
Last edited by PhatDoggy : 01-14-2008 at 07:44 PM.
Just because your bike/car has the capability to accelerate to an additional 30+ mph over the length of a semi-trailer doesn't mean you should, that it's safe, or that it's legal.
A semi, yes... a regular car/truck/passenger vehicle no. Semi's cant see you, it is in your best interest to get past them as fast as you can. You are not going to scare them at all, they are never going to see you until you get about 15ft in front of them. Thats standard MSF teaching right there.
__________________ http://702sportbikes.com http://www.inkjets.com
When they finally find the center of the universe, a lot of people are going to be very disappointed to find that they are not it!
The exaggeration is amusing. I'm sure there is idiocy on greater levels than that.
You always risk surprising the driver you are passing when you pass. To whip by at a differential of 30+ mph is not safe. Period. You can make excuses and give plausible reasons, but none of that makes it safe. Shock the driver, he/she/it yanks the wheel because you just scared the shit out of him/her/it. That could ruin someone's day too.
Shall we keep making up scenarios? Just because your bike/car has the capability to accelerate to an additional 30+ mph over the length of a semi-trailer doesn't mean you should, that it's safe, or that it's legal.
For the record... I speed. My mom does, and your mom probably does too. We all do. None of this makes it right, but it does say that I don't care if they take bikes/cars/llamas away from owners for going 30 mph over the limit. I'm not dumb enough to do it on a public street. Neither does my mom. And I hope your mom doesn't.
Good Id rather surprise them when I got past them, at least they SEE me and I no longer have to worry about being ran into by that person.
If you want to sit next to one of my semi's going down the road, you go right ahead, but I will be the first to advise you against it, I may have a blow out (happens all the time) or a piece of gravel may bounce out of the box (I have dirt trucks) or a piece of gravel may even bounce off the wheel well and crack you as well. but hey, its your right to worry more about some stupid assed law than your possible safety.
I guess travel and movement mean the same thing...
We have the right to move about among the states without being stopped at the state line for entrance fees, visas or passports. One state cannot impose a fee or deny entry to a resident from another state.
A person does not have the inalienable right to roam the earth without regard to sovereign territory or property rights. Wouldn't you agree?
I would argue that a person *does* have the inalienable right to roam the earth without regard to "sovereign territory" (although this right is certainly not well respected), but does NOT have the inalienable right to roam the earth without regard to property rights. The two are very different; the former is about governmental restrictions on people's free action and individual rights, the latter is about individual rights to one's own property. We certainly do have the right to travel freely within our own country, although again, we must respect private property rights when we do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhatDoggy
Life is all about choices.
You choose where to live.
You choose where to work.
You choose to exceed the posted speed limit.
If, as a result of your choice to speed, you face the consequence of not having a license, you better choose (wisely) a new place to live, and either make that near your place of employment, or choose to find a new job.
Many people make poor choices and, rather than take responsibility for those choices, CHOOSE (once again) to put the responsibility on others.
When is the last time you accidently went 30 mph over the posted speed limit?
PS. On double standards and such... life's not fair. I learned that long ago. You can bitch 'til you die, but some things won't change, i.e. government vehicles speeding, parked illegally, etc.
Yes, life is about choices. That doesn't mean that it's OK for some to impose unfair and artificial consequences upon others. One of *my* choices is to stand up for what is right and fair and not just submit quietly to whatever injustices happen to be around.
Sure, life's not fair. Agreed. But that doesn't mean we should all just roll over and make no attempt to make it less unfair than it is. There are degrees of unfairness, and people can influence that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderace1997
I hear both of you. I said in another post that I felt speeds should be raised on some roads. I also feel if they do this it should be for automobiles and motorcycles. Lets say they raised the speed limit to 80mph or even 90 mph on I75. I bet you'll have people doing 110 because they think they can now.
So maybe the real way to fix the problem is to raise the speed limits on highways but also make the fines for going over the speed limits much steeper. Lets say we raised the speed limit to 85mph on I75. We all can agree that's a decent speed..right. Now lets say if you get caught doing 10mph over you pay a $500 fine if guilty. 15mph over and its a $750 fine if guilty and so on, $250 for every 5mph over up until you do 30mph over. If your over 30mph over the posted 85mph speed limit your car is held in impound at your cost for 30 days.
I'm no politition but something like that would be better IMO. You raise the speed limits but also make sure people aren't trying to go faster then the limit in those higher speed areas.
Actually, raising the speed limit would not likely raise the speeds much at all. Most people drive about as fast as they feel safe driving most of the time, regardless of the law, unless they think they're being watched at that moment. Trying to keep people within an artificial limit ultimately results in a surveillance society like they have implemented in Britain. No F'in thanks.
There should be low speed limits in school zones and neighborhoods and such places where there are likely to be young children who haven't yet learned safety habits. Within those places, those limits should be strictly and strongly enforced. I would have no problem with a law that evenly across the board (meaning to all vehicles) applied the penalties discussed for this bill to anyone who goes 30 over in a school zone or neighborhood. That's an action that is a real and present danger to others.
Outside of such areas, though, I think speed limits should be rare, and penalties applied only to people who cause an accident due to unsafe speeds. When I was in college, I had an Alfa Romeo sedan, and I did most of my travel driving very late at night. Even in CA, the roads were empty at 0200h. The speed limit was 55mph, and I would frequently run at 110+ for a couple hundred miles at a time. On an empty freeway, in a car built for that speed, this was entirely reasonably safe. I was awake and attentive; I could see for miles, and when I encountered another vehicle I would slow to make sure I didn't pass at an unsafe differential. Under those conditions, I was not endangering anyone else (or even myself) significantly, and so even a speeding ticket would have been unjust, much less having to worry about vehicle confiscation and a 10-year license ban.
PhilB
__________________
"If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." -- Carl Schurz, (1829-1906) German born U.S. Senator and Union Army general during the US Civil War
"A free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper." -- Ludwig von Mises
Also you need ID if you are walking across the country otherwise you can be picked up for vagrancy if you can not prove who you are. Every state has laws on the books about that. So where is your "Right to Travel" NOW?
From a legal standpoint, false. For an officer to perform so much as a terry stop would require reasonable suspicion, and an arrest/charge would require probable cause. Simply walking does not provide either of these.
In fact the Supreme Court has, for a very long time, held that police simply cannot stop someone randomly on the "street" (meaning while walking in public) and compel them to provide any identification whatsoever without reasonable suspicion.
It's probably safe to assume that passing another vehicle at 30 mph over the speed limit while the other vehicle is driving under the speed limit (that IS why you're passing, right?) would not be considered safe, so why would they accommodate that scenario? And speed limits are speed limits... they don't allow a greater speed limit for passing, or at least that is how we were instructed in driver's ed back in the day.
I'd love to slap you upside the head with a "because (insert reason here)"... but sadly none come to mind. Yes, I have passed people over the 30mph range, and it wasn't an unjustified passing either. A car with an older person, I believe it was other wise kids are taking it too far to buy sigs and liquor, followed by a semi, then me, then 4 other cars/trucks. The leading car was doing 45 in a 55 and that does bother me a bit. If the car is having trouble, I understand, but because--? why again? anyway... to top this off, the traffic was spaced out so that the semi could not pass safely or at all.
Since I was on a motorcycle(truthfully if I was in my car, i would have done the same thing...) I dropped a few gears to get around them. I can give other reasons for wanting to be past them quicker, like not wanting to stay in the passing lane because of (insert reason here). BUT... upon thinking about it, yeah that most likely isn't safe either(not excessively UNSAFE, but not safe). So thanks a lot for pointing out the faulty reasoning!
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people, those that know binary and those that don't.
'07 ZZR600 Mods: Flush mount LED signals, under tail kit, wheel hugger, Two Brothers exhaust ...
Riding Gear: '09 JoeRocket Speedmaster 5.0 leather jacket, HJC full face helmet, Icon Feild Armor boots, JoeRocket Blaster 4.0 gloves.
You always risk surprising the driver you are passing when you pass. To whip by at a differential of 30+ mph is not safe. Period. You can make excuses and give plausible reasons, but none of that makes it safe. Shock the driver, he/she/it yanks the wheel because you just scared the shit out of him/her/it. That could ruin someone's day too.
You make your point well, and you don't need my help. But I would like to add to it, for the benefit of those people reading this who agree with the argument that "a faster pass is a safer pass". It isn't. The logic seems right, but it ignores the greater exposure to danger that a rider subjects himself to.
On a divided highway with 2 lanes in your direction, you're in the left lane going 70mph approaching a vehicle in the right lane doing 60. Without signaling, the driver suddenly pulls into your lane. If you're way behind him when he does this, you're in no danger. Likewise if you're alongside him, because your speed will take you out of range before he completes his lane change. But for a period of time in between, you'll have to get on the brakes and slow to his speed to avoid a crash. How long are you vulnerable? With a 10mph difference in speed, it's a little over 1 second. But if your speed difference is 30mph, you'll be in the zone that would require braking for nearly 2 seconds. And it gets worse the faster you're going. (Assumptions and math on request.)
Another problem caused by high speed differential is that it decreases the liklelihood you'll be seen. Let's say the driver in the example is somewhat more attentive; that is, he at least glances in his mirror before changing lanes. But he doesn't conduct a thorough scan. Like most drivers he'll look for a second or two and, if he doesn't see anything, proceed with his lane change. That glance will cover only a limited space behind the car determined by the size of the mirror's visual field. What are the chances that you'll be in that space when the driver peers into his mirror? It depends on your speed relative to the car's. The faster you're going, the less time you'll spend in that space and the less likely you'll be seen. A driver who inadvertently changes lanes into a motorcycle may be telling the truth when he says, "But officer, I didn't see him!" When he looked, the motorcycle was far behind but hauling ass. Then when he changed lanes, the bike was right on top of him.
Crashes between a passing motorcycle and a passee in a cage are surprisingly common on two-lane roads when the passee attempts a left turn just as the motorcycle passes. They're most common when the motorcycle is passing multiple vehicles and one near the front of the line makes the left turn.
Near Vacaville, CA, January 2: Rider on a Hayabusa "at a high rate of speed" attempts to pass two vehicles when the lead vehicle, a Volvo, makes a left turn into a driveway. The motorcycle collides with the Volvo and the rider is killed.
Gasparilla Island, FL, December 19: Rider attempts to pass two vehicles at an intersection, but the lead vehicle, a van, turns left at the cross street. The motorcycle hits the van and the rider is killed.
Hampton, IA, October 9: A motorcycle "rapidly passing cars on the left" collides with a van carrying Barack Obama's wife as the van turns left into a meeting hall where Ms. Obama was making a campaign appearance. The rider suffers minor injuries and is cited for making an illegal pass.
From a legal standpoint, false. For an officer to perform so much as a terry stop would require reasonable suspicion, and an arrest/charge would require probable cause. Simply walking does not provide either of these.
In fact the Supreme Court has, for a very long time, held that police simply cannot stop someone randomly on the "street" (meaning while walking in public) and compel them to provide any identification whatsoever without reasonable suspicion.
What the Supreme Court says, and what happens in the real world, are two completely different things. Unfortunately....
__________________ Able to split an infinitive at the speed of sound!
You make your point well, and you don't need my help. But I would like to add to it, for the benefit of those people reading this who agree with the argument that "a faster pass is a safer pass". It isn't. The logic seems right, but it ignores the greater exposure to danger that a rider subjects himself to.
On a divided highway with 2 lanes in your direction, you're in the left lane going 70mph approaching a vehicle in the right lane doing 60. Without signaling, the driver suddenly pulls into your lane. If you're way behind him when he does this, you're in no danger. Likewise if you're alongside him, because your speed will take you out of range before he completes his lane change. But for a period of time in between, you'll have to get on the brakes and slow to his speed to avoid a crash. How long are you vulnerable? With a 10mph difference in speed, it's a little over 1 second. But if your speed difference is 30mph, you'll be in the zone that would require braking for nearly 2 seconds. And it gets worse the faster you're going. (Assumptions and math on request.)
Another problem caused by high speed differential is that it decreases the liklelihood you'll be seen. Let's say the driver in the example is somewhat more attentive; that is, he at least glances in his mirror before changing lanes. But he doesn't conduct a thorough scan. Like most drivers he'll look for a second or two and, if he doesn't see anything, proceed with his lane change. That glance will cover only a limited space behind the car determined by the size of the mirror's visual field. What are the chances that you'll be in that space when the driver peers into his mirror? It depends on your speed relative to the car's. The faster you're going, the less time you'll spend in that space and the less likely you'll be seen. A driver who inadvertently changes lanes into a motorcycle may be telling the truth when he says, "But officer, I didn't see him!" When he looked, the motorcycle was far behind but hauling ass. Then when he changed lanes, the bike was right on top of him.
Crashes between a passing motorcycle and a passee in a cage are surprisingly common on two-lane roads when the passee attempts a left turn just as the motorcycle passes. They're most common when the motorcycle is passing multiple vehicles and one near the front of the line makes the left turn.
Near Vacaville, CA, January 2: Rider on a Hayabusa "at a high rate of speed" attempts to pass two vehicles when the lead vehicle, a Volvo, makes a left turn into a driveway. The motorcycle collides with the Volvo and the rider is killed.
Gasparilla Island, FL, December 19: Rider attempts to pass two vehicles at an intersection, but the lead vehicle, a van, turns left at the cross street. The motorcycle hits the van and the rider is killed.
Hampton, IA, October 9: A motorcycle "rapidly passing cars on the left" collides with a van carrying Barack Obama's wife as the van turns left into a meeting hall where Ms. Obama was making a campaign appearance. The rider suffers minor injuries and is cited for making an illegal pass.
Those are good points, and examples. Passing anywhere near an intersection or driveway isn't smart if you can't see the lead car, or if they don't use their turn signals. The latter being the worst problem. The risk remains if there are no turns or intersections with multiple cars, maybe someone else wants to pass? But those foolish enough to try and pass in such situations are most likely going to do other foolish things that will endanger their lives. MSF even teaches not to pass near intersections, and be extremely careful when passing multiple vehicles.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people, those that know binary and those that don't.
'07 ZZR600 Mods: Flush mount LED signals, under tail kit, wheel hugger, Two Brothers exhaust ...
Riding Gear: '09 JoeRocket Speedmaster 5.0 leather jacket, HJC full face helmet, Icon Feild Armor boots, JoeRocket Blaster 4.0 gloves.
Linear Mode
